Will Iran be HIllary's War?

Hillary Clinton Votes for War Again
Hillary Rodham Bush the dynasty might continue it's up to us to stop her!!

Tuesday by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. This is the second such endorsement of the president by a senate majority in just three months. In July, the Lieberman amendment to "confront Iran" passed with the far stronger majority of 97-0.
The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to "combat, contain, and roll back" the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words "roll back" were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran; and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say "that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."
The inclusion of Hezbollah deserves some notice. It is part of a larger attempt, already apparent in the Lebanon war of 2006, to manufacture an "amalgam" of all the enemies of Israel and the United States throughout the region, and to treat them all as one enemy. Those who believe in the amalgam will come to agree that many more wars by the United States and Israel are needed to crush this enemy.
More provocative is a secondary detail of the amendment, which received less notice from the mainstream media. Kyl-Lieberman approves the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a "foreign terrorist organization." Now, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is the largest branch of the Iranian military. By granting Vice President Cheney's wish (a distant dream in 2005) to put the Iranian guard on the U.S. terrorist list, the Senate has classified the army of Iran as an army of terrorists. The president, therefore, as he follows out the Cheney plan has all the support he requires for asserting in his next speech to an army or veterans group that Iran is a nation of terrorists.
It was said during the Vietnam War that "a dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong." It will assuage the conscience for U.S. bombers of Iran to know that a dead Iranian is a terrorist. The Senate, by this classification, has absolved the bombers in advance.
Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq.
Here are the senators who voted against Kyl-Lieberman:
Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)
John McCain and Barack Obama did not vote.
It is a remarkable fact that the war meditated against Iran, like the war on Iraq, is sought most keenly by a vice president and president who went further than most of their generation to avoid serving their country in Vietnam. The fact becomes the more remarkable in view of the contempt shown by both men for those who did not cheer and avoid, but opposed the Vietnam war by conscientious dissent. The same is true across the range of non-combatant neoconservative war architects and propagandists. Psychological compensation of an astonishing kind (to say no more) is at work in this display of rashness disguised as courage in the later careers of our war leaders behind the lines. For several years now, the mainstream press and media have said as little as possible about it.
Two votes against Kyl-Lieberman were issued from veterans with considerable experience and firsthand knowledge of war, Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb. If these two men were now to sharpen their dissidence, if they could make their reasons articulate and see the present as a time that calls them to the sustained work of opposition-- we might have the beginnings of a potent resistance which will never come from Harry Reid.
What of the absence of Barack Obama? In a speech in Iowa on September 12, he addressed by anticipation the matter before the Senate in Kyl-Lieberman: "We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear--loud and clear--from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."
It is baffling that a man who spoke those words two weeks ago could not find the time or the resolve to cast his vote in a conspicuous test for authorizing war on Iran. This seems to be one more demonstration of Obama's tendency never to take a step forward without a step to the side. As for his own message about Iran, it has not been "loud and clear," but muffled, wavering, experimental.
With Hillary Clinton, we know where we stand. Yesterday she voted to bring the country a serious step closer to war against Iran. And she did so for the same reason that she voted to authorize the war on Iraq. She thinks the next war is going to happen. She hopes the worst of its short-term effects on America will have died down before the election. She suspects the media and voters will show more trust for a candidate who supported than for one who opposed the war. She wants a ponderous establishment of American troops and super-bases to remain in the Middle East for years to come. If she wins the presidency, she will inherit the command of that army and those bases, and she believes she can manage their affairs more prudently than George W. Bush.
Hillary Clinton is consistent. Every move is calculated, her actual intentions are masked, but the total drift is easy to comprehend. It is not so with Obama. How can he expect anyone to back a man who will not back himself?

_______________________________________

Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile
27.09.07
George Bush was convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile
Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.
But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.
Only yesterday, the Bush administration asked Congress for another £100billion to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The total war bill for British taxpayers is expected to reach £7billion by next year.
More than 3,800 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, along with 170 Britons and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
However, according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.
"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.
"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."
Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."
But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."
Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.
The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.
Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".
Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."
The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.
"The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."
Days before the invasion began on March 22, 2003, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his henchmen should go into exile.
It was the first time the plan had been officially voiced but it was drowned out in the drumbeat of war.
A spokesman for Mr Aznar's foundation had no comment on its authenticity.
Bomb attacks killed 57 people in Iraq yesterday.

World"s Policeman

As of Tuesday I was softening my position on Hillary but after her vote on Wednesday to open the door to confrontation military if not downright war aginst Iran I have changed my mind. I believe she could be dangerous to the peace of the world and that she would continue Bush's War in Iraq.
Should she get the nomination I will need to vote for another party perhaps the independent or Green party
This below is from last nights debate in New Hampshire:
One of the sharpest exchanges came over a vote in the Senate on Wednesday on a resolution urging President Bush to designate the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Clinton supported the measure, Biden and Dodd opposed it. Obama did not vote.
"I am ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it," said former senator Mike Gravel of Alaska.
When Clinton defended the vote as something that could lead to sanctions against a group responsible for manufacturing weapons that are being used against U.S. forces in Iraq. But Edwards challenged her for that vote.
"I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war," he said. "And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war. We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran."
_____________________________________

We have been in Korea since 1947 we have still about 50,000 soldiers there. We are paying billions of dollars a year to keep them there because it is good for the Korean economy! When is all this going to stop? We have to borrow most of that money to the extent that China and Japan actually own us.

Dems Can't Make Guarantee on Iraq Troop
HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.
"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
Foreign policy blended with domestic issues at the debate on a Dartmouth College stage, and several of the contenders endorsed payroll tax increases to assure a stable Social Security system.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, as well as Dodd, Obama and Edwards all said they would apply the tax to income now exempted.
Richardson said he wouldn't and Clinton refused to say. "I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table" unilaterally, she said.
Current law levies a 6.2 percent payroll tax only on an individual's first $97,500 in annual income.
Biden also said he was willing to consider gradually raising the retirement age, which is now 67.
Kucinich said that while he favors taxing additional income, he wants to return the retirement age to 65, where it stood until the law was changed in 1983.
Health care, and the drive for universal coverage, also figured in the debate.
"I intend to be the health care president," said Clinton, adding she can now succeed at an undertaking that defeated her in 1993 when she was first lady.
But Biden said that unnamed special interests were no more willing to work with Clinton now than they were more than a decade ago.
"I'm not suggesting it's Hillary's fault...It's reality," he said, carefully avoiding a personal attack on the Democrat who leads in the polls.
Biden said a "lot of old stuff comes back" from past battles, adding, "when I say old stuff I mean policy. Policy."
Across the stage, Clinton smiled at that.
The moment was not the only one in which attention turned to the former first lady, a campaign front-runner bidding to become the first woman president.
Asked whether presidential libraries and foundations should disclose their donors, she said she had sponsored legislation requiring it. Asked whether her husband's foundation should voluntary disclose, absent a requirement, she said, "you'll have to ask them."
"I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband," she added.
She seemed to suggest differently at another point, after being asked whether she would ever approve torturing a suspected terrorist to prevent the detonation of a big bomb.
She said no, and Russert said former President Clinton, her husband, once suggested it might be appropriate.
"Well, he's not standing here right now," she said, an edge in her voice.
There is a disagreement, Russert rejoined.
"Well, I'll talk to him later," she said with a smile.
A question about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 drew a cheer from the students listening in the Dartmouth auditorium.
And expressions of support only from former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska and Kucinich.
The opening question of the two-hour debate instantly plunged the eight contenders into the issue that has dominated all others - the war in Iraq.
With the primary season approaching, all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign progresses.
Edwards said his position on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would "immediately drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops." That's roughly half the 100,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated could be stationed there when President Bush's term ends in January 2009.
Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton's, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.
"I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq," he said.
Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.
Asked whether they were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must be exhausted in the effort.
Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's pledge to set back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing.
Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," said Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"He's the most uninformed person on foreign policy that's now running for president."
The debate unfolded in the state that has held the first presidential primary in every campaign for generations.
The contest is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22, but that is expected to change as other states maneuver for early voting position in the campaign calendar.
_______________________________________
Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile 27.09.07
If true Bush and Blair should be prosecuted as War Criminals!
Saddam Hussein is said to have offered to go into exile for $1bn
George Bush was convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile
Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.
But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.
Only yesterday, the Bush administration asked Congress for another £100billion to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The total war bill for British taxpayers is expected to reach £7billion by next year.
More than 3,800 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, along with 170 Britons and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
However, according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.
"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.
"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."
Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."
But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."
Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.
The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.
Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".
Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."
The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.
"The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."
Days before the invasion began on March 22, 2003, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his henchmen should go into exile.
It was the first time the plan had been officially voiced but it was drowned out in the drumbeat of war.
A spokesman for Mr Aznar's foundation had no comment on its authenticity.
Bomb attacks killed 57 people in Iraq yesterday.

