Wednesday, January 31, 2007
An anti-war protester friend of mine once asked me - does it really matter if the anti-war movement is led by communist, pro-Palestinian or anarchist groups. Politics makes strange bedfellows she said. My reply was to ask her if she would participate in a protest led by David Duke, formerly of the Ku Klux Klan. After all, he has a lot in common with United for Peace and Justice. Duke opposes the war in Iraq just as UPJ does. Duke is pro-Palestinian and opposes aid to Israel, just as members of UPJ do. She did not respond.
about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
If a Republican said those words the MSM, the NAALCP, and every Democrat would be screaming for his resignation. I just think it shows what he thinks of people Like Conyers, and Charlie Rangel.
As we were preparing to leave to meet Baitullah, a man came to the militants and handed over a small blue plastic bag.
"This is how Allah takes care of our needs. This is money. Half a million Pakistani rupees [more than $8,200]," Zulfiqar said. I asked who gave it to him. "Someone," was his brief answer.
Baitullah's private army along with other militant groups have imposed a strict Islamic code in North and parts of South Waziristan.
They run a parallel government here. Music and videos are banned while militants claim people approach them for settlement of their disputes.
With a black-dyed beard, 34-year-old Baitullah greeted us in a big room with several of his armed men beside him. We sat on a new colourful quilt spread on the ground.
Baitullah seemed a man with only jihad (holy war) on his mind. During the interview he quoted several verses from the Koran to defend his stance that foreign forces must be evicted from Islamic countries.
"Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world," he says.
The militant leader on several occasions in the past had openly admitted crossing over into Afghanistan to fight foreign troops.
"We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia (a tax in Islam for non-Muslims living in an Islamic state)."
To listen to the media, Karzai and US State Department tell it, you could be forgiven for thinking that Jack and his men were just trawling Afghanistan for people they suspected of links to terrorism in a quite random fashion; that they were common bounty hunters and their operation was amateurish. In fact, Task Force Sabre 7 (Jack's team) were highly-professional, and focussed on preventing a group of Islamofascists from carrying out a series of devastating attacks.
The following is from a press release Jack handed to the media at his August-September 2004 'trial'. Although it fully explains his team's mission, and its importance, no one in MSM ran the story:
After contacting the Pentagon we acted, immediately deploying to Afghanistan, where, working with our former Northern Alliance allies, we captured first Ghulamsaki, the terrorist the FBI was informed of previously, and then subsequently captured 95% of the entire al-Qaida and Hezb-i-Islami terrorist operation cell behind the plot. In four different operations and raids, we captured terrorists, explosives, detonators, and vehicles that were to be used in the terrorist plot.Alongside these assassinations, the terrorist cell Idema was hunting also had big plans when it came to the US troops stationed at Bagram Airbase -- Their intention was to turn one of the daily fuel deliveries (that is, four tankers laden with gasoline) into huge firebombs. Here's Jack's description of this planned-attack:
The plot involved the assassination of the Afghan President, Minister of Defense, Minister of Education, two ambassadors, and the leaders of Massoud’s Jamiat Party. Had any of them been successful it would have resulted in certain civil war and the deaths of untold Afghan and American lives.
Think about this: Four fuel tankers driving into Bagram Air Base (fuel tankers are constantly daily arriving at Bagram) laden with gas and explosives as they passed through the gates. The explosives would never be discovered as the terrorists were using a combination of plastic explosives and incendiary explosives which American bomb dogs could not detect.For his trouble, Jack Idema was falsely accused, arrested, tortured, show-trialed and illegally-imprisoned. We need to bring this man home. Now.
The result would have been flaming bodies of hundreds of American soldiers in a scene that would have dwarfed the Beirut Marine barracks bombing and brought back the vision of burning victims plunging to their deaths on 9/11.
My President said, in September 2001, that all Americans were now soldiers, in the war on terror. He called upon each of us to do whatever we could to stop terror and save American lives. I have done that.
So what can we do? Well, anyone reading this with their own blog can sign up for the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst by emailing Cao or Rottweiler Puppy for details. I'd urge everyone to do this, as we're still terribly short on takers. If you want to know more about the story, Cao's Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There's also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots;, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack's story.
You should also contact the following people and make your feelings known,
especially to write letters of complaint about this despicable situation:
Secret US EMBASSY Fax: - 301-560-5729
(Local US Fax: Goes RIGHT TO Ambassador)
c/o US Ambassador Ronald Neuman
US Embassy- Afghanistan
6180 Kabul Place
Dulles, VA 20189-6180
US Consul Russell Brown - 011-93-70201908 (Fired)
US Consul Addie Harchik- 011-93-70201908
(denied them water and mail at Thanksgiving- Gone)
US Consul Edward Birsner- number yet unknown
US Embassy Translator Wahid - 011-93-70201902
US Embassy Asst Consul Bashir Momman- 011-93-70201923
US Consul (friend) Dawn Schrepel- 011-93-70201908 (Fired)
Ambassador Massoud Khalili
(wounded with Massoud)
(Great and Kind man)
Islamic State of Afghanistan
Embassy of Afghanistan
H.E. Said Tayeb JAWAD (Afghan Ambassador- powerful in US)
(Northern Alliance Good Guy Fired- New Pro Taliban Ambassador)
Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington
2341 Wyoming Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (202) 483-6414
Fax: (202) 483-9523
Mr. Jahed Hamrah, Consul General (pro-Taliban)
CONSULATE GENERAL OF
AFGHANISTAN IN NEW YORK
360 Lexington Avenue,
11th Floor New York,
New, York, NY 10017
Tel.: (212) 972-2276 or 972-2277
Fax: (212) 972-9046
Chairman Peter Hoekstra
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
H-405, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515-6415;
Office: 202-225-4121 / Fax: 202-225-1991
Toll Free: (877) 858-9040
M. Cherif BASSIOUNI
Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights
On the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Ph: +41(0)22 917 97 27 Fax: +41(0)22 917 90 18
Senator Steven Saland (Jack's Rep and Neighbor)
9 Jonathan Lane
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Senator Elizabeth Dole (Jack's Rep)
United States Senate
555 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Senator Richard Burr (Interested)
United States Senate
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3154 / Fax: 202-228-2981
Senator Bill Nelson (in the fight on Jack's Side)
United States Senate
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5274 / Fax: 202-228-2183
FL Fax 407-872-7165
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Bennett's Representative)
United States Senate
Hart Office Building, Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
Representative Mike McIntyre (Jack's Representative)
United States Congress
2437 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-2731 / Fax 202-225-5773
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
(Reference Captain Bennett- CA citizen)
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841 / Fax: 916-445-4633
Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots; and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US;
Technorati Search for Jack Idema
The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:
The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
The Lone Voice
The Devil's Kitchen
Big Dog's Weblog
Right For Scotland
The City Troll
Causes of Interest
Concatenation of Events
Stuck On Stupid
The Daily Blogster
You Don't Know Jack
Right Wing Nation
And Rightly So!
Saturday, January 27, 2007
|My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:|
His Exalted Highness Duke Troll the Perplexed of Lesser Cheese Winston
Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title
Either way somebody's got to do or say something. Right now what we are looking at is a damn mess. On one side you've got Stretch Pelousy and the land swindler Mr. Greed. Who think that they have the support of the American public to usurp
the powers of the commander and chief and run the war from committee, with one goal in mind Fuck Iraq, Fuck the War on Terror, troops home in 6 months and the rest of the world and Hollywood will love us.
Never mind that the only people in the world that will really celebrate that besides the wack pack in LA and the NY Times readers, are the very nations that are plotting to murder us in our apathy and rape our daughters before they stone them for being harlots. Namely Iran and all the little nazi muslims that they can get to strap a bomb on and step into a crowd to shake hands with Allah. The left has even taken the side show on tour with Stretch and Mad Dog Murtha going to tell Maliki he's fucked in person. I guess Teddy's intravenous gin tube wouldn't stretch long enough for him to go with them.
The other side of the isle is just as bad. Just this last week you get an asshole like Hagel forgets to take his medicine and he comes down with delusions that actually make him believe that he could become President on the right side of the isle by cutting our soldiers throats. By joining with the surrender at all cost commie loons on the left. Now there's some sound Senatorial thinkin...
Who else the traitorous Scumbag Captain Queeg McCain, once again cutting off even the slightest hope that if the senate republicans could muster the balls to filibuster the Biden white flag bill, he's working on a new surrender group of 14. Yeah he'll make the compromise to surrender as long as it's worded a little nicer. Where'd the hawk go John? Maybe will just start calling you ole yellow stain...
You got Rudy playing deaf, dumb, and blind about whether or not he'll run, he's certainly not a conservative but he'll fight the war. Tancredo would be a good president but I don't think he has the chops to get past the MSM label of being a racist anti-immigrant. That's how they'll label him because they see no difference between a legal and an ILLEGAL.
And then there's Newt. Hey Newt watch ya gonna do??? He's playing the invisible man. He's who we need. He sure ain't perfect but he is the perfect man for this time in history. Even better how bad the MSM hates him. That will only drive the purists out to vote even more. The question is does he have the balls to pull the trigger and step into the fire?
Well if no Newt or Rudy were stuck facing 3 nightmares #1 Hillary her Thighness queen commie socialist, who'll seize control of healthcare condemning us all to a slow European death, both economically and physically, and when were attacked the same people who were making decisions about our security when her husband was in will be doing it again. Won't that be fun.
Or #2 a true threat to the Constitution, Captain Queeg McCain. Who knows, he's liable to say that elections are the root cause of governmental corruption and decide to issue a presidential order banning all elections. The only saving grace there is Hillary will beat him. NO ONE from the base will come out and vote for John McCain.
That leaves us #3 the War. The Muslim Nazis are coming a lot of them are already here. Waiting. There is no doubt about it. Blood is going to flow in combat in our streets for the first time in over 200 years the enemy will be attacking us on our busses, in our malls, nowhere will be safe and Hillary and the socialists will be running the show. Isn't that sobering.
like the man said "They just weren't prepared for DOOMED FAILURE.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Senate panel rejects Bush's Iraq troop plan
Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:48pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Senate committee on Wednesday rejected President George W. Bush's plan to add troops in Iraq, sending the measure to the full Senate for a vote expected next week.
On a bipartisan vote of 12-9, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution expressing clear disapproval of Bush's Iraq policy, a day after he asked Congress to give it more time to work. The vote is nonbinding, but supporters hope it will convince the president to reconsider.
In his State of the Union address to a defiant Congress on Tuesday, Bush insisted it was not too late to shape the outcome in Iraq with a new strategy. "I ask you to give it a chance to work," Bush said in the speech, the first time he faced a House of Representatives and Senate both controlled by Democrats.
Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the committee's chairman, said the resolution was "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It is an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."
N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 3:23pm GMT 24/01/2007
Audio: Analysis of the developing crisis
In pictures: North Korea's nuclear quest
Leader: Strange bedfellows
Con Coughlin: The ominous relationship
Con Coughlin: A terrifying prospect
North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.
Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.
Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report. Iran's official FARS news agency also reported the comments.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday that U.N. Security Council resolutions against Tehran would not affect Iran's nuclear policies even if 10 more of them were passed.
The U.N. Security Council passed a sanctions resolution on December 23 against Iran, calling for the suspension of Iran's nuclear programme, which the West fears is aimed at making nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge.
"The (U.N.) resolution was born dead and even if they issue 10 more of such resolutions it will not affect Iran's economy and policies," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to parliament broadcast live on state television.
The president has faced increasing public criticism in Iran since the resolution was passed and after his supporters were trounced in local polls in December. Critics say his anti-Western speeches have added to tensions with the West.
"They want to say, through a psychological war, that the resolution has been very effective ... Falsely, they want to say that Iran has paid a price," the president said.
"We have become a nuclear country today without promising anything to the major powers and this is a great victory that belongs to the people and the parliament," he added.
Although the resolution targeted sensitive aspects of Iran's nuclear programme, businesses say investors are being scared off because of the fear of escalation and already meager investment flows are drying up.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Der Spiegel magazine that companies should beware of doing business with Iran and think about the possibility of more sanctions.
"I think people ought to think about the risk of further sanctions. The United States is clearly sanctioning Iranian banks and our laws are very tough on those who deal with banks that we have sanctioned," Rice said according to an English transcript of the interview.
Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, is enjoying windfall oil revenues but its efforts to prime the economy with petrodollars is fuelling inflation and failing to shrink the country's queues of jobless people.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Sat. 20 Jan 2007
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: January 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 — The new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday sharply criticized the Bush administration’s increasingly combative stance toward Iran, saying that White House efforts to portray it as a growing threat are uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who took control of the committee this month, said that the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran’s internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East. (whats to know they have stated with out a doubt that their INTENTION is to DESTROY Israel and the United States. How many times do they have to say it? I guess Senator Rockhead won't believe it till there is a mushroom cloud over Israel or NY. No matter how many times they say it.)
“To be quite honest, I’m a little concerned that it’s Iraq again,” Senator Rockefeller said during an interview in his office. “This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre.” (what is Bizarre Senator is your lack of concern over a nation that is developing nuclear weapons and keeps repeating it is going to destroy us and israel)
Mr. Rockefeller did not say which aspects of the Bush administration’s case against Iran he thought were not supported by solid intelligence. He did say he agreed with the White House that Iranian operatives inside Iraq were supporting Shiite militias and working against American troops. (which just happens to be an act of war, but facts don't count right Senator)
Mr. Rockefeller said he believed President Bush was getting poor advice from advisers who argue that an uncompromising stance toward the government in Tehran will serve American interests. (no it's better advice to talk to the one nation that has been funding terrorism since 1979 rather than stand against them. I guess if we talk to them we can negotiate our surrender on better terms)
“I don’t think that policy makers in this administration particularly understand Iran,” he said. (ah but you do. Yeah this from the man that put out the memo that said the Dems need to use the Inteligence committee as a weapon against the Bush administration to undermine the war effort)
The comments of Mr. Rockefeller reflect the mounting concerns being voiced by other influential Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, about the Bush administration’s approach to Iran. The Democrats have warned that the administration is moving toward a confrontation with Iran when the United States has neither the military resources nor the support among American allies and members of Congress to carry out such a move. (I like that NO SUPPORT from MEMBERS OF CONGRESS to DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST NUCLEAR ATTACK)
Because Mr. Rockefeller is one of a handful of lawmakers with access to the most classified intelligence about the threat from Iran, his views carry particular weight. He has also historically been more tempered in his criticism of the White House on national security issues than some of his Democratic colleagues. (BULLSHIT as already stated he is the one that created the memo instructing the Dems on the commitee to betray our country in order to gain power)
Mr. Rockefeller was biting in his criticism of how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic radicalism since the Sept. 11 attacks, saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was “still a mystery” to the president.
“I don’t think he understands the world,” Mr. Rockefeller said. “I don’t think he’s particularly curious about the world. I don’t think he reads like he says he does.”
He added, “Every time he’s read something he tells you about it, I think.” (yeah and every time you read somthing classified the enemy reads it in the NY Times)
Last week, the Intelligence Committee heard testimony from John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, that an emboldened Iran was casting a shadow across the Middle East and could decide to send Hezbollah operatives on missions to hit American targets.
Mr. Negroponte testified the morning after President Bush had, in a televised address to the nation, said he was determined to confront what he called worrying activities by Iranian operatives in Iraq, and announced that the Pentagon was building up the American naval presence in the Persian Gulf and sending a battery of Patriot missiles to deter Iranian aggression.
Some Democrats have suggested that Mr. Bush’s speech was the beginning of a meticulously choreographed campaign to demonize Iran, much the way the administration built its public case against Iraq. (how does one demonize a nation that provides logistical, financial, material and moral support to terrorists that blow up innocent woman & children as legitimate targets)
In a speech on Friday, Mr. Reid warned the White House not to take military action against Iran without seeking approval from Congress. (so when Iran attacks and we have a million dead jews or dead americans Harry and John can be the ones to explain to the families of the dead that THEY didn't believe Irans threats)
Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said in response to Senator Rockefeller’s comments that Iran was taking provocative actions both inside Iraq and elsewhere, and that American allies were united in efforts to end what intelligence officials believe is a covert nuclear weapons program inside the country. (it is NOT even covert Imamadjihad has bragged over and over about his nuclear weapons program)
“It has been clear for some time that Iran has been meddling in Iraq, and the Iraqis have made the concerns known to the Iranians,” Mr. Johndroe said. He noted that the administration has said it would be willing to begin direct talks with Iran — which have not occurred since 1979 — if Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. (which Irans response was a prompt Fuck You)
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Thursday that over the past year and a half he had come to a “much darker interpretation” of Iran’s activities inside Iraq.
“I think there’s a clear line of evidence that points out the Iranians want to punish the United States, hurt the United States in Iraq, tie down the United States in Iraq, so that our other options in the region, against other activities the Iranians might have, would be limited,” he said. (and if we were to listen to Greid and Rockhead the plan is working)
Mr. Rockefeller’s committee is working to complete a long-delayed investigation into the misuse of intelligence about Iraq in the months before the American-led invasion. (which has been investigated 5 times and found not to be the case each time, but what the hell facts like 1.7TONS of Refined Uranium found in Iraq hasn't meant anything to the Dems upto now Why would we expect them to change their stance now)
He said that the committee was nearing completion on one part of that investigation, concerning whether the White House ignored prewar C.I.A. assessments that Iraq could disintegrate into chaos. (oh it might be hard. You mean like the difficulties of WAR Senator...LOL)
That report, Mr. Rockefeller said, could be released within months and was “not going to make for pleasant reading at the White House.”
Mr. Rockefeller said that with Democrats now in charge of the Intelligence Committee, he expected the panel to be much more aggressive, (New Hearings Every Week) both in investigating the use of intelligence to fashion White House policy and in subjecting secret intelligence programs to new scrutiny. He mentioned the C.I.A’s network of secret prisons and the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program as likely subjects of investigations. (yes yes we must shut down all of our ability to protect ourselves. That's how will win)
“We weren’t able to drill down on a lot of stuff” during the years in which the Intelligence Committee was under Republican control, Mr. Rockefeller said. “Now, there’s a very different attitude.” (like I said a New Hearing Every Week)
I'm glad to be back at the National Press Club. Indeed, at the age of eighty-four, I'm glad to be anywhere. In my younger years when the subject of aging came up, trying to sound worldly wise, I would say, "It doesn't matter so much the number of years you have, but what you do with those years." (it's a shame you wasted yours) I don't say that anymore. I now want to reach a hundred. Why? Because I thoroughly enjoy life and there are so many things I must still do before entering the mystery beyond. The most urgent of these is to get American soldiers out of the Iraqi hellhole Bush-Cheney and their neoconservative theorists have created in what was once called the cradle of civilization. (oh Bush/Cheyney made Iraq a hellhole not the man who used to chop up family members and leave them on a relatives steps) It is believed to be the location of the Garden of Eden. I mention the neoconservative theorists to recall Walter Lippman's observance, "There is nothing so dangerous as a belligerent professor." (or an aged socialist ideolog)
One of the things I miss about my eighteen years in the US Senate are the stories of the old Southern Democrats. I didn't always vote with them, but I loved their technique of responding to an opponent's questions with a humorous story. Once when Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina had to handle a tough question from Mike Mansfield, he said, "You know, Mr. Leader, that question reminds me of the old Baptist preacher who was telling a class of Sunday school boys the creation story. 'God created Adam and Eve and from this union came two sons, Cain and Abel and thus the human race developed.' A boy in the class then asked, 'Reverend, where did Cain and Abel get their wives?' After frowning for a moment, the preacher replied, 'Young man--it's impertinent questions like that that's hurtin' religion.'" (No but It's stories like that that show byour senility George)
Well, Mr. Bush, Jr. I have some impertinent questions for you.
Mr. President, Sir, when reporter Bob Woodward asked you if you had consulted with your father before ordering our army into Iraq you said, "No, he's not the father you call on a decision like this. I talked to my heavenly Father above." My question, Mr. President: If God asked you to bombard, invade and occupy Iraq for four years, why did he send an opposite message to the Pope? Did you not know that your father, George Bush, Sr., his Secretary of State James Baker and his National Security Advisor General Scowcroft were all opposed to your invasion? Wouldn't you, our troops, the American people and the Iraqis all be much better off if you had listened to your more experienced elders including your earthly father? Instead of blaming God for the awful catastrophe you have unleashed in Iraq, wouldn't it have been less self-righteous if you had fallen back on the oft-quoted explanation of wrongdoing, "The devil made me do it?" (What an arogant old ASS. George you would NEVER talk to God before commiting troops to battle for two reasons. One you would rather Americans die in the streets than defend themselves and Two your a socialist that does'nt believe in God. Well we thank God everyday that failures like you never achieved an office high enough to make those decisions. No one is blaming god for anything except maybe the Muslims as they kill Americans in the name of God. Bush never said God told him to invade Iraq but like every man of concience he prayed to God for guidance. Something obviously out of your grasp.)
And Mr. President, after the 9/11 hit against the Twin Towers in New York, which gained us the sympathy and support of the entire world, why did you then order the invasion of Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11? Are you aware that your actions destroyed the international reservoir of good will towards the United States? What is the cost to America of shattering the standing and influence of our country in the eyes of the world? (BULLSHIT your so senile that I guess the words ANY nation that supports terror was on our hitlist Iraq was even named as one of the top 3. It is a WAR ON TERROR you old fart. Not a war on just the people who were involved in 9/11. 9/11 was the wake up call, I guess your still hitting the snooze button.)
Why, Mr. President did you pressure the CIA to report falsely that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons? (That is NOT what happened and 5 investigations by your fellow idiots in congress have proven that NO ONE was presured to lie. And the Chemicle weapons and 1.7TONS of refined Uranium that have been removed from IRAQ Prove those reports to be accurate you ASSHOLE) And when you ordered your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to go to New York and present to the UN the Administration's "evidence" that Iraq was an imminent nuclear threat to the United States, were you aware that after reading this deceitful statement to the UN, Mr. Powell told an aid that the so-called evidence was "bullshit"? (Yes Powell knew better than all the Worlds inteligence agencies what Iraq did and did not have. That's why he ordered his assistant to leak Valerie Plames name to the press to Undermine his commander in chief during war time. That is also why he continued to leak to the press and allow a false investigation to go on for 3 years. There is Mr Powells integrity)
Is it reasonable to you, President Bush, that Colin Powell told you near the end of your first term that he would not be in your Administration if you were to receive a second term? What decent person could survive two full terms of forced lying and deceit? (well he did a damn good job lying by not speeking up for those 3 years that he and Armatage were behind the Plame leak and did everything they could to attack an administration in the middle of a war, but I know to you George those are honorable things, Betraying your country and lack of loyalty to the truth)
And Mr. President, how do you enjoy your leisure time, and how can you sleep at night knowing that 3,014 young Americans have died in a war you mistakenly ordered? What do you say to the 48,000 young Americans who have been crippled for life in mind or body? What is your reaction to the conclusion of the leading British medical journal (Lancet) that since you ordered the bombardment and occupation of Iraq four years ago, 600,000 Iraqi men, women and children have been killed? What do you think of the destruction of the Iraqi's homes, their electrical and water systems, their public buildings? (And how will you Sleep McGovern when your deciples strip away our security and 100,000 americans die from a dirty bomb or Chemicle weapons, your a dnagerous old fool)
And Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, while neither of you has ever been in combat (Mr. Cheney asking and receiving five deferments from the Vietnam War), have you not at least read or been briefed on the terrible costs of that ill-advised and seemingly endless American war in tiny Vietnam? Do you realize that another Texas President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, declined to seek a second term in part because he had lost his credibility over the disastrous war in Vietnam? Are you aware that one of the chief architects of that war, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, resigned his office and years later published a book declaring that the war was all a tragic mistake? Do you know this recent history in which 58,000 young Americans died in the process of killing 2 million Vietnamese men, women and children? If you do not know about this terrible blunder in Vietnam, are you not ignoring the conclusion of one of our great philosophers: "Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it." And, Mr. President, in your ignorance of the lessons of Vietnam, are you not condemning our troops and our people to repeat the same tragedy in Iraq? (Iraq IS NOT Vietnam and the mistakes of those DEMOCRATS that you've just named are NOT being repeated here. Hopefully the mistakes made by even more Democrats like Teddy (drown'em young) Kennedy after the pullout that lead to millions being slaughtered because the Dems cut them off and left them to die. Will not be allowed to be repeated again by your deciples that are now in power in congress. All though they are already trying their best to repeat the process that lead to millions of dead vietnamese.)
During the long years between 1963 and 1975 when I fought to end the American war in Vietnam, first as a US Senator from South Dakota and then as my party's nominee for President, my four daughters ganged up on my one night. "Dad, why don't you give up this battle? You've been speaking out against this crazy war since we were little kids. When you won the Democratic presidential nomination, you got snowed under by President Nixon." In reply I said, "Just remember that sometimes in history even a tragic mistake produces something good. The good about Vietnam is that it is such a terrible blunder, we'll never go down that road again." Mr. President, we're going down that road again. So, what do I tell my daughters? And what do you tell your daughters? (your wrong sir that Blunder is trying to repeat itself at the hands of Nancy Pelousy and Harry Gried. I know what I tell my daughters That if the Dems get their way we have to be prepaired to to fight here at home and defend ourselves Because their policies are leading directly to suicide bombers killing americans here in america)
Mr. President, I do not speak either as a pacifist or a draft dodger. I speak as one who after the attack on Pearl Harbor, volunteered at the age of nineteen for the Army Air Corps and flew thirty-five missions as a B-24 bomber. I believed in that war then and I still do sixty-five years later. And so did the rest of America. Mr. President, are you missing the intellectual and moral capacity to know the difference between a justified war and a war of folly in Vietnam or Iraq? (Oh the WAR on TERROR is not justified it is our fate and destiny to die in the name of ALLAH gee thanks for cluing us in Mr. McGovern I always thought defending your family and country was the right thing to do. Thank you for informing me that offering my throat to the enemy to slice is the more proper thing to do)
Public opinion polls indicate that two-thirds of the American people think that the war in Iraq has been a mistake on your part. It is widely believed that this war was the central reason Democrats captured control of both houses of Congress. (well thats a stupid belief that is trying to be sold by people who ran on nothing trying to claim a mandate for anything) Polls among the people of Iraq indicate that nearly all Iraqis want our military presence in their country for the last four years to end now. Why do you persist in defying public opinion in both the United States and Iraq and throughout the other countries around the globe? Do you see yourself as omniscient? What is your view of the doctrine of self-determination, which we Americans hold dear? ( no sir what is your view of the doctrine of self preservation?)
And wonder of wonders, Mr. President, after such needless death and destruction, first in the Vietnamese jungle and now in the Arabian desert, how can you order 21,500 more American troops to Iraq? Are you aware that as the war in Vietnam went from bad to worse, our leaders sent in more troops and wasted more billions of dollars until we had 550,000 US troops in that little country? It makes me shudder as an aging bomber pilot to remember that we dropped more bombs on the Vietnamese and their country than the total of all the bombs dropped by all the air forces around the world in World War II. Do you, Mr. President, honestly believe that we need tens of thousands of additional troops plus a supplemental military appropriation of $200 billion before we can bring our troops home from this nightmare in ancient Baghdad? (once again we thank God that you never were elected to office of the President Mr. McGovern. Your insistance on comparing this war to vietnam only shows that you must have joined those protesters back in the 60s smoking dope and doing drugs, because your mind is stuck on stupid and stuck on the threats of 40yrs ago.)
In your initial campaign for the Presidency, Mr. Bush, you described yourself as a "compassionate conservative". What is compassionate about consigning America's youth to a needless and seemingly endless war that has now lasted longer than World War II? And what is conservative about reducing the taxes needed to finance this war and instead running our national debt to nine trillion dollars with money borrowed from China, Japan, Germany and Britain? Is this wild deficit financing your idea of conservatism? (the government over the last six years under George Bush with his tax cuts has broken every record for revenue recieved by the government. Spending on useless social programs like welfare and socialized medicine is what has caused and is causing our dept. You doddering old fool) Mr. President, how can a true conservative be indifferent to the steadily rising cost of a war that claims over $7 billion a month, $237 million every day? Are you troubled to know as a conservative that just the interest on our skyrocketing national debt is $760,000 every day. Mr. President, our Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that if the war were to continue until 2010 as you have indicated it might, the cost would be over a trillion dollars. (which is still Trillions of dollars less than your fruitless wars on poverty and drugs)
Perhaps, Mr. President, you should ponder the words of a genuine conservative - England's nineteenth-century member of Parliament, Edmund Burke: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood". (and a sane man would believe a man holding a gun that says follow Allah or die, and he would act to protect his family from the Terror)
And, Mr. President at a time when your most respected generals have concluded that the chaos and conflict in Iraq cannot be resolved by more American dollars and more American young bodies, do you ever consider the needs here at home of our own anxious and troubled society? What about the words of another true conservative, General and President Dwight Eisenhower who said that, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." (and yet he supported the use and development of Nuclear weapons because he KNEW sometimes all you can do to survive is KILL the ENEMY before they kill you)
And, Mr. President, would not you and all the rest of us do well to ponder the farewell words of President Eisenhower: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Finally, Mr. President, I ask have you kept your oath of office to uphold the Constitution when you use what you call the war on terrorism to undermine the Bill of Rights? On what constitutional theory do you seize and imprison suspects without charge, sometimes torturing them in foreign jails? On what constitutional or legal basis have you tapped the phones of Americans without approval of the courts as required by law? Are you above the Constitution, above the law, and above the Geneva accords? If we are fighting for freedom in Iraq as you say, why are you so indifferent to protecting liberty here in America? (the Constitution does NOT APPLY to Forigners and ENEMY COMBATENTS and the CONSTITUTION give the PRESIDENT and the President alone the power to fight our wars Congress can ONLY control the purse And unlike the members of congress maybe he understands the part of the oath that says to protect from ENEMIES BOTH FORIEGN AND DOMESTIC)
Many Americans are now saying in effect, "The American war in Iraq has created a horrible mess but how can we now walk away from it?" William Polk, a former Harvard and University of Chicago professor of Middle East Studies and a former State Department expert on the Middle East, has teamed up with me on a recent book requested by Simon and Schuster. It is entitled, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now. I feel awkward praising it, so I give you the respected journalist of the New York Times, and now of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen who told Charlie Rose on his excellent TV program: "There is a wonderful book I am recommending to everyone. It's a very small, readable book by George McGovern and William Polk called Out of Iraq. And it just very quickly runs you through the history of the country, the makeup of the country, how we got in, the arguments for getting in--many of which don't withstand scrutiny--and how we can get out. It's like a little primer. I think the entire nation should read it and then we will be united." (Oh yes your great words will convince us that by not fighting to save our lives our enemy will no longer wish to kill us... What a maroon)
If you need a second for the judgment of Anna Quindlen, I give you the esteemed Library Journal: "In this crisp and cogently argued book, former Senator McGovern and scholar Polk offer a trenchant and straightforward critique of the war in Iraq. What makes their highly readable book unique is that it not only argues why the United States needs to disengage militarily from Iraq now...but also clearly delineates practical steps for troop withdrawal...Essential reading for anybody who wants to cut through the maze of confusion that surrounds current US policy in Iraq, this book is highly recommended for public and academic libraries." (Check out the reviews on a better more informative book for todays times called The Politicly Incorrect Guide to Islam. That is the book that everyone should read and then they would be united in telling you and your ilk to go pound sand)
Professor Polk is a descendant of President Polk and the brother of the noted George Polk, is here today from his home in southern France and he will join me at the podium as I conclude this impartial interrogation of President Bush. And now, members of the National Press Club and your guests, it's your turn to cross-examine Bill Polk and me in, of course, an equally impartial manner. (well thank God we don't have to suffer through his idiot ramblings at this moment)
To sum up Mr. McGovern your a senile old ASS whose policies and beliefs will lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans here at home. Thank you for reminding us how insanly stupid you and those that follow you are....
Friday, January 19, 2007
LOL ya gotta love it when even one of their own says their full of crap
Keeping Up Appearances
The Democrats' congressional reform measures do next to nothing to get at the real source of political corruption in Washington.
By Robert B. Reich
Web Exclusive: 01.17.07
Democrats are eager to show they're serious about reforming the way Congress does business. So they're pushing a new ethics and lobbying bill that will ban gifts, meals, and free trips from lobbyists and their clients, and require that the legislative sponsors of all earmarks for pet projects be identified in the legislation.
But calling these reforms is like saying you've cleaned the house when all you've done is taken out the garbage.
The real scandal in Washington is the everyday bribery that remains legal. I'm talking about campaign contributions given for legislative favors -- a particular provision in this or that bill, an amendment here, an earmarked appropriation there. Lobbyists orchestrate this contemptible process. And members of Congress keep it going because the money buys television time for their re-election campaigns, and television advertising keeps them in power.
The system is out of control. It cost the average candidate three times more to run for Congress in 2006 than it did in 1990, adjusting for inflation. Members now devote most of their time to fund raising instead of representing their constituents.
The number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled over the past ten years. Now, there are 60 of them for every single member of Congress. They spent $2.4 billion last year. And at the rate they continue to spend, you can bet they’re getting every penny’s worth for their clients.
Banning gifts, meals, and junkets won’t make any difference to this everyday exchange of campaign money for legislative favors. And disclosing who sponsors what earmarks won’t reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars going to special interests because the incentives to make the deal are still there, on both sides. Under these circumstances, a disclosure is like an advertisement -- look what I’ve done for my contributors! Ten years ago, there were 3,000 earmarks. Last year, there were 14,000, costing taxpayers over $47 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The problem extends beyond earmarks. Consider what happened to the Democrat’s Medicare drug bill. It was supposed to force Medicare to bargain for lower drug prices, but it doesn’t allow Medicare to remove from its approved list drugs not offered at a discount. Chalk up another one for Big Pharma and its campaign slush fund.
The only way to stop the system of legalized bribery is to cut it off at its roots. Require television and radio networks that use the public airwaves to offer candidates free time. Give public financing to candidates who agree to strict limits on fund-raising. And ban earmarks altogether. There's no good reason why taxpayer money should be appropriated for any special interest.
The Democrats took over Congress a few weeks ago on a tidal wave of public outrage about the way business is done in Washington. But their ethics and lobbying bill won’t change the way business is done in Washington. It will only change the way it appears to be done.
Robert Reich is a Prospect co-founder. This column is adapted from Professor Reich's weekly commentary on American Public Radio's Marketplace.
By Patrick Buchanan (an Angry man)
No sooner had Sens. Hagel and Biden announced their resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Bush surge of 21,500 troops to Iraq was not in the national interest than the stampede was on. By day's end, Sens. Dodd, Clinton, Bayh, Levin and Obama and ex-Sen. John Edwards had all made or issued statements calling for reversing course or getting out.
You can't run a war by committee, said Vice President Cheney.
True. George Washington did not request a vote of confidence from the Continental Congress before crossing the Delaware, and Douglas MacArthur did not consult Capitol Hill before landing at Inchon.
But Congress is not trying to run a war. Congress is trying to get out of Iraq and get on record opposing the "surge." Congress is running after popular opinion.
And if the surge does not succeed in six months in quelling the sectarian violence in Baghdad, there will be no more troops, and the Americans will start down the road to Kuwait. And, unlike 2003, there will be no embedded and exhilarated journalists riding with them.
To the older generation, the American way of abandonment is familiar. JFK's New Frontiersmen marched us, flags flying, into Vietnam. But, as the body count rose to 200 a week, the "Best and Brightest" suddenly discovered this was a "civil war," "Nixon's war" and the Saigon regime was "corrupt and dictatorial." So, with a clean conscience, they cut off funds and averted their gaze as Pol Pot's holocaust ensued.
Our Vietnamese friends who did not make it out on the choppers, or survive the hellish crossing of the South China Sea by raft, wound up shot in the street or sent to "re-education camps."
Nouri al-Maliki can see what is coming.
As Condi flies about the Middle East in a security bubble, telling the press he is living on "borrowed time," and Bush tells PBS of his revulsion at the botched hanging of Saddam Hussein, Maliki is showing the same signs of independence he demonstrated when he refused Bush's invitation to dine with him and the king of Jordan. Give me the guns and equipment and go home, he seems to be saying to the White House.
Put me down on Maliki's side. It is he who is taking the real risk here -- with his life. It is he who is likely to learn what Kissinger meant when he observed that in this world, while it is often dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, to be a friend is fatal.
Will the surge work? Can it work? Certainly, adding thousands of the toughest cops in America to the LAPD would reduce gang violence in South Central. So, it may work for a time.
Yet in the long run it is hard to see how the surge succeeds. We are four years into this war, and the bloodletting in Baghdad is rising. Our presence has never been more resented. In America, the war has already been lost. Even Bush admits that staying the course means "slow failure." And a rapid withdrawal, as urged by the Baker-Hamilton commission, means "expedited failure."
