frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.

Check out my old  Voice of the People page.

Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington

1493 POSTS

February 2021
January 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Wednesday, 30 November 2005 at 19h 54m 18s

Paul Waldman is cool

Paul Waldman writes a regular blog at the online blog-a-zine gadflyer.

President Bush gave the umpteenth version of his Iraq speech today, and as always we were told that this speech would really turn things around because Bush would define the issue and explain to people why IraqiscentraltothewaronterrorandtheterroristsareontherunandastheIraqisstandupwew ill standdownandwewillnotcutandrunandvictoryisaroundthecornerblahblahblah.

In fact, the speech included no fewer than fifteen repetitions of the word "victory." So this is my question:

Just what, exactly, is "victory" in Iraq?

After all, we won't have the insurgents signing an armistice. There are no generals to surrender. Zarqawi could be captured tomorrow and the insurgency would continue unabated. So how will we know when we've won? Bush keeps telling us that in order to honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women who have died there, we have to keep our soldiers there to keep dying, to finish the job, to achieve that glorious victory. So what is this victory supposed to consist of? And just as important, is there a single person in the administration who has a clue what the answer to that question is?

Copyright © Paul Waldman.

Wednesday, 30 November 2005 at 17h 59m 59s

Winning the hearts and minds

Thanks to Atrios on the scoop. This is from the LA Times. [ SOURCE ]

WASHINGTON -- As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. . The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

While the articles are basically truthful, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles -- with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" -- since the effort began this year.


The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.


The storyboards, several of which were obtained by The Times, read more like press releases than news stories. They often contain anonymous quotes from U.S. military officials; it is unclear whether the quotes are authentic.

"Absolute truth was not an essential element of these stories," said the senior military official who spent this year in Iraq.

Surprise, surprise. This is what corporate news does here too. In fact,if it is on the front page, chances are that you are either reading something sensationalistically inconsequential or you are reading some "political- analyst" spinning the real news.

For instance, ex-San Diego Congressperson Randall Duke Cunningham has just been indited for

..receiving $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes.

Bribery charges involving a sitting member of Congress are relatively rare. The money involved makes Cunningham's the largest such case since several members of Congress were convicted of bribery in the early 1980s.

( -- Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times --SOURCE)

Makes you think this was front page news. Nope, the Chronicle put this story from the LA Times on page A-5. What was on the front page? Black hoodlums breaking into one Oakland liquor store, new attacks by insurgents in Iraq, and the new fishing season in the bay area. Cunningham got a close-up pic with just his hand over his face no background, but the story was on A-5. Adjacent to Cunningham was a picture of bad ole Saddam yelling at the court that is trying him in Iraq -- you get it, don't you, the bad guys are going to court. But the Iraqi court has been largely appointed by and orchestrated behind the scenes by U.S. Officials.

And today :


A quiet move in House to split the 9th Circuit
Uh,oh -- politics in the court-room

Black Muslims arrested in store attacks 2 suspects surrender -- Oakland police urge 4 others to turn themselves in
Citizens alert, the bad guys are close to getting caught

Fighting over the soul of Oakland waterfront Vast housing plan raises issues of affordability, access
The soul of what? Oh, do you mean that soul-ful Shopping Mall at Jack London Square?

Governor taps ex-Davis aide as chief of staff First move in a shakeup
See, the governor can get his act together after all. Returning from China so he can look gubernatorial, the boss is out kicking butt. OOOOO- weeee. He looked so cute smiling on the front page with his anorexic wife last week.

Stem cell program wins key court ruling, poised to issue grants
Hey, hey, money is in the pipeline.

And todays paper breathes not one more word. Will there be a follow up story? Mind you that

According to documents filed in federal court, Cunningham began receiving bribes in 2000 as his seniority gave him political power to influence the awarding of defense contracts.

--[ SOURCE ]

Remember when Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 2 straight months over a "scandal" in which a few $10,000 contribution checks came from owners of properties that were probably illegally benefiting from tax breaks. Rumor was the "deal" was quid pro quo. Shelley eventually resigned, but he was oddly never indited. The auditing board found minor discrepancies but nothing for which Shelley could be prosecuted.

By the way, it is the Secretary of State who has power over the contracts of voting machines and who is the final authority on all issues relating to voting. Shelley cancelled Diebold contracts after the 2003 recall farce when Diebold refused to answer legitimate questions over numerous "irregularities" and refused to allow the software to be inspected.

Shelley was also going around giving talks to various groups about banning the use of the machines. Go here

That's why Shelley was taken out, so they can put those corrupt machines in. That's why Shelley was a front-page reminder for damn near 2 months.

But Randall Cunningham,a sitting Congressional representative of San Diego indited for consistent bribery that aggregated into the millions gets one little bitty day on page 5.

Why wasn't this pic on the front page?

This happens all the time, week after week.

Can. It. Be. Any. More. Obvious.

Someone tell me the San Francisco Chronicle is not a front for the spin machine of the financial giants because I'm having a very difficult time believing otherwise.

Tuesday, 29 November 2005 at 21h 52m 4s

An honorable soldier

I cannot support a mission that leads to corruption, human rights abuse, and liars.

I am sullied.

I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored.

From a suicide note left by Colonel van Heusen after he shot himself at the Iraqi airport. His mission was to oversee the private contractors training of Iraqi troops that has been negligent at best due to the priority of private subcontracts making money at the expense of responsibility.

Mr. Orrin Hatch, and various troglodytes in the Republican party have all stated that we can't bring the troops home until we finish the job.

What exactly is the job? To spend eight times the money so government contractors can make a bundle without doing "the job" they are supposed to be finishing. Most of the reconstruction funding has been eaten up by the high profit margins and sub-sub contracting processes of skimming funds -- Company A sub-contracts at 10% to company B who subcontracts at 10% to company C, which increases the cost by 1+.10 to the 3rd power ... an overall 33% increase just because C signed a paper that was routed through B and A.

This is not about government waste. This is about private firms being permitted to exploit the government by cronies and Bush administration officials AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INTEGRITY AND PURPOSE OF THE MISSION that was purported to be the reason for invading Iraq.

So for all you damn morons with concrete keeping your eyes closed, we were not invited by an Iraqi resistance movement to come save them from Saddam. The WMD reason was bullshit from the start. The damage created by our bombing alone nullifies whatever moral authority presumed by the United States because we were not invited nor attacked -- nor were we or anyone else threatened. So who was being intimidated by our big and bad "shock and awe" ferociousness? Women and children? Electric power plants and sewage treatment plants that have still not been rebuilt ?

I hear all those incredibly self-flattering talking points you offer, but how do you create a stable economy when the privatization process is importing workers and performing shabby service at high price? How do you create a stable democracy when the political process is completely corrupted by American bribery and intimidated by nationalist insurgents?

What a very different history our own nation would have had, if Spain had invaded the Colonies in lieu of "saving" us from the evil designs of King George? Recall that Spain owned Mexico during the 1760s. Would we call the rebels who formed roving bands "insurgents" ? Would we respect the constitution had it been written by a court appointed Spaniard who wrote various favorable codes into the document that favored Spanish merchants? Or if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had been on Spain's payroll -- like Chalabi and Allawi. What if Spain started importing Italians for labor instead of hiring colonists, or if colonial businesses had to compete with the large resource of invading Spain's corporations?

We have found the enemy. And the enemy is us.

It completely amazes me how arrogant and out-right presumptuous the idea that it was "our job" to invade Iraq in the name of freedom. Look at the history of the United States and the history of global military in general. How many times was there an unprovoked invasion which resulted in freedom? The United States "invaded" the Phillipines, Cuba, and Nicaragua in the early 20th Century, and all were followed by dictatorships and repressive regimes because of the priority of economic profit over the jargon of "liberty" that was uttered. We keep using the grand ole moral fervor of World War Two and D-Day as the prism through which all else is seen, but that was a reaction to the dangerous expansion of Japan and Germany.

This time it is us who is posturing before the world with militarist expansion. (The UN telling us what to do? HA! Phooey! "I don't care what you say. I'm gonna do it my way.") But the sad fact is we can't afford it, and yet there are some fools still trying proudly to justify themselves with chivalric episodes at the mighty expense of reality.

Friday, 25 November 2005 at 11h 19m 0s

About spiraling down to the lowest denominator

I keep wanting to add to my post 2-posts ago, but at some point you have to leave what was said behind and move on. I will edit and further elaborate on a post within at most a four hour time-frame, and then move on, unless there is a typographical error, a grammatical error, or a factual error.

Here is the statement upon which I desire to elaborate.

Only that is not how it works, nor how this happens. Corporations play state governments off each other, just like they do globally with nations. Whoever offers them the best deal gets the new factory, but that factory is still going to get built incentive or not.

Let me first clarify, when I use the concatenated word "state/nation" I am referring to both the 51 states in the US, the provinces of Canada and Mexico and other countries of the world, and also the various nations of the world as well. Each of these organizational units do occur at different levels, but each exist as an economic unit that is separate from others. The stores and factories exist within in the state of Ohio, the province of British Columbia in Canada, and the nation of Vietnam all equally, albeit at larger forms of permissible organization and economic activity.

Corporations play state, provincial, and national governments off each other to get the best deal because global power has shifted to corporate forms of financial accumulation and capital ownership. Power has shifted many times over the last 5,000 years of human history. From tribal chieftans, to religious patriarchy, to lords and the chain of feudal aristocracy, and then slowly towards the diversified owners and participants of economic activity that began sometime during the Medieval period circa 1,000 A.D. during the flowering of chinese "mercantilism" and East Asian markets (Chinese trading posts existed as far as modern day Mozambique on the coast of South-East Africa.)

So this year state/nation A offers the cheapest labor and the most "incentives" in the name of tax reductions, next year state/nation B offers even better, and so on and so forth until you reach the lowest level of deal that any one state/nation can go. Those state/nation's which don't get the new plant (ie., new corporate capital investment) lose out and don't get a source of jobs and a revenue stream (money that flows within the state/nation, some of which gets spent their, some of which gets taxed, etc...)

In this sense, there are winners and there are losers. The losers have less money and control over resource allocation; the winners have more money and are able to decide how to allocate resources. But the losers can also negotiate cheaper sources of labor and more incentives, because something is better than nothing when you have nothing. Meanwhile, those who were winning begin to start losing jobs and control over how economies affect society.

The old-winners and old-losers swap places, but the ideology of "winning" does not get replaced. In order to understand the ongoing transitions, the descriptors of the winning ideology try to grapple with the need to describe the losing that is occuring. People are portrayed as "lazy" when they don't do all they can to make money. People who are homeless or poor are described as "losers" or some pejorative phrase like "bums". Since "winning" take the forms of making money and property ownership, those persons who appear absent these foundations of the ideology must be on the opposite end of the value system. The subtle parade of the value system embeds itself in all forms of the culture, merely to reassure those most endeared to the value system of the old "winning" ideology, which are quite often the same persons as the plutocracy that isn't losing.

When this happens previously in history, and ideological shift occurs and the human reaction is a rise to some understanding "nationalism," a sense that humans should dictate how jobs and resources get distributed, not ephemeral or arbitrary forces inside and out of the state/nation. Citizens get angry and fustrated with their leaders or governing representatives and the urge to "take control" of the "nation" grows past the critical point. The need to exert some control over their lives and their history, the rise of "nationalism" is an ancient human response.

Wednesday, 23 November 2005 at 21h 59m 25s

Tyranny versus Liberty

When the people fear the government
you have Tyranny.
When the government fears the people
you have liberty.

--Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, 23 November 2005 at 19h 0m 21s

Two interesting facts

Why do we need tax reform? According to Senator Byron Dorgan:

There is a 5 story white building in the Cayman islands where 12,000 American corporations keep the records of their headquarters so they don't have to pay taxes on their income. They use the 5 story building as post-office box to re-route their profits so those profits are not taxed.

Last year 274 American corporations made 1 trillion dollars in profits -- not revenue: these are profits, what is left after all the bills are paid. Now for the kicker: ALL BUT 72 PAID NO TAXES LAST YEAR.

Byron Dorgan, Senator from North Dakota.

They want all the benefits of America, but don't want to pay for it.

Oh, but these corporations are paying workers and creating jobs, they say. Accordingly, this argument goes, they can't compete in the global economy because taxes are too high. Tax breaks are supposed to be an incentive for corporations to "invest" and "innovate" and make a lot more money.

Only that is not how it works, nor how this happens. Corporations play state governments off each other, just like they do globally with nations. Whoever offers them the best deal gets the new factory, but that factory is still going to get built incentive or not. Companies invest and innovate when they can realize a greater market share or larger profit within the foreseeable future, not because they pay less taxes. It is very true that paying less taxes will make the bottom line better, but the function of making the bottom line better is completely independent of taxation. That is my point. Turning the faucet is not connected to the flow of water. Beyond the extra-ordinary, the archaic, or the extreme, taxation is a just another cost balanced against the revenue and is just economic background noise.

Companies also innovate when they can save money. But again, they can also save money in other ways by paying less wages, or transferring assets abroad where costs are cheaper and there are no obligations of labor benefits. Innovations do not always have to be labor and/or technology driven. (This bull does not wear all clothes alike.) They can be driven by merely a desire or need to cut costs, and companies will do this without tax breaks, or regardless of tax breaks. There is no causation.

Small businesses, home-owners can all benefit from tax breaks, and the result is more spendable cash that can be used for other things. This supports the community and functioning of the local economy, which is precisely the intended result. Government is supposed to spend tax dollars for society's benefit, so that the cost of the benefit gets spread over all of the citizens and we all share the burden, thus making the overall cost cheaper. Our government functions for the people, and although every nascent rising aristocraty will always try to take control of the government for its own uses, the ideal is still the foundation of government -- which is why marauders have to clothe their actions with the words of the great ideals.

Government subsidizes industry and communities when the benefit will not occur any other way, or the initial investment is too prohibitive. This is how plumbing, railroads, interstate highways, electricity, telephones, radio, the internet, and computers all eventually became independent. Before the technology has advanced to a point where it becomes practical, the wisdom of the technology is nevertheless worthy of support. Corporations cannot lose money hoping on a big idea, when the competition is such that there is no guaranteed that a 10 year investment will ever be realized. To some extent it is true that Research and Development is a function of re-invested profits, but since no corporation can re-invest more money than there is available, the aggregation of a very large initial investment is only possible through collective action. This collective can be in the form of investors, but only government has the force of legal requirement when the desired result runs counter to the profit motive.

A corporation is also not a small business or a home-owner, where a single individual makes all the decisions and participates in all of the functions necessary to operate the business or own the house. A corporation is a large bureaucracy compartmentalized into specific functions, all of which are coordinated by multiple layers of managers and officers all the way up to the Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Maintaining the files and records alone of corporate debts and assets might employ 1000 plus persons. Departments produce reports and have meetings to discuss reports and balance sheets. Stockholders vote for the Board of Directors by proxy, which means anonymously. The stock price, and to some extent the value of the corporation, is thus extremely dependent upon yearly profits, if for no other reason than the inherent herd mentality of the asset markets. The pressure to increase profits is very real, and should not be underestimated nor overlooked.

But that's just what the tax-break incentive myth does -- assumes that large corporations respond the same way as individuals. The decisions of what to do with any surplus cash are obviously not as simple as one person who gets some extra money deciding to expand his painting business and hire 2 more workers -- assuming the same boss doesn't just add a garage to his home or install a new pool in the backyard.

Tax incentives that are targeted work best when individual behaviors are subsidized, like college expenses or insurance payments, not when they are granted with the abstract assumption that investments will get sponsored. The surplus just gets added to the pile because they are not targeted or guaranteed to be spent on anything specific. Hence they are actually a waste of investment, because inevitably there will always be a sizeable percentage of the total that is not going to get spent as desired.

When you give a benefit for college expenses, the money got spent on college expenses. A lot of the so called "tax benefits" that corporations get is really just window-dressing. Corn is subsidized so that all of the products derived from corn have a cheap source of corn, which may arguably be a good thing to have. However, all of the coal producing electricity plants got tax- incentives for the last 10 years to help them modernize, but instead, they took the money and did nothing, and 20,000 got a 20 year reprieve from having to modernize by Bush in 2003. The nuclear energy industry has always been subsidized (50 years worth) and is still neither practical nor sustainable. The telephone corporation would never have hooked up the current network absent government regulation. Without forcing the corporation to perform an end result, the company would have sat on the tax- benefits money and manipulated it's market position to monopolize and make more money. And as we all know, politicians can be bought to keep passing on the tax-benefits without creating a means of enforcement.

Why give $100,000 to the "someone" as an "incentive" to make loans, when you could just give out the $100,000 directly as loans? Answer : so the "someone" can get a cut of the business, of course.

And do you think the Oil conglomerates are going to invest in Solar or alternative energy that will cost the corporation lots of market share? At some point, the corporation's drive for profits and market position diverge from the need to modernize. In the long run, the changes will force them to the wall, but the short term might be 50 years. Are we gonna ride on the backs of 2 generations of people waiting for the transition to "naturally" occur? Don't forget, bad decisions are sometimes made, human vanity does not always enable the presumed democratic competition of the economic order. Aristocracy and oligarchy and plutocracy are all ancient Greek words for a reason, because they can quite "naturally" occur.

Tuesday, 22 November 2005 at 22h 36m 47s

They knew they were lying

This is really smoking hot.

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal © National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.


One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

That is only the first 3%. Read on ...

Tuesday, 22 November 2005 at 22h 24m 3s

Jean is full of Schmidt

This comes from Thinkprogress [SOURCE] and the Washington Monthly [SOURCE]

Marine Quoted By Schmidt Says He Never Mentioned Murtha During Rep. Jean Schmidt’s (R-OH) shameful attack on Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) on the House Floor she said she was communicating a message from Marine Colonel Danny Bubp.

This is what Jean Schmidt said:

A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.

Bubp denies he said that [SOURCE -- Cincinnati Enquirer]:

Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt…”There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward,” Bubp said.

And further, from the NYTimes: [SOURCE -- at bottom of page]

...a spokeswoman for the colonel, Danny R. Bubp, said Ms. Schmidt had misconstrued their conversation.

While Mr. Bubp, a Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives, opposes a quick withdrawal for forces, "he did not mention Congressman Murtha by name nor did he mean to disparage Congressman Murtha," said Karen Tabor, his spokeswoman. "He feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."

One picture is the screed ... the other is for the cameras.

How about those eerie, scary blue-ish eyes looking up at ... "God" ? Receiving signals from alien invaders? Seeing a golf ball coming at her from above? I wonder how many photos had to be taken before they got her head tilted at just the right angle, with just the right pose.

She's a front. She was the candidate that had to beat Iraq vet Paul Hackett (with possible help, thanks to an 11th hour shift of 4,000 votes by the computer counting - Diebold - machines in Ohio.

The 2nd Congressional District is East of Cincinnati, along the Ohio River.

Some Excerpts from the House Rules and Manual that Jean should read:

"In the practice of the House, a member is not permitted to refer to another member by name, or to address him in the second person. The proper reference to another member is 'the gentleman (or gentlewoman) from ...,' naming the member's state.

"By rule of the House, as well as by parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden, whether against the member in the member's capacity as representative or otherwise, even if the references may be relevant to the pending question. The House has censured a member for gross personalities. The chair may intervene to prevent improper references where it is evident that a particular member is being described. The chair does not rule on the veracity of a statement made by a member in debate. Although accusing another member of deceit engages in personality, merely accusing another member of making a mistake does not.

"A member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of another member, which would be improper if spoken in the member's own words."

And remember, Murtha is merely conveying what will happen eventually. He is not "cutting and running" like a "coward." This insidious wench was merely trying to help the Rethuglican "team" gain political points, since in her mind this is a vituperative trench fight not a rational discussion about policy decisions. And her insistence that "we see this through" was more for the purpose of insisting that congressman Murtha said otherwise.

This is how the party "strategists" (goons??) create an opposition movement by allocating to "the opponent" an untruth, whilst the wily politician takes the truth position for themself.

These are the games they play. They don't listen to you. You are the enemy. While you are speaking, their minds are spinning trying to figure out their next counter move -- so of course they don't really hear a word you say.

Monday, 21 November 2005 at 19h 42m 3s

Roll out the presses, xmas shoppers are on the march

Monday, 21 November 2005 at 19h 43m 48s

They are foolish and have no shame

Who are these people, standing before the microphones and disparaging John Murtha's 37 years of Marine service and playing word games by accusing his bill as "cutting and running."

Then, on Friday, the Republican leadership attempts to sneak a "substitute" bill drawn up by California Republican Duncan Hunter (boo, hiss) by calling a vote on the resolution. Thankfully representative Lantos was keen enough to ask what bill was before the House, and thus forcing the House speaker to legally state the bill. [SOURCE] Had the vote occurred, Democrats could have been lured into thinking they voted for another bill. This trick has been pulled by the Republicans -- and Lyndon Baines Johnson even -- before. Thankfully, Lantos was wise to them this time.

Good thing too, because the two resolutions are very different.

Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republican alternative: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." [SOURCE]

That's the entire Hunter resolution by the way. We get "the sense." Which sense, the sense of "smell" -- cause that's what this does, it smells.

Congressman Duncan Hunter,52nd District of California
(East of San Diego)
" Believe everything they tell me to say. Trust me. The honesty and integrity will become more obvious as my hands approach one another while I am speaking. "

This is the same Duncan Hunter who earlier in the year read the menu of the Guantanamo Prisoners, so as to dispel any notions that prisoner abuse and torture were not occuring merely because he is reading a "menu" given to him purporting to come directly from spot. He recently also sponsored building a "wall" along the entire border between Mexico and the United States.

Sounds like the Berlin Wall to me, Mr. HUNTER.

Keep in mind that this is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee during this time of egregious corruption in the sub-contracting process of military procurement, and when 9 billion of 18 billion to be spent cannot be accounted for and in which was specifically written by law to be spent on Reconstruction in Iraq.

Accordingly "snake-oil" salesman Rep. Duncan Hunter R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that the above resolution vote was not a stunt. "This is not an attack on an individual. This is a legitimate question," he said, in the sourced article.

Oh really? So if it is a "legitimate question" then why try to sneak in an alternative resolution without making clear which resolution, Hunter's or Murtha's was about to be voted upon. You see how this works, eh. Those who did not pay attention, only thought the fight was about some "legitimate question," when the fight was really about the secretive tactics. This is how these Rethuglicans (damn near everyone) and a few spineless Democrats (Lieberman and Biden) play the game. They know that at least 80% of the people will not know the details or even the actual series of events, so what the TV audiences and the corporate newspapers get is the offsetting quotes -- with very little or not enough background information.

(Which is why the sourced yahoo article comes from a writer of the Associated Press - - the "associated" means some writer wrote another story and distributed it across the wire, as opposed to a writer from the staff of a particular newspaper.)

85 to 90 percent of the article is a quotation, or mentions conflicts and disagreements in lieu of a quotation without detailing either conflict or disagreement.

It's like, He said,she said, he said, oh and by the way 1+1=2, and then finally, he said. Story over.

Uh .... hello! Who cares what the @*$$!* he or she said, what the hell happened !!!!

Just look how the article describes the voting scenario. Each of the bolded parts are deliberate subjective choices of description

The Republican-controlled House spurned calls for an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq in a vote hastily arranged [ie, not forced by the Murtha resolution] by the GOP that Democrats vociferously denounced as politically motivated...

...Democrats accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt that prohibited thoughtful debate on the issue, and nearly all voted against the measure.

...The House action came in a week that also saw the GOP-controlled Senate defeat a Democratic push for President Bush to lay out a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, senators approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.

...In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House.

...Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position — either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict. They also hoped the vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue — the war — that has seen plummeting public support in recent weeks.

Democrats said it was a sham and quickly decided to vote against the resolution in an attempt to drain it of significance.

Nowhere in this damn piece of $#@@**!% article are the major facts that occurred. The Republicans tried to put their own Resolution before the vote without making clear what was being voted upon. That resolution was one sentence long and only conveyed "a sense" of doing something. And the Murtha resolution was not a call for immediate withdrawal, as the Hunter resolution suggests with a "sense". But apparently, according to the ap writer "Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position — either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict."

Indeed, was that the choice according to the ubiquitous "critics" ? A choice between a "precipitous" withdrawal or "angering voters." Was that the choice?

Thank you bullshit ap hack writer for such an insightful clue about your true purpose on the ap wire. Notice that in the paragraph above I can summarize in 3 sentences what you could not even mention in the entirety of your epic whitewashing of the event.

However, the Republican's got other strings to pull, and quickly get on the trail of yet another auspicious ethics probe ... ?

From Roll Call (the House record of business each day): GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

So they go around attacking the credentials and ideas of John Murtha and then they try to sneak through a fake bill so they don't have to vote on the real "Murtha bill" ...

argh, this truly is disgusting.

Our boys are dying because they can't accept reality without first trying to milk the events for some political gain. This is not about "cutting and running." This is about redeployment. According to the Pentagon, no amount of time or addition of troops will improve the situation in Iraq. The troops will be drawn down and redeployed by the military anyway. Murtha is just saying publically what is already in the works.

But these Republicans have to take their politics to the level of sewage pipes underneath the streets. But then that is where the rats live and breed, so go figure.