Lies Redux

Well, since I brought it up...

My take on the administration's talking heads that weighed in last night and this morning... they've jacked up the spin mode to full speed ahead. The greater the spin, the worse the situation is and they're trying to put that red hot lipstick on the pig (or chimp) again.

Man....

I've had to work late the last two nights.... I miss all the fun. (WWAAAAAAGH)

But you guys were ON IT.

These threads are great, and the responses to the President's Spin Fest lastnight are really good.

Good work everybody.

First I want to say that I have been loving the pictures of the FDR memorial-its a wonderful,wonderful place and if anyone gets the opportunity-go and allow yourself the full effect.
Maybe someone could do a page of the fdr pictures to have around always.....

Then I read todays 5 min and wrote this lte:

I think the most ironic notion put forth in last nights speech is that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq.
We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq, we are creating terrorism by being in Iraq the way we are. There was NO CONNECTION between the attack on 9/11 and Sadaam Hussein or the Iraqi people. None. Nada. Not a single instance. And we invaded Iraq-a sovereign nation. How do you think we’d respond to that? Do you think we might have a few “insurgants’?
We as a people and we as a country, are losing our way. Imprisoning people without any charges for almost 4 years and subjecting them, and countless others, to torture, costs us part of our soul. It’s time to stop the madness and face reality. More of the same is likely to give us exactly that, more of the same.

thanks for the inspiration!!

US Suspected of Keeping Secret Prisoners on Warships
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062905Z.shtml

TruthOut's source is a French news agency. I posted the one from BBC on the previous thread.

I wonder how many weeks it will be before this is mentioned in American mainstream media???

I went to AmericaBlog and read the entries from people about the applause being staged. Some mentioned that even during the staged applause that they saw some troops not applauding. A few others mentioned that it was uncharacteristic of troops not to cheer when they are enthusiastic about something, even if they were "ordered" to maintain respect and decorum and not applaud. Another wrote that in situations like that, silence is the most devastating form of protest!!! (I'm paraphrasing some 90+ entries.) I do have the speech on tape; think I'll go back and put it on mute and watch in fast mode to see the body language; I still can't bear to listen to that many lies in one sitting, even though last night I managed to make it through the first couple of sentences before he mentioned 9/11, at which point I couldn't take it any more; I knew nothing but more lies and false justifications would follow - everything we've heard before already by the ever faithful groveling dogs (spinmeisters) in MSM who endlessly repeat Dumbya's lies.....

Good idea--and there is a topic in the forum for these stories:
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=735&pid=2819&st=0&#entry2819

Subject: "The Cost of Freedom" project
From: "Mike Palecek"

Seeking Stories of Peace Heroes in Your Area:

The Cost of Freedom project

Hello ---

Would you have an interest in writing a couple of stories for this
project? I'm trying to gather stories for a non-fiction book. I'm not
sure what compensation I could offer. Perhaps a byline in a book if it
gets published. ---- Or, could you give me leads so that I might
assign the stories of your group to another writer.

-- Can give you more info if you want. [Deadlines, word limit, etc.]

- Mike Palecek
About me: www.iowapeace.com

* I have a publisher who is interested.

----
To explain a little more what this is about:

> Hello,
>
> Since George W. Bush has been in power in the United States many people
> have opposed him, fought for truth and for democracy.
>
> These folks are scattered around the world, from Berkeley to Bismarck
> to Buffalo — to Berlin. They have held signs in freezing temps on a
> freeway in Bangor; they have sat alone at a kitchen table to write
> intrepid letters to the editor in Blacksburg, South Carolina, and they
> have prayed aloud for peace in Bagdad, Arizona.
>
> All around us are stories of people who have displayed extraordinary
> courage in these dark times. They personify the image of lighting a
> candle in the darkness — in the rain — on Main Street — sometimes all
> alone.
>
> It's not easy, it's often terrifying, and it's absolutely necessary.
>
> I would like to try to gather some of these stories.
>
> The purpose is to tell the Peace Links group in Primghar, Iowa that
> they are not alone. They have brothers and sisters in huge numbers,
> just about everywhere; to tell the Peace and Justice Committee of St.
> Mark's Church in Minneapolis that they have commonality with some very
> special people in Miami, Florida.
>
> I am asking you to tell me about groups or individuals in your area
> that have a story of courage that might be of interest to others.

How about Afghanistan Mr. President...

Last week American fighter planes bombarded a southern Afghanistan rebel hide-out with missiles and bombs, killing up to 76 insurgents in one of the deadliest single clashes since the Taliban's ouster in 2001.

The increase in fighting has reinforced concerns that the Afghan war is widening, rather than winding down. U.S. and Afghan officials warn things could get worse ahead of the parliamentary elections scheduled for September.

Officials have warned that foreign militants, backed up by networks channeling them money and arms, had come into Afghanistan to try to subvert the polls.

Fears have been further compounded by a spate of ambushes, execution-style killings and kidnappings reminiscent Iraqi militants' tactics.

Afghan officials claim the infiltration of rebels from neighboring Pakistan has contributed to the rise in violence and have urged Islamabad to crack down on militants there.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/06/29/afghan.crash/index.html

So we are wondering: what do you think this means for the President?
Posted by Karen at June 29, 2005 09:22 AM

What I HOPE it means is that some of the pResident's supporters saw the silence and the non-reaction of the troops (and heard the canned applause story this morning on at least one or two talk shows where it was supposedly mentioned) and have just the teeniest tiny inkling that the person they voted for is not held in high esteem by the troops they purport to support in their bandwagon patriotic fervor after 9/11; and that maybe - but only just barely maybe - they will start to listen to what the truth-tellers are saying for a change (although I don't hold out much real hope for the latter). There is absolutely no hope whatsoever for progress to be made on impeaching the SOB and his administration unless the people who have willfully kept themselves ignorant (in their bandwagon politics so characteristic of sheeples) finally wake up and smell the coffee and hear the lies we've been hearing for more than five years already...!!! If just a few of them come out of their kool-aid dream world of hallucinations and take off their rose-colored glasses, then maybe (only maybe) they will see that the best thing that could happen to this nation is to get the SOB and his administration out of office, impeached, fired, run out of our nation's capitol, and their greedy grubby paws taken out of the public purse!!! If they do, one could hope they'd start putting pressure on their legislators to get investigations of the pResident and all the members of his cabinet started....

