>>>Are you going to tell me you are pro-big business?<<<


Don't have a problem with it as long as they don't use their clout to abuse the public and abuse the system. I'm not pro any big business that post billions in profits, pays zero taxes and get government handouts at my expense and then tells me to go f*k myself when I call and point out an error on my monthly statement.


>>>What are your thoughts on 9/11?<<<


I'm not sold on the conspiracy theories. Hard enough to get two people to keep a secret. Now try hundreds or thousands which would be the case here.

That said.......I do think more was known about what was coming and that more could have been done to prevent it. You have to be either extremely partisan or extremely unobservant (or both) not to recognize how convenient this was for the Bush WH. Having watched them abuse their power and govern almost without oversight for 5 years it's clear they enjoyed every minute of it and took full advantage. With a smirk no less.

>>>Note to Senator Obama: spare us the hope and bi-partisanship talk and help us fight back.<<<


Good sign. Even the daily kos has now realized that you can't solve everything with a nice fireside chat. Too bad they spent the last 6 years telling democrats that bush republicans can be reasoned with just like everyone else as long as you have the facts on your side.

>>>Yea and you condemn them as evil heads of corporations.<<<


That's a bone headed remark since you'll never find a quote of mine to that effect no matter how far back you search. I say bone headed since you're quick you to pick on posters who don't debate in good faith or without hard facts.

>>>I'm not some gullible ignoramus bedazzled by a 23 yr old working with a computer in his parents basement.<<<


Your loss. Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google to name a few were founded by high school dropouts with computers in their parent's basements.

>>>The curious part of this issue.....<<<


No rules at all if you're a Bush fan but plenty of rules if you're not and you best know what they are or you'll end up in jail.



"I see this cop," says Finsel, and he says, 'You can't stand there. You need to keep walking.' So I started walking in a six-foot circle within the protest zone. And I looked back, and he said, 'Not in circles.' And I said, "'What, you want me to walk in squares?' "

At that, says Finsel, the officer radioed for help.

"The cop puts me in cuffs and grabs my sign, and two other cops grab my arms and take me across the street," he says. "My sign is getting crumpled up by the sergeant. They take me to the cop car, and one says, 'You don't deserve to watch Bush come up the street.' "

http://www.progressive.org/mag_mcbushevent

>>>Funny I didn't see any "real" question....<<<


If this was not a "real" question, then what kind of question was it? I asked you something and it ended with a question mark. How can I make it more real next time?


So are these GIs cowards and traitors or concerned, responsible citizens exercising their constitutional rights?

GIs Petition Congress To End Iraq War
Over 1,000 Military Personnel Sign Petition Urging Withdrawal Of U.S. Troops

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/60minutes/main2505412.shtml

Re: Someone E-mailed me the following:


Having a bit of a problem squaring this:


It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage
any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.


with this:


Lets quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war
against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the world and it's citizens. Best we support them.

You didn't answer the real question which was: Is it ever ok for a US citizen to criticize a war he or she feels was a mistake and is hurting the country? You seem to suggest that such criticism is equal to surrender.

>>>I'm not the Admiral in charge.//<<<


And for that we're thankful, but you still express your opinion here so why do you think the brits were sent home instead of being redeployed to areas in Iraq that are deteriorating? It's a net loss of british troops at a time when the US is scrambling to add troops. Another ally packing their bags after realizing they've been engaged in a fools errand? No thoughts at all?

>>>The British troops were withdrawn because the Iraqi police and Army are handleing the situation.<<<


So why did they send them home and not here instead?


DIYALA PROVINCE, Iraq, Feb. 23, 2007

North Of Baghdad, War Getting Worse
More Attacks, Less Troops In Diyala Province As Military Focuses On Baghdad Crackdown

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/23/iraq/main2507079.shtml

>>>That channel is a joke<<<


fox is a joke as a news station but they're also fanatics that get innocent people in trouble:



"(AP) A couple whose home was wrongly identified on national television as belonging to an Islamic radical has faced harassment, and police are providing special protection.

After the report ran on Fox News on Aug. 7, people have shouted profanities at Randy and Ronnell Vorick and spray-painted "terrorist" (spelling it "terrist") on their property.

"I'm scared to go to work and leave my kids home. I call them every 30 minutes to make sure they're OK," Randy Vorick said.

John Loftus, a former federal prosecutor who appears on the Fox News segment "Inside Scoop with John Loftus," gave out the house address during the broadcast."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/25/national/main795609.shtml


Gotta wonder what would have happened to these people if razorbucks or brig had lived next door.

>>>get your lazy entitled butt ready for a bitter battle here<<<


After you gasbag. Bush country = welfare country with nearly all the nation's uneducated, freeloading slackers you're screaming about. If you have an issue with welfare recipients you'll have more battle to contend with in Little Rock than in San Fransisco......just so you know.

He'll answer eventually and it'll probably be the usual:

"your hilarious".

>>>NO INTERROGATION.. NO TRIBUNALS.. NO POWs<<<


So you have a problem with perspective but that's ok. I can help.

NO INTERROGATION: Wrong. Lots of interrogation......just without torture so we have credibility when we tell the world we have to go to war to liberate people who are being tortured.

NO TRIBUNALS.. : Right. We try the scum in court so we have credibility when we tell the world we have to go to war to liberate people who never get a fair trial.

NO POWs: Wrong. Lots of POW's but we avoid holding them in concentration camps so we have credibility when we tell the world we have to go to war to liberate people who aren't treated humanely by their governments.

Six years ago no american would have argued with this. No we have sissies like yourself who have given up on everything decent we used to stand for because of some muslim cowards who still have you scared shitless.

You're the traitor and the coward in case you haven't figured that out yet.

>>>Wave that white flat!<<<


So are these GIs cowards and traitors or concerned, responsible citizens exercising their constitutional rights?



GIs Petition Congress To End Iraq War
Over 1,000 Military Personnel Sign Petition Urging Withdrawal Of U.S. Troops

Feb. 22, 2007

(CBS) They say they are not disloyal. They say they are not shirking their duty and that they do not oppose war. But over 1,000 active-duty and reserve members of the U.S. military are against the war in Iraq and have said so in an unusually public way — by petitioning Congress last month.

Several of them appear to explain their actions to correspondent Lara Logan this Sunday, Feb. 25, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"I'm not anti-war. I'm not a pacifist. I'm not opposed to protecting our country and defending our principles," says Navy Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, an Iraq war veteran who, along with another veteran, initiated the petition.

A 1995 law called the Military Whistleblower act enables military personnel to express their own opinions about Iraq in protected communication directly to Congress.

Hutto and others spoke with 60 Minutes while off duty, off base and out of uniform as conscientious citizens. "But at the same time, as citizens, it's our obligation to have a questioning attitude … about policy," Hutto tells Logan.

Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, who helped Hutto to found the organization they call Appeal for Redress that has attracted 1,000 other military members, is more blunt.

"Just because we volunteered for the military doesn't mean we volunteered to put our lives in unnecessary harm and to carry out missions that are illogical and immoral," Madden says.

The petition reads: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home."

These GIs and others Logan spoke with expressed frustration with their efforts in Iraq and believe there is no end in sight to the war. Other Iraqi war veterans still on duty there believe Appeal for Redress misses a larger point.

"As an American soldier, I feel like we took an oath to obey the orders of our commander-in-chief and officers appointed over us," says Army Spec. James Smauldon.

Says another serviceman in Iraq, Army Capt. Lawrence Nunn, "I know what I'm here fighting for, to give the Iraqi people some democracy and hope, so I am 100 percent behind this mission. You don't sign up to pick which war you go to."

Another Appeal for Redress member, Staff Sgt. Matt Nuckolls, says, "Our leadership gets to choose the mission. Congress gets to choose the mission."

He says he's loyally committed to whatever Congress wants him to do but savors the right to question it.

