Giving A Pass On Terra

Hate to be off-topic to start. But finally they did it.

They sneaked a large free trade agreement, the largest since NAFTA, without the knowledge and approval of the American people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6516923.stm

Congress has one last chance to stop this disaster of an FTA from going into effect. Tell your representatives and Senators to oppose it.

Topic? There's a topic? When did that start happening?

Wow, TerraPass looks like a great get-rich-quick scheme preying on the guilt of liberals who are suddenly shocked by the consequences of living in a 21st century society.

People pay anywhere from $30 to $80 to feel better about their energy consumption on the idea that part of that money (after processing through the for-profit TerraPass business and satisfying its venture capitalists) might "tip the balance" for some corporation considering building a wind plant or purchasing hydro power.

Call me cynical but...no thanks.

Okay, you're cynical.

Our engines operate on gallons per HOUR

Yeah, but they're really big engines.

FYI, gang, John & Teresa Heinz Kerry are going to be on the Bill O'Reilly show tonight -- yeah, I know, I know -- to talk about their book, and we're going to be live-blogging it over at http://blog.johnkerry.com -- drop by and join us, though please do remember it's a family blog so keep your outraged obscenities to a minimum during the show -- and be sure you keep something soft nearby to pound your fists into so you don't break your hands (no, Mildred, the cat does not count in this regard)...

We had a great conference call with John and Teresa and I'll say more about it after I see them at Town Hall tomorrow night. My book arrived this morning and I'm looking forward to reading at least part of it before then.

I'm glad that John and Teresa are going into Fox territory. They know very well how Fox is but the idea is to get the message out there themselves. They are not saying anything that every American out there doesn't need to know!

John said they will also be going to Microsoft and Starbucks. That is good because those are big players in this area and they need to be made aware as well. I was also told by a friend that Costco is carrying their book in large amounts. Costco is a very "blue" company in a "green" area and this is good news.

It was wonderful to get to ask a question near and dear to my heart and work and that was about autism. More later.

ralpheh:

You might find this worth reading:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3192034

Of course, in all fairness, you might find these worth reading too:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-01-obama_N.htm?csp=34

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4352

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/2/01558/50343

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/1/135422/4038

FYI, I'm not advocating one candidate over another. I don't have a dog in this fight (well, not since January anyway), and E'beth ain't running for office so I'm not likely to anytime soon. So consider those links more of an eyes-wide-open kind of informational thang.

Also FYI, in re "This Moment On Earth" here's the podcast version of JK's interview on St. Louis radio station KMOX from earlier today:

http://podcast.kmox.com/kmox/360668.mp3

This is to Rick Albertson.
I've been appreciating the graphics on the site.

Observed bumper sticker:

I SUPPORT THE PEOPLE IN CHINA WHO MAKE MAGNETIC RIBBONS

from press release:

Kerry Joins Reid as Co-Sponsor of Feingold Measure to Change Course in Iraq
President's Stubborn Refusal to Change Policy Leaves Congress No Choice but to Change Policy

WASHINGTON D.C. – As President Bush promises a veto, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered the following statement today, announcing that he will cosponsor legislation introduced by Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to enforce a deadline for the redeployment of US troops.

“President Bush has once again decided to ignore reality and ignore the will of Congress by pledging to veto a new policy for Iraq,” said Kerry. “In the face of the Administration’s stubborn unwillingness to change course, the Senate has no choice but to force a change of course. Our brave American troops deserve nothing less than a policy that is equal to their sacrifice.

“I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of legislation that Senator Feingold plans to introduce which will change the military mission and enforce the Senate’s one year deadline for redeploying most U.S. troops from Iraq. The message it sends is simple: no more open ended commitment, no more putting American troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The American mission in Iraq will be to train Iraqis and chase Al Qaeda, not do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves. With this legislation, the Senate makes it clear we mean business.

“There is no military solution to the violence in Iraq, and a meaningful deadline is necessary to get Iraqis to stand up for Iraq and start making tough political compromises. I look forward to continuing the fight for a policy that can work in Iraq.”

