Month: January 2007

There are many causes of hemroids which can be avoided by simple changes in lifestyle and activity. However, in some instances, such as pregnancy and severe illnesses, hemorroids are not always avoidable. Treatment with IRC – a method obtaining it’s popularity in treating hemroids.
Hemorrhoids represent one of the most common colorectal complaints heard by family physicians. Each year approximately 10.5 million Americans experience hemorrhoids symptoms. They are the bane of pregnant women, overweight people, and a large percentage of the American population over the age of 30.  In fact, hemorrhoids will strike at least 50 percent of the population, according to national statistics. That’s a lot of people suffering from this nasty condition.

Although, there are ways that people can prevent the onset of hemorroids, or help reduce the pain caused by them, some patients may end up needing surgery. For years, physicians and patients have been awaiting a surgical treatment for hemroids that causes less pain and a shorter recovery period than traditional procedures. Now we have one. It is called Infrared Coagulation Technology (IRC). Traditional surgery is done below this line, causing the patient a lot of pain for a long time after surgery.

Treatment with IRC – a method obtaining it’s popularity in treating hemroids. This procedure is performed usually after undergoing a colonoscopy while the patient is sedated. This procedure involves applying infrared light through the anus to compress and seal haemorrhoid veins.

This method is painless, safe, and effective. Before any treatment, a physician will conduct a routine external and internal examination to chart your hemorrhoid disease to determine whether or not you are a candidate for IRC.

Many medical studies find IRC to be the non-surgical hemorrhoid treatment of choice because it is fast, well tolerated by patients, and virtually problem free.

The success of IRC technique depends upon many factors such as the size and duration of the hemorrhoid. The European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, states that 92 percent of patients reported they were symptom-free following IRC therapy. That “cure” rate is somewhat diminished when a large hemorrhoid has been neglected for many years. It is best to treat them when they are small are more readily curable.

Millions of patients have been treated with IRC. Experience tells us that hemorroids treated with IRC generally do not recur. A sensible diet, moderate exercise and proper bowel habits will also help.

Mike Zanov

this diary is dedicated to all who suffer because of war

we love and support our troops, just as we love and support the Iraqi people – without exception, or precondition, or judgment

we have no sympathy for the devil

we acknowledge the power to act that is in us

cross-posted at MyLeftWing, BooMan Tribune, and my blog.

images and poem below the fold

Iraqis receive the corpses of their killed relatives from the morgue of a hospital in Baghdad’s impoverished district of Sadr City. Iraqi and US forces have captured more than 600 fighters loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the US military said, while violence across the country claimed another 36 lives.
(AFP/Ahmad al-Rubaye)

Easter Sunday, 1985
by Charles Martin

“To take steps toward the reappearance alive of the disappeared is a subversive act, and measures will be adopted to deal with it.”
General Oscar Mejia Victores,
President of Guatemala

In the Palace of the President this morning,
The General is gripped by the suspicion
That those who were disappeared will be returning
In a subversive act of resurrection.

Why do you worry? The disappeared can never
Be brought back from wherever they were taken;
The age of miracles is gone forever;
These are not sleeping, nor will they awaken.

And if some tell you Christ once reappeared
Alive, one Easter morning, that he was seen–
Give them the lie, for who today can find him?

He is perhaps with those who were disappeared,
Broken and killed, flung into some ravine
With his arms safely wired up behind him.

Obama steps out:

Promoted by Steven D

Here’s some of the text of his press release from TPM Cafe.

Goal to Redeploy All Combat Brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008

Fact Sheet: The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

Today, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 is binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President’s dangerous and ill-conceived escalation, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home. It implements – with the force of law – a phased redeployment of U.S. forces that remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political solution necessary to promote stability. It also places conditions on future economic aid to the government of Iraq and calls for the United States to lead a broad and sustained diplomatic initiative within the region. This plan is based on Senator Obama’s November 20th, 2006 speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and it implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President’s failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

In short, the Obama plan halts the escalation and requires a responsible, phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq in a manner that protects U.S. troops and exerts leverage to achieve the political settlement among the Iraqis.

Key Elements of Obama Plan

• Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.
• De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.
• Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush’s own statements and Administration documents and include:

o Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.

o Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.

o Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.

Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.

• Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government’s progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.
• Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.
• Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.
• Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative – that includes key nations in the region – to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.

