Dean is first!

http://charlie-wilson-s-war-trailer.blog...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wil...'s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wil...

http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/e...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_C...

...The US government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,[4] who Pakistani officials believed was "their man".[5] Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK). Alarmed by his behavior Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar that "It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave". According to a Newsweek article, in the late 1980s, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned of the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein". Author Gilles Kepel reports that American funding of Hekmatyar and his Hezbi Islami party was cut off immediately following the withdrawal of the Soviets.

The U.S. says all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. It is estimated that 35,000 foreign Muslims from 43 Islamic countries participated in the war. ...

The US Government has no business initiating its own investigation of the Bhutto tragedy, if for no other reason, because its credibility is, if anything, worse than the Pakistan Govt.

There should definitely be an outside, international investigation, but it should not be used as an opportunity for US politicians to bloviate and point fingers. It should be in the hands of neutral parties, like Switzerland or the Benelux countries.

I'll say again, if there's a US govt. investigation, Cheney will be behind it and find a reason to attack Iran (which the AIPAC-whipped Democrats will support).

9:46 am

Mike wrote "Ahh, thinking American I see........................I doubt 90% of the rest of the world gives a flying fuck about the game............."

I'm an American.  I think American professional football is the worst of the panoply of spectator sports bar none.   I would rather watch curling. 

Huge human specimens with the build of sumo wrestlers line up and crash their stomachs into each other while a bunch of extravagantly paid actual athletes run around in mortal fear of losing their income for the rest of the season by getting flattened by one of those cows, triggering their survival instinct and causing them to slide or run towards the sidelines as a handy escape.

Not that I blame them.  Since the game includes the same generic violence of hockey but is not conducted on the gliding playing surface that prevents hockey playing from constituting a literal death wish, the participants are constantly planted into the turf with predictably disastrous results.  As a consequence, the true glory of competition that you sometimes observe in the college game is routinely diluted in the professional sport for practical financial reasons, making the weekly matches a mockery of the game we enjoyed playing more recklessly as boys in our youth.

what you are saying Tom is that football defensive linemen are giants among mere mortals

I agree

I'll be watching the game, and I would bet on the Pats, but I won't be cheering for them because New England is getting the big head what with the Celtics and Red Sox and all

with Iowa in a three way tie, at least no one is getting the big head among the candidates

72. I think a house cat could jump 12 feet.

Football and other games - basically I am not even vaguely interested, but if someone finds passion in it and expresses it here, what's the harm?

if you are a running back for Ohio State and you see that face, prepare to meet your maker

is that the message Tom?

I agree

Phil,

Sorry I missed you and Jon in Elkader yesterday at the Richardson event.  It was a decent turnout and Bill gave a short speech and then had a 45 minute question and answer period with lots of different topics covered.

My wife and I were able to sit down for about ten minutes with Governor Richardson beforehand and talk about things we were concerned about.  The conversation focused mainly on education with my wife being a teacher and myself being on the local school board. 

one of my barn cats jumped five feet straight up to catch a sparrow in flight that had been picking at ground corn along the bunk. another walks along the edge of a sheet of 3/8 plywood to get to a napping spot above the LP heater, cats can be amazing athletes 

Glenn Dorsey (pictured above) is a cat like 300 lbs.

Phile wrote "what you are saying Tom is that football defensive linemen are giants among mere mortals" and "if you are a running back for Ohio State and you see that face, prepare to meet your maker."

Yes and yes.  However, my larger point was that watching pro football is boring.  I'd be more interested watching your herd jostling eachother out in the pasture.

Kevin I wanted to be there, I broke the yoke on my quick tach lever on my skid steer bucket, and we got dumped on here on the ridge and I had to fix the skidsteer to move snow.

I'm going to pick up my credentials today and catch Biden.

had Richardson Biden and Dodd had 50 million apiece they might be one two three

Phil wrote "I would bet on the Pats, but I won't be cheering for them because New England is getting the big head what with the Celtics and Red Sox and all."

That's our problem, too, with the Wings, Tigers and Pistons.  I know Karen will back me up on this. 

 I'd be more interested watching your herd jostling eachother out in the pasture

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the boss cow gets a real challenge only once every three or four years, but when it happens, tickets would sell for $20

WILLIAM F-ING KRISTOL???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/28/bill-kristol-to-become-e_n_78635.html

the New York Times is set to announce that Bill Kristol will become a weekly columnist in 2008. Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative who recently departed Time magazine in what was reported as a "mutual" decision, has close ties to the White House and is a well-known proponent of the war in Iraq. Kristol also is a regular contributor to Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume.

