Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Can You Believe This War Is Still Going On?

By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown. Posted May 26, 2007.


After committing troops to a war that has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions without homes, George W. Bush says he prays for safety and peace. Way to go, Georgie, shift the responsibility for your mess to God.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

* 3,300 American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead.

* Rumsfeld said the Iraq attack would cost $50 billion. The tab so far exceeds $500 billion.

* Almost two million Iraqis have fled the country and only 30% of kids can go to school.


On Easter Morning, George W. made another of his periodic shows of Standing With The Troops. He attended church services in the chapel at Fort Hood in Kileen, Texas, after which he offered to the assembled media this pious little announcement: "I had a chance to reflect on the great sacrifice that our military and their families are making. I prayed for their safety. I prayed for their strength and comfort. And I pray for peace."

He prayed for our troops' safety? How clueless is he? George, you have the troops stuck in another country's vicious civil war. They're under attack from every direction by every faction, every hour of every day, hit by car bombs, roadside bombs, chlorine bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, rocket fire, mortar rounds, snipers, and assassins. There is no safety in Iraq.

He prayed for peace? George, YOU made this war. Don't put it on God! The ONLY reason that America is in Iraq is because you, "Buckshot" Cheney, Rummy, and the rest rode us into an invasion and occupation on a pack of lies.

God didn't do this, YOU did. Praying won't get it done. God helps those who help themselves. You have peace in your own hands.

Yet the war goes on

Only three days after George the Pious told us about his prayers for safety, strength, comfort, and peace, his Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, announced that all active-duty soldiers already in Iraq or going there will have their tours of duty extended from 12 months to 15. "Our forces are stretched," Gates admitted, but he said that this added burden is "necessary" in order to carry out Bush's latest war strategy, his "surge" scheme. The extension order affects 100,000 soldiers. Plus their families. Bear in mind that many of these families have already gone through two or three tours in Iraq.

Back at Fort Hood, where Bush prayed, families were angry. "A year is so long apart you hardly know your husband," said Nichol Spencer. "Now they're making it longer?"

Theresa White said, "To a civilian, three months is 12 weeks. To an army wife, three months is the straw that broke the camel's back."

Of course, that's three more months in hell that Bush is committing these people to endure (this from a guy who could not even complete an Easy Street tour of duty stateside in the "champagne unit" of the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War). To add insult to injury, after saying that he had prayed for the "comfort" of these soldiers and their families, Bush didn't even have the courtesy to inform them in advance that the extension was coming. "It was disrespectful," said Mindy Shanahan, also from Fort Hood. Her husband is in Iraq and will now be stuck there an extra three months, assuming he survives. "We should have had at least 48 hours notice, instead of having to see this on CNN," she said.

Prolonging the time soldiers must spend in Iraq hides one of the military's other little problems: Very few Americans want to join Bush's war. Not even those young Republicans who say they so enthusiastically support the war are willing to bet their lives on it. So, in a country of 300 million citizens, recruiters are straining to meet a quota of roughly 80,000 new soldiers a year, much less find more troops to cycle into Bush's surge. The military has already raised the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42, which means that if you and your wife had kids when you were 20 and you're now 40, the whole family could go to war. Wow--the Brady Bunch does Iraq!

Despite doubling the number of felons permitted to enlist and lowering the minimum standards so more high-school dropouts and people with low mental-aptitude scores can be taken, the Pentagon still is not getting enough volunteers. Even recent West Point graduates, the Army's elite, are saying "no thanks" to Iraq, choosing to leave active-duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades.

Yet, the war goes on

Bush's war, now in its fifth year, has already lasted longer than World War II. On Easter Sunday, as George was saying his prayers, the number of American military deaths in Iraq was approaching 3,300. And now, with his surge, the rate of U.S. deaths is on the rise. All this killing has prompted more eloquence from the commander-in-chief: "Make no mistake about it. I understand how tough it is. I talk to families who die."

Then there are some 24,000 soldiers who haven't died but instead have come home maimed and traumatized, including more than 1,300 who've lost arms and/or legs, and more than 4,600 who've suffered severe head or brain injuries. Many of them have been sent to the "comfort" of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, just a short hop from Bush's hangout at the White House. There they have been greeted with horrific conditions and cold indifference.

When news of this scandal broke, Bush feigned surprise and expressed obligatory outrage. But, wait, George -- you're the president, you're in charge of this disgrace! It's your Pentagon budget (now above half-a-trillion dollars a year) that has been lavishing money on favored contractors while quietly snipping away at funding for Walter Reed. A review panel concluded last month that your Pentagon was aware of this neglect, yet it still cut funds even as the hospital was being inundated with thousands of severely maimed soldiers returning from Iraq. The panel said the hospital is now beyond repair.

It's not just Walter Reed, either. The nationwide VA system is overwhelmed with patients and experiencing crucial shortages in staff and facilities. As of January, there was a backlog of 600,000 vets awaiting care--nearly a third of whom have been waiting six months or longer. All this on your watch, George--while you've been demanding that war critics "support our troops." Meanwhile, your current budget proposal reduces funding for veterans' care in 2009 and 2010--just when the military expects that the influx of wounded will peak.

Yet, the war goes on

Asked in January 2003 what the price tag was for the Bushites' upcoming Iraq attack and occupation, Donny Rumsfeld said that the budget office forecast "a number that's something under $50 billion."

Not quite right. Iraq is now costing us $6 billion a month (the surge will be extra), and total direct costs through this year will top $500 billion. Included in that is $12 billion that was airlifted in 2003 to the interim Iraqi government in shrinkwrapped stacks of $100 bills (the load weighed 363 tons) and promptly disappeared. Poof...gone!

Add in such indirect costs as veterans' long-term health care and replacement of the military hardware consumed by the war, and the tab runs to $1.2 trillion or more. David Leonhardt, a New York Times economic analyst, has itemized some other things we could've bought with that sum instead of the mess in Iraq. His list includes:

  • TEN YEARS of universal health care, covering every American who is now without it.
  • DOUBLING the cancer research budget.
  • GLOBAL IMMUNIZATION of the world's children against measles, whooping cough, tetanus, TB, polio, and diptheria.
  • UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL for every 3- and 4-year-old child in America.
  • RECONSTRUCTION of New Orleans.
  • IMPLEMENTATION of all of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.


