jump to navigation

Not a post but a thread… ;) 7 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in Germany, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Viva La Revolucion!.
128 comments

  G 8 protest
Around 1000 anti-G-8 protestors greeted Bush from Weitendorf, a small town near the airport — the nearest they could get to the airport due to security measures.

Sig Heil to the Security State.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How far back are we supposed to go? 6 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, Abortion Rights, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems, Sex / Reproductive Health.
116 comments

 

The day early in 2005 that Howard appeared on MTP, his first network interview as chair of the party, he said – among other things – he wished the party did not have to say the word “abortion”, I was personally offended.  The day Jimmy said, “Jesus does not want all of these abortions”… right! Jesus phones him?… personally offended.

The day Hillary declared abortion tragic… (remember, this is a woman whose OB-GYN was Dr Harrison of ARK).

How dare they.  As they shamelessly run around attempting to hoover up the ”good” evangelicals.

Then the party went and made a deal, some how – some way, there is a deal in the recruiting, in the capitulation, in the need to make women in the party BOW, yes fucking BOW, to that miserable creep, Bob Casey.  Bow to the Catholic miracle of his “conscience”, we are to bow to his votes.   Another one of Howard’s statements.

Poor, yes POOR, weak women senators, all 9 of them, signed the letter the party demanded, a statement that they supported Casey. 

Casey was done to break people, in my opinion. Bad enough the party is always loaded with xtian “pro lifers”, they had to reel in a Casey, of the famous SC case. With a brother, Pat, on the board at Democrats for Life.

And it worked pretty damned good.  Women lined up to vote for the scumbag.  A button and slogan used in PA in the run, in fact in the primary iirc, was:  I’m for Casey, I’m for Choice

Casey won by 19 pts and in one of their debates that I listened to, he and Santorum argued over which of them supports cluster bombs more.

Twins fighting over dessert.

People were sold that the majority was needed.  What have they done with it?  Small movement in the House, but Waxman is not a party by himself, as I keep saying.  All Reid has done is moan and bitch.  It is openly discussed that Pelosi must always placate the Blue Dogs, the conservative Dems, as THEY made her Speaker.

We never hear of Loebsack (won over Leach of Iowa) nor Ellison of MN nor of Cohen, a liberal from Memphis.  His winning made Harold Ford Sr mad (yet another fucked progeny, Jake Ford, had been left to run on the Ind ticket, for the hereditary seat).  And we are tethered to that corrupt thing, the Clintons luv him.  And his.

We hear about and see the DLC Dems.  The fair-haired children.

More than one acknowledged Casey voter in moiv’s thread last night:

 i’m not advocating giving in (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
leevank

on any of the issues.

what i’m saying is that if you run into people who agree with you on 80% of your agenda, you should treat them as allies on that 80%.  even the people who only agree with you on one single thing, you should remember that and work with them when it comes time for action on that one thing. that’s how you get things done in a democracy.

conversely, don’t go around putting people on your S-list because they don’t support you on one thing, even if its a biggie.  and there’s no need to jump to the conclusion that they’re out to infiltrate us and wreck everything we hold dear.

that said, i don’t think we can find common ground with bushevik republicans.  they no longer believe in the constitution, the rule of law, and basic enlightenment moral principles.  that’s pretty much the whole ball of wax, in my book.  so i guess when it comes to the constitution, i too am a “single-issue voter.”

by zeke L on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:43:16 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

  •  And this is who we can’t work with (12+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Sharoney, Rebecca, moiv, celticshel, zombie, Nightprowlkitty, irishwitch, fiddlingnero, Noor B, suicide blonde, fayeforcure

    We can’t work with leaders and Democratic Party members who support Democrats for Life or tell us we have to be willing to work with candidates who are pro-life.

    Casey set a dangerous precedent, one that is being realized as he voted against stem cell research and he will vote against abortion legislation.  

    Chuck Schumer set a dangerous precedent by cramming him down our throats, this party has effectively told women they don’t give a flying fuck about our lives.

    And then Jim Wallis comes into the equation and as moiv says, the 95-10 initiative and other heinous legislation like S403 comes along and Harry Reid votes for it, and women’s rights get compromised away to such an extent that we will no longer have abortion providers because many states are at the ‘trigger’ point where all abortions will become criminalized.

