Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Strangulating the Masses

We Need a New Direction in Iraq, But Petraeus and Crocker Offered Many More Years of the Same

April 8th, 2008 by Speaker Pelosi

It is clear from today’s testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker that the Iraqi government remains unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to reach the political reconciliation needed to secure their country’s future.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker made it official that the Bush Administration will not reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq below pre-surge levels. That is not a policy that appropriately reflect the enormous costs of the war in Iraq, nor what the American people want.

The human cost of the war has been enormous, with more than 4,000 lives lost and tens of thousands injured, many of them permanently. The cost to our national security has been immense – our military readiness is stretched thin and our reputation in the world is damaged. And now, the trillion dollar war in Iraq is damaging our economy by taking us deeper into debt.

The Iraqi government is not worthy of the sacrifice of our troops or the cost that the war is having on our readiness and our economy. We need a New Direction in Iraq, but what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker offered today was many more years of the same.


What strikes me is the willingness to admit this 5 years after voting to authorize the fascist bastards to invade Iraq with bombs blazing.

Beside not being able to speak beyond a 2nd grade level Petraeus could not admit we are screwed because his bosses will not allow it. What we got was a mamby pamby explanation for an illegal war that is bringing this country to the brink of disaster while OBL and the rest laugh their asses off at the pure folly put forth by the USA.

When will the people rise up against this lying goon squad and demand an end to failed policy?
Will they be roaming the streets here in the USA in search for food and water and then realize they have been had?

The dollar is soon to be extinct, null and void, gold will be confiscated as it was during FDR's administration, will they rise up then?

One thing is for sure, the goons that started this whole episode of sorrow will be alive and well fed in their ivory towers while the rest of us are left out in the cold to fend for ourselves.

What will it take?



DEN said...

Another victim of global warming:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — The price of beer is likely to rise in coming decades because climate change will hamper the production of a key grain needed for the brew — especially in Australia, a scientist warned Tuesday.

Jim Salinger, a climate scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said climate change likely will cause a decline in the production of malting barley in parts of New Zealand and Australia. Malting barley is a key ingedient of beer.

"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention.

Similar effects could be expected worldwide, but Salinger spoke only of the effects on Australia and New Zealand. He said climate change could cause a drop in beer production within 30 years, especially in parts of Australia, as dry areas become drier and water shortages worsen.

Barley growing parts of Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales would likely be harder hit than growing areas in New Zealand's South Island.

"It will provide a lot of challenges for the brewing industry," even forcing breweries to look at new varieties of malt barley as a direct result of climate change, Salinger said.

New Zealand and Australian brewer Lion Nathan's corporate affairs director Liz Read said climate change already was forcing up the price of malted barley, sugar, aluminum and sugar.

Read said that in addition to climate change, barley growers are grappling with competition from other forms or land use, such as the dairy industry.
You will soon not be able to afford to drown your sorrows in beers.

Now that hurts.

ยบ¿carol said...

You've got another of those evil websites posted at the end of yesterday's thread.

Re: Strangulating the Masses. We are doomed. That about says it.

Oh, and wasn't it not that long ago it was said Petraeus planned to run for president? 2nd grade level Petraeus? Well, I guess it could happen. It's happened before.

DEN said...

Damn Spam!

I trust you are all aware not to click comment links from unknown names so I will not harp too much.

There is a particular spammer with a Google name, actually several that posts links that will take over your computer completely claiming it is infested with a virus.

If you click it an it starts taking over, disconnect your wire from the DSL and use task manager(ctrl/alt/delete) to end the application. For Firefox, do not restore session. IE I'm not sure, use Firefox or Safari for Apple and don't use IE at all, it sux.

Check your cookies for tracking ones and run your anti-virus in full scan to be sure nothing was left behind.

Spammer Weasles!

David B. Benson said...

People whose opinions I respect like BHO's energy/climate plan. By inference, they don't as much like HRC's...

micki said...


The fight to stem global warming -- perhaps the greatest fight in our species' history -- has an ominous new front: our public schools.

Friends of the Earth has received a copy of American Government, published by mammoth Houghton Mifflin, which is used in AP government classes in high schools nationwide. The latest edition's chapter on "Environmental Policy" contains a discussion of global warming so biased and misleading it would humble a tobacco industry PR man:

* "It is a foolish politician who today opposes environmentalism. And that creates a problem, because not all environmental issues are equally deserving of support. Take the case of global warming." (p. 559)

* "The earth has become warmer, but is this mostly the result of natural climate changes, or is it heavily influenced by humans putting greenhouse gases into the air?" (p.559)

* "On the one hand, a warmer globe will cause sea levels to rise, threatening coastal communities; on the other hand, greater warmth will make it easier and cheaper to grow crops and avoid high heating bills." (p. 559)

* "But many other problems are much less clear-cut. Science doesn't know how bad the green-house effect is." (p. 566)

These are not quotes from oil company press releases. These and other such statements are made by the authors of American Government in the same omnipotent, textbook tone with which we are all familiar.