I dream big dreams.... After five years of Bu$hLies, I've developed a penchant for retreating to a fantasy world based on what I remember reality used to be like when journalists did their jobs, when people were informed by mainstream media and not spoon-fed all the crap on TV nowadays, and remembering when we had a few politicians who had spine, backbone, and balls enough to speak truth to power.....

From Think Progress - This is appalling.

RADICAL RIGHT -- RIGHT-WING GROUP DISRUPTS SOLDIERS FUNERALS: WCBV
Boston reports a "right-wing Protestant Christian church group from Topeka,
Kansas is planning to demonstrate" at the funeral service of a soldier
who recently died in Iraq. Why? The group, from Westboro Baptist
Church, claims "U.S. soldiers like Piper are dying because the country is
being punished for its tolerance of what they see as immoral behavior
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/WCVB/20050627/lo_WCVB/2795149)
, such as homosexuality." The group staged a protest several weeks ago
"carrying signs depicting homosexual sex, with slogans such as 'Pope In
Hell' and 'God Hates Fags,' and 'God Hates The U.S.'"

So we are wondering: what do you think this means for the President?
Posted by Karen at June 29, 2005 09:22 AM

=========================

The President offered nothing new, offered no evidence that he is willing to tell the truth about the war, and offered no plan for success...

What he offered instead was a promise that the war's duration will be indefinite, and that nothing will change.

I think what it means is that approval numbers will continue to drop, support will continue to erode, and generally the global standing of the U.S. will continue to be damaged for years to come.

On the heels of the VA budget funding gap, the speech was a slap in the face to every soldier serving our country.

I'm not surprised the applause was fake. The speech was fake, too.

There is a word, no two, that I've kept reading and hearing today after Bush's speech : civil war. It is spreading fast out of chaos.
I had the opportunity of hearing a testimony by a French lady, married to an Iraki and living in Baghdad, on the radio this morning.
What she said was quite simple in fact. The situation is so dangerous that children do not attend schools anymore, nor do their parents go to work (if they have any job) because of the insurgents bloody attacks.
6 p.m : curfew. The Americans and the Iraki army (?) start patrolling upon the empty streets and shoot at anyone like rabbits...
They have nothing to lose anymore, so they join the war. Dying for dying...
The dilemma about going or staying goes beyond the war itself. It took America 30 years to recover from Vietnam, if that was to happen in Irak, it would take 50 years. That's what the administation is trapped in as well.

In the meantime terrorism is exporting very well. Last week, a guy of Algerian origin, was arrested in south west of France. He was just coming back from Baghdad and intended to set up attacks in Europe... Thank you George.
The incubator works perfectly!

For those who can read French :

http://www.jeuneafrique.com/gabarits/articleJAI_online.asp?art_cle=LIN26075ledilemmeli0

Posted by: victoria ellen at June 29, 2005 10:53 AM

"Rev" Phelps and his hateful family strike again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

From the Topeka Capitol-Journal Online

Fred Phelps versus Topeka

http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/musser.shtml

The group, from Westboro Baptist
Church, claims "U.S. soldiers like Piper are dying because the country is
being punished for its tolerance of what they see as immoral behavior
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/WCVB/20050627/lo_WCVB/2795149)
, such as homosexuality." The group staged a protest several weeks ago
"carrying signs depicting homosexual sex, with slogans such as 'Pope In
Hell' and 'God Hates Fags,' and 'God Hates The U.S.'"

Posted by: victoria ellen at June 29, 2005 10:53 AM

You always know when the neoconservatives have their backs against the wall. Their court of last resort is to blame it on homosexuals in some way, shape or form. That one though is a real doozy.

Posted by: Fe at June 29, 2005 11:16 AM

Wow, and here I thought that whole "Judge not, lest ye be judged" thing was one of the building blocks of compassionate christianity.

Hmmm... maybe I AM better than them after all... but who am I to judge?

BTW...

Rest In Peace Christopher Piper... and thank you.

Uh-oh...here we go again...

Bush issues WMD order on N.Korea, Iran, Syria
Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:32 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday issued an executive order that gives U.S. authorities significant new powers to seize the assets of companies believed to be helping North Korea, Iran and Syria acquire technology for use in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

The order did not specify countries, but an annex had an initial list of four entities from Iran, three from North Korea and one from Syria, an administration official said.

The order was in response to concerns of a presidential commission that issued a report in March criticizing U.S. intelligence efforts on weapons of mass destruction.
http://tinyurl.com/b9kzq

disassemble, that means not telling the truth..

Let me see if I got this correct...
Bush's support is in freefall.
He decides to make a speech to regather his support.
Ends up worse off then before.
And calls it a success!
Ahh..live in dreamland never looked so good to him!

Remember the "summer of love" (with whatever brain cells we have left from that summer...)? Well, Freeway Blogger is declaring this the "Summer of Truth."

THE TIME HAS COME ...
to speak out against the Lies and Propaganda and let 25,000 of your closest friends know just how you feel about this war and the lying sons of bitches who dragged us into it.

Starting July 5th, freewaybloggers across the nation will begin placing signs on the freeways voicing their opposition to the war. These signs will continue going up through July and August and on until impeachment hearings begin in September.
http://www.freewayblogger.com/summeroftruth.htm

Posted by: madame defarge at June 29, 2005 11:50 AM

Unfortunately some of these "pro-enemy" groups Bush and the Republicans have targeted, and will target, are NOT really pro-enemy, but pro-democracy left-wing groups. Definitely the case in Korea, and most likely in Iran as well.

And Iranian-Americans have my full support for keeping themselves level-headed and not following every right-wing propaganda, the way the Cubans, the Koreans, and the Vietnamese have done in America.

until impeachment hearings begin in September.
http://www.freewayblogger.com/summeroftruth.htm

Are impeachment hearings actually going to be heldin Sept.????? I haven't read that anywhere....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional critics of President Bush's stay-the-course commitment to the war in Iraq argued Wednesday that the administration lacks sufficient troops on the ground to mount a successful counterinsurgency.

And Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the September 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.

Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving the questionable link to the war in Iraq -- a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that some of the president's critics are mischaracterizing his remarks. Bush has said there were no ties between al Qaeda and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but McClellan said Wednesday that "September 11th changed the equation in terms of how we confront the threats that we face in the 21st century."

Bush first mentioned the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center at the beginning of his speech, delivered at an Army base that has many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He acknowledged that Americans are disturbed by frequent deaths of U.S. troops, but tried to persuade an increasingly skeptical public to stick with the mission.

"The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001," Bush told a national television audience and 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform who mostly listened quietly as they had been asked to do.

"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he continued.

Posted by: NonnyO at June 29, 2005 12:32 PM

I haven't read anything about them specifically beginning in September either. (But one can hope...) However, I did find this article this morning:

Dems target pre-Iraq war intelligence
By Josephine Hearn

Democrats are eyeing several parliamentary maneuvers to prod Congress into investigating the so-called Downing Street memo and other recently disclosed documents that they contend shows that the Bush administration manipulated prewar intelligence to build support for the war in Iraq.

Although any Democratic move will almost certainly fail in the face of vigorous Republican opposition, such maneuvers would constitute the first steps toward filing articles of impeachment, a bold step that some Democrats have left as an open question in recent weeks.

“If you read the record of the writing of the Constitution, ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ had a very particular meaning at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. It certainly didn’t mean lying about sex, but it might well mean lying to the Congress about a large public purpose such as Iraq,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said at a forum held by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) earlier this month, referring to the 1998 impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Democrats and allied groups are mulling at least two options to spur an investigation.

Conyers met recently with representatives of a recently formed coalition of liberal groups, AfterDowningStreet.org, that is calling for a resolution-of-impeachment inquiry, which would direct the Judiciary Committee to launch a probe of the claims. Republicans filed such a resolution in 1998 to kick off their effort to remove Clinton from office.

Read the rest at http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062805/dems.html

A TEMPORARY O/T RESPITE FROM SUNNY CAH-LEE-FOH-NYA

Poll shows support for Schwarzenegger fading Wed Jun 29, 9:02 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A majority of California voters are not inclined to re-elect Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, marking a sharp reversal of support since February, according to a Field Poll released on Wednesday.

The survey found 57 percent of voters are not inclined to vote for Schwarzenegger if he runs for re-election next year, compared with 56 percent who said in February they were inclined to re-elect the Republican governor.

The findings mirror a recent Field Poll that found the Hollywood icon's approval rating among registered voters has plunged to 37 percent from 55 percent in February and that voters oppose two of three measures Schwarzenegger is supporting in the special November election he called.

Republicans and conservatives continue to back Schwarzenegger by large margins, but their support is more than offset by large proportions of Democrats, nonpartisans, moderates and liberals who oppose a possible second term, according to the Field Poll's results.

The survey also found Schwarzenegger trails state Treasurer Phil Angelides and state Controller Steve Westly, two Democrats who are seeking the governor's office, in election match-ups.

Angelides leads Schwarzenegger by a 46 percent to 42 percent margin. Westly leads Schwarzenegger by a 44 percent to 40 percent margin.

The poll's findings are based on a random sample of 711 registered voters in California interviewed by telephone from June 13-19 in English and Spanish. The findings have a sampling error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

Fred Phelps is an old story. Our old friend Underbear (remember him) had a quite a bit to say about him on the Kerry Blog. And his personal brand of hate-based activism has been around for a long time.

If only these nuts would spend less time in church and more time under the care of a qualified psychotherapist.

Just say no to collective insanity.

Posted by: madame defarge at June 29, 2005 01:20 PM

If HOPE really does spring eternal, I will HOPE with fingers crossed that at least the topic of impeachment reaches MSM and gets broadcast so the sheeples might (I HOPE) finally read or hear something of the lies we've been told, countered by the truth...!!! (And then not dissed by the White House Press Corpse....)

Of course, the sheeples will have to have things 'splained to them often and repeatedly before the truth finally sinks in, so it will have to be talked about often on TV, and reach the papers the sheeples read....

Dare one hope that much???

If only these nuts would spend less time in church and more time under the care of a qualified psychotherapist. Just say No to collective insanity.

Posted by: Cyrano at June 29, 2005 02:07 PM

Amen!!!

FROM MY FRIEND ERIC FRANCIS

Check the link provided, its a complete list of prevarication):

June 29, 2005

I watched the "president's" speech last night, the one that was supposed to pull the federal government out of the tailspin that is the Iraq war and make us all feel really good. What a concept: we're in Iraq promoting peace. I really wonder, does he think that people are such idiots that he can say such a thing? (Don't worry, I know that lots of other people write these speeches.) Or, a more horrifying question: are people such idiots that they do believe such a thing?

Imagine, you set off a bomb in your neighbor's house.

"I was promoting peace between my neighbors, officer."

Right.

"Well, he looked at me funny. I thought he was gonna do it to me first!"

Then we learned that American servicemen in Iraq are fighting for OUR freedom. Mine and yours. He rang that freedom bell as if we didn't "stay the course" that the Iraqis would me wading over the Rio Grande tomrrow.

And he told us, we are "laying the foundation for peace for our children and grandchildren." What he means is, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be paying for his private Halliburton and Carlyle Group war their entire lives.

