The Democrats have sold most of the country on the idea that they are helpless to end the occupation of Iraq because they “don’t have the votes” to overcome a veto, or a filibuster.  This is not the whole story.  Democrats do have enough votes in Congress to defeat any new war funding bills.  All they have to do is just say no.  Republican votes would not be needed, and the veto would not apply.

Medicine in the U.S. accounts for 20% of the gross national product [GNP].  That is, 1 out of every 5 dollars spent in the U.S. is for medicine.  And what are we getting for this investment?  According to Harvard and Johns Hopkins studies published in JAMA:

1) Iatrogenics [medicine as a whole], is the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S. behind only heart attacks and strokes, and ahead of all cancers combined.

2) Adverse reactions to FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs [part of iatrogenics], alone, is the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. This statistic does not include deaths associated with misdosing or misprescribing.  In other words, you are given the FDA approved drug, in the FDA approved dose, and it kills you, is the fourth leading cause of death.

3) Medical malpractice [also part of iatrogenics] is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S.

Therefore, my vote will go to the candidate who promises to institute socialized medicine, like every other inudtrialized country in the world.

John Edwards does have a point. Apparently the reason his haircuts are so expensive is that it’s very difficult to cover up that point.

Ernest Canning

Great insight, The Orwell “1984” newspeak connection seems more real than ever.

Fon, you are mistaken.  Mr. Edwards did not use the words “bumper sticker” to describe the war in Iraq.  He used it to describe the phrase “war on terror.” The problem with Edwards’s characterization is its understatement.

In George Orwell’s “1984” the English language was reconstructed into Newspeak “not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits of [the Party], but to make other modes of thought impossible.”

The phrase “war on terror” is perhaps the most salient 21st Century use of Orwellian Newspeak.  Despite the fact that, with the exception of civil and revolutionary wars, the concept of “war” is ordinarily reserved to armed conflicts between nation-states, on 9/12/01 Bush informed the nation 9/11 was not merely an act of terrorism, but an act of “war.” This was followed by a 9/27/01 Don Rumsfeld NY Times editorial which asserted this would be a “war” like no other and that we should not even begin to think of an “exit strategy.”

While a nation whose psyche was badly damaged with each successive, televised replay of the collapse of the twin towers blindly accepted this initial assertion, its validity was questioned by an unlikely source, Justice Samuel Alito, author of the radically subversive “Unitary Executive” theory at his confirmation hearings.  Senator Graham:  “Do you believe the attacks on 9/11...were an act of war?” Alito:  “That’s a hard question to answer--” Graham cut him off, asking “Do you doubt that our nation has been in an armed conflict with a terrorist organization since 9/11...?” Alito::  “In a lay sense, certainly we have been in a conflict with a terrorist organization.  I am just concerned that in the law all these prases can have particular meaning...”

As a practical matter, the phrase “war on terror” borders upon a meaningless oxymoron.  As noted by retired Gen. Wm. Odom, “Terrorism is not an enemy.  It cannot be defeated.  It’s a tactic.  It’s about as sensible to say we delare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war.” As a propaganda device, “war on terror” provides an especially powerful piece of Orwellian Newspeak.  In “The Bush Agenda” Antonia Juhasz notes that the phrase envisions a perpetual war with a “phantom menace” involving “shadowing networks of individuals;” a threat that must be met “anywhere at any time, or everywhere all the time.”

For more than five years, most Americans, including the so-called “leading” Democrats, have shown themselves incapable of questioning this basic premise.  The idea that 9/11 was merely a crime--an especially heinous crime, but a crime nonetheless--has simply not entered their thought processes.  Because “war” impacts the scope of executive power, an endless “war on terror” has served as a cover for massive military expenditures, an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq, and an attempted permanent restructuring of our federal government so as to eliminate checks and balances in favor of dictatorial executive power, including the right to torture abroad and the trampling of civil liberties at home.

What Mr. Robinson and others have missed is the prior bill the President provided funds until March 08. The one in question, that he signed provided funds only until September, when General Petraeus is set to report back what, if any, progress has been made in the Iraq Occupation.

If 70% of the American public is now opposed to the Occupation and wants the U.S. forces to come home, that means at least 30% of the Republicans who have supported Bush’s failed policy will have the summer to rethink what another vote to extend the Occupation will cost them.

Funding the Occupation also meant providing funds for Kevlar vests, Shock-absorbing helmets and up-armored vehicles the troops need NOW.

Edwards is in a position to attack Obama and Clinton for their current votes, without having to consider worry about how he would vote now—he’s not a Senator anymore.

I’m not saying Clinton and Obama did was entirely right, but it was a strategy that could end the Occupation sooner than later. That’s not exactly a bad thing.

I have yet to hear the question posed in one of these charades the media calls a debate:  “Sen.___________, the bill for the Iraq war is projected to be in the trillions.  Without hemming and hawing and in direct language, would you please tell voters exactly who is going to pay that bill and how they are going to do it, given that there will obviously be no new taxes? Please keep in mind that the ongoing cost to taxpayers for the S&L;bailout in the 80’s continues to be in the neighborhood of $30 billion annually.  If taxpayers will pay for the war, how do you propose they can add that expense to the S&L;gov. bailout bill you handed them in the 80’s?  And by the way, Sen.______, did you author one of the earmarks on the new Iraq War funding bill?  Sen_______, your answer please?

#75651 by Ernest Canning on 6/05 at 7:43 pm

How long are We the People going to sit back and allow the conglomerated corporate media to sell us candidates the same way they sell products--through deceptive ads?

Mr. Canning, I sympathize with everything you say.  I have been asking this question for so long I’m bored with it.

My solution is as follows:
• The president is clueless about history, all history.  Most of us can see that.  It’s so obvious it hurts.
Clearly, the American people have spoken...the question is, when will they demand the government bend to their will?  We do not have the luxury of time in this; the proverbial clock is always ticking.  Time will never stop...but we act too slowly.
Once again...why aren’t we going to the streets...we have the right...or do we?  Can we still mass and demonstrate?  How do we know we still have the right to do this?  Not to be trite, but; use it or lose it!!!
Do not...please do not mistake the comfort of the blogs and internet for the street.  It is not the same. 
The street takes commitment and getting off your bum.  I fear if we lose that active commitment we will lose far more than we know...we may have already and don’t know it.
This administration will be scared to death if we march.  They may try the mass arrests of Nixon; then all hell will break loose.  Then we will have some change: Why?  Because the people will have spoken with their bodies and souls...they will have put their very asses on the line...directly, not through some elected wimp!!!

How do I know this...I was there and we did it...it was known as Viet Nam!!!

I still believe our two party system is there to provide us the choice between the better of the worst. Always Ignore the candidates with substance.

THOMAS BILLIS, right on!

“democratic consultants are at work again trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Another shallow piece that pretends that the only candidates who warrant mention are Clinton-Obama-Edwards.  Clinton and Edwards both voted to authorize this war.  Obama voted in favor of every funding bill but the last.  There is only one candidate with a consistent record on Iraq--Dennis Kucinich.  But you would never know it.  The pundits limit their discussions to the three corporatists--Clinton-Obama-Edwards who were given center stage treatment at the debate while Kucinich and Gravel were relegated to the outer most positions.  With the media limiting all coverage to the three corporate funded candidates--the ones who can afford to purchase the expensive 30 second spot ads--with its refusal to carefully examine the core issues that truly matter to the American people, is it any surprise that these three stooges should be leading in the polls while the candidates, (Kucinich and Gravel) whose positions most closely track the true preferences of the under-informed electorate trail?  Are we beginning to understand what Noam Chomsky had in mind when he referred to America’s “democracy deficit?”

How long are We the People going to sit back and allow the conglomerated corporate media to sell us candidates the same way they sell products--through deceptive ads?

http://www.thismodernworld.com/

my favorite comic is “this modern world”. today’s strip is dead on. read it .enjoy. “this modern world.com”.sorry i don’t know how to make links.

Robinson raises good questions about the psychology and politics regarding how these candidates are dealing with the issues of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The candidates, and others, seem to be walking a fine line to be seen as strong, supportive of the troops and not “Defeatocrats.”

Still, the lack of clarity and moral authority in most of the Dem and Repub candidates seems to be discouraging for many Americans.

Those candidates that sometimes do seem strong (such as McCain), are headed in very questionable directions.

Food for thought in:

“Iraq War Psychology: Exploring hearts and minds of U.S. officials, press, profiteers”

PopulistAmerica.com
Populist Party of America

http://www.populistamerica.com/iraq_war_psychology