I always liked reading articles taht gave some insight to Powell:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/opinion/21danner.html?pagewanted=all&position=
A Doctrine Left Behind
It seemed somehow fitting, and fittingly sad, that Colin Powell saw his resignation accepted as secretary of state on the day marines completed their conquest of Falluja, ensuring that the televised snapshots of glory drawn from his long public career would be interspersed with videotape of American troops presiding over scenes of urban devastation in a far-off and intractable war.
Just to get this out of the way before I go to bed: 1,443.
One of these days, I won't need to post this early. 1,442.
Posted by MaTT4281:
Just to get this out of the way before I go to bed: 1,443.
Here's today's shout out.
Posted by MaTT4281:
One of these days, I won't need to post this early. 1,442.
Here's tomorrow's.
Posted by Kwazimodal:
Bogus my ass,there were two bills in congress last year that tried to do just that.There are politicians on both side of the aisle that want to do it so Clinton and Bush can run again.Doesnt mean it will happen but its more than just a rumour.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000176.html
man that's some interesting stuff. Thanks for that link. Bush v. Clinton - what is that some kind of grudge match? Is Clemens coming back to the Yanks too? I tell you, Clinton would get bitten in the butt with all his baggage, not the least of which is the way he left office with that flurry of sick pardons (Mark Rich et al.)
Kwaz, I sent that link over to a buddy of mine who stays much better informed than I do. HIs comments are kind of interesting:
It is beyond a rumor. There are people talking about it. But, it is
very hard to amend the Constitution. Just remember how hard it was to
pass the ERA in the seventies. Most amendments are pretty simple and
popular across ideological lines. The last was the president
succession amendment allowing for the VP to take over due to the a
disabled president. Same with the two term amendment. Flag burning or
gay marriage would never pass because it is not seen as necessary or
popular.
The talk of the repeal of the two term amendment and the talk about
changing the Constitution allowing for a foreign born president (to
allow Arnold to run for president) is just that. Neither could occur
fast enough for the intended result.
It would be interesting if the two terms are repealed because that
would allow Clinton to run again. Clinton versus Bush may favor
Clinton, the exact opposite of what they want.
So, yes, the guy is right on the surface. Practically, he is worried
about nothing. It would not occur. It assumes a popularity for Bush
that is unrealistic. It also assumes that the American people believe
that Bush should become a lifetime dictator, which is less likely.
Even Republicans would vote against.
The Republicans like to push too far. Impeachment is a perfect
example. It was popular within a small group and that group had tunnel
vision.
Posted by martin:
I always liked reading articles taht gave some insight to Powell:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/opinion/21danner.html?pagewanted=all&position=
A Doctrine Left Behind
It seemed somehow fitting, and fittingly sad, that Colin Powell saw his resignation accepted as secretary of state on the day marines completed their conquest of Falluja, ensuring that the televised snapshots of glory drawn from his long public career would be interspersed with videotape of American troops presiding over scenes of urban devastation in a far-off and intractable war.
Yeah that's a good op-ed. Sometimes things seem too tragically clear.
George Bush needs your help!
http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf
Posted by Marv:
Kwaz, I sent that link over to a buddy of mine who stays much better informed than I do. HIs comments are kind of interesting:
It is beyond a rumor. There are people talking about it. But, it is
very hard to amend the Constitution. Just remember how hard it was to
pass the ERA in the seventies. Most amendments are pretty simple and
popular across ideological lines. The last was the president
succession amendment allowing for the VP to take over due to the a
disabled president. Same with the two term amendment. Flag burning or
gay marriage would never pass because it is not seen as necessary or
popular.
The talk of the repeal of the two term amendment and the talk about
changing the Constitution allowing for a foreign born president (to
allow Arnold to run for president) is just that. Neither could occur
fast enough for the intended result.
It would be interesting if the two terms are repealed because that
would allow Clinton to run again. Clinton versus Bush may favor
Clinton, the exact opposite of what they want.
So, yes, the guy is right on the surface. Practically, he is worried
about nothing. It would not occur. It assumes a popularity for Bush
that is unrealistic. It also assumes that the American people believe
that Bush should become a lifetime dictator, which is less likely.
Even Republicans would vote against.
The Republicans like to push too far. Impeachment is a perfect
example. It was popular within a small group and that group had tunnel
vision.
Bringing in a ringer huh ?
Your friend fails to mention that democrats are pushing for this as well so it has some bi-partisan support although not much at this time.That could change in a couple of years if Democrats and Republicans get desperate because they havent fielded a strong candidate.Hillary in 08 isnt the answer and democrats know it.This will be the first election since the early 50s where there isnt an incumbent running so you never know what could happen and what each party will want to do to get an edge.