"My Congressman is Lacy Clay," Nuckolls says. "I would like to tell him as a constituent of his, 'Is the mission in Iraq really what you want us to be doing?' And then (if) he responds, 'Yes,' OK, well, we go back to Iraq and keep doing what we're doing."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/60minutes/main2505412.shtml

>>>Saudi remains the largest sponsor of Islamic Extremism.<<<


So if you're a close ally of Saudi that means you too......??....or...??

>>>as the inspectors (hans blix and others) were scurrying to get out of iraq<<<


All you need to know about this war and what Bush already knew about the "threat". First he resisted inspections altogether, then gave in but badmouthed the effort no end and finally threw everyone out before they had a chance to destroy his excuse for the war.

Imminent threat to america my ass. He followed orders from PNAC and breached his oath of office.

PNAC letter to Bill Clinton 1998:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps,"

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

>>>looking at the post from the right wingers here. why is it they seem so misinformed?<<<


"To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq.”

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well.

“The roots of the Bush supporters’ resistance to information,” according to Steven Kull, “very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters.”

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/87.php?nid=&id=&pnt=8...


Or in plain english.......9/11 transformed 30% of americans into emotional basket cases.

>>>The Decider is a phony. His pretend concern for our military is the same as him pretending to be a Christian<<<

>>>Toensig actually has a hand in crafting the law, but, I guess she has no credibility because you think she is right wing<<<


Please.......I THINK she's right wing...?


"DiGenova and Toensing are married and are the founding partners of DiGenova & Toensing LLP, a Washington law firm. Toensing was President Reagan's deputy assistant attorney general and chief counsel to former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). DiGenova has been described as a "confidant" of independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the Monica Lewinsky investigation [The Baltimore Sun, 9/21/00] and as "a former federal prosecutor now working for House Republicans" [The Washington Post, 2/23/98]. In 1998, Toensing and DiGenova angered House Democrats by repeatedly discussing the Lewinsky investigation in the media while under contract with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to investigate the Teamsters union [The Washington Post, 2/13/98]. Toensing and DiGenova have a well-documented personal relationship with Novak."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120005


You're terrible. The prosecutor and the judge in the Libby trial are both corrupt and ignorant in your opinion but the only proof of this you can produce are various rants by documented hard right blowhards. And even though the vice president and the president's closest advisor have been right in the middle of this, not a peep of support for your theories from the Bush WH. You can't explain this and I couldn't either if I shared your conviction.


>>>Can't you use your brain w/o relying on the opinions of others?<<<


You're not relying on the opinion of others with your references to Captain Quarters and Victoria Toensing?

>>>You've got to say they succeeded on all counts.<<<


Depends on what their ultimate goal was. If all they wanted was a once in a lifetime chance to crap on the constitution, fix the supreme court and allow their cronies to print money - they did well. If they had bigger ambitions such as a fascist america dominating the globe I'd say not only did they fail but they made fools of themselves in the process of trying.

You can keep quoting your sources of choice and I'll keep asking the same question: Do you have any reference to Plame's non-covert status from anyone EXCEPT Bush friendly pundits?

Both the prosecutor and the judge refer to Plame as a covert CIA operative but only right wing bloggers take issue with that. Why? If those in charge of this trial don't even have a good understanding of the fundamentals of the case, wouldn't that be a huge story for any reporter? The trial may not have been about the leak but they would still be expected to understand how it all began.

And why did George Bush respond like this when asked about the case:


"Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html


Note that he doesn't dispute Plame's classified (covert) status but talks about how to investigate the leak and where it came from. If Plame was not covert, you don't think the president would have been informed and as a result would be able to dismiss the idea that classified information was leaked?

>>>What does this group of people have in common?<<<


members of PNAC.

>>>Our opponents are stuck in a vise now. McCain is out. It'll be Rudy we fight.<<<


Too early to tell I think. Considering the average voter's attention span width and depth, all candidates should be on the lookout for suspect implosions of structures around the country. Whoever gets there first with a bullhorn in hand will leave the rest far behind. That's how americans pick their leaders. A moment of glory and perceived heroism and all else is forgotten including party affiliation and core stands on major issues. W getting a second term proves it better than anything else I could say.

>>>See, you limited your query to what occurred during the trial.<<<


Your interpretation. I gave you that as a possible source of finding views supportive of yours.


>>>Over the months, I've posted many quotes from credible sources questioning her status. I won't repeat them.....<<<


You have posted opinions of rightwing bloggers and that's what I asked you to go beyond. I knew you couldn't since nobody credible and reasonably objective would support your view on this.


>>>THe joke is YOU quoting nutwing Larry Johnson<<<


Around in circles you go. I quoted his take on Plame's covert status which is identical to the prosecution's and the judge's. Nutwing as he may be, you can't find a credible source to refute him on that particular point.


>>>You've actually read the transcripts of the trial??<<<


Where did I say I read it? I posted the link as a service to you as you scramble to come up with something useful. You can thank me later.

You're joking? I ask you to produce a credible source that disputes the prosecutor's and the judge's opinion that Plame was a covert agent and you pick the defendant in the case.

How about a story by a major news organization quoting sources at the CIA? It'll take me 20 seconds to find 50 such stories that support my opinion but you can't find ONE that supports yours? Which begs the question.........what DO you rely on to support your conviction other than blind ideology and like-minded bloggers?


>>>.....LIbby's testimony to the grand jury. I'm sure when the case is over and thea transcripts are made public, you'll be able to read it<<<


You call ME ignorant about the trial? They played the transcripts all over national TV during the trial. Here it is in print.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7260557

>>>about an agent who hadn't been covert for 5 years<<<


You're not arguing rationally so let's finish this up, ok? I will help.

Both the prosecutor and the judge presiding over the case contradict your opinion about Plame's covert status. Here's one such account but there are hundreds of other links to similar statements.

"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/


And this from a retired CIA agent who has this to say about the case and about people like yourself:


"This much is certain:

Valerie Plame was working undercover as a senior CIA operations officer.
Valerie Plame was working on issues related to Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to keep America safe.
Valerie Plame traveled overseas as part of her undercover work and was protected under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Valerie Plame was betrayed by President Bush and his political appointees.

Anyone who claims Valerie and Joe are the cause of this are goddamn morons and beyond the reach of reason."

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/gee_valerie_was.html


For reasons you haven't explained yet you feel that the CIA, the prosecutor, the judge and the mainstream media are mistaken about Plame's covert status. Time to show your cards ed. The opinions of bloggers are not valid for obvious reasons but transcripts from Libby's defense will be.

Certainly, one of Washington's best defense teams trying to clear Libby's good name wouldn't have gone through the entire trial without pointing out that contrary to the CIA's, the mainstream media's, the prosecution's and the judge's beliefs, Plame was not a covert agent at all at the time of the leak and that part of the story must be corrected for the record. You can start posting your references now.

>>>he wouldn't LIE to us...or would he???<<<

>>>YOU quote an article from 2/13/06 for the umpteenth time
Hysterical<<<


As if this opinion by a judge is any less valid today than it was a year ago.

"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/




>>>but for some reason with all the evidence showing the the facts that Plame was outed, NOBODY GOT INDICTED.<<<


Takes a special kind of idiot to ask the same question almost daily for a year and remain confused despite hundreds of articles having been made available to you each time you squealed. All of them explaining the same thing. Recognize this?


"The lawyers said Fitzgerald does not appear likely to charge anyone with the crime he originally set out to investigate: whether anyone in the Bush administration knowingly disclosed the identity of a CIA operative whose covert status the agency was actively trying to keep secret. That crime is difficult to prove because Fitzgerald would have to show that the officials knew Plame was a covert operative and that the CIA did not want her name revealed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202499.html


Note that all these comments have one thing in common: None deny Plame's covert status and all point out that it's difficult to prosecute someone for disclosing it.



>>>libs defend the leakers of classified information that REALLY did harm our national security are treated as heroes- the leaks abut surveillance, financial and otherwise<<<


That REALLY did harm?

"We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors..."

George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999, Dedication Speech, George Bush Center for Intelligence


But revealing that US intelligence agencies are intercepting communications of terror suspects is worse? Again it takes a special kind of idiot to think that terrorists never suspected their communications may have been intercepted until american liberals told them.

As for revealing the tracking of terrorist financing, more egg on your face:


"News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

``There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.

Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist groups. The executive order was posted on the White House website."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_...


Now go clean up and report back with something coherent for a change......please.

>>>Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.<<<


PLEASE......stop posting outright lies about this story already. You're acting weird.....repeating the same lies for over a year now despite being shown evidence to the exact opposite each time you goof.


"Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/



"Why is it such a big deal that someone outed Valerie Plame? For starters, it's a felony. And Plame was also reportedly a NOC with years of experience investigating weapons of mass destruction. If this is true, her discovery could compromise intelligence operations she was involved with around the world, which would explain why she maintained her nonofficial cover even when she was back in the United States. "Hard target" countries like China and North Korea often keep records of every known meeting between Americans and their scientists and officials. Almost certainly, those lists would have been frantically reviewed when Plame's identity was revealed, and any sources she recruited could have been exposed."

http://www.slate.com/id/2089062/


What's with this obsession of defending Libby anyway.....even at the expense of looking foolish? Friend, family, old boyfriend?

Senate republicans block Iraq resolution


Senate Deadlocks Over Iraq Resolutions

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17, 2006

(AP) The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown on Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic attempt to rebuke President Bush over his deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops.

The vote was 56-34. That was four short of the 60 needed to advance the measure, which is identical to a nonbinding resolution that Democrats pushed through the House on Friday.

"The Senate, on behalf of the American people, must make it clear to the commander in chief that he no longer has a rubber stamp in Iraq," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the final moments before the vote.

Republicans blasted him and the Democratic leadership for refusing to allow a vote on an alternative that ruled out any reduction in money for troops in the field.

"A vote in support of the troops that is silent on the question of funds is an attempt to have it both ways," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader. "So we are asking for an honest and open debate."

The vote marked the second time this winter that Senate Republicans have blocked action on nonbinding measures critical of the president's war policies. This time, however, there were signs of restlessness within the GOP.

Seven Republicans broke with their leadership, compared with only two on the previous test vote.

Also this time, the maneuvering concerned a nonbinding measure that disapproved of Bush's decision to deploy the additional troops and pledged to support and protect the troops.

The vote in the House on Friday was 246-182, with 17 Republicans breaking ranks to support the measure and two Democrats voting in opposition.

Saturday's debate and vote occurred in an intensely political environment, both in and out of the Capitol. The unusual weekend session sent presidential contenders in both parties scrambling to make the vote.

One of them, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, squeezed in a morning appearance in New Hampshire, where she told one audience, "We have to end this war and we can't do it without Republican votes."

Polls show strong public opposition to the war, which as killed more than 3,100 U.S. troops. Democrats seemed eager to force Republicans into votes that might prove politically troublesome.

"They are torn between their president's policy and the wishes of the constituents, but vote they must," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee.

Democrats in both the House and Senate have said the nonbinding measures would be only the first attempt to force a shift in Bush's war policies.

In the Senate, Reid has told lawmakers he will turn anti-terrorism legislation into a forum for debate over the war. He has met privately in recent days with fellow Democrats as the leadership plans its next move.

In the House, Democrats have said they will attempt to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the military in an attempt to make it impossible for him to deploy all 21,500 additional troops.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has described a series of provisions that would require the Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the troops, and for making sure they have enough time at home between deployments.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., describe these provisions as designed to protect the troops.

Republicans argue the effect would be to deny troops needed reinforcements and are expected to try to block the restrictions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/17/politics/main2490178.shtml

One single person, ignoring a majority voice of the people, ignoring a majority vote in congress, ignoring a majority of his military commanders, running a reckless war as he sees fit. Great marketing for a country that brags about creating democracies by removing dictators.

