Fight the hate that comes from the National Organization for Marriage – its the same old bigotry disguised as some Jesse Jackson rainbow coalition!
Duration : 0:1:40
Moderates in GOP Warn Bush on Iraq
By Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times
Thursday 10 May 2007
Washington – Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.
The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.
"It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war," said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. "It was a no-holds-barred meeting."
Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.
Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. "We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq," he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.
Lawmakers said Mr. Bush made no commitments, but seemed grateful for their support and said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could cause the sort of chaos that occurred in Southeast Asia after Americans left Vietnam. The lawmakers said that Mr. Bush and others at the meeting – including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley – appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.
"It was very healthy," said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who attended but let the moderates do most of the talking.
"I walked away from it feeling I got a chance to make my points," Mr. Davis said.
The delegation included Representatives Mark Kirk of Illinois, another leader of the moderate coalition; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania; James T. Walsh of New York; and Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. Mr. Kirk, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Emerson declined to discuss the meeting.
White House officials said Mr. Bush welcomed the observations of the lawmakers. "The president encouraged the members to give unvarnished opinions and views," said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She also noted a "persistent push" by the administration in recent days to put new pressure on the Iraqi government via a secure video conference by Mr. Bush with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the surprise visit to Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney.
The White House on Wednesday promised a veto of the emerging House bill, which would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said White House officials, led by Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, would try to reach a compromise with Congress. Mr. Bolten met Wednesday with Senate leaders.
While the Pentagon awaits the money, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the military continued to shift funds, terminate contracts and slow spending so troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not run out of money. The cost-cutting measures could sustain the troops until July, he said, "if we pulled out all the stops."
Mr. Gates, who also attended the White House meeting on Tuesday, told lawmakers that the Pentagon would evaluate the violence in Iraq and the progress of the administration’s troop buildup plan by early September to determine the next phase of the military strategy.
"I think if we see some very positive progress and it looks like things are headed in the right direction," Mr. Gates said, "then that’s the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of these forces."
Senators vigorously questioned Mr. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Pentagon’s announcement on Tuesday of potentially mobilizing 35,000 more troops by December. Mr. Gates said the decision to send those forces to Iraq was not "foreordained," adding that a decision would be made after the September review.
"There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September," said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.
"I think people want to hear what the general says," said Representative Gerlach, of Pennsylvania. "We will all go from there."
She has not only sung, she has gone home, had a nice hot shower, grabbed a cold one from the fridge, sat down in front of the tube, cranked up the DVD of Sex in the City, and she’s already on season 3 episode 6.
Afghanistan is a battlefield right? Then please explain this insanity from the Obama administration?
Hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system being put in place this week, according to administration officials.
The new system will be applied to the more than 600 Afghans held at the Bagram military base, and will mark the first substantive change in the overseas detention policies that President Obama inherited from the Bush administration.
International human rights organizations have long criticized conditions at the Bagram facility, where detainees have been held — many of them for years — without access to lawyers or even the right to know the reason for their imprisonment. Afghans have cited Bagram, where virtually all prisoners in U.S. custody are held, as a major source of resentment toward coalition forces, a senior administration official said.
As part of a prison-wide protest that began in July, detainees at Bagram, located north of Kabul, have refused visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross and have declined video teleconferences with their families. The goal of the new procedures, the official said, is to create a "more robust" system that would "allow detainees to tell their story."
Under the new rules, each detainee will be assigned a U.S. military official, not a lawyer, to represent his interests and examine evidence against him. In proceedings before a board composed of military officers, detainees will have the right to call witnesses and present evidence when it is "reasonably available," the official said. The boards will determine whether detainees should be held by the United States, turned over to Afghan authorities or released. For those ordered held longer, the process will be repeated at six-month intervals.
The Bagram system is similar to the annual Administrative Review Boards used for suspected terrorists at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Officials said the review proceedings at Bagram will mark an improvement in part because they will be held in detainees’ home countries — where witnesses and evidence are close at hand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091202798.html
*********************************************************
I wonder what our troops think of this while they’re over there dodging bullets and IEDs?
No Vanessa, they aren’t beating us. We aren’t fighting yet!
@ 13Fst – I’m sure Justine, Sophie, and others here will join me in saying thank you for your service and your good sense.
" Do you think it will be a sweet little US style trial?" < If some of these loons in the administration get their way thats exactly what it would be.
Thanks Wylen. Welcome Home!
