<s>E pluribus unum</s>
Assholes protest Hindu prayer in the Senate
Video
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Three protesters disrupted a prayer by a Hindu chaplain Thursday at the opening of a Senate hearing, calling it an abomination and shouting slogans about Jesus Christ.
It was the first time the daily prayer that opens Senate proceedings was said by a Hindu chaplain.
Capitol police said two women and one man were arrested and charged with causing a disruption in the public gallery of the Senate. The three started shouting when guest Chaplain Rajan Zed, a Hindu from Nevada, began his prayer. Watch the disruption »
They shouted "No Lord but Jesus Christ" and "There's only one true God," and used the term "abomination."
Religious figures from various faiths have said the prayer, which is normally recited by a Christian chaplain.
Barry Lynn, executive director of religious watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest showed the intolerance of the "religious right."
"I don't think the Senate should open with prayers, but if it's going to happen, the invocations ought to reflect the diversity of the American people," Lynn said in a statement.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had invited Zed.
"I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly father regarding peace," he said after the disruption.
New Developments III
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Some people never quit. The complaint that President Bush is linking al Qaida and Iraq is old. By saying that al Qaida is in Iraq and that they are causing troube is true. The fact that they attacked us on 9/11 is true. He didn't say they were the only threat, but they are our direct enemy. Therefore, it makes sense for us to fight them where they are. You can argue all day about whether they had anything to do with Iraq to begin with, but the editorial posted before misleads with its premise that Bush is somehow lying to gain support (a claim that some people love to repeat).
President Bush has time and again responded to such assertions in the past by explaining that, while Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, Saddam Hussein was seen as a threat to the region and by extension, to our interests. Whether al Qaida was there sufficiently before we got there is not the point. They chose to fight us there when we got there. That's the point. Obviously they don't want Iraq to stand as a democracy, because that would weaken their position and give them less room to gain power in the region.
There are reports saying al Qaida has regained some power, but I doubt the assumption that they are truly "back to pre-9/11" strength. Better to overstate the threat and be ready, then understate it and not be.
Anyway, there is also evidence that the surge in Iraq has seen some progress. I await the report in September.
I still want to meet your dealer.
Some people never quit. The complaint that President Bush is linking al Qaida and Iraq is old. By saying that al Qaida is in Iraq and that they are causing troube is true. The fact that they attacked us on 9/11 is true. He didn't say they were the only threat, but they are our direct enemy. Therefore, it makes sense for us to fight them where they are. You can argue all day about whether they had anything to do with Iraq to begin with, but the editorial posted before misleads with its premise that Bush is somehow lying to gain support (a claim that some people love to repeat).
President Bush has time and again responded to such assertions in the past by explaining that, while Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, Saddam Hussein was seen as a threat to the region and by extension, to our interests. Whether al Qaida was there sufficiently before we got there is not the point. They chose to fight us there when we got there. That's the point. Obviously they don't want Iraq to stand as a democracy, because that would weaken their position and give them less room to gain power in the region.
There are reports saying al Qaida has regained some power, but I doubt the assumption that they are truly "back to pre-9/11" strength. Better to overstate the threat and be ready, then understate it and not be.
Anyway, there is also evidence that the surge in Iraq has seen some progress. I await the report in September.
President Bush has time and again responded to such assertions in the past by explaining that, while Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, Saddam Hussein was seen as a threat to the region and by extension, to our interests. Whether al Qaida was there sufficiently before we got there is not the point. They chose to fight us there when we got there. That's the point. Obviously they don't want Iraq to stand as a democracy, because that would weaken their position and give them less room to gain power in the region.
There are reports saying al Qaida has regained some power, but I doubt the assumption that they are truly "back to pre-9/11" strength. Better to overstate the threat and be ready, then understate it and not be.
Anyway, there is also evidence that the surge in Iraq has seen some progress. I await the report in September.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
99-1100896887
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Bush again links Iraq, 9/11
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tue, July 10, 2007
WASHINGTON — Struggling to stem growing opposition to his Iraq policy even among Republicans, President Bush contended anew Tuesday that the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States are the same as al Qaida in Iraq, a violent Iraqi insurgent group that didn't exist until after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
It was the second time in two weeks that Bush has made the link in an apparent attempt to transform lingering fear of another U.S. terrorist attack into backing for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"Al Qaida is doing most of the spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence," Bush told a business group in Cleveland, Ohio. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims."
Al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004. While it is inspired by Osama bin Laden's violent ideology, there's no evidence that the Iraq organization is under the control of the terrorist leader or his top aides, who are believed to be hiding in tribal regions of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.
Moreover, the two groups have been divided over tactics and strategy.
While U.S. intelligence and military officials view al Qaida in Iraq as a serious threat, they say the main source of violence and instability is an ongoing contest for power between majority Shiites and Sunnis, who dominated Saddam Hussein's regime.
Bush's speech came as Democrats in the Senate mounted a drive for legislation that would mandate a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal or set the stage for a pullout.
Four key Republican senators have broken with Bush over Iraq, and more could desert after the administration sends a report to Congress at week's end that is expected to chart slight improvements in security, but virtually none on political measures aimed at reconciling rival religious and ethnic groups.
In his speech, Bush cited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as the motivation behind the continuing war in Iraq. "They will kill a Muslim, a child or a woman at a moment's notice to achieve a political objective," Bush said. "They are dangerous people that need to be confronted, and that's why since Sept. 11 our policy has been to find them and defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here at home again."
Before the war, the president and his aides cited Iraq's alleged illegal chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs to justify the ouster of Saddam, who administration officials asserted also had ties to al Qaida.
No such programs were found, however, and U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Saddam also had no operational links to al Qaida.
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tue, July 10, 2007
WASHINGTON — Struggling to stem growing opposition to his Iraq policy even among Republicans, President Bush contended anew Tuesday that the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States are the same as al Qaida in Iraq, a violent Iraqi insurgent group that didn't exist until after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
It was the second time in two weeks that Bush has made the link in an apparent attempt to transform lingering fear of another U.S. terrorist attack into backing for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"Al Qaida is doing most of the spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence," Bush told a business group in Cleveland, Ohio. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims."
Al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004. While it is inspired by Osama bin Laden's violent ideology, there's no evidence that the Iraq organization is under the control of the terrorist leader or his top aides, who are believed to be hiding in tribal regions of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.
Moreover, the two groups have been divided over tactics and strategy.
While U.S. intelligence and military officials view al Qaida in Iraq as a serious threat, they say the main source of violence and instability is an ongoing contest for power between majority Shiites and Sunnis, who dominated Saddam Hussein's regime.
Bush's speech came as Democrats in the Senate mounted a drive for legislation that would mandate a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal or set the stage for a pullout.
Four key Republican senators have broken with Bush over Iraq, and more could desert after the administration sends a report to Congress at week's end that is expected to chart slight improvements in security, but virtually none on political measures aimed at reconciling rival religious and ethnic groups.
In his speech, Bush cited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as the motivation behind the continuing war in Iraq. "They will kill a Muslim, a child or a woman at a moment's notice to achieve a political objective," Bush said. "They are dangerous people that need to be confronted, and that's why since Sept. 11 our policy has been to find them and defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here at home again."
Before the war, the president and his aides cited Iraq's alleged illegal chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs to justify the ouster of Saddam, who administration officials asserted also had ties to al Qaida.
No such programs were found, however, and U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Saddam also had no operational links to al Qaida.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
And USA Today/Gallup weighs in with a 29% approval for Bush -- their first time below 30 (they, along with ABC and CNN -- who haven't yet cracked the barrier -- have always been among the high-readers). To put this in perspective: it's 9 points below last year's election day number -- wonder why so many GOPers are starting to claw for an Iraq exit.
Oh, and 66% think Bush should not have intervened in the Libby verdict, as opposed to a total of 19% who either liked it or wanted a full pardon.
It's rare to get the American public so decisively on one side or another of an issue or a presidency, but Bush has pushed his way to near-historic unpopularity. Nixon, with such numbers briefly, resigned; Carter, also after a brief period, was defeated. The nation doesn't know how to handle such manifest distatste over a long period, especially with the executive so utterly resistant to modification. Maybe the last years of Hoover are the only proper comparison.
Oh, and 66% think Bush should not have intervened in the Libby verdict, as opposed to a total of 19% who either liked it or wanted a full pardon.
It's rare to get the American public so decisively on one side or another of an issue or a presidency, but Bush has pushed his way to near-historic unpopularity. Nixon, with such numbers briefly, resigned; Carter, also after a brief period, was defeated. The nation doesn't know how to handle such manifest distatste over a long period, especially with the executive so utterly resistant to modification. Maybe the last years of Hoover are the only proper comparison.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>3,606</span>
As of Monday, July 9, 2007, at least 3,606 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,957 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is 10 higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Monday at 10 a.m. EDT.
The British military has reported 159 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 20; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania, South Korea, one death each.
----------------------------
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>$12,000,000,000 per month</span>
WASHINGTON (AP) - The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.
All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.
The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.
For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40 percent increase over 2006.
The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates.
The $12 billion a month ``burn rate'' includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That's higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion.
Among the reasons for the higher costs is the cost of repairing and replacing equipment worn out in harsh conditions or destroyed in combat.
But the estimates call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September.
If Congress approves President Bush's pending request for another $147 billion for the budget year starting Oct. 1, the total bill for the war on terror since Sept. 11 would reach more than three-fourths of a trillion dollars, with appropriations for Iraq reaching $567 billion.
Also, if the increase in war tempo continues beyond September, the Pentagon's request ``would presumably be inadequate,'' CRS said.
The latest estimates come as support for the war in Iraq among Bush's GOP allies in Congress is beginning to erode. Senior Republicans such as Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Richard Lugar of Indiana have called for a shift in strategy in Iraq and a battle over funding the war will resume in September, when Democrats in Congress begin work on a funding bill for the war.
Congress approved $99 billion in war funding in May after a protracted battle and a Bush veto of an earlier measure over Democrats' attempt to set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
The report faults the Pentagon for using the Iraq war as a pretext for boosting the Pentagon's non-war budget by costs such as procurement, increasing the size of the military and procurement of replacement aircraft as war-related items.
The new estimate comes as the White House and Democrats are fighting over spending bills for next year. That battle is over about $22 billion - almost the cost of two months' fighting in Iraq.
``Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to protecting Americans from terrorism, improving security at our ports and airports, and increasing border security,'' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
As of Monday, July 9, 2007, at least 3,606 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,957 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
The AP count is 10 higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Monday at 10 a.m. EDT.
The British military has reported 159 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 20; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Romania, South Korea, one death each.
----------------------------
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>$12,000,000,000 per month</span>
WASHINGTON (AP) - The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.
All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.
The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.
For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40 percent increase over 2006.
The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates.
The $12 billion a month ``burn rate'' includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That's higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion.
Among the reasons for the higher costs is the cost of repairing and replacing equipment worn out in harsh conditions or destroyed in combat.
But the estimates call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September.
If Congress approves President Bush's pending request for another $147 billion for the budget year starting Oct. 1, the total bill for the war on terror since Sept. 11 would reach more than three-fourths of a trillion dollars, with appropriations for Iraq reaching $567 billion.
Also, if the increase in war tempo continues beyond September, the Pentagon's request ``would presumably be inadequate,'' CRS said.
The latest estimates come as support for the war in Iraq among Bush's GOP allies in Congress is beginning to erode. Senior Republicans such as Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Richard Lugar of Indiana have called for a shift in strategy in Iraq and a battle over funding the war will resume in September, when Democrats in Congress begin work on a funding bill for the war.
Congress approved $99 billion in war funding in May after a protracted battle and a Bush veto of an earlier measure over Democrats' attempt to set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
The report faults the Pentagon for using the Iraq war as a pretext for boosting the Pentagon's non-war budget by costs such as procurement, increasing the size of the military and procurement of replacement aircraft as war-related items.
The new estimate comes as the White House and Democrats are fighting over spending bills for next year. That battle is over about $22 billion - almost the cost of two months' fighting in Iraq.
``Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to protecting Americans from terrorism, improving security at our ports and airports, and increasing border security,'' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Iraqi politicians call on civilians to arm themselves
By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press Writer
Published: 09 July 2007
Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died yesterday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.
