Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Hey, Bush, sign your daughters up for Iraq, such a *noble* cause

Posted By: gt on 2005-08-30
In Reply to:

Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.


Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something, he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.







BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005

Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.


Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged noble cause (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):


Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.


Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond


Here is the complete chart:







Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another noble war, Vietnam.


Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is noble enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?


Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's noble war or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not noble enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.


Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bush tell your daughters they are needed in Iraq for a *noble* cause
Oh really, going off the deep end, LOL..by asking Bush and his daughters and other young people in his family to sign up for duty in Iraq since the Bush family thinks it is so important and the *Noble* thing to do?  And Im going off the deep end, LOL.  You are so silly sometimes in your posts.  I see nothing wrong in asking the chickenhawk warmongers to urge their children to join up..after all our country is fighting a *war on terrorism*..or..wait a minute..what is the new saying the WH is throwing out there..*a global war on extremists*..or....oh geez..I need to start writing down the reasons for our blood shed in Iraq..I cant remember all the reasons why we pre-emptively invaded Iraq..Cant keep up with the spin cycle of the WH..
Yet still you want Bush's daughters to go to war. sm
I'd say you are more of a boiled crab.  Just an observation.
Bush's daughters and sacrifice
Do you honestly think anyone is buying yours or Cindy's Sheehan's argument that Bush ought to sacrifice his daughters and send them to Iraq?  If you all will wake up and deal in reality you will realize that no one has sacrificed their child.  Casey signed up VOLUNTARILY as well as every other person in Iraq right now, and the only way that the Bush daughters would go is if they VOLUNTEERED themselves.  Do you honestly think many people are buying this not so well thought out drama?   If you do then you're severely deluded as Cindy and the rest of moveon.pac.
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
And hoping for Bush and his daughters and wife to burn in hell is just kidding right? sm

Just want to get this clear.


Iraq And Bush

I would like to call him "The Hitler of the 21st Century". Any comments?


Bush: It's bad in Iraq....sm (no you think?)
Is democratic house and senate control what Bush needed to wise up about Iraq. I'm glad to see he's considering other options in Iraq, than policing the country indefinitely.
-----------------------------------------
(AP) President Bush, admitting that it's bad in Iraq, acknowledged Thursday that the United States needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.

Bush said he was disappointed in the progress in Iraq, but continued to oppose direct U.S. talks with Iran or Syria and remained steadfastly committed to spreading democracy across the Middle East.

see link for full article
Still think Bush lied about Iraq?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003







Still think Bush lied?


bush tried to connect 9/11 and iraq
I disagree cause Cheney has many times stated that 9/11 and Iraq were linked up together..And...if we need to get rid of the nutcases, why werent we and why arent we focused on getting the head of the nutcases..bin laden?  Why did we lose focus three years ago and let him live and build up his army against America?  Listen very carefully and open your eyes..WE INVADED IRAQ FOR OIL, LOGISTICS..I.E., AN AMERICAN BASE IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR OIL AND PROTECTION OF ISRAEL..WE INVADED FOR CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST..Something we would never have agreed to, to send our children to die for this stupid idiotic asinine idea but, however, this lying murderous administration linked it up with 9/11 and most Americans (not me I state proudly) went along with it cause they were still hurting from 9/11 and wanted revenge..I have three republican friends who were so for the war and wanting to blow away anyone possibly connected..Now all three agree with me and also agree Bush is a monster and America is on the wrong track.
Fox News is pro-Bush, pro-war in Iraq. sm
There may be a few reports on that broadcast that play devil's advocate for the other side, but all in all they lean more to the right on most issues.
Bush: All or nothing with booze and with Iraq = Dysfunctional





  MSNBC.com

Murtha’s Moment
The White House is still attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. But Congress—and the public—are becoming more skeptical.


WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY


Newsweek

Updated: 3:12 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2005



Nov. 18, 1005 - Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha is a burly ex-Marine with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts who rarely speaks to the press. But he came out of the shadows Thursday to call for a complete pullout from Iraq within six months. “Our military has done everything that’s been asked of them. It is time to bring them home,” he said. Murtha’s hawkish record on military matters made his announcement all the more surprising. “It’s like George W. Bush saying he wants to raise taxes,” says Lawrence Korb, a defense analyst who served in the Reagan administration.


Democrats gave Murtha a standing ovation behind closed doors, but most kept their distance in public. “It’s a trap,” explained a Democratic strategist. “If the party comes out for a unilateral six-month withdrawal, that would become the issue for ’06, and they [Republicans] would kill us again.” 


Administration officials were less reticent. A White House statement said Murtha was “endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.” Indeed, the election campaign tactics are back in all but name, with the president and the vice president attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. The strategy may rally some of the Republican base. However, the broader public has made up its mind about this administration’s credibility, and Murtha isn’t the only member of Congress paying attention.  


We learned in Vietnam that in a democracy you can’t sustain a war without public support, and time is running out for the Iraq war. Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to demand accountability on the progress of the war, a meaningless gesture in the sense it requires the administration to do nothing other than supply quarterly reports. But it signals the first cracks in the Republican coalition, and it emboldens Democrats to keep up their drumbeat assailing the credibility of the leaders who took us into a war we can’t win and don’t know how to end. 


Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, for example, defends the right of critics to question and criticize their government and its policies. Hagel served in Vietnam, which he says was “a lie at the beginning.” He explained in an interview aired last weekend on C-Span how his views about Vietnam were altered when he learned how his government falsified information in order to win congressional approval for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to prosecute the war unchecked. “And so we have now pretty much come to the same place,” he said, meaning our government committed us to military action based on bits and pieces of evidence that bolstered its case for war. Hagel did have qualms about the invasion, but he voted for the resolution that gave President Bush a blank check for war with Iraq. Now that we’re there, he says, “We cannot allow this to become a 1975 when we took the last remnants of our influence out on a helicopter on top of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.”


 


There is a parallel with Vietnam in the falsehoods advanced by government to rally congressional support and public opinion for war. Take the ongoing controversy over exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. Although analysts on the scene radioed back to Washington that there was no cause for alarm, President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara glossed over doubts about a second attack on American ships and trumpeted the alleged expansion of the war by the North Vietnamese to rally Congress and the American people to escalate a war that had been losing public support. Sen. William Fulbright, one of only two senators to oppose the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, said in a speech on the Senate floor, “We will rue this day.” 


Johnson and McNamara perpetrated an untruth for the larger good of increasing American firepower in the war, which they believed would deal a decisive blow to the enemy. Fifty-eight thousand American soldiers lost their lives in that senseless conflict. Does the fact that their political leaders thought they were acting in good faith at the time excuse the deception? President Bush and Vice President Cheney accuse Democrats of “rewriting history” by objecting to a war they voted for and claiming they were misled. But the information presented to lawmakers was selective, and efforts to learn more were stymied. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkeley recalls being invited to a pre-war briefing at the White House with Bush and Cheney. When she expressed concern about Israel’s security in the event of a war, Cheney told her not to worry, that the administration knew where the missiles were that could reach Israel, and the U.S. military would go in and get them first thing. Using a pointer, he showed her the location on a map. Berkeley voted for the war in part because of false information.


Was this conscious deception? Should Bush and Cheney get a pass because they believed a show of strength in Iraq would serve U.S. interests? If Bush wants to retrieve his credibility, he should call off the attack dogs and make a televised speech to the American people conceding that the certainty he presented about weapons of mass destruction was not there, and that the administration relied on a single source, aptly named “Curveball,” who was later discredited. Bush can then present his case--what he saw, why he acted, and why he still believes he did the right thing. 


Bush won’t give that speech because he can’t tolerate ambiguity. It’s part of his personality. He gave up drinking cold turkey, and it’s all or nothing. He demands simplicity, and he equates dissent with disloyalty. The result is a White House that has become dysfunctional.


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.




src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=85588&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f10101981%2f

src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s03790180415547?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=20/10/2005%208%3A33%3A16%200%20300&pageName=Story%7CNewsweek%20H%7CPolitics%7C10101981%7CMurtha%27s%20Moment%7C%7C03%3A12%2C%2020/11/05&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101981/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=Newsweek%20Home&c3=Eleanor%20Clift&c4=Newsweek%20Home&c5=Politics&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=10101981&c16=Story&c18=03&pid=Story%7CNewsweek%20H%7CPolitics%7C10101981%7CMurtha%27s%20Moment%7Cp1%7C03%3A12%2C%2020/11/05&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2710101981%27%29&ot=A&oi=693&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

© 2005 MSNBC.com




URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101981/site/newsweek/


Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War
See link
Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout

Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout

We noted last week that even as President Bush rejected a pullout from Iraq, the Pentagon was planning for a major withdrawl of troops. Now, the Los Angeles Times says Bush will give a major speech on Wednesday in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort... The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners.

I guess that would mean he was against it before he was for it.
Bush only interested in Iraq, ག campaign

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/delegates.htm (a conservative site, no less!)


 


President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration.


 


Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections.


 


Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn't want to deal with them, a source familiar with the White House said. In some cases, this has resulted in chaos.


 


The White House has acknowledged that Mr. Bush was not informed of the administration’s decision to approve a $6.85 billion takeover by the United Arab Emirates of a British firm that operates at least six major ports in the United States. The decision triggered a public firestorm and strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. This prompted the Dubai-owned company last week to bail on its bid to operate terminals in U.S. ports.


 


Vice President Dick Cheney also was not informed of the approval of the port takeover by the state-owned Dubai Ports World. The process was administered by the Treasury Department-aligned Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which sparked opposition from most of the Republican leadership in Congress.


 


My take on this is that the president relied on his CFIUS board, this Committee on Foreign Investment; that they did a superficial scrub on this, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said on March 7.


 


They've been trained to be more of a business, or more of an arm of the administration which is designed to expedite or to shape acquisitions so that they can take place rather than to stop acquisitions, said Mr. Hunter, California Republican.


 


The sources said Mr. Bush's lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment. They said the DP World episode was handled by the Treasury and Commerce departments. From there, the proposed sale was meant to have been relayed through the National Security Council for a White House decision.


 


It should have gone to Karl Rove and then gone up the chain, the source said. For some reason, it didn't. I don't think people understood how important this was in terms of both national security and politics.


 


Mr. Hunter and other members of the House Armed Services Committee were shocked over how little White House staffers knew of the security record of the UAE, cited in testimony to the 9/11 commission as having withheld cooperation regarding al Qaeda in 1999. Last week, Mr. Hunter and Rep. Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, brought evidence of how the UAE port of Dubai allowed shipments of nuclear components as well as heavy water and a precursor to nerve gas to countries such as Iran, Libya and Pakistan.


 


In 2003, Mr. Hunter said, Dubai allowed the shipment of 66 high-speed electrical switches designed to trigger and detonate nuclear weapons. He said Dubai rejected a U.S. request to stop the shipment.


 


The point is that if you are an outlaw regime, and you want to develop a nuclear weapons program, you have your components transshipped through Dubai, Mr. Hunter said. Dubai is a master at masking both the recipient of illegitimate weapons systems and the party that is sending, developing, selling those illegitimate weapons systems. I don't think those are the folks you want to have running your ports.


 


Neither Mr. Bush nor any of his aides ordered a change in CFIUS deliberations that would stress the security aspect of any foreign investments or operations in the United States. Mr. Saxton said the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda had virtually no affect on the process.


 


The current system was designed, from what we can understand, to encourage foreign investment in our country, Mr. Saxton said. And 9/11 changed a lot of things, and CFIUS didn't change. And I guess it changed in some respects. We added a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, but it was still under the leadership of the Department of the Treasury. And so the mission of CFIUS remains pre-9/11, while the situation in post-9/11 is much different.


Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq...sm

Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq


But Leaders Say War Was Justified



Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01



President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair last night acknowledged a series of errors in managing the occupation of Iraq that have made the conflict more difficult and more damaging to the U.S. image abroad, even as they insisted that enough progress has been made that other nations should support the nascent Iraqi government.


In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate tough talk -- such as saying bring 'em on in reference to insurgents -- that he said sent the wrong signal to people. He also said the biggest mistake for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. We've been paying for that for a long period of time, he said.


Blair, who visited Baghdad this week, said he and Bush should have recognized that the fall of president Saddam Hussein would not be the rise of a democratic Iraq, that it was going to be a more difficult process because you're talking about literally building the institutions of a state from scratch.


While Bush increasingly has begun to acknowledge missteps in handling the war, his comments last night -- together with Blair's -- represent his most explicit acknowledgment that the administration underestimated the difficulty of the central project of his presidency


Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors

Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors


'Limited' Troop Reduction Urged



By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03



CHICAGO, Nov. 22 -- Sen. Barack Obama said President Bush should admit mistakes in waging the Iraq war and reduce the number of troops stationed there in the next year. But the Illinois Democrat, a longtime opponent of the war, said U.S. forces remain part of a solution in the bitterly divided country and should not be withdrawn immediately.


Without citing specific numbers, Obama called for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops that would push the fragile Iraqi government to take more responsibility while deploying enough American soldiers to prevent the country from exploding into civil war or ethnic cleansing or a haven for terrorism.







src=http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/largerPhoto/images/enlarge_tab.gif
Sen.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) greets well-wishers at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations after he said the administration has not given straight answers to critical questions on Iraq. (By Jeff Roberson -- Associated Press)




Obama also faulted the administration for tarring its critics as unpatriotic naysayers and said it launched the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 without giving either Congress or the American people the full story.


Straight answers to critical questions. That's what we don't have right now, the high-profile freshman senator told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is simply not enough for the president to simply say 'We know best' and 'Stay the course.'


As other Democrats are finding their voice against Iraq policy, Obama took an approach closer to one taken by Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleague Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) than to that of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a former Marine, called last week for an immediate pullout of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops.


Four prospective Democratic presidential candidates -- Biden, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards -- have advocated a more gradual approach, with no sudden steps. Biden called Monday for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by the end of next year and all but 20,000 to 40,000 out by January 2008.


Obama told the audience of about 500 people that the war has siphoned assets from homeland security and the global anti-terrorism fight. He said the administration's attempt to equate the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is overly narrow and dangerously short-sighted.


In a 35-minute speech scheduled just days ago, Obama argued that public opinion has raced ahead of politicians in seeking a clearly etched policy that helps produce stability in Iraq and the Middle East without exposing the United States to a war without end -- a war where our goals and our strategies drift aimlessly, regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent.


Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue, Obama said.


He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: 'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I'm here, I'm willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'


Bush Says U.S. Troops Will Stay in Iraq Past ང

GOP Unrest Dismissed As Sign of Election Year


Well it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that this mess was not going to get cleaned up on his watch.


This statement alone lets you know Bush is out of touch and in his own bubble.  * There's a certain unease as you head into an election year, he said.* Of course GOP unrest has a lot to do with the election year because they know they will have to answer to the people on election day, not Bush.


See link.


Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts

Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.


June 30, 2005


Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.


Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.



Analysis



 


Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.


The Bloodshed


Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.



Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?


What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index."  The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.


The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website  Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports.  Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.


The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.


Reconstruction Progress


In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:



Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . .  Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.


Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report  shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.


On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.


Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.


Conclusions or Facts?


The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"



Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.


In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.


Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.


The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.


Terrorism


Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.



Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .


Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.


Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:



Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.


But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.


Osama bin Laden


Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":



Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."


However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."


In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.


--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst


Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman


First Iraq and now Bush leaves New Orleans rebuilding to future President.

Bush: New Orleans may need a decade


NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- As he headed for the Gulf Coast on Monday, U.S. President George Bush told an interviewer he expects the rebuilding of New Orleans to take a decade.


Bush planned to spend the anniversary of the U.S. Gulf Coast landfall of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans after a visit to Biloxi, Miss. It was his 13th visit to the devastated area.


We can rebuild buildings, the question is can we rebuild its soul, he told April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. We can. I believe, 10 years from now April, you and I will be thinking about our time here, and trying to remember what it was like 10 years ago


Bush came under fire last year for apparently ignoring Katrina immediately after New Orleans flooded and then flying over the city in Air Force One.


Later White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said she wasn't aware of a specific time period but that the president has said all along that it would take more than a year to rebuild New Orleans.


In terms of like, 10 years, I don't know about exact time frame, but it's certainly going to take several years, Perrino said.


Bush asks Americans for charitable contributions to help Hallib..oops..to rebuild Iraq

It's working, too!!  So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!


New twist on aid for Iraq: U.S. seeks donations





By Cam Simpson Washington BureauSun Sep 18, 9:40 AM ET



From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.


But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.


Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq.


Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.


But taxpayers already finance the projects for which the administration is seeking charitable donations, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.


The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing--given needs at home--and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.


On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.


I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best, said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. It's going to be a hard sell.


Cost of rebuilding skyrockets


The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts.


The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.


In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.


Natsios announced the campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects.


Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this might be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.


Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote awareness of disabilities and rights issues, and buying water pumps for farmers.


There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project.


All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.


Security issues obscure details

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved or the project locations because of security issues in Iraq.

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly headed.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from non-profit groups working overseas, is supposed to help provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs, according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government.

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations, said Lancaster, a former deputy administrator at USAID. People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 non-profits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site a passive solicitation, saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment.

She also said some people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief, but that others will still want to help in Iraq.

She said Iraqi-Americans specifically had asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's more controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

DevelopmentSpace Foundation Inc., the group that set up the Web site for USAID, operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

So far, $39 donated

Although in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership.org Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for 2.1 percent of all charity in the U.S. last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

There is this blurring of the lines, he said. A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources.

----------

csimpson@tribune.com


And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
what about the noble war?
dont they feel COMPELLED to join on their own?
Now, that's very noble of you and if you have never judged..sm
anything or anyone good for you. But you are coming to the defense of a woman who not only judges people, but is in a position to spread her ideals to millions. You have shown more vigor on this thread than you have on any of the other threads, and I know it was the F-word or maybe even the word devil that got your blood boiling.

You ask about Ward Churchill, and all I can say is it's too bad he feels the way he does about his country. I can't discount his feelings, but it is too bad he feel that way. He was wrong in indicating that the people in the twin towers somehow deserved what they got, dead wrong.

Now one reason why he doesn't bother me as much as Ann is because she has stereotyped *liberals* of which I fall in that category.
thats real noble of ya why then

did you post a list of inflammatory statements about race out of any context whatsoever.


 


I commend you on your noble efforts...
but I say again...unless you direct your rhetoric toward the people who obviously are in direct opposition to your way of thinking (terrorists) and changing their minds...ohhh, but you said didn't you...leave it to God to change their minds while you concentrate on your fellow Americans, i.e., preach to the choir, the safe and warm route. That makes any real committment to peace, as you say you have, appear very hollow to me. But, I am sure as with Sarandon, Penn, and the Code Pink ladies, they rather prefer their heads attached to their shoulders and protesting in the comfort of a free country paid for by the blood of patriots, rather than taking their cause to the real enemies of this country. Whereas you have said you don't care if someone cuts your head off...I daresay the above mentioned would not share that sentiment.

And as a side note, Hanoi Jane, in my opinion, should be in a jail cell for treason.

I commend you on your charitable works and have said so before. However, that was not and never has been the basis of the criticism. I have said in posts before that I commend your charitable work, and I have, as I said I would, looked into service dogs for disabled vets. But what I do or do not do is not at issue here, as I am not using it as a badge to tell everyone how good I am or how committed I am. You seem to want to enumerate that for me to somehow take the attention away from the core issue I was trying to address....
...I was talking specifically about the *peace* movement, and why you and others do not take the *peace* movement to the real enemies of peace. Unless of course you believe that your fellow Americans are more an enemy of peace than the terrorists are. Which is probably true...when Democrats when polled 49% say they do not want the surge to succeed and 51% say they are not sure they want the surge to succeed. That says it all in my opinion. All that tells me is that 49% of Democrats polled are antiAmerican and 51% have not as yet decided for America or against her.

Have a good day.
Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm

Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?


Hey Libby, where's all the noble rich people?
Sure is a shame all those rich guys can't spring a buck for the effort. And where is the Republican base? - the pro-war screamers can't seem to put their money where their mouths are any more than they can bring themselves to enlist for the cause. Let somebody else do it, seems to be their motto!
Obama daughters.......sm
If your post was taken at face value, then Obama used his daughters as well, as props...not to mention his wife.


I wouldn't call it despicable....but you did.


Can't have it both ways.

Reasons Why Chavez Is Up For Noble Peace Prize

An article published in VHeadline.com on November 26
last year, headlined Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez Frias proposed for the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize aroused great interest


Since that piece was published, Chavez has continued
his humanitarian projects, the most recent of which
are extending Mission Miracle in alliance with Cuba to
correct blindness and sight disorders to the whole of
the American continent, including the US and the
Caribbean. He has also offered crude oil, gasoline and
heating oil at preferential, financed rates to smaller
Caribbean countries, as well as Uruguay and Paraguay
which are struggling with the sky high price of
energy.

The improvement in cash flow of these countries
generated by the financing aspect at 1% per year,
allows their governments to use this surplus to invest
in social programs.

This initiative has also taken into account poor
communities, schools, hospitals, old peoples homes
facing a predicted brutally cold winter in the United
States ... part of this program includes donations of
heating oil as well as financing part of the
deliveries from CITGO, a 100%-owned US-based
Venezuelan company based in Houston with 8 refineries
delivering to over 14,000 gasoline stations. Pilot
projects will be underway in Chicago and Boston as of
October 14.

As per the Nobel Peace Prize website the 2004 winner
was Wangari Maathai of Kenya for her contribution to
sustainable development, democracy and peace.

If these three qualities are key to winning the Nobel
Peace Prize then Chavez has all these in abundance ...
and more. He must be the world's leading democrat
having been to the polls 9 times since 1998. He
promotes peace by asking for troops out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, so that these sovereign nations can exercise
self-determination and define their own path in the
future.

Other accomplishments, which have been pushed by
Chavez' personal leadership in Venezuela are the
Social Missions, all grouped under the humanitarian
banner of Mision Cristo (Christ's Mission). The most
important of these, Mision Robinson has taught 1.4
million Venezuelans to read and write; Mision Barrio
Adentro (Neighborhood Within) offers free primary
healthcare in the poor areas and is now reaching 14
million Venezuelans out of a population of
approximately 25 million; Mision Mercal sells cheap
staple foods and has impacted more than half the
population at the time of writing.

Chavez, however, is up against some very stiff
competition including Colin Powell (for his efforts to
end the 21-year civil war in Sudan); the ex-governor
of Illinois, George Ryan (for his campaign to abolish
the death sentence in the US); Israeli Mordechai
Vanunu (for denouncing the existence of nuclear
weapons in his country); the Japanese Hidankyo group
(survivors of the US' atomic bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki).


United Daughters of the Confederacy
I'm off to a meeting.  Just wondering what comments this will bring. LOL
O's daughters were seen, ergo, they were props whenever seen -
Not to mention last year for their holiday/xmas commercial.

You're a hypocrite
Obama's Open Letter to His Daughters

Next Tuesday, Barack Obama will be sworn in as our 44th President. On this historic occasion, PARADE asked the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children. Here, he shares his letter to them.


http://www.parade.com/news/2009/01/barack-obama-letter-to-my-daughters.html


Dear Malia and Sasha,


I know that you've both had a lot of fun these last two years on the campaign trail, going to picnics and parades and state fairs, eating all sorts of junk food your mother and I probably shouldn't have let you have. But I also know that it hasn't always been easy for you and Mom, and that as excited as you both are about that new puppy, it doesn't make up for all the time we've been apart. I know how much I've missed these past two years, and today I want to tell you a little more about why I decided to take our family on this journey.


When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me—about how I'd make my way in the world, become successful, and get the things I want. But then the two of you came into my world with all your curiosity and mischief and those smiles that never fail to fill my heart and light up my day. And suddenly, all my big plans for myself didn't seem so important anymore. I soon found that the greatest joy in my life was the joy I saw in yours. And I realized that my own life wouldn't count for much unless I was able to ensure that you had every opportunity for happiness and fulfillment in yours. In the end, girls, that's why I ran for President: because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation.


I want all our children to go to schools worthy of their potential—schools that challenge them, inspire them, and instill in them a sense of wonder about the world around them. I want them to have the chance to go to college—even if their parents aren't rich. And I want them to get good jobs: jobs that pay well and give them benefits like health care, jobs that let them spend time with their own kids and retire with dignity.


I want us to push the boundaries of discovery so that you'll live to see new technologies and inventions that improve our lives and make our planet cleaner and safer. And I want us to push our own human boundaries to reach beyond the divides of race and region, gender and religion that keep us from seeing the best in each other.


Sometimes we have to send our young men and women into war and other dangerous situations to protect our country—but when we do, I want to make sure that it is only for a very good reason, that we try our best to settle our differences with others peacefully, and that we do everything possible to keep our servicemen and women safe. And I want every child to understand that the blessings these brave Americans fight for are not free—that with the great privilege of being a citizen of this nation comes great responsibility.


 Sasha (l) and Malia Obama at play in New Hampshire in 2007. Bumper cars at the Iowa State Fair in August 2007.That was the lesson your grandmother tried to teach me when I was your age, reading me the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence and telling me about the men and women who marched for equality because they believed those words put to paper two centuries ago should mean something.


She helped me understand that America is great not because it is perfect but because it can always be made better—and that the unfinished work of perfecting our union falls to each of us. It's a charge we pass on to our children, coming closer with each new generation to what we know America should be.


I hope both of you will take up that work, righting the wrongs that you see and working to give others the chances you've had. Not just because you have an obligation to give something back to this country that has given our family so much—although you do have that obligation. But because you have an obligation to yourself. Because it is only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential.


These are the things I want for you—to grow up in a world with no limits on your dreams and no achievements beyond your reach, and to grow into compassionate, committed women who will help build that world. And I want every child to have the same chances to learn and dream and grow and thrive that you girls have. That's why I've taken our family on this great adventure.


I am so proud of both of you. I love you more than you can ever know. And I am grateful every day for your patience, poise, grace, and humor as we prepare to start our new life together in the White House.


Do you think these guys would be crying for John Kerry's daughters to go if he had won?
Somehow, I seriously doubt it. 
I will state an instance, Tali Hatuel and her daughters. TI

I don't know how to post a link in this forum, no link is here. 


http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/72


 


You will sign *anything they ask you to*

That is such a typical party line statement, it took my breath away.  I am not saying that questioning and challenge is not good. It is.  But just joining in without question is frightening. It reminds me of Nazi Germany.  By the way, Not in Our Name is not what they seem to be.  I really question your causes, but certainly not your right to participate in them.  I would hardly wear being arrested, for whatever reason, as a badge of honor. It isn't.  There are many ways to support a cause and do it legally. 


'MAINSTREAM' USEFUL IDIOTS
By BYRON YORK

The organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one of a
small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from the antiwar
effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began as one.  The
group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past have been - and
today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical causes, including the
defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, support for Fidel Castro's
regime in Cuba and involvement with figures linked to Middle Eastern
terrorism.
The organization was created in March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing
activists that included representatives from the Revolutionary Communist
Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the
International League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild,
among others.

