Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts

March 6, 2011

Send Clarence Thomas Packing: Step 3

Impeach Clarence Thomas

3rd Step: Contact US House of Representatives, the people's house. Ask for an investigation of Clarence Thomas. It won't happen soon, but it's our obligation to raise the issue (the right wing always does!).

Some of the issues regarding Clarence Thomas: Throw Clarence Thomas Off the Bench

My Message to Congress:

A complaint has been filed with the Missouri Bar Association to investigate Judge Clarence Thomas for allegations regarding his taxes. Given other widely publicized partisan activities by Mr. Thomas, the association is being asked to measure the weight of broader evidence relative to rules of conduct for a lawyer.

I would like Congress to consider it's own investigation. Please add me to an interest e-mail list for people following your future investigations into this matter.

The Missouri Bar contact information follows:

mobar@mobar.org
ph: 537 635 4281
fax: 573 635 2811

For Your Convenience:
Step 3.5, Twitter links to the Three Steps of Action:

http://tinyurl.com/CT-Step1
http://tinyurl.com/CT-Step2
http://tinyurl.com/CT-Step3

See Step 1
See Step2

PS

Go Johnny Saunders

gdaeman_scroll_small

December 15, 2010

Mail Box Full

My Congressman's voice mail box is full this morning. Hopefully it's full of voice mails that say something to the effect:

I call to urge you to seek a better tax deal than what President Obama and the US Senate have agreed to. Please stand on the side of the majority of the people who understand that disparity of wealth in the US is at a dangerous extreme. The economic system has been rigged for decades leading to a disgraceful situation of common people working harder for less and seeing the future of their children in peril. The US House of Representatives is the chamber of the people. Stand up to the elite minority so often represented by the US Senate and stand with the people. Thank you

I'll send him an e-mail.

Update: On second thought, I'll also leave a voice mail at one of his district offices.


gdaeman_scroll_small

December 10, 2009

If it Sounds too Good to be True...

Recent murmurs of healthcare breakthroughs have everyone atwitter. Expanding Medicare and making the Congressional healthcare plan* available to some... sounds good. So, what's the catch?

The corporate media is reporting:

MoveOn.org accused Democrats on Wednesday of "bargaining away the heart of health care reform."

MORE from MoveOn.Org & their petition.

I did see, somewhere, that although Medicare would be available, it would cost about $7,600/yr. Better than paying that or more to a corporate insurance scheme that will use the money to increase their power over our democratic processes in the future.

* As for the healthcare plan that Congress and federal employees have... the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan:

The Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.... Private insurers bid for the chance to sell policies to federal employees and offer a wide array of choices to consumers.

Read, "Private insurers collude on price ranges and bid within that range." Not exactly a public option.

SF Chronicle reports:

Elizabeth McGlynn, associate director of health at the Rand Corp., a nonprofit research center, said the current federal plan has a mixed record of controlling costs by providing competition to private insurers - a key aim of the public option. "They are not horrible and they are not best in class," she said. "They're about like everybody else."

That is, such proposed healthcare "reform" would be just like what we have today, except that it's mandatory (everyone is covered, whahoo!) and our money goes to the health insurance corporations so they can tighten their power over our democracy. Party like it's 1999!

Read More in SF Chronicle article linked below.

Sources:

San Francisco Chronicle, Dems' public option alternatives under fire, December 10, 2009.

gdaeman_scroll_small

December 4, 2009

One Voice for Real Healthcare

Since writing on "How Healthcare Legislation Will Pass" I heard a disturbing interview with the founder of Firedog Lake Blog, Jane Hamsher, on DemocracyNow! She is sounding a bit pessimistic, suggesting 1) final bill out of conference will have a triggered public option, which will never be triggered, and 2) will include Stupack anti-choice amendment.... unless we raise our voices.

Hamsher is trying hard to create counter pressure via a phone banking operation that targets Democratic House members who voted for the Stupack amendment via One Voice for Choice.

