Sorry folks but I've been neglecting my blog to work for a Texas candidate for U.S. Senate 2006. As you can imagine, it is an uphill battle but our grassroots efforts are making extraordinary inroads. Naturally it helps to have a candidate who is principled, informed and passionate about serving. And one who is willing to give up a very high lucrative professional position, well before retirement age, to run for office. Imagine a politician who is not motivated by money. Such is a very rare breed, indeed. Ms. Radnofsky possesses the integrity and commitment to ignore the demands made upon her by big business and greedy lobbyists when they are in conflict with what is beneficial for the state and all Texans. Check out her web site if you don't believe me.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky; Texas Candidate for U.S. Senate 2006
MOVING ON FROM TEXAS
My friend Ken has been keeping me informed about national political events while I am busy with the campaign in Texas. Once again, thank you, Ken, for all that you do in sharing the news none of us would hear about or read in the mainstream media. We are all busy, overcommitted and multi-task way too much. The mainstream media hope we don't notice what an abysmally poor job they do, except where run-away-bride, Mel Gibson and JonBenet Ramsey type stories are concerned. LS
Ken found this extraordinary article on the Huffington Post. LS
This guy knows his stuff. I've put his bio at the bottom.
His Iraq solution is a pip: "...candidates can propose that if Democrats win control of Congress our first act will be to name leaders on national security such as Senator Sam Nunn and General Zinni to meet with the Joint Chiefs and Iraq commanders and develop a rational exit strategy."
This allows every Democrat to repeat, over and over, what apparently the voters know already, that Bush has no exit strategy. It also gives candidates a party-wide Iraq strategy and allows them to not have to nail some date onto the wall for the GOPs to attack. -K
Lets Landslide: Memo to Democratic Senate and House Candidates and Staff
Mr. Budowsky's bio:
Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit.
BRENT BUDOWSKY: "LET'S LANDSLIDE"
BUSH IS AFRAID OF THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING ON PRISONER INTERROGATIONS AND TORTURE SO HE IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES TO EVADE PUNISHMENT
Another great find from Ken from The Village Voice.com
The interrogations of prisoners now condemned by the Supreme Court were ordered by policy makers at the highest levels of the administration˜who could be prosecuted under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996. - Scott Horton, chairman of the New York City Bar Association's Committee on International Law and adjunct professor, Columbia Law School.
"SUPREME COURT STRIKES FEAR" BY MR. NED HENTOFF
"FROM IRAN WITH LOVE"
Another great find from Ken by Joe Conason from Salon.com.
From the botched Iraq war to threatening Iran with "regime change," neoconservative policies have been a boon for Tehran.
The most obvious example, of course, is the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has conveniently eliminated Iran's chief military rival in the region, and replaced Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime with a weak government dominated by Shiite Islamist parties friendly to Tehran. The only certain outcome of our misbegotten effort is that the Iranians have finally gotten what they could not achieve during eight years of war with Iraq, despite the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars. And we delivered the prize to them at no cost -- except what we have lost in thousands of dead and wounded U.S. troops and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Oddly enough, they don't seem any more grateful than the Iraqis.
Remember that the war's chief instigator, aside from the neoconservatives themselves, was their friend and collaborator Ahmed Chalabi, who has since proved to be a more reliable ally of the Iranians than of his former American sponsors. With much help from domestic propagandists, Chalabi oversaw dissemination of the disinformation about Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" that served as the rationale for war. The original neocon plan was to enthrone him in Baghdad as a strongman ruler, at least on a temporary basis. He had promised, among other things, that the new Iraq would grant diplomatic recognition to Israel. Things haven't quite worked out that way.
Could the neocons truly have been so dense and clueless about the consequences of an American invasion of Iraq? Not if one believes their constant flattery of their own seriousness and sagacity. They did do an excellent job of misleading the American public about how the war would proceed, from their promises that the costs would be underwritten by Iraqi oil, to their predictions that a "new democratic Iraq" would radically improve the prospects for regional peace and progress, to their assurances that Shiite domination would prove benign. William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor whose magazine so assiduously promoted war, brushed aside any concerns about empowering the Shiites during an April 2003 interview with National Public Radio's Terry Gross:
"And on this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there's been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular." For a man who by then had spent almost 10 years arguing for war in Iraq, he was either stunningly ignorant or intentionally deceptive.
It would be easier to believe that Kristol and his fellow war enthusiasts were merely misinformed or stupid if all of their mistakes did not so consistently benefit Tehran. But consider the results of the policies pursued by the White House at their insistence.
"FROM IRAN WITH LOVE" BY JOE CONASON OF SALON.COM
FOR REPUBLICANS, PROFITS OF CORPORATE DONORS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
The Republican Congress will gut the foreign ownership security bill. Remember the firm in Dubai who was/is to be awarded contracts to ensure the safety of our U.S. ports? Read where our Republican lawmakers stand on this issue. LS
By David Sirota of WorkingforChange.com
Here are the details of the competing proposals in Congress:
"The House bill would force Cfius – which was lambasted for approving the sale of five US port terminals to Dubai-based DP World – to conduct mandatory 90-day investigations of all sensitive acquisitions by foreign state-owned companies. It would also require Cfius to notify relevant congressional committees once investigations into a deal are closed. The Senate proposal, backed by Richard Shelby, banking committee chairman, and criticised by some of his fellow Republicans, would require Congress to be notified of a deal following the initiation of an investigation – even if the deal was not yet public – and could extend an investigation from a maximum of 90 days to 120 days."
Republicans in Congress and the White House have made their position clear: the profits of their corporate donors are more important to them than national security, even in the post-9/11 world. No matter how many times George W. Bush stands behind a podium and babbles on about "freedom" and his supposed commitment to securing America against terrorism, all you have to do is look at what's actually going on in Washington to know that all of that rhetoric is a fraud. Let's hope that in the stretch run of the 2006 election season, Democrats pound this reality home.
"CONGRESS TO GUT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP SECURITY BILL