And also the Man behind the Valerie Plame Leak/Story
Powell says world should recognize Iraq at civil war Why when only 5% of the country is in conflict
By Diala Saadeh
DUBAI (Reuters) - Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday Iraq had descended into civil war and urged world leaders to accept that "reality". Something Powell has obviously left behind himself
Powell's remarks came ahead of a meeting between Bush and Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki in the Jordanian capital to discuss the security developments in Iraq. Trying once again to undermine the administration
"I would call it a civil war," Powell told a business forum in the United Arab Emirates. "I have been using it (civil war) because I like to face the reality," added Powell. Nothing like undermining the country when your overseas speaking befor the enemy
He said world leaders should acknowledge Iraq was in civil war. Why because he does? Never mind the facts don't equal his statements
Powell outlined the case against Iraq at the U.N. Security Council ahead of the war, which was based broadly on intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Which was true
President George W. Bush denied on Tuesday that sectarian violence had reached the scale of civil war. He said the latest wave of violence was part of a nine-month-old pattern of attacks by al Qaeda militants aimed at fomenting sectarian tension. Not to mention the arms and funding coming from Iran
Bush and Maliki are scheduled to hold crisis talks on Wednesday and Thursday.
Bush is under growing pressure to find a new policy to curb sectarian strife in Iraq and to secure an exit for 140,000 U.S. troops. Only by those that would rather see Americans die at the hands of suicide bombers here in our streets
Powell, speaking at a world leaders forum in Dubai, said Washington should adopt a more balanced policy toward Iraq's political parties and sects to avoid marginalizing Sunni Muslims. No Washington needs to deal only with Iraqs legitimate Elected officials wether they are Sunii or Sheite
"We have to accept what all Iraqis accept, not to end up seeing a Shi'ite-dominated regime," he said. Thats why each party has elected members from both tribes and the KURDS and we have to accept them as Iraqies not by their tribal sects
However, Powell said troops had to continue their job in Iraq until their mission is done, but not to remain too long. Especialy since he isn helping undermine their mission
"The coming strategy has to be an Iraqi strategy, not American strategy," said Powell. Then Shut Up Colin and let them decide and not a defunct General who because of his embarresment at presenting semi-faulty intelligence has done everything in his power to undermine the war including a three year scam after being the man behind giving Armatage the go ahead to leak Plames name and then remaining quite for those 3 years The true actions of a man of Honor...SCUMBAG
Powell
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Gee What a Surprise the Dems Lied...
Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2006; A07
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.
But the commission was unequivocal about the need.
"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2006; A07
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.
But the commission was unequivocal about the need.
"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Pelosi's Father Defied FDR On The Holocaust
By: Dr. RAFAEL MEDOFF, Special To The Evening Bulletin
11/28/2006
Media profiles of the incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, have referred to her father, the late U.S. Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., as a "Roosevelt Democrat." What is not widely known is that D'Alesandro broke ranks with President Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish state.
D'Alesandro was one of the congressional supporters of the Bergson Group, a maverick Jewish political action committee that challenged the Roosevelt administration's policies on the Jewish refugee issue during the Holocaust, and later lobbied against British control of Palestine.
The Bergson activists used unconventional tactics to draw attention to the plight of Europe's Jews, including theatrical pageants, a march by 400 rabbis to the White House and placing more than 200 full-page advertisements in newspapers around the country. Some of those ads featured lists of celebrities, prominent intellectuals and members of Congress who supported the group, including D'Alesandro.
D'Alesandro's involvement with the Bergson Group was remarkable, since he was a Democrat, supporting a group that was publicly challenging a Democratic president. And D'Alesandro was not one of the conservative "Dixiecrat" Democrats who sometimes tangled with FDR over various issues; he was a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt and the New Deal.
The Bergson Group's whole strategy for moving U.S. policy to one of actively rescuing refugees from Hitler was based on the premise that there were Democrats like D'Alesandro who might be willing to break ranks with the White House to advance the cause of rescue. Rallying Congress was a way to put pressure on the president.
This approach put Bergson at odds with mainstream Jewish leaders like Rabbi Stephen Wise, leader of the American Jewish Congress, who believed that his personal relationships with the president and like-minded Democrats would result in sympathetic U.S. policies on Jewish issues. Wise and other Jewish leaders feared the Bergson Group was usurping the established Jewish organizations' position in Washington, and they sometimes pressed political leaders to stay away from the Bergsonites.
"We started looking for Senators from states where there were no Jews," the group's leader, Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook) later explained. States with few or no Jews had no local Jewish organizations pressuring those senators to avoid Bergson. "And we found them on the merit of the cause. (Sen. Guy) Gillette we found this way. (Sen. Elbert) Thomas we got. The three main senators we had were Thomas of Utah, Gillette of Iowa, and (Edwin) Johnson from Colorado." All three were Democrats and supporters of Roosevelt - except when it came to the plight of the Jewish refugees.
The Bergson Group's campaign for U.S. action to save Jews from Hitler culminated in the introduction of a congressional resolution, in late 1943, urging creation of a government agency to rescue refugees. Sen. Tom Connally of Texas, a loyal FDR supporter and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blocked the committee's consideration of the resolution. Committee member Elbert Thomas (D-Utah) urged Bergson to wait patiently until the ailing Connally was out sick - and when that day came, Thomas, as the committee's acting chairman, ushered the resolution through with the support of every Democratic and Republican member.
The Senate committee's bipartisan action helped influence President Roosevelt to belatedly establish the War Refugee Board. Despite its small staff and meager funding, the Board ultimately played a key role in the rescue of more than 200,000 Jews from the Holocaust. Its many accomplishments included sponsoring the heroic life-saving activities of the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in Nazi-occupied Budapest.
Every member of Congress who supported the Bergson Group had his own particular reasons for doing so. Elbert Thomas, for example, was a Mormon, and his kinship with the Jewish people was forged by both his community's experiences as a mistreated minority and his religious convictions about the Jews and the Holy Land. Rep. Andrew Somers (D-N.Y.) was of Irish descent, and his resentment of British rule in Ireland strengthened his support for Bergson's campaigns against the British shutdown of Palestine to Jewish refugees. Rep. Will Rogers, Jr. (D-Calif.), son of the famous entertainer, was part Native American, and he attributed his interest in the plight of the Jews to his general concern for minorities.
Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., for his part, was a Catholic and the son of Italian immigrants. It may be that those factors fueled his sympathy for religious minorities and refugees. Or perhaps it was nothing more complicated than his belief in what Bergson called "the merit of the cause" - the simple humanitarian instincts of every sensitive person who hears of innocent people being persecuted and wants to help, regardless of partisan political considerations.
Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, www.WymanInstitute.org
11/28/2006
Media profiles of the incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, have referred to her father, the late U.S. Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., as a "Roosevelt Democrat." What is not widely known is that D'Alesandro broke ranks with President Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish state.
D'Alesandro was one of the congressional supporters of the Bergson Group, a maverick Jewish political action committee that challenged the Roosevelt administration's policies on the Jewish refugee issue during the Holocaust, and later lobbied against British control of Palestine.
The Bergson activists used unconventional tactics to draw attention to the plight of Europe's Jews, including theatrical pageants, a march by 400 rabbis to the White House and placing more than 200 full-page advertisements in newspapers around the country. Some of those ads featured lists of celebrities, prominent intellectuals and members of Congress who supported the group, including D'Alesandro.
D'Alesandro's involvement with the Bergson Group was remarkable, since he was a Democrat, supporting a group that was publicly challenging a Democratic president. And D'Alesandro was not one of the conservative "Dixiecrat" Democrats who sometimes tangled with FDR over various issues; he was a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt and the New Deal.
The Bergson Group's whole strategy for moving U.S. policy to one of actively rescuing refugees from Hitler was based on the premise that there were Democrats like D'Alesandro who might be willing to break ranks with the White House to advance the cause of rescue. Rallying Congress was a way to put pressure on the president.
This approach put Bergson at odds with mainstream Jewish leaders like Rabbi Stephen Wise, leader of the American Jewish Congress, who believed that his personal relationships with the president and like-minded Democrats would result in sympathetic U.S. policies on Jewish issues. Wise and other Jewish leaders feared the Bergson Group was usurping the established Jewish organizations' position in Washington, and they sometimes pressed political leaders to stay away from the Bergsonites.
"We started looking for Senators from states where there were no Jews," the group's leader, Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook) later explained. States with few or no Jews had no local Jewish organizations pressuring those senators to avoid Bergson. "And we found them on the merit of the cause. (Sen. Guy) Gillette we found this way. (Sen. Elbert) Thomas we got. The three main senators we had were Thomas of Utah, Gillette of Iowa, and (Edwin) Johnson from Colorado." All three were Democrats and supporters of Roosevelt - except when it came to the plight of the Jewish refugees.
The Bergson Group's campaign for U.S. action to save Jews from Hitler culminated in the introduction of a congressional resolution, in late 1943, urging creation of a government agency to rescue refugees. Sen. Tom Connally of Texas, a loyal FDR supporter and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blocked the committee's consideration of the resolution. Committee member Elbert Thomas (D-Utah) urged Bergson to wait patiently until the ailing Connally was out sick - and when that day came, Thomas, as the committee's acting chairman, ushered the resolution through with the support of every Democratic and Republican member.
The Senate committee's bipartisan action helped influence President Roosevelt to belatedly establish the War Refugee Board. Despite its small staff and meager funding, the Board ultimately played a key role in the rescue of more than 200,000 Jews from the Holocaust. Its many accomplishments included sponsoring the heroic life-saving activities of the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in Nazi-occupied Budapest.
Every member of Congress who supported the Bergson Group had his own particular reasons for doing so. Elbert Thomas, for example, was a Mormon, and his kinship with the Jewish people was forged by both his community's experiences as a mistreated minority and his religious convictions about the Jews and the Holy Land. Rep. Andrew Somers (D-N.Y.) was of Irish descent, and his resentment of British rule in Ireland strengthened his support for Bergson's campaigns against the British shutdown of Palestine to Jewish refugees. Rep. Will Rogers, Jr. (D-Calif.), son of the famous entertainer, was part Native American, and he attributed his interest in the plight of the Jews to his general concern for minorities.
Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., for his part, was a Catholic and the son of Italian immigrants. It may be that those factors fueled his sympathy for religious minorities and refugees. Or perhaps it was nothing more complicated than his belief in what Bergson called "the merit of the cause" - the simple humanitarian instincts of every sensitive person who hears of innocent people being persecuted and wants to help, regardless of partisan political considerations.
Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, www.WymanInstitute.org
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Monday, November 27, 2006
As the Half-Baked Report calls for us to Negotiate with Iran this is what Iran Thinks
Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Yahya Safavi on Iranian TV: 'The
Americans Have Many Weaknesses'; 'We Have Planned Our Strategy Precisely on the
Basis of Their Strengths and Weaknesses'; U.S. Forces in Iraq 'Are Very
Cowardly'; 'We Never Reveal All Our Cards to the Enemy'
In an interview on Iran's Channel 2, that aired on November 12, 2006, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi stated that Iran had based its strategy on the U.S. military's strengths and weaknesses. He discussed the capabilities of the Shahab missiles and the weaknesses and the cowardice of the U.S. military, claiming among other things that the Iranian military could disrupt enemy satellite systems
The following are excerpts from the interview
TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1318
"We Have Planned Our Strategy Precisely on the Basis of Their [The U.S. Military's] Strengths and Weaknesses"
General Yahya Rahim Safavi: "The Shahab 3 missiles, which were fired with a cluster warhead, deviated a few meters [from the target]. Considering the extent of the explosion, a few meters is...
Interviewer: "Is this within the norms of missile operations?"
General Yahya Rahim Safavi: "Naturally, a 20-30 meter [deviation] is acceptable, because the force of the explosion and the radius of the shockwaves exceed 20 or 30 meters.
[...]
"The Americans and the countries that have satellite systems - especially those that monitor Iran's airspace or the atmosphere - can see our missile launchings clearly - not the radar systems, but the satellites of the various countries. They see both the launching and landing points. It is completely obvious to them that these were real maneuvers. In fact, the maneuvers were carried out with combat weapons, and were not just for show.
[...]
"The Americans have many weaknesses. In fact, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they clearly displayed their strengths and weaknesses. We have planned our strategy precisely on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses.
[...]
"We don't see any motivation among the American forces in Iraq. They are very cowardly. There are even scenes from Iraq in which they are seen crying. When their commanders encounter a problem, they burst into tears. We did not see such spectacles in the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war. I can therefore say that our advantage over the foreign forces is moral and human.
"Of course, in accordance with the technology that we have or that we are able to obtain from other countries, we have equipped our armed forces with the most advanced anti-aircraft, anti-helicopter, anti-tank, and anti-ship weapons. The equipment used in these war games was only part of what we have. We never reveal all our cards to the enemy. We used only a small sample of our personnel and equipment."