The calls reflect growing frustration with the inability of Iraqi security forces to prevent extremist attacks.
The weekend deaths included two American soldiers - one killed Sunday in a suicide bombing on the western outskirts and Baghdad and another who died in combat Saturday in Salahuddin province north of the capital, the US command said. Three soldiers were wounded in the Sunday blast.
Sunday's deadliest attack occurred when a bomb struck a truckload of newly recruited Iraqi soldiers on the outskirts of Baghdad, killing 15 soldiers and wounding 20, a police official at the nearest police station said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
Also Sunday, two car bombs exploded near simultaneously in Baghdad's mostly Shiite Karradah district, killing eight people. The first detonated at 10:30 a.m., near a closed restaurant, destroying stalls and soft drink stands. Two passers-by were killed and eight wounded, a police official said.
About five minutes later, the second car exploded about a mile away near shops selling leather jackets and shoes. Six people were killed and seven wounded, said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
The Karradah area includes the offices of the Supreme Islamic Council in Iraq, the biggest Shiite party in parliament, and is considered among the safest parts of the capital....
....During a press conference Sunday in Baghdad, al-Bayati criticized the security situation in Armili, saying its police force had only 30 members and that the Interior Ministry had finally responded to requests for reinforcements only two days before the attack.
In the absence of enough security forces, al-Bayati said authorities should help residents "arm themselves" or their own protection.
The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed Sunday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.
"People have a right to expect from the government and security agencies protection for their lives, land, honor and property," al-Hashemi said in a statement. "But in the case of (their) inability, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense."
He said the government should provide communities with money, weapons and training and "regulate their use by rules of behavior."
Another prominent Sunni lawmaker, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had failed to provide services and security but he stopped short of saying his followers would seek to topple the Shiite-led government.
"The situation has become terribly bad," al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press. "All options are open for us. We are going to study the situation thoroughly, and we are going to look into the possible measures which go with the interests of the Iraqi people. We will also consider whether to keep on with the government or not."
But Iraq's national security adviser, a Shiite, insisted that the government still enjoyed broad support and he warned against any effort to replace al-Maliki.
"I can tell you one thing that after Maliki, there is going to be the hurricane in Iraq," Mouwaffak al-Rubaie told CNN's "Late Edition." "This is an extremely important point to make across and to the Western audience and to the Arab audience as well as the larger Muslim audience."
The idea of organizing local communities for their own defense has caught on here in recent months following the success of Sunni Arab tribes in Anbar province that took up arms to help drive al-Qaida from their towns and villages.
US and Iraqi officials have said they hope to replicate the "Anbar model" elsewhere in the country, albeit under government supervision and control.
On Sunday, Lt. Gen. Ali Gheidan said the Iraqi army planned to raise volunteer forces in Diyala province, where US and Iraqi forces have driven al-Qaida fighters from part of the capital of Baqouba. He said more than 3,800 volunteers had already been recruited.
"Their mission will be like the police, working under the Iraqi police," Gheidan told reporters. "They work as a protection for each area, and they will only be from the residents of that area. Their role is to hold onto territory after it has been cleansed by the military."
US commanders have long believed the key to restoring security was the ability of Iraqi forces to hold on to areas cleared by American troops. Several senior US officers have questioned whether the Iraqi police and army were capable of preventing insurgents from returning once the Americans had left.
Local defense forces would offer a way to compensate for weaknesses in the Iraqi police and army, but without careful controls, the system could backfire by promoting more militias in a country already awash in weapons.
By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press Writer
Published: 09 July 2007
Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died yesterday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.
The calls reflect growing frustration with the inability of Iraqi security forces to prevent extremist attacks.
The weekend deaths included two American soldiers - one killed Sunday in a suicide bombing on the western outskirts and Baghdad and another who died in combat Saturday in Salahuddin province north of the capital, the US command said. Three soldiers were wounded in the Sunday blast.
Sunday's deadliest attack occurred when a bomb struck a truckload of newly recruited Iraqi soldiers on the outskirts of Baghdad, killing 15 soldiers and wounding 20, a police official at the nearest police station said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
Also Sunday, two car bombs exploded near simultaneously in Baghdad's mostly Shiite Karradah district, killing eight people. The first detonated at 10:30 a.m., near a closed restaurant, destroying stalls and soft drink stands. Two passers-by were killed and eight wounded, a police official said.
About five minutes later, the second car exploded about a mile away near shops selling leather jackets and shoes. Six people were killed and seven wounded, said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
The Karradah area includes the offices of the Supreme Islamic Council in Iraq, the biggest Shiite party in parliament, and is considered among the safest parts of the capital....
....During a press conference Sunday in Baghdad, al-Bayati criticized the security situation in Armili, saying its police force had only 30 members and that the Interior Ministry had finally responded to requests for reinforcements only two days before the attack.
In the absence of enough security forces, al-Bayati said authorities should help residents "arm themselves" or their own protection.
The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed Sunday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.
"People have a right to expect from the government and security agencies protection for their lives, land, honor and property," al-Hashemi said in a statement. "But in the case of (their) inability, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense."
He said the government should provide communities with money, weapons and training and "regulate their use by rules of behavior."
Another prominent Sunni lawmaker, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had failed to provide services and security but he stopped short of saying his followers would seek to topple the Shiite-led government.
"The situation has become terribly bad," al-Dulaimi told The Associated Press. "All options are open for us. We are going to study the situation thoroughly, and we are going to look into the possible measures which go with the interests of the Iraqi people. We will also consider whether to keep on with the government or not."
But Iraq's national security adviser, a Shiite, insisted that the government still enjoyed broad support and he warned against any effort to replace al-Maliki.
"I can tell you one thing that after Maliki, there is going to be the hurricane in Iraq," Mouwaffak al-Rubaie told CNN's "Late Edition." "This is an extremely important point to make across and to the Western audience and to the Arab audience as well as the larger Muslim audience."
The idea of organizing local communities for their own defense has caught on here in recent months following the success of Sunni Arab tribes in Anbar province that took up arms to help drive al-Qaida from their towns and villages.
US and Iraqi officials have said they hope to replicate the "Anbar model" elsewhere in the country, albeit under government supervision and control.
On Sunday, Lt. Gen. Ali Gheidan said the Iraqi army planned to raise volunteer forces in Diyala province, where US and Iraqi forces have driven al-Qaida fighters from part of the capital of Baqouba. He said more than 3,800 volunteers had already been recruited.
"Their mission will be like the police, working under the Iraqi police," Gheidan told reporters. "They work as a protection for each area, and they will only be from the residents of that area. Their role is to hold onto territory after it has been cleansed by the military."
US commanders have long believed the key to restoring security was the ability of Iraqi forces to hold on to areas cleared by American troops. Several senior US officers have questioned whether the Iraqi police and army were capable of preventing insurgents from returning once the Americans had left.
Local defense forces would offer a way to compensate for weaknesses in the Iraqi police and army, but without careful controls, the system could backfire by promoting more militias in a country already awash in weapons.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
I know these are a couple of moot point, but I'm coming to this thread late.
Watching Ann Coulter speak is a strange experience to me. I'd like to separate myself from the the part of me that finds her a being of intrinsic moral corruption. I have no idea if she believes anything she is saying more than a shock jock or a comedian, but her debate tactic is plain as day. When confronted with citations she clearly remembers from her time as a mouthpiece for this "Moral Majority" that probably wishes she were dead by now, Ann Coulter reaches into a bucket for any kind of defense and ends up pulling something even uglier out in self-defense. It's the debate team equivalent of "No, you're the asshole." but at this point she has almost backed herself into a corner with her countless imflammatory comments over the years. Notice the way she lashes out at Chris Matthews for BARELY interrupting her. That buys her six seconds in the Coulter Bucket of All-Purpose Evil. She's spit-balling.
I will admit that Chris Matthews is a poster boy for middle-aged male impotence at this point. The sheer cowardice!
Other the other hand, I don't know how I would put up with this woman for five minutes without searching my person desperately for a firearm.
Here is a transcript on Roger Ebert's website from futher along in the interview. I don't believe this has been posted yet, but this is far more damnable in my mind.