Politicians need to stay out of Military affairs. If I hear Nancy Pelosi try to tell me where to point my rifle one more time I’m going to lose it.
Also, I have worked in detention facilities (not Bagram) and that junk about not knowing what their there for is flat out lies pushed by liberals so they can play pattie cake with terrorists.
Vanessa: We "stupid americans" have figured out plenty of ways to defeat IED’s, and then they find a way to defeat that. It’s how weapons and armor manufacturers have operated since the beginning of war. Warfare is not near as simple as your little mind.
Please read this article and then comment. Thanks!
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070117/national/violence_media_children_2
For those of you too "click weary" I’ll post the first paragraph here to give you an idea of what this is about:
"Canadian children are being exposed to far too much violence in music lyrics, video games and on television and need to be protected by laws similar to those that restrict the sale of tobacco to minors, a coalition of teachers and parents said Wednesday."
You can’t protect your children from everything. If you were a parent you’d know that. And it used to be that NOTHING vulgar, offensive, or with sexual content appeared on tv before 9 PM…somewhere along the line that changed.
You think when you buy a game rated for kids or teens it would have no violence but it does.
Besides, look at the crap on the computer kids can access. With laws like this in place, then they can force rules for the internet too.
How about make the GOVERNMENT responsible first…because everyone goes running to them for their right to show their boobs, have sex with whomever, etc…this seems to imply to anyone that it’s ok to put this crap all over TV stations and the radio too.
How about that rapper from Detroit who is sueing the Canadian government for 300 million because they "delay" him every time he crosses the border…geez I guess that criminal record a mile long has nothing to do with it and that SMUT he passes off for music….tell me what is a song that says "get down on your knees bitch" allowed to hit the airwaves at all!! The disgusting bastard should be in prison instead of suing for the right to air that garbage. Dickheads like Howard Stern don’t help the cause either.
You guys are so naive. You do need government. Parents are doing thier part if you read this article it doesn’t mean anything without the government backing this.
They are elected by the people and owe it to our country to maintain a level of ethics.
Government sets laws for the people. That’s its role. That’s what is wrong with kids today they have no rules at all. You will suffer for it. One day the world and it’s mess will be yours to handle.
SO DUAL, are you saying government should remove the age restrictions on drinking, the driving restriction on age, and the age of consensus on when children marry?
What a great idea! Let’s leave that to all those responsible parents who do such a great job as it is…and to their bratty children who argue it’s their right…then let’s fill them up with booze, give them the car keys and hell marry them off at 9….what a pain kids are after all…out the house and get a job you lazy good for nothing!!!
I CAN SEE YOUR PARENTS are looking over your shoulders right now too restricting you from all this smut online….tell they from me I’m proud of the wonderful job they’re doing!!!!! Keep it up!!!
Sounds like a good idea to me.
In this episode we celebrate Bank of America’s commitment to ending Mountain Top Removal Funding, Talk about the reality campaign against clean coal, and get an update from the field.
Duration : 0:4:13
In March 2003, two USAF A-10 "tankbuster" planes attacked a British convoy, killing Lance Corporal Matty Hull, despite clear and repeated signals that they were coalition troops:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6318565.stm
Cockpit video from the planes has come to light: it’s still classified, but reports indicate that one voice can be heard saying gleefully, "Somebody’s going to jail for this!"
The USA does not usually allows its forces to face trial in other jurisdictions, and has opted out of the International Criminal Court: but should these men be an exception, and tried in the courts of its ally? If not, why not?
Please indicate in your answer whether you are American, British or other.
BPSKI: how exactly has the pilot "suffered"? Compared to, say, Matty Hull’s family?
Has he been tried? Has he been punished in any way? If so, I can’t find any reference to it.
Are you saying that US troops are not in any way answerable for their actions? What if it had been a US convoy he’d attacked?
And a 2003 tragedy IS a "current event" when news of the cockpit video came out at his inquest YESTERDAY.
Ashleigh: in that case, why would we ever try anybody for involuntary manslaughter? Or once someone pulls on that uniform are they no longer responsible for their actions – free to kill friends and those surrendering (see link) at will?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1074725,00.html
BPSKI: I’m not hateful and vindictive, and I don’t hate Americans – I have many great American friends. I just can’t accept the assumption that in matters of international relations, America is above the law.
You’re right that there is a difference between an accident and a deliberate attack – and there’s something in between, and that’s called negligence.
