Wednesday, January 31, 2007


As President Bush is trying to get support to increase funding and escalate troop involvement for his ill-fated war in Iraq, the squandering goes on.
An audit by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest in a regular series of updates to Congress. Budgeting problems, vague invoices, as well as not spending funds, the audit also highlights ways in which money has been used either improperly or wastefully. (According to BBC News)
This SMALL reason alone is enough justification for us to get the hell out of Iraq.

How many more lives will it take? How much more of our grandchildren's future will be plundered? How much longer will the lunacy continue? Are we to accept the Bush/Cheney/Neocon doctrine, of WAR WITHOUT END?

Keith Olbermann, takes us on a tour of JAWS II and points the finger at who is creating such maniacal reasoning for our ponderings. Here's a couple more questions... WHEN WILL THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE UNNECESSARY HUMAN LOSS AND USELESS DESTRUCTION BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE? When is the Democratic majority going to stand up and demand putting a stop to the Bush/Cheney/Neocon madness? I, for one, want answers, NOW! thinkingblue

PS: Please watch Keith O's commentary of January 30, 2007 and read the attached articles, it may not give us the answers we are searching for but it will keep us informed.

It's a sad and stupid thing to have to proclaim yourself a revolutionary just to be a decent man. ~David Harris

US money is 'squandered' in Iraq

Iraqi reconstruction has seen limited progress, the audit says Millions of
dollars in US rebuilding funds have been wasted in Iraq, US auditors say in a
report which warns corruption in the country is rife.

A never-used camp in Baghdad for police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool is one of the examples highlighted in the quarterly audit.

Billions of budgeted dollars meanwhile remain unspent by Iraq's government.
The report comes as President Bush is urging Congress to approve $1.2bn (£600m) in further reconstruction aid.

The audit by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (Sigir), is the latest in a regular series of updates to Congress.
Budgeting problems
"The security situation continue to deteriorate, hindering progress in all
reconstruction sectors and threatening the overall reconstruction effort," says his 579-page report, which is due to be released later on Wednesday.

More remains to be done to account for past US investment and to promote the highest and best use of future US funding for Iraq

Stuart Bowen

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction

Among the wide-ranging findings, the audit says that corruption continues to
plague Iraq and infrastructure security remains vulnerable.

Auditors express "significant concern" about the Iraqi government's record in managing and spending budgets.

Billions of dollars budgeted for capital projects remained unspent at the end of 2006, the report says.

Vague invoices
As well as not spending funds, the audit also highlights ways in which money has been used either improperly or wastefully.

Security and justice 34%
Electricity 23%
Water 12%
Economic, societal development 12%
Oil and gas 9%
Transport, communications4%
Health care 4%

Source: Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction


Bush's Gamble; Your World By: Don Williams

We'd best get ahead of the game. The Kid from Waco may be wacko, but he's the one dealing the cards. And near as I can tell, the game is chaos.

It's as if somebody powerful made the town drunk sheriff and he thinks he's a gambler and a gunslinger. The real problem could be his sidekick, though, Deadeye Dick.

Yes, I'm harping on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney again, and people who don't mind being lied to and jerked around outrageously by oil and arms merchants will complain against critics like me. But what can you do? What other subject could possibly be more serious?

True, "there are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke," in the words of Bob Dylan, "but you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate, so let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

How late? So late that Bush's "shock and awe" has ignited a fire that's spreading like flame chasing spilt gasoline--into Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel, possibly Iran and Syria. It's moving so fast so suddenly that the posse who built Bush up as someone worthy to run the world-people like James Baker, Republican Supreme Court justices, and once overly-friendly Big Media types like Tim Russert--are learning the hard way that George W. Bush is out of control.

Item: While you were sleeping, Thursday morning, Americans raided the Iranian consulate in Irbil, an industrial town in Kurdish Northern Iraq, near the Iranian border. This just hours after Bush accused Iran and Syria-without offering evidence-of providing material support for attacks on American troops. Meanwhile, American gunships are killing people in Somalia. Our government is calling them al-Qaida, and people without pride will take Bush's word for it. Me? I'll wait on the evidence.

There are times when America needs to exert force, but we'd best find a way to curb a president who rules through use of signing statements, "faulty intelligence," torture, wiretaps, press leaks, threats, manipulation and whim, all while ignoring the majority.

It's not enough for Congress to make a fuss with a vote of no-confidence against sending 22,000 more troops to Baghdad. That's already happening. Some talking heads say smart move, he's passing to his successor-maybe John McCain or Hillary Clinton. The new presidential sweepstakes have begun, they exult. Isn't this fun?

But not so fast. Two years can be a long time, and international poker's a deadly game when played in the Texas gunslinger style. Dubya's going double or nothing, drawing to an inside straight, with lots of wild cards. And if he loses in Iraq, he'll curtail the game by starting a brawl, I'd wager. You could hear it in his speech Wednesday night, when he put Iran and Syria on notice. With gunboats in the Gulf and serious reporters like Seymour Hersh citing contingency plans for bombing Iran, those of us who oppose WWIII had best get ahead of the game.

Lest you think spreading the war is new policy, consider a widely quoted saying from halcyon days of the Neocons. "Men go to Baghdad, real men go to Damascus and Tehran." Or this from writer Ron Suskind, quoting a White House Neocon: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality... we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too... We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' Time to run the Necons out of the game.