AHHH, THE LIBERAL MEDIA!

had Richardson Biden and Dodd had 50 million apiece they might be one two three

... yep, it's a shame that there wasn't another $150 million spent in Iowa. The heck with all those Congressional races throughout the rest of the country, and truly progressive candidates.

Man i'm glad Iowa is the boss cow!

Mail Call from yesterday, Friday 12/29

2 Pro Edwards pieces from the Edwards campaign

1 Pro Obama/Anti Hillary from the Obama campaign

2 Pro Biden from 'Operation: Smart Exit'

1 Pro Hillary from the Hillary campaign

4 Pro Edwards from the 'Alliance for a New America'

1 Caucus resolution reminder from the 'Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease'

1 Pro Richardson/Anti Hillary,Obama,Edwards from the 'National Rifle Association'

1 Pro Richardson/Anti Hillary,Edwards,Obama from the Richardson campaign

1 Pro Dodd from the Dodd campaign

1 Pro Hillary from the 'American Federation of Teachers' 

Lest we forget...

{STEWARD A. BAKER, PARTNER, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, AND FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY}

MR. KEAN: Congressman Roemer?

REP. ROEMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baker, your testimony is very interesting and compelling and I happen to agree with most of it. I just want to be very clear as to your points and if you could just briefly answer these as yes or no and maybe a sentence to precisely clarify what you mean by it, but I don't want hopefully long answers to these questions. You say in your opening paragraph of your testimony before the 9/11 commission that the government knew the names of the two hijackers, not the private sector, the government knew the names of the two hijackers. The government knew that these were al Qaeda killers.

MR. BAKER: Yes.

REP. ROEMER: And the government knew that they had entered the United States of America?

MR. BAKER: Yes. I get that from the Joint Intelligence Committee inquiry.

REP. ROEMER: You also go on to state that these two people, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, were openly living in the country and using credit cards and other sources of information that would have made them readily accessible to the government apprehending them whether they were in California or Virginia or Ohio or some other part of the country, is that correct?

MR. BAKER: That's right.

Deaniac

what I am saying is Iowa won't produce a winner, that all that money has been spent, and any one of the eight that could raise the twenty million or so to run ads for Feb 5th could still do it, if they catch fire in the national imagination, but the national media won't even acknowledge Richardson is a candidate, much less Kucinich, and that has nothing to do with Iowa

but pretending it doesn't cost tens millions to run for President is in denial

not that that is a good thing, but how about a reality check 

"UNELECTABLE" DENNIS WINS VA DEM POLL

Here are the results as of December 25th

Dennis Kucinich 30%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 27%
Barack Obama 14%
John R. Edwards 12%
Bill Richardson 9%
Joe Biden 9%

Asked about the Democratic Party's poll results, Kucinich volunteer Andrea Miller said what she's been saying for months: "Dennis can win. We just have to vote for him."

Who could have imagined? (Condi Rice circa late 2001, worst American EVER)


NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES Public Hearing Tuesday, January 27, 2004 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC
...
MR. TIMOTHY J. ROEMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
...
In January '95 a Philippine National Police raid turns up materials in Manila where there is a proposed plot, among other things, to possibly crash an airplane into CIA headquarters.
In 1998, August, the intelligence community obtains information that a group of unidentified Arabs plans to fly an explosive laden plane into a foreign country -- from a foreign country into the World Trade Center.
September 1998 the intelligence community obtains information that Usama bin Laden's next operation could involve flying aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport.
November '98 the intelligence community obtains information that a Turkish Islamic extremist group has planned a suicide attack, in part involving a plane and crashing that with explosives into Ataturk's tomb.
The list, March 1999, August 2001, goes on.
With respect to what we're doing here at home to protect our passengers and our planes, here's the information that we have at the FAA. Here's the internal document, developed in the summer of 2000, delivered in 2001 prior to 9/11 and here's a quote from this document that's warning about terrorist hijackings.
"A domestic hijacking would likely result in a greater number of American hostages but would be operationally more difficult to accomplish. We don't rule it out." And it continues, "If, however, the intent of the hijackers is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable," unquote. Directly to the point of 9/11.
And then finally published in July 17, 2001, the Federal Register, quote, "Terrorism can occur anytime, anywhere in the United States. Members of foreign terrorist groups, representatives from state sponsors of terrorism and radical fundamentalist elements from many nations are present in the United States. Thus an increasing threat to civil aviation from both foreign sources and potential domestic ones exist and needs to be prevented and countered." Needs to be prevented and countered.
So my question is, with all this evidence coming in -- it's not a specific date, granted, but the dots are connected and they're large and they're looming and they're big. Why doesn't this result in a change in terrorism policy at our airports to try to expand the list of things that we're going to try to go after beyond the possibility of explosive devices on airplanes? ...

MSM TARGETING EDWARDS

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_linda_mi_071228_hey_media_21_21_pencils_.htm

Mainstream media's (MSM's) manufactured Presidential campaign, spun by corporate punditz, has been a frustrating slog for John Edwards' supporters. Not because Edwards, himself, is disappointing.

It's the corporate media that's the problem. It's the fact that John Edwards is the target of agenda journalism which undermines his popularity and the extent to which his message resonates nationwide.

There are two rationales for MSM's strategy to weaken John Edwards:

One: John Edwards is the avowed enemy of greed-ridden corporations, and promises to end corporate dominance over the livesof Americans.

Two: Edwards doesn't cast well in corporate media's electoral theatre. He's unsuitable for their pre-penned Presidential drama, staged in three acts, and performed this past year, this nextyear, and for years to come in a politically contrived cable & network run.

The theatrical elements of MSM's NON Edwards Presidential "drama" are culturally compelling:

Act One features America's "first ever" minority on minority Presidential primary smack-down.

Regardless of which "first ever" prevails in Act One of the Clinton/Obama drama, it's a win-win for corporate media. This is rarefied original theatre, with NO casting opportunity for John Edwards, whose traditional white male candidacy usurps the originality of the best socio-political drama to come along in years.

Act Two features the historic matchup of the new "first ever" nominee against the conventional white male nominee of the Republican Party. This plot line serves MSM's selfish corporate interests much more than the conventional white male versus white male plot a John Edwards candidacy would bring.
 

Despite how strongly Edwards polls against every Republican running, corporate media suppresses the reality of his success. When corporations control the message, they control the campaign.

Act Three - the one mainstream media most ambitiously pursues - has been hyped continuously by punditz for the entire past year. For corporate punditz, no political drama could be better than four or eight years starring President Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton, one-half of America's most prominent corporate union, is aligned with possibly every corporation in the world through husband Bill's "Clinton Global Initiative" (CGI). Even Rupert Murdoch, Fox's dear leader, is a CGI donor, and a Hillary donor, as well!

and yes one of the reasons both Republicans and Democrats work together to keep Iowa's status is that it is a prime cash cow for our economy, speaking of cows

that is why progressives should be keeping their powder dry to give a big push just when it is timely since the coffers are dry for the "top tier"

I don't consider Dodd or Biden progressives, but either could function as the recipient of a Clinton stumble and come on late.

53.

Monica Smith

Well said. As I've been saying, we'll have a new face no matter what. It's just what direction that face will take us on.

Obama's last ad sound just like Edwards, it is clear he thinks Edwards could win in Iowa. but he one ups him with the last line

"End tax breaks for corporations that take jobs overseas, we need tax breaks for corporations that create jobs here in Iowa"

whatever happened to fiscal sanity? enough with the tax breaks already for corporations, where ever

So Phil,

... voting/caucusing for the candidate with the best record of being pro lower/middle class, pro environment, pro peace, pro medical coverage, and pro civil liberties involves tens of millions of dollars because?????

Don't the news outlets have the ability to rank the candidates' records, don't the industrious citizens of Iowa and every other state?

Why do Iowans 'hog' the candidiates, expect to be 'woooooed', 'need' specialized attention. Why do the broadcasting outlets in Iowa need sooooo much cash flow, why does the economy of Iowa need this infusion every four years?

... and isn't it the case that if a candidate doesn't or can't play those games they are toast?

... well? Thought so.

CREEPING (AND CREEPY) FASCISM

http://www.alternet.org/story/71881/

These are the words of Sebastian Haffner (pen name for Raimund Pretzel), who as a young lawyer in Berlin during the 1930s experienced the Nazi takeover and wrote a first-hand account.

Goebbels Would be Proud

It has been two years since top New York Times officials decided to let the rest of us in on the fact that the George W. Bush administration had been eavesdropping on American citizens without the court warrants required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The Times had learned of this well before the election in 2004 and acquiesced to White House entreaties to suppress the damaging information.

What followed struck me as bizarre. The day after the Dec. 16 Times feature article, the president of the United States publicly admitted to a demonstrably impeachable offense. Authorizing illegal electronic surveillance was a key provision of the second article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. On July 27, 1974, this and two other articles of impeachment were approved by bipartisan votes in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Far from expressing regret, the president bragged about having authorized the surveillance "more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks," and said he would continue to do so. The president also said:

"Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it."

Were the appropriate leaders in Congress informed that within days of George W. Bush's first inauguration the NSA electronic vacuum cleaner began to suck up information on you and me, despite the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment?

Are They All Complicit?

And are Democratic leaders about to cave in and grant retroactive immunity to those telecommunications corporations -- AT&T and Verizon -- who made millions by winking at the law and the Constitution? (Qwest, to it's credit, heeded the advice of its general counsel who said that what NSA wanted done was clearly illegal.)

What's going on here? Have congressional leaders no sense for what is at stake? Lately the adjective "spineless" has come into vogue in describing congressional Democrats -- no offense to invertebrates.

You don't have to be a Nazi. You can just be, well, a sheep.

In his journal Sebastian Haffner decries what he calls the "sheepish submissiveness" with which the German people reacted to a 9/11-like event, the burning of the German Parliament (Reichstag) on Feb. 27, 1933. Haffner finds it quite telling that none of his acquaintances "saw anything out of the ordinary in the fact that, from then on, one's telephone would be tapped, one's letters opened, and one's desk might be broken into."

But it is for the cowardly politicians that Haffner reserves his most vehement condemnation. Do you see any contemporary parallels here?

This is what can happen when virtually all are intimidated.

Our Founding Fathers were not oblivious to this; thus, James Madison:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

We cannot say we weren't warned.

and yes one of the reasons both Republicans and Democrats work together to keep Iowa's status is that it is a prime cash cow for our economy

Who was it that said "the love of mammon (money) is..."

... and isn't it the case that if a candidate doesn't or can't play those games they are toast?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

only if sheeple in other states don't do their own due diligence

there are endless youtube clips from the candidates in Iowa which anyone of you can watch just like you were there in person, and the Iowa process has gotten them on record, which a national primary would never do

if Clinton doesn't win, they will de downplayed by the media, so the rest of you get your wish to have a part

in reality your national convention delegate selection process gives you the same say as any Iowan if you use it

32.

Phil Specht
Sat, 12/29/07

... very old excuse for Iowans not even considering the actual records of, and likely future actions of, the candidates.

You can't have it both ways, there friend. You can't be the brightest and first... then expect the rest of us to stop the avalanche once the cannon has started it.

It is incumbant on Iowans to see thru all the flying 100 dollar bills... but i'm not holding my breathe.

26.  If you define progressive as moving towards equality, then I don't know why either Dodd or Biden wouldn't qualify.  I happen to think that Edward's antagonism toward the corporations is mis-placed.  True.  Corporations carry out the agenda of the elite, but it isn't necessarily so.  I think the biggest scam is "maintaining competition."  All government has been used to grant and maintain monopolies.  While restricting the competition with regulations is neater and less bloody than the way the Mafia does it, the result is the same.  

Have a great day everybody!

I'm off to the annual Powell fat and sugar fest, also known as the Powell Family Christmas Gathering.

Take care 

33.

Phil Specht
Sat, 12/29/07

De nile... not just a river.

Love ya, but you still can't have it both ways.

Kucinich/Feingold '08

Peace on earth. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - equally.

they wouln't be answering questions from anyone they would be fundraising for the media buys in the big markets if there was a single primary

and lesser known candidates wouldn't even try

they come to Iowa because it doesn't exclude those that can't raise tens of millions

the rest of you need to focus on who comes in fourth, because they did it the hard way, Howard Dean did fine in Iowa if Trippi hadn't bet the farm on a win, Clinton was fourth, and the comeback kid when he was second in New Hampshire, Dukakis didn't win Iowa the cycle before

the only way an Iowa win makes a nomination inevitable is if everyone rolls over

Kevin

I'll see you the third monday win or lose 

35.

Monica Smith
Sat, 12/29/07

I know that you are smarter than to believe that Corporations' influence over our government is not the major problem - along with very rich individual donors(their children, grandchildren, their employes, various nephews, nieces, cousins, etc alll magically having the max contribution on hand all in the same day).

Edwards does have that right, but do we believe he'll be staedy at that helm?

Deaniac

maybe Edwards is the best candidate

that's steady... sheeez

Love ya'll, mean it!!

... maybe is not good enough. Except in Iowa??

Dodd isn't a progressive Monica, by normal definitions, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be just the antidote for bushco, and I am certain he would make an excellent President. He is not the threat to business Edwards is, but he is a threat to anyone playing fast and loose with the Constitution.

I don't think he would really change the way business is done in Washington. Except for restoring the Office, which would not be a small thing.

So much for the myth of St. Edwards.......

Edwards: Obama in "Never-Never Land" 

Screw pro football.  Politics is about the greatest spectator sport.  Here is an excerpt of Roger Simon's article regarding Dodd speaking of the candidates in Iowa from Politico.com:

"Dodd also expanded on remarks directed at Obama.

“'Barack Obama, I mean, how — I mean, talking about the future and giving soaring speeches is very good, and it’s a good experience,' Dodd said. “But I don’t think it’s as deep as what people are looking for in a Democratic candidate that can win the election and bring our country together.”

"Dodd did not spare even Bill Richardson, who said yesterday after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan: 'President Bush should press [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government.'

"Though Richardson often touts his foreign policy experience — he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Bill Clinton — Dodd dismissed Richardson’s proposals in strong terms.

“'I think that is a dangerous idea, and I am sort of surprised Bill Richardson would make that recommendation,' Dodd said. 'Can you tell me who is going to then be controlling the keys to the nuclear weapons in Pakistan when Musharraf is not there? And if you can’t answer that question, then be careful what you wish for.'”

Dodd thinks Democrats are looking for a candidate with experience as deep as his, then immediately proceeds to trash the moronic foreign policy ruminations of the candidate who is able, in that candidate's own mind, to best tout his foreign policy experience.  I love it.  Apparently, the logic is we're supposed to aspire to the selection of the most experienced candidate regardless of whether the experience is accompanied by any worthwhile sense of judgment. 

I suppose the theory is someone with lengthy experience as a senator may make a good president regardless of whether authorizing attacks on Iraq, extending tax breaks to hedge fund billionaires, and cozying up to Don Imus can be considered good ideas or not.  There must be some people who subscribe to it.

only if sheeple in other states don't do their own due diligence

Your arrogance in believing that we need you to vette the candidates and narrow the field for us is matched only by your contempt for the "sheeple" you claim to be doing it for.

Iowa didn't  "narrow the field" for Howard Dean, he finished higher than Bill Clinton did in '92. Campaigns fold for internal reasons, not because they were winnowed out by Iowa.

Edwards does have that right, but do we believe he'll be staedy at that helm?

It wasn't that long ago Edwards was a DLC senator. If given the nomination he would drop the newfound populism and re-embrace them.

It wasn't that long ago Edwards was a DLC senator. If given the nomination he would drop the newfound populism and re-embrace them

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I believed you even had a five percent chance of being right, I'd back someone else, and I know IndySteve would echo that. 

You've said in the past that it's fitting for Iowa to vette the candidates and narrow the field. Now you say that isn't what happens. When you're compelled to defend the indefensible, you're bound to contradict yourself eventually as each bad excuse is picked apart.

If I believed you even had a five percent chance of being right, I'd back someone else,

If I believed you even had a five percent chance of being right about Edwards, I'd back him. 

Edwards on the attack.......

... maybe I am gullable. LOL

...we've had on sewing and then on to painting... all morning. I just told hubby...I just had an idea....(we have high ceilings with Vigas running through in our family room and kitchen) it might look nice if I hand painted plants, like Ivy, coming out of the Vigas on the wall. LOL...hubby just said "I think it's time to change the channel".

...All be well.

Time to get dirty......

DES MOINES -- The investment account of philanthropist Rachel L. Mellon has given $495,000 to an independent group that is backing Democrat John Edwards' presidential bid.

"Why on earth would we expect the corporate powers and their lobbyists -- who make billions by selling out the middle-class -- to just give up just because we ask nicely? Nobody who takes their money and defends the broken system is going to bring change. And, unfortunately, nobody who thinks we can just sit down and talk them into compromise is going to bring change either.
Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

truth telling by Edwards and Obama thinks it is an attack? 

Oh...and....


Time for
a COOL
change,
GORE
2008

Linda

my wife stenciled butterfies on the kitchen wall behind the stove

go for it

truth telling by Edwards and Obama thinks it is an attack?

Saying or pointing out anything bad about another candidate is called an attack. As when you recently characterized Dean's truthful criticisms of Gopheart "attacks."

You know, I'd much rather Philanthopists giving money, than Corporations and Special Interests groups like Obama and Clinton have giving their 4.3 Million , etc.