It’s deja vu all over again.

STOP HILLARY.

To Hell with Hill!

STOP HILLARY.

Sure do, ‘Nation.

I think that it’s just possible that EVERY candidate running, from both parties, and EVERY conger, dem or repub, knows that we are screwed, in Iraq.

I’m beginning to think they understand that the place is never going to “stabiliize”, and that whether we leave 6 months from now, or 6 years from now, all hell is likely to break loose, and it scares the democrats as badly as it scares the repubs.

And why not?

The dems are daily revealing themselves to be GOOPER Lites.

One of bush’s pet projects is to let Wall St. get it’s hands on the Social Security goody box. It may come up again, near the end of his term, and if it does, it’ll be interesting to see how many dems have decided that it is, after all, a good idea.

In fact, that would be a good “How will YOU vote?” question for all the aspiring preznints.

But to get back to your question:

It’s sure starting to look like the democrats’ frontrunning asslickers don’t have a dime’s worth of difference with george bush on his Iraq policy.

Why the asterisks for AIPAC?

Just askin’…

October 26 – 27, 2007
Old South Church, 645 Boylston St., Boston

Friday—2:30 PM—10:00 PM
Saturday—8:00 AM—4:30 PM

Keynote Address: Archbishop Desmond Tutu

http://www.fosna.org/BostonConferenceOct2007.htm

Kathleen I don’t think it’s right to accuse oddmommy of shutting down debate, when in fact she is expressing her point of view, one that is not unique, since I for one, side with her point of view. If anything we have been less than aggressive, shied away from using the word A-word & etc. I have never seen any one us of shutting down Israel/Palestine debate. Or being so aggressively adamant about our point of view that we dominate a whole thread, box everyone around who disagrees and then accuse them of “shutting down debate”. It’s quite the contrary, I am a fence-sitter on Palestine/Israel. What I have objected to is these insinuations that there is some conspiracy afoot in America and abroad caused by ?!? and their confederates based on the such and such a document authored by Richard Perle et al, or some other such thing. The same document that was rejected by non-neocons. So I guess what we are saying is if you mean neocon, it would be nice if you said that. Specifics are great to help misunderstandings. Linkage to documention would be even better. Maybe even avoid misunderstandings. But paranoid assertions based on one document are really suspect to me.

I am glad that these discussions happen. But please do not tell me that people have not aggrressively tried to shut this debate down on other threads when it has come up because that is a lie. And please do not tell me people do not go OT and then selectively attack others for doing the same. Because that is also a lie.

And as far as dominating a thread with an OT issue it just happenned in this thread so please stop being so hypocritical.

Anyway I think it is great that this critical issue was discussed even though it was OT. It is the selective enforcement of the OT police on this site that I find contradictory.

So, President Hillary or whomever. Either way we get war, war, glorious war, and we labor towards ever more loss of earnings, good will and blood.

oddmommy @ 185

so, there are no other powerful lobbies in this country besides A*I*PAC? Is that what this little exercise is supposed to teach us?

Move On has 3.2 million members.
Would you say they hold more sway over political/military/economic decisions than the A*P*C lobby?

I’ve been meaning to ask MoveOn to get its fingers out and get a BUS TRIP to Congress like NORPAC does… Then, I think MoveOn could get some results. But, I think MoveOn is too much in Pelosi’s pocket so those 3.2 will never be organised the way they could and should be.

Patsies – Hardly? And why do you say unofficially – unofficially for whom? These guys certainly weren’t interns — they well-known operatives/lobbyists on The Hill. They could be, what looks like/maybe? an intregal part of the US and Israel neocons group working and planning for war within the Pentagon? However, maybe there was some divided loyality that emergedin the OSP? Indeed it would be interesting to be a fly on the wall with this spy case.

“…The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass M*ssad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than M*ssad was prepared to authorise.

“None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,” said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Lik*d party…”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq…..37,00.html

“…late summer, …And OSP kept expanding.

Another person I observed to appear suddenly was Michael Rubin, another Washington Institute [WINEP] fellow working on Iraq policy. He and Chris Straub, a retired Army officer who had been a Republican staffer for the Senate Intelligence Committee, were eventually assigned to OSP…”
The New Pentagon Papers (Karen Kwiatkowski)
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bi…..cgi/7/3853

Washington Institute for Near East Policy WINEP

“…In 1985, Martin Indyk, former research director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (A*P*C), founded WINEP. While A*P*C focused its lobbying on Congress, WINEP was founded as a think tank that would primarily interact with the executive branch to set U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East…”

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1568

So, you see why I’m finding it a tad difficult to believe they were patsies?

Edited ***** and released by Mod.