|
This belongs to you. Take it back...
Iraq 
Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 22:19:50 PM EDT
|
|
This diary is cross posted at Daily Kos
I once courted this woman and I thought I adored her. I stood up for her, I financially supported her. But one day, I met somebody else. This person made me feel better about myself and my world. Let me tell you: the sky was bluer, the grass was...well, you know how it can be.
So, I broke off my old relationship as gently as I could. "It's not you, it's me," I said. And that was the truth; I had outgrown her.
After a short denial period, she started to plea for me to come back. After that didn't work she cried. Then came the badmouthing. And when that didn't work, she even suggested that I could keep this new relationship on the side as long as she remained my number one. But I was resolute. And then she clenched her jaw, her pupils dialated, her face turned crimson. The subtext of her words was, "If I can't have you, no one else will!"
I turned and walked away. And then she tried to dismantle my new relationship.
But this woman wasn't a lover. Actually, I only met her twice...and briefly. I never kissed her; I did shake her hand.
This woman is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(There's more sordid details below.)
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 759 words in story)
|
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:51:02 PM EST
|
The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Wild Wild Left, the Independent Bloggers Alliance, The Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust.
Most Americans are eager to turn the page on the Bush years. Yet even as we elect a new president we're still coming to terms with an era that has both tarnished America's reputation and diminished its influence.
Fred Kaplan chronicles the folly of the Bush years in his new book, Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power (John Wiley & Sons).
Kaplan writes that,
"Nearly all of America's blunders in war and peace these past few years stem from a single grand misconception: that the world changed after 9/11, when in fact it didn't.
Certainly, things about the world changed, not least Americans' sudden awareness that they were vulnerable. But the way the world works - the nature of power, warfare, and politics among nations - remained essentially the same."
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 507 words in story)
|
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 17:31:25 PM EST
|
|
The cost of the war in Iraq is quite a topic. But how about how the costs of the war affect New York?
The National Priorities Project compiled the data regarding every U.S. state and locale and their contribution to the war in Iraq.
Also, 2013 Is Too Late is a website whose message is simple: 2013 is too late to get out of Iraq. That is in response to the top three presidential candidates who refused to guarantee that they would be completely out of Iraq by 2013.
More on the flip.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 291 words in story)
|
|
Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:46:07 AM EST
|
|
Once again, I'm reminded that I find few things more frightening the prospect of a Giuliani presidency. In an interview with with the New Hampshire Union Leader, Rudy opens his mouth and a whole bunch of spooky spills out.
Invading Iraq gets a nod, but illegal aliens are out
Rudy Giuliani said yesterday he "never had any doubt" that if he were President four years ago, he would have invaded Iraq. He said he is now "even more certain" that it was the correct national security move.
"I actually believe that Democrats are going to agree with me on that by the time we get to the general election," the Republican former New York City mayor said. Giuliani addressed a wide range of issues in an hour-long meeting with editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Giuliani said that if Saddam Hussein were alive and in power, he would be trying to build a nuclear arsenal to meet a growing nuclear threat from Iran.
"We'd have two -- instead of one -- irresponsible, terrorist-supporting regimes that have enormous amounts of wealth available to them wanting to become nuclear powers in Middle East," he said. Libya would also be "a terrorist-supporting state with nuclear ambitions," he said.
History will show that "it will turn out to have been the correct decision to have removed him," Giuliani said.
As I have said many times before, if you've liked the Bush years, you are gonna love Rudy.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 21:50:22 PM EST
|
The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal, as well as the Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus, the Independent Bloggers Alliance, the Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust.
In 2001, Aidan Delgado was twenty-years old and in need of a life anchor. Delgado had primarily grown up abroad in far away places such as Cairo, Egypt, Thailand and Senegal due to his father's career as a diplomat. While attending college in Florida, Delgado felt culturally out of place and adrift. Having led an "ivory tower" existence of academia and privilege, Delgado opted to join the United States Army Reserves for a different perspective.
By sheer coincidence he signed his enlistment contract on September 11th. Those closest to him questioned the wisdom of Delgado's choice. The terrorist attacks convinced Delgado he made the correct decision as the country underwent a surge of patriotic feeling and rallying to the flag. At the time he was proud of having decided to join the United States Reserves before September 11th. Delgado didn't know it yet but the next three years of his life would transform his entire being.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 875 words in story)
|
|
Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:38:22 PM EDT
|
|
Last night's debate brought the issue of residual forces in Iraq to the front and center Democratic presidential campaign. The candidates presented their differing views on whether or not they would have all us troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term in office -- 2013 -- six years from now.
Sadly, there was little difference between the "top tier" candidates, as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all said they will not have ended our involvement in Iraq by 2013.
Six years from now.
Blogger Jeffrey Feldman writes:
The top-tier candidates all agreed last night that the Iraq war is only half over--that if elected President, each will continue the U.S. occupation and U.S. combat operations inside Iraq until at 2013. This means that the official Democratic position is now that the Iraq war will be a ten-year war. Now, I strongly disagree with Feldman that waiting until 2013 is the "official Democratic position." It is only the consensus position held by the three front-running candidates.
It is not Chris Dodd's official position. Nor is it the position of millions of Democrats and anti-war activists who are fighting to end the war today.
Dodd made his stance crystal clear in this exchange with moderator Tim Russert:
Tim Russert: I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge as Commander in Chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?
Chris Dodd: I will get that done.
Tim Russert: You'll get it done?
Chris Dodd: Yes, I will, sir. That's where Dodd is. And yet, the consensus among the Clinton-Obama-Edwards trio, the three largest recipients of time in last night's Democratic debate, was that they would not end the war in Iraq by 2013.
Last night's debate made it abundantly clear that while there exists a consensus among the "top tier" of Democratic presidential that they won't be committed to end the war by 2013, there is an alternative: Chris Dodd. Dodd is the only candidate who's fighting to pass legislation to cut off funding for the war now while committing to get our troops out of Iraq in his first term in office if he can't succeed legislatively before then.
If you want to end the war in Iraq and if you have been a supporter of Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the Dodd Squad. You'll have a candidate who stands with you in your desire about ending the war and you will never, ever have to apologize for him pledging to keep US troops in Iraq for six more years.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 13:51:11 PM EDT
|
|
On the East Side no less!
Dangerous Iraq chemicals found stored at U.N.
The United Nations found vials of a chemical warfare agent, which had been removed from Iraq a decade ago, in a U.N. building near the body's headquarters in New York but officials said on Thursday there was no danger.
The FBI was called in to remove the substances, which were discovered last Friday and included phosgene, an older generation chemical warfare agent, taken in 1996 by inspectors from a former Iraqi chemical weapons plant at Al Muthanna, the inspectors said in a statement.
Phosgene was used extensively during World War I as a choking agent, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
The inspectors, who are closing down their offices several streets from U.N. headquarters, discovered two small plastic packages with metal and glass containers, ranging in size from small vials to tubes the length of a pen with liquid substances, their spokesman, Ewen Buchanan, said.
Experts sealed the packages and then isolated them in a secured room. They also tested the area "and found no concentration of toxic vapors in the air," Buchanan said.
I suggest we bypass the sanctions route and just go ahead and invade and occupy the United Nations. The UN has thumbed it's nose at the rest of the world long enough. May I suggest we install John "I am the Walrus" Bolton as viceroy?
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 21:46:26 PM EDT
|
The topic below was originally posted yesterday, in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Peace Tree, The Independent Bloggers Alliance and Worldwide Sawdust.
Remember the pride Americans felt in its military following the first Gulf War in 1991? Prior to that conflict we had the "Vietnam Syndrome" tainting our military with the stench of defeat and shameful atrocities such as the My Lai massacre. Supposedly, a reformed military culture debunked the legacy of Vietnam, liberated Kuwait with honor while safeguarding America's interests in Saudi Arabia.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 4275 words in story)
|
|
Sat May 26, 2007 at 22:23:27 PM EDT
|
(I saw this earlier at DailyKos and I was hoping that devtob would crosspost it here. I think one of the commenters on that post said it best when he said:
Gillbrand is a good Rep.
But she was dead wrong on this vote.
Her explanation rings hollow, as do they all. A shameful episode for her and all other Democrats who voted for it.
Sounds about right to me. That said, I am genuinely curious to know what YOU think. - promoted by lipris)
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-20, called her vote for the Iraq War supplemental the "hardest vote" of her first five months in office in an appearance before more than 100 activists, most associated with Citizen Action of New York, Friday night.
Weeks ago, Citizen Action scheduled a barbecue at Grafton Lakes State Park for Gillibrand to report to the progressive group that did a great deal to help elect her.
Little did they, or she, know that the barbecue would happen a day after her most controversial vote, at least for her progressive supporters.
|
|
There's More...
:: (7
Comments, 485 words in story)
|
|
Fri May 18, 2007 at 17:29:05 PM EDT
|
(Good lord, I really can't stand Peter "Baghdad is just like Manhattan" King. - promoted by lipris)
From Newsday: King assails war detractors
WASHINGTON - Rep. Peter King attacked as "disgraceful" yesterday Republican moderates who warned President George W. Bush on Wednesday that his handling of the Iraq war threatens to damage the GOP's future.
"Members of Congress, whether in my party or the other party, who supported the war and are now turning against it because it's unpopular, that to me is disgraceful," said King. " If you can't take a political hit, then you can't send soldiers into war to take real bullets." King, who shouldered his tightest re-election campaign ever amid last year's Democratic landslide, acknowledged he is feeling the heat as he continues to back the president despite growing public disenchantment with the war. So Peter King calls it a "disgrace" that members of his own caucus would dare to defy Bush's marching orders; so much for the marketplace of ideas, free expression, all that jazz. King's marching in lockstep to Bush's orders so much that he can't fathom anyone seeing Iraq for what it really is: an intractable quagmire.
|
|
There's More...
:: (10
Comments, 279 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 23:04:09 PM EDT
|
|
I haven't really written much if at all about Hillary, Inc's presidential run and what I have written has been largely detached and matter of fact. Those of you who know me personally know that I'm no fan of the idea of a Hillary presidency. Should Hillary win in 2008, that would make at least 32 years with either a Bush or a Clinton as President or VP. That's not what healthy democracies look like. Here's another thing not to like about another Clinton administration; Hillary tells the New York Times that she'll keep a "scaled down" US military force in Iraq seemingly indefinitely. Seriously. The idea of keeping troops in Iraq forever with no defined mission other than perhaps trying to stave off the more robustly biblical bloodletting that is almost surely to visit the poor people of that country no matter what we do and, ya know, getting blown the hell up in the process is a loser. It's a loser for us as a nation. It's a loser for the Iraqis and it's a surefire loser in November '08.
Clinton Says Some G.I.'s in Iraq Would Stay if She Took Office
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence -- even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander-in-chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of "bringing the troops home."
She said in the interview that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.
Pardon me, but I assumed "bringing the troops home" actually meant, ya know, "bringing the troops home". As if I needed another reason to ignore fundraising emails from Hillary, Inc...
|
|
Discuss
:: (18
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 15:35:06 PM EDT
|
(Hear hear. - promoted by lipris)
Iraq is in utter chaos. It's a civil war, with American troops caught in the crossfire. The Bush Doctrine of "preemptive war" was morally and strategically stupid, and the dead and wounded are the visible result of his hubris. It's past time for the Democrats running Congress to force Bush to change strategy and bring the troops home.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 158 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 11:02:04 AM EDT
|
|
I ask because I'm confused. See, I remember that "Bring The Troops Home" rally on the waterfront in Poughkeepsie. You should too. You were there. You spoke passionately about ending the war. You were amazing. Here's a picture I took of you addressing the crowd on that blustery afternoon:
Now I read over at MyDD that you may be one of the Blue Dogs who can't bring themselves to vote for a bill that sets a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Granted, Matt added in an update that rumor has it that you want to see the bill first. Fine. But, I want to know just where you stand on this issue.
And, yeah, I know. I get it. I know you are in a marginal district. I know it can't be as easy to stand up to this idiot president from the 20th as it would be in other places. I also know that the president is going to do whatever he damn well pleases no matter what Congress does. But, damn it, Kirsten, you and many others were sent to DC for a reason and ending this god forsaken war was certainly a large part of it. I and most of the country have had enough. Take. A. Stand.
Where do you stand, Kirsten Gillibrand?
UPDATE: I just got a call from Gillibrand's Chief of Staff and he informs me that Kirsten will indeed be voting FOR the supplemental and that it was "never in question" that she would do otherwise. This is very, very good to hear. Cheers to you Rep Gillibrand.
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:12:31 PM EST
|
|
Randy Kuhl/Rochester Turning Day continues here at TAP. This time there is something we can all do. RT has a post up about a two year old that is about to be without either parent because both of her parents are soon to be deployed to Iraq. This can not stand.
Is Randy Kuhl is down with sending both of a 2 month old's parents to Iraq?
I'm sensing this might be one of those stories where a crisis happens and nobody helps… until the media gets involved. Lets hope a little coverage and some phone calls can garner support from Congressman Kuhl's… Here's some highlights from the story.
Her duty as a mother has kept her at home to take her of her two month old daughter Brooke. But now, Dolly Mast's duty as a soldier will send her to Iraq. That will leave little Brooke without both of her parents, because her father is already fighting overseas. … "I'm upset because she's going to be so little. I'm going to miss a lot, like her crawling and teething," said Mast. … She says the family has called U.S. Congressman Randy Kuhl, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton and even the President. They're pleading to keep brook's mom at home until her father can return from Iraq. But so far, no one has responded.
Let's all give Randy's office a call and tell him we don't support leaving a baby without both parents.
Randy's Washington Office: 202 225-3161
Randy's Fairport Office: 585 223-4760
Senate contact info on the flip...
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 22 words in story)
|
|
Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 16:11:10 PM EST
|
|
Final results from House Roll Call 99 (on agreeing to H CON RES 63) show five of New York's six Republican Members of Congress voting "nay" - thus putting them on record as supporters of George Bush's escalation of the Iraq war.
Nay votes:
- Fossella
- King
- Kuhl
- McHugh
- Reynolds
The only New York Republican to oppose escalation was James Walsh.
A little something to put in your pocket for those 2008 races. I'm somewhat surprised by Kuhl's vote, by the way.
(Cross-posted at The Daily Gotham)
UPDATE: Rochester Turning says: "I'm surprised. The last time I saw something like this was Jonestown, Guyana." LOL.
|
|
Discuss
:: (14
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 00:18:15 AM EST
|
|
Earlier this evening, the lead paragraph in this week's cover story in The Nation was pointed out to me. It's a simple set of statements and couple of rather profound questions, questions we as a nation would be wise to seek answers to.
For the Republic
World opinion is against it. The American people are against it. The Democratic Party is against it. The Congress of the United States is against it. The Iraq Study Group is against it. The Iraqi people are against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Many Republican lawmakers are against it. The top brass are against it. But George W. Bush is going to do it: send 21,500 more troops into Iraq. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand--possibly to other countries? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? Is its government any longer a constitutional republic? If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored?
Your thoughts?
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
