Blue Collar Politics

[BREAK]

"If you think his daddy had trouble with 'the vision thing,' wait'll you meet this one," Ivins on George W. Bush in "The Progressive," June 1999.

I was hoping Molly would live at least long enough to piss on Shrub's grave . . . now I guess that's our/history's job! JB ===== [/BREAK]

Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins dies - Yahoo! News "We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war," Ivins wrote. "We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it, now!'"

More here

[BREAK] If you regularly watch Tim Russert on Meet The Press, you already know at least 3 things: 1) Tim used his guest list and his questions in a manner that helped push for the war 2) Tim implicitly mocked the anti-war demonstrations/demonstrators as often as possible. 3) Tim lauded the Bushies as often as he could. (Damn near rolls over and presents his belly to Cheney!) 4) Tim hates most Dems, even though it was with the Democratic Party that he cut his teeth. (He seems cozy with Lieberman, and friendly to Biden and James Carville.) If you've been watching the Scooter Libby trial, you now know: 5) The White House was well aware of Tim's bias, and used MTP to help counter criticism of the war! By now you've learned another thing about NBC's high paid on-air personality: 6) If you're a candidate prone to speak about the obvious class war being waged in America, Tim ain't prone to treating you too well. Edwards has apologized for his vote authorizing Bush to pressure Iraq, up to invading, if necessary, unless Saddam gave up the WMD Bush swore Iraq held. Edwards was the FIRST of the Dems to admit being wrong, way back in 2005. Yet Tim went OVER AND OVER the fact that Edwards had voted for the authorization. Tim said, numerous times, that Edwards was WRONG to vote that way. Funny thing is, Tim has NEVER pushed the liars that used deception to get Congress, AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, to support America's worst war crime EVER! Why Edwards is, in Tim's view, the only one who should carry blame FOR BUSH'S LIES, I don't know. (Ironically, the other thing that caught Tim's ire was Edwards truth telling on his plan for health care. Edwards made the sin of allowing that in order to tackle something as huge as health care, you have to be willing to use tax revenue to pay for it! Edwards will soon learn why Bush's lies have little consequence. Telling hard truths is something the mainstream press will crucify you for.) I do know, much like Dennis Kucinich in 2004, Tim and other MSM members will be spending much time trying to insure that the 2008 race comes down to a Dem and a Rep who can only be distinguished by which of the two bends over the furthest for corporate interests, and which cares the least about those earning somewhat less than millions per annum! JB ===== [/BREAK]

Edwards Again Says He Was Wrong to Vote for War - washingtonpost.com Edwards Again Says He Was Wrong to Vote for War By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A04 Of the 2008 Democratic presidential contenders who voted to give President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, only one will have no chance to make a very public U-turn when resolutions opposing the president's new war plan come before Congress in the coming days. That one is John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who showed again yesterday that he will find other venues to parlay his Senate vote into an extended mea culpa.

More here

[BREAK] As if there weren't enough similarities between the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Kennedy's "Whiz Kids", who were often referred to as "The Best and the Brightest", were likely the most educated groups of advisers ever to aid a President in the conduct of a guerrilla war. While it is always good to have intelligent advisers, people working under a President often conform their advice into something palatable to the Commander in Chief. Asking them for advice on how best to escalate, when that can only move you deeper into a quagmire, is, as Vietnam proved, just a way to lose more young American lives so the tough decisions are left to future administrations. JB ===== [/BREAK]

Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort - washingtonpost.com Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A01 Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, is assembling a small band of warrior-intellectuals -- including a quirky Australian anthropologist, a Princeton economist who is the son of a former U.S. attorney general and a military expert on the Vietnam War sharply critical of its top commanders -- in an eleventh-hour effort to reverse the downward trend in the Iraq war.

More here

[BREAK] I'm guessing that Bush is rolling marbles around in his hand while searching for missing strawberries? On a less snarky note, congrats to the retired officers for coming forward . . . would that some of their active duty peers put America and their troops ahead of career considerations. Nobody expects/desires a real mutiny. Just some honest answers in front of Congress, when called upon! JB [/BREAK]

Retired flags say Iran war would be disaster - Military News, Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times Retired flags say Iran war would be disaster By Jill Lawless - The Associated Press Posted : Sunday Feb 4, 2007 9:11:56 EST LONDON — Three former high-ranking U.S. military officers have called for Britain to help defuse the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, saying military action against Tehran would be a disaster for the region. In a letter to the Sunday Times newspaper, the retired officers urged President Bush to open talks “without preconditions” with the Iranian government in a bid to find a diplomatic solution. The signatories were retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, a senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C.; retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former head of Central Command; and Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, former director of the Center for Defense Information.

More here

[BREAK] Seems like only yesterday when the Republicans were castigating the Dems for even thinking the word "filibuster." And the media! They had conniptions about the traitorous Democrats who would be such obstructionists when it came to trying to keep in check the "Majority." Matthews et. al. would quickly remind all that "the people had spoken" when they elected a Repugnant majority. Today, on NBC the political reporter virtually blushed at how "strong" the Republican minority had proved to be, by using the filibuster card to hold back a vote . . . a vote desired by that new majority, elected as those same "people's" representatives. Here (below) in today's NY Times, the headline is written by the Repugnants, so they are referred to as "A ‘Robust’ G.O.P." When the Dems threatened filibuster, it was an act of betrayal to our system. With the Repugs, not so much:

"I mean, we’re not stalling. We’re using, at the risk of being redundant, the power of a robust minority to guarantee that we get fair treatment." Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

I can remember when Mr. McConnell advocated removing the Dems power to filibuster bills he liked. But, that was then, this is now. And, while it hurts to admit it, were I McConnell, and faced with such weak Democrats, I'd pull the same bullying tactics. JB ===== [/BREAK]

A Robust G.O.P. Blocks Senate War Debate - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog February 5, 2007, 7:43 pm A ‘Robust’ G.O.P. Blocks Senate War Debate By Kate Phillips On the Senate floor just a short while ago, a pretty hot debate ensued before any real debate on Iraq resolutions was allowed, or actually not allowed by the vote following the debate about the proposed debate. The Senate went 49-47, the Democrats well shy of the 60 votes needed to moved ahead on one of the war resolutions. As you may have anticipated through reports during the weekend and today, Republicans in the Senate voted in near unanimity tonight against the Democratic leadership’s intention to bring the Warner-Levin resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup to the floor for debate. From watching the roll call on the vote, it would appear that nearly all Republicans, excepting Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota,voted to keep the Warner-Levin measure from being Topic A.

More here

[BREAK] Just about every expert agrees that the ONLY way to win against an insurgency is to be able to gain the trust of the vast majority of the population. (As I can attest from my own experience in Vietnam, doing so without an interpreter is damn near impossible. But, that's just one of the myriad of problems we face in Bush's Baghdad Blunder!) After attacking, invading and occupying their country, and after they've seen the results of our torture policy, cluster bombings and the outrageous actions committed by the unfettered contracted security forces our corporations use, we are so reviled in Iraq that we'd have a better chance of successfully pairing up Michael Moore and Ann Coulter than gaining the affections of the civilian populace. In todays Wash Post, we read how an Iraqi Army Major's wife, who holds a master's degree in English translation, fears "death" when asked if she'd work with Americans. And her fear is NOT of being targeted by insurgents:

"With you? No. Not with you. Do I want to die?" she said. "I am afraid of you, I'm sorry."

When you can't win the single "heart and mind" of an English speaking allied officer's wife, your chances are much diminished as far as dealing with a farmer whose crops and livestock you've bombed, or whose children your bombs have crippled/killed. As the soldier said:

Faced with an often distrustful, frightened populace, members of the task force said they doubted that adding thousands more U.S. troops would change this frustrating dynamic. One soldier, on his second tour in Iraq, said the attitude of the Iraqi civilians toward the Americans continues to deteriorate.

JB ===== [/BREAK]

U.S. Unit Walks 'A Fine Line' In Iraqi Capital - washingtonpost.com U.S. Unit Walks 'A Fine Line' In Iraqi Capital By Joshua Partlow Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, February 6, 2007; Page A01 BAGHDAD, Feb. 5 -- The camouflaged American soldiers, weary from hours of struggling to talk with Iraqis during a patrol in eastern Baghdad, laughed with relief after an Iraqi army major's wife met them at her door. The soldiers had no interpreter. She had a master's degree in English translation. "Do you want to work for the Americans?" asked U.S. Army Lt. Anthony Slamar, 26. "Do you want a job as a translator?" The woman stepped back into her darkened doorway. "With you? No. Not with you. Do I want to die?" she said. "I am afraid of you, I'm sorry."

More here

[BREAK] Of course the US didn't sign on to a long-negotiated treaty prohibiting governments from holding people in secret detention. The other 57 civilized nations who thought secret detention was an abomination did not have the same baggage as we do.

The United States declined to endorse the document, saying its text did not meet U.S. expectations.

Of course it didn't meet our expectations. When it comes to restrictions, ANY restrictions, of actions by sovereign powers, the Bushies expect the final sentence to read: "The US, under GW Bush, is hereby exempted from any and all restrictions contained herein." The Repugnants cringe when they read:

Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said the treaty was "a message to all modern-day authorities committed to the fight against terrorism" that some practices are "not acceptable."

You see, as with the many Geneva Conventions, International Courts/law, UN resolutions and all other treaties and agreements the US joined, once Emperor Bush was elected/selected, things changed. We are now the class bully, and God help any other/weaker country that tries to stop us from committing (what those wimpy countries refer to as) crimes against humanity! JB ---

U.S. Declines to Join Accord on Secret Detentions - washingtonpost.com U.S. Declines to Join Accord on Secret Detentions 58 Nations Sign Separate Pact On Child Soldiers By Molly Moore Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, February 7, 2007; Page A14 PARIS, Feb. 6 -- Representatives from 57 countries on Tuesday signed a long-negotiated treaty prohibiting governments from holding people in secret detention. The United States declined to endorse the document, saying its text did not meet U.S. expectations. Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said the treaty was "a message to all modern-day authorities committed to the fight against terrorism" that some practices are "not acceptable."

More here [/BREAK]

[BREAK] There is one difference between the attack on Iraq and the coming attack on Iran. The time span between demonstration and attack this time will probably be shorter . . . say 2-3 weeks. In February 2003, many of us marched in the huge anti-war demonstration in NYC while others marched around our nation and around the globe. Bush (and the media) paid little attention, and the US illegally attacked Iraq approximately 5 weeks later. We violated international law and UN regulations, killed over a half-million innocent Iraqis (Bush would say we liberated them?), lost over 3000 of our most precious young warriors and misspent/lost.gave away hundreds of billion$ that our future generations will need to make up. We've performed so poorly, even Bush's Russian pal (Pooty Poot) Putin is now chastising us for making the world less safe.

Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States today for acting in a unilateral, militaristic fashion that he said "overstepped" its role and made the world a more dangerous place than during the Cold War. "Nobody feels secure anymore, because nobody can take safety behind the stone wall of international law," he told an international security conference here attended by dozens of foreign and defense ministers and other officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a congressional delegation.

And, the reasons given for attacking Iraq, though now known to be lies and exaggerations, seem to mirror the reasons we now hear for attacking Iran. Just this week, in a much delayed report, we were told:

. . . a Defense Department inspector general's conclusion that a Pentagon policy office produced and gave senior policymakers "alternative intelligence assessments on Iraq and Al Qaida relations" that were "inconsistent" with the intelligence community's consensus view in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

On March 18, there will be a similar march in NYC, and other environs. If you live in an area where a demonstration is being held, and you find you have other things to do on that day (things beside having open heart surgery, birthing your child, heading into danger in Iraq etc.), washing the blood of the future dead innocents from your hands may become a 24/7 job. And, if this demonstration has as little effect as its predecessor(s), I hope that some truly courageous leader (which really lets out the top contenders for the Presidential race in '08, sans Chuck Hagel and, just maybe, an Edwards, Gore or even Vilsack) will use the term "General Strike" in an upcoming speech. For when a war is called not as a vital national security interest, but to appease corporate interests by throwing fiscal sanity to the winds (when it comes to humongous contracts) and to guarantee a short term boost in fossil fuel for the victors, thereby stalling renewed efforts to find a desperately needed alternative source(s) of energy, the best way to get the corporate leaders attention is to hit them in the pocketbook. (Yes, you offer up a days pay. But, as any corporate leader can tell you, a day spent on a general strike takes more than a day from the corporate finances.) WE HAVE TO TAKE DEMOCRACY BACK! Impeach the Cheerleader (Bush),
Save The World! [/BREAK] =====

Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring | Iran | Guardian Unlimited Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced Ewen MacAskill in Washington Saturday February 10, 2007 The Guardian
A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled. Photograph: Reuters US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

More here