Sorry for the complete “cut and paste” but I think this is important and worth discussing. Sounds good to me – I’d love to hear what other people think.

This started out as a reply to Super’s Diary but it became a bit of a rant…a purging of demons as it were…I have no answers…back then I thought I did, now, I know I don’t.  
I wish I didn’t have to comment here…I really just wanted to read what people had to say and get a sense of what and where the ground is. But, wishes aside, the gentrified, homogenized, pasteurized, sanitized for your protection “protests” that occur today are a far cry from those of the 60’s and the 70’s.

As I stated above, I don’t know the answer, but I do know that change is not going to be effected, nor are problems going to be resolved, or influenced in an appreciable manner, until people are in the streets en masse, every week, in every city, on every campus, week in and week out. The big marches and the national media coverage at the time were made possible by the local stuff…things like DJ participates in…think globally, act locally…it all builds…but everybody’s too complacent…put an anti-war bumper sticker on your Prius and call it a day… that ain’t gonna work…I’m sick of limousine liberals and neocon hawks and doves and elephants and jackasses who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. The goddamned keyboard brigades, left, right and center, should just STFU and get out there and put their asses in the street…pisses me off…more than it should probably, but jezeus mofos…bah!!!!!

Most of the people…hell, all the people poo pooing the demonstrators are sadly misinformed and hung up in the “glory and rightousness” of their own petty bullshit. There wasn’t any fucking glory then…it was dangerous and people got hurt, killed, thrown in jail, disowned by their families, cast out of their communities, forced to leave the country, chastised for their beliefs…it was fucking painful, it was fucking brutal. I went to more goddamned funerals by the time I was 23 than most people go to in a lifetime…I buried one hell of a lot of friends due to that war and watched too many of them come home fucked up mentally and physically. I was there when we got gassed, got the shit beat out of us, got harassed, arrested, bailed people out of jail, and helped people find refuge. Damn! I really hate going back there…it’s really hard…it brings back the pain…truly makes me just want to cry…scream…grab somebody by the throat and just pound on their dumb asses…it brings back all the craziness and insanity of it.

As to the straw man arguments being put forth by some, here’s an interesting read about “What Happened to Vietnam War Resisters?” from the American Friends Service Committee…an organization I would recommend that anyone contemplating resistance to contact…that may shed some much needed light on the actual scope and number acts of civil disobedience of both civilians and military service members of the time as well as the magnitude of the prosecution of those who did so:

[…]

Draft Law Violators – During the entire Vietnam War, 209,517 young men were formally accused of violating draft laws. Government officials estimate that another 360,000 were never formally accused. Of the former group, 25,000 indictments were handed down; 8,750 were convicted; and just under 4,000 served jail time.

Military Resisters – It is difficult to say how many military service members were prosecuted for offenses growing out of opposition to the Southeast Asia War. Most estimates consider the rates at which service members went AWOL (absent without leave) or deserted – commonly referred to as “absence offenses.” AWOL and desertion rates hit an all-time high during the Vietnam War, 1971 and 1972 being the peak years. The Pentagon documents 1,500,000 instances of AWOL and desertion during the war. Official estimates of the actual number of service members who went AWOL or deserted run between 500,000 (Pentagon) and 550,000 (officials in the Ford Administration). It is important to remember that not all service members who received bad discharges for offenses related to the war were absentees. Adding other types of anti-war activities for which service members were prosecuted significantly increases these figures. Many went to jail and/or received bad discharges.*

[…]

complete article HERE

bolding mine

As I posted in BooMan’s On Bloggers and Demonstrations post yesterday, The demonstrations of the 60’s and 70’s fundamentally changed the political landscape. Too many good people paid too high a price for those changes to have them be lost.

I thought we solved this 40 yrs ago…I don’t want to do it again, I haven’t the strength.

Reprise: this  is what protest looks like:

The End

Peace

Today over at My Left Wing that blessed lover of God gottlieb wrote the best contemporary account of the recent history of the United States that I have ever read.

The Long Dead End

If you have not yet read it, please do so.

Below…my extended comment upon it.
YES, GOTTLIEB!!!

If bits and bytes still exist after this current mess is over (and has of course been replaced by OTHER messes) what you wrote here will be hailed by historians as the first true, contemporarily written compact history of the United States of America as the country morphed into wherever it was headed after the Forty Year Coup was complete.

The only thing that remains to be seen regarding this work now?

Whether it is defeated from without or from within.

From within would be preferable, because the extent of the carnage that would result from a true defeat by hostile forces in this nuclear age is not even remotely conceivable by the human mind.

We shall see.

A domestic Nagasaki or reform.

The only two choices left, because when the bad guys get THIS bad, they never win.

Bet on it.

Nagasaki bomb, 1945

Plutonium core of the Nagasaki bomb.

American delivery system, 1945

Alternative delivery system, 2007

Be afraid.

Be VERY afraid.

Please!!!

Before it is too goddamned late.

Impeach now or suffer the consequences.

Please.

AG

Everyone, it seems, is talking about the upcoming invasion of Iran. Mark Cliffe, chief economist at the ING Group, argues that,

“Financial markets are assuming that an Israeli and/or US attack on Iran is unlikely. However, bellicose rhetoric from Israel and an imminent build-up of US forces in the Gulf suggest that they could be in for a shock,”

while the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, has warned that a U.S. attack on Iran is a “50/50 proposition”.
Sam Gardiner, a retired colonel with the U.S. Air Force, writes ominously that,

“The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.”

Col. Gardiner predicts that,

“As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.”

Worryingly, a Bulgarian news agency today reported that “American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania’s Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April”. “The USAF’s positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack,” the report continued. The news agency cited Col. Gardiner, referred to as a “US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria”, as its source.

Paul Craig Roberts writes how the “entire world” knows of the planned attack on Iran, and describes how, at the January World Economic Forum conference in Davos, the “Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the Middle East and the world.”

Writing for Global Research, General Leonid Ivashov, a former chief of the General Affairs department in the Soviet Union’s Ministry of Defense and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian armies (and much more besides), states confidently that,

“the US will use nuclear weapon against Iran. This will be the second case of the use of nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 US attack on Japan.”

General Ivashov continues,

“Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.”

John Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agrees, saying, “To be honest, I’m afraid it will be Iraq all over again.”

Michael Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, notes that the 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (.pdf) (‘the current U.S. doctrine on when and under which circumstances to use nuclear weapons’, to quote Wikipedia) explicitly permits the preventive use of nuclear weapons:

“Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use (my emphasis)”,

and comments further that at no point since the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945 has “humanity been closer to the unthinkable”: a “nuclear holocaust”.

Now, I personally do not know for sure whether the U.S. or Israel will attack Iran. It certainly looks likely and, with President Ahmadinejad coming under increasing pressure at home, the window of opportunity for military action is closing fast. What’s more interesting is General Ivashov’s description of the essential role the media and the “informational warfare machine” more generally will play in facilitating an attack on Iran. As we know from the Iraq war and countless aggressions before it, the mainstream American and British press have a tendency (or, more accurately, a compulsion) to, in times of war, revert to a stance of unquestioning support for power. An academic study into media performance in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq found that “coverage mainly served to reinforce official justifications for war” and described the tendency of the media to “accept the official position” which “enabled the coalition’s moral case for the war to go by default.”

A brief examination of current reporting on Iran illustrates that, true to form, media coverage currently serves to reinforce official justification for conflict with Iran.

This BBC article, for example, describes how, “Some Western nations fear Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.” Then, in a ridiculous attempt at journalistic “balance”, the BBC provides a countering view: “Tehran insists its programme is for peaceful uses only.” Except, of course, this isn’t the correct counter-view at all. Surely it would be far more sensible to quote the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the respected (though by no means impartial) authority on this issue, which has repeatedly stated that there is zero evidence of any secret Iranian nuclear weapons programme. This misleading juxtaposition of views about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons programme, which gives the false impression that it is just Iran’s word against the U.S.’, is standard throughout mainstream reporting.

Anne Penketh’s recent article in The Independent is a good example of another technique employed by the media that is critical to persuading the public to support a war: demonisation of the enemy. In this case, Penketh (mis)quotes President Ahmadinejad as threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. As Professor Juan Cole and several others have repeatedly pointed out, Ahmadinejad said no such thing. It is interesting that this misquote is cited so often by the media, whilst explicit threats made against Iran, for example Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh’s promise to prevent Iran’s nuclear programme “at all costs”, are barely reported. Penketh’s piece also illustrates perfectly the way a seemingly balanced and objective article actually serves to restrict debate. You’ll notice that Penketh discusses whether or not an attack on Iran would be “productive”, what the likely Iranian response would be and the likelihood of a “regional war” developing as a consequence. International law is not mentioned once. The fact that, by threatening Iran, Israel and the U.S. are violating the UN Charter is not considered relevant, whilst the official stated motive of U.S./Israeli “concern” over Iran (that they are worried about its nuclear programme) is simply taken for granted. Relevant history is not even mentioned, let alone used to evaluate what the actual motives for aggression against Iran might be.

This should all be familiar from the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, when the media restricted the limits of debate to whether or not the war would succeed, whether or not Iraq had nuclear weapons, how the war should be fought and so on. Rational discussion of underlying U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region, using relevant history to analyse statements of intent made by Bush and Blair, was almost non-existent, as was any suggestion that even if Iraq did have nuclear weapons, military aggression would still be unjustified.

So far I have focused on the bias evident in what the media has reported about the Iran “crisis”. But, equally important (if not more), is what hasn’t been reported. There is, for example, no analysis of the very real threat Iran faces from Israel, the U.S. and its neighbours (Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq). There is virtually no attempt at understanding things from Iran’s point of view, and little awareness is shown of the outrageous hypocrisy of the U.S./Israeli condemnation of Iran’s nuclear programme. International law is treated as if it didn’t exist, whilst (as with Iraq) no attempt is made to discuss the possible motives for an attack on Iran by examining the relevant historical record. As with Iraq, “oil” is considered a dirty word when discussing possible reasons for invading. Whilst the media regularly quotes hostile rhetoric from Ahmadinejad, it almost never discloses the fact that, in reality, the President of Iran has no power whatsoever over matters of foreign or nuclear policy. He was elected on a platform of domestic economic reforms and his “fiery” speeches are simply an attempt to distract the Iranian public from the fact that he has not fulfilled his promises. As the increasing domestic political pressure on him shows, it isn’t working.

The “Iran crisis”, manufactured by Israel and the U.S., can be summed up thus: Iran has been accused by the U.S. and Israel of developing nuclear weapons, despite a complete lack of evidence to support this assertion. The NPT, to which Iran (unlike Israel, India and Pakistan) is a signatory, guarantees the inalienable right of a country to develop civilian nuclear technology and, as far as we know, Iran is simply exercising this right. The IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that it has no evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Iran has largely complied with IAEA weapons inspectors, voluntarily submitting itself to the most rigorous inspections of any state in history. The main reason for thinking Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons is that, as military historian Martin van Crevald put it, if they aren’t, “they’re crazy”. In other words, considering the major threat Israel and the U.S. pose to Iran, it would make sense for Iran to want a nuclear deterrent. Even if Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, its nuclear technology is “archaic” and its efforts to produce enriched uranium are “in chaos”. Experts estimate that Iran will not be able to manufacture a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years.

Israel and the U.S. have engaged in a persistent and aggressive campaign of verbal and, more recently, physical threats against Iran, in violation of international law. Whereas Iran has repeatedly called for the Middle East to be a nuclear weapons-free zone (a policy opposed by Israel and the U.S.) and denounced nuclear weapons as “un-Islamic”, the official policy of both Israel and the U.S. allows for preventive military action including, in the case of the United States, a preventive nuclear strike. Both Israel and the U.S. have a long history of aggression (the U.S. most recently in Iraq and Somalia, Israel in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories). Iran, on the other hand, has not attacked a country outside its borders for 200 years. Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would not use it against Israel, because to do so would, in effect, be an act of suicide.

The U.S. claims Iran is “interfering” in Iraq, and has even gone so far as to authorise U.S. troops to “kill or capture” any Iranian intelligence agents they discover in Iraq. As Juan Cole points out, “no hard evidence” has yet been made public to show that Iran is providing high-powered weaponry to forces in Iraq. At any rate, Cole continues, Iran would only be arming Shi’ite groups, and “99 perecent of all attacks on U.S. troops occur in Sunni Arab areas and are carried out by Baathist or Sunni fundamentalist (Salafi) guerrilla groups.” These groups receive outside help from countries allied to the U.S., like Saudi Arabia. As Cole notes, “Washington has yet to denounce Saudi aid to the Sunni insurgents who are killing U.S. troops.” In any event, the idea that America could dare criticise anyone else for intervening in Iraq is laughable. It is the U.S. that illegally invaded Iraq almost four years ago, and it is the U.S. that is maintaining an occupation against the wishes of the Iraqi population. In the past six weeks, U.S. forces have twice abducted Iranian officials inside Iraq. Iran has refrained from responding in a similar manner.

The U.S.’ interests in attacking Iran have nothing whatsoever to do with security and everything to do with the control of energy resources and a maintenance of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.

Compare this reality with the picture provided by the media: Iran, a “belligerent” and “defiant” state that is very likely seeking to wipe out the Jews, is trying to develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Israel, concerned for their safety, are attempting to stop this from happening using diplomacy and sanctions. However, if all else fails, they may use force as a last resort.

The gap between the image and the reality (to borrow a phrase) is as massive as it is unsurprising.

The consequences of a strike, conventional or otherwise, on Iran would likely be devastating. We cannot rely on the corporate media to challenge power and to properly inform the people about a future war with Iran. Indeed, all signs indicate that the propaganda machine is already working flat-out to prepare the public for war (“watering the turf”, as one British military source puts it). It falls to us, as citizens in the most powerful democracies in the world, to ensure that our money and our lives are not used to fight yet another unnecessary, immoral and illegal war for the benefit of a tiny, elite minority. Let’s just hope we are not already too late.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

New York State’s Eighth Congressional District is a diverse mosaic covering Manhattan’s West Side below 89th Street, Lower Manhattan, and areas of Brooklyn including Borough Park, Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sea Gate, Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst. Since 1992, Congressman Jerrold Nadler has ably represented the eighth in the House of Representatives following his sixteen years of service in the New York State Assembly.
Nadler is a senior member of both the House Judiciary and Transportation committees. In 1998, Nadler gained national prominence as a steadfast defender of President Bill Clinton during the House Judiciary’s impeachment proceedings. Mostly, Nadler’s legislative career in Washington has been focused on championing civil liberties and progressive causes such as universal access to healthcare. His service on the Transportation Committee is especially important for his district as increasing demands challenges New York City’s mass transit system.

9/11 had the greatest impact on Nadler’s district where the World Trade Center used to reside. Yet even as America was consumed by fear and irrationality, Nadler continued to champion civil liberties, peace and prudence in our foreign policy. On Saturday, Nadler joined activists from New York and around the nation, at the National Mall in Washington, DC to protest the Bush administration’s War in Iraq.

Nadler just authored the Protect the Troops and Bring Them Home Act (HR 455), which stipulates no funds can be used in Iraq except to protect the troops and arrange for their withdrawal beginning in one month and ending by December 31, 2007. Nadler’s act also provides that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq cannot be increased at any time. In a press release issued on January 26th, Nadler observed:

“It has been wrongly asserted that Congress cannot force the President to de-escalate or withdraw from Iraq because it cannot use its only real power – cutting off funds – lest it be accused of `abandoning the troops.’ But if Congress appropriates funds, but limits those funds to protecting the troops and redeploying them from Iraq, that would be the best way of supporting the troops. In fact, keeping (or adding) American soldiers in the middle of a civil war with no end in sight is the ultimate act of abandonment. We must save American lives by bringing them home as soon as possible.”

Nadler was also recently named new Chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. He noted in a press release issued on January 24th that,

“In 1995, our Republican colleagues, upon assuming control of this committee, changed the name of the `Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights’ to the `Subcommittee on the Constitution.’

I have long promised that, were I ever in a position to do so, I would put the words `civil’ and `rights’ back in the name of this subcommittee. Today, the Judiciary Committee does just that.

Now, more than ever, it is vitally important that we give meaning to these words through action. Civil rights and civil liberties are under assault in this nation. We are at a pivotal moment in our history and we have to decide as a nation whether we are willing to fight for the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights.”

Congressman Nadler graciously agreed to be interviewed by me in a podcast format. Our interview took place just before he left for an event and had to be squeezed in a tight schedule. Among the topics we covered were his proposed legislation to withdraw troops from Iraq, former President Carter’s controversial book, Israeli-Palestinian relations and the merits of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THIS PODCAST