Polls and Such

Some better Poll numbers for HIllary Supporters

Virginia is a bona fide 2008 battleground state
by kos
Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 11:50:55 AM PDT
Another one of those SUSA swing-state matchups, this one for Virginia.
VIRGINIA 13 Electoral Votes; 2004 results: Bush 54, Kerry 45

Obama 46 Obama 45 Obama 50
Giuliani 45 Thompson 47 Romney 38
Clinton 50 Clinton 50 Clinton 53
Giuliani 44 Thompson 43 Romney 38
Edwards 48 Edwards 49 Edwards 52
Giuliani 43 Thompson 39 Romney 33
Edwards does really well in all these polls. Don't they know he got a haircut!!!!
_______________________________________
SUSA's Wisconsin matchups
by kos
Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:35:41 AM PDT
WISCONSIN 10 Electoral Votes; 2004 results: Bush 49, Kerry 50

Obama 46 Obama 48 Obama 52
Giuliani 43 Thompson 43 Romney 37
Clinton 48 Clinton 47 Clinton 50
Giuliani 44 Thompson 45 Romney 41
Edwards 44 Edwards 49 Edwards 52
Giuliani 45 Thompson 40 Romney 34
Wisconsin, as usual, is going to make the candidates work hard for its electoral votes.
_______________________________________

After Brown Nosing around Bush and Petraues in Iraq and watching her viewer numbers drop she recants her former approval of the way things are in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday evening, CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric pulled back the curtain on her personal views of both the war in Iraq and former "Evening News" anchor Dan Rather.
"Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war," said Couric, adding that it is "pretty much accepted" that the war in Iraq was a mistake.
"I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda."
Further, Couric said the Bush administration botched the war effort, calling it "accepted truths" that it erred by"disbanding the Iraq military, and leaving 100,000 Sunni men feeling marginalized and angry...[and] whether there were enough boots on the ground, the feeling that we’d be welcomed as liberators and didn’t need to focus as much on security." She added "I’d feel totally comfortable saying any of that at some point, if required, on television."
The former "Today" show anchor traced her discomfort with the administration’s march to war back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in."
______________________________________

1 hour, 56 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is seeking nearly 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008, the largest war funding request ever in the six-year-old "war on terror," the Pentagon said Wednesday.
Gates was scheduled to testify later before a Senate committee on the request, which was 42.3 billion dollars greater than the administration's estimate when it presented its 2008 budget request in February.
"This additional 42.3 billion dollars puts us at just under 190 billion dollars for the global war on terror supplemental request for 2008 -- 189.3 billion dollars," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.
The increase was needed in part to cover the cost of maintaining the so-called surge in US forces at least through July 2008, as well as to buy mine-resistant armored vehicles known as MRAPs.
Currently there are 165,000 US troops in Iraq, organized around 20 combat brigades or their equivalent.

POLLS

From Daily Kos asked of readers.

2008: 9/24 straw poll results
by kos
Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:27:16 AM PDT
Having watched the straw poll results coming in the last few months, I've noted that once you have a certain sized sample -- a couple of thousand of respondents -- the numbers vary little until the poll hits the various candidate fan sites, message boards, and list-servs. Then, the numbers will move significantly as legions of supporters freep the poll.
So today, I'm cutting that process short, and having given the poll a little over an hour to run and over 6,000 votes (with results changing little since the 1,000th vote), I'm going to go ahead and post the "official" results. The numbers will change (the Obama people are best at delivering votes to the poll), but this is it:
dKos Reader Poll. 9/24 -- 9:49 a.m. to 11 a.m. PT. 6,318 respondents.
2007 2006 Sept Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Jul May
Edwards 39 34 36 40 39 42 38 26 35 28 15 8
Obama 21 29 27 22 24 25 26 25 28 28
H. Clinton 11 8 9 6 6 3 3 4 4 5 2 2
Dodd 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kucinich 6 7 4 3 2 2 2 4
Other 5 4 7 9 6 5 9 8 * * 3 6
No F'ing Clue 5 4 5 7 7 5 8 6 * * 3 4
Richardson 1 6 6 5 8 13 8 6 5 4 2 1
Biden 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
Gravel 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
Dodd gained some serious support, while Richardson collapsed into "Biden" territory. And check out Hillary, breaking into double-digits for the first time since July 25, 2005 in this poll.
Poll Final Talley

September straw poll
by kos
Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:49:17 AM PDT
Time for this month's edition of the Daily Kos Straw Poll. Here are August's results.
Top of Form 1
Poll
Who is currently your favorite 2008 candidate?
Barack Obama
22%
2362 votes
John Edwards
40%
4286 votes
Hillary Clinton
11%
1212 votes
Chris Dodd
7%
790 votes
Bill Richardson
1%
161 votes
Dennis Kucinich
7%
730 votes
Mike Gravel
1%
75 votes
Joe Biden
1%
146 votes
No Freakin' Clue
5%
502 votes
Other
5%
517 votes
10781 votes Vote Results
_______________________________________
Straw Poll As Shown

New SUSA State General Election Polls
by staff, September 24, 2007 02:26 PM EST
A few weeks ago the Survey USA polling firm released a big batch of state polls testing Hillary Clinton against the leading Republican presidential candidates. Now, via Kos, we learn that they are beginning to release new polls testing Obama and Edwards as well as HRC against the GOPers.
Today's installment focuses on MO, OH, IA and NM. While the general impression is that Edwards runs slightly better than his rivals in most head-to-heads, the startling numbers are from OH, where for some reason Barack Obama runs well behind HRC and Edwards, and trails Giluliani, Thompson and even Romney (Edwards beats the Mittster by 20 points; HRC beats him by 10).
If their previous releases are any indication, SUSA will probably release similar polls from other states in the next few days.

Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 11:07:18 AM PDT
This month, responding to the complaints, SUSA decided to poll other Democrats in key states besides Clinton.

