I've been getting more and more optimistic the last couple of weeks about Democrats' chances in the midterm elections this November. With Bush's approval ratings in the tank, the Abramoff scandal playing out over the rest of the year, etc, we've got a real chance to make 2006 like 1994 was for the Republicans...

Have you ever seen such meaningless demagoguery as there as been on both sides of the aisle in this UAE ports deal? It almost makes me want to be an internationalist, spewing stuff about globalism and the importance of having friends.
Bush is totally right on this one. The UAE is the USA's best buddy in the Middle East and I am a-ok from them to own these port operations.
Now if Iran wanted to buy those ports, I wouldn't go for it, but UAE is fine with me.

One more thing, in 2008 it is absolutely critical that the Democrats nominate MARK WARNER for President because people like the Clintons need to be removed from politics.
Although I think that almost any Republican will beat Hillary, the USA does not need that dog out of the kennel running loose in a general election.
Repeat: the Democrats nominating MARK WARNER is good for the Demos, good for the Republicans and good for the USA.
I think MARK WARNER stands a very real chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries.
Check out this link on political handicapping:
http://www.intrade.com/

Lat's always be hopeful, and make those marginal choices we all can, in the hopes that the effort is cumulatative.

While the cabal has hijacked the GOp, let's not forget that the cabal had its origins in the Democratic party.

I urge ALL that have not seen the BBC 3 part documentary "Power of Nightmares" to do so. While incomplete it is by FAR the best video presentation I have seen on how the cabal and islamaic terrorists originated, and what they are really about.

Also I was surpriesed to hear Norman Finkelstein say that the record of the Likud party re Labour, was that Labot actually had a worse record than Likud. Like the US, the problem is best NOT seen in partisan terms, but in terms of truth vs. deception, with ALL political party interests in opposition to the interests of the citizenry.

Also, The Coucil of Foreign Affairs has a good background on the July 18, 2005 nuclear proliferation agreement signed by Bush and Singh, which MUST be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. This is the sort of agreement (to the best of my knowledge not vetted by DOS or DOE) that is at the basis of the neocon attempt to draw up sides for the WWIII which they believe MUST be fought.

the CFR article on

sorry???

"the Great India Debate" @
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10054/great_india_debate.html

has great links to a subject that is worth being informed on, and doing what is appropriate to have each of our senators vote "correctly".

And do see the BBC doc: "Power of Nightmares"

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall, always."

-Mahatma Gandhi

I have no one to vote for now that the dems have joined the "fear and loathing" party of war hawks...just more proof that all politicans are for politics, not the country's best interest.

The DP deal?...sickening, much ado about nothing, and another black eye for US/Arab relations.

Weenies, hypocritics and hysterics....DC needs to be burned down and plowed over so we can start again.

Do the Israeli's have any tips on how to deal with having a brain-dead president?
Just asking....

Polling numbers mean nothing to der Fuhrer George Bush. Just ask him and he'll tell you exactly that. It is mildly interesting that Bush's polling numbers are even as high as 37%. Just goes to prove the old adage, you CAN fool most of the people at least some of the time. Will the Congress impeach our murdering and lying president? Not very likely. The Republicans haven't the nerve and the Democrats are well, Democrats and would need to find a consensus. The chances of the Democrats finding a consensus on anything is less likely than hell freezing over in August.

Robert:

be careful. While for once you say something with which I am in general agreement (on the Dubai port management contract), the devil is in the details.

As such, there are innumerable fine points to that agreement that were not gotten right, including an attempt to again forget that the administration has a partner (GOP, if not Congress in general)in governance and has not yet gotten the consent of the people to completely abandon democracy in favor of a dictatorship. I am thus heartened by your dropping of partisan labeling as a component of "correct" policy.

In relation to the Clintons, it appears to me you are exactly the type of person that might benefit greatly from watching "Power of Nightmares". Any further interest by me to hear your "opinion" on that subject is conditioned on that information(of course any data is subject to rigorous empirical testing when challenged and appropriate)
being part of your consciousness.

IMHO, a person seeking truth with an open mind would never be so presumptious as to assume ANYONE has got something "totally" right. The best one can say is we are asypmtocically approaching truth, Often "counter-revoulutions" show us that is even too strong a statement, and occasionally our views are totally false. Even my educational texts in physics and economics were replete with error. In fact my primary mentor in macro-economics "Axel Leijonhufud) magnus opus was "On Keysian Economics abd the Economics of Keynes". I find that even today there are many alleging Keynes views that cannot have read Keynes earlier works, or been privey to his private comments chuckling at the mis-conceptions.

And Bryan, "Voting" is but one of many options. Offical voting, while purported to be "open" and indicative of personal preferance, in fact, often is not. Voting is often better revealed by street activity (250,000-750,000 in India at Bush's recent meeting), and by understanding markets well enough to avoid complicity in the war and tyranny effort. It is the "other" category that often proves much more sucessful than paper or illusionary ballots. IMHO, THAT is what turned the tide at the cabals first attempt at WWIII during the Vietnam era.

So do be an informed voter. But also be more, whether in the political arena or not. If folks totally ignore politics, but act only out of truth and love, tyranny is also dead. Above all, DON'T buy into the bullsit of the politicans "war on terror" better described as "war on your own people".

Have you ever seen such meaningless demagoguery as there as been on both sides of the aisle in this UAE ports deal?
...Posted by Robert Morrow at March 10, 2006 01:12 PM

Why yes, I have, courtesy of Karl Rove and BushCo.

While some anti-DPW rhetoric has gotten the reasons wrong, the controversy arose because of the stark hypocrisy of Bush in INcreasing scrutiny of individual Americaans, while DEcreasing security reqs, checks, and accountability of his corporate & oilbiz pals.

Less liberty/rights for you; more profits and less accountability for DPW. More scrutiny & repression of the Americans who Bush swore to serve; more profits on the backs of public assets for corporations and foreign 'investors.'

Tom Ridge said the terror color alerts were politically based, and raised w/o sufficient evidence.

Bush has LOWERED funding for Port Security.

ALSO note that Robert Kimmitt is up to his armpits in connections to [James A.]Baker-Botts, Iran-Contra, and G.H.W. Bush. Does anyone REALLY think think anymore -- as Kimmitt smugly-so-smugly said CFIUS's deliberations were 'classified,' -- that they were carried out in the best security interests of the US, as opposed to the best economic interests of Bush's pals? Secrecy and classified apparatus is destroying its own purported objectives, eating alive its own reason for being.

Bush is dead wrong. And BushCo's shrilly rhetoric, avid demogoguery -- cannot be foisted off on all the folks who've correctly identified the perversion of national purpose and principle at work here.

One more thing, in 2008 it is absolutely critical that the Democrats nominate MARK WARNER for President because people like the Clintons need to be removed from politics.

AS i RECALL -- America was founded precisely so that ANY individual can partipate in politics, without objection. If you really feel that way, Mr. Morrow, why don't you just explain why you find such a quintessential American characteristic so objectionable. Kinda removes any claim you have to patriotic superiority.

In any case, your rhetoric veers dangerously close to the vilifying and degrading language used to justify, say, death squads -- certainly a popular option in certain Republican circles these days. Further, Bush is far more corrupt and worthy of impeachment than Clinton. I won't be voting for Hillary, and disagreed w/plenty of Bill's choices -- but they stand head and shoulders above Bush in terms of integrity alone.

Impeach Bush. We have a right to redress of grievances.

Mark Warner? I question whether he has the judgement, or the tools to serve the country, well or otherwise.

It always worries me when his poll numbers crash to these levels. A scared, bitter, and incredibly petulant politician is capable of nearly anything that will bring his numbers up. Bush is all of those things and then some.

