I respect this guy, and though I'm still an Edwards' supporter, it firmly places Obama in the second spot for me.

"He [Zbig] has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world."

He sure does have ideas on what's relevant. Extract from a 1998 interview with Zbig:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

One of the things that has always made me respect Zbigniew Brzezinski is how frank and forthright he is. His endorsement of Obama and his guts and intelligence comes at a critical juncture in the 08 presidential race. Brzezinski's insight about Hillary's foreign policy being very conventional speaks to his deep understanding that the US is at a high stakes moment on the world stage and his fear that electoral considerations will triumph over what we need - a brand new constructive and engaged relationship with the world.

. . and he comes up Zbig!

A steady, frank voice throughout all these events.

I like Zbig.

But it's possible he only looks so good in COMPARISON.

Don Bacon, I was just locating that quote to post here--you beat me to it. I first learned of it back in 2002, in the course of doing research for a guest editorial in the Lafayette, Indiana Journal and Courier, entitled "Blowback 101."

Yes, Zbigniew Brzezinski is certainly someone we should take advice from on foreign policy. Not.

The only Democratic candidate who has even remotely sensible foreign policies--i.e. ones that are peaceful, democratic, and respectful of universal human rights and international law (such radical concepts!)--is Dennis Kucinich. He has been consistently right and far better informed about all the most important issues, foreign and domestic, facing America today. He has the only detailed plan for Iraq that might actually work.

His views on many issues--ending the Iraq war, instituting universal single-payer health care, impeaching Cheney (ideally before he can commit more war crimes in Iran)--are supported by a majority of Americans. But Dennis can't get his message past the media gatekeepers--including people like Steve Clemons--who relentlessly push the CW that this is a race between Hillary and Obama, with Edwards thrown in occasionally for decorative effect. According to a recent Pew poll, only 35% of registered voters who plan to vote for a Democrat in 2008 have ever heard of Dennis Kucinich. Wonder why.

Please,please,please,please,please,please,please,
please,please,please,please,please,please,please,
please,please,please,please,please,please,please..PLEZZZZZZZZZZZEEE....!

Someone get Clark and/or Hagel in this race.

Something better happen quickly.

"Dangers of a Cornered Bush"

'...We are left with a president who cannot actually govern, because he is incapable of reasoned thought in coping with events outside his control, like those in the Middle East.

This makes it a monumental challenge -- as urgent as it is difficult -- not only to get him to stop the carnage in the Middle East, but also to prevent him from undertaking a new, perhaps even more disastrous adventure -- like going to war with Iran in order to embellish the image he so proudly created for himself after 9/11 as the commander in chief of 'the first war of the 21st century...'

*** by psychiatrist Justin Frank updating his book, "Bush on the Couch"

I guess Brzezinski is not aware that Obama just appointed Dennis Lukid Ross as his ME advisor..or is he?

How many lies can you pick out of Ross's case against Palestine, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and all things Arab in this article?

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060731&s=ross073106

No vote for Obama from me. No hypocrits need apply.

See Pierre Tristam on Obama's American exceptionalist foreign policy mentality:

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/cn070607.htm

He is not impressed, and neither am I.

If Obama has picked Ross as an advisor I would never vote for him.

I love Bzig, but until I know more I'm sticking with Edwards. Obama or Edwards would be a breath of fresh air vis a vis international relations.

Posted by Luigi Delgado at August 24, 2007 06:49 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obama seeking Ross's advice on Middle East

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - 1 hour ago

Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a group of Jewish communal lay leaders that he is receiving advice on Middle East issues from Dennis Ross.

See Pierre Tristam on Obama's American exceptionalist foreign policy mentality:

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/cn070607.htm

He is not impressed, and neither am I.

Posted by Jean at August 24, 2007 06:19 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thanks.

He really does take apart all Obama's yada,yada, yada for what it is.

Although I support Hillary at the moment, it's not because of her foreign policy. I hope she is induced to make some changes in her approach in the coming months.

Many people know that Zbig and Jimmy Carter were on the Trilateral Commission, after which Zbig was a prominent member of the Carter Administration.

But fewer people know that Zbig was also, though less prominently, a member of the Reagan Administration. Zbig's tough hardline approach was compatible, or compatible enough anyway, with the Reaganites.

And few people know that Zbig endorsed Vice-President George H. W. Bush for president in 1988, not Governor Dukakis.

However, Zbig opposed the 1991 Gulf War, which he said would have more costs than benefits. He predicted that it would generate a wave of anti-USA resentment in the Arab and Islamic world.

So what to make of such a record? Zbig supported Carter's military interventions, in dozens of places around the world, and Zbig urged the Clinton Administration to conduct interventions, and Zbig supported Reagan and Bush-41 . . . and now Zbig endorses Senator Obama.

I guess that's great news for people who believe the proper role of the Democratic Party is to be the slighter saner side of the War Party.

But what about people who don't think the U.S.A. should have a military budget greater than the rest of the world, combined?

"slightly saner side" i meant to say.

Obama and Hillary are the problem, not the solution. If we end up with ANY of the current hopefuls as our President, we're fucked. They are all, left and right, cut of the same cloth.

Kucinich or Ron Paul are possible exceptions. But Steve's total and complete refusal to give them exposure is a prime example of what these two are up against. They will NEVER break through the ostracization inflicted on them by the media and the professional pitchmen that seek to nurture the status quo. One only need follow the straw and swiftboating tactics of our resident troll/mole, MP, to see the kind of campaign that gets waged against any politician that seeks to break from the treasonous ranks of the Washington elite.

And Carroll's infatuation with Hagel fascinates me. His handling of the ES&S matter tells us that he is at least as criminal as the rest of these elitist pigs, possibly more so. And his voting history tells us he has no problem with Bush's fascist domestic policies. It seems to me that, like Steve, Carroll may be placing too much emphasis on foreign policy charades and and smoke screens, while domestically the rule of law is being cast aside by the "leaders" in our government. Under fascism, who really gives a shit what foreign countries your dictator is looting?

Given Zbig's endorsement of Obama, I expected the glowing praise for the candidate.

However, I was taken aback by the very impolitic remarks regarding Senator Clinton.

Is there bad blood there?

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Ron Paul Wins Five Straw Polls, Mainstream Media Remains Silent

Whether it's Washington, Alabama, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, the message is the same. We want our freedom, our rights, our money, and our country back, and we're willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen. Thousands are driving from all over their states to show support resulting in straw poll victories for Ron Paul with percentages as high as 81%. Dr. Paul has placed in a total of 16 straw polls now, tying him with Romney and thrusting him far beyond Giuliani in terms of visible support, and not a word about the trend can be heard from the mainstream media. To put this into perspective, there were over 4,800 articles in the mainstream media about the Iowa straw poll in which Mitt Romney spent over $200,000 ensuring his win, while there are a whopping 162 mainstream articles combined from all five straw polls in which Ron Paul was victorious. Most of these mentions are no more than a one-senence blurb incorporated into an article about a more general topic. But, this is the Internet, and we have access to the truth:

Straw Poll Victories

FIRST PLACE (5)
New Hampshire Taxpayers, July 7 ~ 1st 65.3%
North Carolina, Gaston GOP, August 13, ~ 1st 36.6%
New Hampshire, Stafford, NH, August 18 ~ 1st 72.7%
Alabama, August 18 ~ 1st 81.2%
Washington State, August 21 ~ 1st 28.1%

SECOND PLACE (5)
Utah GOP, June 12, 2nd 5.4%
LibertyPapers.org conference, June 16 ~ 2nd 16.7%
Georgia, Cobb Co. GOP, July 4 ~ 2nd 17%
South Carolina, Georgetown Co., July 28 ~ 2nd 18%
West Lafayette, Indiana, August 18 ~ 2nd 11.7%

Number of Times Placing In Top Three

Candidate First Second Third Total
Ron Paul 5 5 6 16
Mitt Romney 4 6 6 16
Fred Thompson 10 4 0 14
Rudy Giuliani 0 3 2 5
Mike Huckabee 0 2 3 5
Duncan Hunter 0 1 3 4
Sam Brownback 1 0 1 2
John McCain 1 0 1 2
Tommy Thompson 0 1 0 1
John Cox 0 0 0 0
Jim Gilmore 0 0 0 0
Tom Tancredo 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0

Source: Oklahomans for Ron Paul
Clearly, it's up to us to get the word out. Join your local meetup, talk to family, friends, and co-workers. This is our one chance to save our country. Let's make it happen!