A report on CNN, Wednesday, pointed out Bush's so-called "surge" tactic was hatched at the American Enterprise Institute, a Neocon think tank in Washington. And it was little noted by big media last week that Cheney's hand has been dramatically strengthened. Zalmay Khalilzad, set to replace John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is a Cheney protégé. So is Mike McConnell, whom Bush dealt in as our new national intelligence director.

I'm not heartened to hear Tim Russert say on MS-NBC, Wednesday, "Iran is going to surface in a very acute way... we have to cover it very carefully." Remember yellowcake? Aluminum tubes? Mobile anthrax labs? Aerial drones? Saddam ties to al-Qaida? Well, get set for a new parade of lies on TV. Face it, media profit from wars. So do arms merchants, energy corporations, aircraft makers and congressional people of both parties. So who'll stop the war?

As Molly Ivens said recently, "It's up to us, Bubba, you and me." But what can a person do? You might start by taking two minutes to phone (800) 614-2803, to reach the Congressional switchboard and ask for your senator or representative. Tell them you're against spreading the war in Iraq. Then you might take a moment to email .

That's the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is taking citizen comments through Jan. 17, 2007, on a proposal to build a new nuclear bomb factory. It's a factory that could return us to Cold War levels of production-with attendant cancer, pollution and treaty violations. Tell them you oppose it. Our so-called leaders and their minions are way ahead of us in having their way with reality. Maybe to them it's a game. But it's our world they're gambling.

Don Williams is a prize-winning columnist for the Knoxville News-Sentinel and the founding editor and publisher of New Millennium Writings, an annual anthology of literary writing. His awards include a National Endowment for the Humanities Michigan Journalism Fellowship, a Golden Presscard Award and the Malcolm Law Journalism Prize. He is finishing a novel, RED STATE BLUES, set in his native Tennessee and Iraq. His book of selected journalism, ?Heroes, Sheroes and Zeroes, the Best Writings About People? by Don Williams, is now available for ordering. For more information, email him at Or visit the NMW website at

Also on thinkingblue blogspot

CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 29, 2007

BUSH'S WAR BUILT ON LIES January 27, 2007

On January 27, 2007, a peace rally took place on the steps of our Capital in Washington DC. The courageous people who brave the cold and the pro-war conservatives, deserve a rousing applause for their peace efforts. Many have experienced the horrors of war but many have not. You don't have to fight in a war battle to know how heinous the act of killing or the fear of being killed can be.

I wanted to do something to help us all realize the heroism of the anti-war protestors who represent 70% of the American populous. Citizens, who want this war to end and who also want those responsible to be punished, under our war criminality laws. I gathered actual pictures from an
Internet News Site
and used some clips from CNN Headline News... Also,
downloads from YOUTUBE'S anti-war protests (and there were megatons of posts there).

Jane Fonda has had enough of Bush's war and finally came out of moth balls to join the protest and give a speech, because "SILENCE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION!" As well as Sean Penn and Tim Robbins. And of course our
Dennis Kucinich who was one of our few representatives AGAINST BUSH'S WAR FROM THE GET-GO! Please watch the short clip below and hope that this IRAQ WAR WILL END SOON, in spite of George W Bush's lust for it to continue. thank you, thinkingblue

Also on thinkingblue blogspot


CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Tuesday, January 23, 2007


I received this email from a friend. The Iraq war may be seen on TV as just another Political Debate, Political Argument or Political One-upmanship but to the ones who are really involved in the incredulous sadness and hardship it is anything but... How long must we be involved in a mistake? How long must those who least deserve it be on the receiving end of this slaughter? How many of our brave young people must come home in a box or maimed for life.


Please read the words below and listen to Bruce Springsteen's sorrowful cries of lament through song. thinkingblue


Saturday, 25 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq, Sunday, my daughter-in-law's convoy was hit by a suicide car-bomber in Afghanistan, with minor injuries to those in the convoy, and I want to scream or cry and say "Enough! Enough!" but instead have written this as my inadequate mea culpa... our loved ones who serve. - A Sad Mother -

...the United States Army's at war,

the United States of America's at the mall...

Army officer at Ft. Leavenworth,KS

The above quote is from the most recent episode of NOW on PBS,
Back to the Front. The program explores the emotions experienced by
soldiers at Ft. Stewart, GA, as they prepare to leave their loved ones and return
again to Iraq, and can be viewed in it's entirety at the link above.

The quote was related by Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinevich, Jr., USA-Ret., in the following (paraphrased) quote:

...A friend of mine went out recently to talk to group of officers at Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas, and during the course of his presentation he said, 'The United States is at war,' and at that point one of the officers cut him off and said, 'No, sir, the United States Army's at war, the United States of America's at the mall.' And the other officers began to nod their heads...

The mall the United States needs to be at next Saturday is the one in Washington, DC, between the Capitol and the Washington Monument; So, if you can't be there, write a letter -- write three letters -- to your members of Congress and send them along with someone from your area who is going, to pass on to MFSO members who will be visiting Congress.- A CONCERNED FRIEND -

Really support the troops -- use the Constitutional rights
that they swore to uphold and defend, and Speak Out!

Write letters!

Make phone calls!

and say:

Bring the Troops Home Now!

Bring the Troops Home Now!

Bring the Troops Home Now!

If the above plug-in does not work... CLICK HERE

Lawrence O'Donnell
Rangel Is Right

Charlie Rangel is angry about the Iraq war, the one that Henry Kissinger has
told us we can't win. Thanks, Henry, but most Americans figured that out before
you did. Rangel saw combat in Korea. Kissinger has only seen combat on TV. That
might have something to do with why Kissinger thinks our troops should stay in
Iraq even though we can't win.

Kissinger says that if we leave now, all hell will break loose and Iraq will
never achieve stability. Never mind that all hell has already broken loose.
Never mind that Kissinger said the same thing would happen if we left
Vietnam--all hell would break loose and Vietnam would never achieve stability.
Vietnam has become so stable that Presidents Clinton and Bush, both combat
cowards during the Vietnam war, have made well publicized, utterly safe visits
to the country Kissinger used to think didn't have a chance without us.

In my one conversation with Kissinger, which occurred on TV, I asked him if he
knew anyone who got killed in Vietnam. He was completely thrown. He doesn't go
on TV to be asked such small-minded questions, he goes on TV to pontificate and
TV interviewers are happy to let him do it. Kissinger sputtered and ran away
from the question, leaving the distinct impression that he did not know anyone
who was killed in the war he managed. His memoir of the period does not mention
a single casualty. If you have ever stood at the Vietnam Memorial and run your
hand over the name of a relative on the wall, as my mother and I did last month,
you can get as angry as Charlie Rangel does about people like Kissinger deciding
how long our soldiers should be exposed to enemy fire in a war we know we can't

Rangel announced on Sunday that he wants to reinstate the draft. He said the
same thing a few years ago but quickly let on that he wasn't serious. He's
playing it straight this time and has already introduced a bill. Local New York
TV news has given Rangel saturation coverage. You can see his anger and
frustration building each time he answers another reporter's question about the
draft. The point he keeps repeating is: "There's no question in my mind that
this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially
on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a
draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids
from their communities would be placed in harm's way."

Rangel could never get such attention to that message without introducing his
bill. Nancy Pelosi should let it come to a vote. She should let the House debate
the draft. Let the Republicans give speeches listing all the good reasons why we
should have a volunteer Army. But let's hear Rangel's speech about how the
burden of war is not fairly shared in this country. Let's get America thinking
about exactly who is being left in the line of fire in the war Americans have
turned against and know we can't win. Let's get America thinking about John
Kerry's line about Vietnam--who is going to be the last soldier to die for a
mistake? A real debate on the draft will do that. Don't worry, the bill has no
chance of passing.

Well over 95% of Americans, including Congress and White House staff, have no
personal connection to this war--no relative or friend serving in Iraq. Over 99%
of us have made no sacrifice for this war--we have not paid one more penny of
taxes nor shed a drop of family blood. One of my military relatives thinks of it
this way: "The American military is at war, but America is not at war."

Advocating war is easier when you and your family are not endangered by it. I've
reached a Rangel-like breaking point with my TV pundit colleagues who championed
the Iraq war and now say we can't leave even if we went there for the wrong
reasons. For every one of them, I have a simple question: Why aren't you in
Iraq? Or why did you avoid combat in your generation's war? The one unifying
characteristic that all of us men in make-up on political chat shows share is
fear of combat. Every one of us has done everything we can to avoid combat or
even being fitted for a military uniform. Just like George Bush, Bill Clinton,
and Dick Cheney, we are all combat cowards. It takes a very special kind of
combat coward to advocate combat for others. It's the kind of thing that can get
you as angry as Charlie Rangel.

Also on thinkingblue blogspot


CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Sunday, January 21, 2007

Attn: U.S. Congress: Impeach Alberto Gonzales

Attention, U.S. Congress:

Alberto Gonzales, is not a man of the People, he is a Bush sycophant and a distorter of reality. His crimes are so numerous they would even make an Ashcroft blush with shame.

Please consider laying the foundation to oust this imposter. Our nation cannot afford to have such a flagrant obstructer of the law in such a high position. Impeach him and bring him to justice, along with his superiors, George W. Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney. Free us from the disheartening hold these men have had on our country and it's reputation.

That was my short comment to the U.S. Congress. Now, click this link to send yours to who will deliver them to your Representatives. Thanks, thinkingblue

Urge your Representatives to Impeach Alberto Gonzales: Click Here


Senator Pat Leahy led the first real oversight hearings with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who did his best to dodge and weave. Finally Leahy let Gonzales have it, blasting him over the treatment of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was detained and sent to Syria, where he was regularly tortured for almost a year before being released uncharged.


A state legislature can compel the U.S. House to begin impeachment proceedings with the help of just one Representative:

New Mexico State Senators Gerald Ortiz y Pino and John Grubesic will
introduce a resolution to do just that on January 23rd, the same day Bush delivers the "State of the Union."