I think this only brings us closer to military action with Iran. Rationality is thrown out the window when this man acts. I fear for this country.

"Bush is again off balance -- and it's important that advocates for a different policy course begin pushing hard now, constantly."

Well Steve, NOT ONE TIME have I seen YOU mention, recognize, advocate, or laud the efforts of those that HAVE BEEN PUSHING HARD, such as JOHN CONYERS or BEV HARRIS. Like the leaders that you still naively think represent the interests of the so called "opposition party", you are WOEFULLY late in becoming forceful in your suggestions and admonitions.

If the obvious CRIMES and MALFEASANCE of this administration, (that are numerous, irrefutable, and long standing), are not enough to motivate these cowardly asses like Reid, Biden, or Hillary to raise some hell, what makes you think Bush's poll numbers are going to make a difference?

BTW Steve, have you seen that posturing coward Reid mention Phase Two lately?

"Have you ever seen such meaningless demagoguery as there as been on both sides of the aisle in this UAE ports deal? It almost makes me want to be an internationalist, spewing stuff about globalism and the importance of having friends.
Bush is totally right on this one. The UAE is the USA's best buddy in the Middle East and I am a-ok from them to own these port operations.
Now if Iran wanted to buy those ports, I wouldn't go for it, but UAE is fine with me."

Posted by Robert Morrow

What a riot. Such blatant Bushlicking would be pitiful if it wasn't so laughably surreal. Pakistan is also a "most valuable ally in the war on terror". All they had to do to gain that status was to sell nuke technology to Iran and N. Korea, harbor Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives, and exist under the oppression of a military dictatorship.

I mean hey, troll, its haaaaaard work spreading democracy, isn't it?

"Do the Israeli's have any tips on how to deal with having a brain-dead president?
Just asking...."

Posted by tracy

Yeah. Their plan is to spend our children's blood and our money to ethnically cleanse their back yard. And so far, Mr. Brain Dead is following the script perfectly. And you ain't seen nuthin' yet. Wait until Act 2, when these treasonous bastards decide its time to get us all back on the Fear Train.

Robert Morrow is hillarious.

Ahhhh it will be Wes Clark in 2008 !

Pissed off American:

While you and I seem to usually be on the same page, let's not paint ALL Israeli's with the tyranny brush. While the Israli politicians seem to compete with the cabal for the most ruthless, dishonest tyrannt ever, I do not feel the same is true for all Israeli's. Not all are pro genocide and for complete extermination of the Palestinians even though that seems to be the offical politican's policy.

Per India's nuclear weapons program, this just in from David Albright of ISIS:

The new report "India’s Gas Centrifuge Program: Stopping Illicit Procurement and the Leakage of Technical Centrifuge Know-How" is now available on the ISIS website.

Indian nuclear and government officials have stated that India has an "impeccable" nonproliferation record. Officials go so far as to claim that India does not engage in illicit nuclear procurement and has an exemplary record of preventing nuclear secrets from falling into the wrong hands. ISIS has uncovered a well-developed, active, and secret Indian program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent other countries’ export control efforts. In addition, ISIS has concluded that Indian procurement methods for its nuclear program leak sensitive nuclear technology.

Access the ISIS report here.
http://tinyurl.com/k9ovk

Contact David Albright at 703-472-0799 with any comments or questions.
_________________________
Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS)
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002

I agree with Robert Morrow about the Clintons. And it's not because I'm a Clinton hater. It's because I can count. Please compare the number of Democratic officeholders in 1993 with today.

I agree with the appropriate reservations about the Clintons..and it's not because I'm a Clinton hater. It's because I can count. The Democrats have hemmorhaged officeholdrs nationally since 1993. Hillary may also be the only Democrat who can't win in 2008.

