Fatherless daughters and fatherless sons

Here is another one that goes along with this theme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8

It is contains some profanity, including the F word - so may not be safe for a work or school environment. Watch at home or with headphones on.

Sorry, here is a clickable link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8

disclaimer: link contains profanity

I was listening to an interview with Ms. Albright this morning on the Thom Hartmann show and she agrees with Henry "Bloody" Kissenger who has been advising Bush for two years now:

".... there is no military solution in Iraq and there will be no victory as we know it."

Even this administration's own hand-pick, neocon, warmongering, troop-hating advisor says we're f&*ked.

Someday I'll probably have to explain Iraq to my kids, that should be fun considering as of now I still have no idea what we're doing there or what the plan is.

And what is it exactly Democrats are doing to Bring Home The Troops? (I mean, besides giving Bush even more money for war-making in Iraq than he's asking, and refusing to demand he obtain congressional approval before attacking Iran?)

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi has the pathetic situation in Washington pegged:

"As for everyone else -- specifically, the Democrats who sponsored and passed the timetable measure -- they benefited from the bill most directly, riding a crest of antiwar sentiment and setting the Democrats up as the party that will look the best in the eyes of frustrated, war-fatigued voters in 2008. But lost amid all of this antiwar posturing were a series of inconvenient truths. One was that the bill was always going to be meaningless because Bush was always going to veto it, there were never going to be enough votes to override the veto, and everybody knew there were never going to be enough votes to override the veto. The second is that the timetable measure was buried in an emergency spending bill to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bill that ended up authorizing $122 billion in spending when the supposedly evil, warmongering, politically isolated Bush White House only asked for $103 billion. In other words, the outwardly combative Democratic leadership not only refused to do anything substantive to bring the troops home, it actually tossed Bush an extra $20 billion or for the war effort without prodding."

But at least America's bipartisan-sponsored hate crime against the Iraqi people ends when happy days are here again in 2008, right?

To the contrary, Taibbi also understands that if post-election withdrawal is what rank-and-file antiwar Democrats are dreaming about now, come January 2009 they're likely to find themselves (still) trapped in a nightmare from which there's neither awakening nor escape for a long, long time.

"What worries me about this state of affairs is that presidents don't like to see military losses land on their watch. If a Democrat wins in '08, bet on it, an excuse will be found to keep the troops there. The first day after her inauguration, when Hillary Clinton wakes up with a champagne hangover to hear Mark Daley (or whoever her chief of staff ends up being) tell her that 67 Marines have been slaughtered in a raid outside Ramadi, she is going to be powerfully tempted to prove that she has the stones to deal out the necessary payback. She'll ask for 10,000 extra troops and six months to "stabilize" the situation before initiating a withdrawal.

"And once that happens, we'll be right back where we are now -- pretending we're against it, but without a way to actually make it happen while covering the requisite number of Washington asses. That's always what it comes down to, after all. And no matter how encouraged everyone seems to be by this withdrawal vote, I still haven't heard anyone tell me how the real pullout is going to work, politically that is. Because it's not enough that everyone knows it's necessary."

In other words, get used to this whole aggressive war thing. Because without a tectonic grassroots American political repudiation of partisan Beltway power calculation (and consolidation), US taxpayer-financed mass murder abroad and destruction of liberty domestically is a virtual certainty for as far into the future as one cares to gaze.

In other words, get used to this whole aggressive war thing.

-Alex Davies

Isn't what you are saying, kind of part of the problem?

What are "democrats" doing? you ask...

Well, Why do you stop at the elected democrats? Why not focus also on the registered democrats?

I think, that here at Blue Oregon, and myself, and other people I deal with daily - we are trying our best in many ways. I think that what we are trying to specificaly do is become the

tectonic grassroots American political repudiation of partisan Beltway power calculation (and consolidation), US taxpayer-financed mass murder abroad and destruction of liberty domestically"

We have to start somewhere. We have to let them know that it is IMPORTANT to us. Seriously. Not just lip service.

RETREAT!!!

Once a democrat is Prez - then WAR will be ok., and there will be no more ANTI-WAR Rallies.

Since the Democrats in Congress can't get it right and cut off funding for the war against Iraq now, lets hope that Bush does veto the war funding supplement. Hopefully, the Democrats will simply agree and move on to other business.

It's too bad that the Democratic party is more interested in gaining support among Republicans than Democrats.

I can't help but wish that the soldier and his son had a private reunion, instead of in front of all of the boy's classmates and cameras. That said, I cry everytime I see it.