Two of the world's most respected climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Michael MacCracken, have weighed in with Houghton Mifflin to denounce the book and demand revisions. "I find it alarming that a widely-used textbook from a respected publisher would contain so many gross errors," wrote Hansen. "Failure to correct the book's errors will leave students gravely misinformed about the facts and science of global warming, one of the most serious problems that we as a society and a species face."

It is hard enough to persuade lawmakers and captains of industry to acknowledge the challenge of global warming, let alone take action. How much more difficult will our struggle for a sane response be if our own public schools are working against us?

Friends of the Earth has set up a two-in-one action on this issue: We will send a message from you to Houghton Mifflin asking them to revise the book and issue a corrective packet to all school districts using the current book -- and we will copy each of your governors, letting them know how outraged you are that state tax dollars are being spent in this dangerous manner.

Be heard, right now:

DEN said...

I think it is more, who they select to handle that area, the wisdom of their choices is important to point out what choices they would make and how.

His economic advisor Austan Goolsbee is odd.

Google the name and you will see what I mean. (h/t Micki).

I don't like shifty characters.


Hajji said...

Benson, et al.

Tonight on PBS's "Cousteau, return to the Amazon" it was mentioned that there is a marked increase in methane release due to the rapid decay of vegetation in the bottoms of lakes sequestered by Amazonian basin dams.

It spoke of "Methane Supersaturated Water, highly pressurized" being released through the turbines from near the BOTTOM of these lakes accounting for a 20% increase in methane vs. a natural, forrested valley.

...and then went on to compare the methane increase vs. CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

First I heard of it, although I've always had my questions about the value/cost of water sequestration regarding desertification.

What say Y'all?


Den...barley crops also have a direct affect on the cost/quality of Scotch...

Doomed! We're Doomed!



Done...and thank you.


carey said...

Hi. Just quickly stopping in to say I'm terribly busy. Brandon's sick again with a cold, probably from all the growth spurts.

The hearings yesterday were same ole stuff, truly nothing of substance from everything I've heard and was able to catch.

Prices, prices--food/resource wars acoming.

Alan said...

The bias in the American Government book was first brought to the attention of the Center for Inquiry, a think tank, by a high school student.
"I just realized from my own knowledge that some of this stuff in the book is just plain wrong," said Matthew LaClair of Kearny, NJ.

He's also the one that tape-recorded his teacher making religious statements a few years ago.

DEN said...

$3.75/gal here today for plain gas, premium was $3.95.

Go ahead America keep driving your gas pigs, BIG OIL needs the money.

Then on the other hand, is the dollar worth less making it worse?

Greed, plain and simple.


micki said...

I got this link from a respected friend who is not convinced that BHO has the best plans, policy , and intentions on climate change....just saying....


Each candidate takes a different approach to solving the science education crisis. Clinton will triple the number of NSF fellowships and institute programs to attract women and minorities to university science programs2. Obama supports scholarships for science teachers3, while McCain focuses on student mentoring programs and teacher training2.

Clinton and Obama have both promised substantial increases in federal agencies’ funding for basic research2. Notably, Clinton has also said that federal agencies should designate funds specifically for high-risk studies2 that may offer long-term payoffs even if lacking in immediate applications.....

Clinton has vowed to lift the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that meets ethical standards5. All candidates support space exploration and research4,6.

But only one candidate has spoken at length on the most important scientific issue in this election: a pledge to value the input of practicing scientists on policy and funding decisions.

Clinton says she will protect scientific integrity from political influences and reinstate the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology3. She also promises to protect government scientists’ conclusions in reports and publications from political censorship4.

While Obama states that government decisions must be based upon science rather than politics, he has not outlined steps he will take to carry out this statement7. McCain does not have a well-publicized stance on the issue.....

A responsible Administration views the work of its nation’s scientists as an invaluable asset and a source of guidance in setting policy, not as an inconvenience to be edited and censored out of the way.

Improved science education, increased funding, and support for the frontiers of research will drive the ground-breaking discoveries of the 21st century. For that reason alone, the candidates’ stances on these issues deserve greater attention. But for McCain and Obama to gain the trust of the scientific community, they must first adopt Clinton’s pledge to respect scientific integrity, then outline their plans to see it through. And all three candidates must honor these promises if elected.

Alan said...

So, we could believe an opinion of an underclassman, or the learned advice of a Doctored Professor Emeritus. That one's easy.

Alan said...

Damn, I forgot.
At the bottom of that article was this...
Written by Emma Wear
Reviewed by JYI staff
Published by Pooja Ghatalia

So literally, in this case "peer-reviewed" means reviewed by other undergrads.

DEN said...


DEN said...

I hate 13 and prime numbers in general.