Even should the surge succeed for a time, it may only push the inevitable into another year.
And consider what it is we are asking Maliki to do.
We want him to use Sunni and Kurdish brigades of the Iraqi Army, in concert with the U.S. Army, to smash the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, the most popular Shia leader in the country and the principal political support of Maliki. We are asking Maliki to turn on his ruthless Shia patron and bet his future on an America whose people want all U.S. troops home, the earlier the better.
For Maliki to implement fully the U.S. conditions would make him a mortal enemy of Moqtada and millions of Shia, and possibly result in his assassination. Whatever legacy Bush faces, he is not staring down a gun barrel at that.
The truth: There is only one U.S. policy guaranteed to work if we are resolved to keep Iraq in the U.S. camp. That is to send an army of 500,000 to 750,000 U.S. troops into Iraq for an indefinite period, to pacify Baghdad, retake and hold Anbar and secure the borders against jihadis. Even that kind of commitment, beyond the present capacity of the U.S. Army and Marines, would not secure America's position, once the inevitable withdrawal began.
It is over. What we need to face now are the consequence of the folly of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice in launching this unnecessary and unprovoked war, the folly of the neocon snake oil salesmen who bamboozled the media into believing in this insane crusade to bring democracy to Baghdad in the belly of Bradley fighting vehicles and the folly of the Democratic establishment in handing Bush a blank check for war out of political fear of being called unpatriotic.
There is a lot I don't agree with Mr Buchanan on these days, but I do love the way the man can work up the emotion in a good rant.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Hillary Clinton rejects Bush Iraq plan
Jan 17 9:30 AM US/Eastern
US Senator Hillary Clinton rejected President George W. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, saying Baghdad was not committed militarily or politically to assuming control of the country.
In media interviews on the heels of a visit to Iraq where she met Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and top US commanders, Clinton said Bush's strategy for quelling violence in the country does not have a good chance of success.
"The Iraqi government is not committed to taking the steps both militarily and politically that would help them to gain control over Baghdad and other places in the country," Clinton told NBC television in an interview.
"I do not think that this strategy has a very high level of success at all attached to it. In fact, I think that at best it's a holding pattern."
Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008, had previously taken a cautious stance on Bush's new strategy on Iraq, announced last week.
Clinton said that instead of Bush's plan to increase US troops in Iraq by 21,500 in an attempt to restore security in Baghdad and Al-Anbar province, she backs placing an immediate cap on the number of US troops in the country, currently about 132,000.
"I support the beginning of a phased redeployment out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq completely."
Monday, January 15, 2007
Conundrum that's a nice word for the mess that is Philly. Last year the number of Murders in the city was 467. Already this year we are at 26 and today is only the 15th of January.
Today Bill Cosby lead a march for community awareness. He was joined by Dwight Evans and a large contingent of Philly's recovering community. Those recovering from Drugs, Violence, and the Streets. Even though I am sure that anyone could find fault with many that marched. The sentiment was pure. It won't amount to more than a hill of shit but it does show that even in the war zone that's Philly hope can still show you it's there.
What the real situation is in Philly is that over a third of those between the age of 18-35 are hardcore animals that could give a rats ass about Martin Luther King, the Law or their fellow human beings. The majority are African American. I say this not to make it racial. Only because it is a fact. A matter of population nothing else, and it is a psychological element also.
Being that is also the Racial profile of those in Authority. The Mayor and majority of City council are black, the Police Chief is black, and the majority of the police force are black and Hispanic.
Here is the conundrum. What needs to be done is the police need to take physical tactical control of large sections of the city. In doing this many criminals will be shot, beat, and killed. That's what happens when criminals who murder and deal drugs for a living carry guns and resist arrest. I say this also because it is a fact. Nothing more, it is the nature of police work and career criminals.
So how does a Black administration crack down on a black on black crime wave? Is it even capable of doing so after years and years of political pacification. Well it's obvious that the City of Philadelphia has proven that it can't. Our city is the Living or dying depending on your perspective proof that the Democrat philosophy of society does not work.
For over 50yrs the city of Philly has been democrat controlled. This is the end result 467 murders last year 26 already this year, one of the highest dropout rates in the country for schools. The school situation is so bad that last month they called all the parents in the Sr public schools to an auditorium to tell them if they couldn't get their kids to attend school they the parents would be arrested. And a police force that can't keep the peace and hide in their police cars.
These are the same type of people that now run the country.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
From Iraq The Model
Insurgents and terrorists are already abandoning some of their positions in Baghdad and moving to Diyala, al-Sabah said::
In Diyala, politicians, religious and tribal figures demanded that their province be included in the security plan of Baghdad. This came after dozens of foreign Arab militants ran away from Baghdad to areas across Diyala in order to avoid raids by the Iraqi and American forces during the incoming security plan to secure Baghdad.
Eyewitnesses told al-Sabah that areas such as New Baquba, Gatoon and al-Zour in Miqdadiya have become convenient bases for terrorists and foreign al-Qaeda members from Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.
This movement of terrorists forced most of the families in these areas to leave either to neighboring countries or to the southern provinces.
The people are asking the interior and defense ministries and the MNF to seal the entrances and exits in order to contain and capture those terrorists in order for Baghdad's plan to succeed. In the same regard a knowledgeable security source stressed that the success of Baghdad's plan depends on the stability of surrounding provinces, especially Diyala…
Actually the people in Diyala have every reason to worry about such migration of terror cells because in fact even without reading what those eyewitnesses and officials had to say one would expect insurgents and terrorists to choose hiding in Diyala rather than other provinces until the security operations are through.
I can see some reasons for this choice; Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda fighters would prefer Diyala over Anbar because:
-They have established many bases in the both, but;
-Anbar is expecting 4,000 additional troops. This along with increased pressure by the tribes in Anbar and the fact that reaching Diyala would be easier than Anbar make Diyala the alternative.
On the other hand and at the same time Sadr's militiamen seem to have chosen Diwaniya to be their destination in case they come under fire in Baghdad, the same al-Sabah report adds:
The national security officer in Diwaniya Mehdi Abu-D'ayna stressed that his province that enjoys stability would possibly turn into a shelter for militants escaping areas of tension similar to what happened in the past.
But he also pointed out the security measures that are underway to stop militants from entering the city such as increasing the number of checkpoints and asking the locals for more cooperation in monitoring strangers.
And the reasons to expect this movement here are clear as well; first of all Diwaniya is not far away from Baghdad, and the past few months had shown the level of the Sdarists strength in that city when order was restored only after reinforcements were summoned from neighboring provinces.
The Sadrists feel they are very strong in Diwaniya and what their man in the city said yesterday shows the level of extremism of the Sadr followers in this city. This is the same man who ordered the execution of unarmed Iraqi soldiers last summer and his threat this time shows a strange lust for violence that is likely to attract militiamen who want to keep fighting regardless of place.
Both cases indicate that the bad guys are adjusting their plans as the government and US military adjust theirs. The clear and hold tactic means militants will have little chance to maneuver within Baghdad like they used to do to work around previous crackdowns so now they are planning to make long-range maneuvers in provinces outside Baghdad.
Although the main objective of the new security plan is securing Baghdad, it would be a good idea for the military commanders to keep an eye on a few other provinces because we don't want to fight the same men twice, or thrice!
