historian's Blog

Any politician with political pursuits, from today on---will all become cheerless for a leader such as a disconsolate Bush who drinks himself to sleep as now he knows he's just gonna be a bad mark in future History books.  Bush's boat is speedily taking on water. Yes, folks; Bush's Presidency is no more than a gross, emoungous, liberal- festering boil ready to pop and squirt oozing decay in the face of all Cons who showed their loyalty to the spoken truths of a deceiving and distorted now just a shell of a man.  It's like you were not warned, my little Cons. A suggestion for all Cons: "Write it off a poor judgement and continue on your misguided lives.  Eat crow and hold your head as high as your pride will let you. We all make mistakes at times. And only a fool politician would commit political suicide by continuing to side with such a disgrace of a President whose sins and greed overtook  his duty to serve with integrity,  the People of America. --Boy am I liking the daily developments on Bush's downfall because the quicker he's out of office; the sooner more of our Troops will come home alive.

Another senior Republican breaks with Bush on Iraq Thu Jul 5, 2007 6:45PM EDT   

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's Iraq war policy continued to hemorrhage support in the U.S. Senate as another senior Republican called on Thursday for a new strategy that would start to bring troops home.

A day after Bush appealed to Americans to be more patient with the unpopular war, six-term New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, who is up for re-election next year, urged a new course.

"I am unwilling to continue our current strategy," Domenici, who serves on the Senate's defense appropriations subcommittee, said in a statement.

"I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home," Domenici said.

Domenici joined the ranks of influential Republican lawmakers who recently have broken with Bush over the 4-year-old conflict in Iraq, declaring themselves unable to keep backing a war that has no end in sight after the deaths of 3,590 U.S. troops.

"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward," Domenici said.

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared last week that Bush's strategy was not working and troops should start leaving. Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, another Republican, urged "gradual military disengagement."

Bush has shown no public sign of changing course. On Wednesday, he asked the country for "more patience, more courage and more sacrifice" in Iraq during an Independence Day address at a National Guard air base.

The White House has played down the Republican defections while anti-war forces have new hope for a coalition in the Senate that would force a change in U.S. war strategy.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who voted to authorize the war in 2002 but then soured on the conflict, said on Thursday that senators like Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich now had to back their criticism with votes for withdrawal.

Reid said they would have a chance beginning with a defense policy bill that will be brought to the Senate floor next week.

Domenici said he backed a bipartisan Senate proposal that may be debated as part of the defense policy bill and would create the conditions for a possible drawdown of U.S. troops by March.

The plan by Sens. Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, and Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, embraces recommendations made last December by the Iraq Study Group.

Republican leaders have urged lawmakers to wait until September, when the top U.S. commander in Iraq makes his progress report, before pushing for change in Iraq policy. But Domenici said he could see now that things were not improving.

             YES!

IF THESE PHOTOS DO NOT LOAD, YOU CAN STILL CLICK ON THE BOX TO VIEW.

Confrontation at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago

(See photos below and Jo's article on the 1968 Convention.)

Some confrontations are planned. Some are spontaneous. This one was planned, but nothing happened the way it was supposed to. Many months before the Chicago convention, experienced movement activists decided that it would be an ideal place to confront "the system" and demand an end to the Viet Nam war. They invited one hundred thousand people to come and demonstrate. The City of Chicago responded by refusing to grant permits for any marches and for only one rally.
The expected masses did not show. Only a few thousand people participated in the demonstrations; most of those were local, or had come to support their favorite Democratic candidates. They were swept into the protests by events more than by intention. Outnumbered by law enforcement by five to one, 589 people would be arrested while the Democrats met in August, and many more injured.
The major battles were fought in Lincoln Park, three miles north of the Loop (the city center), when the police tried to enforce evening curfews. A legal rally in Grant Park ended when the police clubbed a teenager who was lowering an American flag, and others who tried to protect him.
Mayor Richard J. Daley called out 7,500 members of the Illinois National Guard to reinforce the 12,000 police officers. Wednesday night they tried to remove everyone -- mostly party volunteers, candidate supporters and tourists -- from Michigan Avenue in front of the Hilton hotel, which was the convention headquarters. While the nominating speeches were being given at the amphitheater several miles away, these unlucky people were pushed through plate glass windows when caught between Guard and police as they dispersed the crowd.
TV cameras in front of the Hilton captured the confrontation. When these images were played on monitors at the convention itself -- about an hour later -- they disrupted the proceedings far more than the demonstrators could have had they succeeded in their efforts to march. "The whole world is watching" became more than just a slogan. What an official report later described as a "police riot" did more damage to Chicago's reputation and the fortunes of the Democratic Party than anything the protestors could have done.