Deliberately dodging every single question every time with more bullshit she's going to deliberately dodge when cited in and out of context later on. Somebody needs to take this woman down, and Bill Maher's already fucked her and tossed her aside so we may be out of luck.
Watching Ann Coulter speak is a strange experience to me. I'd like to separate myself from the the part of me that finds her a being of intrinsic moral corruption. I have no idea if she believes anything she is saying more than a shock jock or a comedian, but her debate tactic is plain as day. When confronted with citations she clearly remembers from her time as a mouthpiece for this "Moral Majority" that probably wishes she were dead by now, Ann Coulter reaches into a bucket for any kind of defense and ends up pulling something even uglier out in self-defense. It's the debate team equivalent of "No, you're the asshole." but at this point she has almost backed herself into a corner with her countless imflammatory comments over the years. Notice the way she lashes out at Chris Matthews for BARELY interrupting her. That buys her six seconds in the Coulter Bucket of All-Purpose Evil. She's spit-balling.
I will admit that Chris Matthews is a poster boy for middle-aged male impotence at this point. The sheer cowardice!
We'll be back and read the entire sentence. We'll come right back. I don't know why we're reading - the full intellectual context will be coming in a moment.
Other the other hand, I don't know how I would put up with this woman for five minutes without searching my person desperately for a firearm.
Here is a transcript on Roger Ebert's website from futher along in the interview. I don't believe this has been posted yet, but this is far more damnable in my mind.
Following is the transcript of Chris Curveball’s televised interview last night with Ann Coultist, held before a group of high school students.
CHRIS: We’re here to talk about the new book by right-wing commentator Ann Coultist, but first, Ann, we have a woman on the line who wants to ask you something.
ANN (uses fingers to comb back long blonde hair): Right wing! That’s a new one.
CALLER: Hello, Ann? I’m calling to ask why you were so mean to my mother.
ANN (runs fingers through hair): I don’t suppose your mother has a name?
CALLER: Mildred Quaker. And you said she was mean and ugly, but you never even met her, because she died years ago.
ANN (tosses back blonde hair): I happen to know that, darling, because I tripped over her tombstone in a cemetery and got grass stains all over myself. Was that my fault? When these Quakers insist on being pacifists who can be buried anywhere they want to be?
CALLER: We’re not Quakers. We’re SDA.
ANN (shakes out hair): FDA? Are they inspecting cemeteries now? The Chinese commies have been making our corpses into toothpaste.
CALLER: No, SDA stands for Seventh Day Adventist.
ANN (braids hair): Vegetarians. Enough said.
CHRIS: So what do you want to ask Ann, caller?
CALLER: Did you notice my mother’s death date? Because it was the same day as your birthday?
ANN: Is that my fault?
CALLER: It has been a family secret that my mother died giving birth to you, and you were put up for adoption.
ANN (unbraids hair): Orphanages are part of the whole socialist agenda. Begging in the streets has traditionally been good enough for orphans…
CALLER: That’s so mean…
ANN: …and people love to adopt pretty little blonde girls.
CHRIS: Many people have protested some of the things you’ve written, Ann. For example, you said Mildred Quaker has a bumper sticker saying, “I’m proud of my gay mass-murdering son.”
ANN: Is it my fault how she feels about her family?
CALLER: Mom didn’t have a son.
ANN (uses rubber band to make pony tail): I’ve got one word for you, sweetheart. Irony.
CHRIS: Let’s see if these young people have any questions.
ANN: Good idea. For example, what should they do with their illegitimate children? Of course the word “illegitimate” is a no-no for the liberals. They think it’s Politically Incorrect. I suppose they’d like us to go back to calling them bastards. I think it’s terrible, for liberals to call wonderful young people like these bastards.
STUDENT: But nobody has called us bastards.
ANN (arranges pony tail over right shoulder): You have Dick Cheney to thank for that.
STUDENT: And why do you call Hillary Clinton and Monica Lewinski fat?
CHRIS: Yes, and Michael Moore?
ANN (releases pony tail): Do you believe in the truth, Chris? As a journalist?
CHRIS: Yes, but…
ANN: Well, then, let’s face it. You’re a porker yourself. And then the liberals sue doctors to keep them from delivering babies! At least that’s an improvement. Liberals used to eat babies. Maybe that’s why they got so fat.
ANN (shakes hair free): In today’s left-wing schools, they’re actually taught that babies come out as little monkeys and evolve into human beings at about six months.
CALLER: Don’t you think you were born as a human being, Ann?
ANN (lets hair fall forward, sweeps hair back with both hands, tosses head): Are you telling me your own mother slept with a monkey?
Deliberately dodging every single question every time with more bullshit she's going to deliberately dodge when cited in and out of context later on. Somebody needs to take this woman down, and Bill Maher's already fucked her and tossed her aside so we may be out of luck.
"How's the despair?"
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Sonic Youth wrote:LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE FIRST ANNUAL GUANTANAMO FILM FESTIVAL
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - The U.S. military is seeking to improve conditions for many Guantanamo Bay detainees by offering more recreation and activities, including a weekly movie night for the best-behaved, the commander of the detention center said Tuesday.
The series will kick off with Midnight Express, followed by Orson Welles's version of Kafka's The Trial, and then to show that, hey, you Muslims can actually be a lot of fun, The Road To Morocco (if you can't laugh at yourselves, whom can you laugh at? ).
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE FIRST ANNUAL GUANTANAMO FILM FESTIVAL
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - The U.S. military is seeking to improve conditions for many Guantanamo Bay detainees by offering more recreation and activities, including a weekly movie night for the best-behaved, the commander of the detention center said Tuesday.
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - The U.S. military is seeking to improve conditions for many Guantanamo Bay detainees by offering more recreation and activities, including a weekly movie night for the best-behaved, the commander of the detention center said Tuesday.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
A song for the 4th of July:
BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLICANS
(to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic)
Mine Eyes have seen the bungling of that stumbling
moron Bush;
He has blathered all the drivel that the neo-cons can
push;
He has lost sight of all reason 'cause his head is up
his tush;
The Doofus marches on.
I have heard him butcher syntax like a kindergarten
fool;
There is warranted suspicion that he never went to
school;
Should we fault him for the policies -- or is he just
their tool?
The lies keep piling on.
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
His wreckage will live on.
I have seen him cut the taxes of the billionaires'
lone heir;
As he spends another zillion on an aircraft carrier;
Let the smokestacks keep polluting -- do we really
need clean air?
The surplus is now gone.
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Your safety net is gone!
Now he's got a mighty hankerin' to bomb a prostrate
state;
Though the whole world knows its crazy -- and the U.N.
says to wait;
When he doesn't have the evidence, "We must
prevaricate."
Diplomacy is done!
Oh, a trumped-up war is excellent; we have no moral
bounds;
Should the reasons be disputed, we'll just make up
other grounds;
Enraging several billions -- to his brainlessness
redounds;
The Doofus marches on!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
THIS...DOO...FUS...MAR...CHES...ON
BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLICANS
(to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic)
Mine Eyes have seen the bungling of that stumbling
moron Bush;
He has blathered all the drivel that the neo-cons can
push;
He has lost sight of all reason 'cause his head is up
his tush;
The Doofus marches on.
I have heard him butcher syntax like a kindergarten
fool;
There is warranted suspicion that he never went to
school;
Should we fault him for the policies -- or is he just
their tool?
The lies keep piling on.
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
His wreckage will live on.
I have seen him cut the taxes of the billionaires'
lone heir;
As he spends another zillion on an aircraft carrier;
Let the smokestacks keep polluting -- do we really
need clean air?
The surplus is now gone.
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Your safety net is gone!
Now he's got a mighty hankerin' to bomb a prostrate
state;
Though the whole world knows its crazy -- and the U.N.
says to wait;
When he doesn't have the evidence, "We must
prevaricate."
Diplomacy is done!
Oh, a trumped-up war is excellent; we have no moral
bounds;
Should the reasons be disputed, we'll just make up
other grounds;
Enraging several billions -- to his brainlessness
redounds;
The Doofus marches on!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
Glory! Glory! How he'll Screw Ya'!
THIS...DOO...FUS...MAR...CHES...ON
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell