Hey, Bush, sign your daughters up for Iraq, such a *noble* cause

Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.

Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something, he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.

BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005

Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.

Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged noble cause (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):

Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.

Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond

Here is the complete chart:

Click image for full size

Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another noble war, Vietnam.

Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is noble enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?

Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's noble war or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not noble enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.

Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk.

• Hey, Bush, sign your daughters up for Iraq, such a *noble* cause - gt
  • I can't believe anyone actually compiled this information. - nt
  • Thanks, GT. - American Woman
  • Thank you, gt, interesting post - Observer
  • Going off the deep end, gt, getting even more bizarre as time goes by. nm - sm
    • Bush tell your daughters they are needed in Iraq for a *noble* cause - gt
      • OK then why didn't Clinton send Chelsea - Turn about
        • Do you think these guys would be crying for John Kerry's daughters to go if he had won? - nt
          • I actually agree with you, I don't think the president's children should - Democrat
            • They are not children. They are grown women. - nt
              • They are his children, grown or not. sm - Democrat
                • You have no way of knowing that. I wouldn't even make that guess. nm - sm
                  • Good don't guess. It's my guess though.nm - Democrat
        • Cindy isn't interested in helping the victims down there. She's just mad they are stealing - nt
          • Freeze...step away from the Kool-Aid. nm - Democrat
          • So now it is Cindy, not Bush who put the troops in danger. - Democrat
            • You might want to read the letter on the other board. - nt
              • They were in danger before Cindy even thought - Democrat
                • The father of the Marine daughter also said the same thing. sm - sm
      • Oh whatever, gt, you are full of it. nm - sm
        • It's not your right to bash her - this is the liberal board - Getting even sicker
          • It's okay for gt to wish people to burn in hell, THAT'S okay, but THIS is bashing. sm - So?
            • Whinners???? And how many times have we heard yall's complaints - Democrat
  • No parent can sign up their "child", none of which are "children" anymore BTW. - New argument please. nm
    • what about the noble war? - but but
      • So you are actually saying that children are not autonomous. sm - sm
  • This is a ridiculous suggestion - Reality Check
    • of course not - huh
      • Why won't you debate the issue - Reality check
      • What planet do you guys come from? - Reality Check
        • Shock? - American Woman
          • You are completely unhinged - Reality check
            • You have done nothing but attack - American Woman
              • I have many times tried to encourage debate - Reality check
                • No, dear, I understand fully what reality is. - American Woman
                  • No, I refuse to try and debate you anymore - Reality check
            • Oh and about the fingers - Reality check
              • Thank you for proving my point. - American Woman
                • Okay if you weren't shooting me the bird - Reality check
                  • I was trying to illustrate that you REFUSE to see what's in front of your face, that you must twi - American Woman
                    • At least have the cajones to admit when you do something. - nt
                      • A racial post shooting the finger. Must be a conservative thing. Point this out. - Democrat
                  • Uh oh, high and mighty might be construed as a Christian term. Don't make her mad. sm - sm
              • All the while telling us how hateful WE are. Totally clueless. nm - sm
        • posting politics - too funny
          • Yet still you want Bush's daughters to go to war. sm - sm
            • And you read this "where" in the post. Not gettin it. - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Just want to get this clear.

I would like to call him "The Hitler of the 21st Century". Any comments?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Still think Bush lied?

MSNBC.com

Murtha’s Moment
The White House is still attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. But Congress—and the public—are becoming more skeptical.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101981/site/newsweek/

Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/delegates.htm (a conservative site, no less!)

President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration.

Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections.

Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn't want to deal with them, a source familiar with the White House said. In some cases, this has resulted in chaos.

The White House has acknowledged that Mr. Bush was not informed of the administration’s decision to approve a $6.85 billion takeover by the United Arab Emirates of a British firm that operates at least six major ports in the United States. The decision triggered a public firestorm and strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. This prompted the Dubai-owned company last week to bail on its bid to operate terminals in U.S. ports.

Vice President Dick Cheney also was not informed of the approval of the port takeover by the state-owned Dubai Ports World. The process was administered by the Treasury Department-aligned Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which sparked opposition from most of the Republican leadership in Congress.

My take on this is that the president relied on his CFIUS board, this Committee on Foreign Investment; that they did a superficial scrub on this, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said on March 7.

They've been trained to be more of a business, or more of an arm of the administration which is designed to expedite or to shape acquisitions so that they can take place rather than to stop acquisitions, said Mr. Hunter, California Republican.

The sources said Mr. Bush's lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment. They said the DP World episode was handled by the Treasury and Commerce departments. From there, the proposed sale was meant to have been relayed through the National Security Council for a White House decision.

It should have gone to Karl Rove and then gone up the chain, the source said. For some reason, it didn't. I don't think people understood how important this was in terms of both national security and politics.

Mr. Hunter and other members of the House Armed Services Committee were shocked over how little White House staffers knew of the security record of the UAE, cited in testimony to the 9/11 commission as having withheld cooperation regarding al Qaeda in 1999. Last week, Mr. Hunter and Rep. Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, brought evidence of how the UAE port of Dubai allowed shipments of nuclear components as well as heavy water and a precursor to nerve gas to countries such as Iran, Libya and Pakistan.

In 2003, Mr. Hunter said, Dubai allowed the shipment of 66 high-speed electrical switches designed to trigger and detonate nuclear weapons. He said Dubai rejected a U.S. request to stop the shipment.

The point is that if you are an outlaw regime, and you want to develop a nuclear weapons program, you have your components transshipped through Dubai, Mr. Hunter said. Dubai is a master at masking both the recipient of illegitimate weapons systems and the party that is sending, developing, selling those illegitimate weapons systems. I don't think those are the folks you want to have running your ports.

Neither Mr. Bush nor any of his aides ordered a change in CFIUS deliberations that would stress the security aspect of any foreign investments or operations in the United States. Mr. Saxton said the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda had virtually no affect on the process.

The current system was designed, from what we can understand, to encourage foreign investment in our country, Mr. Saxton said. And 9/11 changed a lot of things, and CFIUS didn't change. And I guess it changed in some respects. We added a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, but it was still under the leadership of the Department of the Treasury. And so the mission of CFIUS remains pre-9/11, while the situation in post-9/11 is much different.

Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq

But Leaders Say War Was Justified

Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors

'Limited' Troop Reduction Urged

By Peter Slevin

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03

CHICAGO, Nov. 22 -- Sen. Barack Obama said President Bush should admit mistakes in waging the Iraq war and reduce the number of troops stationed there in the next year. But the Illinois Democrat, a longtime opponent of the war, said U.S. forces remain part of a solution in the bitterly divided country and should not be withdrawn immediately.

Without citing specific numbers, Obama called for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops that would push the fragile Iraqi government to take more responsibility while deploying enough American soldiers to prevent the country from exploding into civil war or ethnic cleansing or a haven for terrorism.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) greets well-wishers at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations after he said the administration has not given straight answers to critical questions on Iraq. (By Jeff Roberson -- Associated Press)

Obama also faulted the administration for tarring its critics as unpatriotic naysayers and said it launched the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 without giving either Congress or the American people the full story.

Straight answers to critical questions. That's what we don't have right now, the high-profile freshman senator told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is simply not enough for the president to simply say 'We know best' and 'Stay the course.'

As other Democrats are finding their voice against Iraq policy, Obama took an approach closer to one taken by Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleague Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) than to that of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a former Marine, called last week for an immediate pullout of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops.

Four prospective Democratic presidential candidates -- Biden, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards -- have advocated a more gradual approach, with no sudden steps. Biden called Monday for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by the end of next year and all but 20,000 to 40,000 out by January 2008.

Obama told the audience of about 500 people that the war has siphoned assets from homeland security and the global anti-terrorism fight. He said the administration's attempt to equate the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is overly narrow and dangerously short-sighted.

In a 35-minute speech scheduled just days ago, Obama argued that public opinion has raced ahead of politicians in seeking a clearly etched policy that helps produce stability in Iraq and the Middle East without exposing the United States to a war without end -- a war where our goals and our strategies drift aimlessly, regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent.

Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue, Obama said.

He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: 'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I'm here, I'm willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'

GOP Unrest Dismissed As Sign of Election Year

Well it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that this mess was not going to get cleaned up on his watch.

