Be INFORMED

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Giuliani Not Invited To IAFF Debate

    Everyone has heard of the 9/11 leadership that then mayor Rudy Giuliani showed so far as keeping things running as smooth as he could under the circumstances. But, there were things which were done that most of the public isn't aware of and these things question Giuliani's leadership.  Below is one of the problems that the International Association of Fire Fighters ( IAFF )  has with Mr. Giuliani.

             Fire Fighting News 

Early on, the IAFF made a decision to invite all serious candidates from both political parties — except one: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

We made this decision after considerable soul-searching and close consultation with our two New York City affiliates, the Uniformed Firefighters Association Local 94 and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association Local 854, as well as our former Local 94 President and current IAFF 1st District Vice President covering New York.

The IAFF recognizes that Mayor Giuliani generally enjoys a favorable reputation as a result of his actions immediately after the tragedy of 9/11. As such, we want our affiliates and every one of our members to clearly understand the reason and rationale behind this very serious and sober decision.

Many people consider Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor," and many of our members who don't yet know the real story, may also have a positive view of him. This letter is intended to make all of our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11, and our New York City union officers following that horrific day [...]

The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families and our New York City IAFF leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten.

In November 2001, our members were continuing the painful, but necessary, task of searching Ground Zero for the remains of our fallen brothers and the thousands of innocent citizens that were killed, because precious few of those who died in the terrorist attacks had been recovered at that point.

Prior to November 2001, 101 bodies or remains of fire fighters had been recovered. And those on the horrible pile at Ground Zero believed they had just found a spot in the rubble where they would find countless more that could be given proper burial.

Nevertheless, Giuliani, with the full support of his Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, decided on November 2, 2001, to sharply reduce the number of those who could search for remains at any one time. There had been as many as 300 fire fighters at a time involved in search and recovery, but Giuliani cut that number to no more than 25 who could be there at once.

In conjunction with the cut in fire fighters allowed to search, Giuliani also made a conscious decision to institute a "scoop-and-dump" operation to expedite the clean-up of Ground Zero in lieu of the more time-consuming, but respectful, process of removing debris piece by piece in hope of uncovering more remains.

Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill.   READ MORE

 

IceRocket tags: , ,

Bush Has God On His Side While He Let's Veterans Suffer

   Crossposted from Huffington Post

Rove Narrowly Escaped Libby's Fate By Changing His Grand Jury Testimony

Salon   |  Sidney Blumenthal   |  Posted March 8, 2007

  As witnesses were trooping to the stand in the federal courthouse in Washington to testify in the case of United States v. I. Lewis Libby, and the Washington Post was publishing its series on the squalid conditions that wounded Iraq war veterans suffer at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center while thousands more soldiers were surging into Baghdad, President Bush held one of his private book club sessions that Karl Rove organizes for him at the White House. Rove picks the book, invites the author and a few neoconservative intellectual luminaries, and conducts the discussions. For this Bush book club meeting, the guest was Andrew Roberts, an English conservative historian and columnist and the author of "The Churchillians" and, most recently, "A History of the English-Speaking People Since 1900.

   The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.

 

CBC To Debate On Fox (news)

   So the Democratic state leadership in Nevada is still thinking of having their debate hosted by Fox News even though many in the state and the rest of the country say it's a bad idea.

   What is it with these people that we elected last November? Have they gotten stuck on stupid or what? So Fox offered to stick a representative from air America on the panel. Big deal! One token Democrat, progressive, or whatever you wish to call the victim.

  Personally, the presidential contenders should do as John Edwards did and tell the state of Nevada and Fox News to go to hell. but that's just me.

Daily Kos

CBC to get in bed with Fox?

by kos    Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:47:40 PM PST

So now the Congressional Black Caucus wants to get in bed with Fox News?

Later this week, the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute plans to announce two debates in concert with Fox News, according to a source familiar with the negotiations, which have apparently been going on for weeks. The CBC Institute previously worked with Fox on a 2003 Democratic presidential primary debate in Baltimore.

"Both CNN and Fox have presented the Institute with two great proposals and at some point in the coming days we will be making an announcement," she said Candice Tolliver, a consultant working with the CBC Institute on the debates, adding that the Institute's plans are not final.

Funny that the CBC wants to get in bed with a network that has made a habit of trashing African American interests. I mean, just look at last week:

On the February 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, during a segment discussing the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the church to which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) belongs, co-host Sean Hannity stated that "many" call Trinity "separatist," adding that "in some cases, even drawing comparisons to a cult." Guest Erik Rush, a columnist for the conservative website WorldNetDaily, said that the church's "scary doctrine" is "something that you'd see in more like a cult or an Aryan Brethren Church or something like that." Just the day before, Hannity -- referring to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) -- had claimed: "We created a new religious litmus test. This is very troublesome to me, and no other candidate is getting that scrutiny."

Referring to "The Black Value System," which is advocated by Trinity, Rush stated: "I would go beyond saying that they're Afrocentric. They're African-centric. They refer to themselves as an African people, and that somewhat disturbs me from the viewpoint of, well, do they consider themselves Americans? Do they consider themselves Christians? Are they worshipping Christ? Are they worshipping African things black? Well, I mean, what is it?" Later in the segment, when co-host Alan Colmes asked: "Are you questioning Barack Obama's Christianity?" Rush responded simply: "Yeah."

Of course, this isn't out-of-character for Fox and its lilly-white lineup, but bizarrely, the CBC thinks it's a good idea to get in bed with them.

Hopefully, CNN gets the gig and all will be well. It wouldn't be a bad thing for the CBC to use Fox as negotiating leverage.

Meanwhile, the Nevada Dems' effort to find a "compromise" to their problem has run up against a solid wall of rejection. From an email floating around (I think from MoveOn):

Air America, PoliticsTV.com, Carson City Democratic Committee, MoveOn, national blogs, and Nevada blogs reject NV Dem Chairman Tom Collin's fake offer. Many voices call on NV Democratic Party to drop Fox.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PoliticsTV.com CEO Dan Manatt:
"PTV rejects participation in Fox's 'egregiously unfair and unbalanced debate'
[Statement below]

Air America Radio President Mark Green:
"Fox has said that it would consider having one AAR person on a panel with three Fox people...I would be interested in co-sponsoring a debate among the Democrats running for President; but not in a way that AAR would be outweighed as tokens in a largely Fox line-up."
http://airamerica.com/...

Carson City Democratic Committee
This resolution passed AFTER Tom Collins' proposal had been offered. "The Carson City Democratic Central Committee opposes the proposal to let Fox News host a Democratic presidential debate and strongly urges the Nevada Democratic Party to drop that proposal."
http://www.dailykos.com/...

MoveOn.org Civic Action:
In AP article entitled "Edwards passes on Fox News Channel debate in Reno," MoveOn debunks NV Dem Chair Tom Collins' compromise as "a lame proposal that would have multiple Fox personalities joined by one lone Air America panelist. That's a rigged, unfair and unbalanced debate...the Fox debate should just be canceled and a more legitimate news source should be found."  
http://www.lasvegassun.com/...

Markos at DailyKos.com national progressive blog:
"In effect, what this does is give Air America a token questioner, sitting with three Fox News questioners. Nothing more. It would still be billed as a Fox News debate, legitimizing the network as a neutral news provider...Too late. The time for compromise is past. At this point, all that's left is killing this Fox News Debate dead."
http://www.dailykos.com/...

Matt Stoller at MyDD.com national progressive blog:
"Tom Collins offered publicly the same exact deal that was rejected last week, a deal that still validates Fox News as a neutral news outlet.  Collins addressed none of our concerns, was completely non-transparent about the decision, and is continuing to poison the Nevada Democratic Party with poor decisions...Fox News is not a neutral news outlet, and it shouldn't be treated as such.  And it's pretty clear that these people are offering Nevada Democrats and activists nothing but bad faith nonsense.  They are willing to scuttle the opportunity for a real debate about the future of the country rather than admit that what hundreds of thousands of Democrats believe is important."
http://www.mydd.com/...

LasVegasGleaner.com blog in Nevada:
Parody of what Tom Collins said in his announcement:  "We're trying really hard to circumvent a head-on up-front discussion of the argument that, by hooking up with Fox, the Nevada Democratic Party is ennabling the network and lending legitimacy and credibility to its all-day every-day bias in favor of Republicans and conservative policies...We've proposed a series of utterly inconsequential and insignficant actions calculated to do nothing whatsoever to cast doubt on Fox's legitimacy -- note, for instance, the agreement to let the Reno radio station air the debate, but nothing is said about feeding the signal to the Air America's markets nationwide."
http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/...

Update: CBC contact info, from the comments:

The Congressional Black Caucus
Political Education and Leadership Institute

CBC Institute
227 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 201
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 785-3634
Fax: (202) 544-1912

General Questions:
info@cbcinstitute.org

Congressional Black Caucus Foundation
1720 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-263-2800
Fax: 202-775-0773
email us at info@cbcfinc.org

CBC Chair Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick
WASHINGTON OFFICE
2264 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2215
Tel: (202) 225-2261
Fax: (202) 225-5730
Office Hours: Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00pm)

 

Nude Pics Forwarded By Students With Cellphones

   We all know what's going on in Iraq and what the Democrats aren't doing about so I'm not even going to bother with it right now.

     Here's something  different for you to read about .

   Some students in Castle Rock, Colorado may be facing charges for showing some nude pictures of their fellow classmates to others and for forwarding them to friends by way of their cellphones.

   Authorities think that the pictures were taken on a dare and then forwarded to as many as 50 other kids.   Source

   These were middle school students so no doubt the pics are floating around on the internet by now.

 

Bush Should Stay In Latin America

   The good news is that our Idiot in Chief is visiting the fine people down in South America so we now have a few days without Bush here. Let Bush personally show the South American's what an idiot the man really is.

    The bad news is that they probably will not keep him there. The citizens of the United States just can't win when it comes to Bush! Apparently, neither can the Democrats.

    In case you did not know this, Bush is rated as the worst US president " in recent memory " by the Latin American countries. So their thoughts are more or less in line with the rest of the planet. I'm not surprised, are you?

    Bush has been basically ignoring Latin America for the past six years so it would seem as if the countries south of us have turned to Hugo Chavez for cash and some kind of leadership.

   If Bush thinks that he is going to go down there and sweet talk Latin American leaders or anyone else into putting up with  his shit then he is in for a rude awakening as will be the rest of Washington.

Romeo Perez Anton, a political analyst in Uruguay, told Al Jazeera: "The rhetoric, the proposals of Chavez, have finally opened the eyes of the United States, and I think this is the explanation for this diplomatic offensive."    

But despite concerns over unity in Latin America, if Bush's plan is to counter the Chavez charm offensive in the region, Washington may have its work cut out.

Lula Da Silva, Brazil's president, has made it clear that his priority is just that - unity between Latin American states, which includes, rather than isolates, Venezuela.   Al Jazeera

 

IceRocket tags: , ,

Trials of Guantanamo Suspects Begin Without a Lawyer or Reporter in Sight

Original

Trials of Guantanamo suspects begin without a lawyer or reporter in sight

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 08 March 2007

Campaigners have condemned the Bush administration's plan to proceed with secret proceedings against 14 "high-value" terrorism suspects currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. The suspects include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused of organising the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The military tribunals, scheduled to begin tomorrow, will take place behind closed doors and away from the scrutiny of the media. Hundreds of previous hearings held to determine the formal status of the prisoners have been open to reporters. None of the suspects will be able to have a lawyer present.

The Pentagon has said that the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) are being held in secret to prevent the possible leaking of classified information. But legal campaigners said the decision had been taken to prevent the revelation of information embarrassing to the Bush administration.

"They're not going to let anybody close," said Clive Stafford Smith, of the UK-based group Reprieve, which represents several dozen Guantanamo prisoners, though none of the 14. "They are trying to stop anyone saying anything about the way they have been abused or which countries they were abused in."

 

US Commander Predicts Baghdad Backlash

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The new U.S. commander in Iraq said on Thursday military force would not end violence unless talks were held with some militant groups and warned of more "sensational attacks" during the current crackdown in Baghdad.   Reuters

   One of these days somebody in the Bush administration will tell the citizen's of the United States something that we do not already know. Maybe these kind of news conferences are directed at the Fox News viewers as they seem to be the most mis-informed group in the country.

   The general did say also that al Qaeda was stepping up their attacks in order to provoke more of the sectarian violence which is threatening to knock Iraq into a civil war.    Source

   That statement alone tells me that the general's comments are aimed at Fox viewers because the rest of the country already knows that Iraq is in a civil war, not heading towards one.

 

" Dear Colleague " Letter From Liberal Democrats

   In case you missed the  " Dear Colleague " letter that liberal Democrats circulated yesterday, here it is.

    TPM

Dear Colleague,

We write to share our thoughts with you about Congressional action regarding the ongoing occupation of Iraq and to make the case for fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq over a clear timeline.

By framing their discussion of the war in terms of winning and losing, the Bush administration seeks to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

The fact is that you cannot "win" an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to "win" an Iraqi civil war.

The Bush administration understands this, just as they understand that there are no pretty or clean options for bringing a responsible end to our policy there. They are content to mouth the words of victory while they try to run out the clock, playing a cynical game of political "chicken," where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq.

There is no question that moving to stop this folly carries a political risk - the accusation that Democrats gave up on the Vietnam War, despite all evidence that it was an unwinnable conflict, hurt the party's credibility on national security issues for a generation.

But we must consider the very real cost of not acting. We are spending $8 billion a month occupying Iraq, with an average of 67 U.S. troops being killed and 500 being wounded. The cost to our security of having our military bogged down in Iraq indefinitely is unsustainable, and is not only sapping vital funds from efforts to fight global terrorism, but is strengthening jihadist recruitment efforts internationally. The longer we allow the administration to delay meaningful movement, and the longer we fail to extract ourselves from this quagmire, the more dangerous this failed foreign policy becomes to America and the rest of the world.

As General Odom, the former head of the NSA under President Reagan, has made clear, withdrawal of U.S. troops is a precondition for engaging other countries in the region on their vested interest in Iraq's future stability. In terms of policy, fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops makes strategic sense.

Congress is going to have to act decisively to end this occupation and to bring troops home. Bush has bet his legacy on an unnecessary war that his administration has botched at every turn. His escalation plan is a plan to pass the buck. If anyone thinks that it will be easy for the next President, even a Democrat, to quickly extricate our nation from the mess Bush has made, he or she is just wrong. Congress is going to have to act, either sooner or later.

The Bush administration argues that Congressional action on Iraq either constitutes micromanagement or cutting off funding for troops in the field, but let's look at the facts.

Fully funding withdrawal is not micromanagement, it is macromanagement - the Bush administration has so badly managed this effort that they have forced Congress to intervene.

Fully funding withdrawal is not cutting off funding - we are going to fully fund a rational alternative to the administration's attempt to run out the clock on their failed policy.

There is ample precedent of both Republican and Democratic Congresses acting to restrict or direct funds during wartime and the time has come to consider such action again.

We have a responsibility to challenge the administration's efforts to run out the clock, and by proposing to intervene by fully funding a policy that actually fulfills our nation's long term strategic security objectives, we force them to defend their track record on the war, which is a debate that Democrats win every time.

We hope to work with you to develop strategies to fully fund the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Sincerely,

BARBARA LEE

Member of Congress

LYNN C. WOOLSEY

Member of Congress

MAXINE WATERS

Member of Congress

JERROLD NADLER

Member of Congress

MAURICE D. HINCHEY

Member of Congress

SAM FARR

Member of Congress

 

House Democrats Have Another Iraq War Plan

   It is Thursday and once again the Democrats are planning on advancing more legislation that would have US combat troops out of Iraq by the fall of 2008. The time table would be moved up if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki doesn't hit security goals ( benchmarks ) set by the US.

    This legislation will be given to the rank and file Democrats sometime today and the legislation would be added to the Bush request of $100 billion for the war effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan.   Source

   Once again I see this legislation as going absolutely no where until the Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha group of Democrats can get the moderate Democrats to get with the program. The moderate side seems more concerned with their image and less concerned with taking any action to end this Iraq war.

   This is getting to be a bit annoying while the two sides try to come together on an agreement that they can both live with.

   I myself do not see what the problem is with this. Moderates think that cutting the funding would be tying the hands of the military commanders which, if you stop and think about for a serious minute, does not make any sense. I've gone through this shit before so I am not going to repeat myself.

   Anyway, the Dems need to get on the ball and to quit dicking around with this mess and do something. Right now, the Dems are being pretty much laughed at by the Republicans because of their ineptitude to pass anything meaning with the war issue and the Dems are beginning to irritate the voters who are getting a little more than impatient with all of the bullshit. 

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

A Few Words From Howard Dean

Governor Dean has a pretty snazzy video that I guess the DNC made after the Libby verdict.

   I received it via email from the DNC so I thought that I would post the link in case you want to hear more other than what has been on the news and in the papers.   Click HERE

 

William J. Jefferson Needs A Prison Appointment, Not A Homeland Security Appointment

   The Republicans are doing something right for once in pressuring Speaker Nancy Pelosi into not letting  Rep. William J. Jefferson sit on the Homeland Security Committee.

   This would be a good time to show the country and the Republicans that the Democrats are not going to put up with any Reps. or Senators who may be under investigation for  corruption from either side of the aisle, no matter who they are leveled at.

  Jefferson certainly should not be anywhere near a committee of any kind. I know that he has not been charged yet, but come on, the man is suspect in to many shady deals to be innocent of all of them. Let us not forget the 90 grand found in his freezer which supposedly came from a 100 grand bribe.

 

Troop Care Panel Will Find The Truth, Bush Says

    The dictator in waiting said today that his bipartisan panel of crack investigators will find out what went wrong with the military hospitals in the United States and that the panel would work to restore confidence in the system of caring for our troops.   Source

   Bush : "Any report of medical neglect will be taken seriously by this administration. I'm confident that this commission will bring forth the truth."

Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson : "When you're seeing over 1 million patients a week, you have to be very good, and if there is any one patient who doesn't get the care that they deserve, that's unacceptable.

The American people can feel very good about the health care system that their VA is providing to veterans," Nicholson said, "but if there is a case where a veteran gets lost in the system, or suffers anxiety or their family does as a result of something we're not doing, that is unacceptable."

   Mr Bush, the truth about what? That your idea of privatizing the maintenance and care of the grounds was a wash from the beginning and that you are an idiot and a crook?

   Or is it the truth concerning the fact that your administration just brushed off concerns about Walter Reed in particular even after the veteran's family members voiced their own concerns over the treatment that the troops were getting? For the past three years, at least?

    Reports of medical neglect? How many of those reports would you like to have, sir? Will you count the reports from the families and the troops themselves or do you only hear ( ? ) your paid hood's opinions?

   You sir, do not  care about our US troops in the least bit. How can you? You ran out an hid for at least a year when you were in the Guard and no one could find you. I guess that you cared about those troops also, did you?

 

America Should Look Towards Vermont On Bush Impeachment

  I did something on this story a few days ago before the voters in Vermont's towns were to vote.

   I really did not think that they would get such an overwhelming show of support across the state and from many around the country.

   At many town meetings across the state, most of which are held on Tuesdays, many ( 36 towns ) backed an impeachment resolution as of Tuesday night and the number was expected to go up.   In the little town of Putney, the vote was unanimous to impeach Bush.   Source

     It would seem that the governor tried to dismiss the vote by claiming that impeachment could not be voted on. Governor Douglas is a Republican with close ties to Bush so naturally he would try to stop this vote.

     Ellen McKay, who jumped up and proposed the impeachment of Cheney and Bush would not take no for an answer so the governor finally let the votes go on after realizing that no one was going home until this came to pass!

   There is something to be learned here people.

    We do not have to wait for our congress to get off their asses to get the ball rolling on the impeachment of these two hoods! All that we need is enough states in this country to do as Vermont has done and then we pass the petitions on to our congress who almost certainly have to act on it.

   This ball is not in the Court of Congress, it is in the Court of American Citizens. We hired the Congress and we can damned sure fire them if they fail to do the job that we have given them!

 

John Evander Couey Found Guilty of Jessica Lunsford's Death

   From the fine state of Florida we get a little bit of good news.

     You will remember little Jessica Lunsford who was grabbed from out of her bedroom by a piece of shit named John Evander Couey who killed her and buried her no more than 150 yards away from where he was living at the time.

   After 4 hours of deliberation the jury has found that punk guilty of kidnapping, rape, and burying her alive. Next up is the debate on whether Couey gets life in prison or death by lethal injection.

   As is usual, the defense had a psychologist testify that Couey was showing signs of mental retardation and illness in the hope that his life will be spared from death.        Source

   It's also said that Couey sat in court a drew pictures with colored pencils. So fucking what? He and his lawyer were just getting ready for the sentencing phase ahead of time knowing that this creep was going to be found guilty.

   Mental illness? Try that again Mr. Attorney, on a Fox News viewer. It is already known that Couey panicked and killed the girl after the police started looking for her.

   He has had run-ins with the law at least two times before over his supposed mental illness and those were also sex crimes so save your story for someone who cares.

   Mentally retarded  do not plan on kidnapping a little girl and then kill her because the police may be getting to close to the truth.

   This punk deserves to die a most painful death. Don't spare his life, execute him.

 

3 US Troops Killed and 30 Civilians Die In Separate Attack

   Life goes on in Baghdad, at least for most.  30 people will not see tomorrow thanks to an attack at a restaurant by a suicide bomber. The killed consisted of a mix of Sunnis and Shiites and another 25 were wounded.

   Add to that toll the deaths of 3 American soldiers killed by a roadside bomb while they were out clearing explosives.   Source

 

 

IceRocket tags: , , ,

News Around the World

Al Jazeera

More than 49 people have died after an airliner from Indonesia's Garuda carrier overshot a runway and burst into flames.                                                                          However 115 passengers also survived the crash after scrambling through the burning wreckage to safety.          Airport officials have said that the crash-landing at Yogyakarta airport in central Java on Wednesday was an accident.

          * * * *

CNN

The United Nations estimates 700,000 Iraqis have fled to Jordan -- more than one-tenth the entire kingdom's population. As many as 1 million more Iraqis are estimated to have sought refuge in Syria, about 120,000 are in Egypt and 40,000 in Lebanon, according to the United Nations. (Watch Iraqis tell their stories Video)

          * * *

UPI

CINCINNATI, March 7 (UPI) -- The Ohio state legislature is considering a bipartisan bill requiring convicted sex offenders to have fluorescent green license plates on their vehicles.

   That is just to funny! I note that the state tried to have this passed back in 2005 only with pink tags for the coloring but a cosmetics company and other groups opposed that idea.

                   * * * *

Chicago Sun-Times

SPRINGFIELD -- The chief of staff in state government's largest agency has been stripped of her duties because of sex harassment accusations from her former $70,000-a-year "special assistant" and driver.

Carlos Estes claims in a federal sexual harassment lawsuit that Wertz -- wearing what looked like silk pajamas -- demanded he have sex with her or forfeit the job he obtained despite not having a high school diploma or GED.

          * * * *

What Next For I Lewis "Scooter" Libby

    So  I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was finally convicted after four years investigations and other BS.  We all believe that Libby was the fall guy and that he covered  for Cheney at least and maybe even president Bush in the CIA leak scandal.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says that his investigation is now over so we have many questions left unanswered, still. No one has ever been charged with leaking Plame's name and it appears that no one is ever going to be.

   Now that Libby is tagged for lying and obstructing an investigation, what kind of sentence will the hood get? He's looking at 25 years in the slammer on the 5th of June, which is when he will be sentenced. But, as you know, the federal guidelines say that he will not receive anywhere near that kind of time. Libby's lawyers are appealing the verdict and they are asking that Libby remain free while the appeals take their course.

   This mean that it is possible that Libby may never see a single day behind bars if the appeals can be dragged out long enough.

    I tend to believe that Libby will stay out of jail while the appeals process drags on and then, if the sentence is upheld he will be pardoned by the Bush Crime Family for his loyalty to the cause.

   The Democrats will just have to seek dirt on Cheney and Bush from elsewhere, which should be no problem.

   It was asked of Bush to not pardon Libby by Harry Reid yesterday. Sometimes, this man needs to keep his mouth shut so that he doesn't look so stupid. I'll bet that Bush and the gang rolled on the floor laughing after Reid made that comment. Libby's silence was a guarantee pardon no matter what the sentence.

   Right now, I need some caffeine. the mind isn't working right  this morning. The eye's are open but there is nobody home!

 

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Edwards Says No To Fox News Debate

    John Edwards has stepped up to the plate and said that he will not be attending the Fox News ( ? ) debate in Nevada.

   In an email the Edwards Deputy Campaign Manager sent to Kos, they stated:

We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them.

   It's nice to hear that John Edwards is telling Fox News ( ? ) that they aren't needed for a debate host. Someone with a brain in their head needs to take charge and lead the other candidates away from what will surely be nothing but the usual Fox bullshit afterward when all that we will hear is lies and the twisting of the candidates words for weeks, if not months. The Democratic candidates do not need to give the Fox elementary news division any openings.

 

What Is Your Congressman's Position

    I have made the statement more than once that the American public elected the Democrats into office  to put a stop to the Bush Iraq war fiasco and to bring our troops home.

   I've also complained on more than one occasion that the Democrats needed to get off their asses and to do the job that we hired them to do.

   It would seem that now, others are getting tired of the Democrats playing games and a few are starting to vent.

Original Article

Where Does Your Congressman Stand?

by BarbinMD
Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:43:35 AM PST

After nearly four years of a Republican-controlled Congress rubber stamping George Bush's Iraq war policy, a fed up American public voted for change.  And today we learn that instead of legislating that change, it seems that our newly-elected Democratic majority is willing to continue the practice of looking the other way while George Bush stays the course in Iraq.  How else can this be described?  

Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.   [...]

The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by John Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president's role as commander in chief.

So the question is, which Democrats are "wary" about requiring that our troops be properly rested, trained and equipped before being sent to fight in Iraq's civil war?  And after six long years, which part of Bush not being interested in either the will of Congress or the American people, do these "wary" Democrats not understand?   Oh, but there are concerns that:

...any dilution of Murtha's original proposal is likely to infuriate the antiwar wing of the party, which wants dramatic action now.

Perhaps it has escaped the attention of the "wary" that the antiwar wing of the party is made up of an overwhelming majority of the American people.  The same people who elected them to take real, meaningful action, not to placate us with non-binding resolutions and non-binding legislation.   And in what universe is protecting the troops that our representatives so often claim to support, considered "dramatic" action?  What it is, is the right thing to do.  Who is willing to argue that basic safety and readiness requirements for our servicemen and women is something that can be "waived" by a President who has spent the last four years over-extending our military to the breaking point?  

The bottom line is, because of George Bush's reckless misuse of our military, neither deployments nor his escalation can be sustained without further sacrificing the safety of our troops.  It is that simple, and both the administration and the Republican party knows it, which is why Murtha's plan terrifies them.  The last thing they want to see is a vote that, at its heart, asks, do you support requiring that our troops be fully rested, trained and equipped before being sent to Iraq?  If these "wary" Democratic Congressmen get their way and this toothless compromise is allowed to go forward, then they will have done nothing to protect our troops and they will have done nothing to help hasten the end of this war.  In a perfect world, we would be having a vote to cut funding and to bring the troops home, but as we are all painfully aware, we don't live in a perfect world.  At this point in time, Murtha's plan is the only realistic chance we have to begin the process of ending our involvement in this war.  

So it's time to ask your Congressman, who do you support, the troops or this administration?

 

Democrats Have Weeks, Not Months

From Daily Kos, I think that the following article speaks for everyone who voted the Democratic party in to their offices this past November.

Original Article

Weeks, Not Months

by Hunter    Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 02:46:58 PM PST

Let me try and make something clear to the Democratic members of the House and Senate. There's a world of hurt coming your way, and time is running out.

On Iraq, there are no more Friedman Units. There are no more acceptable six month windows to see if the same "plan", called a different name, will produce different results. The situation in Iraq continues to decay; the pressures on our armed forces and, especially, reserve forces continue to edge closer to the breaking point; our troops continue to be put in harm's way on the off chance not that a "plan" will work, but that an in-country miracle will occur.

The Bush administration has, in planning and execution of the Iraq war, failed at every turn, and on every level. There is no current plan, only a handful of adjusted troop rotations that we are now calling a "surge", even while our primary ally sends troops home. The military itself recognizes that the number of troops provided is completely insufficient for the task.

The administration, fearing being tarred with a failed and unnecessary war, has determined that the only way to avoid having the war be branded as failure after it ends is to simply make sure, for as long as possible, that it does not end. Large segments of the Republican Party, similarly fearing the political ramifications of failure more than they value either American or Iraqi lives, doesn't give a damn to either lead or follow. Both will block any attempt at a plan. Tough beans.

As I wrote last week, we all know that there are no good answers here. The point is not to come up with a be-all, end-all Iraqi plan this week or next to shove down the administration's throat. The point is to start the plan. The point is to lead. The most absolutely critical thing, right here, right now, is to begin limiting the ongoing damage.

No more extendings of already extended tours of duty. No more telling reservists that in exchange for the patriotism of signing up to defend their country in times of dire need, they will now put their civilian lives on hold for the indefinite future, until the nebulous end of the unending "war on terror" itself. No more rationing of equipment because the political cowardice of the planners of this war makes budgeting for that equipment far more politically problematic than simply pretending the problem doesn't exist.

The Murtha plan, in that it addresses exactly these problems, is an entirely reasonable first approach. If we do not have the military capability to end the war on our terms, than at least we can make sure the war does not end our military capability on its terms -- a quagmire with no end in site, with troop deaths that are marked against no particular objective other than maintaining the status quo.

Stopping the metaphorical and literal bleeding of our reserve forces is essential. Ensuring that what troops are there are at the least properly equipped and properly trained before entering a war zone is not merely essential, but so blindingly, thunderingly, head-splittingly obvious as to bring generational shame on anyone who thinks differently. Only a coward, a fool, or a sociopath would vote against it.

If we cannot replenish our troops and equipment at the rate needed to sustain troop levels, then the answer is not to reduce their training, and send them anyway. The answer is not to refuse to provide them proper equipment, and send them anyway. If any lawmaker, Republican or Democrat, wants to have that debate with America, then bring that debate on, and we shall have it, in full public view, with cameras rolling, and we shall show that debate: well-dressed cowards blustering about the needed extraordinary sacrifices of others.

There are no good ways out of Iraq: every path is dangerous. That is precisely why so many experts shuddered at the long-term damage of this "preemptive" war. There are no good answers, and events on the ground may dictate altering any proposed plan three months from now, or six months from now, or a year from now -- a shocking concept lost on the Bush administration these last few years.

Fine, then: alter it when the time comes. It is not necessary to end the war tomorrow, it is necessary to do what the Bush administration is entirely incapable of, which is to define how to end it, and start working towards that goal.

We do not know what the next year will bring, but we know how to start getting where we know the endgame of Iraq will eventually go, and the most essential task we currently have to to ensure that no more lives than necessary go towards the political cowardice of the current institutionalized quagmire. We must "support the troops", indeed -- and that means respecting the value of their lives not only when they have died, but when they are alive as well.

It is not currently likely that there is political will in the House and Senate for drawing down the troops to zero. Fine: then start reducing them by half, or a third. All reasonable military plans for a remotely stable drawdown may be phased and nuanced, taking a year or longer to implement. Fine: then start presenting them, and choose between them. Perhaps there will continue to be several tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, regardless of any drawdown: given that the Bush administration stupidly reduced all capabilities for Iraq, as a nation, to defend itself from outside forces, that might very well be necessary. So be it, for the time being -- as long as the process of detanglement starts. In the end, what people really care about is separating American forces from an escalating religious and civil war, and bringing them home. That is the objective. The rest is tactics.

We all know the difficulties here. The American people will tolerate difficulties. They will tolerate setbacks. But they will not tolerate an abandonment of these political duties, or infighting, or for the troops to continue to be used as political shields so that no politician need make the hard decisions or need take the hard positions.

We are surrounded by political figures in all parties unwilling to make political sacrifices a hundredth as difficult as the sacrifices we expect of the men and women who serve in our military, and in such a time as this, political courage is not optional, it is flatly and unequivocally expected. It is required, and if it is not forthcoming, then the wrath of the American public will grow, and quickly.

Quit jockeying for position among yourselves. Quit expecting ultraconservative apologists to offer anything more than plans to get more people killed and call it "progress". Quit expecting anything but another two years of incompetent buffoonery from the Bush administration. Quit expecting bipartisanship. Quit expecting miracles that haven't come for three years, and aren't just over the horizon now. And quit expecting patience.

You've got weeks, not months. Within the next two weeks, people are going to begin figuring out who's blocking what, and talking about it. Within a few weeks after that, there are going to be be explorations of all the Senators and House members who are willing to keep troops in harm's way without a plan. And within two months, those leaders are going to be marked as apologists or worse, and the same fire that rained down on Republicans and on Joe Lieberman last election cycle from an American public deeply, deeply angry about the conduct of the war will begin to rain down on you, and there won't be enough talking points in the world to absolve or defend you.

You have no idea how much raw fury there is out there, just under the surface. And all the "Democratic apologists" like me are on our very last ounce of patience, and all the grassroots supporters have torches lit and and at the ready, and all the Democrats and Republicans in your district are watching to see whether you're really different from the Republicans or not, and all the troops in Iraq are waiting to see if you can provide an ounce of leadership.

Fix it. Now.

 

al-Qaeda Backed Militant's Free 140 After Storming Jail In Iraq.

   I wonder how the Bush administration is going to spin this story so far as our troop surge is concerned.

   It is reported from Reuters that quite a few dozen al-Qaeda led militants stormed into a jail in the  city of Mosul, Iraq and freed as many as 140 prisoners. This is the biggest prison break since the US went into Iraq.       Source

Reuters

As many as 300 militants led by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, attacked Mosul's northwestern Badoush prison just after sunset in the ethnically mixed city and overwhelmed police, who were forced to call the U.S. military for backup, officials said.

Hisham al-Hamdani, a member of the Mosul provincial government, said Abu Omar al-Baghdadi took part in the attack himself. The Islamic State in Iraq is a body set up by al Qaeda's Iraq wing and other Sunni militant groups in October.

   300 militants are a pretty good sized group and I'll bet that the local police went out and ate a few doughnuts while this prison break was going on. I say this because no one is sure if there was any contact between the police and the gunmen. If you are not sure if the police and the gunmen clashed, then they more than likely didn't. It would be kind of hard to miss, I would think.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

("Scott Gardner Act" Would Deport Illegal Immigrants Convicted Of DUI In North Carolina

   Here is a good one from North Carolina concerning illegal immigrants and DUI's in the state. I like the idea behind this but it would be even better if the illegal's were deported before they get busted for a DUI instead of afterwards.

    What I also would like to know is, if they kill someone while drinking and driving, do they get deported or do they get to spend some time in the slammer first?

   U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick ( R-NC ) is seeking to reintroduce a bill which would have illegal immigrants deported if they are convicted of driving under the influence.

    The bill ("Scott Gardner Act" ) would also make it a little easier for law enforcement departments to share their info on illegal immigrants with each other.

   This bill was introduced in 2005 but went no where in the Senate after being passed in the House and it is thought that now their would be more commitment to get this passed this year among both chambers.

Also at the news conference, Mecklenburg Sheriff Jim Pendergraph said the county has identified 1,520 illegal immigrants since May 1 who have committed crimes and will be deported. Of those, 318 were arrested for DWI.

Myrick said the Gardner Act only deals with illegal immigrants charged with drunk driving because that falls within the federal government's responsibility. She encouraged people to talk with state leaders about strengthening other DWI laws.      Charlotte Observer

 

Senates Votes For Airport Screeners Union Rights

Yahoo News

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to give 45,000 airport screeners the same union rights as border patrol, customs and immigration agents, despite a veto threat from the White House.

  The 51-46 vote was on an amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint (news, voting record), R-S.C., to remove the union rights from a broad anti-terrorism bill to implement recommendations of the 9/11 commission previously rejected by Congress. The Senate expects to complete work on the bill by the end of the week.

The House passed a similar anti-terrorism bill with the same union provision for airport screeners in an indication of organized labor's strength with Democrats now running Congress.

Republicans vowed to strike the union provision when negotiators sit down to merge the House and Senate bills together to implement recommendations of the 9/11 commission previously rejected by Congress.

"We're not going to let big labor compromise national security," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., noting there are not enough votes in either the House or Senate to override a veto by President Bush.

   Let me get this right, okay?  The Bush house of hoods is going to veto this bill because it would compromise national security as long as the amendment for airport screeners is included? Actually I should say because big labor will compromise our security?

   If this bill is veto' d by Bush, then isn't he compromising national security himself? For that matter, isn't the federal government practicing discrimination by allowing the border patrol and the immigration agents to be unionized but not the screeners?

 

Libby Found Guilty

AP

WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

He was acquitted of one count of lying to the FBI.

Libby faces up to 30 years in prison, though under federal sentencing guidelines likely will receive far less.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

White House Didn't Know About Walter Reed Conditions?

    What would the week be without a look at a Tony Snow press briefing?

   This question concerns Walter Reed and why it took a Washington Post story to get the White House's attention on the matter.

White house

Q Why did it require media exposure for the President and the administration to act on this?

MR. SNOW: I think what happened was that people weren't aware of it. And that was one of the sources of concern.

Q So none of the letters or the protests that have been expressed by the veterans' families ever reached anyone in a position of power?

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently, what happened was that within the chain of command, things were not getting up high enough and, therefore, weren't acted upon.

Q And the President and the administration wasn't aware of other media reports that came out last year about these issues?

MR. SNOW: I don't want to say that nobody was aware of them, but when the President saw the story in The Post, that was the first he was aware of what was going on in Unit 18. And as I told you the following day, he wanted to know what was wrong and get it fixed.

  I guess that is one truth that President Bush has told. He doesn't read to much.

   I say that we all pitch in and buy the man the updated version of Hooked-On-Phonics so that he can learn to read something other than "My Pet Goat".

Al Jazeera Promoting Sectarian Violence?

   Speaking of Al Jazeera, it would seem that their office in Baghdad has let a few reporters go because who had been covering various areas of Iraq because the journalist had refused to to engage in a campaign to promote sectarian violence.

   This request came from an office manager,Hamid Hadeed, who happens to be the brother of Omar Hadeed, who is wanted by the Iraqi government for prosecution as a terrorist.

Pratha News Agency 

One of those sacked employees who refused to give his name for security reasons, said the plan prepared by Aljazera : spread lies to prompt sectarian hatred by news concentration on one side with twisted and exaggerated stories.

The source said that Mr. Hamid was smuggled out of the country and rewarded with managing the Baghdad office for his efforts to save and smuggle Mr. Ahmed Mansour Who was covering the clashes of Falujah.

 

Military Attempts Confiscation Of Video's From Afghanistan?

   Here's one that I missed from yesterday.

   We all know about the civilians in Afghanistan who were killed by US forces that were shooting at a suicide bomber who was acting alone.

   It is reported by witnesses that the US troops panicked and just started firing at whatever happened to be moving after the car bomb exploded.

   It is being said that the forces from the United States have tried to confiscate the video of the incident and also have tried to destroy the pictures that were taken after the shootings occurred.    Source

Al Jazeera

One ( witness )  told Al Jazeera: "There were no gunmen, this is a complete lie. This is a peaceful area, we don't have guns."

The dead included an 80-year-old man, whose grandson said: "A bomb exploded, my grandfather sat in a car and at that time American soldiers were shooting into my grandfather's car."

   If this turns out to be true, then I know of a few of the US military who should be tried in court for this kind of mis-hap. May want to add the top brass who ordered the confiscation of the vid's and the pictures.

  It would probably help if these troops were better trained before they are sent off to fight in a foreign land because if this continues to happen it will not be just the terrorist who they will have to worry about, it will also be the residents in these countries.

 

Our Constitution and Habeas Corpus

  I am going to plug another website here which I think that everyone who is concerned about our habeas corpus rights should visit.

    The people over at Daily Kos have a very good series on the matter which they are calling Restoring Our Constitution and the series is very much keeping a close eye on what the Supreme Court and our Congress are doing with the right of habeas corpus.

    The entire series should be read and it is up to date as of today so go visit the place and get a little more educated. I will be posting of the happenings here on occasion just to let you know what is going on because this is an important issue to those of us who wish to keep America the " land of the free". A taste of what you can read follows.

Restoring Our Constitution: Habeas-Corpse? Part 1

This is also true of our constitutional system.  We know where many of its pressure points are; for the peaceful good of our political culture, we agree not to push them too hard.  The radical Bush-Cheney Administration, of course, has made a point of pressing those sore spots as hard as it can.  Two such examples involve jurisdiction stripping and executive war powers.

Jurisdiction stripping.  It may surprise some people that the Constitution does not require any federal courts beyond the Supreme Court itself.  Article III, Section 1 states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."  The Supreme Court has a narrow original jurisdiction to hear cases, mostly involving conflicts between states; by far most of its jurisdiction is exercised to hear appeals from lower federal courts and, where federal law is involved, from state courts.  Section 2 states "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The emphasis above is mine -- and Bush-Cheney's.  If a federal right exists -- the right to abort a non-viable fetus is one example -- but Congress creates an exception to the jurisdiction of the federal courts to adjudicate claims based upon it and enforce that right, then it is as if that right does not exist.  Preventing the courts from hearing the cases they would need to hear to enforce rights is called "jurisdiction stripping".          For more go HERE

 

Gasoline Prices Up 31 Cents Per Gallon In Past Month

   As if you do not know this already, the government says that gasoline prices have gone up over 31 cents per gallon in the past month to an average $2.51 because of crude oil price increases. Uncle Sam does say that the price will probably not rise as much as it usually does this time of year because of a slowing economy.      Source

   Was it not to long ago that the public was hearing that the US economy was in great shape? I have been through a few slowdowns in the past and I do not remember those times keeping our prices at the pumps from going up slowly. In fact, they seemed to have shot up no matter what the rest of the economy was doing so why should this be any different at this time?

Reuters

Pushing up gasoline prices in the weeks ahead will be stronger fuel use as highway travel gets a spring boost.

"Fuel demand increases, that puts upward pressure on prices," said Tancred Lidderdale, an analyst with the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the Energy Department's analytical arm.

Refineries will also switch to less-polluting gasoline required by the government during warmer months, which costs more to make and adds five to seven cents at the pump, according to Lidderdale.        

 

Technorati tags: , ,

Afghan and NATO Forces On The Offensive Against Taliban

   It is on against the Taliban as the Afghan forces along with the ones from NATO have launched an offensive which will be the biggest one yet.

    This little game will involve some 1,000 Afghan security personnel and 4,500 Nato troops when it hits full swing.

    Operation Achilles, as it is being called, was launched after the Afghan government requested it in order to rid some areas of drug traffickers , Taliban extremist, and other groups who are trying to destabilize the Afghan government.

       It is admitted that some of the top opium areas are beyond government control so I guess that means the next cultivating season will be another record breaker!

    I wonder how much opium the CIA exports into this country now? I'm kidding but it is not like it couldn't happen as they have been known to deal cocaine in the past.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

Nine Dead US Troops In Iraq

    I see that our Tuesday morning is off to a roaring start so far as the mid east is concerned.

    Two attacks in Iraq have left nine of our US troops dead and another four wounded in the north and north-east areas of the country. both attacks were bombing incidents.

  Pentagon figures say that the US death toll is now at 3,182  since March 2003.    Source

   

      

Technorati tags: ,

Monday, March 05, 2007

White House Privacy Board Says Bush Spy Programs Okay

   Isn't it so nice to know that a White House privacy board gave Bush the go ahead on two of his surveillance programs? The two would be electronic eavesdropping and the tracking of finances and the board stated that these two programs don't violate the US citizens civil rights.

   Of course, the Democrats came to the same conclusion that I have and that is basically WTF, as the board came from the White House where honesty and integrity don't exist and even worse is the fact that some of the board members are close to the " Bush Department of Constitutional Shredding,Inc. "

   This board ( Privacy and Civil Liberties Board ) has been doing it's thing in secrecy for a year and it is now do to give a report on its findings to Congress next week.

    I am drooling on myself in anticipation of reading that piece of junk!

AP

"We looked at the program, we visited NSA and met with the top people all the way down to those doing the hands-on work," said Carol Dinkins, a Houston lawyer and former Reagan administration assistant attorney general who chairs the board.

"The program is structured and implemented in a way that is properly protective and attentive to civil liberties," she said.

   The Congress wishes to give the board more authority and to make it more independent of the president, which would be a good first step if this board is to stay around.  There were some individuals who did have some things to say about this up-coming report.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called it absurd that the White House board effectively gave the eavesdropping program its stamp of approval even before the administration was forced to backtrack and submit it to court oversight.

"I have no confidence in the current board in its ability to provide meaningful evaluation of important programs such as the no-fly lists, based on its work on the domestic surveillance program," he said. "It is critical that Congress make the civil liberties board independent of the executive branch."

The board does not have subpoena power, and the White House can change its annual reports before they go to Congress. The members serve at the pleasure of Bush, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has final say over whether officials must comply with the board's recommendations.

Separate House and Senate measures would require that the entire board — not just the chairman and vice chairman — be confirmed by the Senate.

   I would prefer the House version which is much the same as the Senate version except that the House would give the board subpoena power whereas the Senate would have the board go to the attorney general to have subpoena's issued.

   It's a safe bet that any member of the " Bush Department of Constitutional Shredding,Inc. " ( Gonzales ) isn't going to be issuing to many subpoena's when it comes to " the decider " and the rest of the boys in the hood.

 

John Edwards Speaks On Faith And God

   Presidential candidate John Edwards did an interview with David Kuo from BeliefNet and he had the opportunity to discuss his religious faith and the role that it plays in his decisions.

   I am of the personal opinion that those so-called Christian conservative's and the rest of the groups that claim to be Christians,Coulter is one who comes to mind, should heed some of John Edward's learning's. 

Belief Net

Interview by David Kuo

John Edwards 


What parts of American life do you think would most outrage Jesus?
Our selfishness. Our resort to war when it's not necessary. I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.

Do you have a favorite prayer?
No. My praying is more conversational than that. It is me explaining to God what I am going through, what our family is going through, and asking him to help me see the way, to do what's right.
And asking him also, which I do regularly, to allow me not to focus on myself and my own selfish desires. Because I am a sinner and selfish, like every human being on the planet. And asking him to give me the power to get outside that and do what he would have me to do. That's sort of the heart and soul of my prayer.
In what ways do you feel God is happiest with you right now?
I think he would be happy with the fact that I have focused on people who live in poverty here and people without healthcare. And the suffering of others in other parts of the world, like some of the work that I've done on humanitarian issues in Africa, for example, and going to the slums outside of Delhi and India.
Focusing on problems in a very personal way that exist, and without regard to my own selfish ambitions, talking about things that may not seem so politically powerful, but are important to me, and I think important to God.          Entire Article



, ,

Coulter Says Edwards Manager Fronting Arab Terrorist

   That ignorant female (?) Ann Coulter is at it again it would appear only this time instead of calling John Edwards a faggot, she is saying that his campaign manager, David Bonior,"is fronting for Arab terrorists." 

Editor & Publisher

Soon after, Bonior announced he was sending out a fund-raising letter seeking "Coulter Cash" to "show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign."
A copy of Bonior's letter was posted on Coulter's Web site, with this note underneath: "It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists."

    I attempted to visit Coulter's site to view the post myself, but my PC would not let the page come up as it is set to block the viewing of lesser human beings.



, , ,

Incompetent Bush Administration Facing Hell On The Hill and Everywhere Else.

WaPo

Iraqi special operation forces and British troops swept into an Iraqi intelligence ministry building Sunday morning in the southern city of Basra and found prisoners with signs of torture, British officials said.

All 30 prisoners escaped during the surprise raid, which was triggered by information gleaned from suspects arrested hours earlier in another sweep, a British military spokesman said Monday morning.

Incompetent Bush With No Backup Plan In Iraq

During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn't work?

The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. "I'm a Marine," Pace told them, "and Marines don't talk about failure. They talk about victory."

Pace had a simple way of summarizing the administration's position, Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.) recalled. "Plan B was to make Plan A work."

Iraq Slogger

Walter Reed Hospital -- and beyond

"It is just not Walter Reed," Ray Oliva, a veteran in Kelseyville, Calif., wrote to the Post after the recent outpatient care scandal emerged. Anne Hull and Dana Priest, who opened the Walter Reed story in their investigative series two weeks ago, describe the flood of hundreds of emails and phone calls that the Post received from veterans all around the country, in which they describe abusive or neglectful conditions in other veterans’ hospitals. While some refer to problems in the system that go back to the Vietnam era, others warn of the system’s inability to cope with the tide of returning wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. "The hammer is just coming down, I can feel it," wrote one veteran, describing his struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder after his time in Iraq -- and the inability of the veterans’ health system to support him. Many veterans also said that they had made appeals before but felt that their concerns were neglected. "I have been trying to get someone, ANYBODY, to look into my allegations" at the Dayton VA, Darrell Hampton pleaded.



, , , ,

Will John Murtha and The Democrats Get Their Troop Readiness Passed

    John Murtha was on Meet The Press  yesterday speaking to host Tim Russert about his plans for our troops and the US in dealing with Bush and his escalation and/or troop readiness.

March 4, 2007

MR. RUSSERT: What are the Democrats going to do to try to stop the war in Iraq?

REP. MURTHA: Well, the, the details haven’t been released yet. Until the members see it, we’re not going to talk about the details of what’s going to happen. That will be released tomorrow. But let, let me talk about what, what I think needs to be done. The other day, General Pace said, the chief of the Joint Chiefs said, look, you’re going to hurt the troops deployment overseas if you do what Murtha wants to do, what he’s recommended to the committee. And I said what he didn’t talk about was our strategic reserve, what he didn’t talk about, we’re sending troops back without a year at home, what he didn’t talk about was the fact they’re going in without the equipment they need to fight in combat. That’s unconscionable, and the Congress is going to stop that. The White House is finally beginning to recognize they don’t have the troops, as I predicted they wouldn’t have, to sustain this deployment. They certainly don’t have the troops to increase and to have a surge without breaking every rule that they set, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT:...And you referred to Peter Pace. He responded to you, and this is what he said before the committee on Tuesday: “If the one year rest at home, the no-extensions in the battlefield and the no stop-loss were implemented,” we’ve “done our homework on that ... if those are the rules, that instead of being able to have the 20 brigades on the ground in Iraq that we require, ... we would have somewhere between 14 and 19 brigades, at most. ... It would have enormous effect on the battlefield with regard to what’s required versus what’s available. ... I can simply tell you what the effect is. And the effect is damaging on the battlefield.”

REP. MURTHA: Yeah, yeah, yeah. What, what he’s saying, in answer to a leading question by a Republican senator—they kept badgering him to answer this question. Now, what is he doing? He’s violating every rule, every, every rule they set up for themselves. The troops have to be home for a year. Is it wrong to insist they have equipment? Is it wrong to insist they have training before they go into Iraq?

MR. RUSSERT: You are going to withhold the money unless those troops were—had readiness or were prepared, but now you’ve changed your view. You will allow those troops to go to Iraq in that situation or condition, as long as the president certifies that. Correct?

REP. MURTHA: Well, he’s got to certify that—at least this is what I’m recommending to the committee—he’s got to certify that these troops are equipped, and they are trained, or it’s in the national interest. I am absolutely convinced the public and I agree, and the Congress agrees, we don’t send one troop into combat that doesn’t have the training they need.

, , , ,