"While you and I seem to usually be on the same page, let's not paint ALL Israeli's with the tyranny brush. While the Israli politicians seem to compete with the cabal for the most ruthless, dishonest tyrannt ever, I do not feel the same is true for all Israeli's. Not all are pro genocide and for complete extermination of the Palestinians even though that seems to be the offical politican's policy."

I should make myself more understandable, I suppose. I do not hold ANY animous towards the Israeli people, nor do I blame them for their government's actions. But I do think their government has FAR MORE to do with what has occurred HERE in the last five years than most of us care to accept. And the machinations can only grow more extreme, as there is NO WAY that Israel will allow a Shiite theocracy to blossum right next door to them in Iraq. Civil war, chaos, in Iraq, works to their ADVANTAGE, for it guarantees a prolonged American military presence, and provides the "cover" by which Bush can again attempt to install a puppet government that is "sympathetic" to the Israeli's and the Neo-con's agendas. But if anyone thinks Israel is going to ALLOW a Shiite power structure, closely aligned with Iran, in Iraq, they are out of their ever-luvin' minds. The chaos in Iraq is effectively DISMANTLING the clusterfuck that Bremer and Bush initially constructed there. Their FAILURE to install Chalabi was a HUGE setback for them, and Sadr and Sistani's rocket launch into power took them totally by suprise. This so called "civil war" is their "solution". They MUST install a puppet regime, or else they have effectively DOUBLED the size and population of Iran.

Or, of course, they can escalate this thing into a "final solution" to the "Muslim problem". Do you doubt they are evil enough?? I sure as hell don't.

regarding the "Power of Nightmares" - the war against terror is a fantasy until both buildings of the WTC get knocked to the ground OR a US city gets vaporized with a nuclear bomb.
Then it's the Nightmare of Reality.

"regarding the "Power of Nightmares" - the war against terror is a fantasy until both buildings of the WTC get knocked to the ground....

...OR a US city gets vaporized with a nuclear bomb"

You mean by one that comes in on a container ship??

Why was Bush so hot to support the ports deal? He didn't even vet it properly. Could this be just another one of those insider sweetheart deals that is part of the overall Bush=Delay=DukeCunningham=Jack Abramoff=Halliburton corruption that is busy looting the US Treasury? Did Bush support the deal because God told him it was the right thing to do? or did some wealthy Bush benefactor want it to happen? Did the deal blowup in Congress because another wealthy lobbyist was getting screwed by the deal and went out of the way to make trouble?

I think you are correct that the Ports deal has nothing to do with Port Security. Do you believe that Bush is Mr Innocent? Is this just another dirty insider deal done to enrich Mr Bush and his benefactors? Do you see the corruption?

Steve: Thus far, he seems to be falling in the polls because of his own actions and their consequences

I doubt highly that Americans know that Bush in Iraq inadvertantly fathered an Islamic republic that has extremely close ties to Iran.

I also doubt that Americans known that Bush in Iraq inadvertantly fathered an Islamic republic in direct response to 9/11.

9/11 + Iraq = Bush's Islamic republic with extremely close ties to Iran

The consequences of Bush's actions are still obscure to most Americans.

I think if they all knew that American blood and treasure is being spilled for Islamic republic with extremely close ties to Iran there would be outrage.

" Have you ever seen such meaningless demagoguery as there as been on both sides of the aisle in this UAE ports deal?"

I'm amazed by the resounding defeat Bush had on the UAE deal, especially how quickly and totally the situation was reversed, due largely to actions by his own party (not "racist" Democrats - whom he would've ignored completely.)

I only wish the Republicans would show more initiative on serious issues like the latest nonsense with the Indian nuclear deal. Bush essentially tore up the NPT without even thinking of notifying congress. In the same week that Dick Cheney is hinting at bombing Iran for pursuing nuclear technology in violation of the NPT, we reward India for building up its own arsenal and subtly encourage them to build more. Now all the discussion will be whether opponents of the deal are "racists" trying to damage relations with an important ally.