Thursday, May 25, 2006

How to Buy a Federal Judge, Killing Civilians, AEI has a Plan and Dem vs. Dem.



Under the current political regime it's certainly conceivable that some of us may be going before a federal judge. At this time it seems the best way to garner judicial sympathy is by donating to either the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) or George Mason University's Law & Economics Center.

These organizations, who've said in the past they receive no corporate funding and of course, they were lying, provide happy places for federal judges to get away with some interested parties to relax and be lobbied.

There are 349 judges that have, at least, given the impression that their decisions might be swayed. They have taken a total of 1,158 all expense paid getaways. This is up to 2004, you know it's got to be a lot more now.

Why do we put up with this?

Two organizations that have provided free trips to hundreds of federal judges
received large contributions from tobacco, oil and other corporate interests,
according to documents released yesterday.

U.S. military officially apologized for the deaths of 16 civilians in Afghanistan. But we also placed the responsibility on the Taliban and got some afghans to agree. Therefore, the whole incident was the fault of the Taliban, with the exception of the killing part. So be good little Americans and don't think about the killing of civilians, just think bad Taliban. Any good conservative will tell you it's not killing civilians, it's just damaging the collateral.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, May 24 -- The U.S. military expressed regret Wednesday
for the deaths of a reported 16 civilian villagers Monday in U.S. airstrikes
near here, but officials and elders said Taliban insurgents were responsible for
the
incident.
"We never wanted this to happen," Col. Thomas Collins, a U.S. military
spokesman, told reporters in Kabul, the capital. "The ultimate cause of
civilians being injured and killed was that the Taliban knowingly and willingly
chose to occupy homes. . . . We do everything we can to prevent killing
civilians."

But the article goes on to say that U.S. officials can't accurately determine the number of civilians killed and wounded. Afghan witnesses place the number much higher than U.S. estimates.

Witnesses have told Afghan journalists that the number of dead and wounded was
far higher than the number cited by Khalid and that the air attacks took place
in more than one village. U.S. officials said they were assessing the damage and
could not confirm the number of dead or wounded civilians.

We've lost control of Afghanistan and Iraq, it's only going to get worse and it's about time to leave.

Dan Blumenthal is a resident fellow in Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute. In other words, he propounds government policies that will be advantageous for big business.

In this WaPo article, he lays out the Chinese military buildup pretty well. But he shows his true colors at the end when he concludes that the only way to counter it. is by throwing more money at the defense contractors.

A stronger commitment by the Pentagon to developing long-range surveillance and
strike capabilities would make Beijing less confident that it could use its vast
territory as a sanctuary for its missile and other "disruptive" forces.
Upgrading our undersea warfare capabilities will improve our regional freedom of
action.

Democrat takes on Democrat in California's 36th Congressional District. Will it be new Democrat or S.O.S.?

Idealism versus realism? In the argument about the meaning of being a
Democrat in 2006, nothing is so charged as one's choice of words and language.
Both of these candidates are "progressives," as they describe themselves. Both
agree on equal rights for gays and lesbians, both support abortion rights, both
emphasize environmental protection. Indeed, both pretty much agree on what's
important in this primary, wherein the victor becomes the odds-on favorite in
the November finale.

They part, however, on the essential question of how Democrats should
confront U.S. engagement in Iraq.

3 comments:

  1. Afghanistan...this is the same ploy I remember from my days in Vietnam where "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Didn't work then. Won't work now. Winning Hearts and Minds, one dead civilian at a time...

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In regard to the China article, I think it is amusing to see a right-winger trying to assume the mantle of geopolitical policy wonk. Bush's penchant for reckless imperial adventures has just about eliminated any possibility of the U.S. running the world and thus controlling the Chinese. The Chinese understand that they have to take care of themselves. So do the leaders of every other major power. That means, not submitting to the US, but dealing with it in such a way as to protect one's own interests.

    ReplyDelete

I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.

John Stuart Mill (May 20 1806 – May 8 1873)