Friday, July 29, 2011

Huffington Post insists "Oh those darn Republicans"

Amanda Terkel (Huffington Post) tackles the not-so-strongly worded letter (plea) from 93 members of Congress to Barack on the Iraq War and Terkel correctly notes:

The Status of Forces Agreement signed by Iraq and the United States during the Bush administration says all U.S. troops must leave Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. But the contract also leaves the door open to further negotiations that would delay withdrawal.

But she ends with, "However, if the Obama administration does agree to keep troops in Iraq, it will likely find support from other members, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who have already said they would back such a plan." Apparently space limitations didn't allow her to include the other bad 'other' Joe Lieberman?

Reality: Boehner and Graham aren't the problem. Where's Barbara Boxer on the list? Where's John Kerry? You know, silent on Iraq John Kerry? Where are the names of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members who signed off on [PDF format warning] "IRAQ: THE TRANSITION FROM A MILITARY MISSION TO A CIVILIAN-LED EFFORT"? Lindsey's name there. But where are the rest? Certainly where are the Democrats? We've covered it at length, that report. Do Huffington Post readers know about it? I don't know. Their writers don't seem to.

Let's note two sections of the Committee report:

But regardless of whether the U.S. military withdraws as scheduled or a small successor force is agreed upon, the State Department will take on the bulk of responsibility for their own security. Therefore, Congress must provide the financial resources necessary to complete the diplomatic mission. Consideration should be given to a multiple-year funding authorization for Iraq programs, including operational costs (differentiated from the State Department's broader operational budget), security assistance, and economic assistance programs. The price tag will not be cheap -- perhaps $25 - 30 billion over 5 years -- but would constitute a small fraction of the $750 billion the war has cost to this point.



And:

If a vigorous regional presence is necessary to support Iraq's stability, a mechanism for a continued but restricted follow-on military presence should be considered to help secure American diplomats. But it is not yet clear that the Iraqi Government desires such an arrangement on terms compatible with American interests.

Wow and Barbara Boxer, who used to like to strike a troops-must-come-home-now attitude (under Bush), signed off on that report.

"Wait! I've gone all through the report and don't see authors! This is not about the Democrats on the Committee."


Okay, you close your eyes and go back to sleep if that lie is really necessary to your well being. For the rest of us, the Chair of the Committee is John Kerry and he stated, "This report sheds light on the important tradeoffs involved as we consider the sustainability of progress in Iraq." And you can click here for the press release from the Committee quoting Kerry about the report and the press release helpfully explains, "Members of the Committee's majority staff went to Iraq to examine the military-to-civilian transition in detail and this report is the result of that trip." Majority staff. That would be the Democrats otherwise John Kerry couldn't be Chair of the Committee.

In the years Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, we were repeatedly told Democratic law makers really, really wanted to end the Iraq War and that they would if they only had the chance. For the 2006 mid-terms, it was turned into a get-out-the-vote effort with Dems noting that if they just had control of one house of Congress, they could end the war.

They were given control of both houses of Congress in that mid-term election. They did not, however, end the illegal war.

Barack was sworn in and suddenly they didn't feel the need to even acknowledge the Iraq War, let alone call for it to be ended. I've been at Congressional hearings the day after some awful attack took place in Iraq or X number of US service members died and it's not noted by Democrats. It's just slipped their mind, this ongoing war.

And if we want to be stupid voters, we can let it slip our minds too.

We can't get taken in again because we weren't smart enough to see that, when they had the power, Democrats didn't care about ending the Iraq War.

Reading Terkel's piece, I had to wonder is the dichotomy between Arianna Huffington's stated goals and what her site actually preaches or between Arianna's always behind the times moves and the people's stance? (Prior to her most recent makeover, Arianna's always caught the fad after it was dying out.)

Meaning, Arianna -- since her transformation from chunky GOP spiritual advisor to whatever you'd call her today (but she is slimmer and that includes the nose, good work, doctor) -- has repeatedly insisted that it's not about left or right but about blah blah. But her site does not nothing but repeatedly undermine the entire effort she supposedly promotes. So what's going on?


Many years ago, a friend once marveled over Arianna (at a time when no one had heard of so the friend had to provide a sketch as well), "It was as though a buttefly decided to revert to a catepillar."

And that, more than anything else, is Arianna.

She spent forever -- after the break with Newt -- preaching that it wasn't about a political party and it wasn't about creating heroes outside of you and all the other stuff she supposedly cared about. Those topics would actually matter today. But, as usual, she's positioned herself so far to the extreme and so quickly done her makeover that she can no longer return to what she supposedly believed in. Call it something lost in her Return to Cocoon.

Community sites updated?

They did. Blogger/Blogspot continues to struggle, not my problem. If it had been working yesterday, we would have noted these posts:


When it's working, we'll note the current ones but I do not have time to go through and pull each one over. Sorry.

We'll close with this from David DeGraw's "How The Two-Party Oligarchy Uses The Democrat Vs Republican Charade To Loot The Country – 'The Greatest Increase In Poverty And Hardship Produced By Any Law In Modern US History' – Non-Hyperbolic Edition:"


First a note on the use of hyperbole: People often think I’m using hyperbole when I talk about “financial terrorism,” our descent into “neo-feudalism,” the “two-Party oligarchy,” our confirmed “banana republic” status or the fact that President Obama is a “bankster puppet.” I’m aware that most people will think I’m being overly extreme, but in these extreme times, all these terms are technical descriptions of our unfortunate political reality. Career wise, I would be better off, over the short-term, if I censored this harsh reality and used more delicate language, but I’m not interested in making a career out of this, or being accepted into some status quo supporting groupthink organization. I’m here to sound the alarm. So I have much respect for people who are also speaking bold truth to power, whatever the consequences may be. Fortunately, more people are starting to speak up.

The tragic comedy that is the deficit debate is helping to further expose the opening salvo of another “brutal campaign of economic shock and awe,” or as journalistic appeasers would say, “austerity.” This debate also helps people to understand how the Democrat Vs Republican charade and the “lesser of two evils” game is played by the banksters – all you have to do is spend about an hour researching it.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

































Posted by at