HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 39,405

Journal Archives

What will Washington do when they realize no one believes their bullshit excuses for war?

Syria may or may not have used chemical weapons, but people aren't buying that that's a good enough reason to bomb the crap out of them, and probably a large percentage know that is not even remotely why our government would do so anyway.

When the reality that their schtick isn't working seeps into that bubble of hubris and bought and paid for conviction in Washington, what will they do?

This moment in history is reminding me of Rush Limbaugh calling that college girl a slut. He had done far worse in the past, but somehow, that was the event that triggered his undoing.

This planned Syria attack may not be the worst, most reckless, or criminal thing our government has done, but it may be the hit and run that makes us finally take away their foreign policy car keys.

WHITE HOUSE PETITION: US had no moral authority to punish Syria's war crimes while our own...

I hope I didn't leave anything out.

WHITE HOUSE PETITION: US had no moral authority to punish Syria's war crimes while our own aren't prosecuted.

The Bush administration committed far worse war crimes than Syria, including starting a war of aggression against Iraq, using torture, the chemical weapon white phosphorus, the radiological weapon depleted uranium, and attempting to restructure Iraq's economy for the benefit of oil companies and Wall Street, not to mention a million Iraqis killed.

Further, Syria could never be a threat to us, given our massive and well-known nuclear arsenal to retaliate.

It is also doubtful that the stated justifications for the military attack are the actual reason, given the bipartisan support for brutal and oppressive regimes that serve business interests who donate to both parties.

Do not attack Syria, but instead, explain publicly who is demanding this attack and what they expect to gain from it.


Obama sends Bush to teach Syria how to kill civilians legally

Obama sends Bush to teach Syria how to kill civilians legally

In a last ditch effort to avoid air strikes and cruise missile attacks on Syria, President Barack Obama has deployed former President George W Bush as a special envoy to instruct Syrian President Bashir Assad on the how to kill civilians without committing war crimes.

"No one alive knows more about this than former President Bush," Obama said. "He has by some estimates, authorized the killing of over a million Iraqi men, women, and children and untold tens of thousands of Afghans--all without committing war crimes or human rights violations. That's why I gave him immunity for actions taken in those wars just the other day."

Bush had already arrived in Syria and begun what he called his "Cheneying" of the young president of Syria.

He took a brief break to explain the advice he's giving Assad in an exclusive interview with Fox News.

"See, first thing I told him is we're the deciders. We decide what's the right way to kill terrorists. And that's the first step. Only kill terrorists. And they can come in any gender or age or sexual oriented minority."


POLL: How honest is the case for war with Syria?

After Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and the ongoing war drums against Iran that fits Gen. Wesley Clark's Bush era story of another general showing him a memo with a list of countries to attack or target for regime change, which Obama has pretty much continued to check off by slightly more understated means than Bush.

Conservatives talked of a unipolar moment when we have a brief period to reset the table and clear out middle weight regimes that aren't cooperative with our economic order before a new superpower arises and we are constrained as we were during the Cold War.

And of course the case for the Iraq War was not a matter of mistaken intelligence, but cherry-picking, ignoring analysts, and outright lying.

In that context, how honest do you think the case for attacking Syria is?

How can we get a progressive presidential candidate at the top of Democratic ticket in 2016?

Obama has been good on a few issues, but for the most part, when Wall Street says, jump, Obama says how high, particularly on issues where he couldn't blame GOP coercion, like the repetitive standardized testing to prove public schools are failing as an excuse to replace them with for profit charter schools that get taxpayer money but do worse more often than better for students.

Or foreign policy that mostly differs from Bush in style rather than substance.

Or not prosecuting any of the big fish on Wall Street who broke the world economy with intentional fraud.

Or picking the same guys who deregulated banks to run his economic policy,

and so on.

Any Democrat will be better than the GOP, but the problem is, the leaders of the Democratic Party try to keep as little daylight as possible between them and Republicans on a host of issues, especially when someone is greasing their palm to do so.

How can we pull the party back toward FDR and away from Rubin/Summers?

What would our government do if Syria killed over a thousand civilians with white phosphorus or

depleted uranium?

Or just plain cluster bombs or helicopter gunships shooting at reporters and kids?

How about if he just killed a million people in a country on the other side of the world instead of a few thousand in his own country?

Would we still be figuring out "military options" to end his atrocities?

WHITE HOUSE PETITION: fully pardon Bradley Manning

There probably are and will be more of these various places, but posting one on the White House website makes it harder for them to say haven't seen it, and for others who stumble across it on their site, it will be like a scarlet letter.

Who knows, it might even force Obama to act.

Sign at the link:


Pardon Bradley Manning and reduce his sentence to time served.

His 35 year sentence is greater than that given to uniformed members of the military who tortured or massacred civilians, and typically got ten years and served far less.

Bush admin lied about their case for war led to the deaths of thousand of troops and a million Iraqis but weren't even tried.

A prosecution witness in the Manning trial said NO deaths resulted from his leaks.

Manning's leaks exposed war crimes and helped spark the Arab Spring democracy movement.

The only "damage" he did was to the ability of our government to lie to our people about the means and motives of our foreign policy.

Clean up the corruption and moral squalor in corridors of power in Washington instead of punishing the person who exposed it.


What would you like to see Wikileaks, Snowden, Anonymous or others leak most?

This is inspired by Robert Parry's piece that the Bradley Manning leaks may have prevented a war with Iran.

Way up on my list is the part of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 that Bush censored that deal with the Saudi government role in 9/11.

Sen. Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Intel Committee at the time of 9/11 said if the public saw those pages, it would change our relationship with Saudi overnight.

He and former Sen. Bob Kerrey are pursuing evidence of Saudi involvement on their own, presumably to find independent evidence that they can present without revealing what they know from classified sources.

I would also like to see the emails between Wall Street and both the Bush and Obama White Houses during and after the 2008 collapse, so we can see exactly who was calling the shots, and what they expected to get out of it.

And I would like to see the real arguments for the Iraq War and which players in the business world were lobbying for that (so we can possibly present them with a bill for our services).

Any others?

Should DU have a GOSSIP and personal attack about public figures forum?

Given the MANY personal attack posts about Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and in the past other progressives that annoy Republicans and corporate Democrats' masters, as well as the largely irrelevant self-inflicted wounds of pols like Anthony "Look at My" Wiener, should DU have a gossip and personal attack forum?

That would mean locking or deleting such threads in other forums, and telling the poster to take it to its assigned dungeon.

I think there should still be room in General Discussion and the other big forums for issues of hypocrisy like which pols talk a good game while taking money from corporations, back the drug war after (or while) partaking themselves, or the gay-bashers who are closet gays.

And we could make the Gossip forum just for those to the left of Olympia Snowe (though that would not be my choice).

Locking this crap and redirecting it to a Gossip dungeon would clear out a lot of the trash talk and acrimony and recenter DU on actual issues instead making us sound only half an IQ point above the talking heads on TV.

And it would help our corporate friends here to sell their case based on the merits of their arguments on ISSUES rather than by defaming people they don't agree with.

What do you think?
What do

RAVITCH: Why don't corporate ed reformers want public schools to be like best private ones?

What's odd here is that the corporate ed reformers claim that most parents don't want the kind of education for their kids that the president, education secretary, and very wealthy get for their kids.

Why don't they just say that every time they announce these policies: "I want to make money giving your kids an education I would NEVER accept for my own."

At the very least, I wish someone would ask the best private schools in their community how often they do standardized testing.

What’s Not to Like About Exeter? Sidwell? Lakeside? Dalton?
by dianerav
The folks at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute are struggling to come to terms with the New York testing disaster. They certainly will not retreat from their deep faith in standardized testing, and they insist that there must be more parent choice, even though parents are sick of the excessive testing and most continue to choose their neighborhood school, if they still have one.

This is my favorite line:

"Reform critics like Diane Ravitch often question why we don’t push reforms that would create a “Sidwell Friends” for every student. Putting aside where we would find the extra $1.6 trillion it would take to make that possible, there is a simpler answer: some of us don’t want Sidwell Friends. And just because some believe the elite culture of the top 1 percent is what’s best for all children, doesn’t mean all parents share that belief."

I can't say where that $1.6 trillion number comes from. I went to ordinary public schools that did not face annual budget crisis, that did not squander millions on standardized testing, that provided arts programming and daily physical education and foreign languages, that did not fire teachers if students got low test scores. But people who did not go to ordinary public schools may not know that.

What I want to challenge here is the assertion that "some of us don't want" what the best private schools have to offer.

Who wouldn't want what Sidwell offers? Or Exeter? Or Lakeside Academy in Seattle?

Who wouldn't want classes of 12-15 instead of 35-40?

Who wouldn't want a beautiful campus?

Who wouldn't want experienced, respected teachers?

Who wouldn't want a rich curriculum with science labs, history projects, drama and music, and lots of sports every day?

Who wouldn't want to go to a school that never gave standardized tests and didn't judge teachers by students test scores?

Maybe there are such people. I have never met them. Maybe they work at Fordham or the Gates Foundation, but I doubt it.

dianerav | August 11, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Categories: Class size, Curriculum, Parents, Standardized Testing, Teachers and Teaching | URL: http://wp.me/p2odLa-5wl
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »