Listening to all the asinine partisan garbage rhetoric we hear from Bush, this is the first glimpse of reality as to the situation I have seen. It was so good I thought you should see it. I only put in the ending as even they seem to not get how this is going to end because Bush attacked Iraq against all good advice and set this all in motion by destabilizing the middle east and we must get this point through and not let him forget it or get away with it!
George W. Bush continues to use the rhetorical device of linking the occupation of Iraq with the war on terrorism, warning in his most recent press conference that "the terrorists would take control of Iraq" if the U.S. withdrew its forces. But for many politicians and pundits the argument that has kept them supporting the occupation is that withdrawing too soon would make sectarian violence even worse. This argument for continued occupation is not based on the real political-military situation in Iraq, and it is important to understand why.
When U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad gave a speech in Washington his main argument against a "precipitous" withdrawal was that it "could unleash a sectarian civil war, which inevitably would draw neighboring states into a regional conflagration..." That was also the main theme of Sen. Joe Lieberman in arguing against Democratic amendments calling for a timetable for withdrawal in June.
It is not that the civil war won't get worse in Iraq; it now seems very likely that it will. But the United States is not militarily capable of preventing the worse war yet to come, and trying to do so would only start a new war between the United States and the Shiites who want the U.S. to leave. Since we cannot prevent sectarian violence, the only question is whether we leave before the inevitable confrontation with Shiites--a battle U.S. troops would certainly lose.
First, the military reality. With the buildup of the Shiite sectarian militias--and particularly the Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr--the U.S. occupation force no longer represents the predominant military power in Iraq. A study issued in August by Chatham House, the influential British strategic think tank, said the Mahdi army, which was believed to have fewer than 10,000 men under arms when the United States tried to destroy it August 2004, may now be "several hundred thousand strong." In addition, the Badr Organization, which is affiliated with the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen.
Sadr is confident that, once the Shiite government has gotten everything it can out of the United States to strengthen Shiite forces, they can defeat the Sunnis by military force. As Moqtada al-Sadr's spokesman Mustafa Yaqoubi told The Washington Post last month, the "other forces" would not "have the capability to match us." Yaqoubi also made it clear that Sadr's Mahdi army intends to force the United States out of Iraq. "If we leave the decision to [the Americans], they will not leave," he said, "To get the occupiers to leave, [the Americans] need some sacrifice."
The dominant power of the Shiite militia means that it is impossible for the United States to remain longer than the Shiites believe it to be useful. As former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Pat Lang has observed, U.S. troops depend on supply lines that run for hundreds of miles through territory controlled by the Mahdi army. Once Sadr gives the word, supplies can be squeezed enough to render military operations very difficult.
As early as last December, Col. Joseph DiSalvo, commander of a brigade of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, who was responsible for eastern Baghdad, told Knight-Ridder's Tom Lasseter it would be all but impossible for coalition forces to defeat the Shiite militias. "We cannot negate the militias," he said. "You'd have to have more manpower than is feasible."
U.S.. forces are incapable of stemming the violence that has blossomed this summer. This June, the Bush administration made much of Operation Forward--its move to bring more U.S. troops into Baghdad and provide security from the forces of sectarian violence. But during the first three months of the new strategy, from June through August, the number of civilians killed each month by sectarian death squads increased to 3,249--one-third more than during the previous three months.
What's more, the U.S. forces were unwilling to confront the most lethal elements of the violence in Baghdad, thus exposing their inability to provide any meaningful security to civilians. Operation Forward Together actually steered clear of the Mahdi army and the Badr Organization. U.S. officers told Peter Beaumont of The Guardian that the United States had supported a decision by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government not to confront the militias, "because of fears of a full-scale battle with the militia in Sadr City." It is important to note that al-Sadr's political bloc in the Iraqi Parliament were instrumental in providing the votes that brought al-Maliki to power.
Despite rhetoric to the contrary, preventing sectarian violence has never been the priority of the Bush administration in Iraq. At the very time the Shiite militias were building up their power in 2004 and 2005, according to Iraq's interim interior minister Falah al-Naquib, he warned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials about the threat they would pose, but "They didn't take us seriously."
The reason for the Bush administration's inattention to the sectarian violence is simple: Focusing on that issue conflicted with the main interest of the Pentagon in building up overwhelmingly Shiite security force to fight the Sunni insurgency. In 2005 and even in 2006, the U.S. command used some of the most notorious Shiite sectarian paramilitary forces, who were known to be guilty of widespread torture of Sunnis, like the Wolf Brigade, to maintain control of Sunni cities like Ramadi.
The Bush administration has no strategy for Iraq except to keep strengthening official Shiite-controlled paramilitary forces of the Iraqi government. The assumption is that Shiite security forces will constrain the larger rogue elements and Shiite militias. But of course, from February through July of this year, in the crucial period of transition to much larger civil war, Iraqi security forces stood aside while Shiites and Sunnis carried out massacres of each other.
Some of the Shiite sectarian forces carrying out revenge killings of Sunnis are headquartered right in the Iraqi Ministry of Interior--the very ministry with which the Bush administration continues to collaborate closely against Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists. The senior U.S. adviser to the national police admitted that last month that there are "still some militias operating within the national police." And a senior U.S. military commander said at least five or six battalions of paramilitary police were believed to have commanders who had shown themselves to be either "criminal or sectarian or both."
The ministry official responsible for the torture center in Baghdad that was revealed by U.S. officials last November is Mahmoud Waeli, who is also known to be the top intelligence official of the Badr Corps. Yet Waeli continues to operate out of the ministry's headquarters, according to a senior U.S. military official who spoke on background to the Los Angeles Times last summer. The same official said Pentagon and State Department officials were "disengaged" on the issue of the ministry's links with militias.
No, the withdrawal of U.S. forces will not result in an outbreak of sectarian violence leading to civil war. That's already happening. Now, the only recourse for the United States is to pursue the course that the Bush administration has thus far resisted: dropping its threatening demeanor toward Iran and working with it and Iraq's Arab neighbors to craft a settlement that would constrain the Shiite militia and prompt the kind of political and economic concessions to Sunni minority that could bring a Lebanon-style peace between the two communities. But to get the Sunnis on board, such a settlement would require that Bush agree to a timetable for withdrawal.
The argument that U.S. occupation is the only thing standing between Iraq and complete civil war and chaos argument is symptomatic of a broad refusal to face unpalatable realities that has distorted the national discourse on Iraq. In order to make the national decision to end the occupation, the pundits and politicians will have to face those realities squarely and start making them part of that discourse. Meanwhile, our troops are doing no good to anyone as sitting targets for both sides.
http://www.tompaine.com/...
To top it off our troops are suffering increasingly the highest casualties of the war with 69 so far this monthly. They are increasingly being killed by snipers. Watch this disturbing graphic CNN footage.
http://www.cnn.com/...
This is the first story I have seen from someone other than us that sees things as they are and speaks the truth. However, it is too late to stop this! Try as we may this will not be stopped by anyone. Iran and other Arab neighbors will manipulate their own interests. this is still just getting started. Bottom line! We can not let Bush forget that he did this.He got in over his drunk head!
From 9/11 he has been following a plan. Fighting terrorism was not it. It was just the reason he needed to attack Iraq and start to implement his new middle east and world order. Please read the following and you will understand everything.
As you may remember, Bush was looking for something to happen that would put the country and the world behind what he already had plans to do. 9/11 gave him that something.
He had plans right from the beginning to establish a new societal, middle east, and world order. That is why it was important to him to whip up a media and public fury which of course, he has done.
He then used the excuse of 9/11 to attack Iraq and unsettle the middle east guaranteeing the loss of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire middle east. He did all this so he could further his idea of a new middle east and world order. If fighting terrorism was his goal instead of creating it for his gain he would have stayed in Afghanistan and done the job.
This will not be won as Bush thinks regardless, we must withdraw strategically and let them fight it out. They will follow us hear regardless of when we leave. We must stop Bush from using that stupid line along with Dems want to cut and run.! Someone must see reality and be able to counter Bush's idiocy. Our military will be needed right here and bush is guaranteeing Japan, Israel, Taiwan, and others that we will defend them. WTF is wrong with this idiot?
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
North Korea will continue defiance and China will help as Bush's Diplomacy Facade Continues!
With North Korea supplying the excuse for increased sanctions, Bush knows his desire to progress his new world order will be presented to him. He knows NK will rebel against this, forcing the world and NK into further action! Bush's new world order will progress!
With this in mind we know that China has started to reinforce their border with NK to me primarily to stem a possible flow of North Korean refugees fleeing the destitute conditions on regular citizens and for no other reason. We also know they as of yet, refuse to monitor NK ships and search for illegal Arms shipments or worse, nuclear contraband which could get in the hands of Iran, terrorists or other third world nations.
This concerns me as I just don't trust Kim Jong IL and he is responding just as most of us and by my theory as Bush expected him to. Also how do we verify that China will monitor any movement of illicit materials until and if they get caught. then what do we do? This is not a good situation!
World Updates: North Korea on Tuesday denounced U.N. sanctions over its nuclear test as a declaration of war and the United States and others suspected it may try a second bomb test despite international condemnation.
Defiant in the face of sanctions backed by even its closest ally, China, Pyongyang said it had withstood international pressure before and so was hardly likely to yield now that it had become "a nuclear weapons state."
It is quite nonsensical to expect the DPRK to yield to the pressure and threat of someone at this time when it has become a nuclear weapons state," official media quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.
The DPRK wants peace but is not afraid of war," he said, referring to the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
The Bush administration said it would not be surprised by a second North Korean test meant to test the will of the United Nations and the five states -- the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia -- engaged in long-stalled talks with Pyongyang.
The North Koreans have made no secret of their desire to be provocative. The first test, while nuclear, did have a low yield and perhaps it would not be unreasonable to expect that the North Koreans would like to try to something again," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in Washington. It is quite nonsensical to expect the DPRK to yield to the pressure and threat of someone at this time when it has become a nuclear weapons state," official media quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.
The DPRK wants peace but is not afraid of war," he said, referring to the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Tony Snow: "It would not be a good thing for them, but it certainly would not be out of character."
The Bush administration said it would not be surprised by a second North Korean test meant to test the will of the United Nations and the five states -- the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia -- engaged in long-stalled talks with Pyongyang. http://thestar.com.my/...
Tony Snowjobs own words: It is quite nonsensical to expect the DPRK to yield to the pressure and threat of someone at this time when it has become a nuclear weapons state,"
And the fact that The Bush administration said it would not be surprised by a second North Korean test meant to test the will of the United Nations.You have to believe, knowing the goading politics of Bush if as Is my belief, this knowingly is going to fail and Bush will have the cover of lousy diplomacy and once more be forced to prosecute his planned new order. Bush's horrible necessary steps for his new world order! What a setup! Bushwhacked and Hoodwinked Bush's plan! http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/....
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
With this in mind we know that China has started to reinforce their border with NK to me primarily to stem a possible flow of North Korean refugees fleeing the destitute conditions on regular citizens and for no other reason. We also know they as of yet, refuse to monitor NK ships and search for illegal Arms shipments or worse, nuclear contraband which could get in the hands of Iran, terrorists or other third world nations.
This concerns me as I just don't trust Kim Jong IL and he is responding just as most of us and by my theory as Bush expected him to. Also how do we verify that China will monitor any movement of illicit materials until and if they get caught. then what do we do? This is not a good situation!
World Updates: North Korea on Tuesday denounced U.N. sanctions over its nuclear test as a declaration of war and the United States and others suspected it may try a second bomb test despite international condemnation.
Defiant in the face of sanctions backed by even its closest ally, China, Pyongyang said it had withstood international pressure before and so was hardly likely to yield now that it had become "a nuclear weapons state."
It is quite nonsensical to expect the DPRK to yield to the pressure and threat of someone at this time when it has become a nuclear weapons state," official media quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.
The DPRK wants peace but is not afraid of war," he said, referring to the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
The Bush administration said it would not be surprised by a second North Korean test meant to test the will of the United Nations and the five states -- the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia -- engaged in long-stalled talks with Pyongyang.
The North Koreans have made no secret of their desire to be provocative. The first test, while nuclear, did have a low yield and perhaps it would not be unreasonable to expect that the North Koreans would like to try to something again," White House spokesman Tony Snow said in Washington. It is quite nonsensical to expect the DPRK to yield to the pressure and threat of someone at this time when it has become a nuclear weapons state," official media quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.
The DPRK wants peace but is not afraid of war," he said, referring to the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Tony Snow: "It would not be a good thing for them, but it certainly would not be out of character."
The Bush administration said it would not be surprised by a second North Korean test meant to test the will of the United Nations and the five states -- the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia -- engaged in long-stalled talks with Pyongyang. http://thestar.com.my/...
Tony Snowjobs own words: It is quite nonsensical to expect the DPRK to yield to the pressure and threat of someone at this time when it has become a nuclear weapons state,"
And the fact that The Bush administration said it would not be surprised by a second North Korean test meant to test the will of the United Nations.You have to believe, knowing the goading politics of Bush if as Is my belief, this knowingly is going to fail and Bush will have the cover of lousy diplomacy and once more be forced to prosecute his planned new order. Bush's horrible necessary steps for his new world order! What a setup! Bushwhacked and Hoodwinked Bush's plan! http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/....
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Thom Hartman Inspired: What is a progressive? Progressive history! Why we must fight Bush!
What is a progressive? A Progressive is defined as one believing in moderate political change and especially Social improvement by Government action! The knowledge that Bushco fights this vehemently is telling to what they have done to our America. We are vilely called Liberals! Liberals are for Liberty! Isn't that supposed to be what America is all about? That Bushco and the so called right fight this so viciously is also very telling.
Are You a Progressive? A Progressive Liberal?
Anyway, with that said I am learning that I am a Progressive Liberal who wants a better Government and proud of it! Why is that made to sound so wrong? it sounds only right!
I want our Government back! I want our America back! I want our rights back! The fact that we have to fight for something that we had and should be ours by definition of what America stands or stood for is again too telling.
What Bush has created with his new America is not ours! Okay, I see by definition that being a progressive liberal is anti Bush and his version of a new societal, middle east, and world order.
http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/...
Knowing what Bush has done to America and the world and why makes it only right to want our America back. When I saw spelled out what he was doing and why, not only was I frighteningly right but absolutely stunned!
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/...
Knowing that we must not stop fighting Bush and his terrible plans I was led naturally to look at the progressive movement and the struggle for reform in America.
http://www.colorado.edu/...
In reading about The progressive era I learned Thomas Edison said in 1912 we've got to start making the world over. I had no idea that this movement is so old. We have obviously done a lousy job and up to now, failed. I also learned that the progressive movement was quite complex and I had a lot to learn. I am part of a Historic pretty old movement and I had no idea.
In my ignorance I thought it was born as a result of Bush and his antics and I found the definitions and makeup very confusing! Bush only made the movement more important than ever. Please help me understand!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Are You a Progressive? A Progressive Liberal?
Anyway, with that said I am learning that I am a Progressive Liberal who wants a better Government and proud of it! Why is that made to sound so wrong? it sounds only right!
I want our Government back! I want our America back! I want our rights back! The fact that we have to fight for something that we had and should be ours by definition of what America stands or stood for is again too telling.
What Bush has created with his new America is not ours! Okay, I see by definition that being a progressive liberal is anti Bush and his version of a new societal, middle east, and world order.
http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/...
Knowing what Bush has done to America and the world and why makes it only right to want our America back. When I saw spelled out what he was doing and why, not only was I frighteningly right but absolutely stunned!
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/...
Knowing that we must not stop fighting Bush and his terrible plans I was led naturally to look at the progressive movement and the struggle for reform in America.
http://www.colorado.edu/...
In reading about The progressive era I learned Thomas Edison said in 1912 we've got to start making the world over. I had no idea that this movement is so old. We have obviously done a lousy job and up to now, failed. I also learned that the progressive movement was quite complex and I had a lot to learn. I am part of a Historic pretty old movement and I had no idea.
