DEMS 0 BUSH 100

Dems Plan To Cave On Iraq Funds
Arianna Huffington: Democrats Need To Admit They Have A Problem: They Are Addicted to Backing Down
"Mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support." That is how the Washington Post characterized the reaction of lawmakers, including Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman, when they were briefed in 2002 about waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques being employed by the CIA. But it could just as well be the slogan of the Democrats for much of the last six-plus years -- especially on Iraq. It's no surprise Democrats have already decided to capitulate on the war funding bill coming before Congress next week. It's déjà vu all over again - and again. From the outright support of the war authorization (sorry, Hillary, we all know what the bill was about) to the latest surrender on war funding, Republicans know Democrats will bluster...and then cave.
______________________________________
The Dems are the do nothing party or the Bush lackey party or the spit and polish party( they polish Bushs' shoes while he spits on them. It is all so sad! The Dems were elected to end the war in Iraq and they won't do it they should all be thrown out I expected more from the Democrats,with the Republicans in control we knew what to expect.

Write your senators and congress reps, it won't change anything but it will make you feel better.
______________________________________
Suckers
I do hope that one day Democrats stop obsessing about how to appeal to the people least likely to vote for them.
_______________________________________
What is more important, that we have a Democrat in the White House or that we have a black or woman Democratic nominee? We can't have both!
______________________________________
Bush's Shock Troops and his Gestapo!
KBR's Iraq.
KBR Rape: Can You Imagine?
by MissLaura
Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:11:39 PM PST
Can you imagine being gang-raped and then imprisoned by your employer?
Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.
"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.
Can you imagine being the father who got this phone call?
Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.
"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
But as wrenching and outrageous as the individual human story is, the grotesque immorality of the system it reveals is harder still to wrap your mind around.
An American woman employed by an American company was raped by her coworkers. In order, apparently, to keep her from reporting the rape, her employer held her captive in conditions worse than criminals in prison face. The rapists are not being prosecuted - maybe cannot be prosecuted - because the US has left contractors in Iraq unanswerable to the law. The physical evidence of rape has been disappeared. The company is not being prosecuted for imprisoning her. They furthermore are insisting that her employment contract means she cannot sue them, but has to go into a secret arbitration process massively stacked in their own favor.
We've heard a lot of it before, with Blackwater guards not being held accountable for killing Iraqis, and Blackwater not being held accountable by the US government. But as wrong as it is to try to cover up for having murdered a lot of people by claiming that they shot at you first, those people are dead. You're criminally trying to cover your own ass, but you're not causing them any further suffering. It takes a special something, it seems to me, to say "we don't want to be held accountable for the gang-rape of this woman we employ. Hey, let's lock her up under armed guard without food and water." What was the end game there? Was the intent to let her out once they'd broken her and she wasn't going to report it? Did they even have a plan? And this, mind you, wasn't a matter of the rapists themselves trying to cover up their actions. This was a decision made by someone high up enough in the company to assign guards to a damn storage container.
This is what the government of our country has bought and paid for.
_______________________________________

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert
By Jen Kelly
December 10, 2007 01:00am
A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.
Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.
And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.
Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.
"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.
"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."
Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.
"I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource consumption per head than other styles of households.
But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.



Years ago here in the US there was a movement toward zero population growth but as anyone can see that idea died. But is it desperately needed now, and instead of 2 children per couple it should be 1 each. A few years ago in the NY Times a woman wrote in about this, she was a Hassidic person who had had 13 children and was looking forward to 100 grandchildren. What was worse she was bragging about it. She should have been sterilized early on!

We are building cities in our deserts that need to air conditioned where is the electric power to come for continuing that, not to mention the water. Sometimes I think a we need absolute rule to prevent this sort of thing. Corporations that are building these homes and businesses in the desert have only one goal profit. The congress will do nothing!
______________________________________

AP Poll Method By The Associated Press
The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on the war in Iraq and President Bush was conducted December 3-5, 2007, and is based on telephone interviews with a nationally representative random sample of 1,009 adults from all states.
Digits in the phone numbers dialed were generated randomly to reach households with unlisted and listed landline numbers.
Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.
Hey if they can't speak english they can't become citizens and can't vote! Why poll them?

LanguageApplicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 15 years or more and are over 55 years of age;
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 20 years or more and are over 50 years of age; or
have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English.