Open Thread
By Nicole Belle Saturday Mar 01, 2008 10:32pm
Rep. Thelma Drake wants Angelina Jolie to come testify to Congress on Iraq.
Nothing like calling in the experts to get to the bottom of things. Good to see she's taking the plight of Iraqis seriously.
Login or Register to post comments.
She should actually run for the Dems -- probably the only one who could bridge the gender gap.
First - that's all they got? Really? I mean for a while there they were at least pulling in commanding officers but this is all they have now? Angalina Jolee? What? Being Mrs. Smith means she has combat experience now?
Like I'm really gonna trust a woman who ruined Jennifer Aniston's marriage. Anyway, Florida's governor is for
seating delegates. People who are in decent financial shape are wary of buying a house for some reason.
Which candidate is going to make sure we can still intimidate the countries we borrow money from?
lol people are still sore about jennifer aniston. stop living through celebrities!!
Now if congress can keep their eyes on her face.
Will Chavez start a war
with Colombia?
Glenn: I just don't like her playing "holier than thou" when she's just an opportunistic tramp.
Sounds like some congresscritter wants to get some spotlight.
But as a UN representative, Jolie probably cannot speak to Congress on US issues.
At least Jolie tries to be a productive citizen of the world, I give her credit for that.
I predict we'll have a lot of comments insinuating that a pretty woman cannot do or say something useful. Nerds.
Thelma hearts Angelina...isn't that sweet.
The Republicans finally found somebody with a positve attitude outlook on Iraq. How are they doing with the WMD's?
Glennjamin @ 5:
lol, Thelma'll be happy if Angie just shows up and gives 'em some lip service.
Well then I should go testify too. I know, I know. I've never been there, but really, traveling in a security bubble makes you an expert?
Shorter Republican Party: Alla them damn celebrities should keep their damn mouths shut about politickin' and warrin' and furin relations and all that stuff!
Um, unless it turns out they agree with us ...
xoites defends Constitution @ 10:
Same way they are with everything else. Situation normal all f-*ked up.
Rick Massimo @ 13:
I don't have a problem with anyone expressing an opinion. I would find it disturbing if Congress called me in as an expert witness on Iraq however.
“A real change, for example, is not calling NAFTA a victory and saying how good it was for the American people until you decide to run for president like Senator Clinton did. That’s not real change.
-Barrack Obama, March 1, 2008.
"NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world."
-Barrack Obama, 2004 Illinois Senate Debate.
"Celebrity World"
Hi xoites ;-}
Hi 2b :)
Johnny2Bad @ 16:
Absolutely correct. Trade deals can be beneficial. NAFTA could be very beneficial if it was reworked. Though McCain keeps stumping that it's fine and dandy just the way it is.
Saying that something is a victory/success and saying that it can be beneficial are two separate things. Of course it's easier to try to conflate the two statements then it is to look at the nuances that make them different.
So I'm looking up the news on my phone at work and I run into this pile of dung. Here's a sneak peek into "Selling the War 2008":
So far, so good. It makes sense...
Still making sense. So far I like this article. But wait...
HUH?! WTF?! How the hell did they calculate this shit?!
The war is being sold to us as something the American people now support. There is no evidence of that at all in this article. It makes a couple bullet points why the article feels Americans should support the war (very weak one's at that). But somehow, as the election comes into view, after so many years of Americans against the war - suddenly - close to the time when Americans are going to cast their votes, they've had a change of heart.
Now for the insult in your face from this article:
Yes folks, we are no longer a breed of the human species concerned with death tolls or a wars impact to families connected to the war. It's all about winning - like a football game. We only want to win, no matter the cost. That's what this article says. We want to win no matter how many die. It's worth it. So if you have a son/daughter in the war, consider that their lives may be sacrificed, no longer because we are doing it to protect America, we're doing it because we haven't won in a long time and we must do whatever it takes to break the losing streak.
What a pathetic article and what a bogus way to sell the war to the American people.
The only true statement was it's first sentence, then political dung gets flung at you after that:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/02/foreman.raw.politics/
The media is selling this bullshit war in Iraq and we must stop them from convincing Americans that they are turning towards supporting the war because it is a flat-out lie. The article couldn't pull a statistic or any evidence that shows Americans supporting the war, but somehow it sells it after admitting 3/4ths of Americans are still opposed to the war. W.T.F.
Angelina Jolie is going to testify on Iraq and then Fat Bastard Limpballs will give a sensitivity seminar immediately afterwards............
Is this simply because she's a high-profile celebrity who supports the war, or the surge, or whatever it is that Bush/Cheney are doing over there and that she's supporting?
Roark77 @ 20:
Remember that, when you are issued your food and fuel rationing cards.
Bitter are we?
Jolie could be living the life of Paris Hilton - rich, beautiful etc - but instead she adopts kids, speaks out on issues that are important ... I say give her a pass. If she werent speaking on issues, either no one else would be or someone that would be ignored would be.
Reminds me of the way the Bush crew has conducted the war. First they luck out and get Tillman and then promptly cover up how he died. Then they stage a "valiant rescue" that even the the woman rescued had to deny. Now with the elections looming they want the prettiest face they can find to tell America the surge is working. I think it could well be that the US Military has adopted the tactics least likely to expose our troops to danger in an election year. I have no dispute against keeping them out of danger but if it is for cynical reasons it is a crime.
I respect what Jolie represents as the face (alright, and body) of Hollywood liberal human rights activism and charity, and as a goad to other celebs to do more, but this is just providing the repigs with another opportunity to equate Dems with silly bleeding heart dilettantes, even if Angelina isn't one. I can hear the 'Thelma Widestance' and 'investigations into use of silicone in Hollywood leading to misuse by America's teens' jokes now. In fact, I'm thinking of writing some myself...
;-}
LibertyLust@21 Don't forget that McCain's new theme is that going to war and all of the ill conceived reasoning (if we can even call it that) is in the past. Therefore it's all irrelevant. All that matters is the surge. Apparently it's all kittens and rainbows now.
It's interesting that the war suddenly is all about the last eight months, as if the rest vanished and became irrelevant. Not to mention that McCain seems to be moving the goalposts again in terms of "winning" the war vs fighting insurgency. Didn't we win this thing about three different times already?
anon @ 25:
I have nothing against Angelina Jolie. I have a lot to say about being manipulated.
Roark77 @ 20:
"Reworked"??? He didn't say "reworked" in '04.
Look, I'm not talking about the so-called "nuance" of his current rhetoric but the stench of rank hypocrisy that permeates his campaign. He accuses her of the very thing he said under the very same circumstances (sniff sniff) God, can't you smell that?
Here's the link to all the members of the Armed Services Committee:
http://www.house.gov/hasc/list_of_members.shtml
If your rep is on that list, please let him/her know how you feel about this unbelievably wasteful use of their time, at our expense.
Don Davis @ 1:
Hey she would be an interesting (not to mention the sexiest) choice for President (except for not having any real political background or experience) but really, no body in this country wants First Gentleman Brad Pitt.
LibertyLust @ 21:
would you please stop copying whole sections of articles and just
give us the url.........you are so tediously boring
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 32:
There actually are other offices to run for.
Congress... here is all you need to know about Iraq. I give this information to you for free. No expensive hearing required.
Iraq was invaded on false pretenses by the United States of America. Many tens of thousands of people have been killed. The nation's infrastructure is in ruins. The central and local governments were put out of business and anarchy prevails. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't want to cooperate with the United States. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the United States to leave so they can re-establish sovereign rule. Until the United States military leaves, anarchy and misery will prevail in Iraq.
dadams @ 33:
Really? I found this post to be the most interesting one this evening. You must have as well since you reposted it.
From Wikipedia:
Drake was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives of the 109th United States Congress in November 2004. She entered the race after incumbent Republican congressman, Ed Schrock, dropped out of the race on August 30, 2004, after supposedly soliciting sex from men via a gay telephone dating service. She defeated Democrat David Ashe 55%-45% in the general election. Karl Rove has identified Thelma Drake's congressional seat has as one of the most vulnerable Republican seats in the Congress.
So now the wingnuts want Hollywooders to speak up and testify?
Make up your wingnutty minds.
-GSD
anon @ 25:
Here, here! Sean Penn can't go around doing all the activism! (no snark really intended, who does more for social causes then Jolie or Penn?) I always ask anyone who says they think abortion should be outlawed: How many kids have you adopted? I have yet to hear a single one of these knuckleheads say they have ever even thought of adopting. So my answer to them is that they don't really have any room to tell someone else what to do with their bodies if they won't take the responsibility of caring for a child who needs a better life.
L.A. Confidential @ 24:
It's not trade agreements that are evil and destructive, it's unbalanced trade agreements like NAFTA that do the damage. Imports and exports (ie trade) are important. It's more important to make sure we're not getting screwed in every deal (like we have been for the past while).
I hope McCain keeps on with his stumping about NAFTA, it could help turn key states like Ohio. Here's a good example of McCain's NAFTA love. Now that's a clip Russert can use next time McCantreallytalkabouttheeconomybecauseitsnotallaboutthesurge is on Meet the Press.
xoites defends Constitution @ 34:
That was a joke...A bad joke, but I was only trying to be funny!
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 41:
Sorry, maybe if you put a rimshot in next time. :)
Maybe after Angelina Jolie gets done testifying they can get Stephen Baldwin to tell us about all the Iraq love he received last year.
anon @ 25:
I have a lot of respect for Angelina Jolie and the life she leads.
But what in the world qualifies her to testify in Congress about the situation in Iraq?
Johnny2Bad @ 30:
He didn't need to say reworked but even if I were to concede the point (which I certainly will not), then I'd be happy to have you point me in the direction of a candidate that isn't dripping with the apparent stench of rank hypocrisy? I don't see a one in the bunch that hasn't reversed a position or been guilty of the evils of changing their mind about an issue.
Karen @ 43:
Propaganda power, mostly.
LibertyLust @ 21:
does this mean mccslut will be president in 09? why certainly! americans are stupid dipwads!
This is what happens when the dem's lead congress, Spy Gate, Clemens Gate and now this, what waste of fucking time, no wonder the Chinese are going to squash us..
chris @ 47:
like a dungbeetle!
chris @ 47:
What do the Democrats have to do with Rep. Drake's request? Have they indicated that they will call Jolie?
Investigate.
Indict.
Incarcerate.
End the Occupation.
tyree @ 46:
McSlut
#433...thanks, tyree!
;-}
Rick Massimo @ 13:
Pretty much, yeah. If a Democrat had requested that George Clooney be called to testify about the situation in Darfur, the Republican noise machine would be shrieking about wacky leftist Hollywood types who don't love America.
"Americans do not like losing wars."
Actually Americans don't mind losing wars if it means saving lives, as the article by Helen Thomas says.
You know 2b, you've got a loooooooooooong time to go. That list should just keep expanding, especially once McSurgeSurgeSurge gets past his convention.
Karen @ 52:
I'm surprised the Republicans haven't tried calling Stephen Baldwin to talk about Iraq. He was going on that big religious trip to Iraq to pass out Left Behind video games and those vaguely weird tshirts while apparently educating or entertaining the troops.
When they're so used to being 100% disingenuous, dishonest, petty, opportunistic, and frankly, wrong, can anyone seriously be surprised the repugs would coopt Hollywood when the opportunity presented itself?
If it's Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, or anyone else saying things that help Democrats, Hollywood is evil. But if it's a Hollywood celebrity saying everything's just grand in Baghdad when it clearly is not and there's mountains of proof to the contrary, well, republicans far and wide need to support the Hollywood backing of our foreign policy there.
Just more bald-faced under-handed opportunism by people who've been doing it so long they think they're actually being honest. They can't see their lying forest for the trees, and could care less that they've run out of bubblegum and only have a couple drops of water left in the can.
I see nothing wrong with her going before congress. She is not going to take a side on the war. She will take the side of the refugees. She will speak up for the refugees. She will speak to the burdens on Jordon and Syria. She will have some opinions as to what we should be doing. She has been committed to the plight of refugees since 2000. She has met with them, worked with them, and lived among them. She is more than just a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN. She donates significant amounts of her money toward refugee causes. She has written a book, "Notes from My Travels", http://www.amazon.com/Angelina-Jolies-Notes-My-Travels/dp/0743470230/ref..., published in 2003 which is basically a journal of her experiences in Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Pakistan, Cambodia, and Ecuador. She is very genuine.
dadams @ 33:
I disagree. I found the narration rather compelling. If you don't like it, have another drink and pass on.
Roark77 @ 54:
I wish McCandidatebydefault would just go ahead and pick a running-cocriminal so I could get started on that one, too, just for variety's sake (mine, if no one else's) lol... ;-}
Oh, andandand #434, thanx3!
;-}
Americans don't know jack about finances.
Proud2bHumble @ 59:
Oh, andandandand #435, thanx 2b!
[:<O]
As far as I know, Hillary is not a Republican:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/3/0628/29473/157/467681
She's not taking anything seriously. What's really going on is that this trust attention seeking trust fund baby has been doing damage control for being a homewrecking whore by adopting kids like they we're beenie babies and going around Africa and Iraq pretending as though she gives a fuck. I don't see her or Brad Pitt joining the peace corps and giving all they're money away, do we?
I haven't seen this one listed around here at all: delegate counter.
It's a browser based program that distributes delegates for each state based on whatever percentage you put in for each candidate, and then adds them up for you.
rib @ 57:
I don't entirely disagree with you. She will indeed talk about the plight of the refugees, and will only speak about what she has seen. And anyone who has witnessed something first hand is naturally qualified to be an . . . ahem . . . witness. There is nothing per se wrong about her talking about her experiences to the extent that they will help give perspective.
As for not taking a side about the war, well, she did write an article in which she argues that the surge has made at least enough progress to begin to help Iraqis, and that we cannot afford to leave now. This is the only reason someone like Drake wants her to testify. Drake wants to use her to make the Republican point that leaving now is bad.
The Republicans will manipulate her, and will publicly pretend that she is qualified to answer questions she is not. (And Jolie will be the first to tell you she is not qualified to say whether the surge is "working." At least not as a witness in front of Congress.)
If her testimony is part of a long, serious investigation into everything that has gone wrong in Iraq, I suppose that'd be cool. But for Drake to request that a Hollywood celebrity known for liberal stances, but who happened to (almost) say that we should "stay the course," smacks of the sickening manipulation Republicans have made their MO.
didn't CNN just quote this bimbette as saying that the "surge" is working?
now congress.
I am voting out all incumbents this term. If they're in, then they are out! Period!
The U.S. Navy is sending three ships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea in a show of strength during a period of tensions with Syria and political uncertainty in Lebanon. - Raw Story
Karen @ 65:
so she's qualified because she wrote an article?
the pool is awfully shallow around here.
Orangutan. @ 67:
there are already two carrier groups threatening Iran. wtf is this for again?
Karen @ 43:
Yeah , I don't get it. There are plenty of other folks better qualified , and living in Iraq for years. I don't think A-list status will help much.
Aside: Her kids are currently staying at the same daycare that my kids go to here in Austin. Brad Pitt (w/ Sean Penn) are filming a movie down here. I met Pitt yesterday. He joked and said I could only vote for one candidate in the primary since he saw I had an Obama and a Hillary sticker on my truck.
dadams @ 33:
you're NOT helping your own cause. THIS is how you do it! mmkay?
Hey P2bH - Thanks for keeping McTrack!
More stock woes.
CoIntelPro @ 68:
What on earth are you talking about? Did you actually read what I wrote?
I might just find a reason to watch C-SPAN beyond it's obvious utility as a sleep aid.
CoIntelPro @ 69:
More dabbling in Lebanon. There already has been evacuations out of Lebanon by the Saudis and others. Maybe chimpy won't attack Iran next after all.
CoIntelPro @ 66:
I really wish we had term limits for Congress. Some of these old goats have been in the Senate since Vietnam. It's no wonder nothing ever gets taken care of in this country.
Roark77 @ 76:
I hope Israelis do not attack one of our warships again. This is such a touchy subject for AIPAC; hence, the reason most people have never heard of the USS Liberty.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html