Posted by Omar
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Vocal Supporter of Bush Is Increasingly Critical, Isolated
By Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A01
There is no mistaking the anguish of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Sitting in his Senate office, he is uncharacteristically subdued, his voice at times almost inaudible. (it's a shame he can't remain inaudible)
Although the Bush administration this week finally embraced his long-standing call to send more troops to Iraq, McCain believes the way it has handled the war "will go down as one of the worst" mistakes in the history of the American military. (your a maroon McCain)
"One of the most frustrating things that's ever happened in my political life," he said, "is watching this train wreck." (I guess another frustrating period of your life was when you failed as a Pilot and got shot down in Vietnam, or was it when you betrayed your country and fellow prisoners and signed a war crimes confession)
McCain, an all but announced presidential candidate, offered those assessments toward the end of a lengthy interview Thursday night. No politician in the United States is more clearly identified with President Bush's new policy, and no politician has more to lose if it fails. Democratic opponents have already coined a name for the troop "surge": the McCain Doctrine. (Oh please this idiots only Doctrine is McCain for McCain)
McCain made it clear that he supports Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq as the only way to prevent that country from slipping further into chaos. "I cannot guarantee success, but I can guarantee failure if we don't adopt this new strategy," he said. (You can't guarantee anything except that no matter what happens you'll be in front of a camera saying I told ya so)
But he also voiced deep frustration over what the war has done, both to this country and to Iraq. "I think many things that have happened in the world that are unfavorable to the United States are the result of our weakness in the Iraqi conflict," he said. (if we are showing ANY WEAKNESS in Iraq it's all coming from Politicians like you John)
Asked how the war may affect his candidacy, McCain shrugged off the question. "I can't think about it or worry about it," he said. "I have to do what I think is right." (God Help Us All, considering this is the idiot that said he would do away with the First Ammendment if HE thought it would help end corruption in Congress. Yeah kill our free speech because you guys are corrupt thats the ticket)
On the night of Bush's speech, he told CNN's Larry King: "I would much rather lose an election than lose a war." (Glad to hear it because you will lose the elections to even be the candidate John)
The risk now is that both could be lost. (the war can only be lost if politicians lose it)
As a forceful advocate for a policy that appears to fly in the face of the message voters sent in November, (the voters never sent that message) the politician who has long played for the center of the electorate now finds himself isolated on the right.
"The war is going badly, and he is now the leading public advocate of more of the same or even much more of the same," said Ron Klain, a Democratic strategist and chief of staff to then-Vice President Al Gore. "That's an odd place to be." (someone who worked for Chicken Little?)
At a time when many Republicans are voicing opposition to Bush's plan, McCain is not budging. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, explained the political stakes in the simplest terms. "If we're successful, he'll get the benefit," Graham said, referring to Iraq. "If we fail, he'll get the blame." (Either way McCain will get nothing)
Two Democratic presidential candidates, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, have cast McCain as the architect of the troop increase. MoveOn.org's political action committee plans television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire next week attacking McCain on the issue. (aah attacking one of their own)
Would the Arizona senator describe the new policy as the embodiment of a McCain Doctrine for Iraq? "No, but I am willing to accept it as a McCain principle," he said Thursday night. "And that is, when I sign up, when I raise my hand and vote to go to war, that I want to see the completion of the mission." (Gee John thats mighty big of ya)
McCain said the policy's defenders must work harder to change public opinion. "I admit that this is a challenge to us," he said. "But I can make the counterargument that withdrawal means defeat and chaos." Advocates for withdrawal, he said, must explain why that would not result in even greater chaos. (well he gets one thing right for a change)
"What happens when Americans are no longer there?" he asked. "I think you could see some pretty horrific scenes on television sets in America." (not according to the Dems. According to them we leave and everyone there will join hands and sing Koom Bi Ah. Just like they did after we pulled out of Vietnam)
It is a considerable irony, given their histories, that McCain's political future is now so closely tied to the president's ability to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion. (McCain has no national political future)
The two battled bitterly over the 2000 GOP presidential nomination. In 2004, they brokered a rapprochement that appeared politically beneficial to both: Bush gained the high-profile support of the Republican with the broadest appeal to independent voters, and McCain gained respect and admiration from conservative Republicans who had opposed his candidacy in 2000 and who are critical to his hopes for the nomination in 2008. (LOL this reporter is smokin dope if he believes that last paragraph)
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain offered lavish praise for Bush as a wartime president. Bush, he said, "has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time. . . . He has not wavered. He has not flinched from the hard choices. He will not yield. And neither will we." (unless the pols say you should right John)
McCain said he has no regrets over the role he played in helping Bush win reelection, given his belief that the administration has so badly mismanaged the war. "Did I support the strategy? No, I didn't," he said. "But I certainly didn't see his opponent, who was advocating withdrawal, as advocating any kind of viable proposal," he added, referring to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). (what do you want Senator a medal or a chest to pin it on)
His differences with the administration, he said, were well known as far back as 2004 -- his lack of confidence in then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his belief even then that the administration needed to send more troops to Iraq. "Every hearing, every opportunity that I had -- my staff has compiled it already a hundred times where I said, 'This is not going right. You've got to get more people on the ground here,' " he said. (anything to get on camera)
McCain has long tried to balance his advocacy for the mission in Iraq with his criticism of the administration, (BULLSHIT) always putting some distance between himself and the White House. He did the same in the days before Bush's prime-time speech Wednesday night. "There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops," he said at a forum at the American Enterprise Institute. "To be of value, the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained."
Does the new policy meet those tests? McCain offers an equivocal answer. He said he has been assured by Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the president's choice to take over command in Iraq, that 20,000 additional troops should be enough, but that if they are not, Petraeus can ask Bush for more. (gee John we feel better now that you have said that the General assured you that Bush assured him. What would we do with out you)
"He tells me, 'I think I can do it with this number,' " McCain said. "So I'm supposed to be a Monday-morning quarterback? (well thats what you have been this whole war Senator) I'm not going over there and command. I'm only sitting here trying to figure out the best way we can win this conflict." (and it gauls you that you don't have one word to say in the matter)
His advisers dismiss suggestions that McCain has shrewdly left himself room to argue that Bush's plan for more troops was not substantial or sustained enough to ensure success. They, like the possible candidate, see the perils of his position -- but potential benefits as well. (don't worry he'll say it wasn't enough or the number HE wanmted if it fails)
"At the core of the issue is who he is, and that's what generates his popularity," (McCain only has popularity in the press, The people of his party don't like him) said Rick Davis, one of McCain's top political advisers. "It's that he puts principle ahead of politics, (BULLSHIT) that he tells it like he sees it regardless of the political ramifications."
McCain's character was shaped by the previous great conflict that divided America -- the Vietnam War -- and is being tested by the current conflict, which has done the same. A prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain is now a hostage of a different sort -- his political future tied in part to the president, the Pentagon and an Iraqi government in which he has limited confidence. (well I hope he doesn't betray his country like he did the last time)
McCain, who has helped broker many deals between Republicans and Democrats over the years, sees no opportunity to do so on Iraq. He opposed the only bipartisan plan on the table -- the report of the Iraq Study Group, which called for the withdrawal of most combat forces by early next year -- and finds himself at odds with most Democratic friends (one exception being Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, reelected as an independent) and longtime Republican allies such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. (idiot Hagel is a cut and runner)
"We've either got to do what's necessary, in my considered view, that can lead to success in Iraq, or withdrawal, which in my view is going to lead to catastrophic consequences," he said. "I don't know where you find a middle ground there." (there is none, but I have confidense Senator no matter what happens you'll find your way in front of a camera and either try to take credit or try to say if they had only done it your way. ASSHOLE)
Friday, January 12, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal deficit has improved significantly in the first three months of the new budget year, helped by a continued surge in tax revenues.
