As the war becomes more deadly, costly and counter-productive each day, a growing majority of citizens want to see a change of course in Iraq and U.S. foreign policies that better reflect American values.

With mid-term elections approaching, Peace Action's Peace Voter 2006 campaign will bring the occupation of Iraq and other key foreign policy issues to the forefront of the electoral debate.

We will put our elected officials on record on critical peace and security issues and demand their commitment to a more responsible foreign policy for our country.

By making peace the top priority in 2006, you can make a big impact at the local level, helping to build a powerful movement of people willing to organize for peace on Election Day, and beyond. This November, let's hold Congress accountable to the rising tide of public opinion that's urging an end to the war in Iraq and a new direction for U.S. relations with the world.

Become a Peace Voter today.

1100 Wayne Ave. Ste 1020, Silver Spring MD 20910 (301) 565-4050 www.Peace-Action.org

Become a Peace Voter:
Take the Pledge Today!

Print the Pledge

to use
in your community.

Register to Vote

Pasta for Peace

Hoosiers for Peace requests the honor of your presence…

What: Share Sunday Gravy with Local Progressives at Pasta for Peace. Good Food, Stimulating Conversation, Inspirational Music, Film, and Art and a Silent Auction. Did we mention the pasta was shaped like peace signs? To reserve your seat, call 202-9302 or e-mail heather@hoosiersforpeace.org. Seats are limited and going fast.

When: June 25, 2006 from 1 to 4 p.m. (with dinner at 2 p.m.)

Where: Indianapolis Peace and Learning Center (6040 DeLong Rd.) in Eagle Creek Park.

Why: Now is the time to spread the word to mainstream America to unite and stand up for peace. Hoosiers for Peace is sponsoring a statewide advertising campaign, which is focused on uniting the community to call for peace. This campaign will cost $14,000. This money will be used to pay for a full-page ad in the Indianapolis Star to ask more than 700,000 Hoosiers to call for peace. To find out more visit www.hoosiersforpeace.org

Cost: Adults $20, Children 5-12 $7, Children under 5 eat free. All proceeds will go towards the advertising campaign. Seats are limited, contact Heather for tickets today: 202-9302 or e-mail heather@hoosiersforpeace.org.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.  -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

May 7, 2006

Dear Peacemakers,

Will you help to spread and encourage peace? With a record number of American soldiers dying in April 2006 and possible military action against Iran becoming daily news, now is the time to spread the word to mainstream America to unite and stand up for peace.

Hoosiers for Peace is sponsoring a statewide advertising campaign, which is focused on uniting the community to call for peace. This campaign will cost $14,000. This money will be used to pay for a full-page ad in the Indianapolis Star to ask more than 700,000 Hoosiers to call for peace. We are contacting dozens of organizations to make a proposal to form a coalition to raise funds and send a collaborative message to Hoosiers to Call for Peace. The message is: Call your friends, your family, and your representatives and ask them to support the Call for Peace.

Like most Americans, we oppose war based on the following, which will be reflected in the advertisement:

A. War Kills. More than 2,400 American Soldiers have died and nearly 1,000 Hoosier soldiers are in harms way.

B. War depletes our resources. Billions of dollars are going to sustain war efforts while ordinary citizens struggle for social services.

C. War will not make us secure. Studies have shown that the U.S. is no more secure today than it was before 911.

Hoosiers for Peace, a website sponsored by Progressive Indiana, requests your support to make this advertisement a success. We will use the advertisement to call for peace. Each group in the coalition working on this project will be listed in the ad. Each group will be asked to raise $1000 by October 1, 2006. Below are some suggestions for fundraising:

1. Letter Writing Campaign: Contact your family and friends and ask them to support this call for peace. Tell them how many people we can reach and ask them to make a generous donation and spread the word. You may collect the money through your organization or you may refer them to Progressive Indiana. Donations may be sent through our secure online giving by going to www.progressiveindiana.org and click on donate now or log onto www.hoosiersforpeace and click on donate now. Checks may also be made payable to Progressive Indiana and mailed to:

Progressive Indiana

P.O. Box 55253

Indianapolis, Indiana 46205-0253

2. Host a house party. Go grassroots and organize a pasta dinner or backyard barbecue and ask for a donation from each guest. Play poker and donate half of each pot to the campaign for peace. Have a bake sale through your church or place of employment.

