- Peace Garden: 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008

Who to support?

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Obamania in Action
Is endorsing Barack Obama the new cool? Not long ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton was the seemingly inevitable front-runner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Obama was the insurgent. He was pulling in young voters, independents and new voters, but he lacked the blessing of the party’s heavyweights.
That’s changed. Obama’s success in moving beyond the traditional party base — combined with serious Clinton fatigue — is leading many seasoned Democratic leaders to rethink their earlier assumptions. John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Claire McCaskill and Tom Daschle, among others, have lined up behind Obama, and the last few days brought Obama a surge of new, high-profile endorsements from such luminaries as Ted Kennedy and Nobel laureate Toni Morrison.
Obama has good judgment, which trumps mere experience every time. On Iran, he called for engagement and a toning down of bellicose rhetoric. Clinton was instead fanning the flames by voting for an amendment favored by the Bush administration that called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama’s judgment was vindicated when the National Intelligence Estimate asserted that Iran had already stopped its nuclear weapons program. On Pakistan, Obama consistently raised questions about the unqualified U.S. support for Pervez Musharraf — and was vindicated again as it became increasingly clear that Musharraf was neither a democrat nor a reliable U.S. ally against extremism.
There’s been such a rush to endorse Obama that I’m starting to feel a bit left out. Admittedly, I’m not a senator or a Nobel laureate, but … I’m starting to think I should endorse him myself. Why should Ted Kennedy get to have all the fun?
That last line is clearly my sentiment. After Dennis, who? Wait for Nader? Wait for Gore? Cannot support any Repug promoting war. Paul? A bit too...? Hillary - never liked the DLC crowd. Obama, I am slowly coming your way - unless...

Read more...

Say it ain't so

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Kucinich Postpones Bush Impeachment Effort
After promising to mark President Bush’s final State of the Union speech by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush, Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich postponed the effort.
Kucinich said Monday that he met with members of the House Judiciary Committee after making last week’s impeachment pledge. He said he came away “hopeful there will be an inquiry by the Judiciary Committee.”
“I will give them the opportunity to proceed before introducing articles of impeachment,” he said in a statement. The committee’s spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.
Sure it is getting late in the game to throw da bums out. But I would love to see the inquiry happen.

Read more...

Another voice from the choir...

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Lebanon Shiite Cleric Calls for Bush Trial Over Iraq
US President George W. Bush should go on trial for lying to the world about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, a leading Lebanese Shiite cleric said on Sunday.>br> “President Bush… should be seen by the world as an apostle of lies and a preacher of destruction and terrorism,” said a statement from Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, who has followers throughout the Shiite Muslim world.
Bush “should be tried as the number one liar in the world,” Fadlallah said, reacting to a US study that said the American president lied 260 times about Iraq’s weapons capacity ahead of the war.
The only thing I disagree with him about is the #1 rating. I think Uncle Dick may have that sewn up.

Read more...

Look up in the sky, it's a...

Disabled spy satellite threatens Earth

A large U.S. spy satellite has lost power and could hit the Earth in late February or March, government officials said Saturday.
The satellite, which no longer can be controlled, could contain hazardous materials, and it is unknown where on the planet it might come down, they said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret.
Secret? This thing is falling to earth, contains hazardous material, they don't know where it's going to hit - but - shhhhh!

Sure agencies are being "apprised of the situation." But what about the people it can hit? Time to tell all.

Read more...

The signs are out there

Mexicos Cantarell Continues Steep Decline in Oil Production in 2007
Oil production from Mexico’s giant Cantarell offshore complex continued its steep decline in 2007, dropping to a combined average 1.458 million barrels per day (mbpd) of production from all the fields, down 18% from an average 1,776.2 mbpd in 2006, according to statistics from the Energy Ministry available on the Sistema de Informaci√≥n Energ√©tica (SIE).
When will we see the signs and change our way of doing things?

Read more...

Thank you Dennis

This article really ends with a great sentiment. We know he will continue to speak out. Let's hope more start to listen.

Kucinich Bows Out with Dignity, Bangs Anti-War Drum

True to his campaign, Dennis Kucinich bowed out of the Presidential race with dignity-and with his powerful anti-war message intact.
He told his supporters that he began his campaign because “leaders in Washington, many in my own part, were intent on continuing a war, a war that has cost the lives of more than 4,000 of our brave young men and women and 1 million innocent Iraqis. A war that will cost this nation two trillion dollars.”
He added: “We asked for jobs, we get war. We asked for health care, we get war. We asked for funds for education, we get war. We ask for a clean environment, we get war. It is time to end this war. It is time to end war as an instrument policy and have the government start taking care of things here at home.”
Kucinich noted how the media excluded him time and time again. “I was locked out of six debates,” he said. “There was no way to get the message out.”
But he kept his head up and vowed to continue the fight for economic rights, civil liberties, social justice, universal single-payer health care, and peace. Such a fight, he wisely pointed out, “is not about a single day, or a single year, or a single campaign, or a single candidate. It is a lifelong endeavor.”
He thanked his supporters gracefully: “I stood strong because you gave me strength. I spoke out because your voices needed and deserved to be heard.”
For many progressives, Dennis Kucinich represented the best hope in the Democratic race.
The media disappeared him, and now he is gone from the race. But we owe him a debt of gratitude for speaking out courageously on the crucial issues of our day.

Read more...

Wolfie is back!

Friday, January 25, 2008

Wolfowitz, War Architect, Named to Head US Security Panel

Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the war in Iraq in the Bush administration who became World Bank president only to resign in a pay scandal, was named Thursday as head of a US government advisory panel.
The State Department announced Wolfowitz’s appointment as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s chairman of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB).
ISAB, the department said, is “a source of independent insight, advice, and innovation on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military issues, and international security and related aspects of public diplomacy.
Don't you feel more comfortable knowing a madman is brought back in to a position involving guns?

Interesting that the government brings in the deadliest and sinister of "Wolf" to chair a Board while at the same time will allow more hunting of gray wolves.

Really now, which is scarier:

Or


I trust the four-legged wolf more.

Read more...

The truth about "ending the war" promises

Are the Democrats Proposing Peace, or Counter-Insurgency Without End?

Pushed by powerful voter sentiment, the leading Democratic presidential candidates all talk of ending the Iraq war, and the November election seems headed toward a showdown with a Republican committed to a long-term war and occupation. But it’s not necessarily true. The press, the politicians and much of the public have embraced a paradigm that equates ending the Iraq war with the phased withdrawal of American troops from combat roles, a position favored by the top Democratic candidates. Sen. Hillary Clinton, according to her campaign statements, would withdraw most or all of them in five years though she “hopes” to withdraw them sooner, and Sen. Barack Obama would do the same in 18 months. Former Sen. John Edwards has recently espoused a more rapid and complete withdrawal timetable.
Overlooked is the fact that if and when those combat troops withdraw, U.S. counter-terrorism units will remain indefinitely to fight the Iraq-based al Qaeda along with other undefined “terrorists.” There also are American advisers who will continue training roles for the Iraqi army and police, and will be embedded in the Iraqi Interior Ministry, a Shiite stronghold widely criticized for torture, detention without charges, and other human-rights violations. There will be armed forces to protect the diplomats in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest embassy in the world. Finally, these units will require “force protection” by additional American troops.
To sum up, if all American combat troops ever are withdrawn, there still will remain 50,000 to 100,000 Americans involved in a low-visibility, dirty war in Iraq, just like those that involved death squads in Central America in the ’70s, or the earlier Phoenix program in South Vietnam, in which the Viet Cong infrastructure was decimated by assassinations and torture. Top American advisers in Baghdad today operated the El Salvador counter-insurgency and have praised the Phoenix program.
Along with these troops we have the same in Afghanistan, "trainers' in Pakistan, ops in Iran...

Let's be clear in our demand to END the war. Let's also listen closely and read between the lines of the candidates. After all, they are politicians and all that entails: half-truths to get elected yet not rock the boat for the real leaders of this nation (what did Ike call them - military-industrial complex).

Read more...

Crap

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Kucinich Drops Presidential Bid
Cleveland Congressman Dennis Kucinich is dropping out of the Democratic race for president. Kucinich will make the announcement Friday at a news conference in Cleveland. In an exclusive interview with Plain Dealer editors and reporters, Kucinich said he will explain his “transition” tomorrow. “I want to continue to serve in Congress,” he said. Kucinich said he will not endorse another Democrat in the primary.
Let's hope tomorrow's announcement includes:
A New Impeachment Drive
And today Mr. Kucinich took to the floor to fire off his latest salvo at the Bush administration: his plans to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush on Jan. 28 - the day of Mr. Bush’s State of the Union speech. Accusing the administration of lying about the need for the war in Iraq, Mr. Kucinich said he did not need to hear the president’s assessment. “We know the State of the Union,” he declared. “It’s a lie.”