In an essay coyly titled “Fascism Anyone?,” Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, identifies social and political agendas common to fascist regimes. His comparisons of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet yielded this list of 14 “identifying characteristics of fascism.” (The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. Read it at See how familiar they sound.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media Sometimes the media are directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Also on thinkingblue blogspot
CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Thursday, January 18, 2007


Still Reeling from Bush's speech of January 10, 2007... I wanted to blog the information I just received from Its time for Democrats (AND EVERYONE) to Just Say No on Iraq!!!! Below I posted my feelings the day after that Kafkaesque speech... Still feel the same nausea today... Please read the information from AND ACT! Thank you, thinkingblue


Click hereBush's speech of January 10, 2007 was the most preposterous so called oral communication thus far from the little man we call PRESIDENT. I was left feeling like I was back in THE TWILIGHT ZONE once AGAIN! I have been living there since 2000 when Mr. W. Bush was first appointed president. But with November's election results... The door to the area of ambiguity creaked open just a little, to allow me to escape... But, after that Wednesday night, prime time, mouthful of mush from the FOLLOW DA LEADER INTO HELL president... I somehow was flipped and tossed right smack-dab in the middle of the ZANY ZONE again. Thank goodness, Keith Olbermann decided to comment on this rehearsed and re-rehearsed blather from DAFFY LAME DUCK DUBYU ... Thank you Keith, once again you have saved my sanity by SAYING IT ALL, even if it only lasted for a little while! NOW GET READY FOR THE BUMP !!!! thinkingblue
PS: It is Time to DumpDubyu

It's Time for Democrats to Just Say No on Iraq George Bush's super-hyped speech calling for escalation in Iraq was a political disaster. The American people now
overwhelmingly oppose Bush's handling of the war (72%), oppose Bush's escalation plan (61%), and want to bring all our troops home in 2007 (56%).

These polls are terrifying to Republicans (candidates) - their own pollster told them "if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006." Even Bob Novak predicts an "electoral catastrophe."

Please send this message to your Representatives:

End War Funding, Begin War Investigations

****Presidential Candidates Should Take the Lead***

The 2008 Presidential campaign is in full swing, and the Democratic candidates want our support.

Let's tell them what they must do to earn it!

1. Deny all funds for Bush's escalation

2. Support immediate redeployment of U.S. troops, to be completed by the end of 2007 using the funds already appropriated

3. Oppose the $100 billion "Supplemental" appropriation in March and any other bills to extend the U.S. occupation of Iraq

We are keeping track of the positions of all the candidates here:

You can click on the name of each candidate and email our three principles. They are listening to us very carefully - let's speak up!

***March and Lobby in Washington on January 27th, 28th, and 29th***


Come to Washington, D.C., on January 27. Join in the march for peace being organized by United for Peace and Justice, and impeachment events on January 28th being planned by Progressive Democrats of America.

Make appointments now to meet with your Congress Member on January 29th to demand impeachment and peace. Get organized with others in your Congressional District.

TIP: Buy a dozen or more Impeachment Shirts, bring them to D.C., sell them at a profit, and pay for your trip.

***Sign Up for Lobby Day Now***

Register now for the UFPJ Congressional Advocacy Day (lobby day) January 29, 2007

March to the Capitol on J27 -- march into your Rep. and Senators' offices on J29!

Register Here:

Plan to spend three days in D.C. On Saturday, march. On Sunday, take part in workshops and training sessions on peace and impeachment. Meet with fellow activists from
your state and congressional district and prepare for Monday. On Monday, lobby your Congress Member and Senators for two things:

1. No more funding for this war.

2. Investigations of the justification for and conduct of this war.

***Print Out a Flyer and Make Copies***

Click image for flyer in Word. Blank areas on right are for you to fill in local info.



Forward this message to everyone you know!

If you received this from a friend, you can subscribe at:

Also on thinkingblue blogspot


CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Tuesday, January 16, 2007


Click here
I must say, I really don't like most Republicans... Especially, those in politics. To me they seem to have an extra chromosome, a genetic transmission that compels them to arrange reality any way they deem fit. If there is something that isn't quite suited to their way of thinking, they just get out the old factual-reconstructing scissors and measuring tape and begin portioning off a little here and snip, snip a wee bit there and voila, they have a perfect ideological canvas for their hypersensitive senses. I know, I know, we all are a little bit guilty of manipulating facts but they do it better.

They ALL do it, and all seem to think no one notices. When a Democrat tries to pull the same scenario... They go for the jugular... as in the case of John Kerry, remember FLIP FLOP and
SWIFTBOATING? Yes indeed, they have the formula down pat!

A while back I saw Mitt Romney speak about his ideology and wow, was I surprised... A logical, responsive REPUBLICAN...??? I was really, to my astonishment, delighted to know there was a thinking-red out there in the non-thinking land of the conservatives! (that is unthinking when it comes to ideas that does not benefit them personally.)

Oh but, woo is me, (again) he was just lip-syncing the words he thought THE PEOPLE wanted to hear but that is not how he puts it. In 1994 he was a full fledged empathic man, Ah but he was so much older then, he's younger than that NoooOOOooow. thinkingblue

PS: View the below debate of 1994 between Ted Kennedy and Romney and then the clip from a Fox (faux) news interview with good ole Mitt and judge for yourself. I also, found a clip of the Bob Dylan song "MY BACK PAGES" ... always a favorite of mine but even more so now.

Just When You’re Getting Ready to Run for President, Mitt Happens





My Back Pages

Add to My Profile More Videos

My Back Pages

Description: Bob Dylan song, My Back Pages which was covered by the Byrds. This
song is the Byrd's version of the song, covered by Neil Young, Eric Clapton,
George Harrison, Tom Petty, Roger McGuinn and Bob Dylan in 1992 at a concert
celebrating Dylan's 30-year anniversary of recording.

By: Bob Dylan

Crimson flames tied through my ears
Rollin' high and mighty traps
Pounced with fire on flaming roads
Using ideas as my maps
"We'll meet on edges, soon," said I
Proud 'neath heated brow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth
"Rip down all hate," I screamed
Lies that life is black and white
Spoke from my skull. I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers
Foundationed deep, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Girls' faces formed the forward path
From phony jealousy
To memorizing politics
Of ancient history
Flung down by corpse evangelists
Unthought of, though, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

A self-ordained professor's tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty
Is just equality in school
"Equality," I spoke the word
As if a wedding vow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand
At the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy
In the instant that I preach
My pathway led by confusion boats
Mutiny from stern to bow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Also on thinkingblue blogspot


CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Friday, January 12, 2007

The Daffy Lame-duck is going out with a BANG...


Click hereBush's speech of January 10, 2007 was the most preposterous so called oral communication thus far from the little man we call PRESIDENT. I was left feeling like I was back in THE TWILIGHT ZONE once AGAIN! I have been living there since 2000 when Mr. W. Bush was first appointed president. But with November's election results... The door to the area of ambiguity creaked open just a little, to allow me to escape... But, after that Wednesday night prime time, mouthful of mush from the FOLLOW DA LEADER INTO HELL president... I somehow was flipped and tossed right smack-dab in the middle of the ZANY ZONE again. Thank goodness, Keith Olbermann decided to comment on this rehearsed and re-rehearsed blather from DAFFY LAME DUCK DUBYU ... Thank you Keith, once again you have saved my sanity by SAYING IT ALL, even if it only lasted for a little while! NOW, GET READY FOR THE BUMP !!!!


PS: It is Time to Dump Dubyu

Click here or the plug-in below to hear the words of sanity.

Below view: A breath of sarcasm from The famous sarcastic giant,
Stephen Colbert

by Greg Palast
Thursday, January 11, 2007

George W. Bush has an urge to surge. Like every junkie, he asks for just one
more fix: let him inject just 21,000 more troops and that will win the war.

Been there. Done that. In 1965, Tom Paxton sang,

Lyndon Johnson told the nation
Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending 50,000 more
To help save
Vietnam from the Vietnamese.

Four decades later, Bush is asking us to save Iraq from the Iraqis.

There's always a problem with giving a junkie another fix. It can only make
things worse. Our maximum leader says that unless he gets to mainline another
21,000 troops, "Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons," and
terrorists "would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the
American people."

Excuse me, but didn't we hear that same promise in 2003? Nearly four years ago,
on the eve of invasion, this same George Bush promised, "The terrorist threat to
America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is

Instead of diminishing the threat from terrorists, Bush now admits, "Al Qaeda
has a home base in Anbar province" -- something inconceivable under Saddam's rule.

Four years ago, Bush promised us, "When the dictator has departed, [Iraq] can
set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation." Just send in the 82d Airborne and, lickety-split, we'd have, "A new Iraq that is prosperous and free."

Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Here's my question: Who asked the waiter to deliver this dish? Who
asked for the 21,000 soldiers?

We know the US military didn't ask for the 21,000 troops. (Outgoing commander
General George Casey called for a troop reduction.)

We know the Iraqi government didn't ask for the 21,000 troops. (Prime Minister
Nuri al-Maliki is reportedly unhappy about a visible increase in foreign occupiers).

So who wants the occupation to continue? The answer is in Riyadh.
When the King of Saudi Arabia hauled Dick Cheney before his throne on Thanksgiving weekend, the keeper of America's oil laid down the law to Veep: the US will not withdraw from Iraq.

According to Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi who signals to the US government the commands
and diktats of the House of Saud, the Saudis are concerned that a US pull-out
will leave their Sunni brothers in Iraq to be slaughtered by Shia militias. More important, the Saudis will not tolerate a Shia-majority government in Iraq controlled by the Shia mullahs of Iran. A Shia combine would threaten Saudi Arabia's hegemony in the OPEC oil cartel.

In other words, it's about the oil.

So what's the solution? What's my plan? How do we get out of Iraq?

Answer: the same way we got out of 'Nam. In ships.

But can we just watch from the ship rail as Shia slaughter Sunnis in
Baghdad, Sunnis murder Shia in Anbar, Kurds "cleanse" Kirkuk
of Turkmen and so on in a sickening daisy-chain of ethnic atrocities?

No. There's a real alternative. And it isn't more troops, George.

Let's imagine that somehow we could rip away the strings that allow Cheney and
Rove and Abdullah to control our puppet president and he somehow, like the
scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, suddenly grew a brain. His speech last night
would have sounded like this:

"My fellow Americans. Iraq is going to hell in a handbag. So the whole shebang doesn't collapse into mayhem and madness, we need to send in 21,000 more troops. So I've just wired King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and told him to send them.

"My missive to the monarch reads: Dear Abdullah. It's time your 16,000
princelings got out of their Rolls Royces and formed the core of an Islamic
Peacekeeping Force to prevent mass murder in Iraq. The American people are tired of you using the 82d Airborne as your private mercenary army. It seems like the Saudi military's marching song is, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'

"Well, King Ab, we're out of here. We're folding tents and loading the wagons.
For four years now, Saudis have been secretly funding the berserkers in the
Iraqi 'insurgency' while the Iranians are backing the crazies in the militias.
Well, we're telling you and the Persians: you're going to have to stop using
your checkbooks to fund a proxy war and instead start keeping the peace. It's
time you put your own tushies in the line of fire for a change."

"If the African Union nations, poor as they are, can maintain a peacekeeping
force to stop killings in Sudan and Senegal, you Saudis, with all the military toys we've sold you, can certainly join with your Muslim brothers in Jordan, Iran and Turkey to take responsibility for your region's peace.

"And when you get to Fallujah, don't forget to drop us a postcard."

Well, that's my fantasy. But instead, War Junkie George will get his fix of
another 21,000 American soldiers.

It reminds me far too chillingly of a Pete Seeger tune written when LBJ was
saving Vietnam from Vietnamese. It was based on the true story of a US platoon
in training, wading into the rising Mississippi, whose commander order them to keep going, deeper and deeper -- until they drowned.

We're waste deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "Armed Madhouse." His reports on
Iraq and oil for BBC-TV and Harper's Magazine can be viewed at

"This is like deja vu all over again."
-- Yogi Berra


Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation

Words and Music by Tom Paxton

I got a letter from L. B. J.
It said this is your lucky day.
It's time to put your khaki trousers on.
Though it may seem very queer
We've got no jobs to give you here
So we are sending you to Viet Nam

Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Viet nam from Viet Namese."

I jumped off the old troop ship,
And sank in mud up to my hips.
I cussed until the captain called me down.
Never mind how hard it's raining,
Think of all the ground we're gaining,
Just don't take one step outside of town.


Every night the local gentry,
Sneak out past the sleeping sentry.
They go to join the old VC.
In their nightly little dramas,
They put on their black pajamas,
And come lobbing mortar shells at me.


We go round in helicopters,
Like a bunch of big grasshoppers,
Searching for the Viet Cong in vain.
They left a note that they had gone.
They had to get down to Saigon,
Their government positions to maintain.


Well here I sit in this rice paddy,
Wondering about Big Daddy,
And I know that Lyndon loves me so.
Yet how sadly I remember,
Way back yonder in November,
When he said I'd never have to go.


Also on

CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!

thinkingBlue blogspot


Wednesday, January 10, 2007

For all you paranoid conspiracy whackos.

Read The History before you label who's delusional and who is not. thinkingblue

Working Harder for the Man

Published: January 8, 2007

Robert L. Nardelli, the chairman and chief executive of Home Depot, began the new year with a pink slip and a golden parachute. The company handed him a breathtaking $210 million to take a hike. What would he have been worth if he’d done a good job?

Data recently compiled by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston offers a startling look at just how out of whack executive compensation has become. Some of the Wall Street Christmas bonuses last month were fabulous enough to resurrect an adult’s belief in Santa Claus. Morgan Stanley’s John Mack got stock and options worth in excess of $40 million. Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs did even better — $53.4 million.

According to the center’s director, Andrew Sum, the top five Wall Street firms (Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley) were expected to award an estimated $36 billion to $44 billion worth of bonuses to their 173,000 employees, an average of between $208,000 and $254,000, “with the bulk of the gains accruing to the top 1,000 or so highest-paid managers.”

Now consider what’s been happening to the bulk of the American population, the ordinary men and women who have to work for a living somewhere below the stratosphere of the top corporate executives. Between 2000 and 2006, labor productivity in the nonfarm sector of the economy rose by an impressive 18 percent. But workers were not paid for that impressive effort. During that period, according to Mr. Sum, the inflation-adjusted weekly wages of workers increased by just 1 percent.

That’s $3.20 a week. As Mr. Sum wryly observed, that won’t even buy you a six-pack of Bud Light. Joe Six-Pack has been downsized. Three bucks ain’t what it used to be.

There are 93 million production and nonsupervisory workers (exclusive of farmworkers) in the U.S. Their combined real annual earnings from 2000 to 2006 rose by $15.4 billion, which is less than half of the combined bonuses awarded by the five Wall Street firms for just one year.

“Just these bonuses — for one year — overwhelmingly exceed all the pay increases received by these workers over the entire six-year period,” said Mr. Sum.

In a development described by Mr. Sum as “quite stark and rather bleak for the economic well-being of the average worker,” the once strong link between productivity gains and real wage increases has been severed. The mystery to me is why workers aren’t more scandalized. If your productivity increases by 18 percent and your pay goes up by 1 percent, you’ve been dealt a hand full of jokers in a game in which jokers aren’t wild.

Workers have received some modest increases in benefits over the past six years, but most of the money from their productivity gains — by far, it’s not even a close call — has gone into profits and the salaries of top executives.

Fairness plays no role in this system. The corporate elite control it, and they have turned it to their ends.

Mr. Sum, a longtime expert on the economic life of the American worker, said he is astonished at the degree to which ordinary workers have been shortchanged over the past several years. “Productivity has been exceptional,” he said. “And for most of my life, the way to get wages up was to be more productive. That’s how our economy was supposed to work.”

The productivity gains in the go-go decades that followed World War II were broadly shared, and the result was a dramatic, sustained increase in the quality of life for most Americans. Nowadays workers have to be more productive just to maintain their economic status quo. Productivity gains are no longer broadly shared. They’re barely shared at all.

The pervasive unfairness in the way the great wealth of the United States is distributed should be seen for what it is, an insidious disease eating away at the structure of the society and undermining its future. The middle class is hurting, propped up by the wobbly crutches of personal debt. The safety net, not just for the poor, but for the middle class as well, is disappearing. The savings rate has dropped to below zero, and more Americans are filing for bankruptcy than for divorce.

Your pension? Don’t ask.

There’s a reason why the power elite get bent out of shape at the merest mention of a class conflict in the U.S. The fear is that the cringing majority that has taken it on the chin for so long will wise up and begin to fight back.

Well, how about that beloved free market? What happens to those cushy Wall Street jobs when the proles rise up and dump the bourgeoisie?
"I criticize America because I love her. I want her to stand as a moral example to the world."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

About author My old sig line, quoting a Republican president no less, works under BushCo as well: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt, 1918


Monday, January 08, 2007


How very sad is this... The surge theory is rearing its ugly head and playing Iraqi roulette.

The neocons, the president and those who are president wannabees (i.e. Mc Cain) are calling for more American troops to head for Iraq. A hellish, muskeg of a war that has turned citizen against citizen, both here and in the land where the hostilities are waging. The chicken hawk, armed chaired war strategists are still playing their game of blood chess with game pieces of flesh and bone. SEND IN MORE TROOPS TO SAVE FACE, is the thought of the day. Send thousands more of our sons and daughters to fight in our mistake so that when they stop us from allowing more to die, we can gracefully shake the finger of chastise and say WE COULD HAVE "WON" BUT THE UNPATRIOTIC KEPT US FROM ACCOMPLISHING THIS MASTERSTROKE.

I truly believe that is the undercurrent of this so called new surge blueprint. With a new congress in place and more than two thirds of the population condemning this war, they (W. Bush and his followers) realize that the surge theory will probably (AND SHOULD) be defeated... Thus, they can hold their heads high and claim, WE LOST A WAR BECAUSE WE WERE STOPPED FROM FIGHTING IT WITH ALL WE'VE GOT. The echoes of Viet Nam are beginning to permeate the air we breath. And for the next 30 years, we will have to listen to the the war monger mantra...... WE COULD HAVE WON BUT THE COWARDLY WERE MORE INTERESTED IN STOPPING COLLATERAL BLOODSHED THAN WINNING A PRAISEWORTHY, PATRIOTIC WAR. HOOAH!. But, you know, this is one cowardly... WHO SAYS, THAT'S OK WITH ME! thinkingblue

PS: Please read the enlightening editorial below THE

The Surge to Nowhere:
Traveling the Planet Neocon Road to Baghdad (Again)

Robert Dreyfuss,
Electronic Iraq,
5 January 2007

Like some neocon Wizard of Oz, in building expectations for the 2007 version of his "Strategy for Victory" in Iraq, President Bush is promising far more than he can deliver. It is now nearly two months since he fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, installing Robert Gates in his place, and the White House revealed that a full-scale review of America's failed policy in Iraq was underway. Last week, having spent months -- if, in fact, the New York Times is correct
that the review began late in the summer -- consulting with generals, politicians, State Department and CIA bureaucrats, and Pentagon planners, Bush emerged from yet another powwow to
tell waiting reporters: "We've got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan."

As John Lennon sang in Revolution: "We'd all love to see the plan."

Unfortunately for Bush, most of the American public may have already checked out. By and large, Americans have given up on the war in Iraq. The November election, largely a referendum on the war, was a repudiation of the entire effort, and the vote itself was a marker along a continuing path of
rapidly declining approval ratings both for President Bush personally and for his handling of the war. It's entirely possible that when Bush does present us with "the plan" next week, few will be listening. Until he makes it clear that he has returned from
Planet Neocon by announcing concrete steps to end the war in Iraq, it's unlikely that American voters will tune in. As of January 1, every American could find at least
3,000 reasons not to believe that President Bush has suddenly found a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

What's astonishing about the debate over Iraq is that the President -- or anyone else, for that matter, including the media -- is paying the slightest attention to the neoconservative strategists who got us into this mess in the first place. Having been egregiously wrong about every single Iraqi thing for five consecutive years, by all rights the neocons ought to be consigned to some dusty basement exhibit hall in the American Museum of Natural History, where, like so many triceratops, their reassembled bones would stand mutely by to send a chill of fear through touring schoolchildren. Indeed, the neocons are the dodos of Washington, simply too dumb to know when they are extinct.

Yet here is Tom Donnelly, an American Enterprise Institute neocon,
a co-chairman of the
Project for a New American Century, telling a reporter sagely that the surge is in. "I think the debate is really coming down to: Surge large. Surge small. Surge short. Surge longer. I think the smart money would say that the range of options is fairly narrow." (Donnelly, of course, forgot:
Surge out.) His colleague, Frederick Kagan of AEI, the chief architect of the Surge Theory for Iraq, has made it clear that the only kind of surge that would work is a big, fat one.

Nearly pornographic in his fondling of the surge, Kagan, another of the neocon crew of armchair strategists and militarists, makes it clear that size does matter. "Of all the ‘surge' options out there, short ones are the most dangerous," he wrote
in the Washington Post last week, adding lasciviously, "The size of the surge matters as much as the length. … The only ‘surge' option that makes sense is both long and large."

Ooh -- that is, indeed, a manly surge. For Kagan, a man-sized surge must involve at least 30,000 more troops funneled into the killing grounds of Baghdad and al-Anbar Province for at least 18 months.

President Bush, perhaps dizzy from the oedipal frenzy created by the emergence of Daddy's best friend James Baker and his Iraq Study Group, seems all too willing to prove his manhood by the size of the surge. According to a stunning

front-page piece
in the Times last Tuesday, Bush has all but dismissed the advice of his generals, including Centcom Commander John Abizaid, and George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, because they are "more fixated on withdrawal than victory." At a recent Pentagon session, according to General James T. Conway, the commandant of the U.S. Marines, Bush told the assembled brass: "What I want to hear from you now is how we are going to win, not
how we are going to leave." As a result, Abizaid and Casey are, it appears, getting the same hurry-up-and-retire treatment that swept away other generals who questioned the wisdom on Iraq transmitted from Planet Neocon.

That's scary, if it means that Bush -- presumably on the advice of the Neocon-in-Chief, Vice President Dick Cheney -- has decided to launch a major push, Kagan-style, for victory in Iraq. Not that such an escalation has a chance of working, but there's no question that, in addition to bankrupting the United States,
breaking the army and the Marines, and unleashing all-out political warfare at home, it would kill perhaps tens of thousands more Iraqis.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Bush could get away with it politically. Not only is the public dead-set against escalating the war, but there are hints that Congress might not stand for it, and the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces is opposed.

Over the past few days, a swarm of Republican senators has come out against the surge, including at least three Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 in states that make them vulnerable: Gordon Smith of Oregon, whose remarkable speech
calling the war "criminal" went far beyond the normal bland rhetoric of discourse in the U.S. capital, along with John Sununu of New Hampshire and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In addition, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, less vulnerable but still facing voters in 2008, has questioned the surge idea. And a host of Republican moderates -- Chuck Hagel (NE), Dick Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME) -- have lambasted it. (Hagel told Robert Novak: "It's Alice in Wonderland. I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.") Even Sam Brownback, one of the Senate godfathers of the neocon-backed Iraqi National Congress, has expressed skepticism, saying: "We can't impose a military solution." According to Novak, only 12 of the 49 Republican senators are now willing to back Sen. John McCain's blood-curdling cries for sending in more troops.

Meanwhile, says Novak, the Democrats would not only criticize the idea of a surge but, led by Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, might use their crucial power over the purse. "Biden," writes Novak, "will lead the rest of the Democrats not only to oppose a surge but to block it." Reports the Financial Times of London: "Democrats have hinted that they could use their control over the budget process to make life difficult for the Bush administration if it chooses to step up the military presence in Iraq." A Kagan-style surge would require a vast new commitment of funds, and with their ability to scrutinize, put conditions on, and even strike out entire line items in the military budget and the Pentagon's supplemental requests, the Democrats could find ways to stall or halt the "surge," if not the war itself.

Indeed, if President Bush opts to Kaganize the war, he will throw down the gauntlet to the Democrats. Unwilling until now to say that they would even consider blocking appropriations for the Iraq War, the Democrats would have little choice but to up the ante if Bush flouts the electoral mandate in such a full-frontal manner. By escalating the war in the face of near-universal opposition from the public, the military, and the political class, the president would force the Democrats to escalate their own -- until now fairly mild-mannered -- opposition to the war.

However, it's possible -- just possible -- that what the President is planning to announce will be something a bit more Machiavellian than the straightforwardly manly thrust Kagan wants. Perhaps, just perhaps, he will order an increase of something like 20,000 American troops, but put a tight time limit on this surge -- say, four months. Perhaps he will announce that he is giving Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that much time to square the circle in Iraq: crack down on militias and death squads, purge the army and police, develop a plan to fight the Sunni insurgency, find a formula to deal with the Kurds and the explosive, oil-rich city of Kirkuk which they claim as their own, un-de-Baathify Iraq, and create a workable formula for sharing the fracturing country's oil wealth.

By surging those 20,000 troops into a hopeless military nowhere-land, Bush will say that he is giving Maliki room to accomplish all that -- knowing full well that none of it can, in fact, be accomplished by the weak, sectarian, Shiite-run regime inside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. So, sometime in the late spring, the United States could begin to un-surge its troops and start the sort of orderly, phased withdrawal that Jim Baker and the Carl Levin Democrats have called for.

suggested as much as 2006 ended. "A surge which is not part of an overall program of troop reduction that begins in the next four to six months would be a mistake," said Levin, who will chair the Armed Services Committee. "Even if the president is going to propose to temporarily add troops, he should make that conditional on the Iraqis reaching a political settlement that effectively ends the
sectarian violence."

That may be too much to ask for a Christian-crusader President, still lodged inside a bubble universe and determined to crush all evil-doers. And it may be too clever by half for an administration that has been as utterly inept as this one.

At the same time, it may also be too much to expect that the Democrats will really go to the mat to fight Bush if, Kagan-style, he orders a surge that is "long and large." Maybe they will merely posture and fulminate and threaten to… well, hold hearings.

If so, it will be the Iraqis who end the war. It will be the Iraqis who eventually kill enough Americans to break the U.S. political will, and it will be the Iraqis who sweep away the ruins of the Maliki government to replace it with an anti-American, anti-U.S.-occupation government in Iraq. That is basically how the
war in Vietnam ended, and it wasn't pretty.

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. He covers national security for Rolling Stone and writes frequently for The American Prospect, Mother Jones, and the
Nation. He is also a regular contributor to, the Huffington Post, Tomdispatch, and other sites, and writes the blog,The Dreyfuss Report, at his


Wednesday, January 03, 2007

911 conspiracy theories,,, The Facts The Fictions

conspiracy theory n. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.


A few good film clips about the apertures in the 9/11 investigations... Questions, no one seems to be able to answer so they just brush them aside...
Thanks to the Internet we all can be the judge... thinkingblue



For More Click Here