Home » Blog » GOP Congressman: Iraq losses are "a small price" to play
Blog for America
GOP Congressman: Iraq losses are "a small price" to play
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) on CNN's the Situation Room, assesses the price for Americans of the Iraq war. Here's Sen. John Kerry's response to Rep. Boehner's comments.
Show: Expand All Reply
John Kerry lost and sold out the Democratic voters in Ohio. Where was Senator Kerry when Senator Boxer stood up for our votes?
I want everyone of the Democratic Presidential Candidates signing onto a statement, stating they will stand up and see to it that very American vote is counted in the very election.
The Draft Al Gore movement has swung in to high gear. United with the common goal to draft Al Gore, they have joined forces to create America For Gore. Today we start a campaign for the citizens to add their 2 cents on who and why we know we want and need, Al Gore, to seek the Presidency of the United States and you too can join.
"The basic idea of the campaign is so simple that a caveman could do it. To convince Gore to step into the race, we are asking all Gore supports to mail him two pennies, together with a note indicating real support will be provided if he accepts the challenge and runs for president. We feel that the mountain of pennies will be a constant reminder to Mr. Gore that America needs and wants him to run."
"It seems quite clear that Al Gore has not yet made up his mind about his role in the 2008 collections. He and his staff are well aware of our efforts and initiatives and have done absolutely nothing to discourage us, unlike 2004 when he asked that such actions stop. That's why it is very important that every Al Gore supporter act now to make sure that he is aware of their support. We are just asking you to take a moment from your day and wrap it up with two pennies and send it off to Gore's headquarters. The pennies should be sent, preferably in an envelope made of recycled paper, to Office of:
The Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue, Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203
3. here, here!
This thread didn't get promoted. It seems the dates got reversed. Published s/b 9/14, promoted 9/15. Oh well, maybe it will get changed.
Books
Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, an American Political ... By Tracy Campbell
A history of election fraud in the United States exposes the ways in which political culture is diminished by election corruption, citing such practices of ballot stuffing, voter intimidation, and returns manipulation while explaining how election reform practices have only changed the methods through which corruption occurs.
More about this book: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?is...
---
Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America By Andrew Gumbel
The author details the history of electoral fraud in America, from Tammany Hall to the 2000 election, revealing many examples of misconduct on election day and arguing that free and fair elections have been the exception in the U.S. rather than the norm.
More about this book: http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=29928&...
---
What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election by Bob Fitrakis
More about this book: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?is...
4.
Linda*in*SFNM
Run Al Run!
Stop the Republican "Steal the State" Plot is our site of the day
Stop the Republican "Steal the State" Plot is the one stop place where you can keep in touch with news, useful information, and find out how you can become involved with stopping a potential ballot initiative that could decide the entire 2008 Presidential Election in June.
You read that right--If the ballot measure now backed by the California Republican State Party to change the Electoral College passes in June, the November election may have been decided at that point. Barring a real Democratic landslide, there will be no way for the Democratic nominee to win the general election. It will take 22 electoral votes (about the same number that the state of Ohio has) from California and give it to the Republicans. ....full story: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/...
Stop the Republican "Steal the State" Plot: http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/...
Which NeoCon said this in January 2007?
"Iran is serious about its threats,"
"Iran must know that the world won’t back down,"
......also discussed Syria's recent calls for peace with Israel, saying that "talk is cheap," and that Syria was not doing enough to prove it was serious.
........ also said that Syria has been a great source of destabilization in the area, from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas, to its relationship with Iran, and for this it should be held accountable.
........went so far as to suggest that Israel should even be made a member of NATO, saying it was only natural that the organization would seen to include Israel next.
(Did I say "NeoCon"? I meant NeoDem.)
A CANADIAN VIEW
Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail
I won't post the link as it's subscription only...............
When the hour is darkest, a hero will appear." -Anonymous.
For America's sake, and for our own, we'd better hope so.
On this continent, we confront strange circumstance. Canada, sound on the basis of so many barometers, is at one of its historic highpoints. The United States, beset on so many fronts, is much the opposite.