 Please click on thumbnails to view the complete image

Protestors train in Chicago before the convention.   

Police and protestors face off in Grant Park. 

Police club people attending the one legal rally. 

The National Guard is called out to supplement the Chicago police.

In front of the Hilton, people flow into the streets while the National Guard lines up to drive them out.

The National Guard keeps the people away from the headquarters hotel while Democratic delegates hear the nominating speeches miles away.

One young McCarthy volunteer speaks for many.  

In Grant Park, demonstrators "take the hill" and climb onto the statue of a Civil war general after the police refuse to let them march.

To Top
Books by Jo | What's New | About Jo | Photos | Political Buttons
Home | Search | Links | Contact Jo | Articles by Jo

 UK's Brown makes fact-finding visit to Iraq

 By Ross Colvin 2 hours, 1 minute ago  

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Britain's next prime minister, Gordon Brown, arrived in Iraq on Monday for a fact-finding visit as he weighs Britain's future involvement in a four-year-old war that has angered voters and led to calls for a speedy pullout.  

It is his first visit since being confirmed as the successor to

     Tony Blair, whose popularity waned over his support for the U.S.-led war. Aides to Brown said he wanted to "look and learn" before taking office on June 27. "This is very much an assessment more than anything else, a fact-finding trip," Brown, currently Britain's finance minister, told reporters traveling with him.  

Brown has said he wants to suggest new ideas but has ruled out an immediate pullout of British troops. That has not stopped the British media speculating he may speed up the withdrawal of troops to assuage public anger.  

He has always accepted responsibility for the cabinet decision to invade Iraq, but has also said mistakes were made in the aftermath of the invasion.  

His visit comes as the size of the British force in Iraq is being reduced by about 1,500 soldiers to 5,500 troops.  

Brown, who was accompanied by Defense Minister Des Browne, is due to hold talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani, the top British general in Iraq, U.S. commander General David Petraeus and the U.S. ambassador.  

Brown said in his talks with Maliki he would discuss national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sides and would want to hear suggestions about how to move the process forward.  

"On political reconciliation I want to know how they are going to move forward, and if I don't have suggestions from them I will put suggestions to them," he said.  

Thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops have been deployed in Baghdad, epicenter of sectarian violence, to crack down on Shi'ite and Sunni Arab militants and buy time for Maliki's government to reach political compromises to form a real powersharing government with minority Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

RECONCILIATION, ECONOMY

Washington is demanding movement in key areas, such as revenue-sharing oil law, provincial elections and constitutional reforms. But analysts say the Shi'ite-led coalition government is weak and divided and incapable of meeting these benchmarks without external pressure.  

Nearly 30,000 extra U.S. troops have been sent to Iraq for the crackdown as British troops in the more stable Shi'ite south have begun reducing their numbers. But U.S. officials say they are confident Brown will not pull British troops out early.  

British forces have handed over security responsibility to Iraqis in three of the four provinces they were in. The remaining southern province of Basra is due to be transferred in the coming months.  

Brown said he would also talk to Maliki about the economy. With no letup in sight in the violence, unemployment and inflation are surging and infrastructure crumbling.  

"They are not short of money to be allocated to infrastructure, the problem is the actual spending of it," said Brown, who guided Britain through an uninterrupted 10 years of economic growth.  

Insurgents are attacking Iraq's infrastructure in their continuing campaign against U.S. forces and the Iraqi government, hitting bridges, oil pipelines and other key installations.  

A suicide car bomb attack on a bridge overpass south of Baghdad late on Sunday killed three U.S. soldiers and wounded six more, a U.S. military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Randy Martin, said on Monday.  

The soldiers, who had been manning a checkpoint, were killed when part of the span collapsed. The attack took place near Mahmudiya, 30 km (20 miles) south of Baghdad in an area notorious for attacks by al Qaeda insurgents.  

"I believe there were folks that were on or near the bridge span that collapsed. Folks were dug out of portions of the bridge that collapsed," Martin said.  

(Additional reporting by Paul Tait in Baghdad, and David Clarke in London)  

I found this grist for the gossip mill while researching honey bees. I know bees and pigs? I used Google. And in trying to take a break from the inclemency of Iraq, I thought a break would be diplomatic. Humorous, but yet un-amusing, the issue could offer a bit of comic-relief. I really don't know how I would react if this was my neighborhood. Believing that this member, Alvi Muzfar, of this Katy Islamic Association, and the other Islamic members are legal immigrants and as an American I should treat them as equals.  Remember, America-- Land of the free? And I rest assured that the proper Agencies have checked out each and everyone of the members and find them to be nothing-less than good law-abiding Americans. If that is the case, then why not allow them the right to build? We have Buddhist Temples, off-shoot factions of almost every religion and worship that have built churches etc? I really just cannot honestly answer this one.  Most of all Religious foundations or many I'd say are located in places that they choose in order to avoid parking hassles, intimidation, or a just a tranquil, beautiful countryside setting. Maybe the Islamic folks should have considered the ramifications before picking this location? We are talking about, TEXAS here folks. Home state of a few Presidents’ includes Bush. And I did my basic training in Texas and I know Texans. I kind of think that this may be an avenue for "crying injustice" by the Islamic culture as America is a big country and to choose a location such as they have to build their Mosque is inviting trouble.  Part of me says it's a set-up to scream discrimination while the other me says live and let live with the latter being in tune with a Free America. Guess you can say my decision is "hog-tied."

Locals Start Pig Racing To Deter Mosque Construction

From the Houston ABC affiliate KTRK:

Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque

By Ted Oberg

(11/29/06 - KTRK/KATY, TX) - There’s an awful lot of exciting news when you round the corner on Baker Road. One of two big yellow signs announces a new neighbor is coming soon.

"It’s not an appropriate place to have a mosque or church," said resident Barbara Simpson.

It isn’t going over real well.

"As a house of worship, they shouldn’t be disturbing the peace and tranquility of 15 homes," said resident John Wetmore.

Neighbors tell us they’re concerned about traffic and drainage and a little fear of the unknown. Some of the homeowners even offered to buy the land back for more than a million dollars. The K.I.A. doesn’t seem very interested in the offers.

"We’re not going anywhere," said Katy Islamic Association member Alvi Muzfar.

So it seems the community at the end of Baker Road has a pretty good fight. But this fight has gone much farther than many between two neighbors. You see in these fights, sometimes neighbors throw mud at one another. In this instance, they’re wallowing in it.

Craig Baker owns pigs. He’s the guy behind the second big yellow sign on Baker Road. That’s the one announcing Friday night pig races.

"What does it matter, I can do whatever I want with my land right," asked landowner Craig Baker.

Sure can. But aren’t pigs on the property line racing on a Friday night a little offensive to a Muslim neighbor?

"The meat of a pig is prohibited in the religion of Islam," said Katy Islamic Association member Youssof Allam. "It’s looked upon as a dirty creature."

Yeah, there’s that and also that Friday night is a Muslim holy day.

"That is definitely a slap in the face," said Allam..

Now before you go thinking Craig Baker is unfair, or full of hate, or somehow racist, hear him out.

Baker has long roots here. His family named the road and when the new neighbors moved in, he tells us, they asked him to move out.

"Basically that I should package up my family and my business and find a place elsewhere," said Baker. "That’s ridiculous, they just bought the place one week prior and he’s telling me I should think about leaving."

That new owners deny they ever said anything like that, but Baker isn’t budging.

Baker admits the pigs are a message he is not leaving.

The 11-acre property is sandwiched between a pricey subdivision and Craig Baker’s business.

K.I.A. eventually plans to build a mosque, a gym and a school there. There’s no date for the groundbreaking ceremonies, or the first pig race.

I can hear the squealing now.

Watch it:

In recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets all across the nation to protest right-wing immigration proposals. As Media Matters has documented, the fact that some demonstrators carry the Mexican flag has elicited the ire of conservative pundits. For example, Robert Novak has said:

I am no hard-liner on immigration who wants to expel 11 million illegal immigrants, but flags are a symbol of national identity. The student brandishing the Mexican flag signals divided loyalty or perhaps loyalty to a foreign power.

But President Bush himself has publicly brandished the Mexican flag. ThinkProgress has obtained a copy of a five-minute ad that the 2004 Bush campaign distributed to Hispanic supporters. In the ad, Bush can be seen waving a Mexican flag while embracing a young girl. (Watch the full ad HERE.)

What Novak and others fail to understand is that carrying the flag is not a sign of divided loyalty but a demonstration of an American value — understanding and appreciating immigrant culture.

La Shawn's Barber's Corner'

 "As much as I disagree with the CONS on this site that have rallied their efforts to intimidate Liberals and try to control this FOX site with that of their own ideals; and get mad when any Liberal Post what they may feel, or the truths about the Bush Administration concerning our occupation of Iraq;, I would feed any of them who agree this is one point were Libs and Cons should agree upon."

 Liberal and Conservative Bloggers United

In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up. — Martin Niemöller

I haven’t been following the latest blogosphere buzz, but it’s time to get involved. The one thing uniting liberal and conservative bloggers is a threat to our First Amendment rights. I may not agree with my liberal counterparts, but I wholeheartedly support their right to blog.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is considering extending the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to the Internet. With the complicity of our own George Bush, Congress violated the First Amendment by making law limiting certain groups from campaigning for political candidates in the months leading up to an election and limiting “soft money” contributions, although Congress is expressly prohibited from “…abridging the freedom of speech, or…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government.”

The campaign finance reform law, like many laws designed by bureaucratic policy wonks, is complicated. The Washington Times wrote an editorial last year that is by far the most coherent explanation of the law, also known as McCain-Feingold :

In recent years, the national political parties funded hundreds of millions of dollars worth of issue ads (now called “electioneering communications”) with soft money, which the parties collected in unlimited (but fully disclosed) amounts from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals.

What should concern bloggers of all stripes is that despite an exemption, the Internet may become subject to the campaign finance reform law. A widely linked article by Declan McCullagh lays it all out. He interviewed Bradley Smith, one of six FEC commissioners. McCullugh writes:

The law as applied to bloggers would mean that our linking to a particular candidate’s web site could be seen as a “contribution” to the campaign. As ridiculous as it sounds, we could be charged with a crime if found in violation.

This is why I am anti-big government, people. Forget the perks, like skin color set-aside programs, subsidies and the like. Government continues to grow more oppressive every day, and its perceived power to regulate every aspect of our lives knows no bounds!

Several bloggers are all over this, including Captain’s Quarters (who also does a great job explaining how the law would affect bloggers — also see his open letter to the Senate), Michelle Malkin (round-up), Devil’s Advocate, Pirates!, Power Line, Mark Tapscott…

If you blogged about this, trackback to this post and I’ll include your link in my round-up.

Pajama Hadin writes: “…I think there would be very strong justification for extending the exemption for the press in the McCain-Feingold law to Bloggers. The difficulty would be coming up with a standard for which kinds of Blogs would consititute representatives of the news media and thereby fall under the exemption. I suppose the specifics of Leahy’s bill would be a good start.” He also has a round-up.

Boy, am I late on this.

Update: RedState is blogging so much about this issue, they’ve started a new section.

When I first started blogging back in November 2003, I remember reading an article about blogs as “serials” by Biz Stone, who works for Blogger. I found a similar article he wrote. The relevant portion:

If you publish a weblog, whether it’s a solo project or a group gig, then you qualify for an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). That’s right, you are a legitimate publication like any magazine or newspaper according to the National Serials Data Program, Library of Congress:

“In the case of electronic serials — especially those available online, such as on the Internet — the most significant criterion is that the publication must be divided into parts or issues which carry unique, numerical designations by which the individual issues may be identified, checked in, etc. Electronic serials that are issued as individual articles meet this criterion as long as the articles carry a unique designation.”

Blogs are published to the Internet in unique individual post so they qualify. In many cases you can apply for your number over the Web. I’ve seen several blogs proudly displaying an ISSN.

According to the definition of “serial,” a blog can be considered a serial publication. In that regard, if my blog is a serial publication akin to a newspaper, it qualifies for the press exemption under the campaign finance reform law. It’s a darn shame bloggers have to jump through all these hoops just to blog!

More from Malkin and other bloggers: thathero.com journal, Air Force Voices, The Liferaft of Love, Ubique Patriam Reminisci, Mount Virtus, Tex the Pontificator, Hold the Mayo, Right Wing Nut House (must-read post), Democracy Project, OKIE on the LAM, What Attitude Problem?, UNCoRRELATED, Mind of Mog (kitty, kitty), Political Teen (he’s really a teenager)…

Update II: RedState has a transcript of the first half of an interview with Bradley Smith, an FEC commissioner. You can also follow Polipundit’s link to the audio.

Lorie Byrd is back and tracking FEC-gate. (Did I just write FEC-gate??)

Update III (3/5): Very interesting analysis about blogs, file sharing and government regulation over at Whither The Fool? More updates here and here. Also see J Rob’s House of Opinion.

Right Wing Nut House receives an e-mail response from FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith.

Beldar the lawyer blogger weighs in on FEC-gate.

Welcome FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog to the blogosphere. Stroll on over to Darleen’s Place, too.

Read Paradigm Shift’s “US Emulates Communists.”

The Cliffs of Insanity has joined the insanity.

  To the 6 or 7   > It's never too late to change.....

            Friday, June 08, 2007        Headlines    
Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article     Published on Sunday, September 12, 2004 by the Boston Globe

Anti-War Republicans: A Telling Shift in Allegiance by Eileen McNamara   Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
     FAIR USE NOTICE     This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
      Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.

NEW LONDON, N.H. -- Hilary Cleveland felt a tad the traitor on Friday evening, as she prepared to toss fruit in the porcelain bowl from China that was a gift from Barbara and George H.W. Bush. Hours before, she had taken the helm of the GOP Women for Kerry Steering Committee in this battleground state.

In truth, she left the Republican Party months ago, her opposition to the war in Iraq prompting her to change her lifelong political affiliation from Republican to ''undeclared." It was not an idle move for a Republican stalwart, the widow of James Colgate Cleveland, a 10-term congressman who was the senior Bush's regular paddleball partner when both served in the US House of Representatives. Cleveland died in 1995.

''George and Barbara are very dear friends. But this war, so wrong to begin with, is destroying the image of America as a peace-loving country in the world," she said. ''I know the president would say that he is 'liberating' Iraq but I don't think that Iraqis who don't have running water, electricity, a job, or safety on their streets would agree with him. It's fair to say he has disappointed me."

Hilary Cleveland had expected to be as supportive of George W. Bush's presidency as she had been of his candidacy in 2000. She organized vigorously for him then, hosting his mother on a campaign swing through this bucolic village in the shadows of Mounts Sunapee and Kearsarge. She was finance chairwoman of the senior Bush's presidential primary campaign in New Hampshire in 1980. In 1990, President Bush appointed her to the International Joint Commission, which acts as an intermediary in boundary water and air pollution disputes between the United States and Canada.

''It was a wonderful job he gave me," she said as she snapped the ends of green beans for the dinner she was preparing for her son, Lincoln, and his wife at her Main Street farmhouse. ''Born on Lincoln's Day, he is the real Republican," she laughed, noting that he alone among her children disapproves of her public efforts to unseat the president. ''We won't be talking politics tonight!"

As an adjunct professor of political history at Colby-Sawyer, a small liberal arts college just down the street from the Cleveland homestead, Hilary Cleveland talks and thinks a lot about politics at an age when others might be content to enjoy a quiet retirement. ''We have the future to think of," she said, citing her urgent concern for the threatened environment, the ballooning deficit, and the faltering status of the United States in the international community.

''Jim would be horrified," she said of her late husband's likely reaction to Bush administration policies that have created record $400 billion deficits. ''Republicans are fiscal conservatives. Cutting taxes at the same time you are spending billions for this war makes no sense. My father used to say, 'When the going gets tough, tighten your belt; you can't spend what you don't have.' That's always made sense to me. It's really a Republican idea."

But, mostly, it is Bush's doctrine of preemptive war that pushed Hilary Cleveland into the camp of Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.

She supported Bush's military action in Afghanistan, just as she supported his father's Gulf War in 1991. ''The goals were clear and limited and the threats were real; Afghanistan was harboring terrorists and Iraq had invaded Kuwait," she said.

''This war is very different. I think he is usurping an authority he does not have. He has alienated our allies, destroyed our relations in the Muslim world, and actually invited terrorists into Iraq. I think Kerry is our best hope to get us out of Iraq and reestablish our diplomatic relations in the world."

She has not spoken to her friends in Kennebunkport about her change of mind. ''I should write them a note," she said. ''It's awkward. Parents, of course, are so proud of their children."

© Copyright 2004 Boston Globe Company

###

Professor Bainbridge makes an interesting point about conservative bloggers:

I’m going to stick my neck out on this one and argue that this has more to do with the demographics of the party than anybody else. Liberals tend to be younger. Younger people tend to be more tech-savvy.

Also, the liberals I worked with in the Dean campaign were extremely tech-savvy. They visited the Dean blog every single day and they used online tools like Meetup.com to bring more people into the fray. I haven’t seen this same savvy from the conservatives I’ve met.

So perhaps the conservative/libertarian bloggers suffer for the simple reason that the people who seem to matter the most in the current conservative hierachy, the religious right, aren’t really into reading blogs?

Also, since the Dems aren’t in power, perhaps they’re more inclined to listen to their base. The blogosphere delivers a daily pulse on what’s going on and where the prevailing opinions lie within the liberal body politic. Conservatives haven’t really had to worry that much about this since their strategy has been working and they’ve been gaining more seats.

In other words, if it’s not broke don’t fix it.

However, all political engines need a tune-up, and I think the conservative noise machine could need one in very short order, especially with Bush’s number dipping into the 30s.

4 Responses to “Why Do Liberal Blogs Have More Influence?”

1. M> REYNOLDS SAYS:    Blogs are a Che Guevarra sort of medium: they exist out in the hills where they live on rancid pork and frijoles refritos. The GOP has actual power, the Dems have dreams and resentments. And the GOP has talk radio to absorb the Right wing cranks, while the Left having no such mechanism generates excess crankitude which fuels the blogs.

2. JEREMY SAYS:      Kos has a slightly more cynical take on hit, he reckons it’s just because Liberal blogs have proved much better at campaign fundraising than Conservative ones.

3. J> GARDNER SAYS:    Very interesting. Although I will say that I think many of the leftist radio programs (with the very glaring exception of Randi Rhodes) have good points, but they deliver them in the most caustic ways. Unfortunate indeed, but then again, when you make waves you attract viewers. It’s the blessing and curse of the media.

4. ASCAB SAYS::  Perhaps “liberal” blogs have more “influence” (whatever that means) because they are more responsive to the “every” man. Virtually every lefty blog takes comments, even putting up with, and debating resident righty lurkers.

5. Too many conservative blogs won’t take comments for the simple reason they are a “noise machine.” They tell you what to think, no discussion, no analysis, no feedback. Too many righty bloggers regurgitate the daily talking points, offer up unsubstantiated opinion, and suck up so that “their” leaders might some day deliver on the bloggers narrow single issue raison d’ etre.

   I guess that didn’t work out so well with Bush picking Harriet Miers.

This study took many years and the list that is benifiting from

this conflict Bush has got us into is enormous. That is why it

will be presented in several parts.  This is my effort to keep

harmony on this great site by not taking up too much space so

there will be room for more, "HISSY attacks,"written in

frustration against  Liberalism by the kids.... for the kids. 

WASHINGTON, September 29, 2004 — The war in Iraq, with its urgent agenda of getting the job done and getting it done quickly, relied to an unprecedented degree not only on the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are expected to fight America's wars, but on a second American army: tens of thousands of civilian contractors hired on for the duration. This new, and often dangerous, role for civilians on the battlefield has raised a host of new questions about the role of private contractors in the nation's defense.

One of the biggest contracts awarded in the war in Iraq went to Kellogg Brown & Root, a key subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the firm Vice President Dick Cheney ran as CEO before he stepped into the White House and became one of the prime movers urging the president to invade Iraq. Of the $4.3 billion in defense contracts Halliburton won in fiscal 2003 only about half were awarded based on competitive bidding. Another $1.9 billion in contract dollars was awarded on the basis of "urgency" without bidding and without going to any other contractors.

The connection between Halliburton and the Vice President has led to no end of speculation about how that particular firm was chosen. While this report does not address that issue specifically, it does examine the practice of awarding no-bid contracts to well-connected defense contractors. Indeed, one might pose a new question on the role of contractors in the American military: Was the war in Iraq an example of the Pentagon's new way of doing business, or was it an outgrowth of a way of doing business that has been much longer in duration, albeit conducted off the field of battle without a worldwide—or even any—audience?

To find the answers, the Center began in early 2004 to investigate the patterns of Defense Department contracting. Our prime source was the Pentagon's own procurement databases—public information that had been posted for years on an obscure Defense Department Web site [http://www.dior.whs.mil/peidhome/guide/procoper.htm
].

The Center examined more than 2.2 million contract actions totaling $900 billion in authorized expenditures over the six-year period from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal 2003 (Oct. 1, 1997-Sept. 30, 2003). Most of the research was focused on the biggest contractors, those that won at least $100 million in prime contracts over the period studied. Some 737 prime contractors, mainly but not exclusively for-profit corporations, fit that criteria, along with several thousand of their subsidiaries and affiliates.

After nine months of research, the Center has found:

                                                      
               PART - 2

The pages that follow offer analyses of Pentagon spending habits from the following perspectives:

The Biggest Contractors / Competition / Cost-Plus Contracts / Joint Ventures / Foreign Contractors / Political Influence I: Campaign Contributions / Political Influence II: Lobbying / Small Business: Bigger Than You Think / What the Pentagon Buys / The Rise in Service Contracts / Accuracy in Pentagon Reporting

 The Biggest Contractors

The Center's research examined the past six years of defense contracts, aiming to identify and profile every corporation that collected at least $100 million in prime contracts. A total of 737 contractors met that criterion and all are profiled in detail elsewhere in this report.

Most, but by no means all, of the top contractors were for-profit American corporations. But the list also includes three government agencies, 17 non-profits, 10 universities, four foreign governments, six hospitals or hospital networks, and nearly a hundred foreign corporations (many of which operate U.S. subsidiaries). Here are the 100 biggest Defense Department contractors over the past six years:

The 100 Biggest Defense Contractors, FY 1998-2003

A glance at the list of the Pentagon's top suppliers shows that nation's biggest defense firms won the bulk of their contracts without going through the competitive process. Of the 10 biggest defense contractors over the six year period of this study, only one—Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)—won more than half its contracts through full and open competition.

To cite one example, Raytheon is the third largest contractor and the third largest recipient of no bid contracts. Company spokesman Dave Shea said Raytheon's sole source contracts "are for systems that are unique, where Raytheon is the only one capable of providing those systems to the Department of Defense."

Boeing spokesman Doug Kennett said the Pentagon negotiates sole-source contracts "when the Defense Department believes it's in their best interest."

Here are the details on how the 20 biggest contractors won their contracts, 1998-2003:

Looking at the entire universe of defense contracts over the past six years, some 40 percent of contracts were awarded through "full and open competition"—a process involving either sealed bids, competitive proposals, or a combination of the two.

Even within that 40 percent slice of the Pentagon pie, not all the dollars were given to the most competitive bidder. Ten percent of the "full and open" contracts—and 4 percent of overall defense spending—went to contracts were only one bidder responded.

The biggest slice of the pie went to contracts classified by the Pentagon as "other than full and open competition." Most of these (about two-thirds) were awarded because there was only one source for the product or service the Pentagon was buying.

Levels of competition varied widely depending on the industry of the contractor and the type of products or services the Pentagon was buying. Some categories—like construction and medical services—were very competitive, while others were not competitive at all. Here are the categories at both extremes where the Pentagon spent at least $1 billion:

Least Competitive Categories

Most Competitive Categories

Cost-Plus Contracts

There's a significant difference in the types of contracts won by the biggest contractors versus smaller ones. Among the Pentagon's 737 biggest contractors, 33 percent of the contract dollars were awarded on a cost-plus basis, meaning the government would make up the difference for overruns and contractors had little incentive to control costs. Among smaller contractors, only 11 percent of the contract dollars came through cost-plus contracts.

The progression is gradual, as seen in the following chart

And here are the details on the types of contracts won by the 20 biggest contractors:

Deidre Lee, the Pentagon's chief of procurement, defends the policy of cost-plus contracting and maintains that it may actually cost the government less in the long run. If contractors were required to give a firm price for risky new defense systems, she argues, the bids would be sky high to protect the companies' risk. "What we don't want is to put someone in a financial position in which they cannot perform," she says.

Others disagree, among them Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), an outspoken critic of the government's contracting practices, who has called cost-plus contracts "notoriously prone to abuse."

Joint Ventures Another example of the concentration of defense contractors is the major role played by joint ventures—organizations formed by multiple partners to manage specific contracts or produce weapons systems. While rival defense companies may often be fierce competitors, they are also frequent partners in these joint ventures. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman jointly formed Longbow LLC, which manufactures the Longbow Hellfire missile system. Boeing and Sikorsky Aircraft (a subsidiary of United Technologies) developed the Comanche helicopter until the Army cancelled the project in February 2004.

The list goes on and on, and a total of 43 joint ventures earned at least $100 million each in defense contracts over the past six years. Four of them earned more than a billion apiece, and the partners in those four ventures are an echo of the top independent contractors: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Motors, United Technologies and Raytheon.

If a Liberal made a blog over every insult a con made on this site towards Liberalism, then I'd call that Lib as foolish and childish as these cons.

LinkODay set blog parameters several weeks ago. I have followed those to the T since I have been back. If your feelings get hurt along the way, then this is not the place to play. Get over it. Grow up. Or move on.

You have consistently tried to rid a public forum blog site of Liberalism making it a conservative only run site and have done so way before folks like myself thought it was time to for change.

 I am one of the few that stay and endure your insults, as you have disgusted and run-off most good Liberal bloggers like that BING fellow and if you don't remember, you were sure BING was me till one of your own, ABUNAI, pointed out that he knew him. Just like you have accused me of being the other Libs that you ran off. But BING is gone now. A real asset to this site he was and all because of your antagonistic nature. Now he is no more than a notch on your belts.

