Home » Blog » A new video about Mission Accomplished Day
Blog for America
A new video about Mission Accomplished Day
From Robert Greenwald at Brave New Films:
On May 1st 2003, President George Bush announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended while standing underneath a banner that read MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Now, four years later, we know that the mission has not been accomplished and that the fighting in Iraq continues daily.
Spoken word artist Steven Connell whose work has been seen in feature films and on HBO, Showtime and MTV, performs a piece he has written about what the announcement meant and what has (and hasn’t) been accomplished in the past four years.
Just three days before this video and website was to go online, an American soldier serving in Afghanistan wrote an op-ed piece which has since stirred up a national debate. The soldier questioned why we do not lower the flag to half mast when a soldier dies at war. We at Brave New Foundation were so inspired by his question, and were so unanimously on one side of the debate, that we decided to begin a petition to amend the US Flag Code.
After watching this mesmerizing piece, which reminds us of the power and importance of words, you will have a chance to create your own banner regarding Mission Accomplished and to sign a petition to honor the fallen troops. Please click on the link below:
Thank you as always for your support,
Show: Expand All Reply
admitting to a mistake:
http://www.miamiherald.com/509/story/88617.html
Obama critiques Schiavo ordeal
BY BETH REINHARD
Asked to name a mistake, Sen. Barack Obama cited his position toward one of the most polarizing figures in recent Florida politics: Terri Schiavo.
During the first televised debate with his Democratic rivals for president, Obama said Thursday that he regretted not fighting Republican-led efforts in March 2005 to reconnect the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.
''A lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have,'' he said on MSNBC.
``I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that families make those decisions, and not bureaucrats and politicians.''
...
went on vacation for the congressional Easter recess and did not return to the Capitol, where a mostly empty Senate approved a House measure allowing Schiavo's parents to go back to court.
Most voters opposed government intervention in the case. Obama has publicly expressed misgivings before, but never in such a high-profile setting.
77.
Phil Specht
Fri, 04/27/07
12:51 pm
----
bbl
A problem we face, when you have someone without the experience, such as W, you allow the others, your handlers and donors to guide you to your decision and policy making. And you have little experience to form your own policies and then you have policy derived of and catering those special interests. We then WILL have a total breakdown after years and years of Corporation dominance of our government. Wealthy and power at the top, driving down the rest and we will have a collapse and America will be no more. We are on the brink now. When W came in office, the Euro Dollar was worth .80, now it is worth 1.40. If we don't get the correct person to move us forward, SOON, that's it. And for those folks who think that is impossible, did they ever think we would be where we are now? No longer manufacturing. A country of service. Pollution, cost of living, few jobs, less wages, war, major spending increases, less services and our dollar now worth squat. Did they look at history? What about Russia? People are going to have to wake up, grow up and deal with these realities.
One thing I agree with Biden on. This is NOT a game.
On the other thread there is some worry and concern about al qaeda.......this is Ok and dont worry about them.........................heres the answer and our protection!
Obama said Thursday that he regretted not fighting Republican-led efforts in March 2005 to reconnect the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.
Yeah...after he saw that the polls were against the GOP.
today is Independence Day in Sierra Leone:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/27/newsid_2502000/2502411.stm
we are so far out on the election and by time it comes around the media will have ground them all into the ground.
that is why I am not watching any of the debates and the shills run their mouths afterward.
South Burlington, Vermont - April 26, 2007
Howard Dean says he's been misquoted-- again. The former Vermont Governor and current Democratic National Chairman was quoted by several news organizations Wednesday, as saying the best way to get the truth from politicians is to ban the press from the room. But Dean told Marselis Parsons on Thursday, that that is not what he meant-- or said.
"As usual, the press didn't get it right there, either," said Dean. "But the issue is that in campaigns, especially national campaigns, the national press corps does this a lot: They take words and write sensational stories about it. It happens very infrequently in Vermont, very infrequently, but nationally, there are folks who will write stories that are not particularly accurate by taking people out of context. And that's why politicians are so very careful about everything they say. I think that's too bad."
The former governor told us what he really said Wednesday, was that if you want a candidate to speak candidly about an issue to a large group, "then it has to be done without the filter of the national press."
Marselis Parsons - WCAX News
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6...
bbl
Howard Dean has the best batting average in the league for truth telling.
speaking of the media, there's the National Review:
OverviewNational Review is a magazine and book publisher focusing on international and political news and opinion from a conservative Republican viewpoint.
...
Well, IMO the conservatives (like the National Review and it's editors and subscribers) are out to take down Obama and Edwards because of their popularity amongst dem primary voters and delegates:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/27/opinion/main2734955.shtml
Obama, Edwards Prove Giuliani RightNational Review Online: Debate Shows Two Top Dems Don't Understand The War On TerrorApril 27, 2007
(National Review Online) This column was written by Byron York.
On Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani accused his Democratic opponents of being weak on terrorism. "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us," Giuliani said. On Thursday, at their debate in Orangeburg, South Carolina, two of the three leading Democratic candidates did their best to prove Giuliani right.
...
That was it. Obama’s answer to a question of how, as commander-in-chief, he would change America’s "military stance" in response to an attack by al Qaeda did not involve using the military.
...
Edwards offered nothing on how the United States might strike back.
...
Obama and Edwards each get a higher share of the independent votes than H Clinton does.
So IMO the strategy for conservatives is to ensure that H Clinton wins the dem nomination. Then she'll be essentially be tied to her "no nonsense" approach to intervention in the run-up to the general election and my question then is: "How will that approach differ from the repub candidate's approach like Gulliani's or McCain's ?"
All the best to the Grassroots Retreaters. Sorry I can't make it this time.
Mission Accomplished? Not hardly. But then, we've got no business sending missions to the cradle of civilization in the first place.
Anyway--new frame
Conservatives = hierarchists
or, if that's too long a word
elitists
The elite are challenged by equality. What you want to be?
elitist or egalitarian?
Elitists would like to argue that equality is against nature because everybody's got different talents and capabilities. That's true, but equality is a concept like weights and measures. A pound of sugar is different from a pound of flour, but it's still a pound.
So, as people, we are all equally human. Don't like it? Turn yourself into a frog and hope somebody comes along to kiss you.
We must also that waiting in the wings is Israel, which has had a "pre-emptive" hawking "war on terror" policy a la Iraq, since the early eighties with the invasion of Lebanon.
Even if we get liberal progressives against the war in Iraq, if they still support the status quo of the right wing in power in Israel, along with oppression of native Palestininians and former Palestinian refugees, there will be little change in Middle East foreign policy.
FRED from OR
Fri, 04/27/07
2:17 pm
__________________________________________________________________________
Why do you think I basically kicked out the Democratic party?
Sitka
Fri, 04/27/07
1:15 pm
Reply to this
Obama said Thursday that he regretted not fighting Republican-led efforts in March 2005 to reconnect the brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.
Yeah...after he saw that the polls were against the GOP.
-----------
It is easy to think that way in retrospect, but if that's true, I think Obama did the smart thing at the time. The best thing to do on such a sensitive issue was to be silent and give the GOP all the rope they needed to hang themselves.
I think that the Israeli attitude towards Palestinians can only be maintained if one accepts the elitist perspective.
Now, many people derive some secret satisfaction from considering themselves better than someone else. But, I think it's a secret satisfaction and they would deny harboring such ambitions for themselves and, almost certainly, consider them contemptible in others.
The Israeli government has gotten a lot of traction out of poor-mouthing their own population (how they exist in a state of siege and have barely survived the sad memories of the holocaust), but it's about time that they faced reality and admitted to setting themselves up as the lords of the region, the rulers of the promised land, a claim to which they have no right.
"I must be superior because they despise me" hardly seems like a rational position.
I saw howard on blitzer the other day and midway through the interview, where blitz was doing a monologue, he said to howard (simply out of nowhere) "what did u mean when u said that the press should not be in the room when the candidates speak:" Howard was kinda stunned then came back " that is not what I said and as usual the media got it wrong again"
you think ol biltz put that out by himself? no way. no way.
the media has hired shills to say what they want you to hear.after watching moyer the other nite, no more msm for me.
putzes.
kind of like when someone from virginia tech was being interviewed, wolf was asking the guy about the shootings, he said to the young student "what kind of camera do you use?"
wtf.
19.
I would feel more encouraged if he just took the position that politicians ought not to be playing doctor. It's also a position that would help promote single-payer health care of which some people are suspicious, with reason, because of past government interference. You will recall that under the rubric of "public health" some individuals were provided with services that they didn't want, need or ask for (steriliztion, electro-shock therapy, placebos for venereal infections, etc).
Michael Ellis
Fri, 04/27/07
2:27 pm
Why do you think I basically kicked out the Democratic party?
------------
Well - it is hard to tell at times, since understandably there is so much ethnic solidarity among Jewish voters since the holocaust, giving the right-wing Zionists in Israel a "blank check" - not to mention AIPAC money advantage.
One can ask, do the candidates have no choice but to engage in such unconditional pro-Israel rhetoric in order to win? Or do they really feel that right wingish?
Do liberal/progressive Democrats and American Jews really feel as if human rights and Democratic principles regarding freedom of religion and association, do not apply to Zionist Israel?
We make lots of exception for China for business, why not makes exceptions for Israel to keep all Jewish voters on our side?
I will, btw, concede that there are also Democratic elitists. But, Republicans' use of the term should not prevent us from accurately identifying that as their major hang-up.
Racism, sexism and even nationalism (presently rearing its head as anti-immigrant) are all grounded in the notion that some people are better than others. Not that they DO better or worse, but that they ARE better by virtue of some attribute over which they have no control.
When the question last night was, "Who thinks we're not in a war on terror," only DC raised his hand. Or was it the other way around? The point is that as long as the dems continue to spout this belief, putz remains a war prez with all its ugly permutations, and the next prez will also be a unitary war prez. Dangerous stuff, becuz the war on terror,which doesn't exist, will never end and we appear doomed to have one war prez after another. The dems should stand up and loudly proclaim that this is NOT a war or terror and putz is not a war prez. Methinks they like the idea of a dem. war prez.
If putz is NOT a war prez, he has no right to escalate on top of invade.
I've heard details about Edwards health plan. It's excellent and then some and paid for by resinding the tax cuts for the wealthy.
He ended up paying on of his pocket for the haircut. We can't trust the CMW with this stuff. That said,
Gore/Dean/
Monica Smith
Fri, 04/27/07
2:44 pm
Racism, sexism and even nationalism (presently rearing its head as anti-immigrant) are all grounded in the notion that some people are better than others. Not that they DO better or worse, but that they ARE better by virtue of some attribute over which they have no control
------------
Probably seeded in the ancient notion that God rewards us with riches and power, including military power, because we are better in God's ( or the gods') eyes.
Looking at the current list of Democratic candidates (and the Green party candidate for all I know)...............THIS guy would seem the best.....................
seashell
Fri, 04/27/07
2:46 pm
------------
There can be no "war on terror" because "war is terror" as "war is hell"
Fred wrote: One can ask, do the candidates have no choice but to engage in such unconditional pro-Israel rhetoric in order to win? Or do they really feel that right wingish?
*****************************
Fred, a lot of their money comes from AIPAC, not from the Jewish voting population, which bears no ressemblance to the AIPAC ideology. They could decline AIPAC contributions and still win the Jewish vote. Perhaps they don't know this; perhaps they don't want to know this, since AIPAC is certainly shoveling the money into right-wing campaigns that support the insane policies of Olmert and Co.
It' important to remember that money wins elections, not necessarily people..these days. It would be interesting to know exactly where AIPAC gets its money. I hope its not partially from the taxpayers...maybe some from small donors...but I suspect it comes mainly from corporations, especially those engaged in anything military. IMO It's in Israel's best interest to keep the American public unaware of the truth of ME politics.
Who was it that said last night that he believed in an even-handed I/P approach? Richardson?
For the most part, the stage was filled with flat cardboard cutouts (not to insult Flat Howard) empty suits, dems playing it safe. The CMWs like that. I don't believe for a second that the CMW will trash all of them. They've been directed to annoint someone..prolly Clinton.
Fix is in....from cynical me.
FRED from OR
Fri, 04/27/07
2:40 pm
__________________________________________________________________________
Well, maybe...........but they have suckered themsleves(the democrats) into this perpetual war idealogy...................crikey, more americans die of cancer, killed in car crashes, homicides, domestic killings, smoking, nosocomial infections(hospitals) etc etc..than from al qaeda..........
The cycle of backwards foreign policy must be broken................
Michael Ellis
Fri, 04/27/07
3:02 pm
Well, maybe...........but they have suckered themsleves(the democrats) into this perpetual war idealogy...................crikey, more americans die of cancer, killed in car crashes, homicides, domestic killings, smoking, nosocomial infections(hospitals) etc etc..than from al qaeda..........
---------------
But Mike those are acts of GOD, which includes the GOD OF DEREGULATION for most Neocons.
at the take back america conf. they are honoring a local progressive. if u know of anyone, go for it.
Progressive Hero Inbox
Campaign for America's Future | www.ourfuture.orgNominate a Progressive Hero for the Maria Leavey Tribute Award
Maria Leavey was the quintessential unsung progressive hero. A talented advocate who worked tirelessly to make America better with no concern for fame or fanfare . Please take a moment to learn more about Maria's life and selfless service and nominate someone you know for the Maria Leavey Tribute Award. GO»
Dear linda,
You know someone amazing like progressive champion Maria Leavey -- who you probably didn't know.
Someone with strong ideas that move people to action. An organizer who makes things happen without taking credit. A friend who connects with people and brings them together. An activist committed to building the progressive movement, and championing those who most need a voice.
A progressive hero who is making America better with no concern for fame or fanfare.
To honor progressive stars like Maria, we invite you today to nominate an unsung progressive hero for our first annual Maria Leavey Tribute Award, to be presented at Take Back America 2007 this June.
Who was Maria Leavey? Maria was an organizer with extraordinary skills and heart. A behind-the-scenes force who connected rising young talent with Washington leaders. A selfless advocate who often worked without credit, or even compensation.
hey phil let's nominate one of our own grassroots candidates.
seashell
Fri, 04/27/07
2:59 pm
Who was it that said last night that he believed in an even-handed I/P approach? Richardson?
-------------
That's called anti-Israel rhetoric by some.
If AIPAC money is corporate in origin, it may be that they are lobbied into believing AIPAC represents the interest of all Jewish voters, and that Israel is defending itself against a replay of the holocaust. A hard argument to counter if you are not Jewish.
FRED from OR
Fri, 04/27/07
3:08 pm
__________________________________________________________________________
if God does those things to innocent people............then I am going to re-register under the Atheistic party then.............
cheers
In the same way the Republicans all decided to call it the "Democrat" party, no Democrats should use the phrase "War on Terror." It is no more a war that the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty.
Using the term War leads us to using the tools of War -- planes, tanks, ships, soldiers with M-16's.
Instead we should be talking about "Protecting Americans from Terrorism." The tools of protection? Intelligence, police work, guarding (physically, electronically and legally) the entrances to the US: the ports, the roads, the airports. Working with other like minded nations where our goals coincide. Preparing for major catastrope, which includes terrorist attack but also weather, geological and other disasters.
We need to allocate major money and major manpower to protecting Americans from terrorism. Local police and other first responders need to be supported, although they cannot do all the work, nor are they equipped to do so. We ought to consider Gary Hart's proposal to redirect and expand the National Guard to serve in this capacity within the United States.
But it all starts with walking away from "War on Terror", and we need to take the single step today.
Yes, the question was "Who believes we are in a War on Terror".
Richardson,
Biden,
Obama,
Clinton
raised their hands. (ssshhhhhh, I know, what a shocker)
:)
PLEASE AL, we need you.
Time
for a
Cool
Change
Al Gore
2008
The Assault on Reason By Al Gore: A Manifesto for Democracy
...3 weeks to it's release!!!
rich^kolker
Fri, 04/27/07
3:17 pm
In the same way the Republicans all decided to call it the "Democrat" party, no Democrats should use the phrase "War on Terror." It is no more a war that the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty.
--------------
When I first heard the term it did not bother me, because I saw it a proverbial "war" like that on drugs, etc. but, in retrospect, to Rove and the Neocons it was part of a diabolical plan to prepare us for a hellish literal war.
William Fisher | US Attorney Under Attack for "Terror Trophy" Prosecutions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042707J.shtml
A small but increasingly vocal group of protesters is charging that a United States attorney in northern New York has pursued a series of terror-related "political prosecutions" to enhance his reputation as "a loyal Bushie," thus avoiding the fate of his eight colleagues who were recently fired by Alberto Gonzales's Department of Justice.
btw, haven't heard...has W vetoed that Bill yet?
Michael Ellis
Fri, 04/27/07
3:14 pm
if God does those things to innocent people............then I am going to re-register under the Atheistic party then.............
cheers
-----------
Surely I jest. I don't believe God wills these deaths of Americans any more than God wanted the Zionists to ethnically cleanse Israel and oppress the Palestinians remaining in her territories.
But there is widespread belief that if God wants people to die of cancer, poverty, etc. it is none of the government's business.
gotta go for a while
37.
rich^kolker
Fri, 04/27/07
3:17 pm
It is no more a war that the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty.
Using the term War leads us to using the tools of War -- planes, tanks, ships, soldiers with M-16's.
Instead we should be talking about "Protecting Americans from Terrorism." The tools of protection? Intelligence, police work,...
---------
It is war, war in which Bush&Co. "protecting" itself skilfully hiding behind back of the American people by confusing, lying and deceiving them.
Linda in NM, you mean he is going to veto it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haven't heard that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
General Petraeus says:
The war in Iraq may well get harder before it gets easier and American casualties are likely to continue to climb.
One HECK of a great plan, General.. the Surge is working and it includes more U.S. and Iraqi casualties!
How to FIX the numbers:
U>S. Excludes Car Bombs!..in TOUTING Drop in Iraq Violence.
What happens when are troops are stressed to breaking?
US Admits Killing Iraqi Women and Children in Baghdad AirstrikeAfghan Massacre: Criminal Charges Expected Against MarinesArmy Officer Accuses Generals of 'Intellectual and Moral Failures'
antiwar.com
Headlines: Drudgreport.com
U.S. GROWTH WEAKEST IN 4 YEARS...
Euro Hits All-Time High Against Dollar...
FORD says April auto industry sales 'terrible'...
Legendary investor: We are living in the first worldwide bubble...
Things are going great! See Dick and George play? See Dick and George laugh? ...at us.
Good grief, I'm tired of hearing about debates and polls that don't matter much yet. Howard said on CNN yesterday, that polls have absolutely no value this early on. Even CNN had to admit that the "real" pollsters do not appear until very close to primary and general elections.
It's also disgusting to hear MSNBC talking on and on and on about candidates. I truly believe they plan on "deciding" who we will vote for by constant drumming of their chosen candidates and al the propaganda that goes with it.
Wake me up next December or when Al Gore throws his hat in the ring, whichever comes first.
Linda*in*SFNM
Fri, 04/27/07
3:21 pm
Reply to this
Yes, the question was "Who believes we are in a War on Terror".
Richardson,
Biden,
Obama,
Clinton
-------------
That's a hard thing to deny without clarification of your answer. Unfortunately the nature of politics is much more attuned to bumper-sticker sound-bite responses, where the clarification cannot be deliberately left out.
Executive dean Louise Richardson is the senior administrative officer of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and is responsible for the coordination ...
www.radcliffe.edu/about/leadership/richardson.php
What Terrorists Want by Louise Richardson This is at the top of my list for best books on terrorism.”–Jessica Stern, author of Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill
Not because it's nice, but because I think you should know, read this---
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/27/...
only at the very fringe of what in a different context was called a "twilight struggle" are there the need for armed confrontations with "terrorists", because a War on Terror brings in connotations of a military struggle, and as soon as you take that route, because it is counter-productive, the terrorists have won the first battle, which is to make them and their cause a big deal that can get into the mass consciousness,
I'm with you, rich, Gary Hart is a person to be listened to on this subject and so is Louise Richardson.(and you too)
In Iraq Bush has embarked on a different tactic to fight a counter insurgency, which then by the very definition is a war of occupation that has nothing to do with terrorism, other than the fog of war allows the terrorists increased freedom of movement. Contradictory logic never stopped him in the past so it is up to the Democratic Leadership to just go do it. the 08 wannabes can deal themselves in if they want.
FWIW, I've felt for some time that we are lucky that the followers of Islam ascribe misfortune, as well as fortune, to God's will. So, the pestilence that has descended on Iraq is somehow God's will and their reward for bearing up under it is to be united with Him.
While some Americans fear revenge for what they've done to the people of Iraq, revenge seems to be a very event-specific response. In other words, if the perpetrator of an insult is known, there's likely to be revenge on him and/or his family. Which probably accounts for what's being characterized as sectarian violence. Traitors and their families are being removed, but the revenge is not indiscriminate and there's no basis for the notion that "they're going to follow us home."
Good letter in today's NYT:
Re “Giuliani Says a Democratic President Would Make the U.S. Less Safe” (news article, April 26):
Rudy Giuliani, would you please stop with the “vote for us or die” rhetoric?
You recently said that if a Democrat gets elected, we will be going back to our pre-9/11 mentality on defense.
Can you explain exactly how this works, because as I recall, the Republicans were in charge on 9/11, and a lot of people died that day, including my brother-in-law, Sean Canavan, who was in the south tower on the 98th floor.
Please stop insulting our intelligence with your fear-mongering. It’s pitiful.
Republicans are good at sitting useless in a classroom for several minutes while being told that America is under attack. These same Republicans used 9/11 to sell us four years of war in the wrong country. Is that what you call being on the offense? Maybe you meant to say Republicans are offensive.
During last night's debate, Hillary Clinton once again tr
-
By Mz*Little on Apr 27, 2007 1:02 PM EDTFirstness be upon the Deans!