Read more...

Money chosen instead of the future

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

US Censors Arctic Scientists’ Findings as it Prepares for Oil and Gas Auction

The United States has blocked the release of a landmark assessment of oil and gas activity in the Arctic as it prepares to sell off exploration licences for the frozen Chukchi Sea off Alaska, one of the last intact habitats of the polar bear.
A draft of the censored recommendations, seen by The Independent, called on governments to conduct proper research on environmental impacts before signing off new oil and gas projects in ecologically sensitive areas such as the Chukchi.
Environmental impacts or filling up the SUVes? It looks our government is going with the SUV (and company profits).

Drive them while you have them. In a few years - we'll all be sorry!

Read more...

First Strike for Peace?

Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike a Key Option, NATO Told
The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the “imminent” spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new NATO by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for root-and-branch reform of NATO and a new pact drawing the US, NATO and the European Union together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument” since there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world”.
And a few days ago Russia talked about their pre-emptive strikes. If pre-emptive strikes occur at the same time - is that like a double-negative? Do they cancel each other out?

Read more...

Connect the....

Monday, January 21, 2008

Wonder what Rustle would say about the House of Saud?

I think I know.

Read more...

Saudia Arabia - terror source?

Papers Paint New Portrait of Iraq's Foreign Insurgents
...records of 606 foreign fighters who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. The cache of documents was discovered last fall by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar.
Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed.
Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African.
Why focus on Iran and Syria? It is clear that Saudi Arabia is the "source." Instead of W having tea and crumpets with the Sauds, maybe we should sanction them. Oh that's right - we're friends and they own half of Congress.

Read more...

What has W taught others?

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Russia: could use nuclear weapons
Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes to protect itself and its allies, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities.
Thanks W!

Can you say Pre-emptive War? Can you say Pre-emptive killing?

Read more...

Who's No. 1?

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Iran has sped up missile development

Iran has accelerated development of its long-range missiles that could reach Europe within several years, director of the US Missile Defence Agency Henry Obering said Wednesday. "I believe that we have very much to be concerned about from (Iran)," he told a Prague conference on possibilities for Czech companies and scientists to participate in the US missile defence system proposed for Eastern Europe. Iran was the third most active country in "flight-testing missiles behind Russia and China" last year, Obering said. "They are developing ranges of missiles that go far beyond anything they would need in a regional fight, for example with Israel," he added. "Why are they developing missiles today that would be possible to reach Europe within a few years?" he asked. "Are we going to sit by and allow ourselves not to be able to defend against a coercive threat or an actual threat, should that evolve?"
A few questions Hank:
  1. Where do we and Israel stand as far as testing activities? Or do you just mention the "evil" nations?
  2. What about our range of missiles? Do ours go beyond a "regional fight?"
  3. What do you suggest? Use our long range missiles to wipe out Iran?

Read more...

Before another war is waged...

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Wexler Calls for Cheney’s Impeachment
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) is urging the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney, despite opposition from House Democratic leaders.
“In this time, at this moment, Congress must stand for truth,” Wexler said in a speech on the House floor Monday night. “A growing chorus of Americans is calling for accountability. The response from Congress thus far has been silence and denial.”
The House voted on Nov. 6 on a resolution by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to bring articles of impeachment against Cheney for pushing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, repeatedly suggesting that there ties between al Qaeda and the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and advocating military action to overthrow Iran. When Republicans, in a bid to embarrass House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, voted for the measure, the House was thrown into a brief deadlock. The measure was eventually approved and sent to the Judiciary Committee, where Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has declined to take action, despite pressure from Wexler and liberal activists outside Congress.
Take him out. January 2009 is too far off - too much at risk!

Cidy Sheehan calls it "The 'I' Word"

On January 1st, about 400 impeachment activists hit the Rose Parade with impeachment posters and huge banners. There was some local coverage, but the coverage seemed to surround the issue of “politics is ruining the parade” than the issue of accountability. When we marched at the end of the parade with our large copy of the Preamble of the Constitution and our signs and banners, we were the victims of a lot of violence and rage—name calling up to and including projectiles being thrown at us.
A couple of months of go, I called for America to send handwritten letters to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, via my campaign office. Today was the day that we delivered them to her office. We took over 8,000 letters and over 3,000 signatures on petitions to her office. We had a coalition of Americans represented in the 11,000 total and we had there present: Greens, Progressive Democrats, Peace and Freedom party members, community leaders and activists, and Independents joining hands and hearts to demand what we all think is one of the overriding issues of our time: holding George Bush and Dick Cheney accountable for their crimes against the peace; crimes against humanity; and crimes against the very fabric of what makes America a nation of laws: our Constitution.
The founders of our Representative Republic thought that the “I” word was so important, they included the word six times in the Constitution and the “G” (God) word or “PP” (political parties) word zero times.
Either we have the rule of law or we don’t.
There is still time to support Congressman Bob Wexler (D-Fl) in his efforts to get H Res 799 (Impeachment Articles against Dick) out of committee and off the table and onto the House Floor where they truly belong.

Read more...

Erica Jong and Kucinich

Monday, January 14, 2008

Erica Jong: We Deserve What We Get

This column is not about Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards. The truth is if I had the choice I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich because he's against the war, for the impeachment of war criminals in government, smart on the environment and the economy, and he has a sense of humor about UFOS. He's not afraid to joke about 'em for fear he'll be labeled a nutcase -- as indeed he was.
But I don't have that option. Kucinich represents my views, but he only got 1% in New Hampshire. Too bad.
I want to talk not about candidates but about our media turning every presidential election into a high school popularity contest. And we let them get away with it. And we don't stop Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel, Disney, GE, Sumner Redstone and a few others from owning all the media all the time.
It's the way of today's society - more interested in what Brit is up to, more interested in little sound bites, more interested in what the MSM dishes out. Maybe they get what they deserve, but what about everyone else?

Take the time to read about the positions each candidate takes. Think for yourself and don't blindly accept what the party or the talking head tells you.

If we all do that, we WILL elect the best.

Read more...

Get out sooner - for the sake of all!

The End of the Road for George W. Bush is a piece by Chris Hedges. He writes about W and his trip to the Mid East. He talks about the possibility that W will strike out against Iran. He talks about the loser W really is.

Love the last paragraph:

It is the end of the road for George Bush. The world takes less and less notice of him. He strutted and swaggered across the stage. He bellowed and raged. He plundered and murdered. And now he wants to be anointed as a peacemaker. His presidency, like his life, has been a tragic waste. But he at least he has a life. There are tens of thousands of mute graves in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan that stand as stark testaments to his true legacy. If he wants to redeem his time in office he should kneel before one and ask for forgiveness.
Can we expect W to go out quietly? I doubt it!

Read more...

I eat my words

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Okay, previously I said that Pakistan was taking over for Iran in terms of "let's invade." I was wrong.

Bush insists Iran biggest terror sponsor

President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late."
Bush said Iran funds terrorist extremists, undermines stability in Lebanon, sends arms to the hardline Taliban regime, intimidates its neighbors with alarming rhetoric and defies the United Nations by refusing to be open about its nuclear program.
"Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror," Bush said...
The sabres start rattling anew.

Read more...

Shifting from Iran to Pakistan?

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Pentagon airs new concerns about al-Qaida
THE Pentagon is "extremely concerned" about al-Qaida operations in Pakistan, US military chief Admiral Michael Mullen said.
Asked about al-Qaida in Pakistan, Admiral Mullen said: "We know it is having a significant impact, not just in Afghanistan, but certainly there are concerns about how much they have turned inward inside Pakistan."
"I am extremely concerned about this," he told a press conference.
But he said the United States was mindful of Pakistan being a sovereign country, saying: "It is really up to President (Pervez) Musharraf and his advisers in the military to address that problem directly."
Well as least he claims we'll leave it to Mushie. But with the candidates talking about bombing Pakistan, with our troop adviser numbers increasing, with the CIA ops increasing, and with Mushie saying
that US or coalition troops would not be welcome unless invited for a particular reason, such as hunting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden.
one has to wonder if W's eyes are now off Iran and looking elsewhere.

Read more...

W's not in danger...

Bush: Maintaining troop levels 'fine with me'

President Bush said Saturday it's "fine with me" if generals recommend no more troop-strength reductions in Iraq than those already planned to take the force posture down to about 130,000.
"My attitude is, if he didn't want to continue the drawdown, that's fine with me, in order to make sure we succeed, see," the president told reporters after the hourlong briefing. "I said to the general, 'If you want to slow her down, fine. It's up to you."'
Why this attitude? Because W is not in danger. W is not running for office. W never cared what the people wanted. W never cared what damage a bullet can do.

So what does he care about? Keeping Uncle Dick and the money-men happy. When the was doesn't mean more money in the pocket of some, W will end it immediately.

Read more...

Pay attention candidates!

Friday, January 11, 2008

Report: Musharraf cautions US on tactics
President Pervez Musharraf warned that U.S. troops would be regarded as invaders if they crossed into Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan in the hunt for al-Qaida or Taliban militants, according to an interview published Friday.
Also W should pay attention as he sends more and more troops to "train" the Pakistanis.

Read more...

The Huckster and Hell

Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel
Despite the official and media portrayal of the incident in the Strait of Hormuz early Monday morning as a serious threat to US ships from Iranian speedboats that nearly resulted in a "battle at sea," new information over the past three days suggests that the incident did not involve such a threat and that no US commander was on the verge of firing at the Iranian boats.
Bush administration officials seized on the incident to advance the portrayal of Iran as a threat and to strike a more threatening stance toward Iran. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley declared Wednesday that the incident "almost involved an exchange of fire between our forces and Iranian forces." President George W. Bush declared during his Mideast trip Wednesday that there would be "serious consequences" if Iran attacked US ships and repeated his assertion that Iran is "a threat to world peace."
And one of the Prez hopefuls (aka Huckster) threatened to show Iran to the gates of Hell. Does he have a key?
The five Iran boats involved were hardly in a position to harm the three US warships. Although Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described the Iranian boats as "highly maneuverable patrol craft" that were "visibly armed," he failed to note that these are tiny boats carrying only a two- or three-man crew and that they are normally armed only with machine guns that could do only surface damage to a US ship. The only boat that was close enough to be visible to the US ships was unarmed, as an enlarged photo of the boat from the navy video clearly shows.

Read more...

The Fellowship of Truth

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Read more...

Step over this line - I dare you!

Monday, January 07, 2008

Iranian boats harassed warships

Five Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats "harassed and provoked" three U.S. Navy ships early Sunday in international waters, the U.S. military said Monday, calling the encounter a "significant" confrontation.
U.S. military officials said the incident occurred early Sunday morning in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping channel leading in and out of the Persian Gulf.
They said that as the guided missile destroyer USS Hopper, the guided missile cruiser USS Port Royal and the guided-missile frigate USS Ingraham were entering the Persian Gulf, five Iranian boats approached them at high speed and swarmed them.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman downplayed the incident, calling it "ordinary," IRNA reported. Mohammad Ali Hosseini said that similar incidents had occurred in the past between Iranian and American ships, and the issues were resolved as soon as the ships recognized each other, IRNA reported.
A sigh of relief? Not so fast...
The White House urged Iran to refrain from "such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
Five speed boats against three Naval cruisers? Are we willing to start WWIII over this? You bet your ass we will!

Read more...

Obama's Record

Just some of his votes compiled by creativeyouth.net

1/06/05: Obama voted for Bush's Ohio electors. Roll Call 1
1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible for 9/11, the Iraq War, threats of war against Iran, Syria,Venezuela and other nations. and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars of her making. Roll call 2
2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11.
4/21/05: Obama voted to make John "Death Squad" Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director.
7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed "The Nuclear Bill" by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America.. Roll call 172 [W]
11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism.
2/2/06: Obama voted to extend the USA-PATRIOT's attack on the Constitution for five weeks to allow Congress time to put together the support to adopt the renewal of USA-PATRIOT. Roll call 11
6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a person unlikely ever to have existed and who was reported killed three times previously. Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W]
6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home, ended the fighting and forced the Iraqi people to take charge of their security. Roll Call 181 [W]
Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran.
Gee, not a very promising picture -of course better than the majority of the other candidates except for.......... Need any more reasons to support Kucinich? Really want change?

Read more...

You want change?

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Kucinich on Bill Moyers Journal
How can you have a debate if you don't have a voice that challenges all the others? Right now every other Democrat on that stage will be for keeping our troops in Iraq through at least 2013. Everyone else on the stage will be there for the continuation of NAFTA and the WTO. I mean, my position on the American political scene is to show people that there's a whole different direction that America can take here at home and in the world. And the Democratic Party in narrowing the choices and in the media, in trying to block the point of view that I represent, is really doing a disservice to the American people.
...But that's the point that I'm making is, look, we already know that the coverage of this election has been focusing on three candidates. Well, if you look at the records of those three candidates, they're not too much apart. The differences are stylistic, not substantive. And when there's a requirement for a substantive debate, which is all apart from the news coverage, a substantive debate, even the debates themselves have been remarkable for the effort to try to narrow the discussion within the context of the debate itself by apportioning more time to some candidates and less time to others. There are times that the only way I was able to get the question in debate was ask myself a question.
People say you want change, I can give you change for a dollar, you know, if I have it. But the point is real change, transformational change in our society means looking at the engines of our society which has caused wealth to accelerate upwards such as, you know, the military spending, $500 billion budget, borrowing money from China to keep a war going, our trade deficit which is driven by a desire to shift jobs out of this country seeking low wages in places where there are no human rights and environment quality principles or workers' rights, and by energy policies which accelerate the wealth upwards. I think that a more equitable distribution of the wealth ought to be consistent with the message of the Democratic Party. Yet twice, Bill, in two- party platform meetings, I wasn't able to get a not-for-profit healthcare system in the Democratic Party platform in 2000, 2004 because of the hold these insurance companies have on the process.
That's what Mickey was afraid of. The truth - true change - rocking the boat.

Read more...

Too much info...

Israel to brief George Bush on options for Iran strike
SRAELI security officials are to brief President George W Bush on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear programme - and how it could be destroyed - when he begins a tour of the Middle East in Jerusalem this week. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, is said to want to convince him that an Israeli military strike against uranium enrichment facilities in Iran would be feasible if diplomatic efforts failed to halt nuclear operations. A range of military options has been prepared.
Great, get the chimp all excited.

Read more...

Surging into new lands?

U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan
President Bush’s senior national security advisers are debating whether to expand the authority of the Central Intelligence Agency and the military to conduct far more aggressive covert operations in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
The new options for expanded covert operations include loosening restrictions on the C.I.A. to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said. Most counterterrorism operations in Pakistan have been conducted by the C.I.A.; in Afghanistan, where military operations are under way, including some with NATO forces, the military can take the lead.
With the previous info (posted a few weeks ago about our increased presence) I asked who has final authorization? White House? Congress? Shouldn't it be the PEOPLE?

Read more...

Shame on ABC

Saturday, January 05, 2008


Melissa Etheridge Objects on Kucinich's Behalf
The decision of ABC News to exclude Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich from tonight's Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire has Kucinich hopping mad.
He's filed an appropriate complaint with the Federal Communications Commission about the decision of ABC to sponsor a pre-primary debate featuring only the four Democratic candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson -- who have accepted campaign contributions from its parent corporation, Walt Disney Co.
What's Mickey afraid of? Truth?

Read more...

Who besides Kucinich?

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Nader Throws Support to Edwards, Blasts Clinton
Ralph Nader unleashed on Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday - criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business - and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.
On Monday, Nader also issued a public statement criticizing Clinton as a “corporate Democrat,” echoing the exact words Edwards uses to challenge Clinton. Nader said he has watched Edwards from afar and sees his more pugilistic brand of populism as an encouraging sign.
“It’s the only time I’ve heard a Democrat talk that way in a long time,” Nader said, acknowledging what was, for him, a rare moment of praise for a Democratic leader.
“Iowa should decide which candidate stands for us,” he added. “Edwards is at least highlighting day after day that the issue is who controls our country, big business or the people.”
At the same time Michael Moore writes about Hill, Obama and Edwards. Interesting comments on Obama:
Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There’s no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he’s for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn’t think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan — the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He’s such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won’t even have time to make a good speech about it.
And then some "praise" for Edwards:
It’s hard to get past the hair, isn’t it? But once you do — and recently I have chosen to try — you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: “I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy.” Whoa. We haven’t heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won’t take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he’s going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That’s why it’s resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn’t get the attention Obama and Hillary get — and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who’s been running things for far too long. And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he’d have all the troops home in less than a year. Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn’t go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

All a day or two after Kucinich's call for his Iowan supporters to vote for Obama if...

Three men I admire. Two different ways to go. Am I a little confused? You bet. How to resolve it? Elect Kucinich!

Read more...

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP