Dean's first. 

John wrote "I'm fed up with the Democrats' inability to agree on how to end Iraq. All they need are 41 out of 51 senators to deny Bush funding (via a filibuster). Instead, they're wasting time and energy trying to pass a meaningless ‘non-binding’ resolution."

I would not hold my breath waiting. It is as likely as a binding Republican bill to insure troops stay in Iraq until victory is achieved, because the political opposition would ride the vote into 2008 like a sled downhill. Even with their limited imaginations, occupants in the Republican Party war room could gin up the campaign with frightfully little effort: "You know Democrats need, support and love our troops. They just won’t fund them."

Democrats are taking exactly the right course because Bush’s ability to prosecute the war is eroding at the same time it remains hung around his neck.

yes, these current majority of Senators are playing politics with our countries Military, lives, dollars and security.  

I hope they will finally hop on board with Senator Feingold to stop this war

 and redeploy our troops. 

LOL

This was too good not to share when I saw this on dkos. 

Phil's idea to tie supplemental bills to paygo tax increases is a way, way better strategy because, in a deft ju jitsu manoeuver, it avoids the funding trap, converting it to a weapon.

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/cand...

Sept 23, 2002, Why Al Gore Should be President


On September 23, 2002, Al Gore gave a brilliant speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in which he talked about Iraq. I've reposted most of it while commenting briefly on pertinent parts since the speech speaks for itself. Gore is so brilliant that he's apparently one-upped NostraDamus. To be proven so right five years later well, simply says that Al Gore should be President. Keep in mind that at the time, very few people had this courage.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/26/...

Linda quoted from dKos: "Keep in mind that at the time, very few people had this courage."

True, but as we know, Howard Dean was one who did.

7. Tom, so true.

Hey folks, I know some didn't get to watch the Oscar Awards lastnight and this is only a tiny piece, not with Melissa Etheridge's performance or win...I'm still working on that. LOL

But at least you can see Al's appearance with Leo D. and the AIT's Oscar Win with Al Gore joining the Production team.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/25...

8. listener...yeaahhhh!!! :)

http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/associatedpress/20070226/1245.html

Associated Press - Feb 26, 03:03

Former vice president Al Gore used the success of his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" to expand his efforts to educate people about global warming

...

Pressed by DiCaprio about any other major announcement he might like to make, the former vice president pulled out a statement.

"My fellow Americans, I'm going to take this opportunity right here and now, to formally announce my intentions to ..." Gore said before the orchestra broke in and he walked off, laughing arm-in-arm with DiCaprio.

Backstage, Gore put speculation to rest, saying "I do not have plans to become a candidate for office again."

Instead, Gore said he was dedicating all his efforts to pressuring governments to act on climate-crisis issues.

"It is the overriding world challenge of our time," Gore said.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6389857.stm

International Polar Year (IPY) will see thousands of scientists, from more than 60 nations, working together on 220 projects at high latitudes.

...

3.

Linda*in*SFNM

Frightening, very frightening

14. LOL Holly, I know, but every now and again we need a jump start. :)

Al Gore was so funny last nite at the oscars. Good timing. Loved Leo with him.

Leo has become quite an actor and activist without becoming too outrageous.

It is the progressive in him.

Larry Chin
Online Journal
Monday, February 26, 2007

In another display of true colors, the Democrats are considering legislation to limit the Bush administration’s war powers in Iraq to “fighting Al-Qaeda.”

This deception clearly demonstrates, once again, that the Democrats are politically and morally bankrupt -- and every bit as enthusiastic as the Bush administration in spreading the endless “war on terrorism” conquest to every corner of the world.

It is no surprise, given six years of enthusiastic bipartisan Washington cooperation on 9/11 (a US-orchestrated covert operation) and the “war on terrorism,” that we find the Democrats clinging to the same original “Al-Qaeda” lie as that still being ruthlessly wielded by Dick Cheney.

Fact: “Islamic terrorism” is a creation and instrument of Anglo-American policy.

Fact: “Islamic terrorists,” including “Al-Qaeda,” have been, and continue to be, assets of US military-intelligence since the end of the Cold War.