Think Again: 'Deny, Defame and DeLay; New Rules for a New Majority'
by Eric Alterman and Paul McLeary
November 24, 2004
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=257362
As the far-Right solidifies its stranglehold on all branches of the federal government, more than ever Americans need an aggressive media to demand accountability in a system certain to produce abuses without. And yet, so much of the media appear to be professionally neutered by the results of a three-decade propaganda war to delegitmize their work as somehow part and parcel of a liberal conspiracy. The inability to paint an accurate portrait of Ronnie Earle and Tom DeLay is just the latest in a long line of stories in which the Right has benefited from the media's misplaced generosity to those who exercise power on behalf of this right-wing juggernaut.
Fearing that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay would likely be indicted by a grand jury as part of an ongoing investigation by Texas' Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently employed their legislative muscle to vote to overturn an ethics rule—one they, themselves helped to put in place under Democratic leadership in 1993—requiring any leader or committee chairman who had been indicted on a felony charge to relinquish their post. The move was commonplace only in its hypocrisy, and serves as a harbinger of 'values' and 'personal responsibility' we are likely to see in the future.
Much of the punditocracy—where these same conservatives hold sway—fell into lockstep with the Republicans, charging that DeLay was the victim of a politically-inspired witch hunt. They charge Earle--without the benefit of any evidence of wrongdoing on his part, of course--with the crime of being is a Democrat. FOX News employees quickly closed ranks with the conservative spin, as correspondent Brian Wilson termed Earle an "intensely partisan Democratic district attorney." Conservative US News and World Report, pundit Michael Barone appeared on the network to insist that Earle was a "partisan Democrat who has done some really rotten, political prosecuting." What these talking heads omit out is the fact that that fully twelve of the fifteen politicians Earle has prosecuted over the years were, in fact, Democrats.
As the researchers at MediaMatters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410080006) have helpfully noted, much of the media have followed Fox's lead in this case, (as with so many others) In October, CNN's Lou Dobbs and CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry cherry picked their way through a conversation about the indictments, during which Dobbs said to Henry: ""I think it's incumbent upon us as well, Ed, to point out that the prosecutor in Houston [Earle] is a Democrat." Henry concurred,
adding: "[H]e [Earle] went after Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) several years ago, and that case fell apart."" In addition to this, correspondents for NBC, CBS and ABC all repeated the partisan witch hunt line verbatim, helping to plant the seeds of doubt in the public mind about the merit of Earle's investigation, yet again quietly debunking the myth of the media's liberal bias.
On the New York Times op-ed page, conservative pundit David Brooks sought to sugar coat the House with the unsourced observation that the Republicans who voted for the special treatment for DeLay "hated the whole exercise," as they "sat in a conference room hour after hour wringing their hands." But did they? Alas, such evidence is awfully hard to find. Republican leadership arranged a voice vote in which members are invited to "yea" or "nay" in unison. Such votes leave no written record, and thus no individual accountability. Blogger Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo launched a campaign to challenge readers to call their Representatives to find out how they voted on the rule change and a few local papers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Arizona Republic, went to the trouble to query congressmen as well. But these were few and far between, with most of the media having concluded that this part of the story is of little interest to anyone.
Given the weakness of the "partisanship" charge, the attempt to paint Earle as some sort of local zealot is no more accurate. His office has been ranked by the National District Attorneys Association as operating one of ten best in the country. Also largely unreported in most accounts of DeLay's troubles is the relevant fact, a mere coincidence, that three of his top political aides have already been indicted on related charges of illegally raising political funds from corporations in 2002. Much of those funds were funneled into the Republican takeover of the Texas legislature. These indictments were handed down following a 21-month investigation by three separate grand juries into the activities of DeLay's political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority. And as Earle himself has been forced to point out to clarify what out to be Legal Reporting 101, "law requires a grand jury of citizens, not the prosecutor, to determine whether probable cause exists to hold an accused person to answer for the accusation against him or her."
When faced with unchecked power in government, all citizens have to protect themselves is the rule of law. When lawmakers treat its function as a matter for personal protection rather than equal application, our liberties are truly in danger. Someone might think of alerting the media; after all, according to the First Amendment, that falls in their job description.
Eric Alterman is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the author of six books, including the just-published When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences. Paul McLeary is a New York writer.
Posted by MaTT4281:
1,441.
They should have told Artest he can come back once Bush is gone.