There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be
inclined to sign the statement )in opposition to a war on Iraq) might not
want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the group
created two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name Statement
(which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity signatures) and
the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which handles street
demonstrations and other protests).

Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently.
Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than
creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with so-called
fiscal sponsors - that is, already established foundations that could use
their tax-exempt status for fundraising.

THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a small
box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of Rights
Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In Our Name
Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal Revenue
Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing at all to do
with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar raised by the group for
several years went to the legal defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted
cop-killer whose case has become a cause célèbre among some on the Left.

In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which
$95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the
foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in 1999,
the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to Abu-Jamal's
lawyers.

At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team, leaving
the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002, it hooked up
with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president Judith Levin sees the
Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war as closely linked. They're
related as a matter of principle, she explains. The connection is the
violation of civil rights of people in this country.

FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another
foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community
Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to advance the
struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination, IFCO was
originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a variety of activist
organizations that lacked the resources to raise money for themselves.

In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization called
the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their partnership ended
when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt foundation). Founded in 1997 as
a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, the coalition says its function
is to oppose the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions.

Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of
South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for alleged
ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's board.)
According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is accused of
having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by another charity he
runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also reported that FBI
investigators suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a fund-raising front' for
the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from the late 1980s to 1995.
Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan Abdullah Shallah to the University
of South Florida to raise money for one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job
Shallah held until he later became the head of Islamic Jihad.

TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to the
Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy to
supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite of
IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a
solidarity conference in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, Long live
the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example of the
Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for the poor of
the world by Fidel Castro! Both IFCO and the Bill of Rights Foundation are
tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that all contributions made to
them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban solidarity rallies, or the
defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully tax-deductible.

The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records available
for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took in $1,119,564 in
contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not In Our Name Statement
report that they have taken in more than $400,000 in recent months for the
purpose of publishing their statement. It is not possible to say who is
giving the money, or whether it comes from many people or just a few;
federal laws do not require tax-exempt foundations to reveal their donors -
or even whether donations are received from inside or outside the United
States.

'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together, says
the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak, one might
think that is actually happening, that there really is a broad-based
movement represented by these activists. But a look at the people and
organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests otherwise - no matter how
many celebrity signatures they might collect.

Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the Feb. 24
issue


OMG - the sign. sm
I had to watch it twice to cath that.
not sam...why don't you sign yours? Different name every day...
.
OMG...and I had to sign for my DD
But she could get an abortion without my consent or knowledge...now that's sick! OOO BOY if Obama gets elected...people, we are going to hel* in a handbasket...at lightening speed!!! Hang on.....
Where do I sign up?
She's a heckuvalot smarter than Palin.

Plus I think it will make a good new swear word: Gourd Paint It!!! Of course we won't want to use Her name in vain, so we will have to change that to Go' Pain' It!

I think I qualify as an apostle, whaddaya think, GP?


Sign me up!
It wouldn't be pleasant, but it sure beats the stuff on Fear Factor or Survivor. I could really use the 50 grand.....
Why don't they just get a big neon sign
to flash 9/11, 9/11...could it be any more transparent? It's their excuse for everything...national security...blah, blah, blah.... it's for your own good; trust us. Yeah, right, like WMD, or was it getting rid of Saddam; I mean, no, spreading democracy...or, uh, was it the global **war on terror**...or fighting the *tehrists/killers* there so we don't have to fight them here, uh, like in Miami...or was it Chicago? Good plan. At this point it's the *gubmint* that's the scariest.
I especially liked the sign behind the singers...
9-11 was an inside job. Gimme a break. Saw signs about racism, of course the 60's standard peace sign...protestors cannot even get together with a common theme. Yeah, I would be real proud of that song representing my political views. Yeah, I would put a lot of stock in that. I will say to them what I said to Lurker and to anyone else in the *peace* movement...stop preaching to the choir. Conservatives don't want war, but we also don't want to be murdered by the thousands. Take your signs and your songs and go to Iraq and talk to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Go to Iran and talk to Ahmadinejad about our right to exist and the right of Israel to exist. Go to Gaza and ask Fatah and Hamas to give peace a chance. Look up bin Laden and ask HIM to give peace a chance. THEY are the enemy...put your money where your mouth is. Don't stay here all safe and warm (which, by the way, men and women have died in many wars to give you that safety and warmth) in D.C. and yap at Americans, go yap at the real enemies of peace. Oh, but that would mean a real commitment to what you believe in and actually dangerous, and not a fun-filled bus ride to DC singing ridiculous protest songs in an effort to feel *relevant* again, like in the 60's? This is all so transparent. These people could not care less about the troops. They are just happy there is another war to protest so they could all get on the bus to D.C. Pitiful. Absolutely PITIFUL. Tell you what...all you peace movement folks go to the enemy and get THEM to agree not to attack America again and you would be surprised how fast Conservatives would be smiling and waving at you on the street corners again. The same old protestors I see every Saturday in front of the post will be there every Saturday where there is a war or not. They were there before Iraq and they will be there after Iraq. Because their entire life is standing for an hour with a sheet over their heads holding a protest sign. Fitting though...their heads are certainly buried. And by the way...you are welcome for the sacrifice made by the military through many battles so you can stand for an hour with a sheet over your head. I say you're welcome in all facetiousness, I realize and most of the military realizes they will all be dead and gone waiting for that thank you.

Have a nice day now.
Hey, pinhead, here's your sign.
"I VOTE FOR OBAMA. I IS SMART. I IS UH ATHIEST. I WATCH THE VIEW. I IS UH PO'FOKE."

I think I'd rather be called a rich, racist, religious freak than an arrogant pinhead like you.
Is This Sign Hateful?

SEE BOTTOM OF MESSAGE FOR SIGN PIC FIRST.


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


CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch.


An employee from country radio station KMPS-FM in Seattle told CNN the sign was dropped off at the station by someone who found it in a ditch. "I thought it would be safe," Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNN earlier Friday. "It's always a shock when your sign is censored or stolen or mutilated. It's not something you get used to." The sign, which celebrates the winter solstice, has had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation says in part. The sign, which was at the Legislative Building at 6:30 a.m. PT, was gone by 7:30 a.m., Gaylor said. The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."


"I guess they don't follow their own commandments," Gaylor said. "There's nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech."


Gaylor said that police are checking security cameras pointed at the building's entrances and exits to see if they can see anyone stealing the sign.
 
"It's probably about 50 pounds, " Gaylor said. "My brother-in-law was huffing and puffing carrying it up the stairs. It's definitely not something you can stick under your arm or conceal."


The Washington State Patrol, which is handling the incident, could not be reached for comment.


Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher and co-founder of the group, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's.


Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)
"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to he**ll if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."


He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.


"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."


The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.


In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.


"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."


That ad has caused the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to field hundreds of complaints, the group said, but it has heard just as much positive feedback, said Fred Edwords, the association's spokesman.


Edwords said the ad campaign, which features a shrugging Santa Claus, was not meant to attack Christmas but rather to reach out to an untapped audience.


Edwords maintains the campaign began in December mostly because the group had extra money left over for the year. The connection to Christmas is a coincidence, he said.


"There are a lot of people out there who don't know there are organizations like ours to serve their needs," Edwords said. "The thing is, to reach a minority group, in order to be heard, everyone in the room has to hear you, even when they don't want to."


The ad campaign, Edwords said, is to make people think. He said he doesn't expect to "convert" anyone.
But the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.


"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.


"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."


As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.
"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."


The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.


The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.


"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."


For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.


"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."
The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.


"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."


Why do you sign yourself "sm"??? If you want to ....sm
You really should have the guts to sign a moniker and not just shoot out comments with "sm" or "nm."

I always did love that sign you got. Can I have one please? nm

He also said he wouldn't sign a

bill with pork in it either but we see how well that went down.  Obama does nothing to hide his lies.  The media and kool-aid drinkers do it for him so he blatantly lies for all to see and yet his robots still refuse to see it. 


Our country is in serious trouble and all Obama cares about is spending spending spending for his own personal agenda.  Just another politican looking out for his own personal interests without giving a second thought to the Americans who are suffering.


STOP GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!


He has already said he would sign this bill
XX
I will gladly sign this petition.

But am I the only one who finds it disgraceful that Americans are reduced to BEGGING this president, via a petition, to PLEASE do SOMETHING to help keep Americans safe? Every other word out of his mouth has to do with the "war on terror" (or whatever his phrase de jour currently is).  Yet, after four years, he STILL couldn't care less if our borders are secure.


This is not a new issue.  This is what some of us on these boards have been saying for a long time now.  After 9/11, experts in terrorism said we MUST secure our borders.  Instead, Bush chose to spend billions of dollars on his war against Iraq and throwing Americans to the wolves.


As I said, I will gladly sign this petition, not believing for a nanosecond that it will do any good because this president simply doesn't CARE.  And all that does is give me one more reason to loathe and despise him, and it increases the personal terror I feel daily at the fact that our safety lies in his thoroughly incompetent, ignorant, uncaring hands.


Hurricane Katrina: A sign from God.
God is telling us that Bush is an idiot who destroys everything in (and out of) his path, and it's time for Americans to wake up.
Last-worditis is a sure sign of no meaningful