What a way to end 2006!
Here's a New Year's resolution that liberal bloggers and mainstream journalists can agree on: Let's talk less about Joe Lieberman next year. A lot less.Let's keep our fingers crossed!
While Lieberman's new mojo has been a dominant theme in the Beltway, the New Year does promise change. Washington will focus on the agenda of the Democratic caucus, where Lieberman is at best a partial member, by mutual agreement. He will have little influence or goodwill within the incoming majority, beyond his formal committee chairmanship. Flirting further with changing parties would seem petty, even by Beltway standards, in the shadow of a Congressional calendar that promises to be packed with hearings and legislation on Iraq, terrorism, war profiteering, the economy and healthcare. Then the political attention will focus on candidates running to replace the unpopular President.
To distance themselves from Iraq, Republicans will likely continue to distance themselves from George W. Bush, eventually isolating him as a lame duck with scant party support. In the end, Bush will be just another stubborn politician, unable to confront a failed war, unwilling to heed the voters' will, essentially standing alone. Once again, it will be hard to tell Bush and Lieberman apart. Yet this time, they would share more than a hawk's failure. They would share irrelevance.
Former dictator Saddam Hussein is due to be executed soon in a move that could bring more instability in an increasingly violent and chaotic occupation.The circus of an execution. Will his dead body be paraded about as the bodies of his sons were? And for what purpose? Sure his actions against fellow countrymen and Iranians was disgusting. But is capital punishment the answer? Or is this just the way to get back at him for those threats to Poppy Bush?
"I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.Still does not make up for that pardon. Remember hearing the announcement during the Roosevelt Raceway concert featuring CSN&Y
In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.
Didn't appreciate the pardon then, still don't.
Ticket and photo courtesy of Suite Lorraine.
Read more...Couple roleplays the political way.
Not kid-friendly. Rated R for sexual content. Rated X for the fact that W has screwed this Nation and is still in office!
Read more...The New York/Washington power elite, dominated by Bush and the Clintons, doesn't have the guts or the honesty to admit that Iraq is hopeless and that U.S. soldiers are being killed and mutilated for nothing more than Bush's vainglory. The power elite's spokesman, the champion equivocator and ace sloganeer Thomas Friedman, provides the purest distillation of the current conventional thinking on Iraq. The other day, The New York Times's star columnist was still clinging to the fantasy that America could have “properly occupied” Mesopotamia and even now could send more troops and “crush the dark forces in Iraq and properly rebuild it.”Since they do not listen and do not learn from history it is time for the people to take power again. Demand peace! Demand an end to funding! Demand that no more troops are sent, but instead all are brought home! If we remain silent, the powers will win - and then the people will lose as we have in the past.
Friedman and many Democrats haven't figured out that lots of Iraqis view America as a dark force of colonialism and don't want our version of “progressive politics.”
Friedman apparently doesn't even remember that Iraq was once a British colony, since he blames the present chaos on “1,000 years of Arab-Muslim authoritarianism, three brutal decades of Sunni Ba'athist rule, and a crippling decade of U.N. sanctions.” Nothing about the Sykes-Picot (1916) carving up of Syria and Iraq by the British and French; nothing about the destabilizing British practice of divide and rule that pitted Sunnis against Shi'ites, Arabs against Kurds; and nothing about Washington's support for Saddam Hussein in the 1970s and '80s.
As a senior Democratic senator told me last week in Washington, with the Democrats divided the only politician who can end the American role in the war is the executive, George Bush. That means we're a long way from leaving Iraq, no matter what the voters want, no matter how loudly the Democrats celebrate their victory.
It is now known that it said two prominent British leftists, Tariq Ali and Robin Blackburn, had courted Lennon in hopes that he would "finance a left-wing bookshop and reading room in London."What better reason to investigate Lennon. Left-wing books? And readers of those books? Anarchy!
But the newly released document adds that Lennon apparently gave them no money "despite a long courtship by Blackburn and Ali."
I wonder if W is channeling Hoover and Nixon's ghosts. His paranoia and fear mirrors theirs.
The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document that says that the U.S. already is "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."Did we really expect W to begin practicing diplomacy with Iran or Syria? Covert operations in Syria - naval muscle off the coast of Iran. That is the diplomacy he knows and everyone (except his cronies) detests.
Any American-orchestrated attempt to conduct such an election-monitoring effort could make a dialogue between Washington and Damascus — as proposed by the Iraq Study Group and several U.S. allies — difficult or impossible.
Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has replaced al Qaeda in Iraq as "the most dangerous accelerant" of the sectarian violence plaguing Iraq for nearly a year, according to a Pentagon report.Does this blow W's whole argument of staying there or they follow us here? He was referring to Al Qaeda. Will al-Sadr follow us too?
The two most prominent militias -- the Mehdi Army and the Badr Organization -- are armed wings of Shiite political parties whose support is crucial to the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
The Mehdi Army in particular "exerts significant influence in Baghdad and the southern provinces of Iraq and on the government of Iraq," and fights periodic battles with Badr supporters, according to the report. The Badr Organization is affiliated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Another Iraq reason blown to shreds!
The U.S. Central Command is aggressively planning a naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the addition of a second aircraft carrier, in response to a series of aggressive actions by Iran, U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.Gun-boat diplomacy...has it ever worked?
The officials pointed to Iran's interference in Iraq — including its support for Shiite militants and shipments of improvised explosive devices into the country — recent military naval exercises in the Gulf, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The attempt at "gunboat diplomacy" is in its final planning stages. Although it has not been approved yet, it appears likely the increase in U.S. warships into the Gulf could come as early as January, the officials said.
That surge in troops might just be what the doctor (W) ordered for Tehran!
Three videos from an RFK Jr. speech in Vermont - two months ago. This speech was before the elections but still valid since the regime is still very much in power today.
Part 1 (top), Part 2 (middle), Part 3 - (bottom).
Read more..."If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there, as indicated, by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it," Reid said.Sure take W and the general's word. They haven't misled us yet - have they?
"But if it's put 45,000 more troops in there -- you know, we've lost in Nevada about 30 troops killed, scores have been wounded," Reid countered. "We're now approaching 3,000 dead Americans, costing the American people 2.5-3 billion dollars a week. This is a war that we have to change course. The president has to do that."
This campaign is about three imperatives: It’s about the imperative of human unity, of recognizing that this is one world, that we are all one, that people all around the world have an underlying connection, that we are interconnected and interdependent. And we need policies that act that interconnection. We need to affirm institutions which support the idea of human unity. And that means that we support the United Nations. It means we support treaties in working with other countries. It means we support the rule of law internationally.Hope not fear. A handshake rather than a fist. An offer rather than an ultimatum.
The second imperative is human security, and that security has to deal with basic needs: Each person in the world has a right to survive, a right to food that is fit to eat, and water fit to drink, and air fit to breathe. Each person has a right to a roof over his or her own head. Each person has a right to have clothes on their back. Each person has a right to some means of being able to make a living. Each person has a right to be free of the fear of violence. We have a responsibility to work to secure the world from a nuclear nightmare. We need to look at what we can do to protect peoples everywhere by working for not just nonproliferation, not just disarmament, but nuclear abolition, which in fact was the promise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The third imperative I’ll discuss in this campaign is the imperative of peace. There are those who believe that war is inevitable. A belief in the inevitability of war makes war a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to be convinced in our innate capability to create structures for peace in our society. We need to be convinced of our potential as a nation to make nonviolence an operating principle in our society. This is the motivating reason behind a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, which addresses directly, in a practical way, the challenge of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the school, racial violence, violence against gays, community relations disputes.
The imperatives of human unity, human security, peace, all create a context for human prosperity. We have the potential to create heaven on earth. New Jerusalem is within our reach. It’s waiting to be called forward through the power of courage, emanating through our hearts, through our dreams, which come from the longing of our souls. This truly is a time where we can change the world and create the world that we long for.
Kucinich has quickly brought this infant campaign season its first words of wisdom and reality - as he did the last time. Will the media let that message be heard or are the ridicule troops moving forward already?
_A possible short-term surge of as many as 40,000 more American troops to try to secure Baghdad, along with a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, which are badly strained by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.WTF is "short-term?" More than 1 second is too long.
And is this what we elected the Dems for?
Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress are likely to drive U.S. military budgets even higher in 2007, experts say.Two parties - same old crap except for a few exceptions.
... because Democrats are afraid to appear weak on national security, they are likely to continue funding Cold War weapons systems like the F-22 fighter plane, which was designed to address projected Soviet capabilities that no longer exist.
Americans have to be ready to fight a war with radical Muslims that may last 50 to 100 years, according to a top war-on-terror general.Okay kids - time for a lttle quiz. What do you think the "Muslim extremists" are saying? Bingo - change a few words and a few names and it will all sound the same!
"We're in a generational war," Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark Schissler told the Washington Times.
Like the 40-year Cold War, the struggle with fanatics seeking to create radical Islamic states will be fought around the world, he said.
"You can try and fight the enemy where they are and where they're attacking you, or prevent them and defend your own homeland," Schissler said. "But that's not enough to stop it. We've got to break the chain, and that's . . . the ideology.
"We really need to show the errors in Islamist extremist thinking."
Terrorists follow the concept of jihad or holy war, which makes it a religious duty to wage attacks on nonbelievers, he said.
He said Americans, used to wars that last three or four years, must be prepared "for a long fight."
"They're absolutely committed to the 50-, 100-year plan," Schissler said of Muslim extremists.
Schissler is the deputy director for the war on terrorism in the strategic plans office of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
Al Qaeda has said its goal is to create a Muslim "caliphate" from western North Africa to southern Europe and across the Mideast to Southeast Asia.
Such a large request would mark a rapid escalation in the cost of the Iraq war at a time when public support is plummeting and Bush is looking for new answers to stem violence that threatens to spin out of control.I guess they want this war to continue - full speed ahead. Is this the new direction? Increase troops?
Senior Democrats, who take control of both houses of Congress next year, have indicated they would support additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though many want a phased withdrawal to begin in 2007.
The $100 billion, if submitted and approved by Congress next year, would be in addition to the record $447 billion the Pentagon is receiving this fiscal year for all military operations.
Let's look at what some others have the guts and wisdom to say:
I’m hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they’ll be providingWho said this? One guess - he announced his candidacy on December 12.
enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush’s term.
Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.
As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.What a plan! Brilliant! If this is done I see a bright future for IMPEACHMENT. W, please follow their suggestion - please!
The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.
I went to files of some old websites I used to manage and came across a ditty from 10 years ago...
As a little boy, I will always remember enjoying the products of my father's garden; eating carrots just pulled out and rinsed off under the hose, watching the "chemistry" of making a sweet wine out of berries, lying face down in the grass, and just playing in the garden's dirt. Until he passed away he grew enough vegetables and berries on his small plot of land to feed himself and my mother, and to share the bounty with friends and neighbors. My father composted before it was in; mulched with grass clippings before mulching mowers were on the drawing board; and gardened without pesticides and herbicides before Rachel Carson warned us about their dangers.Maybe those carrots are the genesis of Peace Garden? Read more...
It is with that upbringing that I approach my own yard and garden. My grass hasn't seen a chemical in the past 17 years (since we moved in). I feel secure that my kids can play on the grass or plant their face into it just like I did. I also feel secure that the vegetables I grow are safe and without chemical aids (?). You see, I grow "with nature in mind".
A few years ago when giving a talk about backyard habitats someone asked me how I got started and so interested in gardening, habitat creation, and nature. I never stopped to think about the reasons or motivations before that moment. But right then and there, I realized it was because of my father and his gardens. Somehow the organic gardening bug was in my veins. It was never a conscious effort to create an organic yard and garden, it was natural. My childhood memories made it natural that I try to protect my own children from pesticides and herbicides. And it was an easy transition to extend this protection to birds and other animals.
My yard is very unique in the neighborhood. My front yard used to be all lawn with just three trees. Since moving in, my front yard is now dominated by a small pond, wildflowers, berry plants, and naturalized islands of growth. My backyard is wooded, and where previous owners tried to grow lawn, volunteer trees, shrubs, and plants have been allowed to take over. What lawn we have for the ball games is dominated by what others call weeds. Dandelion, clover, violets, and even crabgrass are just fine by me.
There are so many wonders to be seen in my "yarden". One can watch frogs, toads, and dragonflies in the pond. One can sit under the maple trees and watch the robins raise their young, or one can go into the garden pull up the carrot, rinse it off, and bite down.
Gardening and keeping my yarden organic are in my blood. I know my garden and landscape are benefitting the Earth, Earth's creatures, and my children I hope the same organic bug enters my three sons so they also try to take care of Mother Earth. I just wish there was a magic formula. What made it "natural" for me? What will make it "natural" for my children and others to care for the Earth? I don't know, but maybe it had something to do with those carrots.
Al Gore is waging a fierce campaign for recognition and an Oscar statuette for his global warming documentary, while reviving talk that he's pursuing a bigger prize: the presidency.As I posted before - two (Gore and Dennis) of my four faves!
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2004, said Monday he is planning to run again because his party isn't pushing hard enough to end the war in Iraq.Run, Dennis, run.
The liberal, anti-war congressman said he was inspired to run because he disagrees with the way some of his fellow Democrats are handling the war in Iraq, including approval of a proposal to spend $160 billion more on the conflict.
"Democrats were swept into power on Nov. 7 because of widespread voter discontent with the war in Iraq," Kucinich said. "Instead of heeding those concerns and responding with a strong and immediate change in polices and direction, the Democratic congressional leadership seems inclined to continue funding the perpetuation of the war."
Here it is in a nutshell - GET OUT NOW!
Gee I didn't need
...three days of intensive talks on Iraq...I also didn't have to listen to him or have a cup of coffee and look at him. If he would only listen to the people.
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told cheering supporters Saturday that Democrats would move the nation in "a new direction ... for all Americans, not just the chosen few,'' and pledged an ambitious agenda on subjects ranging from House ethics to foreign policy.Let's hope you get all the others to fall in behind. We demand it!
Speaking in San Francisco the day after adjournment of the Republican-controlled 2005-06 Congress, Pelosi declared -- as she had throughout her party's successful November election campaign -- that "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq.''
She reviewed her plans for the first 100 hours: raising the minimum wage, cutting student loan interest rates in half, requiring Medicare to negotiate lower prices with prescription-drug makers, rolling back tax breaks for oil companies and passing legislation to promote stem cell research.
Also high on her agenda, Pelosi said, are "very aggressive measures to stop global warming'' and a labor-backed "card check'' proposal to require employers to negotiate with any union that signs up a majority of a company's employees.
Call President Bush a lame duck, a weakened leader, a disappointed president whose party lost control of Congress — and the decider when it comes to a new approach in Iraq. After all the studies and recommendations and talk, the president will call the shots.
Members of Congress can complain and investigate, yet there is little they can do to change Iraq policy short of cutting off funds.
So the mid-terms have come and gone. Our hopes are much dimmer than two months ago, The hope that "gutsy" leaders is quite diminished. So it's time to look ahead to 2006 and hope that our next leader can lead this country out of the mess W created and the Dems seem content to continue.
Looking ahead, 4 names really stand out for me.
"My hero is St. Francis of Assisi because he understood the connection between spirituality and the environment. He understood the way God communicates to us most forcefully is through the fishes and the birds and the trees and that it is a sin to destroy those things."
As we make plans to cut off funds for continuing to prosecute a war in Iraq, America must simultaneously pursue a dramatically different approach to achieve peace. Here is a five point plan to accompany a cut off of funds:Why didn't Baker talk with Kucinich? This is a plan.
1. Transfer to the United Nations the authority the United States currently excerises in Iraq.>br> 2. The United States will finance a UN-sponsored peacekeeping mission in Iraq and enlist the help of other members of the coalition of nations which participated in the Iraq action.
3. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home.
4. The United States must agree to pay for what we destroyed. An Iraq reconstruction fund, monitored by the UN in cooperation with the Iraqi government, must be annually replenished to replace destroyed infrastructure.
5. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.
We need a real change. My plan can the troops home in 90 days, transfer authority to the U.N as an intermediate step, with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi security. Only if the United States takes a new direction will we be able to persuade the world community, through the UN, to participate.
From the report:
Near the end of the ISG report, the commission wrote that there is "significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq" -- a finding that takes on particular significance considering President Bush's repeated assertion that his Iraq policy is tied to the "conditions on the ground."Okay, so I am changing my mind from a few posts ago. Maybe it's not just the same old crap...but these glimpses of reality still do not lead them to the real answer - OUT NOW!
Buried deep in the ISG report is the commission's finding that "the U.S. government still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias." The commission went on to portray the intelligence community's degree of knowledge on these fronts as falling "far short of what policy makers need to know."
In a section of the report titled "The Wider Regional Context," the commission provided a dire assessment of the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. The commission subsequently recommended that the United States "provide additional political, economic, and military support for Afghanistan, including resources that might become available as combat forces are moved from Iraq."
But this assessment -- that the situation in Afghanistan has so deteriorated that U.S. troops currently in Iraq may have to be diverted back there -- has been widely overlooked by the major news outlets...
As an example of how "the public interest is not well served by the government's preparation, presentation, and review of the budget for the war in Iraq," the commission highlighted the administration's persistent use of emergency supplemental appropriations requests to "[c]ircumvent[] the budget process." It recommended that "[c]osts for the war in Iraq should be included in the President's annual budget request, starting in FY 2008."
At this point the Democratic leadership—the speaker and the majority leader and Rahm Emanuel—are all recommending that the Democrats support the appropriation that is going to be brought forward in the spring, for the purposes of [continuing to fund] the war in Iraq.Characters from both sides are prolonging this war. So what can be done?
People first of all need to know about this. People need to know that there is an attempt by our leadership to support the supplemental, and what the consequences are.... The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they’re supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. So if we continue to ignore the money that’s there right now to bring the troops home, we’re losing an opportunity to bring the troops home now. People are now saying that they oppose the war, but they’re continuing to fund it in the name of supporting the troops.
They say they’re not going to abandon the troops in the field. We’re professing a strange love for these troops by keeping them there, because the money’s there to bring them home. So this is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.
But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they’ll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush’s term.
It’s going to take a mass movement to change this situation. It’s going to take a mass movement to really create such an uproar that approval of the supplemental will be stopped.We voted for change. What is being presented is not change - same face with just a new shade of lip gloss.
The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region... Iraq's neighbours and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq...Nice idea but do we really expect W and Condi to change course and be cordial/diplomatic?
By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq...Sorry boys. Too long and too many caveats - those "unexpected developments" smell of long term commitments.
Success depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarisation...So if we call for an immediate withdrawal we are the "enemy." Now that is more of the same!
The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus.Now that goal was achieved. We all think it is a crock of crap. Read more...
After today's vote, some are being fooled again!
Read more...But as Gates awaits Senate confirmation as President Bush's secretary of Defense, ethics watchdogs worry about the revolving door between government and private business that allowed Gates to align himself with defense contractors, investment houses and a global drilling company involved with Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton Co.Love some of the companies he was involved with: advised 10 companies about Saudi oil, Romano's Macaroni Grill, SAIC (a contractor for the Pentagon, CIA and other federal agencies), VoteHere, Northrop Grumann Corp.
Companies with which Gates has been affiliated have secured hefty no-bid Pentagon contracts, and "you have to wonder if these companies will continue to get around bidding requirements once Gates is secretary," said Alex Knott, political director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based watchdog group.
The first version of the peace symbol was designed in 1958 by Gerald Holtom, a professional designer and artist, according to the Web site of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It was first used in the first major anti-nuclear march, which the campaign took from London to Aldermaston, England, in that year.
Holtom said the symbol incorporated the semaphore letters "N" and "D" to represent nuclear disarmament.
He also gave a more personal account of the meaning of the symbol in a letter to the editor of Peace News, reprinted on the British Campaign's Web site. "I was in despair. Deep despair," Holtom wrote. "I drew myself: the representative of an individual in despair, with hands palm outstretched outwards and downwards in the manner of Goya's peasant before the firing squad. I formalized the drawing into a line and put a circle round it."
Friday, Bolton sent a letter to Bush saying that after "careful consideration, I have concluded that my service in your administration should end when the current recess appointment expires."Don't make it sound like you are resigning. You were being FIRED!
Some rock throwing youth beaten by British troops.
The most disturbing is the emotion displayed by the cameraman. A "little" blood thirsty? A "little" nuts!
Read more...G Living was on hand to film his historical speech about the same subject, ending war, in Los Angeles. Howard Zinn delivered his speech with the help of the non-profit organization Emergency. Emergency delivers free medical care to the victims of war, within the war zones
This Part 2 | The Full Speech by Howard Zinn
"It is time to ask some hard questions. Why did we go into Iraq and what did the president know and when did he know it," Sanders said in an interview in his Burlington office on a hillside above Lake Champlain near Canada's border.Bernie and Ben Jerry's. Vermont I Love You!
"The war in Iraq has been an absolute disaster and it's absolutely imperative that America never again goes that route. That's why we have to ask those questions," he said.
"We also need to answer questions about Halliburton, no bid contracts, Katrina," he said. "We need to ask questions about the connection between the pharmaceutical industry and the writing of the prescription drug Medicare bill."
"The American people are entitled to answers about the behavior of the most reactionary and incompetent administration in modern American history," he said.
| Al Gore's Important Documentary on the dangers of climate change and global warming | |
Watch it now, but buy the DVD tomorrow. 5% of the proceeds will be donated to Alliance for Climate Protection.
Read more...
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
