Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Prison State of America




Living on a Dollar a Day


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Congressman Blasts Bush for Sinking SCHIP

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 18, 2007
Rep. Pete Stark
breitbart.tv

After the House failed to override Bush’s veto of the SCHIP children’s health care renewal bill on Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark berated the administration and the bill’s opponents.  In light of their attitude, he questioned whether the nation’s kids would “grow old enough for you to send [them] to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” 

Follow this link to watch the clip.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Bill Blackolive, October 24, 2007 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At this point in Schizoid Nation the one way to cut the crap is have enough of the voices concede there is a 9/11 cover up.  Perhaps, though, we must drown in muck.

Report this

By Louise, October 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

#109096 Stephen Smoliar

By golly I think you’ve got it!
That just makes sense!

I didn’t realize when I read the Chutzpah of the Week award posted on whatreallyhappened that was you!
Or you were you ... or, oh you know what I mean!

I’ll make visiting your blog a regular from now on!
Thanks!

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, October 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

Louise (#109080), I may be too much of a literary theorist;  but I think there is a deeper meaning behind the words in which Pete Stark framed his “apology.”  I HAVE to think this way, lest I drown in the current flood of bad news.  I have written up my reasoning at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/10/chutzpah-denied.html

Report this

By Louise, October 23, 2007 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

#108914 by cyrena

“As for Nancy, it’s nice for you to speak up for her. I think I remember when she called those guys liars, but then…that was ‘before’ – eh?

And in the last election, I ever voted for the hussy (I’m a constituent). Since then, however, she doesn’t answer any of MY messages.

And, she also did unspeakable things to some of the other democrats, telling them to keep their mouths shut, as she wanted NO DISSENTION in the party.”

***

I’m not speaking up for her, I’m puzzled by her change!

She’s not that big, doesn’t pack a heater [as far as I know] or control the voting booth. So I repeat, WHAT IS GOING ON? I’m beginning to wonder if the “torture” is limited to secret locations outside of the country!

I don’t know why on her mailing list, unless it’s because I’m on some activist mailing lists. Maybe they have a cross-reference sheet, or something. All I know is ever since I asked her, “Where is the outrage?” I’ve been on her list.

Regarding presidential succession, the Constitution hasn’t changed, since the addition of the 25th Amendment.

After the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, Congress submitted and the states quickly ratified, the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which permitted the President to nominate a Vice President should the Vice Presidency become vacant.

While not directly impacting the Presidential Succession Act per se, the ratification of the amendment has significantly reduced the likelihood (barring catastrophic circumstances-see below) of a Speaker of the House of Representatives being needed to act as President.

[Unless they are both removed from office at the same time]

Had the 25th Amendment not been passed, Democrat Carl Albert would have become Acting President when Richard Nixon resigned (under Title 3, Section 19(c) of the U.S. Code) and served as Acting President until the end of Nixon’s term.

[Wow! How different would the world be if that had happened?]

The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 provided that after the vice president, the next officials in line would be the president pro tempore (presiding officer) of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The law was changed in the Presidential Succession Act of 1886

Following World War II and the death of President Roosevelt, President Truman lobbied for a revision of the law, and the current act was passed.
The new law restored the Congressional officers to places directly after the Vice President, but switched their order from the 1792 Act - placing the House Speaker first and the President Pro Tempore second. The Cabinet officers then followed, again in the order in which their respective departments were created with one exception: the Secretary of Defense (a department created in 1947 following a merger of the Departments of War and Navy) was placed fifth in the overall order, directly after the Secretary of the Treasury. This placed the Defense Department in the place that would have been held by the Department of War, its predecessor.


On that “catastrophic circumstance” thing, this may be what you’re thinking of:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive issued in May this year.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

The National Continuity Policy, in which Bush lays out who will do what and who will be in charge in the event of “Catastrophic Emergency” and replaces the previous Presidential Decision Directive #67 of October 21, 1998.