Senator Kerry was an original co-sponsor with Senator Feingold in July of 2006 to set a one year deadline for the redeployment of most American combat troops. The original Kerry-Feingold legislation garnered 13 votes, and last week a similar bill earned a majority.

Then look at this:

Norman Solomon | While McCain Walks in McNamara's Footsteps
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040207R.shtml
Norman Solomon writes: "The media spectacle that John McCain made of himself in Baghdad on Sunday was yet another reprise of a ghastly ritual. Senator McCain expressed 'very cautious optimism' and told reporters that the latest version of the US war effort in Iraq is 'making progress.' Awakening from a 40-year nap, an observer might wonder how much has changed since the last war that the United States stumbled over because it could not win. The Congressional Record is filled with insistence that the lessons of Vietnam must not be forgotten. But they cannot be truly remembered if they were never learned in the first place."

Schoolgirls Massacred, Shiites Executed in Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040207S.shtml
A truck bomber carrying food supplies killed eight Iraqi schoolgirls and a baby in the northern oil city of Kirkuk on Monday as suspected Sunni militants executed 21 Shiite workers north of Baghdad. The attacks were the latest evidence of stepped-up sectarian and insurgent killings outside Baghdad, where a massive US-Iraqi security crackdown, now into its seventh week, has seen American officials boast about signs of progress.

Meanwhile in Utah:
Students of conservative Brigham Young University would rather not have Cheney speak there.

Blow for Bush as Supreme Court Clears Way for Action on Pollution
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=511142007

Friends of the Earth also just sent out a bulletin on this.

Good news!

Of course, in all fairness, you might find these worth reading too:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-01-obama_N.htm?csp=34

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4352

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/2/01558/50343

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/1/135422/4038

Posted by: Otter at April 2, 2007 06:54 PM

@@@@@@

Excellent work, Otter. Yes, this does make Obama look bad. But again as always, even among Democrats we must look, at the lesser of evils and Hillary has proven herself quite evil in the past 4 years.

That the Dems cannot field a reasonable, anti-war candidate is very disheartening and pushes the many intelligent and dedicated anti-war folks out of the Dem party. I know that Hillary couldn't give a damn about any of this - she desperately wants to be president - that is her only concern - and will find any political means necessary to accomplish this... (selling out to the pro-war independents and soft Republicans) BTW does Hillary have a comment on the inevitable Bush veto?? My guess is that it will be just like Obama's or maybe worse...

Regarding Hillary, I will go with Molly Ivins:

"NOT. BACKING. HILLARY."

EU slams US, Australia on climate change
April 3, 2007 - 8:39AM

The European Union is accusing the United States and Australia of hampering international efforts to tackle climate change.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/EU-slams-US-Australia-on-climate-change/2007/04/03/1175366198479.html

Well there is quite a disagreement between what Obama said according to the CNN story and the AP interview. Maybe an entire transcript should be released:

"My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course," the Democratic presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

Of course, the AP could've gotten this key passage horribly wrong:

If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops," Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday.

I just got done live-blogging the JK/THK interview on the Bill O'Lielly All-Spin-Zone Show. I feel like I need to go take a long hot shower now.

Jeebus, what a total f**ktard that man is.

As the links I included above pointed out, the quotes from the CNN interview with Obama and the AP interview with Obama are different in certain key ways. I suppose that could be due to bias or competency problems with one or both interviewers. Or, of course, Obama could just be inconsistent and triangulating his replies depending on who's interviewing him and in what sequence.

(By way of a disclaimer -- I am not anti-Obama. But I would be a liar if I didn't admit that I'm rather disappointed in him lately.)

Terrorists see the error of their ways, say Saudis
Ian Black, Riyadh
April 3, 2007

SAUDI Arabia claims to be winning its domestic war on terror with the help of a program of re-education and rehabilitation for hundreds of repentant al-Qaeda militants once led by Osama bin Laden.

Cont. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/terrorists-see-the-error-of-their-ways-say-saudis/2007/04/02/1175366160723.html

Posted by: Ralpheh at April 2, 2007 08:50 PM

Obama at least did not vote for the invasion of Iraq.

I don't have a dog in this fight, either, but I must admit that if EE supports JE until her dying day that message will get out loud and clear that they think this is a crucial election.

I suppose at this point my money is on JE. If EE doesn't get so ill he needs to stay home and comfort her. I think they are in this for the country, because no amount of pride could make someone give up the last years of his wife's life running for public office unless they both believed that they need to make a change NOW.

And I didn't even care for Edwards at first, but it speaks loud and clear if they are THAT committed that they would spend her last days on earth trying to make real change happen in this nation. My hat is off to them both. They just could take it.
IMHO, of course.

:-)

Gunns gets green light to sue greenies
April 3, 2007 - 11:44AM

The Victorian Supreme Court has cleared the way for Tasmanian timber giant Gunns to proceed with a lawsuit against 14 environmental campaigners.

Cont. .....
If you can afford it, you can desecrate whatever you wish in Australia.

here .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gunns-gets-green-light-to-sue-greenies/2007/04/03/1175366209177.html

Greenhouse gas ruling rejects Bush inaction
Washington
April 3, 2007 - 11:17AM

The US Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration today for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could encourage faster action in Congress on climate change and lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year.

Cont. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/greenhouse-gas-ruling-rejects-bush-inaction/2007/04/03/1175366207515.html

Suicide missions from us??? Surely not.

British pilots mull 'kamikaze' missions
April 3, 2007 - 1:33PM

Royal Air Force pilots were asked by a senior RAF official to consider flying so-called "kamikaze" flights as part of the war on terror, the British defence ministry confirmed today.

Air Vice-Marshal David Walker did not, however, say he would order his crews on suicide missions, a spokesman for the ministry stressed, saying that Walker was instead simply posing a scenario for pilots to think about.

more. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/british-pilots-mull-kamikaze-missions/2007/04/03/1175366216380.html

Thanks for the steady stream of Australian news feeds, woz, they definitely add a different perspective to the mix in here.

The news about Gunns is particularly troubling. Don't they control most of the island's forests by now as it is?

Otter, Yes. And because of the regulatory body investigating too much and taking too long - Gunns pulled the plug and was going to Victoria (good riddance) but BOTH parties in state government are prepared to sell their souls to get the mill. They sacked the authorised and legitimate examiners of the plan, and instilled a group of people paid to come up with the Yes within a week. They did. The fight is not over though.

The EU damned John Howard on his refusal - with buddy George - to sign the Kyoto protocol. Howard is stomping his feet and saying intelligent things like, "you did worse!" and stomped off slamming the door. That's the image I got anyway.

This detailed NYT article helps to explain part of the logic behind operations like TerraPass -- they're helping to channel wealth from countries that have most of it to countries that have most need of it when it comes to combating the destructive effects of climate change. It's no secret that the parts of the world that are most at risk from global warming are the least able to endure its upheavals. And while the purchasing and proper use of carbon offsets are far from ideal in some ways, they're essential in others. It's not a clear-cut, black-and-white issue... but then again, few critical and complex issues ever are.

---------------

The Climate Divide:
Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming

New York Times, April 2, 2007 -- http://tinyurl.com/34qkwv

Over the last few decades, as scientists have intensified their study of the human effects on climate and of the effects of climate change on humans, a common theme has emerged: in both respects, the world is a very unequal place.

In almost every instance, the people most at risk from climate change live in countries that have contributed the least to the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to the recent warming of the planet.

Those most vulnerable countries also tend to be the poorest. And the countries that face the least harm —- and that are best equipped to deal with the harm they do face -— tend to be the richest.

To advocates of unified action to curb greenhouse gases, this growing realization is not welcome news.

“The original idea was that we were all in this together, and that was an easier idea to sell,” said Robert O. Mendelsohn, an economist at Yale. “But the research is not supporting that. We’re not in it together.”

[snip]

But a bigger factor is their wealth —- wealth built at least partly on a century or more of burning coal, oil and the other fossil fuels that underlie their mobile, industrial, climate-controlled way of life.

The United States, where agriculture represents just 4 percent of the economy, can endure a climatic setback far more easily than a country like Malawi, where 90 percent of the population lives in rural areas and about 40 percent of the economy is driven by rain-fed agriculture.

