Just read this passage from ABC's interview with Bush tonight:
VARGAS: Let's move to Iraq. This has been a rough few days in Iraq since the bombing of the mosque in Samarra. There's been a lot of sectarian violence. What is the policy if, in fact, a civil war should break out or the sectarian violence continues? Are you willing to sacrifice American lives to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to stop killing each other?
BUSH: I don't buy your premise that there's going to be a civil war. There's no question that the bomber of the mosque is trying to create sectarian violence, and there's no question there was reaction to it. On the other hand, I had the duty, which I did, to call these leaders, Shi'a and Sunni leaders, as well as Kurdish leaders. And the response was that we understand this is a moment that we've got to make a choice if we're going to have sectarian strife or whether or not we're going to unify. And I heard loud and clear that they understand that they're going to choose unification, and we're going to help them do so.
VARGAS: But what is the plan if the sectarian violence continues? I mean, do the U.S. troops take a larger role? Do they step in more actively to stop the violence?
BUSH: No. The troops are chasing down terrorists. They're protecting themselves and protecting the people, and — but a major function is to train the Iraqis so they can do the work. I mean the ultimate success in Iraq —
My bolding. Mr President, when rival factions fight and blow each other up, that's called civil war. Not sure why I bothered to read what amounts to more of the same.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
UAE vs Dobbs
Proof that he is doing his job right. (thanks: crooksandliars)
Chris Matthews of course is taking the "what's all the hullabaloo about?" angle.
Chris Matthews of course is taking the "what's all the hullabaloo about?" angle.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Lou Dobbs
I used to think Lou Dobbs was a big worry wart. Now, with his laser like focus on this ports debacle it is clear to me and I would think many americans he is on the side of this country and against the Bush plutocrat agenda of big trade at all costs.
This issue should not die. It should be repeated nightly on every news broadcast. It's what we've all known about Bush, he is a die hard believer in profit over security. Today we learn through Susan Collins of Maine (tip: think progress) that the Coast Guard had problems with this deal. Scott McClellan, the human incarnate of a jelly donut, came out and said no one had problems with this, just like he said no one in the administration leaked the name of Valerie Plame.
It now, after five years, is becoming clearer and clearer to regular, non partisan americans that Bush and Co have sold the US government to the highest bidder while going off on tyranny ending adventures in foreign countries at my great grandchildren's expense. I will echo what Brad Delong on this blog has been saying for a while:
Impeach George W Bush. Impeach Dick Cheney. Do it now.
Doesn't even matter if it makes sense or is impractial or unlikely, just try.
This issue should not die. It should be repeated nightly on every news broadcast. It's what we've all known about Bush, he is a die hard believer in profit over security. Today we learn through Susan Collins of Maine (tip: think progress) that the Coast Guard had problems with this deal. Scott McClellan, the human incarnate of a jelly donut, came out and said no one had problems with this, just like he said no one in the administration leaked the name of Valerie Plame.
It now, after five years, is becoming clearer and clearer to regular, non partisan americans that Bush and Co have sold the US government to the highest bidder while going off on tyranny ending adventures in foreign countries at my great grandchildren's expense. I will echo what Brad Delong on this blog has been saying for a while:
Impeach George W Bush. Impeach Dick Cheney. Do it now.
Doesn't even matter if it makes sense or is impractial or unlikely, just try.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Withdraw
Realist John Murtha speaks on Iraq. (tip:huffpost)
In contrast tonight, as a reader on huffpost pointed out, Richard Perle one of the original neocons who pressed for this war was on Hardball and declared there is no civil war and we should continue to stay the course until the Iraq government decides they are up to the task of defending their own country.
Realism vs Fantasy.
In contrast tonight, as a reader on huffpost pointed out, Richard Perle one of the original neocons who pressed for this war was on Hardball and declared there is no civil war and we should continue to stay the course until the Iraq government decides they are up to the task of defending their own country.
Realism vs Fantasy.
Cronyist national security
As always, Lou Dobbs has taken up the mantle on this port deal this evening on CNN. He has consistently taken the side of the american worker in the face of a growing threat by outside influences. This P&O port deal is once again an example of the Bush administration putting their powerful friends before the national security of this country and that's why Dems and Repubs are in opposition to this.
