Posts
I could not pass this up!
This following bit of humor comes from the fine folks at WhiteHouse.org Click the link and read the letter from Bush to the new Democratic leaders.
Be INFORMED
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Israel Influencing A U.S. War With Iran
Is Israel trying to push the Democrats into war with Iran?
This article from AntiWar.com seems to suggest so. It makes for some very enlightening reading. The article is here!
The Records That Bushco Now Hides From Us
Once upon a time in a free country that was called the United Sates, it's citizens could access almost all of the information that it wanted about government officials,government statistics and various other info.
Once upon a time the citizens of this once free society could even view the presidential records after a period of time. We citizens could even view the White house visitor records if we wanted to .
But then the stupid, blind, ignorant population of America elected (?) a dictator in 2000 and in 2004. This evil dictator would have no morals what so ever but he would pass himself off as a Christian to lock in the Christian vote and ideas. What a cruel, conniving little twit this man was/is!
To keep his loyal subjects from discovering how morally corrupt and crooked he and his posse where/are, he banished many records and reports to the land of 'disappear', never to be seen or read from his public.
In March of 2006, 'the decider' did away with the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).
This may seem like a rather wonky concern, but it’s important. The SIPP data help researchers identify which programs best assist low-income families. As the 400 scholars noted, SIPP “also tracks health insurance coverage, and provides more in-depth information than other government survey on work-family issues, such as maternity leave, child care, and child support.” The Carpetbagger Report
The Idiot in Chief also did away with the Annual Terror Report after the White House spin did not match the actual numbers.
Next up was the Bureau of Labor Statistics dropping their annual report on factory closings (mass layoffs).
The White House's Office of Management and Budget decided to discontinue its annual "Budget Information for States" , the primary federal document reporting how much states get under each federal program. In fiscal 2003, the report ran 422 pages. In 2002, it was 415 pages.
One more here. Charter School Data was severely curtailed after the data showed that charter schools weren't going so good as the Bush regime would have you think.
Of course, most of the reason's for this was because it would save money. Since when has the Bush Crime Family concerned itself with saving any money?
We all know the latest round of hide and seek from these bastards!
That would be closing off the White House Visitor Records.
So much to hide! This is the dictator that many of you voted for in 2004! Who's sorry now?
Dems Invoke Pay as You Go
In the second day with the House now under Democratic control, they took on new rules aimed at the deficit spending and more accountability when it comes to pork spending.
With the new rules in affect, the House is required to pay for any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending on the most expensive federal programs by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. WaPo for more!
The vote: 280 said 'yes',152 said 'no'
48 Republicans voted yes on the rules
Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition,"It's important that they passed a pay-go rule because they're setting a standard for themselves. This is a way of saying 'There's a new sheriff in town' and 'We're going to be fiscally responsible. But, now, they're going to have to figure out how to live up to that standard. And that's going to be pretty tough." The Story
Republicans Feeling Left Out
Thursday, January 04, 2007
WASHINGTON — In an historic vote lawmakers on Thursday formally named California Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker of the House, making her next in the presidential line of succession after the vice president.
House Republicans claimed they were being excluded from the legislative process while in the Senate the GOP leader offered pledges of cooperation from the newly-minted minority.
* * * *
Even when I am sleeping at night I can hear the Republicans crying about not being treated equally! They are excluded from the processes, yack, yack, yack!
John Boehner:"In 1994 when we took control of the House, 12 years ago, it wasn't that — we wanted to treat Democrats the way we had asked to be treated. And, frankly, that's what we did. What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would like to have been treated" More from FoxNews
Can you just feel the love? I am wondering what planet or drug Mr. Boehner has been on for the past six years! I do not see how this man could make such a statement and keep a straight face at the same time.
For my own part though, I think that the Democrats should treat the GOP just exactly in the same manner as they were treated for the past 12.
The voters put the Democrats in the majority to get things done and to slow down that screw-up in the White House and if the Republicans can not handle the fact that they have no real say-so in matters, resign and then go the hell home!
Nobody cares about your infantile crying and moaning! Leave the adults alone and let the real Americans do their job! The GOP had their chance and couldn't do anything because they were to damned busy lining their own pockets. Now, Get the fuck out of the way!
Technorati tags: Republicans
Friday, January 05, 2007
Dems Send A Letter To Mr. Bush
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California have just sent a letter to Mr. Bush.
Here is the Text of the letter courtesy of the New York Times
January 5, 2007
President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.
The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.
Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:
“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.
Sincerely,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
* * * *
I wonder if Mr. Bush will take the time to have someone read it to him?
Technorati tags: Dems.Bush.
Bush Slaps Down Two Generals
Our dictator in waiting is canning a couple of generals who do not agree with his idea of sending more of our troops into Iraq.
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - January 4,2006
President Bush is shaking up the team responsible for carrying out his military and diplomatic strategies in
Iraq as he prepares to outline a new direction for the war that has raged for nearly four years.
Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday. A revamping of the administration's national security team was already under way.
More here from the Associated Press
* * * *
This piece of trash never ceases to amaze me! What do the citizens of this country have to do to get the message into his thick scull that we do not want more of our people going to Iraq?
Does this moron not realize that he and the rest of the GOP lost back in November because of Iraq? I guess the fact that the majority of the American people do not want more of us in Iraq does not mean anything to Mr. Bush. The citizens of this country apparently do not matter when it comes to their opinions or anything else for that matter!
IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH this asshole and then PROSECUTE him for the crimes against this country and others which he has committed!
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The Surge to Nowhere: Traveling the Planet Neocon Road to Baghdad (Again)
I put his following article up because it generally shares my feeling about the Asshole in Chief up in the White House.
It conveys the message in a much nicer way than I can, so please read it.
* * * *
The Surge to Nowhere: Traveling the Planet Neocon Road to Baghdad (Again)
By Robert Dreyfuss TomDispatch.com
Thursday 04 January 2007
Like some neocon Wizard of Oz, in building expectations for the 2007 version of his "Strategy for Victory" in Iraq, President Bush is promising far more than he can deliver. It is now nearly two months since he fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, installing Robert Gates in his place, and the White House revealed that a full-scale review of America's failed policy in Iraq was underway. Last week, having spent months -- if, in fact, the New York Times is correct that the review began late in the summer -- consulting with generals, politicians, State Department and CIA bureaucrats, and Pentagon planners, Bush emerged from yet another powwow to tell waiting reporters: "We've got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan."
As John Lennon sang in Revolution: "We'd all love to see the plan."
Unfortunately for Bush, most of the American public may have already checked out. By and large, Americans have given up on the war in Iraq. The November election, largely a referendum on the war, was a repudiation of the entire effort, and the vote itself was a marker along a continuing path of rapidly declining approval ratings both for President Bush personally and for his handling of the war. It's entirely possible that when Bush does present us with "the plan" next week, few will be listening. Until he makes it clear that he has returned from Planet Neocon by announcing concrete steps to end the war in Iraq, it's unlikely that American voters will tune in. As of January 1, every American could find at least 3,000 reasons not to believe that President Bush has suddenly found a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
What's astonishing about the debate over Iraq is that the President -- or anyone else, for that matter, including the media -- is paying the slightest attention to the neoconservative strategists who got us into this mess in the first place. Having been egregiously wrong about every single Iraqi thing for five consecutive years, by all rights the neocons ought to be consigned to some dusty basement exhibit hall in the American Museum of Natural History, where, like so many triceratops, their reassembled bones would stand mutely by to send a chill of fear through touring schoolchildren. Indeed, the neocons are the dodos of Washington, simply too dumb to know when they are extinct.
Yet here is Tom Donnelly, an American Enterprise Institute neocon, a co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century, telling a reporter sagely that the surge is in. "I think the debate is really coming down to: Surge large. Surge small. Surge short. Surge longer. I think the smart money would say that the range of options is fairly narrow." (Donnelly, of course, forgot: Surge out.) His colleague, Frederick Kagan of AEI, the chief architect of the Surge Theory for Iraq, has made it clear that the only kind of surge that would work is a big, fat one.
Nearly pornographic in his fondling of the surge, Kagan, another of the neocon crew of armchair strategists and militarists, makes it clear that size does matter. "Of all the ‘surge' options out there, short ones are the most dangerous," he wrote in the Washington Post last week, adding lasciviously, "The size of the surge matters as much as the length. … The only ‘surge' option that makes sense is both long and large."
Ooh -- that is, indeed, a manly surge. For Kagan, a man-sized surge must involve at least 30,000 more troops funneled into the killing grounds of Baghdad and al-Anbar Province for at least 18 months.
President Bush, perhaps dizzy from the oedipal frenzy created by the emergence of Daddy's best friend James Baker and his Iraq Study Group, seems all too willing to prove his manhood by the size of the surge. According to a stunning front-page piece in the Times last Tuesday, Bush has all but dismissed the advice of his generals, including Centcom Commander John Abizaid, and George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, because they are "more fixated on withdrawal than victory." At a recent Pentagon session, according to General James T. Conway, the commandant of the U.S. Marines, Bush told the assembled brass: "What I want to hear from you now is how we are going to win, not how we are going to leave." As a result, Abizaid and Casey are, it appears, getting the same hurry-up-and-retire treatment that swept away other generals who questioned the wisdom on Iraq transmitted from Planet Neocon.
That's scary, if it means that Bush -- presumably on the advice of the Neocon-in-Chief, Vice President Dick Cheney -- has decided to launch a major push, Kagan-style, for victory in Iraq. Not that such an escalation has a chance of working, but there's no question that, in addition to bankrupting the United States, breaking the army and the Marines, and unleashing all-out political warfare at home, it would kill perhaps tens of thousands more Iraqis.
Personally, I'm not convinced that Bush could get away with it politically. Not only is the public dead-set against escalating the war, but there are hints that Congress might not stand for it, and the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces is opposed.
Over the past few days, a swarm of Republican senators has come out against the surge, including at least three Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 in states that make them vulnerable: Gordon Smith of Oregon, whose remarkable speech calling the war "criminal" went far beyond the normal bland rhetoric of discourse in the U.S. capital, along with John Sununu of New Hampshire and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In addition, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, less vulnerable but still facing voters in 2008, has questioned the surge idea. And a host of Republican moderates -- Chuck Hagel (NE), Dick Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME) -- have lambasted it. (Hagel told Robert Novak: "It's Alice in Wonderland. I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.") Even Sam Brownback, one of the Senate godfathers of the neocon-backed Iraqi National Congress, has expressed skepticism, saying: "We can't impose a military solution." According to Novak, only 12 of the 49 Republican senators are now willing to back Sen. John McCain's blood-curdling cries for sending in more troops.
Meanwhile, says Novak, the Democrats would not only criticize the idea of a surge but, led by Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, might use their crucial power over the purse. "Biden," writes Novak, "will lead the rest of the Democrats not only to oppose a surge but to block it." Reports the Financial Times of London: "Democrats have hinted that they could use their control over the budget process to make life difficult for the Bush administration if it chooses to step up the military presence in Iraq." A Kagan-style surge would require a vast new commitment of funds, and with their ability to scrutinize, put conditions on, and even strike out entire line items in the military budget and the Pentagon's supplemental requests, the Democrats could find ways to stall or halt the "surge," if not the war itself.
Indeed, if President Bush opts to Kaganize the war, he will throw down the gauntlet to the Democrats. Unwilling until now to say that they would even consider blocking appropriations for the Iraq War, the Democrats would have little choice but to up the ante if Bush flouts the electoral mandate in such a full-frontal manner. By escalating the war in the face of near-universal opposition from the public, the military, and the political class, the president would force the Democrats to escalate their own -- until now fairly mild-mannered -- opposition to the war.
However, it's possible -- just possible -- that what the President is planning to announce will be something a bit more Machiavellian than the straightforwardly manly thrust Kagan wants. Perhaps, just perhaps, he will order an increase of something like 20,000 American troops, but put a tight time limit on this surge -- say, four months. Perhaps he will announce that he is giving Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that much time to square the circle in Iraq: crack down on militias and death squads, purge the army and police, develop a plan to fight the Sunni insurgency, find a formula to deal with the Kurds and the explosive, oil-rich city of Kirkuk which they claim as their own, un-de-Baathify Iraq, and create a workable formula for sharing the fracturing country's oil wealth.
By surging those 20,000 troops into a hopeless military nowhere-land, Bush will say that he is giving Maliki room to accomplish all that -- knowing full well that none of it can, in fact, be accomplished by the weak, sectarian, Shiite-run regime inside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. So, sometime in the late spring, the United States could begin to un-surge its troops and start the sort of orderly, phased withdrawal that Jim Baker and the Carl Levin Democrats have called for.
Levin suggested as much as 2006 ended. "A surge which is not part of an overall program of troop reduction that begins in the next four to six months would be a mistake," said Levin, who will chair the Armed Services Committee. "Even if the president is going to propose to temporarily add troops, he should make that conditional on the Iraqis reaching a political settlement that effectively ends the sectarian violence."
That may be too much to ask for a Christian-crusader President, still lodged inside a bubble universe and determined to crush all evil-doers. And it may be too clever by half for an administration that has been as utterly inept as this one.
At the same time, it may also be too much to expect that the Democrats will really go to the mat to fight Bush if, Kagan-style, he orders a surge that is "long and large." Maybe they will merely posture and fulminate and threaten to… well, hold hearings.
If so, it will be the Iraqis who end the war. It will be the Iraqis who eventually kill enough Americans to break the U.S. political will, and it will be the Iraqis who sweep away the ruins of the Maliki government to replace it with an anti-American, anti-U.S.- occupation government in Iraq. That is basically how the war in Vietnam ended, and it wasn't pretty.
Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. He covers national security for Rolling Stone and writes frequently for The American Prospect, Mother Jones, and the Nation. He is also a regular contributor to TomPaine.com, the Huffington Post, Tomdispatch, and other sites, and writes the blog, The Dreyfuss Report, at his website.
Cheney Loses His Office
Poor VP Cheney has been booted from his office at the Capitol by Rep. Charles Rangel!
"Ways and Means Committee" is already painted on the door so I guess that VP Cheney will have to find another hangout. My, how my heart bleeds for the scum!
I wonder if Rep. Rangel by any chance was armed with a warrant to search before tossing? Wishful thinking, I know.
From the New York Post :
By GEOFF EARLE and IAN BISHOP Post Correspondents
January 4, 2007
Sources said Cheney's and his staff's belongings were removed over the holidays.
The new digs give Rangel some of the choicest and most politically central real estate in all of Washington - as well as a measure of sweet revenge.
Rangel moved at lightning speed to boot the man he once told The Post is a "son of a bitch." More Here
The Empire Now Reads Our Mail
That wanna-be somebody who will never be anybody has been up to no good once again!
The New York Daily News has reported that Bush has given himself more new powers to open the citizen's of the United States mail without a warrant.
* * * *
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAUThe President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
* * * *
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said,"Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant."
It is worth noting that Mr.Waxman co-sponsored this bill.
Harriet Miers Resigns
Harriet Miers, White house counsel, has submitted her resignation effective January 31.
Tony Snow, when he was asked why she was leaving said,"Basically, she has been here six years. As somebody said earlier today, 'She put 12 years of service into six years.'"
Snow also said that she was a scrupulous lawyer who aggressively defended the Constitution.
More From DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
* * * *
So she aggressively defended the constitution? Which version of the constitution was that, the U.S. version or the Bushco version?
I would go so far as to say that she more than likely helped Bush find a way around the constitution that is not quite right (legal).
Good riddance to this woman! Now it remains to be soon who her successor will be. I'll wager that whoever it is will have even less morals!
Technorati tags: Harriet Miers, Snow
A Few Democrats Go Along With Troop Increase
You have heard over the past week or so that a few Democrats would maybe go along with a short term troop increase in Iraq.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but did we not elect you people to help to get us out of Iraq? The American people did not elect the Democrats to help the Bush Crime Family kill even more of our citizens and to line their pockets at our troops expense!
You few Democrats that would go along with the new Bush plan had best keep in mind that if you support such an idea, that we will make your short time in office miserable!
The almost only sure-fire way to get our troops back from Iraq is to reducing military financing. Everyone claims that this will harm our troops in Iraq but this is not the case. All it does is stop our elected (?)Idiot in Chief from sending more people to Iraq and less caskets home from Iraq. Without the money to spend, Bush would have to pull out or either find another way around the cap.
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IND.) on the increase in troops said,“might lead to a temporary abatement to the violence, but will only postpone the ultimate day of reckoning.
This problem is not going to be solved in Washington by the president of the United States; it can only be resolved by Iraqis.” NYTimes
'Minority Bill Of Rights' for The GOP?
You know that the Repugnicans are scared shitless when they now want to enact the 'minority bill of rights' that they would not even look at when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) want it enacted back in 2004.
In fact, back in 2004, Dennis Hastert (R-ILL.) would not even respond to the letter from Pelosi. Hastert was then the GOP speaker of the House.
This is just another one of the GOP scams to pretty much tie up legislation and hold the Democrats in check until the 2008 elections are here.
Hey GOP! You are the minority now, get over it. Fairness? Since when has that been a word in the GOP vocabulary? The GOP has shut out not only the Democrats when it came to any kind of debate or opinion on bills and what have you, but they also have shut out the American people as well! They still continue to do so.
Suggestion. Take your little cry-baby asses back into the corners that you crawled out of and shut the hell up!! Don't make us put you in 'timeout'.
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats should not even consider going for this piece of garbage at this point in time or any other time.
Technorati tags: GOP, Nancy Pelosi
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
A 'Surge' To Save Bush's Legacy
By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted January 3, 2007.
But Bush declared that U.S. forces would "stay in Iraq to get the job done," adding "this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever."
During a classified briefing at the Pentagon in December, Bush then reportedly made clear to the brass that he had no interest in finding a way out of Iraq. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine commandant, described Bush’s message as: "What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win, not how we're going to leave." More Here
* * * *
So, Mr. Bush will approve the addition of 17,000 to 20,000 more troops to Iraq if the press is correct in its reporting!
Has this shit for brains and his co-conspirators gotten so power hungry and greedy that they would risk even more of our people getting killed in Iraq just so that they can line their pockets with even more cash? It seems as if the answer is, YES!
Bush could care less about winning this so called war of his. He is out now to save his legacy. To make himself look as if he knew what he was doing all along. This idiot could not run one of his own businesses without having to be bailed out by daddy and friends so what made him think that he could win a war that isn't even a right war in the first place?
This is the Bush dynasty at work! Throughout the years, war has been very profitable for the Bushco Crime Family. In fact, it goes all of the way back to financing Hitler!
The citizens of the United States cannot allow this 'menace to society' to continue to send our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and friends and neighbors into Iraq just for this presidents ego and for his family's profit!
Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party have to knock off the bi- partisan bullshit and deal with this punk as he is, a criminal. Investigate his sorry ass and then impeach his sorry ass! Then, put his sorry ass on trial in the World Court and let him suffer the consequences of his actions!
Bush Wants Democrats to Help Balance The Budget?
If this so-called president has an I.Q. over 1, then my name is Jesus!
According to the A.P. , Bush wants the Democrats to help him balance the budget within 5 years and to cut pork projects from future spending bills!
House Budget committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C.:
"We welcome the president's newfound commitment to a balanced budget, but his comments make us wary. They suggest that his budget will still embody the policies that led to the largest deficits in history." More
You may need to refresh my memory just a little bit. Was it and/or is it not Mr.Bush and his band of thieves who raided the treasury and gave us the biggest deficit in history in the first place?
Was it not the $7 billion in oil drilling royalties that this administration has thus far refused to collect from the oil companies that helped our deficit soar higher and higher?
I will not even mention that over priced, less than five months, war that we are stuck in over in Iraq! Nor the tax breaks that the corporate friends of this administration are handed on a silver platter!
I won't even mention companies such as Halliburton that gouge the American taxpayer out of $49 for a case of Coke or Pepsi!
The list goes on and on with this immoral, corrupt administration.
Pork projects? Look no further than the pigs who sit up in the White House! then look at the rest of the little GOP piglets who have tried their best to bankrupt this country because of their greed!
If you want a balanced budget Mr. Bush, resign! Then and only then, will the budget have a chance to be balanced!
Iraq War Lie Detector Test
By Dean Baker
Truthout Columnist
Tuesday 02 January 2007
There has been no shortage of deceptions surrounding the prosecution of the Iraq War, beginning with the original justification - Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, supporters of the war continue to use deception to advance their agenda. The latest lie is that Congress doesn't have the ability to end the war, because if they cut off funding they would jeopardize the safety of our troops.
I will explain in a moment why this is completely untrue, but I first want to call attention to the "hide behind the troops" mode of argument. From the beginning, supporters of the war have regularly insisted that they support our troops, implying that opponents of President Bush's agenda want to see our troops harmed.
The argument over the conduct of the war is with President Bush, his advisors and his supporters in Congress. It is not an argument against the troops. It is an incredible act of cowardice for anyone to try to justify pursuing the war as somehow based on supporting our troops. It has absolutely nothing to do with supporting our troops. The troops are doing what President Bush ordered them to do - they are not the ones who decided to go to war in Iraq. If supporters of the war felt that they had an honest case, they would not feel the need to hide behind the troops to push their agenda.
The latest version of the "hide behind the troops" mode of argument is to claim that Congress lacks the ability to end the war. The story goes that President Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, and that if he does not want to end the war, then Congress cannot force his hand. According to this argument, if Congress were to use its control of the budget to restrict funding, it would jeopardize our troops stationed in Iraq by denying them the supplies and ammunition needed to defend themselves.
This argument is garbage. Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military.
President Bush would then have the funding required to safely withdraw our troops from Iraq. He would not have the money to continue his war. If he chose to defy Congress by misusing the funds (and thereby jeopardizing the lives of our troops), then the law provides a simple and obvious remedy: Impeachment. While it is possible that Bush would choose to violate the law, jeopardizing both the lives of our troops and his presidency, it is reasonable to assume that he would comply with the law and not exceed his authority as president.
Reasonable arguments could be made that this sort of decisive measure from Congress is not desirable. It could be argued that allowing President Bush more discretion in the conduct of the war would be the better route. But it is important to understand that Congress does have the authority to shut down the war without abandoning our troops. If Congress does not pursue this option, then it is because it has chosen not to. President Bush cannot continue to wage a war in Iraq if Congress is really determined to stop him.
Congress should have a real debate over how best to bring the war to an end. And, the supporters of the war should not be allowed to hide behind our troops.
Pat Robertson's Prediction for 2007
Pat Robertson told the blind sheep who still watch him on "The 700 Club" that God has told him that the United States will suffer a terrorist attack towards the end of 2007 that will result in "mass killing."
****
Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.
Robertson said God also told him that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward "national suicide."
In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction. AP
****
You have to love this fool just for his comic relief at times!
Technorati tags: Pat Robertson
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Tom Brokaw On Hussein's Execution
“[W]e portray ourselves around the world as the champions of democracy and the rule of law,” yet Hussein’s execution “resembled the worst kind of nightmare out of the old American West.” As a result, Hussein, who “had disappeared, in effect, as some kind of a symbol over there, suddenly becomes a martyr. Tom Brokaw speaking on Don Imus' radio show this morning. Watch it Here
Full Transcript
IMUS: Could we have a worse turn of events with the Saddam Hussein video and all that?
BROKAW: No, it’s — you know, as we portray ourselves around the world as the champions of democracy and the rule of law — first of all, that began to unravel in the eyes of a lot of people in that part of world with Abu Ghraib and the great cruelties and indignities that were imposed on people there. The debate goes on here about Guantanamo and about access to people’s private records. And then to say that we are going to install in Iraq a judicial system and a democratic form of government and have something that resembled the worst kind of nightmare out of the old American West. Not much dignity. He was, he was a god awful man and he did have a trial, but not have control of the execution, and to have it really just fuel more sectarian violence at a time when we are trying to dampen that is not helpful, which is an understatement.
IMUS: Well, I guess the New York Times reported and I was also talking to Richard about that the United States apparently unsuccessfully prevailed about Maliki to delay this.
BROKAW: Yep.
IMUS: I wonder, I wonder why he refused? I mean…
BROKAW: I honestly don’t know either. But Saddam Hussein who had disappeared, in effect, as some kind of a symbol over there, suddenly becomes a martyr. He was a terrible tyrant who was responsible for an untold number of deaths, you know, waged his own jihad against the Shiite in that country, especially in the south following Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, and now he’s able to stand up there with the hood off and invoke prayer and even invoke the Palestinians, and go out in the eyes of his people at least as a martyr.
IMUS: I mean, it’s difficult to imagine how this could have turned out worse.
BROKAW: No, it is pretty difficult to imagine, and it’s, you know, just as the military commanders and the political people who are trying to run the war think that they’ve got something quieted over in one front, it pops up in another.
Brokaw is right in the last paragraph. something else always seems to pop up when things get a little quieter in Iraq. This is not all do to the various factions which are bombing and killing. Alot of this is do to that idiot in the White House! Bush could care less about our troops over there fighting for their lives! Nor do I think that Bush wants this war to end! Bushco and friends are making to much money off of this to end it anytime soon.
In the near future you will understand why I say this. I am currently working on the history of the Bush family, gathering info from everywhere that I can find it. Some of what I have found thus far will shock many of you. But that is another story.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Quotes From Nancy Pelosi
You knew it was coming!
On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi will become the first woman speaker of the House in its history so I thought it appropriate to find some quotes made by her.
From BrainyQuote :
America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.
Nancy Pelosi
America will be far safer if we reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in one of our cities than if we diminish the civil liberties of our own people.
Nancy Pelosi
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Nancy Pelosi
We must remain focused on the greatest threat to the security of the United States, the clear and present danger of terrorism. We know what we must do to protect America, but this Administration is failing to meet the challenge. Democrats have a better way to ensure our homeland security.
Nancy Pelosi
IceRocket tags: Pelosi
The Skeletons In The Bush Family's Closet
This goes along with my previous posting on Hussein being a witness against the Bush dynasty.
It would take to much space to cover everything that dates back to when Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States and forward to our present day, so i have provided the links for the reader to go to.
This all comes from ConsortiumNews and is well worth reading.
Was Hussein A Witness Against Bush?
From ConsortiumNews comes this gem about what Hussein may have known about the Bushco Crime Family's goings on back in the 80's. This goes back to George's daddy for those of you who are to young to remember this era.
Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness
By Robert Parry
December 30, 2006
Like a blue-blood version of a Mob family with global reach, the Bushes have eliminated one more key witness to the important historical events that led the U.S. military into a bloody stalemate in Iraq and pushed the Middle East to the brink of calamity. The Story
The Rush to Hang Hussein
Many of us have been under the impression that the U.S. was responsible for the quick execution of Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times says that the Americans were questioning the timing and the manner of the execution. More Here
My 2006 Year In Review
Here is what I saw in the year of 2006 as far as our government goes!
As I do not know who owns these pics, I cannot give the credit to the rightful owner. If one of them is you, then please let me know.
Let's see what "The Decider" does to us in 2007!
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
Today's Washington Post has a piece on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama outlining their opposing views on such things as ethanol and tax increases, to name a few. More Here!
While looking over each's various voting records , it becomes apparent that they both would seem to have some stands on issues that could come back to haunt them in their respective runs for the democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
del.icio.us tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
Words and Phrases of 2006
The Global Language Monitor has come out with its list of the top words and phrases used the most during 2006.
"Stay the course," was the top catchphrase and "sustainable" was the top word.
"In 2006 the English Language grew ever more global with some 1,300,000,000 speakers using it as their first, second, business, or technical tongue. The List
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Minimum Wage Rate Up In North Carolina
The minimum wage ($5.15) in North Carolina will be going up to $6.15 an hour effective January 1st. This is good news to the 144,000 of workers who make the minimum wage at their jobs.
For tipped employees, the cash rate will go up from $2.13 per hour to $3.13 per hour.
Also beginning January 1st, Nevada's rate will increase from $5.15 per hour to $6.15 per hour. Nevada has a two-tiered system in place depending on whether the employee has insurance or not. More
Vermont weighs in with a wage rate hike going from $7.25 per hour to $7.53 per hour. Cash wage for tipped employees stays at $3.65 per hour.
It is a good thing that somebody's wages are going up in this country other than CEO's and politicians!
Someone in North Carolina made the statement that a family living on $6.15 an hour would get more out of their money if they learned how to budget. I'm sorry, but it is kind of difficult to do a budget on pay such as this. You have no budget because after food, clothing, rent and the other necessities that one needs, you have nothing to budget with!
If you want to make life a little easier for many people, jack that wage up by a few dollars and to hell with the corporations which are making money hand over fist and treating their people like dirt!
del.icio.us tags: Minimum Wage
What Do We Expect In 2007?
According to a recent poll done by the A.P., we see 2007 looking pretty gloomy.
Only a minority of people think the U.S. will go to war with
Iran or
North Korea over those countries' nuclear ambitions. An overwhelming majority of those surveyed think Congress will raise the federal minimum wage. One-third see hope for a cure to cancer.
Six in 10 people think the U.S. will be the victim of a terrorist attack. An identical percentage thinks it likely that a biological or nuclear weapon will be unleashed somewhere else in the world.
Seventy percent of people in the U.S. predict a major natural disaster in the country and an equal percentage expects worsening global warming. Also, 29 percent think it likely that the U.S. will withdraw its troops from
Iraq.Among other predictions for the U.S. in 2007:
_35 percent predict the military draft will be reinstated.
_35 percent predict a cure for cancer will be found.
_25 percent anticipate the second coming of Jesus Christ.
_19 percent think scientists are likely to find evidence of extraterrestrial life. > From the A.P.
Bush did say the he was in favor of raising the minimum wage but he also wants some protections for small business. You can read that as wanting some kind of tax cut! Let us not forget that we had no wage increase a little while back because Bush tried to wedge a few more breaks for the rich into the bill and he will no doubt try it again.
The Democrats are saying that the wage increase bill would be presented on its own. GO DEMS!!
3000 Troops Dead After Mission Accomplished
From Icasualties.org
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD:
2989
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation:
11
Total
3000
Latest Coalition Fatality: Dec 30, 2006
That is alot of families who will not be celebrating a whole hell of a lot in the coming New Year!
Warnings To Bush From Some Senators
As 2006 comes to a close we have a few simple words of warning to the idiot up in the White House.
The first one comes from Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) who made an appearance on Fox News Sunday with host Chris Wallace to talk about the crap in Iraq. Sen. Lugar pretty much told Bush that he might want to consider consulting with Congress on what he plans to do with the Iraqi situation. Here is the transcript from the show.
Next we have Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) on CNN's Late Edition Sunday.
GOP Sen. Specter: I'm Not Giving Bush A "Blank Check" For Troop Escalation...
Posted on December 31, 2006 at 8:42 AM. via Alternet
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) appeared with Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) on CNN's Late Edition Sunday morning to talk about the situation in Iraq and their recent trip to the Middle East. The senator's views did not line up on many issues, the most glaring of which was the debate over whether to have a troop escalation in Iraq, or whether to begin the withdrawal of troops.
Specter went "on the record" as saying he did not support escalation, he is "inclined to support the conclusions of Jim Baker", and he is "not going to give the President a blank check."
See the transcript and the video at The Huffington Post
Happy New Year!
Finally! 2006 is almost over! It has been one hell of a year for many of us, has it not?
We have an adult congress coming in to run the show in just a few short days! My hope is that 2007 will be a year of responsibility for our political employees and maybe some real healthcare for those in the U.S. who cannot afford any by their own means.
Maybe that punk in the White House will wise up and begin to bring our men and women home from the pit in Iraq!
I hope that everyone has a very great 2007 and that all of our lives improve in some way this year!
Have a safe New Years Eve celebration everyone!
Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