Yet, the war goes on

Being positive is one thing, but George W has gone from positive to delusional. Last year, in a rhetorical reach to claim that things were looking up in Iraq, he offered this: "I think--tide turning. See, as I remember--I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of--it's easy to see the tide turn."

He might ask the Iraqi people about tide-turning progress in his war. Outside of Baghdad's four-square-mile fortress known as the Green Zone, where the U.S. brass and Iraqi political elite reside, life is miserable. Violence erupts constantly and unpredictably, fear is everyone's companion, jobs are scarce, going anywhere is dangerous, basic services are practically nonexistent, and distrust, frustration, and anger rule.

An official UN count puts last year's death toll of innocent Iraqi civilians at 34,452--three times higher than the U.S. had admitted. Another 36,685 were wounded. One analysis puts the civilian death toll much higher--a total of 655,000 since the invasion.

Some 2 million Iraqis (16% of the population) have fled the country, including 40% of professionals (one third of doctors fled, 2,000 have been murdered). Three thousand people a day are fleeing--so many that Saudi Arabia (Bush's superrich ally in his war) is building a 560-mile fence to keep them out. By the way, the U.S. allowed only 202 Iraqi refugees into our country last year.

Another 1.6 million Iraqis are displaced within their country, forced from their homes by various factions in the civil/religious war. Many of these are children. Only 30% of Iraqi children attended school last year (pre-war, nearly 100% percent were in school). Children routinely witness violence and killings that are often gruesome, including seeing family and friend die. A recent study of 2,500 grade school children in Baghdad found that 70% showed symptoms of trauma.

While Bush brags that his war has liberated women, in reality there has been an explosion of violence against them, including widespread abductions, public beatings, rapes, "honor killings," torture, beheadings, and public hangings. The president of the Iraqi National Council of Women goes nowhere without a bodyguard. "I started with 6," she said, "then I increased to 12, and then to 20, and then to 30." One of the women in Iraq's parliament said bluntly, "This is the worst time ever in Iraqi women's lives."

Yet, the war goes on

Lest we forget in the foggy mist of Bush's rationales for his war (WMDs! al Qaeda connections! Democracy for the people!), Iraq sits atop the world's second-largest oil reserve. The proven reserves are 112 billion barrels, with a probable pool in excess of 400 billion barrels. At current prices, that's about $25 trillion worth of crude.

When certain outrageous commentators (like me) suggested at the start of the war's build-up that an oil grab could be involved, Rumsfeld barked to the media, "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." Could that have been another Bushite lie?

Yes. Big Oil has long wanted to get its hands on Iraq's vast reserves. In a 1998 speech, Chevron's CEO said, "I'd love Chevron to have access." Big Oil's wish is Bush's command, and as early as December 2002, just before the invasion, the state department's oil-and-energy working group was saying that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."

In 2004 Bush & Company drafted a secret legislative proposal to deliver this national treasure to the oil giants. This February, the proposal was introduced to the Iraqi parliament, and now the Bushites, oil lobbyists, and a handful of Iraqi pols are urgently trying to pass it.

This law would transform Iraq's oil reserves from a nationally owned resource to a privatization model, opening two thirds of the known oil fields (and all fields discovered in the future) to control by Big Oil. Instead of having Iraq's parliament make the major decisions over oil, an unelected authority called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would take charge. And guess who would have seats on the council? The major oil corporations!

This autocratic group would then decide who gets the contracts to extract the nation's oil. That means Big Oil would be approving its own bids! Also, the corporations would not have to hire Iraqis, reinvest profits in Iraq, or share new technologies. Foreign interests would even be allowed to divvy up the territory now, hold their pieces of the action until after the current civil war settles down, and then move in to grab profits.

Yet, the war goes on

If you think that maybe our selfannointed "war president" is in over his head, ponder this bit of strategic insight from George: "No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that."

Uh, yeah...and it seems to be working. Bush's surge strategy is intended to concentrate our forces in Baghdad to rid the capital of violence. But since the surge began, residents have not noticed any lull in the carnage, instead experiencing a record number of car bombings. On April 12, the Green Zone itself got a wake-up call when a suicide bomber detonated himself in the parliament's cafeteria, killing three lawmakers and five others.

Meanwhile, knowing that the U.S. surge was coming and would last for only a few months, the deadly Shiite militias based in Baghdad have simply stood down to wait out Bush. With U.S. and Iraqi forces surging in Baghdad, the bloodshed has spread to the countryside. In late March, for example, two massive truck bombs ripped through the town market in Tal Afar, killing 48. In response, Shiite militia went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents, killing some 60 of them.

Then there's the Kurdish zone in the north, which had been rather calm...until now. The Iraqi constitution cobbled together by the Bushites a couple of years ago contains a provision requiring a referendum on the future of the region's capital city, Kirkuk. Now, because two sides want to control this wealthy city, a new front has opened in the Iraq war.

On one side are the Kurds, who have set up their own essentially autonomous government in the north and have well-armed, battleseasoned militias ready to fight for the land they claim as their own. Opposing them are the Arabs, who were moved into the Kurdish zone by Saddam Hussein years ago but now consider it to be theirs. They are also heavily armed and--follow the bouncing ball here--they are backed by the government of neighboring Turkey, which is fighting a Kurdish independence movement inside its own borders.

Literally underlying this explosive ethnic imbroglio is one of the world's largest oil reserves, which means Big Oil also has a keen interest in "winning"--whatever that involves. To add to the nasty potential, Iran cares very much about this fight and has deployed security forces to the border it shares with the Kurdish zone.

The government in Baghdad, under enormous pressure (aka blackmail) from Kurdish legislators, has just decided to back the Kurds' claim--and the Arab side in Kirkuk is already setting off bombs in Kurdish neighborhoods.

Yet, the war goes on

In a tragi-comic bit of presidential posturing, Bush assembled a dozen or so veterans, soldiers, and family members in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House for a media show on March 23. With these human "stage props" lined up behind him, George lashed out at congressional Democrats for passing a bill requiring withdrawal from Iraq next year. Without even a smile of irony, Bush called the Democrats' effort "an act of political theater."

Well, this particular withdrawal bill won't get the job done, but it's a reflection of the broad public demand to stop this horrible folly. Roughly two thirds of Americans want out of Iraq by next year, and 54% support a cutoff of funds for Bush's surge. Even the troops in Iraq want a withdrawal, for only 35% of those polled by Military Timeslast December said that they approve of George W's handling of the war.

Still, some progressives despair. They say that last year's elections were a clear mandate for withdrawal, but the Democrats have been weak and the killing continues, so what's the use? That's right on the facts, but totally wrong on the attitude. We made great strides last year, and we've changed the national debate on the war. Yes, Bush and Cheney are boneheads, and the Democratic leadership has Jello in its spine, but what did you expect? Popular movements have always had to muster the tenacity to overcome disappointments-- and ours is no different. Come on--we've got 'em on the run! Far from being down, take energy from the gains we've made--and keep pushing on. No one is going to stop the war but us.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: war, iraq, war on iraq

From "The Hightower Lowdown," edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, May 2007. Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of "Thieves In High Places: They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time to Take It Back."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sadly, yes.
Posted by: Michael Boldin on May 26, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do believe it, and have seen very little to make me think that either of the two parties in power will be doing anything to end this war - in the short or long term.

Waging war on Iraq was illegal and immoral since day one, and that is not going to change.

you see, you don't bring peace to people by waging wars on their cities and towns.....and you don't "save" people by killing people.

The Perpetual war for perpetual peace is like a runaway freight train at this point. The time to put a stop to it is now!

Not next year or next fall. now.

Some further thoughts:

"Top-Ten Reasons to Get out of Iraq. Now!" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No war=No empire
Posted by: richholland on May 26, 2007 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See Napoleon the Emperor war was needed....
See the British Empire till 1948 war was needed.
So the USA have no other option if they want to stay an Empire, to explain poverty in this Empire ,you need enemies, you need wars.
Even with Al Gore, Michael Moore and Ralf Nadar as Presidents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No war=No empire Posted by: Maggieb
Words fail me
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 26, 2007 2:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can anyone even try to improve upon Jim Hightower? I'm not even going to attempt it. It is a wise thing, indeed, not to follow the New York Philharmonic with a Harmonica.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yaes! Posted by: DataDoc
George W. Bush -- Charlatan or Born-again Hypocrite?
Posted by: HughScott on May 26, 2007 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday, April 9, 2005, under the headline, “Bush Recalls a Spiritual Moment,” he told members of the press on Air Force One as they cruised back to the U.S. after attending the Pope’s funeral. “I have no doubt in my mind there is a living God. And no doubt in my mind that the Lord Christ was sent by the Almighty. No doubt in my mind about that. Got it? Everybody got it correct?”

Because Bush isn't the smartest person around, I doubt he knows that spiritual belief systems include Animism, Deism, Duotheism, Henotheism, Monotheism, Panentheism, Polytheism and, yes, even Agnosticism and Atheism. Yet, the president uses his bully pulpit to arrogantly suggest Christianity is the only valid religion.

Even if that were true, the pious proclamation has no place in politics under our form of government. If you disagree, show me where Jesus is mentioned in the Constitution.

To blow President Bush’s “I love the Lord” façade to smithereens, one need only ask a simple question: Who would Jesus torture?

The answer, of course, is no one. That leaves two conclusions. Either Shrub is a charlatan or he’s a born-again hypocrite. I fear the latter.

Assume for a moment he believes every word in the Old Testament but considers the new version a book of suggestions. If so, Bush thinks we’re in the Last Days, Armageddon will come during his lifetime along with the Rapture and he will shoot up to Heaven like a Roman candle. That would explain his dismissive approach to global warming. After all, if these actually are the end times, then concern about Earth becoming too hot in 100 years is meaningless.

Even worse, if Bush does believe Armageddon is coming, he may be trying on a subconscious level to urge it on. What better way to inflame ancient enemies—Arabs, Persians, Palestinians and Jews—than by promoting a Middle East war of choice?

Evidence of Dub-ya’s messianic thinking was provided by a BBC transcript published on October 6, 2005. The text quoted two Palestinian leaders, Prime Minister Abu Mazen and his deputy, Nabil Shaath, after they met privately with George W. in June 2003.

According to the British report, Bush said to Mazen and Shaath, “I’m driven with a mission from God. He told me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan’ and I did. Then God told me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’ and I did. Now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me: Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East, and, by God, I’m gonna do it.”

Assuming he wasn’t fibbing and God isn’t an idiot, there can only be two explanations for Shrub hearing words in his head. He’s either schizophrenic or the voice belonged to Dick Cheney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush crimes
Posted by: Len Hart on May 26, 2007 2:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's tar baby was begun upon a pack of malicious, deliberate lies and, because the people, sovereign under the Constitution, were criminally defrauded, Bush and his complict minions are guilty of HIGH treason. Wake up, folk. This is an illegitimate regime. Secondly, read US Codes. By ordering a war of aggression resulting in deaths, Bush is prima face guilty of capital crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to define the solution, not the problem
Posted by: Wexler on May 26, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As usual, Jim Hightower has done a brilliant job of "agitating" up a poetic and heartbreaking definition of what the Bush Administration has wrought. No details are omitted, no nuances of irony overlooked, no bitter phrase left unturned.

There are a number of people who have gotten very good at this over the last few years, and Hightower is among the best. The late Molly Ivins, Jim's friend, was also in that group.

As much as I enjoy being sickened by another accounting of what Bush & Co. is doing to us, I need to start hearing some of these folks start talking about root causes and solutions.

There are 3 root causes of this problem. First, the Executive branch of our government has been in a decades-long power grab and has accumulated too much of it. They operate with imperial power and zero accountability. This particular administration has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar time and time again... and they always manage to bluster and lie their way out of it with no consequences.

Second, the national agenda has been hijacked by corporate interests with the money to grease the skids and palms. They control the debate. They control the media. They control our Congress. Our political process is dumbed-down to wedge issues and phony posturing about patriotism.

Third, the American people, until recently, frankly haven't given a damn. As a nation, we are self-absorbed, ignorant, consumers who are too lazy to have gathered even the basic facts about Bush's war. Recently I saw a poll cited where half of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. As far as the bloodshed, who cares about THEM? They VOLUNTEERED, didn't they? And the Iraqis? They're all just a bunch of fanatics that hate Americans for their freedom, aren't they?

By now you're probably thinking "I don't see any solutions, Wexler". But I have them. Here they are.

1. We need to hold Bush accountable for what he's done and that means IMPEACHMENT. He has committed a dozen or more impeachable offenses. He has assumed and exercised powers that he doesn't have and continues to do so. He will not stop this voluntarily, so for the survival of our 3 co-equal branches of government Bush needs to be impeached. And he's not the only one. Cheney and Gonzales also need to be impeached for lies, negligence, and illegal acts they have committed. We must re-establish accountability and separation of powers to the Executive branch or our nation will continue its slide to something between a dictatorship and imperial kingdom.

2. To solve the corruption of our political system we need to remove money from the equation. It should be illegal to contribute money to any politician or their organization. It's time we call this what it is... bribery. Anyone caught in this activity should do real jail time including the politicians who are lining their pockets. They go into office rich and they come out stinking rich. How does that happen?

3. The consequences of this war need to be spread through the general population. Re-instate the draft. The volunteer army seemed like a great idea at the time, but what has happened is that it has insulated Americans from the results of Bush's war. It has given us the rationalization "They knew this could happen when they signed up", as if somehow this diminishes the atrocity of our Commander-in-Chief's bogus war. If we had the draft, suddenly the topic of Iraq would be at the top of the agenda, it would have some urgency, it would be more than just an untidy mess that can wait to be fixed at some later date.

Impeachment, end bribery, and re-instate the draft. I don't claim these to be the complete solution, but they are a step in the right direction.

W. W. Wexler
editor@stopdubya.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We need a draft Posted by: AndyF
» Let's talk seriously... Posted by: SteveB
The Democrats just voted to fund Bushs war-
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 26, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with 93 BILLION more of our dollars----so which 'right wing' are you talking about???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress has
Posted by: xenacat on May 26, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
long since abdicated thier constitutional responsiblity to provide checks on the executive branch - i.e the "supplimental" bill. Jim Hightower's commentary is excellent, as always. Dubya has never in his whole life had to accept the consequences for his actions and shifts the blame to God. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying simply because a pathetic rich boy wants to play war president and pretends a religious conversion to cover for his vicious disregard for human life. It is heartbreaking our country has come to this...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The war must go on.
Posted by: duck on May 26, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Bush and Dick will move Heaven and Earth to keep the war going because it protects them from impeachment.
No comander in chief has ever been impeached. Just as a president at war is more likely to be re-elcted.
It is time to prove me wrong. Start with Cheney. Please!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The war must go on. Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
The real reason Congressional Dems wimped out
Posted by: sausage on May 26, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MediaChannel.org's Danny Schechter nails the real reason Congressional Democrats knuckled under and gave Bush carte blanche on Iraq war funding:
Beyond that, it is sometimes hard to remember that war is business, not just politics. The Military Industrial Complex does business in every state and in every congressional district and the politically distributed pork or war booty employs constituents in every district. Members of Congress are very aware of that (emphasis added by me).

The MoveOn’s and anti-war groups are not the only lobbyists in this game. Behind the scenes, employees of war industries and their lobbyists are pressuring the Congress too. Their pressure comes in the form of threats to cut off political contributions unless those they patronize act “responsibly.” They don’t have to make too many threats to the natural born compromisers on the hill for whom selling out is part of buying in. They know who butters their buns.


That makes Senator, and presidential candidate, Chris Dodd's no vote that much more courageous. "Although the State of Connecticut is the third smallest state in the union, it is the home of many major defense contractors, including Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Sikorsky Aircraft, and Electric Boat."USDoJ.gov

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» re: Posted by: CatDad
Hightower nails it.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 26, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, why wasn't this printed in the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal? The corporate media can't handle the truth, can they?

Even if you bend over backwards to give the establishment every benefit of the doubt, there is still zero reason to stay in Iraq:

1) There were no nuclear or biological weapons, and the only chemical weapons were decaying stockpiles from the 80's - which were provided by the Bush-Bandar clan for Saddam's war against Iran. Yes, the US supplied Saddam with WMDs in the 80s - another story the corporate media can't handle.

2) They caught Saddam, the big bad guy who just happened to also be a long-time client of the US government - until he went off the reservation in what, 1990? So, at that point the US military should have packed up and gone home.

3) There's only one reason left to stay in Iraq - the oil. Now, the other day Democracy Now interviewed General John Batiste. Even though this general has resigned to 'speak out', he still doesn't acknowledge that this is all about using the US military to invade another country and seize control of their oilfields - the largest reserve of sweet crude oil on the planet.

I was waiting for Amy Goodman to drop the oil question, but unfortunately, it never came up, though there were many other good questions about Abu Grahib - and the general kept claiming that it was all about fighting global Islamic terrorism, and that the US needed to 'be placed on a war footing'. Bull - the good general still seems to be incapable of facing reality, even though he has resigned in order to speak out.

Here's the question I was hoping to hear: "General, what do you say to the Iraqi people who believe that their country was assaulted and occupied so that US-British oil corporations could gain control of their oilfields?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hightower nails it. Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
Time to Impeach
Posted by: Democritus on May 26, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Nancy Pelosi announced that impeachment was "off the table" she encouraged the Bush administration to continue its single-minded stategy of war, surveillance, and corruption. Pelosi was concerned that impeachment proceedings would detract from the agenda that she had planned. She should now recognize that it is the Bush agenda that needs to be derailed before thousands more are killed overseas and thousands more are deprived of liberties at home. It is time past for more "symbolic" votes in Congress to end funding for the war. Instead of playing cat-and-mouse with Bush's threatened vetoes, Congress should be drawing up articles of impeachment against both Bush and Cheney. That's the only way they will be stopped from destroying the last vestiges of our Constitution and our Republic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» lets not forget Posted by: schokoprinz
jymi
Posted by: jymi07 on May 26, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
now just how does that prayer for peace go,
'dear lord, please stop me!".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMOCRATS FOLDED.....WHAT'S NOT TO BELIEVE?
Posted by: kc10ken on May 26, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously....................

