Much of the press still takes it as a given that Iraq has a functioning government that might meet political benchmarks (oil law, de-Baathification reform, etc., etc.) that would facilitate an American withdrawal. In reality, the Maliki "government" can't meet any benchmarks, even if they were enforced, because that government exists only as a fictional White House talking point. As Gen. Barry McCaffrey said last week, this government doesn't fully control a single province. Its Parliament, now approaching a scheduled summer recess, has passed no major legislation in months. Iraq's sole recent democratic achievement is to ban the release of civilian casualty figures, lest they challenge White House happy talk about "progress" in Iraq.
~Excerpted from: All the President's Press, By Frank Rich, The New York Times, Sunday April 29, 2007. The article is also posted on TruthOut.
Not another nickel, not another dime, not another soldier......NOT THIS TIME!!! ~Maxine Waters, California Democratic Convention, April 2007
HOW TO GET US OUT OF IRAQ & PREVENT WAR ON IRAN:
6/12/08 http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6066 ASAP/
................................................ .......................
Kucinich Vows to Reintroduce Impeachment Articles
if Dems Let Them Die in Committee-...........Articles of Impeachment PDF..... .....
Ohio Congressman Says He'll Bring More
Co-Cosponsors;
Promises 'We'll Come Back with 60 Articles, Not 35'
Sign the petition, and tell "your" Representative a "THING or TWO"!
Democrats. com
http://www. democrats. com/35-articles-of-impeachment
GO SEE!!!
Kucinich presents: Bush impeachment articles 6-9-08
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
And~ check out the wikipedia page "Movement to Impeach Bush!"
Impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney - Capitol Hill Switchboard:
(202) 224-2131 , (800) 828-0498
DEMAND IMPEACHMENT
Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war in Iraq- it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war.
This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41 ... the
Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War -
if they choose to do so.
YouTube- Ralph Nader: "Things Are a Lot Worse Than We Thought.
Ralph Nader on Letterman -"We're All Screwed"
Rep. Lynn Woolsey,
with Rep.s Barbara Lee &
Maxine Waters:
Rep. Dennis
Kucinich's
Viable Plan to END the war in Iraq
Rep. Jim McGovern has introduced
Sen. Feingold
Introduces The Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007
Bill
Richardson's 7 Point New Realism Plan for Iraq:
"Supporting
the Troops" Means Withdrawing Them
The following is a "preview", excerpted
from Tom Engelhardt's excellent article,
"The
Last Hot-button Issue for the Bush Adminstration: Hostages to Policy"
as found posted at TruthOut, TomDispatch.com,
and likely a few more places besides........
THiS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT THAT NEEDS SERIOUS, and
PERSISTENTLY REPETITIVE DEBUNKING TO ALL SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES
IN THE HOUSE! The only way to actually "support the
troops" at this point is to get them OUT of there!-- To Bring Them
HOME!!
"(BushQuotes).......Or
in a press conference the day before that: "Soon
Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is
binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. Our troops
are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C. to provide
them with the support they need to do their mission."
Put another way, American troops in Iraq, or heading for Iraq, and the American dead from the Iraq War are now hostage to, and the only effective excuse for, Bush administration policy; and American politicians and the public are being held hostage by the idea that the troops must be supported (and funded) above all else, no matter how wasteful or repugnant or counterproductive or destructive or dangerous you may consider the war in Iraq.
Some Facts
From Bob Fertik
Dennis
Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House
Iran in
Iraq?*****
Kucinich:
Democrats Must Honor Mandate
3. The fact that you do not know any actual terrorists should not in any way deter you. Necessity is the mother of invention: if you can find the right raw material -- a sad, sick, lonely, drunk, deranged, disgruntled or just plain anti-American Muslim somewhere in the United States -- you can make your very own terrorist.
4. Now the good part begins. Money! The FBI will give you lots of money to take your very own terrorist out to lots of dinners where you, wearing a wire, can record yourself making recommendations to him about possible targets and weapons that might be used in the impending terrorist attack that your very own terrorist is going to mastermind, with your help. It will even buy you a computer so you can go to Google Earth in order to show your very own terrorist a "top secret" aerial image of the target you have suggested.
5. More money!! The FBI will give you even more money to travel to foreign countries with your very own terrorist, and it will make suggestions about terrorist groups you can meet while in said foreign countries.
6. Months and even years will pass in this fashion, while you essentially get the FBI to pay for everything you do. (Incidentally, be sure your lawyer negotiates your expense account well in advance, or you may be forced -- as the informant was in the Buffalo terrorist case -- to protest your inadequate remuneration by setting yourself on fire in front of the White House.)
7. At a certain point, something will go wrong. You may have trouble recruiting other people to collaborate with your very own terrorist, who is, as you yourself know, just an ordinary guy in a really bad mood. Or, alternatively, the terrorist cell you have carefully cobbled together may malfunction and fail to move forward -- probably as a result of sheer incompetence or of simply not having been genuinely serious about the acts of terrorism you were urging it to commit. At this point, you may worry that the FBI is going to realize that there isn't much of a terrorist plot going on here at all, just a case of entrapment. Do not despair: the FBI is way ahead of you. The FBI knows perfectly well what's going on. The FBI has as much at stake as you do. So before it can be obvious to the world that there's no case, the FBI will arrest your very own terrorist, hold a press conference and announce that a huge terrorist plot has been foiled. It will of course be forced to admit that this plot did not proceed beyond the pre-planning stage, that no actual weapons or money were involved, and that the plot itself was "not technically feasible," but that will not stop the story from becoming a front-page episode all over America and, within hours, boilerplate for all the Republican politicians who believe that you need to arrest a "homegrown" terrorist now and then to justify the continuing war in Iraq. Everyone will be happy, except for the schmuck you shmikeled into becoming a terrorist, and no one really cares about him anyway.
So congratulations. You have
foiled a terrorist plot. Way
to go.
The writer is an Iraq war
veteran.
On the morning of Sept. 15, I held in my hands a uniform that was issued to me nearly five years ago.
I remembered the first time I held it, wondering if I would ever wear it home, wondering if it would be stained by blood or shredded by bullets. It looks much different now than the first time I put it on—it is faded from 12 months of desert sand and sun. The elbows and knees are worn from lying in the street. The boots are tattered from kicking down doors and walking over cities of rubble. As I put it on for the first time since I returned from Iraq, I finally felt as if I was putting it on for a purpose.
For so many years, that uniform has not stood for justice and freedom. It is the uniform that the Iraqi people saw stomp through their towns. It is the uniform that drove humvees and manned machine guns. It is the uniform that dragged people from their homes and interrogated them in prison camps. But on the streets of Washington, D.C., the uniform took on new meaning.
It was no longer worn with the
intention of fighting for the
government, but fighting against it. For me, and for my brothers and
sisters in Iraq Veterans Against the War, the uniform that once
symbolized fear and destruction would now be worn in the spirit of
justice and resistance.
In March of 2003, our government ordered us to put on that uniform, march into a foreign land and take it from those who lived there. On Sept. 15, we put on that same uniform to march to the Capitol and face those who sent us to war.
A significant factor in ending the war in Vietnam was the ability of protesters and GIs to strike fear in the heart of the government. Countless citizens and soldiers threw their bodies into the gears of the war machine, and made the ruling class realize that instead of fighting their war, we would fight them.
This war will end when the government begins to fear the masses—when the army they sent to spread imperialism becomes the army that marches to their offices and charges through the police barricades.
The first time I put on that uniform, I hoped I would wear it with honor. On Sept. 15, I finally did. I could finally do something right while wearing it. The nearly 200 people arrested on that day—many of whom were Iraq war veterans—showed the government that we will do more than just march.
We will defy them at every turn; we will not fade away, but only grow in numbers and intensity. The longer this war rages on, the more we will resist and the more we will sacrifice.
Wearing that uniform at the steps of the Capitol, I knew that the most important action that I could do was to advance towards the barricade, and help light the spark that will empower people to stop this government.
For the first time, that uniform was worn fighting a just war. When I emerged from jail that night, I saw hundreds of cheering supporters outside. Then, I knew that sooner or later we will win this war against imperialism. And I have never felt prouder wearing that uniform.

Oil Grab in Iraq
By Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar Foreign Policy In Focus
02/22/07 "FPIF" -- --- While debate rages in the United States about the military in Iraq, an equally important decision is being made inside of Iraq--the future of Iraq’s oil. A new Iraqi law proposes to open the country’s currently nationalized oil system to foreign corporate control. But emblematic of the flawed promotion of “democracy” by the Bush administration, this new law is news to most Iraqi politicians.
A leaked copy of the proposed hydrocarbon law appeared on the Internet last week at the same time that it was introduced to the Iraqi Council of Ministers. The law is expected to go to the Iraqi Council of Representatives within weeks. Yet the Internet version was the first look that most members of Iraq’s parliament had of the new law.
Many Iraqi oil experts, like Fouad Al-Ameer who was responsible for the leak, think that this law is not an urgent item on the country's agenda. Other observers and analysis share Al-Ameer's views and believe the Bush administration, foreign oil companies, and the International Monetary Fund are rushing the Iraqi government to pass the law.
Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law’s key negative components harm Iraq’s national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy.
National Sovereignty and Financial Security
The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq’s oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preference in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts.
The exploration and production contracts give firms exclusive control of fields for up to 35 years including contracts that guarantee profits for 25-years. A foreign company, if hired, is not required to partner with an Iraqi company or reinvest any of its money in the Iraqi economy. It’s not obligated to hire Iraqi workers train Iraqi workers, or transfer technology.
The current law remains silent on the type of contracts that the Iraqi government can use. The law establishes a new Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council with ultimate decision-making authority over the types of contracts that will be employed. This Council will include, among others, “executive managers of from important related petroleum companies.” Thus, it is possible that foreign oil company executives could sit on the Council. It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil and gas decision-making body.
The law also does not appear to restrict foreign corporate executives from making decisions on their own contracts. Nor does there appear to be a “quorum” requirement. Thus, if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met--one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco, and two Iraqis--the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contacts for themselves.
Under the proposed law, the Council has the ultimate power and authority to approve and re-write any contract using whichever model it prefers if a "2/3 majority of the members in attendance" agree. Early drafts of the bill, and the proposed model by the U.S. advocate very unfair, and unconventional for Iraq, models such as Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) which would set long term contracts with unfair conditions that may lead to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of the Iraqi oil money as profits to foreign companies.
The Council will also decide the fate of the existing exploration and production contracts already signed with the French, Chinese, and Russians, among others.
Nora Ephron Huffington Post
How to Foil a Terrorist Plot in Seven Simple Steps
138 Comments | Posted June 4, 2007 | 12:04 AM (EST)