Friday-Sunday, December 9-11, 2005
What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew
how to get out of Vietnam.
Quotes in the Lead
Valerie Plame's "career was arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed by a mean political trick,"
-Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center
The Bush administration tried to portray Valerie Plame as "just a desk jockey at the CIA, someone who wasn't really undercover and a manipulative Mata Hari who aspired to bring down the Bush administration. All of that is false. At the end of the day, she was betrayed by her own government and they show no signs of remorse."
-former CIA officer Larry Johnson, a friend of Plame who worked with her as an undercover operative
Historically speaking, members of our nation's intelligence agencies have sided with conservatives when it comes to taking sides. But today things are different. People like former Chief Cannistraro and former fellow covert agent Larry Johnson are speaking out. They see the CIA as being demoralized by an executive branch that chooses to play the "revenge-game" by treacherously exposing covert agents as a political punishment.
They are "heroes of a grim twilight struggle... who serve here in the Central Intelligence Agency,"
-President Ronald Reagan as he signed the bill to prevent the "outing" of our nation's undercover heroes
We lost an agent to retirement. We lost an agent who was an expert - yes, I said expert - on WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction). We lost an agent because Bush, Cheney and Rove decided that our nation's security was less of a priority that a political revenge. And we lost an agent due to the "G"reed "O"ver "P"eople party leaders in congress refusal to take Bush, etc to task for their traitorous actions.
Agent Plame didn't lose her life, no thanks to Bushco, but the United States lost her services. From our perspective, that is the same thing.
-Noah Greenberg, as suggested by Jenny Hanniver
The following is the sentiment I get from many of my die-hard Republican friends and acquaintances. I know the writer personally. As far as I know, he isn't a financially wealthy man, or as I like to call an "ultra-rich elitist". Here are his thoughts in response to much we have written here. As I have always said, I will publish the thoughts of anyone who writes, unedited for content. Additionally, I felt it necessary to put this article near the top. I encourage responses from either side on these statements below. So here goes:
A View from the Right
It is all your perspective. What should we care more about the safety of our county, our soldiers and our allies in Iraq, or the constitutional rights of terrorists.
We will leave when the country can support its own security needs and is not at risk of becoming another Iran or Syria. The Iraqis still want us there. They know that they need us now.
I too was upset about the tax break. I think it did not go far enough and was not permanent. It did not really affect me much, but the rich pay most of the taxes, why should they not get the biggest tax break.
If you take an economics course you will learn about how those dollars trickle down through society when they are spent by people who earn them, and are far less effective at contributing to social welfare and prosperity, when they are given out to people in the form of food stamps unemployment, welfare and all those other entitlements which serve as a disincentive to work.
I also have a problem with Bush. He is not conservative enough. Spends too much, does not cut enough programs, has not vetod a single spending bill, but given the alternative he is the best we got. Both Gore and Kerry would have been disasterous for this county. Both go out and speak nonsense, continually contradicting their own statements, and criticizing others with no plan of their own.
We need a strong conservative like Newt or a newer face like Allen or Romney to begin their March toward the president. These straight talking, straight walking, do what they say and say what they mean guys, who are not afraid to propose unpopular options because they are in the best of the country, but are at the same time articulate enough to lead the nation to follow.
When that happens we will welcome you back on the right side of center.
Sounds more like the "Dark Side" to me, George. -NG
Defining Victory, The GOP Way
Congressman Steve King from Iowa has defined "victory in Iraq" on the floor of the House at approximately 9:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time December 7, 2005. King is a Republican congressman, one of the majority party of both the houses and executive branch.
King gave a comprehensible description of what the required essential elements listed below for total victory in Iraq would be.
1.) Election on December 15, 2005
2.) Results of the election will determine the Leader of their government
3.) Sign an agreement with the oil companies of their choice to divide up the oil resources for distribution.
Steve King, with a well thought out, convincing and irreversible verbal explanation of what total victory in Iraq would in fact entail, spoke as a Republican and majority member of the leadership in the United States Government. We learn that the agreement between the new government of Iraqi and the oil companies of the Puppet Government's choice will be the defining crystal clear indication that the Republicans victory in Iraq has been achieved.
Now the noble cause has been unmistakably defined by an elected Republican leader. I would like to personally thank the Republican Party for finally coming up with a definition of victory in Iraqi after two and half years.
-Forwarded by Jenny Hanniver from a post by Bill Perry
As we finally learn what the "noble cause" is, we also can see that 2,135 young Americans have given their lives for it. And let's not forget the 15,882 wounded and one-third of the returning soldiers who may suffer serious mental problems for the remainder of their life. Gosh. I'm so glad that a Republican congressman--one of the cadre who drastically cut military and veterans' benefits just in time for this war--finally informed everyone.
A Merry and a Happy (Fill in the Blank) to All
It seems that a religious madness is gripping the world that resembles the insanity of the Middle Ages during the time of the Black Death and other crises.
Religious fanatics seem to be hijacking any sense of decency and destroying the multicultural tolerance that was a part of the American character. People are getting angry and offended with one another over silly things such as decorations in stores and how people greet one another.
I am an eclectic believer in God from a Catholic background. As such, I enjoy Christmas. But I also enjoy seeing other types of celebrations. I an happy to receive Hanukah cards, use stamps with Arab designs, and have people say Seasons Greetings to me. I work for a company owned by Jewish people who invite me every year to what they are happy to call a Christmas party. My husband works for another Jewish-owned firm that answers the phone with "Merry Christmas."
Much as I totally detest and deplore the Bushes--and I hate them with a red hot passion--I cannot imagine anybody being offended at them for sending out Seasons Greetings cards. That is probably one of the few (probably countable on the fingers of one hand) sensible things that that family has ever done. I'm worried about health care, Social Security, the Katrina victims, and the war, etc., etc., etc.,--not the Bushes' seasonal cards.
On the other side, some store owners are dropping Christmas because they are afraid of offending non-Christians.
Are we all that thin-skinned? Why can't we just celebrate, decorate, and greet as we please? And why can't everyone just accept this as well-meaning and good even if it is different?
I say Merry Christmas, Gut Yontiff, Happy Winter Solstice, and Seasons Greetings and whatever else the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Confucianists, and Wiccans and other Pagans say. And have a nice Winter to the atheists. The only people I am offended by are Satanists and fanatics. Everybody else is fine.
This is America! We are what we are because we are so diverse. No one religion should own this country!
My advice is: "Everybody lighten up! Nobody is threatening anyone's else's religions (or non-religion). Enjoy the diversity and enjoy whatever pleases you...."
-Ms. Billie M. Spaight
Madman's Crystal Ball
A Madman Future Headline
Bush Sets Timetable for Troops to Come Home
October 23, 2006
"Citing repeated successes in Iraq, and his administration's belief that the terrorists are "in their last throes", President Bush announced today that he has ordered the return of 40 percent of the troops to the United States by March 1, 2007. Ignoring the increase in the home-grown insurgency and the lack of jobs and a decaying infrastructure in Iraq, President Bush said, "The time has come for a large reduction in our peace-keeping force in Iraq. The Iraqi army is now capable of policing their nation. We have defeated terrorism in Iraq and now they will be able to get on with their Free and democratic society."
"Democratic and moderate Republican response was luke warm at best, noting the increase in the severity of IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices) and the use of an ever increasing and almost endless supply of Iraqis who are willing to use themselves as suicide bombers. Other Democrats commented on the timing of the speech. "Isn;t it funny how President Bush made an announcement of this nature while the polls are showing decreased support for his policies and a lack of support for Republicans seeking re-election in just a few weeks," said a spokesperson for the DNC.
"The remaining US troops will remain in Iraq to protect corporate interests..."
Check back with Madman right before the November 2006 interim elections. Let's see how close we are.
What I find funny is this:
"Tax-and-spend Liberals" took the money in the treasury and attempted to improve society through helping those who need it most and decreasing the load on America's middle-class by targeting any tax-cuts to them.
"Tax-and-spend Conservatives" give that same money to those who need it least in the form of ill-advised, huge tax-cuts that benefit the ultra-rich, subsidies to large corporations and wars for corporate interests, like oil that costs US hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars..
Who you gonna vote for in '06?
In response to, "It's better to spread the cost of the battle or an occupation among a large group of allied nations rather than to foot the whole bill oneself, as we have done in Iraq," Robert Scardapane writes:
The reason we need allies to combat terrorism is that it is an amorphous threat. From the experience of 9/11, we know that these extremists were supported by cells in many nations - Afghanistan, Germany, Britain, etc...
If the international community decides not to share intelligence data with the United States, that puts us all in grave peril. We simply can not successfully "go it alone". In addition, creating enemies throughout the world actually feeds the ranks of the extremists. Torture is not an acceptable method of interrogation. The VP should be impeached for advocating torture. With that said, do I trust what Rice said to the EU?
Heck no, she is a neoconservative as well. Her role as secretary of state requires her to play good cop to Cheney's bad cop. If the White House is serious about condemning torture, McCain's resolution against torture must stand with no qualifications.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org