What's NOT to believe?

We elected the Dems to end the war. They sponsored 1 stinking lousy bill that required withdrawal timetables yet STILL funded the war that 72% of Americans overwhelmingly want ended.

The Dems folded. They caved and then gave dumbya his $124 BILLION dollars anyway with no strings.

Time to take Democracy to the streets America.

END THE WAR........BRING US HOME NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I do believe the War is going on
Posted by: carl baydala on May 26, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think we are going to be able to escape the inevitability of war in the near term. The system has coalesced into a war economy. The current regime and the Middle East conflict are only testimony to the powers that control the affairs of the nation. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but someone has to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wouldn't stress the money point too much, money is obviously a meaningless concept
Posted by: ateo on May 26, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we can print 5 billion dollars and send them to Iraq only to have them disappear then I think we can print however many billions of dollars are needed to fight the war in Iraq.

What's the dollar backed by anyway? As best I can tell it's backed by oil. What's the oil backed by? Military force. As long as we have the oil we have the money which means we have the money to spend on the military.

The U.S. can print any amount of money to do anything. Money is only limited and somewhat meaningful among the peasant classes - toiling away their days for a pittance.

The currency in a massively multi-player role playing game (Everquest, World of Warcraft etc.) is just as meaningful and logical as that of the U.S. at this point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Whole World's Watching
Posted by: mgloraine on May 26, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The war goes on because the money still flows and Congress refuses to stop it.
Congress is supposed to take responsibility for removing criminals from the Chief Executive spot based on evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which in this case is abundant and obvious to people all around the world.
If our Congress does not take the steps necessary to stop this gang of crooks from sponsoring death, swindling the American people out of billions of tax dollars and the Iraqi people out of their oil rights, etc., then it will certainly look as if Congress APPROVES of this activity, despite their fiery rhetoric and publicity stunts. It looks that way to me right now.
The Dems think it's more important to focus on winning the White House in '08 than to engage in impeachment procedings now, but that will not happen with the voting apparatus still rigged and controlled by the Bush Gang. The only hope we have of a fair election ever again is to arrest and prosecute the crooks who sabotaged it in the first place, then dismantle the cheating apparatus.
There is a moral imperative to impeach Bush and Cheney as well as the practical necessity to remove them from the chain of command, even if that is inconvenient. We can't wait until 2008 for the killing to start slowing down. And we can't just let them all take their stolen money and retire to their ranch.
The Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove family fortunes should all be seized and held frozen along with the assets of the Carlyle group, Bechtel, Halliburton, Blackwater, all their subsidiaries and all corporate executives' personal holdings. That money is needed to rebuild the nation they demolished.
And they each individually need to face war crimes charges.
To paraphrase little George: "if you're not against them, you must be with them". If we don't throw the bums out, it will be impossible to recover a shred of credibility as a nation of laws and principles. We shall be an international pariah, and deservedly so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a silly question
Posted by: sculptor on May 26, 2007 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly it's way too easy to believe we are still there. Given the historical
president that the British were mired there for some thirty years it's easy.
Given the bungling that has occurred from day one it's easy. Given the pig
headed stubborn denial that Bush has shown when presented with the truth
it's easy. Yes, it's all way too easy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It’s time to cut Democrats in Congress some slack.
Posted by: HughScott on May 26, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, they dumped the withdrawal deadline, but realistically one already exists.

The funding cut-off will happen in September after General Petraeus reports on the troop surge to Congress. If he’s an American patriot, not a Bush propagandist, we will learn that the surge failed. But that’s not when the troop withdrawal will start.

Because retreat is the most difficult military operation to accomplish successfully, I predict soldiers and Marines stationed at Baghdad “precinct houses” will begin quietly redeploying to their permanent bases in July.

Next will be a full-blown Republican campaign promoting the so-called war on terror with a resurgence of national Karl Rove-orchestrated fear-mongering. In a worldwide battle against unnamed enemies, unlike Iraq, Commander-in-Chief Bush can claim all victories he wants without admitting losses or defeats.

Don’t laugh. The arrogant GOP campaign scheme must just work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Prez cant do it
Posted by: eosrk on May 26, 2007 2:48 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hell, the Prez can't get Iraq, let's not forget(of course he did) Afganisistan under control, he sure the hell can't hold Iran, for it's about six times bigger than Iraq, and it has lots of mountains.

Can you say" the Draft". And it's very possible with the boneheaded vote the Dems gave him, they just handed what could have been what broke his back the golden fuckin' plate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you know you're all fucked up.....
Posted by: eosrk on May 26, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....when the Iraqi, Iranian, and even al-Qadia say it was better under Saddam than the U.S.!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RON PAUL is the answer and the hope
Posted by: Maggieb on May 26, 2007 3:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe you aren't talking about the only sane man that will stop this NWO!
If your vote is with Gore you may as well throw it to the wind! Ron Paul is not a politician who says one thing and does another. He answers the questions with no apologies and wants government out of our lives. What part of this do you disagree with people?
He's also the only one that will stop this war! No lobbys own Ron Paul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An invasive occupation
Posted by: Abushite on May 26, 2007 4:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What war ? Iraq did not declare war , Geo W Bushitter
ordered the invasion of Iraq, ordered the occupation of Iraq,
ordered the killing of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Sacrificed thousands of Americans. Caused millions of innocent people to flee their homes and country.

The only appropriate use of the adjective "war" is when it is applied to that war criminal George W. Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraqi Collaborator tells of false flag terrorism in Iraq
Posted by: brianct on May 26, 2007 5:38 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many are aware of this little known story from AMSI?

Former collaborator discloses details of US-ordered
assassinations, sectarian bomb attacks targeting Iraqi
civilians
Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI)
...

The former collaborator went on: "the unit that I was
with settled in the presidential palace in the
al-A'zamiyah district. We were allowed to visit our
relatives and relations in Baghdad once a month, and
so I would go visit my family in 'Madinat as-Sadr’ in
eastern Baghdad. But after things began to get worse
and the armed men began to shot at everyone leaving
the palace, I asked my family to come to the palace
every now and then so I could see them. My job was
being a guard, but after a time that situation changed
and the American occupation forces put me in charge of
a group of a unit that carried out assassinations in
the streets of Baghdad," he said.

"Our task was to carry out assassinations of
individuals. The US occupation army would supply us
with their names, pictures, and maps of their daily
movements to and from their place of residence and we
were supposed to kill the Shi'i, for example, in the
al-A'zamiyah, and kill the Sunni in the of 'Madinat
as-Sadr’, and so on."

"Anyone in the unit who made a mistake was killed.
Three members of my team were killed by US occupation
forces after they failed to assassinate Sunni
political figures in Baghdad. A US force that had been
so-ordered eliminated them. That took place two years
ago," the former collaborator recalled.

The former collaborator said that the Americans have a
unit for "dirty jobs." That unit is a mix of Iraqis,
Americans, and foreigners and of the security
detachments that are deployed in Baghdad and other
Iraqi cities. This unit doesn’t only carry out
assassinations, but some of them specialize in
planting bombs and car bombs in neighborhoods and
markets. This unit carries out operations in which
wanted people whom the American army does not want
killed are arrested.

The former collaborator said that "operations of
planting car bombs and blowing up explosives in
markets are carried out in various ways, the
best-known and most famous among the US troops is
placing a bomb inside cars as they are being searched
at checkpoints. Another way is to put bombs in the
cars during interrogations. After the desired person
is summoned to one of the US bases, a bomb is place in
his car and he is asked to drive to a police station
or a marked for some purpose and there his car blows
up."
etc
http://uruknet.info/?p=32812

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reflections on an endless conflict
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on May 26, 2007 6:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Jim Hightower . . .

This treatise is a brilliant reflection. I thank you for sharing your thoughts eloquently, logically, and with reason. It is a pleasure to read a serious discussion of this slaughter and its consequences.

I can hardly believe the war has gone on this long. I began protesting before we dropped the first bombs. I often muse is this going to be my life. Yet, I know that I come and stand peacefully for an hour or two. There are no bombs or bullets blasting in the background. Soldiers are not slamming my door down. Civil unrest does not surround me, or at least not as it would in the Middle East. As a peace protester in America, my job may never be done; nonetheless, I do not serve as a service person might. Nor is my daily life in chaos as it would be if I were a citizen of Iraq or Afghanistan.

I have time to reflect in calm. I invite your thoughts on Reflections of A Solitary Peace Protester

I write of this "skirmish" on my own website. I have a subject heading titled, "Iraq. Afghanistan." In this folder alone there are thirty-five essays addressing this endless conflict.

I also have a war heading. Thirty more missives grace those pages.

I long to write more on tragedies at home and how we might heal a crumbling infrastructure. I yearn to pen additional essays on global peace and what we might do to further safety, security, and sanity for every being throughout the Earth. I do author articles on these topics; yet, there is the nagging distraction.

G-d may be speaking to George W. Bush; however, I think much is lost in the translation.

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maybe not everybody wants the American Dream
Posted by: richholland on May 26, 2007 8:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although USA is a big country there are also other countries and civilisations on Earth.
They also like electricity and cars . but they donot embrace the jewisch/christian values of working till death (reward afterwarts)

The war in Iraq is over now it is occupation and the Persian civilisation had paintings and poems while the ancestors of the Bushfamily still was in the bush.
Cavemen go home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My democrats voted no!
Posted by: DataDoc on May 26, 2007 10:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tim Ryan voted no. Some Democrats have a spine!

I heard Nancy Pelosi voted no as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The only reason..."
Posted by: vangogh69 on May 27, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The only reason the US is in Iraq is because of Bush..." [sic] so says the author.

Actually, the reason why the US is in Iraq (or one of the big reasons) IS because post-WWI&II US society was built(up) around the conception of the automobile and cheap oil. It was short-sighted of those in the past and a mistake now coming back to haunt the US. The US is in Iraq because it built up its (now) economic rivals (France, Germany, Japan) after WWII, laying the seads for future currency wars/competition and instability. The US is in Iraq because it has a military its size doesn't warrant and without really using it, the government would be forced to invest in social programs and infrastructure. And so on...

As much as I loathe the actions of the Bush Cabal, I recognize the "Iraq Problem" belongs to many other administrations (from Eisenhauer to Bush II) and also the American people who have such a consumerist appetite and bitch about their 3.50 gasoline while declaring it their right to have imported mangos from south america in the winter time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "The only reason..." Posted by: wisegalah
» oil & China Posted by: vangogh69
Time to Pay the Piper
Posted by: sofla100 on May 27, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The continuation of the war and the surge is likely now to continue while the USA, mostly behind closed doors, "negotiates" an agreement with Iran. This "agreement" will likely call for a gradual drawdown of US troops and Iran guaranteeing Iraqi territorial integrity for sometime. (I think this situation is somewhat similiar to the agreement Kissinger tried to negotiate with the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War). As the USA leaves and the Iraqi civil war escalates, however, the Iranians will probably move in troops to prevent further chaos. This will, no doubt, cause a fit with USA and Israeli politicians, however, as part of the drawdown process, it will be seen as inevitable. The bottom line however remains unchanged. This is an unwinnable war for the USA, engaged in to begin with out of stupidity and very bad judgement. Iraq cannot and will not ultimately be held together because it is an "artificial creation" anyway and the best solution is really for the country now to dissolve. This solution is really resisted by the USA and Israel because in dissolution, the Iranians will probably get a good chunk of current Iraq. As for all the "Al-Queda" stuff, this is mostly just a USA smokescreen as this threat is really very, very minimal. At least insofar as any "attack" on the USA. The Iranians can and will control Al-Queda quite easily and will certainly do so, as long as they get what they want. A piece of Iraq, and oil booty. As for the USA keeping Iraq as it is now and keeping the oil booty, you have to pay for your mistakes. America lost, and the consequence have to be paid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, the military is getting tattered...
Posted by: ibsteve2u on May 27, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The blog mentions military recruitment issues.

The coincidence of personnel within the Navy and Air Force being squeezed out by the "do more with less even if it kills you" force restructuring initiated to finance Bush's tax cuts and the Army's need for more troops has resulted in the creation of a program called "Blue to Green" to move personnel from those two branches into ground combat boots.

Simultaneously, more and more Air Force personnel are now receiving training for ground combat at Ft. Dix for eventual deployment to Iraq - with the expectation they will be carrying out ground attack missions instead of primarily protecting air assets.

On the surface that doesn't seem to be a "big deal", but to me it shouts that the United States is no longer capable of fighting a single front war against a comparably equipped military whose manpower levels equal or exceed ours.

Let alone a two-front war.

I hope the neocon perspective that money is thicker than blood or water does not fall short of their expectations, because if they are wrong and one of our erstwhile "trading partners" pulls the trigger only one thing is certain: Neither the neocons nor their children will be on the front lines demonstrating their remorse at placing their money above America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Memorable Day Salute to the Architects of Gulf War 2 and Other Republican Hawks.
Posted by: HughScott on May 27, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. Bush: Went AWOL during the Vietnam War and lied about it to get elected.
Dick Cheney: Dodged the draft, never served and bragged about getting five deferments.
Scooter Libby: Dodged the draft and never served.
Donald Rumsfeld: Evaded overseas duty while a Navy instructor pilot.
Paul Wolfowitz: Dodged the draft and never served.

Other noteworthy Republican hawks who NEVER served in uniform, much less saw combat.

National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
White House Legal Counselor Dan Bartlett
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman
Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie
Former Bush 43 Administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer
UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad
Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
Former Majority Whip Mitch McConnell
Senator Orrin Hatch
Former Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Richard Shelby
Senator Jon Kyl
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
Former House Majority leader Dennis Hastert
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey
Representative David Dreier
Former Representative Tom Delay
Representative James Sensenbrenner
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich
Former Representative JC Watts
Florida Governor Jeb Bush
New York Governor George Pataki
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Jack Kemp
Rudy Giuliani
William Bennett
Bill Kristol
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Ken Starr
Gary Bauer
Ralph Reed

I, Hugh Scott, Vietnam veteran and ex-USAF pilot with a family history of honorable military service going back to 1776, thank all of you for not serving in America’s armed forces. They deserved a lot more than what you had to offer – i.e., a lack of integrity and intestinal fortitude, for starters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Ultimate Disgrace on Memorial Day weekend: Cheney giving a speech to West Point grads.
Posted by: HughScott on May 27, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The worst U.S. vice president in American history, Dick Cheney, who dodged the Vietnam War draft with five deferments, bragged about them and then went on to become the Bush administration's biggest liar, spread more falsehoods in front of the West Point 2007 graduating class.

Mixing fear-mongering with distortions, deceptions and outright lies, the Chicken Hawk made the following statements:

Noting that West Point is 50 miles north of where terrorists struck lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, Cheney said, “Nobody can promise us we won't be hit again.''

"We're fighting a war over there (Iraq) because the enemy attacked us first,'' Cheney claimed, even though Saddam Hussein had nothing to with 9/11.

Continuing the rightwing propaganda, he said, ''The terrorism fight now centers on Iraq because that’s where the enemy has massed.”

Of course, it makes no difference to Cheney that we invaded Iraq four years ago without just cause, enough troops, an adequate peacekeeping plan or viable exit strategy.

With the straightest of faces, Bush’s side-talking sidekick promised that GIs would have "all the manpower, equipment and support it needs" to carry out the troop surge. Again, he omitted important facts -- such as the Army refusing to supply its combat units with the best helmet liner pads and body armor available, in order to save money.

How much more shameful could a White House speech be on Memorable Day weekend? Only if Devious Dub-ya delivered the OOO-RAH rant instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gerald.sutliff
Posted by: Gerald on May 27, 2007 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re: "Can you believe..."
Well said, all of it, but I want to add that "extending tours" is brutal and is emotionally devastating to those effected. When a soldier is stationed overseas even in a relatively benign location one's "rotation date" is precious, it's a one reason to keep doing your duty. It's a contract between the soldier and the Army. Now that "date" has become a tease or bait on a string. Playing fast and loose with that date is devastating on moral. I saw the effects on my fellow soldiers in 1961 while stationed in Okinawa (an "easy duty" assignment if there ever was one). Grown men broke down, set on their bunks and unashamedly cried. I can't imagine what it's like to our own now stationed in Iraq. I'm willing to bet that a number of suicides will be said at the feet of "extended tours".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blame a One-Party State
Posted by: dayahka on May 27, 2007 8:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good article, but you cast too much blame on Bush. Bush is doing what the owners (not you, obviously, nor me) want, aided and abetted by a one-party state with no opposition (party or citizenry). With just one person in opposition (Ron Paul) and around twenty candidates from the ruling party, there is no likelihood of change (and Bush's pretend piety will be adopted by the next regent, yoiu can be sure). Useless rants and verbal outrage are all that's left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blame a One-Party State Posted by: richholland
America needs Glasnost !
Posted by: liberal is good on May 28, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was Vlad the Impaler... today we have, Shrub the slaughterer and Big Dick the Demagogue, the current stars of the war that time forgot.

First one must understand the premiss of this administration. They are not guys who are just mistaken. Not men and women who are misguided. They are guided and purposeful. The mission is to take over the government and run it as a dictatorship.
They know exactly what they are doing and none of it involves the care support or nurturing of this country and the people in it. It is for power, and wealth, the party always before the people, at - all - costs. Understand that and all falls into place.

I always had a special disgust for those sociopaths who hid behind God. The secular murderers, demagogues, and dictators like Sadam Hussein are loathsome enough creatures, but there is a special place for those murderers who hide behind God, like Bin Laden. They use God as an excuse for not being decent human beings, for the lack of wisdom, courage and the desire to work for the greater good. Bush is just a twit, he wasn’t even man enough to serve his obligationn the national guard and that was stateside!
It takes a lot more strength of character, to work for the greater good, when you really want to go in "guns blazing".
There is no such strength in this administration, NONE.

The damage done by these scum is incalculable. It cannot be undone, the healing will take decades. The damage to our men and women in uniform, those he has murdered with his insanity, those who are disabled for the rest of their lives. Lost arms, legs, eyes... how much more Shrub the slaughterer??? How much?

I’m personally finding my spirituality stretched to the limit.

While Cheney ran things, for the last 6 years anyway, Bush was always like the court jester, being manipulated mainly because of his lack of character, putting all his own mistakes of life on God. A perfect front man, the God made me do it syndrome. But now things are even more out of control because I think, Cheney backed off and they have left George to fend for himself out at that podeum.

I say for the satisfaction of all the people, those still capable of thinking, is that the whole gang, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, go to the Hague for crimes against humanity.
They must be held accountable and punished.

I am ( forgive me God) not willing to wait for God to do it. I think it would be the only way we as a country could get our credibility back our place in the world. That is only if we really can seriously be a leader of wisdom, peace, with strength (the right kind) and work for the greater good. Put the right wing radicals back in their cages.

These right wing radicals, including the radical Evangelicals have been working for 40 years to take over this country and run things their way politically and religiously, just know that the religious part is done grudgingly, they need them to look legit.

Can it be that it has only taken 6 years for their insanity to take us down? To try and turn us into a new world order like the Nazis attempted. Now don’t get all worked up you don’t have to slaughter 6 million people to see the philosophy of Nazism at work. The silence of the world in 1939 allowed Hitler to almost make it. Let us not be silent again. History can and will repeat itself. And I’ll be damned if I’ll let some stupid twit be the perpetrator. Impeachment for treason ASAP then the Hague... Lets do it, NOW

Throughout history great nations, & cultures have fallen, Britain, France, Alexandria, because of the same thinking and actions we are taking now... will we be next? Just history, as it always has, repeating itself. Will America be added to that illustrious list? And man, will we never learn?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't there a couple of trillion still to be made?
Posted by: xbj on May 31, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then it will go on. Until the world rises up and stops it, because we sure as hell aren't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

awacobud
Posted by: wacoguy on May 31, 2007 2:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The necessary response to this radical administration, and to the faceless, ethically-challenged and lacking-in-affirmative-values collection of lackies that populate the ranks of the "conservatives", of the Republican Party and of the Republican wing of the US Congress is now more clear than ever. Simply, we must now all write a letter to our respective Representatives and Senators and advise them that, because of their past and continuing silence and support of this ruinous escapade , or because they have stood by as enabling lumps to the horrors precipitated by the administration's lying about the realities of Iraq--pre-invasion and post-invasion and up to today--then, in the next election cycle, we will go to the polls and we will vote for their opponent. Period. The letter will be most effective when it is not a pledge for a vote for a "Democrat opponent"--it will be most effective when it is a clear statement of affirmative fact: that we will vote for any opponent of the current office holder. There is simply nothing that the cowardly class that presently fills our elected Federal offices understands exept that which will (or could) lead to their defeat in the next election. NOTHING. If we do not do this--simply this--and if we then, in numbers greater than have ever been seen at the polls, don`t actually go to the polls and cast a vote against the current elected lackies, then shame on us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And my response is this........
Posted by: woodford54 on May 31, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHEN THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO STOP TALKING AND TAKE ACTION TO STOP THIS MANIACAL LOSER WHO IS TAKING ALL OF US DOWN WITH THE SHIP?????!!!!!! If not you, then who???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So, what action are you taking... Posted by: xconservative
you had me going...
Posted by: The Populist on Jun 2, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you were doing just fine, until you mentioned a draft. i would go along with a draft IF it applied to families with a gross adjusted income over $200,000 per year. Otherwise the draft would be regressive, like a flat tax. A bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end, and a plutocrat as a manufacturer and general.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Federal/North Carolina Parallel
Posted by: larrykueneman on Jun 16, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of us may have missed an interesting parallel that played itself out in a very brief period in a North Carolina hearing room on June 16th . Mike Niphong was disbarred for his blatant attempt to railroad three Duke University students in order that he be re-elected to another term as County Prosecutor. The initial case was a county level action that took place as most cases do, with just one exception – no crime had been committed. His election was a success, but had the prosecutor also been successful in the case he was pursuing, the lives of the Lacross team members would have been totally destroyed. Sadly, much of the professorship and the administration at Duke thought the men were guilty even though they had seen literally none of the non-evidence that was to be submitted in court. Innuendo and the willingness on the part of the public to believe simply what they were told interrupted the calm and honesty of the lives of thousands of people nationwide as the scenario played out. Ok, that is North Carolina, but what about a Federal parallel.
There is a level of information stating that when George W. Bush moved into the White House he already intended to go to war in Iraq. While that might be true, it was the attack of 9-11 that opened the door to his efforts that followed.
Every first term president, before he takes the oath, is aware that he is a shoe-in for a second term if his administration is at war at the time of that second election, and Bush certainly wanted a second term. The evidence for the presence (or non-presence) of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as well as other charges of criminal activity on the part of Saddam Hussein was altered and deleted by the administration when the answers were not conducive to a pre-emptive attack by the United States.
Niphong presented evidence that was potentially incriminating, and withheld the evidence that would have exonerated the three charged in the rape case, yet he strongly voiced his sureness of their guilt. Many of us believed him. His election came and went, but he had gone so far with this case he couldn’t back down.
The Bush administration saw to it that only evidence supporting the intention to go to war with Iraq was presented to the American people, and the majority of us supported the president given such overwhelming evidence for an attack. Few of us at the time knew we were the victims of a well-planned fraud that was far more involved than Mr. Niphongs. While the evidence for an invasion grew, the administration paid no attention to the many voices who warned that there was far more to a war in Iraq than simply dethroning Hussein. Bush even stood defiantly on the White House steps saying clearly, “We are not in the business of nation building.”
Completely ignoring the counsel of those with much experience that he should have been listening to, Bush entered into a war he thought would only last long enough to get him re-elected, and the council he so smugly dismissed proved quicky to be accurate. The U.S. got into a quagmire where we kept losing our young men and women specifically so Bush could have a second term, and we are still losing them to the same irrational bull-headedness that strangely elected him in the first place. Niphong had already gone too far by the time of his election. And by the time of the election for a second term for Bush, he had gotten us so far into a war in the middle-east that it may take a hundred years to undo the damage.
With Niphong, he lost his license to practice law, and the Duke team members were exonerated. In Bush’s case more than thirty-thousand Americans have been killed or maimed, and he doesn’t have a clue as to how to get us out. Perhaps it is time to withdraw Bush’s license to do this any more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement