The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, …has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. ..officials … said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over … the past 10 years.

I don’t care what the whiney ass Lieberman or anyone else says, I really don’t believe Israel or it’s military policy does anything of any benefit for the security of the United States. As far as I’m concerned, if they need help, they can ask the U.N., or if the U.N. doesn’t help, they can try some real genuine diplomacy. We have no business being Israel’s surrogate parent/sugar daddy, any more than we have any business being Iraq’s guide to a bright future.

On another note,

an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion

Just curious, not that I really expect that anyone in Congress actually knows, what is the actual value of this hardware. Are we selling at a profit, break even, or a loss?

Out here in the San Fernando Valley, I’ve got some neighbors over in Pacoima and Sun Valley who are active in street gangs. Where’s OUR aid package?

A bold claim. What is the text of the document? Anyone?

“Let’s you and him fight,” in other words.

Back in the day, when we’d argue all the world’s problems late at night in our college dorm rooms, sooner or later, someone would say “hell with it, kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out”, and we’d all laugh like crazy. We laughed because no sane person would seriously advocate this as foreign policy.

I’m not laughing any more.

Why isn’t this just as likely to happen with the Democrats in power? It’s even more likely because the Democrats still have the ability to shut up progressive dupes who think they’re different from Republicans. The Democrats have supported the war from day one and refuse stop funding it. They are also on record as being in favor of war with Iran. As for a dictatorship, they have voted for the Patriot act and Military Commissions Act and have done NOTHING to restore Habeus corpus or anything else.

Iran harbors virtually no terrorists. It’s activity in terrorism is mainly confined to sponsoring Hezbullah, an organization without global reach that kills a tiny number of Israelis every year. While such minor threats to Israel as Hezbullah, and not-so-minor threats because of nuclear proliferation, are a concern (on account of the co-primary goal mentioned above), attacking Iran has a high probability of making all those threats much worse.

As for Saudi Arabia, the ruling class of Saudi Arabia are wahabists with a very strong sympathy for salafi jihadism. We have enough Saudi princes high-fiving each other over their cell phones after 9/11 to make clear where Saudi sympathies lie. Osama bin Laden is one of those Saudi princes, and while the Bushies want you to believe he is some kind of anomaly, let’s not forget that much of Al Qaeda’s funding comes from Saudi Arabia, as well as most of the 9/11 hijackers. Cooperation with the Saudis is always a two-edged sword, and I would feel a lot better about it if I didn’t harbor suspicions of our presidents’ being a Saudi cat’s paw.

Catching terrorists is a waste of time, if in the catching you create more terrorists than you catch or kill. That is clearly what is happening in both Iraq & Afghanistan, and Bush seems committed to expanding that same failed policy elsewhere in the world. Given that, it is imperative to deny him the tools to do that.

Democrats should pass a bill that defunds the war and let Bush veto it. They did this once, and then they caved. Instead, they should pass the same bill again, and again, and again. If the Republicans filibuster (as they surely will), then bring the bill up for a vote again, and again, and again. Either way, no bill gets passed that funds the war, and the war is defunded.

If this happens, the Republicans will accuse the Democrats of obstructionism. The Democrats will need to have the political courage and savvy to stand their ground and point out that they’re trying to pass a bill, but it is the Republicans that are obstructionist. If the Democrats can win a standoff in the court of public opinion, it will be Republicans who will be forced to cave, and that’s how you get enough Republican votes.

That the Dems caved after one try is why they are receiving much-deserved criticism and scorn. They didn’t even have the stones to last 2 rounds against a deeply unpopular president in favor of a popular position. Would the Democrats win a showdown with the president? I don’t know. But I do know they will loose if they don’t try.

Perhaps, if more regular AMERICANS could watch a simple but scarey movie — average people in our Country would “get it” and understand just WHERE their hard earned tax dollars are going??????

Nicolas Cage in “Lord of War”….
Worth a try to save lives and the future of our World. We have lost our way… we must find our way back to a real DEMOCRACY.
—————-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/

An arms dealer (Cage) confronts the morality of his work as he is being chased by an Interpol agent (Hawke). more

There are at least three major factions. The neo-cons basically want an American military empire. The large majority of neo-cons are Republicans. The second faction is descended from the neo-liberals (neo-neoliberals). This faction wants an American economic empire. They support American military intervention to remove uncooperative governemnts and to open markets, but only as a last resort. The neo-neoliberals are predominantly Democratic. My guess is they constitute a bare majority of Democrats. The third faction is more an eclectic group of people (from Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich) who are horrified by both the neo-cons and the neo-neolibs.

The problem with being in the third faction is that one party is controlled by the neo-cons and the other by the neo-neolibs. There is a chance of cracking the neo-neolib control of the Democratic party. However, the full force of bi-partisan concensus will try to marginalize any candidate who doesn’t buy into either the neo-con or the neo-neolib world view. The media and beltway pundits are the gatekeepers and enforcers of this concensus. They will make sure we know who is and who is not a “serious” candidate.

Barring an electoral surprise or a national crisis like a major economic downturn, either a neo-con or a neo-neolib will be in the White House in 2008. This means US troops will be in Iraq until they are forced out, or all the oil is gone.

I hate to be so pessimistic, but I really don’t know what to do about it. I feel like I’m living through the next chapter in Barbara Tuchman’s “The March of Folly”. It is possible to see that this is going to end badly, but it doesn’t seem possible to do anything about it.

That’s one of the biggest arguments for impeachment by the House, regardless of whether the Senate could convict.

No, we do not disagree about that – sorry if I gave the impression that I thought we did.

As for the rest, I do not entirely agree that the Democrats are doing more to end the “war”. What the mainstream Democrats are doing now is about a drawdown – a reduction of forces, if you will – not an end to the so-called “war”. Where we can agree – sort of – is that this IS not as bad as what the Republicans are doing because at least the Democrats are recognizing that something has to change, and constant escalation is not the correct direction.

We agree, I think, that at least the Democrats are looking in a direction that is closer to what needs to happen, and at least they appear to be responding somewhat to the public will, which the Republicans are not doing at all. And we agree that it may be possible to convince the Democrats that full withdrawal is what has to happen.

It IS very worrying, though, that even Barbara Lee has been touting Levin-Reid as calling for full withdrawal.