    And the scariest part of all isn’t even the party leadership any longer, we know where they come down on our rights, it’s voters like you who fall for the lines, it’s members of this party who repeat the talking points of the pro-lifers like it’s gospel.  It’s those who refuse to see how much we’ve already lost and ask us to give up more.

    We don’t have another inch to give, we’ve already gone around the corner where we could still work it out, we’re there, where women’s lives are going to be lost, women will have their health seriously compromised, we are already losing and yet we’re asked to give more, to go along to get along with the other 80% of what we do agree with.

    It’s too late, whether you see it or not, it’s too late.

    I will not die an unlived life. Fuck ’em, I will not live in fear, I will live out loud and on the record. ‘Cali, you kick 31 flavors of ass.’ Eugene

    by caliberal on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:56:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  As a registered Democrat in Pennsylvania, (6+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, zeke L, caliberal, moiv, celticshel, Nightprowlkitty

      I agree 150% with that.  Oh, I held my nose and voted for Casey over Santorum.  But I never liked the way that our primary process went down — good people were cajoled into not running, and that to me is the antithesis of a free and open electoral system.  Casey was wishy-washy about the war in Iraq, which gave me a bad feeling, and he was awful on abortion rights.  I knew he’d never support stem cell research, an issue very dear to my heart.  Suffice it to say, I am deeply disappointed in my new senator and wish I’d had a better voting choice last November.

      “Fighting Fascism is Always Cool.” — Amsterdam Weekly, volume three, issue 18

      by  on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:07:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Things have gone quite well for the national Democrats.  They have successfully partnered with the Republicans for the furtherance of the conservative agenda. Where have they not? They intend to continue … why stop?  Most of the “winning issues” of 2006 will still hang fire come ’08.

Roll it out again!

Impeachment is “off the table” (it is reported that the party works to break state level efforts – Washington state has been profiled – to vote for impeachment, they are PROTECTING Bush), as is any whiff of single payer.  Long ago sold out to the insurance companies…

There surely is no light, no air in their games.  Nor breath of life either…

 An article, Nov 2003 when the “PBA” ban was just a vote, once again, in congress… four years before the SC ruled.

[N]ow, for the first time, Congress has criminalized a safe medical procedure. In the meantime, mainstream media have gradually erased the quotation marks around the term, accepting the strategic characterization as fact—and tilting the political terrain.  

That the term “partial-birth” was intended as a political crowbar is an open secret.

“The ‘partial-birth’ abortion ban is a political scam but a public relations gold mine,” Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry has admitted. “The benefit of the bill is the debate that surrounds it.”

Supporters are already capitalizing on the victory. ” ‘Partial-birth’ abortion is but the tip of an ugly and an unseemly iceberg,” Representative Chris Smith, a pro-life New Jersey Republican, announced after the abortion ban cleared the Senate last month. “Let us be clear: Abortion is child abuse.”

The new law is anything but clear, though. While supporters say the ban focuses on D&X, which they say is a type of late-term abortion, the legal description of the procedure is broad enough to apply to techniques performed as early as 12 weeks. It was partly for this reason that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska’s ban three years ago in a 5-4 decision. This time, anti-abortion lawmakers could have narrowed the definition (and allowed the procedure when a woman’s health was at stake). Instead, they took a gamble, leaving in those parts of the law—the reasons the justices found it unconstitutional the first time around.

“It would have been very simple for them to ban D&X. The Supreme Court told them how to do it,” says Priscilla Smith, director of the domestic legal program at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

So why would ban supporters choose to target a wide range of abortions when they knew that similar laws didn’t hold up in court?

“They want to ban all abortions, so they’re starting with earlier ones,” says Smith.

As the woman said when she exited the Super Dome 5 days later, all they want from us is our vote.

Too true.  And fodder for the long wars… whatever it is we might want or, worse, need, off the table!

In the freshman class of 2006, not only did the Blue Dogs swell, the New Democrats did as well…conservative Democrats replaced moderate Republicans and the Democrats for Life claimed 6 as “theirs”. The party (that would be Rahm and Bill Clinton) actively recruited a member of Ohio Right to Life).  

4 Freshmen could not even manage to vote for the Stem Cell bill that specifically used in vitro material, crafted to avoid problems.  Use it or lose it. It will go to the trash. Nor could Casey, in the vaunted senate … So, they voted according to JESUS?

All of them are self righteous time bombs.

************************************************

  Afghani women at Mazar-i-Shariff
Afghan women covered by burqas walk in the yard of the shrine of Imam Ali, son in-law of Prophet Mohammad, in the city of Mazar-i-Shariff, about 420 km (260 miles) north of Kabul, Afghanistan May 8, 2006. [08 May 2006 REUTERS/Ahmad Masood]

Pity the earth is not flat… they could just sail off the edge… 5 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, DC Politics, France, Germany, UK, WAR!.
107 comments

   Anti-Globalisation Protest at Rostock,
Activists of anti-globalization organization Attac dressed as, from left, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, US President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, sit in a boat as they symbolically handle a globe in the port of Rostock

Enjoy!  Wear a life vest!

^^^^^

  
An activist jumps off three-mast sailing ship alongside a giant dummy of a pill during a press event organised by Doctors Without Borders in the harbor of Rostock

******************

Heiligendamm

   heiligidamm, shopper leaving a
A customer leaves a police-secured supermarket on Monday in Heiligendamm during a demonstration against deportation politics.

^^^^^^^^^^

  
Policemen secure a security fence around a field with genetically manipulated plants not far from Rostock on Sunday.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Lovely future.  Not like they are hiding what they plan:  walls, dogs, concertina wire, searches, stop and frisk, request for ID may not be refused.  Privatisation means no recourse.

My old thought is it will be the reverse of Nazi Germany, the absolved, the cleansed, the allowed-to-pass will wear the badges.  Wear them proudly.

************************

Have at it… 5 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Israel/AIPAC, WAR!.
118 comments

    IranCartoon.com, by Hai Wang China

god knows the Democrats are still lying around, sucking the big one.  Any big one.  They are not picky.

****************************************

UPDATE, 1:32 am (heat wave in San Francisco)

Just now from wu ming in the preceding thread:

Unprecedented Cat. 5 Typhoon headed for Persian Gulf.

The Oil Drum has more.

We could see that $7 gas, if it rips out enough oil infrastructure in Oman and Iran.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PIck an orifice: and ram that cross right up it… 4 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election.
103 comments

   Mt Davidson cross, San Francisco (yeah really and on city property too)

Their come to Jim Wallis moment.  So tawdry of them.

Edwards led off:

O’BRIEN: There are some people who say, well, it’s actually — isn’t it mutually exclusive? I mean, either man was created by, you know, from Adam’s rib or, in fact, that man came evolution-wise from apes? Aren’t the two mutually exclusive?

EDWARDS: No, I don’t think they are. Because the hand of God was in every step of what’s happened with man. The hand of God today is in every step of what happens with me and every human being that exists on this planet.

shud-d-d-d-d-d-der

For the balance, in long grafs, he speaks of how sanctified his Great Works have been over the past 30 or so months. Truly, a life lived for others.  Wade and, of course, the Illness take the place of “son of a mill worker”.  It is thuddingly transparent.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obama:

So when I look at the situation in the Middle East — and this is true in other conflicts around the world — the question I ask myself — and this is where I do think faith comes in — is, is there a way for us to reconcile the claims of both sides of the conflict in a way that leads to resolution and a better life for all people?

And that, I think, is something that can be achieved, but it’s going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel’s right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context,

I think the Israelis will gladly say, “Let’s move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security.” 
 

Throw it on the piles of AiPAC lies.  He did not stop, a band-aid of faith on a gusher of blood:

And that’s where I think faith can inform what we do: Faith can say, forgive someone who has treated us unjustly. Faith can say that, regardless of what’s happened in the past, there’s a brighter future ahead. And that’s the kind of faith that I think has to inform, not just our international policies, but also domestic policies, as well.

Shove that cross in farther. Hang little stars of David iwth razor edges from the cross beam…

We tend to tout our individualism and our self-reliance — and those are important things — but we also arrived at this place because we rose and fell together. And I think it’s that spirit that’s been lost in our politics over the last several years.

So my starting point as president is to restore that sense that we are in this together. That’s the starting point. And faith informs that. My moral commitments to that vision of what Dr. King called a beloved community rose out of my faith.