[...]
"We Can Disrupt the Satellite Systems of the Enemy"
Interviewer: "General, the viewers asked whether the IRGC has the ability to conduct active and defensive electronic warfare."
General Yahya Rahim Safavi: "I'm not at liberty to talk about some things, because they are highly classified. But I can say that our communications systems are very advanced. We can communicate with all our units. Even at the brigade level, we maintain five levels of contact and communication with our units. We make full use of satellite systems, and can handle the enemy's satellite systems. We can disrupt the satellite systems of the enemy. We can disrupt the communication networks of the enemy."
[...]
Interviewer: "General, the viewers asked many questions about the destructive power of the Shahab 2 and 3 missiles. If it is not secret, please tell us."
General Yahya Rahim Safavi: "The Shahab 3 missile has a cluster warhead, and consequently, its destructive power exceeds several kilometers, because the warhead spreads into bomblets. [It can be used] against large bases, large concentrations of people, aircraft carriers... even against aircraft carriers, because it explodes from above, so it can completely destroy an aircraft carrier with its planes.
"As for the Shahab 2 missile - its warhead carries approximately 900 kilograms of explosives. It has about 20 tons of fuel. This missile uses 12-20 tons of fuel, and its warhead carries 900 kilograms of explosives, so it has very great explosive power."
Interviewer: "Does the Shahab series include a Shahab 4, Shahab 5, and so on?"
General Yahya Rahim Safavi: "I would rather not answer that.
[...]
"If the Zionist Regime or the Americans Make Problems For Us and Organize Attacks Against Us..."
"As I pointed out, starting a war with another country or attacking it is currently not part of our plans or strategy. But if the Zionist regime or the Americans make problems for us and organize attacks against us... The Zionist regime is about 1,300 kilometers from our centers. If we have a missile range of 2,000 kilometers, it is only natural that a distance of 1,300 kilometers is within this range.
"I'd like to say something else. If the Zionist regime was defeated by a group of Hizbullah in Lebanon... After all, Hizbullah is a small group in Lebanon, which defeated the Israeli army in this 33-day war. How can Israel withstand a great nation that numbers 70 million, 90 percent of which are Shiites? As for the IRGC and the Basij - we have 10 million Basij members and strong Revolutionary Guards. There is no comparison."
"We Will Respond to Any Invading Power with a Force That They Cannot Even Imagine"
"Therefore, I do not believe that the Zionists would even dream of threatening us. If they do, they will face the greatest danger to their very existence. I say again: We are interested in peace and quiet in the Middle East. We have no policy of attacking [anyone], but we will respond to any invading power with a force that they cannot even imagine. Neither the Americans nor the Zionists know what complex, precise, and intelligence-based plans we have designed in order to defend our country and to deal with their possible attacks."
Iran
Baker
Saturday, November 25, 2006
They're Foamin at The Mouth...
Senate Democrats Revive Demand for Classified Data
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: November 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — Seeking information about detention of terrorism suspects, abuse of detainees and government secrecy, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reviving dozens of demands for classified documents that until now have been rebuffed or ignored by the Justice Department and other agencies. ( no they have not been ignored or rebuffed. They have been investigated and investigated. The problem is Leaky Leahy and his ilk didn't like the result of those investigations. So now they will proceed with the Witch Hunt Trials)
“I expect real answers, or we’ll have testimony under oath until we get them,” (untill they get the REAL answers, in other words ole Leaky's gonna create a spectical till either someone tells him the answers as HE wants them, or the Presidential election. Which ever comes first) Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who will head the committee (Witch Hunt) beginning in January, said in an interview this week. “We’re entitled to know these answers, and in many instances we don’t get them because people are hiding their mistakes. And that’s no excuse.” (not unless they're the mistakes of the 90s)
Mr. Leahy, who has said little about his plans for the committee, expressed hope for greater cooperation from the Bush administration, which he described as having been “obsessively secretive.” His aides have identified more than 65 requests he has made to the Justice Department or other agencies in recent years that have been rejected or permitted to languish without reply. (and now they're just the tip of the spear that he wants to shove into the heart of the War on Terror. Never mind if Americans Die as a result "It's for the Good of America". Kiss my ASS Senator)
Now that they are about to control Congress, what he and other Democrats regard as a record of unresponsiveness has energized their renewal of longstanding requests for information about some of the administration’s most hidden and fiercely debated operations. In addition, other such requests by committee members deal with subjects like voter fraud, immigration and background inquiries on Supreme Court nominees. (ooooh you can just see the mad glisten in their eys as they wipe the foam from their lips)
With little more than two weeks gone since the elections that gave his party a majority in both houses, Mr. Leahy has already begun pressing the Justice Department for greater openness. In a letter last Friday, he asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to release two documents whose existence the Central Intelligence Agency, in response to a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, recently acknowledged for the first time. Although their details are not known, the documents appear to have provided a legal basis for the agency’s detention and harsh interrogation of high-level terrorism suspects. (GOD FORBID we can't detain those people we might upset the Jihadis who are trying to kill us)
One document is a directive, signed by President Bush shortly after the September 2001 attacks, that granted the C.I.A. authority to set up detention centers outside the United States and outlined allowable interrogation procedures. (it's called a WAR you ASSHOLE those techniques have SAVED American Lives)
The second is a memorandum, written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department in 2002, that is thought to have given the C.I.A. specific legal advice about interrogation methods that would not violate a federal statute on torture. (HOW DARE THEY ask how far they can legaly go)
With Democrats in control, it will be harder for executive branch agencies to sidestep requests for documents. Behind each request will be the possibility of Democrats’ voting to issue subpoenas that would compel documents or testimony, although Senate aides said they hoped to avoid conflict. (BULLSHIT They're are on a Witch Hunt and they've already built the fires)
So far, few signs have emerged that the administration is preparing to be more responsive, even in the absence of a Republican majority’s protection. Mr. Bush has promised to work with Democrats, but there appears to be little change in the reluctance of the Justice Department’s officials to start opening its files to Mr. Leahy’s committee. (god I hope so)
“The department will continue to work closely with the Congress as they exercise their oversight functions, and we will appropriately respond to all requests in the spirit of that longstanding relationship,” said a department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse. “When making those decisions, it is vital to protect national security information, particularly when they relate to sensitive intelligence programs that are the subject of oversight by the Intelligence Committees. We also must give appropriate weight to the confidentiality of internal executive branch deliberations.” (in other words Fuck You)
C.I.A. lawyers have sought in the past to avoid any discussion of whether the agency has documents related to its detention and interrogation of leading members of Al Qaeda in secret prisons overseas. The lawyers have said national security would be endangered if the agency was forced to tell in any way of its involvement in such operations.
But in September, the president said 14 high-level terrorism suspects had been transferred from secret locations abroad to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. That effectively confirmed the existence of the prisons, as long reported. (but the WORLD still does NOT have the right to the details)
The two documents requested by Mr. Leahy in his letter of last Friday are among what Congressional aides maintain are perhaps hundreds, crucial to shaping the government’s counterterrorism policies, that have never been released or publicly acknowledged. (Because WE ARE IN A WAR idiot)
Justice Department officials have long said they will resist efforts to require disclosure of classified documents that provide legal advice to other agencies. But in the interview this week, Mr. Leahy signaled that he expected the department to provide a fuller documentary history on issues like detention. (So he can leak them to the Press and hold Witch Hunt Trials that will get Americans killed by crippling our ability to conduct a WAR)
The senator’s letter to Mr. Gonzales requested “all directives, memoranda, and/or orders including any and all attachments to such documents, regarding C.I.A. interrogation methods or policies for the treatment of detainees.” It also sought an index of all documents related to Justice Department inquiries into detainee abuse by “U.S. military or civilian personnel in Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison or elsewhere.” (this man is DANGEROUS)
It is not known whether the material sought would clarify the origin and evolution of policies on issues like national security wiretaps, detention and interrogation. (it's not meant too, it's meant only to do as much damage to this administration and the War in hoping that the gambit will win them the White House) But there are wide gaps in what is publicly known about these policies, who authorized them and what exactly has been authorized by administration directives and legal advisories.
“The American people,” Mr. Leahy’s letter said, “deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism around the world.” (yes we have been critisized by Nations that want to see us destroyed and Thats more important to the Democrats than winning the War or PROTECTING the American Public)
Democrats
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: November 24, 2006
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 — Seeking information about detention of terrorism suspects, abuse of detainees and government secrecy, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reviving dozens of demands for classified documents that until now have been rebuffed or ignored by the Justice Department and other agencies. ( no they have not been ignored or rebuffed. They have been investigated and investigated. The problem is Leaky Leahy and his ilk didn't like the result of those investigations. So now they will proceed with the Witch Hunt Trials)
“I expect real answers, or we’ll have testimony under oath until we get them,” (untill they get the REAL answers, in other words ole Leaky's gonna create a spectical till either someone tells him the answers as HE wants them, or the Presidential election. Which ever comes first) Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who will head the committee (Witch Hunt) beginning in January, said in an interview this week. “We’re entitled to know these answers, and in many instances we don’t get them because people are hiding their mistakes. And that’s no excuse.” (not unless they're the mistakes of the 90s)
Mr. Leahy, who has said little about his plans for the committee, expressed hope for greater cooperation from the Bush administration, which he described as having been “obsessively secretive.” His aides have identified more than 65 requests he has made to the Justice Department or other agencies in recent years that have been rejected or permitted to languish without reply. (and now they're just the tip of the spear that he wants to shove into the heart of the War on Terror. Never mind if Americans Die as a result "It's for the Good of America". Kiss my ASS Senator)
Now that they are about to control Congress, what he and other Democrats regard as a record of unresponsiveness has energized their renewal of longstanding requests for information about some of the administration’s most hidden and fiercely debated operations. In addition, other such requests by committee members deal with subjects like voter fraud, immigration and background inquiries on Supreme Court nominees. (ooooh you can just see the mad glisten in their eys as they wipe the foam from their lips)
With little more than two weeks gone since the elections that gave his party a majority in both houses, Mr. Leahy has already begun pressing the Justice Department for greater openness. In a letter last Friday, he asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to release two documents whose existence the Central Intelligence Agency, in response to a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, recently acknowledged for the first time. Although their details are not known, the documents appear to have provided a legal basis for the agency’s detention and harsh interrogation of high-level terrorism suspects. (GOD FORBID we can't detain those people we might upset the Jihadis who are trying to kill us)
One document is a directive, signed by President Bush shortly after the September 2001 attacks, that granted the C.I.A. authority to set up detention centers outside the United States and outlined allowable interrogation procedures. (it's called a WAR you ASSHOLE those techniques have SAVED American Lives)
The second is a memorandum, written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department in 2002, that is thought to have given the C.I.A. specific legal advice about interrogation methods that would not violate a federal statute on torture. (HOW DARE THEY ask how far they can legaly go)
With Democrats in control, it will be harder for executive branch agencies to sidestep requests for documents. Behind each request will be the possibility of Democrats’ voting to issue subpoenas that would compel documents or testimony, although Senate aides said they hoped to avoid conflict. (BULLSHIT They're are on a Witch Hunt and they've already built the fires)
So far, few signs have emerged that the administration is preparing to be more responsive, even in the absence of a Republican majority’s protection. Mr. Bush has promised to work with Democrats, but there appears to be little change in the reluctance of the Justice Department’s officials to start opening its files to Mr. Leahy’s committee. (god I hope so)
“The department will continue to work closely with the Congress as they exercise their oversight functions, and we will appropriately respond to all requests in the spirit of that longstanding relationship,” said a department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse. “When making those decisions, it is vital to protect national security information, particularly when they relate to sensitive intelligence programs that are the subject of oversight by the Intelligence Committees. We also must give appropriate weight to the confidentiality of internal executive branch deliberations.” (in other words Fuck You)
C.I.A. lawyers have sought in the past to avoid any discussion of whether the agency has documents related to its detention and interrogation of leading members of Al Qaeda in secret prisons overseas. The lawyers have said national security would be endangered if the agency was forced to tell in any way of its involvement in such operations.