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 23rd, 2007

Posted by CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777 Marc Parent CCNWON at 8:38 AM

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-five-straw-polls.html

Alan Keyes won some straw polls in 1999.
Ron Paul won some straw polls in 2007.
Equally meaningful.

"Alan Keyes won some straw polls in 1999.
Ron Paul won some straw polls in 2007.
Equally meaningful."

Actually, the issues are different, the times are different, and the stances are different. So, you're "equally meaningfull" comment amounts to a wheelbarrow load of horseshit. I don't know about the circles you travel in, but the people that I meet, associate with, work with, and communicate with are completely fed up up with these fuckers in Washington. No one I talk to feels their interests are being represented, or their voices are being heard. Don't under-estimate Paul or Kucinich, if they break through the barriers set out by the likes of the media and the nattering drone of the naysayers and swiftboaters, they are a force to be reckoned with. People are fed up, distrustful, dis-illusioned, and pissed off. And these posturing frauds like Hillary and Obama, absent their multi-million dollar ad campaigns and their synchopantic army of self-serving Washington "insiders", are just common everyday con artists and snakeoil salesman, pimping themselves out to big business and global opportunists. And more and more Americans are waking up to that fact.

And Carroll's infatuation with Hagel fascinates me. His handling of the ES&S matter tells us that he is at least as criminal as the rest of these elitist pigs, possibly more so. And his voting history tells us he has no problem with Bush's fascist domestic policies. It seems to me that, like Steve, Carroll may be placing too much emphasis on foreign policy charades and and smoke screens, while domestically the rule of law is being cast aside by the "leaders" in our government. Under fascism, who really gives a shit what foreign countries your dictator is looting?

Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 24, 2007 09:03 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>

I am fixated on Foreign policy because I think that unless we get our foreign policy straight the domestic issues will not matter.

We will be sucked dry by the grand delusions of the US empire as neo agressor or neo lite "spreader of democracy".

Attend to first things first, fix the gaping hole in the ship first, we can fight over the cruise menu later.

Hagel understands this, Clark understands this, Dennis understands this.

The Allawi coup is no doubt to follow.

3 Secular Iraqis in Cabinet to Formally Resign

By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 25, 2007; Page A12

BAGHDAD, Aug. 24 -- Escalating a political crisis that has paralyzed the Iraqi government, three secular cabinet members will formally resign Saturday, according to a senior member of the group.

The Iraqi National List, an umbrella group of several political parties composed of secular Sunnis and Shiites, had boycotted cabinet meetings since Aug. 7 because of frustrations with what they saw as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's divisive leadership style. The party, headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi, will now submit the official resignations, National List member Iyad Jamal al-Deen said.

"We have sent several letters to the prime minister asking for a discussion that would keep us in the government, and he did not respond to any of them," Deen said. "Our participation in the government would have no meaning now, so we will not participate."

Although the announcement was widely expected, the National List's official decision further damages any chance of reconciliation among Iraq's rival political factions in the near future. The disunity within the government and lack of progress on several key laws are expected to be major considerations in a report on conditions in Iraq scheduled to be presented to President Bush on Sept. 11.

The largest Sunni political bloc has already formally withdrawn from the cabinet, while the party loyal to powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr continues to boycott government meetings. All told, nearly half the cabinet members are not attending meetings.

The National List's move comes on the heels of proclamations by two prominent U.S. senators that Maliki should be removed. On Tuesday, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, called for "a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government" in Iraq, comments that were echoed by a leading presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), and quickly rejected by Maliki.

In an interview, Deen repeated the senators' criticism of the Maliki administration, saying top government officials are driven by secular loyalties rather than a genuine desire to improve Iraq. Many Sunnis and secularists have long felt marginalized working under Maliki, a Shiite.

"The problem is in having a political agenda that is founded on a sectarian basis," Deen said.

Bassam Ridha, a senior adviser to Maliki, said the National List members are the ones prioritizing their political party over the common good.

"They made a commitment to this government and took an oath, and now they are not fulfilling their commitment," Ridha said. "We're trying our best to harmonize, but they want to take over the government."

Ridha said Maliki would give the secularist cabinet members an opportunity to reconsider their decision but will replace them if they decide not to rejoin the government. He added that the prime minister already plans to seek parliament's approval for new cabinet members to replace the Sunnis who withdrew.

"We have 35 r�sum�s ready to go -- independent, qualified people without a political agenda," he said.

Also Friday, the U.S. military announced that an American soldier was killed and four were wounded by an explosion in Salahuddin province, north of Baghdad.

Special correspondent Naseer Nouri contributed to this report.

Brzezinski has no credibility as a foreign affairs expert considering the disasterous foreign policy under Jimmy Carter.
Obama is an ignoramous when it comes to foreign policy. Going to Kenya and living in Indonesia from ages6-10 , like Obama did, does not make someone a foreign affairs expert.And invading a Pakistan is dopey and dangerous. Obama, as an adult, has lived a separatist black existence and has not assimilated into the mainstream of American life..
Mrs. Clinton`s experience as first lady qualifies her to be president. She travelled to 82 countries and knows all the heads of state first hand. For 8 years she was the second most powerful person in the world. She was a full partner in husband`s administration and was his closest and number one advisor.She was at her husband`s side every time an important decision was made. To mock her experience as first lady is to mock Eleanor Roosevelt an American icon and Edith Wilson who ran the country while her husband was recovering from a troke.
Hillary had her offices in the West Wing where the executive offices are because she was a player. She was not comatose and lazy like Laura Bush.

Guess what folks? Ron Paul has a very real chance of WINNING the Texas Straw Poll to be held in Fort Worth Aug. 31st and Sept. 1st. If any of you are RON PAUL supporters I urge you to head to Fort Worth to campaign for him OR email Chuck Young at ccy@earthlink.net and tell him you want to make GOTV phone calls for Ron Paul.
The last time I checked, Texas was the biggest and baddest Republican state, and a win by Ron Paul (no guarantees!) would be very significant. Also, the ONLY folks who can actually vote in this straw poll are Republican activists, veterans of previous state conventions, not the general public at large where Ron Paul is much stronger. A vote for Texas Republican activists for Ron Paul would be sending a very big message indeed.
Other candidates expected to do well at the Texas Straw Poll are Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo. If anyone would like to help Ron Paul win the Texas Straw Poll, just call me Robert Morrow at 512-306-1510 and I will point you in the right direction.

In July, 2007, the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY published ratings of all members of Congress. The only House member to earn a perfect score of 100 was Congressman RON PAUL.

The C.C.C. likes Ron Paul, too. In case you haven't heard of them, they're basically the K.K.K. in disguise.

Ron Paul's not just anti-war. He's anti-everything. He's Doctor No.

He's anti-health, anti-education, anti-welfare, anti-black, anti-brown, anti-stem-cell-research, anti-environmental-protection, anti-Jewish-banker-conspiracy, anti-United-Nations, anti-North-American-Union-Conspiracy, anti-abortion.

Wait, he's not anti-everything.
Like Tancredo, he's pro-border-fence-boondoggle.

But basically, he's anti-everybody.

Unless you're a white protestant male who believes, as Ron Paul has said, that there was no poverty or suffering in America until FDR created those things, Ron Paul is anti-you.

He's a kook, even compared to other libertarians.

Brezinski carries a lot of weight with me. Obama has stumbled a bit on foreign affairs, but he is new to the game, has twice the IQ of the current president, and will mature rapidly under the tutelage of people like Brezinski.

I'm not a Hillary or Obama supporter, but I would not put any stock in the opinion of someone who served as a Foreign Policy Advisor in the Reagan administration. Iran-Contra was as bad, in my opinion, as the current fiasco in the Middle East, maybe worse.

I do agree that a whole fresh approach in our country's foreign policy stance is critical. We need to start treating other nations and the UN with respect, instead of our usual arrogant, ill-founded sense of superiority toward others. We, as a nation, are the schoolyard bully of the world, insulting and punishing all who dare to disagree with us. Watching the US Mission in action at the UN Commission For Human Rights in Geneva, under Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quale, I was so ashamed to be an American.

Jean, I'm with you on Kucinich. He is the only candidate who took his oath of office seriously and did a lot of research before voting on our Demander-In-Chief's permission slip to "shock and awe" another country without just cause.

To check Kucinish's 12 step plan to exit Iraq go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/HR1234.

To support Kucinich in the abc poll on the debates, go to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision 2008/story?id=3478895

Just as there's more than one way to skin a cat, we'll have to forge a new way to pick our candidate, without Madison Avenue packaging. We can go straight to the Farmer's Market, so to speak. I'm not willing to be "sold" some candidate because some PR firm thought of the best jingle.

Ross advising Obama on the ME??? Obama just lost my support...

This fact makes the reasoning for Brzezinski's support of Obama a stunning contradiction. I'll stick to the most sticklyless Israeli supporting candidate seeking the presidency..We need objectivity, not AIPAC socophancy.

Well, "Zenda" pretty much spouted the main talking points contained in the swiftboater's script on discrediting Paul.

All this posturing will mean squat once Hillary announces Wes Clark as her VP.

note: I would have preferred Clark as Pres. but maybe 'the deal' is Hillary gets 2008 - 2012 but Clark gets 2012 - 2016. Clark is a very smart guy.

Clark as VP gives Hillary +15% Favorable Ratings
plus shaving another 10 - 15% in Unfavorable Ratings

Game over for Obama and Edwards.

This ticket will smash any GOP ticket including winning many red states.

Posted by Carroll

If you have no say in government, no voice, why do you think they will listen to you about foreign policy?

Reba Shimansky:
Would you call Laura Bush the second most powerful person in the world presently? Would she be qualified to run for President as a result of being first lady? The one thing Bill put Hillary in charge of ended in a miserable failure(health care).

Is there any evidence that a Veep candidate has ever swayed a presidential election?

Agnew ran and governed in Maryland as a liberal. (Look it up! It's true! Agnew didn't move to the right until 1968.) Agnew was a popular governor who had won the 1966 election in Maryland by a landslide. But Humphrey-Muskie won Maryland in 1968. Four years later, in 1972, Agnew had become a national figure with high negatives, but that didn't hurt the Nixon-Agnew ticket.

And the Bush-Quayle ticket proved conclusively, in 1988, that you can win the presidency no matter how much your Veep choice is generally disrespected and ridiculed.

I hope to see Wes Clark in a major role in the new Administration in 2009. But I doubt that he, or anybody else, would sway an election as a Veep candidate.

Posted by Carroll

If you have no say in government, no voice, why do you think they will listen to you about foreign policy?

Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 25, 2007 10:51 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't think we are listened to on foreign policy (or anything else mostly), that's why I would choose Hagel or Clark, because "their" view already reflects mine.

I.N.N. World Report had the most in-depth interview with Ron Paul that I've seen yet.

I think it's still on their site:

www.innworldreport.net

It's very much worth a view.

I don't think we are listened to on foreign policy (or anything else mostly), that's why I would choose Hagel or Clark, because "their" view already reflects mine.

Posted by Carroll

Well, considering Hagel's actions in regards to ES&S, it tells us he is neither honest, nor law abiding. Further, his lack of outrage at the domestic abuses of this Administration implies to us that we may well expect him to practice the same kinds of abuses. So that begs the question, why should we believe in any postures he assumes publically in regards to foreign policy? In other words, we KNOW he accepts, practices in, and condones dishonesty and criminality within the highest offices, so why would we choose to believe a known liar? Isn't the true measure of a successful politician, nowadays, his ability to bullshit his way into the hearts of the majority?

Bush, initially, said "no nation building". Many believed him. Hagel, having already demonstrated his credibility in the ES&S affair, deserves no such faith.

Brzezinski is a smart guy and every Democrat would be happy to have his support.
But I think that his endorsement of Obama had something to do with Madeleine Albright's closeness to Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

So what is the cure for our Mafia country? Decades of more no harm, no foul congressional show hearings? decades of law suits?
Oh wait...the cure is elections! Yea, the "other" party will fix this.
And after that the cure will be electing the other party, and after that the cure will be electing the other party.
The government insures it's continuation by constantly failing.

"Those who blow whistle on contractor fraud in Iraq face penalties"

DEBORAH HASTINGS, AP National Writer

August 24, 2007 12:24 PM

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted.

Or worse.

For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers - all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees.

The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.

''It was a Wal-Mart for guns,'' he says. ''It was all illegal and everyone knew it.''

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didn't know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.

Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics ''reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.''

Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country's oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

''If you do it, you will be destroyed,'' said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

''Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, 'Should I do this?' And my answer is no. If they're married, they'll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything,'' Weaver said.

They have been fired or demoted, shunned by colleagues, and denied government support in whistleblower lawsuits filed against contracting firms.

''The only way we can find out what is going on is for someone to come forward and let us know,'' said Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight, an independent, nonprofit group that investigates corruption. ''But when they do, the weight of the government comes down on them. The message is, 'Don't blow the whistle or we'll make your life hell.'

''It's heartbreaking,'' Daley said. ''There is an even greater need for whistleblowers now. But they are made into public martyrs. It's a disgrace. Their lives get ruined.''

Bunnatine ''Bunny'' Greenhouse knows this only too well. As the highest-ranking civilian contracting officer in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, she testified before a congressional committee in 2005 that she found widespread fraud in multibillion-dollar rebuilding contracts awarded to former Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Soon after, Greenhouse was demoted. She now sits in a tiny cubicle in a different department with very little to do and no decision-making authority, at the end of an otherwise exemplary 20-year career.

People she has known for years no longer speak to her.

''It's just amazing how we say we want to remove fraud from our government, then we gag people who are just trying to stand up and do the right thing,'' she says.

In her demotion, her supervisors said she was performing poorly. ''They just wanted to get rid of me,'' she says softly. The Army Corps of Engineers denies her claims.

''You just don't have happy endings,'' said Weaver. ''She was a wonderful example of a federal employee. They just completely creamed her. In the end, no one followed up, no one cared.''

But Greenhouse regrets nothing. ''I have the courage to say what needs to be said. I paid the price,'' she says.

Then there is Robert Isakson, who filed a whistleblower suit against contractor Custer Battles in 2004, alleging the company - with which he was briefly associated - bilked the U.S. government out of tens of millions of dollars by filing fake invoices and padding other bills for reconstruction work.

He and his co-plaintiff, William Baldwin, a former employee fired by the firm, doggedly pursued the suit for two years, gathering evidence on their own and flying overseas to obtain more information from witnesses. Eventually, a federal jury agreed with them and awarded a $10 million judgment against the now-defunct firm, which had denied all wrongdoing.

It was the first civil verdict for Iraq reconstruction fraud.

But in 2006, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III overturned the jury award. He said Isakson and Baldwin failed to prove that the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-backed occupier of Iraq for 14 months, was part of the U.S. government.

Not a single Iraq whistleblower suit has gone to trial since.

''It's a sad, heartbreaking comment on the system,'' said Isakson, a former FBI agent who owns an international contracting company based in Alabama. ''I tried to help the government, and the government didn't seem to care.''

---

One way to blow the whistle is to file a ''qui tam'' lawsuit (taken from the Latin phrase ''he who sues for the king, as well as for himself'') under the federal False Claims Act.

Signed by Abraham Lincoln in response to military contractors selling defective products to the Union Army, the act allows private citizens to sue on the government's behalf.

The government has the option to sign on, with all plaintiffs receiving a percentage of monetary damages, which are tripled in these suits.

It can be a straightforward and effective way to recoup federal funds lost to fraud. In the past, the Justice Department has joined several such cases and won. They included instances of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling, and padded invoices from domestic contractors.

But the government has not joined a single quit tam suit alleging Iraq reconstruction abuse, estimated in the tens of millions. At least a dozen have been filed since 2004.

''It taints these cases,'' said attorney Alan Grayson, who filed the Custer Battles suit and several others like it. ''If the government won't sign on, then it can't be a very good case - that's the effect it has on judges.''

The Justice Department declined comment.

Most of the lawsuits are brought by former employees of giant firms. Some plaintiffs have testified before members of Congress, providing examples of fraud they say they witnessed and the retaliation they experienced after speaking up.

Julie McBride testified last year that as a ''morale, welfare and recreation coordinator'' at Camp Fallujah, she saw KBR exaggerate costs by double- and triple-counting the number of soldiers who used recreational facilities.

She also said the company took supplies destined for a Super Bowl party for U.S. troops and instead used them to stage a celebration for themselves.

''After I voiced my concerns about what I believed to be accounting fraud, Halliburton placed me under guard and kept me in seclusion,'' she told the committee. ''My property was searched, and I was specifically told that I was not allowed to speak to any member of the U.S. military. I remained under guard until I was flown out of the country.''

Halliburton and KBR denied her testimony.

She also has filed a whistleblower suit. The Justice Department has said it would not join the action. But last month, a federal judge refused a motion by KBR to dismiss the lawsuit.

---

Donald Vance, the contractor and Navy veteran detained in Iraq after he blew the whistle on his company's weapons sales, says he has stopped talking to the federal government.

Navy Capt. John Fleming, a spokesman for U.S. detention operations in Iraq, confirmed the detentions but said he could provide no further details because of the lawsuit.

According to their suit, Vance and Ertel gathered photographs and documents, which Vance fed to Chicago FBI agent Travis Carlisle for six months beginning in October 2005. Carlisle, reached by phone at Chicago's FBI field office, declined comment. An agency spokesman also would not comment.

The Iraqi company has since disbanded, according the suit.

Vance said things went terribly wrong in April 2006, when he and Ertel were stripped of their security passes and confined to the company compound.

Panicking, Vance said, he called the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, where hostage experts got on the phone and told him ''you're about to be kidnapped. Lock yourself in a room with all the weapons you can get your hands on.'''

The military sent a Special Forces team to rescue them, Vance said, and the two men showed the soldiers where the weapons caches were stored. At the embassy, the men were debriefed and allowed to sleep for a few hours. ''I thought I was among friends,'' Vance said.

The men said they were cuffed and hooded and driven to Camp Cropper, where Vance was held for nearly three months and his colleague for a little more than a month. Eventually, their jailers said they were being held as security internees because their employer was suspected of selling weapons to terrorists and insurgents, the lawsuit said.

The prisoners said they repeatedly told interrogators to contact Carlisle in Chicago. ''One set of interrogators told us that Travis Carlisle doesn't exist. Then some others would say, 'He says he doesn't know who you are,''' Vance said.

Released first was Ertel, who has returned to work in Iraq for a different company. Vance said he has never learned why he was held longer. His own interrogations, he said, seemed focused on why he reported his information to someone outside Iraq.

And then one day, without explanation, he was released.

''They drove me to Baghdad International Airport and dumped me,'' he said.

When he got home, he decided to never call the FBI again. He called a lawyer, instead.

''There's an unspoken rule in Baghdad,'' he said. ''Don't snitch on people and don't burn bridges.''

For doing both, Vance said, he paid with 97 days of his life.

I think that Hillary would make a huge tactical mistake if she nominated Clark for VP.
It would confirm fears that she does not have confidence in her own ability to lead the military---that she needs a strong man's help to do that.
Also, she should make it clear with her choice of VP that the new VP will NOT be playing a major role in policy, as Cheney has.

I think that Hillary would make a huge tactical mistake if she nominated Clark for VP.
It would confirm fears that she does not have confidence in her own ability to lead the military---that she needs a strong man's help to do that.
Also, she should make it clear with her choice of VP that the new VP will NOT be playing a major role in policy, as Cheney has.

Posted by MarkL at August 25, 2007 02:08 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>

You said earlier that you supported Hillary but not because of her foreign policy. What are reasons or policies you support her for as President?

I don't put much stock in the opinions of former Reagan adminstration Foreign Policy advisors. Iran-Contra was every bit as bad as the current fiasco, maybe even worse because it involved the ME and Central America. I'm sick of hardline anything. We need to go waaaay in the other direction to win back our former friends in the world.

Also, "the Mafia' is frequently used here as an insult to define the lowest of the low type person. I've got news for you. What people call "the Mafia" doesn't kill near as many people, as your garden variety compassionate conservative, don't send others' kids to do their whacking, don't wrap themselves in the flag to justify their crimes. Frankly, it would be an improvement if "the Mafia" did run this country. They don't operate in the red and we'd be spared mountains of phony bullshit hypocrisy. Lilly white Wasps are far more deadly and phoney to boot. And you can bet they wouldn't be serving the President of France a goddamned hot dog.

"twice the IQ of the current president". Talk about damning with faint praise . . . .

I have thought Obama was a viable candidate, and he handled the question of "experience" quite well in his appearance on "The Daily Show" this week.

But I agree that if he's asking the time of day from Dennis Ross, he's off my list. Guess I'm back to Richardson.

Really, I have not been comfortable with Obama, or any of the candidates, because none of them "get it" with regard to foreign policy and national security.

The fact is, their only criticism of the Bush policies is that BuchCo chose to shoot the wrong people. Obama, being so much smarter, will shoot the "right" people.

Shooting some people is necessary, and should always be part of the options. But if all we do is shoot people -- and that's not just all we're doing, it's all anyone is talking about doing -- then we will remain vulnerable for the rest of time.

But that's OK, because as long as we remain vulnerable, the government gets to justify its assault on the Constitution. It pains me to think -- based on nothing more than evidence -- that the reason the Dems are so reluctant to impeach Cheney, Bush, or the rest, is that they can't wait to get their hands on the same illegal powers Bush is using, only the Dems think they'll use those powers for "good."

So we get to pick our devil, and no one, not even Kucinich, is anything but.

I consider her a highly intelligent technocrat who shares many of the same goals that I do for domestic policy; I also expect she will get the best cooperation from Congress, if elected.
I do not feel that Edwards displays the intelligence needed to make good decisions on very complicated issues, although I do like the values of his campaign.
Obama's ok, but I think Hillary is better.
One reason I don't particularly believe in Obama is that I have very little confidence in the effectiveness of campaign finance reform, and I don't think public financing of elections is workable here---I don't see how you can eliminate third party ads. They may do this in Europe, but our 1st amendment protections are stronger here, and would get in the way.
I also like Obama's message about the need to have faith in the ability of government to accomplish things ( I believe this is a correct paraphrase); personally, I think that faith will be regained only after a new President institutes some successful programs.

I'm not enthralled with Clinton, but I think she's very good, and I like her demeanor.
I don't trust Edwards personally---he comes across too much like a salesman to me; I don't believe he's sufficiently intelligent; his Senate record was poor; he didn't seem to help Kerry at all in 2004, and was a miserable failure in the VP debate, in retrospect: at this point I can't see supporting him.

Like I said, Obama is ok, and he seems to have a good learning curve, which is hardly surprising.

Dodd is ok, maybe even good; Biden is ok; Richardson may be good, but I'll wait and see---he needs to control his yap a little better.
Kucinich has no chance, in my opinion. If events show me wrong and he starts gaining in the polls, I'll take another look. Ron Paul is a horrendous candidate. Just look at the enthusiastic support he gets from Robert Morrow, who knows what RP actually represents.
The other Republicans are all horrible, of course, with Huckabee the least horrible of them.
Hagel is so socially conservative I can't possibly support him if he runs. Furthermore, I can't imagine that he would endorse any domestic programs in the areas of health care and entitlements that I would support. His weak tea disagreement with Bush impresses me not at all, especially when you consider that he is the Senate Republican who has voted with the administration the most.

ROFLMAO!!!

Like MarkL can't see what Morrow's support of Ron Paul is all about. It is, of course, just another swiftboating of Paul. Isn't it odd that Morrow has provided MP and MarkL with such fuel to discredit Paul?

Not.

I spent the better part of ten years advocating among Cubans that we were responsible for our conflicts and that Americans were good people who had nothing much to do with our troubles. President Bush made it illegal for me to travel to Cuba and made my views irrelevant. He further took a dump on liberty in Miami-Dade County. Debates about engagement among Cubans in Miami took place in the 90's and peaceful engagement won. I'm all for Obama. To learn more about me,please visit www.rlgranda.com

POA,
You agree with a great deal of Ron Paul's politics, as you explained (to my great surprise) several weeks ago.
I have looked into him, and aside from some sensible statements about Iraq he has made, I find him an odious candidate. David Duke would hardly be worse.
I'm the one who provided MP with the links on Ron Paul a few weeks ago, by the way. I got nothing from Morrow: I simply respect that he knows what kind of candidate RP is.

Assessment in brief:
1. It's a plus for Obama. A big name endorses his transformational FP perspective.

2. It's a plus for Hillary. The same big name stamps her as the standard-bearer for the conventional FP model that made us the most-admired power in world history 8 years ago.

Also, "the Mafia' is frequently used here as an insult to define the lowest of the low type person. I've got news for you. What people call "the Mafia" doesn't kill near as many people, as your garden variety compassionate conservative, don't send others' kids to do their whacking, don't wrap themselves in the flag to justify their crimes. Frankly, it would be an improvement if "the Mafia" did run this country. They don't operate in the red and we'd be spared mountains of phony bullshit hypocrisy. Lilly white Wasps are far more deadly and phoney to boot. And you can bet they wouldn't be serving the President of France a goddamned hot dog.

Posted by Kathleen at August 25, 2007 02:43 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you of Italian heritage? Is that why you take offense at references to the Mafia? If so you need to get over it. People use Mafia to refer to tactics or types of organizations whether they are Italian, Jewish or Chinese. People use Hitler to refer to tactics and mentalities whether they are German, WASP or Spanish. Whites and blacks use the black slang term "da man" to refer to white bosses. People use the "establishment" to refer to ruling WASP.
They are all just part of the descriptive slang.

You can bash "lily white" WASP all you want to ...quite a slur, that "lily white" by the way.

And is the hot dog thing a cultural slur against WASP cusine? Or am I leaping to ethnic offense?

Unlike you I don't take it personally and unlike you I don't take slang descriptive comparsions as ethnic slurs when they are clearly not being used for that purpose.

On the other hand I would say that your "lily white WASP" was definitely meant as an ethnic slur when my reference to the Mafia clearly wasn't used for the purpose of an ethnic slur against Italians.

Whatever, I am not going to indulge your repeated silly temper tantrums over this political Mafia comparsion as an ethnic slur thing. Particulary because I neither used or implied the Mafia comparsion as an ethnic slur against Italians. Whereas you quite plainly revealed yourself in your deliberate sluring of what you refer to as "lily white" WASP.

Your problem is not mine.

I think that someday Obama would make a splendid President. But he is not yet ready. I think that, in order to win, the nominee has to be a great debater. Otherwise, you are probably going to have Rudy as your next President. And God knows, that would be a disaster. Hillary would be able to eviscerate Rudy in a debate. Obama-not yet. He is smart, savvy, well-intentioned-but he is not yet ready to go for the jugular. This nominee must have an encyclopedic understanding of foreign policy and also be able to talk about domestic issues. He isn't ready. She is.

Remember-the Republicans will try to Swift-boat this nominee. Whoever the nominee may be, he or she has to be ready to do battle against some very unscrupulous people. Obama isn't ready yet.

Posted by MarkL at August 25, 2007 02:47 PM
>>>>>>>

I was a Hillary fan at one time but I think she has gone over to the ambition dark side too much.
While I do agree she would be a workhorse, no doubt about her work ethic.
My other complaint about Hillary, aside from new found neoism, is all is not as it appears to be in her health care plans. Although she is for some kind of universal health care she doesn't mention that she is not for it being a non-profit form of universal health care.
I would guess this means that her version would be similar to the medicare drug program in which it is wide open to all kind of for profit organizations and parceled out to "for profits", HMO's and etc. Which actually, while it might "give coverage" would definitely reduce quality and whatever the government kicks in would add to the insurance coffers but not guarentee they wouldn't practice the same kind of "denying" health services that they practice now on their bottom line.

I am leary. A great compromiser is not needed on this issue.

Bush, initially, said "no nation building". Many believed him. Hagel, having already demonstrated his credibility in the ES&S affair, deserves no such faith.

Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 25, 2007 01:45 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What makes me think Hagel is being truthful in his views is that they are not popular with the foreign policy status quo in congress or DC lobbies and step on a lot of $$$$$$$ and other special interest involved in foreign policy and defense.

Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 25, 2007 01:45 PM
>>>>>>

Which btw I think Hagle, Clark and Dennis have all acknowledged in one way or another that their foreign policy stands are one of the reason, if not the main one, for why they can't raise the huge campaign funds that the other DC robots do.

Creep.....creep...creep...I think everyone can figure this out.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/19172.html

Iranians attack Kurdish rebels in Iraq

By Chris Collins and Yaseen Taha | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007
BAGHDAD — Iranian soldiers crossed into Iraq on Thursday and attacked several small villages in the northeastern Kurdish region, local officials said.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said he couldn't confirm the attacks, but five Kurdish officials said that troops had infiltrated Iraqi territory and fired on villages.

The Iranian military regularly exchanges artillery and rocket fire with Kurdish rebels who've taken refuge across the border, but Iraqi Kurdish officials worried that Iran's willingness to cross the border raises the possibility of a broader confrontation that would draw the Iraqi government and U.S. forces into an unwanted showdown.

****a source from Iraq's Kurdistan Government said clashes broke out between the PKK fighters and the Iranian forces on the borderline between Iraq and Iran without giving further details about the clashes.
The spokesman for the Peshmerga Ministry in Iraq's Kurdistan government told VOI be telephone "clashes were going on between elements from the PKK and the Iranian forces but we do not have information as to the casualties on both sides."
The Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) is active in the areas near the borders with Turkey and Iran. The party has an Iranian Kurdish wing dubbed "The Free Life".

(The PKK is on the US terrorist list.) But now they are our terrorist I guess. And Kurdistan is our terrorist harboring country.

Eric Lynn, Obama's liaison to the Jewish community, told JTA that his boss and Ross have had a relationship for several years.

"He says, 'Tony Lake and Susan Rice are my top foreign policy advisers,' but when it comes to the Middle East, Dennis Ross **informally** advises the senator."

The campaign would not name those who attended, noting that the meeting was private and off the record. Jewish communal and Obama campaign sources said the meeting was a success.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103812.html

Sounds like he doesn't have much choice

I'm impressed by the depth of discussion here. I have also been most impressed by Obama's policy statements so far.

Since a couple of people mentioned Pierre Tristam, I may as well plug my own two blog posts on Obama, which he was kind enough to link to on his blog.

http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/07/21/cant-support-obama/

http://www.eatbees.com/blog/2007/08/04/anti-obama/

What it comes down to for me, I'm afraid, is warmed-over American exceptionalism in the Kennedy mold. I want to see a president who understands that American influence is waning, and that this is not a bad thing for the world if it is managed in the right way.

Wes Clark makes exactly the right sounds for me, saying that we need to use our remaining influence to prepare the world for a multipolar future based on negotiated solutions to problems bigger than all of us, whether international justice or global warming. And he has the maturity and experience for me to believe that he understands what he says.

Unfortunately he isn't running, so we are left with flawed options. Any Democrat in 2008 will be better than Romney or Giuliani, but in the runup to the nomination, they deserve our collective critique.

Carroll... yes I am of Italian decent, one of those hyphenated Americans as you put it. I don't considereobjecting to the use of the word "mafia' as a synonym for criminals of all stripes, a 'temper tantrum".

Further, when I want your opinion on what to think, I'll ask for it, but in the meantime, don't tell me what to think, say, feel or get over. I consider putting an Italian face and name on all criminals, as using the word mafia does, defamatory. Just becasuse it is commonly done, doesn't make it acceptable, anymore than using the word "nigger". Incidentally, I only use the word Wasp in response to you, so you know what it feels like, being a non-hyohenated American I presume by your "tantrum'.

You might be interested to know that The Mafia and the Cosa Nostra are not the same thing, even though people ignorantly use the terms interchangeably. The word is an anagram for Sicilains' rallying cry on the Night of the Sicilian Vespers. It was "'Morta alla Francia, Italia anella". Death to the Fench, Italy's desire. Much like "One if by land, two if by sea" was a prearranged signal to colonists to get ready to fight the Brittish.

The Cosa Nostra is indeed a constellation of Italian crime families engaged in committing crimes, much like the Carlyle group.

Te Mafia was an anti-gov't anti-church ad hoc political group. It was formed in 1293, when the Pope gave the Island of Sicily to Charles of Anjou, brother of Louis 14th of France. On March 30, 1293, the Night of the Sicilian Vespers, Sicilians rose up, and by prearranged signal, told the King of France exactly what to do with his Papal paperwork, by killing every French invader on their island. Like the DAR, only those who can trace their ancestry back to the Night of the Sicilian Vespers are considered genuine Mafiosi.

The Mafia exists, in spirit,as an anti gov't movement. Being anti gov't is considered a crime in some circles, but not in mine. Because Mafia are anarchists, it's very conveninet for the powers that be to use the word as a synonym for criminals.

On ethnic slurs, you seem to think it's quite okay for you to ssy "mafia pigs" but somehow Lilly-White Wasp is a slur because.. what... you're so superior, being a non-hyphenated American, making you some kind of arbiter of what's acceptable? Perhaps you should get over yourself.

And, my hot dog crack was a criticism of Bush "hospitality". If you take that personally, that's your problem. You have no more right to insult anyone's history than any one else. To me your "mafia pigs' is the equivalent of me saying "DAR pigs" to you.

Its a bummer seeing Carroll and Kathleen sparring over horseshit. I don't believe either one of them are bigots, and they seem to share far more opinions and ideologies than they do divergent opinions.

I wish they would focus that animous towards the one or two snakes in the grass that slither here on a regular basis.

Caroll,
I should add that HRC's foreign policy is definitely a possible reason I might not support her in the future.
I do think Edwards is interesting, despite my very negative remarks above. I need to look more closely at Edwards proposals, and take a look at HRC's health care plan.
While what she proposes now may be disappointing, I do think that experience has taught her the downside of putting forth a complete proposal without seeing what political support she has.
We'll see.

Posted by MarkL at August 26, 2007 02:39 PM
>>>>>>>>>

My political dream use to be a president making his inagural address by saying..."I hereby renounce all promises made or otherwise implied in exchange for campaign contributions, I hereby renounnce all special interest led to believe they would have influence with me, I hereby renounnce all and any partisanship in carrying out the duties of my office.....and so forth.

I use to think Hillary was capable of pulling off a campaign to get in the WH and then doing that...but as I said I think she has drunk the cool-aide on personal ambition a bit too much.

But who knows?

Carroll,
I don't honestly believe that Hillary has thrown away her personal values on the issue of health care because of all the donations thrown her way.
She may have lost her way on the issue, but she's no Republican, who just wants to reward her rich friends.
I have a lot of confidence in her domestic agenda.. on the foreign policy side, I'm not too fond of any of them.

Posted by Kathleen at August 26, 2007 12:40 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>

You have lost your case and yet you dig yourself in deeper.

" you're so superior, being a non-hyphenated American, making you some kind of arbiter of what's acceptable?

I am superior? You meant that as a compliment?Quelle news to me. I don't consider myself superior to any one else or group nor do I have any of the feelings of inferiority you indicate you feel in that statement so actually maybe I am a more objective arbiter. When I talk about hyphens I am talking about the division of people into enclaves based on ethnics instead of a society that is diverse but united around common goals for the common good. But evidently for you hyphen is all about "you" and your particular ethnic identity not the larger picture.

"You have no more right to insult anyone's history than any one else. To me your "mafia pigs' is the equivalent of me saying "DAR pigs" to you."

The (American )Mafia is the "history" of the Italians? That's news to me, I thought they were just another criminal group and Italian heritage was more Michael Angelo. But whatever you say, if you want to claim the organized crime version of the American Mafia, not the original political version you are now trying to claim as an out for you embrassing yourself, as Italian "heritage" far be from me to deny you your cause celebre in your personal ethinc battles. When Hollywood makes movies and best selling novels are written about the DAR and it becomes part of the popular slang lexicon feel free to use to use DAR pigs all you like, it won't bother me. Some of them are quite piggy, maybe I will write a book on it myself.

"Further, when I want your opinion on what to think, I'll ask for it, but in the meantime, don't tell me what to think, say, feel or get over."

I already did, right after you told me what to say and think. So too late.

And what you should do is admit that you went off the edge on the mafia word use due to your "own feelings" and not because it was used as an ethnic slur. If you can't do that fine, it's up to you. But you are making it too easy for me to hurt you on this so I am not going to continue it.

Posted by MarkL at August 26, 2007 03:34 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hillary is complex. I understand her character I think and probably share some of the same attractive and/or not so attractive traits. The idea that once she is in control everything in government will be done fairly among all according to the highest ideals. The difference is the ambition, will it color and compromise her programs, her ideals for the sake of a second term? Or not?

She is tenacious in the extreme, capable of prolonged controlled deception to get what she wants, a position where she can excerise her great good.

She is smart, stragetic,... but the question is is she smart enough...? When it comes to compromises on policy does she outfox the special interest money behind her or outfox the public by the way she justifies the policy portions and serves them up?

Maybe..maybe not. I don't know.

I have a lot of confidence in her domestic agenda.. on the foreign policy side, I'm not too fond of any of them.

Posted by MarkL

ROFLMAO!!!

What unmitigated horseshit. Hillary is neocon lite, beholding to the same players Bushco is. Both her domestic and foreign policy promises are nothing more than chaffe, thrown to lure the naive. She has failed this nation with the absence of any substantive "opposition" to Bush policy. She has waffled and postured with each further transgression of this administration, providing little to no input or debate. She has sidestepped and avoided controversy, all so she could fabricate a platform based on how events unfold. And even today we see her sticking her finger to the political wind, defrauding America in her pursuit of the Oval Office. This woman is no better for America then Bush is.

With your brilliant analysis, POA, you show yourself fully the equal of Ralph Nader in political insight.
What an odd bird: you support the quasi-racist, 19th century radical isolationism of RP, and you swoon at the mention of Kucinich's name. I guess it's all a piece---if you can't distinguish between HRC and Bush, how could you be expected to do so with RP and Kucinich.

With your brilliant analysis, POA, you show yourself fully the equal of Ralph Nader in political insight.
What an odd bird: you support the quasi-racist, 19th century radical isolationism of RP, and you swoon at the mention of Kucinich's name. I guess it's all a piece---if you can't distinguish between HRC and Bush, how could you be expected to do so with RP and Kucinich.

Posted by MarkL at August 26, 2007 06:40 PM
>>>>>>>>

I am not presuming to speak for POA, he speaks well enough for himself.

But....here is what I think you may be overlooking in any analysis of the public regarding the candidates....people are dying to hear something besides bullshit...anything that even sparks of truth is going to get support from a lot of people even if they don't like the candidates other veiws....

Paul, Dennis, Gravel...all are telling uncomfortable truths..the media hates them but the public that has heard them loves them for it.

So what does that mean? It means a lot of poeple even when they hate Paul's other issues are so fed up with the f***** crap and the lie factory that passes for government in this country they hardly care about the other issues.

So it isn't as odd as it seems.

She may have lost her way on the issue, but she's no Republican, who just wants to reward her rich friends.

==============

Not reward, payback maybe. She's an 'owned' women, gaining her power the republican-way. If she deviates from her owners plan they will grab their pound of dog-meat - that's how it works.

So, when Clemons says:

===========

"...The Hillary we see today -- running hard right (if that is what one can call Bush's foreign policy) on a number of national security issues -- may not be the same Hillary we see in the Oval office. She may be ready to launch a new effort that helps reorder America's place in the world. Privately, I think she wants to do that. I have had at least one serious conversation with her -- and some occasional side comment moments with her -- that indicate to me that she really wants to push a 21st century foreign policy, not one sculpted in the last century..."
=============
Makes me wonder if his drinks were spiked. He of all people should know the days she could have made her own choices are long gone.

With your brilliant analysis, POA, you show yourself fully the equal of Ralph Nader in political insight.
What an odd bird: you support the quasi-racist, 19th century radical isolationism of RP, and you swoon at the mention of Kucinich's name. I guess it's all a piece---if you can't distinguish between HRC and Bush, how could you be expected to do so with RP and Kucinich.

Posted by MarkL

Go screw yourself, Mark.

I have said NOTHING about isolationist policies, and have given you very little that you can base such broad generalizations and observations on.

In fact, I have done little more than advocate including Kucinich and Ron Paul in the process, and on numerous occassions have commented on the reasons I will not support Kucinich in a presidential race.

But, just like MP, you cast a bunch of horseshit and straw to make your argument, distorting people's positions to make your own seem more tenable.

I despise pricks like you. You are disingenuous and despicably dishonest in the manner you employ to debate. Your fucking BS argument about me being "pro-life", because I happen to agree with Ron Paul's position of minimizing the Federal Governments role in deciding what should be state's issues, is a perfect example of the slimeball techniques you are willing to stoop to to advance your own distortedly high opinion of yourself.

Did I forget to say go screw yourself?

No, I see I already covered that ground.

Good, perhaps stated twice, it might get through to you.

POA,
You said that your support for RP goes far beyond his foreign policy statements. So far, in fact, that you are willing to gloss over his extreme anti-abortion positions. Disingenuous? Give me a break. The whole anti-abortion schtick is about hiding intentions. There's no doubt that RP's intention is to ban all abortions. If you would be upfront and agree that RP is out to ban abortion, then we would get along better. It is YOUR dishonesty which is the problem.

I took it from our previous conversation that you, like RP, are a Libertarian.
RP is a far right leaning Libertarian who accepts support from racist hate groups. He has, in fact, appeared before such groups. He is despicable.
If the American people want to hear him, I am very disappointed.

You're a very poor debater, POA, although sometimes you make good points or bring up interesting information, but the whole cloth accusations of horseshittery that you employ with EVERYONE you debate grew tired back in the last millenium.
I despise RP for good reason, according to my values. You like him for your own reasons. I have no problem leaving it at that. If you like him, you can give your reasons without personally attacking other commenters.

Carroll,
I very much agree that some candidates are getting an ear from the public because their plain words on various issues are a welcome change from the usual political doubletalk. In RP's case, I think that is very unfortunate. Gravel is mostly a joke. Kucinich is probably the best of that group, although I can't imagine that he is qualified to be President.
I'm actually liking the Democratic campaign quite a bit these days. There is a very spirited back and forth between the top candidates, yet not so vitriolic that it will hurt the party.
I'm hoping that HRC is pushed to make more promises of Progressive policies. For the other candidates, I have plenty of time to decide if they are Presidential material.

POA writes: "In fact, I have done little more than advocate including Kucinich and Ron Paul in the process, and on numerous occassions have commented on the reasons I will not support Kucinich in a presidential race.

ME: Except that, of course, RP and Kucinich are ALREADY "in the process"--included in most if not all of the debates, have Websites, supporters, money coming in, press--all without any help from you.

So, it's reasonable to conclude from your comments that you SUPPORT RP--or have argued FOR his candidacy. And it's reasonable for others to ask you questions about, and take you to task for, your support. On issues like abortion, like his association with racist groups, like his desire to pull out of the UN, like his general libertarian approach which would deprive the government of the financial means of doing things for the people of this country.

Jean writes: "But Dennis can't get his message past the media gatekeepers--including people like Steve Clemons--who relentlessly push the CW that this is a race between Hillary and Obama, with Edwards thrown in occasionally for decorative effect. According to a recent Pew poll, only 35% of registered voters who plan to vote for a Democrat in 2008 have ever heard of Dennis Kucinich. Wonder why."

Good question. The 65% who've never heard of Kucinich: 1) don't own a television set or a radio; 2) don't have an internet connecction; 3) are unable to obtain a national paper; 4) don't have a telephone; 5) have never contributed to a political campaign before and thus aren't on any Dem mailing list or don't have a mail box; 6) have friends and family who also lack 1-5; or 7) have friends and family who have 1-5 but just won't talk with them about politics.

I wonder how Kucinich is polling in Ohio. Surely they've heard of him there...laugh about it...shout about it.

Posted by PissedOffAmerican at August 25, 2007 10:48 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No. Zelda just reported, as have others, some inconvenient facts about Ron Paul. One is left with the impression that you wish to hide these facts or otherwise not deal with them.

Posted by Lurker at August 25, 2007 01:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tried, but couldn't get it to work.

David N writes: "Shooting some people is necessary, and should always be part of the options. But if all we do is shoot people -- and that's not just all we're doing, it's all anyone is talking about doing -- then we will remain vulnerable for the rest of time."

I think this is pretty close to Obama's position.

POA writes: "Isn't it odd that Morrow has provided MP and MarkL with such fuel to discredit Paul?"

Sorry. All you have to do is Google Ron Paul and a lot of this stuff comes up. Morrow hasn't given me any ammunition re: Paul.

Posted by Kathleen at August 26, 2007 12:40 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow. Your erudition is, as always, impressive. Never knew that was the derivation of the word "mafia." Ah, are you a mafiosa yourself?

Posted by Carroll at August 26, 2007 07:17 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Insightful. Only problem is, POA takes such a strict line with everyone else, it's odd that he compromises--if he is compromising--on all of the problems with RP.

And then when anyone points out the EVIDENCE AGAINST PAUL and the contradictions in POA's own statements, they get called swiftboaters, liars, trolls, etc.

My prediction for '09

Romney/Hagel
Obama/Clarke

Bloomberg could shake things up, though.

"Except that, of course, RP and Kucinich are ALREADY "in the process"--"....MP

Bullshit. The media is minimizing the amount of exposure both of them are getting, and are inaccurately reporting the results of straw polls.

"And then when anyone points out the EVIDENCE AGAINST PAUL and the contradictions in POA's own statements, they get called swiftboaters, liars, trolls, etc."

First, anyone that has followed this blog for any amount of time KNOWS you are a fraud, a troll. And, this horseshit you and Mark pulled about me being "pro-life" because of my comments about Paul's stance on abortion was just straw, and an extremely slimey bit of debate technique.

"So, it's reasonable to conclude from your comments that you SUPPORT RP--or have argued FOR his candidacy."....MP

Reasonable in your world of underhanded intellectual game-playing and mental masturbation, maybe. And yes, I HAVE argued for his candidacy, and his right to be heard and seen on the same level of exposure these mainstream frauds like Hillary are recieving. You have a problem with that? What a suprise that you, "Markie", and this "MarkL" personna have such a problem with the only two candidates that aren't kissing AIPAC ass.

"I took it from our previous conversation that you, like RP, are a Libertarian."....MarkL

Yeah, care to point out the comment, or comments, that I made that gave you that impression? I doubt it, because you have NOTHING to base that assumption on.

"You said that your support for RP goes far beyond his foreign policy statements."...MarkL

Really? Care to show me where I made that comment? I won't hold my breath.

POA writes: "First, anyone that has followed this blog for any amount of time KNOWS you are a fraud, a troll. And, this horseshit you and Mark pulled about me being "pro-life" because of my comments about Paul's stance on abortion was just straw, and an extremely slimey bit of debate technique."

Ha, ha, ha. The fact is, MarkL and I have given you chapter and verse on Paul and you fail to acknowledge it or come to terms with it. I don't think you're "pro-life," and said so many threads ago. But you won't cop to much of what Paul is about--all of which can be easily found on the Web and was posted here several times. Nothing slimey about it. And here now, finally, you say that you do support Paul. Okay, that's your right, but you are unable to confront and are unwilling to defend his well-documented positions and actions.

Just take a look at that picture of RP with the head of CCC...and tell me why you think Paul is such a good candidate.

Oh, and of course, DK and RP are in the process. They are in the debates. They have Web sites. Ron Paul was on Diane Rehm and Dennis Kucinich has been her guest many times. Anyone who doesn't know who these people are and what they stand for...doesn't want to know.

POA, I was sure that you copped to being a Libertarian a couple of months back, but I think what happened is that somebody commented you were out of the closet as a Libertarian, which seemed a reasonable inference.
I read a couple of old threads, and it appears you like RP for his "patriotism" and because of his support for states' rights. I would call his patriotism simple old-fashioned, right wing isolationism, but that's just me.
I should read some back issues of the CCC's journal to get a better view of RP's politics.

"POA, I was sure that you copped to being a Libertarian a couple of months back, but I think what happened is that somebody commented you were out of the closet as a Libertarian, which seemed a reasonable inference."

Bullshit. You make this crap up as you go. Like I said, show us the comments you base this crap on.

You can't, because its pure fabrication on your part.

In short, you're full of shit.

POA, why on earth would it be unnatural to infer that you are a Libertarian, given your full-throated support for RP? It's not an outrageous claim---or even an insulting one. My quibbles with Libertarians are not about political philosophy, per se, but simply reflect my experience that Libertarians tend to underweight practical consequences of their political ideas.
As a stand alone philosophy, Libertarianism is not bad. As far as RP's anti-abortion stance, I suspect that is not a very typical Libertarian position---at least I don't see the necessary link. RP's anti-abortion extremism, his association with racists and white supremacists (as documented by David Neiwert on orcinus.blogspot.com), his desire to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve are several reasons I could not possibly support RP as a candidate. I don't care about his foreign policy, given the mass of other objections I have to his politics.
Robert Morrow, for once, is right: RP is a Bircher. That's not for me. I understand that you find his abortion stance tolerable because he frames this as a states' rights matter, but surely you recognize the legitimacy of a political value system which rules RP out because he wants to define human life as beginning at conception? Unless you actually support THAT position (HR 1094, IIRC, a bill sponsored by RP) then you should respect those of us who will have nothing to do with RP, no matter what he says about Iraq.

Do you mind telling me how you would describe your political philosophy so I can avoid making a mistake in the future? I consider myself to hold Populist/Progressive ideals, tempered by a
very pragmatic outlook (I hope).

MarkL writes: "As a stand alone philosophy, Libertarianism is not bad. As far as RP's anti-abortion stance, I suspect that is not a very typical Libertarian position---at least I don't see the necessary link."

Interesting point. There is no "necessary link." In fact, one would EXPECT Libertarians to support all sorts of "choices" and especially the freedom to choose. But as a practical matter, they often don't. That in itself is suspicious, if not damning. Their position, to the degree that they can be grouped as a "they," on government and taxes would mean the evisceration of government, which would leave the fate of the poor and those in need...strictly to charity. It would effectively, though not necessarily, preclude any large-scale collective action on the part of society to order society.

Private property and free markets and gold are their watchwords. They don't really care about much else. It's the pig of Social Darwinism disguised with the lipstick of "individual freedom." In short, a dishonest grab for advantage. Just like "states rights" which, on a popular level, isn't anything so high falutin' as a Constitutional principle, but a means of enshrining oppression and, in the past, slavery and Jim Crow. No one gets excited about states rights (who would?) 'cept folks who want to do as they please to whomever they please.

MP,
I agree with you mostly; however, there are some very smart Libertarian bloggers. I have in mind Arthur Silber, who I consider in a class by himself. You may not agree with him, but he is a very thorough thinker.

By the way, POA,
If you don't want people to think that you support RP for anything besides his foreign policy, you should stop being an apologist for his other views.
You went to great lengths to defend RP's anti-abortion position from the charge that he intends for all abortions to be outlawed.
Do you care about ANY of RP's politics besides his foreign policy? When it comes to making the obvious conclusions---that his far right wing, John Bircher, White supremacist buddies support him because they approve of his radical agenda, you bend over backwards to argue "Well, he's not saying explicitly, today, that he wants to abolish the IRS, or that he wants to reinstitute the gold standard".
Give us a break. We were endowed with brains in order to use them. Doesn't it tell you something when the BEST you can say about RP's politics is that I haven't conclusively shown they are as bad as I claim? Is THAT the basis for your constant whingeing to Steve about the lack of coverage this fringe lunatic gets?
Give us a break. If there is something you like about RP's domestic politics, please let us know. Otherwise, stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that he is something other than what his politics, hi