Jane Hamsher has been following the healthcare legislation very closely:

JANE HAMSHER on Public Option: .... it looks like it’s going to get worse this week [12/3/09]. Privately, people in the Senate are confirming that Harry Reid is going to try and cut a deal for triggers, which is something that the White House has been pushing for, Rahm Emanuel, since January of this year. They’ve wanted it all along. They’ve said they wanted the public option, but what they’ve worked for is triggers. And we always knew that this was, you know, probably going to be the lay of the land.

... the fact is that the White House [Rahm Emanuel] cut these deals over the summer with ... the insurance companies, the drug companies, and they have intended to follow through on them in order to keep the donations and the lobbying money out of the pockets of the Republicans in 2010. So they are going to try and jam triggers through, and I believe that, at the end of the day, we’ll be in a situation where we will be asking those members of the House that we got to commit to vote against any bill that doesn’t have a public option in it to vote against this bill.

JANE HAMSHER on Anti-Choice Language: Stupak [the anti-choice amendment], I believe, will make it into a conference report. As you know, after the Senate and House pass a bill, they go into conference and have to merge the two bills. And because Nancy Pelosi is saying she can’t pass a bill without Stupak, I believe that whether Ben Nelson is successful in getting it into the Senate bill or not, I believe that it will be in the final bill that comes out of conference. [Unless We Apply Major Pressure... See Phone Banking link above].
Hamsher says a lot of people don't realize that federal funds are already prohibited for abortions by the Hyde amendment passed years ago. Stupak's amendment goes further:

JANE HAMSHER on Anti-Choice Language: ... no insurance company offering insurance on the exchange, whether it’s funded with government money or not, can offer elective abortion coverage. And that threatens to take away abortion coverage from just about any insurance policy, because even the private insurance plans for reinsurance of big companies that have their employees insured can be affected by it...

For Your Convenience:

  • Contact the US Senate
  • Contact the House of Representatives
  • Contact the White House
  • One Voice for Choice Phone Banking

  • Sources:

    DemocracyNow! “One Voice for Choice"–FireDogLake Founder Launches Campaign to Target Dems Supporting Stupak Amendment, December 3, 2009

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    February 25, 2009

    Demand Drastic Change of the Banking System

    Economic literacy is important. For that reason, I maintain a list of Business/Econ web sites in the column to the right. Today I've added a new one, Baseline Scenario. It was co-founded by economist Simon Johnson. Simon Johnson, professor of global economics and management at MIT's Sloan School of Management. He is the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund.

    We have Bill Moyers to thank for guiding me to the Baseline Scenario site. Simon Johnson appeared in a segment on Bill Moyer's Journal, February 13, 2009. Here's a highlight:

    Johnson explains ... that the U.S. financial system reminds him more of the embattled emerging markets he encountered in his time with the International Monetary Fund than that of a developed nation. As such, Johnson believes that the U.S. financial system needs a "reboot," breaking up the biggest banks, in some cases firing management and wiping out shareholder value."

    It Continues...

    Without drastic action, Johnson argues, taxpayers are merely subsidizing a wealthy powerful industry without forcing necessary systemic changes: "Taxpayer money is ensuring their bonuses. We're making sure that banks survive. And eventually, of course, the economy will turn around. Things will get better. The banks will be worth a lot of money. And they will cash out. And we will be paying higher taxes, we and our children, will be paying higher taxes so those people could have those bonuses. That's not fair. It's not acceptable. It's not even good economics."

    This will be a topic of GDAE Podcast, Episode 7. You might also want to see the Simon Johnson interview with Bill Moyers [Video], or read the transcript. If you're moved, then ... Do Something. Make your voice heard.


    gdaeman_scroll_small

    December 13, 2008

    What I said in August 2007

    Not that you couldn't see it coming if you looked... Here's what I said in August 2007:

    ... get ready to fight with Congress. The next thing we'll be hearing is that some of these banks and high-flying financial institutions, which give out six-figure bonuses, are "too big to let fail." Congress (read "the US tax payer") will be asked to bail them out. Our answer should be "No." Economics 101 says that businesses must be allowed to fail so that the word "risk" means something, and to clean out the dead wood.

    You can read the short piece, which has a funny introductory story involving Winston Churchill.

    Psssst... Do Something


    gdaeman_scroll_small

    August 15, 2008

    INVESTIGATE Suskind's Revelations

    I've urged my senators and representative make a statement on the revelations of Ron Suskind's book regarding the CIA forging of a letter used to influence domestic public opinion on the Iraq war. Please do the same now... go directly to the bottom and click on the contact information.

    .... or procrastinate and read on.

    The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism

    It is gravely illegal for the US foreign intelligence agency (CIA) to conduct a domestic propaganda operation. Suskind presents multiple on-the-record testimonials that say George Tenant got a stinky assignment from Vice President Cheney's office to forge a letter implicating Iraq in 9/11 and WMD. One source is Rob Richer, former head of CIA’s Near East Division, and former deputy chief of clandestine operations. Richer points to Vice President Cheney's office as the source of the assignment. Richer puts it to words in the following transcript of a taped interview with Suskind. Speaking of CIA Director George Tenet with whom he discussed this assignment, Richer says:
    But now--he may have hinted--just by the way he said it, it would have--cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president.

    But he [Tenet] didn't say that specifically. I would naturally--I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.
    Rob Richer is not alone in speaking on the record. John Maguire, the former deputy chief of Iraq Operations Group with the CIA is adding to the body of evidence. These two men are not light-weights.

    Vice President Cheney's connection is corroborated by the American Conservative newspaper, which accepts the fabricated CIA letter as a given and adds some color to the unfolding revelations. They report that the idea originated in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, headed by neo-con Douglas Feith. This office was exposed by Robert Dreyfuss in The Lie Factory reported in Mother Jones magazine, and shown to be a direct pipeline
    to Vice President Cheney's office. We're just now hearing of another lie from that machine.

    The letter that is at the center of these revelations was faked to appear to have been written by Tahir Jalil Habbush, Iraq's head of intelligence. Habbush left Iraq and made contact with US and British intelligence to inform them that Iraq had no WMD, even though the reports to the UN inspectors left some doubt. That doubt was left intentionally. Habbush told the US and Britain that Hussien feared revealing his military weakness to Iran than he feared the US, which explains Hussein's "irrational" behavior.

    Unfortunately for everyone affected by the Iraq war, Habbush's story-line, though possibly true, didn't fit the Bush story-line on going to war with Iraq. So Bush side-lined Habbush by paying him $5 million to go live quietly in Jordan.

    Habbush never had anything to do with the letter; the CIA fabricated it on its own. It was backdated to July 1, 2001, and referenced the three points Cheney was repeating on Sunday talks shows: 9/11's Mohamed Atta trained in Iraq, Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium, biological and chemical weapons. According to Suskind, within intelligence circles, the inclusion of all three of Cheney talking points in a forgery is viewed as a particularly amateurish aspect of the letter forgery, which itself is viewed as "amateur hour".

    Suskind explains,

    Maguire talks, in the book—and there’s a quote, people who read it—he’s, “I wish George [Tenet] had more experience in actual operations, like some CIA directors, because he could have told his bosses in the White House, ‘This is a bad idea. Habbush is never going to sign it. We don’t think this is such a good plan.’” But Tenet doesn’t push back. And as he said, “That’s one thing,” Maguire says, “we blame George about.”

    I could go on, but buy and read Suskind's "The Way of the World," and demand accountability.

    Contact Congress: Cut 'n Paste the following into their e-mail forms:

    I urge you to make a statement on the revelations of Ron Suskind's book about the CIA fabrication of a letter used to influence domestic public opinion on the Iraq war. If proven, this would be a grave violation of federal law designed to protect our democracy.

    INVESTIGATIONS - In your statement on this matter please consider calling for investigations by the House, Senate and Justice Department.

    DECLASSIFICATIONS - You should also urge a rapid review of CIA documents for declassification. Many documents are highly likely to have no national security relevance, but rather are classified to hide embarrassment.

    THE MEDIA - Call 4th estate, the free press, to help expedite the laborious investigation process by coming forward with information.

    I look forward to hearing from you on this.

    CONTACT US SENATE

    CONTACT US HOUSE

    CLICK to Vote for Yahoo! Buzz

    Sources:

    PART 1:
    The Way of the World: Ron Suskind on How the Bush Admin Deliberately Faked an Iraq-al-Qaeda Connection and Undermined Diplomacy, Democracy in Pakistan and Iran.
    "Democracy Now" August 13, 2008.