 I will not violate blog policy, but I will intelligently overrule your nasty, daily insults towards the ideals of pacifism.

The Mods know the 6 or 7 well and they do have the technology to identify each and every one of you via your computer's signature thus you are fooling no one when they ban you and they graciously let you bounce back under a new name. Like I said; 7x cons X's 3x cons = 21x cons. If you can't play fair, or are ashamed to use your real identity, then don't come around me. I treat each accordingly but stay witin the policy.

The difference between you and I is, you loose it, kick, scream and cry foul as I laugh at the idiocy of it all. Again, grow up or shut up. And quit whining or find a new site to spew your hate for what now is a blog site for ALL THE PEOPLE.

Maybe more good folks, R or L, would blog here, but when they see your constant whining, they get intimidated . And as most Libs I know, their nature would not permit them to waste there time when they see blogs like the almost daily attacks on Libs that you write. 

You connot have it all for yourself anymore. We CONNOT and will not go away. You helped us decide this. If you remain to stay, please take up TM or Yoga to replace your frustrations when it comes to Liberalism infiltrating what was once "your" blog site. And it always boils down just to the same 6 or 7. 

In summay,  I wanna thank the few Conservatives that only a few months ago use-to act as the remaining still do. "CHILDISH!"  But these few conservative which  use to insult me, as well as others,  have recently started to become very pleasant to debate with. As for the still bitter, get a grip.

Will Bush ever stop? We are deep into Iraq and now he takes the time from a current major conflict to instigate yet, another, exceeding larger and more serious issue. One that could jeopardize the security for all of Europe, both S.E, and S.W. Asia, Korea and China. At the least, his timing couldn't be measurably off when we need all attention and resources to center on Iraq and the safety of our troops not to mention low world wide opinion of his Administration at the moment.  Could this be a last-ditch effort to go the Blink and try to re-gain the trust of the majority in the public opinion polls ? Or does he want to dump complicated problems in America's lap for the next term to have to deal with because he did not get his way with Iraq? Whatever, this plan has been "kicked around" by his Administration for over 4x years. Why now? This man needs to step-down as his incompetence grows daily.

 Bush acts on Eastern Europe missile defense

By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
6:25 PM PDT, April 3, 2007 

 WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has begun to step up its efforts to build a controversial missile defense system in eastern Europe, launching a public push in recent weeks to counter bitter opposition in Russia and to overcome fears of a new arms race elsewhere on the continent.

The move, coming ahead of a major NATO meeting on the project later this month, could escalate a simmering diplomatic issue into a significant international dispute, depending on Moscow's reaction and the administration's next moves in its effort to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar center in the Czech Republic, both formerly part of the Soviet Bloc.

Today, the senior Pentagon official responsible for overseeing the plan said in a briefing that the administration hopes to dampen Russian opposition, but that Moscow would not be allowed to derail the project if no agreement is reached with the Kremlin.

"We think there is a benefit to cooperating with Russia; we think the threat is one that they face as well as one that we face," said Eric S. Edelman, the undersecretary of Defense for policy, who returned from making the case for the system in European capitals last week. "That being said, I don't think if, for some reason, we're unable to reach a commonly agreed way ahead, that we would want to accede to Russia being able to dictate what we do bilaterally with other countries."

The missile defense system, which would be operated by U.S. soldiers stationed in the Eastern European countries, has become one of the thorniest points of contention between Russia and the U.S., and rhetoric has escalated since December, when Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates gave the go-ahead to seek formal negotiations.

The Bush administration has been pushing for a European site to expand its missile defense system for several years as a hedge against Iran. The current U.S. system, with interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California, is considered useful mainly against North Korea.

But the missile defense plan is unpopular in Europe, where long-standing suspicions toward American weapon installations have been fueled by growing opposition to U.S. foreign policy in the wake of the Iraq war. Europeans also fear the presence of a missile shield could spark a new arms race. Poland, ordinarily a staunch U.S. ally, is concerned that the plan would spur Russia to upgrade and reconfigure troop placements and missile systems.

The vehemence of Russian criticism has caught the Bush administration by surprise and raised the diplomatic stakes over the project.

In February, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin used a major address in Munich to chastise the Bush administration over the program and warned of an "inevitable arms race" if the U.S. proceeds. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, the chief of Russia's missile forces, warned later that Moscow could resume building intermediate and short-range missiles to target Poland and the Czech Republic if those nations agreed to allow bases on their territory.

In a telephone call to Putin last week, President