Rarely in our bilateral history have we witnessed this. One parallel, perhaps, is the early years of Pierre Trudeau and Richard Nixon. After Canada's centennial celebrations, the sky looked to be the limit. But the shine soon faded. We limped through the stagflation of the 1970s.
Any optimism today, any talk of a golden age, need be similarly curbed by the coincident regression of the United States. The interconnections are too many to be escaped.
Reflective of the new America was its decision in Sydney this week to forego specific targets on greenhouse gas emissions. When the lead player balks, what chance is there of real progress? Washington's choice came as no surprise - post-9/11, America acts on its own hard-nationalist impulse (with Nixon and Henry Kissinger there was détente), and damn the torpedoes.
The current U.S. plight is not something we like to dwell on. Good neighbourliness suggests we tread gently. Raise hard questions and any number of knees will start jerking, and out will pour infantile cries of anti-Americanism. Whether it's pro- or anti- is obviously beside the point. What counts is the degree of truth.
Our future, to a degree, is on the line here. Realities must be faced:
1. Global warming. America is the world's biggest emitter and a leading foot-dragger.
2. War and peace. The Iraq quagmire.
3. Human rights. Washington was once a leading proponent, but post 9/11, think of the Geneva Conventions, of Gitmo, of Abu Ghraib, of rendition, of domestic spying.
4. The arms race. Think of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and the hope they stirred. Now think of unrestrained stockpiling, U.S. defence budgets that exceed all other nations combined, the weaponization of outer space.
5. Collective security. Once the world leader on this front, Washington has undermined multilateralism in recent years, breaking or spurning no less than a half-dozen international treaties or conventions.
6. Violence. America's gun culture is the most uncivilized of any civilized country. The Sept. 11 attacks killed 3,000. The country has had 100,000 gun-related deaths since.
7. Health care. The U.S. system is not Sicko, as the hyperbolized film declared, but the country, a leader in obesity, leaves no fewer than 45 million people uninsured.
8. Income equality. On the gap between the rich and the poor, no advanced country is doing worse than the world's wealthiest country.
9. Culture. Perhaps 20 per cent is inspired and marvellous, while 80 per cent is dumbed-down trash.
10. Economy. The world's most indebted nation.
The United States is still the world's leading economic engine and technological trailblazer. Its leading universities are unsurpassed. Its founding ideals are an inspiration. Its people are terrific.
But let's not kid ourselves. The United States of today is no shining city on a hill. While many of its ills have been festering a long time and don't heavily reverberate north of the border, many are new and do. The tilt of current-day America means Canada is more inclined to be caught up in the clash of civilizations. It means more border paranoia. It means Canada could soon get dragged down economically. It means no world leadership on arms control, the environment, etc. And if there is another terrorist attack, there is no telling what the resulting hysteria will occasion.
----------------------------------------------------------
Martin goes on to (Naiively IMO) tout Obama as the solution to all these problems.
I could learn to live with Gore-Obama (in the Absence of Kucinich), or even Edwards-Obama
Oooops, I just looked up the source of Sitka's quotes (9)
Scratch Edwards. He's in AIPAC's pocket (along with both Clinton and Obama).
I could learn to live with...... Edwards-Obama
I've lived with the worse all my life and am quite adept at it.
Camille Paglia on Hillary
Hillary is having trouble with educated women of her generation. We seem to be the hardest sell for her right now because we've observed her, admired her, embraced her - and then become disillusioned. There's a sense that she doesn't possess core values. One feels she's uncentred in some odd way. And the chaos of her domestic life is not reassuring.
On the campaign trail, she doesn't make an emotional connection with her audience because she's always parsing language. She's a rhetorician. You get these parsings of the Iraq war - "Well, if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted that way." What does she mean? That she wouldn't have voted that way if she'd known it would cost her politically?
There's an over-clever, over-conceptualized political personality there who has trouble being an ordinary person.
For someone with so much international exposure, she's not great on the stage. She's well prepared with her sound bites. But when she has to play outside her sphere of preparation, she seems taken by surprise. When someone asked her, "Do you think homosexuality is immoral?" she just shunted it off. She said, "I'll leave that for others to decide." She's essentially a policy wonk. She has no vision.
Then there's the sense of her espousing feminist ideals on the one hand, but also tolerating gross exploitation and insult from her womanizing husband. For me, the worst was her campaign of defamation against the working-class and lower-middle-class women her husband solicited. She has tremendous powers of denial to block out what is going around her in her own family life. But she's also able to perceive herself as an ethical, God-fearing, Bible-reading Methodist who is quasi-saintly for her commitment to ethical causes. She will not admit a mistake. She has no power of self-analysis. She thinks all her problems are due to her enemies.
And we don't want a situation when Bill Clinton is acting as proxy president in the White House.
Camille Paglia on Iraq
What's the right course now?
We should withdraw. My attitude is there is no moment when the withdrawal of forces will not create a vacuum into which chaos will rush. It's time to get out and let the Iraqis settle their own mess. We cannot be having American forces occupying countries around the world.
I don't know who Camille Paglia is.
I find the Hillary criticisms to be shallow -- criticise her record, rhetoric, or proposals.
I agree with the Iraq statement.
I liked 10 and 14 - thanks Huron.
I hate phantom threads.
Sitka
Sat, 09/15/07
12:20 pm
I don't know who Camille Paglia is.
From Wikepedia (All you wanted to know, and probably more):
Camille Anna Paglia (born April 2, 1947 in Endicott, New York) is an American social critic, author and teacher. She is a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Paglia completed her undergraduate studies at Binghamton University and later, her graduate studies at Yale. She has been variously called the "feminist that other feminists love to hate," a "post-feminist feminist," one of the world's top 100 intellectuals by the UK's Prospect Magazine, and by her own description "a feminist bisexual egomaniac."
Did I kill bloggie with all the links?
I think this Congressmeans name speaks for itself with regard to his inteligence level.................
I'm not. I'm here wondering why women are behind Clinton.
I have so many finches, I'm off to buy another feeder. There's one little finch that hardly ever flys off when the others get spooked by my dishwashing or whatever. So I watched him/her for awhile and discovered that he is blind in his right eye. The whole side of his face is a bit mashed but does he have an appetite and doesn't let the others bully him into flying off.
While Clinton and Obama spoke directly to AIPAC a few months ago, I don't think Edwards did. Do we know for certain that he's still very pro AIPAC?
bbl
I could learn to live with...... Edwards-Obama
___________________________________________________________________________
LOL...............I love the lingo...............in other words, many of you will have to "settle", again................
Why bother anymore?
"We won't be fooled again".
A reminder:
The People Party leaders and the Money Party leaders...Who's who among Democrats.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/930
In case we forget.
But whenever I suggest we start reaching across the aisle, you and the others start insinuating that we are collaborating with Republicans Neocons, which is false, because if they come over to our side, we are not joining them. They are joining us.
Republicans are not "coming over to our side" since "our side" -- as in the "majority of Americans" -- wants out of Iraq completly and immediately. All Republicans want is to appear as if they are giving Americans a little of what we want before the next election. "Reaching across the aisle" to them is just another form of capitulation to and collaboration with Bush and the NeoCon agenda.
"We won't be fooled again".
Some of us who want to collaborate with those who want to stay in Iraq will.
The biggest problem with funding is that we need override a veto, so there would be a standoff and the government would come to a standstill.
False. Bush cannot veto a funding bill he doesn't get -- which what Democrats should do. Give him nothing until he agrees to sign whatever they give him. And the government won't shut down over -- just the occupation.
A standoff during the Clinton administration had Congress taking the blame in polls, so it is at least a political gamble.
That was over Social Security, which a majority of American did not want cut. The majority were with Democrats. In this case a majority are still with Democrats (or at least what Democrats claim) about ending the occupation. Only craven Democrats could possibly think it a "political gamble" to side with a majority of Americans against the most unpopular president in a generation.28.
Sitka
Sat, 09/15/07
7:23 pm
Reply to this
The biggest problem with funding is that we need override a veto, so there would be a standoff and the government would come to a standstill.
False. Bush cannot veto a funding bill he doesn't get -- which what Democrats should do. Give him nothing until he agrees to sign whatever they give him. And the government won't shut down over -- just the occupation.
=========================
just because you say so? If neither side gives in how long can it go on and what will get done in Congress. Remember the expression "do nothing" Congress? What kind of scenario do you envision?
These things a very important and was a rare opportunity to get minimum wage increase with this president.
The minimum wage law was tacked onto the last mortgage Dems gave Bush for his occupation. If that's what passes for accomplishment these days it's no wonder this country is going down the pipes.
Is congress going to do nothing about this? The attack by Israel does not bode well.
CONGRESS do something???
BWAAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
And Edwards wants to let Israel into NATO so that we'll be dragged into every one one of their squabbles.
just because you say so? If neither side gives in how long can it go on and what will get done in Congress. Remember the expression "do nothing" Congress? What kind of scenario do you envision?
What has Congress done but give Bush everything he orders in exchange for a few peanuts? Better to do nothing than that.
But that doesn't mean Democrats can't push other items to the front of their agaenda -- like the issues people expect from Democrats, and make the GOP and Bush be the obstructionists.
Trey thinking outside of the box propagandists and pundits always put Democrats in.
A good video that really depicts what a small and paranoid little creature man is with all his paranoias, foolish religions and their cruel treatment of fellow beings, phoney politicians and their lying wasteful habits and ways.........................I could go on............................
Say what you want about people, but it can't be denied that we are as natural to this world as it's greatest beauties -- and it's deadliest viruses.
New book out by Zephyr...anyone ordered it? It is called Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope.
http://www.amazon.com/Mousepads-Shoe-Leather-Hope-Campaign/dp/1594514852
Here are some of the contributors....
by Zephyr Teachout (Author), Thomas Streeter (Author), Jerome Armstrong (Contributor), Larry Biddle (Contributor), Manuel Castells (Contributor), Bobby Clark (Contributor), Howard Dean (Contributor), Zack Exley (Contributor), Matthew Gross (Contributor), Aldon Hynes (Contributor), Joshua Koenig (Contributor), Nicco Mele (Contributor), Amanda Michel (Contributor), Kelly Nuxoll (Contributor), Pam Paul (Contributor), Araba Sey (Contributor), Michael Silberman (Contributor)
31. Sitka
===========
I have no disagreement with what you say, but you did not give me an example of a favorable scenario on a standoff, without a 2/3 override.
Pentagon is complaining that betrayus' picture was used by Moveon, Rudy, and others "without his permission". Talk about Chutzpah!
Apart from being a liar and a shill for Bush and Cheney, he's a public figure
Screw the Generals!
have no disagreement with what you say, but you did not give me an example of a favorable scenario on a standoff, without a 2/3 override.
41 votes in the Senate. If Reid can't produce them, he's no leader and should resign.
Michael, I love the Pastoral and grew up with many of those images. I am humbled, always, before the great God Nature. I didn't see any *evil* in those photos. Oh, that's right. It's becuz evil doesn't exist except in the hearts, minds and actions of spiritually ill humans.
Thank you, Michael.
Could we start a *41 votes* or petition to send to Reid and Pelosi? Moveon should be setting the record straight about the 41 votes.
So should Keith. Ah, I feel another letter coming on.......LOL
I have no disagreement with what you say, but you did not give me an example of a favorable scenario on a standoff, without a 2/3 override.
Of course I did. I said send Bush no bill until he agrees to sign whatever is sent. Don't buy into the illusion put forward by propagandists and their corporate media pundits that Democrats MUST give Bush what he demands or else have the votes to override his veto.
There is a third option and all it takes is the political courage to stand with the solid majority of Americans who want complete and immediate witdrawl from Iraq. Democrats have to be pretty craven to be afraid of being with the majority.
If Pelosi put impeachment on the table, bushie might have second thoughts about his *power* and belligerence. She simply is not using the tools at her disposal. Perhaps she doesn't have opposable thumbs.
You dancing again Seashell?
41. Sitka
Of course I did. I said send Bush no bill until he agrees to sign whatever is sent.
============
Sound simple enough, maybe too simple. I have a feeling you may be overlooking something. Has you or anyone else suggested this to lawmakers? What is their response? I would like to know why if this is such an easy thing to do why it has not been done?
I don't accept the cynical remarks that you and John make implying that it doesn't happen because Democrats simply don't want to end the war in their heart of hearts. That's nonesense. There's got to be more to it than that.
I don't accept the cynical remarks that you and John make implying that it doesn't happen because Democrats simply don't want to end the war in their heart of hearts. That's nonesense. There's got to be more to it than that.
There isn't. They're cowards.
If Pelosi put impeachment on the table, bushie might have second thoughts about his *power* and belligerence.
<>What is most repellent about Pelosi's "off the table" declaration is that she has no power or business even trying to take anything in the Constitution "off the table."
While using impeachment as a bargaining tool to make Bush end his occupation isn't right, it is the House's duty to impeach Bush if it is belived he is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Pelosi was as contemptuous of the Constitution as Bush himself when she declared she will ignore it's provisions at her choosing regardless of circumstances.
42. seashell :-)
If Pelosi put impeachment on the table...
=======
If anyone puts impeachment on the table, they had better be prepared, hychologically and legally, o succeed. "mpeach" may give everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling, but it is not something to bluff about. Nothing could be more politically damaging for Democrats and politically euphoric for Republicans, than an impeachment effort that fails.
And BTW, you can also forget about accomplishing anything in Congress for the next six months, not to mention abandoning a Congressional override attempt to change strategy in Iraq, then and thereafter - if partisan tensions are ratcheted up.
I don't accept the cynical remarks that you and John make implying that it doesn't happen because Democrats simply don't want to end the war in their heart of hearts. That's nonesense. There's got to be more to it than that.
My opinion of it is that they are corrupted by those making billions upon billions -- and one day a trillion -- off of Bush's invasion and occupation.
looks like the insert button on my keyboard got stuck.
Not yet, Huron, but getting closer. I'll be ready for Argentina early October. It's a yucky strained groin from some very aerobic dancing!
Thanks for asking.
hey boner, don't see u or your kids in iraq. where the h do u get that tan>
If anyone puts impeachment on the table, they had better be prepared, hychologically and legally, o succeed. "mpeach" may give everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling, but it is not something to bluff about. Nothing could be more politically damaging for Democrats and politically euphoric for Republicans, than an impeachment effort that fails.
It will fail in the Senate where 67 votes are needed to convict.
But think back. Impeaching Clinton didn't hurt the GOP one bit (they won the next election) because their BASE voters thought they did the right thing.
48. Sitka
My opinion of it is that they are corrupted by those making billions upon billions -- and one day a trillion -- off of Bush's invasion and occupation.
============
Such a far-fetched pretense may be the only way you can make sense of nonsense. Reminds me of when they said about Jesus, "by the power of the devil, he casts out devils"
Such a far-fetched pretense may be the only way you can make sense of nonsense.
Far-fetched is believing that American politicians haven't been corruptable for all of the past 218 years.
Sound simple enough, maybe too simple.
Whether it's going green or leaving Iraq, "too simple" is the excuse of those who declare change to be "too complicated" in order to stop it and protect the status quo.
51. Sitka
But think back. Impeaching Clinton didn't hurt the GOP one bit (they won the next election) because their BASE voters thought they did the right thing.
===========
There is no way to prove it hurt or helped the GOP. Just because they held the majority and Bush won, doesn't mean it helped them.
It is a different thing. What Clinton did was a simple fact, and there was nothing to argue. Whatever we impeach Bush for will be vigorously defended and the proof will have to be impeccable. It will drag on for months. The stakes are much higher. It is a completely different thing.
I am not against impeachment, but we better be prepared.
54. Sitka
Far-fetched is believing that American politicians haven't been corruptable for all of the past 218 years.
============
very good, Sitka, but have you or anyone you know, suggested this idea (withholding bills) to anyone in Congress, and could tell us what their response (excuse) was?
I am not a legislative expert and could not tell you what the problem might be.
There is no way to prove it hurt or helped the GOP.
They won the next election.
What Clinton did was a simple fact, and there was nothing to argue.
Here's the simple facts about Bush. There is nothing to argue about them either.....
<>President Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destructio
<>United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
<> "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
<>Radio Address
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
<> <>"The evidence indicates that
-
By Susan Rowe on Sep 15, 2007 10:27 AM EDTThe DFA grassroots are first!