Well, sadly he was shot and killed.  A tragedy … his family only fought for 30 years to mount an actual court case.

It is inflammatory, but suddenly I thought of Al Jolson.  No, I really did.  Maybe the statue out in Forest Lawn.

You get the drift they cannot do right in my book….

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hillary… who basically says our sins of commision and omission are… wait for it!

.

.

MORAL!

Mike Gravel said last night that you lack moral judgment because of your vote on the war in Iraq. You blame President Bush a lot.

Do you feel you have is a moral responsibility for your vote?

CLINTON: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.

I think that every vote I take carries with it a moral responsibility, and it is always a challenge to try to arrive at what you think is the right thing to do based on the information and the assessment that you make at a time. And sometimes it turns out that you’re right, and sometimes it doesn’t. But certainly every vote has a moral implication.

You know, we’re debating immigration right now in the Senate. I think that is a highly moral debate as to what we will do as a nation with respect to immigrants. And the faith community has been very involved in that, as they have been with questions of war and questions of poverty, too.

And don’t m iss the nod to her RW “prayer warriors”.. and those faith chains.  Lordy.

For some people, being tested in cruel and tragic ways leads them away from faith. For me, because I have been tested in ways that are both publicly known and those that are not so well known or not known at all, my faith and the support of my extended faith family, people whom I knew who were literally praying for me in prayer chains, who were prayer warriors for me, and people whom I didn’t know, who I would meet or get a letter from, sustained me through a very difficult time.

Oh bullshit… that was coded language.

And really the whole thing was so rigged.  So they each could present their targetted information.  What a shock!!

Hillary gets a question on abortion from… a TELEVANGELIST from FL. People worship with him from 1400 locations every weekend!

The Reverend Joel C. Hunter is the senior pastor at Northland Church, one of the largest churches in Florida; 1,400 locations worship with them around the globe every single weekend.Go ahead, Reverend.CLINTON: Hello, Reverend.

REVEREND JOEL C. HUNTER, NORTHLAND, A CHURCH DISTRIBUTED: Hi, Senator Clinton.

Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith community that is very strongly pro-life. I know you’re pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions.

Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?

CLINTON: Yes. Yes.

And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.

And it’s been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro- choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me…

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: … there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions.

There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today.

We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make.

And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed.

We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally. And, so, I think there is a great opportunity. But it would require sort of a — a leaving at the sides the suspicion and the baggage that comes with people who have very strong, heartfelt feelings.

You know, when I first started thinking about this very difficult issue — because it is. It’s a moral issue. And it should not be in any way diminished as a moral issue, no matter which side you’re on, because I have seen cases where I honestly believed that the — the moral choice was very complicated and not so straightforward as to what a young woman, her family, her physician, her pastor should do.

And what concerns me is that there’s been a — a real reluctance for anyone to make a move toward the other side, for fear of being labeled as turning one’s back on the moral dimensions of the issue from either direction.

So, I would invite you, and I would be willing to work with you, to see whether there couldn’t be some common ground that one could find.

Gibberish.  Mixed with drool for power. That would be all of them (3 + 3)...  And yes… hidden away under the slightly longer suit coat… yes, a zipper fly.  She swears she is Golda. Or Begin.  Or both.

On to the wars! Jesus is with us, every step of the way.

Be nice if the world could vote … 4 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.
139 comments

Baghdad rooftop

for el heife.

Pity the ptb made the simple camera shot (Edwards, Hillary and Obama) the set up, with Gravel practically edged into the alley.

Treading water today, so.. please have a thread…  8)

****************************************************************

We should face what we are 3 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in 2008 Election, DC Politics, Iraq War, The Battle for New Orleans.
159 comments

Does not look any different from Katrina:

Abu Ghraib September 2004

I have been catching the Jonathan Demme film, Right to Return, on Katrina in New Orleans – during the Tavis Smiley shows on PBS… One night the episode walked thru the devastated Lower Ninth with a white Louisianian who had come to help.  He said it took months but people finally opened up and told him:  

presented with armed guards, buses to move them out, after a week in the Dome – exactly what happened at the buses was the men with guns saying:

Get on the bus nigger  Get on the bus nigger Get on the bus nigger

Those were the buses, and it was reported but not widely enough, where families were split up.  Mothers handed over babies to be safe, adult members of families were separated from one another, at the buses.

    the buses

I had read at the time of one fragile man in his 40s, never separated from his mother, lived all his life in New Orleans in the Lower 9th and found himself, alone, in Utah.  Did not even know where the bus was headed.  Got off when the bus stopped and asked, is this  the “Upper West”?

And what of healthcare?  I also read a report of at least one woman who miscarried as she waited to board those buses.  Think, just think, if we had real, nationalised health care for people.

For Everyone.  Not:  some with welfare and some with paid insurance that is not real.  Some with jobs and no insurance.  Some with “real” jobs and lousy insurance.

Time to stop talking about the Great Emancipator or any of the other ways we have excused ourselves, forever.  Yes we get a Cox Communications executive who prattles of Chocolate Cities, as he and his live in Dallas (just how long is Reconstruction supposed to be?).  It changes at the fringes, never at the core.

The core is the same.

At the time of Katrina, I tried several times to write of the “Weeping Time” when the largest domestic sale of slaves took place, over 400 sold in 1857.  Held for days before the sale, at the racetrack in Savannah, in the stalls for horses.  Called The Weeping Time as it rained thru the days of waiting.  Some waited weeks… in the stalls and the rain.

Sold as the white slave owner was bankrupt.

In the U.S. the largest organized sale of slaves took place on March 3rd and 4th 1859, when 436 slaves, including children and infants, were auctioned off on a racetrack in Savannah, Georgia. The slaves were owned by Pierce Butler, who had inherited two Georgia plantations from his grandfather twenty years earlier. Butler was deeply in debt, and the auction netted him $304,000. Conducted on a dreary day of blustery wind, punctuated with soaking downpours and profound heartbreak, that day has been known historically in the black community as “The Weeping Time.”

Ironically, Pierce’s wife, Fanny Kemble, whom he divorced in 1849, was an Englishwoman and abolitionist. Later in life, she published a scathing account of plantation existence in her work, Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation in 1838-1839. Her work describes the horrors of slavery.

It was reported at the time, the New York Tribune sent a reporter down – he masqueraded as a buyer, that Butler walked among the slaves and passed out quarters from two bags. 

What has changed?

It is why I just cannot stand anyone running. All their words curdle, all their plans are fallow.  No one speaks the truth, about anything.

There is a legal remedy, the definition is, “being made whole”.  If you suffer loss or injury, the remedy should be to ‘make you whole’.  It may not be possible, but it is a start point.  For us, who have never been whole, being made whole would be to decide as a people to go forward.  Everyone.

No one running seeks or even cares to make us whole. They don’t even think about that…  

If we cannot decide what we want, in the face of Bush, Democrats so low to the ground I cannot see them, invasion, horrific racist war, loss of civil liberties at home, Katrina, codifying torture and murder, repressive legislation growing where Bush and America have influence… there may be no saving us.

Certainly the buses they will send are no salvation. 

 

********************************************

Thanatos running wild… 2 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in 2006 Mid Terms, AFRICOM, Culture of Death, DC Politics, WAR!.
107 comments

   Rabbit hunter, photo by Colby Katz

From Black Agenda Report, hitting at one of my favorite targets, “charitable” foundations and the malign entities and interests they assist and protect:

[A]re corporate foundations really out to feed the hungry, or are they hypocritical Trojan Horses on a mission to hijack the world’s food supply – to create the most complete and ultimate state of dependency.

“Poor-washing” is the common public relations tactic of concealing bitterly unfair and predatory trade policies that create and deepen hunger and poverty with clouds of hypocritical noise about feeding the hungry and alleviating poverty

It’s hard to imagine a better case of media poor-washing than the hype around the recently announced $150 million “gifts” of the Gates [I believe Buffett legally allowed his name to be subsumed into the “Gates Foundation”  — Mcat] and Rockerfeller Foundations to the cause of reforming African agriculture, feeding that continent’s impoverished millions and sparking an African “Green Revolution”.

Following that, information on the “terminator seeds” that force farmers to buy seed again the next year –  on Monsanto and the “biotech” industry…

For ADM, Cargill, Monsanto and other agribusiness giants farming as humans have practiced it the last ten thousand years is a big problem. The problem is that when farmers plant and harvest crops, setting a little aside for next year’s seed, people eat, but corporations don’t get paid.  That problem has been so thoroughly solved in US food production that chemical fertilizers and pesticides create a biological dead zone of hundreds of square miles in the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi, draining much of the continent’s richest farmland, empties into it.  U.S. law requires the registration all crop varieties, and makes it extraordinarily difficult for farmers to save and plant their own seed year to year without paying royalties to corporations who “own” the genetic code of those crops.

 the destruction of small Indian farmers …

Food which used to be abundant and locally grown became scarce, expensive and had to come from other regions or overseas.  The chemicals killed many beneficial plants and insects, and promoted the emergence of newer, tougher pests and diseases.  Export crops needed more water than traditional ones, so wealthy farmers monopolized what water there was to feed their export crops.  Man-made famines occurred.  People starved or became dependent on imported foreign grain.  Millions of farmers were forced to sell their land (or sometimes their children) to pay off their debts, and move to the cities.

and then we get to this, at the end:

Last year, the Gates Foundation hired former Monsanto VP Robert Robert Horsch as senior program officer for Africa. 

Monsanto is the company that invented “biotechnology” and the patenting of life forms by corporations.  This is the context for the “philanthropy” of the Gates and Rockerfeller Foundations, and their expressed concern for foisting a “Green Revolution” upon Africa.  

Will African farmers and their governments be forced to pay American corporations to cultivate the crops they have for centuries?  Global capital and competition to control the world’s remaining energy have put Africa’s oil resources in the sights of America’s strategic planners.  If the Gates and Rockerfeller Foundations, along with Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and other agribusiness and biotech and “life science” players have anything to say about it, Africa’s food supply is up for grabs too. 

*************** 

Hunting for a photo for this post, I landed on an October 2006 Mcat posting, using a Counterpunch article speculating on CAFTA and Foley of the sex scandal that [soon] helped deliver the ’06 election and the Glorious 110th Congress:

Well who knows… but that was the summer of great and horrific Republican arm twisting.  And they had, had, had to deliver CAFTA.  If I recall correctly it was literally by one vote.  (With plenty of Dem defections.  What else is new.)

What does Mark Foley’s vote on CAFTA have to do with his no longer secret sex life? In late July of 2005, Congressman Foley suddenly reversed his position and cast the key swing vote which led to the passage of the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

On the night of the vote, President Bush had called Foley to pressure him to change his anti-CAFTA position. The South Florida Congressman was not only under pressure from the White House, but also from the House Republican Leadership to support the bill. But Foley received huge campaign contributions from the Florida sugar lobby, which bitterly opposed CAFTA and Foley had loyally followed his benefactor’s wishes in previous votes. That he would flip his position under pressure raises some serious questions.   […]

For the White House and the Republican Congressional Leadership the CAFTA was a signature issue that year. The telephone calls between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue must have been frantic and the logs of such calls should be preserved.

But who could they flip? What leverage or sweeteners did they have? Did they attempt to blackmail him by letting political rivals “out” him? Or did they “greymail” him by promising to help Foley sweep these emerging scandals under the rug? Or did they promise to try to give him a “soft landing” in the event the allegations should become public? [snip]

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This too was in the same October post:

From The Note:

Today’s Wall Street Journal has a letter to the editor from House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), arguing that the Military Commissions Act is

“not tough enough on terrorists because there is no certainty the act will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. If the act is tied up in litigation and eventually struck down, convicted terrorists could have a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

Yes, vote in the “D” 110th.  A lot like the “R” 109th.

I can’t imagine why they worried about this SC and its “scrutiny”.  Waste of time.  In the bag, just as they are. 

*****************************************************

Round and round we go… 1 June 2007

Posted by marisacat in 2004 Election, 2008 Election, Culture of Death, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Iraq War, Lie Down Fall Down Dems.
110 comments

  
An Iraqi woman mourns at the gate of a Baghdad morgue after deadly blasts in a market place kill at least 16 people.  May 25, 2005  [Agence France Presse for the BBC]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Since it mattered so very much (or did it? then?  now?), get it right.

NYT 

Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq, but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday. 

One would think one’s patriotism (which he sells and sells), if not plain old non-jingoistic nationalism after 9/11, would mandate one read the full classified version.  One would think.  Esp as Graham – and Edwards served on the Intelligence Committee with Graham –  begged his fellow senators to do just that, on October 8, two days prior to the vote…

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had “simply misunderstood the question” and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.

The issue of who had read the full report has bubbled up over the last week with reports that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, had not read it before voting to authorize force in Iraq, even though she and other senators had access to the document. The report was the government’s most comprehensive intelligence assessment of Iraq’s prewar capability for unconventional weapons.

The issue surfaced for Mr. Edwards at a forum sponsored by Google when the interviewer, Elliot Schrage, spoke with him about the war.

“There was this National Intelligence Estimate that was confidential that only — that you had to have security clearance, or members of the Senate could read,” Mr. Schrage said. “Did you have a chance to read that, and was that part of the—— ”

“I read it. I read it,” Mr. Edwards said. “But the idea that somehow we had so much more information — having the information turned out to be bad, not good.”

“I know this is intelligence information, but I think it’s a very unhealthy thing for the democracy to have — the notion that we’ve got people in Washington who are in the know, and we should just trust them to do the right thing without us knowing. Why does America not know?” Mr. Edwards continued.

The Edwards spokesman, Mark Kornblau, noted that Mr. Edwards had often said he read intelligence documents that were summarized in the classified report.

“He simply misunderstood the question,” Mr. Kornblau said. “As Senator Edwards has said many times before, he read the declassified version of the N.I.E.,” not the full report.

The response, imo, is muddled dissemble, a fast diversion.  My take, it did not matter too much then – Get your vote and your war on – and now it matters politically.

Late.

   AP photo via Boston.com
Muhammed, whose mother was killed when a missile landed in a Baghdad neighborhood, waits outside the morgue at Al-Numan Hospital for her body to be released for funeral.   March 24, 2003  [AP photo from boston.com]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Edwards appearance on MTP (yes Russert is an asshole) for the hour, February 4 2007:

(Videotape, October 7, 2002)

SEN. EDWARDS: My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

(End videotape)

     

MR. RUSSERT: “ A grave threat to America,”  do you still believe that?

SEN. EDWARDS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS:

For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong.

[sounds like the ‘Shrum in the living room’ meeting with Edwards, EE and advisors. The ‘how do I vote’ meet.  Shrum was the manager for the ’98 Edwards run in NC, later recommending him for the VP spot  — – Mcat]

And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be completely wrong and false.

I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq.

 [what about concerns over invasion, itself?  — Mcat]

I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.

    

MR. RUSSERT: At that time, however, Senator Kennedy’s saying, “ This is not an imminent threat.”  General Zinni, who led the military in that region, said this is the wrong war.

SEN. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: General Scowcroft, former President Bush’s national security advisor.

And the National Intelligence Estimate that was given to you and now made public had some real caveats, and this is one of them.

” The activities we have detected do not … add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR [the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research] would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.”  

Do you remember seeing that?

SEN. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm, I did see it. I mean, I, I think it was—there were serious questions about whether—again, we’re looking back. Now we know none of this was true.

But, at the time, there were serious questions about any effort to obtain nuclear weapons, which is what that statement just was. All of us believed there was no question that he had chemical and biological weapons, and there was at least some scattered evidence that he was making an effort to get nuclear weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I, I, I would—first of all, I don’t want to defend this. Let me be really clear about this. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, be willing to admit when they’ve done things wrong.

One of the things, unfortunately, that’s happened in Iraq is we’ve had a president who was completely unmoving, wouldn’t change course, wouldn’t take any responsibility or admit that he’d made any mistakes. And I think America, in fact the world has paid a huge price for that.

[it’s not past tense, we are and will be paying for this  — Mcat]

So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials. I told you a few minutes ago I was concerned about giving this president the authority, and I turned out to be wrong about that.

[Hillary got it from Bill, and the “Clintonites” got it from all the pipes and pipettes, who fanned out.  I doubt it was much different than just that shallow and degraded  — Mcat]

MR. RUSSERT: In that same speech I showed earlier, you seemed to embrace, however, a—the Bush vision of what could happen in Iraq. And let’s just watch that and come back and talk about it.

SEN. EDWARDS: Sure.

   an Iraqi Pieta - mondodisotto.it

 

(Videotape, October 7, 2002)

SEN. EDWARDS: Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multiethnic, complicated society that’s suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative.

It’s a security imperative. It is in America’s national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

(End videotape)

  mondodisotto.it photo, Baghdad, 15 Aprile  2003
      Baghdad 15 April 2003 [mondodisotto.it]

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think that was naive?

SEN. EDWARDS:

No, I think that had, had Saddam, who’s—

had the war in Iraq been executed the way that it should have been executed,

I think there would be a much greater likelihood of there being a democratic Iraq. I think we would still see at least some symptoms of what we’re seeing raging on the ground in Iraq right now. But no, I think there was some potential for a democracy in Iraq.

   

MR. RUSSERT: The war is now a year and a half old, and I asked you about your vote. Let’s watch.

SEN. EDWARDS: Sure.

(Videotape, October 10, 2004)

MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today, and you do know, there is—there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS:

I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.

I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.

(End of videotape)

 

MR. RUSSERT: That’s a year and a half into the war.

SEN. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm. Perfect—that’s a very fair question. I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through—I was—at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her.

And for the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this war.

[Abu Ghraib? Which broke the very end of March ’04… Torture systemic thruout our prison system in Iraq?  If you bothered to read widely THEN, the massive file at the WSJ from the ICRC alone, you knew.  Too busy.  –Mcat]

And over time, when I reflected on what I thought was going to be necessary going forward, to have some moral foundation to work on issues like poverty and genocide, things that I care deeply about, I could no longer defend this vote. It was pretty simple. And I got to the place I felt like I had to say it and had to say it publicly. And so—what?–a year—a year or so ago I did that.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you look back and people say, well, the midterm elections of 2002, the Democrats did not have the courage to stand up to President Bush and voted for the war, weeks before the mid—the presidential election of 2004, you’re running for vice president of the United States, a chance to say something about the war. Instead you said, ‘My vote was correct, Saddam was a threat.’

SEN. EDWARDS: But in—but in fairness we were very critical about the war at that point, during the 2004 campaign, very critical about the war, very critical of what was happening with the war, the impact that the war had had on America’s moral standing in the world. But, you know, my, my vote was wrong, and I, I—and I take responsibility for it.

MR. RUSSERT: And you said that in November of ‘05 publicly, an op-ed piece in The Washington Post.

SEN. EDWARDS: I did. I did.

 

One and a half years later, a few words got tossed out.  For politcal reasons. Middle of a big heady run. Two and a half years later, a political apology for the vote.  “Getting it wrong”.  To move forward.

And a few more words – with more than a few stammers – as we move into the 5th year, 5th summer, as Gen McCaffrey (ret.) just put it, 90 days of 120 degree heat.

Not fit to serve on the Intelligence Committee.  Not fit even to run in the primary, imo.  Not in ’03 and not now.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

SEN. EDWARDS: Yeah, he—he’s [Obama – “dumb war”] correct. Now, I will say, he wasn’t burdened, like a lot of us with the information that we were receiving on the Intelligence Committee.

And as members of the United States Senate, we were getting very intimate, detailed information about what was actually happening in Iraq.

That is from the same MTP interview, said after all that is blockquoted above.

Which is it? Got it from “former” Clinton officials? Got it from Shrum? Got it from the “detailed and intimate information” in the NIE (which he did not read, he says)?

Which? 

I say he just went along.  I doubt they (any of them) read the summaries. 

I offer a contrast, I heard Loretta Sanchez in an extended interview with Tavis Smiley during the 2004 run.  She said she was lobbied heavily to vote yes.  New rep, she had replaced Bob “B-1 Bob” Dornan in Orange County, CA.

Without naming names, she said it, the pressure, the lobbying to vote YES, was relentless.  Day in day out, she was reminded, the demographics of America are changing.  She might be VP material in a few years, maybe later more.

Her bottom line she said, had she seen anything, anything at all that would permit her to face her constituents’ loved ones when the dying began.  She said, she had seen nothing that permitted her to face them when the day came.

She voted no.

   Basrah

******************************************************