Friday, March 23, 2007

Bean Salad in the Kitchen

I'll be sharing some of the recipes from foods I sampled while we were in all Texas over the next few months. I actually had written a post this morning with a different recipe and lost the whole thing while trying to post. So I went into the e-mails, after I was done feeling angry (WHY! WHY! WHY!) about the lost post and Bonnie had e-mailed wondering if I knew of any bean salad recipes other than green bean and three bean?

I know of several and I'll share this one here and e-mail two more to Bonnie. The one I'm sharing was brought to a talk we did in East Texas and Stacy and her husband Jeff brought it. They said they figured that those of us from the East Coast might especially be cursing the Texas weather and appreciate a chilled dish. East Texas was actually cooler than any other part of Texas we visited that week, so heat wasn't a problem there. (Austin and Dallas were the two hottest during the week we visited. Not hot in a summer sense for them, but really warm for what was still officially winter.) Elaine, Betty and I pretty much ensured no one else had a taste because we were the first to have some and, honestly, knocked it out before anyone else could because it was so tasty.

It's very easy to make. There is no cooking involved so no one should panic, regardless of their kitchen comfort level.

2 celery stocks, chopped
1 can of kidney beans
mandarin organges
salad dressing
2 tablespoons of sugar or sugar substitue

On the oranges, you can use a can (11 ounces) and that's fine. But Stacy had recently started buying manadrin oranges in a plastic jar by Dole. Fresh is fine, if you have it but she's got one grocery story (Brookshires -- which seemed to be all over East Texas) and fresh mandarin oranges aren't a given and seem to pop up seasonally. She prefers the Dole jar because it's less syrupy than what she has available in the can. But you can use a can if that's all you have or if you prefer the taste. If you're using Dole, you'll need to spoon out 22 tablespoons (2 tablespoons equal an ounce). With the kidney beans, you'll need to drain and rinse them. That's part of the recipe but it's also true if you're watching your sodium count.
On the salad dressing, she used Italian and it tasted wonderful. She said her mother also enjoys it with French dressing or Green Goddess dressing.
Combine all the ingredients in a bowl. Cover the bowl. If the bowl you are using doesn't have a cover (glass or plastic), use some plastic wrap. Refrigerate it. What we had was chilled overnight and that's the ideal but you can also chill it for a few hours (I would say no less than three) if you are in a rush.

That's it. You can serve it on plates or in bowls like that or you can serve it on a bed of lettuce. It's a very easy recipe. Summer's coming up and it's a recipe that's perfect for summer (both for eating and for 'cooking' since you're not standing over a hot stove).

Feel free to play around with it but Jeff cautioned that he loves peaches (they even have a peach tree -- that has still not produced fruit -- he noted) so he attempted to substitute peaches in the recipe but he said it didn't turn out well. I think you would get a different taste with basic oranges but it would still be tasty. In addition to lettuce, you can serve it on a bed of spinach which is what I've been doing this week because there was some really good spinach in my area.
If you're using lettuce, your favorite will do and that includes iceberg.

Eddie e-mailed to ask what I thought of the Hillary ad online at YouTube, or the anti-Hillary ad, I guess it is. I thought it was nonsense. I thought it was the sort of thing that dumbs down the political process. Anyone who's read any of my comments on Hillary Clinton should have already guessed that I'm not supporting Hillary. But the ad didn't cover her record, didn't do anything at all, other than tap into 'the fear of Hillary.' It may be effective in terms of sending people running but what it added to the conversation was? Nothing. I hadn't planned to write about that (I responded to Eddie in an e-mail) but I was looking through the morning paper and except for a Washington Post article that our paper carried, I didn't see a lot else that was worth noting. This is from the Associated Press:

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday that his campaign had nothing to do with a Web ad portraying his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination as an Orwellian figure. Nevertheless, Obama declined to denounce the ad, which depicts New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Big Brother. He said the ad apparently "captured the public's imagination."

His campaign had nothing to do with it although the ad was created by an employee of a company working on Obama's campaign? I did want to comment on that because, as C.I. pointed out this week, it's actually a pattern. I'm not referring to David Geffen's comments about Hillary, I'm referring to a pattern in Obama's campaigning and I'll cite one example.

He won his Senate seat because he was a shoe-in. He became that after the only serious rival he had dropped out, Jack Ryan. Jack Ryan is a Republican so I'm not boo-hooing over him. But I do think it was tacky and tasteless the way that went down. Ryan and his then former wife had some problems in the marriage. This was not domestic abuse and the court documents were not for public viewing. I seriously doubt his ex-wife, the actress Jeri Ryan, was thrilled to see her personal life splashed on the front page. That was gutter politics and it's strange how all the below-the-belt hits that always benefit Obama are never seen to be part of a history of campaign dirty tricks.

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate I see offering real solutions and not soundbytes. I think John Edwards has matured as a candidate and that, as the race continues, he may offer some real solutions (I don't support his health care plan which strikes me as a lot of pretty words and little substance). But in terms of who is addressing issues, the only one I see right now is Dennis Kucinich.

I think he's being very straight foward about what is needed and why. If the election were held this Tuesday, he'd have my vote. I'm not going to gas bag about candidates week after week. But I think the point needs to be made that he's not gas bagging. He is the only candidate I see who is offering plans and talking about them. That's Republican or Democrat. I'm not voting Republican but they are covered in the media -- unlike third party candidates. If I had Rudy's record, I'd prefer to talk about the fact that my current wife was married three other times and not twice like she'd maintained. I see a lot of that, a lot of running from records, and I honestly don't blame them considering their records.

Kucinich doesn't have to run from the Iraq war issue because he got it right. He voted against war on Iraq. He was an anti-war candidate. (Obama stopped being that as soon as Jack Ryan dropped out. That's probably lost on many because his star making moment was the DNC 2004 convention. By the time he gave that speech, he'd already moved away from Iraq. In meetings in his state, after he was elected, he avoided addressing the issue with constituents. Now he wants to say "I wouldn't have voted for the war. I was against it." He was against it, quietly as his election approached and quietly after he was elected.)

He has a plan for health care that is practical and do-able. That is a big issue to me because that's an issue that effects all of us. That's only become more clear as so many of us (my generation) are seeing older relatives (parents, aunts, uncles, etc.) live longer than was possible in earlier times and face more difficulties of aging. That's only become more clear as we've seen the safety net destroyed repeatedly (under the Bully Boy, under Bill Clinton, both parties have worked to destroy the safety net) and we have so many children (and parents) without health care. I've mentioned parents and children because, as the mother of eight, that's where my mind goes first. But health care, or the lack of it, effects everyone. It's very basic and it should be the right of every American.

Of the domestic issues, I put health care first. Of the international issues, I put the Iraq war first. Kucinich didn't sell out to please Nancy Pelosi. What passed the House Friday is a joke on the people if it's not spitting in the face of the people. That's the people in the United States and the people in Iraq. The snapshot contains some of the criticisms Kucinich made of the measure so I won't repeat them (the snapshot will be copy and pasted in full at the end of my post). But I will note that while we are being lied to -- and we are being lied to -- by Pelosi and the Democratic leadership about what this bill does, Kucinich is talking reality.

I have two friends who have already decided they are supporting him. One worries that he's not going to be 'electable' because the mass media will not seriously cover him. She's correct that they ridicule him. They did that in 2004 as well. I will be mentioning him from time to time here because (a) I do support him and (b) I don't own a network or a paper but I can determine what I post online. There was a lot of support for him in Texas. He is far from Texas (Ohio) so if the word can get out in states other than Ohio, he is electable. But that's not going to come from the mass media. Howard Dean didn't get treated seriously by the mass media. He built up outside of it. Then the mass media had treat him slightly seriously (and then, of course, they tore him down).

If I just thought he was a "good guy," I wouldn't even bother. I'm sure he is a "good guy." I'm sure everyone running has some good personal qualities. But I'm not out shopping for a new best friend, I'm trying to figure out who would make the best leader, the best president. Dennis Kucinich is the only one I see oferring real leadership. When I wrote of him last time, a 'funny' e-mail came in saying that it was "cute" the way the entire community had endorsed him and were pretending they hadn't. Offered as proof was the fact that "he's mentioned more than any other presidential candidate in those snapshots." Those snapshots are the "Iraq snapshot" that C.I. does Monday through Friday. He's mentioned in those because he's addressing the war. I have no idea whom C.I. will support. Betty was, until Hillary refused to apologize for her vote in favor of the war and then suggested people look elsewhere if the war's important to them, for Hillary and that was very clear in the statements she made at The Third Estate Sunday Review. Jess is a Green and I doubt he'll be voting for a Democratic. He might, but I doubt it.
Cedric's leaning towards three candidates and Kucinich is one of the three but he's not made a decision yet. When we were all together on the trip to Texas, the issue of the 2008 presidential campaign isn't something we brought up. 2008 did come up in terms of the fact that the illegal war would probably still be dragging be on. But there's no 'secret plan' to push Dennis Kucinich. If there were and I was part of it, you'd probably see my son pushing Kucinich at his site.

If or when others get serious about the illegal war, you'll see them mentioned in the snapshot. Soundbytes isn't serious. If the election were held this Tuesday, I'd be voting for Kucinich. What others in the community with sites would do, I don't know. I speak to them on the phone, I see Elaine and Rebecca in person each week. (I see my son Mike every day.) The 2008 election isn't one of our main topics.

On candidates, I will note Elaine's "MoveOn, Elizabeth Edwards" which makes some strong points. (My feelings were similar to Matthew Rothschild's until I read Elaine's post.) Let me also note that Betty's latest chapter went up last night, "Thomas Friedman tries to work it." And, I enjoyed Ava and C.I.'s "TV: The Road to Boyville" so much that I actually watched October Road to see how bad it was. I think they captured it perfectly in their review.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" from yesterday:

Friday, March 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the Pelosi measure passes in the House, the deputy prime minister of Iraq is wounded in an assassination attempt, new developments in the US military's harassment of Joshua Key, and voices opposed to the Pelosi measure that small media wouldn't bring you.

Starting with news of war resistance.
Yesterday, a family in Toronto who had taken in US war resister Joshua Key and his family when they came to Canada seeking asylum explained how they were visited by three police officers (in plainclothes) saying that they were searching for Joshua Key. This echoed an earlier attempt to harass US war resister Kyle Snyder; however, Key and his family now live elsewhere, so the 'police' were unable to detain him. Today, Leslie Ferenc (Toronto Star) reports that not only does the Toronto Police say it wasn't them, there's "no record of local officers being dispatched" to the home.
Omar El Akkad (Globe & Mail) adds another detail to the story: "The U.S. Army's Criminal Investigation Command has confirmed it is looking to question an army deserter now living in Canada about explosive allegations he made in his autobiography." El Akkad quotes Chris Grey as the person confirming. So were the three 'police' officers actually Toronto police are were they the US military?

The incident echoes an earlier one.
Bill Kaufmann (Calgary Sun) reminds readers that it was February when police officers "barged into" Kyle Snyder's home "hauling him out in his underwear in cuffs without a warrant and valid legal reason. His crime that actually isn't one in this country: Refusing to rejoin his U.S. Army unit to maintain the futile occupation of Iraq.
. . . Snyder claims federal officials told him they'd been getting pressure from the U.S. military to do something about his two-year presence in B.C. Canada Border Service Agency won't comment, but if it's even remotely true, what does it say about over sovereignty?"
Immigration official, Joci Pen has confirmed Synder was arrested at the request of the US military.

The US military maintains that they only want to discuss Joshua Key's new book,
The Deserter's Tale, apparently they're not just the military, they're also an international book club. Maybe they grew interested when they read John Freeman's (Mineapolis Star Tribune) review? Or maybe it was the shout out from Newsweek that made them thing, "We need to read this book!" Or maybe it was the recommendation fo the John Birch Society? Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale has received good word from around the political spectrum.

Snyder and Key are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes
Ehren Watada, Darrell Anderson, Dean Walcott, Joshua Key, Agustin Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.

In today's violence (reported) in Iraq, an attack on Salam al-Zobaie, the country's deputy prime minister, is getting the most attention. In what's being reported as an attempted assassination, Salam al-Zobaie's home was targeted with one bomb while the mosque he was in at the time was also targeted with a bomb.
Al Jazeera English TV reports that "many people are saying that this was an insider job" and correspondent Imad Shahib says that the mosque bombing was conducted by a man who blew himself up, "he's one of his guards." Robin Stringer and Heather Langan (Bloomberg News) note that the attack at th mosque took place "near the fortified Green Zone. AFP reports: "Zubayi, one of the most prominent Sunni Arab leaders in the Shiite-led government was rushed to a US military hospital in Baghdad with chest and face injuries after the bombers strcuk while he was performing Muslim prayers" and notes that at least six people are dead and at least 15 wounded. Elsa McLaren (Times of London) reports that Salam al-Zubaie was having surgery and also notes: "One aide said that the suicide bomber appeared to have been one of Mr al-Zubaie's own guards." Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports that nine deaths are being reported by the police, up from six. Christian Berthelsen (Los Angeles Times) also reports the 9 deaths and that 14 are wounded and that the bomber at the mosque (the one some reports are saying was an aide to al-Zubaie) wore a belt filled with explosives.

This follows the attack (in the Green Zone) yesterday.
Allen Pizzey (CBS News) observes, "And on the subject of targest, a short while ago a rocket slammed into the 'Green Zone' or, as the Americans prefer to call it, the 'IZ' short for 'International Zone', a word game that allows them to pretend someone other than America runs the place. The rocket, fired from across the rive, slammed in about 50 yards from where U.N. Secretary-General Bank Ki Moon and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were meeting the press. Pool pictures from the scene showed the U.N. chief ducking, a not unnatural or unwise move, and then looking somewhat puzzled."


Guardian of London reports that a Baghdad car bombing in the Sadr City neighborhood resulted in five deaths and 20 injured. Reuters reports one police officer dead and another wounded in a Yusufiya roadside bombing and three police officers wounded from a car bombing -- for some reason they use the term "suicide bomber" which seems to imply the bomber would be dead but, although using the term, they note: "The suicide bomber surivived the blast and was captured by police as he tried to run away."


Oh come on. What? You don't know the drill? There were no bullets exchanged on Friday! Seriously, Friday everyone cuts out early. McClatchy may file later today but everyone else pretty much ended the day several hours ago. (Around 7:00 pm in Baghdad, actually.)


Reuters reports: "The bullet-riddled bodies of a woman and her teenage daughter were found in Diwaniya, police said,"

Turning to politics, the Apologist, Tinker-Toy-Sell-Out-Boy, wants to tell everyone 'how it is.' How what is? How it is to be a Party Hack? Party Hack doesn't know how it is because Party Hack's not fought to end the war. Party Hack's fought to work for congressional candidates, party flacks' fought for his right to write really bad books, he just doesn't know a damn thing about the war. Thanks for sharing, Hack, now WalkOn,

CBS and AP report that Pelosi measure passed, 218 to 212. Yesterday, US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich took to the House floor to offer "10 Consequences of A 'Yes' Vote:"

1) Keep the war going through the end of President Bush's term;
2) Provide money to fuel an attack on Iran;
3) Force the privatization of Iraqi oil;
4) Escalate the insurgency;
5) Increase the number of troops causalities in the middle of a civil war;
6) Increase the number of civilian causalities;
7) Create a demand for more troops;
8) Enforce cutbacks of the agenda of many in Congress because money that could be used for schools, healthcare, seniors and the environment would continue to be spent for war;
9) Forces the destabilization of the Middle East;
10) Erodes the public's confidence in Congress

CNN reports that before today's vote, Dennis Kucinich declared, "Four years ago we were told we had no alternative but to go to war. Now we're told we have no alternative but to continue war for another year ot two. The fact of the matter is we do have alternatives. . . . Congress has the power to stop funding the war. That's what we should do. That's what we should have done and that's what I'm going to continue to work toward. We have to get out of Iraq, period." notes US House Rep Mike McNulty's statement on why he voted against the Pelosi measure:

In the spring of 1970, during my first term as Twon Supervisor of Green Island, I testified against the War in Vietnam at a Congressional Field Hearing in Schenectady, New York. Several months after that testimony, my brother, HM3 William F. McNulty, a Navy Medic, was killed in Quang Nam Province. I have thought -- many times since then -- that if President Nixon had listened to the voices of reason back then, my brother Bill might still be alive. As a Member of Congress today, I believe that the Iraq War will eventually be recorded as one of the biggest blunders in the history of warfare. In October of 2002, I made a huge mistake in voting to give this President the authority to take military action in Iraq. I will not compound that error by voting to authorize this war's continuation. On the contrary, I will do all that is within my power to end this war, to bring our troops home, and to spare other families the pain that the McNulty family has endured every day since August 9th, 1970.

David Swanson ( compiled a list of the Democrats who voted against the Pelosi measure -- Kucinich, McNulty, John Lewis, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Mike Michaud, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey -- and provides background on each of the eight.
Kevin Zeese (Democracy Rising) notes that Republican Ron Paul voted against the Pelosi measure because he has long opposed the illegal war, notes six Democrat War Hawks voted against it (John Barron, Dan Boren, Lincoln Davis, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson and Gene Taylor) because they love an illegal war and that US House Rep Paul Kanjorski missed the vote due to illness while Mel Watt missed the vote but says he would have voted for it if he'd been there.

As the
Des Monies Register reported, Brenda Hervey knows what's at stake -- her step-son Michael Hervey was injured while serving in Iraq, so, on Monday she was at the offices of her senator Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin asking that they refuse to continue to fund the illegal war. Hervey is a member of Military Families Speak out, so is Laurie Loving who shares some of the letter she wrote to her US House Rep Mike Thompson: "It is not ridiculous to expect the Democratic leadership to end this war by not giving it one more penny. No money, the war ends. There will be money to bring the troops home. . . The House leadership is trying to get members who oppose the war, you, to support the appropriations bill by claiming it has provisions to support our troops. In reality, the bill allows the president to indefinitely extend the withdrawal date of August 2008 if the troops are 'engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations with global reach; and/or if the troops are 'training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.' This provision could be used to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for years." A toothless, non-enforceable date of August 2008? Why would that be? So when Bully Boy uses the override they provided him with, they can point to that for the November 2008 election? Would they then say/lie, "We tried"?
They didn't try. They treated it like it was all a game and the only thing that mattered was setting up their own finger pointing for the 2008 elections.

These are some of the voices shut out by public radio and when I say "public radio," I'm, sadly, not talking NPR
which did give Medea Benjamin the mike. Free Speech Radio News? Well yesterday, the 'report' was an editorial about how tough it is to be in Congress (health care for life -- our hearts bleed for those poor Congress members). And, in the best of the Sunday Chat & Chew 'balance,' listeners got to hear one person speak for themselves -- a Congress member who supported the weak Pelosi measure. That passes for "Free Speech Radio News" to someone. (Someone really dense and unfamiliar with the history of Pacifica Radio.) Now when you shut out the voices of the people as well as Congress members opposed to the measure, there's no way you can tell your listeners (and The KPFA Evening News demonstrated that yesterday and all week) that the so-called "benchmarks" come with an out-option for the Bully Boy to excercise. (Kat wrote of this yesterday.) These voices were apparently judged unimportant and the issues not worth raising.

Rae (rae's CODEPINK road journal) writes of taking part in an action at Nancy Pelosi's DC office yesterday:

I am crying because the Democrats' support of another $100 billion for the war means that thousands more kids my age will be killed--kid soldiers and Iraqi kids. Pelosi's support of Bush's request for money for war is a death sentence for thousands of kids. After weeks of cute, colorful, passionate actions in the halls of Congress, from caroling with the choir to valentine delivery to dog bones for Blue Dogs to pink aprons and brooms cleaning House, today was an action of a different tenor. I felt like the floodgates had come down and the halls of Congress were gushing with a bloody river. Maybe it sounds dramatic. But it felt like we were drowning in tears, in pain, in the realization of something very, very wrong. And the tragic part was that the two secretaries in Pelosi's office sat there chuckling and picking up phones, and the press liaison came out and answered reporter's questions with a blank face. My heart was pounding so loudly that I wondered why it didn't just crack the walls of the marble building. Those walls felt more sturdy and guarded than usual. How have our Democratic leaders become so enchanted by the Republican language? Pelosi has helped them back into a corner where Bush will emerge victorious. And the tragic thing is that they will tout this as a victory if it passes tomorrow.
I visited Anna Eshoo's office after the action, and her press secretary tried to explain to me why Anna is going to vote for this supplemental. He gave me the analogy of a football game, where one must work strategically one play at a time to get the ball up the field to the goal. Here's why I think that's a bogus comparison: The compromise that Pelosi and the Dems are voting for is not one step towards peace; it is one step towards prolonging violence and destruction, and killing innocent lives for nothing. The press liaison listened patiently to my opinion, and then told me that we have the same goal, just different tactics. But I am quite certain now that we don't have the same goal. The Democrats want to win. I want to see the killing stop. I want to welcome our soldiers home with open arms and fully equipped medical services. I want to see justice done to the administration. The Democrats, well, they want to win--this vote, the election in '08, the power. If Pelosi would have just come out and said, "Look, I know that this bill (or ammendment like Lee's) may fail, but I am going to take this stand because I believe in the courage of my convictions, because I am more committed to the will of my constituents and the integrity of justice." But we'll never get to find out what Dems would have done if the supplemental had been straight with Bush's desires. And now it's a mess.

It is a mess. And who usually gets stuck cleaning up the messes?

Women of the one world
We oppose war
Women of the one world
Dancers, sweepers, bookkeepers
We take you to the movies
Take you to the movies
Women of the one world
One world
-- "Women of the One World," written and performed by Laura Nyro, Live at the Bottom Line

Let's note
Anna Quindlen (UPS via Herald News) conclusions from last month: "The people who brought America reports of WMDs when none existed, and the slogan 'Mission Accomplished' when it was not true nor likely to be, now say that American troops cannot leave. Not yet. Not soon. Not on a timetable. Judge the truth of that conclusion by the truth of their past statements. They say that talk of withdrawal shows a lack of support for the troops. There is no better way to support those who have fought valiantly in Iraq than to guarantee that not one more of them dies in the service of the political miscalculation of their leaders. Not one more soldier. Not one more grave. Not one more day. Bring them home tomorrow."

A number of women have been using their voices loudly and proudly (Ann Wright, Cindy Sheehan, Medea, Robin Morgan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, Missy Comley Beattie, Alice Walker, Maxine Hong Kingston, Diane Wilson, Kim Gandy, Laura Flanders, Kelly Dougherty, . . .) but if all the women opposed to this war would use their voices and own their power, the war would be over. The GI resistance is very important and it was important during Vietnam but it's equally true that women were actively leading the cry for an end to the war as well. It's the group that's always 'forgotten' by history.

Back to the Pelosi-measure, the
Green Party noted, "If Democrats (inculding MoveOn) really oppose the war, they should demand a cutoff of war funding and the immediate return of all U.S. troops" and they note Cres Vellucci (press secretary of the Green Party of California and Veterans for Peace member) stating, "The Democrats' resolution is a piece of phony and meaningless antiwar posturing. By proposing a plan that effectively delays the withdrawal of U.S. troops until September 2008, Democrats are trying to set themselves up as the 'antiwar party' in the 2008 election, since it's obvious that President Bush intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq throughout 2008 and long after. If Democratic Party leaders really believe the Iraq War is a disaster -- as do the Green Party and most Americans -- they should support legislation compelling a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces and reducing war funding to the amount it takes to bring our troops home safe and sound."

Steve Kretzmann (Oil for Change) points out, "Among the many problems with the Democrats War Supplemental is the not so small fact that it endorses passage of the Iraqi Oil Law. 'Democratic leadership is actively handing over Iraq's oil to U.S. companies as some sort of war bounty,' said Antonia Juhasz, analyst with Oil Change International.
Not so fast, say Dem Leaders and allies. Their 'clever plan' is that Bush's benchmarks will not be met in the next eight months, after which, the bill will require withdrawal. Its the best they can get right now, they say. Problem is, it'll be game over and mission accomplished for Big Oil in Iraq in that time. The
oil law is on a fast track for approval by the Iraqi Parliament within the next 2-3 months, and the Bush administration is leaning heavily on the Iraqi government for quick passage. October 1, which is the date that the Democrats set for the Benchmarks, is too late. The Iraqi oil law will be completed in 2-3 months."

As small media has largely hopped on board to sell the Pelosi measure (or at least not report on it), it's like a flashback to the 90s when big media sold NAFTA. Not everyone plays dumb.
Aaron Glantz (IPS) probes the pork aspect of the bill: "Among the so-called 'pork projects' listed by Citizens Against Government Waste: 283 million dollars for the Milk Income Loss Contract programme, 74 million dollars for peanut storage costs, 60.4 million dollars for salmon fisheries, 50 million dollars for abestos mitigation at the U.S. Capitol Plant, and 25 million dollars for spinach" and quotes CAGW president Tom Schatz pointing out, "None of this has anything to do with the war."

Dave Lindorff (CounterPunch) speaks to what could have been done (as opposed to the sop tossed out) and concludes: "I'm fed up with the gutless mini-politics of this Congress. Who gives a damn whether they've passed a minimum wage bill? It'll never get past Bush anyhow. Neither will anything else of consequence that this Congress passes. Unless they start challenging the Bush administration directly and forcefull, Congressional Democrats aren't going to do bupkis in two years and people are going to start wondering why they were voted in in the first place. People might even start to think seriously about letting the Democratic Party just wither away. Wouldn't make much of a difference without it, really, and we might even come up with something better. It wouldn't be too hard to do."

Meanwhile, Iran is not in the Pelosi measure. Reports of the Iran and British conflict abound.
AFP reports the 15 British soldiers captured in disputed waters as follows: "In southern Iraq, details of the incident in which the British sailors were detained by Iranian naval personnel remained sketchy." Not in the bulk of the Western media which, to read the reports, must be filed by eye witnesses, so sure of they of what happened. Uzi Mahnaimi (Times of London) earlier reported on the disappearances of "senior officers in its [Iran] Revolutionary Guard" noting: "One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders." The illegal war could expand at any moment and the Pelosi measure dropped Congressional approval for war with Iran.