• on a comment on The Ron Paul REVOLUTION over 6 years ago

    Ron Paul is for many things that people here are very much against. However, he has a number of positions that are quite positive. I do not support him at all, but he is getting much support from people who are definitely not neocons. The Republican brand is a huge negative, but there have been some very progressive Republicans in the past.

    For example, Republican U.S. Senator Lowell P. Weicker was defeated by "Democrat" Joe Lieberman in 1988 in the race for Connecticut U.S. Senator, with massive backing of Lieberman by William F. Buckley. But he became governor of
    Connecticut in 1991, and went on to pass the first-ever graduated state income tax in that state.

  • comment on a post The Ron Paul REVOLUTION over 6 years ago

    Source: Gore thinks Clinton unstoppable
    October 12, 2007

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A source involved in Gore's past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

    But he will not run, because he won't take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.

    Let me put it this way. I started my blogging career at a long-gone website called "repentantnadervoters.org". I held the position that voting for Nader in 2000 was very mistaken, but understandable.

    Times have changed. In particular, Hillary Clinton has just now signed on to the Shiite hatred enabling Kyl-Lieberman Amendment:

    Washington, DC - "Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and  have substantial links with Hezbollah.

    More war? Maybe it's time to dust off Ralph Nader.

  • How the hell could I have strayed into the no-man's-land of "this is about he oil?" How silly of me!

  • Because the Clintons don't want a war with Iran?

    I don't know what "the Clintons" want; I only know Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

    Nobody ever wants war. Still, they do manage to start them anyway.

  • You MUST SEE My "Dear Phil Alito"

    I know, maybe it's overkill to keep beating this mad horse. But I cannot help it. Somebody out there must see the obvious connections. These Alito kids are not headed to Iraq -- where your poor relations across the tracks are going to get railroaded -- and this is most definitely not right.

    See my  open e-mail straight to Alito Junior in my Weekly "Bush Twins in Uniform" Watch diary!


  • .... and Not-Jenna Bush chickenhawk comments AND diary entries. It would be hypocritical to just mention the Republican chickenhawk children, would it not? Do I have to dredge up all my comments and posts about the subject? They would take up three diaries by themselves.

  • CounterPunch
    All Eyes on Khuzestan
    A U.S. War Plan?
    February 10, 2006



    But the administration may have choices other than a full-scale attack on Iran or an increasingly less credible viewing-with-alarm. If things get desperate enough that they need a military emergency to rally support for a beleaguered Bush and Co, there are things that they could do, short of all-out war. (In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh has described military intrusions -- "special operations" -- by the U.S. and Israel that have been underway in Iran for some time; the administration's new budget, just submitted to Congress, calls for a substantial increase in money for "special ops and psy-ops.")

    John Pilger notes that, while the Pentagon cannot seriously plan to occupy Iran, it may be that "it has in its sights a strip of land that runs along the border with Iraq. This is Khuzestan, home to 90 per cent of Iran's oil. 'The first step taken by an invading force,' reported Beirut's Daily Star, 'would be to occupy Iran's oil-rich Khuzestan Province, securing the sensitive Straits of Hormuz and cutting off the Iranian military's oil supply.' On 28 January the Iranian government said that it had evidence of British undercover attacks in Khuzestan, including bombings, over the past year." Last year, the Iranian government announced that it would build the country's second nuclear reactor in Khuzestan...

    A U.S. attack by land, sea, and/or air would of course be an act of desperation, driven as much or more by failing domestic politics as by America's long-term policy to control Middle East energy resources. But given that the U.S. has malgre lui constructed a vast self-conscious Shi'ite region (Iran, Iraq, and the oil-producing parts of Saudi Arabia) that is at once in possession of most of the world's oil and hostile to the U.S., a further attempt to control it in this fashion may recommend itself.


    Iran's tiny Khuzestan Province has many more oil wells than Kuwait. See for yourself on a map:

    Iran's Khuzestan Province Oil Wells

    Think our B2 Stealth Bombers are stealthy enough to steal all that sweet crude? Didn't think so either. I say Chelsea Clinton needs to get her precious self right over to the closest military recruitment office to begin training for Delta Force.

    I will not accept paying $8 a gallon, so Chelsea Clinton needs to get in gear NOW!

  • comment on a post Obama's Wrong Choice on the Peru Trade Pact over 6 years ago

    One huge problem with international trade agreements is, first of all, they are not necessary, and secondly, they always tend to form that basis of non-democratic transnational governments. The World Trade Organization, for example. It controls what the US government can do, or not do. Yet, when  were we asked to vote for the officers on the board of that sucker? We weren't, since we do not count. If these trade agreements empowered the people, would they get passed. No.

  • comment on a post VA-Sen, VA-Pres: Behold The Bluing of Virginia over 6 years ago

    Bush won the state by 8% in 2004.

    Better to just say "bush won the state by 8% of the votes that were counted."

    Small detail: Northern Virginia is probably the bluest part of the South. And Southern part has been typically Southern (very red so far).

  • comment on a post It's Time To Invest In America. over 6 years ago


    This veto is really ultra disgusting.

  • Didn't anyone explain to you about the Bush executive order concerning McDonald's? Anyone who is at a McDonald's is considered a "foreign terrorist," and can be strip-searched, or even cooked and eaten (provided it's all done on the premises -- a small legal detail).

  • .... about giving unconditionally support or opposition to any one Democrat. At the same time, I have been saying for a year, for any of the Democrats who maintain a hawkish position, a time of reckoning will come. In November of '08, they will find themselves exactly in the center of a vast wave of revulsion for our foreign adventures. It is coming.

  • comment on a post Kucinich Hits The Dems Where It Hurts over 6 years ago

    Why wait until Bush has already spent it all???

  • comment on a post Hillary Reverses Herself on Iran Negotiations over 6 years ago

    Oh, a political scientist at the University of Iowa doesn't think this will hurt Hillary's chances, huh. Well that idiot hasn't heard from me.

    Why doesn't her kid go fight in Iran? I've asked about EVERY damn Republican. So how about HILLARY"S little baby? What's her name? I did a Google search on Clinton Children and it just brought up700 laws to protect children. So I searched on Clinton daughter (memory returning), and at the top, an incredible tabloid "Is Chelsea Clinton Really Bill Clinton's Daughter?" (?) site comes at the top. I go there, and the sucker comes with music!!!

    Anyway, before I digress much further, How come Chelsea Clinton isn't supporting our effort in IRAN??? (Like, by being there?, Since she at least must be HER daughter?)

  • I lived in Danbury Connecticut, and have lived in Massachusetts for over a decade. In Connecticut, Democrats (and Republicans) do not run against one another. But here in Massachusetts, you often find three Democrats running for the same office. I would say, the "party" concept is more limited than some would imagine.


Advertise Blogads