As written by Michel Chossudovsky in his book, America’s “War on Terrorism”: “Members of Congress were fully cognizant of the links between the US administration and Al-Qaeda. They knew exactly who Osama bin Laden was -- a pawn in the hands of the Clinton, and later, the Bush administration. Despite this knowledge, Republicans and Democrats in unison gave their full support to the President to ‘wage war on Osama.’”

The Democrats have always supported the “war on terrorism” and its natural expansion to the conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq, and beyond.

The war in Iraq has been an “Al-Qaeda” propaganda war, an “anti-terrorist” cleansing, justified by the same bipartisan-supported lie of 9/11, from day one.

The Orwellian truth behind the comments of Dick Cheney is that the real “Al-Qaeda strategy” is bipartisan (and he knows it). Both Democrats and neocons alike push the enduring propaganda that all opposition to US occupation, all insurgencies, and “sectarian” violence are linked to “Al-Qaeda.” Any “enemy” of US interests (most recently Iran) is connected to “Al-Qaeda,” or eventually transformed into “Al-Qaeda.”

A policy limiting US forces in Iraq to fighting the “Al-Qaeda” apparatus means that there will be no limit. No limit to troop strength. No limit in scope. No change in US policy.

No opposition, but absolute knowing cooperation, with the Bush administration.

No end to boundless criminality.

linda b -

I wish that there were two Best Actor awards so that besides Forest Whitiker winning it for "Last King of Scotland", Leo could also have won for "Blood Diamond".

8 listener

In all seriousness, I looked at that sight and I'm not too familiar with it and from it's commenters and the writers indications and talking in his post, I think THEY ARE TOO POLITICAL on the right(wrong) side of things.

This topic arose some months back when the School refused the DVD's offered by Laurie David giving a very lame reason about not being able to endorse a movie. Yet they did when they accepted money and a movie from the Oil industry.

climate Change was not asking for an endorsement, they were offering free dvd for viewing by teachers and schools. So how could the school show propaganda about energy by the Oil industry, or just any movies, but not a documentary based on science.

I had an exchange of emails with the NSTA and about their unfairnesss, inaccuracies and control and with some recommendations.

Heck I remember having movies shown to me about football. Does that mean the school was forcing us all to go in to professional football.

She President actually had the chutzpah to state as a recommendation if Climate Crisis would like to mail a DVD to each person.....OH YEAH....DOESN'T THAT MAKE SENSE. Why should they pay such an unnecessary expense, let a lone CAUSSE MORE POLUTION in shipping 50,000 DVD's.

lol, a great line:
The Night's 10 Best Oscar Quotes!

"This is the only naked man that will ever be in my bedroom," says Melissa Etheridge of her statue.

12.