Imagine a Dubei employee infiltrating one of the ports and he happens to be an Al-Qaeda operative. He now has access to the entire port and its cargo. Why does this make sense? It is not racist or "islamophobic" to conclude this deal is not in the best interests of this country. Can we please start thinking about what makes sense for the workers of the United States of America.
Bush cannot tell the difference between a British owned company and one who is the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers and has been an unwilling ally when it comes to Bin Laden and money laundering. Then again, should we be surprised that the Bushies are thinking of pleasing their gilded Arab friends as opposed to the every day american worker? Bush is the new plutocrat, a man who has no clue what it is like to hold a decent paying job and then lose it in a snap to a foreign entity. And then to be held accountable for his secretive, backroom policies is like asking a child who stumbles over his words.
As with everything else, this crew does this all behind the back of Congress and the public. Shall we make a list?
torture policy
detention policy
warrantless wiretapping
energy policy
environmental policy
economic policy
and now national security in relation to the ports of the USA
Nah, we don't need a populist.
Imagine a Dubei employee infiltrating one of the ports and he happens to be an Al-Qaeda operative. He now has access to the entire port and its cargo. Why does this make sense? It is not racist or "islamophobic" to conclude this deal is not in the best interests of this country. Can we please start thinking about what makes sense for the workers of the United States of America.
Bush cannot tell the difference between a British owned company and one who is the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers and has been an unwilling ally when it comes to Bin Laden and money laundering. Then again, should we be surprised that the Bushies are thinking of pleasing their gilded Arab friends as opposed to the every day american worker? Bush is the new plutocrat, a man who has no clue what it is like to hold a decent paying job and then lose it in a snap to a foreign entity. And then to be held accountable for his secretive, backroom policies is like asking a child who stumbles over his words.
As with everything else, this crew does this all behind the back of Congress and the public. Shall we make a list?
torture policy
detention policy
warrantless wiretapping
energy policy
environmental policy
economic policy
and now national security in relation to the ports of the USA
Nah, we don't need a populist.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
the first presidential communicator
No one could call Calvin Coolidge, the nation's 29th president isolated. 82 years ago today, Coolidge delivered a major speech from the White House via radio, a new medium at the time, could we see the current president start his own blog?
Nightmare
Not too long ago I posted of the possible likelihood of a Cheney run for the presidency in 2008. Apparently I am not alone in the world in thinking this, exhibit A from today's mysa.com covering a speech from Bob Woodward:
He noted that Republicans have a long track record of nominating "old war horses."
Given that, and depending on how things in Iraq proceed, "You're going to think I'm crazy, but you heard it here first. I think they could nominate Dick Cheney."
A Dick Cheney presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level, who better to continue the Bush doctrine?
He noted that Republicans have a long track record of nominating "old war horses."
Given that, and depending on how things in Iraq proceed, "You're going to think I'm crazy, but you heard it here first. I think they could nominate Dick Cheney."
A Dick Cheney presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level, who better to continue the Bush doctrine?
Argumentum ad Hitlerum
Pat Buchanan, right wing populist, punches a hole in the war drums of the neoconservative movement in regards to Iran. As I've said on this blog before, Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, nor will he ever be and to even insist this is an affront against all Jewish people.
Buchanan hits the nail on the head with this statement:
"The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and few MX and Trident missles."
Not one nuclear warhead was launched during the entire Cold War, part of this was luck and destiny but another part was the measured foreign policy of JFK along with the steely nerve of Ronald Reagan (took me a while to understand this), both lacked the fanatical desire for war that has infiltrated the conservative ranks including the president.
Yes, the Iranian leader has made ridiculous statements regarding the Holocaust that all americans should take offense to. However, this is not a reason for yet another war, one that will stretch the american military to the breaking point and stir up dust where it doesn't need to be stirred. Buchanan goes on to say:
"Instead of whining about how they were misled into Iraq, why don't Democrats try to stop this new war before it starts?"
Instead, they are jumping all over this UAE port story to place themselves squarely to the right of the president, combine this with Evan Byah and his shameful demogogary on Iran and we have a Democratic party who is all huff and no puff. Oh, did I forget the standard bearer of triangulation Hillary Clinton?
We need a foreign policy that combines a confidence in our military might with reason and pragmatism. Neoconservatism is the antithesis of reason and pragmatism. It desires to create problems where none exist, to reshape the world as global utopia, free for all who inhabit it. The elections this November and 2008 are referendums on this pathetic ideology.
Buchanan hits the nail on the head with this statement:
"The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and few MX and Trident missles."
Not one nuclear warhead was launched during the entire Cold War, part of this was luck and destiny but another part was the measured foreign policy of JFK along with the steely nerve of Ronald Reagan (took me a while to understand this), both lacked the fanatical desire for war that has infiltrated the conservative ranks including the president.
Yes, the Iranian leader has made ridiculous statements regarding the Holocaust that all americans should take offense to. However, this is not a reason for yet another war, one that will stretch the american military to the breaking point and stir up dust where it doesn't need to be stirred. Buchanan goes on to say:
"Instead of whining about how they were misled into Iraq, why don't Democrats try to stop this new war before it starts?"
Instead, they are jumping all over this UAE port story to place themselves squarely to the right of the president, combine this with Evan Byah and his shameful demogogary on Iran and we have a Democratic party who is all huff and no puff. Oh, did I forget the standard bearer of triangulation Hillary Clinton?
We need a foreign policy that combines a confidence in our military might with reason and pragmatism. Neoconservatism is the antithesis of reason and pragmatism. It desires to create problems where none exist, to reshape the world as global utopia, free for all who inhabit it. The elections this November and 2008 are referendums on this pathetic ideology.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
You didn't say you were going to do that!
Voters want change, only if the person elected doesn't really follow through. This is not what Dr. Satish Mohan has done since being elected Amherst town supervisor. He has proposed hiring freezes and cost cutting. He even, for the love of God, signs each check every town employee receives to make sure things are on the up and up.
For all the above, many feel Mohan should be impeached or recalled. Dr Mohan's response?
"Let the people re-vote, but if they throw me out, the dream of change will go from this town forever." "These are the people who are entrenched," They are against change. "
Mohan is a reformer. This is why he was elected. He actually approaches his role in the way it was meant: save the town money.
Now it makes sense.
For all the above, many feel Mohan should be impeached or recalled. Dr Mohan's response?
"Let the people re-vote, but if they throw me out, the dream of change will go from this town forever." "These are the people who are entrenched," They are against change. "
Mohan is a reformer. This is why he was elected. He actually approaches his role in the way it was meant: save the town money.
Now it makes sense.
Just maybe
Just maybe he will change, maybe.
This is the point made by Nicholas Kristof in today's NY Times (sub required). Since the shame of Katrina, various pundits have actually considered that this president may change course and actually become a representative of the public who reelected him. The shining example Kristof uses is Ronald Reagan after Iran-Contra, Reagan fired a couple people and went on television and said he has sorry. The public believed him and his popularity went threw the roof.
Bush is different. A clear majority of the public rates this president poorly on every matter. They are finally after six years coming to grips with what the Bush era means. They were sold into Iraq, sold into Bush being a different politician and most of all sold into the idea of Bush being a likeable "have a beer with him" kid of guy.
Bush will not change, ever. He will not fire Rumsfeld, leave Iraq anytime in the near future (enough to where it makes a difference) and suddenly become a pragmatist. Kristof points to the 2000 primaries as proof Bush can switch gears; um, that's what you do when you get creamed, if you want to win you steal your opponent's best lines.
Point is, punditry has filled many a space with ruminations that Bush can and will change. Forget it. Stick with what you know NY Times, WMD.
This is the point made by Nicholas Kristof in today's NY Times (sub required). Since the shame of Katrina, various pundits have actually considered that this president may change course and actually become a representative of the public who reelected him. The shining example Kristof uses is Ronald Reagan after Iran-Contra, Reagan fired a couple people and went on television and said he has sorry. The public believed him and his popularity went threw the roof.
Bush is different. A clear majority of the public rates this president poorly on every matter. They are finally after six years coming to grips with what the Bush era means. They were sold into Iraq, sold into Bush being a different politician and most of all sold into the idea of Bush being a likeable "have a beer with him" kid of guy.
Bush will not change, ever. He will not fire Rumsfeld, leave Iraq anytime in the near future (enough to where it makes a difference) and suddenly become a pragmatist. Kristof points to the 2000 primaries as proof Bush can switch gears; um, that's what you do when you get creamed, if you want to win you steal your opponent's best lines.