In my ignorance I thought it was born as a result of Bush and his antics and I found the definitions and makeup very confusing! Bush only made the movement more important than ever. Please help me understand!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Monday, October 16, 2006
Hartman: Undeclared war on middle class, Lou Dobbs: It's time to fight, Under Bush, sad but true!
opednews: If you are familiar with Thom Hartmann's daily Air America radio program, the perspective and clarity of his latest book, Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class (and What We Can Do About It) won't take you by surprise. That's not to say that there's nothing new in it; Hartmann offers his perspectives here in a readable format using the same debating skill he demonstrates in his radio show when hosting conservative guests.
Hartmann doesn't use the book as a debate forum. He simply lays out cogent arguments that support his progressive view and refutes conservative premises in the process. Not that his views are extreme or radical, though they may seem that way in comparison to the Bush Republicans.
.
Hartmann represents what the "progressive" label is supposed to convey these days, though there was a time when these views were considered rather moderate - even middle-of-the-road Democratic - which demonstrates how far we've been blown off course.
Hartmann frames his thesis with solid and reasoned discourse that dissembles voodoo economic concepts, exposing their false premises and empty promises. He deftly handles the economic and political-philosophical issues that underlie his premise, and his arguments are hard to refute not only because they are logical and fair-minded but also because they are supported by facts, which Hartmann provides.
As the title suggests, Hartmann's position is that the middle class has been screwed by the very government it trusted. To be sure, there have been abuses by politicos of all stripes and he doesn't spare those who have betrayed the middle class values that are the foundation of our democracy, regardless of party affiliation. But, Hartmann warns us, we are now at a dangerous crossroads: the US has entered a new gilded age, not entirely dissimilar to the age of the Carnegies and Rockefellers at the turn of the last century. It took several decades, a Depression, and a leader with the stature and respect of FDR to set us on the right path again. If we don't take back the democracy that is being lost in the 21st century gilded age, we stand to lose the solid middle class that is the glue for keeping democracy in tact and healthy.
Despite rhetoric about conservatives, the same con men selling us the story about our founding fathers, who fought courageously for the country, are selling the middle class down the river with myths about our own history. While many of the founding fathers did fight, what they fought for was to be free of the politics of England that enriched the king and the royals while the rest of the people lived in Dickensonian poverty. We are at that precipice and we need to retake the country from the hands of the rich and put it back into the hands of the decent Americans in the middle who struggle every day to make an honest living and are getting screwed.
So what does Hartmann propose that we the people do about this situation? He has several suggestions but all require that people get active. The Revolution was not won by passive agreement with its principles; watching it on TV won't do. Hartmann's prescription is to demand a return to the policies and programs that have been dismantled since Reagan plus the addition of a new one-a single-payer health care plan based on Medicare. As he notes, a single-payer health plan was proposed by Truman and defeated by the Republicans of his time. Read the whole review, it's interesting!
http://www.opednews.com/...
We know this is all true and we have been writing about it for years now. I seem to be highlighting lately the books that seem to be coming out frequently now and at a time for us to highlight the damage Bushco has cone to average Americans.we have written many times that during the revolution the enemy was from without but today the enemy is from within, our own Government! I frequently say we must take our America back if we are to have future as a viable society as we knew it. i often say that it will not change unless we get seriously involved because those benefiting from corruptive idea of a Government are not going to change it willingly.
Lou Dobbs take: Our country's middle class is not just collateral damage in what has become all-out class warfare. Political, business and academic elites are waging an outright war on working men and women and their families, and there is no chance the American middle class will survive this assault if the dominant forces unleashed over the past five years continue unchecked.
They've accomplished this through large campaign contributions, armies of lobbyists that have swamped Washington, and control of political and economic think tanks and media. Lobbyists, in fact, are the arms dealers in the war on the middle class, brokering money, influence and information between their clients our elected officials.
There's something all of us could do that would have an immediate impact and send a powerful message to both corporation-dominated political parties and to our elected officials in Washington. Our so-called representatives in both parties have been working against the interests of the middle class for so long that they take our votes for granted, or they take advantage of the fact that a sizable number of us don't vote at all.
So what if a majority of us decided once and for all to walk into our town and city halls all over the country and change our party affiliation from Republican or Democrat to independent? What if that sizable number of us who don't vote at all decided to register as independents? For the first time in decades, working middle-class Americans might just get the attention of our elected officials in Washington.
Our middle class has suffered in silence for far too long, and it cannot afford to suffer or be silent much longer. Hardworking Americans have not spoken out about their increasingly marginalized role in this society, and as a consequence they've all but lost their voice.
I sincerely hope that we will find the resolve to face these challenges to our way of life, and we do so soon. George Bernard Shaw said, "It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid." I'm stupid enough to be absolutely sincere in the hope that middle-class America will awake soon and take action. http://www.cnn.com/...
Again, this is all true as we all experience it daily. as you all know, this has been happening at high speed under Bush in an effort to fully implement his new societal order. http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/...
We have been trying for years to get someone to do something about it and maybe these two books will help us. We need all the help we can get! in the end we must get involved ourselves.
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Hartmann doesn't use the book as a debate forum. He simply lays out cogent arguments that support his progressive view and refutes conservative premises in the process. Not that his views are extreme or radical, though they may seem that way in comparison to the Bush Republicans.
.
Hartmann represents what the "progressive" label is supposed to convey these days, though there was a time when these views were considered rather moderate - even middle-of-the-road Democratic - which demonstrates how far we've been blown off course.
Hartmann frames his thesis with solid and reasoned discourse that dissembles voodoo economic concepts, exposing their false premises and empty promises. He deftly handles the economic and political-philosophical issues that underlie his premise, and his arguments are hard to refute not only because they are logical and fair-minded but also because they are supported by facts, which Hartmann provides.
As the title suggests, Hartmann's position is that the middle class has been screwed by the very government it trusted. To be sure, there have been abuses by politicos of all stripes and he doesn't spare those who have betrayed the middle class values that are the foundation of our democracy, regardless of party affiliation. But, Hartmann warns us, we are now at a dangerous crossroads: the US has entered a new gilded age, not entirely dissimilar to the age of the Carnegies and Rockefellers at the turn of the last century. It took several decades, a Depression, and a leader with the stature and respect of FDR to set us on the right path again. If we don't take back the democracy that is being lost in the 21st century gilded age, we stand to lose the solid middle class that is the glue for keeping democracy in tact and healthy.
Despite rhetoric about conservatives, the same con men selling us the story about our founding fathers, who fought courageously for the country, are selling the middle class down the river with myths about our own history. While many of the founding fathers did fight, what they fought for was to be free of the politics of England that enriched the king and the royals while the rest of the people lived in Dickensonian poverty. We are at that precipice and we need to retake the country from the hands of the rich and put it back into the hands of the decent Americans in the middle who struggle every day to make an honest living and are getting screwed.
So what does Hartmann propose that we the people do about this situation? He has several suggestions but all require that people get active. The Revolution was not won by passive agreement with its principles; watching it on TV won't do. Hartmann's prescription is to demand a return to the policies and programs that have been dismantled since Reagan plus the addition of a new one-a single-payer health care plan based on Medicare. As he notes, a single-payer health plan was proposed by Truman and defeated by the Republicans of his time. Read the whole review, it's interesting!
http://www.opednews.com/...
We know this is all true and we have been writing about it for years now. I seem to be highlighting lately the books that seem to be coming out frequently now and at a time for us to highlight the damage Bushco has cone to average Americans.we have written many times that during the revolution the enemy was from without but today the enemy is from within, our own Government! I frequently say we must take our America back if we are to have future as a viable society as we knew it. i often say that it will not change unless we get seriously involved because those benefiting from corruptive idea of a Government are not going to change it willingly.
Lou Dobbs take: Our country's middle class is not just collateral damage in what has become all-out class warfare. Political, business and academic elites are waging an outright war on working men and women and their families, and there is no chance the American middle class will survive this assault if the dominant forces unleashed over the past five years continue unchecked.
They've accomplished this through large campaign contributions, armies of lobbyists that have swamped Washington, and control of political and economic think tanks and media. Lobbyists, in fact, are the arms dealers in the war on the middle class, brokering money, influence and information between their clients our elected officials.
There's something all of us could do that would have an immediate impact and send a powerful message to both corporation-dominated political parties and to our elected officials in Washington. Our so-called representatives in both parties have been working against the interests of the middle class for so long that they take our votes for granted, or they take advantage of the fact that a sizable number of us don't vote at all.
So what if a majority of us decided once and for all to walk into our town and city halls all over the country and change our party affiliation from Republican or Democrat to independent? What if that sizable number of us who don't vote at all decided to register as independents? For the first time in decades, working middle-class Americans might just get the attention of our elected officials in Washington.
Our middle class has suffered in silence for far too long, and it cannot afford to suffer or be silent much longer. Hardworking Americans have not spoken out about their increasingly marginalized role in this society, and as a consequence they've all but lost their voice.
I sincerely hope that we will find the resolve to face these challenges to our way of life, and we do so soon. George Bernard Shaw said, "It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid." I'm stupid enough to be absolutely sincere in the hope that middle-class America will awake soon and take action. http://www.cnn.com/...
Again, this is all true as we all experience it daily. as you all know, this has been happening at high speed under Bush in an effort to fully implement his new societal order. http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/...
We have been trying for years to get someone to do something about it and maybe these two books will help us. We need all the help we can get! in the end we must get involved ourselves.
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Barack Obama A good man for the future, needed in Dem Congress,needs more training for Presidency!
Times Joe Kline:The question of when Obama who has not yet served two years in the U.S. Senate will run for president is omnipresent. That he will eventually run, and win, is assumed by almost everyone who comes to watch him speak.In Davenport a local reporter asks the question directly: "Are you running for president in 2008?"
Obama surprises me by saying he's just thinking about the 2006 election right now, which, in the semiotic dance of presidential politics, is definitely not a no. A few days later, I ask Obama the obvious follow-up question: Will he think about running for President in 2008 when the congressional election is over?
I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband," he says carefully, and then adds, "I haven't completely decided or unraveled that puzzle yet."
About halfway through the hour-long meeting in Rockford Illinois a middle-aged man stands up and says what seems to be on everyone's mind, with appropriate passion: "Congress hasn't done a damn thing this year. I'm tired of the politicians blaming each other. We should throw them all out and start over!" "Including me?" the senator asks.
A chorus of n-o-o-o-s. "Not you," the man says. "You're brand new." http://www.cnn.com/...
I have to agree with this sentiment. Under Bush and a Republican controlled Congress we have done nothing but harm America. Respected Authors voice what we all know is a do nothing Congress, it's a shambles and must be replaced. http://www.contracostatimes.com/...
Any politician who has been inadequate should be replaced in November regardless of party. I happen to like Obama and think he is still in the learning stage and much needed in what I have hopes will be a Democrat controlled Congress. With his understanding that we should woo Fundamentalist's in hopes of showing them how to get in line with real Christianity and that Religion while important as what motivates you to be a good person, should not be controlling our politics as it does under Bush and the Repubs. I have to agree with him.
Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people" and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.
"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.
"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,"` he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."
Obama said millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews have traveled similar religious paths, and that is why "we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's will continue to hold sway."
Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps -- off rhythm -- to the gospel choir." At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."
As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."
Obama mentioned leaders of the religious right briefly, saying they must "accept some ground rules for collaboration" and recognize the importance of the separation of church and state.
http://www.cnn.com/....
I have to agree and Again I say that Obama has a unique understanding and his wisdom is there but should represent us an Congress for a while where he can gain much needed experience. To me we and the world need seasoned wisdom in 08 in order to clean up after Bush. I have not heard a declaration of a run in 08 but to me the only person for the job is Al Gore!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Obama surprises me by saying he's just thinking about the 2006 election right now, which, in the semiotic dance of presidential politics, is definitely not a no. A few days later, I ask Obama the obvious follow-up question: Will he think about running for President in 2008 when the congressional election is over?
I will think about how I can be most useful to the country and how I can reconcile that with being a good dad and a good husband," he says carefully, and then adds, "I haven't completely decided or unraveled that puzzle yet."
About halfway through the hour-long meeting in Rockford Illinois a middle-aged man stands up and says what seems to be on everyone's mind, with appropriate passion: "Congress hasn't done a damn thing this year. I'm tired of the politicians blaming each other. We should throw them all out and start over!" "Including me?" the senator asks.
A chorus of n-o-o-o-s. "Not you," the man says. "You're brand new." http://www.cnn.com/...
I have to agree with this sentiment. Under Bush and a Republican controlled Congress we have done nothing but harm America. Respected Authors voice what we all know is a do nothing Congress, it's a shambles and must be replaced. http://www.contracostatimes.com/...
Any politician who has been inadequate should be replaced in November regardless of party. I happen to like Obama and think he is still in the learning stage and much needed in what I have hopes will be a Democrat controlled Congress. With his understanding that we should woo Fundamentalist's in hopes of showing them how to get in line with real Christianity and that Religion while important as what motivates you to be a good person, should not be controlling our politics as it does under Bush and the Repubs. I have to agree with him.
Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people" and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.
"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty.
"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,"` he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."
Obama said millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews have traveled similar religious paths, and that is why "we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's will continue to hold sway."
Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps -- off rhythm -- to the gospel choir." At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."
As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."
Obama mentioned leaders of the religious right briefly, saying they must "accept some ground rules for collaboration" and recognize the importance of the separation of church and state.
http://www.cnn.com/....
I have to agree and Again I say that Obama has a unique understanding and his wisdom is there but should represent us an Congress for a while where he can gain much needed experience. To me we and the world need seasoned wisdom in 08 in order to clean up after Bush. I have not heard a declaration of a run in 08 but to me the only person for the job is Al Gore!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Friday, October 13, 2006
The Greatest Story Ever Sold! Decline & fall of truth from 9/11 to Katrina! We were right & ...
Rich supplies the truth! When America was attacked on 9/11, its citizens almost unanimously rallied behind its new, untested president as he went to war. What they didn't know at the time was that the Bush administration's highest priority was not to vanquish Al Qaeda but to consolidate its own power at any cost. It was a mission that could be accomplished only by a propaganda presidency in which reality was steadily replaced by a scenario of the White House's own invention--and such was that scenario's devious brilliance that it fashioned a second war against an enemy that did not attack America on 9/11, intimidated the Democrats into incoherence and impotence, and turned a presidential election into an irrelevant referendum on macho imagery and same-sex marriage.
As only he can, acclaimed New York Times columnist Frank Rich delivers a step-by-step chronicle of how skillfully the White House built its house of cards and how
The institutions that should have exposed these fictions, the mainstream news media, were too often left powerless by the administration's relentless attack machine, their own post-9/11 timidity, and an unending parade of self-inflicted scandals (typified by those at The New York Times).
Demonstrating the candor and conviction that have made him one of our most trusted and incisive public voices, Rich brilliantly and meticulously illuminates the White House's disturbing love affair with "truthiness," and the ways in which a bungled war, a seemingly obscure Washington leak, and a devastating hurricane at long last revealed the man-behind-the-curtain and the story that had so effectively been sold to the nation, as god-given patriotic fact. http://www2.oprah.com/...
Ugly reality? By STEVE WEINBERG
Avid baseball fans might be forgiven for thinking of George W. Bush first as an owner of the Texas Rangers, then as Texas governor and U.S. president.
As a Rangers spokesman, Bush learned how to blur actual reality and false reality, according to author Frank Rich. "When catering to the rich by adding a profusion of luxury boxes to his new stadium, he hired an architect to camouflage the class distinctions from the hoi polloi," Rich says. As part of his strategy to fool Rangers fans, Bush "flattered reporters and sweetened the amenities in the press box."
Now, in a book that aims to prove that George W. Bush has lied over and over to the citizenry, the president of the United States and his dishonest advisers receive credit from Rich for one thread of truthfulness: Their admission that they make life-and-death decisions by relying on Christian faith rather than fact-based reality.
Rich's book is grounded in fact-based reality -- lots of facts, lots of ugly realities.
Like many commentators who can fairly be termed politically liberal, Rich has become unhinged by the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney White House. Rich's disagreements with the president and all his men (a few women, too) have been obvious since 2001. Unlike many other columnists, however, Rich has done his homework about the so-called war on terrorism, the invasion of Iraq, the reaction to Hurricane Katrina and other cataclysmic events.
My, has he done his homework. In an exhaustive -- and sometimes exhausting -- indictment, Rich catalogs hundreds of half-truths and undiluted lies communicated by the Bush White House to the citizenry it is supposed to serve honestly. Along the way, Rich indicts lots of journalists (especially Washington Post reporter/book author Bob Woodward, not to mention Rich's own New York Times colleagues), bloggers, Democratic politicians, Hollywood movie makers and others with a platform who could have helped disseminate the truth but instead kowtowed to White House fear mongers. He indicts untold millions of those without a platform as well, the voters (and nonvoter's) who constitute "an American culture that was an all-too-easy mark for the flimflam."
Although Rich was best known as the Times' theater critic before becoming a columnist, it turns out he possesses considerable investigative skills, as he follows the muckraker's maxim about proving what public officials knew and when they knew it.
For readers who might charge Rich with exaggeration (could a president and his staff really lie so frequently and so baldly?) or partisan political bias, he provides an 80-page timeline at the end of the book. The entries in the right-hand column "chronicle the story that was sold by the Bush administration and other relevant events, news reports or official statements that were known publicly at the time." The left-hand column entries "chronicle what the administration was learning behind the scenes about intelligence and other war-related matters, and not telling the public. The events in this hidden timeline were revealed publicly only later."
Rich understands that for the most part he is not breaking news: "While the controversial policy choices made by the Bush administration are well known, equally important is the way it dramatized its fable to the nation and made it credible to so many, even when it wasn't remotely true." But he also understands he is aggregating information unlike anybody else has done. The aggregation allows Rich to speculate in an informed manner about why so many lies occurred during such a relatively short period.
His answer: "to amass power and hold on to it."
All U.S. presidents have sought to amass power and hold on to it. Rich believes, however, that no previous administration has crossed so many ethical, moral and sometimes legal lines. The context provided by Rich is helpful and disturbing, especially as he demonstrates how President Ronald Reagan and his "image maven" Michael Deaver influenced Bush and his spinmeister Karl Rove.
Rich writes that when Reagan "cut any federal subsidy for the elderly, it was time for him to be televised surrounded by flags cutting the ribbon at a new nursing home. The pictures could be counted on to carry the day and to drown out any discouraging words from Reagan critics on the evening news. Bush and Rove took this playbook as a starting point and then upped the ante."
Bush and Rove perhaps do not care that Rich is suggesting they are congenital liars. But voters -- those who cast ballots for Bush during 2000 and 2004, those who despise Bush's presidency, and everybody in between -- ought to care. Billions of budget dollars and an untold number of lives hang in the balance. http://www.chron.com/...
This coincides with what many of us have known but can't get heard!
Bush allowed Katrina to run its course on purpose. He as you know is forming a new societal order as we all experience.
From 9/11 he has been following a plan. Fighting terrorism was not it. It was just the reason he needed to attack Iraq and start to implement his new middle east and world order. Please read the following and you will understand everything.
As you may remember, Bush was looking for something to happen that would put the country and the world behind what he already had plans to do. 9/11 gave him that something.
He had plans right from the beginning to establish a new societal, middle east, and world order. That is why it was important to him to whip up a media and public fury which of course, he has done.
He then used the excuse of 9/11 to attack Iraq and unsettle the middle east guaranteeing the loss of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire middle east. He did all this so he could further his idea of a new middle east and world order. Of course lying all the while and whipping up as much support and frenzy as he could in the media and minds he controls.
At this point it behooves him to continue to ignore reality and continue to whip up a frenzy so he can continue staying the course in order to further prosecute his new middle east and world order.
We are all shamelessly being used so Bush can follow his plan for new order. I wrote this 3 years ago but it is more obvious today. Let me know what you think? I won't get any deeper but it gets worse from here.
http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/...
Frank Rich gives proof to what many of us have known from the beginning. As Bush continues his lies by supporting Hastert and bragging Hastert will still be in his position after the elections we must put an end to these lies! we must end this lying power grab!
NY Times:The Greatest Story Ever Sold, One last telling review!
http://www.nytimes.com/...
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
As only he can, acclaimed New York Times columnist Frank Rich delivers a step-by-step chronicle of how skillfully the White House built its house of cards and how
The institutions that should have exposed these fictions, the mainstream news media, were too often left powerless by the administration's relentless attack machine, their own post-9/11 timidity, and an unending parade of self-inflicted scandals (typified by those at The New York Times).
Demonstrating the candor and conviction that have made him one of our most trusted and incisive public voices, Rich brilliantly and meticulously illuminates the White House's disturbing love affair with "truthiness," and the ways in which a bungled war, a seemingly obscure Washington leak, and a devastating hurricane at long last revealed the man-behind-the-curtain and the story that had so effectively been sold to the nation, as god-given patriotic fact. http://www2.oprah.com/...
Ugly reality? By STEVE WEINBERG
Avid baseball fans might be forgiven for thinking of George W. Bush first as an owner of the Texas Rangers, then as Texas governor and U.S. president.
As a Rangers spokesman, Bush learned how to blur actual reality and false reality, according to author Frank Rich. "When catering to the rich by adding a profusion of luxury boxes to his new stadium, he hired an architect to camouflage the class distinctions from the hoi polloi," Rich says. As part of his strategy to fool Rangers fans, Bush "flattered reporters and sweetened the amenities in the press box."
Now, in a book that aims to prove that George W. Bush has lied over and over to the citizenry, the president of the United States and his dishonest advisers receive credit from Rich for one thread of truthfulness: Their admission that they make life-and-death decisions by relying on Christian faith rather than fact-based reality.
Rich's book is grounded in fact-based reality -- lots of facts, lots of ugly realities.
Like many commentators who can fairly be termed politically liberal, Rich has become unhinged by the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney White House. Rich's disagreements with the president and all his men (a few women, too) have been obvious since 2001. Unlike many other columnists, however, Rich has done his homework about the so-called war on terrorism, the invasion of Iraq, the reaction to Hurricane Katrina and other cataclysmic events.
My, has he done his homework. In an exhaustive -- and sometimes exhausting -- indictment, Rich catalogs hundreds of half-truths and undiluted lies communicated by the Bush White House to the citizenry it is supposed to serve honestly. Along the way, Rich indicts lots of journalists (especially Washington Post reporter/book author Bob Woodward, not to mention Rich's own New York Times colleagues), bloggers, Democratic politicians, Hollywood movie makers and others with a platform who could have helped disseminate the truth but instead kowtowed to White House fear mongers. He indicts untold millions of those without a platform as well, the voters (and nonvoter's) who constitute "an American culture that was an all-too-easy mark for the flimflam."
Although Rich was best known as the Times' theater critic before becoming a columnist, it turns out he possesses considerable investigative skills, as he follows the muckraker's maxim about proving what public officials knew and when they knew it.
For readers who might charge Rich with exaggeration (could a president and his staff really lie so frequently and so baldly?) or partisan political bias, he provides an 80-page timeline at the end of the book. The entries in the right-hand column "chronicle the story that was sold by the Bush administration and other relevant events, news reports or official statements that were known publicly at the time." The left-hand column entries "chronicle what the administration was learning behind the scenes about intelligence and other war-related matters, and not telling the public. The events in this hidden timeline were revealed publicly only later."
Rich understands that for the most part he is not breaking news: "While the controversial policy choices made by the Bush administration are well known, equally important is the way it dramatized its fable to the nation and made it credible to so many, even when it wasn't remotely true." But he also understands he is aggregating information unlike anybody else has done. The aggregation allows Rich to speculate in an informed manner about why so many lies occurred during such a relatively short period.
His answer: "to amass power and hold on to it."
All U.S. presidents have sought to amass power and hold on to it. Rich believes, however, that no previous administration has crossed so many ethical, moral and sometimes legal lines. The context provided by Rich is helpful and disturbing, especially as he demonstrates how President Ronald Reagan and his "image maven" Michael Deaver influenced Bush and his spinmeister Karl Rove.
Rich writes that when Reagan "cut any federal subsidy for the elderly, it was time for him to be televised surrounded by flags cutting the ribbon at a new nursing home. The pictures could be counted on to carry the day and to drown out any discouraging words from Reagan critics on the evening news. Bush and Rove took this playbook as a starting point and then upped the ante."
Bush and Rove perhaps do not care that Rich is suggesting they are congenital liars. But voters -- those who cast ballots for Bush during 2000 and 2004, those who despise Bush's presidency, and everybody in between -- ought to care. Billions of budget dollars and an untold number of lives hang in the balance. http://www.chron.com/...
This coincides with what many of us have known but can't get heard!
Bush allowed Katrina to run its course on purpose. He as you know is forming a new societal order as we all experience.
From 9/11 he has been following a plan. Fighting terrorism was not it. It was just the reason he needed to attack Iraq and start to implement his new middle east and world order. Please read the following and you will understand everything.
As you may remember, Bush was looking for something to happen that would put the country and the world behind what he already had plans to do. 9/11 gave him that something.
He had plans right from the beginning to establish a new societal, middle east, and world order. That is why it was important to him to whip up a media and public fury which of course, he has done.
He then used the excuse of 9/11 to attack Iraq and unsettle the middle east guaranteeing the loss of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire middle east. He did all this so he could further his idea of a new middle east and world order. Of course lying all the while and whipping up as much support and frenzy as he could in the media and minds he controls.
At this point it behooves him to continue to ignore reality and continue to whip up a frenzy so he can continue staying the course in order to further prosecute his new middle east and world order.
We are all shamelessly being used so Bush can follow his plan for new order. I wrote this 3 years ago but it is more obvious today. Let me know what you think? I won't get any deeper but it gets worse from here.
http://www.anaveragepatriot.com/...
Frank Rich gives proof to what many of us have known from the beginning. As Bush continues his lies by supporting Hastert and bragging Hastert will still be in his position after the elections we must put an end to these lies! we must end this lying power grab!
NY Times:The Greatest Story Ever Sold, One last telling review!
http://www.nytimes.com/...
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Yesterday's Bush Idiocy A reminder of why we Must Impeach the Idiot!
You Can Help Impeach George W. Bush
A message from Ramsey Clark
http://www.votetoimpeach.org Please learn more!
Dear James,
There can be no conflict between freedom and security. We must have both, or we will have neither. President Bush insists that we sacrifice freedom to be secure. His actions as President have endangered both our freedom and our security.
President Bush has radically diminished the security of the United States by his criminal acts. His wars of aggression, defined as the "Supreme international crime" by the Nuremberg Court, in Afghanistan and Iraq have created anger, fear and hatred among vast populations all blaming the United States.
Thousands of young men have been motivated to violence by the invasions and illegal U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. military bases, embassies, businesses and tourists around the globe are threatened because of the Bush Administration's aggressions and threats against "evil empires" others call home, or their part of the world. Fear of what President Bush calls "terrorist acts" stalks our own land.
Today's news reveals that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the U.S. invasion and occupation of their country. This is being reported by the medical journal the Lancet from a study performed by U.S. and Iraqi doctors under the auspices of Johns Hopkins University. This stands as one of the great crimes in the modern era. George W. Bush and others responsible must be impeached.
U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed the obvious. The U.S. assault and continuing presence in Iraq has fueled a new and massive potential for violence against the U.S. by people theretofore friendly to the U.S. Common sense and the slightest understanding of human nature informs us all that people react angrily to threats, assaults and foreign military occupations perceived as unjustified.
In a poll conducted in Iraq in early September by the University of Maryland, it was found that 75% of the Iraqi population believe the U.S. occupation causes more violence than would occur if the U.S. withdrew and now favor complete U.S. withdrawal within a year.
U.S. military capacity has been drastically impaired. Beyond the 2,740 military deaths and 20,000 serious injuries, more than 1,200 in August 2006 alone, the radically increasing military burden of Afghanistan and total additional war costs approaching a trillion dollars.
Bush's belligerence has created new crises. Consider North Korea, where a million troops have been massed on the border with the South. Seoul is within range of rockets from the North. All of the Korean people, in both the North and the South want peace and yet they are faced with a new possible confrontation.
With his usual arrogance, President Bush refused for nearly six years to talk with North Korea one on one, while threatening it constantly as an evil empire. He forced North Korea to show test, first its rockets, and now a nuclear warhead, to deter U.S. aggression against its people.
North Korea has witnessed George Bush's merciless aggressions against other nations and knows the U.S., at the very moment it threatens other nations not to develop nuclear weapons, is itself replacing older nuclear warheads and developing more advanced nuclear warheads and rocketry at a cost of additional hundreds of billions of dollars.
When the U.S. signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, more than three decades ago, it agreed to phase its nuclear arsenal out of existence to achieve a nuclear free world. George Bush has raced in the opposite direction.
The U.S. must lead the world in an open, orderly, total elimination of all nuclear arms. Only then can we hope for other nations to seek the same end. Add other continuing crises: Somalia where U.S. backed militia leaders have been driven out by Islamic forces; the continuing tragedy of Darfur; the use of National Guard units to police the border with Mexico; the greater toll in lives taken by Katrina because of the absence of Louisiana National Guard units sent to Iraq by President Bush; and you have the U.S. military stretched beyond its capacity to provide security for the U.S. because of President Bush's War on Terrorism which most of a billion plus Muslims believe is a war on Islam.
A dd his continuing threats against half a dozen countries, most notably at this moment his reaction to North Korea's nuclear bomb test and his announced plan to "punish" Iran, and his foreign policy is clear.
We, the people of the United States do not need this, but we are paying a staggering price in honor, respect, security and quality of life that threatens our future.
President Bush has simultaneously sacrificed freedom in America as no other President in our history by his criminal acts. While proclaiming his very purpose to be freedom, he has usurped power. He has granted himself the right to seize Americans and any others, tell no one, hold people arbitrarily, interrogate them ad nauseum, and use torture; to wiretap at will without warrants any person anywhere, abolish and defile the writ of habeas corpus -- the Great Writ of a free people -- use secret prisons in foreign countries where prisoners held are helpless. With contempt, he rejects the Geneva Conventions, designed to protect prisoners of war and civilian populations, ours as well as others. He is responsible for the destruction of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, Samara and deaths of children, the elderly and defenseless populations.
These acts include the crimes of murder, assault, kidnapping, torture, wrongful imprisonment to name a few. Having drastically eroded both security and freedom, President Bush daily condemns political opponents for lacking the courage to sacrifice freedom to win his worldwide "war on terrorism."
Using fear, he has sacrificed freedom on the altar of security, questioning the patriotism of anyone who challenges his excesses.
President Bush proclaims the sacrifice of freedom as the price of security, assaulting both in the process. The obvious reality is that a people must have both freedom and security, or they will have neither. The absence of freedom will compel people to struggle against the repression of security measures, and the absence of security will threaten the freedom of all. No one is free who must live in a bomb shelter or cannot walk the streets with safety.
If the American people are to be both free and secure, intend to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, in the words of Justice Hugo Black, "we must not be afraid to be free."
Demand that the House of Representatives impeach George W. Bush, his Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other officials, complicit in the High Crimes and Misdemeanors that have been committed in our name. We must act now to impeach President Bush.
Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
October 12, 2006
As if you need a reminder of this but here is the idiots speech and video from yesterday's mindless rhetoric! it really is insulting and demeaning to hear Bush's obvious lies and misleading attempts at intelligent conversation in an attempt to defend his many created problems! We've got to do something about him now! http://www.cnn.com/...
http://www.cnn.com/... video!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.co
A message from Ramsey Clark
http://www.votetoimpeach.org Please learn more!
Dear James,
There can be no conflict between freedom and security. We must have both, or we will have neither. President Bush insists that we sacrifice freedom to be secure. His actions as President have endangered both our freedom and our security.
President Bush has radically diminished the security of the United States by his criminal acts. His wars of aggression, defined as the "Supreme international crime" by the Nuremberg Court, in Afghanistan and Iraq have created anger, fear and hatred among vast populations all blaming the United States.
Thousands of young men have been motivated to violence by the invasions and illegal U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. military bases, embassies, businesses and tourists around the globe are threatened because of the Bush Administration's aggressions and threats against "evil empires" others call home, or their part of the world. Fear of what President Bush calls "terrorist acts" stalks our own land.
Today's news reveals that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the U.S. invasion and occupation of their country. This is being reported by the medical journal the Lancet from a study performed by U.S. and Iraqi doctors under the auspices of Johns Hopkins University. This stands as one of the great crimes in the modern era. George W. Bush and others responsible must be impeached.
U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed the obvious. The U.S. assault and continuing presence in Iraq has fueled a new and massive potential for violence against the U.S. by people theretofore friendly to the U.S. Common sense and the slightest understanding of human nature informs us all that people react angrily to threats, assaults and foreign military occupations perceived as unjustified.
In a poll conducted in Iraq in early September by the University of Maryland, it was found that 75% of the Iraqi population believe the U.S. occupation causes more violence than would occur if the U.S. withdrew and now favor complete U.S. withdrawal within a year.
U.S. military capacity has been drastically impaired. Beyond the 2,740 military deaths and 20,000 serious injuries, more than 1,200 in August 2006 alone, the radically increasing military burden of Afghanistan and total additional war costs approaching a trillion dollars.
Bush's belligerence has created new crises. Consider North Korea, where a million troops have been massed on the border with the South. Seoul is within range of rockets from the North. All of the Korean people, in both the North and the South want peace and yet they are faced with a new possible confrontation.
With his usual arrogance, President Bush refused for nearly six years to talk with North Korea one on one, while threatening it constantly as an evil empire. He forced North Korea to show test, first its rockets, and now a nuclear warhead, to deter U.S. aggression against its people.
North Korea has witnessed George Bush's merciless aggressions against other nations and knows the U.S., at the very moment it threatens other nations not to develop nuclear weapons, is itself replacing older nuclear warheads and developing more advanced nuclear warheads and rocketry at a cost of additional hundreds of billions of dollars.
When the U.S. signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, more than three decades ago, it agreed to phase its nuclear arsenal out of existence to achieve a nuclear free world. George Bush has raced in the opposite direction.
The U.S. must lead the world in an open, orderly, total elimination of all nuclear arms. Only then can we hope for other nations to seek the same end. Add other continuing crises: Somalia where U.S. backed militia leaders have been driven out by Islamic forces; the continuing tragedy of Darfur; the use of National Guard units to police the border with Mexico; the greater toll in lives taken by Katrina because of the absence of Louisiana National Guard units sent to Iraq by President Bush; and you have the U.S. military stretched beyond its capacity to provide security for the U.S. because of President Bush's War on Terrorism which most of a billion plus Muslims believe is a war on Islam.
A dd his continuing threats against half a dozen countries, most notably at this moment his reaction to North Korea's nuclear bomb test and his announced plan to "punish" Iran, and his foreign policy is clear.
We, the people of the United States do not need this, but we are paying a staggering price in honor, respect, security and quality of life that threatens our future.
President Bush has simultaneously sacrificed freedom in America as no other President in our history by his criminal acts. While proclaiming his very purpose to be freedom, he has usurped power. He has granted himself the right to seize Americans and any others, tell no one, hold people arbitrarily, interrogate them ad nauseum, and use torture; to wiretap at will without warrants any person anywhere, abolish and defile the writ of habeas corpus -- the Great Writ of a free people -- use secret prisons in foreign countries where prisoners held are helpless. With contempt, he rejects the Geneva Conventions, designed to protect prisoners of war and civilian populations, ours as well as others. He is responsible for the destruction of Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad, Samara and deaths of children, the elderly and defenseless populations.
These acts include the crimes of murder, assault, kidnapping, torture, wrongful imprisonment to name a few. Having drastically eroded both security and freedom, President Bush daily condemns political opponents for lacking the courage to sacrifice freedom to win his worldwide "war on terrorism."
Using fear, he has sacrificed freedom on the altar of security, questioning the patriotism of anyone who challenges his excesses.
President Bush proclaims the sacrifice of freedom as the price of security, assaulting both in the process. The obvious reality is that a people must have both freedom and security, or they will have neither. The absence of freedom will compel people to struggle against the repression of security measures, and the absence of security will threaten the freedom of all. No one is free who must live in a bomb shelter or cannot walk the streets with safety.
If the American people are to be both free and secure, intend to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, in the words of Justice Hugo Black, "we must not be afraid to be free."
Demand that the House of Representatives impeach George W. Bush, his Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other officials, complicit in the High Crimes and Misdemeanors that have been committed in our name. We must act now to impeach President Bush.
Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
October 12, 2006
As if you need a reminder of this but here is the idiots speech and video from yesterday's mindless rhetoric! it really is insulting and demeaning to hear Bush's obvious lies and misleading attempts at intelligent conversation in an attempt to defend his many created problems! We've got to do something about him now! http://www.cnn.com/...
http://www.cnn.com/... video!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.co
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Nov 7 approaching: Politics hot and heavy! Proof Whoever controls the Issues Controls the Elections!
As new polls showed Democrats taking advantage of a wave of hostile sentiment over the Iraq war and the Mark Foley sex scandal, some Republicans were clinging to the hope that news of the North Korean nuclear test might bring some supporters back to them.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/... Bush is doing his share in this end as....
The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with North Korea and said it would not be intimidated by a reported threat from Pyongyang that it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve the standoff.
This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation," said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. "It's worked for them before. It won't work for them now." http://www.abcnews.go.com/... Bolton's words apply to Bush also as we know all too well, as Bush does his best to make NK the issue on the 7th!
As we listen to McCain trying to divert attention off Foley and failing Iraq by blaming Clinton for Bush's failed NK Mis Diplomacy that resulted in NK's nuclear detonation.
http://www.chron.com/... I want you to remember the facts of Bush's Bullying and the expected negative results!
Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil."
Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea says it will withdraw from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
April 24, 2003: North Korea says it has nuclear weapons and may test, export or use them depending on U.S. actions, Washington says.
Feb. 10, 2005: North Korea announces it has nuclear weapons.
Sept. 15, 2005: U.S. blacklists a Macau-based bank for alleged involvement in North Korea's illicit activity such as money laundering and counterfeiting, leads the bank to freeze North Korean assets.
Sept. 26: North Korea rejects further talks on its nuclear program, claims Washington wants to rule the world.
Oct. 3: North Korea says it will conduct a nuclear test in the face of what it claimed was "the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war."
Oct. 9: North Korea says it has conducted its first-ever nuclear test. http://www.iht.com/.... It seems obvious to me who should take the credit for this as Dems try to remind us, as if we needed it, of the dire consequences of Bush's created Iraq war!
A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics." http://www.cnn.com/...
It is all politics of course, so what? If the truth is told, that is all that should matter. If it does not serve your interests then you better adjust accordingly and fly right!
I just want to point out that we seem to have once again let the Repubs divert attention from their corruptive ineptitude i.e.. the Foley Scandal. I haven't heard anything of the fact that Hastert appears to have skirted responsibility by being able to hide the fact of his prior knowledge even though A former chief of staff for Foley said last week that he first advised Hastert's office of the Florida congressman's troublesome behavior three years ago. Hastert's chief of staff has denied it.
As far as Bush and Hastert are concerned, that kills the issue of Hastert's prior knowledge , once again hiding behind a closed mouth cover up! http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
We can not allow this cover up and Hastert's inequities to be quieted. We cannot allow attention to be diverted from Foley onto North Korea. We can argue the fact that NK and nukes is a result of Bush's Bullying and not Clinton's lack of activity.
However, while I wonder how Bushco seems to have quieted the Woodward factor i must say we can not allow them to do this to Foleygate!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/... Bush is doing his share in this end as....
The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with North Korea and said it would not be intimidated by a reported threat from Pyongyang that it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve the standoff.
This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation," said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. "It's worked for them before. It won't work for them now." http://www.abcnews.go.com/... Bolton's words apply to Bush also as we know all too well, as Bush does his best to make NK the issue on the 7th!
As we listen to McCain trying to divert attention off Foley and failing Iraq by blaming Clinton for Bush's failed NK Mis Diplomacy that resulted in NK's nuclear detonation.
http://www.chron.com/... I want you to remember the facts of Bush's Bullying and the expected negative results!
Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil."
Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea says it will withdraw from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
April 24, 2003: North Korea says it has nuclear weapons and may test, export or use them depending on U.S. actions, Washington says.
Feb. 10, 2005: North Korea announces it has nuclear weapons.
Sept. 15, 2005: U.S. blacklists a Macau-based bank for alleged involvement in North Korea's illicit activity such as money laundering and counterfeiting, leads the bank to freeze North Korean assets.
Sept. 26: North Korea rejects further talks on its nuclear program, claims Washington wants to rule the world.
Oct. 3: North Korea says it will conduct a nuclear test in the face of what it claimed was "the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war."
Oct. 9: North Korea says it has conducted its first-ever nuclear test. http://www.iht.com/.... It seems obvious to me who should take the credit for this as Dems try to remind us, as if we needed it, of the dire consequences of Bush's created Iraq war!
A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics." http://www.cnn.com/...
It is all politics of course, so what? If the truth is told, that is all that should matter. If it does not serve your interests then you better adjust accordingly and fly right!
I just want to point out that we seem to have once again let the Repubs divert attention from their corruptive ineptitude i.e.. the Foley Scandal. I haven't heard anything of the fact that Hastert appears to have skirted responsibility by being able to hide the fact of his prior knowledge even though A former chief of staff for Foley said last week that he first advised Hastert's office of the Florida congressman's troublesome behavior three years ago. Hastert's chief of staff has denied it.
As far as Bush and Hastert are concerned, that kills the issue of Hastert's prior knowledge , once again hiding behind a closed mouth cover up! http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
We can not allow this cover up and Hastert's inequities to be quieted. We cannot allow attention to be diverted from Foley onto North Korea. We can argue the fact that NK and nukes is a result of Bush's Bullying and not Clinton's lack of activity.
However, while I wonder how Bushco seems to have quieted the Woodward factor i must say we can not allow them to do this to Foleygate!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Iran Blames Bush, Repubs blame Clinton, Because of Bush Bullying, timeline proves Iran Right!
Iran says today's reported North Korean nuclear test should be blamed on -- the United States. Iranian state radio says, "North Korea's nuclear test was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation."
It says the threat of sanctions only increased the diplomatic pressure on North Korea. Iran accuses Washington of what it calls "double standards" in its nuclear policy because it does not seek sanctions against India -- which has tested a nuclear weapon -- and Israel -- which is believed to posses some. Iran also has a suggestion to the United Nations about a possible response -- saying it should not punish North Korea -- but instead disarm the nuclear arsenals of larger nations. http://www.foxnews.com/...
North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place during the watch of George W. Bush -- but it was under the Clinton administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering necessary materials and constructing the bomb. http://www.newsmax.com/...
A timeline on nuclear weapons development in North Korea:
1993: North Korea shocks world by saying it will quit Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, later suspends its withdrawal. ...... http://www.iht.com/...
Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil."
Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea says it will withdraw from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
April 24, 2003: North Korea says it has nuclear weapons and may test, export or use them depending on U.S. actions, Washington says.
Feb. 10, 2005: North Korea announces it has nuclear weapons.
Sept. 15, 2005: U.S. blacklists a Macau-based bank for alleged involvement in North Korea's illicit activity such as money laundering and counterfeiting, leads the bank to freeze North Korean assets.
Sept. 26: North Korea rejects further talks on its nuclear program, claims Washington wants to rule the world.
Oct. 3: North Korea says it will conduct a nuclear test in the face of what it claimed was "the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war."
Oct. 9: North Koreas says it has conducted its first-ever nuclear test. http://www.iht.com/...
You know, in light of the fact that Bush's Bullying, my way or the highway tactics are standard fare I for one have to agree with Iran.
With the world and the U.S. calling for increased sanctions and popular consensus estimating the explosion to be from .5 to 1 kiloton and the U.S. still saying they can't verify if it was a nuke http://msnbc.msn.com/...
I have to ask, iI it possible that this could have been another type of explosion?
Anyway you look at it, it once again gives Bush the facade of Diplomacy while forcing him to have to further prosecute his new world order. Too convenient for me. What do you think?
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
It says the threat of sanctions only increased the diplomatic pressure on North Korea. Iran accuses Washington of what it calls "double standards" in its nuclear policy because it does not seek sanctions against India -- which has tested a nuclear weapon -- and Israel -- which is believed to posses some. Iran also has a suggestion to the United Nations about a possible response -- saying it should not punish North Korea -- but instead disarm the nuclear arsenals of larger nations. http://www.foxnews.com/...
North Korea's first detonation of a nuclear weapon may have taken place during the watch of George W. Bush -- but it was under the Clinton administration's watch that the communist regime began gathering necessary materials and constructing the bomb. http://www.newsmax.com/...
A timeline on nuclear weapons development in North Korea:
1993: North Korea shocks world by saying it will quit Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, later suspends its withdrawal. ...... http://www.iht.com/...
Jan. 29, 2002: Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil."
Jan. 10, 2003: North Korea says it will withdraw from Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
April 24, 2003: North Korea says it has nuclear weapons and may test, export or use them depending on U.S. actions, Washington says.
Feb. 10, 2005: North Korea announces it has nuclear weapons.
Sept. 15, 2005: U.S. blacklists a Macau-based bank for alleged involvement in North Korea's illicit activity such as money laundering and counterfeiting, leads the bank to freeze North Korean assets.
Sept. 26: North Korea rejects further talks on its nuclear program, claims Washington wants to rule the world.
Oct. 3: North Korea says it will conduct a nuclear test in the face of what it claimed was "the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war."
Oct. 9: North Koreas says it has conducted its first-ever nuclear test. http://www.iht.com/...
You know, in light of the fact that Bush's Bullying, my way or the highway tactics are standard fare I for one have to agree with Iran.
With the world and the U.S. calling for increased sanctions and popular consensus estimating the explosion to be from .5 to 1 kiloton and the U.S. still saying they can't verify if it was a nuke http://msnbc.msn.com/...
I have to ask, iI it possible that this could have been another type of explosion?
Anyway you look at it, it once again gives Bush the facade of Diplomacy while forcing him to have to further prosecute his new world order. Too convenient for me. What do you think?
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Monday, October 09, 2006
The end of a revolution? You bet it is! Bush using North Korea to beat off Foley! Did He?
CNN: Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when the only idea left is power. That means the Republican revolution is dead!
The epitaph for the movement that started when Newt Gingrich and his forces rose from the back bench of the House chamber in 1994. It should have ended with Gingrich after his performance in the House but it may well have been written last week.
On conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's show, the longest-serving Republican House speaker in history explained why he would not resign despite a sex scandal that has produced a hail of questions about his failure to stop one of his members from cyber stalking teenage congressional pages. with positions changing like the tide and new facts coming to light daily, Hastert stepping down should be a foregone conclusion.
"If I fold up my tent and leave," Dennis Hastert told her, "then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out." can you believe it? Step down tomorrow or weeks from now I think it will all be good for us. i do believe they have gotten their message out loud and clear and the people are sick of the lying underhanded, corruptive, politics of the Republicans who have shown they can not be trusted with power.
That may have been the most damning admission yet in the unfolding scandal surrounding Florida Congressman Mark Foley: Holding on to power has become not just the means but also the end for the onetime reformers who unseated the calcified Democratic majority that had ruled the House for 40 years. It has become their only goal!
After controlling both houses of Congress for most of President Bush's six years in office, the GOP has a governing record that has dismayed those who fantasized about what Gingrich and his band of rebels might accomplish. That as you know is an understatement!
To win votes back home, lawmakers in session have been spending like sailors on leave, producing the biggest budget deficits in history. The party's approach to national security has taken the country into a war that most Americans now believe was a mistake and that the government's own intelligence experts say has shaped "a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives." http://www.guardian.co.uk/....
The current crisis arrived with a sex scandal that has muddied one of the GOP's few remaining patches of moral high ground -- their defense of family values and personal accountability.
Though Hastert and other Republican leaders say they heard last fall about the "over-friendly" approaches of a not-so-secretly gay congressman to a 16-year-old former page, they insist they never imagined anything like the more graphic instant messages that subsequently came to light. we're hearing too many conflicting changing stories now!
But shouldn't they have gotten chills at learning that a 52-year-old man had sent a teenager a creepy e-mail asking for a "pic of you"? Certainly, the page understood what the emails meant, which is why he forwarded it in August 2005 to the office of Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander, who had sponsored him for the page program. Plus what happened to Hastert only finding out last month? And what about the get into your underwear request? Why would you not get this on record and make sure it was out, at least to only cover yourself?
The House response -- John Shimkus, the Illinois congressman who oversees the page program, appears to have done nothing more than give Foley a private warning; he wasn't even stripped of his co-chairmanship of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- suggests that Republican leaders were motivated more by fear of electoral fallout than by concern for the young pages in their care. this is inexcusable if nothing else is!
And if they were worried the revelation would hurt their chances of holding onto the House, they turned out to be right. In the latest TIME poll, nearly 80 percent of respondents said they were aware of the scandal, and two-thirds of them were convinced that Republican leaders had tried to cover it up. We have to work harder to get that 80% down to zero. The entire country should know and be sick of all these lies and two faced underhanded games!
Among the registered voters who were polled, 54 percent said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 39 percent who favored the Republican.
Hastert's job seems secure for the moment, barring any big new revelations, in part because the House Speaker is not merely a party leader but a role established under the Constitution. It would be difficult to replace him without summoning Congress back into town from the campaign trail. Nor would an ugly fight over who would succeed him be good for the party's prospects in November. I believe it is only a matter of time before the truth catches up with him too and he is forced to step down.
Meanwhile, GOP leaders are so desperate to find someone else to blame that they have been reduced -- with no indication that they see the irony -- to blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy. no shit, instead of cleaning their House they go after Dems for speaking the timely truth and outing their lies and corruptive power grabbing?
"The people who want to see this thing blow up," Hastert told the Chicago Tribune, "are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros," the liberal financier who has become a bogeyman of the right. Hastert went on to suggest, without producing any proof, that the revelation was the work of Bill Clinton's operatives.http://www.cnn.com/...
Twenty-nine days before election day... Before the news broke of North Korea's nuclear test, it had been hard to imagine what events might pop up over the next four weeks to provide Republicans with some relief from the negative storylines of the Foley scandal and Iraq, where the rate of US troop casualties has shot up. Voters continue to call Iraq their top issue for the midterm elections, and the Foley scandal eclipsed last week's stock market highs and gas price and unemployment lows.
The news out of North Korea, bad as it might be for the Administration's diplomatic efforts there, returns Bush to the bully pulpit -- he'll make a statement at 9:45 am -- and may help Republicans return the focus to the more favorable, broader security debate. For example, Republicans occasionally hit certain Democrats for opposing a missile defense shield. But the ongoing House Ethics Committee and Justice Department probes will keep the Foley scandal in the news http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
I don't really know about Soros, ABS News, or Dem operatives, but I know the rest of us are banking on this blowing up! Hastert has Clinton being responsible with no proof of anything! The blame game with no proof, that sounds typical Repub. They will use that garbage for all its worth on their followers. I can't stand it but I believe it will fail this time and the end is near.
Bush will attempt to stave this off this morning in using North Korea's nuclear test to stave off Disillusion with the Republican party! Having this in mind and knowing we must question everything with these underhanded Repubs. Did he allow this nuclear test through his inadequate Diplomacy to happen so he could use it for political gain? The Republican Revolution is ending but we must make sure the general public knows all the two faced underhanded Republican policies and do not let them forget!! What do you think about this?
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
The epitaph for the movement that started when Newt Gingrich and his forces rose from the back bench of the House chamber in 1994. It should have ended with Gingrich after his performance in the House but it may well have been written last week.
On conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's show, the longest-serving Republican House speaker in history explained why he would not resign despite a sex scandal that has produced a hail of questions about his failure to stop one of his members from cyber stalking teenage congressional pages. with positions changing like the tide and new facts coming to light daily, Hastert stepping down should be a foregone conclusion.
"If I fold up my tent and leave," Dennis Hastert told her, "then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out." can you believe it? Step down tomorrow or weeks from now I think it will all be good for us. i do believe they have gotten their message out loud and clear and the people are sick of the lying underhanded, corruptive, politics of the Republicans who have shown they can not be trusted with power.
That may have been the most damning admission yet in the unfolding scandal surrounding Florida Congressman Mark Foley: Holding on to power has become not just the means but also the end for the onetime reformers who unseated the calcified Democratic majority that had ruled the House for 40 years. It has become their only goal!
After controlling both houses of Congress for most of President Bush's six years in office, the GOP has a governing record that has dismayed those who fantasized about what Gingrich and his band of rebels might accomplish. That as you know is an understatement!
To win votes back home, lawmakers in session have been spending like sailors on leave, producing the biggest budget deficits in history. The party's approach to national security has taken the country into a war that most Americans now believe was a mistake and that the government's own intelligence experts say has shaped "a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives." http://www.guardian.co.uk/....
The current crisis arrived with a sex scandal that has muddied one of the GOP's few remaining patches of moral high ground -- their defense of family values and personal accountability.
Though Hastert and other Republican leaders say they heard last fall about the "over-friendly" approaches of a not-so-secretly gay congressman to a 16-year-old former page, they insist they never imagined anything like the more graphic instant messages that subsequently came to light. we're hearing too many conflicting changing stories now!
But shouldn't they have gotten chills at learning that a 52-year-old man had sent a teenager a creepy e-mail asking for a "pic of you"? Certainly, the page understood what the emails meant, which is why he forwarded it in August 2005 to the office of Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander, who had sponsored him for the page program. Plus what happened to Hastert only finding out last month? And what about the get into your underwear request? Why would you not get this on record and make sure it was out, at least to only cover yourself?
The House response -- John Shimkus, the Illinois congressman who oversees the page program, appears to have done nothing more than give Foley a private warning; he wasn't even stripped of his co-chairmanship of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- suggests that Republican leaders were motivated more by fear of electoral fallout than by concern for the young pages in their care. this is inexcusable if nothing else is!
And if they were worried the revelation would hurt their chances of holding onto the House, they turned out to be right. In the latest TIME poll, nearly 80 percent of respondents said they were aware of the scandal, and two-thirds of them were convinced that Republican leaders had tried to cover it up. We have to work harder to get that 80% down to zero. The entire country should know and be sick of all these lies and two faced underhanded games!
Among the registered voters who were polled, 54 percent said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 39 percent who favored the Republican.
Hastert's job seems secure for the moment, barring any big new revelations, in part because the House Speaker is not merely a party leader but a role established under the Constitution. It would be difficult to replace him without summoning Congress back into town from the campaign trail. Nor would an ugly fight over who would succeed him be good for the party's prospects in November. I believe it is only a matter of time before the truth catches up with him too and he is forced to step down.
Meanwhile, GOP leaders are so desperate to find someone else to blame that they have been reduced -- with no indication that they see the irony -- to blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy. no shit, instead of cleaning their House they go after Dems for speaking the timely truth and outing their lies and corruptive power grabbing?
"The people who want to see this thing blow up," Hastert told the Chicago Tribune, "are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros," the liberal financier who has become a bogeyman of the right. Hastert went on to suggest, without producing any proof, that the revelation was the work of Bill Clinton's operatives.http://www.cnn.com/...
Twenty-nine days before election day... Before the news broke of North Korea's nuclear test, it had been hard to imagine what events might pop up over the next four weeks to provide Republicans with some relief from the negative storylines of the Foley scandal and Iraq, where the rate of US troop casualties has shot up. Voters continue to call Iraq their top issue for the midterm elections, and the Foley scandal eclipsed last week's stock market highs and gas price and unemployment lows.
The news out of North Korea, bad as it might be for the Administration's diplomatic efforts there, returns Bush to the bully pulpit -- he'll make a statement at 9:45 am -- and may help Republicans return the focus to the more favorable, broader security debate. For example, Republicans occasionally hit certain Democrats for opposing a missile defense shield. But the ongoing House Ethics Committee and Justice Department probes will keep the Foley scandal in the news http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
I don't really know about Soros, ABS News, or Dem operatives, but I know the rest of us are banking on this blowing up! Hastert has Clinton being responsible with no proof of anything! The blame game with no proof, that sounds typical Repub. They will use that garbage for all its worth on their followers. I can't stand it but I believe it will fail this time and the end is near.
Bush will attempt to stave this off this morning in using North Korea's nuclear test to stave off Disillusion with the Republican party! Having this in mind and knowing we must question everything with these underhanded Repubs. Did he allow this nuclear test through his inadequate Diplomacy to happen so he could use it for political gain? The Republican Revolution is ending but we must make sure the general public knows all the two faced underhanded Republican policies and do not let them forget!! What do you think about this?
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Sunday, October 08, 2006
As the North Korea nuclear weapon Issue continues to unfold, think about this!
The hypocrisy of the Bush administration is evident amongst other places in its relations with North Korea. While the United States is busy developing a new generation of nukes, the Bush White House has tried desperately to politically isolate North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program.
Apparently though, Israel, India and Pakistan are permitted to possess nuclear weapons because they are allies of the United States, or so goes Bush administration logic.
The hypocrisy of the Bush administration is clearly evident in its targeting of alleged rogue states--Venezuela, Syria, Iran and North Korea--while supporting non-democratic and repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, among others. The Bush administration's militaristic rhetoric and actions have not only resulted in increasing numbers of people around the globe viewing U.S. foreign policy as a significant destabilizing factor in international relations, it has also made clear exactly who is the world's principal warmonger. Bush!http://www.colombiajournal.org/....
Chavez pledged solidarity with Syria in its struggle against Israel and the United States and predicted the demise of U.S. "imperialism."
Chavez, a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy, also said he would seek a front-row seat if President George W. Bush accepted an invitation from Iran's Ahmadinejad to a televised debate, adding he would be cheering on the Iranian president.
Chavez's popularity shot up across the Arab world after he ordered Venezuela's envoy to Israel home earlier this month to protest Israel's military offensive against Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. http://www.dailykos.com/...
There is an easy answer to what is still unfolding and just starting and that is too fight and continue to fight, there is no easy way out though. We have no other choice as this will not be quelled by diplomacy. We must see this through to the end. Years ago I said like it or not, this will turn into a war against Islam. We will be forced to isolate them in their own lands for our own safety. It is an unpopular thought but we will not have a choice. Once on their own they will turn on themselves as they already are because they cannot tolerate any version of Islam other than their own.
Iraqi's are killing each other as we know,but Bush knew they would and ignored all good advice and intelligence to the contrary, as he had to in order to stay the course and prosecute his idea of new order. What no one seems to understand is the so called war against terrorism in the end will only be half of the war equation of the future still unfolding.
Reagan is credited with ending the cold war but, he set in motion many of the problems of today. Bush finished the job by belittling every country in the word and attacking Iraq unsettling the middle east.
As a result, with 2/3 of the world belonging to the non-aligned Nations and the enemies Bush has awakened wanting our demise by virtue of his superiority complex and destabilization of the already unstable middle east which we also contributed to by injecting Israel into the mix and again resetting boundaries as we saw fit, again ignoring traditional boundaries and dislikes. We will also be contending with China, Russia, and who knows who else?
"It looks like in the end of this still unfolding scenario that it will be Britain, Israel, and the U.S. against the World!"
As we all know, the average Iraqi is far worse off and it will get a lot worse as this progresses. Likewise, as you know the average American is far worse off because of Bush. That too will get worse because he is not done completing his new societal order either. This is all still getting started and Bush is an idiot to declare we are winning anything! We will be okay but we have to face reality and realize that we will win this but ? http://www.dailykos.com/...
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Apparently though, Israel, India and Pakistan are permitted to possess nuclear weapons because they are allies of the United States, or so goes Bush administration logic.
The hypocrisy of the Bush administration is clearly evident in its targeting of alleged rogue states--Venezuela, Syria, Iran and North Korea--while supporting non-democratic and repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, among others. The Bush administration's militaristic rhetoric and actions have not only resulted in increasing numbers of people around the globe viewing U.S. foreign policy as a significant destabilizing factor in international relations, it has also made clear exactly who is the world's principal warmonger. Bush!http://www.colombiajournal.org/....
Chavez pledged solidarity with Syria in its struggle against Israel and the United States and predicted the demise of U.S. "imperialism."
Chavez, a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy, also said he would seek a front-row seat if President George W. Bush accepted an invitation from Iran's Ahmadinejad to a televised debate, adding he would be cheering on the Iranian president.
Chavez's popularity shot up across the Arab world after he ordered Venezuela's envoy to Israel home earlier this month to protest Israel's military offensive against Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. http://www.dailykos.com/...
There is an easy answer to what is still unfolding and just starting and that is too fight and continue to fight, there is no easy way out though. We have no other choice as this will not be quelled by diplomacy. We must see this through to the end. Years ago I said like it or not, this will turn into a war against Islam. We will be forced to isolate them in their own lands for our own safety. It is an unpopular thought but we will not have a choice. Once on their own they will turn on themselves as they already are because they cannot tolerate any version of Islam other than their own.
Iraqi's are killing each other as we know,but Bush knew they would and ignored all good advice and intelligence to the contrary, as he had to in order to stay the course and prosecute his idea of new order. What no one seems to understand is the so called war against terrorism in the end will only be half of the war equation of the future still unfolding.
Reagan is credited with ending the cold war but, he set in motion many of the problems of today. Bush finished the job by belittling every country in the word and attacking Iraq unsettling the middle east.
As a result, with 2/3 of the world belonging to the non-aligned Nations and the enemies Bush has awakened wanting our demise by virtue of his superiority complex and destabilization of the already unstable middle east which we also contributed to by injecting Israel into the mix and again resetting boundaries as we saw fit, again ignoring traditional boundaries and dislikes. We will also be contending with China, Russia, and who knows who else?
"It looks like in the end of this still unfolding scenario that it will be Britain, Israel, and the U.S. against the World!"
As we all know, the average Iraqi is far worse off and it will get a lot worse as this progresses. Likewise, as you know the average American is far worse off because of Bush. That too will get worse because he is not done completing his new societal order either. This is all still getting started and Bush is an idiot to declare we are winning anything! We will be okay but we have to face reality and realize that we will win this but ? http://www.dailykos.com/...
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Warner sees Concern, Rice sees progress, Bush sees Success In Iraq Crisis, We see Reality!
Bloomberg: The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said the U.S. should consider a ``change of course'' in Iraq if the government there can't stabilize the country in the next two to three months.
Senator John Warner's comments, after returning from a one- day visit to Iraq, were the most critical assessments yet from a top congressional Republican about the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who President George W. Bush has championed as a strong leader. They also may serve notice to the president that even his strongest allies in Congress may be running out of patience.
Warner, a former Navy secretary and longtime Republican leader on defense issues, didn't outline what changes to U.S. strategy should be made and whether that includes withdrawing or redeploying U.S. troops. http://www.bloomberg.com/...
NY Times: Wearing a helmet and a flak jacket and flanked by machine-gun-toting bodyguards to defend against insurgents, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came here Thursday, insisting that there were new signs of progress in Iraq and that the Bush administration had never sugarcoated its news about the American occupation. signs of progress were not much in evidence in the first hours of her visit.
It began inauspiciously when the military transport plane that brought her to Baghdad was forced to circle the city for about 40 minutes because of what a State Department spokesman later said was either mortar fire or rockets at the airport.
On Thursday evening, during her meeting with President Jalal Talabani, the lights went out, forcing Ms. Rice to continue the discussion in the dark. It was a reminder of the city's erratic -- and sometimes nonexistent -- electrical service.
She arrived in the midst of an especially bloody few days for American troops. At least 21 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since Saturday, most in Baghdad. Two car bombings in the city on Thursday left at least four Iraqi civilians dead. http://www.nytimes.com/...
She calls this progress? This is only progress if you remember what bush's goal is!
Press reports say our nation's intelligence services have confirmed that President Bush's repeated missteps in Iraq and his stubborn refusal to change course have made America less safe," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "No election-year White House PR campaign can hide this truth." http://www.cnn.com/....
They are not missteps to Bush, it is part of a plan! From 9/11 he has been following a plan. Fighting terrorism was not it. It was just the reason he needed to attack Iraq and start to implement his new middle east and world order. Please read the following and you will understand everything.
As you may remember, Bush was looking for something to happen that would put the country and the world behind what he already had plans to do, attack Iraq, destabilize the middle east, then attack Iran, and proceed with his plan for new middle east and world order. 9/11 gave him that something, fighting terrorists!. Now he could prosecute his new middle east and world order. These are not Bush missteps, these are all just to follow his plan for new order!
He then used the excuse of 9/11 to attack Iraq and unsettle the middle east guaranteeing the loss of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire middle east. He did all this so he could further his idea of a new middle east and world order.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
It is obvious that some with the stellar credentials of Senator Warner (Senate armed services committee and former secretary of the navy) are beginning to comprehend what is really going on in Iraq. However, because of Bush patsies such as Rice saying in the face of reality that she sees progress where their is a total breakdown only to throw in more confusion and enable Bush to stay the course and enable him to continue to prosecute his new order.
Bush will think he is justified in dismissing the senator and his stellar credentials as he did with the Generals and our intelligence experts, and say he knows better. Since he is the decider and only what he thinks matters, we will stay the course! only Bush knows anything and like a spoiled child, he believes he can do what he wants.
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Senator John Warner's comments, after returning from a one- day visit to Iraq, were the most critical assessments yet from a top congressional Republican about the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who President George W. Bush has championed as a strong leader. They also may serve notice to the president that even his strongest allies in Congress may be running out of patience.
Warner, a former Navy secretary and longtime Republican leader on defense issues, didn't outline what changes to U.S. strategy should be made and whether that includes withdrawing or redeploying U.S. troops. http://www.bloomberg.com/...
NY Times: Wearing a helmet and a flak jacket and flanked by machine-gun-toting bodyguards to defend against insurgents, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came here Thursday, insisting that there were new signs of progress in Iraq and that the Bush administration had never sugarcoated its news about the American occupation. signs of progress were not much in evidence in the first hours of her visit.
It began inauspiciously when the military transport plane that brought her to Baghdad was forced to circle the city for about 40 minutes because of what a State Department spokesman later said was either mortar fire or rockets at the airport.
On Thursday evening, during her meeting with President Jalal Talabani, the lights went out, forcing Ms. Rice to continue the discussion in the dark. It was a reminder of the city's erratic -- and sometimes nonexistent -- electrical service.
She arrived in the midst of an especially bloody few days for American troops. At least 21 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since Saturday, most in Baghdad. Two car bombings in the city on Thursday left at least four Iraqi civilians dead. http://www.nytimes.com/...
She calls this progress? This is only progress if you remember what bush's goal is!
Press reports say our nation's intelligence services have confirmed that President Bush's repeated missteps in Iraq and his stubborn refusal to change course have made America less safe," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "No election-year White House PR campaign can hide this truth." http://www.cnn.com/....
They are not missteps to Bush, it is part of a plan! From 9/11 he has been following a plan. Fighting terrorism was not it. It was just the reason he needed to attack Iraq and start to implement his new middle east and world order. Please read the following and you will understand everything.
As you may remember, Bush was looking for something to happen that would put the country and the world behind what he already had plans to do, attack Iraq, destabilize the middle east, then attack Iran, and proceed with his plan for new middle east and world order. 9/11 gave him that something, fighting terrorists!. Now he could prosecute his new middle east and world order. These are not Bush missteps, these are all just to follow his plan for new order!
He then used the excuse of 9/11 to attack Iraq and unsettle the middle east guaranteeing the loss of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the entire middle east. He did all this so he could further his idea of a new middle east and world order.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
It is obvious that some with the stellar credentials of Senator Warner (Senate armed services committee and former secretary of the navy) are beginning to comprehend what is really going on in Iraq. However, because of Bush patsies such as Rice saying in the face of reality that she sees progress where their is a total breakdown only to throw in more confusion and enable Bush to stay the course and enable him to continue to prosecute his new order.
Bush will think he is justified in dismissing the senator and his stellar credentials as he did with the Generals and our intelligence experts, and say he knows better. Since he is the decider and only what he thinks matters, we will stay the course! only Bush knows anything and like a spoiled child, he believes he can do what he wants.
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Friday, October 06, 2006
Teachers with Guns? All I see is child molestation at gunpoint. What about you?
In the wake of school shootings in Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania during the last two weeks, a Wisconsin state legislator said he plans to introduce legislation that would allow teachers, principals, administrators and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons. This might work in Israel and Thailand but?
Interactive: Recent School Shootings
Rep. Frank Lasee, R-Bellevue, said Wednesday that, while his idea may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.
“To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table,” he said. “Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin.” No way!
Lasee stressed that the measure would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons.
But Pete Pochowski, director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, expressed opposition to the proposal.
“Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school,” Pochowski aid . “We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals.”
Children in countries such as Israel and Thailand are far more vulnerable to daily violence than students in America, he said.
“In the country we live in, we have a lot of freedom,” Pochowski said, “and we have to expose ourselves to some danger to keep that.”
http://www.foxreno.com/…
That includes our teachers sometimes. But I have to agree with this! It figures this ridiculous idea comes from the mouth of a Repub! Think about it! With a rash of teachers male and female, molesting students and also being prone to acting irrationally, can we possibly think we want them to have a gun? Yep, molestation at gunpoint. That’s a good idea, sure . Wake up, this is America 2006!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Interactive: Recent School Shootings
Rep. Frank Lasee, R-Bellevue, said Wednesday that, while his idea may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.
“To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table,” he said. “Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin.” No way!
Lasee stressed that the measure would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons.
But Pete Pochowski, director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, expressed opposition to the proposal.
“Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school,” Pochowski aid . “We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals.”
Children in countries such as Israel and Thailand are far more vulnerable to daily violence than students in America, he said.
“In the country we live in, we have a lot of freedom,” Pochowski said, “and we have to expose ourselves to some danger to keep that.”
http://www.foxreno.com/…
That includes our teachers sometimes. But I have to agree with this! It figures this ridiculous idea comes from the mouth of a Repub! Think about it! With a rash of teachers male and female, molesting students and also being prone to acting irrationally, can we possibly think we want them to have a gun? Yep, molestation at gunpoint. That’s a good idea, sure . Wake up, this is America 2006!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Thursday, October 05, 2006
While we are diverted with the Foley Folly We threaten Korea with Annihilation!
CNN: The U.S. envoy to stalled North Korea nuclear talks says the United States will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea and has warned Pyongyang not to test a nuclear weapon.
"We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea," Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill told the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University Wednesday. "We are not going to accept it."
North Korea "can have a future, or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both," Hill said. The U.S. and its allies "are in a very tense time" in dealing with Pyongyang, Hill added.
South Korea, meanwhile, warned North Korea's stance could trigger a regional atomic arms race that could upend the balance of power in Northeast Asia.
Any display of Pyongyang's nuclear force could prompt Japan to go nuclear and trigger a regional arms race, South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said Wednesday, according to The Associated Press. (Watch how North Korea is justifying its planned nuclear test -- 3:37 ) Speaking to lawmakers, Yu said such a North Korean nuclear test "could provide a pretext for Japan's nuclear armament."
"This will prompt countermoves by China or Russia and lead to a change in the balance of power in Northeast Asia," AP reports Yu saying. Hill said that on Tuesday the United States passed a message "of deep concern" about a possible test to Pyongyang through the North Korean mission to the United Nations, which serves as a contact between the two governments, but did not receive an answer.
"We will do all we can to dissuade the DPRK [North Korea] from this test," Hill said.He declined to say exactly what the United States would do if North Korea undertakes such a test, but said, "we would have no choice but to act resolutely to make sure that the DPRK understood -- and to make sure that any other country understands -- that this (nuclear test) is a very bad mistake."
If North Korea does conduct a test, it "will realize that they had a bad day when they made that choice," he said.After his appearance, Hill told reporters, "if they think that firing off a weapon will somehow make them a part of some sort of nuclear club, they should think again."
"If they think that by exploding a weapon, that somehow we will come to terms with it, we won't," he said.Citing U.S. belligerence and pressure, North Korea said Tuesday that a nuclear test was in the works. (Pyongyang's statement).
These Tests could trigger Asian nuke race!
Tuesday is the first time North Korea has made an official announcement that it is going to conduct nuclear tests. Previously, it has said it had the right to conduct such tests. Such a scenario would significantly set back diplomatic efforts with North Korea and have serious implications for regional security, according to a House Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday.
Coming on the heels of North Korea's test firing of seven missiles, including a long-range ballistic missile in July, a nuclear test would bring Pyongyang's relations with its neighbors to a new low, the report found.
The tests might prompt not only Japan, but also Taiwan and possibly South Korea to begin their own nuclear weapons programs, the report found.Six-party talks on the country's nuclear program have been stalled for months. In addition to the United States and North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea are taking part.
North Korea wants bilateral talks with the United States before the six-party talks resume and it wants Washington to ease up on economic pressures.
Hill repeated that the United States was willing to meet with North Korean officials, but only within the context of six-party talks. http://www.cnn.com/...
I just don't get it! Didn't we just threaten North Korea with Annihilation? why is it not okay for Iran to threaten Israel? We can back it up, they can't. Something wrong here!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaverarepatriot.com
"We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea," Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill told the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University Wednesday. "We are not going to accept it."
North Korea "can have a future, or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both," Hill said. The U.S. and its allies "are in a very tense time" in dealing with Pyongyang, Hill added.
South Korea, meanwhile, warned North Korea's stance could trigger a regional atomic arms race that could upend the balance of power in Northeast Asia.
Any display of Pyongyang's nuclear force could prompt Japan to go nuclear and trigger a regional arms race, South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said Wednesday, according to The Associated Press. (Watch how North Korea is justifying its planned nuclear test -- 3:37 ) Speaking to lawmakers, Yu said such a North Korean nuclear test "could provide a pretext for Japan's nuclear armament."
"This will prompt countermoves by China or Russia and lead to a change in the balance of power in Northeast Asia," AP reports Yu saying. Hill said that on Tuesday the United States passed a message "of deep concern" about a possible test to Pyongyang through the North Korean mission to the United Nations, which serves as a contact between the two governments, but did not receive an answer.
"We will do all we can to dissuade the DPRK [North Korea] from this test," Hill said.He declined to say exactly what the United States would do if North Korea undertakes such a test, but said, "we would have no choice but to act resolutely to make sure that the DPRK understood -- and to make sure that any other country understands -- that this (nuclear test) is a very bad mistake."
If North Korea does conduct a test, it "will realize that they had a bad day when they made that choice," he said.After his appearance, Hill told reporters, "if they think that firing off a weapon will somehow make them a part of some sort of nuclear club, they should think again."
"If they think that by exploding a weapon, that somehow we will come to terms with it, we won't," he said.Citing U.S. belligerence and pressure, North Korea said Tuesday that a nuclear test was in the works. (Pyongyang's statement).
These Tests could trigger Asian nuke race!
Tuesday is the first time North Korea has made an official announcement that it is going to conduct nuclear tests. Previously, it has said it had the right to conduct such tests. Such a scenario would significantly set back diplomatic efforts with North Korea and have serious implications for regional security, according to a House Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday.
Coming on the heels of North Korea's test firing of seven missiles, including a long-range ballistic missile in July, a nuclear test would bring Pyongyang's relations with its neighbors to a new low, the report found.
The tests might prompt not only Japan, but also Taiwan and possibly South Korea to begin their own nuclear weapons programs, the report found.Six-party talks on the country's nuclear program have been stalled for months. In addition to the United States and North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea are taking part.
North Korea wants bilateral talks with the United States before the six-party talks resume and it wants Washington to ease up on economic pressures.
Hill repeated that the United States was willing to meet with North Korean officials, but only within the context of six-party talks. http://www.cnn.com/...
I just don't get it! Didn't we just threaten North Korea with Annihilation? why is it not okay for Iran to threaten Israel? We can back it up, they can't. Something wrong here!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaverarepatriot.com
Frist: Let Taliban help govern, what? Iraq lost, Time for American Common Sense!
With Afghanistan at its worst since the war began and getting worse! With a world record 6,100 pounds of opium grown this year. We obviously can’t control the insurgents base of finance let alone the ever growing insurgency or whatever you want to call it, thanks to Bush attacking Iraq and supposedly freeing millions.
Okay, they are killing 100 or so of their own people and I guess they are free to do it thanks to Bush. With the so called sectarian violence running amok. Which by the way seems to amount to Iran backed Shiite Hezbollah fighting Saudi backed Sunni Al Qaeda, I heard today that the judge told Saddam he was not a dictator. Maybe we should put him back in control and keep an eye on him as we do with the current Government. I think it would put a lot of stability back into the region despite what we may think about Saddam.
With 21 American dead in the last 5 days It is time to hand the reigns over to Iraq at any rate and see how much they want their Democracy. If they do not want it bad enough to fight to the last death the insurgents will kill them and they better realize this. we have got to get re involved like we should have been from the beginning in Afghanistan. I will unfold a great plan after this recent story about NATO.
If we stay in Iraq we will only give the insurgents a reason to go there and fight. it is time to engage brain, adapt, and overcome. We will be fighting them here whether we leave tomorrow or a hundred years from now. He must stop that assholish argument, it is ridiculous! it is time for us to step back and take the role we should be playing had we learned anything in Vietnam.
We should be taking a purely Advisory role at this point. If they need us they know where we are. If they need us too much, we know it is not going to work. We have 36,000 troops in Afghanistan and 150,000 in Iraq. At this point those numbers should be reversed. Our goal is supposed to be freeing Afghanistan. Not happening! With Pakistan setting up a haven for Al Qaeda and announcing there are more Al Qaeda in Pakistan than before the war and knowing attacks on out military and the Afghan Government are becoming more frequent and violent.
I am increasingly more concerned that we are setting the military in Afghanistan up for another TET. Please correct me if I am wrong! Iraq is lost as is the middle east thanks to Bush attacking Iraq and unsettling the region. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/15/94611/2540
We can still concentrate on Afghanistan before it gets out of control. Adding a few troops will not do the job! The insurgents will keep coming as this is still just getting started. At least we will be concentrated on one effort at least for now. Someone has got to start thinking like a military man not a politician with an agenda before it is too late. This only makes sense is success in Afghanistan is the real issue.
Offering the Taliban a role in Afghanistan’s Government is ludicrous and an admittance of defeat. they are to strong as First says so let them in the Government where they can operate from the inside. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2091218.cms
WTF? Look at some sense, think, engage brain. This administration is a recipe for idiocy and failure that’s coming to fruition!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Okay, they are killing 100 or so of their own people and I guess they are free to do it thanks to Bush. With the so called sectarian violence running amok. Which by the way seems to amount to Iran backed Shiite Hezbollah fighting Saudi backed Sunni Al Qaeda, I heard today that the judge told Saddam he was not a dictator. Maybe we should put him back in control and keep an eye on him as we do with the current Government. I think it would put a lot of stability back into the region despite what we may think about Saddam.
With 21 American dead in the last 5 days It is time to hand the reigns over to Iraq at any rate and see how much they want their Democracy. If they do not want it bad enough to fight to the last death the insurgents will kill them and they better realize this. we have got to get re involved like we should have been from the beginning in Afghanistan. I will unfold a great plan after this recent story about NATO.
If we stay in Iraq we will only give the insurgents a reason to go there and fight. it is time to engage brain, adapt, and overcome. We will be fighting them here whether we leave tomorrow or a hundred years from now. He must stop that assholish argument, it is ridiculous! it is time for us to step back and take the role we should be playing had we learned anything in Vietnam.
We should be taking a purely Advisory role at this point. If they need us they know where we are. If they need us too much, we know it is not going to work. We have 36,000 troops in Afghanistan and 150,000 in Iraq. At this point those numbers should be reversed. Our goal is supposed to be freeing Afghanistan. Not happening! With Pakistan setting up a haven for Al Qaeda and announcing there are more Al Qaeda in Pakistan than before the war and knowing attacks on out military and the Afghan Government are becoming more frequent and violent.
I am increasingly more concerned that we are setting the military in Afghanistan up for another TET. Please correct me if I am wrong! Iraq is lost as is the middle east thanks to Bush attacking Iraq and unsettling the region. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/15/94611/2540
We can still concentrate on Afghanistan before it gets out of control. Adding a few troops will not do the job! The insurgents will keep coming as this is still just getting started. At least we will be concentrated on one effort at least for now. Someone has got to start thinking like a military man not a politician with an agenda before it is too late. This only makes sense is success in Afghanistan is the real issue.
Offering the Taliban a role in Afghanistan’s Government is ludicrous and an admittance of defeat. they are to strong as First says so let them in the Government where they can operate from the inside. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2091218.cms
WTF? Look at some sense, think, engage brain. This administration is a recipe for idiocy and failure that’s coming to fruition!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Hastert staffer resigns, memory loss, changing events, Now Novak again, what about the kids?
Update, The story as we have heard it as of now! The head of the House Republican election effort, said Saturday he told Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about concerns that a fellow GOP lawmaker had sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy. Hastert said he does not remember talking to Reynolds about the Foley e-mails, but did not dispute Reynolds' account.
http://www.foxnews.com/...
Once again, caught red handed and suffer memory loss! It's a Republican Epidemic!
Rep. John Murtha (, , ), D-Pa., faulted the House GOP leadership for not acting sooner. "It`s outrageous," he said, citing reports indicating they were told months ago. "We have an obligation to protect these young pages. ... It really makes me nervous that they might have tried to cover this up."
http://www.onelocalnews.com/...
Cover up is not the issue, that's expected and continually denied!
Speaker Dennis Hastert brushed aside any suggestion of resignation on Tuesday as Republicans struggled to contain the fallout from an election-year scandal involving sexually explicit messages from a disgraced lawmaker to underage male pages.
Hastert issued a written statement as Majority Leader John Boehner said the speaker had assured him months ago the matter had been taken care of. "It's in his corner. It's his responsibility," Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the issue, originally confined to e-mails described as overly friendly, but not explicit.
Boehner also suggested that campaign opponents might have made sure the e-mails surfaced close to midterm elections. "If this evidence was withheld for political purposes, one can only speculate as to how many additional children may have been endangered before this information was finally revealed," he wrote.
The Washington Times, a newspaper with a consistently conservative editorial page, called for Hastert's resignation, and at least one conservative activist has done likewise.
The Times reported that the conservative group Citizens United and Richard Viguerie, a founder of the conservative movement, called for House leadership resignations for not acting when they first learned of the inappropriate e-mails.
In response, Hastert's spokesman, Ron Bonjean, issued a statement that said the speaker "has and will lead the Republican conference to another majority in the 110th Congress."
Hastert and other leaders have laid out a complicated series of events. They say they first became aware of overly friendly e-mails from Foley to one underage male page last spring, but had no idea that the congressman had sent other sexually explicit messages to additional pages. http://articles.news.aol.com/...
Oh what a tangled web we weave! Once you start lying you only dig a deeper hole with the retelling! The truth will not be told, may not be in your best interest but it is easier. Face the music!
With the GOP rallying together in defense of Hastert now we hear this From Robert Novak in the fray again. Two things: This controversy is far from over, given Novak's latest. The fact they allegedly TALKED HIM INTO RUNNING AGAIN shows (a) a total obsession with political expediency, (b) an unwillingness to look further into the charges, (c) a near contempt for the authentic promotion and protection of the most fundamental family value, the family of society's duty to protect kids and young people.
This is one of those rare moments in American history where people of both parties have to decide whether they are responsible members of society and Americans -- or simply partisans out to protect their side and their side's leaders. http://www.themoderatevoice.com/...
I heard his lawyer try to say Foley was molested by a Priest. That I would say is bullshit and not the issue.
The issue is the CPS( Congressional Protection Society. Hastert as you know is a strong advocate for Congress being above the law and reproach. What about the kids?
Congress living in a protective bubble may be okay if they were trustworthy but they aren't. Just in this case we are finding that Pages were warned of Foley more than a decade ago despite what we are told. We are also finding that Hastert and others knew of Foley but did nothing. Repubs want to know who leaked this info. I want to know why that was necessary and they didn't let the facts be known 10 years ago just to be above board.
Anyway, these people should be held to high standards and they are not and think they should be. Instead of being concerned about the Pages They are concerned about protecting themselve's and damage control.
I just heard Hastert say on the news that if Democrats were to succeed in making him step down then the Republican party will be in trouble. They are in trouble. I refuse to believe that protecting the party and their power is the issue and not what Foley did, his role in Congress, and the children.
Republicans are after the leaker. I just don't get it. We must remain focused and not allow the Republicans to lie their way out of another one. Between Foley and Woodward I believe the Republicans will pay for their corruptive ineptitude. I just can't stand the lying and it doesn't stop. Once you start it only gets worse.
Flash! Just in: Hastert staffer resigns after making public that he told Hastert 2 years ago about Foley. It just doesn't stop!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
http://www.foxnews.com/...
Once again, caught red handed and suffer memory loss! It's a Republican Epidemic!
Rep. John Murtha (, , ), D-Pa., faulted the House GOP leadership for not acting sooner. "It`s outrageous," he said, citing reports indicating they were told months ago. "We have an obligation to protect these young pages. ... It really makes me nervous that they might have tried to cover this up."
http://www.onelocalnews.com/...
Cover up is not the issue, that's expected and continually denied!
Speaker Dennis Hastert brushed aside any suggestion of resignation on Tuesday as Republicans struggled to contain the fallout from an election-year scandal involving sexually explicit messages from a disgraced lawmaker to underage male pages.
Hastert issued a written statement as Majority Leader John Boehner said the speaker had assured him months ago the matter had been taken care of. "It's in his corner. It's his responsibility," Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the issue, originally confined to e-mails described as overly friendly, but not explicit.
Boehner also suggested that campaign opponents might have made sure the e-mails surfaced close to midterm elections. "If this evidence was withheld for political purposes, one can only speculate as to how many additional children may have been endangered before this information was finally revealed," he wrote.
The Washington Times, a newspaper with a consistently conservative editorial page, called for Hastert's resignation, and at least one conservative activist has done likewise.
The Times reported that the conservative group Citizens United and Richard Viguerie, a founder of the conservative movement, called for House leadership resignations for not acting when they first learned of the inappropriate e-mails.
In response, Hastert's spokesman, Ron Bonjean, issued a statement that said the speaker "has and will lead the Republican conference to another majority in the 110th Congress."
Hastert and other leaders have laid out a complicated series of events. They say they first became aware of overly friendly e-mails from Foley to one underage male page last spring, but had no idea that the congressman had sent other sexually explicit messages to additional pages. http://articles.news.aol.com/...
Oh what a tangled web we weave! Once you start lying you only dig a deeper hole with the retelling! The truth will not be told, may not be in your best interest but it is easier. Face the music!
With the GOP rallying together in defense of Hastert now we hear this From Robert Novak in the fray again. Two things: This controversy is far from over, given Novak's latest. The fact they allegedly TALKED HIM INTO RUNNING AGAIN shows (a) a total obsession with political expediency, (b) an unwillingness to look further into the charges, (c) a near contempt for the authentic promotion and protection of the most fundamental family value, the family of society's duty to protect kids and young people.
This is one of those rare moments in American history where people of both parties have to decide whether they are responsible members of society and Americans -- or simply partisans out to protect their side and their side's leaders. http://www.themoderatevoice.com/...
I heard his lawyer try to say Foley was molested by a Priest. That I would say is bullshit and not the issue.
The issue is the CPS( Congressional Protection Society. Hastert as you know is a strong advocate for Congress being above the law and reproach. What about the kids?
Congress living in a protective bubble may be okay if they were trustworthy but they aren't. Just in this case we are finding that Pages were warned of Foley more than a decade ago despite what we are told. We are also finding that Hastert and others knew of Foley but did nothing. Repubs want to know who leaked this info. I want to know why that was necessary and they didn't let the facts be known 10 years ago just to be above board.
Anyway, these people should be held to high standards and they are not and think they should be. Instead of being concerned about the Pages They are concerned about protecting themselve's and damage control.
I just heard Hastert say on the news that if Democrats were to succeed in making him step down then the Republican party will be in trouble. They are in trouble. I refuse to believe that protecting the party and their power is the issue and not what Foley did, his role in Congress, and the children.
Republicans are after the leaker. I just don't get it. We must remain focused and not allow the Republicans to lie their way out of another one. Between Foley and Woodward I believe the Republicans will pay for their corruptive ineptitude. I just can't stand the lying and it doesn't stop. Once you start it only gets worse.
Flash! Just in: Hastert staffer resigns after making public that he told Hastert 2 years ago about Foley. It just doesn't stop!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Foley, Pre Woodward, Poll Shows Dems ahead in key States and reasons why!
Kansas City Star:Here are snapshots of other races polled by Mason-Dixon followed by Poll results:
No Republicans were shown to lead in any key state surveyed by Mason-Dixon. "These numbers look very encouraging for the Democrats to take control of the Senate," Coker said. Democrats must net six new seats.
Of the seven at-risk GOP seats, the Republicans were tied in Missouri and Virginia and running slightly behind in Ohio, Rhode Island and Tennessee. The Republican incumbents in Montana and Pennsylvania appear to be in trouble, according to the polls.
Democratic incumbents, meanwhile, have a slight edge in New Jersey and are leading in Maryland and Washington, their three most vulnerable states.
Pennsylvania: Democratic challenger Bob Casey Jr., the state treasurer, led Republican Sen. Rick Santorum 49 to 40 percent. More than two out of five Pennsylvania voters have an unfavorable opinion of Santorum, among the highest negative ratings of any candidate in the key states. Also, 56 percent of voters disapprove of how Bush is doing his job.
Rhode Island: Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse had a slight edge over Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, 42 to 41 percent. Trends look different in Rhode Island in part because Chafee opposes Bush on major issues -- including Iraq and tax cuts. Rhode Island gives Bush his worst ratings of any crucial state -- 70 percent disapproval.
Virginia: Republican Sen. George Allen and Democratic challenger James Webb are tied at 43 percent each.
Iraq and terrorism are both major issues in the state that is home to the Pentagon and the Atlantic fleet. Among those who think Iraq is the top issue, Webb leads 4-to-1. More than three out of five disapprove of how Bush is handling the Iraq war. Of them, 66 percent support Webb, a former combat veteran and Navy secretary who opposes the war.
Among those who rate terrorism their top issue, Allen leads by a similar amount.
Maryland: Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin led Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele 47 to 41 percent in the race for the Democratic seat of Sen. Paul Sarbanes, who is retiring.
Also, nearly seven out of 10 disapprove of how Bush is handling the war, and disapprovers supported Cardin 2-to-1.
Steele is bidding to become the first Republican African-American elected to the Senate since Edward Brooke of Massachusetts in 1966. Steele had 19 percent of the African-American support, while Cardin had 59 percent. Steele had 48 percent of the white support; Cardin had 43 percent.
New Jersey: Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez had a slight statistical edge over Republican Tom Kean Jr., a state senator, 44 to 41 percent.
Bush is a factor in New Jersey, where 37 percent approve of his job performance and 61 percent disapprove. Menendez leads 3-to-1 among those who don't like the way Bush is doing his job. Kean leads 10-to-1 among those who like Bush.
Iraq narrowly tops terrorism on New Jersey's list of concerns, noteworthy in a state that lost citizens in the Sept. 11 attacks and has major port operations. Menendez leads 5-to-1 among those who rank Iraq tops; Kean leads 2-to-1 among those who rank terrorism their top concern.
Washington: Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell led Republican Mike McGavick 50 to 40 percent.
The war in Iraq is a big issue in Washington, followed by terrorism, taxes and government spending.
Of those who think Iraq is the No. 1 issue, Cantwell is ahead 2-to-1. That's a lower ratio than Democrats in other states, probably because Cantwell voted to authorize the war and faced an anti-war challenge in a primary.
Montana: Democrat Jon Tester, the state Senate president, led Republican Sen. Conrad Burns 47 to 40 percent, according to a Mason-Dixon poll done for Lee Newspapers and released Sunday.
Ohio: Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown had 45 percent and the incumbent, Sen. Mike DeWine, had 43 percent in a poll for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and made available to McClatchy on Sunday.
Tennessee: Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. had 43 percent and Republican Bob Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, had 42 percent. The poll was conducted for the Chattanooga Times Free Press and the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
Poll Specifics and whole story! http://www.kansascity.com/...
Forbes: Polls show that Americans rank the Iraq War and terrorism as the biggest problems facing the country. But the economy has time and again proved a crucial factor in national elections--with a bad economy, in particular, often driving throngs to the polls to boot out incumbents.
"When you ask people about their personal situations--while no one is on easy street--most people say they're getting along pretty well," says Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
Any number of factors could be causing the gloom over the economy--from an overhang of pessimism related to the war in Iraq to exploding health care and tuition costs to angst over globalization. There is also the sense that ordinary workers haven't gained their fair share from the current expansion.
Whatever the source, voters are blaming Republicans: Democrats have a 14-point edge over Republicans on handling the economy, according to a recent poll from the Pew Research Center.
For Republicans, the worry is that pessimism over the economy, the Iraq War or the country more generally will drive voters who rate their own financial security highly to nonetheless punish the party in power.
"The research done suggests that people's perceptions of the country as a whole is actually more important than their own personal financial situation," says Thomas Mann, a political expert at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution in Washington.
Despite the drumbeat of bad news coming out of Iraq and squabbling in Washington over terror legislation, there are signs that the economy is reclaiming voters' attention: A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll cites it as the most important election issue, followed by the Iraq War, immigration and the war on terrorism. http://www.forbes.com/...
When all is said and done we should by all rights do very well in November as has been my faith and belief for quite a while. With the above poll being taken pre Foley and Wooward, I expect things to get even better despite Bushco's attempt at damage control as Republican fatigue grows and reality increasingly sets in.I believe Foley and Woodward will be the gifts that keep on giving and Dems will make sure!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
No Republicans were shown to lead in any key state surveyed by Mason-Dixon. "These numbers look very encouraging for the Democrats to take control of the Senate," Coker said. Democrats must net six new seats.
Of the seven at-risk GOP seats, the Republicans were tied in Missouri and Virginia and running slightly behind in Ohio, Rhode Island and Tennessee. The Republican incumbents in Montana and Pennsylvania appear to be in trouble, according to the polls.
Democratic incumbents, meanwhile, have a slight edge in New Jersey and are leading in Maryland and Washington, their three most vulnerable states.
Pennsylvania: Democratic challenger Bob Casey Jr., the state treasurer, led Republican Sen. Rick Santorum 49 to 40 percent. More than two out of five Pennsylvania voters have an unfavorable opinion of Santorum, among the highest negative ratings of any candidate in the key states. Also, 56 percent of voters disapprove of how Bush is doing his job.
Rhode Island: Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse had a slight edge over Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, 42 to 41 percent. Trends look different in Rhode Island in part because Chafee opposes Bush on major issues -- including Iraq and tax cuts. Rhode Island gives Bush his worst ratings of any crucial state -- 70 percent disapproval.
Virginia: Republican Sen. George Allen and Democratic challenger James Webb are tied at 43 percent each.
Iraq and terrorism are both major issues in the state that is home to the Pentagon and the Atlantic fleet. Among those who think Iraq is the top issue, Webb leads 4-to-1. More than three out of five disapprove of how Bush is handling the Iraq war. Of them, 66 percent support Webb, a former combat veteran and Navy secretary who opposes the war.
Among those who rate terrorism their top issue, Allen leads by a similar amount.
Maryland: Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin led Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele 47 to 41 percent in the race for the Democratic seat of Sen. Paul Sarbanes, who is retiring.
Also, nearly seven out of 10 disapprove of how Bush is handling the war, and disapprovers supported Cardin 2-to-1.
Steele is bidding to become the first Republican African-American elected to the Senate since Edward Brooke of Massachusetts in 1966. Steele had 19 percent of the African-American support, while Cardin had 59 percent. Steele had 48 percent of the white support; Cardin had 43 percent.
New Jersey: Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez had a slight statistical edge over Republican Tom Kean Jr., a state senator, 44 to 41 percent.
Bush is a factor in New Jersey, where 37 percent approve of his job performance and 61 percent disapprove. Menendez leads 3-to-1 among those who don't like the way Bush is doing his job. Kean leads 10-to-1 among those who like Bush.
Iraq narrowly tops terrorism on New Jersey's list of concerns, noteworthy in a state that lost citizens in the Sept. 11 attacks and has major port operations. Menendez leads 5-to-1 among those who rank Iraq tops; Kean leads 2-to-1 among those who rank terrorism their top concern.
Washington: Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell led Republican Mike McGavick 50 to 40 percent.
The war in Iraq is a big issue in Washington, followed by terrorism, taxes and government spending.
Of those who think Iraq is the No. 1 issue, Cantwell is ahead 2-to-1. That's a lower ratio than Democrats in other states, probably because Cantwell voted to authorize the war and faced an anti-war challenge in a primary.
Montana: Democrat Jon Tester, the state Senate president, led Republican Sen. Conrad Burns 47 to 40 percent, according to a Mason-Dixon poll done for Lee Newspapers and released Sunday.
Ohio: Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown had 45 percent and the incumbent, Sen. Mike DeWine, had 43 percent in a poll for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and made available to McClatchy on Sunday.
Tennessee: Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. had 43 percent and Republican Bob Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, had 42 percent. The poll was conducted for the Chattanooga Times Free Press and the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
Poll Specifics and whole story! http://www.kansascity.com/...
Forbes: Polls show that Americans rank the Iraq War and terrorism as the biggest problems facing the country. But the economy has time and again proved a crucial factor in national elections--with a bad economy, in particular, often driving throngs to the polls to boot out incumbents.
"When you ask people about their personal situations--while no one is on easy street--most people say they're getting along pretty well," says Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
Any number of factors could be causing the gloom over the economy--from an overhang of pessimism related to the war in Iraq to exploding health care and tuition costs to angst over globalization. There is also the sense that ordinary workers haven't gained their fair share from the current expansion.
Whatever the source, voters are blaming Republicans: Democrats have a 14-point edge over Republicans on handling the economy, according to a recent poll from the Pew Research Center.
For Republicans, the worry is that pessimism over the economy, the Iraq War or the country more generally will drive voters who rate their own financial security highly to nonetheless punish the party in power.
"The research done suggests that people's perceptions of the country as a whole is actually more important than their own personal financial situation," says Thomas Mann, a political expert at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution in Washington.
Despite the drumbeat of bad news coming out of Iraq and squabbling in Washington over terror legislation, there are signs that the economy is reclaiming voters' attention: A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll cites it as the most important election issue, followed by the Iraq War, immigration and the war on terrorism. http://www.forbes.com/...
When all is said and done we should by all rights do very well in November as has been my faith and belief for quite a while. With the above poll being taken pre Foley and Wooward, I expect things to get even better despite Bushco's attempt at damage control as Republican fatigue grows and reality increasingly sets in.I believe Foley and Woodward will be the gifts that keep on giving and Dems will make sure!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Monday, October 02, 2006
After 6 yrs:Foley, Border stupidity, State Of Denial, November's 1, 2, 3, Punch!
The Nation: When the news of Foley's emails broke in the media, Hastert declared, "I was surprised." Really? That's strange. Mark Foley's sexuality was never much of a secret to those who served with him in the House.
The New York Times and every major newspaper in Florida had been writing articles on the congressman's agonizingly inept attempts to remain closeted for years. Indeed, it was the embarrassing manner in which he had attempted to cloak his sexuality that prevented Foley from securing his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and again this year.
Even though these people knew about Foley but ignored it, now that he was caught they call for his head.
"His immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system," Hastert, Boehner and Blunt said of Foley.
Fair enough. But what do these Republican leaders think about those who knew about Foley's undue interest in male pages, covered the fact up for months - perhaps years -- and then lied about what they knew. Should they, too, face "the full weight of the criminal justice system"?
Congressman Tom Reynolds, who chairs the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, revealed on Saturday that he had informed Hastert months ago about concerns regarding Foley's habit of sending sexually suggestive - "strip down and get naked" -- e-mails and instant messages to male congressional pages.
They only employ "moral values" appeals to scare up votes at election time; it's never been something they believed in.
Hastert and his compatriots care only about winning elections and keeping power - even when that involves looking the other way after concerns have been raised about what a good many Americans see as the stalking of children. They knew all about Foley's e-mails and all the issues raised by those communications.
Hastert and his colleagues have gotten caught in a lie. And it's a big one.
http://www.thenation.com/... Read the link, it ends even
better!
Last week Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee cast the lone Republican vote late Friday against a bill -- now awaiting President Bush's signature -- that will create a fence to prevent the illegal entry of immigrants through the U.S.-Mexico border.
The fence bill and others enable Republicans to go into the elections with a message that they've made great strides fighting illegal immigration.
http://www.projo.com/...
Yeah great strides! That is an asinine idea! With what I understand to be a 700 mile fence on a 2,000 mile open border, that does not even amount to a finger in the dike! This is a great fucking message, for us!
The final nail in The Republican Coffin!
Raw story: According to a new book written by Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, two months before the September 11 attacks, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the "brush-off" to an "impending terrorist attack" warning by former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet and his counter terrorism coordinator.And there's much more!
"Mr. Woodward also writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden,"
Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counter terrorism coordinator met with Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they'd been given 'the brush-off' -- a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice's recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton's allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counter terrorism measures aggressively before 9/11> One last note! Cheney and Rummy were in the Ford White House during Vietnam and we know how that went. Anyway this time Woodford writes Cheney told Rumsfeld Get it right this time! You can see he hasn't learned anything! http://www.rawstory.com/...
WTF! Bush holds his dog in higher regards than us, his staff, all experts. He lied about Iraq, Lied about the violence to Americans, and everything else as we know. So hasn't Rummy Cheney, Roves, etc.. Listens to Kissinger routinely! What a surprise. I respect Kissinger but. Remember his success with Vietnam?
Here is the 60 minute's video! http://www.cbsnews.com/...
Quite damning! This should be the big one! I say often that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so he could rally the troops around the cause. His cause! To use fighting terrorism as his excuse to attack Iraq, unsettle the middle east, and prosecute his new middle east and world order. If fighting terrorism was the goal they would have stayed in Afghanistan as we knew after watching Russia at war there, all the Islamists would have been drawn there. Now they have two places to die for Allah, we are spread out.This proves Pakistan is more of a danger in the war on terror if that was what Bush was fighting! http://www.dailykos.com/...
Meanwhile what Bush thinks he is winning is still just getting started and every worthless Republican or any deficient politician should pay in November!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
The New York Times and every major newspaper in Florida had been writing articles on the congressman's agonizingly inept attempts to remain closeted for years. Indeed, it was the embarrassing manner in which he had attempted to cloak his sexuality that prevented Foley from securing his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and again this year.
Even though these people knew about Foley but ignored it, now that he was caught they call for his head.
"His immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system," Hastert, Boehner and Blunt said of Foley.
Fair enough. But what do these Republican leaders think about those who knew about Foley's undue interest in male pages, covered the fact up for months - perhaps years -- and then lied about what they knew. Should they, too, face "the full weight of the criminal justice system"?
Congressman Tom Reynolds, who chairs the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, revealed on Saturday that he had informed Hastert months ago about concerns regarding Foley's habit of sending sexually suggestive - "strip down and get naked" -- e-mails and instant messages to male congressional pages.
They only employ "moral values" appeals to scare up votes at election time; it's never been something they believed in.
Hastert and his compatriots care only about winning elections and keeping power - even when that involves looking the other way after concerns have been raised about what a good many Americans see as the stalking of children. They knew all about Foley's e-mails and all the issues raised by those communications.
Hastert and his colleagues have gotten caught in a lie. And it's a big one.
http://www.thenation.com/... Read the link, it ends even
better!
Last week Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee cast the lone Republican vote late Friday against a bill -- now awaiting President Bush's signature -- that will create a fence to prevent the illegal entry of immigrants through the U.S.-Mexico border.
The fence bill and others enable Republicans to go into the elections with a message that they've made great strides fighting illegal immigration.
http://www.projo.com/...
Yeah great strides! That is an asinine idea! With what I understand to be a 700 mile fence on a 2,000 mile open border, that does not even amount to a finger in the dike! This is a great fucking message, for us!
The final nail in The Republican Coffin!
Raw story: According to a new book written by Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, two months before the September 11 attacks, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice gave the "brush-off" to an "impending terrorist attack" warning by former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet and his counter terrorism coordinator.And there's much more!
"Mr. Woodward also writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden,"
Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counter terrorism coordinator met with Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they'd been given 'the brush-off' -- a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice's recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton's allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counter terrorism measures aggressively before 9/11> One last note! Cheney and Rummy were in the Ford White House during Vietnam and we know how that went. Anyway this time Woodford writes Cheney told Rumsfeld Get it right this time! You can see he hasn't learned anything! http://www.rawstory.com/...
WTF! Bush holds his dog in higher regards than us, his staff, all experts. He lied about Iraq, Lied about the violence to Americans, and everything else as we know. So hasn't Rummy Cheney, Roves, etc.. Listens to Kissinger routinely! What a surprise. I respect Kissinger but. Remember his success with Vietnam?
Here is the 60 minute's video! http://www.cbsnews.com/...
Quite damning! This should be the big one! I say often that Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so he could rally the troops around the cause. His cause! To use fighting terrorism as his excuse to attack Iraq, unsettle the middle east, and prosecute his new middle east and world order. If fighting terrorism was the goal they would have stayed in Afghanistan as we knew after watching Russia at war there, all the Islamists would have been drawn there. Now they have two places to die for Allah, we are spread out.This proves Pakistan is more of a danger in the war on terror if that was what Bush was fighting! http://www.dailykos.com/...
Meanwhile what Bush thinks he is winning is still just getting started and every worthless Republican or any deficient politician should pay in November!
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Musharraf says we need Pakistan to win war on terror! With Friends like them who needs enemies?
The United States and its allies will fail in the so-called "war on terror" without the support of Pakistan and its intelligence service, Pakistan's President Musharraf said on Saturday.
In an interview with BBC radio, Musharraf was asked for his response to the view that Pakistan was not a good ally in the fight against global extremism because of the links between terrorism and his country.
"You will be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn't co-operate with you. That is all that I would like to say. Pakistan is the main ally. If we were not with you, you would not manage anything. Let that be clear," he said.
"And if the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) is not with you, you will fail. Let that be very clear also. Remember my words: if the ISI is not with you and Pakistan is not with you will lose in Afghanistan." http://www.khaleejtimes.com/...
Knowing what is below the fold, you tell me!
We learned from the Press for Truth accurate 9/11 movie that a 1,000 car caravan carrying the Bin Laden entourage was allowed to escape into Pakistan and at night. Now this part really irks me and I for one never heard anything about it and still don't. As far as I am concerned Pakistan is no friend of America's . We also heard over and over how Bush would track down any Al Qaeda finances and try anyone involved. He made a big deal out of someone outing the fact that we were checking out electronic transfers etc. Something he himself announced.
Now as I watched this movie and found out that the head of the Pakistani ISI transferred $100,000 to Muhammad Atta just prior to the 9/11 attacks. This gets worse. Primarily because not only do we have records of this financing as well as pictures but we ignored it and supposedly are in cahoots with them. What happened to anyone caught aiding, abetting, or financing terrorism being hunted down?
Musharraf's comment sounds more and more like a threat! If we don't cooperate, the ISI will burn us again, what is that? Remember this?
The Indian government accused Pakistan's military spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence, of planning the July 11 Mumbai train bombings that killed 209 people.
http://www.cnn.com/...
Knowing there has been many attempts on Musharraf's life. Knowing that the man considered to be the father of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities gave nuclear secrets and equipment to anyone who wanted it and had the money and he is protected by Musharraf and the ISI.
Knowing Pakistan's government and pro-Taliban militants signed a peace agreement aimed at stopping years of violent unrest on the Pakistani side of the porous border with Afghanistan. Under the deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the North Waziristan region and stop crossing into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces.
We will never allow any foreigners into that area. It's against the culture of the people there. says Musharraf.
Knowing we hear regularly that Mullah Omar, purveyor of at least Afghani violence, is in Pakistan..
The one-eyed Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who heads the religious militia fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is living in Pakistan, though not in the same area where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is thought to be, according to a U.S. intelligence source.
http://www.cnn.com/...
Knowing that Musharraf contends Pakistan was threatened by U.S. attack after 9/11! http://articles.news.aol.com/...
You can understand why now. You also have to wonder, Are they a part of the cure or as many of us think, a large part of the problem? Will we have to fight them too eventually? Is it worth it having Bush placate them and continue to ignore their terrorism complicancy?
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
In an interview with BBC radio, Musharraf was asked for his response to the view that Pakistan was not a good ally in the fight against global extremism because of the links between terrorism and his country.
"You will be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn't co-operate with you. That is all that I would like to say. Pakistan is the main ally. If we were not with you, you would not manage anything. Let that be clear," he said.
"And if the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) is not with you, you will fail. Let that be very clear also. Remember my words: if the ISI is not with you and Pakistan is not with you will lose in Afghanistan." http://www.khaleejtimes.com/...
Knowing what is below the fold, you tell me!
We learned from the Press for Truth accurate 9/11 movie that a 1,000 car caravan carrying the Bin Laden entourage was allowed to escape into Pakistan and at night. Now this part really irks me and I for one never heard anything about it and still don't. As far as I am concerned Pakistan is no friend of America's . We also heard over and over how Bush would track down any Al Qaeda finances and try anyone involved. He made a big deal out of someone outing the fact that we were checking out electronic transfers etc. Something he himself announced.
Now as I watched this movie and found out that the head of the Pakistani ISI transferred $100,000 to Muhammad Atta just prior to the 9/11 attacks. This gets worse. Primarily because not only do we have records of this financing as well as pictures but we ignored it and supposedly are in cahoots with them. What happened to anyone caught aiding, abetting, or financing terrorism being hunted down?
Musharraf's comment sounds more and more like a threat! If we don't cooperate, the ISI will burn us again, what is that? Remember this?
The Indian government accused Pakistan's military spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence, of planning the July 11 Mumbai train bombings that killed 209 people.
http://www.cnn.com/...
Knowing there has been many attempts on Musharraf's life. Knowing that the man considered to be the father of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities gave nuclear secrets and equipment to anyone who wanted it and had the money and he is protected by Musharraf and the ISI.
Knowing Pakistan's government and pro-Taliban militants signed a peace agreement aimed at stopping years of violent unrest on the Pakistani side of the porous border with Afghanistan. Under the deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the North Waziristan region and stop crossing into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces.
We will never allow any foreigners into that area. It's against the culture of the people there. says Musharraf.
Knowing we hear regularly that Mullah Omar, purveyor of at least Afghani violence, is in Pakistan..
The one-eyed Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who heads the religious militia fighting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is living in Pakistan, though not in the same area where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is thought to be, according to a U.S. intelligence source.
http://www.cnn.com/...
Knowing that Musharraf contends Pakistan was threatened by U.S. attack after 9/11! http://articles.news.aol.com/...
You can understand why now. You also have to wonder, Are they a part of the cure or as many of us think, a large part of the problem? Will we have to fight them too eventually? Is it worth it having Bush placate them and continue to ignore their terrorism complicancy?
James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
