I second that.

The rise of Disaster Capitalism

www.vimeo.com/1233203

www.vimeo.com/882532


Experience?

Seems like this speaks for itself.

Seems like someone with sooooooo much experience on foreign relations should know the difference between a Shia and a Sunni?

No.. about a min. into this video McCain exposes himself for not knowing the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni.

The more you know.

********

My comment is from a excerpt from a poster above this comment. Who posted this?
Irrelevant I suppose.
************


You know, I hear Liberals wanting to "FIX TALK RADIO", that is a form of Censorship. They don't like what they hear on there and they think it needs to be fixed. Liberals Hate Rush and Sean Hannity and they would love for them to be off the Air. But it is funny how they don't want to fix CNN, a channel that should be called ONN, Aka Obama News Network.

There are tons of censorship out there, just the way you look at it...

********

Another misconception about who is what. CNN is one of the most agenda based online news sources I have researched.

I have spent more time on CNN then on any other news source combined.
If you know how to navigate through their system and dig into all the areas of CNN and their affiliations they have Mass Amounts of valuable input on many various areas.

BUT if you are new or unfamiliar how politics work and how the media plays a part fueling issues it can work against you.
If you are not open minded and are searching for a co-signer on a debate you are having- or there with narrow cause, you will likely click off the site bitter on the few articles you looked at that seemed bias. OR come off CNN with raging proof and promote CNN to all end.

It would be nice if people got on there and got their 'proof' so they would be pumped on CNN so they would spend immense amounts of time to figure out what CNN is about.

They are agenda driven.
I used them for a essay I wrote. 40% of the information I gathered came from CNN's site or the sites affiliates.
I got a A on that Essay, (lobbyist -professor)
AGAIN,
CNN is very agenda driven.
After I got that A and had spent so much time on CNN for research on that essay and began to think of everything I was able to access off that site.

I researched all the laws regarding to Presidential campaigning, History of elections.. the different areas to include a factual base, Voters issues, world issues, etc..

CNN became a place where I could go read up on current news. When I say current I mean current. I had it down pat.
Around 4 or 5am pst. was when the articles started being distributed online.
Let me tell you how agenda driven CNN is.
They would start posting these News articles like every 15 mins on average.
They would open up Comments for some.. on the bottom of the article it would say
Comment on this..
ok--now the trick is you have to be there right when they put that article online because they only leave comments open for 1-2 hours..
Some they don't open comments on.

Now they have moderators for the comments.
Your comment has to be approved.
:/
wtheck is that?
I sometimes would be the first poster and would check back after posting on another article and I would see my post still saying waiting for moderation after 45 mins. and while there are 75 posts already up in the forum approved. That is why you have to be there when they are first posted if you want to comment. But makes no difference- less than 2% of my posts ever got posted and from what I hear that is normal-what gets posted? Hateful posts/puma posts, 'I CAN'T believe you crazy nutso people' those got posted. I read through the posts that were approved. And I couldn't understand for a long time.
I would copy and paste my original post and resubmit and say can u please post this.. they did rarely after I asked two or three times..
beg
:/
but I seen people ranting in the forums...

'This won't get posted-they never get posted(one writes)- CNN what is wrong with you, why don't you post my submissions'.
I read what they wrote.
And it doesn't fit their agenda. It took me awhile to figure out they what they were doing.(or think they were doing)
After my civil posts that were informative.. directing people to fec.gov about checking PAC donations n such weren't getting posted... but people screaming in the forums doing personal attacks on others and candidates.. and generally it was on Obama/biden- and clearly puma type of posting, ya know the ones saying put hillary for vp or I'm voting McCain.. that is mostly the comments I seen in the forums, those types.

But their articles do reflect exposing McCain, or edgy things on the Repubs. So I got to thinking.

