| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 10:37:05 AM
Liberal Kingpins Help Bush War Agenda
MoveOn.org, Pelosi, fake "progressive left" Neo-Cons in sheep's clothing
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Almost six months after the Democrats recaptured both Houses and political sleeping gas sent the "progressive" left off into dream world, establishment liberals like Nancy Pelosi and the MoveOn.org foundation continue to whore themselves in service of the Neo-Con war agenda and their Bush administration pimps.
While the media obsesses about the sideshow of the attorney firings "scandal," preparations for a war with Iran and the continued feeding of U.S. troops into the Iraq meat grinder continues with the utter and total complicity of kingpin Democrats and their phony advocacy groups.
An organized campaign to marginalize anti-war Democrats in Congress and force through the $124 billion wartime spending bill was employed not by Republican Neo-Cons, but by Nancy Pelosi and the so-called anti-war "progressive" MoveOn.org foundation!
Congress will vote on the bill this Thursday but Democrats who want to see troops withdrawn from the Iraq quagmire have been completely abandoned by the leadership of their own "opposition" party, with Pelosi determined to introduce an almost identical war chest bill in the unlikely event of the original draft failing to pass.
MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that preaches anti-war sentiment on its website, issued an endorsement for the war bill on Monday, aligning its 3.3 million members with Bush's agenda to keep feeding U.S. troops, who now "want out," into the imperial meat grinder. Anti-war Democrats told The Politico that they were being aggressively pressured and threatened with funding denials unless they supported the war bill.
MoveOn.org: Anti-war or sleeping gas steam valve for naive liberals?
The backlash against MoveOn.org is already brewing.
"MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," said David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning."
Why would MoveOn.org, a supposed liberal organization that opposes the war, pressure anti-war Democrats to vote for a bill that will ensure the war rolls on? Because they are nothing more than a bought and paid for front organization for the elite that pose as an independent advocacy group yet act as nothing more than a steam valve for anti-war sentiment that has now enveloped the vast majority of the body politic.
Meanwhile, presidential hopefuls and MoveOn.org members Edwards and Obama continue to apologetically prostrate themselves in front of the vampires of AIPAC and the Israeli lobby, humble, submissive, and dutiful in accepting their orders to hound Iran into accepting either total subjection or facing complete annihilation.
They are merely following the lead of the poster girl for the counterfeit "progressives," Nancy Pelosi, who deliberately stripped the Iraq funding bill of a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran, a "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come," according to John Nichols of The Nation.
But far from a "misstep," Pelosi's green light for Bush to open up another front in the empire is later attributed to "pressure from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZqZox6xtJk&eurl=
Pelosi's duty to aid the Neo-Cons and Israel in further creaking open the gates of hell in the Middle East was made abundantly clear to her when, during a speech to AIPAC, she offered milquetoast criticism of the situation in Iraq and was met with a chorus of boos.
"Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands," writes Pat Buchanan.
But Pelosi's compromised runs deeper than the obligatory obedience to the demands of the Israeli lobby, for it was she who also issued the talking points after the mid-term election in immediately declaring impeachment of Bush to be "off the table," a directive from party headquarters that was instantly parroted by Dean, Rangel and others.
Pelosi, MoveOn.org and their cheerleaders are nothing more than Neo-Cons in sheep's clothing and they are complicit in every act of imperial bloodletting - past, present and future. So too are the self-proclaimed "progressive" blogs and media outlets who claim to be anti-war and yet, Cindy Sheehan aside, have offered nothing but simpering platitudes for Pelosi and other Democrat shills, failing to hold accountable these cretins who have done nothing to reverse Bush's numerous assaults on the U.S. constitution and the perception of America in foreign lands.
One individual who isn't buying the fraud is Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, whose remarks at the Pentagon last week sublimely underline the creeping connivance of Pelosi, MoveOn.org and their ilk.
"Voting for Complicity"
Cynthia McKinney
Remarks in front of the Pentagon
March 17, 2007
Well, it seems that George Bush and Democratic Leaders were right.
They confidently told us that not only would Democrats fund the surge, but that the Democrats would not stop action in Iran, too.
Now, we are not surprised when the unelected, illegitimate Administration of George Bush ignores us, but we are shocked that the Democratic majority in Congress chose war over us as we say Bring our troops home now!
The answer is clear: Our country has been hijacked.
What about a livable wage for America's workers?
What about the right of return for Katrina survivors?
What about repealing the Patriot Act, the Secret Evidence Act, and the Military Tribunals Act?
Why is impeachment "off the table"?
Our country is bankrupt yet this institution, the Pentagon, has "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars!
I want that money back . . .
For jobs . . . for health care . . . for education . . . for our veterans!
The Democrats have become so timid they won't even repeal the Bush tax cuts as a strategy to deal with a bankrupt nation.
Seems the story is the same: more money for war, but we can't feed the poor.
It's hard to believe, but now the Democrats are full partners in George Bush's wars.
And by funding his wars, the Democratic Congress is explicitly complicit.
Complicit in war crimes!
Complicit in torture!
Complicit in crimes against humanity!
Complicit in crimes against peace!
The FBI spied on us;
Condoleezza, Dick, and George lied to us.
In 1957, Dr. King observed that "Both political parties have betrayed the cause of justice."
And so it must be repeated today.
Our beloved America is dividing again into two Americas. Our struggle is for nothing less than the soul of our country.
We want an America that is respected in the commonwealth of man; we want our values to shine like a beacon throughout the world.
As an American of conscience, I hereby declare my independence from every bomb dropped, every threat leveled, every civil liberties rollback, every child killed, every veteran maimed, every man tortured.
And I sadly declare my independence from the leaders who let it happen.
We will not stop. We will win. We will take our country back!
|
| 36 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 04/07/2007 : 4:05:54 PM
No Good Choices in the Halls of Power:
Democrats Vote $100 Billion to Continue the War
by Larry Everest; March 30, 2007
On Friday, March 23, the Democrats in the House of Representatives pushed through the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act” by a vote of 218-212. The bill gives the Bush administration some $100 billion to continue the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, while calling for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by September 1, 2008.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi hailed this as a vote “to bring an end to the war in Iraq.” But it is no such thing. This bill (and a similar Democratic Party bill under consideration in the Senate) is not a step towards ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq or the larger “war on terror” it is part of. This bill doesn't represent a condemnation of—or accountability for—the U.S.’s unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. Rather the bill’s stated goal is to “help fight the war on terror.” And the bill certainly doesn’t call for U.S. forces to leave the Middle East/Central Asian region.
Instead of ending the war, this bill is an effort to pressure the Bush regime to adjust its strategy in Iraq and the region to better preserve U.S. imperialist hegemony and stamp out anti-U.S. resistance, Islamic fundamentalism in particular. It’s also designed to rein in and paralyze the millions who are increasingly angry and disillusioned with the war and the Bush regime, and channel these feelings into support for a different (Democratic Party) strategy and tactics in waging that war. So while talking of ending the war , the Democrats offer a plan to continue the war in Iraq, expand the war in Afghanistan, and give Bush a green light to attack Iran!
Retooling U.S. Strategy—Not Ending the War
The Democrats’ bill reflects the deep concern of many ruling class strategists that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and the Bush strategy must be changed to head off even greater disasters for the empire. The interests of the peoples of the Middle East don’t enter into their cold-blooded, imperial calculations. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter who has been advising the Democrats, testified before the Senate earlier this year:
“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large…[plunging] a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”
So the Democrats (following in the vein of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group—see "The Baker Report on Iraq: Desperate Straits, Deep Divisions, Dwindling Options" in Revolution #73) are proposing a number of measures to try to stabilize the situation in Iraq, limit further U.S. losses (including the enormous stresses on the U.S. military), and shore up U.S. efforts across the region—while refocusing the U.S.’s “war on terror.” (This war, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate, is in essence a war for greater empire.) The measures proposed by the Democrats include:
* Fully funding the war: Congress has the power to end the war by cutting off funding. Instead, the Democrats chose to give Bush $100 billion, enabling him to continue the war as he sees fit for the immediate future. This is more money than Bush originally asked for!
* Enforcing “benchmarks”: These are the same benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush himself spelled out in his January 10 speech. The Democrats want to more aggressively impose them by threatening funding cutoffs and troops redeployments (from combat operations to training and/or out of the country). These benchmarks have nothing to do with liberating the Iraqi people—just the opposite. They’re aimed at heading off a strategic defeat in the region by forcing the various factions in the Iraqi government to subordinate their agendas to the U.S.’s overall goal of creating a more stable regime capable of ending the anti-occupation insurgency and the ongoing civil war, holding Iraq together, and acting in concert with U.S. goals in the region. So the Bush-Democrat benchmarks include passing a bill that divides oil revenues among Iraq’s different national and religious groups, reining in sectarian militias, and taking frontline responsibility to fight anti-U.S. forces. The U.S.-backed oil bill also opens Iraq’s enormous oil reserves up to direct and open control by foreign capital for the first time in over 30 years, potentially giving global powers like the U.S. a stranglehold over this key Iraqi resource.
* Agreeing with Bush and blaming Iraqis for their suffering: Many top Democrats spout the ugly chauvinist lies of the Bush regime, portraying the U.S. invasion as a noble effort to liberate Iraq, and claiming that the Iraqis have now screwed things up with a persistent civil war. “We have lost over 3,000 people. We have lost over 25,000 wounded. The Iraqis have had Saddam Hussein taken out. They have had two elections,” Tennessee Democrat John Tanner declared on the Lehrer Newshour (March 22). “They have had a government now for over a year. And we see no progress on them…it's time for them to step up.” But this turns reality upside down. It is the U.S.’s unprovoked war of aggression that has lead to the death of an estimated 650,000 Iraqis, the forced displacement of another 3.2 million (over one in ten Iraqis!), and widespread destruction. Tanner's lie also covers up the fact that the U.S. helped trigger and continues to fuel a civil war by empowering some reactionary forces, barring others and encouraging sectarian divisions.
* “Redeployment”—not withdrawal: The Democrats are not demanding that U.S. forces immediately leave Iraq—the only just solution—or that they ever leave Iraq. Both Bush and the Democrats envision that thousands of U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years to come—just not on the frontlines of combat in the same way or in the same numbers. Nancy Pelosi’s website states: “Following redeployment, U.S. troops remaining in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations, and training of Iraqi Security Forces.” These open-ended commitments, and the Democrats’ refusal to renounce permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, mean that thousands of American troops could be stationed in Iraq for decades to come.
* Escalating in Afghanistan: Many of the “redeployed” troops could well be used in other countries in the region. According to Pelosi, “The bill significantly increases funding to defeat al Qaeda and terrorists in Afghanistan.” She also called it an effort to concentrate on Afghanistan “where the war on terrorism is.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the House bill “maximizes our chances for success in Iraq and redeploys our troops so we can more effectively wage the war on terror.” Afghanistan is not a “good war,” with Iraq a “diversion” from the “real war on terror,” as the Democrats often argue. Both are parts of the Bush regime’s war for greater empire, and the strikingly similar outcomes in both countries—the deepening suffering and anger of the people, the empowering of brutal reactionaries, the strengthening of oppressive, feudal relations—illustrate this reality.
* Preserving the U.S. imperialist military: Another goal of the redeployment is preserving and rebuilding the U.S. military—the U.S.’s main weapon for enforcing its global hegemony. “The war in Iraq has produced a national security crisis,” Pelosi warned, “with military readiness at its lowest level since the Vietnam War.” In supporting the House bill, Brzezinski stated, “The United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. A means must be devised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq and reduce our troop levels, so that we can begin to rebuild our military and reclaim our position of leadership in the world.”
* Giving Bush a green light to attack Iran: The Democrats removed a stipulation that Bush had to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran. With the U.S. openly threatening Iran and with war preparations at an advanced stage, and given the Bush regime’s track record of launching pre-emptive wars based on lies—this amounts to giving Bush a bright green light to attack Iran.
* Pressuring Bush, without unraveling the war: The Democrats are trying to walk the fine line of pressuring Bush while continuing to give him freedom to wage the war as “commander-in-chief,” and not provoking a political crisis which could also contribute to a U.S. defeat. That’s why the Democrats have continued funding the war and why there are no means in their bill for enforcing their demands. In terms of the benchmarks, all Bush has to do is periodically “certify” in public that the Iraqi government is meeting them. And California Democrat Lynn Woolsey said on Democracy Now! (March 22), “There are virtually no enforcement measures in this legislation that will make the President do anything that we’re telling him to do… when we get to the end of August 2008 and the war is still going on, we’re going to say to the President, ‘Alright, now you have to bring them home.’ The only way we can force him to do that in this bill is to sue him.” (Of course, whether a political crisis will be averted is another matter. Bush has threatened to veto the Democrats' legislation and is demanding a bill with no stipulations—or “strings”—at all. Overall the possibility for geopolitical disaster in Iraq—or as a result of war with Iran—has made tensions within the ruling establishment very, very sharp.)
All these steps flow from the Democrat Party’s agreement with the Bush regime’s basic goal of maintaining and strengthening U.S. imperialist global dominance—even as they have deep disagreements over how to realize it. An insightful column in the Washington Post noted the striking similarity between the strategic visions of Democratic “neo-liberals” and Republican “neocons”:
“[T]he fact is that prevailing Democratic doctrine is not that different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine. Many Democrats, including senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, embraced the idea of muscular foreign policy based on American global supremacy and the presumed right to intervene to promote democracy or to defend key U.S. interests long before 9/11, and they have not changed course since. Even those who have shifted against the war have avoided doctrinal questions....without a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine, with its confidence in America's military preeminence and the global appeal of ‘free market democracy,’ the Democrats' midterm victory may not be repeated in November 2008. Or, if the Democrats do win in 2008, they could remain staked to a vision of a Pax Americana strikingly reminiscent of Bush's.” ("It's Uphill for the Democrats," Tony Smith, Washington Post, March 11, 2007)
What is Needed to End the War
In November, millions voted for the Democrats to protest Bush and the war, and in hopes they would end it. Today, many—including people who worked energetically to elect Democrats and who’ve been lobbying them to cut off war funding—feel bitter, betrayed, and outraged.
They should be outraged.
The lesson is not that the Democrats “sold out” or are “spineless.” The lesson is that the Democrats are a ruling class party (and this is deeply institutionalized, regardless of the desires or intentions of its supporters or even some elected Democrats), acting to advance the interests of a capitalist-imperialist system they’re part of and represent. These interests are directly antagonistic to the interests and sentiments of billions of people globally and the vast majority in the U.S.
The content of the “Iraq Accountability Act” and the way it was pushed through (including by threatening and strong-arming Democrats who said they wanted to vote against war funding and refusing to allow a vote on an amendment to only fund a withdrawal of U.S. forces) show this. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans make decisions on the basis of elections or public opinion. They make decisions based on the needs and interests of the imperialist system.
How can anything good for the people possibly come from decisions based not on ending an unjust war, but “winning” it? Not on ending a neo-colonial occupation, but stabilizing and continuing it? Not on supporting real liberation and self-determination, but on controlling countries and resources half way around the globe, and ensuring that the corporate-financial rulers of a country with some three percent of the world’s population can dominate and determine the destinies of the other 97%?
For a deep analysis of the U.S. political structure, the struggle between different factions at the top of this pyramid, and their relationship to the people, readers should dig into Bob Avakian’s "The Pyramid of Power and the Struggle to Turn This Whole Thing Upside Down" (Revolutionary Worker #1237, April 25, 2004)
And the problem isn’t only that the Democrats are betraying people's hopes. They’re also actively and aggressively trying to channel and confine people's hopes into pro-war, pro-imperialist politics. These are the only choices offered (in elections generally, especially important ones), and the only choices deemed “realistic” by the powers-that-be. Take a “poll” conducted by Moveon.org, an activist group closely tied to the Democratic Party, right before the war funding vote. Moveon gave its members the “choice” of voting for Pelosi’s bill—or not. Voting to end funding for the war wasn’t a choice, even though the head of Moveon admitted its membership would have supported it (See "Moveon moves in with Pelosi").
This is one way millions of anti-war people end up voting for one pro-war candidate vs another. And this is already being “programmed” into the 2008 elections—and into the minds of anyone who remains confined by these choices. This will happen unless and until the entire political calculus is upended by massive upheaval from below.
But such an outpouring cannot and will not happen as long as millions are putting their hopes in the Democrats—either passively by waiting for 2008, or even actively, by focusing their energy, efforts, hopes, and yes money into pressuring the Democrats to “do the right thing” instead of putting them where they can really count for something: into mobilizing the one force that can stop the war and drive out the Bush regime– the millions, from all walks of life, who oppose them. Inspiring and organizing these millions to take independent mass political action based on the just demands of ending the war and turning back all the outrages of the Bush regime from torture to spying to theocracy, is the only realistic option and the only way these crimes will be stopped. It will never happen by hoping the Democrats become something they’re not, and never have been. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 10:23:03 PM
I agree, well said Infant Eyes! I love being able to have this exchange of thoughts!
Interesting comment from my professor tonight. He said that an author (sorry, I don't remember his name) was writing a biography about Bush and back in 1999, Bush told him that every great President had his legacy because of winning a war! Unfortunately the book was never finished, I don't remember why.
The whole "Iran is making nuclear weapons" line is misguided. They are enriching Uranium. Why shouldn't they? As long as the US is the agressor, countries are going to be pro-nuclear weapons and rightfully so. Posession of Nuclear weapons demand a certain amount of respect and leverage.
Iran claims they are enriching uranium for power plants, but with all their oil that seems unlikely, but nuclear power is a very effective way to produce electricity.
I'll spare you the whole enrichment process but for electricity U-235 only has to be enriched to around 4%, for nuclear weapons, it needs to be enriched to over 90%. The process is extremely difficult and can only be done in two ways, by centrifuges spinning at about 70,000 revolutions/minute or by gaseous diffusion. Gaseous diffusion is easier, but requires larger facilities and enourmous resources. Centrifuges are cheaper and can be done is smaller plants which is why its the method of choice for so many countries.
Irans enrichment program is in its infancy. Iran was allowing inspections by the IAEA until Bush fucked that up.
Israel has nuclear weapons and they never signed on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They are certain that Iran is going to wipe them off the face of the earth. Tha concept is based on fear not fact. Personally, I worry more about Israel than I do about Iran.
I think we agree that the only way to prevent a war with Iran is to get rid of the Bush Dynasty.
quote:
Chomsky put it "A predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded."
I LOVE Chomsky!!!!!
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 4:37:25 PM
Well said. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 4:10:22 PM
Pam, I think the war in Iraq in part was over currency and Iraq possibly moving to the Euro rather than keeping the dollar as the used form of currency for all oil. OPEC I believe regulates that the dollar must be used for all transactions. I'm glad you posted that because it shows how political strategies are so intertwined with money. Anyway, the consequences of war with Iran would be horrible. Of course the consequences of a war with Korea would have been very bad also. That also could have caused China to in a nutshell screw us economically.
However it was our plan to keep a military presence in the region and destabilize North Korea so that we would have a reason to do this. Now you can read all about this in the project for the new american century. They had a strategy that if they ended up going to war they would invade and then keep military there as peace keeping troops and if they didn't have a war they would keep them there in case. In other words there had to be a threat or a reason so the US could keep troops there and more importantly the ability to conduct air strikes very quickly.
The same is true in Iran. What we are trying to do is basically destabilize Iran. There are covert military actions going on right now and they'll most likely be escalating. The US will not allow Iran any control or dominance in the area especially when it threatens the US economically. I hope that the tension begins to fizzle and both sides realize that a war would be effectively the next world war. However destabilization continues and plans to invade continue. Isreal has been planning for a possible air strike for some time now and thanks to US intelligence knows a considerable amount about nuclear facilities etc. They also have been asking the US for permission to use Iraq airspace for a bombing of Iran.
While the consequences of a strike on Iran would be or could be catastrophic the US refuses to take it off the table of options because they view the power of Iran in the area to become independent of the US control over the regions resources. That in their eyes would be just as catastrophic. Also we are talking about an administration that was warned and new full well how dangerous invading Iraq could be and went ahead and did it anyway. As Chomsky put it "A predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded."
China has a lot of leverage against an invasion and I hope that is enough to check it, as we all do. I just don't count on it. Good post though Pam. Lots of good info in it. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 6:00:00 PM
Concerning Iran:
While the US and the EU-3 were focusing on the details of the Paris Agreement, back in 2004, other nations, in particular China, made trade agreements with Iran. China already had multi-billion dollar deals with Iran (oil and gas) and signed a larger deal in Oct of 2004, cinching the "relationship" and China's aggressive economic growth for the next 24 years.
Iran's objective of forming an oil exchange which would make use of the pertoeuro vs petrodollar, was a direct challenge to the the US dollar in the global market. It's oil trading that has kept the monopoly and inflated rates on the US dollar. This could cause a lessening of global demand for the dollar, dropping its value, causing huge damage to the US status as a leader in world economics.
Another HUGE consequence of this Chinese-Iranian oil/gas deal is that it gave China an enormous amount of leverage when it came to US-Iranian relations. BTW, China holds over $600 billion in US currency reserves. China had much to loose if the US dollar collapsed, but their new deal with Iran put them in a unique position. Iran could not set up a meaningful petroeuro bourse without China's participation, and China's participation is doubtful as long as it holds such large amounts of US currency reserves.
This of course made the Bush administration understandably nervous. If China stopped propping up the US dollar via purchase of US Debt, the US economy could collapse.
The lines were drawn and any US act of aggression against Iran, would be seen as a threat to China's economic interests. The possibility of China turning over its holdings of US bonds and dollars to euros threatens the entire economy of the US in a way that has not been seen in modern times.
A combination of the effects of China unloading the US dollar and a crisis in oil availability brought on by a US invasion of Iran would most certainly result in the devaluation of the dollar, extremely high gas prices that would impact the ability for the US to fund basic programs let alone the enormous deficit driven budgets that Bush's administration has been operating. In a nutshell, China has the ability to collapse the US economy if the US invades Iran.
I hope you could follow all that, I tried to make the LONG version short.
As for the question "do I think that the Democrats are better than the Republicans?" No, I am a registered Republican. There is NO perfect party IMO. The name of the game now is damage control. I am not sure we have not passed the point of no return, but one needs to be hopeful so when I look around at what each of the candidates are saying, I find more hope that the Democratic party has, for numerous reasons, the ability to stop the downward spiral we are in as a nation.
BTW, I do think democracy is just as "doomed" as any form of government. Assuming we don't have a full blown war or destroy the planet with global warming, I do not see Democracy lasting indefinitely in the US. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 5:48:12 PM
at higher level analysis that's true. i understand where you're coming form with that analysis, and chances are it's better than mine. i'm not too sure about the flat9-8 suspension though, because there doesn't seem to be that resolution. but again, it's all in the ear with something like that. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 3:45:05 PM
Pam I agree bringing a good chunk of troops home would be good. I just don't think it will happen. The administration has a geo-political agenda which calls for military presence. It used to be all covert with us supporting regimes and just parking carriers out in the sea. Now it's very overt with bases in Saudi Arabia and now shifting to Iraq. The one thing we will not allow is that the countries of that region can control the oil. Because they want to keep a military presence they have been working to destabilize both Iraq and Iran.
They did the same thing with North Korea. It's all in The Project for the New American Century. Destabilize so as to have a reason for military presence. This is a sure sign our empire is collapsing. Right before empire's end they usually have to end up proving their military strength rather than just being able to threaten it. Everyone is calling us out. Even Chavez, who is amassing an army.
I would be willing to bet that at some point there is an "attack" on US soldiers by Iran in which we with then be entering a war with Iran. In fact there was a warning around a month ago in which Iran could possibly use small boats to sink a carrier or other large ship by strapping a bomb to them and sending them at the ship.
Regardless of whether we attack Iran or not though. Most experts are saying that Iraq is a war that the next two generations will be fighting, and a big reason is that most democrats are doing little to stop the war, but they will speak out against it as an election tactic. Does anyone believe Democrats are any better?
Dan, that's the fun thing with analysis is that there's no right answer. I just hear phrygian. Of course I think about it differently because I'm studying from Ron Miller's book about Advanced Jazz harmony and modes. It's a great resource for any modern music though. After I learned about super-locrian I was a different man. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 10:23:41 AM
You guys rule. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 10:21:36 AM
maybe. i'll admit my training revolved almost entirely around classical music, and my knowledge and skill with jazz is shamefully deficient. but yeah, when you get that far along in theory, it becomes more about how you hear it. what makes analyzing jazz hard for me is that phrasing and cadence don't always work the same way as in classical, and chords don't behave the same as they would in classical. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 06:56:07 AM
It would be naieve to think we would pull all of our troops out of Iraq, but getting most of them out would be a huge step in the right direction.
As for Kucinich, he is wako, j/k, but he is really far left and it isn't just a perception. Nothing wrong with people being that far left, it is kind of to be expected given the way the country has gone in the past 7 years. I personally don't agree with many of his ideas. TR obviously does and so do a lot of others and that is great, that is how it is supposed to work in this country, freedom to support whomever one wants. I am sure there a some who are for Kucinch just because of TR, but that is true of just about anyone running. Some people, particularly young voters, pick candidates because a celebrity endorses them.
On the up side, some celebrities like TR via Fluffy, put a lot of information out there for people to read, so at least these voters are semi informed, which is better than not being informed at all. I say semi informed because its only one person's information, not everyone running. In a perfect world, voters would check out all candidates in depth and decide for themselves, but unfortunately most get their information from the news, biased news at that! They hear excerps of what the candidates have to say. Some of that isn't their fault, we live in such a hectic society that people lack time and it does take time to do the homework.
Speaking of time, I have to get to work.
|
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 04:38:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
huh. i've always sort of viewed the emaj7#11/e-flat as just an emaj7#11 in 3rd inversion, with the 7th, d#, in the root. i don't think it's written like that, but i think that harmonically, it behaves like that.
I think there's a C# in the melody at that time and since the way it's voiced usually and the harmonic movement I hear a phrygian chord. It's much like a susb9 chord. Either way is right I guess that's just how I hear it.
Sorry not really a metal fan though. I have read the Hobbit though, but that's about it.
Anyway, I haven't looked into the bill in detail, but I know a couple of things. One the democrats aren't going to do anything but support permanent military bases in Iraq. So the troops will not be coming home permanantly at all. It's also part of the strategy of this administration to keep the country destabalized so as to force that we keep troops there. As far as their official party platform stands they are all for fighting a war on terror. Right now they are just gearing up for the 08 elections. Besides when war with Iran starts Iraq is going to seem like a walk in the park.
The democrats have failed again and again to bring about any sort of meaningful action to end the war. Most of what they are doing now is an election tactic. Much like the months previous in which they passed non-binding resolutions so that they could vote for and against some or the others so that they can then turn to voters and say they voted for ending the war or supporting the troops or whatever line they needed to sell.
They're in no way shape or form an opposition party. There are a few members within the party that do stand for something but they're considered to be whacko's and on the fringe by most. Look at Kucinich for example. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 7:27:46 PM
The Senate passed the Amendment with the timeline for withdrawl of our troops, but good ole' President Bush has said he will veto it. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 5:08:02 PM
I just got off the phone with Senator Arlen Spector's office to urge him to vote for the Amendment for a timeline to get out of Iraq and also to pass the Amendment that would require the permission of Congress before the President could attack Iran.
As for Impeachment, I agree I want Bush out of office, but I am not sure I want Cheney as President. Nor would I be thrilled with Nancy Pelosi or Robert Byrd and DEFINATELY NOT Condoleezza Rice.
I would much prefer the Senate to pass the Amendments at hand and start reigning in Bush.
