Thursday, November 30, 2006


you're gonna read something to that effect on the from page of the new york times, possibly sometime today, maybe tomorrow, it'll read;

"The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that would call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stopped short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal," write David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud, citing sources close to the group.

The report by the panel, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, will be given next week to the President. Sanger and Cloud indicate that the report avoids "a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Bush, but [makes] it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended."

that's right too, the baker group is going to tell the president "get the frig out"...they will try to save face for him a little bit and "not recomend a definate timetable", but they WILL say something like 'as soon as possilble"

so NOBODY will EVER claim this is a "democratic initiative", this is a republican initiated pull out, endorsed by the republicans and forced through by the republicans.


As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Bush has been willing to attempt so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might take place as part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Iran and Syria.

Bush has rejected such contacts until now, and he has also rejected withdrawal, declaring in Riga, Latvia, on Tuesday that while he will show flexibility, "there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."

full transcript of the president's deputy press secretary is at salon

Bartlett: There was going to be a trilateral meeting, and then the dinner with the King. Now, since they already had a bilateral themselves, the King of Jordan and the Prime Minister, everybody felt, well, there's no reason for them to do a trilateral meeting beforehand, because matters had been discussed.

do you beleive this?

first cheney is "summoned by the suadi's" and like a litte puppet he runs down there to listen to what they tell him they are going to do, and now the president of the United
states of America is actually stood up, left to twiddle his toes, a high level meeting HE requested is cancelled at the whim of a brand spankin new Iraqi politician

how long will it take for America, her reputation, her integrity take to recover from this administration?

will we ever recover?

Wednesday, November 29, 2006


you know what?

I’ve been saying this ever since the hybrid cars first made news;

our auto industry is supposed to be enjoying the most profitable years in their history right now.

there is NO reason we are not ENTIRELY hybrid RIGHT NOW.

that would make every single person still driving a gasoline car to be ITCHING for a hybrid

there are FUHRIGGIN waiting lines for foreign hybrids and THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT.

it’s sickening

if REAGAN hadn’t repealed the programs that were intended to make us energy independent, gasoline would be PENNIES right now…that’s right, pennies, supply and demand and NOBODY would be demanding gasoline.

there’s wind, tide, there’s solar, there’s liquid coal, AND THERE’S RENEWABLE sources like corn.

vegetable fuel would make the heartland of America centrally important, our farmers would be RICH

we’d be SELLING our abundant supply of petroleum overseas because WE WOULDN’T NEED NEARLY ALL OF IT

this is NOT fantasy, take a look at Venezuela

now, you take my post, you make it a foundation to run your presidential campaign and YOU ARE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Alaska Is At Again: Refuses to Release 2006 Election Database Despite Court Order
State Which Fought Release of Diebold Data Showing 200+ Percent Turnout in 2004 is Again Fighting Against Transparency
The state of Alaska which, as avid BRAD BLOG readers will recall, had been fighting tooth and nail to keep from releasing their database of how voters voted back in 2004, is at it again. Now, despite a court order, the state is refusing to release the new 2006 database, according to a press release just issued by the state Democratic Party. (Press release posted in full at the bottom of this item.)

Previously, the outgoing Governor Murkowski went so far as to have his top security man issue a memo saying release of the 2004 database would be a "security risk." The state had argued prior to that that they could not release the database because it was a "company secret" of Diebold's, according to their contract with the Anti-American Voting Company. All of that after Democrats had discovered a 200% voter turnout in some jurisdications across the state.

Murkowski's daughter Lisa, whom Frank had appointed to fill his seat in the Senate when he ascended to Governor, was in a very close race for that seat in 2004. In fact, most polls showed her trailing against her opponent prior to Election Day.

A court eventually forced the state to release the 2004 database but it was found to contain hundreds of edits since the 2004 election, including as late as July of 2006, prior to the release of the data.

See all of the stories in our Alaska category for the bizarre roller-coaster ride on this issue in the state.

Now it appears that Alaska is at it again, fighting to not release the database from the 2006 election in the only state that we know of where the Democratic Party themselves are actually fighting for complete transparency.

Please go to his site and give your support...without him the democrats probably wouldn't have shown their win in the mid term elections

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

why it matters we call it a civil war as soon as possilble;

We refused to call it an insurgency and therefore didn't prepare for insurgents.

if we refuse to call it a civil war we will not be addressing the issue the way it needs to be addressed

By Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page A01

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.


my proposal for the comming elections, everyone needs to get on board with some of these;

this is one great idea, (redo from the the nixon days)

if you remmeber when Nixon was thrown out of office for criminal activity, there were a bunch of “don’t blame me, I voted for mcgovern” bumper stickers and slogans

that served a real subliminal purpose and it villainized the republcan party

the republiican party has visited much more harm to America and her national securiy then Nixon could have ever done and yet they manage to convince Americans they are the party of national security

time to villainize the republican party becuase of how inept bush has been and their rubber stamping of anything and everything that was done to us

Anyone can use this without credit...we need to start a similar campaign

since very few people like pumper stickers nowadays, removasble window signs are probably the way to go…tee shirts, firedog coffe mugs would be good too

sayings like “don’t blame security failure on me, I vote democratic”

“don’t blame 9/11 on me, I voted for gore”

“don’t blame under equipping torture on me, I vote with the democrats”

and the best one;


that last one is a killer

Monday, November 27, 2006



you must watch this video.

the problem with what has happened is that this is no surprise, the president was told he'd be bringing caos into Iraq by attacking and here we are today

this has been a civil war for two years and the president insists on calling it something else so the people here in America don't follow what he's done to the middle east;

Harvard professor Monica Toft

she tells us there are six criteria calling a conflict a "civil war"...errr...Iraq met all six since 2004.

I don't think anyone wants to accept this presidents understanding of linquistics over a harvard professor

some might though

Saturday, November 25, 2006



it is INCOCEIVABLE the damage this man has done to our national security

BAGHDAD, Nov. 25 — The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.

Bilal Hussein/Associated Press
Suspected insurgents fighting on the streets of Ramadi in a 2005 photo. An American study offers little hope that much can be done to choke off revenues to the armed groups battling the government in Iraq.
The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials.


I have no idea if this kind of damage can possibly be reversed, I do know we need to start ASAP

so, they are finally getting is republican Hagel;

By Chuck Hagel
Sunday, November 26, 2006; Page B07

There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans.

Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government

look, even if you think we need to stay in Iraq, where do you suppose we are going to get the troops we need

We need no less then 400,000 soldiers and even with that number, most experts think the campaign will still fail

so to get enough men and women in Iraq, we obviously need a draft, unless the republicans are willing to recomend a draft, they absolutely have to advocate for abandoning the initiative undertaken by the most inept administration in America's history

Friday, November 24, 2006


look at what he put together here;

Friday, November 24, 2006

Why I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement

(updated below)

Dick Cheney, October 24, 2006

Q. Are the terrorists trying to influence our election in your view?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think they're very much aware of our political calendar here, I really do. . . . So I think they are very conscious of the electoral timetable in the United States.

I can't say that they make a specific decision for a particular act, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's a factor that enters into their thinking.

Q I have a Pentagon source that tells me there are websites out there that they've just recently translated that actually refer to the election and ask for an up-tick in violence to try and influence the election, is that accurate?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't be surprised. It sounds right to me.

UPI, October 23, 2006

Senior U.S. government officials and military officers have suggested that Iraqi insurgents are trying to influence the U.S. midterm elections. A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote.

His comments Thursday echoed those made by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney two days earlier on conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh's radio show, which is carried on the Armed Force Radio network in Iraq.

George Bush, October 18, 2006

There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.

Don Rumsfeld, October 26, 2006

Here they are, getting up every day saying, “We’ve got an election in two weeks in America, gang, and we want to change horses over there because we don’t like the folks we’re having to deal with now; they’re a little tough on us. So let’s get out there and let’s make some noise.“

John Hinderaker, November 10

I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. See, for example, this article by Aaron Klein. And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates.

New York Times, today

In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said. . . .The attacks were the worst in an intensifying series of revenge killings in recent months, in a cycle that has increasingly paralyzed the political process and segregated the capital into Sunni and Shiite enclaves, and threatened to drag Iraq into an all-out civil war.

Boston Globe, yesterday

Yesterday was no different: About 100 people were killed in the country. Among them was a bodyguard to the speaker of Iraq's parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who himself escaped an apparent assassination attempt the day before. A journalist for the state-run al-Sabah newspaper was also killed, gunned down as he drove through the capital.

Washington Post, today

More than 1,000 Iraqis a day are being displaced by the sectarian violence that began on Feb. 22 with the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra, according to a report released this week by the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-associated group.

This increasing movement of Iraqi families, caused by the lack of security and by the growth of armed local militias and criminal gangs, is adding to the already chaotic governmental situation in Baghdad, according to U.N., U.S. and non-governmental reports released over the past weeks.

Everything they accuse others of doing -- exploiting national security for domestic political gain, being 'unserious' about war matters, playing games with the mission of the troops -- is what they do as transparently as possible. And note how they used a senior military official to make the disgusting claim that the violence in Iraq was related to a desire to help Democrats win the midterm election: "A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote."

The idea that the sectarian violence in Iraq, which has been spiraling out of control since the beginning of the year, had anything to do with trying to make Democrats win the election was always as transparently false -- stupid even -- as it was repugnant. Yet they say anything, and the media largely lets them get away with it.

And now the incontrovertible proof is here that what they said was a lie designed to manipulate Americans into voting Republican out of a desire to punish the Democrat-favoring terrorists in Iraq, and what are the consequences? They lie and manipulate like this not only because they lack any shred of integrity and character -- although that's true -- but also because they know they can do so with impunity.

Ponder how corrupt and misleading their coordinated pre-election claim was: All the increased violence in Iraq was just about the midterm election, not a sign of a spiraling civil war. It was just The Terrorists who hate Bush, because he is so tough with them, trying to help the Democrats. Nothing was really that bad in Iraq. Once the elections are over, it will all subside, because it's only about that.

The only thing worse than government leaders lying to their citizens so blatantly about a war is lying in order to benefit themselves politically for cheap electoral gain, so that's exactly what Bush officials and Bush followers do.

UPDATE: Nobody glorifies the power of the Islamic Terrorists more than Bush followers do. As The Heretik says in comments: "What's so impressive about the terrorists and the insurgents and the Shiites and the Sunnis who yearn so for the inevitable caliphate that will stretch from Spain to Pluto and beyond is that even as they fight amongst themselves, they have time to sit down and figure out how to influence our politics here."

And he says over at his own blog: "Our midterm elections are over and the violence that was raised to influence those results has spiked even higher" (The Heretik also has an extremely satisfying illustration of what Pat Leahy is doing to the White House). And as James Raven notes, some Bush followers are blaming Nancy Pelosi for this increased violence (because her desire to withdraw from Iraq is galvanizing The Terrorists).

So, to recap: when insurgents engage in violence before the elections, that's the fault of Democrats because it's done to help them win (and credit to Republicans because it shows how tough they are on The Terrorists). When the insurgents engage in violence after the elections, that's also the fault of Democrats because they are excited by the Democrats' success (and credit to Republicans because Republicans want to stay forever, which makes the insurgents sad and listless). And when there is no violence, all credit to Republicans because it shows how great their war plan is.

Put another way, no matter what happens in Iraq (violence increases, violence decreases), and no matter when it happens (before the election, after the election), it is the fault of Democrats and it reflects well on the Republicans. Isn't it fair to say that that's the very definition of the mindset of a cultist?


man oh man !!!


Shiites torch Sunni people, mosques, houses BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Enraged Shiites burned people to death, torched mosques and denounced Sunni leaders and the United States a day after a bloody assault on Sadr City, the Iraq capital's Shiite bastion.

That coordinated strike, which killed more than 200 and wounded more 250 Thursday, is considered the worst of the Iraq war, and Sunni militants are widely assumed to have carried it out.

Witnesses said Shiite gunmen on Friday attacked two mosques with rocket-propelled grenades and burned two other Sunni mosques in the largely Shiite area of Hurriya in northwestern Baghdad. (Watch as all-out civil war threatens to overtake Iraq )

They reported people attacking Sunni houses with hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades. Shiite militiamen are also said to have doused Sunnis with kerosene and burned them, and shot at other people.

One witness reported at least five people were killed. An official with the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group, said many more were killed and wounded but could not confirm numbers.

Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said clashes erupted between two groups in Hurriya. U.S. and Iraqi troops then arrived at the scene, set up checkpoints and restored control.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm the reports of people and mosques being torched.

In Sadr City itself, two people were hurt when U.S. helicopters fired on tents set up for funerals, police said. (Location of Sadr City)

Mourners said they were shooting weapons in the air to commemorate the dead -- not firing at the helicopters.

But the U.S. military said troops destroyed rocket launchers that had fired six rockets.

Two Sunni Arab neighborhoods -- Ghazaliya and Adhamiya -- also withstood a barrage of mortar fire that wounded 10 people earlier.

The new attacks and counterattacks threaten to bring Iraq to the brink of all-out civil war, a process that has escalated since the February bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad. Since then, thousands have fled their homes for other neighborhoods and countries in the face of Sunni-Shiite vendettas. (Watch for the divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims )

Thousands more have been slain. Sectarian violence has left its imprint with the daily discovery of tortured bodies around the capital despite U.S. and Iraqi military efforts to stem the brutality.

I don't think "worst president in hostory" goes quite far enough, what this administration has wrought upon the middle easat, the world, and America will not be told for generations untold as the repurcussions unfold in our life times, in our children's lifetimes, in our grandchildren's life times

Thursday, November 23, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- In the deadliest attack on a sectarian enclave since the beginning of the Iraq war, suspected Sunni-Arab militants used three suicide car bombs and two mortar rounds on the capital's Shiite Sadr City slum to kill at least 150 people and wound 238 on Thursday, police said.

The Shiites responded almost immediately, firing 10 mortar rounds at the Abu Hanifa Sunni mosque in Azamiya, killing one person and wounding 14 people in an attack on the holiest Sunni shrine in Baghdad.

you know, you see morons on the "internets" actually claiming things are going better in Iraq then the "liberal media" reports"

what a bunch of idiots, news flash;

the media, once owned by over 50 entities is now completely controlled by about 5 corporations, they are corporate owned, corporate controlled with a corporate agenda.

the strife in Iraq has been UNDER reported, NOT over gets worse exponentially every single month.

we need to get the inept people who have caused the problem to stop making decisions they are clearly unequipped to make

Wednesday, November 22, 2006



in her press release today...if you want to enter politucs and serve AMERICA instead of your pocket book, Palosi is right now righting the script on effective governance


"Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi announced today that House Democrats will hold a forum to discuss the war in Iraq on Tuesday, December 5," the statement begins. "Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Major General John Batiste will join current and new members of the Democratic Caucus in discussing options for a way forward in Iraq."

Brzezinski is former National Security Advisor to President Carter; Holbrooke is former Assistant Secretary of State under Carter and President Clinton; and Batiste is a retired U.S. Army division commander and a vociferous critic of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Pelosi continues in the statement, "The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq.

"We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq."


diebold can't be trusted

hehe...that's actually a news scoop as far as the republican propaganda machine is concerned, old news to people that have better sourses then corporate owned media

anyway, head out to the brad blog;
BLOGGED BY Brad ON 11/21/2006 4:54PM
EXCLUSIVE: Whistleblower Stephen Heller Says 'Diebold Cannot be Trusted to Run Elections in America'
Plea Deal for 'Wobbly Felony' Conviction, 3-Years Probation, May be Reduced to Misdemeanor after One Year of Good Behavior
In an exclusive statement sent to The BRAD BLOG earlier today excoriating the privatization of America's voting system, whistleblower Stephen Heller says, "Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America."

He oughta know.

As we reported last night, Heller pled guilty yesterday in an agreement with Los Angeles prosecutors, after his arrest earlier this year on felony charges related to his release of attorney-client privileged documents he obtained while working as a temporary word-processor at Diebold's law firm, Jones Day.

The agreement, which required him to sign an apology, pay $10,000 in restitution, and not discuss the documents he released, may also allow Heller's felony conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor charge after one year of "good behavior."

As well, in exchange for Heller's signed apology and commitment not to discuss the documents themselves (which are already publicly available since he released them originally to both the media and Election Integrity activists), Jones Day signed an agreement that they would not sue him in civil court in the matter.

In a phone call this afternoon, Heller explained Diebold's enormously powerful law firm — where he had worked at night while pursuing an acting career by day — had informed him that they'd planned to convert any criminal felony conviction in the case into a civil suit. Had the case gone to trial, he explained, and been successful, Jones Day had promised a lawsuit claiming losses of "well over a million dollars." Such a suit "would have left my wife and I impoverished for the rest of our lives," Heller says.

He went on to tell us that the plea deal conviction was characterized by his attorneys as a "wobbly felony" — one that will likely be reduced to a misdemeanor after a year, as long as he "doesn't do anything bad." He quickly added, "which I have no intention of doing."

A court date of Nov. 15th, 2007, has been set to review the case in order to determine if the sentence will be reduced and, among other things, allow Heller to have his right to vote in California restored!

"Yes, I am now a disenfranchised voter as a convicted felon," he told us today with no small amount of irony in his voice.

Despite California having decertified Diebold voting systems in 2004 after Heller's release of documents showing the voting machine company had violated state law and that they may have been planning to lie about it to state officials — and even after the state and election watchdog eventually agreed to settle a fraud complaint with Diebold for $2.8 million dollars in the bargain — Heller is, for the moment, unable to vote in the Golden State due to his conviction.

All of this, of course, despite those who've denounced the arrest of Heller on the grounds that they believe, as we do, that he is an heroic whistleblower who exposed important information — illegally or otherwise — because it was in the best public interest of the country.

California does have a "Whistleblower Law," which prevents employers from exacting retribution against an employee who "has reasonable cause to believe that the information [being released] discloses a violation of state or federal statute." That law, unfortunately, doesn't seem to apply to apparently over-zealous County Prosecutors such as Los Angeles's Steve Cooley.

Heller has promised that he will share "the whole story" with us in a Guest Blog special to The BRAD BLOG after the holidays.

In the meantime, however, his agreement at least does not keep him from speaking his mind about Diebold, electronic voting, or the private corporatization of our public democracy. Earlier today, Heller followed up on his promise of last night and emailed us the following statement with his opinions of the current state of our electoral system in America:

In my view, Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America. We must not allow a private corporation to run our elections for us in secret, using secret machines and secret software. The only thing secret about our elections should be the secret ballot.

I urge all Americans to insist Congress enact Federal legislation requiring that all voting machines must have a voter verifiable paper ballot, be run on open source software code, be subject to inspection by independent computer experts, and that each election have a random sample ballot recount. Only then will we have a chance of restoring true integrity to American elections.

The BRAD BLOG wishes to express our deepest and most heart-felt gratitude to Heller for his courageous and selfless act of civil disobedience. As bad as our electoral system is now…and make no mistake, it is in tatters…we shudder to ponder the state we'd currently be in without patriots like Heller who continue to fight for free, fair, honest, and transparent elections in America — at no small cost to either themselves or their families.

On behalf of The BRAD BLOG and likely millions of democracy-lovin' Americans: Thank you, Mr. Heller.

UPDATE 8:48pm PT: Oakland Tribune's Ian Hoffman is the first MSM'er out of the box to pick up on this story. Hoffman first reported on Heller when when the Trib ran the Diebold documents given to them while Jones Day sued to stop them. His coverage tonight is quite good and worth the read.

when you see a commenter on firedog lake, they are usually incredibly informed and very well versed

check this out, bookmark firdoglake and visit a few times a day


November 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 am *

And the failures can also be measured in Iraqi blood, as the Associate Press report:

Iraqi civilian deaths at new high

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq’s sectarian bloodbath.