Rumsfeld is too lazy to sign KIA letters.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=93&rnd=684.3695611285483
11-22-2004
Hack's Target
‘With Deepest Sympathy’
By David H. Hackworth
Donald Rumsfeld – who’s known as a people-eating systems man – has a long history that shows he prefers technology to humans. Certainly as SecDef he’s always gone for high-tech military gear rather than giving the boots on the ground max priority when it comes to the basics: armored vehicles and vests, sufficient ammo and all the other vital stuff that helps soldiers make it through the Valley of Death.
His beloved shock-and-awe whiz-bang wonder weapons worked well enough initially in Afghanistan and Iraq, but as we saw on the tube last week, we’re once again back to the age-old struggle of man against man – with grunts, not machines, taking and holding ground.
And now, apparently, Rumsfeld’s obsession with machines and their efficiency has translated into his using one to replace his own John Hancock on KIA (killed in action) letters to parents and spouses. Two Pentagon-based colonels, who’ve both insisted on anonymity to protect their careers, have indignantly reported that the SecDef has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself.
When I went to Jim Turner, a good man saddled with a tough job as one of Rumsfeld’s flacks at the Pentagon, for a confirmation or a denial, he said, “Rumsfeld signs the letters himself.”
I then went to about a dozen next-of-kin of American soldiers KIA in Iraq. Most agreed with the colonels’ accusations and said they’d noticed and been insulted by the machine-driven signature. One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the SecDef could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son’s letter. Several also felt compelled to tell me that the letter they received from George Bush also looked as though it was not signed personally by the president.
Dr. Ted Smith, whose son Eric was among the first 100 killed in Iraq, notes that the letter he received “from the commander in chief was signed with a thick, green marking pen. I thought it was stamped then and do even now. He had time for golf and the ranch but not enough to sign a decent signature with a pen for his beloved hero soldiers. I was going to send the letter back but did not. I am sorry I didn’t.”
Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: “My son wasn’t a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren’t interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature – it’s a slap in the face, don’t you think?”
Probably. I have devoted so much of my later life crusading to save soldiers from uncaring generals and politicians and bureaucrats, who tend so easily to view these kids – who are rarely their own flesh and blood – as abstract pawns in a virtual game of chess, because I was there. I stood and was counted, and I will never forget the pain when I signed KIA letters in Korea and Vietnam. I would choke up as I signed them – I could see the boys’ faces, their cocky smiles, their muddy soldier suits. Each signing reinforced the awesome responsibility I carried as a leader to be as protective as possible about the young lives entrusted to me.
After I talked with the nearest and dearest of the KIA, I called Turner back and told him there was evidence that Rumsfeld’s signature was in fact machine-produced. I asked him to double-check, and he promised to get me the straight skinny by my deadline. But late Friday I received a typical Pentagon duck-and-dodge e-mail: “Regret to say I have not been able to get a response as of COB (close of business) today .… ”
Throughout World War II, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall made sure that President Franklin Roosevelt was briefed in detail on the number of soldiers who had fallen. FDR, incidentally, probably wanted to know. He had sons who were serving.
I suspect that Sue Niederer and the other kin are on target about how not signing the KIA letters helps keep the commander in chief and the SecDef detached from the consequences of a nasty war and its messy human fall-out.
--Eilhys England contributed to this column.
Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.” © 2004 David H. Hackworth. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005200.php
November 21, 2004
MANDATE WATCH....Congressional Republicans have now been back in town for five days following their big election victory on the 2nd. So what are they using their newfound mandate for? Let's take a peek:
At the request of Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Oklahoma), passed a law giving Appropriations Committee chairmen the right to look at anyone's tax returns without regard to privacy rights. When caught by Democrats, they said it was all just a big mistake and promised they'd never actually use this authority.
Overwhelmingly revoked a rule stating that Republican congressional leaders have to step down if indicted of a felony. This was done to protect House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who appears to be on the verge of being indicted for a felony.
Approved funding to buy President Bush a yacht.
Killed long-awaited intelligence reform legislation that was widely supported by both Democrats and Republicans, the president, the 9/11 Commission, and 9/11 victims groups.
Pretty good work for five days! I wonder what they'll manage to get done when they actually have a full session on their hands next year?
Posted by MaTT4281:
1,440
See, all those math classes do pay off.
Posted by Marv:
Posted by MaTT4281:
1,440
See, all those math classes do pay off.
For all you know, I'm counting off fingers.
Posted by MaTT4281:
Posted by Marv:
Posted by MaTT4281:
1,440
See, all those math classes do pay off.
For all you know, I'm counting off fingers.
Whatever gets us to 0 is fine with me!