Or course people get killed in war, but soldiers still have a responsibility to at least try not to shoot their own side or unarmed civilians waving a white flag – and with responsibility has to come the threaten of sanctions.
BPSKI: I don’t want to draw, quarter or gun down anybody. I just want to see people face the consequences of their actions: after all, Matty Hull’s family have to face the consequences to them every day, and they did NOTHING wrong. If these pilots were tried and cleared (in an impartial court, not a US military whitewash like this http://edition.cnn.com/US/9903/04/marines.cablecar.03/), so be it – but they should go through due process.
We were supposed to be the side in this conflict that stood for the rule of law, and doing the right thing: I think we have to practice what we preach.
That link again but working:
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9903/04/marines.cablecar.03/
It’s not for me to forgive, nor for me to judge. That’s for Lance Cpl Hull’s wife and family and the courts respectively.
I am a Britistish ex Serviceman.I was 51years old and volentiered to go back for the 1st Gulf War I was with 24 Fld Ambulance in Saudi and not far from where friendly fire (as it’s called) took out the warrier carrying the RRF killing, I think 9 British lads.The visibility was excellent that day but the Americans said it was misty.Later they admitted it was clear ,I may be wrong but I think the families are still waiting for some sort of closure on this matter.That was in 1991.
The film, “Victims of Fashion” is about local sweatshops and the effects they have on the workers in our economy, exposing audiences that sweatshop use is not only a problem in developing countries, but within our borders as well. By: Tyler Garner, Jarrel Phillips, Jay Yu, and Tania Cervantes. This item is part of the collection: Bay Area Video Coalition: Youth. Producer: Tyler Garner, Jarrel Phillips, Jay Yu, and Tania Cervantes.
Creative Commons license: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.
Duration : 0:5:3
• Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
• Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
• Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
• Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
• Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
• Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
• Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
• Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
• Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
• Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
• Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.
• Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
• Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
• Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
• Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
• Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
• Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
• Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
• Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
• Republican governor Arnold "The Gropinator" Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.
• Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
• Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
• Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
I always think :
If a person is religious
We should doubt about his morality
Because a really decent person
doesn’t need religious principles
A nondecent person becomes religious
cause he hopes religion will change him
or
he hopes God will forgive his sins
Article by Colin Kahl in the December 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs.
From the outset of the war:
The U.S. military has put in place several mechanisms to ensure compliance with the principles of distinction and proportionality. In the lead-up to the invasion, the Pentagon developed the “joint target list,” an inventory of all potential targets for coalition forces, which was vetted by judge advocates and other legal advisers.
•Certain operations directed against Saddam Hussein’s regime were deemed off-limits because they targeted civilians or risked producing disproportionate damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure.
•Starting in late 2002, the Pentagon also enlisted UN agencies and nongovernmental organizations to help draw up a “no-strike” list including thousands of schools, mosques, sensitive cultural sites, hospitals, water-treatment facilities, power plants, and other elements of civilian infrastructure. The list placed significant constraints on air and land operations. During the initial ground invasion, for example, the artillery batteries used by U.S. forces were programmed with a list of sites that could not be fired on without a manual override.
The no-strike list isn’t the only measure taken to limit collateral damage:
The U.S. military has also tried to limit risks to civilians by reviewing its military targets with the collateral damage estimation methodology (CDEM), which uses computer software and human analysis to estimate possible civilian casualties for every target studied.
•The CDEM requires commanders and their legal advisers to ask themselves five questions to determine whether a given target is a legitimate one.
oCan they positively identify the person or the site according to the current ROE?
oIs there a protected civilian facility or significant environmental concern within the range of the weapon to be used?
oCan damage to that concern be avoided by attacking the target with a different weapon or a different method?
oIf not, how many people are likely to be injured or killed in the attack?
oMust a higher commander be called for permission?
When the targets considered represent a risk of “high collateral damage,” the CDEM requires political approval by the secretary of defense and, during major combat, the president.
The rules of engagement have also sought to achieve a balance each troop’s legitimate right to self-defense with the importance of complying with the laws of war:
They attempt to maintain this balance by providing troops with a clear sense of what constitutes a legitimate military target. During major combat in Iraq, the criterion was status-based. Individuals or groups, namely Iraqi military and paramilitary forces, that were “declared hostile forces” under the ROE, could be attacked on sight until they were wounded or they surrendered. As the war transitioned into a counterinsurgency mission and U.S. forces confronted adversaries who were largely indistinguishable from the civilian population, the criterion became conduct-based:
•U.S. troops must now positively identify a “hostile act” (such as the firing of an automatic weapon in their direction) or a “hostile intent” (such as the brandishing of a rocket-propelled grenade or the planting of an improvised explosive device) before they may fire their weapons.
If the naked eye isn’t sufficient to positively identify a hostile force, act, or intent before attacking:
U.S. forces rely on advanced optics. Forward observers are used to identify and “paint” targets, or provide coordinates for laser- or GPS-guided bomb attacks. Air force, navy, and marine fighter aircraft have also been retrofitted with new reconnaissance pods that allow real-time overhead surveillance and streaming video, thereby helping ground forces distinguish insurgents from civilians during raids and combat missions.
Another precaution pertains to the choice of weapons:
U.S. forces have been reluctant to use artillery against insurgents, even when they have been under mortar and rocket fire. Artillery systems (such as howitzers, mortars, and ground-launched rockets) have a large radius of destruction and so have a high potential for collateral damage, especially in densely populated areas. Instead, U.S. forces have either relied on close air support and ground forces that can keep their “eyes on the target” or refrained from attacking altogether. This summer, for example, as I was conducting interviews in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the Green Zone was hit by two rockets and two mortars. Although the attack’s point of origin—a residential neighborhood near Sadr City—was determined quickly, the U.S. military chose not to fire back with artillery.
Our rules of engagement have also emphasized the importance of using proportionate force when engaging legitimate military targets in order to minimize collateral damage:
The current rules explicitly require U.S. troops to respond to a hostile act or intent with “graduated” force. Under many circumstances, U.S. forces may engage in deadly violence only after warning their targets and trying nonlethal measures against them to no avail. The U.S. military also frequently engages in “weaponeering”—selecting the most specifically tailored type and quantity of weapon necessary to produce a desired effect. When air strikes are required, it increasingly relies on precision-guided munitions, such as laser-, GPS-, and optically guided weapons. During the major combat phase of the war in Iraq, 68 percent of the munitions used were precision-guided, compared with 7-8 percent during the 1991 Gulf War, 30 percent in Kosovo, and 60 percent in Afghanistan. The U.S. military has also developed munitions with smaller payloads to ensure that it uses the smallest force necessary, and it relies heavily on penetrating munitions with delayed fuses to confine the damage caused by blasts and fragmentation to the area of impact. Additional mitigation techniques, including adjusting the timing, angles, and azimuths of attacks, have also been regularly employed to reduce risks to civilians.
The number of U.S. air strikes has declined sharply since the end of major combat operations, indicating the U.S. military’s heightened concern for proportionality:
Official figures suggest that U.S. planes launched 18,695 strikes during the first 30 days of the war, compared with just 285 strikes in 2004 and 306 in 2005. Other estimates put the 2005 total at 654. Even with the higher number, however, there were almost as many air strikes per day during the major combat phase (an average of 623) as there were during all of 2005.
Question – So do you believe we can win in Iraq now , with this kind of nonesense ?
as an OIF VET i have to tell you that the rules can change to suit the situation.
for a period of time when i was there we had permission to kill anyone wearing a certain uniform.
and i dont think this is a war per say, it is a conflict tho. and winning and losing isnt the object. it is freeing the iraqi ppl
I find it hard to stomach – the listening public has been bombarded with ‘downloading copyrighted music/video is wrong’. Now the RIAA believes that rattaning those college kids across the wallet will stop the practice of illegal downloading – absurd.
Hey – Some may feel justified downloading songs – remember the recent music/consumer retail industry mastermind plan to inflate prices of retail CDs… (of which I bought many)… what resulted from that ridiculous mess was a class action lawsuit against the industry giants responsible – I never received my check from SONY, BMG, or any of the other conglomerate music machine bigwigs. They made additional hunderds of millions – and the fiscal legal ramifications against them was 1/100,000,000th of what they made (more like ‘legally’ stole) from us.
Hey – RIAA – Go get the 3K from the music industry cash coffers – they have the vaults, not those poor college kids. Then maybe we’ll forgive you.
try – Future of Music Coalition.
If you think that the price of CD’s is inflated, then do without them
It is just music, not medicine, you don’t want to pay for it then live without it.
I like my music and have no problem shelling out $10-15 per CD if it is one that I would like to listen to. If not, I don’t buy it.
But I don’t think that it is OK to steal it just because someone is making a huge profit on it.
If you want something , you pay for it. If you can’t afford it, then you find a way to exist without it. You take it without paying for it, you go to JAIL