Monday, January 28, 2008

Nader is NUTZ but I love this...

Nader rails on Clinton family

Two-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader today sent out this brutal assessment of the Clinton dynasty to his e-mail list of supporters. (Nader, a supporter of John Edwards, doesn't mention the former senator in his note.)

EIGHT MORE YEARS
By Ralph Nader

For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT MORE YEARS?
Don't you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a "truly two-for-the-price-of-one" presidential race? It might remind voters to remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the glib former president emits at many campaign stops.

The 1990's were the first decade without the spectre of the Soviet Union. There was supposed to be a "peace dividend" that would reduce the vast, bloated military budget and redirect public funds to repair or expand our public works or infrastructure.

Inaugurated in January 1993, with a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton sent a small job-creating proposal to upgrade public facilities. He also made some motions for campaign finance reform which he promised during his campaign when running against incumbent George H.W. Bush and candidate Ross Perot.

...

That set the stage for how Washington politicians sized up Clinton. He was seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming leader he promised to be was he to win the election.
He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge technology dot.com boom.

Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.

A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.

There are changes both the Clinton Administration actively championed that further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers, consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.

That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot - opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter so-called "financial modernization law" sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples' money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession.

The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the lessons of the Great Depression was Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup - the main pusher of this oligopolistic coup—just before the bill passed and made himself $40 million for a few months of consulting in that same year.

Bill Clinton's presidential resume was full of favors for the rich and powerful. Corporate welfare subsidies, handouts and giveaways flourished, including subsidizing the Big Three Auto companies for a phony research partnership while indicating there would be no new fuel efficiency regulations while he was President.

His regulatory agencies were anesthetized. The veteran watchdog for Public Citizen of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, said that safety was the worst under Clinton in his twenty nine years of oversight.

The auto safety agency (NHTSA) abandoned its regulatory oath of office and became a consulting firm to the auto industry. Other agencies were similarly asleep — in job safety (OSHA) railroads, household product safety, antitrust, and corporate crime law enforcement.

By reappointing avid Republican Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Clinton assured no attention would be paid to the visible precursors of what is now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Mr. Greenspan, declined to use his regulatory authority and repeatedly showed that he almost never saw a risky financial instrument he couldn't justify.

...

To justify his invasion of Iraq, Bush regularly referred in 2002-2003 to Clinton's bombing of Iraq and making "regime change" explicit U.S. policy.

But it was Clinton's insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians estimated, took half a million Iraqi children’s lives.

...

Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is it all about himself, he is cunningly smart.

But during his two-term triangulating Presidency, he wasn't smart enough to avoid losing his Party's control over Congress, or many state legislatures and Governorships.

It has always been all about him, Now he sees another admission ticket to the White House through his wife, Hillary Clinton. EIGHT MORE YEARS without a mobilized, demanding participating citizenry is just that - EIGHT MORE YEARS. It's small wonder that the editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an article last June with the title, "Who Business is Betting On?" Their answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.

His criticism of Democrats is not solely reserved for the Clintons. He wrote this piece recently mocking Sen. Barack Obama.

— Christina Bellantoni, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Assholes in Vermont...LOL

Brattleboro to vote on arresting Bush, Cheney

January 26, 2008

By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff

BRATTLEBORO — Brattleboro residents will vote at town meeting on whether President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be indicted and arrested for war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever step foot in Vermont.

The Brattleboro Select Board voted 3-2 Friday to put the controversial item on the Town Meeting Day warning.

According to Town Clerk Annette Cappy, organizers of the Bush-Cheney issue gathered enough signatures, and it was up to the Select Board whether Brattleboro voters would consider the issue in March.

Cappy said residents will get to vote on the matter by paper balloting March 4.

Kurt Daims, 54, of Brattleboro, the organizer of the petition drive, said Friday the debate to get the issue on the ballot was a good one. Opposition to the vote focused on whether the town had any power to endorse the matter.

"It is an advisory thing," said Daims, a retired prototype machinist and stay-at-home dad of three daughters.

So far, Vermont is the only state Bush hasn't visited since he became president in 2001.

Daims said the most grievous crime committed by Bush and Cheney was perjury — lying to Congress and U.S. citizens about the basis of a war in Iraq.

