Britain held secret war talks with U.S. general 11 months before Iraq invasion

[kpete]

Source: Daily Mail

Britain held secret war talks with U.S. general 11 months before Iraq invasion

By Jason Lewis
Last updated at 2:20 PM on 3rd October 2010

America's most senior general flew into Britain for top secret talks on the invasion of Iraq 11 months before the attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Details of the classified meeting, held at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, suggest Tony Blair’s Government was involved in detailed discussions about toppling the Iraqi dictator earlier than previously disclosed.

American General Tommy Franks flew in to the base in April 2002 to attend a summit meeting called by the then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.

.........................

Exactly what was said has been censored, but declassified sections of the documents show Gen Franks had a separate meeting with Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, then Britain’s chief of defence staff, and senior officers.







Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317264/Britain...

[xchrom]

1. Lol - the lying goes back aways. Nt

[Kolesar]

2. Lapdog Blair conspired to emasculate the American Democratic Party

That's what this war was about--a Hitleresque plot to marginalize Democrats as traitors. And we have Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court to show for it.

(Hitlerean? Hitlerish??)

[LeftishBrit]

3. Much as I despise and detest Blair...

I don't think he was particularly interested in damaging the American Democrats. He was more interested in using this opportunity to rule the Natives for Their Own Good, like the good British Christian Imperialist that he was born at least 60 years too late to have been without the help of Bush. And on a more venal level, to get some excellent contacts in American academia and public life for himself and his son.

[blm]

4. Blair was prepared to invade Iraq by the late 90s. 9-11 gave them the COVER to do it.

Cover they didn't have back in 98-99.

Too many Dems have a hard time wrapping their brains around that truth. Had 9-11 happened in 1999, we STILL would have invaded Iraq. Blair wasn't coerced by Bush in 2002...he was convinced by Clinton in the years earlier. Blair was PREPARED to invade Iraq and he was on the same page as Bush all along.

[Amonester]

7. They Lied

Millions Died

Thousands Were Tortured

[davidwparker]

10. No Justice. No Peace.

... and no wonder why this country is in the toilet now. It has happened to every war-loving society.

[Amonester]

12. Yep. But, hey, 911 changed everything...

While millions have to Live 911s often, but the ruling class profits have to prevail...

So These Humans Don't Count

But Don't Tell The Masses

[Enthusiast]

25. You are dead on!

Also, torture is THE greatest crime. I ask you, what could anyone do to you that would be worse than torture? Of course torture comes in many forms.

[olegramps]

14. Bull!!!!!!!!

The PNAC begged Clinton to invade Iraq and he disregarded them as the nitwits that they were. When Bush was appointed president his cabinet was dominated by the PNAC neo-cons who were determined to invade Iraq. Go read the PNAC documents.

[blm]

16. You mistakenly believe that Clinton didn't invade because he refused to...he wanted to but, couldn't

convince allies to go in with him AT THE TIME without harder evidence.

What Clinton did WISELY was not invade WITHOUT more allies agreeing to go in with him. So part of what you stated is true. Had 9-11 occurred in 1999, Clinton would have had many of the same allies Bush had and gone ahead as he and Blair were prepared to do.

You need to revisit the entire matter. It is also absurd to think that Blair was operating in a vacuum when it is well documented that he and Clinton consulted closely. I guess you never noticed that there wasn't one bit of daylight between Clintons and Lieberman throughout the entire Iraq invasion? In fact, HRC stayed sided with Bush and only stepped a bit away after Lieberman lost his primary in 2006, which was also right before she started her own Dem primary run.

[aquart]

29. I KNOW he wouldn't deal with the Serbs without international cooperation.

I don't know anything about intentions in Iraq. I KNOW he was begging Europe to help him intervene in Sarajevo but Europe preferred to let the Serbs try to re-unite their country by mass murder.

[blm]

30. In retrospect it would've been better if Clinton HAD invaded Iraq - at least it would've been done

more competently and with a greater chance of a better outcome for the Iraqi people. He would've overseen a greater balance between the oil companies' needs and the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure needed by the Iraqi people.

But...instead the world got Bush....and guys like Blair and Clinton were stuck with what they helped bring about and had no choice but to back him on his most destructive actions.

[Aristophrenia]

38. WHAT ?

How about you get an idea !

Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq than the entire second world war - thats a FACT ! Look it up.

Enforcing the no fly zones was illegal - they were illegal. The process was simply a sustained bombing of Iraq - unrelenting - thousands died as a process.

Clinton was directly in charge of the trade sanctions which were directly responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children. When put to the administration the response was "It was a price worth paying!"..


Absolutely FUCK Clinton - he is not the messiah - why dont you get your facts straight ?

[blm]

41. I'm not the one defending Clinton on Iraq - Clinton and Blair were two peas in a pod on Iraq

war and it wasn't Blair doing the convincing back in the 90s.

[mistertrickster]

43. You're right . . . and neither Clinton opposed Bush when he lied us in . . . nt

[olegramps]

44. Take out time and read his book. I guess you are calling him a liar.

[blm]

45. His BOOK? What a joke - the book that didn't mention one word about BCCI

is now supposed to be honest about his role in Iraq, especially knowing full well that Hillary would be running for office and had to get thru the primaries?

Yes....the Bill Clinton who would deepsix BCCI Report and all its outstanding matters for Poppy Bush and Jackson Stephens throughout the 90s would also fudge about anything that had to do with Iraq, especially because Hillary would NEVER get close in a primary if he told the truth.

I read his book...and know full well what he was doing when he omitted any mention of BCCI. It was his book that changed my view of him BECAUSE he wouldn't discuss why he deepsixed BCCI Report and its outstanding matters I had been waiting to hear his side of it and was willing to listen to his reasoning but instead he refused to address it, though BCCI matters led directly to 9-11. So....he figured most Americans are stupid and certainly no press would ask about much else other than Lewinsky. He's right. But, some of us know there should never have been a Bush2 possible after BCCI revelations, or a 9-11 event.

[olegramps]

46. Why don't you expand on the BCCI and his involvement.

The investigation was conducted almost exclusively at the insistence of John Kerry. I remember the scandal and that Bush had gotten a huge loan from the bank. There was an article written I believe in the Washington Times praising Kerry. I don't recall any mention of Clinton. I do remember the Jackie Kennedy who was married to Onnasis asked Kerry to drop the investigation since several members of congress were involved, both Republicans and Democrats. I am no fan of the Clintons and believe that they are little more than professional politicians that didn't want to appear to be unpatriotic. However, I will still contend that he resisted the PNAC neo-cons determination to invade.

[blm]

48. he resisted invasion then, that's true, but because most of the allies involved in 1st Iraq war

wouldn't go in with him without compelling reason. PNAC wanted him to go in anyway, but, Clinton had the sense to not give in to them knowing he'd be going in with only Britain.
Doesn't mean he didn't WANT to.

Re BCCI, Bush1 expected to be impeached after the release of the BCCI report which they had gotten pushed back to Dec 1992 after the election. You may recall the name Jackson Stephens, a longtime friend and political patron of Poppy Bush's who happened to put together the China deals for WalMart in the late 70s and who also happened to bring BCCI into this country. Stephens was also a named figure in BCCI report. He also just happened to bankroll Clinton's primary race. Poppy Bush needed to lose in 92 or face certain impeachment and certain exposure during what would be certain hearings on the final report IF he stayed in office.

So...you have the BCCI report delivered to both the incoming and outgoing administrations with many serious matters still outstanding that Kerry SPECIFICALLY requested further scrutiny and what happened? Clinton wanted to steamroll past all the IranContra, BCCI, S&L matters under the claim the nation needed to look forward. Sound familiar? And George Mitchell sided with Clinton and Kerry's committee investigation was no longer funded.

And...Think about 2004...Clinton's book comes out in the summer of 2004 and he already knew Kerry would be the nominee since January. Clinton used his booktour to vigorously defend Bush's war decisions and military leadership at the same time Kerry was attacking them. In 3 weeks of high profile interviews Clinton would never once side with Kerry's views on Iraq war over Bush's and, instead, defended Bush mightily whenever the subject of Iraq was raised.

Sorry, olegramps (and I say this respectfully) but, I don't believe in coincidence much when Bushes are involved. Especially re BCCI.

[olegramps]

56. The Bush family were always crooks. We don't have any argument there.

This still goes back to what I originally said. I am not as sure as you that he wanted to invade. I would like to know what Kerry thinks in regard to that.

[LeftishBrit]

58. Ummm

There is the saying here:

'How can you tell when Blair is lying?'
'His lips are moving.'

[creon]

65. yes, Clinton did

Clinton did want to invade Iraq. And, he could not get allies to go along with him. So, he had to back way from an invasion of Iraq.

I do not think that Bush had to convince Blair to invade Iraq.

[FarPoint]

20. Just a guess on your part....right?

Please share a link if you have one.

[blm]

24. Bill wrote this op-ed for Tony March/2003 after he had his THIRD meeting w/Blair over Iraq

And that was three meetings about Iraq POST presidency.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/foreignp...

It's difficult task to nail down the articles on Clinton and Iraq from the late 90s, but, along with your skepticism are you willing to argue that Blair's readiness to invade Iraq even before 9-11 was completely of his own making?

Iraq invasion didn't just happen post 9-11. 9-11 just assured that it WOULD happen...as intended when Regime Change became policy.

Iraq Liberation Act was pushed by Bill Clinton. It was his way of setting up later steps that Bush would take. And he wasn't averse to using his access to privileged intel to convince other Dems of the danger posed by Saddam. Bush's number one ally on Iraq was Clinton...Lieberman just made the most PUBLIC noise and became the lightning rod, yet, both Clintons were always on the same page as Lieberman, without the scrutiny.

[bjobotts]

49. Your comments just lend more credence to 9/11 being 'arranged' as catalyst to invade

It was what was needed that had been lacking and eerily coincidental with its sister attack in Britain...neither hold up to close scrutiny.

Just keep looking forward hides the bodies from view but not the stench of decay. Just another tactic to avoid facing our own hypocrisy

[WCGreen]

35. I agree completely....

But if that movie Wag the Dog hadn't come out when it did, right in the of the Lewinski fiasco, Clinton would have actively sought out bin Laden...

I firmly believe that they exploited Lewinski to essentially emasculate Clinton and the democrats...

[blm]

37. With the public and press focused only on Lewinsky, the PTB got away with a LOT as they

set up their march to permanent war and Clinton wasn't in any position to do anything BUT let them get away with it. I do believe he would have tried controlling matters enough to achieve a somewhat better outcome all around, but, I'm under no delusion that he would have stepped up to STOP it. It fit too well with the worldview he and Blair had already signed onto - Poppy Bush/Kissinger worldview.

[defendandprotect]

42. Only citizens of Britain and America were aganst invading Iraq ... thus 9/11 ... !!

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Oh hell, if 9/11 had not happened at all we STILL would have invaded

Iraq. The bogus WMD/nuke program/rape rooms/kill his own people propaganda did it DESPITE people knowing Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

'Reasons' were immaterial. The invasion never depended on the stated reasons for doing it.

[newspeak]

61. yeah, they wanted the war

and Cheney had his secret little energy meeting with all his buddies, it seems, to divide the spoils. And, don't think British petroleum hasn't benefited.

[BlueMTexpat]

63. Blair might have been "ready" to, but it wasn't Iraq that was

behind 9-11. Please remember that. Even after 9-11, it took a LOT of convincing to get the UK aboard for an invasion of Iraq.
Bill Clinton never had quite the same "family honor" issues to redress that DimSon did. I like to believe that cooler heads would ultimately have prevailed had a 9-11-style attack taken place - which it did not - during his Administration. After all Clinton and Co had managed to fend off the PNAC crew and they were screaming loudly for Saddam's head.
During the Clinton Administration, anyone sane in the Government was actually listening to what the intelligence agencies were telling them - maybe not always effectively, witness the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania - but for the most part they were listening and on the alert for terrorism in the US, which is one reason why there was no 9-11 then. After all, Richard Clarke was in charge and he knew what he was doing.
The Clinton Administration also did not set up their own "intelligence" manufacturing branch in the Pentagon, as was done with Feith's oversight, that cherry-picked facts and skewed them so that the "intelligence" gave them "cover" on demand.
Clinton's people also knew Chalabi for exactly the scum that he is and wouldn't have anything to do with him.

So no, they may have been "ready" and wanted to, but they had lots of other things on their minds. First of all, 9-11 did not happen then - and for good reason - and secondly, they would have realized exactly how horrible the consequences would be.

[Kolesar]

5. Yes, that is a fine point

I still think Blair was dedicated to promoting his worldview. He subscribed to the idea that Bush was the the same as any Democrat (like Al Gore). Any American president could help him to set the Middle East to right.

In Tony's world, it is best to vanquish the peacenicks.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. Blair was not that poweful only operating as a stooge for neocons and their friends

[UTUSN]

6. K&R #4 for, well of COURSE it happened!1 Shrub said he wanted it before Coup-2000 n/t

[blm]

9. And WHO convinced Blair before the coup?

.

[Amonester]

53. BP & Co.

The same mofos for which "lesser people" don't count, never did and never will, except when they have to consume oil and gas at gouging prices.

[indimuse]

8. KNR! n/t

[SpiralHawk]

11. Now many needlessly died because they lied?

lie lie lie Republicon lie lie lie

[earcandle]

13. We will never have confidence in ourselves and each other until we find out the truth and cause

people who are accountable to face judgment.  If we don't we
are cads and cowards and shriveled. 

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. people don't have any power only corporations

[bjobotts]

50. The truth?? Only way to not know is to not want to know.Evidence is overwhelming

Do we really need someone else to tell us what we already know. The LIE was easily read on Bush's face when told of the first plane hitting and then sat there for 15 min listening to "My Pet Goat". Just keep going back to the video and look at Bush's face any time you have any doubts.

"Money trumps ...er..a...peace sometimes"-Bush.

Not counting lives the corps lost $1 trillion but will make $13 trillion from the 9/11 events and all that ensued afterward. These are real monsters ordinary citizens do not know how to combat much less recognize.

[earcandle]

51. True dat! Thanks!

[Ikonoklast]

15. Both militaries are addicted to oil.

No oil, no military.

Until people understand the direct relationship between Big Oil and the MIC, this will go on until the last drop of oil is extorted by the threat of, or direct action of, military force...so a chosen few can become stupendously wealthy.

The biggest single user of refined petroleum products on the face of this planet is the Department of Defense of this country. They will stop at nothing to keep that addiction going, including killing those that stand in the way.

They have useful tools like Bush and Blair do the political dirty work for them, throw them a few bucks, and stay behind the curtain.

[ooglymoogly]

17. Yeah, "All we need now is another Pearl Harbor"

The more your worst fears and suspicions get documented into history, the more hopeless it seems. No prosecution = no democracy = kangaroo justice for the middle class and jail in corporate prisons for liberals, protesting Democrats, poor blacks and hispanics = fascism = Christo-fascist Banana Republic. The art of disseminating folks is already happening, protected by crooked courts and the secrets act in direct contravention of the Constitution.

Delusional "Christian" Lawyers and Judges, now being produced in volume by Cristo fascist "law schools" (American Madrasas). Narrow murderous Biblical Law to keep the masses in check, corporate prisons humming and the moneyed above the law and safe from the riff raff who will be handed the bill at the treadmill gate;

A Koch et al wet dream.

Won't that be just swell?

[Hubert Flottz]

21. Impeachment was off the table...

WHY?

[Marcel]

27. I still don't understand why. Am I so stupid ?

I don't get it at all.

[Marcel]

22. Recommended...

But your post is really depressing.

[pretzel4gore]

23. Please Support the War on tots!

The War on Tots is not a game
that’s played to pass the time,
But is a fight for all that’s good,
which we are, versus them!

Our fighting men, so brave so few
Go everywhere for peace
Making free a world at war
but some yet try appease!!

You must support the war on tots
If we’re going to stay on top
And as nits make lice, otherwise
Lousy wars cost way too much!

The proof is in the bible …
a mighty army on the move
Confronts a bunch of dirty tots
when one of theirs steps forward!

Goliath was so strong, supreme
faced boy David, but look who won!
the War on Tots is ours to lose
A lesson finally learned!

Bleeding hearts assume all tots
prefer splashing pools to firefights,
But Goliath fell, he lost the war
- IED or a slingshot stone
- took unfair advantage of the game
And the size of the fallen mighty!

Our needs are mighty, neverending
Bush, boy Harper, military spending,
Around the world confront resentment
though political correctness tie
their hands (while enabling others)
who must then be dealt with aggression!

We strike hard at nests of vipers
Shock and Awe and bloody diapers
War’s not for the faint of heart
The war on tots we forced to start!

CNCBC the Fox reports the truths
we paid for, bought
Though liberals try to hide that truth
(about the war on the Terrible Twos)
The media soothes, no news good news!
up is down in a world gone belly up!

So do your duty, fall in line
Rightwing mass media tells it Right!
The war on tots maybe out of style
But Bush inc’s Brownshirts remain defiant,
Their Foxtail News tells all “You’re
Goliath!’ while we media Davids
are ‘only a child!"

[Gman]

26. I remember seeing C-5 cargo planes flying out of the BRAC'd Kelly AFB

headed east and climbing which was VERY unusual. And I said to anyone that would listen, "The bastards are building up to invade Iraq.". Nobody cared.

The more that comes out just confirms what we saw.

[dogday]

28. Was this before or after Downing Street? nt

[seafan]

34. July 23, 2002--- Downing Street Meeting

LINK




Senator Bob Graham


February, 2002: Senator Bob Graham is told by General Tommy Franks that Bush is pulling personnel and equipment out of Afghanistan and sending them to Iraq.

April, 2002: Franks meets secretly in Britain for Iraq invasion planning.

July, 2002: Downing Street meeting, where 'the facts were being sexed up to fit around the policy'.

October, 2002: Senator Graham warns his colleagues before the Iraq war vote: "....Blood is going to be on your hands."



March 19, 2003: George W. Bush commits aggressive, unjustified war against Iraq.




U.S. President George W. Bush, seen on March 19, 2003, following his address to the nation. He spoke after the U.S. began bombing Iraq.
(Rick Bowmer/Associated Press)



Barbara Bush, are you proud of your sons now?

[seafan]

31. Senator Bob Graham tried to tell his colleagues in 2002.

Information like this is continually scarce in our media.


Britain held secret war talks with U.S. general Tommy Franks 11 months before Iraq invasion (April, 2002)

October 3, 2010
UK Daily Mail

America's most senior general flew into Britain for top secret talks on the invasion of Iraq 11 months before the attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Details of the classified meeting, held at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, suggest Tony Blair’s Government was involved in detailed discussions about toppling the Iraqi dictator earlier than previously disclosed.

American General Tommy Franks flew in to the base in April 2002 to attend a summit meeting called by the then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.

.....

Senator Bob Graham tried to tell us.


From this old thread:


On February 19, 2002, Senator Bob Graham met with General Tommy Franks at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa. Franks informed Graham, to his great shock and surprise, that Bush was pulling forces out of Afghanistan and sending them to Iraq.



Graham writes:

At that point, General Franks asked for an additional word with me in his office. When I walked in, he closed the door. Looking troubled, he said, "Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan."

"Excuse me?" I asked.

"Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq," he continued. "The Predators are being relocated. What we are doing is a manhunt. We have wrapped ourselves too much in trailing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. We're better at being a meat ax than finding a needle in a haystack. That's not our mission, and that's not what we are trained or prepared to do."

It took me a second to digest what he had told me. General Franks's mission in Afghanistan--which, as a good soldier, he was loyally carrying out--was being downgraded from a war to a manhunt. What's more, the most important tools for a manhunt, the Predators, had been redeployed to Iraq at the moment they were most needed in Afghanistan.

I was stunned. This was the first time I had been informed that the decision to go to war with Iraq had not only been made but was being implemented, to the substantial disadvantage of the war in Afghanistan.

Franks continued, "We can finish this job in Afghanistan if we are allowed to do so. And there is a set of terrorist targets after Afghanistan. My first priority would be Somalia--there is no effective government to control the large number of terrorist cells. Next, I would go to Yemen. Its president is willing to help in the war on terrorism, but has no capabilities to do so. Iraq is a special case. Our intelligence there is very unsatisfactory. Some Europeans know more than we on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction..."

General Franks wasn't complaining; he was making a statement of fact. but the fact was damning. Here, General Franks, a four-star general and the commander of CENTCOM, was laying out for me how he would fight a true war on terrorism. Instead, his men and resources were being moved to Iraq, where he felt that our intelligence was shoddy. This admission was coming almost fourteen months before the beginning of combat operations in Iraq, and only five months after the commencement of combat in Afghanistan.

The more I thought about it, the more furious I became. Victory against al-Qaeda was in our grasp, and we were releasing the pressure. The redeployments were a tangible statement that not only did we not have the military or intelligence capability to simultaneously win an ongoing war in Afghanistan and take on Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but also that someone in the White House had put Saddam Hussein ahead of Osama bin Laden.

.....

Senator Bob Graham in Intelligence Matters, Chapter 12, pp. 122-128, published September 7, 2004.




This information will likely never make it into the history books, until the reign of the War Mongers, Neocons, Corporatists and war profiteers is passed.

[CJCRANE]

67. Wow...interesting! n/t

[Marcel]

32. 8 years already...

OTOH Why did it took so long to know about this?

[migsan]

33. Never Forget

<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-21-somalia_N... >

[ronnie624]

54. Yeah, I remember that.

But it never made me feel like I wanted to kill people in Iraq.

[alfredo]

36. Saddam kicked out BP. Any guesses if that had anything to do

with Britain wanting to join bush in invading Iraq?

[Jeneral2885]

39. Blair did well before 2001

Blair did well before 2001: setting up DFID, Operation Barras. Then when Bush casted a spell on him he followed.

Unfortunately, most Labour MPs did too.

[defendandprotect]

40. Declassify the documents ....

[goforit]

47. The NEW WORLD ORDER....tracing their footsteps to their birth

Nothing new...Rubber stamped by the Queen.

[rhett o rick]

52. So what? Nothing will be done about it. nm

[Raoul]

55. Oh Gee!!

Where have you been during the past 5 or 6 years? I spoke about this years ago and you're talking about this now?

[ensho]

59. kick

nt

[pleah]

60. K&R yep n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

62. One of these days --

we will have the full story -- all the gory details we know in our hearts but don't have concrete evidence for.

It will all come out, every disgusting, criminal bit of it.

But will we as a people have the courage to demand justice?

[creon]

64. I am not surprised

It takes of planning and cooperation to get a military operation off the ground.

The first operation left a lot of "unfinished business" with Iraq. I would be surprised if many did not want to "finish the job".

The WMD was a good pretext. It was obvious that Iraq had no WMD.

[The Uncola]

66. Perhaps..

.. this would mean something more to me if we didn't still have 50,000 troops there, who knows how many "private contractors," and a shitpot full of American money being dumped down that toilet.

In the meantime, I have seen an Unemployment check since February. Hard to worry about the ancient history of events halfway around the world when you're losing everything you've worked for over the course of decades.

Yeah, I get it...

... Neocons are evil war mongering assholes.

Now, how's 'bout you do something relevant to those of us hanging on by our fingertips?

[newspeak]

68. "hanging on by our fingertips"

because Little Boots deregulated his best buds, especially Wall Street and corporations got tax breaks with no incentives for innovation or hiring here. They got tax breaks while outsourcing our jobs because they are no american companies any longer. And Little Boots, like trickle on Reagan, attempted, early in his selection, to break the dockworkers union. Since Reagan, labor unions have gone down hill, and the corporations that want cheap exploitive labor can go where they please and we still cater to them.

If the neocons have their way it will be perpetual war where the war profiteering sociopaths will make even more money, while our social safety net is decimated when those who have no decent job or no job can just starve in the street for all they care. We will be the slaves--it's something that publicly has been stated by poppy "sleaze" bush and Kissenger--it's the New World Order. And, I wonder if people can imagine a time when governments mean nothing, where huge global corporations have so much power that they supersede any kind of democracy or the will of the people. And many of these global corporations are sociopathic by nature because it all comes down to profit--some do not care who they poison or what they do to the environment as long as they make a buck. Our money flows into private coffers to perpetuate war for stealing resources and setting up, in some instances not democracies, but any despot who will tow the corporate line.

And, as can be seen by some of the incidence with privatization, it is not good for our democracy--when you have a judge who sends children to a private facility on minor infractions because he gets a kickback, it becomes business as usual. Or if you privatize part of the military and the services are done on the cheap and our soldiers are poisoned and killed--those corporations still get our money, most times without accountability.

And now we have the corporate sponsored teabaggers-they're just repugs who had to find a different way to sell themselves-but more on the non-empathic crazy side. And they are funded by the corporations, they are for corporations and for privatizing the rest that has not been given away by Little Boots. Oh, and while you're suffering and can't find a job, they want to make sure you suffer big time, by taking away unemployment or any other social program that will help those who are suffering.

[The Uncola]

69. Ok...

... and "little Boots" left office almost 2 years ago. Telling me what a lousy job he and his did, isn't going to pay my bills or put food on the table. I appreciate what you said in your rant and I completely agree with almost all of it, but gawd dammit, the wishy-washy crap coming out of DC since he's been gone isn't much better. It's done me and MILLIONS of other hard working (but jobless) Americans no good at all. None. Zero. Zippo. Quite frankly, most of us don't have another or two or three years to wait and pointing fingers at Shrub Jr and Co. isn't doing shit to help me.

I NEED A DECENT PAYING JOB OR I'M GOING UNDER.

NOW!

[newspeak]

70. and, I am with you on the jobs issue

My hubby lost his good paying job over two years ago, along with our decent health insurance. He has had about four different jobs since (some temporary work), and has been screwed by two of them. We are in our fifties, too young for SS and apparently too old for today's job market.

Little Boot's had one of the worst job creations record, probably since the depression-but he kept feeding "his friends." Obama coming into office, I really was hoping for FDR instead of the "new" democrat. I answered a telephone survey and they asked what is your priority and they listed many things that are very important to my family, but I had to pick one and that was "JOBS." I do sympathize with you because we are in the same boat, as so many others.