3. Plan a small event. Invite your community to an event and ask for donations for the ad. Small concerts, speakers, and socials are some ideas for these events. Get creative and network!

We need at least 14 groups to join the coalition and many more people to join the campaign to help fill in possible gaps. If we join together we can make this happen and we can bring Hoosiers together through this ad. As we Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, and call for an End to the War we can stand united for peace. We can make a difference by showing ordinary Hoosiers that there are many people like them working for peace. Please contact us as soon as possible if you would like to participate in this campaign. With a little work and collaboration we can make a large impact on our community.

In Peace,

Heather Allen-Garde

Director, Hoosiers For Peace

heather@hooisersforpeace.org

heatherreneeallen@yahoo.com

317/202-9302

It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it – Eleanor Roosevelt

About the Author

Dr. David C. Korten has authored numerous books, including When Corporations Rule the World, and The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism. He is a co-founder and board chair of the Positive Futures Network, which publishes YES! A Journal of Positive Futures; founder and president of The People-Centered Development Forum; an associate of the International Forum on Globalization; and a member of the Club of Rome. A former Harvard Business School professor, Air Force captain, and USAID advisor, he has more than thirty years experience living and working in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. He also serves on the boards of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute.

David Korten

Butler University

June 26, 2006

7pm

Reilley Room

Atherton Hall

Suggested Donation is $5.00

For more information

Click here

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Sign the ACLU's Petition against torture!

We demand our country back.

The Not Your Soldier Project gives youth the tools we need to stop the military invasion of our schools and our communities.

Not Your Soldier Action Camps bring together young people who are heavily targeted by military recruitment. At the camps, youth learn how to take action to fight military recruitment, the poverty draft, and the corporations that profit off of war.

In 2006, Not Your Soldier will be hosting a national camp for youth and adult allies.

>>Go to the Pick a Camp section to find out more!

If you're interested in hosting a regional Not Your Soldier gathering, find out more here.

Not Your Soldier National Days of Action are coordinated days of creative, non-violent direct action where youth take leadership and tell recruiters, "We are Not Your Soldiers!"

>>Sign up for our action alert e-mail list!

Parents: have questions? Check out Info for Parents, and our FAQ's to find out what the camps will be like.

Today's News and Views

June 15, 2006

Rally protests war with memorial service

By Cordell Eddings

cordell.eddings@indystar.com

Several Hoosiers celebrated Flag Day on Wednesday by sticking 2,500 mini American flags into the ground at Veterans Memorial Plaza and burning sage to mourn the nearly 2,500 soldiers killed in Iraq. They also poured beer on the ground in a symbolic toast to the fallen soldiers.

More than 60 people, including members of Veterans for Peace and other anti-war groups, attended the memorial service and anti-war protest at the plaza Downtown.

"We wanted to give people a visual representation what 2,500 people look like," said Harold Donle, a decorated Vietnam veteran who organized the service. "These soldiers were idealistic, worked for the general welfare of the nation, and they died for a lie so that the criminal-in-chief can do photo ops in Baghdad.

"These people are gone, and they're not coming back."

Not all in attendance agreed with Donle. Terry Hendrix, also a Vietnam veteran, expressed sorrow for the death of the soldiers but said their sacrifice is needed to preserve freedom.

"No one wants war," Hendricks said. "But these men who know that freedom isn't free were not afraid to meet the commitment to protecting it."

Call Star reporter Cordell Eddings at (317) 444-6308.

June 14, 2006

The Democrats Can't Win by Default, They Must Show the American People They Can Stand Up to Bush's Propaganda Leadership

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

How Much Did Bush's Photo-op In Iraq Cost the Taxpayers? Ah. what's a few million when we've already spent well over $300 billion dollars of OUR tax dollars on Bush's bloody folly?

There's a connection between Bush's craven Green Zone Iraqi photo-op and the news that Karl Rove won't be indicted.

Here it is.

