Greed: one of the two pillars of America's two-party system
Teddy Kennedy’s safe seat in true blue Mass has been leased to the Republican party for the next two years. All the pundits and consultants are talking about why it happened and what it means. I’m no pundit by any stretch of the imagination, so why should anyone listen when I lift my bullhorn Dixie Cup and leap onto my soapbox shoebox? Because I’m a disgusted Democrat and I vote. Or not. Hence the striking similarity between me and Massachusetts voters.
Before the election, I was flipping through my favorite blogs, one of the favoritist of which is Cannonfire. I love love loved what Joe Cannon said:
When I saw yet another reminder that the Dem leadership now considers Obama to be the party and the party to be Obama — well, in that instant, I morphed from being a Coakley well-wisher to a Brown supporter.
Of course Brown is a Republican jerk who stands for all sorts of detestable things. I don’t care. The Obots wronged me and I want vengeance and that’s that.
Coakley’s loss will be the fault of the Barack Obama and the “new” Democratic party — the one that kicked out old school Dems like me. Throughout 2008, the bots said they didn’t need us. Now they do. Now they are going to lose. How do you like them apples, bots?
Yup.
Along those same lines, did you read Deconstructing Realworld and Jason at Correntwire? If you didn’t, you really should. It summarizes & analyzes the options facing Disgusted Dems. Here’s Realworld’s perspective:
Stand up for Democratic principles and I will support Democrats again. Until then, you will loose my support even in a close race as Martha Coakley now faces. Is the republican candidate worse. Yes. But, I can no longer support the lesser of the evils. When will the Democrats again represent a good choice and not just the less bad one?
Here’s Jason’s perspective:
in a plurality voting system, if you don’t vote or if you vote for a third party, you are actually helping the candidate you least want to see in office, because in a plurality voting system it’s a zero sum game. One man, one vote, so if you don’t use it, you’re helping your opponent.
Yup again. It’s the dilemma we face in this November, as well as what we PUMAs faced in 2008. Take what they offer and hope for better next time? Vote for the lesser of two evils? Once again, if you haven’t read Deconstructing Realworld and Jason, you really should. Letsgetitdone summarized 7 strategic reasons to support Democratic values by not voting for the Democratic candidate. All of which I agree with.
Which brings us to the recurring question: what to do about Disgusting Democratic politicians? Should I vote for a “liberal” senator who gave her vote (i.e. my vote) to Obama’s giveaway to the health care lobby? Should I vote for a representative who is a member of the progressive caucus and yet gave his vote (i.e. my vote) to Obama’s giveaway to the health care lobby? VOTE WOMEN even if women don’t fight for women’s values? Nope. VOTE DEM even when Dems don’t fight for democratic values? Nope nope.
Fear: one of the two pillars of America's two-party system
What drives my Congresspeople? Fear and Greed. Once elected, it’s greed. And we’ve got no leverage at that point. But right now, it’s fear. Not only that, but Coakley Defeat Week is a special super bonanza week, kind of like corporate matching gifts! So today, once again, I am going to call the two people who want my vote on November 2, 2010. I’m going to tell them yet again that I will not vote for them no matter what until they begin to vote for me. Period.
The Senate took a big step toward passing its sweeping healthcare bill early today. Shortly after 1am, the Senate voted 60-40 along party lines to break a Republican filibuster and approve a motion to move the legislation to final passage later this week. The legislation has no public option, no expansion of Medicare eligibility and includes restrictions on the use of federal funding for abortions.
My initial thought was the guiding precept of medical care — First, do no harm.
Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means “First, do no harm.” The phrase is sometimes recorded as primum nil nocere.
Nonmaleficence, which derives from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts that all medical students are taught in medical school emergency medical services around the world. Another way to state it is that “given an existing problem, it may be better to do nothing than to do something that risks causing more harm than good.” It reminds the physician and other health care providers that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is invoked when debating the use of an intervention that carries an obvious risk of harm but a less certain chance of benefit. Since at least 1860, the phrase has been for physicians a hallowed expression of hope, intention, humility, and recognition that human acts with good intentions may have unwanted consequences. A closely related phrase is “Sometimes the cure is worse than the ill.”
Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not
If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS
After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court
Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-ays
Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others
Grants monopolies to to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years
The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of 4 will rise an average of $1000 a year — meaning in 10 years, you family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
I could go on, but it should be clear: this is not reform. This is a con job.
If Jerry Brown becomes our next governor — and he will — there’s a not-bad chance that SB 810, the proposed California single-payer legislation, will prevail.
Once this state paves the way, all others will eventually follow suit. It’s inevitable. Businesses will want to relocate to a state where employers do not have to pay for health care. To stay competitive, other states will soon have to follow California’s lead.
That’s why Obama, Reed and Pelosi are pushing through their bill on the federal level. They (and their funders) know that the only way to prevent SB 810 is to supersede it. Federal law trumps state law. That’s why Obama made clear that he would not tolerate any bill that would allow states to go their own way.
Gergen and others who are bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship are sounding more and more out of touch. (I can guarantee that nobody in the country gives a damn if Senators are fraying their precious personal friendships to get this bill passed. Boo hoo.) Right now, the biggest problem for the parties is that far too many people see them both as being unresponsive to their constituents’ needs and desires and far too responsive to the needs and desires of the moneyed interests.
Click HERE to sign FDL’s petition to kill this bill. And then click here to get to your Senator’s and Representatives contact form. Tell them what you think of this terrorism masked as legislation.
IT’S YOUR COUNTRY.
IT’S YOUR FUTURE.
IT’S YOUR MONEY.
ACT LIKE IT.
Join the fight.
How bad is the bill?
Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not
If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS
After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court
Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-ays
Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others
Grants monopolies to to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
No reimportation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years
The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of 4 will rise an average of $1000 a year — meaning in 10 years, you family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
The Senate has REJECTED Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) amendment to provide for the importation of prescription drugs.
The Senate has REJECTED Dorgan’s (D-ND) amendment to provide for the importation of prescription drugs.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont submitted an amendment that would allow states to pursue health care reform (since the federal government has totally sold itself to the devils). Specifically, here’s what our friend Bernie has proposed: Establishment of a State-Based American Health Security Program with Universal Entitlement. You can find out what your Senators are doing with the trust and power you’ve handed them. Just click here.
It’s half past December, and the White House is hell-bent on passing its version of “health insurance reform” out of Congress before the holiday recess. It’s not universal. It’s not even about delivering health care, it’s about bailing out health insurance companies.
As was painfully predictable all along, the final bill will not have any form of public option, nor will it include the wildly popular expansion of Medicare coverage. Obama supporters are eager to depict the White House as nothing more than a helpless victim in all of this — the President so deeply wanted a more progressive bill but was sadly thwarted in his noble efforts by those inhumane, corrupt Congressional “centrists.” Right. The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration is getting the bill which they, more or less, wanted from the start — the one that is a huge boon to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry.
On the floor of the U.S. Senate today, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont rose to offer his single-payer, Medicare for All amendment No. 2837 and to begin debate. Then, one of the two Republican doctors in Senate, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, demanded a full reading of the 700-page amendment.
From the Senate gallery, I watched as Sen. Max Baucus told Sanders the only way to halt the Republican delay tactic would be to withdraw the amendment. Sanders stated emphatically to Baucus, “I will offer this amendment.” But both men left the chamber as the amendment reading went on.
. . .
After two hours of reading page after page of the amendment, Sanders stepped back up to his desk and withdrew the amendment. The reading stopped. And the fight for single-payer, Medicare for all died for this Congressional cycle.
What happened during those two hours after Senator Sanders left the Senate? Could it have been the same thing that caused Representatives Kucinich and Conyers to withdraw HR676?
The House of Representatives has turned your TRUST into TRASH
Pelosi delivers a bucket of snot and labels it Health Care Reform
See the post below in which I urge everyone to please call members of the House of Representatives to ask their support for the Weiner amendment and HR676, which was supposedly going to be discussed and voted upon today. What the heck, besides the post below, see these other posts – here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
Yesterday afternoon an email blast was sent by Progressive Democrats of America:
Last night PDA got word from Congressman Weiner’s office that Speaker Pelosi is keeping her promise to allow the Weiner single-payer amendment full debate and vote on the floor of the House. This will happen on Friday or Saturday.
At about the same time yesterday afternoon, Representative Dennis Kucinich and Representative John Conyers withdrew HR 676. Here you have it via the Chicago Sun-Times:
Dear Friends,
We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. . . .
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow’s vote.
. . .
Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was “taken off the table” for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a “robust public option” as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?
. . .
Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich
You surely recall that this is the same congress that needed no time at all to consider and approve the bailout of Wall Street. I for one find it incomprehensible that Mr. Conyers and Mr. Kucinich would not want every congressperson to go on the record, Yes or No, to health care for all. Do you believe that HR 676 was withdrawn because “this is not the right time“? I for one do not believe it.
Speaker Pelosi is keeping her promise to allow the Weiner single-payer amendment full debate and vote on the floor of the House. This will happen on Friday or Saturday.
After nearly being shut out of the discussion completely, single-payer Medicare for All is being heard in the corridors of power. This is the one opportunity for your Congress member to go on record as supporting the only universal, comprehensive, cost-effective solution to the health care crisis.
Please call to make sure your representative votes in support of the Weiner Amendment.
Four key HR 676 cosponsors also need to get a reminder to vote yes on the Weiner Amendment: Mike Doyle, PA-14; Tim Ryan, OH-17; Howard Berman, CA-28; and George Miller, CA-7. Click here to make those calls.
They need to vote for the plan that most American people—nurses, physicians, and patients—want and so desperately need: Medicare for All.
This vote will make it clear to the movement which elected officials are truly with single-payer, Medicare for All.
George Miller ………………… 202-225-2095 ………….. fax 202-225-5609
Howard Berman ………………. 202-225-4695 ……….. fax 202-225-3196
Mike Doyle ……………………….. 202-225-2135 ………… fax 202-225-3084
Tim Ryan …………………………. 202-225-5261……………… fax 202-225-3719
Your Representative’s contact info can be found here.
A La Cañada Flintridge couple trying to save their home from foreclosure were arrested along with three others on suspicion of beating, torturing and robbing a pair of loan modification agents they believed had done nothing to help them rescue the residence.
The ‘victims’ (loan modification agents) were treated at a hospital and released. The ‘perpetrators’ (homeowners) face charges including torture, false imprisonment, and robbery; their bail is set at $1 million.
I find myself wondering if there might be a case of spontaneous jury nullification when these two homeowners come to trial? I live the same county as the victimsperpetrators homeowners, and I’m about due to be called for jury duty.
Surprise surprise, news today that Obama continues his pattern of reversing his campaign promises.
Back in June I was bemoaning Barack Obama’s about-face on his campaign and day one promise of transparency in his administration. The transparency topic under discussion at that time was -
around releasing photos of prisoners being tortured by Unites States forces. You’ll recall that an ACLU lawsuit resulted in a federal court order to release those photos. Then the Obama’s team said it would release the photos, then Obama reversed that decision.
In September we all became beneficiaries of a transparency effort by CREW (Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) to oblige the Obama administration to live up to its promise and the law in respecting the Freedom of Information Act:
CREW — the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — has reached a settlement with the Obama administration for access to White House Visitor records. According to a email today from CREW:
The most significant development is the commitment by the Obama administration to affirmatively post visitor records on-line on an ongoing basis, bringing a historic level of transparency to the White House.
Despite the Obama administration’s recent legal settlement to begin releasing White House visitor logs later this year, it has denied a different public interest group’s recent request for those same records in the meantime.
In denying a request by watchdog group Judicial Watch, the U.S. Secret Service, through the Department of Homeland Security, said that White House visitor logs fall under the Presidential Records Act and are not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act because they do not originate with a federal agency.
“The Obama White House has yet to explain why visitor logs from its first eight months will be afforded special protection,” Judicial Watch said in its release. The Obama administration maintains it needs time to review the records for national security concerns.
Judicial Watch, however, received a blanket denial to its request even though a federal court has ruled that visitor logs are subject to FOIA. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the Secret Service must release the visitor logs to CREW. The administration dropped its subsequent appeal after reaching the settlement agreement with CREW.
Oh by the way … the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has also updated us on that other transparency issue noted above – the one about releasing photos of prisoners being tortured while in U.S. custody:
The long-fought battle to release images depicting the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody appears over after Congress passed legislation today that specifically exempts them from public disclosure.
The images were initially the center of a denied request under the Freedom of Information Act, that later became the subject of a lawsuit — which dragged on for years — and recently were dropped into the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill as an amendment specifically exempting them from the law in an effort to supersede court decisions on the issue.
The version of the bill that passed Congress contains an amendment originally introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that “codifies the President’s decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos.”
New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.
On Nov. 1, a law in Oklahoma will go into effect that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. … Here are the first eight questions that women will have to reveal:
1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions
Although the questionnaire does not ask for name, address, or “any information specifically identifying the patient,” as Feminists for Choice points out, these eight questions could easily be used to identify a woman in a small community. “They’re really just trying to frighten women out of having abortions,” Keri Parks, director of external affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, said.
So here’s what I’m thinking. Oklahoma should also post details of vasectomies online.
1. Date of vasectomy
2. County in which vasectomy performed
3. Age of vasectee
4. Marital status of vasectee
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of vasectee
6. Years of education of vasectee (specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of vasectee
8. Total number of impregnations by the vasectee
…………… How many resulted in Live Births?
…………… How many of those live births were to women the vasectee was married to?
…………… How many of those live births is the vasectee financially supporting?
…………… How many of those live births identify the vasectee on the birth certificate?
Franken Wins Bipartisan Support For Legislation Reining In KBR’s Treatment Of Rape
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.”
Thank you Senator Franken. We could use another 30 senators who represent the interests of their constituents over those of their clients. Here’s how it’s done:
Take a look at Senate.gov to see how your senator voted on this amendment. Oh what the heck, I’ll just list them for you.
Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida:
LeMieux (R-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana:
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:
Bond (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada:
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Not Voting
Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah:
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Every woman in the Senate voted in favor of Franken's amendment.
KBR employee gang-raped by her co-workers in Baghdad
Jeff Sessions of Alabama understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Richard Shelby of Alabama understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Jon Kyl of Arizona understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
John McCain of Arizona understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Saxby Chambliss of Georgia understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Johnny Isakson of Georgia understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Mike Crapo of Idaho understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
James Risch of Idaho understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Sam Brownback of Kansas understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Pat Roberts of Kansas understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Jim Bunning of Kentucky understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
David Vitter of Louisiana understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Thad Cochran of Mississippi understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Roger Wicker of Mississippi understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Kit Bond of Missouri understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Mike Johanns of Nebraska understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
John Ensign of Nevada understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Richard Burr of North Carolina understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Thomas Coburn of Oklahoma understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
James Inhofe of Oklahoma understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Jim DeMint of South Carolina understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
John Thune of South Dakota understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Bob Corker of Tennessee understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
John Cornyn of Texas understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
John Barrasso of Wyoming understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
Michael Enzi of Wyoming understands and supports KBR's preference for arbritation when it comes to rape of it's employees who work in Iraq.
I wonder what their wives and daughters think of their vote?