    PART 2:
    After Ron Suskind Reveals Bush Admin Ordered Iraq-9/11 Fakery, House Judiciary Chair John Conyers Opens Congressional Probe.
    "Democracy Now" August 14, 2008.

    Raw Story

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    July 12, 2008

    Gambling on Oil Prices

    Today the Wall Street Journal reports a campaign has begun to challenge oil speculators in the financial industry:
    Strapped by rising fuel prices, the airline industry, gasoline retailers and an array of transportation interests are enlisting thousands of travelers to pressure Congress to reign in oil markets speculation -- a campaign that has triggered a lobbying war with the financial-services industry.

    The article continues that, "The airline industry email to frequent flyers urges them to learn more on a campaign website, www.stopoilspeculationnow.com." In part, the e-mail says:

    "Twenty years ago, 21% of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66%" of all oil futures contracts, the frequent flyer letter reads. "Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs."

    The Bush administration, and Phil Gramm (photo with McCain above), are responsible, in part, due to their deregulation ideology, which promotes rampant speculation. See the July/Aug 2008 Issue of Mother Jones Magazine, on the Enron loophole: Forclosure Phil.

    The financial industry counters the airline industry claims, saying, according to the Journal, that "speculation is less responsible for spiraling oil prices than is turmoil in supplier countries and the weakness of the dollar on world markets." If you believe the financial industry, we can also blame the Bush administration for the first factor, turmoil in supplier countries. Bush is also to blame for the second factor, a weak dollar, which is due in part to the US debt created by Bush.

    Bottom Line: Bush administration policies have fed the increase in oil prices and gas prices at the pump. Call this a failure? No! Bush represents a small elite minority, not the vast unwashed masses. Unfortunately, the latter failed to figure this out soon enough, many voting for Bush, and against their own interests, in 2004 when the writing was on the wall.

    Hopefully they won't make the same mistake in November 2008 by voting for John McCain, for whom Foreclosure Phil Gramm is a key economic adviser.

    Sources:

    Wall Street Journal, Airline Oil Lobbying Alarms Financial Firms, Elizabeth Williams, July 12, 2008.

    Photo Credit: Mother Jones Magazine, Foreclosure Phil, July/August 2008 Issue.

    gdaeman_scroll_small

    April 9, 2008

    Democrats Have Little Legitimacy

    Some people wonder why others, like me, occasionally say there's little difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have been captured by the corporate scourge blanketing the world. Below is an example reported on Democracy Now.

    Study: Lawmakers Invest $196M in Pentagon Contractors

    A new study shows members of Congress have collectively invested as much $196 million in military companies under contract with the Pentagon. The Center for Responsive Politics says the holdings could pose a conflict of interest for lawmakers deciding on spending for the Iraq war. More Republicans had military investments than Democrats, but Democrats have more money at stake. The highest stakeholder is Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry made at least $2.6 million from his investments between 2004 and 2006. He has up to $38 million invested in companies doing business with the Pentagon.


    Graphic Credit: RedRainFlies

    August 27, 2007

    What are the 18 Benchmarks?

    The benchmarks for Iraqi "progress" were laid out by Congress in a May 2007 in an Iraq war funding bill. A synopsis is below, followed by a link.

    (i) Constitutional Review

    (ii) de-Baathification (I think un-doing it)

    (iii) Equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq (what's not taken by US Corporations).

    (iv) Procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

    (v) Provincial election procedures.

    (vi) Amnesty.

    (vii) Militia disarmament program.

    (viii) Services committees to support Baghdad Security Plan.

    (ix) Three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.

    (x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan.

    (xi) Even handed enforcement of the law by Iraqi Security Forces.

    (xii) No safe haven for any outlaws.

    (xiii) Reducing sectarian violence and eliminating militia control of local security.

    (xiv) Joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

    (xv) Increasing the number of independent Iraqi security forces.

    (xvi) Protecting the rights of minority political parties.

    (xvii) Equitable spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects.

    (xviii) No false accusations of Iraqi Security Forces by Iraqi politicians.

    Maybe we should write some benchmarks for the Democrats: Meet 80% of them by September 2008 and we won't storm the Bastille.

    Elaboration on the Iraq benchmarks can be found at Free Frank Warner.

    For my personal views on the benchmarks, see More Make Believe from the Democrats: Benchmarks by which to Blame the Iraqis.

    August 8, 2007

    Get to Petraeus

    In five weeks, General Petraeus will report to Congress on the status of the Iraq war. We can also presume that he will give his recommendations on future steps.

    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, describes General Petraeus as having, "First, absolute integrity ... and second, (being) smart as a whip."

    OK then. We can appeal to General Petraeus' capacity to reason, and rely on his integrity to respond appropriately.

    General Petraeus will agree that the US military does not establish policy, but instead conducts military actions to achieve policies set by civilians.

    General Petraeus will agree that the US Congress has the Constitutional power to declare or stop the the Nation from engaging in war. James Madison said that the Constitution was written with the intent to give Congress the power to "chain the dogs of war."

    Thus, because General Petraeus does not set policy, he should ask the Democratic leadership of Congress to clarify its objectives regarding Iraq before offering recommendations on military actions. Only then should he offer recommendations relative to the stated objectives of Congress.

    If the objectives of Congress differ from those of the President, then we should expect Petraeus to offer alternative recommendations to the President that differ from those offered to Congress. If Congress does not initiate a process to end the war, or in some other way take clear command of the US military, it must concede to the will of the Executive Branch.

    This is the only logical and honest way General Petraeus can provide recommendations. Otherwise, he risks setting policy, which would represent a subtle form of military coup.

    CLICK to Contact General Petraeus:

    CLICK to Contact Speaker Nancy Pelosi


    Phone or FAX Senate Leader Harry Reid:

    Phone: 202-224-3542
    Fax: 202-224-7327

    Sources:

    Associated Press, ROBERT BURNS, Gen. Petraeus readies Iraq war report, August 8, 2007.

    June 15, 2007

    It's OK to Debate the Israel Lobby

    Times change. The Israel Lobby can now be analyzed and debated. Although I don't know the motives of the VPRO International "Back Light" organization, it's video is a legitimate contribution to the debate.

    Here's the description that accompanies the video:
    For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue to do so?

    In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel.

    The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby. The question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.

    With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and investigative journalist Michael Massing.

    Research: William de Bruijn
    Director: Marije Meerman


    January 25, 2007

    Senate House Minimum Wage: Make Tax Cuts for Small Business

    The House and Senate struggle over the minimum wage bill can be easily resolved. The Senate feels it has to tack on $8.3 billion over ten years on business tax breaks. Limit those tax breaks to small businesses, and call it a compromise.

    Source:

    JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer, January 24, 2007.

    January 24, 2007

    Stop the Iran War

    OK. We can see this one coming from miles away. I know we're already in a covert war with Iran, but we should be able to stop an overt war with them, right?

    Maybe this blog entry should be entitled, "Testing Democracy 1... 2... 3..."

    Some day Robert Naiman might be cited as one of many voices that "had it right" about Iran before Bush took us to war there. Hopefully, I'm wrong about this. One way to help ensure that I'm wrong is to step up to our democratic responsibility to stop the Iran war.

    Naiman provides two courses of action:

    1) Ask your Representative to Co-Sponsor the DeFazio (D) "Iran War Powers" Resolution.

    2) Ask your Representative to Co-Sponsor the Jones (R) "Iran War Powers" Resolution.

    These resolutions re-affirm that President Bush cannot attack Iran without Congressional authorization.

    Here's a LINK that Makes it Easy.


    Mark This Page

    Here are three important links for future use.

    Write the US House of Representatives
    Write the US Senate
    Write the Major Media Outlets

    January 19, 2007

    Associated Press Tweaks Democrat's 87 Hour Success

    Since the 1970s the mantras of "free market economics" and "less government" have been pervasive in the corporate media. So pervasive in fact that certain words have taken on deep cultural meaning. Through framing, repetition and other methods, some words now evoke negative thoughts among almost everyone: Taxes, Government Subsidies. And the notion of forcing anything has a general negative connotation.

    I have to wonder how the following paragraph was crafted before it was published by the Associated Press:

    Democrats accomplished their early legislative goals in 87 hours, adopting new ethics rules and passing bills raising the minimum wage, expanding taxpayer financed research into embryonic stem cells, forcing more homeland security measures, directing the federal government to negotiate for cheaper Medicare prescription drugs and lowering interest rates on subsidized student loans.

    Being attentive to the media, and having followed the high-profile "Democratic Party First 100 Hours", that paragraph struck me. I've repeated it below with several words highlighted.

    Democrats accomplished their early legislative goals in 87 hours, adopting new ethics rules and passing bills raising the minimum wage, expanding taxpayer financed research into embryonic stem cells, forcing more homeland security measures, directing the federal government to negotiate for cheaper Medicare prescription drugs and lowering interest rates on subsidized student loans.

    Were these highlighted words chosen by AP writer Jim Kuhnhenn, or were they added by an editor? I think we should know. A more positive, or neutral writing of the paragraph might be as follows:

    Democrats accomplished their early legislative goals in 87 hours, adopting new ethics rules and passing bills raising the minimum wage, expanding research into embryonic stem cells, enhancing homeland security measures, directing the federal government to negotiate for cheaper Medicare prescription drugs and lowering interest rates on student loans.

    I've dropped most of those previously highlighted word, and shortened another. Remember, these are professional writers who almost invariably strive for concise text to minimize column space. Maybe the writer is just being a wordy, or maybe he is trying to be precise. Maybe AP has an editor who wants to tweak the Democrats.

    Source:

    "Energy, ethics and lobby bills advance" January 19, 2007, By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Web LINK.

    January 11, 2007

    We're Heading for Surge and Iran Unless the Public Speaks Out

    Last night as I watched the president's address, I took a couple notes.

    Seek out networks in Iran and Syria
    Limited diplomacy surge with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, omitting Iran and Syria.
    Glen Greenwald was struck by the same point. He urges everyone to pay close attention to Bush's intentions toward Iran in the days and months ahead. Aside from Bush's argument of "disrupting networks" and pre-empting potential Iranian nuclear ambitions, there is pressure to attack Iran.

    In short, Busch can't continue occupying Iraq, because it incites unacceptable violent resistance. Bush can't leave, because his failed mission would increase Iran's power in the region with great influence over a Shia-dominated Iraq. So, where does this leave him? It leaves him with the option of attacking Iran to weaken that nation before leaving Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same reality.

    Another point struck me:

    Bush committed 4,000 more troops to Anbar Province.
    My count was 20,000 in Baghdad and 4,000, but today's papers cited 21,500. I had expected Bush to focus solely on Baghdad, but he at least has the "sense" to recognize the troubles extend beyond Baghdad.

    Another point struck me:

    Capital investment funding for jobs
    Bush been one step behind at every turn of this war. He commits more troops, when it's too late. He adopts a socialist job-creation policy, when it's too late. It's too late for reconstruction projects because it has become too dangerous to do the work. How long will it be until we hear "A bomb blast ripped through a line of people applying for jobs....." "The Iraqis were killed by small arms fire while working on a....." "A mini bus with eight Iraqi reconstruction workers was riddled with gun fire...." as if this isn't already happening.

    Another political reality is that the Democrats have nothing to gain from withdrawing support for a troop surge. If Democrats withdraw funds and authority for troops, they can be blamed for what ever happens there after. Thus, it's in their political interest to let Bush have enough surge-rope with which to hang himself.

    Given these "realities," the US is almost certain to surge the troops, and attack Iran, beyond the covert military operations already underway in Iran.

    The only way to avoid this is for the US public to demonstrate a historically high amplitude of opposition to these two acts. The first step is for everyone concerned to immediately write and call their elected officials. I've done it, and it feels good to talk to a human. Ask them if they're receiving similar calls. If so, ask from which side of the issue they're receiving more calls.

    Congressional Contacts:

    Write the US House of Representatives
    Write the US Senate

    Then, voice the same opinion to local and national media outlets.

    Media Contacts:

    Write the Major Media Outlets
    .