Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Life in OUR America, Volume 2
Common Ground Common Sense > Online Café > Off-Topic > Off-Topic Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
jeffmoskin
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 12 2005, 02:13 PM)
"Guantanamo Bay is a useful purpose in the war on terror, but under the current regime, under the current circumstances, it's not effectively working," Graham said.

*

Yes it is, Graham.

LBJ gave us the "War on Poverty"

Failure.

Nixon gave us the "War on Cancer."

Failure.

Reagan gave us the "War on Drugs."

Failure.

Bush the Lesser gave us the "War on Terror."

Failure.

"Insanity is when you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result." - A. Einstein
Livyjr
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 13 2005, 05:44 AM)
The column didn't get attached, or was removed by big brother.

Thanks for picking up on that, jeffmoskin!

Say, do you really think the "shadow government" of Dick Cheney has now entered into this realm, and he is now cherry-picking Mr. A.B.'s posts to keep us in infernal, or is it eternal ignorance?
Livyjr
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 13 2005, 05:56 AM)
Yes it is, Graham.

Bush the Lesser gave us the "War on Terror."

Failure.

"Insanity is when you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result." - A. Einstein

Insanity is when you take incompetents and make presidents out of them, because then all you have is an incompetent with a lot of power, which makes for a very dangerous situation, indeed, because when insanity rules, as it sure seems to do in this country these days, then rationality has had to go right out the window, and there is where we are!

And what exactly is this "war" Bush has going now?

Sometimes I hear it, and see it in print as a "wah agin tay-rah", and then sometimes, it is a "wah, on tay-rah", while most of the time, from what I can see, it is in reality a WAR OF TERROR AGAINST EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT THINK THAT GEORGE W. BUSH IS SENT BY GOD TO SAVE THE WORLD FROM PEOPLE NOT LIKE HIM, AND HIS, WHO KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR EVERYONE, WELL, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT GOD REALLY WANTS!

Isn't that why GOD pulled George W. Bush out of that Ripple bottle, or was it Mogen David, no, Thunderbird, I think it was, so as to have George W. Bush for his PROPHET down here on this earth of OURS, so as to lead us all into salvation, even if we were never drunks, ourselves, without rich daddies, to pave our own ways for us, while we just stayed sloppy drunk all the time, or until age forty, whichever came last?
jeffmoskin
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 13 2005, 06:01 AM)
Isn't that why GOD pulled George W. Bush out of that Ripple bottle, or was it Mogen David, no, Thunderbird, I think it was, so as to have George W. Bush for his PROPHET down here on this earth of OURS, so as to lead us all into salvation, even if we were never drunks, ourselves, without rich daddies, to pave our own ways for us, while we just stayed sloppy drunk all the time, or until age forty, whichever came last?
*


I know this should probably have gone on the GWB vs the Bible page, but...

since we are talking about PROPHETS here (0r was it profits, Mr. Cheney?), this like reminds us that Jeremiah WARNED us to...

BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS

http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/hanneman/1317.html
Livyjr
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 13 2005, 07:15 AM)
I know this should probably have gone on the GWB vs the Bible page, but...

since we are talking about PROPHETS here (0r was it profits, Mr. Cheney?), this like reminds us that Jeremiah WARNED us to...


BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS!


http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/hanneman/1317.html

Wow, jeffmoskin!

That's quite a sermon!

And while that SHOULD go over to Mr. A.B.'s "Religion and Politics" thread, AS WELL, I for one am glad that you posted it here, and I hope that it gets a wide read, and people need to open up their consciousnesses a bit, here in OUR America, to start to consider that there have been other nations on this earth, and they are now gone, for what in the end seem like real solid reasons to me, such as this sermon in your link, is mentioning, as well.

People toss "God bless America" around these days, as if it were a command that God had to obey, or else, and as I look back on history, evey time people in a nation somewhere on the face of this earth start doing that ........
Livyjr
And since we are on that topic, people who are in charge of everything, including GOD, as George W. Bush and Scottie McClellan and Karl Rove and the Governor of Texas all are:

"White House rejects call for Iraq pullout timetable"

1 hour, 46 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House rejected calls for setting a precise timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq, even as a new poll showed almost six in 10 Americans want at least a partial pullout of US forces.

"We will leave when we complete the mission," spokesman Scott McClellan said a day after a representative in US President George W. Bush's Republican party said he would push legislation fixing a firm schedule for such a withdrawal.

"We are not going to stay a day longer than what is necessary."

"But what we're working to achieve in Iraq is vital to peace and security for generations to come," said McClellan.


Representative Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, said on ABC television Sunday that he would introduce a bill calling for a firm timetable for withdrawing US forces from Iraq.

"This is what I believe is the right thing to do for our military first; and secondly, I think we are doing everything we can do in Iraq to give them an opportunity to have a democracy, to defend themselves," Jones told ABC.

Amid sustained violence in Iraq, Bush discussed the political process there by telephone with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and praised "his strong and courageous leadership," according to McClellan.

The two leaders agreed on the importance of meeting an August 15 deadline for writing Iraq's constitution and on the need to have the country's government be "inclusive" of ethnic and religious minorities, he said.

Bush congratulated Talabani and Kurdish leaders on the formation of a unified regional government for Iraq's three autonomous Kurdish provinces, and the two leaders "noted how this demonstrates the importance of reconciliation to the rest of Iraq," said the spokesman.

McClellan also dismissed a poll, published Monday in USA Today, showing that 59 percent of respondents, an unprecedented number, want US soldiers to quit the violence-wracked country.

"There are difficult challenges that remain, but we have made significant progress," he said, citing elections and the formation of a government.

"Democracy, as the president has talked about, takes time, and we all must do what we can to support the Iraqi people as they move forward."

"They have shown that they want a democratic future," he said.

"What we are working to achieve in Iraq is vital to transforming a dangerous region of the world, and promoting long-term peace and security."

"And we must continue to do all we can to support the Iraqi people as they move forward on freedom and democracy, and it's important that we complete the mission," he said.


"And that means training Iraqi forces so that they can provide for their own security."

"At that point, our troops will be able to return home, with the honor that they deserve," said McClellan.

end quotes

George W. Bush wouldn't know democracy if it was staring him in the face, as it is over there in Iraq, right now, where the insurgents are as much a part of the "democratic" process as anything is over there, and Scott McClellan is full of ****!

"We will leave when we complete the mission," spokesman Scott McClellan said?

SO?

What MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was George W. Bush talking about when he was sashaying and piroueting around on that carrier deck, in his designer flight suit with the cod piece on it to make him look "manly" and "HUNKY"?

The MISSION of taking advantage of the American people through a carefully crafted set of lies?
Abu Beacon
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 13 2005, 06:44 AM)
The column didn't get attached, or was removed by big brother.
*


If big bro. remains in power long enough you can bet that he will have a secret group to check internet postings. Checking = editing, censoring, removing the offending post and quite possibly the offending poster.

HOWEVER. in this case that was not what happened. I copied columnist Rich's excellent column and forgot to paste it.

I have been known to do things like that from time to time.

Very good catch Jeffmo.

A.B.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 13 2005, 04:44 PM)
And since we are on that topic, people who are in charge of everything, including GOD, as George W. Bush and Scottie McClellan and Karl Rove and the Governor of Texas all are:

"White House rejects call for Iraq pullout timetable"

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House rejected calls for setting a precise timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq, even as a new poll showed almost six in 10 Americans want at least a partial pullout of US forces.

"We will leave when we complete the mission," spokesman Scott McClellan said a day after a representative in US President George W. Bush's Republican party said he would push legislation fixing a firm schedule for such a withdrawal.

"We are not going to stay a day longer than what is necessary."

"But what we're working to achieve in Iraq is vital to peace and security for generations to come," said McClellan.


end quotes

George W. Bush wouldn't know democracy if it was staring him in the face, as it is over there in Iraq, right now, where the insurgents are as much a part of the "democratic" process as anything is over there, and Scott McClellan is full of ****!

"We will leave when we complete the mission," spokesman Scott McClellan said?

SO?

What MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was George W. Bush talking about when he was sashaying and piroueting around on that carrier deck, in his designer flight suit with the cod piece on it to make him look "manly" and "HUNKY"?

The MISSION of taking advantage of the American people through a carefully crafted set of lies?

Scott McClellan?

Who in the Hell is Scott McClellan?

And what kind of idiots do they take us for, down there in Washington, D.C., having this idiot named Scott McClellan telling us all of this crap and drivel, all the time, ON BEHALF OF OUR GOVERNMENT?

"Generals look to a political solution - Top U.S. officers in Iraq begin to concede military action alone can't defeat the insurgency"

By TOM LASSETER, Knight-Ridder

First published: Monday, June 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during the past two years.

Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through Iraqi politics -- an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say.

"It's going to be settled in the political process."


Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" -- pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere.

"Like in Baghdad," Casey said during an interview with two newspaper reporters, including one from Knight Ridder, last week.

"We push in Baghdad -- they're down to about less than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week -- but in north-center (Iraq) ... they've gone up," he said.

"The political process will be the decisive element."

The recognition that a military solution is not in the offing has led U.S. and Iraqi officials to signal they are willing to negotiate with insurgent groups, or their intermediaries.

"It has evolved in the course of normal business," said a senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the Iraqi government on Iraqi political matters.

"We have now encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a relationship with the insurgency."

The message is markedly different from previous statements by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing "dead enders" loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein[/u].

As recently as two weeks ago, in a Memorial Day interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Vice President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in its "last throes."

But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's famous "deck of cards" have been killed or captured, including Saddam.


Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting.

"We can't kill them all," Wellman said.

"When I kill one, I create three."


American officials had hoped that January's national elections would blunt the insurgency by giving the population hope for their political future.

But so far, the political process has not in any meaningful way included Iraq's Sunni Muslim population.

Most of Iraq's Sunnis, motivated either by fear or boycott, did not vote, and they hold a scant 17 seats in the 275-member parliament.

On Sunday, Iraq moved further toward a political stalemate, after Shiite political leaders agreed on what they said was a compromise to include Sunni Arabs in the writing of a constitution, but Sunni representatives rejected the offer, The New York Times reported.

The Associated Press reported these other developments Sunday:

The White House took exception to the reported characterization of a British memo questioning the adequacy of U.S. planning for a postwar occupation of Iraq.

"There was significant postwar planning," said spokesman David Almacy.

"More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began; there was significant postwar planning in the time that elapsed."

He was reacting to a report in Sunday editions of The Washington Post that a staff paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair before the invasion concluded that "a postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise" that could result in the United States looking to Britain "to share a disproportionate share of the burden."


Four American soldiers died Saturday in two roadside bombings west of Baghdad, increasing to at least 1,701 the number of U.S. forces who have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003.

Police found the bullet-riddled bodies of 28 people -- many thought to be Sunni Arabs -- buried in shallow graves or dumped streetside in Baghdad.

French journalist Florence Aubenas and her Iraqi assistant, Hussein Hanoun al-Saadi, were freed Saturday after five months in captivity.

Some 2,000 soccer fans tried to ignore the violence and watched two of Iraq's elite teams play at Baghdad's biggest sports complex, the 50,000-capacity Shaab Stadium.

It reopened to the public Sunday after it was commandeered two years ago for a U.S. military base.

end quotes

This Scott McClellan, with all the crap that boy can spew, with just that one mouth of his alone, that boy could fertilize a forty-acre field with his mouth in about five minutes, and equal a herd of two or three thousand bulls in the process!

I wonder how much of OUR TAX MONEY goes to that boy so that he can tell us lies all day long, and half the evening, as well?

Probably a couple of hundred thousand, with bonuses!
Livyjr
Good to see you around, as always, Mr. A.B.!
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 13 2005, 05:12 PM)
Scott McClellan?

Who in the Hell is Scott McClellan?

And what kind of idiots do they take us for, down there in Washington, D.C., having this idiot named Scott McClellan telling us all of this crap and drivel, all the time, ON BEHALF OF OUR GOVERNMENT?


"Generals look to a political solution - Top U.S. officers in Iraq begin to concede military action alone can't defeat the insurgency" 
 
By TOM LASSETER, Knight-Ridder

First published: Monday, June 13, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during the past two years.

Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through Iraqi politics -- an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say.

"It's going to be settled in the political process."


end quotes

This Scott McClellan, with all the crap that boy can spew, with just that one mouth of his alone, that boy could fertilize a forty-acre field with his mouth in about five minutes, and equal a herd of two or three thousand bulls in the process!

I wonder how much of OUR TAX MONEY goes to that boy so that he can tell us lies all day long, and half the evening, as well?

Probably a couple of hundred thousand, with bonuses!

And here is Scott McClellan's version of democracy, in action:

"Guantanamo log details interrogation tactics used against 9/11 suspect"

Mon Jun 13, 1:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top Saudi terror suspect held at a US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was forcibly injected with fluids, grilled near military dogs and straddled by a female soldier, according to secret US logs published here.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was forcibly injected with three and a half bags of fluid after refusing food and water in late 2002 at the Guantanamo camp, according to US interrogation logs obtained by Time magazine and released Sunday.


The logs, parts of which are incomplete, detail measures used against a captive at the prison, many of which have been criticized by rights groups.

President George W. Bush said Wednesday he was ready to examine alternatives to the camp for "war on terror" detainees at Guantanamo after former president Jimmy Carter called for its closure.

Al-Qahtani was captured in Afghanistan in December 2001 and transported to Guantanamo.

US authorities then discovered he had been deported from Florida in August 2001 and believe he had sought entry to America to participate in the September 11, 2001 attacks, Time said.

The logs reveal that al-Qahtani was interrogated from early November to early January 2002-2003, during which 16 additional interrogation methods were approved by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

At one point, al-Qahtani mounts a food-and-water strike and becomes so dehydrated that medics "forcibly administer fluids by IV (intravenous) drip," according to Time.

Al-Qahtani subsequently tells his interrogators he works for Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, before urinating in his pants.

After Rumsfeld approved the new interrogation measures on December 2, 2002, interrogators poured water over al-Qahtani, shaved his beard and head and forced him to stand for the US national anthem among other tactics.

He was also subjected to a drill known as an "Invasion of Space by a Female."

"He was laid out on the floor so I straddled him without putting my weight on him".

"He would then attempt to move me off of him by bending his legs in order to lift me off but this failed because the MPs were holding his legs down with their hands," one log entry states.


On December 7, al-Qahtani's condition deteriorated so badly, he was examined by two doctors.

Al-Qahtani's pulse was found to be "unusually slow."

An electrocardiogram, used to assess a heart condition, was taken, and he was hooked up to a heart monitor.

Over the next month al-Qahtani -- his condition improved -- was stripped nude and told to bark like a dog.

Pictures of scantily clad women were also hung around his neck.

The logs recount al-Qahtani saying he wanted to commit suicide.


Officials told Time most of the intelligence gleaned from the Saudi was recorded in other documents.

In a statement released later Sunday, the Pentagon offered no excuses for its interrogation techniques, saying al-Qahtani questioning followed "a very detailed plan" and that prevention of new attacks justified the means.

"Qahtanis interrogation during this period was guided by a very detailed plan and conducted by trained professionals motivated by a desire to gain actionable intelligence, to include information that might prevent additional attacks on America," the statement said.


In an interview with Fox News, partially released Sunday, Vice President Richard Cheney said there was "no plan to close Gitmo."

"I mean, these are terrorists for the most part."

"These are people that were captured in the battlefield of Afghanistan or rounded up as part of the Al-Qaeda network," the US vice president said in the interview due to be broadcast Monday.

Bush has said the US applies principles consistent with the Geneva Conventions to "unlawful combatants," subject to military necessity, at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

end quotes

Just what kind of a pack of perverts do we have down there in that Pentagon, anyway?

Forget Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriages!

What we really need is a Constitutional amendment to rid OUR government of these perverts that are running this country!

And whose daughter was that, that was straddling this guy?

Is that how you brought her up, or did you leave that upbringing to George W. Bush and his?

Just curious, of course!
Livyjr
Well, the power went off, down to my place, a lttle earlier this evening, probably a leg on a transformer, so a phase or two are gone, and the power with it!

There's progress for you!

OH!

OH!

We can't stop development!

No, no, no, no, no!

OH!

We can't hold back the town!

Well, okay, so now, we got no power, and it is cooking out there, and people live in cooped-up boxes out in hayfields, where the sun burns down, which is why some smart farmer all those years ago grew hay there, before he got too old to farm, and then was forced off the land by taxes to subsidize developers; one of whom took that land and jammed all these dressed-up boxes on it, where people, right now, tonight, as I type these words, are sweltering, because ALL their air conditioners going together burned out all our electricity!

I'm on the air here, because this computer is on a different electric company that is not so stupid and gluttonous as the one that I am on, the one trying to put thirty-five pounds worth of electricity into a 3-ounce paper bag!

GLOBALIZATION, IN ACTION!

WHY GO TO BAGHDAD TO EXPERIENCE POWER OUTAGES, WHEN IT CAN BE A DAILY OCCURRENCE IN YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, HERE, FOR THE SAME EXACT REASON, WHICH IS GREED AND IGNORANCE ALL DRESSED UP TOGETHER, AND OUT ON THE TOWN, AT OUR EXPENSE!
Livyjr
Well, for anyone interested in seeing the forces of nature unleashed up here in George Pataki's EMPIRE State of New York, go to http://www.timesunion.com/ for a nice picture of what is now a new mountain stream, or maybe river, that is flowing WEST, right through ALL the north-bound lanes of the Northway, which is the major north-south artery between Albany, New York, and Montreal, Canada, and as that brand-new river continues on its westerly course, all of what has been removed from the north-bound side, now covers the south-bound side, so that this major artery is now severed, in grand style, by Mother Nature, who rumor has it, George Pataki has now deemed an "environmental TAY-RIST", and according to the bits and pieces that seem to be leaking out, what I thought I heard was that Pataki believes that Whiteface Mountain is Mother Nature's son, and so, again, if I have this right, Pataki is going to have Whiteface Mountain flogged, for this act of Mother Nature in destroying the Northway, in a matter of hours, or less, sometime last night, when some four or more inches of rain fell on the Lake George area, as though it were somewhere down south in a Louisiana bayou, instead of nestled in the mountains in northern New York, where the relative humidity used to be on the low side!

Ah, progress!

"Mudslide forces Northway closure - 16-mile stretch in both directions between exits 23 and 25 to remain closed for days; detours set up on state routes 8 and 9"

By JOSHUA HURWIT and PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writers, Albany, New York Times Union

Last updated: 12:13 p.m., Tuesday, June 14, 2005

A 16-mile stretch of the Northway between Exits 23 and 25 will be closed for days or even weeks after a mudslide Monday night brought on by heavy rains, the Warren County sheriff said this morning.

The slide around 9 p.m. blocked some 100 vehicles on the interstate highway, and about 40 cars, tractor trailers and buses were forced to back up a half-mile on the dark, rain-soaked highway, make a U-turn and detour along Route 9.


Sheriff Larry Cleveland said people were cooperative and no injuries were reported.

Horicon, Bolton Landing, Chestertown and Warrensburg bore the brunt of the bad weather, officials said, with about 40 residents displaced.

The American Red Cross sheltered 20 to 25 people in a local school.

"We don't have a damage assessment at this point," said Tom Harig of the Warren County Office of Emergency Services, speaking from a command post at the Bolton Fire Station on Route 9N.

In Bolton Landing, a water main ruptured, leaving an estimated 2,000 people without water, Harig said.

Residents without water should bring empty jugs to Veterans Memorial Park on Route 9N in Bolton Landing, where tankers will be stationed later today, he said.

On the Northway, both northbound lanes were washed out, and the two southbound lanes were littered with dirt and boulders.

The closure means about 13,000 vehicles in both directions will be routed onto local roads, mainly state Routes 8 and 9.

"This does not often happen, which speaks to the magnitude of the storm," said Peter Van Keuren, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation.

"It's fairly major."


Warren County roads that remain closed include County Routes 10 and 11; Schroon River Road; Valley Woods Road; and Finkle Road.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 14 2005, 12:48 PM)
http://www.timesunion.com/

Ah, progress!

"Mudslide forces Northway closure - 16-mile stretch in both directions between exits 23 and 25 to remain closed for days; detours set up on state routes 8 and 9" 
 
By JOSHUA HURWIT and PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writers, Albany, New York Times Union

Last updated: 12:13 p.m., Tuesday, June 14, 2005

A 16-mile stretch of the Northway between Exits 23 and 25 will be closed for days or even weeks after a mudslide Monday night brought on by heavy rains, the Warren County sheriff said this morning.

"This does not often happen, which speaks to the magnitude of the storm," said Peter Van Keuren, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation.

"It's fairly major."

Well, let's see?

If engineers record data about rainfall, over time, to look for things like this, this "fairly" major rainfall event up there which just removed the New York State Northway between Albany, New York and Montreal, Canada from the inventory of America's functioning superhighways, and engineers note that something like this might have happened back in 1888, or maybe 1892, and that was considered to be part of what could in actuality be a five-hundred year cycle, with that being maybe the 400th year, then, I don't know, where does anyone think we might be, about 100 years later?

Or is that 100-year storm stuff really just a bunch of crap that engineers spew to stop development?

Oh, I'm so confused!

Maybe somebody really made the whole thing up, and there was no rainfall at all, and so, the Northway is really still open, and it was just some of them mean environmentalists that just want us to think that over the last so many years, up here, we have built the biggest house of cards ever attempted by any pack of fools anywhere on this earth in the last ten or twenty thousand years, just before the wind starting kicking up ....

And it's not even the middle of June, either!

Boy, what is August going to be?
Livyjr
I don't know if people think about this at all, and if you have never been to the ocean in a storm, or Lake Ontario, or Lake Superior, and you don't live near water, then, certainly, you wouldn't think about it, but in China, right now, they have a project going on the Yangtze River that is going to create an impoundment that will be, if my information is correct, as big as Lake Superior, which if memory serves, is where the ore boat Edmund Fitzgerald went down in a storm!

Now, to the younger people in here, that name probably means nothing, and I guess it shouldn't, since it was just an isolated incident, just another ship going down on a great big lake that can get nasty enough during a storm to take down a big ore boat like the Edmund Fitzgerald!

The glaciers made Lake Superior, it is said, and Lake Superior now "makes" all that area around there, since in nature, water controls climate!

Of course, the glacier was what, ten thousand years ago, or so, which means that area has had ten thousand years or so, to adjust!

This new Lake Superior that they are building in China, of course, that has never before existed, and so, the weather to be associated with that new great lake in that place has also never existed, before, either, which means that no one knows what it will be, OTHER THAN TOTALLY UNLIKE WHAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST TEN THOUSAND YEARS OR SO, AGO, and so .....

And I'm surprised that people never put two-and-two together with respect to the impact water has on weather!

What is that, earth science?

8th grade?

9th grade?

Rocket science?
Livyjr
I have been studying American history on and off now since I was a child, since back then, children were expected to know something about America, or at least OUR own small part of it, which was OUR community, and how that community came into being, and what place that community played in society, here in OUR America, and accordingly, where my place was to be in that scheme of things, and so, a long time ago, now, I first read the words of the United States Constitution, and then, I took an oath to protect and defend that Constitution, of course, and now, all these years later, after a lot of real careful and non-hasty thought on the matter, I really have to wonder at this crowd down there in Washington, D.C. that is occupying both houses of OUR Congress, like boll weevils occupying a cotton field, or rats occupying a grain bin!

What country, exactly, do they think they are in, I wonder, and more to the point, what have they done with OUR Constitution, because that Constitution would never recognize any of them, as legitimate, I don't think, if it were not being held hostage somewhere, like in the money bags that patrol the halls of Congress down there, with United States Senators dangling from gold chains stretched across broad, expansive, well-fed guts, like a bunch of watchfobs, or curios ....

"Private Groups Often Fund Senators' Trips"

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senators traveled to exotic foreign capitals and fabulous resort towns with beaches and golf courses in 2004 — all in the name of business of course and rarely on their own dime.

One such trip was taken by Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who went to Cape Town, South Africa, for an international affairs conference, according to the Senate's financial disclosure forms.

That trip was paid for by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the South African Institute of International Affairs.

Sen. Mike Enzi, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was reimbursed for travel expenses for himself and his wife, Diana, for a speaking engagement in Munich, Germany, for the German Marshall Fund of Washington.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., ranking Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, reported travel to Coral Gables, Fla., for three days in February 2004 to participate in the annual U.S.-Spain Council conference.

The trip was funded by the council.

And Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., reimbursed the Aspen Institute Congressional Program for travel, lodging and meal expenses for a May trip to Barcelona, Spain.

Congressional travel has been getting more scrutiny lately, in part because of the controversy surrounding House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, following allegations that a lobbyist paid for some of his trips, which is not allowed.

Other private groups, however, can fund travel, which at times can include lavish meals and golf outings.

Republicans also hit the road.

Foreign Relations chair Richard Lugar, R-Ind., went on seven trips paid for by the Aspen Institute think tank, including to Hawaii; Cancun, Mexico; Barcelona; Venice, Italy, and Geneva, Switzerland.

Lugar is a member of that think tank.


Samaritan's Purse picked up Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's air transportation to Chad, Sudan and Kenya on a fact-finding mission last August, and his meals there.

The complaint that the Senate is a "millionaires' club" has some basis in fact, at least among the leaders.

Frist reported blind trusts — where the owner has no knowledge of where the money's being invested — worth between $7 million to $35 million.

The income from the largest blind trust brought in $1 million to $5 million, his paperwork shows.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada didn't have as much as Frist in the bank, but made $1 million to $5 million in 2004 by selling a piece of property in Las Vegas and a 47 percent interest in an adjoining property.

He also listed as major assets municipal and school district bonds worth between $895,026 and $2,101,000 and a pension plan stock in oil, medical, technology, banking and other companies worth between $383,047 and $1,552,000.

The financial disclosure forms also gives the public a rare glimpse inside senators' personal lives.

For example, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., collected another $2,376,716 in royalties for her memoirs, "Living History," making her total take so far from the book near $8.7 million.

Under reporting rules, former President Clinton, as a spouse of a senator, is only required to report that he received more than $1,000 in payments for his best-selling autobiography "My Life," though published reports have said he inked a deal worth $10 million to $12 million with publisher Alfred A. Knopf.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., reported a $15,938 advance to write the suspense novel she's working on, "A Time to Run," about an activist senator who does battle with right-wing ideologues.

Also in the publishing business was Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who reported a $60,000 advance payment from W.W. Norton & Co. of New York, a book publishing company.

W.W. Norton also paid for Byrd to take several trips to promote the book "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency," in which Byrd argues that President George W. Bush "is in a class by himself — ineptitude supreme."

There will be at least one movie star in the Senate: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will appear in the summer movie "The Wedding Crashers" starring Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn, with his payments directed to select charities, according to his form.

Some other interesting tidbits that showed up in this year's disclosures include the fact that Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has bought his brother's house — former President John Kennedy's Hyannisport home — and is renting it out to other family members.

Kennedy paid his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and her husband $3 million for the property, which is located next to his property on the Kennedy family compound.

Sen. Kennedy also reported between $50,000-100,000 in rental income.

Also on the real estate front, Dodd reported ownership in a cottage in County Galway, Ireland, that's worth somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000.

Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and ranking member on Senate Aging Committee, listed his NBA basketball team, the Milwaukee Bucks, as worth more than $50 million.

A more specific number comes from Forbes magazine, which last year valued the Bucks at $199 million in its annual survey, putting it last in the league.
Livyjr
Center for the Study of the Presidency - 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up

"James Madison and the Role of Republicanism, Federalism, and Checks and Balances in the United States"

http://www.geocities.com/crgeidner/madison.html
___________________

Christopher R. Geidner
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio
___________________

From his compelling argument for America's republican form of government to his vigorous defense of its divided and federal systems of governing, James Madison brought to the United States of America some of its most important attributes.

At the same time, however, many of the significant details of his conceptions have suffered in the 212 years since the Constitution's ratification.

Looking at Madison's ideas on each of the three branches of the national government and the role of the people and states in its organization, the substantial value and timeliness of his arguments are quickly apparent.


Madison’s understanding of America’s government rested upon a strong belief in the people, in general, and an even stronger belief in the people’s chosen representatives.

A major part of his analysis and persuasion in The Federalist Papers was that one of the Constitution’s greatest gifts to democracy was that it controlled the "public passions" of the people through its use of republican and federalist principles and co-equal branches.

Changes or proposed changes in each of those three branches, however, act to increase the influence of public passions upon America.

From the direct election of Senators through the 17th Amendment to proposals calling for the elimination of the Electoral College to acts of judicial review declaring national laws unconstitutional, Madison's delicate balance has been greatly disturbed.

In 1913, the United States adopted the 17th Amendment, which called for the election of Senators directly by the people, rather than through the filter of the state legislatures.

The change encourages the passions of the people and increases the control those passions hold over the Congress and its legislation, "ends" in direct contrast with Madison's goals.

In Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed the importance of the differences in methods of election between the two houses of Congress.

He wrote that the distinction is of the utmost importance in maintaining the balance of power within the national government because the legislature "necessarily predominates," so therefore its powers are split into two dissimilar branches with "different modes of election."

This aim to remove from the Senate the public passions that could overtake the House is further illustrated by the division of the Senate into thirds for electoral purposes.

A passionate faction would need to maintain electoral control for a period of six years in order to affect all of the Senators' elections.

While this provision is still in effect, the 17th Amendment clearly weakens Madison's intent for the Senate to be protected from the people's passions.


Also, the amendment discouraged federalism because it removed the state power and interest in the Congress.

As Madison discussed in Federalist No. 39, "The House of Representatives will derive its power from the people of America ... The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the states ..."

Before the passage of the 17th Amendment, each state government in America's federalist system had an important role to play at the national level: the selection of its state’s two Senators.

This point was argued by Madison in Federalist No. 62 when he gave his examination of the Senate.

Since the passage of the Amendment, however, state governments have had no role in the national legislature.

The delicate balance of the nation’s republic was thus doubly struck by the passage of the 17th Amendment.

Nearly 100 years later an election struck this nation that could just as greatly tug on its federalist and republican nature.

The 2000 presidential election has tested many areas of national and state governments, including the role of the Electoral College in those elections.

Madison likely would fear the implications of changes to this system because just as with Senate elections prior to the 17th Amendment, the Electoral College is tightly woven into America’s web of republicanism and federalism.


The elimination of the Electoral College and the direct election of the president were called for by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and others in the days after the conclusion of the contested election.

Removing the power from state legislatures to devise the method for choosing its state’s electors would greatly weigh down in favor of the national government in federalist terms.

This explicit constitutional grant of authority to the state legislatures would be removed, and the power for choosing the president would become a national, rather than a federal, decision.

In addition, federalism would take a second hit from any proposal that called for the direct election of the president.

The compromise so hard earned between the large states and the small states’ delegates in Philadelphia would be eliminated in terms of the presidency.

The federalist principle that created the differing makeup of the chambers of Congress was applied to the election of the presidency in order that the small states would have some say, as an equal state in the union, in the selection of the president.

In Federalist No. 49, Madison argues against a proposal that called for Constitutional conventions whenever there was a disagreement among the branches.

In examining this issue, he expounds upon the importance of removing decisions from the people directly, and instead placing such decisions with their chosen representatives.

The same analysis applies to the "appeals to the people" discussed by Madison in Federalist No. 49 as to Sen. Clinton's proposal for the removal of the Electoral College.

The abolition of the Electoral College would place both houses of Congress and the Presidency at the whims of the same passions.

This is not far removed from Madison's fears in Federalist No. 49.

"The passions, therefore, not the reason, of the public would sit in judgment."

"But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government."


The balance has not, however, only been weighted in favor of people's passions against republicanism and in favor of a national government against federalism, but also in favor of one branch over the others.

This third un-balancing act has taken place in the Judiciary.

In the past 15 years, the United States Supreme Court often has reviewed the legitimacy of acts of the legislative branch, on 30 occasions striking down sections of Congressional legislation or entire acts of Congress as unconstitutional.

The use of judicial review over Congressional acts not vetoed by the president places the nation's Judiciary above its once co-equal branches, a result Madison disdained.

While Madison did not discuss the matter of judicial review at depth in The Federalist Papers, it is clear that he believed the three branches of the government were to be co-equals.

He stated in Federalist No. 51, "Each department should have a will of its own ..." and be able to "resist encroachments of the others."

Some scholars have pointed to statements in various Constitutional debates and in The Federalist Papers to suggest that Madison may have felt otherwise.

This "co-equal" opinion, however, is by far the most consistent opinion expressed by Madison on the matter throughout The Federalist Papers and in later published works.

Madison clarified his opinion on judicial review in June 1789 in the first session of the First Congress:

"If the constitutional boundary of either (department) be brought into question, I do not see that any one of these independent departments has more right than another to declare their sentiments on that point."

Madison left no uncertainty, however, as to his dismay at the Court's potential use of national judicial review in a 1788 letter to John Brown, a friend.

Madison wrote that the Judiciary having the final authority on a law's constitutionality "makes the Judiciary paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and could never be proper."

James Madison's careful weighing of the many competing interests in the structure of the nation's government is the most important contribution any individual made to the richness of the Constitution.

Madison had neither Alexander Hamilton's zeal for the nation's least democratic institutions nor Thomas Jefferson's faith in democracy as the healer of America's problems.

He was a federalist in the truest sense of the word, praising the careful balance sought and achieved in the Constitution between states and the national government.

He believed that a republican government of checks and balances carefully weighing many competing interests would best achieve a long-lasting democracy for America.

These beliefs were successfully explained and justified through his essays in The Federalist Papers.

These warnings from the waning days of 1787 through the spring of 1788, along with Madison's many later achievements, today challenge students of government and political leaders to utilize the wisdom from so many years ago.

Madison's hopes and fears for the nation were summed up in a few simple words as important today as they were when they were written in Federalist No. 10:

"Pure democrac[ies] ... have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. ..."

"A republic ... promises the cure for which we are seeking."


Bibliography

Madison, J. Federalist Nos. 10, 39, 44, 49, 51, 62. Clinton Rossiter, ed. The Federalist Papers. Middlesex, England: Mentor. 1961.

Madison, J. to John Brown. Oct. 12, 1788. Observations on the "Draught of a Constitution for Virginia." Gaillard Hunt, ed. The Writings of James Madison. New York: Putnam's Sons. 1904. Reprinted in Walter Murphy, ed. American Constitutional Interpretation. (2nd Ed.) New York: The Foundation Press. 1995.

Madison, J. to the first session of the First Congress. June 1789. Walter Murphy, ed., American Constitutional Interpretation. (2nd Ed.) New York: The Foundation Press. 1995.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 14 2005, 02:10 PM)
Center for the Study of the Presidency - 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up

"James Madison and the Role of Republicanism, Federalism, and Checks and Balances in the United States"

http://www.geocities.com/crgeidner/madison.html
___________________

Christopher R. Geidner
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio
___________________

From his compelling argument for America's republican form of government to his vigorous defense of its divided and federal systems of governing, James Madison brought to the United States of America some of its most important attributes.

At the same time, however, many of the significant details of his conceptions have suffered in the 212 years since the Constitution's ratification.

Looking at Madison's ideas on each of the three branches of the national government and the role of the people and states in its organization, the substantial value and timeliness of his arguments are quickly apparent.

Madison’s understanding of America’s government rested upon a strong belief in the people, in general, and an even stronger belief in the people’s chosen representatives.


A major part of his analysis and persuasion in The Federalist Papers was that one of the Constitution’s greatest gifts to democracy was that it controlled the "public passions" of the people through its use of republican and federalist principles and co-equal branches.

Madison's hopes and fears for the nation were summed up in a few simple words as important today as they were when they were written in Federalist No. 10:

"Pure democrac[ies] ... have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. ..."

"A republic ... promises the cure for which we are seeking."

And somehow, this following story just seems to fit in here, right under these words above about pure democracies and their violent deaths ....

"Private Eyes Fear Limits On Information Access"

By Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writer

Tue Jun 14, 1:00 AM ET

Private investigators are working to blunt legislation that cracks down on the active marketplace for Social Security numbers, telling Congress that restricting access to the numbers will hurt their business and hamper their investigations.

Several bills are moving through the Capitol to prevent identity thieves from getting Social Security numbers to gain access to consumers' financial accounts.

In the past year, the Social Security numbers of tens of millions of Americans have been exposed through personal data being lost, stolen or hacked.

But private investigators contend that the rush to protect privacy goes too far and would damage their ability to deliver valuable services, such as locating people who skip out on debts, commit fraud or want to avoid testifying in court.


In a lobbying blitz, trade associations representing roughly 40,000 licensed private investigators are exhorting their members to "please do something, or we will have nothing" by writing to Congress and state legislatures, many of which also are moving to curb the availability of Social Security numbers.

Representatives of private investigator groups discussed lobbying strategy last month with several data brokers -- companies that buy and sell personal information -- at a meeting hosted by ChoicePoint Inc., one of the country's largest such firms.

According to a summary of the meeting circulated to online news groups frequented by private investigators, "PIs and data provider companies are committed to a massive lobbying effort to educate our legislators on the ill effects of truncating data to licensed investigators."

But the investigators also are worried about large data brokers themselves, which routinely buy and sell personal data but have taken their own steps to restrict access to Social Security numbers in the wake of breaches at their firms.

Two of the largest, ChoicePoint and LexisNexis Group, now sell only partial Social Security numbers to several types of businesses, including private investigators.

"We think they can do their jobs without" full Social Security numbers, said James Lee, chief marketing officer of ChoicePoint.

He confirmed most of the account of the lobbying meeting.

Private investigators also have other ways of profiting from their access to such information.

Some have ongoing subscriptions for data from brokers and maintain Web sites offering to resell the data to the public.

Most of the subscription contracts prohibit such resale, and many data brokers now are requiring private investigators and other clients to recertify their credentials.


Brian P. McGuinness, president of the Baltimore-based National Council of Investigation and Security Services, said the large data brokers that decided to limit private investigators to partial Social Security numbers were being "a bit disingenuous," and were simply trying to stave off stricter regulation by Congress.

Instead, he said, the policy will make it harder for private eyes to distinguish between people who have the same or similar names.

McGuinness said his group is hoping for an exception to limits on Social Security numbers similar to one investigators enjoy in a 1994 law that restricts the sale of driver's license data.

"There are some problem children in every profession," McGuinness said, referring to investigators who indiscriminately resell data.

His organization supports legislation that would prohibit reselling of Social Security numbers to the general public online, he said.

Other information brokers are not truncating Social Security numbers for private investigators.

"I think they are an extension of law enforcement," said Terry Kilburn, chief operating officer of Tracers Information Specialists Inc. of Florida, which also advertises data available to the public on its Web site.

He said that because his firm has amassed and combined data from a variety of public and private sources over many years -- including mega-brokers such as ChoicePoint -- he is rarely bound by their resale restrictions.

For their part, the large data brokers say they support identity-theft legislation but are working quietly with banks and other financial services companies -- also the source of several recent breaches -- to shape the bills.

Most of the bills introduced would require that organizations notify customers if their information is breached, similar to a California law credited with forcing ChoicePoint and others to reveal their cases in recent months.

The industry supports the position of the head of the Federal Trade Commission, Deborah Platt Majoras, which is to limit the disclosure requirement to instances in which the organization believes the breach could result in identity theft[u].

[u]Privacy groups argue that such an exemption is a loophole, because firms might not always know if the breach could lead to theft and would have little incentive to say so
.

The industry also wants one federal law that would supersede a potential patchwork of state laws.

Consumer groups support that approach only if the national bill is strong.


Other bills would provide incentives to the industry to encrypt data that they keep in storage, making it more difficult to use the information if it is lost or stolen.

end quote

Since George W. Bush has been president, this country has become quite a hateful, spiteful place, and somehow, reading about this sale of alleged "information", ABOUT US, by these BID-NESS people, seems to only serve to reinforce how dehumanizing this one guy's reign has been, here in OUR America, or have they tossed out that title and replaced it with something more accurate in description, like Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany?
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 14 2005, 02:10 PM)
Center for the Study of the Presidency - 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up

"James Madison and the Role of Republicanism, Federalism, and Checks and Balances in the United States"

http://www.geocities.com/crgeidner/madison.html
___________________

Christopher R. Geidner
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio
___________________

From his compelling argument for America's republican form of government to his vigorous defense of its divided and federal systems of governing, James Madison brought to the United States of America some of its most important attributes.

At the same time, however, many of the significant details of his conceptions have suffered in the 212 years since the Constitution's ratification.

Looking at Madison's ideas on each of the three branches of the national government and the role of the people and states in its organization, the substantial value and timeliness of his arguments are quickly apparent.

Madison’s understanding of America’s government rested upon a strong belief in the people, in general, and an even stronger belief in the people’s chosen representatives.

And in the end, of course, as brilliant as he might have been, or not, Mr. James Madison was nothing more than "ONE OF US", no more, or no less, and he would have been one of the first to state that, which is one of the things that I think would have made me favorably disposed towards James Madison, if we were to meet out there on the "street of life", somewhere, to have a chat about Life in OUR America today, as I experience it, versus any ideas that he might have had, way back then, about how it was going to be, SINCE HE DID NOT KNOW, AND NEVER PRETENDED THAT HE DID, despite these words of this young person above in this essay, that imply to the contrary, and I base that statement of mine on these words of Madison from way back then, that being 1787, down there in Philadelphia, during the Constitutional Convention that gave us OUR frame of government today, or something at least akin to it, anyway:

"In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce!"

"An increase of population will of necessity increase the PROPORTION OF THOSE WHO WILL LABOR UNDER ALL THE HARDSHIPS OF LIFE, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings!"

"These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence."


end quotes

"Power", said Madison, could then slide into the "hands of the numerous poor", rather than the few rich, and so, the question arose, during that Constitutional Convention, as to how to deal with this possibility, or eventuality, "on republican principles", and Madison's answer at that time, since he had no real idea as to what the future really would be, the same as we still don't, today, was to have a "body" in OUR government, OUR SENATE, that was to be "sufficiently respectable for its WISDOM AND VIRTUE" with an elective term of nine years to render it "stable", in Madison's view, which he thought, in his naivety, would provide a safeguard for LIBERTY, here in OUR America, today, 218 years later, when Madison's naivety is made apparent for all the candid world to see, especially with respect to OUR United States Senate today, FOR WHERE IN ALL OF THAT SUPPOSEDLY "AUGUST BODY" DOES ONE FIND ANYTHING APPROACHING EITHER WISDOM, OR VIRTUE, especially on the REPUBLICAN side of the "aisle", where this Frist, the "Capo de Tutti Capo", or "Boss of all Bosses" in the Senate, appears to be little more than just another "panderer" who wants to be the next president of OUR America, and so, is willing to prostrate himself before the likes of Karl Rove, in the hopes that Rove will "annoint" him, and then, make him be so!

Of course, after watching what Rove did with George W. Bush, maybe that is now what "wisdom" is, hooking your wagon to Karl Rove's star, but is that VIRTUE, as well?

Or is that too hard a question to ask these days, where virtue in politics, and especially OUR UNITED STATES SENATE is as outdated a concept as the DoDo bird is!
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 15 2005, 07:34 AM)
"In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce!"

"An increase of population will of necessity increase the PROPORTION OF THOSE WHO WILL LABOR UNDER ALL THE HARDSHIPS OF LIFE, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings!"

"These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence."


- James "Jemmy" Madison, circa 1787, somewhere in OUR America

James Madison, of course, can be quoted like people quote the Bible, to have it and him saying anything and everything under the sun, depending upon what one wants or needs his words to say, on their behalf, of course, and that is what the price of democracy really is, that everyone IS GOING TO HAVE AN OPINION, REGARDLESS OF STATION, and so, I am always leery of accepting any statements attributed to James Madison by others, that have him casting in any kind of concrete at all, anything Madison is supposed to have said that would "fix" OUR system of government into any mold, at all, and I say that because Madison was a believer himself in FIRST PRICIPLES, which was an extant political theory in place in OUR America in 1776 that said people can throw off their own governments, at will!

"When government is oppressive, cast it off and start anew!"

FIRST PRINCIPLES!

The Declaration of Independence!

The Constitutions of the original thirteen colonies, with their Bills of Rights made an intrinisc part of them - THIS GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT BE CAPABLE OF REPRESSING ITS CITIZENRY!

Thirteen different states, thirteen different Constitutions, all with the same declaration of intent, however - THE GOVERNMENT OF THIS STATE SHALL NOT BE CAPABLE OF REPRESSING ITS CITIZENRY, FOR ANY PURPOSES, TO INCLUDE PARTISAN POLITICS!

ESPECIALLY PARTISAN POLITICS!

And now, it is a different day and age, and Madison is gone, but since we are not, yet, anyway, then the problem is indeed OURS!

Should we remain a Federal Republic?

Or am I in fact too late in even suggesting that question?
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 14 2005, 02:10 PM)
Center for the Study of the Presidency - 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up

"James Madison and the Role of Republicanism, Federalism, and Checks and Balances in the United States"

http://www.geocities.com/crgeidner/madison.html
___________________

Christopher R. Geidner
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio
___________________

From the direct election of Senators through the 17th Amendment to proposals calling for the elimination of the Electoral College to acts of judicial review declaring national laws unconstitutional, Madison's delicate balance has been greatly disturbed.

In 1913, the United States adopted the 17th Amendment, which called for the election of Senators directly by the people, rather than through the filter of the state legislatures.

The change encourages the passions of the people and increases the control those passions hold over the Congress and its legislation, "ends" in direct contrast with Madison's goals.

In Federalist No. 51, Madison discussed the importance of the differences in methods of election between the two houses of Congress.

He wrote that the distinction is of the utmost importance in maintaining the balance of power within the national government because the legislature "necessarily predominates," so therefore its powers are split into two dissimilar branches with "different modes of election."

This aim to remove from the Senate the public passions that could overtake the House is further illustrated by the division of the Senate into thirds for electoral purposes.

A passionate faction would need to maintain electoral control for a period of six years in order to affect all of the Senators' elections.

While this provision is still in effect, the 17th Amendment clearly weakens Madison's intent for the Senate to be protected from the people's passions.

Beware "political science" papers produced by THINK TANKS, when you don't know for certain who is PAYING them to think!

For that matter, beware me too!

I'm just an old man in here, so what can I know?

U.S. Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment
Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators


Amendment Text

Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Annotations - Popular Election of Senators

The ratification of this Amendment was the outcome of increasing popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators.

As the franchise became exercisable by greater numbers of people, the belief became widespread that Senators ought to be popularly elected in the same manner as Representatives.

Acceptance of this idea was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests.

Prior to ratification, however, many States had perfected arrangements calculated to afford the voters more effective control over the selection of Senators.

State laws were amended so as to enable voters participating in primary elections to designate their preference for one of several party candidates for a senatorial seat, and nominations unofficially effected thereby were transmitted to the legislature.

Although their action rested upon no stronger foundation that common understanding, the legislatures generally elected the winning candidate of the majority, and, indeed, in two States, candidates for legislative seats were required to promise to support, without regard to party ties, the senatorial candidate polling the most votes.

As a result of such developments, at least 29 States by 1912, one year before ratification, were nominating Senators on a popular basis, and, as a consequence, the constitutional discretion of the legislatures had been reduced to little more than that retained by presidential electors. 1

Very shortly after ratification it was established that if a person possessed the qualifications requisite for voting for a Senator, his right to vote for such an officer was not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen but had its foundation in the Constitution of the United States. 2

Consistent with this view, federal courts declared that when local party authorities, acting pursuant to regulations prescribed by a party's state executive committee, refused to permit an African American, on account of his race, to vote in a primary to select candidates for the office of U.S. Senator, they deprived him of a right secured to him by the Constitution and laws, in violation of this Amendment. 3


An Illinois statute, on the other hand, which required that a petition to form, and to nominate candidates for, a new political party be signed by at least 25,000 voters from at least 50 counties was held not to impair any right under the Seventeenth Amendment, notwithstanding that 52 percent of the State's voters were residents of one county, 87 percent were residents of 49 counties, and only 13 percent resided in the 53 least populous counties. 4

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] 1 G. Haynes, The Senate of the United States 79-117 (1938).

[Footnote 2] United States v. Aczel, 219 F. 917 (D. Ind. 1915) (citing Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884)).

[Footnote 3] Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460 (5th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 800 (1946).

[Footnote 4] MacDougall v. Green, 355 U.S. 281 (1948), overruled on equal protection grounds in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969). See Forssenius v. Harman, 235 F. Supp. 66 (E.D.Va. 1964) aff'd on other grounds, 380 U.S. 529 (1965), where a three-judge District Court held that the certificate of residence requirement established by the Virginia legislature as an alternative to payment of a poll tax in federal elections was an additional qualification to voting in violation of the Seventeenth Amendment and Art. I, Sec. 2.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 15 2005, 02:58 PM)
Beware "political science" papers produced by THINK TANKS, when you don't know for certain who is PAYING them to think!

For example:


"Acceptance of this idea, amending the United States Constitution to allow for popular election of United States Senators, was fostered by the mounting accumulation of evidence of the practical disadvantages and malpractices attendant upon legislative selection, such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests."

SO?

When was this again?

When was this 17th Amendment ratified?

And did it upset any precious balances that Madison might have put in place, way back in 1787?

Based on the evidence, anyway?

Or is this information above here that was taken directly from the Annotations to the United States Constitution really just an opinion, while this THINK TANK Report above is fact?

And who wants to go back to those old days, in the years just before the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified by the American people, who Madison did believe in; years in which the "leaders" of the people themselves were totally untrustworthy, much as they are again, right now, today?
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 14 2005, 02:10 PM)
Center for the Study of the Presidency - 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up

"James Madison and the Role of Republicanism, Federalism, and Checks and Balances in the United States"

http://www.geocities.com/crgeidner/madison.html
___________________

Christopher R. Geidner
Youngstown State University
Youngstown, Ohio
___________________

From his compelling argument for America's republican form of government to his vigorous defense of its divided and federal systems of governing, James Madison brought to the United States of America some of its most important attributes.

At the same time, however, many of the significant details of his conceptions have suffered in the 212 years since the Constitution's ratification.

Looking at Madison's ideas on each of the three branches of the national government and the role of the people and states in its organization, the substantial value and timeliness of his arguments are quickly apparent.

Madison’s understanding of America’s government rested upon a strong belief in the people, in general, and an even stronger belief in the people’s chosen representatives.

A major part of his analysis and persuasion in The Federalist Papers was that one of the Constitution’s greatest gifts to democracy was that it controlled the "public passions" of the people through its use of republican and federalist principles and co-equal branches.

Changes or proposed changes in each of those three branches, however, act to increase the influence of public passions upon America.

I wonder if "Jemmy" Madison saw this crowd coming?

U.S. Supreme Court

THE KU KLUX CASES, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); 110 U.S. 651

'THE KU-KLUX CASES.' Ex parte YARBROUGH and others.

March 3, 1884

[110 U.S. 651, 652]

Henry B. Tompkins, for petitioners.

Sol. Gen. Phillips, for respondent.

MILLER, J.

Stripped of its technical verbiage, the offense charged in this indictment as that the defendants conspired to intimidate Berry Saunders, a citizen of African descent, in the exercise of his right to vote for a member of the congress of the United States, and in the execution of that conspiracy they beat, bruised, wounded, and otherwise maltreated him; and in the second count that they did this on account of his race, color, and previous condition of servitude, by going in disguise and assaulting him on the public highway and on his own premises.

If the question were not concluded in this court, as we have already seen that it is by the decision of the circuit court, we entertain no doubt that the conspiracy here described is one which is embraced within the provisions of the Revised Statutes which we have cited.

That a government whose essential character is republican, whose executive head and legislative body are both elective, whose numerous and powerful branch of the legislature is elected by the people directly, has no power by appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence of violence, of corruption, and of fraud, is a proposition so startling as to arrest attention and demand the gravest consideration.

If this government is anything more than a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other states and governments, each [110 U.S. 651, 658] of which is superior to the general government, it must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends, from violence and corruption.

If it has not this power, it is left helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence and insidious corruption.

The proposition that it has no such power is supported by the old argument often heard, often repeated, and in this court never assented to, that when a question of the power of congress arises the advocate of the power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it.

The brief of counsel before us, though directed to the authority of that body to pass criminal laws, uses the same language.

Because there is no express power to provide for preventing violence exercised on the voter as a means of controlling his vote, no such law can be enacted.

It destroys at one blow, in construing the constitution of the United States, the doctrine universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a part of the instrument as what is expressed.

This principle, in its application to the constitution of the United States, more than to almost any other writing, is a necessity, by reason of the inherent inability to put into words all derivative powers,-a difficulty which the instrument itself recognizes by conferring on congress the authority to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers expressly granted, and all other powers vested in the government or any branch of it by the constitution. Article 1, 8, cl. 18.


We know of no express authority to pass laws to punish theft or burglary of the treasury of the United States.

Is there therefore no power in congress to protect the treasury by punishing such theft and burglary?

Are the mails of the United States, and the money carried in them, to be left at the mercy of robbers and of thieves who may handle the mail, because the constitution contains no express words of power in congress to enact laws for the punishment of those offenses?

The principle, if sound, would abolish the entire criminal jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and the laws which confer that jurisdiction. [110 U.S. 651, 659]

It is said that the states can pass the necessary law on this subject, and no necessity exists for such action by congress.

But the existence of state laws punishing the counterfeiting of the coin of the United States has never been held to supersede the acts of congress passed for that purpose, or to justify the United States in failing to enforce its own laws to protect the circulation of the coin which it issues.

It is very true that while congress at an early day passed criminal laws to punish piracy with death. and for punishing all ordinary offenses against person and property committed within the District of Columbia, and in forts, arsenals, and other places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, it was slow to pass laws protecting officers of the government from personal injuries inflicted while in discharge of their official duties within the states.

This was not for want of power, but because no occasion had arisen which required such legislation, the remedies in the state courts for personal violence having proved sufficient.


So, also, has the congress been slow to exercise the powers expressly conferred upon it in relation to elections by the fourth section of the first article of the constitution.

This section declares that 'the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the congress may at any time make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing senators.'

It was not until 1842 that congress took any action under the power here conferred, when, conceiving that the system of electing all the members of the house of representatives from a state by general ticket, as it was called,-that is, every elector voting for as many names as the state was entitled to representatives in that house,- worked injustice to other states which did not adopt that system, and gave an undue preponderance [110 U.S. 651, 661] of power to the political party which had a majority of votes in the state, however small, enacted that each member should be elected by a separate district, composed of contiguous territory. 5 St. 491.

And to remedy more than one evil arising from the election of members of congress occurring at different times in the different states, congress, by the act of February 2, 1872, 30 years later, required all the elections for such members to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in 1876, and on the same day of every second year thereafter.

The frequent failures of the legislatures of the states to elect senators at the proper time, by one branch of the legislature voting for one person and the other branch for another person, and refusing in any manner to reconcile their differences, led congress to pass an act which compelled the two bodies to meet in joint convention, and fixing the day when this should be done, and requiring them so to meet on every day thereafter and vote for a senator until one was elected.

In like manner congress has fixed a day, which is to be the same in all the states, when the electors for president and vice-president shall be appointed.

Now, the day fixed for electing members of congress has been established by congress without regard to the time set for election of state officers in each state, and but for the fact that the state legislatures have, for their own accommodation, required state elections to be held at the same time, these elections would be held for congressmen alone at the same time fixed by the act of congress.

Will it be denied that it is in the power of that body to provide laws for the proper conduct of those elections?

To provide, if necessary, the officers who shall conduct them and make return of the result?

And especially to provide, in an election held under its own authority, for security of life and limb to the voter while in the exercise of this function?

Can it be doubted that congress can, by law, protect the act of voting, the place where it is done, and the man who votes from personal violence or intimidation, and the election itself from corruption or fraud? [110 U.S. 651, 662]

If this be so, and it is not doubted, are such powers annulled because an election for state officers is held at the same time and place?

Is it any less important that the election of members of congress should be the free choice of all the electors, because state officers are to be elected at the same time? Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 .

These questions answer themselves; and it is only because the congress of the United States, through long habit and long years of forbearance, has, in deference and respect to the states, refrained from the exercise of these powers that they are now doubted.

But when, in the pursuance of a new demand for action, that body, as it did in the cases just enumerated, finds it necessary to make additional laws for the free, the pure, and the safe exercise of this right of voting, they stand upon the same ground, and are to be upheld for the same reasons.


It is said that the parties assaulted in these cases are not officers of the United States, and their protection in exercising the right to vote by congress does not stand on the same ground.

But the distinction is not well taken.

The power in either case arises out of the circumstance that the function in which the party is engaged or the right which he is about to exercise is dependent on the laws of the United States.

In both cases it is the duty of that government to see that he may exercise this right freely, and to protect him from violence while so doing, or on account of so doing.

This duty does not arise solely from the interest of the party concerned, but from the necessity of the government itself that its service shall be free from the adverse influence of force and fraud practiced on its agents, and that the votes by which its members of congress and its president are elected shall be the free votes of the electors, and the officers thus chosen the free and uncorrupted choice of those who have the right to take part in that choice.


This proposition answers, also, another objection to the constitutionality of the laws under consideration, namely, that the right to vote for a member of congress is not dependent upon [110 U.S. 651, 663] the constitution or laws of the United States, but is governed by the law of each state respectively.

If this were conceded, the importance to the general government of having the actual election-the voting for those members-free from force and fraud is not diminished by the circumstance that the qualification of the voter is determined by the law of the state where he votes.

It equally affects the government; it is as indispensable to the proper discharge of the great function of legislating for that government, that those who are to control this legislation shall not owe their election to bribery or violence, whether the class of persons who shall vote is determined by the law of the state, or by the laws of the United States, or by their united result.

*******

In the case of U. S. v. Reese, so much relied on by counsel, this court said, in regard to the fifteenth amendment, that 'it has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of congress.

That right is an exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'

This new constitutional right was mainly designed for citizens of African descent.

The principle, however, that the protection of the exercise of this right is within the power of congress, is as necessary to the right of other citizens to vote as to the colored citizen, and to the right to vote in general as to the right to be protected against discrimination.

The exercise of the right in both instances is guarantied by the constitution, and should be kept free and pure by congressional enactments whenever that is necessary.


The reference to cases in this court in which the power of congress under the first section of the fourteenth amendment [110 U.S. 651, 666] has been held to relate alone to acts done under state authority can afford petitioners no aid in the present case.

For, while it may be true that acts which are mere invasions of private rights, which acts have no sanction in the statutes of a state, or which are not committed by any one exercising its authority, are not within the scope of that amendment, it is quite a different matter when congress undertakes to protect the citizen in the exercise of rights conferred by the constitution of the United States, essential to the healthy organization of the government itself.

But it is a waste of time to seek for specific sources of the power to pass these laws.

Chancellor KENT, in the opening words of that part of his Commentaries which treats of the government and constitutional jurisprudence of the United States, says:

"The government of the United States was created by the free voice and joint will of the people of American for their common defense and general welfare".

"Its powers apply to those great interests which relate to this country in its national capacity, and which depend for their protection on the consolidation of the Union".

"It is clothed with the principal attributes of political sovereignty, and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness." 1 Kent, Comm. 201.

It is as essential to the successful working of this government that the great organisms of its executive and legislative branches should be the free choice of the people, as that the original form of it should be so.

In absolute governments, where the monarch is the source of all power, it is still held to be important that the exercise of that power shall be free from the influence of extraneous violence and internal corruption.

In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger.

Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours [110 U.S. 651, 667] has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources.

If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents equal cause for anxiety.

If the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils,-if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint,-then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.


The rule to show cause in this case is discharged, and the writ of habeas corpus denied.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 15 2005, 04:13 PM)
I wonder if "Jemmy" Madison saw this crowd coming?

U.S. Supreme Court

THE KU KLUX CASES, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); 110 U.S. 651

'THE KU-KLUX CASES.' Ex parte YARBROUGH and others.

March 3, 1884

[110 U.S. 651, 652]

Henry B. Tompkins, for petitioners.

Sol. Gen. Phillips, for respondent.

MILLER, J.

In a republican government, like ours, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger.

Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours [110 U.S. 651, 667] has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of his country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources.

If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents equal cause for anxiety.

If the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, - if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, - then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.

SO!

1884!

What is that, now, some 121 years ago?

"IF the government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, - if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, - then, indeed, is the country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it, ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE COMBINATIONS OF THOSE WHO RESPECT NO RIGHT BUT BRUTE FORCE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND UNPRINCIPLED CORRUPTIONISTS, ON THE OTHER!"

The United States Supreme Court speaks out!

And what it describes way back then is what we have now!

Can you imagine that?

Back in 1884, there were actually intelligent people, here in OUR America, and they had the vision to see more than 100 years into THEIR future, to see right into the very heart of where we are now, today, in OUR America, after this just-concluded presidential race in November of 2004, where Karl Rove reigns SUPREME as the MAN BEHIND THE THRONE in OUR American "presidential" politics, while "TWO-GUN TEXAS TOMMY" DeLay controls the House of Representatives, through money!

How about that?

And speaking of combinations of those who respect no right but brute force, and those who are unprincipled corruptionists, up in Rensselaer County, in the corrupt EMPIRE State of New York .........
jeffmoskin
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 15 2005, 02:13 PM)
SO?

When was this again?

When was this 17th Amendment ratified?

And did it upset any precious balances that Madison might have put in place, way back in 1787?

Based on the evidence, anyway?

Or is this information above here that was taken directly from the Annotations to the United States Constitution really just an opinion, while this THINK TANK Report above is fact?

And who wants to go back to those old days, in the years just before the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified by the American people, who Madison did believe in; years in which the "leaders" of the people themselves were totally untrustworthy, much as they are again, right now, today?
*



The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913
Livyjr
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 15 2005, 05:23 PM)
The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913!

Thank you, jeffmoskin!

SO!

1913!

HHHmmmm!

That's a while ago, now, isn't it?

More than a few minutes, anyway, or at least, I think so!

SO?

What is not right, then, here in OUR America today?

A defective citizen body, perhaps?

We don't know anymore what it is that we are citizens of?

Or have we all become so ignorant, that absolutely nothing matters anymore, so long as we can get 3,000 channels on the latest cable offering from whoever is cheapest?
jeffmoskin
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 15 2005, 04:56 PM)
Thank you, jeffmoskin!

SO!

1913!

HHHmmmm!

That's a while ago, now, isn't it?

More than a few minutes, anyway, or at least, I think so!

SO?

What is not right, then, here in OUR America today?

A defective citizen body, perhaps?

We don't know anymore what it is that we are citizens of?

Or have we all become so ignorant, that absolutely nothing matters anymore, so long as we can get 3,000 channels on the latest cable offering from whoever is cheapest?
*



"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. (shouting) You've got to say, 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!'"

- Howard Beale, the "mad prophet of the airwaves"

Network - - 1976
Livyjr
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 15 2005, 06:01 PM)
"I don't have to tell you things are bad."

"Everybody knows things are bad."


- Howard Beale, the "mad prophet of the airwaves"

Network - - 1976

And I guess I have to come back and say, jeffmoskin, that I wonder if now, today, we really know anything at all, since we are literally barraged with so much B*** S*** on a minute-by-minute basis, that we cannot get a moment's peace to even consider where we might be, in life, here in OUR America, which likely is not OURS, at all, anymore, and may not have been since 1884, or maybe 1913, or certainly, 2004!

This essay that I posted, above, for example!

I "caught" it because I was researching around for quotes and comments by James Madison, back in the days of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and when I read that essay, while I strongly "disagreed" with its central premise, still, I posted it, because it is representaive of "something" here in OUR America that I am still unable to clearly articulate, but which can certainly be called the "B***S***" factor that seems to predominate life, here in OUR America today, for truth be told, jeffmoskin, nobody listened to Howard Beale!

He's a madman, don't you know, so what does he know?

Now, as to this essay above, that I am dealing with right now, that was allegedly a prize-winning essay, the 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up, to be exact, for something here in OUR America called the "Center for the Study of the Presidency", and the author himself, to win this "prize" had to make, to me, anyway, a demonstration that he doesn't know our own American history since 1787!

SO?

What then is that?

In 1787, James Madison was a relatively young man, with almost no experience whatsoever of "Government in the Republican Frame", because there was none to study, at that time!

Prior to 1776, James Madison was a loyal subject of a KING, a monarch, and that is what he knew!

And by 1776, he, and others, knew that the form, or frame of English government was no longer suitable, here in OUR America, which, of course, at that time, was a pretty small place, with maybe 3 million inhabitants on the east coast, and that was that!

NOW .....

In the calendar year 2005, I am still reading Madison, and probably will for some time to come, because I have an interest in that period in OUR nation's history, but you know what?

James Madison, in the end, was like me, a human being with ideas, and that is that!

James Madison did not know what was "good" for America back in 1787!

All he knew was what was bad!

And so, he didn't "PUT INTO PLACE" any precious balances, at all!

What he attempted, instead, was to give us safeguards to prevent another King George and a bootlicking Parliament from being able to tyrannize us, as had been the case in OUR America from what, 1758, or so, onwards to 1776!

In fact, a lot of the Constitution goes against some of his personal goals, or thoughts, or desires, and a lot of what is in the Constitution comes as much from the dissent, as from Madison, himself, and that is not uncommon knowledge, and yet, here is a college student winning some award for not knowing basic American history!

SO?

What the hell is going on here, in OUR America?

We finally got that particular "triggering" floor built onto our own American version of the Tower of Bable, so that now, absolute gibberish is the TERRA LINGUA, here in OUR America?

And if you speak five or ten different versions, or dialects of it, as masters like Scott McClellan can do, in the space of five or less seconds to boot, you can get a high-paying government job as a White House SPOKESBOY ......
Abu Beacon
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 09:38 AM)
And if you speak five or ten different versions, or dialects of it, as masters like Scott McClellan can do, in the space of five or less seconds to boot, you can get a high-paying government job as a White House SPOKESBOY ......
*


Back in the 40's and 50's Edgar Bergen and his alter ego, his wooden " dummy ", Charlie McCarthy were really big on the radio.

Everybody loved Charlie McCarthy. The sponsors even cooked up a romance and pending marriage between Charlie and Marilyn Monroe.

Of course, Charlie only vocalized Edgar Bergen's thoughts.

So my question is - How come everybody thought Charlie was really cute, but hardly anyone feels that way about Scott McClellan?

They both had the same job.


A.B.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Abu Beacon @ Jun 16 2005, 10:42 AM)
So my question is - How come everybody thought Charlie was really cute, but hardly anyone feels that way about Scott McClellan?

They both had the same job.


A.B.

Boy, you must be an old-time Roosevelt Democrat, or something, Mr. A.B., because you just have a plain-speaking way about you, and that is a fact!

If Scottie "BOY" McClellan were to try emulating your style, well, I might not be so insulted by him thinking I am so ignorant as the person that he is aiming at, and Scott McClellan is just too smarmy by half, for me!

Charlie McCarthy was a wise guy, and that is one thing; while Scott McClellan is an *******, and that is quite another.

The former is sometimes considered cute, while the latter?

Too smarmy, by half, indeed!
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 08:38 AM)
And I guess I have to come back and say, jeffmoskin, that I wonder if now, today, we really know anything at all, since we are literally barraged with so much B*** S*** on a minute-by-minute basis, that we cannot get a moment's peace to even consider where we might be, in life, here in OUR America, which likely is not OURS, at all, anymore, and may not have been since 1884, or maybe 1913, or certainly, 2004!

This essay that I posted, above, for example!

Now, as to this essay above, that I am dealing with right now, that was allegedly a prize-winning essay, the 2001 Maibach-Madison Award Runner-Up, to be exact, for something here in OUR America called the "Center for the Study of the Presidency", and the author himself, to win this "prize" had to make, to me, anyway, a demonstration that he doesn't know our own American history since 1787!

SO?

What then is that?

Center for the Study of the Presidency

1020 Nineteenth Street, NW - Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036

Ph: 202-872-9800 | Fax: 202-872-9811 | E-mail: Center@thePresidency.org
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 02:51 PM)
Center for the Study of the Presidency

1020 Nineteenth Street, NW - Suite 250
Washington, DC 20036

Ph: 202-872-9800 | Fax: 202-872-9811 | E-mail: Center@thePresidency.org

Mission

The Center for the Study of the Presidency seeks to further the understanding and functioning of the American Presidency and its related institutions and, thereby, to educate, illuminate, and inspire leaders of tomorrow.

History

The Center for the Study of the Presidency is a non-partisan and non-profit organization.

Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower's 1969 (?) call for programs on the American Presidency for "students old and young," its founders included Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, a historian and Chancellor of Long Island University, who became the first President of the Center, and Arthur T. Roth, Board Vice Chair at Long Island University, who became the first Chairman of the Center's Board of Trustees.

For most of its existence, the Center has focused on educating young leaders.

As part of the Center Fellows Program, Dr. Hoxie brought students to Washington, DC to learn about the policy process and the history of American government.

While the Center retains its original purpose through the continuation of the Fellows Program and the award-wining Presidential Studies Quarterly, the Center has undergone several important changes.

In 1999, the Center moved to its present location in Washington, DC where it also gained a new president, Dr. David M. Abshire.

With new leadership and expanded headquarters, CSP has increasingly engaged in programs that study, inform, and advise the federal government.


Center Initiatitives

The Center brings together experts from government, academia, and the corporate world on key issues facing the Presidency.

Although program inititiatives change from time to time, all Center activities rest largely upon the following four pillars:

Presidential Leadership

Organizing for Leadership

Executive-Legislative Relations

Public Service

end quotes

I always find it interesting that WE, THE PEOPLE, are left out of these discussions, which favor ONLY THE CORPORATE INTERESTS IN OUR AMERICA, while ignoring those of us, its citizens!

And oh ho hum, we are happy to be excluded!

More time for video games, don't you know!
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 02:59 PM)
Mission

The Center for the Study of the Presidency seeks to further the understanding and functioning of the American Presidency and its related institutions and, thereby, to educate, illuminate, and inspire leaders of tomorrow.

History

The Center for the Study of the Presidency is a non-partisan and non-profit organization.

Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower's 1969 (?) call for programs on the American Presidency for "students old and young," its founders included Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, a historian and Chancellor of Long Island University, who became the first President of the Center, and Arthur T. Roth, Board Vice Chair at Long Island University, who became the first Chairman of the Center's Board of Trustees.

For most of its existence, the Center has focused on educating young leaders.

As part of the Center Fellows Program, Dr. Hoxie brought students to Washington, DC to learn about the policy process and the history of American government.

While the Center retains its original purpose through the continuation of the Fellows Program and the award-wining Presidential Studies Quarterly, the Center has undergone several important changes.

In 1999, the Center moved to its present location in Washington, DC where it also gained a new president, Dr. David M. Abshire.

With new leadership and expanded headquarters, CSP has increasingly engaged in programs that study, inform, and advise the federal government.

Staff Biographies

David M. Abshire - President and Chief Executive Officer


David M. Abshire is President and CEO of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Vice Chairman of the Board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., which he co-founded in 1962, and served as its chief executive for many years.

In July 2002, he was elected President of the Richard Lounsbery Foundation of New York.

In 1962, Dr. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke founded the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Over the past 40 years, the strategic, long-range, and anticipatory analyses of CSIS have had an impact on policymakers and business community leaders around the world.

More recently in 1983-1987, he was Ambassador to NATO where, in reaction to the threat posed by Soviet SS-20 missiles, he was the United States point man in Europe for deployment of Pershing and Cruise missiles.

It was this NATO success that convinced the Soviets to sign the historic INP Treaty and withdraw their missiles.

Ambassador Abshire initiated a new conventional defense improvement effort so that NATO would not have to rely heavily on nuclear weapons.

For this, he was given the highest Defense Department civilian award - its Distinguished Public Service Medal.

Dr. Abshire served as Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations from 1970-1973 and later as Chairman of the U.S. Board of International Broadcasting.

He was a member of the Murphy Commission on the Organization of the Government, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the President's Task Force on U.S. Government International Broadcasting.


During the transition of government in 1980, Dr. Abshire was asked by President-elect Reagan to head the National Security Group, which included the State and Defense Departments, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

He has also served on the Advisory Board of the Naval War College and on the Executive Panel of the Chief of Naval Operations.

In 1987 he served as a Special Counselor to President Reagan with Cabinet rank, to coordinate the Iran-Contra investigation and had authority to meet with the President alone.

He has received the John Carroll Award for outstanding service by a Georgetown University alumnus; the Distinguished Graduate Award of the United States Military Academy; the 1994 U.S. Military Academy's Castle Award; the Gold Medal of the Sons of the American Revolution; the Baylor Distinguished Alumni Award; the Order of the Crown (Belgium); Commander de l'Ordre de Leopold (Belgium); the Medal of the President of the Italian Republic, Senate, Parliament and Government; Grand Official of the Order of the Republic of Italy; Order of Diplomatic Service Merit Heung-In Medal (Korea); the insignia of the Commander, First Class, Order of the Lion of Finland; in 1999 the Order of the Liberator (Argentina); and in May 2001, the Order of the Sacred Treasure God and Silver Star (Japan).

In addition to the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, he was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal.

In 2002, the Abshire-Inamori Academy on Leadership was established at CSIS.

In addition to numerous journal, magazine and newspaper articles, Dr. Abshire is the author of five books:

The South Rejects a Prophet, 1967;

International Broadcasting: A New Dimension of Western Diplomacy, 1976;

Foreign Policy Makers: President vs. Congress, 1979;

Preventing World War III: A Realistic Grand Strategy, 1988; and

Putting America's House in Order: The Nation as a Family, with Brock Brower.

He is editor of Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency: Seventy-Six Case Studies on Presidential Leadership, 2002, and author of CSP publications: The Character of George Washington, 1999; and Lessons For The 21st Century: Vulnerability and Surprise December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001.

He is contributing editor to Vietnam Legacy, 1976; Détente: Cold War Strategies in Transition,1964; and The Global Economy, 1990.

He has also co-edited National Security, 1963 and edited The Growing Power of Congress, 1981.

He is founding editor of The Washington Quarterly.

Dr. Abshire was born in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1926.

He graduated from Baylor School in 1944, received his bachelor's degree from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1951.

In the Korean War, he served as a platoon leader, company commander, and a division assistant intelligence officer.

He received the bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster with V for Valor, Commendation Ribbon with medal pendant, and Combat Infantry Badge.

He was awarded his Ph.D. in History from Georgetown University in 1959 with honors (Gold Key Society).

He received a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Theological Seminary in 1992 and a Doctor of Civil Law, honoris causa, from the University of the South in 1994.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 03:10 PM)
Staff Biographies

David M. Abshire - President and Chief Executive Officer

He has received the insignia of the Commander, First Class, Order of the Lion of Finland .....

Order of the Lion of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Lion_of_Finland

There are three official orders in Finland: the Order of the Cross of Liberty, the Order of the White Rose of Finland and the Order of the Lion of Finland (Suomen Leijonan ritarikunta).

The President of Finland is the Grand Master of all three orders.

The orders are administered by boards consisting of a chancellor, a vice-chancellor and at least four members.

The orders of the White Rose of Finland and the Lion of Finland have a joint board.

The Order of the Lion of Finland was founded on September 11, 1942.

It was introduced in an effort to preserve the prestige of the Order of the White Rose of Finland, which could have been diminished if granted too frequently, and to facilitate the awarding of honours for various types of merit.

The Lion of Finland is awarded for civilian and military merit.

The ribbon for all classes of insignia is dark red.

The President of Finland wears the Star of the Order of the Lion of Finland.

Classes

The classes of the Order of the Lion of Finland are:

Commander Grand Cross of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Commander, First Class, of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Commander of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Pro Finlandia Medal of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Knight, First Class, of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Knight of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Cross of Merit of the Order of the Lion of Finland
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 03:15 PM)
Order of the Lion of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Lion_of_Finland

There are three official orders in Finland: the Order of the Cross of Liberty, the Order of the White Rose of Finland and the Order of the Lion of Finland (Suomen Leijonan ritarikunta).

The President of Finland is the Grand Master of all three orders.

The Office of the President of the Republic of Finland

http://www.tpk.fi/eng/institution/order_of_the_lion.html

HISTORY - THE HISTORY OF THE ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD

The institution of knighthood stems from the holy orders that the Catholic Church established in the Middle Ages.

The word 'order' (from the Latin ordo) then meant a closed circle, the members of which were bound by certain obligations and swore to observe a set of rules.

During the crusades, the rules governing monastic orders were extended to the soldiers who, once in the Holy Land, established various religious-military orders to ensure the safety of pilgrims and the sick and to further the battle for Christianity.

Some of the most renowned medieval orders of knighthood were the Templars (1118->), the Hospitallers (1113->) and the Order of Teutonic Knights (1198->).

ORDERS OF MERIT

The institution of knighthood was transformed when the French bourgeoisie began to reward members of the Third Estate, first for distinguished service on the field of battle and later for civilian achievements.

Thus a new category of orders was created: orders of merit.

The first of them, the French Legion of Honour, was established in 1802 and got its system of rank in 1805.

The Legion of Honour is a mixed order, that is, it admits members for both military and civil achievements.

Orders exclusively for military achievement were soon founded alongside the mixed orders of merit.

The Finnish Order of the Cross of Liberty, established in 1918, is one such order.

There are also entirely civilian orders of merit, for instance those for distinction in the arts and sciences, orders conferred by royal courts and orders for women.

Orders of merit are no longer the exclusive right of the nobility or elite, and new classes of rank have been introduced: knight grand cross, commander and knight.

Modern orders of merit tend to have five classes: grand cross; grand officer or commander, first class; commander, officer or knight, first class; and knight or chevalier.

FINNISH ORDERS

There are three official orders in Finland: the Order of the Cross of Liberty, the Order of the White Rose of Finland and the Order of the Lion of Finland.

The President of Finland is the Grand Master of all three orders.

The orders are administered by boards consisting of a chancellor, a vice-chancellor and at least four members.

The orders of the White Rose of Finland and the Lion of Finland have a joint board.
jeffmoskin
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 01:59 PM)
Inspired by Dwight Eisenhower's 1969 (?) call for programs on the American Presidency for "students old and young," its founders included Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, a historian and Chancellor of Long Island University, who became the first President of the Center, and Arthur T. Roth, Board Vice Chair at Long Island University, who became the first Chairman of the Center's Board of Trustees.

*

By 1969, Dwight D. Eisenhower had been dead for eight years.

And you say this Organisation is about the study of HISTORY???
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 03:15 PM)
Order of the Lion of Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Lion_of_Finland

The Order of the Lion of Finland was founded on September 11, 1942.

Continuation War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Continuation War was fought between Finland and the Soviet Union during World War II; from the Soviet bombing attacks on June 25, 1941, to cease-fire September 4, 1944 (on the Finnish side) and September 5 (on the Soviet side).

The United Kingdom declared war on Finland on December 6, 1941, but didn't participate actively.

Material support from, and military cooperation with, Nazi Germany was critical for Finland's struggle with its larger neighbour.


The war was formally concluded by the Paris peace treaty of 1947.

Relative strengths of Finnish, German and Soviet troops at the start of the Continuation War in June 1941.

The Continuation War (jatkosota in Finnish, fortsättningskriget in Swedish) is so named because the Finns view it as a continuation of the Winter War (November 30, 1939, to March 12, 1940).

Seen from a Russian perspective, it was merely one of the fronts of the Great Patriotic War.

The war was, however, considered separate from the World War by Finland and the Soviet Unionan understanding not quite appreciated by the political leadership in Nazi Germany, Finland's chief supporter.

Introduction

Although the Continuation War was fought in the periphery of World War II and the engaged troops were relatively few, the history of this war is intriguing as it challenges much of the conventional wisdom on the World War, and the popular theory that democratic countries don't wage war against each other.

Technically, war was declared.

In practice it was trivial.

There was no engagement between combatant troops.

During the conflict, Finland acted in concert with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union, which in turn was allied with Britain and, for most of the period, the United States.

Democratic Finland's association with Nazi Germany was, and remains, controversial in the European democracies threatened and occupied by the Nazis.


It was only as a last resort to protect herself from Soviet aggression.

Memories of the 1939 Winter War with the Soviets, and the inability of the Allies to support the Finns were the motivation for the alliance with Nazi Germany.

The issue was less controversial in Finland, and in hindsight a relatively broad Finnish consensus asserts that the Finns as a people would most likely not have survived the war without cooperating with Nazi Germany.

While conventional wisdom among Finns who grew up in the 1960s–70s depicted the Continuation War as a Finnish mistake, the Collapse of the Soviet Union led to access to Soviet sources revealing the Kremlin's firm determination to put all of Finland under Soviet rule.

The same people who in the 1970s were convinced of Finland's guilt for the Great Patriotic War nowadays assert that there was really nothing Finland could have done to avoid the Winter War and the Continuation War — at least not in the last years before the wars.

Major events of World War II, and the tides of war in general, had significant impact on the course of the Continuation War:

Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) is closely connected to the Continuation War's beginning.

The Allied invasion of France (Battle of Normandy) was coordinated with the Soviet major offensive against Finland (June 9–July 15, 1944), leading to a five week long alliance between democratic Finland and Nazi Germany (June 26 to August 4, 1944).

The subsequent US/Soviet race to Berlin brought about the end of the Continuation War by rendering Northern Europe irrelevant.

Aims of war

Finland's main goal during World War II was, although nowhere literally stated, to survive the war as an independent country, capable of maintaining its sovereignty in a politically hostile environment.

Specifically for the Continuation War, Finland aimed at reversing its territorial losses under the March 1940 Moscow Peace Treaty and by extending the territory further east, to guarantee the survival of the Finnic brethren in East-Karelia — thus in effect aiming at creating a Greater Finland, as advocated by vociferous right-wing groups.

Finland's exertion during the World War was, in the former respect, successful, although the price was high in war casualties, reparation payments, territorial loss, bruised international reputation and subsequent adaptation to Soviet international perspectives.

The Soviet Union's war goals are harder to assess due to the secretive nature of the Stalinist Soviet Union.

Intelligence, as interrogations of POWs, clearly indicated military control of all of Finland's territory as the immediate military goal in both the Winter War and the Continuation War.

This is congruent with a (postulated) Russian long-term strategic goal of securing ice-free harbours at the Atlantic and the North Sea.

The Soviet Union of the 1930s was however a militarily weak power, and it can be argued that all of her policies up to the Continuation War are best explained as defensive measures (however by offensive means): the sharing of Poland with Nazi Germany, the annexation of the Baltic states and the attempted invasion of Finland in the Winter War can all be seen as elements in the construction of a security zone between the perceived threat from the capitalist powers of Western Europe and the Communist Soviet Union – similar to the post-war establishment of Soviet satellite states in the Warsaw Pact countries and the Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance concluded with post-war Finland.

Accordingly, after Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa, June 22, 1941), the Red Army's attack on Finland, harbouring not yet unleashed German forces, can be seen as a pre-emptive or preventive attack aiming to protect Russian civilians and troops: through control of Finland's territory, the threat against Leningrad (i.e. the old imperial capital Saint Petersburg) and the important harbour in Murmansk was to be fended off.

Background

Before World War II

Although East Karelia has never been part of Finland, a majority of its inhabitants were Finnic people; and cultural ties, trade, and cross-border marriages were common before World War I and Finnish independence.

Indicative of this is that the majority of poems in the Kalevala were collected from the backwaters of East Karelia where Swedish and Slavic influences have been lowest.

So it was no surprise that after the independence was declared, voices arose advocating the annexation of East Karelia in order to rescue its inhabitants from Bolshevist oppression.

Immediately after the Civil War in Finland a group of enthusiasts formed two military expeditions, Aunus and Viena expeditions, to drive the Bolshevist Russian army from East Karelia, but they were defeated and the expedition had to return Finland.

Thus in the Treaty of Tartu, the Petsamo region was incorporated into Finland instead of East Karelia.

The idea lived still in the Akateeminen Karjala-Seura (Academic Karelia Society, AKS), the most influential university student organization before World War II, where numerous contemporary and future political and economic figures participated, as members or alumni.

Official Finland raised the question of East Karelia several times in the League of Nations, demanding a similar referendum for the future of the region as had been arranged in Saarland, Silesia and Schleswig.

The Soviet Union countered these demands by forming the autonomous Republic of Karelia 1923.

In non-leftist circles, Imperial Germany's role in the "White" government's victory over rebellious Socialists during the Civil War in Finland was commemorated, although the majority of them preferred Britain or the Scandinavian countries over Germany.

The right extremist Lapua Movement was created to finally make an end to the communists, and it saw the contemporary brand of European democracy as too soft on Communism, and considered Fascist Italy as a model how left extremism should be eradicated.

The Lapua Movement lost its support base due to its illegal methods employed against moderate politicians, and it was banned in 1932 after a failed rebellion in Mäntsälä.

The right wing extremism continued to live in Isänmaallinen Kansanliike (Patriotic People's Movement, IKL) which had 14 seats out of the 200 representatives in the Finnish parliament.

After the Nazi Party took power in Germany, IKL became a strong supporter for an alliance with the "New Germany", which cracked down on all open Communist activity in Germany.


The security policy of independent Finland turned first towards a cordon sanitaire, where the newly independent nations of Poland, the Baltic Republics and Finland should form a defensive alliance against Russia, but, after negotiations collapsed, Finland turned to the League of Nations for security.

Contacts with the Scandinavian countries were also nurtured, but questions about the control of Ahvenanmaa (Åland) and minority languages in Finland and northern Scandinavia prevented success.

In 1932, Finland and Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact, but even contemporary analysts considered it worthless.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Winter War

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact clarified Soviet–German relations and enabled Soviet pressure against the small Baltic republics and Finland, allegedly in order for the Soviet Union to better her own strategic position in Eastern Europe in preparation for a possible widening of the war.

The Baltic republics soon gave in to Soviet demands of bases and troop transfer rights, but Finland continued to refuse.

As diplomatic pressure had failed, it came time to use arms, and on November 30, 1939, the Soviet Union began an invasion of Finland — the Winter War.

The Winter War produced in Finns a rude awakening to international politics.

The condemnations of the League of Nations and countries all over the world seemed to have no effect on Soviet policy.

Sweden allowed volunteers to join Finnish army, but did not send regular troops or its air force, and in the end did not allow Franco-British troop transfer through its region.

France and Britain promised to send combat troops, but when their plans were examined, only a small fraction of those were destined for Finland.

To the right wing extremists, it was a shock to notice that Nazi Germany did not help at all, but even blocked all material help from other countries as well.


The Moscow Peace Treaty, which ended the Winter War, was perceived as a great injustice.

It seemed as if the losses at the negotiation table, including Finland's second largest city, Viipuri (Vyborg), had been worse than on the battlefield.[1] ( http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd.htm )

A fifth of the country's industrial capacity had been lost.

Of the twelve percent of Finland's population who lived there, only a few hundred remained, the remaining 420,000 moving to the Finnish side of the border.

Also, eleven percent of Finnish agricultural soil was lost, the loss made more severe because it was the best Finland had.

After the Moscow Peace Treaty

The Moscow Peace Treaty, signed on March 12, 1940, was a veritable shock for the Finns.

It was perceived as the ultimate proof of failure for Finland's foreign policy of the 1930s, that was based on multilateral guarantees for support from culturally and ideologically akin countries, first in the world order established by the League of Nations, and later from the Oslo group and Scandinavia.


The immediate response was to broaden and intensify this policy.

Formal binding bilateral treaties were now sought where Finland formerly had relied on goodwill and national friendship, and the formerly frosty relations to ideological adversaries, as the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, had necessarily to be eased.

Closer and improved relations were sought particularly with:

Sweden and Norway
the United Kingdom
the Soviet Union
the Third Reich

With exception for the case of Nazi Germany, all of these attempts turned out to meet critical obstacles — either due to Moscow's fear that Finland would slide out of the Soviet sphere of influence or due to general dynamics of the world war.

Interim peace

Public opinion in Finland longed for the re-acquisition of the homes of the 12% of Finland's population who had been forced to leave Finnish Karelia in haste, and put their hope to the peace conference that was generally assumed to come to follow the World War.

The term Välirauha ("Interim peace") hence became popular at once after the harsh peace was announced.

To protest the Moscow Peace Treaty, two ministers resigned and Prime Minister Ryti was forced to form a new cabinet right away.

To achieve better national consensus, all parties except the right extremist IKL participated in the cabinet.

The most difficult post to fill was that of Foreign Minister, for which Ryti and Mannerheim first thought of Finland's ambassador to London G. A. Gripenberg, but as he believed himself to be too unpopular in Berlin, Rolf Witting, who was less British-oriented and more suitable to achieve improved relations with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, was selected.

Attempted Nordic Defence Alliance

During the last days of war, Väinö Tanner and Per Albin Hansson had mentioned the possibility of a Nordic Defence Alliance, possibly including also Norway and Denmark, to stabilize the situation in the region.

On March 15, this plan was published for discussion in the parliaments.

However, on March 29 the Soviet Union declared that an alliance would be in breach of the Moscow Peace Treaty, stalling the plan, and Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway killed even the option of a smaller Scandinavian Defence Alliance, that would benefit Finland also if she wasn't a party to it.

Re-armaments

Although the peace treaty was signed, the state of war was not revoked because of the widening world war, the difficult food supply situation, and the poor shape of the Finnish military.

Censorship was not abolished but was used to suppress critics of the Moscow peace treaty and the most blatantly anti-Soviet comments.

The continued state of war made it possible for President Kyösti Kallio to ask Field Marshal Mannerheim to remain commander-in-chief and supervise the reorganization of Finland's Armed Forces and the fortification of the new border, a task that was critically important in the unruly times.

Within a week after the peace treaty was signed, the fortification works were started along the 1200 km long Salpalinja ("the Bolt Line"), where the focus was between the Gulf of Finland and Lake Saimaa.

During the summer and autumn, Finland received material purchased and donated during and immediately after the Winter War, but it took several months before Mannerheim was able to present a somewhat positive assessment of the state of the army.

Military expenditures rose in 1940 to 45% of Finland's state budget.

Military purchases were prioritised over civilian needs.

Mannerheim's position and the continued state of war enabled an efficient management of the military, but it created an unfortunate parallel government that from time to time clashed with the structures of civilian government.

March 13, the same day when Moscow Peace Treaty came into an effect, British Ministry of Economic Warfare (MEW) asked Foreign Office to start negotiations with Finland as soon as possible to secure positive relations to Finland.

Undersecretary of MEW, Charles Hambro was authorized to form the war trade treaty with Finland, and he traveled to Helsinki April 7.

He had already had exchanged letters with Ryti, and they reached quickly to the basic understanding of the contents of the treaty.

Finns were eager to start trade, and from the first meeting the preliminary treaty was created, which Finns accepted immediately, but Hambro needed the approval of his superiors and that it would be considered official immediately until the final treaty was negotiated.

In the treaty Finland gave control of her strategic material exports to Britain in exchange of armaments and other necessary materials.

Next day, German attack to Norway made the treaty obsolete as England canceled all trade to the region.

Denmark and Norway occupied

After Nazi Germany's assault on Scandinavia on April 9, 1940, Operation Weserübung, Finland was physically isolated from her traditional trade markets in the West.

Sea routes to and from Finland were now controlled by the Kriegsmarine.

The outlet of the Baltic sea was blockaded, and in the far north Finland's route to the world was an arctic dirt road from Rovaniemi to the ice-free harbour of Petsamo, from where the ships had to pass a long stretch of German-occupied Norwegian coast by the Arctic Ocean.

Finland, like Sweden, was spared occupation but encircled by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.

Especially damaging was the loss of fertilizer imports, that, together with the loss of arable land ceded in the Moscow Peace, the loss of cattle during the hasty evacuation after the Winter War, and the unfavourable weather in the summer of 1940, resulted in a drastic fall of foodstuff production to less than two thirds of what was Finland's estimated need.

Some of the deficit could be purchased from Sweden and some from the Soviet Union, although delayed deliverances were then a means to exert pressure on Finland.

In this situation, Finland had no alternative than to turn to Germany for help.

Finland seeks German rapprochement

Germany has traditionally been a counterweight to Russia in Baltic region, and despite the fact that Hitler's Third Reich had acquiesced with the invader, Finland perceived some value in also seeking warmer relations in that direction.

After the German occupation of Norway, and particularly after the Allied evacuation from northern Norway, the relative importance of a German rapprochement increased.

Finland had queried about the possibility of buying arms from Germany on May 9, but Germany refused to even discuss the matter.

From May 1940, Finland pursued a campaign to re-establish the good relations with Germany that had soured in the last year of the 1930's.

Finland rested her hope in the fragility of the Nazi–Soviet bond, and in the many personal friendships between Finnish and German athletes, scientists, industrialists, and military officers.

A part of that policy was accrediting the energetic Toivo Mikael Kivimäki as ambassador in Berlin in June 1940.

The Finnish mass media not only refrained from criticism of Nazi Germany, but also took active part in this campaign.

Dissent was censored.

Seen from Berlin, this looked like a refreshing contrast to the annoyingly anti-Nazi press in Sweden.


After the fall of France, in late June, the Finnish ambassador in Stockholm heard from the diplomatic sources that Britain could soon be forced to negotiate peace with Germany.

The experience from World War I emphasized the importance of close and friendly relations with the victors, and accordingly the courting of Nazi Germany was stepped up still further.

The first crack in the German coldness vis-à-vis Finland was registered in late July, when Ludwig Weissauer, a secret representative of the German Foreign Minister, visited Finland and queried Mannerheim and Ryti about Finland's willingness to defend the country against the Soviet Union.

Mannerheim estimated the Finnish army could last a few weeks without more arms.

Weissauer left without any promises.

Continued Soviet pressure

The implementation of the Moscow Peace Treaty created problems due to the Soviet Vae Victis-mentality.

Border arrangements in the Enso industrial area, which even Soviet members of the border commission considered to be on the Finnish side of the border, the forced return of evacuated machinery, locomotives, and rail cars; and inflexibility on questions which could have eased hardships created by the new border, such as fishing rights and the usage of Saimaa Canal merely served to heighten distrust about the objectives of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet attitude was personified in the new ambassador to Helsinki, Ivan Zotov.

He behaved undiplomatically and had a stiff-necked drive to advance Soviet interests, real or imagined, in Finland.

During the summer and autumn he recommended several times in his reports to the Soviet Foreign Office that Finland ought to be finished off and wholly annexed by the Soviet Union.

On June 23, the Soviet Union proposed that Finland should revoke Petsamo mining rights from the British–Canadian company and transfer them to the Soviet Union, and also grant the Soviet Union rights to handle security in the area.

On June 27, Moscow demanded either demilitarization or a joint fortification effort in Åland.

After Sweden had signed the troop transfer agreement with Germany on July 8, Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov demanded similar rights for a Soviet troop transit to Hanko on July 9.

The transfer rights were given on September 6, and demilitarization of Åland was agreed on October 11, but negotiations on Petsamo continued to drag on, with Finnish negotiators stalling as much as possible.

The Communist Party was so discredited in the Winter War that it never managed to recuperate between the wars.

Instead, on May 22, the "Peace and Friendship Society of Finland and Soviet Union" (SNS) was created, and it actively propagated Soviet viewpoints.

Ambassador Zotov had very close contacts with the SNS by holding weekly meetings with the SNS leadership in the Soviet embassy and having Soviet diplomats participating in SNS board meetings.

The SNS started by criticizing the government and military, and gained around 35,000 members at maximum.

Emboldened by its success, it started organizing almost daily violent demonstrations during the first half of August which were supported politically by Zotov and a press campaign in Leningrad.

The government reacted forcefully and arrested leading members of the society which ended the demonstrations in spite of Zotov's and Molotov's protests.

The SNS was finally outlawed in December 1940.

The Soviet Union demanded that Väinö Tanner be discharged from the cabinet because of his anti-Soviet stance and he had to resign August 15.

Ambassador Zotov further demanded the resignation of both the Minister of Social Affairs Karl-August Fagerholm because he had called the SNS a Fifth column in a public speech, and the Minister of Interior Affairs Ernst von Born, who was responsible for police and led the crackdown of the SNS, but they retained their places in the cabinet after Ryti delivered a radio speech in which he stated the willingness of his government to improve relations between Finland and the Soviet Union.

President Kallio suffered a stroke on August 28, after which he was unable to work, but when he presented his resignation November 27, the Soviet Union reacted by announcing that if Mannerheim, Tanner, Kivimäki, Svinhufvud or someone of their ilk were chosen president, it would be considered a breach of the Moscow peace treaty.

All of this reminded the public heavily of how the Baltic Republics had been occupied and annexed only a few months earlier.

So it was no wonder that the average Finn feared that the Winter War had produced only a short delay of the same fate.

British disregard

Compared to the early spring, during the summer of 1940, Finland wasn't high in importance in British foreign policy.

To gain support from the Soviet Union, Britain had appointed Sir Stafford Cripps, from the left wing of the Labour Party, ambassador to Moscow.

He had openly supported the Terijoki Government during the Winter War and he wondered to ambassador Paasikivi 'didn't the Finns really want to follow Baltic Republics and join the Soviet Union?'.

He also dismissively called president Kallio "Kulak" and Nordic social democracy "reactionary".

The British Foreign Office had to apologize for his language to ambassador Gripenberg.

Britain opposed Finnish-Swedish cooperation and provided support for the Soviet Union to scuttle the initiative, until it became apparent in late March 1941 that it had driven Finland in the direction of the Germans, but by then it was already too late.

Finnish foreign trade was another critical issue as it was dependent on British navycerts and the Ministry of Economic Warfare was extremely strict when issuing those so that even Finnish trade (and relations) with the Soviet Union suffered from it.

During the nickel negotiations the Foreign Office pressured the license owning British-Canadian company to "temporarily" release the license and offered diplomatic support to Soviet attempts to gain control of the mine with the precondition that no ore would be shipped to Germany.

Improved relations with Nazi Germany

Unbeknownst to Finland, Adolf Hitler had started to plan his forthcoming invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) now when France had collapsed.

He had not been interested in Finland before the Winter War, but now he saw the value of Finland as an operating base, and perhaps also the military value of the Finnish army.

In the first weeks of August, German fears of a likely immediate Russian attack on Finland caused Hitler to free the arms embargo.

The arms deliveries stopped under the Winter War were resumed.

The next visitor from Germany came on August 18, when a representative of Hermann Göring, arms dealer Joseph Veltjens, arrived.

He negotiated with Ryti and Mannerheim about German troop transfer rights between Finnmark in Northern Norway and ports of Gulf of Bothnia in exchange for arms and other material.

At first these arms shipments were transferred via Sweden, but later they came directly to Finland.

For the Third Reich, this was a breach of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as well as it for Finland was a material breach of the Moscow Peace Treaty that in fact was chiefly targeted against cooperation between Germany and Finland.

It has in retrospect been disputed whether the ailing President Kallio was informed.[2] ( http://www.mannerheim.fi/10_ylip/e_kkulku.htm )

Possibly Kallio's health collapsed before he could be confidentially briefed.

From the campaign to ease the Third Reich's coldness towards Finland, it seemed a natural development to also promote closer relations and cooperation.

Not the least since the much disliked Moscow Peace Treaty in clear language tried to persuade the Finns not to do exactly that.

Propaganda in the censured press contributed to Finland's international re-orientation — although with very measured means.

Soviet negotiators had insisted that the troop transfer agreement (to Hanko) should not be published for parliamentary discussion or voting.

This precedent made it easy for the Finnish government to keep a troop transfer agreement with the Germans secret until the first German troops arrived at the port of Vaasa on September 21.

The arrival of German troops produced much relief to the insecurity of average Finns, and was largely approved.

Most contrary voices opposed more the way the agreement was negotiated than the transfer itself, although the Finnish people knew only the barest details of the agreements with the Third Reich.

The presence of German troops was seen as a deterrent for further Soviet threats and a counterbalance to the Soviet troop transfer right.

The German troop transfer agreement was augmented November 21 allowing the transfer of wounded, and soldiers on leave, via Turku.

Germans arrived and established quarters, depots, and bases along the rail lines from Vaasa and Oulu to Ylitornio and Rovaniemi, and from there along the roads via Karesuvanto and Kilpisjärvi or Ivalo and Petsamo to Skibotten and Kirkenes in northern Norway.

Also roadwork for improving winter road between Karesuvanto and Skibotten and totally new road from Ivalo to Karasjok were discussed and later financed by Germans.

Ryti, Mannerheim, Minister of Defence Walden and chief of staff Heinrichs decided October 23 that information concerning Finnish defence plans of Lappland could be given to the Wehrmacht to gain goodwill, even with the risk that they could be forwarded to the Soviet Union.

When Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov visited Berlin on November 12, he demanded that Germany stop supporting Finland, and the right to handle Finland in a similar way to Baltic states, but Hitler demanded that there should be no new military activities in Northern Europe before summer.

Through unofficial channels, Finnish representatives were informed that "Finnish leaders can sleep peacefully, Hitler has opened his umbrella over Finland."

Attempted Defence Union with Sweden

On August 19, a new initiative was launched for co-operation between Sweden and Finland.

It called for a union of the two states in exchange for a Finnish declaration of satisfaction with the current borders.

The plans were primarily championed by the Swedish Foreign Minister, Christian Günther, and Conservative party leader Gösta Bagge, Education Minister in Stockholm.

They had to counter increasing anti-Swedish opinions in Finland; and in Sweden, Liberal and Socialist suspicions against what was seen as right-wing dominance in Finland.

One of the chief objectives of the plan was to ensure greatest possible liberty for Sweden and Finland in a presumed post-war Europa totally dominated by Nazi Germany.

In Sweden, political opponents criticized the necessary adaptations to the Nazis; in Finland, the resistance centred on the loss of sovereignty and influence — and the acceptance of the loss of Finnish Karelia.

However, the general feeling of Finland's dire and deteriorating position quieted many critics.

The official request for a union was made by Christian Günther on October 18, and Finland's approval was received on October 25, but by November 5, the Soviet ambassador in Stockholm, Alexandra Kollontai, warned Sweden about the treaty.

The Swedish government retreated from the issue but discussions for a more acceptable treaty continued until December when, on December 6, the Soviet Union and, on December 19, Germany announced their strong opposition to any kind of union between Sweden and Finland.

Road to War

At the autumn of 1940, Finnish generals visited Germany and occupied Europe several times to purchase additional material, guns and munition.

Mannerheim even wrote a personal letter January 7, 1941 to Göring where he tried to persuade him to release Finnish purchased artillery pieces Germany had captured in Norwegian harbours during Weserübung.

During one of these visits, Maj. Gen. Paavo Talvela met with Chief of Staff of OKH, Col. Gen Franz Halder and Göring January 15-18, 1941, and was asked about Finnish plans to defend itself in case of new Soviet invasion.

The Germans also inquired about the possibility of someone from Finland coming and giving a presentation about the experiences of the Winter War.

After the resignation of president Kallio, Risto Ryti was elected by parliament as the new president of Finland December 19.

Johan Wilhelm Rangell formed a new government January 4, and this time the fascist IKL party was included in the cabinet as an act of goodwill toward Nazi Germany.

Petsamo Crisis

The negotiations about Petsamo nickel mining rights had dragged on for six months when the Soviet Foreign Ministry announced January 14 that the negotiations had to be concluded quickly.

The Soviet Union had demanded 75% ownership to the mine and to a nearby power plant together with the right to handle security in the area.

On the same day, the Soviet Union interrupted grain deliveries to Finland.

Soviet ambassador Zotov was recalled home January 18 and Soviet radio broadcasts started attacking Finland.

January 21 Soviet Foreign Ministry issued an ultimatum demanding that nickel negotiations be concluded in two days.

When Finnish military intelligence spotted troop movements on the Soviet side of the border, Mannerheim proposed January 23 a partial mobilization, but Ryti and Rangell didn't accept.

Ambassador Kivimäki reported January 24, that Germany was conscripting new age classes, and it was unlikely that they were needed against Britain.

Finnish Chief of Staff Lt.Gen. Heinrichs visited Berlin January 30-February 3, officially giving a lecture about Finnish experiences in the Winter War, but also including discussions with Halder.

During the discussions Halder "speculated" about a possible German assault on the Soviet Union and Heinrichs informed him about Finnish mobilization limits and defence plans with and without German or Swedish participation.

Col. Buschenhagen had reported from northern Norway February 1 that the Soviet Union had collected 500 fishing ships in Murmansk, capable of transporting a division.

Hitler ordered troops in Norway to occupy Petsamo (Operation Renntier) immediately if the Soviet Union started attacking Finland.

Mannerheim submitted his letter of resignation February 10 claiming that the continuing appeasement made it impossible to defend the country against an invader.

He took his resignation back the next day after discussions with Ryti and after stricter instructions were sent to negotiators: 49% of mining rights to the Soviet Union, the power plant to a separate Finnish company, reservation of the highest management positions for Finns and no further Soviet agitation against Finland.

Soviet Union rejected those terms on February 18, thus ending nickel negotiations.

Diplomatic Activities

After Heinrichs' visit and the end of the nickel negotiations, the diplomatic activities were halted for a few months.

The most significant activities of that time was the visit of col. Buschenhagen in Helsinki and Northern Finland February 18-March 3 when he familiarized himself with the terrain and climate of Lappland.

He also had discussions with Mannerheim, Heinrichs, Major General Airo and chief of operational office Colonel Tapola.

Both parties were careful to point out the speculative nature of these discussions, although later these speculations became the basis of formal agreements.

Already in December 1940 leaders of Germany's Waffen-SS had demanded that Finland should "with deeds" show its orientation towards Germany.

It was clear that it meant enlistment of Finnish troops to the SS.

The official contact was made March 1, and in the following negotiations Finns tried in vain to transform the troops from SS to Wehrmacht in commemoration of the WWI-era Finnish Jäger Battalion.

Ryti and Mannerheim considered the battalion necessary to reinforce German support of Finland, thence the nickname "Panttipataljoona" ("Pawn battalion"), and the negotiations were concluded at April 28 with the Finnish conditions that Government, Civil Guards or Armed Forces would not participate in enlistment and that all military personnel wishing to parcipate must first take their leave of the Finnish army.

These conditions were designed to limit Finnish commitment to Nazi Germany.

The enlistment was carried out in May and in June they were transferred to Germany where a Finnish SS battalion was founded June 18.


Foreign minister Witting informed Sweden, where similar activities were also conducted, already on March 23 about possible enlistment.

The British ambassador to Helsinki, Gordon Vereker, notified the Finnish Foreign Ministry May 16 on the issue, demanding the end of enlistment.

Relations between Sweden and Germany strained in March, and Sweden mobilized March 15 80,000 more men and moved military units to the southern coast and western border making it even more likely that Sweden couldn't support Finland if war broke out.

This also affected Swedish-Finnish co-operation as the Finnish interest for intelligence exchange diminished considerably during April.

Race issues were sources of particular concern: the Finns were not viewed favourably by the Nazi race theorists.

By active participation on Germany's side, Finnish leaders hoped for a more independent position in post-war Europe, through the removal of the Soviet threat and the incorporation of the related Finnic peoples of neighbouring Soviet areas, especially Karelia.

This view gained increasing popularity in the Finnish leadership, and also in the press, during the spring of 1941.

From February to April Germany prepared Barbarossa in secret, and apart from the above contacts no operational or political discussions were concluded during this time.

Instead they published disinformation, such as claims that the German troop buildup in the East was merely a ruse ahead of a planned invasion of Britain (such a plan had been considered under the codename Operation Seawolf) or safe training locations from British bombers, to hide their real intentions.

When Germany invaded Yugoslavia and Greece beginning on April 6, suspicion of German intentions increased in Finland, though uncertainty still prevailed as to whether Hitler really intended to attack the Soviet Union before the Battle of Britain was concluded.

However, the Finns had in the past bitterly learned how a small country can be used as small change in the deals of great powers, and in such a case Finland could have been used as a token of reconciliation between Hitler and Stalin, something which the Finns had every reason to fear, which is why the relations with Berlin were considered of the utmost priority for the future of Finland, especially so if the war between Germany and Soviet Union failed to materialize.

Once again the German Foreign Ministry sent Ludwig Weissauer to Finland May 5, this time to clarify that war between Germany and the Soviet Union would not be launched before spring 1942.

Ryti and Witting believed that at least officially, and forwarded the message to Swedish Foreign Minister Günther, who was visiting Finland May 6-May 9.

Witting also sent the information to Finnish ambassador to London Gripenberg.

When the war broke out only a couple of weeks later, it was understandable that both the Swedish and British governments felt that the Finns had lied to them.

Part of that disinformation campaign was a request to ambassador Kivimäki that Finland should offer proposals for a new borderline Germans could pressure the Soviets to accept in negotiations.

On May 30, 1941 General Airo produced five alternate border drafts for delivery to the Germans, who should then propose the best they felt they could bargain from the Soviet Union.

In reality, the Germans had no such intentions, but the exercise served to fuel the support among leading Finns for taking part in Operation Barbarossa.

Operations like Barbarossa don't begin without some advance notice, and the worsening of Soviet-German relations which began with the meeting in Berlin November 12 was seen around from the end of March 1941.

Stalin tried to improve relations toward the Third Reich by taking the leadership of the Soviet government May 6 and backed off from unimportant issues and fulfilled all trade deals even as German deliveries were late.

Part of that policy was also improving relations with Finland.

A new ambassador, Pavel Orlov, was named to Helsinki April 23 and a gift of a trainload of wheat was presented to J. K. Paasikivi when he retired from Moscow.

The Soviet Union also renounced opposition to a Swedish-Finnish defence alliance, but Swedish disinterest and German opposition to that kind of alliance rendered that change moot.

Also Soviet radio propaganda against Finland ceased.

Orlov acted very conciliatory and soothed many feelings which had been raised by his predecessor, but as he failed to solve any critical issues like the disagreement over petsamo nickel or to restart grain imports from Soviet Union, his line was seen only as a new facade to old policy.

British ambassador Vereker saw Finland moving towards Germany, and due to his reports British Foreign office had requested easing Finnish trade regulations in Petsamo March 30.

At April 28 Vereker reported that the British government should pressure the Soviet Union to return Hanko or Vyborg to Finland as he saw it as the only possible way to secure Finnish neutrality in the case of German-Soviet war.

The Petsamo crisis had disillusioned Finnish politicians, especially Ryti and Mannerheim, creating the impression that peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union was impossible, and that Finland would survive in peace only if the Soviet Union was defeated, as Ryti presented it to US ambassador Arthur Schoenfeld on April 28.

The effect of this general feeling was that voices advocating closer ties with Germany grew stronger and the voices advocating armed neutrality within Finland's new borders (some among the Social Democrats, and some of the more left-leaning in the Swedish People's Party) softened.

Contacts with Sweden's Conservative Foreign Minister Günther showed an enthusiasm unusual for the Swedes for the anticipated "Crusade against Bolshevism".

After the successful occupation of Yugoslavia and Greece by the spring of 1941, the German army's standing was at its zenith, and its victory in the war seemed more than likely.

The envoy of the German Foreign Ministry, Karl Schnurre, visited Finland May 20-24, and invited one or more staff officers to negotiations in Salzburg.

Cooperation with Germany

A group of staff officers led by gen. Heinrichs left Finland on May 24 and participated in discussions with OKW in Salzburg on May 25 where the Germans informed them about the northern part of Operation Barbarossa.

The Germans also presented their interest in using Finnish territory to attack from Petsamo to Murmansk and from Salla to Kandalaksha.

Heinrichs presented Finnish interest in Eastern Karelia, but Germany recommended a passive stance.

The negotiations continued the next day in Berlin with OKH, and contrary to the negotiations of the previous day, Germany wanted Finland to form a strong attack formation ready to strike on the eastern or western side of Lake Ladoga.

The Finns promised to examine the proposal, but notified the Germans that they were only able to arrange supply to the Olonets-Petrozavodsk-line.

The issue of mobilization was also discussed.

It was decided that the Germans would send signal officers to enable confidential messaging to Mannerheim's headquarters in Mikkeli.

Naval issues were discussed, mainly for securing sea lines over the Baltic Sea, but also possible usage of the Finnish navy in the upcoming war.

During these negotiations the Finns presented a number of material requests ranging from grain and fuel to airplanes and radio equipment.

Heinrichs' group returned on May 28 and reported their discussions to Mannerheim, Walden and Ryti.

And on May 30 Ryti, Witting, Walden, Kivimäki, Mannerheim, Heinrichs, Talvela and Aaro Pakaslahti from Foreign Ministry had a meeting where they accepted the results of those negotiations with a list of some prerequisites: a guarantee of Finnish independence, the pre-Winter War borders (or better), continuing grain deliveries, and that Finnish troops would not cross the border before a Soviet incursion.

The next round of negotiations occurred in Helsinki on June 3-June 6 regarding some practical details.

During these negotiations it was decided that Germany would be responsible for the area north of Oulu.

This area was easily given to them because it was sparsely inhabited and non-critical to the defence of the more important southern provinces.

The Finns also agreed to give two divisions to the Germans in northern Finland (30 000 men) and to the usage of airfields in Helsinki and Kemijärvi (Because of the number of German aircraft, airfields at Kemi and Rovaniemi were added later).

Finland also warned Germany that an attempt to establish a Quisling government would cut co-operation and that they considered it very important that Finland not be the aggressor and that no invasion should be launched from Finnish soil.

The negotiations for naval operations continued on June 6 in Kiel.

It was agreed that the Kriegsmarine would close the Gulf of Finland with mines as soon as the war began.

The arrival of German troops participating in Operation Barbarossa began on June 7 in Petsamo, where SS Division Nord started southwards, and on June 8 in the ports of the Gulf of Bothnia where the German 169th Infantry Division was transported by rail to Rovaniemi, where both of these turned eastward on June 18.

Britain cancelled all naval traffic to Petsamo June 14 in protest of these moves.

Starting from June 14 a number of German minelayers and supporting MTBs arrived in Finland, some on an official naval visit, others hiding in the southern archipelago.

Finnish parliament was informed for the first time on June 9, when first mobilization orders were issued for troops needed to safeguard the following mobilization phases, like anti-air and border guard units.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs complained that parliament was bypassed when deciding on these issues, and protesting that Parliament should be trusted with sensitive information, but no other actions were taken.

Swedish ambassador Karl-Ivan Westman wrote that the Soviet-minded "Sextuples", the far-left Social Democrats, were the reason that parliament couldn't be trusted in foreign policy questions.

When Soviet news agency TASS reported on June 13 that no negotiations were ongoing between Germany and the Soviet Union, Ryti and Mannerheim decided to delay mobilization as no guarantees had been received from Germany.

General Waldemar Erfurt, who has been nominated as liaison officer to Finland on June 11, reported to OKW June 14, that Finland wouldn't finalize mobilization unless the prerequisites were granted.

Although the Finns continued on the same day (June 14) with the second phase of mobilization, this time the mobilizing forces were located in northern Finland and later operated under German command.

Field Marshall Keitel send a message on June 15 stating that the Finnish prerequisites were accepted, and the general mobilization started on June 17, two days later than scheduled.

An airfield in Utti was evacuated by Finnish planes on June 18 and the Germans were allowed to use it for refueling from June 19.

German reconnaissance planes were stationed at Tikkakoski, near Jyväskylä, on June 20.

On June 20 Finland's government ordered 45,000 people at the Soviet border to be evacuated.

On June 21 Finland's chief of the General Staff, Erik Heinrichs, was finally informed by his German counterpart that the attack was to begin.

To the Opening of Hostilities

Operation Barbarossa had already commenced in the northern Baltic by the late hours of June 21, when German minelayers, which had been hiding in the Finnish archipelago, laid down two large minefields across the Gulf of Finland, one at the mouth of the gulf and a second in the middle of the Gulf.

These minefields ultimately proved sufficient to confine the Soviets' Baltic fleet to the easternmost part of the Gulf of Finland until the end of the Continuation War.

Three Finnish submarines participated in the mining operation by laying 9 small fields between Suursaari Island and the Estonian coast.

Later the same night German bombers, flying from East Prussian airfields, flew along the Gulf of Finland to Leningrad and mined the harbour and the river Neva.

Finnish air defence noticed that one group of these bombers, most likely the ones responsible for mining the river Neva, flew over southern Finland.

On the return trip, these bombers refuelled in Utti airfield before returning to East Prussia.

Finland feared that the Soviet Union would occupy Åland as soon as possible and use it to close naval routes from Finland to Sweden and Germany (together with Hanko base), so Operation Kilpapurjehdus (Sail Race) was launched in the early hours of June 22 to occupy Åland.

Soviet bombers launched attacks against Finnish ships during the operation but no damage was inflicted.

Individual Soviet artillery batteries started to shoot at Finnish positions from Hanko early in the morning, so the Finnish commander sought permission to return fire, but before the permission was granted, the Soviet artillery had stopped shooting.

On the morning of June 22, the German Gebirgskorps Norwegen started Operation Renntier and began its move from Northern Norway to Petsamo.

The German ambassador initiated urgent negotiations with Sweden for transfer of the German 163rd Infantry Division from Norway to Finland using Swedish rail.

Sweden agreed to this on June 24.

On the morning of June 22, both the Soviet Union and Finland declared that each would be neutral in respect of the other in the war that was now underway.

This precipitated unease in the Nazi leadership, which tried to provoke a response from the Soviet Union by using both the Finnish archipelago as a base, and Finnish airfields for refueling.

Hitler's public statement worked in the same direction; Hitler declared that Germany would attack the Bolshevists "(...) in the North in alliance ["im Bunde"] with the Finnish freedom heroes".

This was in flat contradiction of the statement made to parliament by British Foreign Secretary Eden on June 24 affirming Finnish neutrality.

Finland did not allow direct German attacks from its soil to the Soviet Union, so German forces in Petsamo and Salla had to hold their fire.

Air attacks were also prohibited, and very bad weather in northern Finland helped to keep the Germans from flying.

Only one attack from Southern Finland against the White Sea Canal was approved, but even that had to be cancelled due to bad weather.

There were occasional individual and group level small arms shooting between Soviet and Finnish border guards, but otherwise the front was quiet.

To keep a close eye on their opponents, both parties - and also the Germans - performed active air reconnaissances over the border, but no air fights ensued.

After three days, early on the morning of June 25, the Soviet Union made its move and unleashed a major air offensive against 18 cities with 460 planes, mainly striking airfields but seriously damaging civilian targets as well.

The worst damage was done in Turku, where the airfield become inoperable for a week, but among civilian targets, the Medieval Turku Castle was also destroyed.

(After the war the castle was repaired, but the work took three decades and was not completed until 1977.)

Heavy damage to civilian targets was also sustained in Kotka and Heinola.

However, civilian casualties of this attack were relatively limited.

The Soviet Union justified the attack as being directed against German targets in Finland, but even the British embassy had to admit that the heaviest hits had been taken by southern Finland, and airfields where there were no Germans.

Only two targets had German forces present at the time of attack: Rovaniemi and Petsamo.

Once again Foreign Minister Eden had to admit to parliament on June 26 that the Soviet Union had initiated the war.

A meeting of parliament was scheduled for June 25 when Prime Minister Rangell had been due to present a notice about Finland's neutrality in the Soviet-German war, but the Soviet bombings led him to instead observe that Finland was once again at war with the Soviet Union.

The Continuation War had begun.

Conclusion

What began for the Finns as a defensive strategy, designed to provide a German counterweight to Soviet pressure, ended as an offensive strategy, aimed at re-conquest of the formerly Finnish Karelia and an invasion of East Karelia in the Soviet Union.

The Finns had been lured by the prospects of regaining their lost territories and ridding themselves of the Soviet threat into becoming a party to Nazi Germany's planned invasion of the USSR.

Finnish Offensive 1941

Mobilized units started moving towards the border on June 21, and they were arranged into defensive formations as soon as they arrived at the border.

Finland was able to mobilize 16 infantry divisions, one cavalry brigade, and two "Jäger" brigades, which were practically normal infantry brigades, except for one battalion in the 1st Jaeger Brigade (1.JPr), which was armored using captured Soviet equipment.

There were also a handful of separate battalions, mainly formed from Border Guard units and used mainly for reconnaissance.

Soviet military plans has estimated that the Finns would be able to mobilize only 10 infantry divisions, as they had done in the Winter War, but they failed to take into account materiel the Finns had purchased between the wars and the training of all available men.

In northern Finland there were also two German Mountain Divisions at Petsamo and two German Infantry divisions at Salla.

Another German infantry division was en route through Sweden to Ladoga Karelia, although one reinforced regiment was later redirected from it to Salla.

When the war started, the Soviet Union had 23rd Army in Karelian Isthmus consisting of 50th and 19th Corps and 10th Mechanized Corps, together 5 Infantry, 1 Motorized and 2 Armored divisions.

At Ladoga Karelia there was 7th Army consisting of 4 Infantry divisions.

In Murmansk-Salla region the Soviet Union had 14th Army with 42nd Corps, consisting of 5 Infantry divisions (1 as reserve in Archangelsk) and 1 Armored division.

Also the Soviets had around 40 battalions, separate regiments and fortification units which were not part of their divisional structure.

In Leningrad there were 3 Infantry divisions and one Mechanized Corps.

The initial German strike against the Soviet Air Force had not touched air units located near Finland, so the Soviets could field nearly 750 Air Force planes and part of the 700 planes the Soviet Navy had against 300 Finnish planes.

The Soviet war against Germany did not go as well as pre-war Soviet wargames had envisioned, and soon Soviet high command had to take units from wherever they could, so although Soviets had started the war against Finland, they could not follow the initial air offensive with a supporting land offensive.

They also had to withdraw the 10th Mechanized Corps with two armored divisions and 237th Infantry division from Ladoga Karelia thus stripping reserves from defending units.

Reconquest of Ladoga Karelia

Initially the Finnish army was deployed in a defensive formation, but on June 29 Mannerheim created the Army of Karelia, commanded by Lt. Gen. Heinrichs, and ordered it to prepare to attack Ladoga Karelia.

The Army of Karelia consisted of VI Corps (5th and 11th Divisions), VII Corps (7th and 9th divisions) and Group O (Cavalry Brigade, 1st Jaeger Brigade and 2nd Jaeger Brigade).

Also later when 1. division and two regiments of German 163. division arrived to the area they were given to the Army of Karelia.

Opposing them were the Soviet 7th Army with 168th Division near Sortavala and 71st Division north of Jänisjärvi ("Hare Lake").

Soviets had prepared field fortifications along the border across Sortavala and to the important road crossings at Värtsilä and Korpiselkä.

On July 9, the order for offensive was given.

The duty to break through the Soviet defences was given to VI Corps, commanded by hero of Battle of Tolvajärvi, Maj. Gen. Paavo Talvela.

He had borrowed as much artillery as possible from other units of the Army of Karelia and even 1st Jaeger Brigade (Col. Ruben Lagus) from Group O.

With strong artillery support he unleashed 5th Division (Col. Koskimies) to Korpiselkä July 10 and the defenders were overwhelmed by next morning.

Talvela wasn't satisfied with aggressiveness of Koskimies, and he relieved him from the command and gave 5th Division to Col. Lagus.

Lagus pursued retreating Soviet IR 52 eastward with his light units and reached Tolvajärvi July 12.

Then he turned southwards and advanced using small roads, some in such worse shape that men had to carry their bicycles.

On July 14 his forces cut Sortavala-Petrozavodsk railroad, and next day they reached shores of Lake Ladoga, cutting Soviet routes around the lake.

Soviets had to transfer two regiments and separate battalions from Karelian Isthmus to close down the hole on the eastern side of Lake Ladoga.

The 11th division (Col. Heiskanen) had already July 4 found that Soviet forces had temporarily abandoned their trenches across the border, and they used the opportunity to capture them.

When the general offensive began, they had already pushed July 9 eastward from their captured positions over the roadless terrain and cut the road running from Korpiselkä to Värtsilä and Suistamo, on the eastern shore of Jänisjärvi.

From there they threatened to encircle Soviet forces south of Korpiselkä and those fortified in Värtsilä, so to prevent encirclement, they had to leave their positions and retreat eastward.

Soviet IR 367 was able to hold its positions north of Jänisjärvi until defenders of Värtsilä had retreated there July 12.

Heiskanen continued pressing Soviet IR 367 around the eastern side of Jänistärvi, and reached Jänisjoki, running from Jänisjärvi to Lake Ladoga July 16, where they set on defensive.

Lagus continued his offensive immediately along the north-eastern coast of Lake Ladoga.

Soviet Mot. IR 452 was coming from Karelian Isthmus and its first parts set to defensive at Salmi, where Tulemajoki reaches Lake Ladoga.

Finns arrived there on July 18, and early next morning Finns started the battle by crossing the river 5km north of Salmi and managed to cut the roads leading to Salmi by afternoon.

Next day Finns were able to push into the village and only small units were able to escape the encirclement.

Salmi was finally cap
Livyjr
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 16 2005, 03:37 PM)
By 1969, Dwight D. Eisenhower had been dead for eight years.

And you say this Organisation is about the study of HISTORY???

Well, actually, I don't say anything at all, because I am wondering exactly who the hell they are, because they are skewing OUR history, and that has me curious!

When I read their propaganda, and saw that BID-NESS about Eisenhower, in 1969, which is their words, I stuck that question mark in there, in parenthesis, to mark my astonishment at how much Ike was able to achieve in OUR America, despite being dead!

OUR HISTORY IS BEING CHANGED, AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IT IS GOING ON, SINCE WE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DIALOGUE!

And this crowd is a part of that changing!

And I still wonder what that Abshire fellow got that "ORDER of the LION of FINLAND" for, if he is an American, and I wonder at the award itself, which has its origins in the fascist period of Finland's own history!

WHO EXACTLY DO WE HAVE IN CHARGE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OVER HERE?

WHO IS CHANGING OUR HISTORY, AND WHY?


Just curious, of course!
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 05:27 PM)
WHO EXACTLY DO WE HAVE IN CHARGE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OVER HERE?

WHO IS CHANGING OUR HISTORY, AND WHY?


Just curious, of course!

And I'm curious about what Mother Nature is up to as well:

"Moderate Quake Shakes Southern California"

38 minutes ago

YUCAIPA, Calif. - A moderate earthquake shook most of Southern California Thursday, startling people and knocking items off shelves and desks, but there were no immediate reports of significant damage or injuries.

The early afternoon quake had a magnitude of 4.9 and was centered near Yucaipa in San Bernardino County, east of Los Angeles, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

About 25 aftershocks followed in a little over an hour, the strongest estimated at magnitude 3.5.


Residents reported shaking from Los Angeles to San Diego and in counties to the east.

Rock slides were reported on Highway 38 in the San Bernardino Mountains.

"All of a sudden I heard a loud rumbling sound, kind of like thunder," said Nick Brandes, 25, manager of a store in Yucaipa.

"At the front, all the customers were in a panic."

"They were all just in a hurry to get out."

Andrea Cabrera, an employee at the Walgreens drug store in Yucaipa, said the store "just had a few items falling, that's all."

Customers "were just stunned, and they just stood there," she said.

The Los Angeles Fire Department received no immediate reports of major damage, spokesman Brian Humphrey said.

None of Southern California Edison's 4.6 million customers lost power.

It was the third significant quake to hit California this week: A magnitude-5.2 quake shook Riverside County on Sunday, and a magnitude-7.0 quake struck Tuesday under the ocean 90 miles off Northern California.

Thursday's quake occurred near the San Andreas Fault but not on it, said Lucy Jones, scientist in charge of the U.S. Geological Survey office in Pasadena.

She said the quake was not a direct aftershock from Sunday's temblor.

"This is not an unusual level of earthquake activity," Jones said of the state's recent quakes.

Channon Kelly, 31, was eating her lunch in downtown Los Angeles when Thursday's quake hit.

"I almost jumped out of my seat," Kelly said.

"I'm starting to get freaked out."

"We've had so many in the last week, the one Sunday and then in Northern California."

"I could hear the windows rattling and feel it all at the same time."


end quotes

Fear not jeffmoskin, I hear that George Pataki has Mother Nature on the ropes, right now, and that he will have Mother Nature subdued pretty soon now, and so, you shouldn't be bothered anymore by earthquakes, or errant mountain lions eating shoppers on Rodeo Drive, or those coyotes who have become accustomed to a poodle diet out there!

Hang tough, jeffmoskin!

Don't get freaked out!

Of course, then you'll have to make Pataki the next president of America, but for stability in your environment out there, that's a small price to pay, isn't it?
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 05:44 PM)
Fear not jeffmoskin, I hear that George Pataki has Mother Nature on the ropes, right now, and that he will have Mother Nature subdued pretty soon now, and so, you shouldn't be bothered anymore by earthquakes, or errant mountain lions eating shoppers on Rodeo Drive, or those coyotes who have become accustomed to a poodle diet out there!

Hang tough, jeffmoskin!

Don't get freaked out!

Of course, then you'll have to make Pataki the next president of America, but for stability in your environment out there, that's a small price to pay, isn't it?

And speaking of "George's", here's that other one now, and what is he peddling now?

Oh, yeah, just some more of that same old ****:

"Bush Seeks to Calm Anxieties About Iraq"

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

55 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Facing growing pressure to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush is launching a public relations campaign to try to calm anxieties about the war.

Bush scheduled a major address for June 28, the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraqis.


Four days before that, he will meet at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who heads the transitional government chosen after January elections.

The president also plans a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington.

He will emphasize the importance of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere when he meets with fellow world leaders in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.


The president's campaign comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700.

A relentless wave of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings has killed at least 1,070 just since al-Jaafari's government was announced April 28.

"The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people," McClellan said.

"That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the groundthere's significant progress that has been made in a short period of timethe dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq."


A few Republicans have broken ranks with the White House on Iraq, supporting a resolution that calls for Bush to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006.

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.

Many GOP lawmakers also have been reluctant to embrace Bush's signature second-term domestic issue — allowing younger workers to set up private investment accounts with part of their Social Security taxes.

But the president has shown no public evidence yet of backing down and has traveled the country weekly — and will again next week — to campaign for his proposals.

Still, at a time when Bush intended to be concentrating primarily on his domestic agenda, he finds himself shifting emphasis to Iraq.

Foreign policy has typically given Bush his highest scores with the public, but that has changed.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month found just 41 percent of adults supported his handling of the Iraq waran all-time low.

In addition, a Gallup poll released Monday found that six in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

As with his new domestic agenda sales job, Bush plans to offer no policy changes on Iraq.


One development, though, could throw Bush completely off-stride.

The Supreme Court's first vacancy in over a decade could come by the end of the month, and the fierce nomination battle that would immediately ensue would consume a huge portion of the president's — and the entire capital's — attention.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 16 2005, 05:54 PM)
And speaking of "George's", here's that other one now, and what is he peddling now?

Oh, yeah, just some more of that same old ****:

"Bush Seeks to Calm Anxieties About Iraq"

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Facing growing pressure to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush is launching a public relations campaign to try to calm anxieties about the war.

Bush scheduled a major address for June 28, the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to Iraqis.

A few Republicans have broken ranks with the White House on Iraq, supporting a resolution that calls for Bush to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006.

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.

And in the meantime, however:

"House Ready to Give Pentagon $45B for Wars"

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House was poised to give the Pentagon an additional $45 billion for wars next year, even as public support for combat in Iraq wanes and lawmakers press for an exit strategy.

While President Bush has not asked yet for more war funds, lawmakers included money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill the House was expected to approve late Thursday.

With no end in sight in Iraq and Afghanistan, additional war costs are certain and House lawmakers are reluctant to wait for the president's request.

The Senate also is considering adding billions for the wars in its version of the spending bill.


Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has given the president $350 billion for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting terrorism worldwide.

That total includes $82 billion that lawmakers approved in May; much of this money was for Iraq.

In the month since, polls have shown that the public increasingly is dissatisfied with the direction of the Iraq war.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that only 41 percent of adults — a low-water mark — said they supported Bush's handling of the war.

A Gallup poll reported that six in 10 Americans want the United States to withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

Responding to the growing criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Americans to "reach down" into themselves and "look for the kind of patience and generosity that we have exhibited in the past."

"Now, I do think that we owe to the American people to say again and again that this is not going to be an American enterprise for the long term."

This is going to be an Iraqi enterprise," she said.


Military officials said they hoped to reverse the downward trend in public support.

"It is concerning that our public is not as supportive as perhaps they once were," said Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"It's extremely important to the soldier and the Marine, the airman and the sailor over there, to know that their country's behind them," Conway said.

Discontent about the war is evident among lawmakers.

On Thursday, a small group of House members from each party introduced a resolution that would require the president to announce by year's end a plan for bringing home troops from Iraq and take steps to follow through.

Withdrawal would have to start by Oct. 1, 2006, according to the measure.

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion," said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.

Introduced the same day attacks west of Baghdad killed six U.S. troops, the joint resolution is the first such proposal offered by both Democrats and Republicans.

In 2002, most Democrats and six House Republicans voted against sending troops to Iraq.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a resolution this week that urges the Bush administration to give Congress a time frame for achieving military goals in Iraq and bringing home troops.

The White House argued that a timetable cannot be considered until Iraq's army is strong enough.

The administration also has said any withdrawal plan would encourage insurgents to wait for foreign troops to leave Iraq.

"Timetables simply send the wrong message."

"They send the wrong message to the terrorists."

"They send the wrong message to the Iraqi people."

"They send the wrong message to our troops who are serving admirably and working to complete an important mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday.

Excluding war money, the House bill provides $364 billion for the Pentagon for the 2006 budget year that begins Oct. 1.

That amount is about 3 percent greater this year's base funding.

The House bill is about $3 billion less than the president wants for defense.

The measure would fund a 3.1 percent pay raise for the military.

Lawmakers hope it could help entice current and prospective troops at a time when enlistments are lagging.

Bush, in the Pentagon spending proposal he submitted to Congress in February, did not request any money to pay for the wars.

The White House insisted it did not yet know how much would be needed for next yearan argument it has used before to omit war costs from its initial budget.

end quotes

This whole Bush administration is chock full of ****, and so is Connie "CON JOB" Rice!

Her lies and ignorance are a part of the problem, here, and not a part of any solutions, at all!
Livyjr
And here is something that I am supporting:

"Inquiry on road to war begins - Democrats build case for Bush impeachment over Iraq invasion, citing British memo"

By STEWART M. POWELL, Washington bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Friday, June 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Democratic critics on Thursday began building a case for the impeachment of President Bush for allegedly taking the nation to war in Iraq on false pretenses.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and a veteran of impeachment proceedings against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974, launched an unofficial, Democrats-only inquiry into allegations that Bush contrived U.S. intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify a long-planned U.S.-British invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.


The Conyers hearing lacked official standing because it wasn't authorized by the Republican leaders of the House.

Nonetheless, the forum invoked all the trappings of an official congressional inquiry -- including sworn testimony, American flags and coverage by C-Span -- as Conyers publicly demanded that Bush "explain his actions" for going to war on what may have been "false pretenses" and "false information."

The inquiry was triggered by the publication last month of secret minutes of the British war cabinet in July 2002 indicating that Bush may have deceived Congress eight months before the invasion of Iraq when he publicly claimed he was pressing for a diplomatic end to the standoff over suspected weapons of mass destruction when he was secretly laying the groundwork for war.

The minutes -- dubbed the "Downing Street Memo" because the meeting was held at No. 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence -- have never been disowned by the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The document quoted Sir Richard Dearlove, then-head of British intelligence, telling that his recent meetings in Washington showed "a perceptible shift in attitude" to the point that U.S.-led military action against Iraq was "now seen as inevitable."

Bush "wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and (weapons of mass destruction)," Dearlove said.

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Conyers, a 41-year veteran of Congress, said those notes from the British Cabinet meeting mean that more than 1,700 American GIs and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis "have lost their lives for a lie."


Republicans who control both the House and Senate withheld their formal approval of the Conyers' forum, which was attended by nearly two dozen House Democrats.

The event was the first sign of political momentum for a grass-roots effort by some Democrats and anti-war organizations to pressure the Republican-controlled House to open preliminary impeachment proceedings against the President.

Conyers later delivered to the White House a letter from 122 House Democrats to Bush and petitions signed by 500,000 people asking the commander-in-chief to respond to a list of questions based on the minutes of the British cabinet meeting.

Critics of Bush and opponents of the war held a rally across the street from the White House in Lafayette Park.

Earlier this month, Bush and Blair denied at a joint White House news conference that they had secretly agreed in advance to invade Iraq before seeking authorization by the U.N. Security Council or that they had "fixed" pre-war intelligence to justify an invasion.

Thursday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan rebuffed Conyers' inquiry, saying Bush has no plans to respond to the letter.

Conyers "voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed," McClellan said.

"Our focus is not on the past."

"It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq."


Conyers' mock congressional hearing packed roughly three dozen lawmakers, congressional staffers, soldiers' relatives, television crews and reporters into a Capitol hideaway conference room under the control of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House Democratic leader.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had rejected Conyers' request to use a more spacious committee hearing room for the unauthorized hearing.

Conyers staged his hearing as two Republicans and two Democrats proposed a non-binding House resolution that would require the President to announce by the end of the year a plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006 -- one month before the midterm congressional elections.

The sponsors were Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; and Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 06:40 AM)
And here is something that I am supporting:

"Inquiry on road to war begins - Democrats build case for Bush impeachment over Iraq invasion, citing British memo" 
 
By STEWART M. POWELL, Washington bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Friday, June 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Democratic critics on Thursday began building a case for the impeachment of President Bush for allegedly taking the nation to war in Iraq on false pretenses.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and a veteran of impeachment proceedings against President Richard M. Nixon in 1974, launched an unofficial, Democrats-only inquiry into allegations that Bush contrived U.S. intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify a long-planned U.S.-British invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

And here is a slightly different version of this same story, from the AP.

I include it because of the quotes that are not in the one above:

"Democrats urge inquiry on Bush, Iraq"

By PETE YOST, Associated Press
Last updated: 3:41 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Amid new questions about President Bush's drive to topple Saddam Hussein, several House Democrats urged lawmakers on Thursday to conduct an official inquiry to determine whether the president intentionally misled Congress.

At a public forum where the word "impeachment" loomed large, Exhibit A was the so-called Downing Street memo, a prewar document leaked from inside the British government to The Sunday Times of London a month and a half ago.


Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, organized the event.

counting a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's national security team, the memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam

"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy", one of the participants was quoted as saying at the meeting, which took place just after British officials returned from Washington.

The president "may have deliberately deceived the United States to get us into a war", Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said.

"Was the president of the United States a fool or a knave?"


The Democratic congressmen were relegated to a tiny room in the bottom of the Capitol and the Republicans who run the House scheduled 11 major votes to coincide with the afternoon event.

"We have not been told the truth," Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Baghdad a year ago, told the Democrats.

"If this administration doesn't have anything to hide, they should be down here testifying."

The White House refuses to respond to a May 5 letter from 122 congressional Democrats about whether there was a coordinated effort to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy, as the Downing Street memo says.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan says Conyers "is simply trying to rehash old debates."


Conyers and a half-dozen other members of Congress were stopped at the White House gate later Thursday when they hand-delivered petitions signed by 560,000 Americans who want Bush to provide a detailed response to the Downing Street memo.

When Conyers couldn't get in, an anti-war demonstrator shouted, "Send Bush out!"

Eventually, White House aides retrieved the petitions at the gate and took them into the West Wing.

"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, said earlier at the event on Capitol Hill.

Misleading Congress is an impeachable offense, a point that Rangel underscored by saying he's already been through two impeachments.

He referred to the impeachment of President Clinton for an affair with a White House intern and of President Nixon for Watergate, even though Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.


Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort.

"The veracity of those statements has -- to put it mildly -- come into question," he said.

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said, "We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war."

"It used to be said that democracies were difficult to mobilize for war precisely because of the debate required," Wilson said, going on to say the lack of debate in this case allowed the war to happen.

Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.

After the piece appeared someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.

Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation for his critical comments.

The Justice Department is investigating.


John Bonifaz, a lawyer and co-founder of a new group called http://AfterDowningStreet.org , said the lack of interest by congressional Republicans in the Downing Street memo is like Congress during Nixon's presidency saying "we don't want" the Watergate tapes.
jeffmoskin
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 05:49 AM)
"The veracity of those statements has -- to put it mildly -- come into question," he said.

*

To put it very mildly.
Livyjr
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Jun 17 2005, 07:29 AM)
To put it very mildly.

And it's time to do something about it, America!

Get intelligent, and then demand equal representation!

And please, go to this site http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862172/ and vote on these following questions:

As of 4:15 PM EST:

Are you concerned about the so-called "Downing Street Memos" -- which appear to imply that U.S. intelligence and facts were "fixed" to help justify the war in Iraq? * 1594 responses

Yes 95%

No 5%

Do you approve of the way President Bush is handling his job? * 1593 responses

Yes 5%

No 95%

What's most to blame for shortfalls in military recruitment? * 1579 responses

Negative reporting in the mainstream media 4%

Ongoing violence in Iraq 82%

Parents discouraging sons and daughters from joining 13%

end survey

That last question should have had "an untrustworthy, incompetent Commander-in-Chief" as a category, because all 3 categories above on that last question all go back to that one thing, which is everything!
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 02:28 PM)
And it's time to do something about it, America!

Get intelligent, and then demand equal representation!

And please, go to this site http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862172/ and vote on these following questions:

As of 4:15 PM EST:

Are you concerned about the so-called "Downing Street Memos" -- which appear to imply that U.S. intelligence and facts were "fixed" to help justify the war in Iraq?  * 1594 responses 

Yes 95% 

No 5%
 

For information on the Downing Street Memorandum to assist you in coming to an informed decision which represents your own values, go to this URL, now:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 02:28 PM)
And it's time to do something about it, America!

Get intelligent, and then demand equal representation!

And please, go to this site http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862172/ and vote on these following questions:

As of 4:15 PM EST:

Do you approve of the way President Bush is handling his job? * 1593 responses 

Yes 5% 

No 95%
 

And in addition to being very much in favor of impeaching George W. Bush for trying to cover up the fact that he intended to wage aggressive war against Iraq by lying to Congress about some non-existent weapons of mass destruction, I'd also like to see these corporate crooks up on a scaffold, like they used to do over there in England .....

Corporate Scandals

"Ex-Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski found guilty - Former finance chief Mark Swartz also convicted of looting firm"

BREAKING NEWS

The Associated Press

Updated: 4:11 p.m. ET June 17, 2005

NEW YORK - Former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski and a second executive were convicted Friday of looting their company of more than $600 million to fund extravagant lifestyles featuring expensive jewelry, an opulent Manhattan apartment and a gaudy Mediterranean birthday party.

A state court jury deliberated over 11 days before returning the verdict in the second prosecution of Kozlowski, 58, and Mark H. Swartz, 44, the conglomerate’s former finance chief.

Both were convicted of grand larceny, falsifying business records, securities fraud and other charges.

The verdict came after a four-month trial in Manhattan state Supreme Court.

They now face up to 30 years in prison on their convictionsthe maximum sentence for both under the law, prosecutors said.

The pair had testified they were unaware of any wrongdoing when they accepted the money and loans.


“We are disappointed, and we will deal with this on appeal,” promised Swartz’s attorney, Charles Stillman.

Although prosecutors called for the pair to be jailed pending sentencing, both were allowed to remain free on $10 million bail apiece.

Their dejected wives sat in the courtroom, their heads hanging, as the jury foreman intoned guilty verdict after guilty verdict against the pair22 for each.

Kozlowski and Swartz, who were each acquitted of just one charge, are due back in court Aug. 2 for a pre-sentencing hearing.

The pair joins a string of executives convicted in recent months in high-profile corporate wrongdoing cases, among them former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers and Adelphia Communications Corp. founder John Rigas and his son, Timothy.

Richard Scrushy, founder and former chief executive at HealthSouth Corp., is on trial on fraud charges and awaiting a jury verdict in federal court in Birmingham, Ala.

And former Enron Corp. executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are scheduled to go on trial early next year.


The first trial of the former Tyco International Ltd. executives ended in an April 2004 mistrial because a juror, identified by a newspaper as a holdout for acquittal, received a menacing telephone call and letter.

Although prosecutors called for the pair to be jailed pending sentencing, both were allowed to remain free on $10 million bail apiece.

Their disappointed wives sat in the courtroom, their heads hanging, as the jury foreman intoned guilty verdict after guilty verdict on the 31 counts against the pair.

Accused of looting firm

The defendants were accused of enriching themselves by nearly $600 million by taking unauthorized pay and bonuses, abusing loan programs and selling their company stock at inflated prices after lying about Tyco’s finances.

Often, prosecutors said, the defendants hid their alleged thefts by failing to disclose the bonuses and loan forgivenesses in company prospectuses and federal filings, and bought the silence of underlings with outsized compensation.

Both used Tyco’s money to buy extravagant lifestyles that featured art, jewelry and real estate, prosecutors said.

An example of that spending was the gaudy $2 million party Kozlowski threw for wife Karen’s 40th birthday on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia, they said.

Tyco paid about half of the party’s cost.


The prosecution’s emphasis in the first trial on the lavish spending was pared in the second.

Less time was spent on the Manhattan apartment that Kozlowski said he bought for Tyco, which with an $18 million purchase price and furnishings that included a $6,000 shower curtain, raised the cost of the place to more than $30 million.

Lawyers for Kozlowski, with Tyco from 1975 until 2002, and Swartz, who joined Tyco in 1991 and left in 2002, said the executives believed they were acting lawfully when they accepted compensation and loan forgivenesses or spent Tyco’s money.

There was no criminal intent by either man, they said, and therefore there were no crimes.

A major difference in the second trial was four days of testimony by Kozlowski, who did not testify in the first.

He told the jury that he never abused Tyco loan programs or received a bonus to which he was not entitled, and that he never stole anything.

Asked by one of his lawyers, Stephen Kaufman, why a $25 million bonus that he received as a loan forgiveness from the company did not appear on his 1999 tax return, Kozlowski said he could not explain why.

I just was not thinking when I signed my tax return that I had a $25 million loan forgiveness,” Kozlowski said.

Year in and year out at Tyco, my tax returns for the most part had been correct."

"I didn’t pick up on it.”

Prosecutors called Kozlowski’s explanation for this omission and for other actions by him and Swartz “ludicrous,” and “despicable.”
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 02:28 PM)
And it's time to do something about it, America!

Get intelligent, and then demand equal representation!

And please, go to this site http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862172/ and vote on these following questions:

As of 4:15 PM EST:

What's most to blame for shortfalls in military recruitment? * 1579 responses 

Negative reporting in the mainstream media 4% 

Ongoing violence in Iraq 82% 

Parents discouraging sons and daughters from joining 13% 

end survey

That last question should have had "an untrustworthy, incompetent Commander-in-Chief" as a category, because all 3 categories above on that last question all go back to that one thing, which is everything!

And speaking of George W. Bush .....

"U.S. jets drop 500 lb bombs in Iraq operation"

By Luke Baker

Fri Jun 17,11:04 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. F-16 fighter planes dropped a series of 500 lb (220 kg) bombs on insurgent targets in western Iraq overnight as the U.S. military launched a heavy offensive against rebels near the Syrian border.

Nine of the powerful bombs were dropped, the U.S. military said, two of them targeting suspected rebel safe houses near the town of Qaim, an insurgent stronghold on the Euphrates river about 20 km (12 miles) east of Iraq's border with Syria.

Four more were aimed at rebels as they fired mortars and assault rifles at U.S. ground forces near Qaim, and a further three were used to hit suspected weapons caches in the area.

The air power was in support of Operation Spear, the third major offensive U.S. forces have launched in western Iraq in the past six weeks with the aim of crushing insurgent activity in the Euphrates valley which stretches northwest to Syria.

"Operation Spear ... began in the early morning hours with the objectives of rooting out insurgents and foreign fighters and disrupting insurgent support systems in and around Karabila," Captain Jeffrey Pool of the U.S. Marines said in a statement from Ramadi, capital of the surrounding Anbar region.


Iraqi troops and U.S. tank and amphibious assault units were involved, he added.

About 1,000 troops were taking part in all.

Residents in Karabila, a suburb of Qaim where the suspected weapons caches were targeted, said fierce gunbattles broke out overnight and continued.

U.S. forces said air strikes killed about 40 rebels near there on June 11.

The leader in Qaim of the Muslim Clerics Association, a leading voice for the once-dominant Sunni Arab minority, said he was calling for businesses to remain closed and residents to stay in their homes after weekly Friday prayers in protest at U.S. action he said was endangering civilians.

"The U.S. forces are escalating the situation and we will declare a general strike after Friday prayers," the Association's Mudhafar al-Ani said.


The chief doctor at Qaim hospital, Hamdi al-Alusi, said six bodies had been brought to the morgue on Friday, including one of a woman.

The identities of the five men were unclear.

It was unclear how much resistance U.S. forces were meeting, but a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter made an "unscheduled landing" near Qusayba, 20 km (12 miles) west of Qaim, the military said.

Pool said it was not shot down.

AMERICAN DISQUIET

The western, desert regions of Iraq provide strongholds for Sunni insurgents battling U.S. forces and the new, Shi'ite-led government.

Iraqi and U.S. officials say Arab foreign fighters have been entering from Syria, although Damascus rejects accusations of helping them do that.

It is also believed to be the main hideout of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant whose al Qaeda-linked group has carried out many of the deadliest attacks in Iraq and who U.S. forces believe is behind a recent surge in violence.

Since late April, more than 1,000 Iraqis and 120 U.S. troops have died in rebel attacks.

That may help explain a declining approval rating for President Bush at home.

A CBS/New York Times poll released on Thursday said 60 percent of Americans thought things were going badly for the United States in Iraq.

Fifty-one percent now think Washington should have stayed out of Iraq.


In Baghdad, a suicide car bomber blew up his vehicle as an Iraqi security patrol was passing a Shi'ite mosque, wounding four people and causing a fuel truck to explode, police said.

Another car exploded near the convoy of an Iraqi general in Falluja, killing two civilians and wounding 11, officials said.

Tensions have been high between the minority Sunni Arabs, from where the insurgency draws support, and the dominant Shi'ite sect since the government was formed in late April.

Despite tensions, Sunni Arab and Shi'ite leaders managed to strike a compromise on Thursday over the makeup of a committee charged with drafting a new constitution.

(Additional reporting by Alastair Macdonald, Luke Baker and Lutfi Abu-oun in Baghdad)

end quotes

NO COUNTRY, and especially OUR America, should ever go to war with an incompetent as the leader of its military forces!

SO!

I'm surprised so many people in OUR America did not realize that in November of 2004, which is quite a testimonial to the power of the lies that this Bush Co. was able to barrage the American people with, in the months leading up to November 2004, when Americans took the worst possible choice for Commander-in-Chief of OUR military forces, and made him president of OUR America!
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 05:35 PM)
And speaking of George W. Bush .....

"U.S. jets drop 500 lb bombs in Iraq operation"

By Luke Baker

Fri Jun 17,11:04 AM ET

Since late April, more than 1,000 Iraqis and 120 U.S. troops have died in rebel attacks.

That may help explain a declining approval rating for President Bush at home.

A CBS/New York Times poll released on Thursday said 60 percent of Americans thought things were going badly for the United States in Iraq.

Fifty-one percent now think Washington should have stayed out of Iraq.


end quotes

NO COUNTRY, and especially OUR America, should ever go to war with an incompetent as the leader of its military forces!

SO!

I'm surprised so many people in OUR America did not realize that in November of 2004, which is quite a testimonial to the power of the lies that this Bush Co. was able to barrage the American people with, in the months leading up to November 2004, when Americans took the worst possible choice for Commander-in-Chief of OUR military forces, and made him president of OUR America!

June 17, 2005 latimes.com

"War Criticism and Concerns Both Growing - A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to see a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. A general cites the need to gain more public support."

By John Hendren and Cynthia H. Cho, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Apprehension over the war in Iraq surged Thursday as a group of lawmakers demanded that President Bush develop plans to withdraw troops and a top Pentagon official expressed concern about sagging public support for the U.S. military effort.

After a deadly increase in violence in Iraq, congressional critics of the war grew more vocal in demanding a change in policy, and antiwar activists staged a rally near the White House.

The White House said Bush planned to deliver a speech this month on the importance of the U.S. mission, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pledged to work harder to explain the administration's objectives.

"I'm going to, like I think all members of the administration, perhaps try to do more to get out to the public to talk about what it is we are trying to achieve and what it is we are achieving," Rice said at a news conference.

"So I would say this is not going to be an American enterprise for the long term."


The setbacks have triggered growing concern at the Pentagon, where a senior general said he was worried about declining public support.

"It is concerning that our public isn't as supportive as perhaps they once were," said Marine Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

"We'd like, I believe, to try to reverse those figures and start the trend back the other direction."

"Because it's extremely important to the soldier and the Marine, the airman and the sailor over there, to know that their country's behind them."

Conway alluded to the precedent of Vietnam, in which plummeting public support for the war was blamed for undercutting the U.S. effort.


A Gallup poll this week found that about 6 in 10 Americans advocated a partial or full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

This month, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 41% of Americans approved of how Bush was handling Iraq, the president's worst grade to date.

Insurgent attacks have claimed the lives of hundreds of Iraqi civilians in recent weeks.

Eighty-eight U.S. troops died in May and 45 were killed in the first half of June, the highest level since 126 troops were slain in January, before the Iraqi election.

As of Thursday, at least 1,713 U.S. troops had been killed since the start of the war.

Drawing a parallel with Vietnam, Conway recounted the story of a Marine colonel negotiating the U.S. withdrawal with his Vietnamese counterpart in 1975.

"And the Marine said to him, 'We beat you every time on the battlefield,'" Conway said.

"And the Vietnamese colonel said, 'That is true, but it's also irrelevant.'"

"And the fact is, they realized what I think our contemporary enemy realizes — that American public opinion is the center of gravity," Conway said.

"That a democracy can't do certain things if, in fact, the citizens don't support it."

Conway said U.S. commanders in Iraq were against an "artificially imposed deadline" for a withdrawal of troops — a subject debated Thursday on Capitol Hill.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a resolution that would require Bush to submit a plan for troop withdrawal by the end of the year and to begin the pullout by October 2006.

"After 2 1/2 years, it's right to take a fresh look."

"We have a right to ask, 'What are the goals?'" said Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, one of the Republican sponsors of the measure.

"It's time to get serious about an exit strategy," said Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, a Democratic sponsor.

Other sponsors of the resolution include Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) and Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Petaluma).

Although the administration opposes any requirement for withdrawals or timetables, Jones, a conservative Republican, said the measure would provide a way for Americans to "debate and discuss" the issue.

"If we didn't do this today, we may be here in 10 years," Jones said.

Conway said a deadline would embolden Iraqi insurgents to continue daily attacks and bide their time until U.S. troops left.

end quotes

Conway is full of beans, and so is Connie Rice!

And get off of my emotions, here, General Conway, BECAUSE I WAS IN VIET NAM, and that war was as full of **** as you are!

YOU WANT THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, GENERAL, THEN DON'T LIE TO THEM, AND DON'T TREAT THEM LIKE THEY ARE STUPID!

And if you want to kowtow and grovel before an incompetent Commander-in-chief, and lick his boots, that is your BID-NESS, and your right as an American citizen, to boot; BUT ...

As for me, I don't follow fools anywhere, and I don't like liars, and I don't like being lied to, and I don't support a war based on lies, and so ....

Or do you want me to make it simpler for you to understand?
Livyjr
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 05:51 PM)
June 17, 2005 latimes.com

"War Criticism and Concerns Both Growing - A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to see a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. A general cites the need to gain more public support."

By John Hendren and Cynthia H. Cho, Times Staff Writers

Conway said a deadline would embolden Iraqi insurgents to continue daily attacks and bide their time until U.S. troops left.

Here's the rest of that story .....

The insurgents "know our history, just like we study them," Conway said.

"And they see where we have withdrawn previously — in Vietnam, in Beirut, in Somalia."

"And nothing would make them happier, I suppose, than to think that there is a deadline out there."

Separately, House members Thursday debated a Democratic amendment to the 2006 defense spending measure that would require Bush to tell Congress within 30 days what his criteria would be for bringing troops home.

Unlike the resolution by Jones and others, the amendment — by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) — did not specify a timetable for withdrawal.

The White House said Bush shared the desire of many Americans to see U.S. military personnel return from Iraq as soon as possible, but rejected establishing a deadline for withdrawal.

"It would be absolutely the wrong message to send to set some sort of artificial timetable," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said.

"Our troops understand the importance of completing the mission."

McClellan said Bush would make the case for his Iraq policy in a series of public remarks in which he would focus on the importance of Iraq to the war on terrorism.

"He will be continuing to update the American people about the progress that we are making, the difficulties and dangers that remain, and the strategy we have for succeeding," McClellan said.


The communication campaign includes a speech June 28, the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition to the Iraqi people.

In addition, the White House said Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari would meet with Bush at the White House next Friday.

The White House rejected requests by lawmakers and antiwar groups that Bush respond to the "Downing Street memo" and other prewar British government documents that foreshadowed U.S. military action against Iraq.

The Downing Street memo reported minutes of a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors indicating that the U.S. considered an attack on Iraq to be inevitable eight months before the war began.


More than 30 members of Congress attended a meeting Thursday called by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, to discuss the British documents.

The meeting was not an official hearing of Conyers' committee and was held in a room in the basement of the Capitol.

John C. Bonifaz, one of four witnesses invited to meet with lawmakers and the cofounder of an organization called AfterDowningStreet.com, said that if the documents were proven to be true, the president may have violated a federal law against misleading Congress, and his actions would be grounds for impeachment.

"The American people deserve to know if the president lied," Bonifaz said.


Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in action April 4, 2004, told lawmakers the Downing Street memo confirmed what she had already suspected:

"The leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and cherry-picked intelligence."

Sheehan is the cofounder of Gold Star Families for Peace, an organization whose members have lost a relative in combat and who oppose the war.

Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who traveled to Niger to investigate the alleged sale of processed uranium ore from the country to Iraq, and Ray McGovern, a former CIA official, also met with Conyers and other lawmakers.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) was one of more than 30 lawmakers who announced the formation of an "Out of Iraq" congressional caucus.

After the hearing, Conyers and other lawmakers went to Lafayette Park across from the White House for a rally organized by AfterDowningStreet.com.

Kevin Zeese, director of Democracy Rising, urged protesters to "give a shout out if you think we were misled."

He was greeted by cheers from the hundreds of demonstrators.

Some members of the crowd broke into chants of "Bring them home now!" and "End this war!" and carried banners calling for Bush's impeachment.

The rally brought out young and old, Washington residents and people who had traveled from across the country.

"Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress and then prosecuted for war crimes," said Carol Moore, a 57-year-old writer and resident of Washington.

"Impeached and prosecuted."


A small group of counter-protesters demanded support for U.S. troops.

Conyers and others sought to enter the White House gates to deliver petitions gathered by an anti-Bush group, MoveOn.Org, and others demanding that the president respond to the British documents.

The crowd chanted "Let Conyers in!" and the congressman eventually was allowed through the gates.

Analysts said the antiwar rhetoric on display Thursday marked a reversal from recent months.

The Iraqi election Jan. 30 boosted hopes for progress, experts said, but the situation has since deteriorated.

"Now you've got a combination of a lot of death, a lot of violence, things getting worse and no real convincing argument from the president as to why," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst for the Brookings Institution, a Washington political think tank.

"It was almost unnatural that there was such a long hiatus in antiwar activity."

The antiwar movement has reappeared in part because lawmakersespecially Democratshave avoided rhetoric that could be perceived as critical of troops but keep hearing differently from constituents, activists said.


"We see this as the beginning of the end," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic representative from Maine who is executive director of the antiwar group Win Without War.

"It's the very beginning of a new wave of activism on this war."

"There's a real sense that something is beginning to move."

Times staff writers Mary Curtius, Tyler Marshall, Mark Mazzetti and Warren Vieth contributed to this report.

end quotes

Conway is full of beans, and so is Connie Rice!

And get off of my emotions, here, General Conway, BECAUSE I WAS IN VIET NAM, and that war was as full of **** as you are!

YOU WANT THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, GENERAL, THEN DON'T LIE TO THEM, AND DON'T TREAT THEM LIKE THEY ARE STUPID!

And if you want to kowtow and grovel before an incompetent Commander-in-chief, and lick his boots, that is your BID-NESS, and your right as an American citizen, to boot; BUT ...

As for me, I don't follow fools anywhere, and I don't like liars, and I don't like being lied to, and I don't support a war based on lies, and so ....

Or do you want me to make it simpler for you to understand?
Abu Beacon
QUOTE(Livyjr @ Jun 17 2005, 07:07 PM)
Here's the rest of that story .....

The insurgents "know our history, just like we study them," Conway said.

"And they see where we have withdrawn previously — in Vietnam, in Beirut, in Somalia."

"And nothing would make them happier, I suppose, than to think that there is a deadline out there."

*


I notice that in no place does Conway show any good reasons for us to stay in Iraq other than " saving face".

One very good way to do that is to change our commander in chief and our secretary of the Defense Dapt.

If Bush were to leave, voluntarily or otherwise, it would completely change the dynamics of this situation.

The new commander would take office with no negative history concerning this war and as president would be completely free to make any necessary changes in personnel and direction.

Since there is no real possibility that Bush would place the interests of America ahead of his personal ego, there is only one choice left.

There has to be a strong groundswell of public opinion to start impeachment proceedings against this pretender of a leader.

A.B.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.