MISSOURI 11 Electoral Votes; 2004 results: Bush 53, Kerry 46
Obama 46 Obama 48 Obama 51
Giuliani 44 Thompson 45 Romney 40
Clinton 45 Clinton 48 Clinton 51
Giuliani 48 Thompson 45 Romney 40
Edwards 47 Edwards 50 Edwards 56
Giuliani 42 Thompson 40 Romney 32

OHIO 20 Electoral Votes; 2004 results: Bush 51, Kerry 49
Obama 39 Obama 42 Obama 45
Giuliani 52 Thompson 50 Romney 46
Clinton 47 Clinton 48 Clinton 52
Giuliani 48 Thompson 47 Romney 42
Edwards 47 Edwards 52 Edwards 56
Giuliani 48 Thompson 43 Romney 36

IOWA 7 Electoral Votes; 2004 results: Bush 50, Kerry 49
Obama 50 Obama 51 Obama 51
Giuliani 42 Thompson 41 Romney 41
Clinton 50 Clinton 50 Clinton 50
Giuliani 42 Thompson 44 Romney 43
Edwards 53 Edwards 54 Edwards 54
Giuliani 39 Thompson 37 Romney 38

NEW MEXICO 5 Electoral Votes; 2004 results: Bush 50, Kerry 49
Obama 46 Obama 52 Obama 55
Giuliani 46 Thompson 41 Romney 36
Clinton 51 Clinton 53 Clinton 54
Giuliani 43 Thompson 42 Romney 39
Edwards 48 Edwards 52 Edwards 54
Giuliani 44 Thompson 37 Romney 34
At least in these states, at this point of the race, the GOP's best candidate is clearly Giuliani, and the Democrat with the best numbers is Edwards
_______________________________________
The country is still tribal in a lot of areas so maybe many Italians would vote for Giuliani regardless of party affiliation?

To Win or Not to Win

Yesterday morning, here in New York, all four major broadcast stations 2,4,5 and 7, ( I get suspicious when 5 the Fox station promotes any Democrat in any manner) interviewed Hillary Clinton from her home in Westchester County. The business conglomerants who own the air waves and other media, are shoving her down the throats of the Democrats. Why? Because she can't win the general election. If Hillary wins the nomination, and it appears she will, the Democrats lose and the Republicans win! I can't understand why the Democrats are allowing this to happen or maybe they aren't, the media is very powerful and they are pushing,pushing her on them.
Why the Democrats are willing to gamble on her when so much is at stake in the next election is beyond my comprehension.The country is ready for a change but a change of this magnitude?
Democrats could win and easily with any of the others running Edwards,Biden, Richardson or Dodd, but not Obama it is not the time for a black president. So instead of a sure thing they are going to take a gamble with Hillary and her near fifty percent disapproval rating, which will probably go up as more people start to pay attention to this election.
Hey lets face it she is not likable, even many Democrats ( me included) do not like her. Likability is VERY Important in American politics and is the main reason Kerry lost and Bush won.
The Democrats today are a minority party more people say they are conservative then liberal and liberal is the tag that has been placed on the Democrats for decades and they were at one time.But no longer.
Hillary, as is her hubby Bill, is a conservative, a hawk wants to keep troops in Iraq at high levels,believes big business should run the country, that Nafta is a success( it is for Mexico,remember Perots huge sucking sound of jobs leaving the country if Nafta enacted well it happened) and wants to expand it.She has too strong ties to the drug companies and the medical insurance businesses. She may well lose a lot of voters who say they are liberal and if you read the Democratic Blogs you will see they don't think she is electable! Prefering Edwards to all others especially Hillary,who comes in next to last..
.But I doubt that conservatives will vote for her nor will the Bubba's from any state in the Union. The Dems say they want to go after the Christian conservative vote, not with Hillary no way Jose, those folks think that a womans place is in the home kitchen baking cookies not running for president except maybe in the PTA.
Hillary on the recent debate on PBS,( on which she looked old, tired and not presidential,) was the only one who said she didn't think the carbon tax was a good way to get the industrial polluters to change their ways even though Al Gore says and other environmental groups say it is. Why the stance against it? Well it is her big business affiliations. Recently the CEO'S of major corporations who had been members of Bushs so called Rangers because of the money they brought in to his election campaign were moving to Hillary because she is pro big busines and they are hedging their bets..She was also the only one who said no to increasing the social security tax on those earning over 200,000 dollars, that hits those CEO's doesn't it.
Finally if she wasn't Bills wife would she be running or in a position to do so? I think not!



_______________________________________

COUNTDOWN
In Swing Districts, Democratic Enthusiasm Is Harder to Come By
By Chris Cillizza And Shailagh MurraySunday, September 23, 2007; Page A02
Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic voters are thrilled with their choices for president, bursting at the seams to rally behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or whoever gets the party's nod next year.
A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances.

A poll found that if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton tops the ticket in 2008, some vulnerable Democratic House incumbents will have reason to worry.
The poll was conducted in August but has not been previously reported. It paints a "sobering picture" for Democrats, according to a memo by Lake and Daniel Gotoff that accompanies the poll report.
Giuliani takes 49 percent to Clinton's 39 percent, while the former mayor's lead over Obama is far smaller, 41 percent to 40 percent. "Despite Obama's relative advantage over Clinton, both candidates are significantly underperforming against the generic Democratic edge in the presidential and even against party identification," Lake and Gotoff wrote.
_____________________________________
Galloway

Commentary: Bush fulfills H.L. Mencken's prophecy
By Joseph L. Galloway McClatchy Newspapers
It took just eight decades but H.L. Mencken's astute prediction on the future course of American presidential politics and the electorate's taste in candidates came true:
On July 26, 1920, the acerbic and cranky scribe wrote in The Baltimore Sun: " . . . all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily (and) adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

STYMIED ON THE WAR

If anything was clear from General Petraeus’s testimony and the president’s prime-time speech, it was that Mr. Bush has no idea how to end the war in a way that salvages as much as possible of America’s treasury, blood and global image while limiting the chaos that would follow any withdrawal, whether it comes quickly or slowly. Mr. Bush’s only idea is to keep the war going until he leaves office, and that means that other co-equal branch of government, the Congress, will have to lead the way out. ( NY Times) .

______________________________________

And two weeks later, Reid said:
Last night we sent him another bill that does not go as far as I and many of my colleagues would like, but it does begin the process of holding this President and the Iraqis accountable. This bill:
Ties our military strategy to the Iraqi government meeting 18 important political, economic and security benchmarks.
And by God, if those benchmarks weren't met there would be a real price to pay! But this wasn't enough for the angry left, so Reid explained to the critics that they had given them:
75 hearings on Iraq. [And don't forget all of those subpoenas that were authorized and never enforced]
The Walter Reed scandal brought to light, and steps taken to make it right. [Thank you Dana Priest and Ann Hull]
A supplemental bill sent to the President that set a firm policy to responsibly end the war. [Promptly abandoned after the veto]
A second supplemental that set benchmarks and voided the President’s blank check. [Yes, the crucial benchmarks that are no longer operative]
And in June, Reid said:
The American people cannot and should not have to wait until later this year for changes in your flawed Iraq policy. There is an obligation to act now. That is why we intend to again send you legislation that would limit the U.S. mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces, and bring the war to a responsible end.
And now as September winds to a close, with even more troops in Iraq and another $200 billion check waiting to be signed, Reid tells us:
We still have hope that we can come up with something that will get us a majority of the votes.
But it isn't all bad news. Twenty-two Senate Democrats did manage to whip themselves into a patriotic fervor yesterday and condemn a newspaper ad. Oh, and our powder is still dry.


We can only hope that they will find the will and the way! Too me impeachment is the only way to rid us of Bush-Cheny before 2009. If that is so another 1000 soldiers killed another 10,000 wounded and another 350 billion dollarss spent.
_____________________________________

Did you watch the Democratic Candidates debate last night on PBS? It was primarilly on health care was quite interesting and the candidates themselves seemed to be enjoying it. Their ideas were all similiar not much difference between them. I thought Biden won hands down and wish the media would pay more attention to him. Of course he doesn't have the money to really run a g00d race against money bags Clinton, who looked old, she should give up those pants suits. Actually the only time they really disagreeded was on a carbon tax on corporate polluters all were in favor except HILLARY! She also was against the rich paying social security tax on their higher incomes after a cutoff of say $200,000 and then continue until say $800,000. Shows why I think Hillary is Bush lite. She loves those corporations and the rich folks who run them. Also she is in favor of Mexican trucking in the US , one country between US. Mexico and Canada an expanding of the disastrous Nafta treaty.
______________________________________
Does this guy have to lie about everything even college grades?

Bush Claims He "Got A 'B' In Econ 101"
College Transcript Reveals He Got A 'C Minus'
At press conference, Bush revels in anti-intellectualism
Posted September 20th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Early on in this morning’s White House press conference, a reporter asked the president whether he believes there’s a risk of a recession. Bush replied, "You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low and being fiscally responsible with the people’s money."
As a factual matter, the president is mistaken (and not just because he got a C in Econ 101). ThinkProgress noted the many economists — including Alan Greenspan, Robert Shiller, and CBO Director Peter Orszag — who "have been predicting that the administration’s loose regulatory policies may soon lead to a recession."
For that matter, the very idea that Bush would boast of being "fiscally responsible" seems rather amusing, given that he turned the largest surpluses in U.S. history into the largest deficits in U.S. history.
But that’s not the part that struck me as interesting. That came later, when a reporter returned to the subject.
Q: Mr. President, back to your grade point average on holding the line on taxes –
BUSH: Whew, I thought you were going to talk about the actual grade point average. (Laughter.) I remind people that, like when I’m with Condi I say, she’s the Ph.D. and I’m the C-student, and just look at who’s the President and who’s the advisor. (Laughter.)
This is one of Bush’s very favorite jokes. Given the context, I suspect he doesn’t realize how ridiculous it is.
_______________________________________
Republican fidelity to Bush clearly frustrated Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who pleaded with GOP lawmakers before Wednesday’s votes to defect.
"Senators, please, don’t follow the White House talking points on this," he said. "This is Bush’s war. Don’t make it the Republican senators’ war."
In the aftermath of the votes, White House supporters appeared emboldened.

"It means that Congress will not interfere in the foreseeable future" in the war, said Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with Democrats but sides with Bush on the war.

Can't this guy get run over by a truck or something to take him out!

_______________________________________
On Moveon AD.
I thought that the ad was disgusting," a clearly agitated Bush said. "I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad.
"That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org -- are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military," he sa"That was a sorry deal," Bush concluded. "It's one thing to attack me. It's another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus."
Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org's Political Action Committee, took this as an invitation to accuse Bush himself of betrayal.
"What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war," Pariser said after the press conference.
"The president has no credibility on Iraq: he lied repeatedly to the American people to get us into the war. Most Americans oppose the war and want us to get out. Right now, there are about 168,000 American soldiers in Iraq, caught in the crossfire of that country's unwinnable civil war, and the president has betrayed their trust and the trust of the American people."

I too thought the AD was a bit over the top, but compared to Bush's War ??

FOX'S IN THE HEN HOUSE

Rep. Peter King: There are "too many mosques in this country"
New York Rep. Peter King, a prominent House Republican, said there are "too many mosques in this country" in a recent interview with Politico. "There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam," King said. "We should be looking at them more carefully and finding out how we can infiltrate them." King is the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. And as an outspoken advocate of strong anti-terror measures, he has been unafraid to ruffle some feathers in his drive to protect the homeland. When asked to clarify his statement, King did not revise his answer, saying "I think there has been a lack of full cooperation from too many people in the Muslim community." The interview was for a profile of the committee, as part of Politico’s Committee Insider Series. Earlier, King had said in an interview with radio and television host Sean Hannity that 85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by "extremist leadership," a comment that prompted strong condemnations



I agree with King ( rare that I agree with a Republican) these Mosques may be hot beds for training bombers, at the very least they spread their hate for all those not of their faith! They certainly aren't pro Americans or any other faith then theirs. To me it's like the Trojan horse we are inviting the enemy in. There is a push in some government agencys to speed up the immigration of Iraqis into this country. How do you tell the good ones from the bad ones? Iraq now is full of anti-American al quaeda and others bent on our destruction. We have churches, Buddhist Temples, Synagoues and other religious houses of worship, why not mosques? Because jews, christians, buddhists and others are not warring against us. To me permitting mosques here would be as if we allowed during WWII the Germans to set up training camps here because, I fear that is what these mosques are. It will probably not be too long before we have bombings here, car bombers, suicide bombers etc. Remember the 9/11 terrorists were here before the hi-jacking and some for years!
______________________________________

Rachel Carson's LegacyBill Moyers Programming Note
PBS Airtime: Friday, September 21, 2007, at 9 p.m. EDT on PBS (check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/airdates.html).
Bill Moyers Journal looks at the life and legacy of Rachel Carson and her book, "Silent Spring," which launched the modern environmental movement.
Forty-five years after the publication of Rachel Carson's landmark book, "Silent Spring," which launched the modern environmental movement, her disturbing story of how toxic chemicals were poisoning the earth still resonates. But who was Rachel Carson? And what can the ferocious debate she started and the vicious attacks she endured tell us about environmentalism in the 21st century? Bill Moyers Journal looks at the life and legacy of Rachel Carson through an extraordinary portrayal of her in a one-woman play performed by veteran stage actress Kaiulani Lee, whose play, "A Sense of Wonder," has been the centerpiece of regional and national conferences on conservation, education, journalism and the environment for more than ten years. The broadcast combines excerpts from the play, an interview with Lee and documentary reporting on Carson's life and work in a powerful look at this scientist, writer and seeker of the truth.
______________________________________

Standing on One Principle, Voting on Another
By Dana MilbankThursday, September 20, 2007
To paraphrase the immortal words of John Kerry, Sen. John Warner actually did vote to shorten the Iraq war before he voted to lengthen it.
Just two months ago, the courtly Virginia Republican went to the Senate floor and sided with his Democratic colleague from the commonwealth, Jim Webb, on a plan that would shorten troop deployments in Iraq. Yesterday, he went to the same place to announce that he would now vote against the same bill.
"I endorsed it," Warner said. "I intend now to cast a vote against it."
With those dozen words, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee put a surprise end to the latest efforts in Congress to limit the Iraq war.
Democrats had been hoping that Warner, who last month endorsed the start of a pullout from Iraq, would bring enough Republicans with him to vote for their best plan to accelerate the troop withdrawal: Webb's plan to limit the troops' deployments. But this effort, like previous ones, ended in failure.
"Senator Webb's amendment, I would say without any equivocation, is designed to help protect the concept of the all-volunteer force, and it was for that reason that I joined him," Warner explained in his discursive floor statement, which led to the conclusion that "I will have to cast a vote against my good friend's amendment."
Pro-war Republicans, who had been grumbling about Warner's perfidy for weeks, suddenly celebrated him as an American hero.
"Having now decided to change his vote on this particular amendment is of monumental importance and is the type of decision that makes all of us proud to serve in this great institution," Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) pronounced.
Webb was rather less pleased to discover that Warner had retreated from their shared foxhole. The White House "turned up the political heat, and that made people, like particularly Senator Warner, uncomfortable," he deduced.
And when did Webb learn of the betrayal? "Um," Webb replied, "he told me five minutes before the debate began this morning."
Webb should not have been surprised.
In January, Warner drafted a Senate resolution opposing President Bush's "surge" of additional troops into Iraq. Then, on Feb. 5, he voted against bringing up his own resolution for debate. The surge went ahead, unmolested. In the spring, Warner repeatedly flirted with opposition to Bush, but each time he returned to the fold.

Religious Danger

September 19 2007
Rewriting ‘God Bless America’

I noted earlier that the top four Republican presidential candidates angered the religious right by blowing the first-ever "Values Voter" debate. But my friends at Right Wing Watch reminded me that one of the most interesting parts of the debate wasn’t who was there, or what was said, but rather, the song that got the event started.
The clip is a rendition of "God Bless America," sung by the Church of God Choir, from Springfield, Ohio, but in this case, the lyrics were rewritten. Instead of a song about "the land that I love," and "home sweet home," this version condemns the country. The song received an enthusiastic and positive response from the conservative Republicans on hand for the event.
I know it gets tiresome to hear "if this were a Democrat…" but in this case, I think it’s particularly appropriate. I’m trying to imagine the response if a number of progressive activists groups got together to host a presidential candidate forum, and to kick things off, they sang a rewritten version of "God Bless America" that disparaged the United States and reprimanded the American people.
Do you suppose this would be the kind of thing that might be on Fox News? Maybe the presidential candidates on hand for the event would be asked whether they agreed with the song’s lyrical condemnation of the country? Perhaps the far-right would be apoplectic about the "blame America first" crowd? Maybe we’d hear a few words about how "God Bless America" is fine the way it is, and doesn’t need to be rewritten to serve a radical political agenda?
Just asking.
The lyrics of the song are posted below.



Why should God bless America?She’s forgotten he existsAnd has turned her backOn everything that made her what she is.


Why should God stand beside herThrough the night with the light from his hand?



God have mercy on America Forgive her sin and heal our land


The courts ruled prayer out of our schoolsIn June of ‘62Told the children "you are your own God now So you can make the rules"



O say can you see what that choice Has cost us to this dayAmerica, one nation under God, has gone astray


Why should god bless America?She’s forgotten he existsAnd has turned her back on everythingThat made her what she is


Why should God stand beside herThrough the night with the light from his hand?God have mercy on AmericaForgive her sins and heal our land


In ‘73 the Courts said weCould take the unborn livesThe choice is yours don’t worry nowIt’s not a wrong, it’s your right


But just because they made it lawDoes not change God’s commandThe most that we can hope for isGod’s mercy on our land


Why should God bless America?She’s forgotten he existsAnd has turned her back on everythingThat made her what she is


Why should God stand beside herThrough the night with the light from his hand?God have mercy on AmericaForgive her sins and heal our land


(Reading from 2nd Chronicles 7:14) If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land


God have mercy on America forgive her sins and heal our land

_______________________________________

Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity
By Jason Leopold

A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused.
The complaint, filed in US District Court in Kansas City, by the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), on behalf of Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist currently on active duty in Speicher, Iraq, alleges that Hall's First Amendment rights were violated beginning last Thanksgiving when, because of his atheist beliefs, he declined to participate in a Christian prayer ceremony commemorating the holiday.
"Immediately after plaintiff made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking ... staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist," says the lawsuit, a copy of which was provided to Truthout. "The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response caused the staff sergeant to tell plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."
Moreover, the complaint alleges that on August 7, when Hall received permission by an Army chaplain to organize a meeting of other soldiers who shared his atheist beliefs, his supervisor, Army Major Paul Welborne, broke up the gathering and threatened to retaliate against the soldier by charging him with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The complaint also alleges that Welborne vowed to block Hall's reenlistment in the Army if the atheist group continued to meet - a violation of Hall's First Amendment rights under the Constitution. Welborne is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
"During the course of the meeting, defendant Welborne confronted the attendees, disrupted the meeting and interfered with plaintiff Hall's and the other attendees' rights to discuss topics of their interests," the lawsuit alleges.
The complaint charges that Hall, who is based at Fort Riley, Kansas, has been forced to "submit to a religious test as a qualification to his post as a soldier in the United States Army," a violation of Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because he has allowed the military to engage in "a pattern and practice of constitutionally impermissible promotions of religious beliefs within the Department of Defense and the United States military."
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against Welborne from further engaging in behavior "that has the effect of establishing compulsory religious practices" and asks that Gates prevent Welborne from interfering with Hall's free speech rights.
Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an organization that seeks to enforce the law mandating the separation between church and state in the US military, said the lawsuit would be the first of many his group intends to file against the Pentagon.
"This landmark federal litigation is just the first of a galaxy of new lawsuits that will be expeditiously filed against the Pentagon in a concentrated effort to preserve the precious religious liberties guaranteed by our beautiful United States Constitution," Weinstein said Monday. "Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."
A Pentagon spokesman said he could not comment on the lawsuit because he has not yet seen it.
Weinstein, a former White House attorney under Ronald Reagan, general counsel H. Ross Perot and an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), has been waging a one-man war against the Department of Defense for its blatant disregard of the Constitution. He published a book on his fight: "With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military." Weinstein is also an Air Force veteran and a graduate of the Air Force Academy. Three generations of his family have attended US military academies.
Since he launched his watchdog organization nearly two years ago months ago, Weinstein said he has been contacted by more than 5,000 active duty and retired soldiers, many of whom served or serve in Iraq, who told Weinstein that they were pressured by their commanding officers to convert to Christianity.
The lawsuit also includes examples of other alleged constitutional abuses by Pentagon officials.
Last month, the Pentagon's Inspector General responded to a complaint filed last year by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation alleging that Defense Department officials violated military regulations by appearing in a video promoting a fundamental Christian organization.
The Inspector General agreed and issued a 47-page report that was highly critical of senior Army and Air Force personnel for participating in the video while in uniform and on active duty.
The report recommended that Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, and a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names were redacted in the inspector general's report, "improperly endorsed and participated with a non-Federal entity while in uniform" and the men should be disciplined for misconduct. Caslen was formerly the deputy director for political-military affairs for the war on terrorism, directorate for strategic plans and policy, joint staff. He now oversees the 4,200 cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD investigators he agreed to appear in the video upon learning other senior Pentagon officials had been interviewed for the promotional video.
The inspector general's report recommended the "Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army take appropriate corrective action with respect to the military officers concerned."
The Army generals who appeared in the video appeared to be speaking on behalf of the military, but they did not obtain prior permission to appear in the video. They defended their actions, according to the inspector general's report, saying the "Christian Embassy had become a 'quasi-Federal entity,' since the DOD had endorsed the organization to General Officers for over 25 years."

Another War??

Cheney explains his memo philosophy
Posted September 18th, 2007
Dick Cheney, based on nothing but on-the-job performance, is unlikely to receive kind treatment from historians, but The Examiner noted today there’s another reason for scholars to get frustrated with the Vice President.
Anyone awaiting an anthology of Vice President Dick Cheney’s papers might be in for a disappointment.
Speaking on Friday at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum in Grand Rapids, Mich., Cheney said that because he served as President Ford’s chief of staff, "researchers like to come and dig through my files, to see if anything interesting turns up."
"I want to wish them luck," he quipped, eliciting laughter from the crowd, "but the files are pretty thin. I learned early on that if you don’t want your memos to get you in trouble some day, just don’t write any."
That’s cute, but it’s also incomplete. Cheney actually writes memos all the time, but he’s come up with a special classification for his materials that mandates that his memos be treated as if they were actually classified.
_______________________________________

HuffPost Reports:Thomas B Edsall
Drumbeat For Attack On Iran Grows Louder


______________________________________

Drift into war with Iran out of control, says UN·

Officials back nuclear inspector's warning
The Guardian The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei"Mohamed ElBaradei: 'I would not talk about any use of force.'
The UN's chief nuclear weapons inspector yesterday warned against the use of force against Iran, in what UN officials said was an attempt to halt an "out of control" drift to war.
His outspoken remarks, which drew a parallel between Iran and Iraq, appeared to take aim at the US and Britain. They followed comments on Sunday night by the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who said: "We have to prepare for the worst," adding "the worst is war
"I would not talk about any use of force," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons."
There has been a string of reports out of Washington that the Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomacy and is intensifying its plans for air strikes as a means of halting Iran's disputed nuclear programme.
UN officials said Mr ElBaradei, an Egyptian diplomat who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2005, was attempting to slow down what seemed to be an accelerating march to war.
"There's a strategic reason for doing these things," one official said. "He really is alarmed. He sees this thing going out of control. The feeling around here is that this looks like the run-up to the Iraq war."
Last month, the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, sparked a heated political debate in Paris when he called the Iranian stand-off "the greatest crisis" of current times, saying the world had "a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".
Following Mr Kouchner's comments, Tehran yesterday denounced France's stance on the nuclear issue, which has toughened since Mr Sarkozy's election in May. Iran's state-owned news agency IRNA published an editorial accusing Paris of "extremism" and pandering to Washington. "The new occupants of the Elysée want to copy the White House," it said, accusing Mr Sarkozy of taking on "an American skin".
Iran insists on its right to run a comprehensive nuclear programme, including the enrichment of uranium, which it says is intended for peaceful electricity generation.
The US has called a meeting of senior European and Russian officials in Washington on Friday to discuss the deepening crisis over Iran. Britain, the US and France are likely to push for more sanctions over Iranian defiance, while Russia and China are expected to resist, pointing to a deal Mr ElBaradei struck with the Iranian government last month, in which Tehran agreed to answer unresolved questions over its nuclear programme.
The US, Britain, France and Germany complained to Mr ElBaradei that they had not been consulted and that the agreement did not mention the UN Security Council's demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment while its programme is assessed. In their eyes, the deal gave Tehran a means of stalling new sanctions while continuing to produce nuclear fuel.

_____________________________________
Cash Infusion Accelerates Northwest Logging

By Michael Milstein The Oregonian
National forests - the Bush administration action pushes cutting to a high not seen in years.
Northwest national forests are hurriedly boosting federal logging to the highest levels in years with a new infusion of cash, even as they close campgrounds and other recreation sites because money for them is drying up.
The push for logging came so fast that some forests could not accelerate cutting as rapidly as top officials wanted, according to documents obtained by The Oregonian through the Freedom of Information Act.
The extra cash for plotting timber sales, road-building, marking trees and other work to make way for cutting flowed from a legal deal between the Bush administration and timber industry. It's pumping life into federal land logging after years of decline.
But dollars for other work in public forests remain scarce. As a result, U.S. Forest Service is likely to renege on its promise to fix existing, poorly maintained roads in Washington that violate clean water laws, for instance. Roads torn apart by storms last winter remain closed, cutting off access to trailheads and campgrounds.
The new logging money is drawn from forests in other parts of the country and will underwrite new roads that will carry trucks loaded with freshly cut trees.
Forest Service logging levels in the Northwest shrank more than 90 percent since the late 1980s, when protections for the northern spotted owl and other wildlife ended intensive cutting on federal lands.
Now, flush with more money than they have had in years, forests are scrambling to hire forestry technicians, engineers, timber appraisers and others. They are also contracting with private companies to carry some of the load their own workers cannot handle.
"We haven't been hiring this kind of staff in, gosh, more than 10 years," said Lisa Norris of the Mount Hood National Forest.
Federal timber sales require years of environmental reviews before they can be auctioned, so many forests have only a small stockpile ready to go and are rushing to plan more.
"We're trying to sell everything we have ready," Norris said.
She said most of the timber sales should bring in enough money to cover their costs.

Iran Next?

Bush setting America up for war with Iran By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington

Last Updated: 2:29am BST 17/09/2007
Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Dick Cheney ('The Man') with George W Bush
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
______________________________________

Then there was Tony Snow, who ended his truth-challenged run as press secretary by claiming, when asked about the possibility of a long term US military presence in Iraq, "Yeah, well, the Iraqis want that." Yeah, well, actually they don't. A new poll shows that 79 percent of Iraqis oppose our being there, and 57 percent approve of attacks against US troops. So, tragically, what the majority of Iraqis actually want is more dead American soldiers.
____________________________________

At Least 160 Arrested at Iraq Protest

WASHINGTON (AP) - Several thousand anti-war demonstrators marched through downtown Washington on Saturday, clashing with police at the foot of the Capitol steps where at least 160 protesters were arrested.
The group marched from the White House to the Capitol to demand an end to the Iraq war. Their numbers stretched for blocks along Pennsylvania Avenue, and they held banners and signs and chanted, "What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now."
Army veteran Justin Cliburn, 25, of Lawton, Okla., was among a contingent of Iraq veterans in attendance.
"We're occupying a people who do not want us there," Cliburn said of Iraq. "We're here to show that it isn't just a bunch of old hippies from the 60s who are against this war."

Maybe not 1969 but a start of protests to the war.

_______________________________________

September 16, 2007
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
Related Links
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.
_______________________________________

In a Friday morning speech, Gonzales said his time at the Justice Department made him determined to fight terrorists and sexual predators and crack down on guns, drugs and gang violence plaguing the nation's neighborhoods.
"Over the past two and a half years, I have seen tyranny, dishonesty, corruption and depravity of types I never thought possible," Gonzales said in prepared remarks at a Hispanic Heritage Month ceremony at Bolling Air Force Base. "I've seen things I didn't know man was capable of.
I assume he is talking about the Bush administration of which he was a big part of the above crimes
________________________________________

GOP’s Hagel: "Bush's Iraq Policy Is A Dirty Trick, Dishonest And Irresponsible”
______________________________________

More Time, More Troops, More Money

Bush is just buying time until he is out of office. He is buying that time with the deaths of more Americans and with more taxpayers money. I estimate another 900 to 1000 killed 5000 wounded some severely for life, another 300 to 400 billion dollars. These figures are for the term of Bush not the total cost for surely we will be in Iraq for years to come. Look at Korea over fifty years later we are still there over 2 divisions at what cost I could'n guess. As John Edwards said last night in a rebutal ,which he paid for personally, the war must end now. But the Democrats can't do it alone they need the Republican votes to do it and the republican base wants the war to go on. Their sponsors mainly rich corporations want the war to go on it's good for business. So yes it is War Without End. A crime is being commited by Bush as he is going to dump the whole mess he created on the next president. He has done this all his life and if the voting public had been more astute they would have seen it before electing him. Pelosi has to go as she lacks the spine to impeach Bush and a tougher speaker elected by the house.____
_____________________________________
Fox only broadcast network that did not air Democratic response to Bush speech

Summary: Following President Bush's address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response. Instead, Shepard Smith gave a short description of the response and stated: "Our coverage continues on the Fox News Channel on cable and satellite with the Democratic response and more. Right now, back to your local Fox programming." ABC, NBC, and CBS all aired the Democratic response.



The FCC should revoke Foxs license!!!!!!!

_____________________________________
The Magnificent 37

In case you're wondering what other nations make up the 37-nation coalition of forces in Iraq cited by President Bush in his Oval Office speech, you may need a scorecard. >
Moldova is in (12 troops), but Tonga is out. Bosnia & Herzegovina contributed as many as 37 soldiers in theater, but Slovakia and Hungary have pulled out. El Salvador has stayed, but Nicaragua has gone. Australia, yes; New Zealand, not so much. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, you betcha; Denmark and Norway, gone. Mongolia is in, but Ukraine is out. It appears that Kazahkstan's 29 troops, and Armenia's 46, are hanging in there, but Thailand has left the building. For more stats, there's always the Google.
All those troops' lives are, of course, as precious to their families, nations and Gods as are the lives of Americans serving in Iraq sacred to their kin and communities and Creators. So, too, though it may be hard for some to imagine, are Iraqi lives.
But when George W. Bush tries to bolster his case for a permanent US military presence in Iraq by citing the splendid international alliance he's mustered, you have to wonder whether what he really wants us to believe --and what he actually may believe himself -- is that the contributions he's strongarmed from Fiji, Albania et al are just as impressive as the 160,000 troops that his old man wrung from the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and France.
Sometimes it's just too hard to suppress the suspicion that all of us are just bit players in a delusional son's deadly Oedipal psychodrama.
______________________________________

A Look at the Facts Behind Bush's Speech
ANNE GEARANAP News
Sep 14, 2007 03:23 EDT
President Bush pointed to political realignment in Iraq's volatile Anbar province as evidence that Iraq is a fight that the United States is winning.
A look at some of Bush's assertions in a national address on Iraq on Thursday.
___
BUSH SAID:
"Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working," Bush said, noting that just last year U.S. intelligence analysts had written off the Sunni area as "lost to al-Qaida."
FACT CHECK:
Early Thursday, the most prominent figure in a U.S.-backed revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed by a bomb planted near his home.
The killing of a chief Anbar ally hours before Bush spoke showed the tenuous and changeable nature of success in Anbar and Iraq at large.
Although Sunni sheiks have defied al-Qaida and largely allied with U.S. forces in Anbar, the province remains violent and al-Qaida remains a threat.
Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha died 10 days after he met with Bush during a surprise visit the U.S. leader made to highlight the turnaround in Anbar. The charismatic young sheik led the Anbar Salvation Council, also known as the Anbar Awakening _ an alliance of clans backing the Iraqi government and U.S. forces.
The Sunni revolt against al-Qaida led to a dramatic improvement in security in Anbar cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi. Iraqis who had been sitting on the sidelines _ or planting roadside bombs to kill Americans _ have now joined with U.S. forces to hunt down al-Qaida in Iraq, whose links to Osama bin Laden's terror network are unclear.
Anbar is not secure, accounting for 18 percent of the U.S. deaths in Iraq so far this year _ making it the second deadliest province after Baghdad.
Bush's top military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told Congress this week that Anbar's circumstances are unique and its model cannot be replicated everywhere in Iraq, but "it does demonstrate the dramatic change in security that is possible with the support and participation of local citizens."
___
BUSH SAID:
Progress in Iraq, including improvement in the performance of the Iraqi army, led to Petraeus' recommendation that "we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces."
Bush said there is still work to be done to improve the Iraqi national police.
FACT CHECK:
A new White House report on Iraq shows slim progress, moving just one more political and security goal into the satisfactory column. Efforts to let former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party rejoin the political process earned the upgrade, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.
The report largely tracks a comparable poor assessment in July on 18 benchmarks. The earlier White House report said the Iraqi government had made satisfactory gains toward eight benchmarks, unsatisfactory marks on eight and mixed results on two.
Although the benchmark list is the rubric that the White House and the Iraqi government proposed earlier this year, the Bush administration has recently said it offers a skewed or incomplete view of progress in Iraq.
___
BUSH SAID:
Bush noted that the government has not met its own legislative benchmarks, but he pointed to limited political progress among Iraq's national leaders. He said Iraq has passed a budget and is sharing oil wealth.
FACT CHECK:
The Government Accountability Office reported last month that Iraq has only partially met a test involving reformation of its budget process, although the State Department, Pentagon and White House disputed the finding.
Some proceeds from Iraq's vast oil and gas resources are being shared among regions, but the country lacks a national framework agreement for the distribution of oil revenues.
A national oil law, which would also invite foreign investment, has been repeatedly promised by Iraq's leaders and frequently mentioned by U.S. officials as a crucial marker of the country's ability to reconcile its ethnic and religious groups.
Iraq's main political parties are deadlocked over the law and the legislation has been sent back to party leaders to see if they can salvage it, an official involved in the talks said Thursday.
___
BUSH SAID:
"We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy."
FACT CHECK:
There may well be 36 nations contributing to the cause, but the overwhelming majority of troops come from the United States. For example, Albania has 120 soldiers there and Bulgaria has 150 non-combat troops in Iraq. Bush visited both nations this summer as a thank you.
The United States has 168,000 troops in Iraq.

_____________________________________

DNI McConnell: I Lied To The Senate
Earlier this week, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell claimed the new expansive FISA legislation passed by Congress prior to the August recess — the so-called Protect America Act — had helped to thwart a an alleged terror plot in Germany.
A government official later told the New York Times that McConnell was wrong, and that the intelligence had been collected under the old FISA law which required warrants. A chorus of House Democrats immediately raised concerns about McConnell’s claims.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) demanded McConnell back up his sworn statement. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said the Protect America Act "played no role in uncovering the recent German terrorist plot." House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes urge McConnell "to issue a public statement immediately" correcting his remarks.
In a statement released today, McConnell unapologetically acknowledged he lied to the Senate:

_______________________________________

IMPEACH BUSH-CHENEY

President Petraeus

President Petraeus? Iraqi official recalls the day US general revealed ambition
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 13 September 2007
The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.
Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.
"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.
General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America's apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.
His able defence of the "surge" in US troop numbers in Iraq as a success before Congress this week has made him the best-known soldier in America. An articulate, intelligent and energetic man, he has always shown skill in managing the media.
But General Petraeus's open interest in the presidency may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq .

Just a reminder, Petraeus is also the guy that Adm. William Fallon, the head of CENTCOM, reportedly called:
...an ass-kissing little chickenshit.
_______________________________________

By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success. Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10 Republicans and about six in 10 independents, the poll showed — ominous numbers for a president who hopes to use a nationally televised address later this week to keep GOP lawmakers from joining Democratic calls for a withdrawal.
Here is one republican he has lost!
Republican Walsh (NY-25) Breaks With GOP on Iraq: "We Have Given Enough"

Republican Jim Walsh, who won re-election in 2006 by less than 3,000 votes, is making headlines today. He has decided to break with the President and his party on Iraq. Today, we learn that he will be supporting a bill calling for withdrawal from Iraq and will apparently be opposing a blank check as well.
This is huge news, not just for the fact that we have another Republican defection on Iraq, but because Walsh is so far the only Republican to keep his promise about Magical September. From a May 2007 letter to his constituents:
If Petraeus’ plan is successful, it will be obvious before September. His judgment should surprise no one. If it’s not working, we should be prepared to begin withdrawing our soldiers.
And withdrawing our soldiers is exactly what Walsh is now supporting. After visiting Iraq this weekend, Walsh had this to say:
"Things have not changed substantially in Iraq," Walsh said after returning to Washington Monday. "It's a very, very dangerous place, if not the most dangerous place on Earth. Governance is a serious issue. They are stumbling toward democracy." [...]
"What occurred to me while I was in Iraq is that it's time," Walsh said. "We've done enough. No country has done more than we have for Iraq. The question I kept coming up with is how much do we have to give Iraq to make things work? I think we have given enough."
"We have given enough." That about sums it all up, doesn't it?
He goes on to say that if the President won't withdraw troops on his own, it's up to Congress to use its power of the purse to do it.
And on yesterday's testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker? Walsh confirms that it was pretty much irrelevant:
_______________________________________

Senate Panel Okays $850 Billion Debt Increase Reuters

Washington - The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday approved an $850 billion increase in U.S. borrowing authority to $9.815 trillion in order to avoid a default as the government nears its credit limit of $8.965 trillion.
The committee approved the bill on a voice vote and it clears the way for the full Senate to take action most likely by early October. As of last Friday, the federal debt stood at $8.923 trillion and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has been urging Congress to act quickly to avoid unnerving financial markets that are already jittery over rising mortgage foreclosures.
The amount approved by the finance panel would allow the government to continue borrowing into 2009, well after next year's presidential and congressional elections. Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat expressed concern that the debt issue could "become a political football" during next year's campaigns.
"The increase of $850 billion would be the third largest debt limit increase in U.S. history," Baucus said.
The U.S. House of Representatives already approved the credit increase when it passed the 2008 budget blueprint earlier this year.
It will be the fifth increase in the U.S. credit limit since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 when the U.S. debt stood at $5.6 trillion.

What should be done is increase taxes not the debt. The Dems smell as high as the Repubs !!!
_______________________________________
Bush and Patraeus say they need more time! For What? So that in the next 18 months another 1000 Americans killed another $360 billion wasted while our bridges fall apart. They must be stopped I only hope that the weakneed Dems can marshall the moral courage and do the right thing, Deny Funding!!Every penny of that money has to borrowed because of Bush's tax cuts to the rich and to corporations.We are borrowing money from those to whom we used to lend money and congress goes on as if it doesn't matter. Sure it matters. What the republicans under Reagan wanted was to eliminate domestic programs that help the poor and lower middle wage earners. The way to do that said Reagan was to reduce federal income so there wouldn't be any money for them. Hense the tax cuts, the increase in spending by Reagan and Bush, thereby increasing debt so that a larger share of tax dollars go to pay interest on the loans. Leaving little if anything for domestic programs like medicare, medicaid, food stamps, kids insurance, school lunch programs, HUD etc. It's a crime one more reason to impeach Bush!

War Will Go On

Oh the Sunni's and the Shia's they were reckless desert boys they could shoot out a camels eye at 100 yards.
Just as the revernooers didn't step in between the Hatfields and MCCoys fued over moonshine rights we shouldn't step in between the Shias and Sunnis over the oil rights.
That is what this war is all about isn't it? OIL. Perhaps Bush is sincere about spreading Democracy in that part of the world( I doubt this) but the Neo-cons who pushed him into it have a different adgenda. The protection of Israel and OIL! Iraq was to be first then Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the smaller oil nations.A reverse domino theory in which we are the cause of nations falling like dominos tiles.
Don't believe Me? Just read the hue and cry to bomb Iran that's issuing from Senator Lieberman and the rest of the Neo-Cons led by William Chrystal and others of his ilk.They have the media behind them on Fox and other news orgainizations . Nothing like a fresh war to get their mikes and cameras going.
We should step back from this brink allow the Sunni' s and Shia's kill one another and then deal with the winner for the oil.
One war at a time please!
_____________________________________

Here is Lieberman on Iran yesterday

Lieberman: Can't We Invade Iran Yet?By Spencer Ackerman - September 11, 2007, 4:37 PM
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) doesn't think Gen. Petraeus has enough war on his hands. The senator (changing the subject from Iraq with "I want to go to Iran...") asked Petraeus if he wanted "the authority" from Congress to "pursue the Qods forces into Iranian territory." Petraeus, for some reason, politely declined to start a third contemporaneous U.S. war
______________________________________
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan
WASHINGTON — A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
______________________________________


The "Proxy War": UK Troops Are Sent to Iranian Border By Kim Sengupta The Independent UK
Wednesday 12 September 2007
British soldiers return to action as tensions between US and Iran grow.
British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war."
In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.
The UK operation, in which up to 350 troops are involved, has come at the request of the Americans, who say that elements close to the Iranian regime have stepped up supplies of weapons to Shia militias in recent weeks in preparation for attacks inside Iraq.
_____________________________________
Marty Kaplan
In recent weeks, Bush has put all his chips on Petraeus' testimony. He will no doubt now endorse the commander's "proposal" for a modest troop reduction and pretend that it constitutes a compromise (even though it was physically inevitable). And he will repeatedly cite the testimony from Petraeus and Crocker that "some progress" is being made and that further withdrawals might be disastrous.
The Senate Democrats, in any case, lack the 60 votes needed to circumvent a filibuster, much less the 67 votes required to override a veto. And so, no timetables for withdrawal will be set, no enforceable benchmarks will be imposed on the Iraqi government, the surge will play out, and the war will go on, the current strategy intact, through the end of Bush's presidency. Today's hearings—which have been, remarkably, the first real hearings about this war—put substantive issues, and useful words, on the record. But they will almost certainly not result in action or change.
______________________________________
Some Good News
Senate votes to block Mexican trucks test
Tue Sep 11,By Kevin Drawbaugh
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to block funding for a Bush administration test program to let Mexican long-haul trucks operate in the United States under 1994's North American Free Trade Agreement.
One day after a fiery truck accident killed dozens in Mexico, the Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill that would cut off funding for the test, which the administration authorized last week to run for one year.
The House of Representatives has passed a similar measure.
_______________________________________
Finger Pointing
Rumsfeld Disowns the War

The former defense secretary graces the pages of October’s GQ (of all places) to make some bold assertions, claiming he was not a driving force behind the Iraq war and that he warned the president of many of the problems that have come to pass.
There are many gems in the lengthy interview. Asked whether he misses the president, for example, Rumsfeld replies simply: "Um, no."
GQ:
I tell him there’s something I’ve been curious about. In the early days, before the invasion, where did Donald Rumsfeld stand, exactly? Were you one of the people driving the bus who wanted to invade Iraq, or—.
"No." He cuts me off. "I think [Bush] was quoted in the Woodward book as saying he didn’t ask me. And that’s true."
But surely, at some point you must have expressed your concerns.
He did. First of all, "we—without separating me from the others—we tried not to have that happen. We tried to get Saddam Hussein to adhere to the U.N. resolutions. We tried to get other countries to put diplomatic pressure on him. Even at the very end, we tried to get him to leave the country and seek safe haven elsewhere so that that"—he means the war—"wouldn’t have to happen. And before the war, I sat and—this is on the record, all of this—I sat down and handwrote fifteen, twenty, twenty-five things that could be...could go wrong, could be real problems."
He says he will show me the memo. (And eventually, he does. It’s just as he describes it.) "I wrote down all of the things that could be problems: That we wouldn’t find weapons of mass destruction. That there’d be a Fortress Baghdad, and a lot of people would be killed. All of this ... I read it in a National Security Council meeting. Then I went back to my office—I had handwritten it—and I dictated it and added four or five things. And I think there’s probably thirty items on it. And then I sent it around to each of the members of the National Security Council, to the president and the vice president. So that all of them had in their heads the things that were difficult, problematic, worrisome, dangerous."
And how was it received?
"Um ... " A pause. He is carefully choosing his words. "I think it was ... appreciated by the president that I took the time to do that."
And do you think the president—.
"Yeah, I thought he read it. Yeah."
Read more
_______________________________________

Poll
Did General Petraeus's testimony yesterday convince you that we need to stay in Iraq?
Yes
6%
585 votes
No
91%
8503 votes
Not sure/No opinion
1%
162 votes
9250 votes total

_______________________________________