Thursday, February 22, 2007

What Would Iran Do?

Stephanie Condon wrote the following posting, while I was waiting for a verdict in the Libby trial....

Today's UN announcement that Iran has failed to meet the Security Council's deadline for suspending its uranium enrichment activities will likely fuel talk of an US-Iran military confrontation. But if it should come to that, there's no assurance that the United States would benefit from the clash. In a paper posted yesterday by the British American Security Information Council, retried Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner warns that Iran's capacity to retaliate against a US military attack would be not one of shock-and-awe but, nevertheless, of significant consequence.

In the paper--titled General, you have the advantage of time: Iran's response to the U.S. military option--Gardiner speculates that Iran's retaliation would be subtle and indirect--and perhaps set off explosive results throughout the entire region. Tehran could easily create more havoc for the United States in Iraq, Gardiner asserts, by boosting whatever assistance it provides Shia militia groups and by threatening the flow of oil in the region. It would also be able to summon up regional support, Gardiner says. With the right rhetoric, Iran could associate Israel with any U.S. military action, prompting Hamas and Hezbollah to step up attacks there. The results across the region would be unpredictable.

Writing as if he were an Iranian strategist submitting a memo to Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Gardiner notes,

Time is on Iran's side. Even after a U.S. strike, some of our options will even improve if they unfold slowly. That's particularly true of using oil leverage. Low signature but significant cuts in oil flow raise the prices, benefit us, and force the U.S. to pay. Low signature, drawn-out responses reduce the likelihood of additional U.S. attacks. A slow and low-signature response is important beyond preventing U.S. retaliation. Iran has another important interest: preventing chaos. The strategy I have outlined offers the best chance for first, deterring a U.S. attack, and second, if deterrence fails, inflicting long, drawn out and ultimately unacceptable pain on them while minimizing the chances of a second attack on the Islamic Republic, and leaving the government in the best position to harness the national will and international outrage against the aggressors while controlling the popular reaction. It will show that while we have retaliatory capability, we are reasonable and moderate in the face of unprovoked and outrageous attacks by the imperialist forces. It could play a central role in changing the international balance of power away from the Americans. In the end, Iran's influence in the region will be strengthened by a U.S. attack.

Despite appearances to the contrary, the administration insists that it does not desire a military clash with Iran. Perhaps they've already figured out what Gardiner has.

Posted by David Corn at February 22, 2007 03:12 PM


Gerald said...

War with Iran is definite. It is etched in stone.

George Hitler needs to attack Iran in order to declare martial law and cancel the 2008 elections on his time schedule.

George Hitler will never leave the WH. At age 62 he will reside in the WH until he is well into his 90s. George Hitler will rule for at least 40 years.


Gerald said...

George Hitler desires to create a master race

Gerald said...

Unfortunately, millions of Americans, like Bush, hate the idea of any international authority that might limit American power. This may explain why the US has vetoed more Security Council resolutions than all other members combined. It explains, too, why every time the phrase "United Nations" is uttered at a Republican Party convention, the audience erupts with jeers and catcalls. Indeed, America supremacists of the Project For A New American Century(PNAC) in 2000 "called for nothing less than the creation of a worldwide imperial American empire, with forces based all around the globe," according to "The Book on Bush"(Viking) by Eric Alterman and Mark Green. Ten PNAC members urged a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq, stating, "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the Security Council." Back in the Thirties German and Japanese militarists flouted the League of Nations, too. In time, they simply withdrew. Now Bush is executing PNAC's aggressive agenda.


Gerald said...

My concern is what will the devil incarnate empire do???

David B. Benson said...

Rep. Walter Jones (NC) needs cosponors for a resolution against single-handed war against Iran.

Encourage your rep to join him.


capt said...

Nichols says bombing was FBI op

Detailed confession filed in S.L. about Oklahoma City plot

The only surviving convicted criminal in the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is saying his co-conspirator, Timothy McVeigh, told him he was taking orders from a top FBI official in orchestrating the bombing.

A declaration from Terry Lynn Nichols, filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, has proven to be one of the most detailed confessions by Nichols to date about his involvement in the bombing as well as the involvement of others. However, one congressman who has investigated the bombings remains skeptical of Nichols' claims.

The declaration was filed as part of Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue's pending wrongful death suit against the government for the death of his brother in a federal corrections facility in Oklahoma City. Trentadue claims his brother was killed during an interrogation by FBI agents when agents mistook his brother for a suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation.


*****end of clip*****

Surely THIS could open some of those closed minds with regard to the governments involvement in domestic attacks.


Robert S said...

Pentagon Calls Off Plans for Huge Explosion in Desert
Agence France-Presse Thursday 22 February 2007

Washington - The Pentagon on Thursday canceled plans to detonate a 700-tonne explosive charge in the Nevada desert that had drawn environmental protests and lawsuits.

"I have become convinced that it's time to look at alternative methods that obviate the need for this type of large-scale test," said James Tegnelia, the director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Dubbed "Divine Strake," the test was designed to gather data for use in developing weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers containing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

It called for detonating 700 tonnes of conventional explosives over a tunnel at a Nevada test site to study its effect on hard granite structures.

But the "experiment" drew lawsuits and protests from Nevada residents worried about the possible environmental impact of the blast, which was expected to send a mushroom-like cloud 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) in the air.

Tegnelia said his decision to cancel the test was not based on any technical information that indicated it would be harmful to workers, the public or the environment.


I'll leave it to others to comment on the naming of a military test "devine." But, perhaps this is somewhat explanitory...

Robert S said...

Ahh, the divinity of misspellings...


Is Cheney Next?
By Justin Rood
ABC News
Thursday 22 February 2007

Could a guilty verdict for a former aide bring further criminal scrutiny of Vice President Dick Cheney?
"Yes," said Sol Weisenberg, a former deputy independent counsel to former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

As a federal jury deliberates the fate of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, several watchers agree. If the jury decides Libby knew he was lying to investigators, it could spur investigators to explore further whether Cheney was involved in conspiring to obstruct justice, they believe.

Libby's lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The office of the vice president declined to discuss the matter.

At issue is a conversation between the two men in the fall of 2003, soon after the federal probe began to identify who leaked CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

Libby recalled the conversation from the stand, "I told the vice - you know, there was - the president said anybody who knows anything should come forward or something like that ... I went to the vice president and said, 'You know, I was not the person who talked to Novak,'" according to the "National Journal," whose reporter Murray Waas attended the trial and was the first to note the possible trouble a guilty verdict could cause for the vice president.

"[H]e [said] something like, 'I know that,'" Libby continued. "And I said, you know, 'I learned this from Tim Russert.' And he sort of tilted his head to the side a little bit, and then I may have in that conversation said, 'I talked to other - I talked to people about it on the weekend.'"

"What did you understand from his gesture or reaction in tilting his head?" Fitzgerald asked Libby, according to Waas' account.

"That the Tim Russert part caught his attention," Libby replied. "You know, that he, he reacted as if he didn't know about the Tim Russert thing, or he was rehearing it or reconsidering it or something like that ... New, new sort of information. Not something he had been thinking about."

"And did he at any time tell you, 'Well, you didn't learn it from Tim Russert, you learned it from me?'" asked Fitzgerald. "'Back in June you and I talked about the wife working at the CIA?'"

"No," Libby responded, according to Waas.

That brief conversation could be trouble for Cheney, reports Waas, because at the time of the conversation, Cheney "already had reason to know that Libby's account to him was untrue, according to sources familiar with still-secret grand jury testimony," as well as evidence and testimony from the Libby trial.

Of course, an extended Cheney probe may not garner much. "I don't know how much more there would be for Fitzgerald to do," Weisenberg told ABC News. Libby and Cheney were the only parties to the conversation, he noted, so further cooperation from Libby would be the only way to discern its true meaning.

First, Fitzgerald would need to win a guilty verdict for Libby and push for the harshest sentence possible, said Washington, D.C. lawyer Stanley Brand, who has built a practice around defending public officials. Then, he could grant Libby immunity from further prosecution and offer leniency in an effort to coax Libby to say more about the vice president's role, if any, in obstructing his leak investigation.

Even then, it would take a lot more evidence than that one conversation to build a case against the vice president, Brand told ABC News. "A wink and a nod can't be obstruction," he said. "There has to be overt acts and intent."

Reached by phone Thursday, Fitzergald spokesman Randall Sanborn declined comment on the matter.


capt said...

Ignorance feeds on ignorance.
– Carl Sagan

Sums up the problem in four words. Brevity is truly an effective skill.


I thought "Devine" was an homage to a certain actor/actress.

Gerald said...

I passed the test because I didn't trust Hitler in 2000

David B. Benson said...

Are Bush and Blair still buddies? Could Blair convince Bush to follow the British lead and just leave?

Gerald said...

What about US's DU and White Phosporus Factories

Gerald said...

There should be no doubt

capt said...

I would have failed the test. I liked Colin Powell and in spite of his inanity I believed him when he did his dog & pony show.

I might have voted for Powell in the top slot - I would have at minimum thought seriously about voting for him until he showed what a complete sell-out he really is, same with McCain.

HRC and Barack have not closed the deal (not even close yet).

I hope for a name we have not yet heard.


"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."
~ Simon Cameron (1799 - 1889)

"You've got to vote for someone. It's a shame, but it's got to be done."
~ Whoopi Goldberg

"A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar."
~ H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

capt said...

"It should be no surprise that when rich men take control of the government, they pass laws that are favorable to themselves. The surprise is that those who are not rich vote for such people, even though they should know from bitter experience that the rich will continue to rip off the rest of us. Perhaps the reason is that rich men are very clever at covering up what they do.": Andrew Greeley (Chicago Sun-Times, February 18, 2001):

"A State divided into a small number of rich and a large number of poor will always develop a government manipulated by the rich to protect the amenities represented by their property.": Harold Laski, (1930):

"The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favoured few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.": Thomas Jefferson (in his last letter, 1826):

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.": Plutarch - Mestrius Plutarchus (c. 46 AD- 127 AD) was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist.

"I would rather lose in a cause that will some day win, than win in a cause that will some day lose.: Woodrow Wilson



ICHBLOG.EU without the bells and whistles. Click here for text only version of the site (great for dialup users)!


Read this newsletter online

Thanks ICH Newsletter!

capt said...

A Trial for Thousands Denied Trial

Something remarkable is going on in a Miami courtroom. The cruel methods US interrogators have used since September 11 to "break" prisoners are finally being put on trial.

This was not supposed to happen. The Bush Administration's plan was to put José Padilla on trial for allegedly being part of a network linked to international terrorists. But Padilla's lawyers are arguing that he is not fit to stand trial because he has been driven insane by the government.

Arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport, Padilla, a Brooklyn-born former gang member, was classified as an "enemy combatant" and taken to a Navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina. He was kept in a 9-by-7-foot cell with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a "truth serum," a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.


*****end of clip*****

I mentioned recently how much I was missing Naomi Klein's work? SHE'S BACK! An excellent piece.


uncledad said...

If Corn had any creditability, he'd have his own blog, not some fake bullshit google registrar. Corn you are a fake.

capt said...

Imus wants to go to Walter Reed

Watch it HERE

ImusBlog: Imus described an interview he watched on the NewsHour with Army Surgeon General Kevin C. Kiley. Imus said the conversation was outrageous and a bunch of double talk. General Kiley even went so far as to blame the troops. Imus, "Then he says the mice and cockroach issue was something that in fact the command did address last year. That was due to soldiers leaving food in their rooms. So if we have the Generals in the Army blaming the troops.

Faiz asks us to email Walter Reed to let him in. He's in a position to actually do something about this no matter how you feel about him.

Email the Walter Reed Public Affairs office, and tell them to let Don Imus tour the full Walter Reed facilities.


*****end of clip*****

Everybody should be very pissed off at what is happening in the VA - not just Water Reed.


capt said...

Fighting the wrong war in Afghanistan


The widely promoted assumption that more NATO troops and increased US military action are the only way to defeat the Taliban is both naive and dangerous.

The more NATO expands its operations in Afghanistan and the more the US military pursues its myopic hunt for Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, the more it risks the lives of its own soldiers and the fewer resources the international community has to invest in ANA and the Afghan National Police (ANP), and in reconstruction and fostering civil society.

Each NATO soldier costs an average of $5,000 a month to maintain in Afghanistan, while the average ANA soldier takes home $60 a month. A pay raise plus a more robust training program for ANA and ANP personnel would surely attract more Afghans to serving the national security force and, for those who are already part of it, reduce the high rate of desertion. The resources spent on an expanded NATO and US military mission should therefore be replaced with a new strategy.

The most difficult part of such a strategy is that it requires the moral authority and courage of the US to end its "hunt" for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. NATO cannot assert itself as a stabilizing force in Afghanistan as it did in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina if the US Defense Department is waging its own, parallel "war on terror" in Afghanistan.


*****end of clip*****

Some insight from Asian Times Online. Short and to the point.


capt said...

Pakistan test fires long-range ballistic missile

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan test-fired a nuclear-capable, surface-to-surface ballistic missile with a range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles) on Friday, a military official said.
The test of the Hatf VI (Shaheen II) missile was successful, he said.

"It can carry all types of warheads including nuclear," the official said.

The Hatf VI is a two-stage solid fuel missile which can carry nuclear and conventional warheads with high accuracy. An advanced version has a potential range of 2,500 km (1,560 miles).


*****end of clip*****

We have an arms race going in the middle east. War and war goods are profitable.


Robert S said...

Know your profiteers!






Robert S said...

Ecuador's President Embraces Bolivarianism
by Stephen Lendman | Feb 23 2007 - 8:25am

Hugo Chavez Frias gained an Ecuadoran ally last November when voters rejected Washington's choice and the country's richest man and elected Raphael Correa its President by an impressive margin. Correa is a populist economist and self-styled "humanist, leftist Christian" promising big changes for another Latin American country long ruled by and for the elite and against the interests of ordinary people Ecuador abounds in whose voices finally spoke and prevailed.

Correa took office January 15 in a country of 13 million, over 70% of whom live in poverty. They voted for a man promising social democratic change and the same kinds of benefits Venezuelans now have under Hugo Chavez they too now have a chance to get. Correa is the country's 8th president in the last decade including three previous ones driven from office by mass street protest opposition against their misrule and public neglect.

Correa campaigned on a promise of change including using the country's oil revenue for critically needed social services Ecuadoreans never before had. He promised a "citizens' revolution" and to be an "instrument of change" beginning by drafting a new Constitution in a Constituent Assembly he hopes will be authorized by popular referendum following the same pattern Hugo Chavez chose in 1999 following his first election as Venezuela's President in December, 1998.

Ecuador's majority right wing Christian Democratic Union (UDC) party tried stopping him but overwhelming popular support for it finally got enough members in it to go along. The vote came February 13 and won out 54 - 1 with two abstentions in the nation's single-seat legislature. Most opposition deputies walked out before the vote when it was apparent they'd face defeat.

Following the vote, Ecuador's Supreme Electoral Council (TSE) set April 15 for the referendum vote that's virtually certain to pass as popular support for its purpose runs around 77%. After passage, as expected, voters in June or July will select 130 delegates to the Constituent Assembly that should begin meeting in August or September. It then will have six to eight months to write a new Constitution that would go before voters to be ratified, and if it changes the Congress or presidency would require new elections be held for legislators and the nation's highest office.

It things go as planned, Ecuador is now poised to change its method of governance the same way Venezuela did it eight years ago. Raphael Correa promised it, and he's now moving ahead to give his people the same kind of 21st century socialism Venezuelans now have and embrace. Ecuadoreans want it too and now have their best chance ever to get it under a leader working for them just as Chavez does for Venezuelans with overwhelming approval.

Correa is confident of success and told his people on February 17 on his weekly radio program he'll resign if his supporters don't win a majority of seats in the Constituent Assembly. He said he'd rather go than "warm the bench and be just another of the bunch of traitors and impostors we've had in the presidency...." That's not likely as long-denied Ecuadoreans overwhelming support their new President and the process of change he's now poised to deliver for them the same way Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela that works.

It's one more step left in Latin America but just a small one on a continent long under Washington's ominous shadow watching events closely and not about to let its control slip away without resisting. Any leader trying knows the threat, but those willing to risk it are the ones to watch. Hopefully others in the region and beyond will join them, and they have a courageous model in Hugo Chavez who defied the odds and continues moving ahead boldly after eight successful years. If Chavez can do it, why not others if they'll try. The more who do, the stronger the process for real social change becomes that with luck could be unstoppable. What a glorious impossible dream, but even those kinds come true.

Correa intends a further challenge to US hegemony by following through on another campaign promise to close the major US military base at Manta when the 10 year treaty authorizing it expires in 2009. Doing it won't make Pentagon top brass happy as it's their largest base on South America's Pacific coast and one costing many millions to build. It's certain they'll try getting Correa to reconsider and won't go light on the pressure doing it. But as of now Minister of Foreign Relations Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated her country's position: "Equador is a sovereign nation, we do not need foreign troops in our country (and they likely will have to go)."

Correa also plans a new relationship with US-dominated international lending agencies following through on his campaign to renegotiate the country's $16 billion foreign debt and hasn't ruled out an Argentine-style default to free up revenue for vitally needed social programs including 100,000 low-cost homes, raising the minimum wage, and doubling the small "poverty bonus" 1.2 million poor Ecuadorans get each month. For now, Correa opted to make a scheduled $135 million debt payment to foreign bond holders while pursuing his greater aim to renegotiate the whole debt and annul the odious part of it resulting from previous governments' corrupt dealings it profited from at the peoples' expense.

Correa is also negotiating bilateral trade and other economic deals with Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales based at least in part on Venezuela's Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas or ALBA model. It's the mirror-opposite of FTAA or NAFTA-type one-way pacts sucking wealth from developing states agreeing to them. Instead it's based on sound principles of complementarity, solidarity and cooperation to achieve comprehensive integration among Latin American nations agreeing to them and being willing to work together toward developing their "social state" in contrast to US-type deals being all for its corporate giants and the privileged.

These are the early bold steps of a courageous new leader promising and now proceeding to follow in the footsteps of the example Hugo Chavez set. He's off to a fast start on a road sure to have promise and perils but with great potential payoff for his people if he can persevere and succeed. He's showing he intends to try.

Make no mistake, we are still seeing the effects of Washington's
meddling in the Southern Hemisphere, which predate the Reagan disasters. It will be interesting to watch if the Ecuadorian's attempt to regain their terratorial soveriegnty and kick out the U.S. military. Think about what would happen if Cuba tried to close Gitmo.

Gerald said...

Hitler Bush is enemy of the people

capt said...

Walter Reed Is a Second Hell for Injured Vets

I served in Iraq and survived being shot in the head.

I came back to Walter Reed and survived a different kind of hell.

The Washington Post's articles exposing the conditions of Walter Reed Army Medical Center has prompted much media attention. The attention is refreshing for those of us who have long been appalled by this neglect and betrayal by the government.

After I was shot, I was no longer of any use to the U.S. Military, and they made that very apparent. The conditions I witnessed during my eight months at Walter Reed, when I lived in Building 38, which is comparable to the now-infamous Building 18, made it clear that the care I had been guaranteed in return for my sacrifice was an empty promise.

Our wars have been void of any political accountability and -- as usual -- media attention has not prompted any meaningful political action. It has been announced that there will be "investigations" into conditions at Walter Reed. This is insulting. Anything short of calling for the immediate resignation of those responsible for this care is insulting.

I am tired of our President, his Cabinet, and Members of Congress ducking accountability and proposing hollow legislation that does nothing to affect the status quo.


*****end of clip*****

We have to do better by our vets.


Robert S said...

GOP Fundraising 'Insider' Accused of Terrorism. Media Yawns.
by RJ Eskow | Feb 22 2007 - 4:33pm

I've waited a couple of days for this story to move from the back pages to the headlines. Nothing. Apparently the story that a Republican Party fundraiser has now been accused of financing terrorism is no big deal. The media's more interested in Obama's smoking, the Clintons' sex life, and the state of decay on the face of Anna Nicole's corpse (which Larry King covered the other night, thanks to a talkative county coroner.)

In fairness to Larry, he's not supposed to cover hard news. And to that joker who just said it's a redundancy to say "Republican Party fundraiser accused of financing terrorism" - very funny, wise guy. Still, to read this story and realize that it's been essentially overlooked is to experience the impending explosion of one's own head.

Can you imagine how they'd cover it if a Democratic Party fundraiser had been accused of financing terror training camps, transferring funds to pay for "night vision goggles and other equipment" needed to train terrorists manqué? It would be an even bigger story than the plane Nancy Pelosi (didn't) request - by, oh, a factor of a million or so. Doncha think?

Oh, and the camp in question is in Afghanistan. You remember. The country that was connected to 9/11. The one that is part of the "war on terror." Where the war is going ... badly ...

Then there's the odd ratio between the amount of money this financier allegedly transferred to the terrorist camp - $152,000 - and the amount he gave to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which was $15,250. DailyKos notes its resemblance to a "tithe," but when nice round figures like 10% come up (plus a $50 service fee?) its more often in the context of a negotiated fee-splitting arrangement.

Not that it could be in this case. I'm just sayin', is all ...

The Boston Herald reports that the accused's resume describes him as a National Republican Senatorial Committee "Inner Circle Member for Life" and a member of the NRCC's "White House Business Advisory Committee." UPI reports that the NRCC is keeping the money and will only donate it to charity if he's convicted. (They're not banking on their leadership to get this prosecution right, are they?)

And Jamie at Intoxination observes that the GOP's hostility to habeus corpus and Constitutional rights for accused terrorists seems to have evaporated in this case. Jamie quotes the NRCC's touchy-feely statement about the accused and his money:

"We are extremely concerned and disturbed by these charges but we need to be careful not to rush to judgment as the judicial process moves forward. If the individual in question is actually found guilty of a crime, it is our intent to donate the money to charity."

Kinda sounds like the ACLU, doesn't it? (Question: If he loses, will they give up the interest they've earned in the meantime? Gotta watch these guys.)

The irony is that they're right, of course. Many, if not most, of the people accused in this Administration's ineptly managed anti-terrorism program have later been found innocent of the charges against them. But you can't have it both ways: Either the GOP's been taking money from a terrorist/terror banker, or it's screwed up yet another anti-terrorism prosecution.

It reminds me of another story, one of the few scoops that I've had in my short career. (I don't usually have the time for investigative reporting, as much as I admire the craft. I have a day job.) That was back when the Republicans wanted to tar the Dems and Kofi Annan with the oil-for-food scandal, and I found that the only known politician to have financial ties to the company that bribed Saddam and has family was ... a Republican Senator.

The media yawned about that story, too. Can you imagine if Howard Dean had been the recipient, not Don Nickles? (I was right, however, when I predicted the Republicans would suddenly "lose interest" in the issue.)

Here's a web of international terror financing that could lead all the way into the White House itself. isn't it worthy of some ink? I mean it's no "Dean scream", but ...

A Night Light

The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog


Curiouser and curiouser.

Robert S said...

Some may be old enough, as am I, to remember the slogan "Nixon's the one."

Check out Dick Cheney's the guy...

Robert S said...

We have to do better by our vets. - Capt.

Indeed, in fact, we have to do better by all of us.

Here's a link to a ditty, the copywright holder asks for it not to be reprinted w/o permission, so you go looky, o.k.?

Saladin said...

Capt, the only person in the running I would vote for doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell!

Saladin said...

If you want your America back
Unknown News

Any government in the world can be brought down if a mere twenty
percent of the people will march in the streets and demand change. A majority is unnecessary. Eighty percent can sit home and do nothing if just twenty percent will march.

Votes mean almost nothing in this two party system. Both major parties are controlled, bought and paid for by lobbyists of corporations, the wealthy and foreign interests.

So, your party got fifty-one percent of the votes? That just means that it's your turn to be betrayed. It only means that the people you voted for get a chance to loot and mislead, while the people you voted against see their share of the loot diminished until it's their turn to 'lead' again.

The Democrats will not stop the Iraq War, or prevent the coming attack on Iran, unless tens of millions of Americans march in the streets.

We saw recently that when La Raza took to the streets -- although many Americans were outraged at the sight of all those Mexican flags, the politicians took serious notice. Now both parties are fighting for the Latino vote in November, 2008.

When tens of millions march to City Hall, and to the Governor's mansion, and to the White House, then the politicians will change, or be thrown out of office.

If tens of millions march on, say, this July 4th, then the Bush Regime will be removed from office and the war will end.

If you want your America back, we will have to take it ourselves -- in the streets, one block at a time. We'll have to shock and awe these cowardly little men who order soldiers to war, while hiding behind their desks and security guards.

These war criminals, these lying, deceiving, murdering thieves who shit on our Constitution, who sent our soldiers to die for Exxon's oil, who stole our tax money, who sent our jobs overseas and rewarded the job-shipping
corporations with tax breaks, those people understand nothing but power and force.

Show it to them.
I think, in the end, it will come down to this.

Robert S said...

Bush is Over

(if you want it)

capt said...

New thread!

Anonymous said...

tramadol online tramadol 50 mg dose - tramadol vicodin