In its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Friday that the deficit from October through December totaled $80.4 billion, the smallest imbalance for the first three months of a budget year since The budget year ends Sept. 30.
Tax collections are running 8.2 percent (even with the Bush Tax Cuts) higher than a year ago while government spending is up by just 0.7 percent from a year ago. Last year's spending totals were boosted by significant payments to help the victims of the Gulf Coast hurricanes.
The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.
The $80.4 billion deficit for the first three months of the current budget year was down 32.6 percent from the imbalance for the same period a year ago of $119.4 billion.
For the year, analysts are still forecasting that the deficit will worsen from last year's total of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest in four years.
The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the 2007 budget year will rise to $286 billion, an increase of 15.2 percent from last year, but that figure could be lowered when the CBO releases its revised estimate later this month.
The Bush administration is currently even more pessimistic, predicting a deficit for 2007 of $339.2 billion, but that figure will also be revised when the administration releases its new budget request to Congress on Feb. 5.
Bush, who took office while the country was running record surpluses, (that's a LIE the country has never run a surplus, show me the numbers from ANY FISCAL YEAR in the last 50 that shows a surplus) saw the deficit hit an all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004.
President Bush has said his new budget will outline a path to eliminate the deficit completely by 2012. (not with the Dems or the current Republicans that are in power)
For the first three months of the current budget year, revenues total $573.5 billion, an increase of 8.2 percent from tax collections in the same period a year ago. Outlays totaled $653.9 billion, up 0.7 percent from a year ago.
US reinforcements will go home in coffins': Sadr aide
A spokesman for radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has warned that US President George W. Bush's new Iraq strategy risks sending thousands of American troops to their deaths.
"The American people have to prevent their sons from coming to Iraq or they may return in coffins," said Sheikh Abdel Razzaq al-Nadawi, a senior official in Sadr's movement in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.
On Wednesday, Bush announced a plan to reinforce the 130,000-strong US force in Iraq with 21,500 extra troops to help Iraqi forces take on illegal militias such as Sadr's feared Mahdi Army.
"The problem of Iraq is the US presence and the increasing this presence will double the problem," Nadawi told AFP on Friday.
"This is not the first plan announced by Bush. All plans have failed and this plan will not be any better. We do not welcome this strategy and moreover we do not welcome the US soldiers," he said.
Nadawi accused Bush of taking decisions about Iraq's security without consulting Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government, who owes his job to the votes of 32 Sadrist deputies.
Another Sadr movement mouthpiece, Hamdalla al-Rikabi of the group's office in western Baghdad, accused the United States of wanting to spread chaos in Iraq rather than to contain it.
"Now we know that the occupation forces the supporters of terrorism. They don't want stability of this country, they want to divide it," he said.
"Increasing the number of foreign troops is a stab in the heart for the sovereignty of the elected government," he told AFP. "We support all efforts to stop violence but these efforts should be Iraqi. We reject the interference of any state in Iraq's affairs."
Sadr is one of the strongest opponents of the US presence in Iraq and his Mahdi Army has been branded by the Pentagon as the most dangerous faction in Iraq's bloody sectarian war.
The Iraqi government has given a grudging welcome to Bush's new strategy, but insists that it must take the lead role in future security operations.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
By: David Bedein, The Bulletin
The Middle East News Line revealed last week that U.S. military has found evidence that Iran helped train and equip al-Qaida's network in Iraq.
Officials said the U.S. military has been analyzing Iranian intelligence memorandums and other reports that detail Tehran's support of al-Qaida in Iraq. They said the captured Iranian documents marked the strongest confirmation of long-standing assessments that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was aiding both Sunni and Shiite insurgents in the effort to undermine Iraq and expel the U.S.-led coalition.
"The documents have been determined as authentic and provide the most detailed evidence of Iran's strategy in Iraq," an official said. "In short, Iran has been helping everybody, with the possible exception of the Saddam people, against us."
The U.S. military captured the Iranian documents in December during the arrest of suspected Iranian intelligence commanders in Baghdad. The documents had been in possession of a suspected commander known only as Chizari. Chizari was captured inside a compound of Shiite leader Abdul Aziz Hakim, who earlier met President George W. Bush.
Officials said U.S. Army intelligence determined that the documents marked correspondence from and to the Quds Force. The Quds Force has been identified as the foreign arm of the IRGC and responsible for liaisons with insurgency groups throughout the Middle East.
The Iranian documents portray IRGC as a major facilitator of both Sunni and Shiite groups, some of them involved in the sectarian war in Iraq. They included Sunni groups responsible for the mass-casualty suicide car bombings against Shiites in the Baghdad area.
"The Quds Force has determined that Iran could convert some of these Sunni cells into allies of Tehran," an official said. "Otherwise, all of the Sunni fighters will come under Saudi control."
Officials identified the Sunni groups aided by Iran as al-Qaida in Iraq and Ansar Al Sunna. They said the documents also included names and cell phone numbers of the Sunni liasions with the IRGC.
Other documents were said to have outlined insurgency strategy and methods. The U.S. military also found an Iranian assessment of the Iraqi civil war and goals of the Quds Force.
Michael Ledeen, a former Pentagon official, said the Quds Force documents have left U.S. intelligence officials flabbergasted. Ledeen said the documents included charts that contain the links between Shiite and Sunni groups with Iran.
"It seems that our misnamed Intelligence community had grossly underestimated the sophistication and the enormity of the Iranian war campaign," Ledeen said.
Russian Anti-Aircraft Missiles For Iran
The Israeli security establishment is worried about the steady improvement in defense ties between Russia and Iran in general, and in particular the new arms deal which is taking shape between the two countries. According to the latest reports, Russia is about to sign a contract for the sale of a large quantity of the most advanced ground-to-air missile batteries. A senior official in the Israeli security establishment said Saturday that the missiles are intended for the "protection of the Iranian nuclear capability" and that "little by little Russia is increasingly becoming a negative factor in the Middle East."
The new contract which is being planned between the two countries will significantly upgrade the level of Iran's air defenses, and will enable Iran to deploy anti-aircraft missile batteries around all its significant nuclear facilities, to defend them against any foreign air strike, including a possible Israeli attack. In the security establishment, Russia's conduct is being condemned in the strongest terms, and in Jerusalem officials are expressing concern about this development.
"They have once again become a ruthless empire, without inhibitions, arrogant and dark," a senior Israeli official said Saturday. "They don't care about anything. They are willing to mortgage world security for the coming generations for just another arms deal and a few hundred million dollars. It is a total lack of responsibility."
For this reason, not a few elements in Israel are criticizing the plan of the Infrastructure Ministry to try to reach a multi-million dollar agreement with Gazprom, the giant Russian natural gas producer. "It is totally unacceptable to be dependent on Mubarak for natural gas on the one hand, and to be prisoners of Putin and the Russian gas on the other," the Jerusalem sources said.
The Russia-Iran deal comes in the wake of contracts which Russia recently signed with Syria, and the proof which Israel showed to Moscow of the large quantities of Russian arms, including missiles, which Syria had supplied to Hezbollah and which were captured by Israel in the recent war. The Russians are playing a double game, the Israeli sources said. They waste time, they always demand "proof," and then they promise to take measures, but in reality they are selling arms to anyone who asks for them. "They have become the main arms supplier of every one of Israel's enemies, just like in the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s," the Israeli sources said.
©The Evening Bulletin 2007