While many have seen this as a power grab, it binds itself by it’s own wording to the Constitution. And is not the first such directive to be issued. As near as I can tell the wording in all of them through the years is very similar. This one being different in that Bush and the Legie’s have created a bunch of new departments that weren’t covered in the old one.

But I could be wrong. If you remember, let me know.

Report this

By Louise, October 23, 2007 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

#108984 by Mudwollow

“Mike Gravel is just like us?

No, Mike Gravel does not sit in Congress. He WAS a senator during the Vietnam War. He filibustered to end the draft and succeeded. He read the Pentagon papers into record, didn’t get thrown in prison for it, but did get tricky Dick to resign with his tail between his legs. He also worked very hard to end nuclear testing in the Pacific. Of the many crimes tricky Dick perpetrated upon the American public, the use of state power to spy on and undermine political foes was probably the most egregious. Now look what we’ve got with George “screw the rules, I want things my way” Bush.

Not only is Mike Gravel not like us, he’s also not like anyone senator or congressperson serving today.”

***

Of course, once again you are correct. When I said he was just like us, I meant he is as PISSED OFF as us, or more so. Which you have to agree with, right?

I just noticed Stark has apologized! My God, WHAT IS GOING ON?

I’m beginning to wonder if the “torture” is limited to secret locations outside of the country! What does go on in the back rooms of the Congress?

Or maybe like others have said, they are misguided and see as important their allegiance to another “Nation State” as more important than their allegiance to the United States, and their obligation to honor their oath to us!

Somebody please, is there any way in the Constitution to IMPEACH the congress?

Report this

By Mudwollow, October 23, 2007 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

Mike Gravel is just like us?

No, Mike Gravel does not sit in Congress. He WAS a senator during the Vietnam War. He filibustered to end the draft and succeeded. He read the Pentagon papers into record, didn’t get thrown in prison for it, but did get tricky Dick to resign with his tail between his legs. He also worked very hard to end nuclear testing in the Pacific. Of the many crimes tricky Dick perpetrated upon the American public, the use of state power to spy on and undermine political foes was probably the most egregious. Now look what we’ve got with George “screw the rules, I want things my way” Bush.

Not only is Mike Gravel not like us, he’s also not like anyone senator or congressperson serving today. Unfortunately that includes Dennis Kucinich. I don’t mean to deify the man as the Republicans have done with Ronald Reagan but Gravel’s past accomplishments are not only pertinent and noteworthy but rare to nonexistent in politics today.

Watch the video of Mike Gravel at Google. It may be radical enough to scare everyone off. More power to him.

Thank God for Dennis. Possibly he’s doing all he can. Thank God for Pete Stark. Being polite at this time in history is like fiddling while Rome burns but worse.

Report this

By cyrena, October 23, 2007 at 2:16 am Link to this comment

#108900 by Louise

•  One of those moments when the neighbor kids come running over to find out what happened. Oh I can whoop and holler from time to time!

Oh Louise, I wish I could’ve been there. I had to whoop and holler alone. (last of the neighbors moved out last month) I was sure they would condemn the place by now, but not as long as I keep paying the rent.

As for Nancy, it’s nice for you to speak up for her. I think I remember when she called those guys liars, but then…that was ‘before’ – eh?

And in the last election, I ever voted for the hussy (I’m a constituent). Since then, however, she doesn’t answer any of MY messages.

And, she also did unspeakable things to some of the other democrats, telling them to keep their mouths shut, as she wanted NO DISSENTION in the party.

She also chewed Murtha out real good about that war tax thing recently. I don’t know if she threatened to beat his brains out, like Condi said she was gonna do to Maliki, but still, he said she roughed him up pretty good. I think I believe him too.

And ya know, even though she technically would become the prez if we could do the impeachment, that’s really only based on the Constitution, which of course has been radically altered. I can’t remember all of the details, (or even where to find them at the moment, though I can look) but the latest reorganization of the Homeland Security and other related agencies, would appear to put Chertoff in control. Now I may have it mixed up, but that seems to be what I figured out, after winding my way through that new ‘reorganization’ plan. It’s been a while back, but somebody else may remember it faster than me. (it will ‘click’ eventually, and I’ll be able to figure out where to look for it).

Still, if she was ever any good for anything, (including the initial vote against the war) she’s pretty much gone right over the deep end since the beginning of the year. The thing with the spying bill, just before the last recess, when george told them they couldn’t leave till they gave him what he wanted. Why didn’t she just tell him to kiss ALL of our asses, and go on home and start her break, and tell him they’d look at it when they got back? And, no matter how many times she says she isn’t going to give him a blank check, that’s exactly what she keeps doing.

He veto’s the bill for kids health coverage, and instead of her spending a few days or weeks to actually work the rest of Congress, (which is what the political stuff is all about) and get some sort of consensus, she changes a few things around in the paperwork, and is ready to submit it again. She’s like just messy or OCD, or something.

And yeah, I know there’s the problem with the Blue Dog Dems, so why doesn’t she just whip up on THEM, the same way she’s done with Murtha and some of the other dems, like Cynthia McKinney, and any of the earlier ones that she bashed into silence and/or oblivion when they didn’t stay in line?

And then, the final straw (we won’t even go into her impeachment off the table song, from the day after the Nov. elections) was that interview she just gave Arianna Huffinton. I would have just reached through the computer and slapped them both if I could have. Good thing I couldn’t, I suppose. The one think I know I can’t do well, is prison time. Anything else, I’m game. Just don’t lock me up.

And, wasn’t that her at the end of Starks tirade, telling him not to say anything “personal” about the president? Does she think she’s a boarding school head mistress? Miss Manners?

Anyway, thanks for the stats and the links.

Oh, BTW..YES, Mrs. Clinton IS letting us down. BUT, that’s not a surprise. And, Nancy just told Arianna she thought Hillary was GREAT. Maybe I need some of whatever they’re BOTH smoking.

Report this

By Louise, October 22, 2007 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

#108843 by Mudwollow

Of course you are correct. But Gravel doesn’t sit in Congress. He’s just like us [except he’s getting a little more attention than us] calling for impeachment and demanding to know why those candidates who DO sit in Congress couldn’t care less!

Except Kucinich of course.

From Bill Moyers Journal,
July 13, 2007

“A public opinion poll from the American Research Group recently reported that more than four in ten Americans — 45% — favor impeachment hearings for President Bush and more than half — 54% — favored impeachment for Vice President Cheney.”

[If you haven’t had a chance yet, watch this]
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

You know those numbers have got to be higher by now. Nobody wants the DeeDee twins [Dim and Dangerous] to start another war!

And congressional support for Cheney impeachment is slowly but surely growing.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:2:./temp/~bdmZ3y::|/bss/d110query.html|

co-sponsors now up to 21:

Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 8/1/2007 Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 7/24/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 6/6/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 5/1/2007
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 8/4/2007 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 6/28/2007
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/12/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 7/12/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 8/4/2007 Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] - 6/28/2007
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 9/7/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 6/7/2007
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 7/10/2007 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 7/10/2007
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 8/1/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/1/2007
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 9/27/2007 Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 6/12/2007
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 10/16/2007 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 6/7/2007
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/10/2007

Report this

By Mudwollow, October 22, 2007 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Louise. Kucinich has clearly called for impeachment, but so has Mike Gravel. Gravel seeks not only impeachment but prosecution of all wrongdoers from the reign of King Bush. Of course Mike Gravel doesn’t have a chance in hell. Neither does Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. And with Gravel being excluded from the next MS NBC debates we won’t even get to see him pushed to the side and ignored by the “questioner”. While no one is able to predict the future, the likelihood is that we will be given the choice between a turd and a turd and then expected to be excited about the choice. Of course it doesn’t matter whether we get excited or not. Whoever we vote for will be chosen by the elite, not by the people. And if we just become disgusted and stay home and refrained from voting, that will suit the real presidential choosers just fine.

For a fun time watch this fascinating interview of Mike Gravel at Google headquarters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OBslG2Arc

Report this

By Louise, October 21, 2007 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Well you all,
I was lucky enough to have had c-span on when Stark was speaking from the floor of the House. One of those moments when the neighbor kids come running over to find out what happened. Oh I can whoop and holler from time to time!

A few years back I whooped and hollered like that for Nancy. It was the day the dems were threatened with eviction by the Capital Police, who had been called by the repubs, alleging a physical attack had occurred on one of their members on the floor of the House. Of course that was a lie. But that didn’t stop six repub congressaurs from standing up and repeating the lie from the floor of the House!

Now having witnessed this I can say with absolute certainty, THEY ALL LIED!

Nancy, showing more balls than most men, stood on the floor of the House and called the liars out!

Sometimes, watching c-span, as well as being informative can be very entertaining.

A couple of years back, when my frustration had reached a new high, I wrote Nancy a letter, reminding her she had said prior to the war [which she voted against by the way] Our president will never send our troops into harms way without good reason.

I pointed out he had, and asked where was the outrage?

She responded, [I am not a constituent] saying among other things she shared my concern. [I’ve been on her mailing list ever since] And yes, she did express outrage from the floor!

When Murtha spoke out against the war almost two years ago a lot of folks condemned Nancy because she didn’t support him.

But she did!

I received an email from her office laying out what he had said and her support. Unfortunately the support was not unanimous in the party.

If you remember those damnable “Blue Dogs” and Lieberman [no surprise] spoke out against Murtha, and so against the troops. So I think sometimes people [myself included] tend to blame her for things she shouldn’t be blamed for. And it doesn’t help that she wont talk about impeachment.

Given Nancy’s history one has to ask, what happened?

We are now at a point where everyone is genuinely puzzled by Nancy. Well everyone but the media pundits, who know all the answers to everything and will say it even if it makes absolutely no sense!

A few thoughts:
If Bush and Cheney were impeached, that would make Nancy president until a new election.

Maybe she doesn’t want to be president.

Or maybe she doesn’t want to be the first woman president.

But more than likely she’s smart enough to know there are still enough hateful repubs in Congress to defeat Impeachment Hearings for no better reason than THEY don’t want to see a woman president. She’s not going to say that, because she’s hoping to gain a few republicans [who are also getting hammered from home] support on other issues she’s trying to resolve before the next election. Not because it’s all about the elections, but because there is ALWAYS the possibility the repubs will figure out a new way to cheat and regain control of congress.

Of course we don’t care. We would be happy if she just tried, even if it was a hopeless battle!

Meanwhile which of the presidential wannabes have called for impeachment?

Just one. Kucinich.

Is Nancy letting us down, or are the candidates who sit in congress letting us down?

The alleged front-runner, coincidentally another woman, has the clout. She might be able to muster some support for Impeachment, but she is not about to do that. She is going to be the FIRST woman president, come hell or high water!
Or nuclear war.

May have expired by now, but check out this poll on CNN, right hand side.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/american.morning/

Congressman Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to “get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” Should he apologize?
Yes 7% 890
No 93% 11620
Total Votes: 12510

Report this

By Mudwollow, October 21, 2007 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

“The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States and in Congress.”

Could be…

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/10/20/MNH9ST598.DTL&type=politics

Report this

By P. T., October 20, 2007 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

Bush does have a history of sadism.  He amused himself as a child by being cruel to animals.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, October 20, 2007 at 10:29 am Link to this comment

Rep. Stark is awesome!!

I just emailed him to thank him for saying what
millions of Americans believe…that bush is a monster!

I condemn that sickening coward pelosi for condemning Rep Stark for speaking the truth!

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, October 20, 2007 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

Willi (#108359), I have a comment over on The Huffington Post about how in the business world the neurotic behavior of a chief executive propagates down to symptoms of corporate pathology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-emin/its-an-eheheh-world-wh_b_69124.html#

I believe that this principle generalizes both from institutions of business to institutions of government and from neurotic behavior to psychotic behavior.  Unfortunately, we have not made much progress in treating psychotics, which is why we generally do little more than medicate them into a state of oblivion (which, considering our current situation, might not be such a bad idea)!

Report this

By www.nazilieskill.us, October 20, 2007 at 7:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here is the Buzz Flash headline/commentary:

The Courage of Sen. Dodd & Rep. Stark Highlights the Cowardice of the Dem Capitol Hill Leadership. The Dems Need a Gut Check. They Keep Getting Snookered, Instead of Standing Up When One of Their Own Actually Speaks Truth to Power.

Pelosi Never Learns a Lesson. You Support Your Team. You Don’t Apologize. You Stare the Republican Slanderers Down. You Stand By Your Own. But Not Nancy, She and Harry are Two Craven “Leaders” Who Always Get Intimidated and Bullied by the Republican Junkyard Dogs: “Speaker Pelosi rebukes fellow Bay area liberal over war comments.” Pete Stark, Stand Strong. BuzzFlash Rebukes Pelosi for Enabling Years of Republican Slander and Libel—and Then Rebuking Stark for Telling the Truth. The Only Way to be Strong and Get the Respect of the American Public is to Stand up to the Schoolyard Bullies.

Report this

By Joe R., October 20, 2007 at 6:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a life long democrat I can just see where the failures of Reid and Pelosi are heading the party.  By the time the election comes around the right wing propaganda organ will make these guys look like the fools they have been played for.  It seems that both parties are in a race to see who can sell out the middle class first.  Let’s run Pete Stark for president.  At least he isn’t a gutless ass kisser like the rest of those chicken shits in Washington.

Report this

By Randy, October 20, 2007 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe the only thing left since there are only two people in congress that aren’t afraid of telling the truth - which is not enough to stop the two thugs, is maybe to get 150 million people to quit paying taxes - That will get someones attention!

I wish that i could hypnotize the sheep like Fox news.

Report this

By Paul Magill Smith, October 20, 2007 at 1:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As long as the Democrats have a jackass as their party symbol, and then act like jackasses by doing what Bush wants, a member of the party of jackasses who rears up and speaks the truth will be vilified by both parties. Shame on anyone who condems Stark for speaking the honest truth.

Report this

By cyrena, October 20, 2007 at 12:28 am Link to this comment

Somebody else (either mudwallow or Verne) posted this link on another thread. I can’t remember which one.

But, I thought I’d reproduce it here. Very impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OBslG2Arc

Report this

By cyrena, October 20, 2007 at 12:27 am Link to this comment

Somebody else (either mudwallow or Verne) posted this link on another thread. I can’t remember which one.

But, I thought I’d reproduce it here. Very impressive.

Report this

By cyrena, October 19, 2007 at 11:44 pm Link to this comment

Well, you all are gonna love this one too. (at least I did. wink )

This was Pete’s response when the dummy repugs called additional attention to the incident, thinking they would do the standard treatment…

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907H.shtml

Oh, I do love this guy.

Report this

By John Hanks, October 19, 2007 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At last some plain speech.

Report this

By Willi, October 19, 2007 at 5:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The emperor has no clothes. And it is about time someone in a position to
be heard pointed this out. Thank you Pete. Now, if more Democratic congresspersons would stop trying to “play nice” and come down hard on this
sociopathological president we could watch him implode before our very
eyes. If a Democratic President acted even remotely like Dubya—usurping
power and starting an illegal war—the republicans and their rightwing
mouthpieces would villify him. Stand up Democrats, and tell us publicly
what you really think about this seriously unbalanced man who is running
this country into the ground.

Report this

By jbart, October 19, 2007 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not the first time or, hopefully the last, “Here , Here, Cyrena !!

Report this

By cyrena, October 19, 2007 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

#108275 by Tom on 10/19 at 9:56 am


“YEA!  Pete Stark is one of the most important, moral representatives of the American people!  Long live Stark!”

“Wait, he’s an atheist?  Oh.  Oh… nevermind.”
————————————

Tom, I Don’t know if he’s an athiest or not. But, that makes sense to me. Seems like these days, only athiests are the ones with real morals, and willing to speak their consciences. Long live athiests as well as Pete Stark, whether he is one or not.

Report this

By CHARLES KASNICK, October 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

THE TRUTH HURTS.
          “TRUTH OUT BROTHERS”,THERE WILL BE NO PEACE TILL WE HAVE THE TRUTH FIRST.

Report this

By rodney, October 19, 2007 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

At least one member of congress can speak the truth. The rest of them are to scared of the right wingers who really only have the balls to speak out and not to go to war themselves. When the real Democrats with power begin to speak out that’s when my contributions will begin again to the DNC. But as long as the war continues as Bush always gets his way I think I’ll save my money.

Report this

By steve, October 19, 2007 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As soon as I’ve lost complete faith in the American system of government, along comes Rep Stark.  Although I still have very little faith left in anything or anyone in Washington, all I can say is excellent excellent excellent and thank you Mr Stark!!!

Report this

By mary, October 19, 2007 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Finally someone in Congress with the balls to let this mororn have it, right between the eyes.  And don’t you just love listening to the “Ann Coulter” crowd cry foul….

Report this

By Tom, October 19, 2007 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“YEA!  Pete Stark is one of the most important, moral representatives of the American people!  Long live Stark!”

“Wait, he’s an atheist?  Oh.  Oh… nevermind.”

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, October 19, 2007 at 8:50 am Link to this comment

Readers of my own blog may know that I have a weekly Chutzpah of the Week award.  Recently I felt it necessary to invoke Leo Rosten’s definition from THE JOYS OF YIDDISH to confirm that CHUTZPAH could carry a positive connotation, rather than a negative one.  This week Pete Stark won the award with a slam dunk, and the connotation was definitely positive!

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/10/trying-to-save-sinking-s-chip-with.html

Report this

By ctbrandon, October 19, 2007 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

Lest we forget that while President Bush is certainly guilty of these accusations, we as a people need to speak with our votes if we want a change. Putting Clinton, Obama, or anyone else in power who has not clearly stated that the war is wrong and we need to end it NOW will only continue down this path. Look for the people who have been against the war before it was trendy.

ctbrandon
http://www.actforyourself.org

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, October 19, 2007 at 4:29 am Link to this comment

If the House fails to override Bush’s veto on restricting the war in Iraq or any other military adventure, it will soon be too late!!!

The issue is not merely Iran. As the USA loses its main airbase in the M.East (in Turkey) and the value of its $$$ plummets, will this be the start of WW3???

This week:- While military action against Iran is a last resort, the U.S. has the resources to attack if needed despite the strains of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday…....

......and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could set of an arms race in the Middle East….. “and, as the president said, we must keep all options on the table…”.

Then Bush’s threat to everybody on the planet, “...if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon…”!!!

Report this

By thomas billis, October 18, 2007 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Stark for President.Stark clone for Speaker of the House.Stark robot for majority leader in the Senate.Finally the Stark truth.

Report this

By waxman, October 18, 2007 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

SINCE BUSH THINKS FAMILY’S EARNING 81+K WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THIS PLAN, LETS DO THIS…ANYONE RAISED IN A FAMILY WITH THAT INCOME OR LESS QUIT SERVING IN THE MILITARY AND NO ONE ELSE ENLIST UNLESS INCOME IS OVER 81+K..THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM…

Report this

By waxman, October 18, 2007 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

SINCE BUSH THINKS FAMILY’S EARNING 81+K WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THIS PLAN, LETS DO THIS…ANYONE RAISED IN A FAMILY WITH THAT INCOME OR LESS QUIT SERVING IN THE MILITARY AND NO ONE ELSE ENLIST UNLESS INCOME IS OVER 81+K..THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM…

Report this

By cyrena, October 18, 2007 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

Looks like I’ve got a new hero. Bravo!! Bravo!! Rep. Pete Stark.

What’s with the admonisment (from the Speaker?) not to refer to the president in any ‘personal way’? That’s what I mean about her.

Thanks Pete. Thanks Truthdig. I probably would have otherwise missed this.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook