The US needs to send more money and more soldiers to Iraq to do good, serve George Washington's ideas of freedom, save the world from Islamofacists, blah blah blah.
The UK (our strongest ally in this crusade) is pulling money and soldiers out of Iraq because things are going so well in their sector.
Is there a particular reason why our strong ally won't transfer some of their bodies and equipment into the US sector before the US pours more blood and money down the drain? Isn't that what allies and a 'coalition of the willing should do for each other?
I can't think of a way to spin that one. Even my cynical mind can't conceive of a one liner to twist it in favor of the Republican apologists. Better to avoid the question.
Let me take a REAL stab at answering it. The reason is that the UK government has had enough of this quagmire and they are leaving the US to mop it up. Labour must give in to public opinion a bit and appear sensible because a campaign is soon to start there. I can't say that I blame them. I wish Tony Blair would have had the balls and brains to walk away from it 2 years ago.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
A little more political - another quote of the day
“I always tell people that everyone looks the same to me in Japan. Which is cool, man because I wish we could be like that in the Dominican, so we can hide.” David Ortiz
NOT political - quote of the day
“To feel good when I was 21, all I had to do was to smoke a joint. Now I have to turn off my phones, do tai chi for an hour, drink a strong cup of coffee, and stay away from bad people, so I can feel good for an hour or two — knowing when it ends, I’m gonna feel like the miserable 59-year old prick that I actually am.” - Iggy Pop
Friday, February 16, 2007
Speaker Pelosi on the Iraq resolution - She rules
For four days and three nights, more than 350 Members of Congress have come to the House floor to speak their conscience about the war in Iraq, and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the substance and the tenor of this debate.
There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.
We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal.
One year ago Senate majority, Leader Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people.
Consistent with our Real Security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, the first last July and most recently in January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success for Iraq containing these elements:
1. Change of mission2. Redeployment of troops
3. Build political consensus4. Diplomacy5. Reform reconstruction6. Refocus on the War on Terror
In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions.
Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment.
Success in Iraq requires more than military force. As 3-star General Peter Chiarelli, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq observed in December, "We need to get out of thinking this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition and Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our nation's strengths -- diplomatic, economic, political -- must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.
Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.
An international conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building their country's future.
There has been little effective reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearance of funds.
In order for the reconstruction of Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable. They must be governed by the kind of process set forth in legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in reconstruction.
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically.
The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and disarm them.
Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the War on Terror to the war in Iraq. As the esteemed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton, has said, "Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as 'the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and distinct."
The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight the war against international terrorism effectively. We need to finish the job started more than five years ago in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and address other conditions around the world in which the appeal of terrorism breeds.
The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained severely by the deterioration in military readiness produced by the operational tempo in Iraq.
By placing so much emphasis on dealing with the problems in Iraq militarily, and not enough emphasis on sustained internal and international diplomatic engagement, the President's escalation plan repeats past mistakes.
The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success.
The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation.
Our troops are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a New Direction in Iraq by voting aye on the bipartisan Skelton, Lantos, Jones resolution.
There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.
We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal.
One year ago Senate majority, Leader Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people.
Consistent with our Real Security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, the first last July and most recently in January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success for Iraq containing these elements:
1. Change of mission2. Redeployment of troops
3. Build political consensus4. Diplomacy5. Reform reconstruction6. Refocus on the War on Terror
In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions.
Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment.
Success in Iraq requires more than military force. As 3-star General Peter Chiarelli, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq observed in December, "We need to get out of thinking this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition and Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our nation's strengths -- diplomatic, economic, political -- must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.
Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.
An international conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building their country's future.
There has been little effective reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearance of funds.
In order for the reconstruction of Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable. They must be governed by the kind of process set forth in legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in reconstruction.
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically.
The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and disarm them.
Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the War on Terror to the war in Iraq. As the esteemed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton, has said, "Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as 'the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and distinct."
The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight the war against international terrorism effectively. We need to finish the job started more than five years ago in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and address other conditions around the world in which the appeal of terrorism breeds.
The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained severely by the deterioration in military readiness produced by the operational tempo in Iraq.
By placing so much emphasis on dealing with the problems in Iraq militarily, and not enough emphasis on sustained internal and international diplomatic engagement, the President's escalation plan repeats past mistakes.
The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success.
The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation.
Our troops are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a New Direction in Iraq by voting aye on the bipartisan Skelton, Lantos, Jones resolution.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Why Republican wins are bad
I've been wondering how to put words around this truth. I don't have to because John Kenneth Galbraith did in 1992's "The Culture of Contentment". He was a better writer than I am. Duh.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
"I say to John Kerry: I love you John Kerry, and I'm so sorry that things didn't work out for our country."
Harry Reid said that yesterday, but I concur.
The man is a class act, and the USofA doesn't deserve to have him as its President.
Massachusetts does deserve to have him as Senator.
The man is a class act, and the USofA doesn't deserve to have him as its President.
Massachusetts does deserve to have him as Senator.
Friday, January 19, 2007
"This is only the beginning."
Summary from Speaker Pelosi's blog entry on Huffingtonpost.com:
HR 1: Enacted provisions of the 9/11 Commission after 2 1/2 years of inaction by Republican Congress.
HR 2: Minimun wage increase passed, after 10 years of Republican inaction.
HR 3: Passed extended stem cell research provisions, despite inaction by Republicans for fear of offending pro-life righties.
HR 4: Passed changes to Medicare, allowing for negotation with Pharmacutical corporations to lower drug prices. A shortcoming of the Repub Medicare changes passed previously.
HR 5: Cut interest rates on student loans. This just makes good sense. "No Child Left Behind" notwithstanding.
HR 6: Cut subsidies and tax breaks to Repubilcan's oil friends, and invest in renewable energy.
Now, let's talk about the Iraq War and the evil that Republicans do...ALWAYS.
HR 1: Enacted provisions of the 9/11 Commission after 2 1/2 years of inaction by Republican Congress.
HR 2: Minimun wage increase passed, after 10 years of Republican inaction.
HR 3: Passed extended stem cell research provisions, despite inaction by Republicans for fear of offending pro-life righties.
HR 4: Passed changes to Medicare, allowing for negotation with Pharmacutical corporations to lower drug prices. A shortcoming of the Repub Medicare changes passed previously.
HR 5: Cut interest rates on student loans. This just makes good sense. "No Child Left Behind" notwithstanding.
HR 6: Cut subsidies and tax breaks to Repubilcan's oil friends, and invest in renewable energy.
Now, let's talk about the Iraq War and the evil that Republicans do...ALWAYS.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
"We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad.”
This is the same old spinning word games on the same old "stay the course" strategy. And then there was this sameoldsameold gem from today's address: "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.”
Coupla things. Securing the people of Baghdad is not a new idea. It may be new to W, but it certainly has been thought of previously. Second, Democrats and Republicans alike have been proposing strategic ideas for YEARS that differ from the President's same old strategy. W's assertion that his opposition has proposed nothing is a huge lie. It is either a lie of ignorance or a bald-faced, knowing twist on the truth to smear opponents.
Now, I think W and his inner circle are more evil than ignorant but intelligent liberals can disagree about such things. I might be able to accept the premise that the W-ites are simply too stupid and insulated to have heard other ideas, but I tend to lean toward the notion that they have heard the other ideas, dismissed them outright, and are now righteously acting as if the plans never existed.
Remeber, WE voted this evil into power. We now eat the poo they feed us.
Coupla things. Securing the people of Baghdad is not a new idea. It may be new to W, but it certainly has been thought of previously. Second, Democrats and Republicans alike have been proposing strategic ideas for YEARS that differ from the President's same old strategy. W's assertion that his opposition has proposed nothing is a huge lie. It is either a lie of ignorance or a bald-faced, knowing twist on the truth to smear opponents.
Now, I think W and his inner circle are more evil than ignorant but intelligent liberals can disagree about such things. I might be able to accept the premise that the W-ites are simply too stupid and insulated to have heard other ideas, but I tend to lean toward the notion that they have heard the other ideas, dismissed them outright, and are now righteously acting as if the plans never existed.
Remeber, WE voted this evil into power. We now eat the poo they feed us.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Root Boy politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KSLJm7psEs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEZi5Z1ZbaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEZi5Z1ZbaY
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Dear John and George,
Dear John K, I love ya man. But please don't run again. America does not want a smart President. They just don't find you likable enough. You would make a great President, but America does not want that. Please continue to serve the great state of Massachusetts.
Dear George, I do amdire your balls. Nothing else about you is worthy of admiration, but throwing good troops after this lost cause in Iraq does take balls. Ignoring the opinions of cooler heads in favor of your little one is certainly a good way to act tough at the cost of the lives of others. You've perfected this posturing, and America loves you for it. Shameful.
Dear George, I do amdire your balls. Nothing else about you is worthy of admiration, but throwing good troops after this lost cause in Iraq does take balls. Ignoring the opinions of cooler heads in favor of your little one is certainly a good way to act tough at the cost of the lives of others. You've perfected this posturing, and America loves you for it. Shameful.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Why Democratic wins are good...always
The Democratic Party is good for America and the betterment of world society. The Democratic Party as portrayed in the caricatures of Republican spin and the mass media are nearly unrecognizable to me, so I won’t address these silly views. I’m talking about the REAL Democratic Party that leans to the left of center. The left that says there is a real and moral need to do things that benefit the whole, rather than the bull-headed self-interest that is the main characteristic of the right wing of American politics.
Foreign policy decisions and leanings are not entirely susceptible to left/right characterizations. Republican vs Democratic policies here are a crapshoot. It is in the basic philosophies of the Parties on domestic questions that demonstrate their differences best.
Democrats believe that government can and should do good. Government is not the enemy of the individual, as the disingenuous right would have voters believe. First and foremost, government is truly ‘for the people’. Democrats believe that government can and should protect the environment against those who would dirty it, lessen the effects of poverty on the poor, protect minority views against the tyranny of the majority, and other policies that are meant to help individuals make it in the brutal world that is capitalist/corporate America.
Government should be a balance against the forces of selfishness (greed) that are embodied by the Republican Party and the corporate special interests it represents.
Foreign policy decisions and leanings are not entirely susceptible to left/right characterizations. Republican vs Democratic policies here are a crapshoot. It is in the basic philosophies of the Parties on domestic questions that demonstrate their differences best.
Democrats believe that government can and should do good. Government is not the enemy of the individual, as the disingenuous right would have voters believe. First and foremost, government is truly ‘for the people’. Democrats believe that government can and should protect the environment against those who would dirty it, lessen the effects of poverty on the poor, protect minority views against the tyranny of the majority, and other policies that are meant to help individuals make it in the brutal world that is capitalist/corporate America.
Government should be a balance against the forces of selfishness (greed) that are embodied by the Republican Party and the corporate special interests it represents.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Luncheon
Ahhhhhh....Speaker Pelosi (she's from San Francisco I heard) will soon be invited to the White House for a meeting. That's a beautiful thought. Happy Wednesday beautiful world. Eat my shorts, Denny Hastert.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
In honor of election day...USofAmerica
I'm going to revive my blogging. New rules for me. Nothing personal about me. All politics all the time. All day, every day. Partisanship, bias, gross politization of anything and everything. Oh, and FUCK GEORGE BUSH!!! With a big, hot, steaming pole of partisanship. Fuck him.
Happy election day.
Happy election day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