So this was the answer to the Downing Street Memo, which you've been reading about here, in which British officials were freaking about how the war would be illegal and get nowhere, but that it had to be justified somehow because the US was going to use British bases anyway.

The fraud marches on: Bush made SIX separate references to the Sept. 11 attacks in his speech about the Iraq war, once again attempting to connect Saddam Hussein to something everyone who can read above an 8th grade level knows he had nothing to do with. I guess he couldn't mention the weapons of mass destruction, could he?

But they still have it posted on the White House web page. I really suggest you read this. It's short and obscenely false.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html

-------

Time for a strategy session.

Does the "impeachment buzz" hurt or help the Democrats' chance of taking back the House in 2006(and thus become able to actually impeach Bush)?

That is the question. I'm not sure.

This just in as well:

From Common Cause:

Thanks to your overwhelming response to our call for support, our radio advertising campaign is officially underway in Speaker Dennis Hastert's Illinois district. Our message urging Speaker Hastert to demonstrate leadership by bringing in an outside counsel to investigate allegations of ethical misconduct by Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) will run through the 4th of July weekend on 17 Illinois radio stations. To listen to our radio ad, which runs as part of weather and traffic reports, please click here http://easylink.playstream.com/ctsg/CommonCause/accountable.rm?tr=y&auid=969521 (RealPlayer file).

When told about our ad campaign, a spokesman for Speaker Hastert asked "what outside money" was funding it. We were more than happy to respond that it was you - hundreds of Common Cause supporters and activists concerned about the culture of corruption that has enveloped our Congress. In fact, we raised $10,500 online for the ads within eight hours of emailing you our request for support to pay for them.

In addition to running the ads, we sent Speaker Hastert a letter on Tuesday, urging him to intervene in the ethics impasse in the House and encourage the appointment of an outside counsel to investigate DeLay, who is accused of taking a series of illegally financed overseas junkets. The letter was co-signed by Public Campaign, Public Citizen, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. We also held a national telephone press conference unveiling our radio ads, our letter to Speaker Hastert, and a new report detailing the history and precedent for an outside counsel and spelling out why an outside counsel is the only credible way to resolve allegations about illegally financed travel by DeLay.

While we conduct this intense campaign to pressure Speaker Hastert to take action, we need your help to exert pressure on him by calling his office in Washington D.C. or his district offices in Illinois, if he is your congressman. Please help us continue our relentless demand for an outside counsel to investigate the allegations against DeLay. Click on the following link to get the telephone numbers for Speaker Hastert:

http://www.commoncause.org/CallHastert

Through hundreds of small donations, you have helped us maintain our commitment to holding accountable elected officials who operate without any sense of responsibility. Now, let them hear our voices through thousands of phone calls, making it clear that a broken ethics process in the People's House is simply not acceptable to the American people. Call Hastert today and urge him to show leadership by resolving the House ethics crisis and then seeing that an outside counsel is in place to investigate Tom DeLay. Again, click on this post to get Hastert's phone numbers:

http://www.commoncause.org/CallHastert

Let us know how your calls are going by commenting on that page. Also, please forward this message to everyone you know:

http://www.commoncause.org/TellFriendstoCallHastert

Thanks again for all you do for Common Cause.

Sincerely,

Chellie Pingree
President & CEO, Common Cause

Sen. Biden: 'I'm Not Allowed To Be There When The Flag-Draped Casket
Comes In' ...
The Huffington Post
[about two weeks ago]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2005/06/sen-biden-im-allowed-in-t.html

On CBS News's "Face the Nation" yesterday, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) told Bob Schieffer that the Defense Department policy forbids him from paying his respects to fallen soldiers as their coffins return to the US through the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Though no cameras and no press would accompany him, Biden said he had to receive express permission from the Pentagon to join a grieving family that had requested his presence as they met their deceased son who died in a car bomb in Iraq.

"I'm allowed in the military base. I'm not allowed to go to the mortuary," he said.

Senator Biden added that it is his understanding that the policy originates with Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

In April 2004, published photographs of flag-draped coffins arriving at the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware prompted the Pentagon to ban therelease of such pictures. After Ralph J. Begleiter, a University of Delaware professor and former CNN correspondent, filed a Freedom of Information Act request, the Pentagon reversed the ban in April 2005 and released 361 undated, unlabelled pictures of coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base.

Read excerpts of the CBS News transcript:

SCHIEFFER: You talk about not fully informing the American people. There's no question that the administration has at least discouraged people from reporting on casualties there. For example, the casualties all the people who have been killed in Iraq come back through the...

Sen. BIDEN: True.

SCHIEFFER: ...Air Force base in Delaware.

Sen. BIDEN: In Dover.

SCHIEFFER: Do you ever go out to meet those flights out there?

Sen. BIDEN: I've tried to and they will not allow me to. As a matter of
fact...

SCHIEFFER: Who will not allow you to?

Sen. BIDEN: The Defense Department. Look...

SCHIEFFER: Wait a minute. You're a United States senator.

Sen. BIDEN: I'm a United States senator. Well, let me be very...

SCHIEFFER: They're not letting you on a military base?

Sen. BIDEN: I'm allowed in the military base. I'm not allowed to go to the mortuary. I'm not allowed to be there when the flag-draped casket comes in. As a matter of fact, Bob, one family asked me whether I would meet their son who was tragically gunned down, actually car bomb in Iraq. This is several months ago. I said I would be honored to be with them. They wanted me to come with the minister. They wanted me through the whole process. The commander of the base told me that he couldn't allow that to happen and he's a friend--this is not like there's no hostility there; I'm on the base all the time--until he cleared it with the Pentagon. And I'm told the civilian leadership in the Pentagon. So in order for me to literally go in and accompany a mom and a dad and a son to pick up the body of a dead son, a young Marine killed in Iraq, I was not just able to do it as a senior United States senator, former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--not like I'm new to this. I had to get specific permission for that specific event. I wanted to go
when more than one Marine came back dead and I just wanted to show my respect. I didn't want any press there. There was no press. We weren't talking about that.

SCHIEFFER: So you think it is the secretary of Defense himself who's blocking you?

Sen. BIDEN: Well, that's my understanding. I don't know that for a fact, but it's not the military. It's the civilian decision in the Defense Department that you're not allowed to be there just to show respects. And let me emphasize here now. No press. No cameras. Nothing. I have made it a practice. The reason I've gone to Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia
is to demonstrate to those troops there that I understand what's going on and to be with them. No press. And they won't even let me on the base. Now, look, I'm not...

Ms. TUMULTY: Why? Why do you think that is?

Sen. BIDEN: They have this generic policy that it is a private matter. Well, I don't know any family that would--maybe there is--but I don't know any family that if a member of the government, a high-ranking official, was there just to pay their respects--and, look, this is heart-wrenching stuff. I mean, you were saying--maybe I shouldn't say this--before the show how it gets you on your nightly news broadcast when you talk about these young men and women who die. I mean, I think it's important for the nation to acknowledge and I think part of my job is to demonstrate privately ... +++

Cyrano:

I just don't understand how a Congress which does not even think that the bipartisan ethics investigation of Tom DeLay is necessary, would consider a Bill of Impeachment, regardless of its merits.

And I certainly don't understand how chants of Impeachment will help our efforts when we approach moderate non alligned voters in Pa that a Democratic Congress will be any less ideological than the Repubs or will deal seriously with household issues like healthcare and pension security. It certainly motivates our base but does nothing but turn off swing voters that we will need in '06.

So tell me then... what the HELL is the impeachment process made available for, if not to expose such high crimes to the citizens of this nation?

The damage that can still be inflicted between now and '06 can be considerable, and I for one am not willing to wait and hope we dont get another rigged election cycle.

The time is now.

Check out this poll:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/bush.speech.ap/index.html

The spin is ratcheted up. On CNN they had an interview with a guy who used to be in the U.S. military, but now he is a contractor involved in rebuilding in Iraq. He was interviewed today so he could tell everyone how much progress has been and is being made in Iraqi reconstruction efforts.

monkey:

The question raised was how will talk of impeachment effect voters in 2006? Unless you have polling data showing otherwise, it is my feeling that it(talk of Impeachment) will be counter productive and insure 2 more years of Bush and a run a way Congress. I plan on being in Pa next year and don't relish the idea of approaching Pa voters with the message to vote for Dems b/c we are less ideological than our opponents but that we will none the less push for Impeachment and totally ignore your desire voters, to bring the real healthcare, prescription drug and pension reforms that you want.

Posted by: monkey at June 29, 2005 02:38 PM

I agree with you. "Waiting until the right time" to start talking impeachment would get us another rigged election. We do not need that!!!

Being definitive and firm in positions and opinions (even if they have lied repeatedly and daily before and after the last three elections) has gotten the neoCons EVERYTHING (and a lot of taxpayer money and a lot of dead bodies in an illegal, immoral, and unethical war, and a huge tax break to boot). Why not tell the truth and get some Dems in Congress for mid-term elections to at least make the impeachment process a viable possibility in a Repuke-controlled Congress. No backing down, no waffling on issues, no Mr/Ms Nice Guy... all out war from the Dems to get Dems elected on a platform of telling the truth....

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change???

Yes, by all means, LET'S TALK IMPEACHMENT for high crimes and misdemeanors on the basis of the lies we've been told, and are continuing to be told, if Dumbya's speech last night is anything to go by.... We owe our dead military personnel at least that much....

Wouldn't that be a refreshing change??? No.

"...the Bush administration manipulated prewar intelligence to build support for the war in Iraq."

We need to be able to trace the route that this manufactured intelligence took to get to Congress. Who in intelligence circles created the info? How did they do it? Who cherry-picked it, at whose bidding? Who objected and was silenced? What was left out? When did it all start? Before the Downing Street Memo was written?

We need all the facts laid out.

We also need to discover if there is a link between this manufacturing of intelligence and the secret energy meetings Cheney held in the early months of this administration.

So we are wondering: what do you think this means for the President?
Posted by Karen at June 29, 2005 09:22 AM

It means that the neocons will be throwing out yet more "noise" to distract Democrats and Americans from the collosal blunders of this administration. So let's stay focused out here - election reform, media reform, exit from Iraq.

Posted by: Fe at June 29, 2005 01:28 PM

only a 4-point margin so far for the Democratic opponents of the Governator?

That's still too close, though as name recognition builds, it can widen... But the Republicans are capable of smearing, and will smear any Democrat in sight (as they did to Gray Davis), so I won't relax yet.

Only 19 million households watched last night. That's not even 20% of homes with a tv set.

Speaking of lies, check out this whopper told by the Vice Chair of the House Subcommittee on Intelligence on CNN...

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/gop-vice-chair-of-house-subcommittee.html

JUST PLAIN FLAT OUT LIE.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062905X.shtml
Stay the Crooked Course
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 29 June 2005

The editors of the New York Times this morning feign shock that in his speech at Fort Bragg yesterday evening President George W. Bush would "raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks." Kudos for that insight! Better three years late than never, I suppose.

Forget the documentary evidence (the Downing Street minutes) that the war on Iraq was fraudulent from the outset. Forget that the US and UK started pulverizing Iraq with stepped-up bombing months before president or prime minister breathed a word to Congress or Parliament. Forget that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his merry men - his co-opted, castrated military brass - have no clue regarding what US forces are up against in Iraq. The president insists that we must stay the course.

As was the case in Vietnam, the Iraq war is being run by civilians innocent of military experience and disdainful of advice from the colonels and majors who know which end is up. Aping the president's practice of surrounding himself with sycophants, Rumsfeld has promoted a coterie of yes-men to top military ranks - men who "kiss up and kick down," in the words of former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford, describing UN-nominee John Bolton's modus operandi at the State Department. So when the president assures us, as he did yesterday, that he will be guided by the "sober judgment of our military leaders" he is referring to the castrati.

This is all lost on doting congresspeople like Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has been around long enough to know better than to recite oxymorons. Most striking last week was his quixotic appeal to the military's top brass to give a candid assessment of the situation.

Is there no top military official - active-duty or retired - around to tell it like it is? Active-duty? No. Retired? Sure there are. But the latter get little or no ink or airtime in our domesticated media. There is Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, for example, or Gen. Brent Scowcroft (USAF), who was national security adviser to George H.W. Bush and, until this year, Chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. If their remarks are reported at all, one must dig deep into the inside pages to find them.

A General with the Courage to Speak Truth

More outspoken still has been Lt. Gen. William Odom (US Army, ret), the most respected senior intelligence officer still willing to speak out on strategic and intelligence issues. Unfortunately, you would have to understand German to know what he thinks of "staying the course" in Iraq, because US media are not going to run his remarks.

Here is my translation of what Gen. Odom said last September on German TV's Panorama program:

When the president says he is staying the course, that makes me really afraid. For a leader has to know when to change course. Hitler did not change his course: rather he kept sending more and more troops to Stalingrad and they suffered more and more casualties.
When the president says he is staying the course it reminds me of the man who has just jumped from the Empire State Building. Half-way down he says, "I am still on course." Well, I would not want to be on course with a man who will lie splattered in the street. I would like to be someone who could change the course ...

Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.

At Fort Bragg yesterday, the president spoke of the need to "prevent al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban: a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends." Too late, Mr. President, has no one told you that you've succeeded in accomplishing that yourself?

Gen. Odom, now professor at Yale and senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, does not confine his criticism to the president, Rumsfeld, and the malleable generals they have promoted. Odom has also been highly critical of leaders of the intelligence community, an area he knows intimately, having served as chief of Army Intelligence (1981-85) and Director of the National Security Agency (1985-88). Commenting on the farcical pre-election-campaign "intelligence reform" last summer, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, observing:

No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents.
Odom is spot-on. In my 27 years of experience as an intelligence analyst I learned the painful lesson that lack of professionalism is the inevitable handmaiden of sycophancy. Military and intelligence officers and diplomats who bubble to the top in this kind of environment do not tend to be the real professionals.

And who pays the price? The young men and women we send off to a misbegotten, unnecessary war.

When the president spoke last evening, Medal of Freedom winners former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Ambassador Paul Bremer no doubt were cheering him on from their armchairs. A most unsavory spectacle.

If they question why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.
-- Rudyard Kipling

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. Now retired, he is a 27-year veteran of the analysis division of the CIA, and more recently co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
A pre-Fort Bragg-speech version of this article appeared yesterday on TomPaine.com.

Ira,

My moderate Republican brother in law says time and time again that the democrats are too wimpy. That we never respond to anything. I personally can't stomach the thought of another impeachment on the heals of the farce that was the Clinton hack job, but if ever there was just cause, this is it. If the moderates see us just letting BushCo. get away with all of this stuff, they may vote the other way anyways.

The Thug media machine is too strong for us to be nice anymore. Howard Dean may rub people the wrong way, and it may go against our grain to fight fire with fire, but we look like a bunch of wimps. And they exploit that every day.

"And I certainly don't understand how chants of Impeachment will help our efforts when we approach moderate non alligned voters in Pa .... It certainly motivates our base but does nothing but turn off swing voters that we will need in '06."

Posted by: Ira at June 29, 2005 02:34 PM

I couldn't agree more with your opinion here. The impeachment talk sounds like payback, for one thing, and thus our message will be taken less seriously. We need to focus on reaching out to concerned voters, laying out facts, and getting those facts to the public.

A question:

I know this is probably very naive of me to ask,
but could it be possible that the neocons want to drag this war in Iraq out for years? What could be their motivation if they do want to drag it out? What would the payoff be?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050629/television_interference.php

Television Interference
by Michael Winship, TomPaine.com
The CPB's Ken Tomlinson has a record of meddling with the independence of public broadcasting -- and maybe even blacklisting.

No one carol is suggesting that Dems be milk toast about kitchen table issues that voters really care about but no on will take us seriously if we constantly carp about Impeachment, especially moderate Republcans.
It is the Dems job in the next 16 months to prove to voters that we are different than Repubs and talk of Impeachment regardless of how legitimate our arguments runs counter to the idea that Dems are anything more than the idelogical political opposite to the far right and Frist/DeLay. Voters are looking for adults to take over the reins of government in '06 and do something different from what we have experienced for 5 years. Impeachment is not the way to do that. And that is coming from an activist that ran up and down Guadalupe Street in front of the University of Texas in 1972 pissing off friends by yelling at them that we had the smoking gun against Richard Nixon and being told that was insane.

Posted by: Carol at June 29, 2005 03:17 PM

I agree. I'm tired of Democrats who have been made eunuchs by the neoCon right-wing fundies. It's about time someone with some balls and some ability to speak as well as Clinton did to get in there and explain what's what and do some truth-telling for a change!!! It can't come too soon. It's already five years too late, IMHO.

Being nice only gets elections stolen from the Democrats....

Whatever else Howard Dean does, he at least has the courage to speak up and speak out - forcefully enough that he's at least heard and gets some air time in that nasty MSM that never gives Democrats air time unless to diss them. Democrats have been whimpering mommy's boys for too long, which is why we have a bully in the White House.....

Unmet Needs.Com is a site that appears to be a legitimate pro military site that helps our Veterans with their unmet needs from the Bush Administration. I urge our bloggers to visit that site to send the message that our side really does care about the troops.

