Republican failure

Mission Accomplished: Five Years on...

It is now five years since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Five years since Bush gloated that we had won...and yet almost every day brings more casualties. We are STILL mired in Iraq, still have no exit strategy. And Osama bin Laden, who has never set foot in Iraq, remains free and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization is stronger than ever.

Bush has failed.

And John McCain has vowed to continue Bush's Iraq Quagmire for as long as 100 years. Yes...he said he would be fine with continuing this failure for 100 years. Let's look at McCain's views of Bush's failed Iraq Quagmire: (thanks to MoveOn.org)


* John McCain recently said, "No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have."1 He was Bush's strongest ally in the march to war in Iraq. McCain consistently repeated the same misjudgments made by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and President Bush. More than 4,000 American troops have lost their lives because of these misjudgments.2
* McCain says we could be in Iraq for 100 years, and has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq.3 He'd rather dump billions more in Iraq than invest it in our economy back home.


mole333's picture

| | | |

Cost of War: How would you spend it?

Healthcare is failing in America. Farmers are hurting. The poor are getting poorer. We can't fix our roads, levees and bridges. The deficit spirals out of control. We are told we can't afford to secure out ports against terrorism. And education is underfunded.

And the Iraq war is costing us $720 million per day. Wouldn't that money be spent on improving life here in America?

From the American Friends Service committee:


Bush is hurting America with this failed war based on lies and with no exit strategy. McCain has vowed to continue Bush's failed war. It is time to stop the stupidity and neglect of America by the Republican Party.


mole333's picture

| | | |

Would El Al Care About a Jar of Nutella?

I used to love flying. I used to love airports. Well, the cost and increasing inconvenience have taken the fun out of flying in America. Only when flying overseas does my former love of flying come out because overseas the security is more sensible, the flights more comfortable, and the personnel more friendly.

What are we getting for our inconvenience and increasing costs? Supposedly increased security, but does it really make sense to force parents to pour out their child's milk or juice or to prevent parents from taking aquafor onto planes? Does this really make us safer?

A friend of mine in California flew back from a trip to Europe recently. She flew from her European destination through Paris, to a stopover in America and then home to Los Angeles. In her carryon was an unopened jar of Nutella. For those who don't know about this, it is a hazelnut spread that some Europeans love on toast. Obviously a threat to our national security.

My friend got on her plane in Europe without anyone caring about her jar of Nutella. She then went through the Paris airport without anyone caring about her jar of Nutella. Then she reached America and she was told that she could not take her unopened jar of Nutella on her next flight. The security agent took this VERY seriously, was stern and even threatening.

Now, my friend managed to convince the person to let her take it using methods I will not reveal...suffice it to say age and gender can be used to advantage. But what struck me was that an item that is completely harmless was not viewed with suspicion in Europe but was considered a major concen by security in the US.


mole333's picture

| | | |

Extremists winning...we are now losing Bahrain

In Bush's "Forever War" crusade against Islam, one of the nations he has touted as a strong ally has be Bahrain, the oil-rich nation that has long balanced Shiite and Sunni Islam in relative stability. Bush's failed foreign policy has destabilized huge swaths of the Middle East, creating conditions that I have been predicting are ripe for a rising, religious extremist caliphate, a united, fundamentalist Islamic movement that will rise from the Republican failures to dominate the Middle East for decades to come.

Muslim extremists are rising in Iraq, a nation that before our invasion was predominantly secular and modern. The Taliban and al-Qaeda is resurgent in Afghanistan and Pakistan, becoming powerful enough that Republican Senate FORMER-Majority Leader Bill Frist is talking of cooperating with the Taliban to save our asses in Afghanistan. Somalia has now been taken over by a new, Somali Taliban.

Now, our ally Bahrain is slipping into the extremist camp. This, more than anything previous, is proof that we are losing badly to extremists...as our moderate Muslims world wide.


mole333's picture

| | | | | | | |

US Military to GOP: GET OUT NOW!

GET OUT OF IRAQ.

GET OUT OF CONGRESS.

This is the message, spoken loud and clear, by Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, two retired senior Army generals, both of whom served in Iraq and both of whom previously voted Republican. Both are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress while bitterly condemning Bush's failures.

This comes close on the heels of a leading organization of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), giving most Congressional Republicans worse ratings on their handling of war, terrorism and veterans' issues than Congressional Democrats. (Above linked article only looks at the New York State delegation).

And, of course, we also have an entire slate of Iraq and Afghanistan war vets running for Congress, almost ALL of them Democrats who bitterly condemn Bush's handling of the war, terrorism and veterans' issues. Some 21 Fighting Dem candidates, running in some 16 states, are doing their best to defeat Bush's failed policies.

From top to bottom, those who know the most about Bush's war are condemning it and pusing for a Democratic takeover in Congress.

From Salon.com:


mole333's picture

| | | | | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Poll

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 1782 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify