There always seems to be a big war-spending bill before Congress. Where does this money go?
If there was no war and the troops were here at home, we would still be paying them their monthly pay and we would be feeding them with more costly meals than the RTEs they get on the battlefield. I know that a lot of Coast Guard and reservists were called into duty, but it doesn’t seem like that many to me.
The latest war-spending bill before Congress asks for $92.5 billion dollars. Now I know that the money doesn’t go to individual soldiers and that there is a lot of built-in pork, but that amounts to $578,125 for each of the 160,000 soldiers in Iraq.
We know the government isn’t spending much for military equipment. The troops are poorly equipped and the lack of “IED-proof” vehicles is quite apparent. They were not given the latest in personal gear either.
If the troops aren’t benefiting from the money, who is?
So far we have spent over $419,000,000,000 in Iraq. That’s over 419 Billion extra dollars and I would like to know where it is being spent. Who is reaping the benefits of these war-dollars. We know it is not the troops. We know it is not the Iraqis; most projects remain unfinished and we have not yet got them back to where they were before our invasion. It is not being spent on rebuilding roads or schools or airports. So where is it going?
I imagine that a big hunk of it is going to build what could be called “The Bush Legacy” or as the Iraqis call it: “George W’s palace”. The structure will bigger than anything Saddam Hussein built (It covers an area of 104 acres with 15-foot thick perimeter walls) and will be visible from space. It will be larger than the Vatican city and big enough to accommodate four Millennium Domes.
Under construction since mid-2005 with a target completion date of June 2007, is the new U.S. Embassy in Iraq. The construction is being led by the Kuwaiti firm First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, a subcontractor of Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root. Wouldn’t you know they would be involved?
When finished, it will resemble a mini-state, entirely independent from the outside world. It will generate its own power, pump its own sewage and draw its own water. It will be ten times the size of the average US embassy and six times the size of the UN compound in New York.
There will be impressive residences for the Ambassador and his deputy, six apartments for senior officials, and two huge office blocks for 8,000 staff to work in. There will be what is rumored to be the biggest swimming pool in Iraq, a state-of-the-art gymnasium, a cinema, restaurants offering delicacies from favorite US food chains, tennis courts and an American Club for evening functions.
Unlike the many failed reconstruction projects elsewhere in Iraq, the embassy complex is said to be well-built and on target for completion as scheduled.
The question that puzzles and enrages the residents of Baghdad is how is it that the Americans can’t keep the electricity running in Baghdad for more than a couple of hours a day and yet still manage to build themselves the biggest embassy on Earth?
Despite “significant progress” in recent months, less than half the water and electricity projects have been completed. A U.S. Inspector General’s report into reconstruction found that although $22 billion had been spent on water, sewage and electricity, the infrastructure is still operating at prewar levels.
Congress was originally told that the bill for the embassy would be $592 million, but The Congressional Research Service complained that because of opaque budgets that prevent effective Congressional oversight, the real cost of the construction program could not be accurately known. Now the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has been estimated to cost over $1.5 billion and we all know how accurate those estimates are. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it runs into real money.
As of 2006, the embassy employed over 1,000 people, only six of whom can speak Arabic fluently and more than 2,000 security and defense staff will be living and working in the area, including a large number of private contractors serving as bodyguards and a robust force of marines for the special perimeter defense system.
Though the site is an open secret, U.S. Embassy officials, currently based in Hussein’s former Republican Palace, are forbidden to discuss it.
There were no Iraqis employed in the building of this tribute to George W. Bush, they were all Asians.
The California Curmudgeon
Monday, April 23, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
WHAT’S GOOD FOR BUSINESS IS BAD FOR US
I just read in “Investor’s Business Daily” two things that just set me off.
The first was an item about the Republicans blocking the Democrats’ bid to let the government use its vast power to negotiate directly with drug companies to cut prices for the new Medicare drug benefit program.
The vote was 55 to 42, five shy of the sixty votes needed to end the Repubs filibuster.
The Democrats accused them of shilling for the pharmaceutical companies and the Republicans countered saying the bill would impose de facto price controls on a program that was working well. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said ”Senate Republicans have resorted to obstructionism in an effort to protect the drug industry at the expense of our seniors.”
The Republicans said the currant competition-based program already delivers low prices. “It is as simple as, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” said Senator Charles Grassley , R-Iowa.
I say that it is as simple as profit over lives.
The second item was about health care for everyone. The sub-headline states “A little piece of news out of Connecticut shows us that the resistance to universal coverage needs to be ratcheted higher. Free access to medical care for everyone is an economy-killer”.
The article states that avid proponents of universal care are statists and socialists at heart and they wouldn’t mind if the health care burden placed on taxpayers wrecked the economy.
Again it seems to be profit over lives.
The California Curmudgeon
The first was an item about the Republicans blocking the Democrats’ bid to let the government use its vast power to negotiate directly with drug companies to cut prices for the new Medicare drug benefit program.
The vote was 55 to 42, five shy of the sixty votes needed to end the Repubs filibuster.
The Democrats accused them of shilling for the pharmaceutical companies and the Republicans countered saying the bill would impose de facto price controls on a program that was working well. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said ”Senate Republicans have resorted to obstructionism in an effort to protect the drug industry at the expense of our seniors.”
The Republicans said the currant competition-based program already delivers low prices. “It is as simple as, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” said Senator Charles Grassley , R-Iowa.
I say that it is as simple as profit over lives.
The second item was about health care for everyone. The sub-headline states “A little piece of news out of Connecticut shows us that the resistance to universal coverage needs to be ratcheted higher. Free access to medical care for everyone is an economy-killer”.
The article states that avid proponents of universal care are statists and socialists at heart and they wouldn’t mind if the health care burden placed on taxpayers wrecked the economy.
Again it seems to be profit over lives.
The California Curmudgeon
Thursday, April 19, 2007
A WOLF AT THE DOOR
It seems like now the people would have a Republican scandal that they could get their teeth into – sex.
The American public, as proven in their lust for a Clinton impeachment, must think that a sex scandal is worse that sending our young boys to the killing fields of Iraq under false pretenses.
The sex scandal of the Republicans is that Wolfowitz has a girlfriend. Wolfowitz and his girlfriend sitting in a tree – K-i-s-s-i-n-g.
In 2005 President Bush named Wolfowitz president of the World Bank, with a tax-free salary of about $400,000. Wolfowitz’s girlfriend and lover, Shaha Riza, was working there at the time, but he said he would recuse himself in any work-related dealings with her.
Wolfowitz was divorced so there was nothing wrong with his seeing Shaha except that she and the old Wolf, a skilled bureaucrat and one of the Bush’s leading architects of the war in Iraq, had been playing hanky-panky with the World Bank’s money.
Wolfowitz appointed her to the State Department and personally arranged a $60,000 pay increase to $193,590 for her. This put Riza on a higher pay level than her boss Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose pay is $186,000. And Rice has to pay tax on her salary, but Riza, as a World Bank employee, does not.
No one seems to know what Shaha Riza actually does at the State Department. She has been described as a communications specialist and a senior gender coordinator. She is now working at something called the Foundation for the Future. She is still being paid by the World Bank.
Although all of this should put Wolfowitz's job in jeopardy, Bush, as usual, has expressed "full confidence" in him.
I guess it is up to the American people to really get hold of this, sink their teeth into it and find that stained blue dress.
The California Curmudgeon
The American public, as proven in their lust for a Clinton impeachment, must think that a sex scandal is worse that sending our young boys to the killing fields of Iraq under false pretenses.
The sex scandal of the Republicans is that Wolfowitz has a girlfriend. Wolfowitz and his girlfriend sitting in a tree – K-i-s-s-i-n-g.
In 2005 President Bush named Wolfowitz president of the World Bank, with a tax-free salary of about $400,000. Wolfowitz’s girlfriend and lover, Shaha Riza, was working there at the time, but he said he would recuse himself in any work-related dealings with her.
Wolfowitz was divorced so there was nothing wrong with his seeing Shaha except that she and the old Wolf, a skilled bureaucrat and one of the Bush’s leading architects of the war in Iraq, had been playing hanky-panky with the World Bank’s money.
Wolfowitz appointed her to the State Department and personally arranged a $60,000 pay increase to $193,590 for her. This put Riza on a higher pay level than her boss Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose pay is $186,000. And Rice has to pay tax on her salary, but Riza, as a World Bank employee, does not.
No one seems to know what Shaha Riza actually does at the State Department. She has been described as a communications specialist and a senior gender coordinator. She is now working at something called the Foundation for the Future. She is still being paid by the World Bank.
Although all of this should put Wolfowitz's job in jeopardy, Bush, as usual, has expressed "full confidence" in him.
I guess it is up to the American people to really get hold of this, sink their teeth into it and find that stained blue dress.
The California Curmudgeon
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THIS...
This is not mine, it is something I found on the net. I have no idea who wrote it or who did the research, but I am certainly glad they did as I feel it is something everyone should know about.
How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic
States which are recorded in both the US State Department and
United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States Receives $143,699,000 annually.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline). It's going to hit $5.00 by this summer.
**********
Why are we still giving money to Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and India?
How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic
States which are recorded in both the US State Department and
United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States Receives $143,699,000 annually.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline). It's going to hit $5.00 by this summer.
**********
Why are we still giving money to Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and India?
FREEDOM LOST
Well guys, it looks like we are about to lose another freedom – the freedom to protest, the right to free speech: “The government has the same rights as a private corporation when its officials speak,” Said the lawyers for Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman, the two who were involved in the removal of Leslie Weise and Alex Young from a taxpayer-funded Bush speech two years ago.
Weise and Young sued, arguing that the ouster violated their First Amendment rights of free speech. They had been singled out at the address on Social Security by a staffer for Senator Wayne Allard, Republican from Colorado who pointed them out as being suspicious because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.
Attorneys for Casper and Klinkerman filed an appeals brief saying the ouster was legal. They argued that President Bush had the right to remove people from an audience who disagreed with him.
The brief stated in part that “The president's right to control his own message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience," The brief also states “whose speech is at issue -- the president's or the plaintiffs'?"
To which Weise responded, "My read of the Constitution does not give the president free speech rights greater than the citizens he serves."
Weise and Young said they were ejected for their political views. They had a bumper sticker on their car saying "No blood for oil". They were also wearing "Stop the lies" T-shirts under their clothes but did not show them. They have said they had no plans to disrupt the event, but Young hoped to ask Bush a question if given the opportunity.
Martha Tierney, an attorney for the Colorado plaintiffs, said Monday "A private organization is entitled to limit the kinds of speech that the public can have if it comes to attend its event," Tierney said. "But the government is under a different standard and can't limit speech just based on viewpoint at a public, taxpayer-funded event."
This case could also be seen as "Taxation without representation"
Let’s all cross our fingers and hope that Bush doesn’t get away with this one.
Weise and Young sued, arguing that the ouster violated their First Amendment rights of free speech. They had been singled out at the address on Social Security by a staffer for Senator Wayne Allard, Republican from Colorado who pointed them out as being suspicious because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.
Attorneys for Casper and Klinkerman filed an appeals brief saying the ouster was legal. They argued that President Bush had the right to remove people from an audience who disagreed with him.
The brief stated in part that “The president's right to control his own message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience," The brief also states “whose speech is at issue -- the president's or the plaintiffs'?"
To which Weise responded, "My read of the Constitution does not give the president free speech rights greater than the citizens he serves."
Weise and Young said they were ejected for their political views. They had a bumper sticker on their car saying "No blood for oil". They were also wearing "Stop the lies" T-shirts under their clothes but did not show them. They have said they had no plans to disrupt the event, but Young hoped to ask Bush a question if given the opportunity.
Martha Tierney, an attorney for the Colorado plaintiffs, said Monday "A private organization is entitled to limit the kinds of speech that the public can have if it comes to attend its event," Tierney said. "But the government is under a different standard and can't limit speech just based on viewpoint at a public, taxpayer-funded event."
This case could also be seen as "Taxation without representation"
Let’s all cross our fingers and hope that Bush doesn’t get away with this one.
OLD CHUCKLE-NUTS RIDES AGAIN
Bush wants a “clean” war-spending bill that he can sign. That means that he doesn’t want anything written in the bill of which he doesn’t personally approve. The Congress is to have no say in the matter nor do the American people.
Now Bush wants to meet with the leading Congressional leaders of each party, but he says that his position is non-negotiable. “His position hasn’t changed,” White House communications director Kevin Sullivan said Sunday. “But he’s hopeful that the discussion on Wednesday will be productive”.
So far, Bush has called Democrats irresponsible, promised to veto their bill and refused to negotiate.
Just who the hell does Bush think he is? King? Dictator? Has he ever heard of checks and balances?
I know that Bush doesn’t know the meaning of compromise or negotiation (there are a lot of words he doesn’t know the meaning of), but his antagonistic and combative attitude has no place in American politics.
“We are very, very serious about what the American people said in last November’s election,” said Senator Carl Levin Democrat from Michigan. “They want a change of course.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said “The American people know that the height of irresponsibility is to put this country at risk by mismanaging a war from day one.”
The Senate bill as it now stands would approve a $96 billion war-spending bill, most of which would be used for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would set a timetable for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. All troops would be out of the two wars by March 31, 2008.
The only problem I have with this bill is that the troops should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan, like yesterday.
Now Bush wants to meet with the leading Congressional leaders of each party, but he says that his position is non-negotiable. “His position hasn’t changed,” White House communications director Kevin Sullivan said Sunday. “But he’s hopeful that the discussion on Wednesday will be productive”.
So far, Bush has called Democrats irresponsible, promised to veto their bill and refused to negotiate.
Just who the hell does Bush think he is? King? Dictator? Has he ever heard of checks and balances?
I know that Bush doesn’t know the meaning of compromise or negotiation (there are a lot of words he doesn’t know the meaning of), but his antagonistic and combative attitude has no place in American politics.
“We are very, very serious about what the American people said in last November’s election,” said Senator Carl Levin Democrat from Michigan. “They want a change of course.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said “The American people know that the height of irresponsibility is to put this country at risk by mismanaging a war from day one.”
The Senate bill as it now stands would approve a $96 billion war-spending bill, most of which would be used for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would set a timetable for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. All troops would be out of the two wars by March 31, 2008.
The only problem I have with this bill is that the troops should have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan, like yesterday.
Friday, April 13, 2007
SUPPORTING THE TROOPS THE BUSH WAY
I have just read something I can’t believe. Our government is cheating our wounded soldiers out of their disability and medical benefits.
Yes, I guess I can believe it knowing how the Bush administration operates, but it’s hard to think that our government can treat our soldiers in such a harsh, non-caring way after they have put their lives on the line for this very same government..
In the April 9, 2007 issue of “The Nation” magazine I learned that the government is trying to renege on paying wounded soldiers their disability pay. According to Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13 they can shirk their responsibility by stating that the wounded soldier has a Personality Disorder. This is a quick and cheap method for a cash-strapped military to cheat the soldiers out of a lifetime of disability and medical benefits and save billions in expenses.
In Ramadi, Iraq, one soldier, Jon Town survived a 107 mm rocket that hit just two feet from his head. He was knocked unconscious, bleeding from his ears, shrapnel cutting into his neck and his hearing gone.
He spent the next three years struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. The army finally agreed he was no longer combat-ready. Instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him they claimed Town’s wounds were actually caused by a “personality disorder”. Under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits. And this was a soldier who was honored twelve times in seven years
The military says that soldiers discharged under 5-13 can’t collect any benefits because a personality disorder is a pre-existing condition and the VA is only required to treat wounds sustained during service.
Many soldiers have returned from Iraq to find the same thing happening to them. This has infuriated many in the military community, including the injured soldiers and their families, veterans’ rights groups and even military officials required to process these dismissals.
Wait, there’s more. If a soldier dismissed under 5-13 hasn’t served out his contract, he has to give back a slice of his re-enlistment bonus as well. After being discharged, a soldier can find that he owes the government several thousand dollars.
Military doctors are aiding in this subterfuge by telling the soldiers that if they go along with a 5-13 discharge, they not only will get out quicker, they will retain their bonus and benefits. To avoid going back to Iraq, a soldier will take the offer in a heartbeat.
In the last six years more than 5,600 soldiers have been discharged under 5-13 and the numbers keep rising. Across the entire armed forces more than 22,500 soldiers have been discharged because of Personality Disorder.
It is estimated that soldiers discharged under 5-13 are saving the government $8 billion in disability pay and 4.5 billion in medical care.
The Military Diagnostic Manual says that a pattern of erratic behavior in traumatized soldiers cannot be labeled a “personality disorder” if it’s from a head injury.
One soldier said “They put me out on the street to rot; there was no way I could have survived. I would have had to take myself out or had someone do it for me. It’s like a mental rape. That’s the only way I can describe it.”
One lawyer described it as “Right now, the army is eating its own”.
Anyone in favor of supporting the troops the Bush way?
The California Curmudgeon
Yes, I guess I can believe it knowing how the Bush administration operates, but it’s hard to think that our government can treat our soldiers in such a harsh, non-caring way after they have put their lives on the line for this very same government..
In the April 9, 2007 issue of “The Nation” magazine I learned that the government is trying to renege on paying wounded soldiers their disability pay. According to Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13 they can shirk their responsibility by stating that the wounded soldier has a Personality Disorder. This is a quick and cheap method for a cash-strapped military to cheat the soldiers out of a lifetime of disability and medical benefits and save billions in expenses.
In Ramadi, Iraq, one soldier, Jon Town survived a 107 mm rocket that hit just two feet from his head. He was knocked unconscious, bleeding from his ears, shrapnel cutting into his neck and his hearing gone.
He spent the next three years struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. The army finally agreed he was no longer combat-ready. Instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him they claimed Town’s wounds were actually caused by a “personality disorder”. Under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits. And this was a soldier who was honored twelve times in seven years
The military says that soldiers discharged under 5-13 can’t collect any benefits because a personality disorder is a pre-existing condition and the VA is only required to treat wounds sustained during service.
Many soldiers have returned from Iraq to find the same thing happening to them. This has infuriated many in the military community, including the injured soldiers and their families, veterans’ rights groups and even military officials required to process these dismissals.
Wait, there’s more. If a soldier dismissed under 5-13 hasn’t served out his contract, he has to give back a slice of his re-enlistment bonus as well. After being discharged, a soldier can find that he owes the government several thousand dollars.
Military doctors are aiding in this subterfuge by telling the soldiers that if they go along with a 5-13 discharge, they not only will get out quicker, they will retain their bonus and benefits. To avoid going back to Iraq, a soldier will take the offer in a heartbeat.
In the last six years more than 5,600 soldiers have been discharged under 5-13 and the numbers keep rising. Across the entire armed forces more than 22,500 soldiers have been discharged because of Personality Disorder.
It is estimated that soldiers discharged under 5-13 are saving the government $8 billion in disability pay and 4.5 billion in medical care.
The Military Diagnostic Manual says that a pattern of erratic behavior in traumatized soldiers cannot be labeled a “personality disorder” if it’s from a head injury.
One soldier said “They put me out on the street to rot; there was no way I could have survived. I would have had to take myself out or had someone do it for me. It’s like a mental rape. That’s the only way I can describe it.”
One lawyer described it as “Right now, the army is eating its own”.
Anyone in favor of supporting the troops the Bush way?
The California Curmudgeon
DON’T CALL IT A NEGOTIATION
A few days ago President Bush invited Democratic leaders to the White House to accept his demand for continued, unfettered funding of the war. When Bush invited the Democratic leaders, it seemed to offer the opportunity for a breakthrough in their differences over the war.
Without giving hope of a compromise, Bush said “We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground.”
Anyone else would have read the Republican’s loss of Congress as a sign that the American voters wanted both parties to work together, but Bush can’t change his outlook. The only way he will cooperate is “My way or the highway”.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, hastened to declare: "I will point out to you, this is not a negotiation."
The Democrats refused the invitation. Nancy Pelosi said “What the president invited us to do is to come to his office so that we could accept, without discussion, the bill that he wants.” Several hours earlier Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also rejected the invitation.
Apparently rejecting the idea of the Constitution, Bush argued that Congress has no right to set such timetables for troop withdrawals because they restrict his authority as commander in chief.
"The president is now having to deal with a Congress," Reid said. "He has never had to do that before. The president in the past, he has just done whatever he wanted. He had a big rubber stamp up here on Capitol Hill."
Daily, the White House makes a point of reminding the Democrats that Bush will veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal of the troops and they don’t have the votes to override the veto.
Today it was announced that the two leading Democrats, Pelosi and Reid will indeed attend the conference. Thanks guys for standing your ground, showing what you are made of and your resolve.
The California Curmudgeon
Without giving hope of a compromise, Bush said “We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill, a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal and without handcuffing our generals on the ground.”
Anyone else would have read the Republican’s loss of Congress as a sign that the American voters wanted both parties to work together, but Bush can’t change his outlook. The only way he will cooperate is “My way or the highway”.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, hastened to declare: "I will point out to you, this is not a negotiation."
The Democrats refused the invitation. Nancy Pelosi said “What the president invited us to do is to come to his office so that we could accept, without discussion, the bill that he wants.” Several hours earlier Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also rejected the invitation.
Apparently rejecting the idea of the Constitution, Bush argued that Congress has no right to set such timetables for troop withdrawals because they restrict his authority as commander in chief.
"The president is now having to deal with a Congress," Reid said. "He has never had to do that before. The president in the past, he has just done whatever he wanted. He had a big rubber stamp up here on Capitol Hill."
Daily, the White House makes a point of reminding the Democrats that Bush will veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal of the troops and they don’t have the votes to override the veto.
Today it was announced that the two leading Democrats, Pelosi and Reid will indeed attend the conference. Thanks guys for standing your ground, showing what you are made of and your resolve.
The California Curmudgeon
Monday, April 09, 2007
WAR OF THE UNINVOLVED
What is wrong with the news media? It seems that they have been instructed to put a happy face on the news and bury the bad stuff.
Ten of our troops were killed yesterday bringing the total killed so far to 3,280, but nothing about this appeared on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle. Instead they had stories about “Glass baby bottles making a comeback”, “S.F. moves to stem African American exodus” and the biggest story that took up three full-page columns including a half-page picture was “NEW URBAN CENTERS TAKE ON A STAGE-SET FEEL IN BAY AREA”. That headline really was all in caps.
The story of the ten troops being killed was relegated to page five. And most of that story was really about radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada el-Sadr and his opposition to the American presence in Iraq.
I think that “Support Our Troops” should include front-page coverage of every single soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice. Right there on the front page where everyone would be forced to see it.
We need to put a face on this war. We need to make people realize that these are real men (boys) who are being killed. We need to have pictures and bios of each of these soldiers staring at us across our comfortable breakfast table.
During WWII, the war was THE news. The front page of every newspaper was full of the war. Pictures taken during battles showed the horror of war. Faces of wounded GIs stared out from hollow eyes. The pictures were horrible and they came to you in your sleep. The “News Reel” at the local theater was full of war pictures.
The people were not insulated from the war. We were involved. It was our war. We saved bacon grease, had war bonds and stamps, meat coupons and gas rationing. We “sacrificed”. We were not told that the best thing the public could do was go shopping (Bush Dec 2006*)
When we are asked to “Support Our Troops” the least we can do is acknowledge their dying.
I still don’t know what they used the bacon grease for.
The California Curmudgeon
* Bush press meeting “A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more”.
Ten of our troops were killed yesterday bringing the total killed so far to 3,280, but nothing about this appeared on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle. Instead they had stories about “Glass baby bottles making a comeback”, “S.F. moves to stem African American exodus” and the biggest story that took up three full-page columns including a half-page picture was “NEW URBAN CENTERS TAKE ON A STAGE-SET FEEL IN BAY AREA”. That headline really was all in caps.
The story of the ten troops being killed was relegated to page five. And most of that story was really about radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada el-Sadr and his opposition to the American presence in Iraq.
I think that “Support Our Troops” should include front-page coverage of every single soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice. Right there on the front page where everyone would be forced to see it.
We need to put a face on this war. We need to make people realize that these are real men (boys) who are being killed. We need to have pictures and bios of each of these soldiers staring at us across our comfortable breakfast table.
During WWII, the war was THE news. The front page of every newspaper was full of the war. Pictures taken during battles showed the horror of war. Faces of wounded GIs stared out from hollow eyes. The pictures were horrible and they came to you in your sleep. The “News Reel” at the local theater was full of war pictures.
The people were not insulated from the war. We were involved. It was our war. We saved bacon grease, had war bonds and stamps, meat coupons and gas rationing. We “sacrificed”. We were not told that the best thing the public could do was go shopping (Bush Dec 2006*)
When we are asked to “Support Our Troops” the least we can do is acknowledge their dying.
I still don’t know what they used the bacon grease for.
The California Curmudgeon
* Bush press meeting “A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more”.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
CAN YOU REALLY BUY AN ELECTION?
It seem that this past week, the media has been obsessed by which wanna-be candidate collected the most money. It is a shame that money is what our elections are now about. Whatever happened to electing a candidate on his qualifications and ideas.
A bold and specific agenda no longer rules. The American people can be bought by who spends the most money on their campaign. It’s dollars verses ideas and the dollars always seem to win.
Obama pulled in $1,000,000 less than did Clinton, but he got most of his money from a lot more people. Clinton got most of her money from fewer donors. Fewer donors mean heavier contributions and heavier contributions means someone will probably want something in return.
This is just my opinion, but I think this is not the time Hillary Clinton should run because it is going to be a tough enough fight for the Democrats to take back the reins of this great country without the added burden of trying to elect the first woman to the presidency (see my “Hillary for President” column). Also I do not think that Obama has a real chance because, and I know this sounds racist, but I think the heartland of America will not yet embrace a black man as president of the United states. So, to me that means there is only one choice and that would be John Edwards.
I know there has been controversy over his running for office while his wife has cancer, but we are not the ones to judge them on that issue. John, Elizabeth and their children are the only ones that should be involved in that decision.
Check out http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/
The California Curmudgeon
A bold and specific agenda no longer rules. The American people can be bought by who spends the most money on their campaign. It’s dollars verses ideas and the dollars always seem to win.
Obama pulled in $1,000,000 less than did Clinton, but he got most of his money from a lot more people. Clinton got most of her money from fewer donors. Fewer donors mean heavier contributions and heavier contributions means someone will probably want something in return.
This is just my opinion, but I think this is not the time Hillary Clinton should run because it is going to be a tough enough fight for the Democrats to take back the reins of this great country without the added burden of trying to elect the first woman to the presidency (see my “Hillary for President” column). Also I do not think that Obama has a real chance because, and I know this sounds racist, but I think the heartland of America will not yet embrace a black man as president of the United states. So, to me that means there is only one choice and that would be John Edwards.
I know there has been controversy over his running for office while his wife has cancer, but we are not the ones to judge them on that issue. John, Elizabeth and their children are the only ones that should be involved in that decision.
Check out http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/
The California Curmudgeon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)