Didn’t see figures this high in your daily newspaper?

The U.N. tally was more than three times higher than the total The Associated Press had tabulated for the month, and far more than the 2,866 U.S. service members who have died during all of the war.

And who are the killers?

“Hundreds of bodies continued to appear in different areas of Baghdad handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing,” the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq report said. “Many witnesses reported that perpetrators wear militia attire and even police or army uniforms.”

and the victims?

The report painted a grim picture across the board, from attacks on journalists, judges and lawyers and the worsening situation of women to displacement, violence against religious minorities and the targeting of schools.

Of course, it’s just the United-f***ing-Nations writing this stuff, not some body with credibility:

Asked about the U.N. report, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh called it “inaccurate and exaggerated” because “it is not based on official government reports.”

Those would be the official government reports that keep careful track of such things.

When asked if there is a government report, al-Dabbagh said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that one “is not available yet but it will be published later.”

And why isn’t this kind of information readily available for the public and policymakers to consider?

Access to the U.N. news conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad was blocked for many because the main entrance was closed as U.S. forces were checking for unexploded ordinance in the area, a U.S. military official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

There’s a word for such disinformation, right? I just can’t remember quite what the word is


That link goes to a wapo article, have a read through the entire thing, it's a snippet;

Iraqis also had some complaints about their U.S. advisers, most notably that junior U.S. officers who had never seen combat were counseling senior Iraqi officers who had fought in several wars.

ya, incredible right?

In dozens of official interviews compiled by the Army for its oral history archives, officers who had been involved in training and advising Iraqis bluntly criticized almost every aspect of the effort.

ot only does the U.S. military not have enough service members devoted to advising and training, but as Ricks's piece indicates, many of the people we've assigned to advise Iraqi forces don't have the right skills or experience to do the job.

OK, can someone finally say "oversight please"

thank you America for voting in the party that has some kind of military clue...hopefully, as every tine the republicans have screwed up our national security, the democrats will once again get our military back to the strength, ability, integrity and international integrity once again.

here's the reason we have to make sure the idiots in charge get looked at when they're invading our privacy.

Given that kind of power, they will steal, this is a fact, they will steal our company secrets, our personal secrets, if they think someone is critical of their poslices, if they think someone might be on to their stealing, they will simply steal their information to find it out

here are peace demonstrators...PEACE DEMONSTRATORS, and these theives in office actually put them on the terrorist list so they can have an excuse to steal from them

from the press club;

Sacramento peace protesters were targeted by a widespread domestic spying operation in which the Pentagon monitored anti-war groups across the country, newly released government documents show.

The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and made public Tuesday, detail entries made into the Pentagon's Threat and Local Observation Notice database dating back to November 2004, when two local groups protested at the Military Entrance Processing Station on Rosin Court in North Sacramento.

The revelation adds more fuel to the ongoing debate over governmental spying on citizens critical of the war in Iraq. It is the latest in a series of cases that includes the California National Guard's spying on anti-war grandmothers and secret wiretapping by the National Security Agency.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006


remember when the president had the nerve to say; "when the Iraqi's want us to leave we'll leave"?

well, they want us to leave

to sum it up for you so you don't have to read it;

Seven out of ten Iraqis want us out


time to get the frig out of that country
REPUBLICAN, CHUCK HAGELHagel: ‘The Time For More Troops Is Past,’ McCain’s Plan Is ‘Not Realistic,’ ‘The Wrong Approach’


Sadly, far too late...if they had recognized that Murtha was telling us what the generals in the field were telling him, then we could have possibly come up with better solutions then we are faced with today;

MITCHELL: Let’s talk a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly considering, first of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a short-term surge, an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. Is that realistic? And is that cover for more quickly phasing out and withdrawing?

HAGEL: Andrea, it is not realistic. General Abizaid noted that when he was here last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee. We don’t have the troops. That’s number one.

Number two, even if we did, it’s the wrong approach. The time for more troops is past.

We’ve been in Iraq now almost four years. We went in completely undermanned, under-managed. We didn’t understand what we were getting into. We didn’t have the plans. We should have gone in with three times the troops that we had.

