Re: [HoustonPeakOil] "IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."

Submitted by PAAMember on November 19, 2005 - 1:00pm. ::

The good news: Last night, C-SPAN was gripping television.
The bad news: Even C-SPAN was totally befuddled in reporting what was really going on.

The headline at the bottom of the screen: "Debating Murtha resolution to withdraw from Iraq
immediately"
Make a note of the word "immediately". That's where they got it wrong and that was the Republican
Party's intention - their typical tactic of obfuscation, breeding confusion and smoke-screen
propaganda.

Here's what I saw and I could be wrong, such was the smoke-and-mirror game the GOP was playing:
The Dems introduced a resolution, Murtha's resolution, calling for full acountability from the
White House and a withdrawal "as soon as is practicable." Note: it does NOT say "immediately".

In their typical "shock-and-awe", Orwellian-esque style, the Republicans introduced a
counter-resolution which expressly and explicitly called for "immediate" withdrawal - exactly the
opposite of what the White House wants.

I'm not sure how all the yelling & screaming started, but I got the sense that the Dems were
trying to make the point that the GOP resolution was totally bogus and designed deliberately to
obfuscate the entire issue. The GOP argument was all about how "only cowards cut and run" even
while they were arguing FOR a resolution to withdraw immediately. Apparently, the smoke-screening
worked so well that BOTH Dem and Repub congresspersons were forced to stop several times and ask
"Point of information Mr Speaker: Which resolution are we debating?" I kid you not!

My impression was this: The Hunter(R) Resolution ("immediate withdrawal") was for one purpose and
one purpose ONLY. If the Dems voted for it then the GOPpers could go to their constituents (Fox
News Channel) and say "The Dems voted to cut and run like cowards" while simultaneously refusing
to admit that it was a Repub resolution. If the Dems voted against it, the GOPpers could run to
Fox and say "The Dems voted AGAINST a withdrawal from Iraq!" The result of that would be exactly
like John Kerry saying "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."

This whole fiasco is SO "Karl Rove" that Karl's dog would recognize it blindfolded. I don't think
Murtha's resolution was ever voted on. Instead, the whole evening was wasted by debating whether
the troops were demoralized by an apparent lack of support being trumpeted by Republican-owned
newspapers and TV or whether the troops were demoralized by being the pawns in a political "my
prick's bigger than yours" game.

>From what I've seen of the news reporting since, it's clear that our "journalistas" were either
entirely boggled by it all or were given explicit orders on what to say. The Murtha(D) resolution
clearly said "as soon as is practicable" while the Hunter(R) resolution obviously said
"immediately" and even the Repubs who spoke of their self-righteous love of God, country and
soldiers admitted that this was a bad resolution (remember: they were debating on the Repub
resolution, not the Dem resolution).

The Republican mouth-pieces who call themselves journalists have been consistantly reporting that
"Democrats introduced a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal." Even C-SPAN's titlebar at
the bottom of the screen was factually backwards.

The vote (on the Republican resolution saying "immediate") was something like 300 to 6 against.

So, here's the Big Lie to watch for: Watch for Fascist-Republicans to be on television saying "The
Democrats just voted AGAINST withdrawing from Iraq while their criticizing the President for how
the war is going. How hypocritical can you get?"

In effect, it's exactly like the Texas Proposition 2 to ban gay marriage (and, in fact, ALL
marriage, if you read it carefully): The Repub-Party apparatchiks don't give a rat's-ass about gay
marriage, they just know that such a hate-mongering issue will bring the uneducated hillbillys out
to vote and they'll probably vote for GOP candidates while they're in the booth.

Friday night's debate about Iraq was cast in the same mold. No one got a chance to present
evidence that Cheney beat-up on the CIA to get them to say what he wanted. No one got a chance to
point out that Bush promised to get the UN's approval for invading Iraq, then attacked while
saying that the vote was really for a unilateral preemptive invasion. What really bothered me,
though, was that no one on the Dem side, not even our esteemed Mr. Kucinich, actually went to the
podium and said "This isn't a debate about a 'War on Terror' - This debate is about the War
against Iraq's Nationalized Oil Industry and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or
befuddled!"

Typical Rove politics.

Randy Scott


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by PAAMember on November 26, 2005 - 9:00pm.

(I have a question.  At what point will we have lost too many Americans soldiers?  2,000+ is not enough.  How about 20,000?  200,000?  2,000,000?  The KEY POINT about Murtha's speech is that he almost certainly did it at the behest of SENIOR military officers who have lost faith in the Bush Administration.)



I have a proposed motto for the 2006 elections: 



Send George Bush a Message:  Vote for ABAR



Anyone

But

A

Republican



Following is an editorial from Capitol Hill Blue:



The Rant

Bush's betrayal

By DOUG THOMPSON

Nov 18, 2005, 08:03



Many words, none of them complimentary, describe the failed presidency of George W. Bush: Incompetent, immoral, illegal, deceptive, duplicitous, dumb, stupid, or corrupt. The list is endless.

But the word that best describes Bush and his five years in office is betrayal, because above all he and the party he represents have betrayed just about everyone in sight.



Bush and the Republicans have betrayed the American people who may or may not have voted him into office in 2000 and who may or may not have returned him there in 2004. They have betrayed the principles of a political party that


Submitted by PAAMember on November 20, 2005 - 11:00am.

After reading so many stories & history books about coup'de'tat in banana republics etcetra, I
keep wondering how bad do things have to get before a cabal of military officers begin their plot
to overthrow the sitting regime? What conditions have to exist before the military leadership
assassinate a dictator and take over the government, which, in those 3rd world countries, leads to
a military dictatorship replacing the previous lone dictator?

Extrapolating from those 'overseas' lessons, what conditions would have to exist in America before
military desk-jockies in the Pentagon invoke that clause of the Constitution which says that the
citizens have the right to revamp the gov if it isn't serving their needs?

Maybe a more important question might be: Who are those senior officers and whose side are they
really on? Are they really dedicated to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights? Or might they be
opportunists taking advantage of a situation? And what would a coup in Washington look like?

Randy


Submitted by PAAMember on November 26, 2005 - 9:00pm.

My concern is the candidate ABAR, Anybody But a Republican. That sounds a
lot like ABB, Anybody But Bush. In either case we would get just about
anybody.

George Bush is just the most obvious symptom of the underlying disease of
corporate corruption. Getting rid of him doesn't solve the disease.

Things have to mess up quite a bit before the military intervenes. In
Pakistan the military was very reluctant to overthrow the initial civilian
government. I'm fuzzy on the details but things were going quite badly for
the country, and the military was still quite divided even as the coup
proceeded.
Later on they got used to it.

Luckily, we have just enough of a democracy such that civilians can
legitimately change things and relatively quickly. Let's vote for someone
and for something rather than vote against someone.

Alfred

>From: Randy Scott
>To: , ,
>
>Subject: Re: [HoustonPeakOil] "IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."
>Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:17:58 -0800 (PST)
>
>After reading so many stories & history books about coup'de'tat in banana
>republics etcetra, I
>keep wondering how bad do things have to get before a cabal of military
>officers begin their plot
>to overthrow the sitting regime? What conditions have to exist before the
>military leadership
>assassinate a dictator and take over the government, which, in those 3rd
>world countries, leads to
>a military dictatorship replacing the previous lone dictator?
>
>Extrapolating from those 'overseas' lessons, what conditions would have to
>exist in America before
>military desk-jockies in the Pentagon invoke that clause of the
>Constitution which says that the
>citizens have the right to revamp the gov if it isn't serving their needs?
>
>Maybe a more important question might be: Who are those senior officers and
>whose side are they
>really on? Are they really dedicated to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights?
>Or might they be
>opportunists taking advantage of a situation? And what would a coup in
>Washington look like?
>
>Randy
>
>


Submitted by PAAMember on November 20, 2005 - 11:00am.

A military coup is very unlikely for this country. The corporations are
what move the pieces, not the generals. I think the generals would
take their cue from the media, which is of course controlled by
whoever is running the show.
I feel that the system will delay it's own prosecution and use the
media to try and manipulate public opinion for a good while, six
months, but then the climate change effects on food production, water
supply and economy will decide the day rather quickly . If climate
change does not materialize so quickly then I think there could be an
effort made by people within the intelligence agencies to resist in
alliance with certain politicians.
The world draws it's collective breath this winter and many have mother
nature on their minds. What befalls us, the question is asked, for our
abuses, our wastefulness, selfishness and ignorance?
j
On Nov 20, 2005, at 9:17 AM, Randy Scott wrote:

> After reading so many stories & history books about coup'de'tat in
> banana republics etcetra, I
> keep wondering how bad do things have to get before a cabal of
> military officers begin their plot
> to overthrow the sitting regime? What conditions have to exist before
> the military leadership
> assassinate a dictator and take over the government, which, in those
> 3rd world countries, leads to
> a military dictatorship replacing the previous lone dictator?
>
> Extrapolating from those 'overseas' lessons, what conditions would
> have to exist in America before
> military desk-jockies in the Pentagon invoke that clause of the
> Constitution which says that the
> citizens have the right to revamp the gov if it isn't serving their
> needs?
>
> Maybe a more important question might be: Who are those senior
> officers and whose side are they
> really on? Are they really dedicated to the sanctity of the Bill of
> Rights? Or might they be
> opportunists taking advantage of a situation? And what would a coup in
> Washington look like?
>
> Randy
>
>