Unfortunately the silent majority isn't called silent for nothing. I think it is the responsibilty of every American of voting age to not only vote, but to voice their opinions to their Senators and Representatives, whatever those opinions may be.
|
| PJK |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 06:25:03 AM
quote:
To say that democrats want out of the war or want to not have an increase in spending isn't exactly all there is to it. What's really being debated between the two major parties is a degree. I think if you read their platform you'll see that they never once oppose the war on terror or say they want out.
The following comes directly from the Democratic Party's Website, they DO want out of the "war" in Iraq. The war on terror is another thing. I was speaking about Iraq, of course if you want to get technical, neither the "war" in Iraq or the "war" on terror is a "declared" war.
House Passes Iraq Deadline: House Democrats passed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act, which included a firm deadline for combat troops to leave Iraq. Despite the President's stubborn instance to stay the course, Democrats are committed to bringing our troops home. The American people demanded a new direction in Iraq, and that is exactly what the Democrats offered today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "war" on terror is a whole other ballgame. That will be part of US policy for as long as we live. I have a feeling you already know that, since there are thousands of terrorist organizations and 9-11 woke the American public up. The way this "war on terror" is run will be debated and rightfully so.
Once again I have run out of time, but I will try to get time to write more after work today.
|
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 12:03:58 AM
Well Infant Eyes, if you like Tolkien/The Silmarillion and Metal, Dan P. just fell in love.
And I didn't take your post to mean you supported Blackwater, no worries whatsoever. As a company, they kind of frighten me.
But as for power, historically there have been periods of stronger executives and weaker legislatives, and vice versa. During and after Andrew Johnson, congress pretty much dominated the presidents. I will agree that there's been a substantial trend to the contrary throughout the 20th, and into the 21st century. I'm hoping that after this administration, we will have that counter swing back to the legislative. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 8:19:07 PM
huh. i've always sort of viewed the emaj7#11/e-flat as just an emaj7#11 in 3rd inversion, with the 7th, d#, in the root. i don't think it's written like that, but i think that harmonically, it behaves like that. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 6:20:56 PM
Yes, Dan it's in reference to the Wayne Shorter song with that awesome chord on the second bar of the bridge Emaj7#11/Eb It's very phrygian and very cool.
The impeachment process does suck, and they should have started it a long time ago. I think the biggest thing is that "founders" didn't envision the country having a standing army. For the last at least 50 years we have had a standing army. Couple that with the fact that the presidents only real tool that has developed internationally has been through the military. So when all you carry is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail. We haven't even declared war since what korea? Or was it WWII? If congress would take back the authority and start doing it's job in respect to oversight the president and the CIA would be far less powerful. It's funny because there was a statement by a congressman who was talking about how congress and the president are a co-equal branch. That is not the way the founders meant for things to be and with good reason. The fact congress doesn't understand or view it this way is just sad.
Also on I side note I'm not a supporter of Blackwater, I just think that if we go to war for companies it's wrong and let them go out and hire the soldiers to fight the war for them. In fact I think it's horrible that the tax payer pays to train a US soldier and then Blackwater gets a large government contract to take the person who we paid to train and then charges us again at about three times the rate for the same thing. At least the soldiers get a competitive wage though. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 5:32:11 PM
are you referencing the jazz song "infant eyes" with your name?
i have no problem with the president acting within the authority granted him by the constitution. what the problem is seems to be his ability to, as you said, twist congress's arm. that shouldn't be happening. it's been clear for a while now that the executive branch has taken too much power unto itself. as far as i'm concerned, the constitution is the most important thing. all government officials and all actions must answer to it. it just seems like bush doesn't understand that there's some greater power than himself. his attitude seems to be "i'm the president of the united states, i can do whatever i want." nope.
you could try to impeach him, but the process is long and doesn't necessarily mean he'll leave office. and since he can exert such power, i have little faith in impeachment. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 4:50:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
I just want to say Thank you to you and Arthen.....it's great to have people to bounce these topics around with. Being a history and political buff is frustrating, when there isn't anyone around who shares those passions.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Thankfully my best friend is a history major so we can make our esoteric jokes about Pyrrhus or Rachel Jackson or whatever. It's a lot like certain musicians and bands, I don't have many people to talk about them with, so it's great we have this board! |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 3:36:40 PM
Interesting post, Infant Eyes (cool screen name too), I don't have time to answer things you brought up right now but after my class tonight I will try to get on to respond.
I just want to say Thank you to you and Arthen.....it's great to have people to bounce these topics around with. Being a history and political buff is frustrating, when there isn't anyone around who shares those passions.
quote:
the Pinkertons
Yep Arthen, they sure were f*ed up!
Later....
|
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 2:06:33 PM
Blackwater's a modern day international version of the Pinkertons. Shit. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 1:30:44 PM
Pam good post. The only problem I have is that it acts like the democratic party is in opposition. Yes some members are, but the majority of people in the party and more importantly the party leaders are not in opposition to the war. To say that democrats want out of the war or want to not have an increase in spending isn't exactly all there is to it. What's really being debated between the two major parties is a degree. I think if you read their platform you'll see that they never once oppose the war on terror or say they want out.
The problem is that our strategy in Iraq is being controlled by the president. Party because of constitutional authority granted him to run the military and mostly because of foreign powers gained throughout history he and his cabinet are in control of what happens. Their agenda is not even thinking about getting troops home. They're planning to keep permanent military bases in Iraq and some of that is to get the bases out of Saudi Arabia which is pissing off the muslim world. So since congress decided to give the president authority to do what he wanted without them declaring war, they really don't have a way to shape what happens in Iraq through policy. The only alternative they are really left with is cutting funding.
Now they could earmark funding for things specifically rebuilding and such in Iraq, and that would be their best option, but they really only have control over the money. So if they oppose the war they could cut off or change the money supply to force the presidents hand. It's really the only option. Even if they write out in the bill that the troops must be home by such and such a date and it passes. Watch and see if that's what happens. The president can twist congress' arm in this situation just like presidents have been doing for years.
The answer though isn't funding or not funding the war. The answer is impeaching the president and getting rid his entire administration. Anything less is not justice!
I think that Blackwater should just go ahead and fight the war on terror and that we force the corporations who this war benefits and who we bailed out by fighting this war, to pay for it directly. Then the soldiers get paid more and the burden of war is lifted off our soldiers and military. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 10:39:31 AM
OK, here is the rundown in simple terms:
Bush wants to keep the war going so we can "WIN"
Democrats (and some Republicans and others) want to pull our troops out.
Bush wants money to keep the war going.
Democrats want out, they don't want to pass a bill for more spending.
Both sides are mad because they aren't getting their way.
What to do? What to do?
Combine the spending with a plan for withdrawal. (Not what either side wants, but a compromise.) Enter the Iraq Accountability Act
Congress passes above Act 3/23/07 tacked on to the Bush request for more funding, but not with the ease they hoped. It seems some Democrats (cough cough, D.K., but whose naming names) would not go along with this. So, in order to get the votes needed, the Congress added to the funding by tacking on money for the spinach growers in Calif, and the salmon fisherman to name a few.
FYI included in HR 1591 was 100 Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Scheduled pull out of troops no later than March 2008, 24 Billion for the non-warprograms such as Gulf Coast recovery, rural drought assistance, wildfire prevention, home-heating assistance aid for the poor, healthcare for the disadvantaged children and the stockpilling of pandemic flue vaccines. 20 Million to repair Walter Reed Medical Center, 55 Million for similar maintenance throughout the veterans' healthcare system, 450 Million for traumatic brain injury care and research and several hundred millions for caring for veterans, reducing red tape and speeding claims processing. IMO the last three amounts are too low. (specifics on the total cost of the war as of 3/24/07 can be found here:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf )
Lobbying is the name of the game in DC. You may not like the game,(my father was a lobbyist and hated it) but if a Senator or Congressman doesn't learn how to play the game, he/she won't get anything they want for the people they represent, and Bill's of utmost importance would never get passed.(even DK knows this although he most likely hates it)
Go ahead and bitch about how corrupt our government is....boo hoo, let me get some tissues.....it is what it is, and those of us who want change need to work with what we have, there is no time to try to "fix" everything that's wrong with the gov't, we need to do it a little at a time.
So, by tacking on these extras, the needed votes are gained and the bill passed.
But, it isn't over yet. Stay tuned for a Presidential Veto which is what Bush already said he would do if it passed. Expect more bullshit to go on while our men and women are being wounded and killed. March 2008 sounds like its too far away to start withdrawling our troops, but by the time Congress/Senate and President stop dancing around the issue I fear we may be well past that date at best, or into WWIII at worst.
I am fortunate to have a Congressman who is the only Congressman to have served in the War in Iraq. I have heard him speak numerous times and have had the pleasure of speaking with him briefly. When it comes to Iraq, he knows first hand what is going on. I have also done extensive research on this topic and have studied the Middle East in depth, so while not an expert on the topic, I do know much more than the average American on this topic. If you want to read Patrick Murphy's comments here is the link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:4:./temp/~r110aWuaOL::
The philosophy that funding the war = supporting the war is in some ways correct but not totally. Yes, funding the war keeps the war going. No one wants this war to go on, everyone wants to see an end to it. We can all bitch and complain that it never should have happened and we are right, it was a horribly stupid move on the part of our doofus President, however, now that we are there, we need to be smart about the way we get out. It isn't going to happen tomorrow as much as we would like it. It isn't going to happen all at once, so if you think that way, get it out of your head, it isn't going to happen. But, it will happen gradually and on a timetable if the Democrats can join together and do what has to be done to make this happen.
There is no simple solution to ending the war and alienating Iran is pure stupidity. We made huge mistakes, entering into a war with Iraq, and overthrowing Sadam. Trying to fix these mistakes obviously isn't easy and there is only so much "fixing" we can do. BTW, the war is already lost in case anyone still has the misguided notion that we can still "win."
IMO the only way we can make this bad situation better is by first talking seriously with Iran and Syria, as well as the other middle eastern countries. Second, get the notion that Democracy is needed in Iraq off the table. Lastly, having a time table for withdrawing our troops and understanding that there are going to be thousands of lives lost no matter which direction the war takes. The responsibility of the US is to protect our soldiers, get them out, and work the diplomatic options that are available to us to lessen the casualties on all sides and try to prevent the war from escalating to horrific proportions.
All the while, the biggest threat to the USA is economic collaps. While we are pouring the lives of our service men and women and billions of dollars into Iraq/Afganistan, China is continuing to grow and trade with countries all over the globe including Iran. China now has the ability to collaps our economy. If you are interested in knowing the "how" of this opinion, I would suggest reading Scott Ritter's book called Target Iran. You can pick up a copy on Amazon for about $15. I warn you, it isn't going to read like a novel, but it is well worth reading. I heard Scott lecture and talked with him personally. He was one of the UN weapons inspector who TOLD the Bush administration there were NO WMD's in Iraq.
So, that is my rant for the day in spite of my opinion that these topics are not conducive to message boards.
|
| gnome44 |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 3:39:38 PM
I sincerely hope you are correct, Arthen. This whole thing is becoming quite ridiculous. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 3:22:03 PM
It makes sense though. I was reading what one Middle Eastern Studies expert was saying, and he said this could be simple retaliation from Iran over the capture of Iran soldiers in Iraq. It also sounds like that area of territory remains disputed, so it could be as simple as a border misunderstanding.
I don't think this will be enough to start a new front in the War on Everything. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 3:17:11 PM
Sounds like another Gulf of Tonkin to me...they have been preparing for the Iran war for years now. Looks like they have a reason now...
*cough* false flag *cough*
...sigh... |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 2:38:52 PM
Well, Iran apparently took hostage a unit of British seaman/marines that were in Iraqi waters. Fifteen in all if I remember correctly, this isn't going to help anything at all. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 7:11:43 PM
i'll agree with that. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 4:09:04 PM
I totally agree that there should be complete reparation's. I guess that wasn't clear in my post. I do not agree on funding for more war machines, I do support funding for more schools and rebuilding the infastructure. However, I do not believe anyone with ties to the oil indutry should have anything to do with that. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 3:39:57 PM
i agree, cut all funding and stop the war. we went in there and replaced their government with a feeble, less stable one, we destroyed cities, and killed a shit load of people. but that doesn't mean it's our responsibility to clean up the mess we made. we're better off just saying "hey, you fuckers are on your own. what? you need help? you should have thought about that before we invaded." and it's not as if the soldiers fighting there now really need funding for equipment or for getting the fuck out or anything.
. . .
sarcasm aside, the war was clearly bullshit and we shouldn't have done it, and it's not doing any good now. no one here is debating this. but to suggest we just pack up and leave the country that we broke is cruel. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 3:22:28 PM
quote:
hmmmm...so keep pouring money into a war to support the troops? Sounds like double think to me!
Absolutely, I know it does, but I don't have the time to explain the reasons why stopping the spending would hurt, not help, the ati-war effort. It isn't simple, if it was your summation would be absoulutely correct.
Secondly, no doubt Bush is trying to provoke Iran, he is using tactics that are strikingly similar to the pre-Iraq invasion, but I don't see a war with Iran happening for multiple reasons, some being that we actually need Iran's help to get out of Iraq and we face getting into confrontation with China as China does massive trading with Iran and again, I just don't have the time to write it all down now. Also, I don't like having these conversations via message boards anyway, because its so sporatic and quite frankly, many people, not particularly those who posted here so far, but others, have no clue what they are talking about.
I saw a survey of Americans who were asked if the US should have sanctions against Iran and the overwhelming majority said yes! That is totally wrong and those who know anything about Iran understand why, but most Americans are not educated on the middle east, yet when it comes to opinions, they sure have them! OK, thats all I have time for. Later. Hey Dave, you know I would always love to have a good discussion with you on this in person, maybe someday we can.
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 10:52:47 AM
hmmmm...so keep pouring money into a war to support the troops? Sounds like double think to me!
Cut all funding, stop the war. Impeach these bastards, and start fixing our country because as well all know, it is getting pretty f-in' bad here at home.
These poor kids are being sent to a meat grinder, FOR WHAT? Weapons contracts, military bases for more pre-emptive wars, and oil monopolies...
Atleast there is a "Military Channel" now. I almost threw up when I saw that on a tv last night. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 03/22/2007 : 12:07:55 AM
Well, well put Pam.
I don't want war to go on, but it's not something so easily cut and dried as: "Don't like war, don't vote for money for war." That's going to hurt people who don't have a choice. It may support the war, but you have to support the people mucked up in it. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 6:30:35 PM
First, I am a member of moveon.org, but then I have membership with numerous organizations and don't fully agree with any of them.
Here is the bill in question, read it for yourself.
http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads/supplementalonepager.pdf
There is a part of it that I don't quite understand, but most of it I agree with. It is easy to say don't fund the war if you don't believe in it. That is true on the surface and if it was a simple matter it would be simple to come to that conclusion. Unfortunately the topic is not one that lends itself to message boards so I am not going to get into why stopping the funding on troops would be suicide for the Democrates and why it would be bad for our troops.
I support the troops not the war and lest you be one who cries "you can't do that" I will say right now, I damn well can! I wrote tons of emails to my congressmen and senators and pleaded the case of NOT going to war with Iraq, it didn't work. I protested along with thousands of others, but it didn't stop the powers that be. Our servicemen and women are in Iraq because they were sent there not because they have a choice. They are the ones dying and being torn apart. They are the ones making sacrifices so you and I can bullshit about this and other things on the internet. I do not want them being underequiped over there. I also want the funding to be there for our disabled veterans to get the medical help they need.
This is NOT a topic that can be talked about on a message board with any justice. Sorry, can't be done. Therefore I am not going to say more, I will not try to defend my views nor will I attack anyone elses. I simply want to say that I wouldn't put all my trust in what the Prison Planet says. It is as biased as any out there.
If you are up for more reading here is a short article from the Washington Post about this bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031500239.html
|
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 4:45:38 PM
Partisan politics is all posturing anyway. Those party lines are too blurred to BE 2 parties. We've evolved past bipartisan politics, there are too many interests now to suit everyone with 2 parties in power. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 1:14:11 PM
"the media obssesses." not to be repeatitive, but i wish people knew how fucking stupid they sound when they misuse the word media like that. it implies a lack of the most basic understanding of what "the media" actually are and how they effect people.
the article makes good points, despite it's flaws. i think on some level we all know democrats are weak and timid as a party, with all the spine and charisma of a wet paper towel. but it's good to see it pointed out. a ton of people were really happy that the democrats won so completely, but i wasn't so sure. i prefer the people in charge to have a pair, figuritively. democrats are notorious for their lack of nuts. you can see it in their speeches and you can see it in their actions. |
|
|