Rove's purpose is to get through each election cycle by sweeping under the rug any bad news that might swing the election to the Democrats (not counting the votes that the Republicans suppress or steal). As the publication Editor and Publisher pointed out, the media -- including the New York Times, the Washington Post and Time Magazine -- knew about Rove's role in PlameGate, but protected him under the guise of "journalistic principles" [gag us with a spoon] through the 2004 election.

If Rove had been fingered prior to the 2004 elections, Bush probably wouldn't have been able to even steal it.

In 2000, Rove swept under the rug things too numerous to mention -- with the complicity of the corporately owned mainstream media. These included Bush's checkered National Guard record, his cocaine use, his Harken Oil insider trading, etc., etc. In the end, a last minute release of information about a Bush drunk driving conviction helped Bush lose the election. [Yes, he did lose, remember? Scalia gave him the White House; the American people elected Al Gore.]

In 2006, Rove squirmed out of an indictment (as to how, no one is quite yet sure -- he may be cooperating with Fitzgerald because Scooter Libby's trial won't come until after the 2006 elections, so whatever Rove might reveal won't impact the midterms, but that is conjecture). He also is using the lapdog media to once again resurrect the preposterous image of "Conan" Bush "daring" to make a "brave" trip to the Iraq Green Zone!

After three years of being promised the mission was accomplished and the "throes of the insugency" are in its last days, we are once again resurrecting the mythic [faux] image of Bush the valiant hero, at a time when the war continues to get even worse!

Why, because Rove doesn't care about long-term impact, just about winning each election cycle.

Meanwhile, most of the Democrats on the Hill are afraid to, once again, take Bush on regarding his abysmal failure on National Security. The Dems don't understand that what people value the most is their own lives -- and the lives of their family members. They won't trust the Dems until the Dems stand up to Bush and reveal that he is hurting America's national security more than he is helping us.

BuzzFlash has said this since shortly after 9/11. This isn't about politics; it's about our lives -- and Bush is a threat to all of our lives. You just can't sit on Capitol Hill and take the calculated risk that it's better to go along with Bush's disastrous foreign policy misadventures when he is putting us more at risk everyday.

But Rove, speaking to a New Hampshire gathering of the faithful the other day (to help raise more money to cover the costs of defending illegal RNC-related actions to suppress the Democratic vote in the Granite State), started revving up the GOP "fear" machine again. That's why Bush went to Baghdad. Because it's all part of the 2006 midterm plan to keep control of Congress.

Because Rove knows better than anyone that if the Republicans lose either the House or the Senate, it's subpoena time for the White House.

Rove is counting on the Democrats to mount their usual lackluster "issues" campaign, while the Republicans hotwire into the primal fear of Americans for personal safety, even while the ship of fools in the White House is making us less safe. Karl's depending on Dems not to challenge Bush on "national security," and, with few exceptions, Rove will probably win the bet.

The Democrats can't win by default. They have to start showing strength, courage and a resolute defense of the Constitution -- speaking out with vigor and valor.

Then they will break Rove's cycle of puddle jumping from election to election, sweeping the sleazy realities of the GOP under the rug until after the vote is cast.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Stay the Course? What Course?

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 16, 2006; A25

Fresh from his triumphal visit to Baghdad -- a place so dangerous he had to sneak in without even telling the Iraqi prime minister -- George W. Bush is full of new resolve to stay the course in his open-ended "global war on terror." That leaves the rest of us to wonder, in sadness and frustration, just what that course might be and where on earth it can possibly lead.

This is a "war" in which three men held for years without due process at the Guantanamo Bay prison kill themselves by hanging, and their jailers are so unnerved and self-absorbed that they see the suicides as an attack. Rear Adm. Harry Harris's all-about-me lament -- "I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us" -- was worthy of delivery from Oprah's couch.

Bush claimed at his news conference the other day that he'd "like to close Guantanamo" if only the people being held there weren't so "darn dangerous." These bad people, in other words, are forcing him to hold them indefinitely under conditions that mock international norms. But if the inmates are indeed beyond redemption, why order them to be hog-tied and force-fed when they go on hunger strikes? Why not just let them starve? Why freak out when three of the evildoers hang themselves? Why not pass out rope and tell the rest to bring it on?

This is a "war" in which the United States drops two 500-pound bombs with the express intent of assassinating Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group that wouldn't have existed if Bush hadn't decided to invade. But when the world learns that Zarqawi briefly survived the bombing, and rumors circulate that U.S. forces shot him dead, officials rush to release an autopsy report showing that the butcher with a $25 million bounty on his head died from blast injuries. An American medic, we are told, was about to administer first aid when Zarqawi mumbled something unintelligible and expired.

Why do your best to kill an enemy leader -- a bad, bad man, the worst of the worst -- and then try to revive him? Didn't you want him dead?

In this amorphous, open-ended "war" that we're spending precious lives and billions of dollars to wage, the rules of engagement seem to be shoot first and apologize later.

We're sorry if U.S. Marines massacred 24

civilians in Haditha. We're even more sorry than we were after U.S. military personnel tortured and humiliated those prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Bush's stalwart ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is sorry if London police, conducting an

anti-terrorist raid this month, shot and wounded an innocent man whose only "crime" was to come downstairs in his underwear to see who was breaking into his house. But not as sorry as Blair was after the London subway bombings, when commandos shot dead an innocent Brazilian electrician whom they mistook for a possible, potential, just-might-be terrorist.

Nobody's sorry, though, about secret CIA prisons or extralegal detention or interrogation by brutal "waterboarding" or an Orwellian blanket of domestic surveillance. After all, we're at "war."

The military announced yesterday that the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has reached 2,500, another of those awful, round-number milestones. It is widely expected that the new Iraqi government will consider an amnesty for some of the insurgents who killed some of those American servicemen and women -- drawing a distinction between roadside bombs placed by Sunni Muslims in "resistance" to the U.S. occupation and those placed by foreign al-Qaeda jihadists. If this happens, we'll have taught the Iraqis well. They'll be saying "pardon me" just like their American tutors.

Today's generation of jihadists was forged in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. How long will the next generation, being forged in Iraq fighting the American occupation, be with us?

Iraq is just one theater in Bush's "war." Elsewhere, Afghanistan is once again ablaze as the resurgent Taliban counterattacks. Somalia is coming under the sway of an Islamic militia that may harbor al-Qaeda militants. America's popularity in the world continues to fall.

But George W. Bush forges ahead, trying vainly to kill a poisonous, retrograde ideology with bullets and bombs. His "war" is self-perpetuating, and no one even knows what victory would look like. Long after he's gone, we'll still be looking for a way to end the mess he began.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

House debates Iraq war

By MARGARET TALEV
June 14, 2006

The House of Representatives on Thursday began its first formal debate on the Iraq war since the 2003 invasion, with GOP leaders saying Congress must restate its support for the mission and Democrats accusing Republicans of rigging the debate.

As the House argued, the Senate quickly brought up and shut down a proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end, a move engineered by Republicans to embarrass Democrats in that chamber.

In the House, a non-binding resolution, which lawmakers are not being permitted to amend, came up for discussion as the Pentagon announced a milestone of 2,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq. The resolution could be voted on Friday.

The resolution may be politically difficult to oppose because it expresses the conviction the United States will prevail in a global war against terrorism, honors troops, and supports a free and safe Iraq.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who visited Iraq at the start of this month, said, "I came from Iraq believing even more strongly that it is not enough for this House to say, 'We support our troops.' To the men and women in the field, in harm's way, that statement rings hollow if we don't also say we support their mission."

But the resolution also makes two stipulations to which many Democrats disagree: that the Iraq war is an essential component of the broader war against radical Islamic terrorism, and that any timetable for withdrawal would be against the interests of national security.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she would vote against the resolution, which she called "a press release for staying the course in Iraq." She said she supports a phased, strategic redeployment of troops to be designed by military commanders, not Congress.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Marine veteran who argues the United States has exhausted its military usefulness in Iraq, said Thursday, "There's less than 1,000 al Qaeda in Iraq but we're caught in this civil war between 100,000 Shias and 20,000 Sunnis fighting with each other.

"You know who wants us to stay in Iraq right now?" Murtha said. "Al Qaeda wants us there because it recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us there. Russia wants us there. Stay and we'll pay, not only pay in dollars. . . . I figure it took us through the Reagan administration to pay for the Vietnam War."

In the Senate, the vote to table an Iraq withdrawal plan came unexpectedly.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had been trying to round up support within his own party for a proposal for a Dec. 31 timetable for withdrawal. Only it wasn't Kerry but Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who called up the plan. Democrats balked, saying that wasn't a fair way to debate it, and they helped reject the move, 93-6. Kerry said he planned to offer his own amendment next week and hoped for a serious debate.

"I think really the Senate ought to give a more appropriate kind of seriousness of purpose, if you will, to debate of this kind of consequence," Kerry told his colleagues.

House Democrats lost their bid to block the no-amendment rule, on a near party-line vote of 222-194.

"The Republican leadership has turned what could have been a serious debate into a charade," said Rep. Tom Lantos of California, ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.

House Republicans acknowledged they want the debate to strengthen their position going into the fall midterm elections, but they also defended the resolution as a basic choice. Said Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., "Is it al Qaeda, or is it America?"

They said Democrats want it both ways: to get credit for supporting the troops but insulate themselves from blame when the fighting gets tough. Most Republicans maintain support for the war, while the question divides the Democratic Party.

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.)

June 16, 2006

Editorial

Politics Begins at Home

The nation is fortunate that a sudden attempt to kill one of the hallowed anticorruption reforms from the Watergate scandal — the option of public financing in presidential elections — was smoked out in the House this week. The sponsor, Representative John Doolittle, a powerful California Republican, may try another day with his plan to block the flow of taxpayers' voluntary contributions from the government treasury. Mr. Doolittle has such faith in private money-raising that he boosted his family income by setting up his wife, Julie, as a consultant being paid a 15 percent commission on every dollar his campaign raises.

Call it family values. Call it brazen. But the missus has received $180,000 since late 2001, operating this private business out of the couple's suburban Virginia home, including among her clients the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The pathetic state of Congressional ethics is that such nepotic profiteering is deemed legal so long as the compensation is "consistent with the market rate." Questions have gone unanswered about whether Julie Doolittle has any real experience in the field. Professional fund-raising associations have condemned payment by commission as unethical, but Mr. Doolittle's office defends it as legal and based on "tireless and effective work."

Mr. Doolittle sits on the Appropriations Committee, to which lobbyists and special interests have an attraction that borders on Pavlovian. No great drumbeating is needed to fill those campaign kitties. Like other lawmakers, Mr. Doolittle indulges "earmarking" — the odious practice of delivering government contracts to favored pleaders who often requite with campaign contributions.

Such quid pro quo politicking predates Watergate. But the insult to taxpayers by Doolittle Inc. is compounded by the move to kill the public financing alternative to big-money political pandering. The presidential check-off system has worked well for three decades, but is being strained by the rocketing private donations that politicians eagerly welcome. Congress needs to update the system's matching fund and spending limits, not obliterate them.

June 15, 2006

Frameshop: 3 Phrases I'd Like To Hear House Dems Say

Focus on Soldiers, Urgency And Smart Policy Can Help Dems Control House Debate

In case you were wondering how the GOP Congress was spending its time--while American soldiers die by the thousands, while their limbs are blown to shreds by bombs, and while they accidentally kill innocent people as a result of the stress of a dumb Republican policy--while a generation of American soldiers is being damned in a war that will do little but destroy their souls--Republicans are forcing a discussion of this:

H. RES. 861

Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

(full text is here)

Yes, America. While The Republican Congress wastes time with a non-binding resolution, American soldiers die. More and more Americans are dying and losing limbs--losing their minds in a war with out purpose or end--while Republicans stand up and demand that Democrats prove they are against terrorism.

Disgusting. This whole charade of H. Res. 861 is a cynical attempt to bump up GOP poll numbers by shouting 'Terror! Terror! TERROR!' over and over again.

But what should Democrats say in the face of this GOP hijacking of our government?

I would like to hear the Democrats on the floor of the House say three things:

"Americans are dying!"
"No Time To Waste."
"Smart Security"

First, A Reminder: Karl Rove Wins Elections With 9/11 And Terror
Before we get to the phrases I want to hear, we should remember what this debate is all about.

This debate on the floor is a sign that Karl Rove is again running the national strategy of the GOP. He has decided--just like he decided when he 're-elected' President Bush--that the only way to win is to convince the American public that Democrats are (1) terrorists, (2) traitors or (3) both.

TERROR! TERROR! TERROR!

9/11! 9/11! 9/11!

DEMS HATE TROOPS! DEMS HATE TROOPS! DEMS HATE TROOPS!

Throw in a healthy dose of hate for gay people and immigrant workers and: Presto! You have Karl Rove's mid-term election plan.

Whatever a Democrat says, between now and the November elections, the GOP will respond by saying, "Terror! 9/11! Dems hate the troops! Gays and Latinos are bad!" (sigh...)

That is where we are, today, in GOP election politics. And that is what H. Res. 861 is about.

Phrase #1: "Americans Are Dying" - Death
This is the phrase I want to hear at the beginning of every statement by every Democrat who speaks on the floor of the House or the Senate:

"Americans are dying. Mr. Speaker..."

This simple phrase should be placed up front in the words Democrats say on the floor of the House, rather than being buried in their sentiments.

While Republicans speak in ideological terms--demanding that Americans Demonstrate they are against people being blown up by suicide bombers--Democrats should gently focus attention on the plight of our soldiers.

Phrase #2: "No Time To Waste" - Time
This second phrase reframes the debate in terms of time. Democrats can stand up and say that H.Res. 861 is not important or that it is politically cynical, but the real issue is that while the GOP wastes time talking forcing people to show their allegiance to the war, other more important things are happening:

"Americans are dying. Mr. Speaker, we have no time to waste..."

"Americans are dying. Mr. Speaker, there is no time to waste..."

"Americans are dying. Mr. Speaker, America just has no time to waste..."

What comes after this phrase can be just about anything that the particular speaker wants or needs to say. It may seem a bit formulaic at first, but the power of 'no time to waste" is that it defines the frame of the debate in terms of urgency and priorities.

Democrats have been admirably passionate in the debate, but their passion could be considerably augmented by the time frame.

Phrase #3: "Smart Security" - Smart
The idea that our foreign policy has not been 'smart' under President Bush and the Republican Congress is the most obvious and most under used frame that exists.

There are many, many ways to get this idea across, but the simplest is just to say it:

"Americans are dying. Mr. Speaker, we have no time to waste. We need smart security..."

"Americans are dying. Mr. Speaker, there is no time to waste. Iraq is not smart national security..."

"Americans are dying. Mr. Speaker, America just has no time to waste. Staying the course is not smart security..."

The opposite of 'smart' security is, of course, 'dumb' and 'dangerous.' And these two ideas should also be used liberally.

The Republicans are endlessly repeating the idea that we should 'fight over there' to avoid 'fighting over here,' and so forth. Democrats on the floor of the Congress should force them to answer for a change--force them to defend themselves against their 'dumb' policies.

It just is not smart to do the same thing over and over and over again when there is zero progress on the ground.

Americans are dying. We have no more time to waste. We need smart security that takes all points of view into account to succeed, not a dumb war that never changes because our leadership is afraid of political damage.

Our soldiers are smart. The public is smart. The Democrats are smart. We all realize that to actually stop terrorism from threatening our way of life, we must make significant changes in Iraq.

And so forth.

Death, Time, Smart.

These are three ideas I'd like to hear on the floor of Congress as the Democrats do their best to deal with a cynical GOP abuse of power with H. Res. 861.

June 15, 2006

The Top 11 Dumbest Statements from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner’s Confidential Messaging Memo Regarding the Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on Terror

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Ron Schalow, Author of "Bullshit Artist – The 9/11 Leadership Myth"

The memo can be downloaded as a PDF.

1. “The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world.”

Here we go again with the post-9/11 world baloney. The Republican President forgot to defend the country before and during the attacks and suddenly the past 20 years of terrorist attacks on Americans disappear from history. The post-9/11 label was invented to cover for the incompetence and cowardice of the George Bush. Evidently, it was easier to rewrite reality than try to explain it.

2. “We can no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us safe.”

Who expected the oceans to keep us safe? Was it Brownie? No, not George! Seriously? “Golly Dick, what happened? I thought we were protected by the oceans—the big, wet and angry seas? Do you think they figured out how to use boats like those British guys who fought Mel Gibson?”

3. “The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or unchallenged.”

Nobody ever said that any terror camps should go unchecked or un-bombed. If George W. Bush wanted to wipe out the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, who was stopping him—the Taliban and their two boxes of old Kalashnikov’s? Did the President need to get permission from Pakistan or Dick to defend the country?

And Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was sitting in the northern part of Iraq, outside of Saddam’s control, camping out with his pals, mixing up a little sarin gas to sell at the flea market before the shock and awe. The Pentagon came to the White House three times with plans to explode the whole works, but Bush said no. Pretty much unchecked or unchallenged.

4. “In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.”

Resolutions and sanctions—that’s it—for tens of thousands of deaths? Well hell, that was really sweet of George to defend the honor of the UN, but we had real threats to deal with. Saddam couldn’t fight his way out of a walk-in closet—and our President thought he was the primary danger to the U.S.

5. …the United States had to show our resolve as the world’s premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies.

Huh?

6. In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own?

Yes, let’s do the second one…the fade away thing. Good grief—no one has ever suggested not confronting countries that pose an actual threat. It’s blowing up the ones that couldn’t take Rhode Island in a fair fight that are a waste of life and loot.

7. Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world.

There were more al Qaeda dudes hanging out in the clubs in Florida, than in Iraq before the invasion. If Bush was looking for bin Laden’s boys, he could have picked 60 countries with a larger contingency.

8. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals.

Harry Truman

9. Capitol Hill Democrats’ only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.

I’d like to see the paperwork and first draft of the speech to promote that policy. “My fellow American’s; unlike the manly George Bush, who ran away like a little girl and conceded defeat to the terrorists on 9/11, I propose we merely manage the threat of terrorism, whatever that means, and not run away from the danger—or pose somewhere.”

10…they [the voters] have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.

The Republican Coherent National Security Policy: A Republican President will dismissively ignore the threats of al Qaeda attacks, including hijackings, and stand around like a doorman while terrorists fly unimpeded through the friendly skies and turn the World Trade Center towers into rubble. Sensing something is up; a Republican President will write and recite a speech while another airliner bears down on the Pentagon. Aware of the stakes—as concerns his life—the President will then sashay off to Louisiana and Nebraska to sheepishly look for a very deep hole—a hidey hole.

11. Building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and gaining democratic allies in the region will be the best gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans.

If we wanted democratic allies in the region, why not just politely ask Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt—our allies—to give us a break and change their ways. Or, since we had already started in Afghanistan, perhaps we could have stayed there with a full force and made it the gem of democracy and beacon of hope for the Mideast, instead of letting it drift back to hell.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Ron Schalow is the author of "Bullshit Artist -- The 9/11 Leadership Myth" -- On sale soon in the BuzzFlash Progressive Marketplace.

Crooks and Liars

Only on The Colbert Report:

Westmoreland co-sponsors bill on the Ten Commandments and can't even name them

Colbert was priceless last night. His guest was Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland and I guess he never heard of The Colbert Report before. He will now.

Video-WMP Video-QT (rough transcript)

Colbert: You have not introduced a single piece of legislation since you entered Congress.

Westmoreland: That's correct.

Colbert: This has been called a do nothing Congress. Is it safe to say you're the do nothingest?

Westmoreland: I, I, ..Well there's one other do nothiner. I don't know who that is, but they're a Democrat.

Only on The Colbert Report:

Westmoreland co-sponsors bill on the Ten Commandments and can't even name them

FreeVideoCoding.com

Colbert: What can we get rid of to balance the budget?

Westmoreland: The Dept. of Education.

Colbert: What are the Ten Commandments?

Westmoreland: You mean all of them?--Um... Don't murder. Don't lie. Don't steal Um... I can't name them all.

The guy co-sponsors a bill about the Ten Commandments and doesn't even know them. Priceless.

(h/t Vincent)

emailer Ruth asks: Does this guy deserve a $3,300 pay raise?

Home