But in September, the president said 14 high-level terrorism suspects had been transferred from secret locations abroad to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. That effectively confirmed the existence of the prisons, as long reported. (but the WORLD still does NOT have the right to the details)
The two documents requested by Mr. Leahy in his letter of last Friday are among what Congressional aides maintain are perhaps hundreds, crucial to shaping the government’s counterterrorism policies, that have never been released or publicly acknowledged. (Because WE ARE IN A WAR idiot)
Justice Department officials have long said they will resist efforts to require disclosure of classified documents that provide legal advice to other agencies. But in the interview this week, Mr. Leahy signaled that he expected the department to provide a fuller documentary history on issues like detention. (So he can leak them to the Press and hold Witch Hunt Trials that will get Americans killed by crippling our ability to conduct a WAR)
The senator’s letter to Mr. Gonzales requested “all directives, memoranda, and/or orders including any and all attachments to such documents, regarding C.I.A. interrogation methods or policies for the treatment of detainees.” It also sought an index of all documents related to Justice Department inquiries into detainee abuse by “U.S. military or civilian personnel in Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison or elsewhere.” (this man is DANGEROUS)
It is not known whether the material sought would clarify the origin and evolution of policies on issues like national security wiretaps, detention and interrogation. (it's not meant too, it's meant only to do as much damage to this administration and the War in hoping that the gambit will win them the White House) But there are wide gaps in what is publicly known about these policies, who authorized them and what exactly has been authorized by administration directives and legal advisories.
“The American people,” Mr. Leahy’s letter said, “deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism around the world.” (yes we have been critisized by Nations that want to see us destroyed and Thats more important to the Democrats than winning the War or PROTECTING the American Public)
Democrats
The Jews Must Act Soon...
Because God knows with this bunch running Congress they'll all be dead and nuked and the Dems will not only be rubbing their hands kivetching, but looking for a way to blame it on Bush and the right before they react if ever!
Russian rocket deliveries to Iran started
Nov 24 8:45 AM US/Eastern
Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran.
"Deliveries of the Tor-M1 have begun. The first systems have already been delivered to Tehran," ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed, high-ranking source as saying Friday.
The United States has pressed Russia to halt military sales to Iran, which Washington accuses of harbouring secret plans to build a nuclear weapon.
Moscow has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the contract for 29 rocket systems, signed in December last year, was legitimate because the Tor-M1 has a purely defensive role.
ITAR-TASS reported that the rockets were to be deployed around Iran's nuclear sites, including the still incomplete, Russian-built atomic power station at Bushehr.
In August, Washington announced sanctions against several companies, including Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport, for supplying technology to Iran that could allegedly be used to develop missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.
Under the sanctions no US company can deal with foreign companies on the sanctions list for two years.
A spokesman for Rosoboronexport contacted by AFP would not confirm or deny the reports about the Tor-M1 delivery, which were also issued by the Interfax news agency.
The Tor-M1 is a low to medium-altitude missile fired from a tracked vehicle against airplanes, helicopters and other airborne targets.
The news came as the UN Security Council continued to consider possible sanctions against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity in response to the Islamic republic's suspect nuclear programme.
The major powers have been debating a draft resolution drawn up by Britain, France and Germany that would impose limited sanctions on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile sectors for Tehran's failure to comply with an earlier UN resolution on halting enrichment.
China and Russia, both close economic partners with Iran, argue the measures are too extensive, while Washington has pressed for tougher action.
Russian rocket deliveries to Iran started
Nov 24 8:45 AM US/Eastern
Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran."Deliveries of the Tor-M1 have begun. The first systems have already been delivered to Tehran," ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed, high-ranking source as saying Friday.
The United States has pressed Russia to halt military sales to Iran, which Washington accuses of harbouring secret plans to build a nuclear weapon.
Moscow has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the contract for 29 rocket systems, signed in December last year, was legitimate because the Tor-M1 has a purely defensive role.
ITAR-TASS reported that the rockets were to be deployed around Iran's nuclear sites, including the still incomplete, Russian-built atomic power station at Bushehr.
In August, Washington announced sanctions against several companies, including Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport, for supplying technology to Iran that could allegedly be used to develop missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.
Under the sanctions no US company can deal with foreign companies on the sanctions list for two years.
A spokesman for Rosoboronexport contacted by AFP would not confirm or deny the reports about the Tor-M1 delivery, which were also issued by the Interfax news agency.
The Tor-M1 is a low to medium-altitude missile fired from a tracked vehicle against airplanes, helicopters and other airborne targets.
The news came as the UN Security Council continued to consider possible sanctions against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity in response to the Islamic republic's suspect nuclear programme.
The major powers have been debating a draft resolution drawn up by Britain, France and Germany that would impose limited sanctions on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile sectors for Tehran's failure to comply with an earlier UN resolution on halting enrichment.
China and Russia, both close economic partners with Iran, argue the measures are too extensive, while Washington has pressed for tougher action.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Oh and Happy ThanksGiving...
Denenberg: A Half-Hour Away From Nuking Philadelphia
By: Herb Denenberg, Special To The Evening Bulletin
11/22/2006
A nuclear bomb may go off in Philadelphia or some other major American city in the next half-hour or perhaps in the next few months. As the sage said, that ought to concentrate our mind and make us finally get serious about the war against Islamic/fascist/Nazi terrorism and extremism.
But maybe not. We've had 9/11, the first World Trade Center Bombing, the attacks on our embassies and barracks, the attack on the USS Cole and other attacks against American interests and others around the world in Bali, Jakarta, Madrid and London - not to mention the countless terror attempts planned but thwarted. So maybe it will take the nuking of a major American city with perhaps 100,000 or a million casualties or more to get our attention.
Right now, those who warn against the worse case scenario are viewed as alarmists and dealers in scare tactics. Major politicians don't get it. In fact, no less a political figure that former President Clinton joked about the terror threat next door as if it was some kind of irrational bogeyman fear. Pundits and columnists have written columns about politicians who see the threat of World War III as if they were borderline irrationals. Yes, they are as irrational as Winston Churchill was during the rise of Hitler.
Yet the fact remains that we are the targets of an enormous worldwide conspiracy by terrorists and extremists who want to kill all of us and bring down the U.S. and the rest of Western civilization. If we can't figure out what is going on in the world after all the worldwide terror attacks, after all the worldwide pronouncements of terrorists and political leaders in such places as Iran, after all the unaccounted for nuclear materials from Russia and elsewhere, after the buildup toward nuclear weapons in the hands of irrational heads of state such as North Korea and Iran and after all the terror attacks, then maybe it's hopeless.
But for the record, we ought to face the reality, and that was brought home to me again by an article in Foreign Policy (December 2006) headlined, "The Terrorists Next Door: It is easier to build a nuclear bomb than most people realize. When they attack, it will look a lot like this."
The authors, Peter D. Zimmerman and Jeffrey G. Lewis, point out that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have a long-standing interest in acquiring nuclear weapons and have attempted many times to purchase uranium from Sudan and from other sources. I'm sure they don't want nuclear material for medical purposes. The U.S. military actually found crude designs for atomic bombs in Afghanistan in an al-Qaida safe house. Osama bin Laden has actually called for the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction as a "religious duty."
And terrorists could build a nuclear bomb if they wanted to, and they clearly want to. The authors write, "Most observers, however, agree that a small group could construct a lethal nuclear weapon since they are conceptually simple devices. After all, the technology involved in creating a nuclear weapon is more than 60 years old. In fact, it is perhaps easier to make a gun-assembled nuclear bomb than it is to develop biological or chemical weapons." A gun-assembled nuclear bomb "consists of a gun that fires a highly enriched uranium 'bullet' into a cylindrical target block, also made of highly enriched uranium."
Without getting into the specific details, which might aid and abet terrorists, the authors cost and describe what it would take for terrorists to produce a nuclear weapon, describing personnel, material and processes. From design to final transportation, the authors cost it out at $5,433,000.
The authors note how quick and easy some phases of the weapons construction could be: "When China built its first nuclear bomb in 1964, a single technician named Yuan Gongful used a lathe to shape the highly enriched uranium in just one night. New or used lathes large enough to properly finish the roughly cast pit can be bought on the Internet, even on eBay, for $10,000."
We don't know how far along some terrorists are to building a nuclear weapon to be used against us. The authors note, "No one really knows how much highly enriched uranium there is in the world, or how close the wrong groups are to getting the right amount. The frightening truth is that fissile material, including nuclear explosive material, is an item of commerce, and moves from place to place. One of the side effects of our globalized economy is that opportunities for direct theft and bribing of nuclear custodians abound."
The authors wisely counsel that just because our cities haven't been nuked yet, that doesn't mean they might be and all to soon. They stress we have to get serious about the nuclear threat in particular and the war against Islamic/fascist/Nazi terrorism and extremism in particular.
They leave us with this grim reality: "Although building a nuclear device remains an expensive, complex undertaking out of reach for most organizations, a well-financed group that seeks to kill very large numbers of people may well find it an irresistible option. A wealthy organization seeking to kill several hundred thousand people could hardly find a more economical method than the detonation of a small nuclear device."
Herb Denenberg, a former Pennsylvania insurance commissioner and professor at the Wharton School, is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. His column appears daily in The Evening Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@theeveningbulletin.com
By: Herb Denenberg, Special To The Evening Bulletin
11/22/2006
A nuclear bomb may go off in Philadelphia or some other major American city in the next half-hour or perhaps in the next few months. As the sage said, that ought to concentrate our mind and make us finally get serious about the war against Islamic/fascist/Nazi terrorism and extremism.
But maybe not. We've had 9/11, the first World Trade Center Bombing, the attacks on our embassies and barracks, the attack on the USS Cole and other attacks against American interests and others around the world in Bali, Jakarta, Madrid and London - not to mention the countless terror attempts planned but thwarted. So maybe it will take the nuking of a major American city with perhaps 100,000 or a million casualties or more to get our attention.
Right now, those who warn against the worse case scenario are viewed as alarmists and dealers in scare tactics. Major politicians don't get it. In fact, no less a political figure that former President Clinton joked about the terror threat next door as if it was some kind of irrational bogeyman fear. Pundits and columnists have written columns about politicians who see the threat of World War III as if they were borderline irrationals. Yes, they are as irrational as Winston Churchill was during the rise of Hitler.
Yet the fact remains that we are the targets of an enormous worldwide conspiracy by terrorists and extremists who want to kill all of us and bring down the U.S. and the rest of Western civilization. If we can't figure out what is going on in the world after all the worldwide terror attacks, after all the worldwide pronouncements of terrorists and political leaders in such places as Iran, after all the unaccounted for nuclear materials from Russia and elsewhere, after the buildup toward nuclear weapons in the hands of irrational heads of state such as North Korea and Iran and after all the terror attacks, then maybe it's hopeless.
But for the record, we ought to face the reality, and that was brought home to me again by an article in Foreign Policy (December 2006) headlined, "The Terrorists Next Door: It is easier to build a nuclear bomb than most people realize. When they attack, it will look a lot like this."
The authors, Peter D. Zimmerman and Jeffrey G. Lewis, point out that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have a long-standing interest in acquiring nuclear weapons and have attempted many times to purchase uranium from Sudan and from other sources. I'm sure they don't want nuclear material for medical purposes. The U.S. military actually found crude designs for atomic bombs in Afghanistan in an al-Qaida safe house. Osama bin Laden has actually called for the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction as a "religious duty."
And terrorists could build a nuclear bomb if they wanted to, and they clearly want to. The authors write, "Most observers, however, agree that a small group could construct a lethal nuclear weapon since they are conceptually simple devices. After all, the technology involved in creating a nuclear weapon is more than 60 years old. In fact, it is perhaps easier to make a gun-assembled nuclear bomb than it is to develop biological or chemical weapons." A gun-assembled nuclear bomb "consists of a gun that fires a highly enriched uranium 'bullet' into a cylindrical target block, also made of highly enriched uranium."
Without getting into the specific details, which might aid and abet terrorists, the authors cost and describe what it would take for terrorists to produce a nuclear weapon, describing personnel, material and processes. From design to final transportation, the authors cost it out at $5,433,000.
The authors note how quick and easy some phases of the weapons construction could be: "When China built its first nuclear bomb in 1964, a single technician named Yuan Gongful used a lathe to shape the highly enriched uranium in just one night. New or used lathes large enough to properly finish the roughly cast pit can be bought on the Internet, even on eBay, for $10,000."
We don't know how far along some terrorists are to building a nuclear weapon to be used against us. The authors note, "No one really knows how much highly enriched uranium there is in the world, or how close the wrong groups are to getting the right amount. The frightening truth is that fissile material, including nuclear explosive material, is an item of commerce, and moves from place to place. One of the side effects of our globalized economy is that opportunities for direct theft and bribing of nuclear custodians abound."
The authors wisely counsel that just because our cities haven't been nuked yet, that doesn't mean they might be and all to soon. They stress we have to get serious about the nuclear threat in particular and the war against Islamic/fascist/Nazi terrorism and extremism in particular.
They leave us with this grim reality: "Although building a nuclear device remains an expensive, complex undertaking out of reach for most organizations, a well-financed group that seeks to kill very large numbers of people may well find it an irresistible option. A wealthy organization seeking to kill several hundred thousand people could hardly find a more economical method than the detonation of a small nuclear device."
Herb Denenberg, a former Pennsylvania insurance commissioner and professor at the Wharton School, is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. His column appears daily in The Evening Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@theeveningbulletin.com
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
An Opinion From N Ireland....
Compliments of A Tangled Web
WHERE MIGHT THE WAR HEADS BE AIMED, EXACTLY?
Now I can understand that there is the outside possibility that you MAY not have heard the news from that vast right-wing conspiracy member - the UN's very own International Atomic Energy Agency - that a document it has obtained plainly shows Iran intent on" how to cast fissile uranium into metal was "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components."
Got that? The UN's very own stool pigeon is saying that Iran wants Nukes.
Question: Where might those atomic war-heads be targeted?
Well, we know that Iran plans to wipe Israel of the map. It has plainly said this, and a second Holocaust is on the Mullah's agenda - despite the apathy of the UN/EU/MSM.
But those war-heads will also be capable of reaching every European capital, and even the coastal parts of the United States. So, whilst we pretend that it will all turn out fine, if ONLY we engage with them, the Mullah's prepare for war. The 13th Imam's return draws nearer in their demented minds.
How long before Israel is FORCED to act - before it is too late?
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 08:10PM by David Vance
WHERE MIGHT THE WAR HEADS BE AIMED, EXACTLY?
Now I can understand that there is the outside possibility that you MAY not have heard the news from that vast right-wing conspiracy member - the UN's very own International Atomic Energy Agency - that a document it has obtained plainly shows Iran intent on" how to cast fissile uranium into metal was "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components."
Got that? The UN's very own stool pigeon is saying that Iran wants Nukes.
Question: Where might those atomic war-heads be targeted?
Well, we know that Iran plans to wipe Israel of the map. It has plainly said this, and a second Holocaust is on the Mullah's agenda - despite the apathy of the UN/EU/MSM.But those war-heads will also be capable of reaching every European capital, and even the coastal parts of the United States. So, whilst we pretend that it will all turn out fine, if ONLY we engage with them, the Mullah's prepare for war. The 13th Imam's return draws nearer in their demented minds.
How long before Israel is FORCED to act - before it is too late?
Posted on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 08:10PM by David Vance
The Cut and Run Rock Star Obama
Obama to council: 'No good options left'
Obama unveils plan to cut U.S troops in Iraq
November 21, 2006
BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter
Declaring that the American public demanded change in the midterm elections two weeks ago, Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for a "gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces" in Iraq, beginning in four to six months.
"There have been too many speeches," the South Side Democrat told a crowd of 1,400 at a foreign policy luncheon. "There have been too many excuses. There have been too many flag-draped coffins. There have been too many heartbroken families.
"The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy." (lets Cut and Run)
The potential presidential hopeful (next joke) spoke at an event sponsored by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs at the Chicago Hilton and Towers, outlining a series of steps he said should be part of that changed policy
Obama opposed the initial invasion of Iraq, but told the crowd "I believe that it remains possible to salvage an acceptable outcome to this long and misguided war.
"But it will not be easy. For the fact is that there are no good options left in this war."
Wants talks with Syria, Iran (yeah lets talk to the people that are funding and supplying the terrorists)
Obama called for "a phased redeployment of U.S. troops," (cut and run) increasing the number of Special Forces members and other military personnel training Iraqi security forces (already being done) and tying U.S. economic aid in Iraq to the progress it makes in reaching a political solution to end the sectarian violence. (they tried that in Vietnam it led to the deaths of millions)
He also said the U.S. should sit down with Syria, Iran and other nations in the Mideast to involve them in finding a lasting solution to end the war. (nothing like trying to get deals from terrorists and madmen)
President Bush has refused to talk to Iran until it abandons any plans to develop nuclear weapons, and the administration wants Syria to pull out of Lebanon. (but not the Democrats hell given the chance they'll supply Iran the plutonium for their bomb as Kim Im Ill)
Obama said Iran and Syria "are badly mistaken" if they plan to use a destabilized Iraq as "another Afghanistan or a staging area" for terrorist attacks on Israel or others. (but He proposes taking away any threat from them if they do) But he insisted it makes no sense not to engage them in talks. (yeah they've proven that they can be trusted in negotions Hell look how quickly they buckled to the UN and stoped refining Uranium, oh wait they didn't did they)
"Keep in mind that throughout the Cold War -- at a time when we had intercontinental ballistic missiles pointed at every major city of the United States -- there was a phone directly from the White House to the Kremlin," (that was never used for negotiations ya idiot) Obama said. "There were constant summit meetings taking place throughout that period." (yeah and it was Reagan walking out of those summits and starting to build Star Wars that worked)
Obama said redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq will send a message, particularly to Iran. (yeah that the US doesn't have the Stomach to finish what we start and that they can do what ever they want with no consequences)
"You may have enjoyed watching our difficulties in Iraq," he said. "You will not enjoy a million refugees pouring over your borders in the event that Iraq collapses." (no they'll just shoot them and move into Iraq themselves you ASS, Iran doesn't fear refugees they fear us staying and achieving our goals)
Obama stopped short of calling for bringing the troops home, instead saying some would be redeployed to northern Iraq, others to other parts of the Mideast and still others to Afghanistan.
Urges economic pressure
Obama did not set an exact timetable but said the phased redeployment should begin in four to six months, although the timing should not be "overly rigid" to give commanders on the ground flexibility to protect the troops or adapt to changing political arrangements in the Iraqi government. (yeah we must cover our ass as we retreat and leave the 95% of Iraqies to be suppressed and butcherd)
Obama said the key is for the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to sit down and forge a lasting peace, (which is what we are helping them achieve by giving the coalition government the time and support they need) and he said a mix of gradually redeploying troops out of Iraq and applying economic pressure is the best way to make that happen. (so we cut and run and then when things fall apart we even cut any financial support we are supplying. Like I said that is exactly what the Dems did to the S Vietnamese)
"No more coddling, no more equivocation," he said. (yeah just let them all die in Chaos)
Many of the ideas he advanced have been proposed by other Democrats and analysts, and Obama conceded "there's going to be overlap" (no shit nothing new in this plan) in the proposals being advanced. He said he has had "off-the-record" conversations with members of the bipartisan, congressionally created Iraq Study Group, which will issue a series of recommendations to the White House sometime after Thanksgiving. (oh thats comforting)
Rips 'policy-by-slogan'
"There are a restricted number of options," Obama told reporters after his 36-minute speech. "There is no magic bullet in Iraq, and I think anybody who expects there is one is going to be disappointed."
Obama took more than a few swipes at Bush, saying the results of the midterm elections show that "the American people have sent a clear message ... that policy-by-slogan will no longer pass as an acceptable form of debate in this country.
"'Mission Accomplished,' 'cut and run,' 'stay the course' -- the American people have determined that all these phrases have become meaningless in the face of a conflict that grows more deadly and chaotic with each passing day -- a conflict that has only increased the terrorist threat it was supposed to help contain." (BULLSHIT)
Obama offered no clues on whether he will run for president in 2008 but said he will decide "sometime in the next few months. (Oh please Run we need the comic releaf)
"This is a profoundly personal decision that I'm going through right now," he said.
"Obviously, I'm looking at the external factors -- money and organization and, you know, [the] calender and all those things. But the most important thing I'm looking at is, do I have something unique to bring to a presdiential race that would justify putting my family through what I think everybody understands is a grueling process." (other than being Black no you bring nothing to the table)
During a visit to Indonesia on Monday, Bush told reporters he is awaiting the suggestions of a "variety of sources," including a military study commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace.
sfornek@suntimes.com
Democrats
Obama
Obama unveils plan to cut U.S troops in Iraq
November 21, 2006
BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter
Declaring that the American public demanded change in the midterm elections two weeks ago, Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for a "gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces" in Iraq, beginning in four to six months.
"There have been too many speeches," the South Side Democrat told a crowd of 1,400 at a foreign policy luncheon. "There have been too many excuses. There have been too many flag-draped coffins. There have been too many heartbroken families.
"The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy." (lets Cut and Run)
The potential presidential hopeful (next joke) spoke at an event sponsored by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs at the Chicago Hilton and Towers, outlining a series of steps he said should be part of that changed policy
Obama opposed the initial invasion of Iraq, but told the crowd "I believe that it remains possible to salvage an acceptable outcome to this long and misguided war.
"But it will not be easy. For the fact is that there are no good options left in this war."
Wants talks with Syria, Iran (yeah lets talk to the people that are funding and supplying the terrorists)
Obama called for "a phased redeployment of U.S. troops," (cut and run) increasing the number of Special Forces members and other military personnel training Iraqi security forces (already being done) and tying U.S. economic aid in Iraq to the progress it makes in reaching a political solution to end the sectarian violence. (they tried that in Vietnam it led to the deaths of millions)
He also said the U.S. should sit down with Syria, Iran and other nations in the Mideast to involve them in finding a lasting solution to end the war. (nothing like trying to get deals from terrorists and madmen)
President Bush has refused to talk to Iran until it abandons any plans to develop nuclear weapons, and the administration wants Syria to pull out of Lebanon. (but not the Democrats hell given the chance they'll supply Iran the plutonium for their bomb as Kim Im Ill)
Obama said Iran and Syria "are badly mistaken" if they plan to use a destabilized Iraq as "another Afghanistan or a staging area" for terrorist attacks on Israel or others. (but He proposes taking away any threat from them if they do) But he insisted it makes no sense not to engage them in talks. (yeah they've proven that they can be trusted in negotions Hell look how quickly they buckled to the UN and stoped refining Uranium, oh wait they didn't did they)
"Keep in mind that throughout the Cold War -- at a time when we had intercontinental ballistic missiles pointed at every major city of the United States -- there was a phone directly from the White House to the Kremlin," (that was never used for negotiations ya idiot) Obama said. "There were constant summit meetings taking place throughout that period." (yeah and it was Reagan walking out of those summits and starting to build Star Wars that worked)
Obama said redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq will send a message, particularly to Iran. (yeah that the US doesn't have the Stomach to finish what we start and that they can do what ever they want with no consequences)
"You may have enjoyed watching our difficulties in Iraq," he said. "You will not enjoy a million refugees pouring over your borders in the event that Iraq collapses." (no they'll just shoot them and move into Iraq themselves you ASS, Iran doesn't fear refugees they fear us staying and achieving our goals)
Obama stopped short of calling for bringing the troops home, instead saying some would be redeployed to northern Iraq, others to other parts of the Mideast and still others to Afghanistan.
Urges economic pressure
Obama did not set an exact timetable but said the phased redeployment should begin in four to six months, although the timing should not be "overly rigid" to give commanders on the ground flexibility to protect the troops or adapt to changing political arrangements in the Iraqi government. (yeah we must cover our ass as we retreat and leave the 95% of Iraqies to be suppressed and butcherd)
Obama said the key is for the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to sit down and forge a lasting peace, (which is what we are helping them achieve by giving the coalition government the time and support they need) and he said a mix of gradually redeploying troops out of Iraq and applying economic pressure is the best way to make that happen. (so we cut and run and then when things fall apart we even cut any financial support we are supplying. Like I said that is exactly what the Dems did to the S Vietnamese)
"No more coddling, no more equivocation," he said. (yeah just let them all die in Chaos)
Many of the ideas he advanced have been proposed by other Democrats and analysts, and Obama conceded "there's going to be overlap" (no shit nothing new in this plan) in the proposals being advanced. He said he has had "off-the-record" conversations with members of the bipartisan, congressionally created Iraq Study Group, which will issue a series of recommendations to the White House sometime after Thanksgiving. (oh thats comforting)
Rips 'policy-by-slogan'
"There are a restricted number of options," Obama told reporters after his 36-minute speech. "There is no magic bullet in Iraq, and I think anybody who expects there is one is going to be disappointed."
Obama took more than a few swipes at Bush, saying the results of the midterm elections show that "the American people have sent a clear message ... that policy-by-slogan will no longer pass as an acceptable form of debate in this country.
"'Mission Accomplished,' 'cut and run,' 'stay the course' -- the American people have determined that all these phrases have become meaningless in the face of a conflict that grows more deadly and chaotic with each passing day -- a conflict that has only increased the terrorist threat it was supposed to help contain." (BULLSHIT)
Obama offered no clues on whether he will run for president in 2008 but said he will decide "sometime in the next few months. (Oh please Run we need the comic releaf)
"This is a profoundly personal decision that I'm going through right now," he said.
"Obviously, I'm looking at the external factors -- money and organization and, you know, [the] calender and all those things. But the most important thing I'm looking at is, do I have something unique to bring to a presdiential race that would justify putting my family through what I think everybody understands is a grueling process." (other than being Black no you bring nothing to the table)
During a visit to Indonesia on Monday, Bush told reporters he is awaiting the suggestions of a "variety of sources," including a military study commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace.
sfornek@suntimes.com
Democrats
Obama
Monday, November 20, 2006
Democrat Members of Congress raise money for Terror Support Group
News ReleasesMonday, November 20, 2006
First Muslim Congressman Addresses CAIR BanquetSold-out event raises more than $620,000 for civil rights work
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FIRST MUSLIM CONGRESSMAN ADDRESSES CAIR BANQUET
Sold-out event raises more than $620,000 for civil rights work(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/20/06) - More than 1,000 people turned out on Saturday at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) banquet in Arlington, Va., to hear addresses by several elected officials, including Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in Congress.The event raised more than $620,000 to support CAIR's civil rights and advocacy work on behalf of the American Muslim community. (Another dinner held by CAIR's Southern California chapter (CAIR-LA) over the weekend raised more than $430,000. Some 1,800 people attended that event.)
Elected officials who spoke at the sold-out event included Representative-elect Ellison (D-MN), as well as Reps. Mike Honda (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) and Albert Wynn (D-MD). Ellison and Jackson Lee offered their addresses by video. Saqib Ali, who was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates (District 39) on November 7, was also in attendance.
To view Keith Ellison's address, go to:https://www.cair.com/videos/keith_ellison.wmv
To view Jackson Lee's address, go to:https://www.cair.com/videos/sheila_jackson.wmv
SEE ALSO: Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart Slam Glenn Beck for Questioning Keith Ellison's PatriotismOther speakers included Special Agent in Charge Joseph Persichini, Jr. of the FBI's Washington Field Office, Fairfax County Police Chief Col. David M. Rohrer and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Most members of CAIR's national board also took part in the banquet, which was emceed by Julia Shearson of CAIR-Ohio's Cleveland office.Several Muslim community members received CAIR Islamic Community Service Awards during the dinner. The annual CAIR Rosa Parks Civil Liberties Scholarship went to Raashida Muhammad of StillmanCollege. "We would like to thank all those who, through their hard work and generosity, made CAIR's annual banquet such a success," said CAIR Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed. "Special thanks go to all those who volunteered their time and talents to make the dinner possible."CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 32 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.- END -
Democrats
Democrats want to raise the price of gas and prevent domestic production.
Dems Take Aim at Oil Company Tax Breaks (yes we must punish the evil oil co.)
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats are targeting billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal that would boost alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to be put off until later. (yes we want to rape as much money from these evil capitalist polutting pigs, mind you we aren't going to fund alternatives that might mean the oil companies have less money for us to steal)
Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. (we hope)
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil." (has anyone including this reporter asked Ms Pelousy how raising taxes on the oil companies and the American public is going to give us energy independence)
Yet the energy plan being assembled by Pelosi's aides for the initial round of legislation is less ambitious than her pronouncement might suggest.
For the most part, the tax benefits are ones that lawmakers talked of repealing this year when Congress struggled to respond to the public outcry over soaring summer fuel prices and oil companies' huge profits. (yeah while not once did they discuss that how the state and federal governments make 10cents of tax revenue for every penny that the oil companies make. NEVER do they talk of cutting the tax of the finished product at the pump do they)
Topping the list for repeal are:
-Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration. (so in order to help us move toward greater energy independence she is going to kill the incentives for the two number 1 reasons that we are dependant on foreign oil. Our lack of Refineries and our freeze on Domestic exploration and drilling)
-A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad. (why continue with an incentive designed to decrease our dependence sucking money and jobs out of the country is always a better plan)
Democrats say neither tax benefit should be needed for an industry reaping large profits at today's high crude oil prices. (as stated nowhere near the amount of money that congress is making off this industry)
Over 10 years, the production tax credit saves oil companies $5 billion and the refinery measure and exploration credit a total of about $1.4 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. (which will now be added to the price at the pump IF they decide to continue in either of these areas. Which they won't why try and build refineries and search for oil in the US when it's much cheaper every where else thanks to congress and their prohibitive taxes)
Other oil tax breaks probably will go unchallenged. That includes some passed by Congress only a year ago and others already targeted for repeal this year.
For example, House Democrats have no plans to change a provision that allows oil companies to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by the way they calculate inventories. The Senate this year agreed to a repeal; the effort was abandoned amid House GOP opposition and an uproar from other industries that also benefit from the tax language.
House Democrats also are shying away from tampering with more than $1 billion worth of oil- and gas-related tax breaks, enacted last year. These breaks largely benefit small companies or gas utilities rather than the major oil companies now awash in cash.
Nevertheless, the House and Senate are expected to push legislation early to force oil companies to renegotiate flawed offshore drilling leases that have allowed the companies to avoid paying federal royalties. The loss eventually could cost the government $10 billion, according to some congressional estimates. (no they estimate that they can squeeze another 10Billion out of Oil companies and the American Driver if they can screw the oil companies better on the off shore drilling)
Other prime targets of House and Senate Democrats include:
-Alleged price gouging. Proposals to create a federal price gouging law for gasoline and other fuels probably will move quickly. (which every hearing they held proved didn't happen the only ones gouging us at the pump is the government through taxes)
-More incentives and mandates to expand the use of ethanol and biodiesel as a substitute for gasoline. Requiring oil companies to phase in retail pumps that deliver fuel that is 85 percent ethanol. (except that means more ethanol refineries which their first tax increase just killed )
-Requiring power companies to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Such a measure is a priority of Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., incoming chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (yeah as long as they don't block the view of the Kennedy Compound)
-Extending energy efficiency tax credits approved by Congress last year. Most are scheduled to expire at the end of next year.
-Expanding a tax break for buyers of gas-electric hybrid cars and offering more incentives for automakers to build greater numbers of the vehicles. (that no one wants to buy because they don't save the consumer any money)
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will take over as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he plans hearings on legislation to spur further production and distribution of ethanol and biodiesel, and promote conservation. (once again one of the main problems with both these type of fuels is refineries, which Nancy intends to kill any incentive for the industry to build)
But he suggested it will take time to produce legislation. "The process is a long one. It takes hearings, it takes fact finding," said Dingell in a telephone interview. (but will raise their taxes now)
On the Senate side, Bingaman probably will avoid writing a single broad energy bill, preferring to push through specific legislation. Among Bingaman's other goals are new incentives to spur renewable energy development and more tax breaks for conservation. (incremental tax increases are easier to sneak pass the public is what he really means)
Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies." (yeah thats good Chuckie threaten the oil companies enough that they move completly out of the country and we have to import all our fuel, thats a real good plan for energy independence)
Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.
I don't know whats scarier the Democrats ideas to make us energy independant or the AP Reporters lack of knowledge or lack of balls to ask the right questions
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Democrats
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats are targeting billions of dollars in oil company tax breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal that would boost alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to be put off until later. (yes we want to rape as much money from these evil capitalist polutting pigs, mind you we aren't going to fund alternatives that might mean the oil companies have less money for us to steal)
Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. (we hope)
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil." (has anyone including this reporter asked Ms Pelousy how raising taxes on the oil companies and the American public is going to give us energy independence)
Yet the energy plan being assembled by Pelosi's aides for the initial round of legislation is less ambitious than her pronouncement might suggest.
For the most part, the tax benefits are ones that lawmakers talked of repealing this year when Congress struggled to respond to the public outcry over soaring summer fuel prices and oil companies' huge profits. (yeah while not once did they discuss that how the state and federal governments make 10cents of tax revenue for every penny that the oil companies make. NEVER do they talk of cutting the tax of the finished product at the pump do they)
Topping the list for repeal are:
-Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration. (so in order to help us move toward greater energy independence she is going to kill the incentives for the two number 1 reasons that we are dependant on foreign oil. Our lack of Refineries and our freeze on Domestic exploration and drilling)
-A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad. (why continue with an incentive designed to decrease our dependence sucking money and jobs out of the country is always a better plan)
Democrats say neither tax benefit should be needed for an industry reaping large profits at today's high crude oil prices. (as stated nowhere near the amount of money that congress is making off this industry)
Over 10 years, the production tax credit saves oil companies $5 billion and the refinery measure and exploration credit a total of about $1.4 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. (which will now be added to the price at the pump IF they decide to continue in either of these areas. Which they won't why try and build refineries and search for oil in the US when it's much cheaper every where else thanks to congress and their prohibitive taxes)
Other oil tax breaks probably will go unchallenged. That includes some passed by Congress only a year ago and others already targeted for repeal this year.
For example, House Democrats have no plans to change a provision that allows oil companies to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by the way they calculate inventories. The Senate this year agreed to a repeal; the effort was abandoned amid House GOP opposition and an uproar from other industries that also benefit from the tax language.
House Democrats also are shying away from tampering with more than $1 billion worth of oil- and gas-related tax breaks, enacted last year. These breaks largely benefit small companies or gas utilities rather than the major oil companies now awash in cash.
Nevertheless, the House and Senate are expected to push legislation early to force oil companies to renegotiate flawed offshore drilling leases that have allowed the companies to avoid paying federal royalties. The loss eventually could cost the government $10 billion, according to some congressional estimates. (no they estimate that they can squeeze another 10Billion out of Oil companies and the American Driver if they can screw the oil companies better on the off shore drilling)
Other prime targets of House and Senate Democrats include:
-Alleged price gouging. Proposals to create a federal price gouging law for gasoline and other fuels probably will move quickly. (which every hearing they held proved didn't happen the only ones gouging us at the pump is the government through taxes)
-More incentives and mandates to expand the use of ethanol and biodiesel as a substitute for gasoline. Requiring oil companies to phase in retail pumps that deliver fuel that is 85 percent ethanol. (except that means more ethanol refineries which their first tax increase just killed )
-Requiring power companies to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Such a measure is a priority of Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., incoming chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (yeah as long as they don't block the view of the Kennedy Compound)
-Extending energy efficiency tax credits approved by Congress last year. Most are scheduled to expire at the end of next year.
-Expanding a tax break for buyers of gas-electric hybrid cars and offering more incentives for automakers to build greater numbers of the vehicles. (that no one wants to buy because they don't save the consumer any money)
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who will take over as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he plans hearings on legislation to spur further production and distribution of ethanol and biodiesel, and promote conservation. (once again one of the main problems with both these type of fuels is refineries, which Nancy intends to kill any incentive for the industry to build)
But he suggested it will take time to produce legislation. "The process is a long one. It takes hearings, it takes fact finding," said Dingell in a telephone interview. (but will raise their taxes now)
On the Senate side, Bingaman probably will avoid writing a single broad energy bill, preferring to push through specific legislation. Among Bingaman's other goals are new incentives to spur renewable energy development and more tax breaks for conservation. (incremental tax increases are easier to sneak pass the public is what he really means)
Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies." (yeah thats good Chuckie threaten the oil companies enough that they move completly out of the country and we have to import all our fuel, thats a real good plan for energy independence)
Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.
I don't know whats scarier the Democrats ideas to make us energy independant or the AP Reporters lack of knowledge or lack of balls to ask the right questions
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
Democrats
Friday, November 17, 2006
Democrats demand CIA detainee documents
Leaky Leahy just can't even wait till his party even assumes control before he starts to destroy Americas ability to fight the War on Terror.
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A Senate Democrat who will chair its Judiciary Committee next year asked the Justice Department to release newly acknowledged documents setting U.S. policy on how suspects in the war on terrorism are detained and interrogated.
"The American people deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism and concern at home and around the world," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Leahy demanded two documents whose existence the CIA recently acknowledged in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"If President Bush and the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture its prisoners, the public has a right to know," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU attorney involved in the case.
The first document is a directive Bush signed giving the CIA authority to set up detention facilities outside the U.S. and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees.
The second is a 2002 memo from the Justice Department's office of Legal Counsel to the CIA General Counsel regarding interrogation methods that the spy agency may use against top al Qaida members.
Leahy asked Gonzales to produce any revisions and analyses of those and other memos. He also requested agency documents that interpret the scope of interrogation practices permitted and prohibited by the detainee Treatment Act or the Military Commissions Act.
A Justice Department spokesman had no immediate comment.
Democrats
Leahy
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A Senate Democrat who will chair its Judiciary Committee next year asked the Justice Department to release newly acknowledged documents setting U.S. policy on how suspects in the war on terrorism are detained and interrogated.
"The American people deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism and concern at home and around the world," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Leahy demanded two documents whose existence the CIA recently acknowledged in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"If President Bush and the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture its prisoners, the public has a right to know," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU attorney involved in the case.
The first document is a directive Bush signed giving the CIA authority to set up detention facilities outside the U.S. and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees.
The second is a 2002 memo from the Justice Department's office of Legal Counsel to the CIA General Counsel regarding interrogation methods that the spy agency may use against top al Qaida members.
Leahy asked Gonzales to produce any revisions and analyses of those and other memos. He also requested agency documents that interpret the scope of interrogation practices permitted and prohibited by the detainee Treatment Act or the Military Commissions Act.
A Justice Department spokesman had no immediate comment.
Democrats
Leahy
Gingrich Says Historic Challenges Face Americans
Over the next 20 years the American people can expect to experience the most severe challenges any generation has faced since the time of the Civil War, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday.
Rising economies in China and India will compete vigorously against the U.S. while terrorist threats gather momentum throughout the globe, Gingrich said during a GOPAC meeting in Washington, D.C.
Since citizens do "not have the luxury of ordering history," the challenges must be confronted simultaneously, Gingrich said.
He also pointed to trends in various parts of the world which he said were suggestive of an "emerging third world war."
Although the nation's political structure and government agencies are currently ill-equipped to confront the challenges of the 21st Century, Gingrich said, he believed strongly in the ability of the American people and policymakers to "win the future" -- if they acknowledge failure where it exists, while embracing dramatic reforms in domestic and foreign affairs.
Former Congressman J.C. Watts, an Oklahoma Republican, described Gingrich as a visionary and the "architect" of the 1994 Republican revolution that ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House of Representatives.
Watts credited Gingrich with moving power and influence out of Washington, D.C. and into the hands of average Americans.
'Failed to deliver'
Assessing the midterm election results Gingrich said it would be a mistake for GOP officials to simply attribute the loss of the House and Senate to cyclical trends.
Instead, he said, Republican leaders in Congress had "failed to deliver" on key promises and lost sight of the revolutionary fervor that translated into a balanced budget in the mid-1990s.
The excessive spending of the past few years and "toleration for corruption" directly contributed to the losses in Gingrich's view.
He made a distinction between earmarks that were configured to direct policy initiatives, and those that he said misused taxpayer money to boost lawmaker's reelection chances.
With Republicans returning to minority status in January, Gingrich warned against the temptation to criticize the party in power without offering an alternative vision along with compelling policy proposals that create a clear choice for Americans.
"We cannot solve problems of a great nation by focusing on the weakness of the opposition," he said.
On international issues, Gingrich rejected a "stay the course" approach to Iraq but said it was vital for policymakers to chart a new path for victory that would inevitably be arduous.
The creation of a national police force is also necessary in Iraq, Gingrich said, because there is widespread corruption among local officials.
While he praised the 2003 military campaign that ousted Saddam Hussein, Gingrich said the current phase of operations has thus far been a defeat for the American side.
Other trends of concern to the former House Speaker included reports of terrorist activity in Europe.
In Britain, Gingrich said, security officials were investigating over 200 organizations with about 1,200 members that are considered hostile. The head of British intelligence, in a statement not widely reported in the U.S., had recently said warned that he "fully expects the use of a nuclear weapon in Britain," Gingrich said.
He concluded his remarks by calling on the Department of Homeland Security to organize two nuclear and one biological exercise each year in American cities.
Rising economies in China and India will compete vigorously against the U.S. while terrorist threats gather momentum throughout the globe, Gingrich said during a GOPAC meeting in Washington, D.C.
Since citizens do "not have the luxury of ordering history," the challenges must be confronted simultaneously, Gingrich said.
He also pointed to trends in various parts of the world which he said were suggestive of an "emerging third world war."
Although the nation's political structure and government agencies are currently ill-equipped to confront the challenges of the 21st Century, Gingrich said, he believed strongly in the ability of the American people and policymakers to "win the future" -- if they acknowledge failure where it exists, while embracing dramatic reforms in domestic and foreign affairs.
Former Congressman J.C. Watts, an Oklahoma Republican, described Gingrich as a visionary and the "architect" of the 1994 Republican revolution that ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House of Representatives.
Watts credited Gingrich with moving power and influence out of Washington, D.C. and into the hands of average Americans.
'Failed to deliver'
Assessing the midterm election results Gingrich said it would be a mistake for GOP officials to simply attribute the loss of the House and Senate to cyclical trends.
Instead, he said, Republican leaders in Congress had "failed to deliver" on key promises and lost sight of the revolutionary fervor that translated into a balanced budget in the mid-1990s.
The excessive spending of the past few years and "toleration for corruption" directly contributed to the losses in Gingrich's view.
He made a distinction between earmarks that were configured to direct policy initiatives, and those that he said misused taxpayer money to boost lawmaker's reelection chances.
With Republicans returning to minority status in January, Gingrich warned against the temptation to criticize the party in power without offering an alternative vision along with compelling policy proposals that create a clear choice for Americans.
"We cannot solve problems of a great nation by focusing on the weakness of the opposition," he said.
On international issues, Gingrich rejected a "stay the course" approach to Iraq but said it was vital for policymakers to chart a new path for victory that would inevitably be arduous.
The creation of a national police force is also necessary in Iraq, Gingrich said, because there is widespread corruption among local officials.
While he praised the 2003 military campaign that ousted Saddam Hussein, Gingrich said the current phase of operations has thus far been a defeat for the American side.
Other trends of concern to the former House Speaker included reports of terrorist activity in Europe.
In Britain, Gingrich said, security officials were investigating over 200 organizations with about 1,200 members that are considered hostile. The head of British intelligence, in a statement not widely reported in the U.S., had recently said warned that he "fully expects the use of a nuclear weapon in Britain," Gingrich said.
He concluded his remarks by calling on the Department of Homeland Security to organize two nuclear and one biological exercise each year in American cities.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Kucinich....Lets do what we did to the S Vietnamese who cares if millions die. We have Health care to fund and seize control of
Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds
"That’s the only way we’re going to end this war."
Nov 15, 2006
Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman.
"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.
"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war.
"We need to shift our direction."
"We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that's also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn't only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.
"It's time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don't do that -- we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society."
Hear the full interview or read a transcript at democracynow.org.
Democrats
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
A Good Summation by an Excellant Blogger
Always On Watch said...
I've not had time to read all the comments carefully, but this thought crosses my mind after skimming what various commenters have said:
The right views victory in Iraq as important for presenting a strong face to the enemy. Hence, the right is averse to withdrawal, which smells like appeasement. Time and again, history has shown that appeasing an enemy serves merely to embolden that enemy. Case in point, of course--dealing with Hitler in the 1930's.Also, some on the right feel that a stable Iraq will lead to stability in the Middle East. Additionally, some of the right feel that regime change in Iraq can serve as a model for other Middle Eastern countries.
The left, on the other hand, sees the American presence in Iraq as the problem in the Middle East. Were the United States to withdraw, the Middle East would settle down. What historical examples can the left offer to substantiate their position? Or is the situation so unique as not to offer examples?In sum, the right believes that the costs of staying far outweigh the costs of withdrawal. The left, of course, believes the opposite.Perhaps the above is simplistic and a misinterpretation of the discussion which has been going on here in my absence. Feel free to correct me.
11/14/2006 5:20 PM
Can you speak Mexican???? Step 1
Dem Congress may scrap border fence
By SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 (UPI) -- The incoming U.S. Congress will review the law mandating 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and may seek to scrap the plan altogether.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters this week that he expected to "re-visit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress, which has a Democratic Party majority.
He said that the high technology Secure Border Initiative, or SBI Net -- essentially a set of monitors, cameras and other integrated surveillance systems to monitor the border -- was a viable alternative.
"We might do away with it, or look at (integrating it into) SBI Net," he said, "A virtual fence rather than a real one."
The Secure Fence Act, one of the laws passed by the GOP-controlled Congress in a pre-election flurry of border security legislation, mandates 700 miles of fencing in five sections, and defines where on the 1,951-mile southern border they should go.
As a result, some administration officials view it as an example of congressional micro-management, and might welcome changes that gave them more flexibility.
Department of Homeland Security Spokesman Russ Knocke told United Press International that in remote border areas, "virtual fencing ... is more advantageous," whereas "traditional fencing has a core role in our border security strategy ... especially in urban areas."
"We're optimistic that working with Congress we'll get the flexibility to integrate traditional fencing into a seamless, high-tech border security system," Knocke said.
Democrats
By SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 (UPI) -- The incoming U.S. Congress will review the law mandating 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and may seek to scrap the plan altogether.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters this week that he expected to "re-visit" the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress, which has a Democratic Party majority.
He said that the high technology Secure Border Initiative, or SBI Net -- essentially a set of monitors, cameras and other integrated surveillance systems to monitor the border -- was a viable alternative.
"We might do away with it, or look at (integrating it into) SBI Net," he said, "A virtual fence rather than a real one."
The Secure Fence Act, one of the laws passed by the GOP-controlled Congress in a pre-election flurry of border security legislation, mandates 700 miles of fencing in five sections, and defines where on the 1,951-mile southern border they should go.
As a result, some administration officials view it as an example of congressional micro-management, and might welcome changes that gave them more flexibility.
Department of Homeland Security Spokesman Russ Knocke told United Press International that in remote border areas, "virtual fencing ... is more advantageous," whereas "traditional fencing has a core role in our border security strategy ... especially in urban areas."
"We're optimistic that working with Congress we'll get the flexibility to integrate traditional fencing into a seamless, high-tech border security system," Knocke said.
Democrats
The City of Brotherly Love....
The following is a story describing what a city has become with nothing but Democrats running it for the last 50 years. The last few years have been the worse, under the Street administration.
Woman shot to death at home. Wheelchair-bound grandmother, 37, was city's 355th homicide
By CHRISTINE OLLEY
olleyc@phillynews.com 215-854-5184
Friends and family gathered in a soaking rain yesterday outside a North Philadelphia home, devastated by the grisly scene inside.
Cops said that shortly after 1 p.m., Monica Smith, 37, who used a wheelchair because one leg was amputated, was found shot to death in her first-floor apartment on 22nd Street near Norris.
"She died of an apparent gunshot wound to the torso," said Homicide Lt. Phillip Riehl.
She was the 355th homicide of the year in this blood-soaked city.
Her sister Debbie stood outside, overcome with grief over the senseless slaying.
She said a cousin found Smith slain.
"He said that the trail of blood started from the front door and went all the way to her wheelchair," she said.
Smith said that her sister, a mother of a son, Malik, 22, and a new grandmother, was independent.
"She was a strong-willed woman who always went after anything and everything she wanted," Smith said. "Her independence was shown by her living here by herself and getting around like she did.
"I am completely numb right now. I'm just not here."
As family members gathered around the front door, desperate for answers and forbidden access to Smith's house by police, a family friend stood quietly by, her tears mixing with the rain.
"I just don't know how someone could have hurt her like that," said the woman, who asked that her name not be used. "She wasn't just a friend, she was like my sister."
Smith's slaying came on the heels of another bloody weekend of gun violence in the city.
• Two 20-year-old men, identified as Brian Brennan and David Hunsinger, were wounded on Wyndale Avenue near 56th Street shortly before 3 a.m. Sunday.
They were walking home from a party early Sunday with another friend, according to Capt. Michael Sinclair of Southwest Detectives. All three are college students, one at St. Joseph's University.
"They [the perpetrators] asked the college students if they wanted to buy drugs, which is unfortunately a ruse to see if the victims have any money on them," Sinclair said.
"They said no, and that's when the men told them to give them everything they had."
Sinclair said that they are looking for three men in the shooting.
• A shooting early Sunday on Nicholas Street near 23rd in North Philadelphia critically wounded Tamar Bouwie, 25. He is in Temple University Hospital, police said.
Another Sunday shooting, this on Gilham Street near Frontenac in Northeast Philadelphia at about 7 a.m., left Isaiah Anderson, 20, in stable condition at Frankford Hospital-Torresdale, police said.
Another gun-violence crime on Sunday shortly after 3 p.m. left Kevin Hall shot in the lower back on 15th Street near Market.
Police are still looking for the shooters in all three of the incidents.
• Cops also identified Isaiah Martin, 20, as the gunman who was shot by a barber as he tried to rob the Jazz U Up Barbershop on 21st Street near Morris on Saturday night. "He will be charged with robbery and weapons violations," said Officer Yolanda Dawkins, a police spokeswoman.
Democrats
Woman shot to death at home. Wheelchair-bound grandmother, 37, was city's 355th homicide
By CHRISTINE OLLEY
olleyc@phillynews.com 215-854-5184
Friends and family gathered in a soaking rain yesterday outside a North Philadelphia home, devastated by the grisly scene inside.
Cops said that shortly after 1 p.m., Monica Smith, 37, who used a wheelchair because one leg was amputated, was found shot to death in her first-floor apartment on 22nd Street near Norris.
"She died of an apparent gunshot wound to the torso," said Homicide Lt. Phillip Riehl.
She was the 355th homicide of the year in this blood-soaked city.
Her sister Debbie stood outside, overcome with grief over the senseless slaying.
She said a cousin found Smith slain.
"He said that the trail of blood started from the front door and went all the way to her wheelchair," she said.
Smith said that her sister, a mother of a son, Malik, 22, and a new grandmother, was independent.
"She was a strong-willed woman who always went after anything and everything she wanted," Smith said. "Her independence was shown by her living here by herself and getting around like she did.
"I am completely numb right now. I'm just not here."
As family members gathered around the front door, desperate for answers and forbidden access to Smith's house by police, a family friend stood quietly by, her tears mixing with the rain.
"I just don't know how someone could have hurt her like that," said the woman, who asked that her name not be used. "She wasn't just a friend, she was like my sister."
Smith's slaying came on the heels of another bloody weekend of gun violence in the city.
• Two 20-year-old men, identified as Brian Brennan and David Hunsinger, were wounded on Wyndale Avenue near 56th Street shortly before 3 a.m. Sunday.
They were walking home from a party early Sunday with another friend, according to Capt. Michael Sinclair of Southwest Detectives. All three are college students, one at St. Joseph's University.
"They [the perpetrators] asked the college students if they wanted to buy drugs, which is unfortunately a ruse to see if the victims have any money on them," Sinclair said.
"They said no, and that's when the men told them to give them everything they had."
Sinclair said that they are looking for three men in the shooting.
• A shooting early Sunday on Nicholas Street near 23rd in North Philadelphia critically wounded Tamar Bouwie, 25. He is in Temple University Hospital, police said.
Another Sunday shooting, this on Gilham Street near Frontenac in Northeast Philadelphia at about 7 a.m., left Isaiah Anderson, 20, in stable condition at Frankford Hospital-Torresdale, police said.
Another gun-violence crime on Sunday shortly after 3 p.m. left Kevin Hall shot in the lower back on 15th Street near Market.
Police are still looking for the shooters in all three of the incidents.
• Cops also identified Isaiah Martin, 20, as the gunman who was shot by a barber as he tried to rob the Jazz U Up Barbershop on 21st Street near Morris on Saturday night. "He will be charged with robbery and weapons violations," said Officer Yolanda Dawkins, a police spokeswoman.
Democrats
This NON-Story that Never Dies
Libby: No Plot, No Crime in CIA Leak
Nov 14 11:55 AM US/Eastern
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
Attorneys for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby dismissed the idea of a White House plot to leak a CIA operative's identity to the press and said Libby plans to tell jurors at his perjury trial that he had no reason to lie.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent years investigating who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003. While nobody was charged with the leak, Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters.
Fitzgerald wants to keep most of that backstory out of Libby's trial in January. But in court documents filed Tuesday, defense attorneys said they have a right to argue that Libby doesn't believe he did anything wrong.
Novak's story ran as Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Former State Department official Richard Armitage has acknowledged being the source for Novak's column, a fact that neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors discussed in legal filings until Tuesday.
"It is doubtful that anyone committed an 'underlying crime' here," Libby's lawyers wrote. "The government's investigation began as an effort to discover which government officials had 'leaked' Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to Mr. Novak. After years of overheated media speculation that Ms. Wilson's identity had been publicly revealed as part of a White House plot to wreak revenge on her husband, Mr. Armitage (who was no White House ally) finally confirmed in August 2006 that he was Mr. Novak's primary source."
Libby's attorneys said Fitzgerald has perpetuated the notion that Libby was the source and said the former aide should be allowed to tell jurors that he was not _ and thus had no reason to lie to the FBI or grand jury.
"Members of the jury will have heard for years that Mr. Libby leaked classified information about Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA, due to inaccurate reports in the press," defense attorneys wrote. "Indeed, the government has contributed to the likely misimpressions that potential jurors will have about this case."
Fitzgerald has not specifically commented on that allegation. In court papers, he has argued that the upcoming trial should not be a forum to debate the leak itself or question why Libby was charged and others weren't.
Nov 14 11:55 AM US/Eastern
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
Attorneys for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby dismissed the idea of a White House plot to leak a CIA operative's identity to the press and said Libby plans to tell jurors at his perjury trial that he had no reason to lie.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent years investigating who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003. While nobody was charged with the leak, Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters.
Fitzgerald wants to keep most of that backstory out of Libby's trial in January. But in court documents filed Tuesday, defense attorneys said they have a right to argue that Libby doesn't believe he did anything wrong.
Novak's story ran as Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Former State Department official Richard Armitage has acknowledged being the source for Novak's column, a fact that neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors discussed in legal filings until Tuesday.
"It is doubtful that anyone committed an 'underlying crime' here," Libby's lawyers wrote. "The government's investigation began as an effort to discover which government officials had 'leaked' Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to Mr. Novak. After years of overheated media speculation that Ms. Wilson's identity had been publicly revealed as part of a White House plot to wreak revenge on her husband, Mr. Armitage (who was no White House ally) finally confirmed in August 2006 that he was Mr. Novak's primary source."
Libby's attorneys said Fitzgerald has perpetuated the notion that Libby was the source and said the former aide should be allowed to tell jurors that he was not _ and thus had no reason to lie to the FBI or grand jury.
"Members of the jury will have heard for years that Mr. Libby leaked classified information about Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA, due to inaccurate reports in the press," defense attorneys wrote. "Indeed, the government has contributed to the likely misimpressions that potential jurors will have about this case."
Fitzgerald has not specifically commented on that allegation. In court papers, he has argued that the upcoming trial should not be a forum to debate the leak itself or question why Libby was charged and others weren't.
They just can't controll themselves
Clintonista advising the Dems Rais taxes and do it now....
Rubin's Tax Gambit
Raising taxes in a housing slump isn't the smartest policy.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.
"You cannot solve the nation's fiscal problems without increased revenues," declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party's leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday. He also took a crack at economic forecasting by noting that "I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy." The economics and politics here are worth parsing.
By the way, the federal deficit for fiscal 2006 was only 1.9% of GDP, which is lower than all but eight years since 1975. Add in the budget surpluses at the state level, and the overall U.S. fiscal "deficit" is economically trivial. It is all but irrelevant to Mr. Rubin's complaint that the U.S. borrows too much from "foreigners." Those foreigners invest here because of safety and soundness and the expected after-tax return. The quickest way to drive away those investors is to reduce that return by raising taxes.
Mr. Rubin's "fiscal problems" riff is really a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, using future entitlement problems to justify a tax increase today. He knows all too well that not a dime of new revenue raised today would be "saved" or otherwise devoted to paying for future Social Security or Medicare benefits. They would be spent on other things by the current Congress, just as today's surplus payroll tax revenues are spent, and just as they were spent when Mr. Rubin was at Treasury in the 1990s.
Read it All
Democrats
Rubin's Tax Gambit
Raising taxes in a housing slump isn't the smartest policy.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.
"You cannot solve the nation's fiscal problems without increased revenues," declared Mr. Rubin, the Democratic Party's leading economic spokesman, in a speech last Thursday. He also took a crack at economic forecasting by noting that "I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably about zero negative effect on the economy." The economics and politics here are worth parsing.
By the way, the federal deficit for fiscal 2006 was only 1.9% of GDP, which is lower than all but eight years since 1975. Add in the budget surpluses at the state level, and the overall U.S. fiscal "deficit" is economically trivial. It is all but irrelevant to Mr. Rubin's complaint that the U.S. borrows too much from "foreigners." Those foreigners invest here because of safety and soundness and the expected after-tax return. The quickest way to drive away those investors is to reduce that return by raising taxes.
Mr. Rubin's "fiscal problems" riff is really a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, using future entitlement problems to justify a tax increase today. He knows all too well that not a dime of new revenue raised today would be "saved" or otherwise devoted to paying for future Social Security or Medicare benefits. They would be spent on other things by the current Congress, just as today's surplus payroll tax revenues are spent, and just as they were spent when Mr. Rubin was at Treasury in the 1990s.
Read it All
Democrats
I just Love BeBe
Netanyahu: It's 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust
By Peter Hirschberg, Haaretz Correspondent
LOS ANGELES - Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world. There was "still time," however, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.
"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."
While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."
Speaking on Army Radio on Tuesday, Netanyahu hinted that Israel possesses the military capabilities necessary for curbing by itself the Iranian nuclear threat, declining to specify what these entail.
The Likud chairman said "I don't want to analyze the capability required to eliminate [the Iranian] threat, but this capability exists," when told by host Razi Barkai that Israel lacks the ability to eliminate Tehran's nuclear program by military means.
"This capability is eroded over time, and if we wait years then obviously this capability would not exist anymore ... but right now I disagree with the claim that nothing can be done against Iran," he added.
When asked if Bush could afford embarking on another "military adventure" after Iraq, Netanyahu said acting on the Iranian nuclear program would not be adventurous but necessary.
"... Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction, but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year ... [the arsenal] will be directed against 'the big Satan,' the U.S., and the 'moderate Satan,' Europe," Netanyahu said.
"Iran is developing ballistic missiles that would reach America, and now they prepare missiles with an adequate range to cover the whole of Europe," he added.
"No one cared"
Criticizing the international community in his GA speech for not acting more forcefully in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power - "No one cared then and no one seems to care now," he said, again drawing on the Nazi parallel - Netanyahu warned that Tehran's nuclear and missile program "goes way beyond the destruction of Israel - it is directed to achieve world-wide range. It's a global program in the service of a mad ideology."
Large sections of the international community, he said, also misunderstood the nature of radical Islam and its role in the Mideast conflict. "What happens in Iran affects what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the other way round," he said.
Netanyahu said he believed that Iran could still be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. "There is still time. All ways must be considered. We can't let this thing happen," he said, but did not outline specific measures he thought should be taken.
Referring to Israel's preemptive strike in the 1967 War, he did say that stopping Iran required "preemptive leadership. Preemption requires will and vision."
"Noone will defend the Jews if the Jews don't defend themselves," he said to loud applause. "Iran's nuclear ambitions have to be stopped."
Israel
By Peter Hirschberg, Haaretz Correspondent
LOS ANGELES - Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world. There was "still time," however, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.
"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."
While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."
Speaking on Army Radio on Tuesday, Netanyahu hinted that Israel possesses the military capabilities necessary for curbing by itself the Iranian nuclear threat, declining to specify what these entail.
The Likud chairman said "I don't want to analyze the capability required to eliminate [the Iranian] threat, but this capability exists," when told by host Razi Barkai that Israel lacks the ability to eliminate Tehran's nuclear program by military means.
"This capability is eroded over time, and if we wait years then obviously this capability would not exist anymore ... but right now I disagree with the claim that nothing can be done against Iran," he added.
When asked if Bush could afford embarking on another "military adventure" after Iraq, Netanyahu said acting on the Iranian nuclear program would not be adventurous but necessary.
"... Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran's tour of destruction, but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year ... [the arsenal] will be directed against 'the big Satan,' the U.S., and the 'moderate Satan,' Europe," Netanyahu said.
"Iran is developing ballistic missiles that would reach America, and now they prepare missiles with an adequate range to cover the whole of Europe," he added.
"No one cared"
Criticizing the international community in his GA speech for not acting more forcefully in trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power - "No one cared then and no one seems to care now," he said, again drawing on the Nazi parallel - Netanyahu warned that Tehran's nuclear and missile program "goes way beyond the destruction of Israel - it is directed to achieve world-wide range. It's a global program in the service of a mad ideology."
Large sections of the international community, he said, also misunderstood the nature of radical Islam and its role in the Mideast conflict. "What happens in Iran affects what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not the other way round," he said.
Netanyahu said he believed that Iran could still be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. "There is still time. All ways must be considered. We can't let this thing happen," he said, but did not outline specific measures he thought should be taken.
Referring to Israel's preemptive strike in the 1967 War, he did say that stopping Iran required "preemptive leadership. Preemption requires will and vision."
"Noone will defend the Jews if the Jews don't defend themselves," he said to loud applause. "Iran's nuclear ambitions have to be stopped."
Israel
Monday, November 13, 2006
Gee What a Surprise....
The true Vietnamization of Iraq begins. Just as the S Vietnamese were abandoned so to are the Iraqi people about to be abandoned. Just as millions were slaughtered after we left so to will it happen again in Iraq. Except one major difference the N Vietnamese did not after killing their fellow country men come over here to kill us. The Terrorists will....
Pelosi Puts Weight Behind Murtha in Leader Bid
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in line to become Speaker in January, is throwing her support to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) in the race for Majority Leader, a move that will be an early test of her influence and will weigh heavily on Murtha's contest with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for the post.
"With respect to Iraq in particular, I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election," Pelosi wrote in a personal letter to Murtha. "Your leadership gave so many Americans, including respected military leaders, the encouragement to voice their own disapproval at a failed policy that weakens our military and makes stability in that region even more difficult to achieve. The enthusiastic response of Americans all across this nation gave an enormous lift to our Democratic efforts, and your unsurpassed personal solicitations produced millions of dollars which were new to the effort. Those resources made a huge difference and particularly for the candidates on whose behalf you campaigned."
Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.
The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.
“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”
Democrats
Pelosi Puts Weight Behind Murtha in Leader Bid
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in line to become Speaker in January, is throwing her support to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) in the race for Majority Leader, a move that will be an early test of her influence and will weigh heavily on Murtha's contest with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) for the post."With respect to Iraq in particular, I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election," Pelosi wrote in a personal letter to Murtha. "Your leadership gave so many Americans, including respected military leaders, the encouragement to voice their own disapproval at a failed policy that weakens our military and makes stability in that region even more difficult to achieve. The enthusiastic response of Americans all across this nation gave an enormous lift to our Democratic efforts, and your unsurpassed personal solicitations produced millions of dollars which were new to the effort. Those resources made a huge difference and particularly for the candidates on whose behalf you campaigned."
Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.
The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.
“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”
Democrats
Sunday, November 12, 2006
UNIFIL Is Undermining Lebanon
The German Navy is said to be unwilling to patrol Lebanese waters at night, but twice sent helicopters toward the Israeli border. The French commander of UNIFIL threatened to put anti-aircraft batteries in UNIFIL positions aimed at Israeli planes. Lebanese Army commander Gen. Michel Suleiman met with the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon who offered to supply the Lebanese army with anti-aircraft missiles. What is Israel doing that makes them so nervous?
Documenting the Syrian and Iranian rearming of Hezbollah and the inability or unwillingness of the Lebanese Army or UNIFIL to stop it.
Lebanon is at a crucial point in its political emancipation - the point at which it must decide whether to advance from Syrian domination to independence, or fall fully under Iranian control. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has demanded a unity government in Beirut that will give Hezbollah - and thus Iran - a virtual veto over Lebanese national politics. Not all Lebanese - not even all Lebanese Shiites - think this would be a good thing. But in the absence of strong international support for disarming Hezbollah, it is becoming less and less likely that the government of Fouad Siniora will be able to withstand the pressure of Iran and Hezbollah.
UNIFIL's timidity - Western Europe's timidity, because France, Italy and Germany are the only countries in UNIFIL that matter - is subverting the indigenous Lebanese revolution that tossed out the Syrian occupiers and made an independent, democratic Lebanon a possibility, though not yet a reality. Following Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's partial destruction of Hezbollah assets in the south, UNIFIL's job was to extend the revolution and the Lebanese government's authority to the rest of the country by enforcing U.N. Resolution 1701 aimed at disarming Hezbollah.
UNIFIL's failure to act against Hezbollah's resupply is a problem for Lebanon and also for Israel.
Implementation of U.N. Resolution 1701 was to have been Israel's reassurance that there would be no repetition of the unprovoked Hezbollah attack from Lebanese soil. But if the resolution is not implemented, Israel has a right - indeed an obligation to its citizens - to accurately assess the threat from the north and, if it continues to grow, to eliminate it. It is unreasonable to assume that Israel will ignore the danger from Hezbollah simply because the French or the Germans do - hence the overflights.
In a related vein, Israel has discovered the Palestinian Authority smuggling Iranian weapons through Egyptian ports and overland through Sinai to Gaza. No one should be surprised - although many will profess to be - if Israel finds these weapons an intolerable threat and takes action against them as well.
We will continue to monitor these situations so that JINSA Report readers, at least, will be aware of the growing threat to Israel from the Lebanon and Gaza, and the unwillingness of responsible parties - Egypt and the European countries - to do their part in dealing with it. At least we won't claim to be surprised.
Documenting the Syrian and Iranian rearming of Hezbollah and the inability or unwillingness of the Lebanese Army or UNIFIL to stop it.
Lebanon is at a crucial point in its political emancipation - the point at which it must decide whether to advance from Syrian domination to independence, or fall fully under Iranian control. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has demanded a unity government in Beirut that will give Hezbollah - and thus Iran - a virtual veto over Lebanese national politics. Not all Lebanese - not even all Lebanese Shiites - think this would be a good thing. But in the absence of strong international support for disarming Hezbollah, it is becoming less and less likely that the government of Fouad Siniora will be able to withstand the pressure of Iran and Hezbollah.
UNIFIL's timidity - Western Europe's timidity, because France, Italy and Germany are the only countries in UNIFIL that matter - is subverting the indigenous Lebanese revolution that tossed out the Syrian occupiers and made an independent, democratic Lebanon a possibility, though not yet a reality. Following Hezbollah's attack on Israel and Israel's partial destruction of Hezbollah assets in the south, UNIFIL's job was to extend the revolution and the Lebanese government's authority to the rest of the country by enforcing U.N. Resolution 1701 aimed at disarming Hezbollah.
UNIFIL's failure to act against Hezbollah's resupply is a problem for Lebanon and also for Israel.
Implementation of U.N. Resolution 1701 was to have been Israel's reassurance that there would be no repetition of the unprovoked Hezbollah attack from Lebanese soil. But if the resolution is not implemented, Israel has a right - indeed an obligation to its citizens - to accurately assess the threat from the north and, if it continues to grow, to eliminate it. It is unreasonable to assume that Israel will ignore the danger from Hezbollah simply because the French or the Germans do - hence the overflights.
In a related vein, Israel has discovered the Palestinian Authority smuggling Iranian weapons through Egyptian ports and overland through Sinai to Gaza. No one should be surprised - although many will profess to be - if Israel finds these weapons an intolerable threat and takes action against them as well.
We will continue to monitor these situations so that JINSA Report readers, at least, will be aware of the growing threat to Israel from the Lebanon and Gaza, and the unwillingness of responsible parties - Egypt and the European countries - to do their part in dealing with it. At least we won't claim to be surprised.
John McCain ... A Traitorous Scum For President
The following is an ABC "news" article. It is one of 1000s of fluff pieces we are about to be drowned in as the MSM tries to convince the Republican base that our only hope is John "Traitor" McCain for a chance at the Presidency. Now mind you not one of them will vote for him, they are all committed to Hillary. They do think that he is the only Republican worth OUR votes though, because of course he is a Liberal, and therefore should be any intelligent Republicans choice. However since we may be too backward to understand that, they will make sure that they prop him up and do their best to destroy any other Republican that runs against him as best they can. All of course for our education and benefit.
EXCLUSIVE: McCain Begins Preliminary White House Run
By JAKE TAPPER and AVERY MILLER
Nov. 10, 2006 — His party may have taken "a thumpin'," in the words of President Bush, but ABC News has learned that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his political team have decided it's full steam ahead for his 2008 presidential campaign though he has yet to make the final, official decision. (Bullshit he's been campaigning for 2 years already)
Sources close to McCain say on Wednesday in Phoenix, he and a half dozen of his top aides huddled and decided to proceed more formally with his quest for the White House.
McCain told ABC News that his team will continue to meet and "go through the process of decision making." But, he added, "I certainly haven't made any decision." (LOL)
A presidential exploratory committee is expected to be set up this month — perhaps as early as next week. (in other words it was setup long ago)
McCain's official, final decision will likely not come until after the Christmas holidays, after he's had a chance to talk it over with his wife, Cindy. (Do you think she could stop him?)
Among his seven children, Jimmy is at boot camp at Camp Pendleton; Jack is at the Naval Academy; and daughter Megan is in her senior year at Columbia University.
In the meantime, McCain's team is exploring office space in Virginia, hiring staff and building infrastructure in key early-primary states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. (but he hasn't decided yet)
Strategy Could Target Swing Voters, Bipartisan Issues
Despite Republican losses of the House and Senate, McCain sees encouraging signs for his personal quest. (He's delusional)
Independent voters were the key swing voters in this election, going overwhelmingly for Democrats. And that could be a voting pool he would tap into. (he beter hope so because NO Conservatives are going to vote for him)
"No question. I think voters said they want independence, they want bipartisanship, and they want a voice of moral authority on Iraq, and John McCain is all three," said former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon, who worked on the 2004 campaign. (another Idiot)
"I've always been popular with independents," McCain said. "But I don't know [how] independents feel right now from what I see they are kind of unhappy." (no where near as un-happy as the Republican base would be if they have to swallow you as our standard bearer)
Republicans will want to focus on winning them back, and according to polls, McCain is more popular with them than he is with conservative Republicans. (gee no kidding)
In exit polls, Republican voters expressed disappointment with their party on the issues of fiscal restraint and government ethics, issues McCain has tried to make his signature. (Bullshit)
"A lot of people look at the Republican Congress and say the problem is they only took half measures of which McCain wanted to do in full measure," McKinnon said. (more Bullshit)
He said McCain has been a "leader for years" in those areas. (LOL)
"All the relevant issues in the Congress now — spending reform, ethics reform — are issues that John McCain has been talking about for a long time," he said.
Why would McCain start his campaign so early? (he started the first day after the 04 election)
For one, The race is wide open — with no president or vice president running for the first time in 80 years.
Already Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa have announced their intentions.
The race also looks to be expensive. In 2004, President Bush spent more than $345 million on his campaign.
Though he's considered his party's front-runner, McCain faces some considerable hurdles. (yeah like being totaly un-electable)
Having turned 70 in August, he would be the oldest U.S. president to get elected. And he faces at least one strong challenger within the party, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and others in the seemingly ascendant Democratic Party, such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. (and any other Republican that runs against him in the primaries)
Moreover, McCain has yet to resolve the problems he's had with the Republican Party's conservative base. (who just happen to decide who gets the nomination)
"He has a problem with pro-lifers on judges. He … became very hostile to the Second Amendment community and supportive of gun control. He has a problem with the economic conservatives because he's been bad on taxes for six years now," said longtime critic Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, which includes individuals and businesses opposed to higher taxes. (Norquist is a source I wouldn't quote for anything but on this he's correct)
"Conservatives who care about the tax issue are very concerned that he opposed Bush's tax cuts," Norquist said.
McCain has tried to combat that with goodwill. He appeared at 346 events for Republican candidates this election cycle and was said to be the most requested speaker for GOP candidates. (just trying to keep his face in front of every camera he can find)
"He's built a base across the country, and unlike [in] 2000, John McCain will run a 50-state strategy," McKinnon said. (his base will vote for Hillary)
While emphasizing more bipartisan issues such as campaign finance reform and a patients' bill of rights early in the Bush presidency, McCain has more recently strongly supported the war in Iraq. (woopdeeedoo)
He may very well be the only serious presidential contender calling for more troops to go to Iraq. (Bullshit)
While he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, he supported such an effort in his state — an effort that failed.
McCain has also attempted to reach out to conservative evangelical leaders, as he did with the Rev. Jerry Falwell earlier this year. (good luck LOL)
Appealing to those conservatives while keeping the independents so important to his party's 2008 hopes may pose a considerable challenge. (he can't do it)
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe, Mark Halperin and Teddy Davis contributed to this report.
The Following are some of my opinions of John "The Traitorous Scum" McCain
To use John McCain the Traitorous Scums words "We've been in wars more Dangerous than this and have not changed the Geneva Conventions" He said that on This Week with Stephanopolis. Really Senator what war was more dangerous than the one we are in now? WWI, WWII, or Korea? Oh I know Vietnam right Senator. This shows McCains total lack of even being able to wrap what little mind he has around the dangers we now face.
3000 Americans died in the continental US from an enemy attack. That has NOT happened since the revolutionary war. There are over 1000 KNOWN terrorist cells inside the US right now. We have NO idea how many sleeper cells. A single dispersment of a biological weapon by one man could kill 100s of thousands, a dirty bomb or a nuke could kill millions, or lets be more benign how long before Iran activates any of these cells to just strap suicide belts on and go take a ride on the subway. So tell me Senator enlighten the masses what war was more dangerous than the one we are currently fighting?
I call Senator McCain "the traitorous scum" every time I hear his name. I do this for an honest reason. Amendment I... Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Senator betrayed the Constitution by creating a law that violates both the highlited aspects above of the first amendment. He has also said "I would gladly do away with the First Amendment if I thought it would help end corruption in Government" those two things alone make him a traitor to the very document that he has sworn to uphold and protect.
People always qualify any criticism of the Senator with "He is hero for his service in Vietnam, he was a POW". Well lets look at that. Being a failure as a fighter pilot and getting yourself shot down does NOT make you a hero. It makes you a failure and a POW. Then breaking under the torture administered to you by a signature of "The Geneva Conventions" and signing war crimes confessions, also does not make you a hero. It makes you a traitor and a failure as a Soldier in the US Military.
The Press wants McCain and Hillary, their Dream ticket would be them both. This Man is the second biggest threat that the country faces behind Hillary. He is a THREAT to the Constitution and a true Meglomaniac. The only way I will ever vote for this man is if it is him against the Hildabeast. We as Conservatives MUST NEVER allow that to be our choice. It is not a choice, either pick is a Death Sentence for all of us as Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)