Gore put speculation to rest, saying "I do not have plans to become a candidate for office again."

~~~~~~~~

Yeah, but he/we/she could sure put those plans together pronto. Gore knows that! Keep the pressure on, keep sending out the petition. You would think the applause he got last night would be enough to convince him that America needs him.

But if not in the White House, how about  Gore running the  EPA? He would have time to do whatever he wants in addition to the ability to advise and enforce environmental laws it in America.

Establishment Media Blacklists Nichols' OKC Revelations
Bomb Nichols helped McVeigh build unsophisticated, half size of device described by feds, mainstream press ignores testimony, obsesses instead about Britney Spears shaving her head

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Monday, February 26, 2007

Astounding revelations on behalf of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, including Timothy McVeigh's connection to government provocateurs and the fact that the bomb he helped McVeigh build was completely different to the one described by official accounts, have been uniformly ignored by the corporate media as the story enters its sixth day.

The magnitude of the allegations made by Nichols in his declaration have been deliberately undermined by the all but complete ignorance of the mainstream media to report on them. Besides a smattering of initial reports about Nichols fingering an FBI agent as having directed McVeigh in the bombing, the corporate media have completely blacklisted the issue despite the Internet release of Nichols' declaration in PDF format by this website on Friday, courtesy of Attorney Jesse Trentadue.

If Osama bin Laden or one of the other alleged masterminds behind 9/11 publicly accused Dick Cheney as having helped facilitate 9/11, would the media be interested? Why is press coverage so sparse when this testimony fundamentally contradicts the official version of a major chapter in American history? The question answers itself - the establishment is complicit in burying these revelations while Americans are bombarded with 24/7 drivel about Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears shaving her head.

The more attention this story receives, the heavier the push will be for Nichols to give video testimony - a development that would likely trigger calls for a completely fresh investigation of the event. Such a scenario would consequently discredit the the official conspiracy theory behind 9/11 which is why the establishment is so eager to see this story disappear.

Nichols' declaration challenges the official conspiracy theory that McVeigh acted alone and that a 5000-pound fuel oil and fertilizer bomb ripped the face off the Alfred P. Murrah building on April 19 1995.

In paragraph eight of his testimony , Nichols states that he cannot possibly divulge all the information he knows via a written declaration and only through a video deposition will the true scale of what happened be known. "Crucial parts of this terrorist act remain hidden from the American people," states Nichols, "especially the identities of the "Others Unknown" who collaborated with McVeigh in the bombing."

Nichols identifies two individuals, one a "government provocateur" (later named as gun dealer Roger Moore) and the other a "high-ranking federal government official" (later identified as former FBI agent Larry Potts) as having directly assisted McVeigh.

In paragraph ten, Nichols confirms that McVeigh told him that while he was in the army he had been recruited to carry out undercover operations and that his first mission would entail networking with certain individuals, the first being Roger Moore.

Nichols then states that he and McVeigh stole eight and a half boxes of the explosive Tovex from a quarry in Marion, Kansas, but expresses his surprise that only a small amount of the explosives were used in the actual bombing. What happened to the other seven and a half boxes? Were they responsible for the descriptions of bombs inside the building and the physical evidence showing the columns blown out by the blast?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nichols then describes how McVeigh traveled around the country to different gun shows making contact with other members of the "network" that would help him plan the attack. As we have discussed before, this is part of the process of creating a ledger or a history which could later be re-hashed to support the official story. If McVeigh was being directed by government provocateurs, as Nichols confirms, then they could have swiftly supplied him with the materials and knowledge for how to make the bomb, identified the target, and then set him free to strike. However, such a method would have been foolish and dangerous because any cursory investigation would have led straight back to McVeigh's government handlers with no diversion.

By having McVeigh network with white supremacists at Elohim City, German intelligence agent Andreas Strassmeier, and by also introducing a non-existent Philippines connection, a storyboard was being drawn up to which the official script could later be structured around.

Indeed, in paragraph 33, Nichols relates McVeigh's anger at Larry Potts for forcing him to "go off script" and change the target of the bombing.

The government provocateurs who were directing McVeigh, such as Roger Moore, would escape prosecution for their involvement in the bombing under the designation that they were "protected witnesses," as Nichols explains in paragraph 25.

Nichols relates how McVeigh had an uncanny ability to stay one step ahead of him at all times, gaining knowledge of his movements and activities before Nichols had even told him, leading Nichols to conclude that McVeigh seemed to "have a way of knowing at all times where I was and what I was doing. This is patently because Nichols was under intense surveillance by the very same government agents that were handling and giving knowledge to McVeigh.

In paragraph 18, Nichols claims that McVeigh threatened to harm his family if he refused to partake in a robbery of (government provocateur) Roger Moore. Again, this represents Nichols being set-up as part of the process of creating a ledger behind the bombing, by manufacturing a gang of armed robbers that would be used to supposedly fund the bombing plan.

It was, according to Nichols, Roger Moore who supplied McVeigh with the Kinestik explosive that was used as the detonator for the fertilizer bomb. The burglary of Moore's house was staged so that it could be claimed the bomb materials were stolen from Moore and thus absolve him of complicity in the bombing.

In what is the biggest smoking gun to contradict the official account, Nichols describes how the bomb he helped McVeigh build on April 18 was completely inconsistent with the bomb used in the attack according to the official version of events.

"The bomb that I helped McVeigh build that morning did not resemble in any fashion the bomb McVeigh described in the book American Terrorist (McVeigh's official biography)," states Nichols, later adding that the bomb he and McVeigh built was much smaller than the one cited by official accounts.

Nichols claims the bomb was a different shape (V as oppose to inverted J) and only took up half of the space in the truck as opposed to the full truck according to the official account. The bomb material was cased in white plastic barrels, not blue, and the ammonium fertilizer had not been stored correctly, causing it to become lumpy.

Nichols is effectively describing a dud bomb that would have caused nowhere near the damage done to the Alfred P. Murrah building.

"The bomb McVeigh described also displayed a level of expertise and sophisticated which neither McVeigh nor I had in building a bomb," states Nichols.

Nichols relates an incident where McVeigh attempted to detonate a small scale test bomb. The only thing to explode was the detonator and the fertilizer spilled out onto the ground without exploding.

This testimony only confirms a long held understanding amongst those who have exhaustively researched the event that the skill and materials necessary to accomplish the damage done to the federal building were not available to McVeigh without outside help and that the magnitude of the blast could only be explained by additional bombs planted inside the building. Unexploded devices that were removed by bomb squads on the morning of the attack were reported by local TV and radio news stations but questions surrounding multiple bombs were quickly buried by the force of the official explanation.

The burden again rests upon the alternative media to lobby the mainstream into covering these bombshell revelations and pushing for a fresh inquiry into the Oklahoma City bombing. Blanket dismissals of Nichols' testimony on the basis that he's a convicted criminal accomplice are absent any explanation as to why Nichols would tempt intense harassment and at worse elimination at the hands of the very authorities that currently incarcerate him by lying about government involvement.

The establishment press, bar a couple of exceptions, have once again betrayed their absolute cowardice in failing to cover this momentous story, proving once again that they are nothing more than mouthpieces for a government cover-up that continues to suffocate the truth almost twelve years after the April 19 1995 bombing.

Reading that eddie murphy left the oscars soon after losing. he must have been humiliated.

allen arkin was the best in the "inlaws" with peter falk, after that he hasn't done so good.

in sunshine he was just his dour self.

sorry eddie. you were the best in dreamgirls.

and bable was aweful.

and so was "half nelson".

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207mediablacklists.htm watch the video

Daniel on #22.

watch united 93 and tell me that the govt. was complicit in 9/11.

never sent a plane up til the langley birds went east over the atlantic.

hmm, we have NO PLANES IN THE U.S. TO STOP INCOMING PLANES THAT MAY ATTACK THE U.S.

inside job.

3. Oh my gosh, Linda, that picture just ruined my image of such a great little film! LOL

I actually thought Alan Arkin was fabulous in My Little Sunshine. Different strokes I guess...

Just watched a bit of a re-run of this morning's Washington Journal with Bill Richardson. He's drunk the KoolAide, talking about dividing Iraq into a three-part federation, like it was really up to the United States to decide how another nation is to be organized. The ethnic separation of people is really not what the U.S. ought to be about. That's been one of the major problems in our relationship with Israel--our support for the notion that states ought to be ethnically defined.
It's true that belief-systems are easier to adjust than such characteristics as skin color and body-build, but that doesn't mean that whether or not a person is accepted in a particular society should be conditioned on a subservience of the will.

Which is more violative of the human spirit: to conform one's behavior to another's desire or to submit one's intellect and will?

Heads' Up! Keith Olbermann is going after Condi tonight on Countdown. This should be rich.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2...

I didn't see Little Sunshine, but I do LOVE Alan Arkin.

Steal Big, Steal Little

The Inlaws,


....oh linda b...."Serpentine, Serpentine". I loved the orginal In Laws.

and sooooo much more.

...and Alan lives here :)

I am sorry Eddie Murphy didn't win. I must say one of my fav's for Eddie Murphy was Holy Man.

Bill Richardson drinks much kool aide (wink, wink)

He's all talk.

I could not even begin to get in his lack of doing, except growing waste in his Government.

mary vd, sorry, almost makes you toss cookies with that picture, huh? :)

Looking forward to Keithie! Thanks.

As Al Gore steps into the national spotlight because of the Academy Awards and his global-warming documentary “An
Inconvenient Truth,” it’s worth remembering that in fall 2002 Gore sought to warn the American people about another “inconvenient truth,” the folly of invading Iraq.

The former Vice President did so at a time when it was considered madness or almost treason to object to George W. Bush’s war plans. But Gore was one of a small number of national political figures who took that risk and paid a price, subjected to widespread ridicule and disdain from the Washington news media.

On Sept, 23, 2002, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Gore laid out a series of concerns and differences that he had with Bush’s policy of “preemptive war” and specifically Bush’s decision to refashion the “war on terror” into an imminent invasion of Iraq.

Gore, who had supported the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, criticized Bush’s failure to enlist the international community as his father had. Gore also warned about the negative impact that alienating other nations was having on the broader war against terrorists.

“I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century,” Gore said. “To put first things first, I believe that we ought to be focusing our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on Sept. 11. …
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007...

mary, 32, ignore that horrible typo of your initials ppppppplease.

There are robins in the yard. They are munching on barberries. That's the only thing left to eat. They don't look emaciated, but they do lood bedraggled; maybe got blown here by a storm. It will warm up in the next few days.

Juan Cole: Informed Comment
Monday, February 26, 2007
Al Gore, Global Warming, the Oscars and the Iraq War
That the Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" was legitimized by an Oscar Sunday night for "Best Documentary" has wider implications for the future of the United States than it might seem, though admittedly it is a small step.
We know that Exxon Mobil is a significant funder of the American Enterprise Institute and has used it to attempt to bribe "scientists" to cast doubt on global warming. Lee Raymond, who was CEO of Exxon Mobil until 2005, is the vice-chair of AEI's board of directors.
We also know that the American Enterprise Institute is the most hawkish of the Washington "think tanks," and that its staffers were key to thinking up and promoting the Iraq War with lies and propaganda.

A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Exxon Mobil is a big behind the scenes player in the Iraq War by virtue of its support for AEI. In fact, I think a boycott of its gas stations is in order until the company cuts off AEI and stops promoting the Iraq War and muddying the waters on global warming. (It pledged to do the latter in the past, but obviously was lying).

So the point is that the American Enterprise Institute symbolizes the intersection of Oil and War, which are the two most menacing threats to the future of America.

Only by a Manhattan Project-scale government effort to develop green energy can we hope to avert the worst consequences of global warming, which is likely to raise sea levels 20 feet over the next century or century and a half. (That would put a lot of cities on both coasts under water).
http://www.juancole.com/

32. Linda, LOL!!!!!!

35.

Monica,

We have a robin who hangs out in our backyard each winter, always sitting on his/her favorite rock. This year, he began stealing egg yolks from a sort of pet coon we have had coming here since an abandoned baby. Robin is not addicted to yolks and waits for one every morning.

Hopefully, soon it will get warm up there as you said. I will point Robin in the area of NH. Bye, bye robin.

robin is not = robin is now.

I offered an idea for a project for us to do now. Unfortunately I don't use a computer and I don't know how to do the fancy stuff to repost on this thread. It ended up being the last post on the last thread #43. I hope that is the reason there were no comments on the proposed project. I would really like to hear what you think, good, bad or otherwise. I just thought something like it would be better than hopefully pretending somebody was going to run, or, desperately grasping for something positive in the other candidates. As others have said, it is much too early to be so concentrated on the race, when we don't really know all that any of them stand for. Right now we're having to depend on their speech writers. It would be good to get them sort of one on one right here with no script.

GIs Petition Congress To End Iraq War
Feb. 25, 2007
(CBS) Americans in the military have been asked to make extraordinary sacrifices in recent years, particularly in Iraq, where the casualties are mounting, the tours are being extended, and some of them have had enough.

Correspondent Lara Logan heard dissension in the ranks from a large group of service members who are fed up and have decided to go public. They’re not going AWOL, they're not disobeying orders or even refusing to fight in Iraq. But they are doing something unthinkable to many in uniform: bypassing the chain of command to denounce a war they’re in the middle of fighting.
"As a patriotic citizen who served two combat tours in Iraq, I just feel like this war, it's simply just not working out anymore, and soldiers are dying there everyday," says Specialist Kevin Torres.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/2...



It looks like the Peace Plane is going to have to fly over DC!

With reference to audrey.nc's most recent post, this is what she posted at the end of the previous thread:

"WHY can't we, as a group, contribute to a very concise list of about a dozen of our most worrisome concerns about an issue, such as the war, and then invite all of the Dem candidates to come on the blog individually to reply and discuss what their plan is. It would give us a chance to not only pin them down to specifics, but to expand on our questions while they are here. Their audience would be large and their time spent would be minimal. If they should refuse, that would be very telling, and that would be made known to that audience. I think we could spend a month or so on each issue, and give time to each candidate in that amount of time. Can we do that?"

aurdrey 41, is 43 your lucky number?

repost for audrey
43.

audrey.nc
Mon, 02/26/07
2:21 pm

Reply to this



WHY can't we, as a group, contribute to a very concise list of about a dozen of our most worrisome concerns about an issue, such as the war, and then invite all of the Dem candidates to come on the blog individually to reply and discuss what their plan is. It would give us a chance to not only pin them down to specifics, but to expand on our questions while they are here. Their audience would be large and their time spent would be minimal. If they should refuse, that would be very telling, and that would be made known to that audience. I think we could spend a month or so on each issue, and give time to each candidate in that amount of time. Can we do that?

LMAO...,.Tom....Audrey :)

My response to Audrey...I think you should recommend to HQ as a DFA Primary Tool, a sort of "Ask the Candidates".

Maybe DFA can have a contest in a series of what questions or interests are most important to you, then in that category, what question do you want answered. Then if they want us to vote on the set of questions asked to the candidates.

Then they can make a series of candidate for the week and post the questions, their reply and then offer the candidate to do a live blog.

I don't think you would get the correct response or get the most important questions answered-or even asked,from purely a live blog stance. Too much happens, gets missed, not addressed, etc. But, giving the candidate time to respond to questions on their answwers would really be cool with the live blog.

imo

#43
Thank you Tom, for posting my idea!

Thank you, everybody.  Your welcome!

I meant you are welcome.

46. Good idea Audrey and good follow-up Linda...
A live blog would sure draw the trolls out of the woodwork. As interesting as it would be to see how candidates might respond to trolls, I also think it best to have some type of control like you're suggesting Linda.
When we were having candidate forums last fall, our DFA group asked the members to submit questions they wish asked, then we voted on which were the best questions to ask during the forum. All done through emails.

LOL 

"Gore Oscar in Doubt," Says Supreme Court of the United States Hotlist
by JekyllnHyde
Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 12:55:24 PM CST

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of the United States intervened to revoke the Academy Award won by 'An Inconvenient Truth' last night at the 79th Annual Academy Awards held at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center, in Los Angeles, California.  Responding to a case filed this morning in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Exxon v Guggenheim, David, Gore et al, and moving at lightning speed through the legal system all the way up to the highest court of the land, a spokesman issued this stunning statement

After reviewing all the overseas ballots cast for this documentary, we have concluded that it is unclear if all of them were legitimate. Therefore, until such time this case is resolved in our legal system, we have decided that the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts, and Sciences acted in haste.  Their judgments, based on the compelling arguments made in Exxon v Guggenheim, David, Gore et al were, to say the least, unconvincing.  Oral arguments will be heard early this afternoon.

jc.
Though not Big Al's Oscar (really is), I just dare someone try take it...LOL
-------------------
21. Gore put speculation to rest, saying "I do not have plans to become a candidate for office again."
-------------------
Joan, until I hear from Al a definite "I will not run", his options are open to running IMO. Time will tell and time is on Al's side.

52. Reed

Bush also didn't have plans to invade Iraq.  ;-) 

jc, I told a few friends about your "Time for a Cool Change Gore 08" bumper stickers and I'll be placing an order the first week of March as they want some...have to get this month off my card first though, new monitor for computer and all. Gotta go cook supper now, it's my night tonight.
bbl

UPDATE and Final Hearing for the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

I just spoke with the Judiciary Committee and they asked me to call back tomorrow to find out when they are scheduling their hearing as it hasn't been officially moved over to them for scheduling yet.

Our Legislation is only in session for another 2 1/2 weeks.

However their normally scheduled days of hearing, Mon, Wed and Fri, may seem to have just been extended to be including weekends too. He said this week may start Sat and Sundays as they have hundreds of Bills, not to mention this "high profile" one. :)

So, things should be moving quickly...I hope.

52.

I am with you Reed.

Never give up until it's over and it ain't over 'till it's over!!!

55.

Linda,

It has to be exciting over there in NM.

Is the legislation be only symbolic or does the impeachment actually have wings to it? Undoubtedly, neither of those crooks would ever want to step a foot inside NM (or Germany) if it passes.

Reed,

Cool!  Thanks! 

Reed and Joan, especially because it's the same statement he's been giving, it's not like it was a "Shermaneque" :)

Time For
A Cool
Change
Gore
2008

Oh, Joan, thank you for reminding me. I saw seashell also asked this question.

Once the Judiciary Committee Hears the Resolution, and it passes :), the Full Senate has to vote on it. I just spoke with Senator Grubesic (Co Sponsor) and they said that the Senate usually vote on it within 48 hours of final Committee Aproval. THAT'S QUICK....OH, I'm SO EXCITED ALREADY.(woohoo)

WHEN, our New Mexico Senate passes, it must, I repeat, MUST be heard on the floor of the US House of Representatives in DC. It doesn't guarentee Impeachment, it will now be up to our US Congresspersons, but it must be given time on the floor for discussion for it's case. It must be brought to the floor by any US Congressman and I think we know if even our Congressman Udall didn't (which he has alreaady stated is NOT opposed to Impeachment), we then have the Honorable Conyers....and if for some reason he didn't........

59. ...uckm, ok can't type today..."Shermanesque".

52, re: ..."Joan, until I hear from Al a definite "I will not run", his options are open to running IMO. Time will tell and time is on Al's side."
----------

me too! time certainly IS on Al's side - it's next to impossible for anyone to hit him with anything right now. and then if he wins the Nobel, all the better! sad to say, WHEN he gets in is just important as IF he gets in - the DLCers will try to rip him up even more so than the republicans, I think so patience and 'cards to the vest' is perfect right now, imo

as for Al's movie - the whole planet won last night! I wonder how much traffic the website is getting today...

Jo, I can say that the "petition site" is almost up 3000 sigs from yesterday late morning.

I'm not giving money to ANY candidate before about November, so, for me, Al Gore can wait in the wings as long as he wants.

64. s/b ANY Presidential candidate

jc ditto

Just so you know, this lovely image can now be found in the photos of

http://www.dfalink.com/crackers 

67. Monica

Cool!  :-) 

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

69.

Adam Smith

Yeah right. Gee are they friends of the American Enterprise Institute (exxon/mobil)...or the friends of the Coal Industry in TN that help smear him....or maybe they just friends of Club for Growth.

Me not thinks someone else is the hypocrite.

Adam, just like USA Today printed factually incorrect information about his energy uses and not buying Green energy.

In fact he uses Alternative energy with the companies and doesnt' drive any gas guzzling SUV's as they said.

...just for your own info.

69.  BTW, Lieberman still sucks. I'm so glad he's an (I).

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/19914...

69.

So say you. No, links, no nothing.

Al Gore would be president if his own state would have voted FOR him.

62.

Jo, I agree, Al can afford to wait, that's for sure. Better he keep out of the current Dem fray. When and if he decides to "seek the nomination" (some don't like to call it "run"), most of the competition, if not all, will have to seek asylum elsewhere.

64.

I have to admit I did sent Obama some $$ early on as my own way of rebelling against Clinton.

But nothing since. We contributed the max to Dean and he lost early on, but for him, we never regretted that at all and would do it all again even knowing he would lose.