Have you ever written a post that has been completely misunderstood?  That you wrote really badly?  I did that earlier today.  John Nail, stillidealistic, and haremoor were kind enough to respond.  Those responses told me how poorly the post was written.  I was trying in my feeble way to get you guys ticked off because I'm passionate about the subject.  How I wish I could write like Deanie.  It was a post about Taheri's destructive articles, and how the attempts at debunking them aren't working.  I'm also aware that when this community gets involved, things happen.  I'm a huge Obama supporter & I hope you'll give the post another look and get involved.  BTW, I was touched that you weren't cruel when you thought I was on the other side. 

I'm a military parent who was going to support Obama until I read that he's been lying about plans to bring our troops home.  He's been telling the public that's what he'll do, but he's been secretly urging the Iraqi Government to delay an agreement with the Bush administration to draw down our troops.  He doesn't want any troops leaving while Bush is in office because he wants to looks like a hero and bring them home on his own terms when he's elected.  Amir Tahiri has written at least 3 articles about it and people are saying it's true.
I'm pissed. 
Because that's the kind of comment you'll see in response to the Taheri articles. 
A few days ago, Josh wrote that he'd get back to it, but I suspect that the economic crisis has diverted his attention.  Taheri and his ilk are running with it and I'm afraid it's snowballing.
In my opinion, McCain has sold another piece of his soul by sending Scheunemann out with his "political interference" statement.  He is content to let a military mom or dad who has been counting on Obama's promises to get their kid home ASAP believe it's been a lie.  I wonder how many of the troops believe the lie.  In fact, I wonder if there are cease-fire factions in Iraq who might change their stance if they believe Obama is lying about his position.  This is the kind of smear that can get people killed.  Taheri has an edge--he tells his stories to the Iraqi people in their language.
These aren't just innocent articles by a discredited author.  The articles themselves are "political interference" of the kind that Obama is fighting against.  When you can't get the votes based on your position, skew your opponent's position.  It's disgusting.
If you feel unqualified to contribute to the discussion on the economic crisis, then please address the Taheri issue.  But you won't be able to fight this one with Obama quotes alone.  On this one, it helps if you know the background of the various "agreements" that are at the heart of the issue.  The "agreements" should have become a national debate last November when the "Declaration of Principals" was released.  Understanding the agreements is important because if a reporter doesn't know one agreement from the other, they paraphrase Obama and leave an opening for Taheri to "quote" Obama.  Taheri paraphrases and then paraphrases the paraphrasers.  Brilliant.  He offers just enough truth to confuse his readers.  Limbaugh went so far as to take one of Taheri's oft-quoted Zebari statements and add a few words of his own to the quote.  I guess he thought no one would notice.  His title reads, "Obama camp confirms treasonous actions on Iraq trip".
My assessment is this:  Obama, along with many others in Congress and many notable Republicans, is concerned that the Bush administration will commit America to an agreement that may OBLIGATE our troops to engage in combat in the future.  It's obviously more complicated than that, but the bottom line is that reasonable people believe that the Bush administration should delay making any agreement that could lock the American people into commitments that they don't support.  We should know by now that the Bush administration plays by a different set of rules than the rest of us--if you don't call the "agreement" a treaty, then it's not and therefore, doesn't require Congressional approval even if it has treaty-like obligations.  But the next administration may have to figure out how to untangle us from what the rest of the world views as "international obligations". 
McCain should have had Scheunemann come out and support Obama's position instead of fueling the smear.   Unless, of course, McCain believes that Bush should lock him into agreements that he may not support.  Or, perhaps he's been so busy campaigning that he's not paying attention to the multiple hearings on the issue and the calls for Congressional inclusion in the decisions.  My take is that his response speaks to his lack of integrity.
The hearing transcript that will bring you up to speed on the difference between the various "agreements" is this: 
 http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/41061.pdf
Google Taheri and Obama to get an idea about the snowballing smear.

 

At the risk of breaking "the rules", I'm posting this a second time.  I think that voters who may not have seen it have a right to know how Hillary is viewed in Iran.  So many viewed her comments as similar to Bush but for some reason she's gotten a pass in the MSM.  So much of our future will depend on how we are perceived around the world and this is a terrible first step.
http://therealnews.com/id/1436/20080503/Clinton+exchanges+threats+with+Iranian+cleric

http://therealnews.com/id/1436/20080503/Clinton+exchanges+threats+with+Iranian+cleric

Not good with links, but go to the site if this doesn't work.  You don't have to agree with leaders elsewhere to understand that their perceptions matter and that millions listen to them. 

We live in Washington state and my 17 year old daughter received a voter registration application from Women's Voices, Women Vote.  She'd set it aside and we didn't really think too much about it until I read the articles yesterday.  (We did wonder at the time how her name and address got on a mailing list.)  She has no intention of registering with this form since WA state makes it so easy to register online through the state website, but the mailing is disturbing.

If the intent of this group is to encourage registration, why not just send a letter that identifies the state's registration site? 

This feels like caging.  The form asks for personal information.  When you go to the "Voter Participation Center" (identified in the mailing as a project of Women's Voices), one question and answer is this:

"11) Do you sell my name or have information about me?

The voter registration forms are not opened by staff at the Voter Participation Center. They are either mailed directly to your voting official or they are collected and delivered directly to your voting official without ever being opened."

One of the things I noticed is that the zip code on their return envelope is different from the zip stated on the secretary of state's website for mail-in registration.  In addition, there are two barcodes with the address.  I'm wondering where the barcodes send the envelope.  My local post office tells me they can't read the codes for me.  Anybody here know how to read barcodes?

 

 

  

Want a different perspective?  Go here:
http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=1314&thisview=item

I've been checking in at "therealnews.com" recently.  I don't see it cited often, and I'm wondering if anyone else has a view about the reliability of the site.

Maybe this has already been examined, in which case, NEVERMIND.
Unless there are a lot of us with really weird names, I suspect that some of the glitches have to do with the account set-up.
I think  people expect that everything they post will publish under their "display name".  But it doesn't.   

It looks like when you blog, your "full name" is attached to the heading and the blog itself, UNLESS you've edited your "full name" out of your profile, in which case your byline is blank when your blog is opened.

When your "full name" and your "display name" are different, your "display name" is attached to your comments, but not to your blog.

I'm also wondering if the recommend link is missing if your "full name" is missing on your profile.  ??

Comments, please. 
 

I've always been puzzled why "family values" types hated Hillary as well as Bill after the Lewinsky affair.  I found her loyalty admirable, especially in the face of such public humiliation.  I gave her extra credit because I assumed that she weighed the terrible cost to the Nation had she left Bill while he was still in office, and I believe that people throw away relationships too easily.
I'm saddened now that she's not as generous with Obama and his supporters.  She heard his explanation and I'm certain she's heard that many of his supporters accepted that explantion.  I accept Obama's explanation that Reverand Wright "contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years." 
Many of us forgave Bill because we could see the "good and the bad", and Hillary's choice to stay with him was completely personal.  I suspect that she and Bill had conversations with Chelsea regarding the complexity of important relationships. 
I suspect that Barack and Michelle have the same kinds of conversations with their young daughters regarding the complexities of their community.
But when Hillary says that "you don't choose your family", I'd like to remind her that she chose Bill, the good and the bad.  Many of us assigned class and generosity to her in the face of all of the criticism, and admired her for rejecting our throw-away society.
I am truly saddened to see a pattern that suggests that she is not the woman I've admired all these years.

House.gov 
Senate.gov

No FISA immunity.

Contact your representatives in both houses even if they didn't support immunity.  Tell them to pressure their colleagues who did.  Contact Pelosi and Reid as well.

I keep thinking about a hearing that I watched recently.  The substance of the hearing was valuable; legal assessments about the "Declaration of Principles" with Iraq, SOFAs, etc.  In part, it was interesting because there were only four representatives asking questions so the answers were thorough and informative. 

Beyond the substance however, was the remarkable opening statement by Dana Rohrbacher.  If you're as tired of partisan rhetoric as I am, you'll find it refreshing.  Chairman Delahunt called it eloquent.

I certainly don't agree with all of Rep. Rohrbacher's statements or conclusions, but many of his thoughts echoed those I've heard from speakers I admire.  I keep thinking that there must be some value to the country if other republicans hear one of their own stating those ideas.  I know that I'm guilty of closing my ears to those I don't trust.

Rep. Rohrbacher talks about the Constitution and the role of Congress.  He talks about participation in open discussions and how denial breeds mistrust on the part of Congress and the public.  He talks about the perception of deals being reached behind closed doors.  And amazingly, he states the line that I used as my title.

His words, his criticisms, have been used in any number of scenarios in recent years, but I for one, have felt like the right is deaf because they've mainly been said by the left.

If nothing else, watch the hearing to learn more about the danger that I  believe may be just around the corner.  I'm afraid that it's possible that speakers on the issue are clueless--if they don't know, they can't be accused of lying to Congress.  The "decider" may decide without their knowledge.

The hearing can be found on C-Span and the Foreign Affairs website.  It was held by the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight on 2-8-08.

Hopefully, when you get up on Saturday morning, you won't hear that a deal has been made and that you've been sold out.  The leadership stayed in town, but they might want to go home.  It seems to me that time is running short.  This may be your last opportunity to say that enough is enough; not just to yourself or in a blog that you hope someone will read. 

Your indignation and bitching won't help the really talented bloggers who are quoted occasionally on the floor of the house or senate or in the media.  Your legislators need to hear from you directly.  Anecdotal evidence about the anger of the masses just won't cut it.  Hello.

A post on Friday pointed you to Glenn Greenwald.  Thank you Carol. (salon.com/opinion/greenwald).  Greenwald has explained FISA, "amnesty", the recent fisa votes--names included, and he's provided a link to a firedoglake petition.  Read Greenwald's synopsis of the last few days if you're still confused about the urgency of the issue or if you want to sign the petition.  Email the synopsis to friends and family and ask them to sign the petition too.

I read a blog today that said something like "we need to develop a website where we can go to complain to congress."  What?!  I can't even imagine what it costs us to run the house and senate sites.  Use them.  They do everything but fill out the form for you.  How's this for the comment:  "I will not support you again if you accept telecom immunity.  Support the Restore Act."

With all of the bitching out there, you'd think that the mainstream media would be reporting that congress is having difficulty keeping up with the calls and emails.  Call, write; tell your friends and family to do the same.

I know, I'm naive.  If I'm wrong about this, may a satellite fall out of the sky into my backyard.

Oh, crap. 

Please don't sit in silence and then wonder why you weren't heard.

Exclusivity:  House dems want it; Senate rejected it.
Immunity:    House didn't include it; Senate did.

The difference is that one could be fixed later (exclusivity), and the other can't be undone, ever (immunity).

What is the rush on the immunity issue?  This provision should be taken out of the final bill and debated later.  The suits don't threaten future cooperation by the telecoms; warrants compel cooperation.

Please demand that your representatives adopt this reasonable compromise.

Write at:  house.gov (there's even a link in the upper left-hand corner), and senate.gov.  Easy

It's not often that we have an opportunity to make our voices heard in a meaningful way, but if you support Senator Obama, today is the day.  With your action, you can help put thousands of voices behind his votes in the Senate today by contacting your representatives to demand that retroactive immunity be stripped from the FISA bill.  We have a right to have our courts examine the evidence.  It isn't too late for you to make a difference in the outcome.

Do more than support Senator Obama in November.  Tell the country that you really are paying attention to the issues, and that you agree with his votes today.  When he's elected, he won't be able to undo what the retroactive immunity provision will accomplish.  We'll never know what happened.

Please contact your representatives today and tell them that retroactive immunity cannot prevail.

Senator Leahy has made it easy.  Go to leahyforvermont and click on the "improving FISA" link.  Ask your friends to participate.

I was up very late waiting for the final results.  I agree that something strange was going on.  I kept checking here, at CNN, Fox and at the state Republican site.  I'm pretty sure that Fox called it at 83% while that number was still posted at the state site, but before the site announced the winner.  But, I'm also pretty sure that CNN posted 87% before the state site posted that number.  Nothing was matching up.