If only 19 million households actually watched last night (and I was not one of them), then it appears that fewer and fewer households give Bush or Rove any credibility on the war.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at June 29, 2005 03:21 PM

They get to divvy up the spoils of war - and not just the oil fields; big corporations (with ties to Bu$h/Cheney) that had already signed on to building things like fast food joints and other industries in Iraq at one time thought they could just walk in, take property away from Iraqi citizens and build their businesses and make a profit... and now they can't because of the bloodshed. I posted something about this a very long time ago on the blog. Wish I could remember where I found the link to the story, but it was months ago.

Dragging out the war would wear down the resistance of the Iraqi citizens and they'd just let the American corporations come in and take over..... that's the only reason to "stay the course" in Iraq....

I see.

NonnyO, last night on C-Span there was a congressional meeting (I am trying to find out which one it was by searching in C-Span online), and a woman senator (D) got up and used her time to read about all the benefits there are to oil interests by having control of the area that is a route from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan. I am looking for that transcript, if I find it I will post it tonight. It was pretty revealing.

"A question:

I know this is probably very naive of me to ask,
but could it be possible that the neocons want to drag this war in Iraq out for years? What could be their motivation if they do want to drag it out? What would the payoff be?

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at June 29, 2005 03:21 PM"

Truth:

I heard a very interesting news report yesterday on NPR about how Fed DBE contracts, particularly from the DoD, have been going to large corps, including Raytheon and other major donors to the Bush campaign. This is against the DBE rules--these firms are NOT disadvantaged.

If I were in Congress, I'd be pressing for transparency on the DoD's contracting procedures, and let the blood-letting commence.

Given the country is NOT willing to have a conscription program, my hunch is, and I could be wrong, that soon enough, the DoD will have no choice other than to contract out not only civilian operations, but military as well. Privatization of the military may not be far off.

If that's the case, remember its the axiom of modern mercantilism to--"find a need and fill it."

The need is now there. Its been created in Iraq. How do we feel about that?

Just wanted to alert you all to a special guest post we have on LUTD from Senator Kennedy! http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=1184

Posted by: Fe at June 29, 2005 03:56 PM

Fe, privatization of the military would be another very dangerous step toward full fascism, would it not?

Posted by: Pamela at June 29, 2005 04:01 PM

Pam, that's the text from a letter Senator Kennedy sent out to his email list. I received it this am.

LUTD is looking good!

O.M.G. We are all but there, except but a thin thread of democracy, it seems to me. Are we?

O.M.G. We are all but there, except but a thin thread of democracy, it seems to me. Are we?

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at June 29, 2005 04:50 PM

Welcome to BushWorld.

Welcome to BushWorld.

Posted by: Amy at June 29, 2005 05:10 PM

I knew we were heading that way, but to look at it from the angle of an "actual" private military put it in a much larger perspective for me. It's all but that, except the illusion.

O.M.G...........

Posted by: Amy at June 29, 2005 04:49 PM

Amy

Actually we were contacted by his office two days and asked for a log-in on LUTD.

I know this won't come as a surprise to many of you out there, but for any newcomers and visitors,
here is a quote I thought appropriate for my ahah moment:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini

Posted by: Amy at June 29, 2005 04:49 PM

Follow-up to last comment on this...

I have the email from Senator Kennedy, the text is different from the post on LUTD.

Lastly, No One on LUTD is stupid enough to log-in as Senator Kennedy or any other politicians.

Crystal Patterson, who runs the blog on TedKennedy.com linked to us just a couple of days ago in a blog post about JK's letter.

I'm heading out into the jungle for a week to gather enough banana's to fight the Silverback in Washington.

Happy Independence Day weekend to all those who understand that independence is practiced three-six-five, 24/7.

What's So Funny About Peace, Love & Understanding?

Ira, Carol and Nonny,

I have been following your conversation about the midterms. I agree with Ira that campaigning on impeachment wont be effective. At the same time, we can be forceful and challenge Bush supporters with the facts. By doing that, we are likely to see a change in the political composition of the Congress. If that leads to impeachment, fine. If not, then we have to accept political realities.
Again, it is not a sign of weakness when we campaign for progressive ideals and counter-attack each time a lie is uttered.

Posted by: oncall at June 29, 2005 06:00 PM

amen.

Does the "impeachment buzz" hurt or help the Democrats' chance of taking back the House in 2006(and thus become able to actually impeach Bush)?

That is the question. I'm not sure.

Posted by: Cyrano at June 29, 2005 02:12 PM

^The original question. I'd say...

It hurts. Focus on healthcare, SS, national security, jobs, the deficit, veteran benefits, true support for our troops, returning respect to the country, etc. Progressive goals and ideals that matter to every American. We can FOCUS on this, and KILL all their lies. Then we will win.

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=737

Go there for an important and timely action item--if you are interested!

Native Texan: We are 2 Texans on the exact same wave length about the best strategy for winning in 2006.I hope others come around to agree with your post.

If we actually mention or try to run on impeachment in 2006, we will be worse off then before. If we get the Senate, Bush is toast and becomes irrelevent. We need to campaign on Bush's failure and against the congressfolks who supported and helped perpetuate the policies and lies.
We need to solve many problems such as NT4K listed earlier.
An impeachment platfrom will make us irrelevent. We need to solve problems, not waste our limited politcal capital on red herrings. Make Bush policies the target. He has fouled up everything he has ever touched. Make Bush appointments such as Bolton the target to illustrate how little Bush cares or respects us and the rest of the world.
We need to illustrate how the people have been hurt and how we can personally help them; not some 20 point plan.

OT but interesting...

This person has annotated excerpts of an interview that Lou Dobbs did with Warren Buffett on CNN.

He gave it the headline, "The World’s 2nd Richest Man Says, “It’s Class Warfare; My Class Is Winning.”"

Here's the Link: http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=247

CNN gave the interview the title, "Buffett: 'There are lots of loose nukes around the world'"

Here's the link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffett/index.html

The CNN interview starts out with non-financial issues which the annotater skips over in his summary.

Interesting reading in both versions.

We saw Edwards yesterday..
Mary and I went to hear John Edwards and others speak about raising the minimum wage.
Partial Speakers List
John Edwards
Maude Hurd - head of ACORN which stands for Association of Community ORganizations for Reform Now)
Jon Flaaten - Head of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, our former pastor, and one of the finest people I know.
Mike McGrath - Head of the Arizona AFLCIO.

Jon gave his typical robust sermon and thundered that those who use religion to hurt the poor are sinners. Their behavior must not be tolerated and they must be challenged everywhere. In his past, this great person has helped the poor in Zimbabwe, started the homeless kitchen that I frequently mention, and is a willing helper at HFH builds.

Maude has been around for over 15 years and sadly it is doing the same thing; trying to unite people to make everyone’s lives better.

Mike talked about the long, tough fight to unionize Arizona workers. Arizona is a right-to-work state, has an entire country south of us supplying illegal, cheap labor and is as red as they come(although that may change soon).

John Edwards talked about his roots (son of a mill worker), the people he met who were working multiple jobs and falling deeper in debt. He mentioned how we are all the same; have the same desires; the same fears; and we are all one disaster or illness from “going over the cliff”. He talks about how lucky he was to be the success he is. He mentioned the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and about poverty in general. His is as riveting and popular as ever. He urged everyone to help push the minimum wage increase ball forward. He is a genious at reaching to the very core of his listeners. We were all motivated to take action and gave him many rousing rounds of applause. He is truly one of the greats at reaching people.

After the speech, Edward’s disappeared in a flood of autograph seekers and picture takers. He is patient, congenial and as warm as they come. Jon, Mary and I lamented that we wish he could be the VP instead of the moron currently sitting there. Jon sadly mentioned that he dreams of a Kerry/Edwards presidency many times each day.

I think CSPAN was there. We were three rows from the podium and I got a few pics.

Pamela, I wasn't suggesting that someone logged on as Senator Kennedy! Just saying that he sent out an email with the same info. I know you're proud of your site, and rightly so.

I hope other Dems and their staff follow suit and post on a few of the sites around cyberspace.

Posted by: Amy at June 29, 2005 07:22 PM

There are a few Democratic Reps and Senators who are doing this now, actually.

This is Chuck in Houston on the Impeachment Issue and How it Would Play in 2006:

True to my penchant for finding a respectable compromise, I like Oncall's point. One the one hand, like the Texans are saying, the risk of seeming petty or truclulent when pushing impeachment per say is great. On the otherhand, as Clinton I think said, people are attracted to strong and wrong over weak and right. So we ought to be strong and right. I think that we should press a coherent progressive agenda, including voting and campaign finance and media reform issues along with the bread and butter ones, as the main talking points (where is Florida_Dem???). If the opposition choses misdirection of the sort we saw last night, hit them with everything you've got without using the I word directly, but maybe touching on the idea that there are some very serious question that need to be examined before we can rationally discuss how to get it right in our foreign affairs and our national security. Themore they press, the more we vector toward the "I" word. I hope that made sense. That was not well formulated on my part.

Chuck in Houston

Chuck in Houston with a follow-up to my above post:

First off, I guess I should have said Amy and the Texans. Second, I didn't mean to imply that strong and wrong meant that the sort of allegations out there don't rise to the test of potentially impeachable offenses. In fact, were some indictable offense come to light that fits into that picture, we would in fact be negligent as citizens in demanding an inquiry. On the other hand, I have yet to hear serious particulars; the pattern seems plausible and the circumstantial evidence seems compelling but as yet, again, I don't see the particulars (I'd defer to Ira on that as he is a lawyer). The essence of the compromise I (and I think Oncall)a suggesting is that it is quite possible that something could develop, and we need to lay the ground work and have that particular quiver stocked full of errors if and when the right moment comes. But I agree with the Texans and Amy that a premature recourse to that quiver could do more harm than good. Oddly enough, Amy is just accross the river from my old East Portland stomping grounds and I am now techically a Texan! (And, Oncall, my sister and all my Dad's people are Chicago -- mom's folks are Northern Virginians, like Sam Houston, I think.)

Chuck in Houston

Chuck in Houston with a Redact:

Oops! "quiver stocked with arrows" not "errors!" in the above. SORRY! My bad.

Chuck in Houston

PS: Plus, I think Battlebob likewise has chimed in with the Amy-Texas viewpoint. I think this sort of discussion is very important and useful. There are a lot of very compelling and important arguments on both sides of this and a good faith discussion can only help us.

Chuck again,I am sorry. That Kentucky-Fried-Chicken I just ate must have gone straight to my fingers. I also wrote "we would in fact be negligent as citizens in demanding an inquiry," which, I hope obviously, should read: "we would in fact be negligent as citizens IF WE DIDN'T DEMAND an inquiry." Sorry again. I will be more careful now as the effects of the chicken wear off.

Chuck in Houston

Oh well, Chuck in Houston contiues his monologue on the "I-Word":

Amy, also, I think you see both sides of this. On the prior thread you posted:

'"...They wear no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail.'

[Citation, I take it, from the speech last night by POTUS, Chuck]

"One of the most warped, twisted attempts to mislead and confuse the American people, and instill violence and fear into their hearts, that this guy has come up with yet. Despicable. Unconscionable. It makes me sick to my core.

"This kind of propaganda is right out of the fascist handbook. Bush is proving to be as amoral as any fascist leader in history."

[Posted by: Amy at June 28, 2005 07:23 PM]

So at some level you agree with the "I-Word" folks that we are witnessing behaviour in the Executive Branch that in a very fundamental and insidious way attacks the very foundation of that "government of the people, by the people and for the people" that was Abraham Lincoln's "last, best hope" for humanity, in a secular, political sense. This is a perfect example of the misdirection I referred to above. Yet in a tactical sense your gut tells you not to push the wrong buttons on this. We've got to get our heads together to figure a strategy that lets your gut and your heart work in harmony on this.

Chuck in Houston