This statement alone lets you know Bush is out of touch and in his own bubble.  * There's a certain unease as you head into an election year, he said.* Of course GOP unrest has a lot to do with the election year because they know they will have to answer to the people on election day, not Bush.

See link.

Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.

June 30, 2005

Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.

Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.

Analysis

Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.

The Bloodshed

Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.

Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?

What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index."  The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.

The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website  Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports.  Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.

The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.

Reconstruction Progress

In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:

Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . .  Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report  shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.

On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.

Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.

Conclusions or Facts?

The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"

Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.

In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.

Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.

The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.

Terrorism

Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.

Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .

Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.

Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:

Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.

But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.

Osama bin Laden

Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":

Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."

In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.

--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst

Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman

Bush: New Orleans may need a decade

NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- As he headed for the Gulf Coast on Monday, U.S. President George Bush told an interviewer he expects the rebuilding of New Orleans to take a decade.

Bush planned to spend the anniversary of the U.S. Gulf Coast landfall of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans after a visit to Biloxi, Miss. It was his 13th visit to the devastated area.

We can rebuild buildings, the question is can we rebuild its soul, he told April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. We can. I believe, 10 years from now April, you and I will be thinking about our time here, and trying to remember what it was like 10 years ago

Bush came under fire last year for apparently ignoring Katrina immediately after New Orleans flooded and then flying over the city in Air Force One.

Later White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said she wasn't aware of a specific time period but that the president has said all along that it would take more than a year to rebuild New Orleans.

In terms of like, 10 years, I don't know about exact time frame, but it's certainly going to take several years, Perrino said.

It's working, too!!  So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!

New twist on aid for Iraq: U.S. seeks donations

did you post a list of inflammatory statements about race out of any context whatsoever.

Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?

Next Tuesday, Barack Obama will be sworn in as our 44th President. On this historic occasion, PARADE asked the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children. Here, he shares his letter to them.

http://www.parade.com/news/2009/01/barack-obama-letter-to-my-daughters.html

Dear Malia and Sasha,

I know that you've both had a lot of fun these last two years on the campaign trail, going to picnics and parades and state fairs, eating all sorts of junk food your mother and I probably shouldn't have let you have. But I also know that it hasn't always been easy for you and Mom, and that as excited as you both are about that new puppy, it doesn't make up for all the time we've been apart. I know how much I've missed these past two years, and today I want to tell you a little more about why I decided to take our family on this journey.

When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me—about how I'd make my way in the world, become successful, and get the things I want. But then the two of you came into my world with all your curiosity and mischief and those smiles that never fail to fill my heart and light up my day. And suddenly, all my big plans for myself didn't seem so important anymore. I soon found that the greatest joy in my life was the joy I saw in yours. And I realized that my own life wouldn't count for much unless I was able to ensure that you had every opportunity for happiness and fulfillment in yours. In the end, girls, that's why I ran for President: because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation.

I want all our children to go to schools worthy of their potential—schools that challenge them, inspire them, and instill in them a sense of wonder about the world around them. I want them to have the chance to go to college—even if their parents aren't rich. And I want them to get good jobs: jobs that pay well and give them benefits like health care, jobs that let them spend time with their own kids and retire with dignity.

I want us to push the boundaries of discovery so that you'll live to see new technologies and inventions that improve our lives and make our planet cleaner and safer. And I want us to push our own human boundaries to reach beyond the divides of race and region, gender and religion that keep us from seeing the best in each other.

Sometimes we have to send our young men and women into war and other dangerous situations to protect our country—but when we do, I want to make sure that it is only for a very good reason, that we try our best to settle our differences with others peacefully, and that we do everything possible to keep our servicemen and women safe. And I want every child to understand that the blessings these brave Americans fight for are not free—that with the great privilege of being a citizen of this nation comes great responsibility.

 Sasha (l) and Malia Obama at play in New Hampshire in 2007. Bumper cars at the Iowa State Fair in August 2007.That was the lesson your grandmother tried to teach me when I was your age, reading me the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence and telling me about the men and women who marched for equality because they believed those words put to paper two centuries ago should mean something.

She helped me understand that America is great not because it is perfect but because it can always be made better—and that the unfinished work of perfecting our union falls to each of us. It's a charge we pass on to our children, coming closer with each new generation to what we know America should be.

I hope both of you will take up that work, righting the wrongs that you see and working to give others the chances you've had. Not just because you have an obligation to give something back to this country that has given our family so much—although you do have that obligation. But because you have an obligation to yourself. Because it is only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you will realize your true potential.

These are the things I want for you—to grow up in a world with no limits on your dreams and no achievements beyond your reach, and to grow into compassionate, committed women who will help build that world. And I want every child to have the same chances to learn and dream and grow and thrive that you girls have. That's why I've taken our family on this great adventure.

I am so proud of both of you. I love you more than you can ever know. And I am grateful every day for your patience, poise, grace, and humor as we prepare to start our new life together in the White House.

I don't know how to post a link in this forum, no link is here. 

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/72

That is such a typical party line statement, it took my breath away.  I am not saying that questioning and challenge is not good. It is.  But just joining in without question is frightening. It reminds me of Nazi Germany.  By the way, Not in Our Name is not what they seem to be.  I really question your causes, but certainly not your right to participate in them.  I would hardly wear being arrested, for whatever reason, as a badge of honor. It isn't.  There are many ways to support a cause and do it legally. 

'MAINSTREAM' USEFUL IDIOTS
By BYRON YORK

The organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one of a
small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from the antiwar
effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began as one.  The
group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past have been - and
today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical causes, including the
defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, support for Fidel Castro's
regime in Cuba and involvement with figures linked to Middle Eastern
terrorism.
The organization was created in March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing
activists that included representatives from the Revolutionary Communist
Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the
International League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild,
among others.

There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be
inclined to sign the statement )in opposition to a war on Iraq) might not
want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the group
created two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name Statement
(which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity signatures) and
the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which handles street
demonstrations and other protests).

Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently.
Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than
creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with so-called
fiscal sponsors - that is, already established foundations that could use
their tax-exempt status for fundraising.

THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a small
box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of Rights
Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In Our Name
Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal Revenue
Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing at all to do
with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar raised by the group for
several years went to the legal defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted
cop-killer whose case has become a cause célèbre among some on the Left.

In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which
$95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the
foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in 1999,
the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to Abu-Jamal's
lawyers.

At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team, leaving
the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002, it hooked up
with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president Judith Levin sees the
Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war as closely linked. They're
related as a matter of principle, she explains. The connection is the
violation of civil rights of people in this country.

FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another
foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community
Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to advance the
struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination, IFCO was
originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a variety of activist
organizations that lacked the resources to raise money for themselves.

In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization called
the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their partnership ended
when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt foundation). Founded in 1997 as
a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, the coalition says its function
is to oppose the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions.

Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of
South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for alleged
ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's board.)
According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is accused of
having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by another charity he
runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also reported that FBI
investigators suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a fund-raising front' for
the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from the late 1980s to 1995.
Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan Abdullah Shallah to the University
of South Florida to raise money for one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job
Shallah held until he later became the head of Islamic Jihad.

TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to the
Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy to
supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite of
IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a
solidarity conference in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, Long live
the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example of the
Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for the poor of
the world by Fidel Castro! Both IFCO and the Bill of Rights Foundation are
tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that all contributions made to
them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban solidarity rallies, or the
defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully tax-deductible.

The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records available
for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took in $1,119,564 in
contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not In Our Name Statement
report that they have taken in more than $400,000 in recent months for the
purpose of publishing their statement. It is not possible to say who is
giving the money, or whether it comes from many people or just a few;
federal laws do not require tax-exempt foundations to reveal their donors -
or even whether donations are received from inside or outside the United
States.

'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together, says
the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak, one might
think that is actually happening, that there really is a broad-based
movement represented by these activists. But a look at the people and
organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests otherwise - no matter how
many celebrity signatures they might collect.

Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the Feb. 24
issue

SEE BOTTOM OF MESSAGE FOR SIGN PIC FIRST.

======================================

CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch.

An employee from country radio station KMPS-FM in Seattle told CNN the sign was dropped off at the station by someone who found it in a ditch. "I thought it would be safe," Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor told CNN earlier Friday. "It's always a shock when your sign is censored or stolen or mutilated. It's not something you get used to." The sign, which celebrates the winter solstice, has had some residents and Christian organizations calling atheists Scrooges because they said it was attacking the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth.
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds," the sign from the Freedom From Religion Foundation says in part. The sign, which was at the Legislative Building at 6:30 a.m. PT, was gone by 7:30 a.m., Gaylor said. The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."

"I guess they don't follow their own commandments," Gaylor said. "There's nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech."

Gaylor said that police are checking security cameras pointed at the building's entrances and exits to see if they can see anyone stealing the sign.
 
"It's probably about 50 pounds, " Gaylor said. "My brother-in-law was huffing and puffing carrying it up the stairs. It's definitely not something you can stick under your arm or conceal."

The Washington State Patrol, which is handling the incident, could not be reached for comment.

Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher and co-founder of the group, said it was important for atheists to see their viewpoints validated alongside everyone else's.

Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God. (A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 23 percent of Washingtonians said they were unaffiliated with a religion and 7 percent said they didn't believe in God.)
"It's not that we are trying to coerce anyone; in a way our sign is a signal of protest," Barker said. "If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to he**ll if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."

He said if anything, it's the Nativity scene that is the intrusion.

"Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it's the other way around," he said. "People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans."

The scene in Washington state is not unfamiliar. Barker has had signs in Madison, Wisconsin, for 13 years. The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas.

In Washington, D.C., the American Humanist Association began a bus ad campaign this month questioning belief in God.

"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."

That ad has caused the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to field hundreds of complaints, the group said, but it has heard just as much positive feedback, said Fred Edwords, the association's spokesman.

Edwords said the ad campaign, which features a shrugging Santa Claus, was not meant to attack Christmas but rather to reach out to an untapped audience.

Edwords maintains the campaign began in December mostly because the group had extra money left over for the year. The connection to Christmas is a coincidence, he said.

"There are a lot of people out there who don't know there are organizations like ours to serve their needs," Edwords said. "The thing is, to reach a minority group, in order to be heard, everyone in the room has to hear you, even when they don't want to."

The ad campaign, Edwords said, is to make people think. He said he doesn't expect to "convert" anyone.
But the Christian Coalition of America is urging members to oppose the advertisements.

"Although a number of humanists and atheists continue to attempt to rid God and Christmas from the public square, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts," Roberta Combs, the group's president said in a press release.

"We will ask our millions of supporters to call the city of Washington, D.C., and Congress to stop this un-Godly campaign."

As far as the criticism goes, Edwords said there are far more controversial placards in Washington.
"That's D.C. -- this is a political center," he said. "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."

The anger over the display in Olympia began after it was assembled Monday. The sentiment grew after some national media personalities called upon viewers to flood the phone lines of the governor's office.

The governor's office told The Seattle Times it received more than 200 calls an hour afterward.

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

For some, the issue isn't even that the atheists are putting their thoughts on display, but rather the way in which they are doing it.

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."
The atheist message was never intended to attack anyone, Barker said.

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

bill with pork in it either but we see how well that went down.  Obama does nothing to hide his lies.  The media and kool-aid drinkers do it for him so he blatantly lies for all to see and yet his robots still refuse to see it. 

Our country is in serious trouble and all Obama cares about is spending spending spending for his own personal agenda.  Just another politican looking out for his own personal interests without giving a second thought to the Americans who are suffering.

STOP GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!

But am I the only one who finds it disgraceful that Americans are reduced to BEGGING this president, via a petition, to PLEASE do SOMETHING to help keep Americans safe? Every other word out of his mouth has to do with the "war on terror" (or whatever his phrase de jour currently is).  Yet, after four years, he STILL couldn't care less if our borders are secure.

This is not a new issue.  This is what some of us on these boards have been saying for a long time now.  After 9/11, experts in terrorism said we MUST secure our borders.  Instead, Bush chose to spend billions of dollars on his war against Iraq and throwing Americans to the wolves.

As I said, I will gladly sign this petition, not believing for a nanosecond that it will do any good because this president simply doesn't CARE.  And all that does is give me one more reason to loathe and despise him, and it increases the personal terror I feel daily at the fact that our safety lies in his thoroughly incompetent, ignorant, uncaring hands.