He said the latest count showed a total of 600,000 people have died in the war.

Daims also said he believed Bush and Cheney were also guilty of espionage for spying on American people and obstruction of justice, for the politically generated firings of U.S. attorneys.

Voting to put the matter on the town ballot were Chairwoman Audrey Garfield and board members Richard Garrant and Dora Boubalis.

Voting against the idea were board members Richard DeGray and Stephen Steidle.

Daims said the names submitted to the town clerk's office were the second wave of signatures the petition drive had to collect, because he had to rewrite the wording of the petition.

He said he gathered nearly 500 signatures in about three weeks, and he said most people he encountered were eager to sign it. He started the petition drive about three months ago.

"Everybody I talked to wanted Bush to go," he said, noting that even members of the local police department supported the drive.

"This is exactly what the charter envisioned as a citizen initiative," Daims said. "People want to express themselves and they want to say how they feel."

He said the idea is spreading: Activists in Louisville, Ky., are spearheading a similar drive, and he said activists were also working in Montague, Mass., a Berkshires town.

The article asked the town attorney to "draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities."

The article goes on to say the indictments would be the "law of the town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro police ... arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro, if they are not duly impeached ..."

Daims said people in Brattleboro were willing to "think outside the box" and consider the issue.

Daims had no compunction in comparing Bush and Cheney with one of the most notorious people in history.

"If Hitler were still alive and walked through Brattleboro, I think the local police would arrest him for war crimes," Daims said.

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Don't get your Panties in a knot...

Delegate Count :

Romney-42, Huckabee-37, McCain-32 Thompson-3, Paul-0, Giuliani-0

1,191 Delegates Needed to Win (Delegate Counts Come From AP, Wash Post, ABC News & RCP)

The Light at the end of the Tunnel at this point is still a Train that's about to run us over. At least that is the case if the Republican Party listens to the MainStreamPress, and Half the Pundits.

With less than 10% of the Delegates committed, the herd mentality is that McCain is on an Unstoppable roll. That the Republican Comeback kid is the De facto Front Runner and Undeniable Candidate for President of the Republican Party.

No statement could be further from the truth. He is in TRUTH at the moment in 3rd place and the prospects for him to even maintain that position are slim to none.

The circus sideshow that we have been watching with this ungodly early campaign and primary race has already provided us with a year of hell. When you can have front runners like Huckabee and McCain it proves that the early system isn't worth shit.

Both candidates are represntative of fringe elements of the party at best. Neither of these candidates have a prayer of getting the nomination, let alone of beating either Clinton or Obama. The system is broken and has been made worse with these early races.

The MainStremMedia wants to pick the candidates. They are spinning a false picture of the reality of the Republican Party and the Republican perspective and direction.

The question is will they get away with it?

Bill Clinton says he witnessed voter suppression


Bill Clinton, speaking at a Vegas YMCA last night, made more charges against Obama and claimed to have, with Chelsea, personally witnessed voter suppression by the Culinary Workers:


There is this whole business of the new politics. Well I got a taste of the new politics today. We need a new politics where we all love each other. You’ve heard all that. There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me.

Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.

There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.' So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they're better than you.

(The transcript was provided by one source with a recording of the event, and confirmed by another.)

To go over the facts here, the only publicly reported radio ad anything like what Clinton refers to is one that encourages Republicans and independents to caucus, but doesn't mention Hillary.

And the Vegas papers haven't found any evidence of the kind of straightforward voter suppression Clinton reports. The Obama campaign has suggested the Clinton campaign file formal complaints if it has evidence.

"This is ludicrous," Culinary Workers political director Pilar Weiss told Politico. She said the union is "aware that some workers aren't going to vote our way" and doesn't engage in intimidation.

"The fact that they lost a lawsuit aimed at suppressing workers' votes, and that now they're trying to hold on to these baseless claims is ridiculous," she said.

Weiss also said Clinton's claim is "technically impossible." Clinton supporters can ask union organizers -- who are actively promoting Obama's candidacy -- to add their names to the lists of workers who will take time off to caucus today. But signs posted around the casinos advertise another avenue to get the time off: Workers can go around the union and ask their managers directly.

"We have found it shocking that President Clinton has gotten so engaged in promoting these accusations," she said.

Monday, January 14, 2008

John McCain

The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:


McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.

McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

And then there’s the McCain defense record.

His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?

Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?

McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).

McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.

While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.

My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

— Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Trollcast...

video

Either stop the background music or wait it out.

this is a 10 minute video

Primary Analysis

Enjoy or not

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Trollcast

The Trollcast has been postponed till tomorrow. Please tune in for an analysis of the first 2 useless Primaries

Monday, January 07, 2008

Oh Gag me with a spoon

Clinton plays the emotional woman card boo hoo boo hoo, What a master manipulating load of CRAP. My only question is, was the woman who asked the question a plant and how many times did she have to rehearse before she was able to just be brought to tears over the pressure from wanting to serve and save us boo hoo hoo...

Clinton Gets Emotional on Campaign Trail

ABC News' Kate Snow Reports: Campaigning in New Hampshire one day before the first-in-the-nation primary, Senator Hillary Clinton got emotional and had tears in her eyes as she spoke with voters about her passion for the country.

The Senator from New York was sitting at a big table in Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with 16 undecided voters, warmly and calmly taking questions from the voters.

Then she took an unexpected question from a woman in the audience.

"My question is very personal, how do you do it?" asked Marianne Pernold Young, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"

Clinton began responding, jokingly: You know, I think, well luckily, on special days I do have help. If you see me every day and if you look on some of the websites and listen to some of the commentators they always find me on the day I didn't have help. It's not easy."

Then Clinton began getting emotional: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said.

Then, her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."

Watch the video HERE.

"Some people think elections are a game, lot's of who's up or who's down, [but] it's about our country , it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together," she said.

"You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds, and we do it, each one of us because we care about our country but some of us are right and some of us are wrong, some of us are ready and some of us are not, some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought that through enough," she said in a veiled reference to her Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

"And so when we look at the array of problems we have and the potential for it really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections American has ever faced," Clinton said.
Earlier she had bored the rest of the table answering for ten minutes one realtor's question about real estate insurance.

She also had an exchange with an Obama supporter asking whether she can bring change, and why the Democrats haven't been able to affect change in Congress, despite taking power after the 2006 midterm elections.

"At the end of the day when the cameras are off what have you done?" asked the voter.

Clinton responded, arguing a politician's record is important.

"I know that to some people it sounds like there's a contradiction between change and experience... You can't have one without the other."

"You just keep going at it every single day," Clinton said. She said people aren't aware of the small things the Democrats in Congress have accomplished.


God I think I'm gonna PUKE...

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Delusional Babling of an old Lefty Loon

Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.


By George McGovern
Sunday, January 6, 2008; Page B01

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president. (a perfectly sound decision if your a senile ole loon on the left)

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me. (which of course would have been true)

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising. (the lack of any basis in reality to support impeachment may also be a factor)

But what are the facts? (here we go rehashed lies and innuendo that has all been disproved)

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard. (these are all the same delusional talking points that have been regurgitated from the beginning. Every one of these allegations have been investigated several times and all have been proven to be false accusations)

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation. (they were challenged and they were investigated, and recounted several times. Each time the results of the election were verified as accurate. Gore lost and Kerry lost, this is the keystone in the lefts delusion. They can't get over the fact that they lost TWICE)

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history. (The fact that this Old ASSHOLE can call the defense of our country "a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq" speaks volumes to his lack of a grasp on reality. First of all the Bush/Cheney Administration is just that an administration NOT a Regime. Second this WAR is NOT murderous people die in war it is wars purpose to kill the enemy and break their equipment. It is NOT Illegal CONGRESS VOTED and APPROVED military action GIVING the President authority to use his WAR POWERS. As far as being nonsensical, it would be NONSENSICAL to leave a "regime" in power in Iraq that possessed 7 TONS of refined Uranium, and several TONS of Biological weapons that had a PROVEN track record of supplying TERRORISTS with money and support and a stated desire to destroy the US. It was Bill Clinton's lack of action dealing with potential threats that led to 9/11. As for the deficit it is NOT caused by the war it is caused by the SPENDING of our tax dollars by the Drunks we have elected to Congress)

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. (Congress gave the authority, if they could not muster the balls to call it a declaration of war even after 3000 Americans lay dead in the street that is their failure. The actions against Iraq were authorized by the resolutions 17 of them in fact that the UN had already passed against Iraq. No International law was violated. Which is why he doesn't state one here)

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era? (yes two that I can think of Carters administration, and Bill Clinton's administration. Both administration led to the war that we are no involved in.)

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness? (that statement is the cantankerous remark of a bitter old man)

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson's observation: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." (This whole paragraph is a repeat of lies. First of all 7 TONS of refined uranium has been removed from Iraq. And the Administration stated OVER and OVER that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11, but they were a threat that could not be allowed to continue, and the Congress AGREED.)

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world -- more than a billion people. (more delusional Bullshit)

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus. (habeas corpus does NOT apply to ILLEGAL COMBATENTS in War you ASS)

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades. (No he was told that when we invaded Iraq, Iran stopped building the BOMB COMPONENTS needed for a nuclear bomb. Instead as the Iranians themselves have stated repeatedly they switched to the other piece they needed, REFINING URANIUM to WEAPONS GRADE LEVELS. They can buy the hardware from the N Koreans that Bill Clinton allowed them to develop. Other than being a failed Politician what professional knowledge do you posses on anything, let alone how the Arab world will react to us removing the threat from the Persians?)

Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies -- especially the war in Iraq -- have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others. (yeah we are less secure that's why we have had no terror attacks here in the US and several that have been foiled)

Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. (yeah yeah it's a civil war and we've created more terrorists. Same bullshit that the anti-war wackos have been spewing for years. The only problem is there are no facts to substantiate that point of view. The facts on the ground show the complete opposite, but like I said reality means nothing to those like McGovern who can't wipe the foam from their mouths long enough to stop spewing mad drivel)

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. (The disaster that was Katrina was a failure of State and Local government. Mississippi which got hit harder than New Orleans had no problems in responding to the aftermath. Only the Incompetence of the Democrat Welfare State of Louisiana collapsed when they had to actually do some things for themselves. And following the Democrat Welfare State play book immediately placed blame on everyone but themselves. Maybe that's why they have a new Governor.)

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot. (The PROPER Course of an American Patriot would be to take a stand and State the Policies they believe would be better to deal with the Terrorists in a war where even if we withdraw they will continue to attack us. If you have a plan to prevent that other than Surrender Share IT or SHUT UP)

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws -- that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law -- and repeatedly violates the law -- thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors." (FISA was designed to prevent Presidents from spying on their POLITICAL enemies, NOT to prevent them from spying on the COUNTRIES enemies that are plotting to kill us here inside the US. You are a fool that would see our children DIE in the streets rather than engage the enemy)

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin. (Good Bye Good Riddance, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Your an Old Idiot that should be laughed at every time you venture out of your nurses care)

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered. (We thank God that you were never elected President, because even though this administration has made mistakes the things you advocate would lead to the blood of our children flowing in the streets of America)

anmcgove@dwu.edu

Saturday, January 05, 2008

2007: A Global Assessment of the Confrontation (WP)

(WP)From the World Defense Review

The conflict we call the War on Terror still continues at the end of 2007, and all indications are that its battlefields are expected to spread further, and escalate, in the upcoming year.

The following is a global assessment of the confrontation that has taken place since 2001, though the systematic war waged by Jihadi forces against democracies and the free world began at least a decade before 9/11. This evaluation isn’t comprehensive or definitive, but a collection of observations related to major benchmarks, directions and projections.

Global cohesion lacking

The main powers and allies involved in the War on Terror still lack global cohesion. While the US, in the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, integrates those efforts with its efforts globally to defeat al Qaeda and contain nuclear proliferation of rogue regimes like Iran, other powers and blocs of countries have different outlooks and plans. While Britain and other U.S partners in Europe espouse common views on a global scale, France, Germany, Spain and Italy agree on the Afghan theater but still are uninvolved in the Iraqi theater. All Atlantic partners, however, pursue al Qaeda and consider it – along with other Salafi networks - as the principal threat. Also, most Western partners perceive the Iranian threat as serious, although differ in the ways in which to respond.

Continue reading "2007: A Global Assessment of the Confrontation (WP)" »