[snip]

Disparities like these have prompted a growing array of officials in developing countries and experts on climate, environmental law and diplomacy to insist that the first world owes the third world a climate debt.

The obligation of the established greenhouse-gas emitters to help those most imperiled by warming derives from the longstanding legal concept that “the polluter pays,” many experts say.

“We have an obligation to help countries prepare for the climate changes that we are largely responsible for,” said Peter H. Gleick, the founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Berkeley, Calif. His institute has been tracking trends like the burst of new desalination plants in wealthy places running short of water.

“If you drive your car into your neighbor’s living room, don’t you owe your neighbor something?” Dr. Gleick said. “On this planet, we’re driving the climate car into our neighbors’ living room, and they don’t have insurance and we do.”

[snip]

---------------

if we break it we have to fix it,
Otter

This, on the other paw, is some good news for Mother Earth at least:

--------------

Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases

New York Times, April 2, 2007 —- http://tinyurl.com/33k4nv

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

[snip]

----------------

out of the lying pan into the fire,
Otter

Since the dawn of time, the have-nots have paid the price for the comforts of the haves. And now suddenly, leaders like Australia's John Howard are saying, "It is irresponsible and unfair to expect Australia to reach a level of carbon emissions that will never be matched by other countries like India and China.

Blah, Blah. Howard has been saying this since he first refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. It seems that the US and Australia are isolated from the world in this. Especially now that the European Union has complained loudly about our contribution to global warming.

It's hard to get leaders to take on these issues. John Howard loves to organise Panels to come together and write a Report about ..... about ..... well, it depends what the media happens to be criticising today. So, Howard got a Panel of half a dozen pro nuclear scientists to write a report that would see Australia selling our abundance of Uranium to all and sundry and lighting up the world at the same time! He stacked the reporting deck with all who agree with him.

Thus he, John Howard, would single-handedly end Global Warming and balance the Climate in one swoop. And Australia would be the richest nation on the planet into the bargain. John Howard, Australian Prime Minister has the grandiose arrogance of Norman Lindsay's Magic Pudding with the appearance of Bunyip Bluegum, another character.

NOW we have an alternative for the election at the end of this year.

Kevin Rudd speaks Chinese fluently and, having worked and lived there for a few years, he has a great affection for it. Rather than criticise China's newfound opportunities as disastrous for global warming, he sees the challenge as being of value to all of us. A partnership between China and Australia on this issue will bring together the two countries in probably the most important crisis this planet has ever faced. He plans to take a delegation to China including scientists, economists, environmentalists and meeting with similar groups in China to come up with plans timelines and progress on the issue. Working together is his plan.

The current PM says that he's being economically irresponsible. You know - he's the guy with the spin but no substance.

How bogus letter became a case for war
Intelligence failures surrounded inquiry on Iraq-Niger uranium claim

By Peter Eisner
washingtonpost.com
Updated: 42 minutes ago

It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous -- later retracted -- 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush's remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa?

Burba felt uneasy because more than three months earlier, she had turned over to the U.S. Embassy in Rome documents about an alleged uranium sale by the central African nation of Niger. And she knew now that the documents were fraudulent and the 16 words wrong.

Nonetheless, the uranium claim would become a crucial justification for the invasion of Iraq that began less than two months later. When occupying troops found no nuclear program, the 16 words and how they came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war.

Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available to them at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable.

In February 2002, the CIA received the verbatim text of one of the documents, filled with errors easily identifiable through a simple Internet search, the interviews show. Many low- and mid-level intelligence officials were already skeptical that Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The interviews also showed that France, berated by the Bush administration for opposing the Iraq war, honored a U.S. intelligence request to investigate the uranium claim. It determined that its former colony had not sold uranium to Iraq.

Burba, who had no special expertise in Africa or nuclear technology, was able to quickly unravel the fraud. Yet the claims clung to life within the Bush administration for months, eventually finding their way into the State of the Union address.

As a result of the CIA's failure to firmly discredit the document text it received in February 2002, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was called in to investigate the claim. That decision eventually led to the special counsel's investigation that exposed inner workings of the White House and ended with the criminal conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was forced to resign as chief of staff to Vice President Cheney.

"You know I feel bad about it," Burba said later, discussing her frustrations about her role in giving the dossier to the Americans. "You know the fact is that my documents, with the documents I brought to them, they justified the war."

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17902403/

Troops sent back to Iraq after short break
Stretched Army making large units return without a year at home

WASHINGTON - For just the second time since the war began, the Army is sending large units back to Iraq without giving them at least a year at home, defense officials said Monday. The move signaled how stretched the U.S. fighting force has become.

A combat brigade from New York and a Texas headquarters unit will return to Iraq this summer in order to maintain through August the military buildup President Bush announced earlier this year. Overall, the Pentagon announced, 7,000 troops will be going to Iraq in the coming months as part of the effort to keep 20 brigades in the country to help bolster the Baghdad security plan. A brigade is roughly 3,000 soldiers.

The Army will try not to shorten the troops' U.S. time, "but in this case we had to," said a senior Army official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

"Obviously right now the Army is stretched," the official said.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17921553/

Gee whiz, Mr.'s Cheney, Bush and all stay-the-course dittoheads, do ya think maybe the "enemy" is just in a stall offense with no end in sight so as to allow the self-professed political war geniuses in this country to continue to stretch our military defenses to the absolute limit, while simultaneously bleeding our economic and diplomatic resources dry?

They can wait us out, without a timeline, believe me... these are very patient people... and their goals are being met quite easily, thanks in no small part to the not-so-rightfully elected leaders of your YOU-KNIGHTED STATES OF AMURKA!

Don't mean to be Coy, Roy.

Now THIS is interesting....

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A senior Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said on Tuesday that the government was "intensively" seeking release of five Iranians detained by the U.S. military more than two months ago in northern Iraq.

"We are intensively seeking the release of the five Iranians," the senior official said.

"This will be a factor that will help in the release of the British sailors and marines" held by Iran since March 25.

The official also said that the Iraqi government had exerted pressure on those holding an Iranian diplomat, who was released Monday and returned to Tehran on Tuesday. The official would not say who had held the diplomat.

The U.S. military has said the five Iranians, who were arrested January 11 in the northern city of Irbil, were part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard force that provides funds, weapons and training to Shiite militias in Iraq.

Two days after the raid, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said President Bush approved the strategy of raiding Iranian targets in Iraq as part of efforts to confront Tehran.

Iran had insisted that the five detained Iranians were engaged exclusively in consular work.

The Iranian diplomat who was released on Monday was kidnapped in mysterious circumstances two months ago. (Full story)

Iranian authorities reported the release of Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, and said he would return to Tehran later Tuesday.

An official at the Iranian embassy confirmed Sharafi's release, but said he did not know who was responsible for freeing him.

"He was kidnapped and I don't have further details," said the official, who added Sharafi had already left the country.

"He was released yesterday [Monday]," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity for not being authorized to speak to the media.

Sharafi was seized on February 4 when his car was intercepted by vehicles carrying armed men in the Karradah district of Baghdad. The gunmen, who wore Iraqi uniforms, forced him into one of their vehicles and sped away.

Iran said he had been taken by an Iraqi military unit commanded by the U.S. forces, and said it was holding the Americans responsible for his safety.

The U.S. authorities denied any role in his disappearance.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/03/iraq.iranians.ap/index.html

Of course we should believe the U.S. authorities, seeing as how they've been so bloody honest from the start.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is investigating a report of a former FBI agent missing in Iran, officials said Monday.

The U.S. citizen went missing more than a week ago and hasn't been in touch with his family or employer, the State Department said.

The missing man retired from the FBI about 10 years ago. As a former FBI agent, he followed organized crime in the United States, but was not involved in intelligence matters, said Paul Bresson, an FBI spokesman.

The American is believed to have been in Iran working for an independent author/producer, trying to set up an interview, according to several senior U.S. officials.

"We don't see any linkage whatsoever between this case and any other ongoing cases that may have been in the news recently," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, apparently referring to the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized by Iran more than a week ago.

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/02/iran.missing/index.html

Ummmmmm.....

And then there's this news reported just 32 minutes ago...

Iranian Diplomat Is Said to Be Released in Iraq
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- An Iranian diplomat in Iraq seized two months ago by uniformed gunmen has been released, Iran reported Tuesday, while in Baghdad a senior foreign ministry official said his government was ''intensively'' seeking the release of five Iranians detained there by the U.S.

The developments came as British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the next two days would be ''fairly critical'' to resolving the dispute over a British navy crew seized by Iran.

The Iraqi official also said Iraq had exerted pressure on those holding the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was released Monday and returned to Tehran on Tuesday. The official would not say who had held the diplomat.

A senior government official, however, said Iraqi intelligence had held the Iranian diplomat. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Diplomat-Seized.html?hp

P.S. to monkey --

Monkey tunes make great road trip music. It's a tested fact.

Posted by: madame defarge at April 3, 2007 09:31 AM

Drivability is a pre-wreck ;-)

Glad you likey... need more?

From the desk of The Uniter/Decider, via cnn.com...

Source: Bush to escalate fight over Iraq funds

President Bush today is expected to escalate his war of words with Congress over funding for U.S. troops in Iraq by pointing out that it's been almost 60 days since he first requested the funds, a senior administration official said. Bush will make his case during remarks for reporters set for 10:10 a.m. ET in the White House Rose Garden.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush pressed Congress Tuesday to send him an Iraq war funding bill he could sign, that doesn't include a deadline for troop withdrawal.

"To succeed in their mission, our troops need Congress to provide the resources, funds and equipment they need to fight our enemies," Bush said during remarks at the White House.

The president reminded lawmakers it has been 57 days since he first requested war funds.

Bush is threatening to veto any funding bill that sets a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, even if the bill contains vital war money.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/03/senate.funds/index.html

Daddy Warbucks, Jr. just wants his moolah to use on Mullahs.

Kill Bill.

Bush signals displeasure with House Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria

boofrickinhoo

Bush challenges Congress on Iraq war bill
President calls Dems' stance ‘unacceptable,’ chides Pelosi over Syria trip

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush expressed frustration on Tuesday with the congressional debate on Iraq war spending and accused majority-party Democrats of being “more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need.”

Bush, speaking with reporters in the Rose Garden of the White House, renewed his veto threats on both House and Senate spending bills.

The president, condemning the “political dance” of protracted funding debate, threw down the gauntlet to a recalcitrant Democratic Congress, challenging the body to send him an Iraq spending bill he could sign by mid-May “without strings” and without delay.

“If Congress does not act, the Army may have to delay formation of new combat teams,” he said. The president called it "irresponsible for the Democratic leadership" to continue delaying the funding for the war.

“That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it's unacceptable to the American people,” he said.

“Debating these differences should not come at the expense of our troops,” Bush said. “Congress shouldn’t tell generals how to run the war.”

“Delays beyond April and into May will affect the readiness of the American military. Enough politics,” he said.

Battle with Hill
Bush and Congress have been wrestling for the upper hand in the Iraq war debate, with neither side willing to back down and a top Democrat saying for the first time he wants to yank money for combat.

The president's remarks came one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who previously has stopped short of saying he would support measures to cut off funds, announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline to end combat.

“Congress is exercising its legitimate authority as it sees fit right now,” Bush said in the Rose Garden. “I just disagree with their decision. Sending an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It sends mixed signals, bad signals.”

more on...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17927101/

Uh, follow up question, sir if that's still allowed...
Does Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, secret renditions and torture send equally, if not "more badder" signals, as you might say?

I really need to shut up now, huh?

William Rivers Pitt | And Then, Something Went Bump
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040307J.shtml
William Rivers Pitt on Congress's surprisingly effective tactics on Iraq: "It took a while for the truth of what happened in all this to sink in, for the real muscle behind this withdrawal legislation to show itself. The fact of the matter is plain: The only people in America not talking about leaving Iraq are the ones in the White House and Pentagon because they never intended to leave in the first place and want no part of any exit plan, no matter how bloody and awful it gets over there. Therefore, no withdrawal plan can be effected in a tactical sense until the Bush administration is forced into abandoning its stay-forever pipe dreams."

{{{So, essentially ending the illegal war/occupation with these false deadlines is a load of crap. And Democrats know it.}}}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aziz-huq/supreme-court-rewards-adm_b_44791.html
Supreme Court Rewards Administration's Delay and Obfuscation Strategy On Guantánamo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-neffinger/democrats-vs-science-wh_b_44733.html
Democrats vs. Science: Why We're So Damn Good at Losing Elections
Excerpt:
The NES data tell us that voters are making their choices based on how they feel about candidates personally, not whether or not they agree on issues. And the brief image experiments tell us that those feelings are strongly influenced by completely non-verbal factors like posture, gestures, facial expressions and appearance.

Yeah I heard on NPR that McCain and his homies staged a photo op to show that the Bagdad market that was formerly bombed was now safe. A guy who has a stall there later told AP that the area had been blocked off and guarded by soldiers while the dignitaries filmed themselves saying it was as safe as Indiana.

It's the same kind of thing they did when the Saddam statue was "toppled" in the town square, and uncannily reminiscence of the staged appearance of our fake Commander in Chief on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit.

What are we to believe?!

Posted by: not my president at April 3, 2007 11:48 AM

Absolutely nuthin', say it again...

"If Congress fails to pass a bill that I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment, equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces" - GWB, 4-3-07

Let's see, YOU under-equipped them in the first place, YOU sent the quality of life for our Guard and Reserve forces into the toilet, and ENDED the quality of life for thousands.

What else ya got?

Oh, and where's all the money ya got so far?

Declashizzle Of Independance

We hold these truths ta be self-evizzles, tizzy all men is created equal, that They is endowed by they Creator wit certain unalienable Rights, thizzat among These is Life, Liberty, n tha pursuit of Happiness.

Boo-Yaa!

http://www.gizoogle.com/showtrans.php?id=12

Kerry Defends Speaker Pelosi Against White House Attacks

WASHINGTON D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) issued the following statement today, defending Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) against White House attacks concerning her trip to Syria. Senator Kerry traveled to Syria with Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on a Middle East tour in December 2006, where they met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Senator Kerry’s statement is below:

“America would be stronger if the White House started listening to Speaker Pelosi, Secretary James Baker, countless Republicans and everyone else who understands that effective foreign policy often requires talking with countries who aren't our friends.

“Senator Specter has visited Syria. A Republican Congressional delegation was in Damascus this past weekend. In fact, until this administration came along, treating dialogue as a means rather than an end used to be Foreign Policy 101.

“There is certainly no guarantee that we can turn Syria into a more constructive force in the region, but the current policy only guarantees more of the same. The Baker Hamilton Commission found potential for cooperation with Syria in averting a disaster in Iraq. That potential should be put to the test. Washington can't remain on the sidelines. Conversation is not capitulation.

“Conversation can be worthwhile, and it’s clearer by the day that the Baker Hamilton Commission’s recommendation of resuming direct dialogue with Syria should be pursued. I hope Speaker Pelosi will debrief the Administration, so they may see the merit of this approach.”

Looking forward to hearing more from the man
tonight!!!

CONCORD, N.H. - Elizabeth Edwards wants to be clear: She made the choice to stick with her husband's campaign for president after learning her cancer was back.

"I think that people who are critical like to think that John dragged me kicking and fighting the whole way, that I'm somehow disappointed in this. I'm not disappointed in this," she said on Monday.

Speaking to reporters after her husband's town hall meeting at Concord High School, Edwards, 57, said at decision time, she went first.

"He let me make it first, I think, because he wanted to make certain it was mine and I wasn't just deferring to him," she said. "This is what I wanted to do."

As for criticism of their decision: "I don't worry for me because we've got tough skin. And, honestly, having been through the death of a child, it's just words. You want to hurt us, you're going to have to do a little better than that."

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17927107/

Kerry talks the talk as well as he walks the walk:

---------------

WASHINGTON D.C. -- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered the following statement today, following President George Bush’s press conference.

“The President’s promise of a veto rings as tragically hollow as his pledge of ‘mission accomplished,’” said Kerry. “Congress must enforce a one year deadline for redeploying most U.S. troops from Iraq. President Bush stubbornly refuses to change the disastrous policy in Iraq, so this Congress has no choice but to force a change in course. No more open ended commitment, no more leaving American troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The American mission in Iraq will be to train Iraqis and chase Al Qaeda, not do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves. Unlike this administration, when it comes to standing by our troops, we mean business.

“An administration that misled America into war is once again trying to mislead when it comes to supporting our troops. If the President uses his veto, he is the one denying funding for our troops. Our brave American troops deserve nothing less than a policy that is equal to their sacrifice. Congress has done its job, now the Administration needs to do its job and force Iraqi politicians to do their job. Get the funds to our troops, and get Iraqis to achieve the political compromise this misguided escalation was supposed to make possible.

“The President says he sent more troops into Baghdad to give the Iraqi government ‘breathing space,’ to find a political solution to the civil war. But where is the progress in meeting key political benchmarks -– and where is the accountability for squabbling Iraqi politicians? American soldiers should not die while the Iraqis refuse to compromise.”

---------------

not that the wingnuts are listening anyway, but...
Otter

"tragically hollow"
He got that right!

I will be attending a reception with JK and THK before the Science talk and am excited!

Just popping in and noticing the discussion above of Obama's comments on the bill to set a time limit on the war in Iraq. I think it might just be a good idea for some on here who support Obama to look into his voting record in the past, and not into his lovely eyes when he gives those magnificent speeches. The man is only marginally more liberal than Hillary Clinton.
There is a democratic candidate out there who is an alternative to the ideas of Hillary, but it ain't Obama. It's John Edwards. And judging from the size of the group that we had at our meet-up here in Pensacola last Wednesday, he has a real chance to overthrow Ms Hillary and Mr Obama when the primaries come around. He is also, btw, ahead in the polls in Iowa and in second place in New Hampshire. I fully believe he'll be the nominee by Feb 5 of next year. At any rate, check out Obama's voting record. You'll be disappointed in him- that much I can guarantee.

"NOT. BACKING. HILLARY."

Posted by: Ralpheh at April 2, 2007 08:50 PM

That's why I just can't understand why the establishment is pushing her. Or is it the MSM "machine"? Or are one in the same?

I don't know of one single person who likes her. Most people I know vehemently dislike her.

Only one Dem I know said she "might have a chance."

It's the establishment's way of cheating us out of a decent candidate. Maybe JK saw the writing on the wall.

I echo the remarks by NMP about the excellent graphics on the blog, Mr. Albertson. Great thought provoking articles as thread headers, too, and very timely and on top of the news curve.

Thank you very much.

Subject: The Power of Nightmares

finally available on Google Video

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430484/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430484/quotes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430484/usercomments


Ten Minute Excerpt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5452020581246129089&q=the
+power+of+nightmares&hl=en

An Hour, or 2, or 3...... a bit much? or a contemporary history
lesson....

The Power of Nightmares - Part 1
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+of+nightmares&hl=en

Part 2 ( can skip 90 second intro )
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876&q=the
+power+of+nightmares&hl=en


Part 3 ( can skip 90 second intro )
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&q=the
+power+of+nightmares&hl=en

or rent it.... ( also available from Amazon. etc. )
http://www.scarecrow.com/search/search_rental.asp?Search=Power+of
+Nightmares

Re Clinton, Obama, Edwards
I will definitely have to vote for the Democrat.
I would love to see Richardson or Biden.

Posted by: not my president at April 5, 2007 09:18 AM

I'm sorry NMP, but I don't like Biden. I think he has been obnoxious and a politicians politician and comes across as etostical and arrogant and wishy washy to me. He has an actor, I'm afraid. At least that's my honest opinion.
He has turned me off.

Richardson seems to laid back to me, and I don't know if he even carried his state in '04. Don't think he has it.

Leaning towards Edwards because of his conviction of purposed while faced with Elizabeth's serious condidtion. What a way to go out.....telling the TRUTH all the way.....what can they do to him? And knowing Elizabeth, even when she gets ill she'll give it all she's got, and tell the truth about why she's doing it. It can be her legacy. I am hopeful!