>>>how do you explain YOUR turnabout on the issue<<<


I wouldn't call it a turnabout but the recognition that Clinton perjured himself out of embarrassment over a sexual affair affecting nobody but himself and his family while Libby appears to have perjured himself to cover up the destruction of national security assets while the nation is at war.

You can get anyone to lie under oath if you probe long enough and dig deep enough and I just happen to disagree with Bush republicans who still talk about the sex lie with horror in their voices but dismiss the national security offense as a non-issue.

Perjury is perjury but some lies are worse than others and there is such a thing as mitigating circumstances. That's all.

>>>it is unbelievable that ALL dems are betting their political lives AGAINST the US military and its success in Iraq<<<


Either that or Bush republicans are betting their political lives against the survival of US troops by putting them in the middle of a civil war 9 out of 10 military experts agree can't be won militarily.

>>>“I would be sympathetic to anyone who was indicted for non-violation of a statute,”<<<

>>>"Matalin has called the case against Libby a "grave injustice."
We now know who disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame. We now know that Scooter had nothing to do with it."<<<


What's with these people? Criminally stupid or criminally dishonest....or both? He's not charged with violating that statute. He's charged with lying repeatedly and systematically to a federal prosecutor and 7 witnesses agree. Same crime the moral majority wanted Clinton hanged for but now with one of their own accused it's not really a crime anymore.

>>>a hard-hitting look at how CNN covers the "news" we need to "know".<<<


well...they got it right back in their face last week for a change. That anna nicole coverage was so over the top even tabloid junkies got disgusted.


"JACK CAFFERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, if you tuned into THE SITUATION ROOM at 4:00 yesterday afternoon, you were informed that Anna Nicole Smith had died. And that's all. That's the only story we reported for two solid hours. And we weren't the only ones. Other cable news channels also opting for continuous coverage.

A lot of you wrote to me to complain, saying that we overdid it. I happen to agree with you, but I just make the sandwiches around here.

You wanted to know why there was no coverage of the war in Iraq and the deaths of seven or our troops there the day before? Or the Libby trial? Or the threat from Iran to strike American interests around the world if it was attacked?

Those are all valid questions.

Because of the eccentric and troubled and highly public life she led, as well as her overt sexuality, her death was tabloid gold and apparently we just couldn't help ourselves.

BLITZER: Well, I'm interested to hear what our viewers -- I've got a ton of e-mail on this."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/09/sitroom.01.html


All other news were ignored for two solid hours to cover the death of a stripper who scammed wealthy seniors. Blitzer actually covered this for 3 hours since he started right back at 7 again behind Lou Dobbs (who didn't mention it).

Felons and junkies recruited by Army and Marine Corps



"More recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being allowed to join the Army and Marine Corps as the armed services cope with a dwindling pool of volunteers during wartime.

The military routinely grants waivers to take in recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Most are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/14/national/main2474041.shtml

>>>How do you figure Muslims are blameless?<<<


Didn't say they were. Just pointed out that contrary to what you seem to think, america had something to do with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in the past 4 years. You can recognize that and still be good patriotic citizen you know....

>>>Iran is not a friend and probably wishes us ill. So what?<<<


So what is right since about half the earth's population feels that way these days.

>>>means that you agree with the fact that Iran has been the largest financial supporter of terrorism world wide.<<<


I don't know that to be a fact and I certainly don't agree with it just because Bush says so. Who has reliable financial figures for that anyway?


>>>What has Israel done to threaten Iran? Iran on the other hand has played a big part in funding Hezbollah.<<<


You don't think any of Iran's behavior has a thing to do with Israel's behavior and Israel's nuclear capability? Israel is a model of peace and restraint in your opinion?


>>>How could that have occured since Bush never negotiates???<<<


You got that backwards. It does happen WHEN he negotiates which he did with NK (with a lot of help from 5 other countries I might add.) I didn't hear a single word about negotiations with Iran at his press conference today. Did you?


>>>How exactly is that relevant??<<<

It's relevant in that Iran doesn't have a history of aggression against its neighbors and that they probably don't wish to self destruct which they surely understand would be the result of a nuclear attack on Israel.