Those days are over. We’re not going to recapture that and go back and unwind those bad decisions.

We don’t want to put more troops in now. Even if we had them, that’s the wrong approach.

There’s not going to be a military resolution that decides the outcome of Iraq. It will be a political solution. It will include the Iraqi people, countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan and other countries around it.

Our options there are very limited right now. I hope that the president will be able to use the Baker-Hamilton commission to build a new bipartisan foundation in order to start moving this country, the United States, out of Iraq.

you know what?

whoever is on the republican side of the aisle that even thought disparage the military knowledge of Murtha needs to get grovel and post a public opology.

In addition, who ever thinks the republicans in office have any kind of military clue and has even the slightest ability when compared to the democrats needs to just wake up.

Sunday, November 19, 2006


so, he's finally had a chance to talk with the generals in the field, as Murtha was doing a year ago;

'McCain: Sending More Troops Would ‘Absolutely…Be Terrible’ For Military, Risks ‘Broken Army’'">McCain: Sending More Troops Would ‘Absolutely…Be Terrible’ For Military, Risks ‘Broken Army"

and he admits his "plan" for "20,000 more troops for one last push" is rediculous

look, before I post transcripts, let's make it crystal clear;

20,000 troops translates into only about a 5000 man increase in actualy force, the 20,000 have to sleep, eat, and there will be shifts of course, 20,000 soldiers means absolutely nothing even if an increase in manpower would do something, that figure is way too low

now on to ABC'S inerview;

[his plan to escalate the Iraq war by sending at least 20,000 more troops] “would it put a terrible strain on the Army and Marine Corps.” “Absolutely, it would be terrible,”.... “we’re going to be asking people to go back again and again, maybe even extend their tours.”.... “I see a broken Army in 1973″ and didn’t want to see another. Watch it:

here are a couple of the reasons;

1) No troops to send. “Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, it's gonna break our army Army lay to waste our ability to recruit soldiers,

2) it would create even more insurgents, and it would risk making it much much worse

from teh transcript: 

MCCAIN: I notice that several retired generals, Gen. Zinni recently, Gen. Batiste, many others have said the same thing I said.

he's only JUST listening to the generals that retired en mass to raise the alarm, putting their carreers behind them becuase they love their country more

mccain, you need to buy a program, you are living without one

mccain has done an about face, what the puppets of Rove call a flip flop) and is now trying to reverse roe vs wade

this makes him unelectable


here's the history;
back in 1999, when he was trying to look like the great uniter, this mariontte made it clear Roe-Wade is dangerous to women, he said CLEARLY he would NOT try to overturn or support overturning the landmark decision

wahsington post:

I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.


now, today in inteview

since he wants support from the Falwell, the thocratic moron

he does his back flip, bends over, no k-y, and claims with no douby he wants to overturning Roe-Wade

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

ahem, he's now a "federalist"?

the federalists were for a two class, robber baron society, so there you have it.

this man is now unelectable

I hope he's their standard bearer in 08

not too much for me to say is must see, I wouldn't miss these though

Meet the Press (NBC):  Senators-elect Jon Tester and Jim Webb; Ted Koppel and Robin Wright on Iraq.

This Week (ABC):  Sen. John McCain; Rep. Steny Hoyer

Late Edition (CNN):  Sen. Carl Levin: Armed Services Committee, D-Michigan; Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison: Veterans Affairs Committee, R-Texas; Samir Sumaidaie: Iraqi Ambassador to United States; Rep. James Clyburn: Majority whip-elect, D-South Carolina; Rep. Roy Blunt: Minority whip-elect, R-Missouri; Ken Adelman: Former assistant secretary of defense; David Frum: Former speechwriter for President Bush and author of "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush"; Michael Rubin: Resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute.

Fox News Sunday:  Sen. John Kerry and Newt Gingrich.

I've got some tennis today, feel free to comment on the programs as they air

Saturday, November 18, 2006

sunday roundup

just found out from a radio interview santorum isn't going to be running for president in 08 and man, I was kind of counting in that.

"Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not....My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08."

too bad

also heard cheney actually said "America must not retreat for Iraq"

check this out;
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on Friday that America must not turn its back on Iraq, even as the Bush administration considers a course change in the war after voters vented anger over it in this month's elections.

"Some in our country may believe in good faith that retreating from Iraq would make America safer. Recent experience teaches the opposite lesson," Cheney said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

you know, cheney has been wrong on everything he's said..everything, from [paraphrased}"the insurgency is in it's last throws", to "we know saddam had links to al qaeda"

so now he says "recent experience teaches us the opposite lesson"

excuse me, recent experience teaches us when cheney says something he's absolutely wrong, for instance, the president himself gave a speach in vietnam, where we in fact did pull out.

Friday, November 17, 2006


Dodd Introduces Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act; Brings Terrorists to Justice, Honors America's Good Name

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges.  As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

  • Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

  • Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

  • Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

  • Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

  • Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

  • Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

  • Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.

you know what?

the republican base are morons and this has to be spelled out for them;

Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

“if a person can prove they are innocent they are going to be able to do it, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of these people so they become allies


add to that;


Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

the following addendum;

“it would not be possible to acheive success, creating allies if we were to allow any person the ability to declare someone an enemy combatant at for whatever suits their fancy, we don’t have dictators in America”

Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

“I can get anyone to bare false witness against anyone I want with coersion and to allow it is to allow depravity and false imprisonment against people who have never done or wanted to do harm to America”, and allowing coerced testimony would make it impossible to succeed in this country

Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

this doesn’t go far enough, we cannot allow a person to give testimony of what someone else said they saw, the information cannot be reliable and a person’s guilt could never be established allowing this type of worthless testimony”

Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

all jurisdictions need oversite so no office abuses their power indiscriminantly, this is obvious”

Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

‘as the heads of our armed forces tell us in no uncertain terms, the geneva convention protects our soldiers, it is a treaty that we deliberately brokered through passed administrations.

it is a threat of national security for any president who presumes to unilaterally overule treaties that we are signators, the very notion makes it impossible to broker treaties in the future and great harm is done to our nations security and her international integrity when a president presumes to be the interperator of treaties signed by previous administrations”

this is great harm and we need to reverse the damage that has been done to our national security, we mustdo whatever it takes to regain the reputation of honest broker that has been squandered by ill advised decisions”

Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions

we are the guardians of our constitution, we must insure constitutional integrity is maintained for the future of the country our forefathers risked their lives to leave behind”

Wednesday, November 15, 2006


He does it agian, this idiot is actually insisting he can hold whoever he wants for however long he likes, and even if they can prove they are innocent, he won't allow them to do it.
What exactly does this persident thing America stands for?
How on earth are we going to be able to regain the international respect this president has torn to shreds?
Have a look

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

We have a madman in office who thinks he is a dictator and a king.
Fox...Fair and Ballanced...(not)

Even in their memos they openly discuss how to undermine the democratic side of the aisle, they have the nerve to even suggest the democrats won't be better stemming the tidle wave of terrorism this administration has created.

FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...

Anything they can do to try to cast dispursion on the democratic party, they will even destroy the process of rebuilding our military forces, our national security, and the process of rebuiling the integrety of America just to spin the results of these midterm elections.

These people are insane

You can read the entire aticle at the Huffington Post
We all know immediately apon finding out the democrats won majority in both houses, President G.W. bush fired Donald Rumsfleld.
Rumsfeld is the most inept secretary of defense in my lifetime and probably the history of America, this was known almost immediately after the war, and according to somepundit, when the president first appointed him there were a few republicans that actually said "Bush is makiing me miss Clinton already"
There's no proof to that story, but we do know the generals retired en masse so they can raise the alarm concerning national security , they insist our military is broken and they want someone who knows how to conduct the armed forces of the United States of America in charge.
Bacck on point;
The president has nominated Bob Gates who is a former daddy aid, the president will be taking advice from people outside his PNAC, and the decisions are now being made by Bush sr.
Just a quick post without links to get myself back in the swing of this blog thing
Sorry about the short post, future posts will hopefully be better composed