Point is, punditry has filled many a space with ruminations that Bush can and will change. Forget it. Stick with what you know NY Times, WMD.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
in the trenches
From what i'm gathering from today's talk shows, the Repub line on the NSA warrantless searches is "It's constitutional." They won't confirm this for the american public through a review of some sort, its the same ol "trust us" crap they have been peddling since 9/11. Trust us to not torture, trust us to do the right thing in Iraq, trust us to not spy on american citizens without a warrant or probable cause.
This endless parade of garbage will not end unless the majority of the american public gets really adament about putting an end to this. Maybe they are waiting for November to unleash their wrath on the GOP or maybe they really do think these things have to be put up with in the name of the WOT.
This endless parade of garbage will not end unless the majority of the american public gets really adament about putting an end to this. Maybe they are waiting for November to unleash their wrath on the GOP or maybe they really do think these things have to be put up with in the name of the WOT.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Give me a Harry Truman
"Now everybody likes to have low taxes, but we must reduce the national debt in times of prosperity. And when tax relief can be given, it ought to go to those who need it most, and not those who need it least, as this Republican rich man's tax bill did when they passed it over my veto on the third try.The first one of these was so rotten that they couldn't even stomach it themselves. They finally did send one that was somewhat improved, but it still helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor. "
- President Truman in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in 1948.
Can you imagine any present day Democrat speaking so clearly on the issue of tax cuts and income redistribution? Kerry? Clinton? Dean?
- President Truman in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in 1948.
Can you imagine any present day Democrat speaking so clearly on the issue of tax cuts and income redistribution? Kerry? Clinton? Dean?
Thursday, February 16, 2006
a few things
My friend on the right, neo-neocon brought to our attention the special Nightline program on the existence of the Saddam Hussein tapes. Turns out, they were not so much a smoking gun as just more proof he was sly little fox. Talking in the 90's about how he is working on some weapons doesn't exactly scream imminent threat does it? When we invaded in 2003 he had no WMD's, hard to swalllow huh?
This hunting story would be dead in the water if Cheney didn't operate (ha, get it!) the way he does in a shroud of secrecy. When Byron York and Peggy Noonan are calling you out, you've really screwed up.
Speaking of Cheney, to the people who are clamoring for a Democratic victory this November in order to get the impeachment train moving, are you nuts? Ladies and Gentleman: President Cheney. Also, is it really so inconceivable that Cheney wouldn't run for the presidency in 08? He is the VP of a two termer and really the only devoted future standard bearer of the Bush doctrine (McCain would fudge to much).
Thanks to Salon online we once again see where our tax dollars went; the torture and humiliation of Arab men in a Muslim country. Blood sprayed walls, naked men, lesions, chemicals, human pyramids and crushed bodies. This is not a few bad apples, this is the stated policy of the United States military under the criminal Don Rumsfeld, whose continued employment will be one pondered over in the history books.
This hunting story would be dead in the water if Cheney didn't operate (ha, get it!) the way he does in a shroud of secrecy. When Byron York and Peggy Noonan are calling you out, you've really screwed up.
Speaking of Cheney, to the people who are clamoring for a Democratic victory this November in order to get the impeachment train moving, are you nuts? Ladies and Gentleman: President Cheney. Also, is it really so inconceivable that Cheney wouldn't run for the presidency in 08? He is the VP of a two termer and really the only devoted future standard bearer of the Bush doctrine (McCain would fudge to much).
Thanks to Salon online we once again see where our tax dollars went; the torture and humiliation of Arab men in a Muslim country. Blood sprayed walls, naked men, lesions, chemicals, human pyramids and crushed bodies. This is not a few bad apples, this is the stated policy of the United States military under the criminal Don Rumsfeld, whose continued employment will be one pondered over in the history books.
Malkin Watch
Yes, she's back, everyone's favorite internment loving right winger. Her reaction on the release of the new Abu Gharib photos, photos that should shame every american into demanding our exit from Iraq immediately.
Memo to Malkin: graphic photos that depict real events are not the same as cartoons.
Memo to Malkin: graphic photos that depict real events are not the same as cartoons.
at least someone has the guts
Well, it's a principled senator against the Democratic establishment. Democrats, stand behind Senator Feingold and you'll be winners.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Third Party
Over at brendan nyhan's blog there is a politically tantalizing post on the possibility of a third party candidate crashing the hopes of John McCain in 2008. Like the Democratic Party, the GOP soul is looking for a populist to bring them home. Will they choose someone who is going to continue the folly of the Bush doctrine?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
that nasty thing in the corner
Apocolypse Now
"But one thing is quite the same, and that is his thought: without victory, there is no survival. I believe that we are actually fighting for the survival of the Western world of the Enlightenment, of the protection of human rights, and of respect for all of humankind. If those ideals are sometimes violated by the West--and there is no doubt whatsoever that they are--these are nothing as to what would occur if jihadist Islamicists were triumphant."
From the blog neo-neocon. This perfectly captures the paranoid worldview of neoconservatism. The Enlightened West is in danger? And then there is always the comparision of Nazism and Hitlter to Al-Qaeda. It is a disgrace and insult (as one of Jewish descent) to compare wayward Saudis hoping to meet Allah with the death march of Nazism. I'm at my wits end with this tired comparison.
From the blog neo-neocon. This perfectly captures the paranoid worldview of neoconservatism. The Enlightened West is in danger? And then there is always the comparision of Nazism and Hitlter to Al-Qaeda. It is a disgrace and insult (as one of Jewish descent) to compare wayward Saudis hoping to meet Allah with the death march of Nazism. I'm at my wits end with this tired comparison.
Shhh...
This whole Cheney duck hunting story has got major legs for one reason: secrecy. Cheney is a disciple of the "the more the people don't know the better" school of thought, in fact he has based his entire political career on it.
Back when he was picked to be VP in 2000 to today's events, Cheney has displayed an almost cavalier disregard for honesty. He has made this quite clear in the five years he has been Vice President. To Cheney, government only needs to know your business not the other way around. So, we have a president who wants a fiefdom and a VP who operates in the shadows. Boy, am I glad we have a representative government!
Back when he was picked to be VP in 2000 to today's events, Cheney has displayed an almost cavalier disregard for honesty. He has made this quite clear in the five years he has been Vice President. To Cheney, government only needs to know your business not the other way around. So, we have a president who wants a fiefdom and a VP who operates in the shadows. Boy, am I glad we have a representative government!
Nuff said
The 78-year-old lawyer who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident has some birdshot lodged in his heart and he had a "minor heart attack," a hospital official said Tuesday. (AP)
Bush SOTU failure
Go to mysterypollster today for indepth analysis of Bush's SOTU failure. Failure in that it didn't give him any traction amongst the electorate. It's not hard to figure out why:
1) People know Bush, either you like him or you don't.
2) There was nothing to indicate that he will change, ever.
3) It's still going to be a hard, long slog in Iraq.
4) Energy independence? yeah right.
5) Every word is draped with cliche and derision.
So in the end, despite previous presidents getting some benefit from their respective SOTU's, Bush is once again making presidential history.
1) People know Bush, either you like him or you don't.
2) There was nothing to indicate that he will change, ever.
3) It's still going to be a hard, long slog in Iraq.
4) Energy independence? yeah right.
5) Every word is draped with cliche and derision.
So in the end, despite previous presidents getting some benefit from their respective SOTU's, Bush is once again making presidential history.
Beat those drums
Today we get this from Marshall Whittman (aka Bull Moose):
The story of the day that should have been the talk of the nation, and indeed the world was the one that hardly received a mention - it was buried in the back pages - Iran is one step closer to possessing a nuclear weapon. The Washington Post,"PARIS, Feb. 13 -- Iran reportedly has begun small-scale uranium enrichment, an initial step in the long process toward making civilian fuel or nuclear weapons, according to Western diplomats pushing for international action against Tehran."
The world will soon forget the Cheney hunting accident. Unfortunately, the Iranian Hitler making steady and uninterrupted progress toward the objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon which may long influence world history. However, it is perhaps asking too much of the media to focus on the fact that a terrorist state once again defied civilized nations in its effort to obtain weapons to intimidate the West and perhaps eliminate a nation.The Moose is not a press-basher - they generally do their difficult job well. But lately, they have mostly abdicated their responsibility.
Out of intimidation or political correctness, they have succumbed to the mob and refused to publish the cartoons that are the center of an international controversy. And yesterday, they missed the big story because they were in a narcissistic snit as the result of being stiffed..But, the Iranians hope to stiff the world - and that rogue nation came a step closer to make that a reality but hardly anyone would know.
Whittman is one of a growing number of neocons who have infiltrated the DLC from within. He, like Lieberman, Byah and Clinton (Hillary) believe in spreading democracy first, preparing the homeland against attack second. Iran's president is Hitleresque because he is trying to build nuclear weapons and also we just don't like him that much. Therefore, we must attack, even though our forces are stretched to the limit in another Arab country. Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and sanctioned genocide, let me know if this Iranian nutcase gets to that point.
The story of the day that should have been the talk of the nation, and indeed the world was the one that hardly received a mention - it was buried in the back pages - Iran is one step closer to possessing a nuclear weapon. The Washington Post,"PARIS, Feb. 13 -- Iran reportedly has begun small-scale uranium enrichment, an initial step in the long process toward making civilian fuel or nuclear weapons, according to Western diplomats pushing for international action against Tehran."
The world will soon forget the Cheney hunting accident. Unfortunately, the Iranian Hitler making steady and uninterrupted progress toward the objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon which may long influence world history. However, it is perhaps asking too much of the media to focus on the fact that a terrorist state once again defied civilized nations in its effort to obtain weapons to intimidate the West and perhaps eliminate a nation.The Moose is not a press-basher - they generally do their difficult job well. But lately, they have mostly abdicated their responsibility.
Out of intimidation or political correctness, they have succumbed to the mob and refused to publish the cartoons that are the center of an international controversy. And yesterday, they missed the big story because they were in a narcissistic snit as the result of being stiffed..But, the Iranians hope to stiff the world - and that rogue nation came a step closer to make that a reality but hardly anyone would know.
Whittman is one of a growing number of neocons who have infiltrated the DLC from within. He, like Lieberman, Byah and Clinton (Hillary) believe in spreading democracy first, preparing the homeland against attack second. Iran's president is Hitleresque because he is trying to build nuclear weapons and also we just don't like him that much. Therefore, we must attack, even though our forces are stretched to the limit in another Arab country. Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and sanctioned genocide, let me know if this Iranian nutcase gets to that point.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Tax cuts and you
The Onion gets the word on the street.
Best one: Mary Ann Rose - Line Producer, when asked about Bush's tax cuts:
"This could potentially leave a huge deficit for my children and grandchildren, which is perfect revenge for them not visiting me."
Best one: Mary Ann Rose - Line Producer, when asked about Bush's tax cuts:
"This could potentially leave a huge deficit for my children and grandchildren, which is perfect revenge for them not visiting me."
Consistency
I know this goes against my best judgement, but I'm watching Chris Matthews right now and I see him tear out of the gate with this Cheney story furious at Cheney's decision to not inform the world till 24 hours after the incident, he has monkey brow David Gregory on and shows the press conference today with McClellan, yada yada yada.
Then, he switches to fawning mode with former senator Allan Simpson from the great quail hunting state of Wyoming. Matthews needs to find out just how this hunting business works. Simpson proceeds to blame the person who got shot by not letting the second most powerful person in the world he wasn't a quail.
So, we go from well deserved anger to fawning curiosity. This guy has got to be bipolar or something.
Then, he switches to fawning mode with former senator Allan Simpson from the great quail hunting state of Wyoming. Matthews needs to find out just how this hunting business works. Simpson proceeds to blame the person who got shot by not letting the second most powerful person in the world he wasn't a quail.
So, we go from well deserved anger to fawning curiosity. This guy has got to be bipolar or something.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Friday, February 10, 2006
Thanks NAFTA
The U.S. trade deficit soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion in 2005, pushed upward by record imports of oil, food, cars and other consumer goods. The deficit with China hit an all-time high as did America’s deficits with Japan, Europe, OPEC, Canada, Mexico and South and Central America.
The Commerce Department reported Friday that the gap between what America sells abroad and what it imports rose to $725.8 billion last year, up by 17.5 percent from the previous record of $617.6 billion set in 2004.
It marked the fourth consecutive year that America’s trade deficit has set a record and was certain to spark increased debate in Congress over President Bush’s trade policies. Since mid-2000 the country has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs and Democrats blame the administration’s policy of emphasizing free trade agreements.
Any one of these countries can demand payment at any time.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Cartoon Schmartoon
"The right to offend comes with consequent rights and responsibilities: People must also have the right to be offended, and those bold enough to knowingly cause offense should be bold enough to weather the consequences, so long as the aggrieved act within the law." Robert Young in the Nation, more here.
Clinton denial
Robert Samuelson's piece in the Washington Post about Clinton and the economy is thoroughly eviscerated here.
Can we really say we prefer the taxcut and spend policies of Bush? Do we really enjoy exploding deficits of which payment will be placed squarely on the back of future generations?
I know, I know we shouldn't be worried about our massive trade deficit when we have a WOT to win and an Iraqi infrastructure to ruin but just let me vent. More later.
Can we really say we prefer the taxcut and spend policies of Bush? Do we really enjoy exploding deficits of which payment will be placed squarely on the back of future generations?
I know, I know we shouldn't be worried about our massive trade deficit when we have a WOT to win and an Iraqi infrastructure to ruin but just let me vent. More later.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
King funeral
Already the pile on begins in regards to the King funeral yesterday, i'm sure there is a ton more to wade through on the righty blogs.
Didn't watch the whole event. However, I did see Clinton once again prove he is a master at lifting an event and its meaning. The "Rev" could have thrown out the WMD and still his comments would have been just as effective. Then again, when you are the POTUS taking responsibility for your decisions is part of the job and for actually showing up Bush deserves some credit.
Didn't watch the whole event. However, I did see Clinton once again prove he is a master at lifting an event and its meaning. The "Rev" could have thrown out the WMD and still his comments would have been just as effective. Then again, when you are the POTUS taking responsibility for your decisions is part of the job and for actually showing up Bush deserves some credit.
the only one
This man is the only one who can reclaim traditional populist values back from the current gilded, confused Democratic party.
Can you imagine him giving this as an acceptance speech?
Can you imagine him giving this as an acceptance speech?
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Ok, now i'm going to lose it
Bush's budget also assumes $43 billion in various fee increases over five years, including many that Congress has rejected in the past. Among these are higher charges for soldiers, veterans, air travelers and pensions. Higher aviation security fees would raise $9.7 billion over five years, and veterans would face $6.8 billion in new fees on medical care. (quote taken from DailyKos)
Wonder if this is what the neocons envisioned.
Wonder if this is what the neocons envisioned.
thanks for your service, now go to hell
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritional food packages for less than $20 a month to more than 400,000 low-income elderly people, one-third of whom are over age 75. (courtesy Mother Jones)
One of the programs gutted in the budget. These people most likely served their country at one point in the war to stop the spread of facism, remember that one? WWII?
We're spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq but we are now going to deny grandparents food supplementals. The cable talking heads should be all over this one, where's Bill "the little guy" O'Reilly?
One of the programs gutted in the budget. These people most likely served their country at one point in the war to stop the spread of facism, remember that one? WWII?
We're spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq but we are now going to deny grandparents food supplementals. The cable talking heads should be all over this one, where's Bill "the little guy" O'Reilly?
name that senator
"It is scandalous to provide insufficient funding for our nation’s two greatest capital investments, health and education." (Congressional Quarterly)
Kennedy? Kerry? Clinton? Nope, it's Arlen Spector, chameleon.
The president's budget is a punishing display of disregard for the vulnerable. Medicare, education and programs that regular people use are sacrificed at the altar of Iraq. When are budgets going to reflect the priorities of the american people?
Kennedy? Kerry? Clinton? Nope, it's Arlen Spector, chameleon.
The president's budget is a punishing display of disregard for the vulnerable. Medicare, education and programs that regular people use are sacrificed at the altar of Iraq. When are budgets going to reflect the priorities of the american people?
Monday, February 06, 2006
the no harm, no foul defense
Chris Matthews just used a rhetorical defense of the NSA program. His view is since no one has come forward to complain about being spied on, then "no harm, no foul."
Matthews is as elastic as a rubber band.
Matthews is as elastic as a rubber band.
President Feingold
What do you get when you take the only senator to vote against the excessive Patriot Act, throw in a remarkable performance at both the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings and questions that need to be asked of our pro torture Attorney General?
You get the next President of the United States.
You get the next President of the United States.
what is the point?
The hearings have begun and already they are useless. Gonzales isn't even under oath, so anything he says will be besides the point. For example:
"Yes Senator, the president feels he has the right to smash childrens eyeballs in a time of war and no one can stop him." This fake quote was based on an actual question posed to John Yoo to which Yoo responded in a similar way.
And guess what? party line vote, all the GOPers voted against having him testify under oath.
"Yes Senator, the president feels he has the right to smash childrens eyeballs in a time of war and no one can stop him." This fake quote was based on an actual question posed to John Yoo to which Yoo responded in a similar way.
And guess what? party line vote, all the GOPers voted against having him testify under oath.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
settled
Remember the whole spin about Plame not being covert at the time she was outed?
The CIA says otherwise.
The CIA says otherwise.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Bush as orator
In his latest piece for the Atlantic, Jim Fallows seems to lay out the GOP line of attack come this fall in this analysis of the President's SOTU:
My guess is that George Bush's suddenly-revived Wilsonian tone reflects his Administration's long-standing belief that it does best when playing offense. Apologize for the NSA program, or try to explain it away? Hell no! Make the people who question it apologize for their laxness about American security!
My gut instict tells me this will work for the GOP. The public is unhappy but they will cling to the idea that somehow this president is still up to the job of protecting them and that like in 2004 will be the clincher. Which is why, the Dems need to push way out front the likes of John Murtha, someone who can articulate much like Bush does what we truly need to be doing when it comes to Iraq and terrorism. The Kaine approach is not working.
My guess is that George Bush's suddenly-revived Wilsonian tone reflects his Administration's long-standing belief that it does best when playing offense. Apologize for the NSA program, or try to explain it away? Hell no! Make the people who question it apologize for their laxness about American security!
My gut instict tells me this will work for the GOP. The public is unhappy but they will cling to the idea that somehow this president is still up to the job of protecting them and that like in 2004 will be the clincher. Which is why, the Dems need to push way out front the likes of John Murtha, someone who can articulate much like Bush does what we truly need to be doing when it comes to Iraq and terrorism. The Kaine approach is not working.
Murtha sets the stakes
In the end, there‘s only two solutions. One is, you either stick with the president—which is not a policy, it‘s open-ended—or you take my policy which is redeploy and reduce the expenditures there and start spending on that war against terrorism. (Murtha on Hardball)
That about sums it up. This is what will differentiate both parties going into 2006 and beyond.
That about sums it up. This is what will differentiate both parties going into 2006 and beyond.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
how to conduct a war - Bush style
Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]". (from the Guardian in UK)
My bolding. Nah, we don't need any investigations into prewar intelligence surrounding the first preemptive war in american history.
My bolding. Nah, we don't need any investigations into prewar intelligence surrounding the first preemptive war in american history.
the response that wasnt
My kingdom for a president like this man: (tip: Huffpost or Yahoo)
Wednesday February 1, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.
Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.
Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda's worldwide network.
There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.
Redeploy
The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.
The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq's democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq's National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it... The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."
In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country's top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%. The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.
Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.
Replace
The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.
The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."
Restoring the world's confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.
A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.
Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.
Reallocate
The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.
Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.
In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.
Reconstitute
The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today's asymmetric battlefield.
Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.
Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.
Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."
But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.
I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.
During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.
Sincerely,
JOHN P. MURTHAMember of Congress
Wednesday February 1, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.
Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.
Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda's worldwide network.
There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.
Redeploy
The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.
The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq's democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq's National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it... The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."
In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country's top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%. The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.
Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.
Replace
The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.
The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."
Restoring the world's confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.
A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.
Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.
Reallocate
The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.
Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.
In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.
Reconstitute
The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today's asymmetric battlefield.
Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.
Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.
Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."
But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.
I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.
During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.
Sincerely,
JOHN P. MURTHAMember of Congress
shocker
"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally." (tip: Washington Monthly)
Didn't see that one coming did you?
Didn't see that one coming did you?
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
end neoconservatism
"Neoconservatives see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. Like teenagers, they act on impulse and rail against the counsel of experience. "Often clever, never wise," Russell Kirk said of the breed."
from Buchanan's site americancause.
On a related note, Americanlogic has discovered a lonely neocon clinging to memories of 9/11.
from Buchanan's site americancause.
On a related note, Americanlogic has discovered a lonely neocon clinging to memories of 9/11.