They are riling up people. Doing those so called 'leaks' and 'a source told me' stuff like that. Then letting the hostile Obama haters to do most the commenting on the bad jab at McCain.
And most know that is a no no in credible reporting. You always need to source your article.
That is why I do not care for CNN. It does fuel issues and intentionally baits readers and misleads public on 'a inside source', 'leaks' that don't exist.
Only thing I can say is stay away from comments.

And go into ireports for uncut/unedited for world news where people do their own type of reporting -- for ex.. when Russia invaded Georgia I watched that at times because people uploaded celly video's and home videos of what was really going on, things you don't see on tv. .. well and many other things like natural disasters around the world n such...
:/

Another less corporate controlled source is vimeo you all can check that out. That site has more than what any news could offer-it is an outlet that would appeal to anyone on any level.

I hope these are enriching and opens a new avenue for anyone interested.

cheers-

State of Alaska
Induced Termination
of Pregnancy Statistics
2007
Alaska Department of Health
and Social Services
Bureau of Vital Statistics
February 2008
Alaska Induced Termination of Pregnancy
Statistics 2007
Sarah Palin
Governor
State of Alaska
Karleen Jackson, PhD
Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
Beverly K. Wooley
Director
Division of Public Health
Phillip Mitchell, MS
Section Chief
Bureau of Vital Statistics
Prepared by the Research Unit of the Bureau of Vital Statistics
2007 Report
Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics
2007 Report Introduction
Alaska Induced Termination of Pregnancy Statistics, 2007, published by the Bureau of Vital
Statistics of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, contains information about
induced terminations that occurred in Alaska during calendar year 2007.
Why is induced termination reporting important? Induced termination data can be used to:
• Monitor trends in the number, rate, and ratio of induced terminations.
• Assess changes in the types of procedures used to end a pregnancy and the gestational
age (in weeks) when induced terminations are performed.
• Calculate pregnancy rates.
• Identify the characteristics of women who may be at risk for unintended pregnancy.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of family planning programs and programs to prevent
unintended pregnancy.
Unintended pregnancy refers to pregnancies that are unwanted or when the mother wanted
to be pregnant at a later date.





This report contains information on induced terminations that occurred in Alaska. In the past
several years over 200 Alaska women on average obtained induced terminations out of state. For
example, 223 Alaska women obtained induced terminations in Washington State during 2006.
It is unknown how many Alaska women obtained induced terminations in states other than
Washington. Since the out of state occurrence data is incomplete, it is not included in this report.

• A total of 1,701 induced terminations were reported in Alaska in 2007, with Alaska residents
accounting for 98.4 percent of the induced terminations that occurred in Alaska.
• Most (51.6 percent) of the women who obtained induced terminations in 2007 were less than
25 years of age. In the most recent year for which national data are available (2004), 50.2
percent of women who obtained an induced termination were less than 25 years of age.
• Women age 15 to 17 accounted for 7.5 percent of all induced terminations in Alaska during
2007, an increase from 6.3 percent in 2006.
• Teens (age 15 to 19 years) received 18.6 percent of the induced terminations in 2007. In 2004,
17.4 percent of women in the U.S. who obtained an induced termination were 19 or under.

http://hss.state.ak.us/dph/bvs/PDFs/itop/2007_ITOP_Report.pdf

Because I can, it is a given right to anyone that logs on to wikipedia to edit- It is part of the current educational system to know how wikipedia works and not to use or source it. The educational system takes you in a step by step process on sourcing/citing/referencing- It is amazing to me that people have a counter opinion once they have been explained to about that site. Hay don't waste time arguing a stale point with me read what wikipedia says themselves on 'what is, and what wikipedia is NOT,' on their facts pages. Which can probably be edited as well.
:/

It goes to show you it isn't about the content of information- or learning something, it is about 'the fight.' to some people.
:/


Common sense says, your posts are unreliable,

and now you have been deemed not worthy of my future review.

What people?

A five year old? Anyone in the living world with access to the internet can edit wikipedia.

You talking about those people-the world?
Great sourcing- 13 year olds bored at home bored with their friends doing random edits for kicks- those people?

:/


I edit on wikipedia-
=)

I can give You the link to the Alaska State Health dept.. they have all the statistics.. but I can't find a link on there that works for the teen pregnancies or abortions

Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
2,546,194 articles in English

You did not just use wikipedia as a source.
Jeez-

Republican-Democrat makes no difference...

Comments such as these are what show the integrity of the posters.
Palin has not been convicted of any scandal. Every family has problems, personal trials throughout raising kids.
That is life.
Relevance is to this, to me- any intentional misguided roads of deception she might have chosen.
It is not admirable to be making one of your first few speeches and seen to millions bashing people who have stood up for our country doing 3 decades of honorable work in our government.
Being condescending and so vocally opinionated in areas of politics she has never stood. Making strong statements of falsities because she has not been there to know.
On the other side of that- she should be well versed on things she speaks of- because of the position she has been currently placed.
That is some of what I find disappointing about Palin.

Committee Report 12 of 500 - Senate Report 110-331 - THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT OF 2007

69-010


Calendar No. 718

110TH CONGRESS

Report

SENATE
2d Session

110-331

--THE GLOBAL POVERTY ACT OF 2007


April 24, 2008- Ordered to be printed

Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,submitted the following

REPORT
[To accompany S. 2433]

The Committee on Foreign Relations, having had under consideration the bill (S. 2433) to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

CONTENTS Page
I. Purpose 1
II. Committee Action 2
III. Discussion 2
IV. Cost Estimate 3
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact 4
VI. Changes in Existing Law 4



I. PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 2433 is to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.


II. COMMITTEE ACTION
S. 2433 was introduced by Senators Obama, Hagel, and Cantwell on December 7, 2007. It is cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Lugar, Durbin, Menendez, Biden, Dodd, Feingold, Snowe, Murray, Harkin, Johnson, and Smith. On February 13, 2008, the committee considered the bill, and approved several minor amendments to it. The committee then ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably by voice vote.


III. DISCUSSION
The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (GPA) directs the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Currently, over 1 billion people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1.6 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day. The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries. At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015. Goal 1 of the Millennium Development Goals aims to reduce by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. The U.S. has established several significant initiatives in recent years that are consistent with this goal, including the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

Initiatives by the United States to reduce global poverty reflect the basic American principle of helping those in need to live with dignity and opportunity. They are also consistent with our national security priorities. The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004) recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'

The Global Poverty Act declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. It would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to advance that policy and includes guidelines for what the strategy should include--from foreign aid, trade, economic development, and debt relief, to working with the international community and leveraging the participation of businesses and nongovernmental organizations. The bill requires that the President's strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables. The President would also be required to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty reduction strategy.

The Global Poverty Act does not mandate new spending by the United States, nor does it commit the United States to any future spending. This bill does not commit the United States to advance the other Millennium Development Goals. Similarly, this bill does not commit the United States to other United Nations policy goals or imply concurrence with any other United Nations statements.

The bill requires the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for drafting the global poverty reduction strategy and assisting in its implementation. The language allows the Secretary discretion to designate a coordinator in the existing bureaucracy or to create a new position as the Secretary deems appropriate. It does not require the Secretary to create a staff for the coordinator; the coordinator should draw upon capabilities and resources already present at the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and other relevant agencies.

The House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which was sponsored by Representatives Adam Smith and Spencer Bachus, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives last September with bipartisan support.


IV. COST ESTIMATE
In accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 11(a) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee provides this estimate of the costs of this legislation prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.


U.S. Congress,


Congressional Budget Office,


Washington, DC, March 28, 2008.
Hon. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Michelle S. Patterson.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Sunshine

(For Peter R. Orszag, Director).

Enclosure.

S. 2433--Global Poverty Act of 2007

S. 2433 would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce global poverty. The strategy should include, among other things, more effective forms of development assistance, coordination of efforts with other countries and international organizations, and continuation of existing initiatives to reduce poverty and disease in developing countries. The bill also would require the State Department to prepare several reports describing the strategy, its implementation, and the progress made on achieving the objectives for reducing global poverty.

Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts.

S. 2433 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

The CBO staff contact to this estimate is Michelle S. Patterson. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.


V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 11(b) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee has determined that there is no regulatory impact as a result of this legislation.


VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee notes that no changes to existing law are made by this bill.

BIDEN: Gen. McNeil’s Advice on ‘Under-Resourced War’ Must Not Fall on Deaf Ears
June 3, 2008

Washington, DC -- Yesterday in Kabul, Afghanistan, General Dan McNeil, the American who has led NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), handed over his command. General McNeil told reporters: "This is an under-resourced war and it needs more maneuver units, it needs more flying machines, it needs more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance apparatus. I'm not just focused on the U.S. sector, I'm talking about across the country."

Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement:

“General McNeil’s straight talk about our ‘under-resourced’ war in Afghanistan must not fall on deaf ears. The lawless area between Afghanistan and Pakistan is where the people who actually attacked us on 9-11 reside and are regrouping. But we don’t have the troops or equipment to finish them off. When I met with General McNeil in Afghanistan in February, he told me that he could turn around the security situation in the south with two more combat brigades – about 10,000 troops. But he acknowledged he cannot get them because they are tied up in Iraq. Every extra day we keep 140,000 troops tied down in Iraq puts off the day we fully take the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIDEN: The Bush-McCain Continuum in Foreign Policy

BIDEN: 'When it comes to the most urgent national security challenges we face – Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – last week made it clear that stylistically and substantively, there is no day light between George Bush and John McCain.'

May 20, 2008

Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) delivered a speech entitled, “The Bush-McCain Continuum in Foreign Policy” today at the Center for American Progress.

The speech, as prepared for delivery, is below.

I want to thank John Podesta for bringing me here today and the entire team at the Center for American Progress for the work you do every day to move our country in a better direction.

We often talk about post-presidencies. John has had the most successful post-chief-of staff-dom I can think of. His work outside of the White House has been as important as his work inside the White House. John, progressives everywhere are in your debt.

Last week, we learned a lot about the style of the campaign our friends across the aisle plan to run. More important, we learned a lot about the substance of the foreign policy George Bush has been conducting and that John McCain would continue.

***

An Emerging, Ugly Pattern

The first thing last week revealed is an emerging, ugly pattern of political attacks masquerading as policy.

It started last month, when Senator McCain said: “I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others… If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.”

His surrogates repeated the charge.

Then, last week, the President unleashed a long distance swift boat attack on Senator Obama and Democrats in the Israeli Knesset: This White House long ago perfected the art of stringing together sentences that seem unobjectionable when read in isolation, but send a very different message when read together.

In the space of three paragraphs, the President cited the outrageous statements of Iran's leader about Israel; said "some" believe we should negotiate with “terrorists and radicals”; invoked "an American senator" in 1939 who said that talking to Hitler might have prevented World War II and the Holocaust; and tied it up in a neat bow as “the false comfort of appeasement.”

Then, the White House told the press on background that the remarks were a reference to calls by Senator Obama and other Democrats to engage with Iran, only to say later on the record that the President intended no such thing.

Karl Rove must be proud.

What is stunning is that this is the only president I know – and I've served with seven – who would engage in this kind of activity while overseas in the Knesset.

What is disheartening is that John McCain, a man I admire, endorsed the President’s remarks instead of repudiating them.

The President’s remarks reveal a man totally out of touch with his own administration – and with a long bi-partisan tradition in our foreign policy.

The day before the President spoke, his own Secretary of Defense called for engaging Iran. His Secretary of State has done so repeatedly.

The President himself authorized American diplomats to meet with their Iranian counterparts about Iraq. And he struck a deal with Libya's Qadafi and wrote polite letters to North Korea's Kim Jong Il, both of whom would make most people's top ten lists of "terrorists and radicals."

The President was right to engage Libya and North Korea… just as his cabinet officials are right to want to engage Iran… just as Presidents like Nixon and Reagan were right to engage the Chinese and the Soviets. The President was wrong to launch a political attack from abroad. John McCain was wrong to support him. It’s beneath the office of the Presidency.

***

Political Attacks Masquerading as Policy

What explains this pattern of attacks masquerading as policy?

I believe the purpose is to hide the failure of the foreign policy President Bush has pursued and that John McCain would continue and to distract the American people with the politics of smear and fear.

I’m equally convinced it will not work because that failure is so plain for all to see.

Under George Bush’s watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march:


Iran is much closer to the bomb;
Iran’s influence in Iraq is expanding;
Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and the country is on the brink of civil war.
Beyond Iran, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 09-11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9-11.
Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day.

And 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.

Because of the policies George Bush has pursued and John McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.

***

Dealing with Iran

Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Senator Obama was “naïve and inexperienced” for advocating engagement. “What is it he wants to talk about?” John asked.

If John can’t answer the question, we are in trouble.

There’s a lot to talk about, starting with Iran’s nuclear program, its support for Shiite militia in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

What’s John’s plan for dealing with these dangers? You either talk; you go to war; or you maintain the unacceptable status quo. If John has ruled out talking, that means we’re going to get more of what we’ve had for most of the Bush administration – or worse.

First, let’s end this false argument about “pre-conditions.” Senator Obama is right that the United States should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without insisting that Iran first freeze the program – the very subject of any negotiations. We didn’t insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before we talked to them about arms control. The net effect of demanding pre-conditions that Iran rejects is this: we get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.

Second, let’s stop the Bush/McCain fixation on regime change. We all abhor the regime, but think about the logic: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we’re still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.

Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing.

That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.

It also requires a more sophisticated understanding that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite and between Iran’s rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.

The Iranian people need to know that their government, not the United States, is choosing confrontation over cooperation.

Our allies and partners need to know that the United States will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails.

The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable.

It forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders.

It spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran’s pockets.

The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on isolation and tension is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary? It’s amazing how little faith President Bush and John McCain have in themselves and in America.

***

No Plan for Iraq

It is time for a total change in Washington’s world view. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.

Nowhere is this truer than in Iraq. The war stands like a boulder in the road between us and the credibility we need to lead in the world and the flexibility we require to meet our challenges at home.

Last week revealed that John McCain has no plan -- none -- to get us out of the mess the President has created in Iraq.

The same day that the President addressed the Knesset, Senator McCain talked about his vision for Iraq. John said that it is important for presidential candidates to "define their objectives and what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity."

But then he painted a picture of where he hopes to be in Iraq by the end of his first term without a single sentence explaining how he would get there. It's beyond vague: John McCain is totally silent about how he would realize his rosy vision for 2013.

In his speech, Senator McCain predicted that by 2013, "the Iraq war has been won."
How? He doesn’t say.

He foresaw that "Iraq [will be] a functioning democracy."

How? He doesn’t say.

By 2013, John said that "civil war has been prevented, militias disbanded, the Iraqi security force is professional and competent."

How? He doesn’t say.

John’s crystal ball also reveals a "government of Iraq capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq." Right now, it can't even impose its authority in Baghdad.

How do we get from here to there? John is silent.

***

The McCain Plan for Iraq: Just Stay

There’s a reason John is silent. John does have a plan – the very same plan that President Bush is pursuing: stay.

Stay in Iraq until we build a strong central government that secures the support of the people. Never mind that there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic security and services and little evidence the government in Baghdad will develop that trust and capacity any time soon.

Stay in Iraq until every last vestige of Iranian influence is eliminated

Stay in Iraq until every last member of “Al Qaeda in Iraq” is killed.

Stay in Iraq indefinitely.

In fact, when Senator McCain was asked whether his vision of the war being over by 2013 amounted to a timetable, he responded, "It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win.”

Like President Bush, John grounds his argument for a war with no end in his assessment of the dire consequences of drawing down our forces Iraq.

He argues that Iraq is the meeting point for two of the greatest threats to America: Al Qaeda and Iran.

It’s an argument laden with irony. Who opened Iraq’s door to Al Qaeda and Iran? President Bush. Who would keep it open? John McCain.

“Al Qaeda in Iraq” is a Bush-fulfilling prophecy: it wasn’t there before the war, but it is there now.
As to Iran, its influence in Iraq went from zero to sixty when we toppled Saddam’s Sunni regime and gave Shi’ite religious parties inspired and nurtured by Iran a path to power.

No matter how we got to this point, President Bush and Senator McCain argue that if we start to leave, it will further empower Al Qaeda and Iran.

I believe they are exactly wrong.

And so do a large number of very prominent retired military and national security experts who recently testified before the Foreign Relations Committee.

Would drawing down really strengthen ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ and give it a launching pad to attack America?

Or would it help eliminate what little indigenous Iraqi support ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ retains?

‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ is down to about 2000 Iraqis and a small number of foreigners whose almost exclusive focus is Iraq. When we draw down, the most likely result is that Iraqis of all confessions will stamp out its remnants – and we can retain a residual force in or near Iraq to help them finish the job.

What about Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan? If we draw down, would they be emboldened?

Or, to paraphrase the National Intelligence Estimate on Terrorism, would they lose one of their most effective recruiting tools -- the notion that we’re in Iraq to stay, with permanent military bases and control over the oil?

And would they finally risk the full measure of America’s might?

Senator McCain has taken a lot of heat for saying he would not mind if American troops stay in Iraq for a hundred years. The truth is, he was trying to make an analogy to our long term presence in peaceful post-war Germany, post-armistice Korea and post-Dayton Bosnia.

But Germany, Korea or Bosnia after the peace are nothing like Iraq today – with thousands of bombs, hundreds of American injured and dozens of American killed every month -- and there is little prospect Iraq will look like them anytime soon.

Worse, saying you’re happy to stay in Iraq for one hundred years fuels exactly the kind of dangerous conspiracy theories about America’s intentions throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds that aid radical recruitment and that we should be working to dispel.

That’s why I have repeatedly written legislation barring permanent bases in Iraq and why Senators Jim Webb, Bob Casey and I wrote into the emergency budget now before the Senate a requirement that Congress approve any long term security agreements this administration negotiates with Iraq.

What about Iran?

The idea that we can wipe out every vestige of Iran’s influence in Iraq is a fantasy. Even with 160,000 American troops in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, our ally in Baghdad greets Iran’s leader with kisses. Like it or not, Iran is a major regional power and it shares a long border – and a long history – with Iraq.

Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000 Americans troops bogged down and bleeding, caught in a cross fire of intra Shi’a rivalry and Sunni-Shi’a civil war.

By drawing down, we can take away Iran’s ability to wage a proxy war against our troops and force Tehran to concentrate on avoiding turmoil inside Iraq’s borders and instability beyond them.

***

The Consequences of Leaving or the Costs of Staying?

We should debate the consequences of drawing down in Iraq.

But more important, we should talk about what both President Bush and Senator McCain refuse to acknowledge: the costs of staying.

The risks of drawing down are debatable. The costs of staying with 140,000 troops are knowable – and they get steeper every day:

The continued loss of the lives and limbs of our soldiers;
The strain on our troops and their families due to repeated, extended tours;
The drain on our Treasury – $12 billion every month;
The impact on the readiness of our armed forces – tying down so many troops that, as Army Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Richard Cody recently said, we don’t have any left over to deal with a new emergency; and
The inability to send enough soldiers to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda has regrouped and is plotting new attacks.
When I visited Afghanistan in February, General McNeil, who commands the international force, told me that with two extra combat brigades – about 10,000 soldiers – he could turn around the security situation in the south, where the Taliban is on the move. But he can’t get them because of Iraq.

Even when we do pull troops out of Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, says he would want to send them home for a year to rest and retrain before sending them to Afghanistan.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day when we fully join the fight against the real Al Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who attacked America seven years ago.

I believe we must focus our remaining energy and initiative in Iraq on achieving what virtually everyone agrees is the key to stability: a political power sharing agreement among its warring factions.

The only path to such a settlement is through a decentralized, federal Iraq that brings resources and responsibility down to the local and regional levels.

We need a diplomatic surge to get the world’s major powers, Iraq’s neighbors and Iraqis themselves invested in a sustainable political settlement.

Sixteen months into the military surge that President Bush ordered and Senator McCain embraced, we’ve gone from drowning to treading water. We are no closer to the President’s stated goal of an Iraq that can defend itself, govern itself and sustain itself in peace. We’re still spending $3 billion every week and losing 30 to 40 American lives every month.

We can’t keep treading water without exhausting ourselves and doing great damage to our other vital interests around the world. That’s what both the President and Senator McCain are asking us to do.

* * *

When it comes to the most urgent national security challenges we face – Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – last week made it clear that stylistically and substantively, there is no day light between George Bush and John McCain.

They are joined at the hip.

There would be no change with a McCain presidency and so there will be a real choice for Americans next November.

Or, those war supporters aren't sending tangible support maybe they should help out with some gifts of armor.

Yea, I can not believe how much money is going out to other countries, but my mind doesn't register monies in that quantity- anyway they should be leaving with all that protective gear b4 they leave the states, ya know?

BIDEN/HAGEL/CASEY/VOINOVICH/WEBB Introduce Bill on Iraq Security Agreements
August 1, 2008

Washington, DC – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) and Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Bob Casey (D-PA), George Voinovich (R-OH) and Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation which prohibits the Bush Administration from entering into a binding security agreement without the approval of Congress.

“With less than six months left in his term, the President is on a course to commit the United States to guarantee Iraq’s security far into the future,” said Senator Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This legislation makes clear that the President cannot do that without Congressional approval. Rather than engaging in these negotiations – which by the Administration’s admission will ‘set the broad parameters’ of the U.S.-Iraq relationship – the President should secure a short-term agreement, through the UN, or with Iraq, to provide the necessary legal protection for U.S. forces after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.”

“A strategic framework for a continued U.S.-Iraqi relationship that includes future U.S. security commitments and arrangements will be sustainable only with strong and broad political support in both the United States and Iraq. Only direct involvement by and partnership with the Congress will ensure a consensus of support in the United States,” said Senator Chuck Hagel.

“Unfortunately, the Administration continues to handle long-term security negotiations in the same manner that has characterized its entire approach to Iraq since 2003, without Congressional input,” said Senator Casey. “Now we have no choice but to require Congress to approve any U.S.-Iraq strategic agreement that includes provisions committing the United States to the defense of Iraq against aggression.”

“It is imperative that Congress exercise its proper authority on the vital issue of our future relationship with Iraq, and on the question of whether the United States should maintain a long-term presence in that country,” said Senator Webb. “This bipartisan legislation would ensure that any agreement with Iraq would not be implemented without the explicit consent of Congress and protects the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate in this important national security matter.”

The Administration is negotiating two agreements with Iraq – a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) – pursuant to the “Declaration of Principles” signed by President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki last November. The Declaration called for the conclusion of the agreements by yesterday, July 31, 2008, which would cover a broad range of topics, including political, economic and security issues. In the security sphere, the Declaration proposed to commit the United States to “[s]upporting the Republic of Iraq in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats” and to provide “security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and [the] integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.”

The Administration has asserted that neither the SFA nor the SOFA will contain a binding security commitment. One of the agreements, however, will likely contain a lesser security promise – described as a security arrangement – that involves a pledge to consult on appropriate steps if Iraq is threatened or attacked. With over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi security forces, the government and people of Iraq are likely to perceive such a promise as a security guarantee.

“The notion that Iraq’s leaders plan to submit the agreement to their Parliament – but our President does not – makes no sense,” Senator Biden added. “The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval first.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIDEN/BOND/ROCKEFELLER/KENNEDY Call for Investigation into Delays Getting Wartime Equipment to the Frontlines

February 27, 2008


Washington, DC - United States Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Kit Bond (R-MO), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sent a letter today to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, calling for the Department of Defense to investigate repeated delays in getting wartime equipment to our troops on the frontlines.


The Senators wrote: "Our front line forces must be supported by a modern system that quickly meets their needs, not a slow and lumbering bureaucracy better suited to the last century. As important, our military men and women and their families deserve to know that we are giving them the best possible equipment when they need it."


The full letter is included below:


February 27, 2008


The Honorable Robert M. Gates

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000


Dear Secretary Gates:


As we begin review of the budget request for the Department of Defense for Fiscal Year 2009, we remain concerned that the rapid acquisition systems designed to support our fighting forces are not working as well as they should. A Naval Audit Service Report on the Marine Corps Urgent Universal Need Statement Process issued September 28, 2007 concluded, "The UUNS process, at the time of our audit, was not effective." Since that time, the Marine Corps authorized one of its senior civilians to conduct case studies on several items urgently requested by commanders in Iraq, including the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. These case studies, while not definitive in and of themselves, also point to trends and problems in the system as a whole.


We know that the Marine Corps has made some improvements, but we are concerned that they and the other services have not come far enough. For example, an urgent needs request for Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) protection was submitted on February 17, 2005 as part of the first MRAP Urgent Universal Needs Statement. On January 13, 2007 that request was renewed, yet we are still five or six months from fielding even limited quantities of EFP protected vehicles. In addition, the Army's delays in initially fielding better body armor, up armored humvees, and MRAPs appear to be symptoms of the same problems.


It is essential that we fix this system. The enemy is quick and adaptable, which makes it imperative that we are too. Our front line forces must be supported by a modern system that quickly meets their needs, not a slow and lumbering bureaucracy better suited to the last century. As important, our military men and women and their families deserve to know that we are giving them the best possible equipment when they need it.


It is difficult to reform while engaged in the fight, but we believe we must if we are going to win the fight. We applaud your decision to initiate an IG investigation of the MRAP issue, but we urge you to conduct a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of all of our wartime acquisition processes, in all of the services and at the joint level, building on the work done by the Army with the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations.


Such a comprehensive, Department-widereview should, at a minimum, address the following questions: Are we capturing the lessons learned? Are we measuring performance appropriately? How much influence do budgetary constraints play on decisions? Is there an appropriate balance between urgent wartime needs and long-term military readiness? Do we need to modify laws or regulations to become more nimble, while still providing the accountability and reliability the American people expect? In answering these questions, the MRAP and related case studies will be informative as examples of problem areas and, as the past year showed with MRAP, ways in which problems were overcome. We believe the existing case studies done within the Marine Corps and reviews like that done by the Naval Audit Service will also be helpful.


If the effort to provide EFP protection is any guide, unfortunately, we are still not accelerating our development and fielding efforts adequate to meet the current threat. It is time for a comprehensive effort to give the American military the full benefit of the nation's production and development capacity.


Sincerely,


Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

United States Senator


Christopher S. Bond

United States Senator


John D. Rockefeller

United States Senator


Edward M. Kennedy

United States Senator

Something doesn't jive with fox messing w/a republican

hay, I'm not sure if you been doing research or ran across that, but if you are researching or have researched- and if you come across an open link on the Alaska State Health gov website that goes to pregnancies/abortions can ya let me know. I am just curious nothing else.
I was on the official eh, health statistics page, but that is the only link that had an internal error... and it was tricky to find the statistics page as it was.

I am more of like 'the more ya know' type of person.

I'm curious why that was the only dead link- very well could of been a coincidence. Was odd all the same..

Thanks-