UNBELIEVABLE NEWS REGARDING THE EXPOSURE OF OUR NATIONAL ASSETS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION!!!

MAN, this is INCREDIBLE, from think progress

In the Scooter Libby trial yesterday, former Associate CIA Deputy Director Robert Grenier testified that — pursuant to a request — he told Libby that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA in June 2003, a month before Libby claimed to have learned that information from NBC’s Tim Russert. Another CIA employee said he delivered a stark warning that the Bush administration’s leak “could lead to the deaths of people who aided American intelligence gathering abroad.”

THE TRIAL OF SCOOTER LIBBY

Man, lots going on in politics lately now that their is some over site back in our government the way our forefathers envisioned.

Anyway, Scooter's on trial for lying to the special prosecute, (Patrick Fitzgerald}.

Patrick was tasked with finding out who uncovered one of our covert assets and if it was deliberate, according to Patrick, scooter lied and prevented discovery.

Now, this is a breach of national security in itself, if we don't find out who exposed our assets, that person is free to continue, if there are people that want to hide the facts, it makes it impossible to file the charges that need to be filed to protect America.

The entire progressive community watching this trial visit foredoglake to get information and to give their own input. There is live blogging from attendees at the trial and their is exert analysis.

Those of you interested in the progress, visit the lake, that's the place to go

more;

I want everyone to do some searches, find and watch senator web's response to the state of the union. This was incredible, hit all the right points that need to be made un doing the damage that has been done To America in the past 6 years, points out the need to get back to the war on terrorism, the need to rebuild our military forces which have been dangerously depleted by some pretty depraved decisions,

Web is too new to run for president in 08, but he will be president one day.

I also want everyone to do another search and find all the recent videos you can of republican senator chuck hagel...hagel gets it right, the neo cons have commandeered the republican party and he wants his party back

Do the same thing with scarbourough...a very strong republican, he also gets it, realizes the damage done to our country by people making believe they are republicans...scarbourough gets it also and he wants his party back as well.

more later

Republicans Abandon Their President

CLEARLY, the only people still supporting the president are the members of the sick fraternity trying to put our treasure in their pockets at the expense of our children's lives, the fraternity known as the PNAC

tee hee...I put this up on MY BLOG


HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE PNAC



Most people involved in today's political envirnment know about the "Project for a New American Century"

Those of you that don't, this is a fraternity that has campaigned politicions to occupy Iraq long before we were attacked on 9/11.

They abbreciate their fraternity with the initials "PNAC"

This abbreviation has become so common we should pronounce it as a word instead of initials.

The proper pronuncuation would obviously follow the emphasis of the entire phrase, this project for a new American centuy...will be on the "p" and the "c", however the "c" is pronounced as an "s"

therefore, the proper pronunciation of the PNAC as a word would be [phonetically];

PEEnass.

I would like to see this proper pronunciation whenever someone is refering to the PNAC from now on

AND THE LORD SAID "LET THERE BE GAY"

Today in the new york times;

Bagemihl had scoured every scientific journal and paper he could lay his hands on for references to homosexuality in animals. Tucked away at the end of long and erudite texts, or consigned to footnotes and appendices, he found that homosexuality had been observed in no fewer than 1,500 species, and well documented in 500 of them. The earliest mention of animal homosexuality probably came 2,300 years ago when Aristotle described two female hyenas cavorting with each other.

The article goes further, documenting anal sex with ejaculation, lesbionism and mutual masterbation.

Pretty obvious, sex is not for procreation exclusively, unless of course you want to believe God got it wrong.

THE PRESIDENT WRITES AN OP ED FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

It is disappointing that the Department of Justice and the White House have squandered another opportunity to work cooperatively with Congress. The Department's decision to brush off my request for information about the Administration's troubling interrogation policies is not the constructive step toward bipartisanship that I had hoped for, given President Bush’s promise to work with us.

I requested two documents concerning CIA interrogation methods, which the Administration recently acknowledged in a lawsuit, and other relevant information. The Administration's refusal to provide any of this information other than forwarding a couple of public documents suggests that the President's offer to work with us may have been only political lip service.

PESIDENT REFUSES BIPARTISAN PARTISIPATION

Well, to be honest, nobody really expected the president to act bipartisant, what he meant was "now that the democrats are in controll I want them to go along with everything I say just as the republicans did"

In performing the requirmments of his position, senator lehey requested information that is vital for oversite, obviously the administration doesn't want oversite, they want to do whatever they want to do and they refused the documents required by the seenate;

It is disappointing that the Department of Justice and the White House have squandered another opportunity to work cooperatively with Congress. The Department's decision to brush off my request for information about the Administration's troubling interrogation policies is not the constructive step toward bipartisanship that I had hoped for, given President Bush’s promise to work with us.

I requested two documents concerning CIA interrogation methods, which the Administration recently acknowledged in a lawsuit, and other relevant information. The Administration's refusal to provide any of this information other than forwarding a couple of public documents suggests that the President's offer to work with us may have been only political lip service.

let's hope the senator shows some balls and presses every tool at his disposal to force the president into following his oath of office, protect our constituion and provide the information he'sn required to proivide for oversite to take place

good luck senator leahy, bring back the constitution to our government and revoke the notions of a unutary executive

DOES THE PRESIDENT MAKE IT UP FROM HIS OWN HEAD?



From the New York Times

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. … It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.

Where the hell does this president get his "military advice" from, it's CERTAINLY not the military

The UNANIMOUS and COMBINED joint chiefs of staff are AGAINST the actions this president is proposing, they tell us just like general Casey that the suggestion of more troops will harm our national security


So is the president just making it up in his own head?

REPUBLICANS HAVE FINALLY COME TO REASLIZE THE PREDICAMENT

logged in, saw this thread, couldn't resist posting this videoas far as more troops, 20,000 troops means absolutely nothing, with shifts, eating, sleeping, it increases the fighting force by about 4000 bodies

in addition, a "surge" is only redirecting existing troops there are no additional troops to support any "surge"

a surge is taking troops from other areas which are already too thin, and it's forcing more tours from soldiers that are there too long already

getting more troops involves recruitment, training, constriction and a three year window

20,000 troops will do nothing and will pressure the other arenas that are sorley under too much presuure already, 40,000 troops is worse for America

we need an actual increase in manpower of at least 200,000 troops to overcome how badly our armed forces have been conducted and continue in Iraq with any prayer of stabalizing this country

you must watch this entire video,...this is scarborough, a republican, was a fierce supporter of Bush in both elections, and a strong supporter of this war, he hit's the nail right on the head...please watch beginning to end

VIDEO from crooks and liars

We have in office a man that makes it up as he goes along, if he has any philosophy he discards all information that discounts his philosophy, he fires anyone that dissagrees with it and he goes on a "listening tour" until he finds someone who agrees with what he wants them to agree with

THE PRESIDENT'S OWN COMBINED AND UNANIMOUS JOINT CHEIFS OF STAFF TELL THE PRESIDENT DO NOT SEND MORE TROOPS

The washingtom post

...The Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

WHY THERE IS CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ

My post below is a summery of Trex's excellant post over at firedoglake

Most Americans, have no idea why there is a civil war in Iraq. This is because we have no knowledge or learning of the history of this country. Now that is not a criticism, very few people study the history of countries outside their own.

To be as brief as possible, the Sunni's and Shiite simply represent two basic philosophical differences;

The religious leaders of the Shiia have to follow a direct bloodline from Muhammad, the Sunni's follow the direct writing in the Koran and do not believe a blood connection to Muhammad is required for their religious leaders.

The Shia claim an inherited right to leadership and wanted to exclude non family members from the clergy, the Sunni's would have none of that.

This has been the basis for civil war between the two since a few centuries after the profit's death and from that time forward there has been bloody civil war.

Shiite's are the majority in Iraq and a few other countries, Sunni's are the majority in the world

Through the 19th and 20th centuries the two sects lived in relative harmony, when we destabilized Iraq the two sects needed to vie for the religious and therefore political influence they want over the country.

Very simple stuff here and obvious why there is a civil war.

Here's the scary part;

The ambassador to Croatia (Peter Galbraith) tells us Bush was totally unaware that there were two major sects of Islam.

He knew nothing about it and this was as recent as two months before he initiated his unprovoked attack...this is from an interview with the ambassador;

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

The argument the politicains are trying to make that the unrest in Iraq is not a civil war is redlculous, of course it's a civil war, and it's a bloody one

professor Cole in an interview at npr;

JC: The degree of rancor and hatred and sheer brutal violence that's going on in Iraq right now between Sunnis and Shiites is, I mean, I think you have to go back to the 1500's to find another period in which it was this bad.

NPR: So, it sounds like the political aspirations of different powers within the region are exacerbating these theological and cultural differences between people, as is often the case in ethnic violence.

JC: Yeah, I don't think that people in Iraq are ultimately fighting over Sunnism and Shiism very much, now. One prays with their hands at their side. Another prays with their hands folded in front. I don't think that people are killing each other over those kinds of minor differences. They're killing each other because these religious ideologies are being marshalled in a quest for power.

so there's the history of what's going on in Iraq.