"Hall of Shame: Mitch McConnell
"2007-09-27
"email this print this del.icio.us digg this rss feed
"Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell makes his second appearance in the Hall of Shame for putting George Bush above Kentucky children. Today McConnell voted against the bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization bill - a bill that will provide health insurance to millions of kids nationwide.
"Kentucky currently has 111,000 uninsured children and the proposed bill would cover almost half of those children. But President Bush staunchly opposes the legislation despite strong bipartisan support. So when Mitch McConnell was faced with choosing between President Bush and Kentucky's uninsured children who did he pick? George Bush.
"Perhaps even more baffling, McConnell sided with Bush despite the President's flawed rationale. As one columnist pointed out, "even conservative Senate Republicans such as Utah's Orrin Hatch and Iowa's Charles Grassley have complained that Bush's concerns are, to put it politely, overstated." Grassley also described the President's charges that the bill goes too far and covers children from wealthier families as "factually incorrect," while Hatch added, "We're talking about kids who basically don't have coverage… I think the president's had some pretty bad advice on this."
"Mitch McConnell has earned his second spot in the Hall of Shame for putting President Bush's partisan politics above the uninsured children of Kentucky. And with McConnell up for re-election in 2008, he just might find that Kentucky voters aren't willing to vote for a Senator who would rather rubber stamp George Bush than stand up for kids."
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Ten Candidates vie for McConnell Senate seat.
Ten candidates vie for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by "Mitch" McConnell. We are Andrew Horne, Bruce Lunsford, David L. Williams, David Wylie, Greg Fischer, James E. Rice, Kenneth Stepp, Michael Cassaro all in the Democratic Primary; and Daniel Essek and Mitch McConnell both in the Republican Primary.
Monday, January 28, 2008
BRING THEM HOME.
As a member of The American Legion, I get The American Legion magazine. In the February 2008 issue of The American Legion magazine is an article that explains that nearly a half-million U.S. military personnel are deployed today outside the U.S.
American military personnel are deployed as follows: Kyrgyzstan 1,000; Diego Garcia 240+; Singapore 116; Republic of Korea 27,114; Thailand 114; Japan 50,000; Philippines 111; Australia 711; Hawaii 35,874; Guam 2,828; Iraq 168,000; Egypt 425; Kuwait 16,500; Saudi Arabia 274; Afghanistan 24,800; United Arab Emirates 87+; Qatar 512; Bahrain 1,369; Greenland 138; United Kingdom 10,152; Germany 58, 894; Portugal 865; Spain 1,410; Belgium 1,379; Netherlands 562; Italy 10,216+; Bosnia-Herzegovina 207; Kosovo/Serbia 1,395; Czech Republic To Be Determined; Poland 200+; Turkey 1,668; Romania <900; Bulgaria <2,500; Greece 354; Djibouti 2,038; Other Africa 300+; Honduras 412; Cuba 903; Southern Command 5,000; Colombia 124+; Puerto Rico 144; Alaska 19,957; Canada 143; Continental United States 876,378; Afloat (personnel at sea or in temporary ports) 115,800+.
Isn't it strange how, with the Cold War over, the U.S. military just keeps growing and occupying more and more countries? After the British Empire collapsed, the British Colonial Office did the same thing, it just kept on growing. Bureaucracy has a life of its own, and it will continue to grow, regardless of whether the problem that it was created to solve is growing or shrinking. We have too many troops abroad in too many countries overseas. It is time to be bringing the American troops home. Sure, we need to keep a strong military and a strong navy, but it should be in proportion to any reasonable threat. We should have Senate hearings to determine how many people consider themselves enemies of the United States, and what size military and naval forces we need to protect our homeland against such people. Now that the Cold War is over, we should be bringing many American troops home, while retaining a strong military presence where our treaties obligate us to show a strong military presence.
American military personnel are deployed as follows: Kyrgyzstan 1,000; Diego Garcia 240+; Singapore 116; Republic of Korea 27,114; Thailand 114; Japan 50,000; Philippines 111; Australia 711; Hawaii 35,874; Guam 2,828; Iraq 168,000; Egypt 425; Kuwait 16,500; Saudi Arabia 274; Afghanistan 24,800; United Arab Emirates 87+; Qatar 512; Bahrain 1,369; Greenland 138; United Kingdom 10,152; Germany 58, 894; Portugal 865; Spain 1,410; Belgium 1,379; Netherlands 562; Italy 10,216+; Bosnia-Herzegovina 207; Kosovo/Serbia 1,395; Czech Republic To Be Determined; Poland 200+; Turkey 1,668; Romania <900; Bulgaria <2,500; Greece 354; Djibouti 2,038; Other Africa 300+; Honduras 412; Cuba 903; Southern Command 5,000; Colombia 124+; Puerto Rico 144; Alaska 19,957; Canada 143; Continental United States 876,378; Afloat (personnel at sea or in temporary ports) 115,800+.
Isn't it strange how, with the Cold War over, the U.S. military just keeps growing and occupying more and more countries? After the British Empire collapsed, the British Colonial Office did the same thing, it just kept on growing. Bureaucracy has a life of its own, and it will continue to grow, regardless of whether the problem that it was created to solve is growing or shrinking. We have too many troops abroad in too many countries overseas. It is time to be bringing the American troops home. Sure, we need to keep a strong military and a strong navy, but it should be in proportion to any reasonable threat. We should have Senate hearings to determine how many people consider themselves enemies of the United States, and what size military and naval forces we need to protect our homeland against such people. Now that the Cold War is over, we should be bringing many American troops home, while retaining a strong military presence where our treaties obligate us to show a strong military presence.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Flashback: Mitch McConnell praises George W. Bush.
setTitle("DSCC: Flashback: Mitch McConnell Praises Bush's State of the Union Speeches");
Flashback: Mitch McConnell Praises Bush's State of the Union Speeches
2008-01-25
Matthew Miller, DSCC
email this print this del.icio.us digg this rss feed
After Years of Glowing Praise, Will He Still Support Bush’s Failed Foreign, Domestic Policies?
When George Bush delivers his final State of the Union address on Monday, Kentuckians will be listening carefully to both the president’s speech and Mitch McConnell’s reaction. In years past, McConnell has praised Bush’s addresses, speaking glowingly of the foreign and domestic policies that have today resulted in U.S. troops caught in a civil war abroad and a slowing economy and a growing housing crisis at home.
“For years, Mitch McConnell applauded as Bush announced policies that have led to foreign policy disasters abroad and a slowing economy at home,” DSCC spokesman Matthew Miller said. “When Bush lays out his plans for his final year in office, Kentuckians will be watching Mitch McConnell to see if he continues to endorse Bush’s failed policies or if he will finally start listening to them instead.”
FLASHBACK:
2002: McConnell: Bush Exceeded the High Expectations for SOTU in 2002, Honored to Work With Bush. In response to Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address McConnell said, “Expectations were high after President Bush's last address to Congress, and tonight he exceeded those very high expectations. I am honored to work with the president to win the war on terrorism and revitalize our economy. It's clear why the American people love this guy: He shoots straight, and his heart's in the right place.” [Gannet News Service, 1/30/02]
2004: McConnell: Bush Stated the “Obvious” War on Terror “Going Well” and “Economy Booming.” In response to Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address McConnell said, “He stated the obvious: The war on terror is going well and the economy is booming, and America is headed in the right direction on both fronts.” When asked if that sounded like a re-election slogan, he replied, “It does to me.” [Courier Journal, 1/21/04]
2005: McConnell Looked Forward to Helping Bush Achieve Goals Laid out in 2005 State of the Union. In response to Bush’s 2005 State of the Union address McConnell said, “President Bush did an outstanding job articulating his domestic and foreign policy goals for the next four years. He vowed to work with Congress to reform the government to ensure that our country is stronger and more secure for our children and grandchildren. As Majority Whip, I look forward to helping the President achieve these goals.” [McConnell Release, 2/2/05]
2006: McConnell: Bush Gave an Outstanding Speech Filled with Optimism. In response to Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address, McConnell said, “President Bush gave an outstanding speech tonight filled with optimism for the future and a determination to tackle the challenges that lie ahead. The President has led America through difficult times. Tonight he demonstrated he is still leading America, as he laid out a bold agenda to move our nation forward.” [McConnell Release, 1/31/06]
Friday, January 25, 2008
"Mitch" McConnell keeps warrantless wiretaps on American citizens.
MUCK HOME
"GOPers Block Amendments on Surveillance Bill, Debate Postponed Till Monday
"By Paul Kiel - January 24, 2008, 5:57PM
"OK, here's where things stand with the surveillance bill. There was just a flurry of activity on the Senate floor.
"After this morning's vote, where the judiciary committee's bill was killed by Republicans and a handful of Dems, a number of amendments were to be offered -- among them, the Dodd/Feingold bill that would strip retroactive immunity. But the Republicans objected to any of these from coming up for a vote under simple majority rules.
Finally, about twenty minutes ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) moved for a vote on cloture -- that would force an end to debate and trigger a simple majority vote on the underlying Senate intelligence committee version of the bill (which has retroactive immunity). To do that, he'll need 60 votes.
Reid objected to this, said that he would vote against it, and then postponed the vote until Monday. We'll get you Reid's remarks as soon as we have them.
Update: A rough transcript of Reid's remarks are below.
We want, if necessary, within the confines of the law, to do wiretapping of these bad people. But, Mr. President, Having said that we want to do it within the confines of our Law and our constitution. We want to make sure that this wiretapping does not include innocent Americans who just happen to be part of what they're collecting. That's what the American People expect us to do.
So I again say Mr. President, no one can question our patriotism, our willingness to keep our homeland safe. We have tried to move forward on this legislation. We have tried in many different ways. What we have been doing today and yesterday is moving forward on this legislation just as the distinguished Senator from California said. There are amendments that will make this legislation better. Now that's in the eye of the beholder. We all understand that. But shouldn't the Senate have the ability to vote on those amendments?
No matter what we do as a Senate it has to have a conference with the house. They have already passed their legislation. But we have been stalled every step of the way. Every step of the way, the Feingold Amendment, for example, was offered certainly it is germane. But he is being told, we're being told he can't get a vote on this amendment because it concerns the FISA court orders well, his amendment was discussed at length previously half of it was accepted on a bipartisan basis much the other half wasn't. But certainly he is entitled to a vote Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feingold and I don't want to embarrass him – he is really a legal scholar. He went to one of our highest Law Schools in the world, he is a Rhodes Scholar.
Senator Whitehouse has been Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island and is certainly, Mr. President, known all over the country as someone who understands the law. He has been a tremendously good person as a member of the United States Senate. He served on both committees – the intelligence committee on the Judiciary Committee. He is a thoughtful person. The legislation that came out of the intelligence committee should be improved and as a pen of the judiciary committee he worked to have that improved. He offered an amendment a short time ago, sough to offer an amendment, a major main amendment concerning – a germane amendment concerning minimization which means if you pick up by mistake an American you drop that you push that out of the way that isn't going to be made public in any manner we want to vote on that. It seems everyone would vote for it. I would certainly hope it is but there is an objection to even having a vote on that amendment. Senator Cardin, along time member of the congress relatively new member of the senate but a long time experience member of the congress of the United States sought to offer an amendment, a germane amendment shortening the sunset provision. The Bill that is before us that came out of the intelligence committee is for six years.
Now, Mr. President, things are changing rapidly in our country and in the world as it relates to things electronic. We don't know what is going to take place in regard to terrorism, violence or what's going to take place with our ability to do better jobs electronically to uncover some of the stuff we believe can be uncovered. He wants this legislation not to be for six years, for yours. That is – for six years but four years. He has been unable to offer that simple amendment. Senator Feinstein has just given a very fine statement seeking consent to offer a major main amendment on, excuse -- A germane amendment on FISA. There have been editorials virtually in every state of the union in the newspapers saying that it should be the law, but she has not been able to offer that amendment. Senator Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, Mr. President, I wanted it would offer an amendment. That is so rational, so important, he says, let's have the inspector general do an investigation about the whole wiretapping program to find out what has taken place who has been involved in it and report back to congress. He sets a reasonable time. Guess what? We can't even vote on that. He can't even offer the Amendment.
I say to my friends that it doesn't matter what we try to do, we can't do it. It appears that the minority, the president, and the republicans want failure. They don't want a bill. So that's why they're jamming this forward. I am going to vote against cloture on this Mr. President. It is not fair that we have a major piece of legislation like this and were not even allowed to offer whether the bill should be four years or six years? Or an amendment on millions of Americans picked up by mistake are brought out in the public eye. Or senator Feingold's amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment, if there were ever a catch 22, this is it. What were being asked to do is irrational, irresponsible and wrong. Where does this catch 22 come from.
[…]
I've said we will take a 30-day extension. We'll take a two-week extension, we'll take a 12-Month extension, we will take an 18-Month extension.
I tell all my friends I have been told and I appreciate very much my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell who has told me he has a cloture petition all signed. He will file it as soon as I yield the floor to him. I would say to all my friends that under regular order we will later that 1:00 Monday so the 30 hours runs out at its original time on Tuesday. If cloture is not invoked and I am not going to vote for cloture, unless the president agrees to some extension time, the program will fail.
I don't know any way out of this. But I in good conscience cannot support this legislation and at least unless we have a vote on retroactivity of immunity, I can't vote on it for cloture unless some of the very basic Amendments that people want to offer are allowed they would all agree on very short time lines.
No one is questioning spending a lot of time. We, the Democrats, are not in any way trying to stall this bill. We've been trying to expedite it for a long time now.
print
share PERMALINK TOPICS: surveillance "
"GOPers Block Amendments on Surveillance Bill, Debate Postponed Till Monday
"By Paul Kiel - January 24, 2008, 5:57PM
"OK, here's where things stand with the surveillance bill. There was just a flurry of activity on the Senate floor.
"After this morning's vote, where the judiciary committee's bill was killed by Republicans and a handful of Dems, a number of amendments were to be offered -- among them, the Dodd/Feingold bill that would strip retroactive immunity. But the Republicans objected to any of these from coming up for a vote under simple majority rules.
Finally, about twenty minutes ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) moved for a vote on cloture -- that would force an end to debate and trigger a simple majority vote on the underlying Senate intelligence committee version of the bill (which has retroactive immunity). To do that, he'll need 60 votes.
Reid objected to this, said that he would vote against it, and then postponed the vote until Monday. We'll get you Reid's remarks as soon as we have them.
Update: A rough transcript of Reid's remarks are below.
We want, if necessary, within the confines of the law, to do wiretapping of these bad people. But, Mr. President, Having said that we want to do it within the confines of our Law and our constitution. We want to make sure that this wiretapping does not include innocent Americans who just happen to be part of what they're collecting. That's what the American People expect us to do.
So I again say Mr. President, no one can question our patriotism, our willingness to keep our homeland safe. We have tried to move forward on this legislation. We have tried in many different ways. What we have been doing today and yesterday is moving forward on this legislation just as the distinguished Senator from California said. There are amendments that will make this legislation better. Now that's in the eye of the beholder. We all understand that. But shouldn't the Senate have the ability to vote on those amendments?
No matter what we do as a Senate it has to have a conference with the house. They have already passed their legislation. But we have been stalled every step of the way. Every step of the way, the Feingold Amendment, for example, was offered certainly it is germane. But he is being told, we're being told he can't get a vote on this amendment because it concerns the FISA court orders well, his amendment was discussed at length previously half of it was accepted on a bipartisan basis much the other half wasn't. But certainly he is entitled to a vote Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feingold and I don't want to embarrass him – he is really a legal scholar. He went to one of our highest Law Schools in the world, he is a Rhodes Scholar.
Senator Whitehouse has been Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island and is certainly, Mr. President, known all over the country as someone who understands the law. He has been a tremendously good person as a member of the United States Senate. He served on both committees – the intelligence committee on the Judiciary Committee. He is a thoughtful person. The legislation that came out of the intelligence committee should be improved and as a pen of the judiciary committee he worked to have that improved. He offered an amendment a short time ago, sough to offer an amendment, a major main amendment concerning – a germane amendment concerning minimization which means if you pick up by mistake an American you drop that you push that out of the way that isn't going to be made public in any manner we want to vote on that. It seems everyone would vote for it. I would certainly hope it is but there is an objection to even having a vote on that amendment. Senator Cardin, along time member of the congress relatively new member of the senate but a long time experience member of the congress of the United States sought to offer an amendment, a germane amendment shortening the sunset provision. The Bill that is before us that came out of the intelligence committee is for six years.
Now, Mr. President, things are changing rapidly in our country and in the world as it relates to things electronic. We don't know what is going to take place in regard to terrorism, violence or what's going to take place with our ability to do better jobs electronically to uncover some of the stuff we believe can be uncovered. He wants this legislation not to be for six years, for yours. That is – for six years but four years. He has been unable to offer that simple amendment. Senator Feinstein has just given a very fine statement seeking consent to offer a major main amendment on, excuse -- A germane amendment on FISA. There have been editorials virtually in every state of the union in the newspapers saying that it should be the law, but she has not been able to offer that amendment. Senator Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, Mr. President, I wanted it would offer an amendment. That is so rational, so important, he says, let's have the inspector general do an investigation about the whole wiretapping program to find out what has taken place who has been involved in it and report back to congress. He sets a reasonable time. Guess what? We can't even vote on that. He can't even offer the Amendment.
I say to my friends that it doesn't matter what we try to do, we can't do it. It appears that the minority, the president, and the republicans want failure. They don't want a bill. So that's why they're jamming this forward. I am going to vote against cloture on this Mr. President. It is not fair that we have a major piece of legislation like this and were not even allowed to offer whether the bill should be four years or six years? Or an amendment on millions of Americans picked up by mistake are brought out in the public eye. Or senator Feingold's amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment dealing with how court orders are issued. A real good amendment, an important amendment, if there were ever a catch 22, this is it. What were being asked to do is irrational, irresponsible and wrong. Where does this catch 22 come from.
[…]
I've said we will take a 30-day extension. We'll take a two-week extension, we'll take a 12-Month extension, we will take an 18-Month extension.
I tell all my friends I have been told and I appreciate very much my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell who has told me he has a cloture petition all signed. He will file it as soon as I yield the floor to him. I would say to all my friends that under regular order we will later that 1:00 Monday so the 30 hours runs out at its original time on Tuesday. If cloture is not invoked and I am not going to vote for cloture, unless the president agrees to some extension time, the program will fail.
I don't know any way out of this. But I in good conscience cannot support this legislation and at least unless we have a vote on retroactivity of immunity, I can't vote on it for cloture unless some of the very basic Amendments that people want to offer are allowed they would all agree on very short time lines.
No one is questioning spending a lot of time. We, the Democrats, are not in any way trying to stall this bill. We've been trying to expedite it for a long time now.
share PERMALINK TOPICS: surveillance "
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Kenneth Stepp, candidate for U.S. Senate, Kentucky.
Kenneth Stepp, candidate for U.S. Senate, Kentucky.Kenneth Stepp candidate for U.S. Senate--the seat currently held by Republican "Mitch" McConnell. Mitch McConnell helps keep American troops fighting in the neverending war in Iraq; Kenneth Stepp says "Bring the American troops home, now." Mitch McConnell helps keep warrantless wiretaps of American citizens; Kenneth Stepp says "Let's end the warrantless wiretaps of American citizens now." Mitch McConnell helped to stop the expansion of SCHIP and KCHIP; Kenneth Stepp says "Let's expand SCHIP (States' Children's Health Insurance Programs) and KCHIP (Kentucky Children's Health Insurance Program) to more children that currently don't have health insurance."
Kenneth Stepp favors the "Scotland Plan" of providing governmental funding of college tuition, beginning with full governmental funding of college tuition for all state university freshmen next year. Click http://actblue.com/page/senateky and please help.
Let's Ditch Mitch.
Lee Iacocca slams Bush-Cheney-"Mitch" leadership.
"Excerpt
"Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
"By Lee Iacocca with Catherine Whitney
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I Had Enough?
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
"Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
"You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
"I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
"My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to—as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.
"Who Are These Guys, Anyway?
"Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them—or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.
"And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.
"Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?
"The Test of a Leader
"I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points—not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.
"So, here's my C list:
"A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the "Yes, sir" crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place. George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. "I just scan the headlines," he says. Am I hearing this right? He's the President of the United States and he never reads a newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." Bush disagrees. As long as he gets his daily hour in the gym, with Fox News piped through the sound system, he's ready to go.
"If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn't put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he's right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you just don't care. Before the 2006 election, George Bush made a big point of saying he didn't listen to the polls. Yeah, that's what they all say when the polls stink. But maybe he should have listened, because 70 percent of the people were saying he was on the wrong track. It took a "thumping" on election day to wake him up, but even then you got the feeling he wasn't listening so much as he was calculating how to do a better job of convincing everyone he was right.
"A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different. You know, think outside the box. George Bush prides himself on never changing, even as the world around him is spinning out of control. God forbid someone should accuse him of flip-flopping. There's a disturbingly messianic fervor to his certainty. Senator Joe Biden recalled a conversation he had with Bush a few months after our troops marched into Baghdad. Joe was in the Oval Office outlining his concerns to the President—the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanded Iraqi army, the problems securing the oil fields. "The President was serene," Joe recalled. "He told me he was sure that we were on the right course and that all would be well. 'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'how can you be so sure when you don't yet know all the facts?'" Bush then reached over and put a steadying hand on Joe's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts." Joe was flabbergasted. He told Bush, "Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough." Joe Biden sure didn't think the matter was settled. And, as we all know now, it wasn't.
"Leadership is all about managing change—whether you're leading a company or leading a country. Things change, and you get creative. You adapt. Maybe Bush was absent the day they covered that at Harvard Business School.
"A leader has to COMMUNICATE. I'm not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites. I'm talking about facing reality and telling the truth. Nobody in the current administration seems to know how to talk straight anymore. Instead, they spend most of their time trying to convince us that things are not really as bad as they seem. I don't know if it's denial or dishonesty, but it can start to drive you crazy after a while. Communication has to start with telling the truth, even when it's painful. The war in Iraq has been, among other things, a grand failure of communication. Bush is like the boy who didn't cry wolf when the wolf was at the door. After years of being told that all is well, even as the casualties and chaos mount, we've stopped listening to him.
"A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." George Bush has a lot of power. What does it say about his character? Bush has shown a willingness to take bold action on the world stage because he has the power, but he shows little regard for the grievous consequences. He has sent our troops (not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens) to their deaths—for what? To build our oil reserves? To avenge his daddy because Saddam Hussein once tried to have him killed? To show his daddy he's tougher? The motivations behind the war in Iraq are questionable, and the execution of the war has been a disaster. A man of character does not ask a single soldier to die for a failed policy.
"A leader must have COURAGE. I'm talking about balls. (That even goes for female leaders.) Swagger isn't courage. Tough talk isn't courage. George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigger than your gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn't mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.
"If you're a politician, courage means taking a position even when you know it will cost you votes. Bush can't even make a public appearance unless the audience has been handpicked and sanitized. He did a series of so-called town hall meetings last year, in auditoriums packed with his most devoted fans. The questions were all softballs.
"To be a leader you've got to have CONVICTION—a fire in your belly. You've got to have passion. You've got to really want to get something done. How do you measure fire in the belly? Bush has set the all-time record for number of vacation days taken by a U.S. President—four hundred and counting. He'd rather clear brush on his ranch than immerse himself in the business of governing. He even told an interviewer that the high point of his presidency so far was catching a seven-and-a-half-pound perch in his hand-stocked lake.
"It's no better on Capitol Hill. Congress was in session only ninety-seven days in 2006. That's eleven days less than the record set in 1948, when President Harry Truman coined the term do-nothing Congress. Most people would expect to be fired if they worked so little and had nothing to show for it. But Congress managed to find the time to vote itself a raise. Now, that's not leadership.
"A leader should have CHARISMA. I'm not talking about being flashy. Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you. It's the ability to inspire. People follow a leader because they trust him. That's my definition of charisma. Maybe George Bush is a great guy to hang out with at a barbecue or a ball game. But put him at a global summit where the future of our planet is at stake, and he doesn't look very presidential. Those frat-boy pranks and the kidding around he enjoys so much don't go over that well with world leaders. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who received an unwelcome shoulder massage from our President at a G-8 Summit. When he came up behind her and started squeezing, I thought she was going to go right through the roof.
"A leader has to be COMPETENT. That seems obvious, doesn't it? You've got to know what you're doing. More important than that, you've got to surround yourself with people who know what they're doing. Bush brags about being our first MBA President. Does that make him competent? Well, let's see. Thanks to our first MBA President, we've got the largest deficit in history, Social Security is on life support, and we've run up a half-a-trillion-dollar price tag (so far) in Iraq. And that's just for starters. A leader has to be a problem solver, and the biggest problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.
"You can't be a leader if you don't have COMMON SENSE. I call this Charlie Beacham's rule. When I was a young guy just starting out in the car business, one of my first jobs was as Ford's zone manager in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. My boss was a guy named Charlie Beacham, who was the East Coast regional manager. Charlie was a big Southerner, with a warm drawl, a huge smile, and a core of steel. Charlie used to tell me, "Remember, Lee, the only thing you've got going for you as a human being is your ability to reason and your common sense. If you don't know a dip of horseshit from a dip of vanilla ice cream, you'll never make it." George Bush doesn't have common sense. He just has a lot of sound bites. You know—Mr.they'll-welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomplished Bush.
"Former President Bill Clinton once said, "I grew up in an alcoholic home. I spent half my childhood trying to get into the reality-based world—and I like it here."
"I think our current President should visit the real world once in a while.
"The Biggest C is Crisis
"Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
"On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day—and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.
"That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq—a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will.
"A Hell of a Mess
"So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.
"But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
"Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
"Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
"Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "the Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen—and more important, what are we going to do about it?
"Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
"I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
"Had Enough?
"Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises—the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough."
"Excerpted from Where Have All the Leaders Gone?. Copyright © 2007 by Lee Iacocca. All rights reserved."
Let's Ditch Mitch.
"Where Have All the Leaders Gone?
"By Lee Iacocca with Catherine Whitney
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I Had Enough?
"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
"Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
"You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
"I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
"My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to—as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.
"Who Are These Guys, Anyway?
"Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them—or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.
"And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.
"Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?
"The Test of a Leader
"I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points—not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.
"So, here's my C list:
"A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the "Yes, sir" crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place. George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. "I just scan the headlines," he says. Am I hearing this right? He's the President of the United States and he never reads a newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." Bush disagrees. As long as he gets his daily hour in the gym, with Fox News piped through the sound system, he's ready to go.
"If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn't put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he's right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you just don't care. Before the 2006 election, George Bush made a big point of saying he didn't listen to the polls. Yeah, that's what they all say when the polls stink. But maybe he should have listened, because 70 percent of the people were saying he was on the wrong track. It took a "thumping" on election day to wake him up, but even then you got the feeling he wasn't listening so much as he was calculating how to do a better job of convincing everyone he was right.
"A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different. You know, think outside the box. George Bush prides himself on never changing, even as the world around him is spinning out of control. God forbid someone should accuse him of flip-flopping. There's a disturbingly messianic fervor to his certainty. Senator Joe Biden recalled a conversation he had with Bush a few months after our troops marched into Baghdad. Joe was in the Oval Office outlining his concerns to the President—the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanded Iraqi army, the problems securing the oil fields. "The President was serene," Joe recalled. "He told me he was sure that we were on the right course and that all would be well. 'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'how can you be so sure when you don't yet know all the facts?'" Bush then reached over and put a steadying hand on Joe's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts." Joe was flabbergasted. He told Bush, "Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough." Joe Biden sure didn't think the matter was settled. And, as we all know now, it wasn't.
"Leadership is all about managing change—whether you're leading a company or leading a country. Things change, and you get creative. You adapt. Maybe Bush was absent the day they covered that at Harvard Business School.
"A leader has to COMMUNICATE. I'm not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites. I'm talking about facing reality and telling the truth. Nobody in the current administration seems to know how to talk straight anymore. Instead, they spend most of their time trying to convince us that things are not really as bad as they seem. I don't know if it's denial or dishonesty, but it can start to drive you crazy after a while. Communication has to start with telling the truth, even when it's painful. The war in Iraq has been, among other things, a grand failure of communication. Bush is like the boy who didn't cry wolf when the wolf was at the door. After years of being told that all is well, even as the casualties and chaos mount, we've stopped listening to him.
"A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." George Bush has a lot of power. What does it say about his character? Bush has shown a willingness to take bold action on the world stage because he has the power, but he shows little regard for the grievous consequences. He has sent our troops (not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens) to their deaths—for what? To build our oil reserves? To avenge his daddy because Saddam Hussein once tried to have him killed? To show his daddy he's tougher? The motivations behind the war in Iraq are questionable, and the execution of the war has been a disaster. A man of character does not ask a single soldier to die for a failed policy.
"A leader must have COURAGE. I'm talking about balls. (That even goes for female leaders.) Swagger isn't courage. Tough talk isn't courage. George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigger than your gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn't mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.
"If you're a politician, courage means taking a position even when you know it will cost you votes. Bush can't even make a public appearance unless the audience has been handpicked and sanitized. He did a series of so-called town hall meetings last year, in auditoriums packed with his most devoted fans. The questions were all softballs.
"To be a leader you've got to have CONVICTION—a fire in your belly. You've got to have passion. You've got to really want to get something done. How do you measure fire in the belly? Bush has set the all-time record for number of vacation days taken by a U.S. President—four hundred and counting. He'd rather clear brush on his ranch than immerse himself in the business of governing. He even told an interviewer that the high point of his presidency so far was catching a seven-and-a-half-pound perch in his hand-stocked lake.
"It's no better on Capitol Hill. Congress was in session only ninety-seven days in 2006. That's eleven days less than the record set in 1948, when President Harry Truman coined the term do-nothing Congress. Most people would expect to be fired if they worked so little and had nothing to show for it. But Congress managed to find the time to vote itself a raise. Now, that's not leadership.
"A leader should have CHARISMA. I'm not talking about being flashy. Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you. It's the ability to inspire. People follow a leader because they trust him. That's my definition of charisma. Maybe George Bush is a great guy to hang out with at a barbecue or a ball game. But put him at a global summit where the future of our planet is at stake, and he doesn't look very presidential. Those frat-boy pranks and the kidding around he enjoys so much don't go over that well with world leaders. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who received an unwelcome shoulder massage from our President at a G-8 Summit. When he came up behind her and started squeezing, I thought she was going to go right through the roof.
"A leader has to be COMPETENT. That seems obvious, doesn't it? You've got to know what you're doing. More important than that, you've got to surround yourself with people who know what they're doing. Bush brags about being our first MBA President. Does that make him competent? Well, let's see. Thanks to our first MBA President, we've got the largest deficit in history, Social Security is on life support, and we've run up a half-a-trillion-dollar price tag (so far) in Iraq. And that's just for starters. A leader has to be a problem solver, and the biggest problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.
"You can't be a leader if you don't have COMMON SENSE. I call this Charlie Beacham's rule. When I was a young guy just starting out in the car business, one of my first jobs was as Ford's zone manager in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. My boss was a guy named Charlie Beacham, who was the East Coast regional manager. Charlie was a big Southerner, with a warm drawl, a huge smile, and a core of steel. Charlie used to tell me, "Remember, Lee, the only thing you've got going for you as a human being is your ability to reason and your common sense. If you don't know a dip of horseshit from a dip of vanilla ice cream, you'll never make it." George Bush doesn't have common sense. He just has a lot of sound bites. You know—Mr.they'll-welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomplished Bush.
"Former President Bill Clinton once said, "I grew up in an alcoholic home. I spent half my childhood trying to get into the reality-based world—and I like it here."
"I think our current President should visit the real world once in a while.
"The Biggest C is Crisis
"Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
"On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day—and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.
"That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq—a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will.
"A Hell of a Mess
"So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.
"But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
"Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
"Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
"Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "the Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen—and more important, what are we going to do about it?
"Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
"I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
"Had Enough?
"Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises—the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough."
"Excerpted from Where Have All the Leaders Gone?. Copyright © 2007 by Lee Iacocca. All rights reserved."
Let's Ditch Mitch.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
"Mitch" McConnell inducted into Hall of Shame.
Hall of Shame: Mitch McConnell
2008-01-14
email this print this del.icio.us digg this rss feed
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earns a third spot in the Hall of Shame for his blatant pandering to oil companies, for which he’s been amply rewarded with campaign cash. It’s no surprise to find a wealthy Republican Senator in bed with oil barons, but McConnell’s recent decision to call himself an environmental leader adds an extra element of shamefulness to his already disgraceful behavior.
Over the course of his career, McConnell has received more than half a million dollars in campaign contributions from the oil and gas lobbyists who look to him for help with troublesome bills. In 2006, McConnell supported a $5 billion tax windfall for the industry. He even went so far as to raise an objection in the Senate that led to the cancellation of a Live Earth benefit concert.
Here’s what Mitch McConnell’s hometown paper, the Courier-Journal, had to say about one of the Senator’s latest “green” efforts:
Editorial: McConnell Brought GOP Senate and Bush White House Together On Behalf of Oil Companies.
“In an oily speech on the floor after passage of a weakened energy bill, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell described what happened this way: ‘We recognized here in the Senate that the House bill couldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed into law. So we fixed it. And now it will.’ He unctuously thanked colleagues for their hard work. He slathered on the praise, claiming, ‘I'm extremely pleased that we're about to show the American people we still have it in us to come together as a body and achieve consensus on an issue that affects all of us.’ Actually it's the Republican Senate he controls and the White House he cultivates that came together -- on behalf of the oil industry and the utility interests, by blocking the restoration of $13 billion in taxes on fabulous petroleum profits and shielding the power companies from a requirement to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources. …But the real winners were the lobbyists for big Republican campaign givers, who succeeded in blocking the restoration of billions in taxes on the big oil companies, which are squeezing American consumers for more than $100 billion per year in profits, thanks to huge price hikes at the pump. Had that tax provision survived, the proceeds would have financed clean energy development. Also falling before the pressure of lobbyists was a requirement that utilities produce 15 percent of their electricity by wind, solar and other renewable means by 2020. This was a huge victory for the operators of dirty coal-fired plants in the Midwest and South. This is what Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush did for Big Energy, and did to the rest of us. As long as Sen. McConnell can block action on future-friendly legislation by denying the Democrats 60-vote margins, this obstructionism will continue. …Sen. McConnell and President Bush are yesterday's heroes, not tomorrow's champions.”
Given his cozy relationship with the oil companies, and his 0% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, McConnell isn’t exactly known for his environmentally-friendly ways. But that hasn’t stopped McConnell from launching a new television ad calling the Senator “a Godfather of Green.”
For not only pushing the oil companies’ agendas and taking their campaign cash, but for hypocritically claiming to be an environmentalist, we congratulate Senator McConnell on his induction into the Hall of Shame.
2008-01-14
email this print this del.icio.us digg this rss feed
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell earns a third spot in the Hall of Shame for his blatant pandering to oil companies, for which he’s been amply rewarded with campaign cash. It’s no surprise to find a wealthy Republican Senator in bed with oil barons, but McConnell’s recent decision to call himself an environmental leader adds an extra element of shamefulness to his already disgraceful behavior.
Over the course of his career, McConnell has received more than half a million dollars in campaign contributions from the oil and gas lobbyists who look to him for help with troublesome bills. In 2006, McConnell supported a $5 billion tax windfall for the industry. He even went so far as to raise an objection in the Senate that led to the cancellation of a Live Earth benefit concert.
Here’s what Mitch McConnell’s hometown paper, the Courier-Journal, had to say about one of the Senator’s latest “green” efforts:
Editorial: McConnell Brought GOP Senate and Bush White House Together On Behalf of Oil Companies.
“In an oily speech on the floor after passage of a weakened energy bill, Kentucky's Mitch McConnell described what happened this way: ‘We recognized here in the Senate that the House bill couldn't pass the Senate and wouldn't be signed into law. So we fixed it. And now it will.’ He unctuously thanked colleagues for their hard work. He slathered on the praise, claiming, ‘I'm extremely pleased that we're about to show the American people we still have it in us to come together as a body and achieve consensus on an issue that affects all of us.’ Actually it's the Republican Senate he controls and the White House he cultivates that came together -- on behalf of the oil industry and the utility interests, by blocking the restoration of $13 billion in taxes on fabulous petroleum profits and shielding the power companies from a requirement to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable resources. …But the real winners were the lobbyists for big Republican campaign givers, who succeeded in blocking the restoration of billions in taxes on the big oil companies, which are squeezing American consumers for more than $100 billion per year in profits, thanks to huge price hikes at the pump. Had that tax provision survived, the proceeds would have financed clean energy development. Also falling before the pressure of lobbyists was a requirement that utilities produce 15 percent of their electricity by wind, solar and other renewable means by 2020. This was a huge victory for the operators of dirty coal-fired plants in the Midwest and South. This is what Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush did for Big Energy, and did to the rest of us. As long as Sen. McConnell can block action on future-friendly legislation by denying the Democrats 60-vote margins, this obstructionism will continue. …Sen. McConnell and President Bush are yesterday's heroes, not tomorrow's champions.”
Given his cozy relationship with the oil companies, and his 0% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, McConnell isn’t exactly known for his environmentally-friendly ways. But that hasn’t stopped McConnell from launching a new television ad calling the Senator “a Godfather of Green.”
For not only pushing the oil companies’ agendas and taking their campaign cash, but for hypocritically claiming to be an environmentalist, we congratulate Senator McConnell on his induction into the Hall of Shame.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Carson and Kenneth Stepp playing Uno.
What did you do over Christmas break. Here I am playing Uno with my son Carson and other relatives.
Flags at Half-Staff
Governor Beshear Directs Flags to Remain at Half-Staff
Governor Steve Beshear has directed that flags at all state office buildings remain at half-staff in honor of three Fort Campbell soldiers who died Jan. 16 supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the Department of Defense, Specialist John Patrick Sigsbee, 21, of Waterville, N.Y., Private First Class Danny Lee Kimme, 27, of Fisher, Ill., and Private First Class David Hastings Sharrett II, 27, of Oakton, Va., were killed in combat while on a patrol in Balad, Iraq. They were assigned to the 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.
Flags will remain at half-staff until sunset on the day of the funerals, for which arrangements are incomplete. Individuals, businesses, organizations and government agencies are encouraged to join in this tribute by lowering flags to half-staff. Flags are currently at half-staff in honor of Sgt. David J. Hart, Pfc. Ivan E. Merlo and Pfc. Phillip J. Pannier, who died Jan. 8 of wounds sustained during combat operations in Samarra, Iraq.
Governor Steve Beshear has directed that flags at all state office buildings remain at half-staff in honor of three Fort Campbell soldiers who died Jan. 16 supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the Department of Defense, Specialist John Patrick Sigsbee, 21, of Waterville, N.Y., Private First Class Danny Lee Kimme, 27, of Fisher, Ill., and Private First Class David Hastings Sharrett II, 27, of Oakton, Va., were killed in combat while on a patrol in Balad, Iraq. They were assigned to the 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.
Flags will remain at half-staff until sunset on the day of the funerals, for which arrangements are incomplete. Individuals, businesses, organizations and government agencies are encouraged to join in this tribute by lowering flags to half-staff. Flags are currently at half-staff in honor of Sgt. David J. Hart, Pfc. Ivan E. Merlo and Pfc. Phillip J. Pannier, who died Jan. 8 of wounds sustained during combat operations in Samarra, Iraq.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
"Torturing the Definition of Torture" from The New American magazine.
The New American Magazine, Dec. 24, 2007, p. 29 reports:
"Torturing the Definition of Torture"
by Gary Benoit
"By confirming Michael Mukasey as attorney general on November 9, the U.S. Senate demonstrated to the world that it is willing to tolerate the reported use of torture by the CIA against terrorist suspects. The Senate also demonstrated its willingness to allow the president to use his presumed authority as commander-in-chief to trample on laws passed by Congress.
"What else can be concluded after Mukasey's dodging and disturbing testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to his nomination being approved by the committee and then full Senate? Mukasey, a retired federal judge, was repeatedly asked during his confirmation hearings if waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques reportedly practiced by the CIA against terrorism suspects constituted torture. He repeatedly refused to answer the question, though he did at least acknowledge that torture was unconstitutional. He later sent a letter to Democratic members of the committee calling waterboarding 'repugnant' but adding that he could not judge its legality until given access to classified information about interrogation technique.
"Incredible! One does not need access to classified information to know that waterboarding is torture. Former U.S. Navy instructor Malcolm Nance, who trained U.S. forces to resist harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding, wrote on the Small Wars Journal blog that waterboarding is torture 'without doubt.' Though waterboarding is often described by the media as simulated drowning, Nance points out that it is 'not a simulation' at all but a 'controlled drowning.' In waterboarding, Nance explains, 'the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinancy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral.'
"Nance continues: 'Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to comtemplate the inevitablilty of black out and expiration--usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death.'
"Syndicated columnist Joseph Galloway, coauthor of We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young recently described a waterboarding he had witnessed as a young reporter covering the Vietnam War. (His character is depicted in the movie We Were Soldiers .) According to Galloway: 'When you hog-tie a human being, tilt him head down, stuff a rag in his mouth and over his nostrils and pour water onto a rag slowly and steadily to the point where his lungs start to fill with water and he's suffocating and drowning, that is torture.'
"The waterboarding witnessed by Galloway was performed by South Vietnamese Army troops against a Viet Cong suspect. 'The victim was taken to the edge of death,' Galloway recalled. 'His body was wracked with spasms as he fought for air. The soldier holding the five-gallon kerosene tin filled with muddy water from a nearby stream kept pouring it slowly onto the rag, and the victim desperately sucking for even a little air kept inhaling that water instead.'
"Did the suspect talk?' Galloway rhetorically asked. 'I'm sure he did. I'm sure he told his torturers whatever he thought they wanted to hear, whether it was true or not.' Galloway, however, was not present to witness that since one of the American Army advisers attached to that South Vietnamese unit, who had walked away before the waterboarding began, came back to tell Galloway he had to leave.
"Why did he have to leave? Why did the American advisers walk away? 'That adviser knew that water torture was torture; he knew that it was outlawed by the Geneva Convention; he knew that he couldn't be a party to it; and he knew that he didn't want me to witness such brutality.' Galloway wrote in his column.
"Evan Wallach . . . . In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post entitled 'Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime,' he noted that the U.S. government has in the past 'severely punished' those who applied waterboarding, citing as one example the convictions of 'several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war' during World War II. * * *
"A terrifying thought is that our new attorney general--the top law-enforcement official who will now adives the White House and intelligence agencies on 'permissible' interrogation techniques--presumably cannot figure out that waterboarding is torture. . . ."
"The senators who voted to approve Mukasey's nomination -- all 46 Republicans who voted plus six Democrats and one Independent -- must know that waterboarding is torture. . . ."
"Torture is anathema to American values and must never be tolerated by a free society. Mukasey's Senate testimony regarding waterboarding by itself should have disqualified him for the post of attorney general. but there is another major problem with his testimony that should be addressed, and that is his incredible assertion that the president can trump laws passed by congress in the interest of national security.
"Asked by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) if it illegal for the president to operate outside of laws passed by Congress, Mukasey responded: 'That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.' Asked by Leahy if the president can 'put someone above the law by authorizing illegal conduct,' Mukasey said: 'If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute but within the authority of the President to defend the country, the President is not putting somebody above the law, the President is putting somebody within the law.'
"And so if Congress were to pass a law stating that waterboarding is torture, and to do so with enough votes to override a presidential veto, the president could still presumably ignore this law simply by viewing it as a national-security matter, based on our new attorney general's 'understanding' of presidential powers.
"Shame on Mukasey for twisting the Constitution to this incredible extent. Shame on President Bush for nominating him. Shame on the senators who approved the nomination.
"If there is any 'good' news about Judge Michael Mukasey's rise to attorney general, it is that it provides further incentive (as if more were needed!) for freedom-loving Americans to get informed and involved -- and restore the rule of law under our Constitution -- before it is too late."
As Senate Minority Leader, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell supported the Senate approval of the Mukasey nomination. Let's Ditch Mitch.
"Torturing the Definition of Torture"
by Gary Benoit
"By confirming Michael Mukasey as attorney general on November 9, the U.S. Senate demonstrated to the world that it is willing to tolerate the reported use of torture by the CIA against terrorist suspects. The Senate also demonstrated its willingness to allow the president to use his presumed authority as commander-in-chief to trample on laws passed by Congress.
"What else can be concluded after Mukasey's dodging and disturbing testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to his nomination being approved by the committee and then full Senate? Mukasey, a retired federal judge, was repeatedly asked during his confirmation hearings if waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques reportedly practiced by the CIA against terrorism suspects constituted torture. He repeatedly refused to answer the question, though he did at least acknowledge that torture was unconstitutional. He later sent a letter to Democratic members of the committee calling waterboarding 'repugnant' but adding that he could not judge its legality until given access to classified information about interrogation technique.
"Incredible! One does not need access to classified information to know that waterboarding is torture. Former U.S. Navy instructor Malcolm Nance, who trained U.S. forces to resist harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding, wrote on the Small Wars Journal blog that waterboarding is torture 'without doubt.' Though waterboarding is often described by the media as simulated drowning, Nance points out that it is 'not a simulation' at all but a 'controlled drowning.' In waterboarding, Nance explains, 'the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim's face) and the obstinancy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral.'
"Nance continues: 'Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to comtemplate the inevitablilty of black out and expiration--usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death.'
"Syndicated columnist Joseph Galloway, coauthor of We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young recently described a waterboarding he had witnessed as a young reporter covering the Vietnam War. (His character is depicted in the movie We Were Soldiers .) According to Galloway: 'When you hog-tie a human being, tilt him head down, stuff a rag in his mouth and over his nostrils and pour water onto a rag slowly and steadily to the point where his lungs start to fill with water and he's suffocating and drowning, that is torture.'
"The waterboarding witnessed by Galloway was performed by South Vietnamese Army troops against a Viet Cong suspect. 'The victim was taken to the edge of death,' Galloway recalled. 'His body was wracked with spasms as he fought for air. The soldier holding the five-gallon kerosene tin filled with muddy water from a nearby stream kept pouring it slowly onto the rag, and the victim desperately sucking for even a little air kept inhaling that water instead.'
"Did the suspect talk?' Galloway rhetorically asked. 'I'm sure he did. I'm sure he told his torturers whatever he thought they wanted to hear, whether it was true or not.' Galloway, however, was not present to witness that since one of the American Army advisers attached to that South Vietnamese unit, who had walked away before the waterboarding began, came back to tell Galloway he had to leave.
"Why did he have to leave? Why did the American advisers walk away? 'That adviser knew that water torture was torture; he knew that it was outlawed by the Geneva Convention; he knew that he couldn't be a party to it; and he knew that he didn't want me to witness such brutality.' Galloway wrote in his column.
"Evan Wallach . . . . In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post entitled 'Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime,' he noted that the U.S. government has in the past 'severely punished' those who applied waterboarding, citing as one example the convictions of 'several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war' during World War II. * * *
"A terrifying thought is that our new attorney general--the top law-enforcement official who will now adives the White House and intelligence agencies on 'permissible' interrogation techniques--presumably cannot figure out that waterboarding is torture. . . ."
"The senators who voted to approve Mukasey's nomination -- all 46 Republicans who voted plus six Democrats and one Independent -- must know that waterboarding is torture. . . ."
"Torture is anathema to American values and must never be tolerated by a free society. Mukasey's Senate testimony regarding waterboarding by itself should have disqualified him for the post of attorney general. but there is another major problem with his testimony that should be addressed, and that is his incredible assertion that the president can trump laws passed by congress in the interest of national security.
"Asked by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) if it illegal for the president to operate outside of laws passed by Congress, Mukasey responded: 'That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.' Asked by Leahy if the president can 'put someone above the law by authorizing illegal conduct,' Mukasey said: 'If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute but within the authority of the President to defend the country, the President is not putting somebody above the law, the President is putting somebody within the law.'
"And so if Congress were to pass a law stating that waterboarding is torture, and to do so with enough votes to override a presidential veto, the president could still presumably ignore this law simply by viewing it as a national-security matter, based on our new attorney general's 'understanding' of presidential powers.
"Shame on Mukasey for twisting the Constitution to this incredible extent. Shame on President Bush for nominating him. Shame on the senators who approved the nomination.
"If there is any 'good' news about Judge Michael Mukasey's rise to attorney general, it is that it provides further incentive (as if more were needed!) for freedom-loving Americans to get informed and involved -- and restore the rule of law under our Constitution -- before it is too late."
As Senate Minority Leader, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell supported the Senate approval of the Mukasey nomination. Let's Ditch Mitch.
Who said it?
Who said it?
I will give the quote, about trading freedom for security.
No, let's make it easy, I will make it multiple choice and give the names of some Presidential contenders who might have said it.
Let me know how you do. I'll tell you who said it later, on Sunday or Monday.
O.K. Are you ready for this quote?
"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right. Well I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."
O.K. If you don't have your answer already, we'll make this a multiple choice question. Which of these people said it, and to whom?
a. Barak Obama at the recent Selma, Alabama rally?
b. Hillary Clinton, to the Arkansas Democratic Women's Federation?
c. John Edwards to a Council on Foreign Relations meeting?
d. George W. Bush in a campaign speech in Texas in 2000?
e. Valerie Plame in an opening statement to a Senate Committee?
f. Dennis Kucinick in a campaign speech in Ohio?
g. Dick Cheney in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations?
h. Ronald Reagan in his 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing" delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater?
i. Fidel Castro in a speech to the United Nations?
Here is
the giveaway.
The quote
was reprinted
by permission
from Imprimis,
the national
speech digest of
Hillsdale College,
www.hillsdale.edu.
I will give the quote, about trading freedom for security.
No, let's make it easy, I will make it multiple choice and give the names of some Presidential contenders who might have said it.
Let me know how you do. I'll tell you who said it later, on Sunday or Monday.
O.K. Are you ready for this quote?
"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right. Well I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."
O.K. If you don't have your answer already, we'll make this a multiple choice question. Which of these people said it, and to whom?
a. Barak Obama at the recent Selma, Alabama rally?
b. Hillary Clinton, to the Arkansas Democratic Women's Federation?
c. John Edwards to a Council on Foreign Relations meeting?
d. George W. Bush in a campaign speech in Texas in 2000?
e. Valerie Plame in an opening statement to a Senate Committee?
f. Dennis Kucinick in a campaign speech in Ohio?
g. Dick Cheney in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations?
h. Ronald Reagan in his 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing" delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater?
i. Fidel Castro in a speech to the United Nations?
Here is
the giveaway.
The quote
was reprinted
by permission
from Imprimis,
the national
speech digest of
Hillsdale College,
www.hillsdale.edu.
Mitch scuttles SCHIP and KCHIP extensions.
campaign against injured 12 y.o. still working its way through national media
October 20th, 2007 Matt Gunterman
The smear campaign against 12 y.o. Graeme Frost and his parents that was orchestrated by the staff of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) is still gaining momentum in the national press. Just today, the Kansas City Star put up this editorial:
BLOG BITS: Dirty trick; attack on Bhutto; take a stand on FISA
Dirty trick
This latest action by Republicans in Washington has to rank among the lowest. In an effort to beat back full funding for children’s health care, the staff of Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, supported a smear campaign against a 12-year-old survivor of a car crash. A hard-working, two-job family with four children, the Frosts of Baltimore were struck by tragedy: a car accident nearly killed two of their children. Because of SCHIP, the Frosts could afford the five months of hospitalization that allowed their children to survive.
[…]
Kentucky’s local press is still getting in on the action. Here’s Bob Leonard writing for the Georgetown (KY) News-Graphic:
McConnell should be ashamed
Let me get straight to the point - Kentucky’s senior United States senator, Mitch McConnell, should be ashamed of himself. Or, at the very least, he should be ashamed of his communications director, Don Stewart, and terminate him immediately.
[…]
But McConnell crossed the line of civility when his office orchestrated a partisan attack on a 12-year-old boy, Graeme Frost, by the right-wing zealots who line up to impugn any person or organization who dare disagree with the Republican Party. By zealots, I specifically mean Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and others of their ilk who will tell any lie or misrepresent any fact in an effort to discredit and slime their political opponents.
In this case, the only transgression of Graeme Frost was to speak on national radio, in spite of a partially paralyzed vocal cord, about how he and his sister would not have survived and recovered from a horrible car accident without the insurance coverage provided by SCHIP. The accident left them in a coma for months, and required years of therapy to teach them how to talk, eat, swallow and walk again.
This personal story that put a face with the program so offended the right-wingers that they immediately set out to destroy the child and his family’s credibility by disseminating lies about their health, their employment and their financial condition.
And who was leading this charge to malign a 12-year-old for telling his story? None other than our good senator, Mitch McConnell, and his communications director, Don Stewart. On the day after Graeme bravely told his story on radio, Stewart was busy sending out e-mails containing blatant falsehoods about the Frost family in an attempt to totally discredit and destroy their credibility. As a result, the family has even received death threats.
When it was first suspected that McConnell’s office was involved, he refused to comment. Subsequently, he professed a lack of knowledge of his staff’s actions. Yeah, right. His staff did this without his knowledge or acquiescence. McConnell, who claimed righteous indignation at MoveOn.org’s ad about Gen. Petraeus, wants us to believe he would not be a party in propagating such fallacies.
If he wants me to believe his story, he should bolster his own credibility by also being righteously indignant at his communications director. After all, that’s what he demanded from members of Congress concerning the MoveOn.org advertisement. Absent this indignation, we must assume McConnell believes a 12-year-old is more capable of defending his honor than a four-star general.
###
And, in case you missed this editorial in the Courier-Journal today, you should read it. It’s getting lots of play in the progressive blogosphere.
Hold firm for kids
The House vote that failed to override President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was a real test of values.
In siding with the President and against millions of kids, the House Republicans — including Kentuckians Ron Lewis, Geoff Davis, Ed Whitfield and Hal Rogers — hid behind patently false claims that the bill to expand SCHIP was a move toward socialized medicine. The measure was an effort to meet real human need, not a sneaky way to establish another federal entitlement for the middle class.
What was rejected this week, by the same GOP members who sabotaged it last month, was a bill to provide insurance for 10 million children. Indiana Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th District, did change his mind and voted this time for the welfare of these youngsters. Supporters earlier had beaten the Senate GOP minority and its leader, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, with a veto-proof margin for the legislation.
[…]
Sen. McConnell is spinning the House failure to override the President’s veto. His chilling position is, “Now that the veto has been sustained, it’s time to move forward with a serious plan to extend health coverage for those SCHIP was meant to cover: low-income children. It’s time to stop the campaign ads and time to start working across party lines to forge a bipartisan compromise.”
In fact, the defeated bill was fully as serious as the huge need it was written to meet. And the notion that it was a mere political ploy is easily rebutted by the fact that Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, were among its chief defenders. It was Sen. Grassley who rejected White House distortions about the bill, saying, “The White House claims are flatly incorrect.”
If the House Democrats are who they claim to be, they won’t let George W. Bush push them, and needy children, around on this issue.
###
I LIKE SCHIP AND KCHIP
read comments (1)
October 20th, 2007 Matt Gunterman
The smear campaign against 12 y.o. Graeme Frost and his parents that was orchestrated by the staff of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) is still gaining momentum in the national press. Just today, the Kansas City Star put up this editorial:
BLOG BITS: Dirty trick; attack on Bhutto; take a stand on FISA
Dirty trick
This latest action by Republicans in Washington has to rank among the lowest. In an effort to beat back full funding for children’s health care, the staff of Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, supported a smear campaign against a 12-year-old survivor of a car crash. A hard-working, two-job family with four children, the Frosts of Baltimore were struck by tragedy: a car accident nearly killed two of their children. Because of SCHIP, the Frosts could afford the five months of hospitalization that allowed their children to survive.
[…]
Kentucky’s local press is still getting in on the action. Here’s Bob Leonard writing for the Georgetown (KY) News-Graphic:
McConnell should be ashamed
Let me get straight to the point - Kentucky’s senior United States senator, Mitch McConnell, should be ashamed of himself. Or, at the very least, he should be ashamed of his communications director, Don Stewart, and terminate him immediately.
[…]
But McConnell crossed the line of civility when his office orchestrated a partisan attack on a 12-year-old boy, Graeme Frost, by the right-wing zealots who line up to impugn any person or organization who dare disagree with the Republican Party. By zealots, I specifically mean Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and others of their ilk who will tell any lie or misrepresent any fact in an effort to discredit and slime their political opponents.
In this case, the only transgression of Graeme Frost was to speak on national radio, in spite of a partially paralyzed vocal cord, about how he and his sister would not have survived and recovered from a horrible car accident without the insurance coverage provided by SCHIP. The accident left them in a coma for months, and required years of therapy to teach them how to talk, eat, swallow and walk again.
This personal story that put a face with the program so offended the right-wingers that they immediately set out to destroy the child and his family’s credibility by disseminating lies about their health, their employment and their financial condition.
And who was leading this charge to malign a 12-year-old for telling his story? None other than our good senator, Mitch McConnell, and his communications director, Don Stewart. On the day after Graeme bravely told his story on radio, Stewart was busy sending out e-mails containing blatant falsehoods about the Frost family in an attempt to totally discredit and destroy their credibility. As a result, the family has even received death threats.
When it was first suspected that McConnell’s office was involved, he refused to comment. Subsequently, he professed a lack of knowledge of his staff’s actions. Yeah, right. His staff did this without his knowledge or acquiescence. McConnell, who claimed righteous indignation at MoveOn.org’s ad about Gen. Petraeus, wants us to believe he would not be a party in propagating such fallacies.
If he wants me to believe his story, he should bolster his own credibility by also being righteously indignant at his communications director. After all, that’s what he demanded from members of Congress concerning the MoveOn.org advertisement. Absent this indignation, we must assume McConnell believes a 12-year-old is more capable of defending his honor than a four-star general.
###
And, in case you missed this editorial in the Courier-Journal today, you should read it. It’s getting lots of play in the progressive blogosphere.
Hold firm for kids
The House vote that failed to override President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was a real test of values.
In siding with the President and against millions of kids, the House Republicans — including Kentuckians Ron Lewis, Geoff Davis, Ed Whitfield and Hal Rogers — hid behind patently false claims that the bill to expand SCHIP was a move toward socialized medicine. The measure was an effort to meet real human need, not a sneaky way to establish another federal entitlement for the middle class.
What was rejected this week, by the same GOP members who sabotaged it last month, was a bill to provide insurance for 10 million children. Indiana Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th District, did change his mind and voted this time for the welfare of these youngsters. Supporters earlier had beaten the Senate GOP minority and its leader, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, with a veto-proof margin for the legislation.
[…]
Sen. McConnell is spinning the House failure to override the President’s veto. His chilling position is, “Now that the veto has been sustained, it’s time to move forward with a serious plan to extend health coverage for those SCHIP was meant to cover: low-income children. It’s time to stop the campaign ads and time to start working across party lines to forge a bipartisan compromise.”
In fact, the defeated bill was fully as serious as the huge need it was written to meet. And the notion that it was a mere political ploy is easily rebutted by the fact that Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, were among its chief defenders. It was Sen. Grassley who rejected White House distortions about the bill, saying, “The White House claims are flatly incorrect.”
If the House Democrats are who they claim to be, they won’t let George W. Bush push them, and needy children, around on this issue.
###
I LIKE SCHIP AND KCHIP
read comments (1)
"Mitch" wants to overlook genocide..
The following news article shows that "Mitch" McConnell is easy on genocide.
"Pelosi Determined To Continue With Genocide Resolution
"October 15, 2007 7:41 a.m. EST
"Isabelle Duerme - AHN News Writer
"Washington, D.C. - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Sunday that she will continue to push a proposition that considers the Ottoman Turks' killing of 1.5 million Armenians an act of genocide.
"The resolution states that the deaths caused by the 1915-1923 deportation of the Armenians from the Ottoman Empire as "systematic" and "deliberate." Such accusations would consider the move from the Turkish government equal to genocide.
"Pelosi defended her decision by explaining that there has never been a better time to act upon the genocide issue. She claims that it was important for the resolution to be passed now for it to serve its purpose of justice as "many of the survivors are very old," as quoted by CNN.
""When I came to Congress 20 years ago," Pelosi said, "it wasn't the right time because of the Soviet Union. Then that fell, and then it wasn't the right time because of the Gulf War One. And then it wasn't the right time because of overflights of Iraq. And now it's not the right time because of Gulf War Two."
"The resolution has threatened to tarnish the relationship between Turkey and the United States, both close allies and members of NATO.
"The notion was confirmed by Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the chief of the Turkish armed forces who, according to The New York Times, has claimed that the mere proposition of the resolution has "caused considerable disappointment" among the Turkish people. He was quoted saying that, considering the ties between the U.S. and Turkey, the passage of the resolution would be "sad and sorrowful."
"Gen. Buyukanit continued to say that the complete passing of the resolution would result in irreversible damage of the amicable relationship between the two nations.
""We could not explain this to our public," CNN quotes the general. "The U.S., in that respect, has shot itself in the foot."
"The possibility of the resolution being passed has already taken its toll on US-Turkey relations, as the Turkish ambassador was recalled from Washington and, according to CNN, a cease in logistical support to the US from Turkey is already being mentioned
"Pelosi's insistence was met with harsh criticism from the Bush administration as well.
""I think it's a really bad idea for the Congress to be condemning what happened 100 years ago," expressed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted by CNN.
""We all know it happened...But I don't think the Congress passing this resolution is a good idea at any point," McConnell continues, stressing the point that Turkey is instrumental in ensuring the safety of U.S. soldiers."
Let me get this straight? We have warrantless wiretaps and rendition for torture, and torture, and a Constitution-free zone in Guantanamo Bay where U.S. officials are exempt from U.S. Courts, from habeas corpus, and from judicial review of interrogation techniques and indeterminate imprisonment without charges. Now, "Mitch" admits that we have a U.S. ally that is guilty of genocide, but that we should overlook genocide because that would upset--something. Before, I thought that both "Mitch" and I were friends of Armenia, but I guess "Mitch" is a friend of Armenia only to the extent that no action in favor of Armenia offends any of our allies that have a history of genocide. There was a big difference between the Nazi Germans and the Ottoman Turks. The Nazi Germans had wholesale slaughter of the Jews (and Gypsies, and Jehovahs Witnesses, and others) but the Ottoman Turks in Armenia had wholesale slaughter and genocide of the Christians in Armenia. Hello! Hello! If America cannot express outrage against genocide against Christians, how can we maintain credible outrage against the Nazis. No, a foreign policy that winks at genocide, condones torture, condones rendition for torture, and suspends habeas corpus for people confined by the United States indeterminately without trial is a foreign policy that needs changing. No, the times, they are a-changing, and it's time to Ditch Mitch so America can speak out against genocide and torture and rendition for torture and warrantless wiretapping and the whole list of neocon policies. I am a traditionalist against genocide. I am a traditionalist against torture. I am a traditionalist against rendition for torture. I am a traditionalist against warrantless wiretapping. I am a traditionalist against suspending habeas corpus. Let's Ditch Mitch and restore the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution to its tradiditional place of high esteem.
"Pelosi Determined To Continue With Genocide Resolution
"October 15, 2007 7:41 a.m. EST
"Isabelle Duerme - AHN News Writer
"Washington, D.C. - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Sunday that she will continue to push a proposition that considers the Ottoman Turks' killing of 1.5 million Armenians an act of genocide.
"The resolution states that the deaths caused by the 1915-1923 deportation of the Armenians from the Ottoman Empire as "systematic" and "deliberate." Such accusations would consider the move from the Turkish government equal to genocide.
"Pelosi defended her decision by explaining that there has never been a better time to act upon the genocide issue. She claims that it was important for the resolution to be passed now for it to serve its purpose of justice as "many of the survivors are very old," as quoted by CNN.
""When I came to Congress 20 years ago," Pelosi said, "it wasn't the right time because of the Soviet Union. Then that fell, and then it wasn't the right time because of the Gulf War One. And then it wasn't the right time because of overflights of Iraq. And now it's not the right time because of Gulf War Two."
"The resolution has threatened to tarnish the relationship between Turkey and the United States, both close allies and members of NATO.
"The notion was confirmed by Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, the chief of the Turkish armed forces who, according to The New York Times, has claimed that the mere proposition of the resolution has "caused considerable disappointment" among the Turkish people. He was quoted saying that, considering the ties between the U.S. and Turkey, the passage of the resolution would be "sad and sorrowful."
"Gen. Buyukanit continued to say that the complete passing of the resolution would result in irreversible damage of the amicable relationship between the two nations.
""We could not explain this to our public," CNN quotes the general. "The U.S., in that respect, has shot itself in the foot."
"The possibility of the resolution being passed has already taken its toll on US-Turkey relations, as the Turkish ambassador was recalled from Washington and, according to CNN, a cease in logistical support to the US from Turkey is already being mentioned
"Pelosi's insistence was met with harsh criticism from the Bush administration as well.
""I think it's a really bad idea for the Congress to be condemning what happened 100 years ago," expressed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted by CNN.
""We all know it happened...But I don't think the Congress passing this resolution is a good idea at any point," McConnell continues, stressing the point that Turkey is instrumental in ensuring the safety of U.S. soldiers."
Let me get this straight? We have warrantless wiretaps and rendition for torture, and torture, and a Constitution-free zone in Guantanamo Bay where U.S. officials are exempt from U.S. Courts, from habeas corpus, and from judicial review of interrogation techniques and indeterminate imprisonment without charges. Now, "Mitch" admits that we have a U.S. ally that is guilty of genocide, but that we should overlook genocide because that would upset--something. Before, I thought that both "Mitch" and I were friends of Armenia, but I guess "Mitch" is a friend of Armenia only to the extent that no action in favor of Armenia offends any of our allies that have a history of genocide. There was a big difference between the Nazi Germans and the Ottoman Turks. The Nazi Germans had wholesale slaughter of the Jews (and Gypsies, and Jehovahs Witnesses, and others) but the Ottoman Turks in Armenia had wholesale slaughter and genocide of the Christians in Armenia. Hello! Hello! If America cannot express outrage against genocide against Christians, how can we maintain credible outrage against the Nazis. No, a foreign policy that winks at genocide, condones torture, condones rendition for torture, and suspends habeas corpus for people confined by the United States indeterminately without trial is a foreign policy that needs changing. No, the times, they are a-changing, and it's time to Ditch Mitch so America can speak out against genocide and torture and rendition for torture and warrantless wiretapping and the whole list of neocon policies. I am a traditionalist against genocide. I am a traditionalist against torture. I am a traditionalist against rendition for torture. I am a traditionalist against warrantless wiretapping. I am a traditionalist against suspending habeas corpus. Let's Ditch Mitch and restore the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution to its tradiditional place of high esteem.
Still more about coal mining safety.
Kenneth Stepp worked in Harlan County, Kentucky in 2002-2004 as an Assistant Public Advocate for the Kentucky State government. It grieves me to read about unnecessary death and destruction in Harlan County--"bleeding Harlan" as it used to be called in the old days.
I had previously contrasted the watered-down coal mine safety House bill supported by incumbent Republican Congressman Hal Rogers requiring coal mines to supply one hour of storage oxygen to each miner, to the strong coal mine safety proposal of that California Democrat requiring coal mines to supply two days' supply of storage oxygen to each miner working in underground coal mines.
The Militant, said the following about the recent tragedy in Harlan County Darby Mine:
"Harlan County coroner Philip Bianchi told the press that two of the miners died from the impact of the explosion and three from carbon monoxide poisoning.
Following the Sago Mine disaster in West Virginia, where 12 miners were trapped underground after a blast and died after running out of oxygen, MSHA issued emergency regulations requiring companies to provide self-rescuers with two hours of oxygen rather than one hour as currently required, said Smith. 'But MSHA has allowed the operators to go for months without implementing the new rule, saying they need time to order new devices,' the UMWA official said.
Miners have reported that even the current devices often don’t work properly. Jeff Ledford said in an interview published in the May 21 Lexington Herald-Leader that his brother Paul, who survived the Kentucky Darby blast, told him that his self-rescuer lasted only five minutes, not one hour. Paul Ledford reportedly passed out twice while crawling toward the mine’s entrance."
It is a shame that Hal Rogers in unwilling to use his power as a Congressman to protect the underground coal workers from large corporations cutting costs by cutting back on oxygen breathing equipment used in coal mines. Vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House, KY-5 and vote for better coal mine safety through more effective Federal regulations of coal mine safety.
Kenneth Stepp and Milton Friedman on Education.
We were saddened to learn of Milton Friedsma's death on Nov. 17, 2006. Kenneth Stepp and Milton Friedman agree on the deplorable state of U.S. education. The following is a quote of Milton Friedman from Imprimis, a free newsletter that can be mailed to you upon request from Hillsdale College in Michigan at www.hillsdale.edu . And I quote:
Milton Friedman: "I don't see how we can maintain a decent society if we have a world split into haves and have-nots, with the haves subsidizing the have-nots. In our current educational system, close to 30 percent of the youngsters who start high school never finish. They are condemned to low-income jobs. They are condemned to a situation in which they are going to be at the bottom. That leads in turn to a divisive society; it leads to a stratified society rather than one of general cooperation and general understanding. The effective literacy rate in the United States today is almost surely less than it was 100 years ago. . . . It is a disgrace that in a country like the United States, 30 percent of youngsters never graduate from high school. And I haven't even mentioned those who drop out in elementary school. It's a disgrace that there are so many people who can't read and write. It's hard for me to see how we can continue to maintain a decent and free society if a large subsection of that society is condemned to poverty and to handouts."
Vote for more Federal subsidies for education, more Federal revenue sharing for education, more Pell grants, more Federal scholarships, a Federal G.I. educational bill to include Iraq-war American veterans who served in the National Guard and who had short tours of duty in the combat zone, College for Everyone; vote for Kenneth Stepp, the Democratic candidate for U.S. House for the Kentucky Fifth District.
Milton Friedman: "I don't see how we can maintain a decent society if we have a world split into haves and have-nots, with the haves subsidizing the have-nots. In our current educational system, close to 30 percent of the youngsters who start high school never finish. They are condemned to low-income jobs. They are condemned to a situation in which they are going to be at the bottom. That leads in turn to a divisive society; it leads to a stratified society rather than one of general cooperation and general understanding. The effective literacy rate in the United States today is almost surely less than it was 100 years ago. . . . It is a disgrace that in a country like the United States, 30 percent of youngsters never graduate from high school. And I haven't even mentioned those who drop out in elementary school. It's a disgrace that there are so many people who can't read and write. It's hard for me to see how we can continue to maintain a decent and free society if a large subsection of that society is condemned to poverty and to handouts."
Vote for more Federal subsidies for education, more Federal revenue sharing for education, more Pell grants, more Federal scholarships, a Federal G.I. educational bill to include Iraq-war American veterans who served in the National Guard and who had short tours of duty in the combat zone, College for Everyone; vote for Kenneth Stepp, the Democratic candidate for U.S. House for the Kentucky Fifth District.
Vote for Kenneth Stepp, to stop the military draft.
The following article was published in Rolling Stone online:
"The Return of the Draft
"With the army desperate for recruits, should college students be packing their bags for Canada?
"Uncle Sam wants you. He needs you. He'll bribe you to sign up. He'll strong-arm you to re-enlist. And if that's not enough, he's got a plan to draft you.
"In the three decades since the Vietnam War, the "all-volunteer Army" has become a bedrock principle of the American military. "It's a magnificent force," Vice President Dick Cheney declared during the election campaign last fall, "because those serving are ones who signed up to serve." But with the Army and Marines perilously overextended by the war in Iraq, that volunteer foundation is starting to crack. The "weekend warriors" of the Army Reserve and the National Guard now make up almost half the fighting force on the front lines, and young officers in the Reserve are retiring in droves. The Pentagon, which can barely attract enough recruits to maintain current troop levels, has involuntarily extended the enlistments of as many as 100,000 soldiers. Desperate for troops, the Army has lowered its standards to let in twenty-five percent more high school dropouts, and the Marines are now offering as much as $30,000 to anyone who re-enlists. To understand the scope of the crisis, consider this: The United States is pouring nearly as much money into incentives for new recruits -- almost $300 million -- as it is into international tsunami relief.
"The Army's maxed out here," says retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who served as Air Force chief of staff under the first President Bush. "The Defense Department and the president seem to be still operating off the rosy scenario that this will be over soon, that this pain is temporary and therefore we'll just grit our teeth, hunker down and get out on the other side of this. That's a bad assumption." The Bush administration has sworn up and down that it will never reinstate a draft. During the campaign last year, the president dismissed the idea as nothing more than "rumors on the Internets" and declared, "We're not going to have a draft -- period." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an Op-Ed blaming "conspiracy mongers" for "attempting to scare and mislead young Americans," insisted that "the idea of reinstating the draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration."
"That assertion is demonstrably false. According to an internal Selective Service memo made public under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency's acting director met with two of Rumsfeld's undersecretaries in February 2003 precisely to debate, discuss and ponder a return to the draft. The memo duly notes the administration's aversion to a draft but adds, "Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc." The potentially prohibitive cost of "attracting and retaining such personnel for military service," the memo adds, has led "some officials to conclude that, while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis." This new draft, it suggests, could be invoked to meet the needs of both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.
"The memo then proposes, in detail, that the Selective Service be "re-engineered" to cover all Americans -- "men and (for the first time) women" -- ages eighteen to thirty-four. In addition to name, date of birth and Social Security number, young adults would have to provide the agency with details of their specialized skills on an ongoing basis until they passed out of draft jeopardy at age thirty-five. Testifying before Congress two weeks after the meeting, acting director of Selective Service Lewis Brodsky acknowledged that "consultations with senior Defense manpower officials" have spurred the agency to shift its preparations away from a full-scale, Vietnam-style draft of untrained men "to a draft of smaller numbers of critical-skills personnel."
"Richard Flahavan, spokesman for Selective Service, tells Rolling Stone that preparing for a skills-based draft is "in fact what we have been doing." For starters, the agency has updated a plan to draft nurses and doctors. But that's not all. "Our thinking was that if we could run a health-care draft in the future," Flahavan says, "then with some very slight tinkering we could change that skill to plumbers or linguists or electrical engineers or whatever the military was short." In other words, if Uncle Sam decides he needs people with your skills, Selective Service has the means to draft you -- and quick.
"But experts on military manpower say the focus on drafting personnel with special skills misses the larger point. The Army needs more soldiers, not just more doctors and linguists. "What you've got now is a real shortage of grunts -- guys who can actually carry bayonets," says McPeak. A wholesale draft may be necessary, he adds, "to deal with the situation we've got ourselves into. We've got to have a bigger Army."
Michael O'Hanlon, a military-manpower scholar at the Brookings Institute, believes a return to a full-blown draft will become "unavoidable" if the United States is forced into another war. "Let's say North Korea strikes a deal with Al Qaeda to sell them a nuclear weapon or something," he says. "I frankly don't see how you could fight two wars at the same time with the all-volunteer approach." If a second Korean War should break out, the United States has reportedly committed to deploying a force of nearly 700,000 to defend South Korea -- almost half of America's entire military.
* * *
"One of the few politicians willing to openly advocate a return to the draft is Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, who argues that the current system places an immoral burden on America's underprivileged. "It shouldn't be just the poor and the working poor who find their way into harm's way," he says. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft -- with absolutely no deferments. "If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone -- no question in my mind," he says. "The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the quicker we'll be out of Iraq."
"But instead of exploring how to share the burden more fairly, the military is cooking up new ways to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. Rangel says military recruiters have confided in him that they're targeting inner cities and rural areas with high unemployment. In December, the National Guard nearly doubled its enlistment bonus to $10,000, and the Army is trying to attract urban youth with a marketing campaign called "Taking It to the Streets," which features a pimped-out yellow Hummer and a basketball exhibition replete with free throwback jerseys. President Bush has also signed an executive order allowing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship immediately -- rather than wait five years -- if they volunteer for active duty.
"It's so completely unethical and immoral to induce people that have limited education and limited job ability to have to put themselves in harm's way for ten, twenty or thirty thousand dollars," Rangel says. "Just how broke do you have to be to take advantage of these incentives?" Seducing soldiers with cold cash also unnerves military commanders. "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary,' " Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the commander of the Army Reserve, wrote in a memo to senior Army leadership in December.
"The Reserve, Helmly warns, "is rapidly degenerating into a broken force." The Army National Guard is also in trouble: It missed its recruitment goals of 56,000 by more than 5,000 in fiscal year 2004 and is already 2,000 soldiers short in fiscal 2005. To keep enough boots on the ground, the Pentagon has stopped asking volunteer soldiers to extend their service -- and started demanding it. Using a little-known provision called "stop loss," the military is forcing reservists and guardsmen to remain on active duty indefinitely. "This is an 'all-volunteer Army' with footnotes," says McPeak. "And it's the footnotes that are being held in Iraq against their wishes. If that's not a back-door draft, tell me what is."
"David Qualls, who joined the Arkansas National Guard for a year, is one of 40,000 troops in Iraq who have been informed that their enlistment has been extended until December 24th, 2031. "I've served five months past my one-year obligation," says Qualls, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the military with breach of contract. "It's time to let me go back to my life. It's a question of fairness, and not only for myself. This is for the thousands of other people that are involuntarily extended in Iraq. Let us go home."
"The Army insists that most "stop-lossed" soldiers will be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months. But Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is representing eight National Guardsmen in a lawsuit challenging the extensions, says the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. According to Lobel, the military is telling soldiers, "We're giving you a chance to voluntarily re-enlist -- and if you don't do it, we'll screw you. And the first way we'll screw you is to put you in until 2031."
"But threatening volunteers, military experts warn, could be the quickest way to ensure a return to the draft. According to O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institute, such "callousness" may make it impossible to recruit new soldiers -- no matter how much money you throw at them. And if bigger sign-up bonuses and more aggressive recruitment tactics don't do the trick, says Helmly of the Army Reserve, it could "force the nation into an argument" about reinstating the draft.
"In the end, it may simply come down to a matter of math. In January, Bush told America's soldiers that "much more will be asked of you" in his second term, even as he openly threatened Iran with military action. Another war, critics warn, would push the all-volunteer force to its breaking point. "This damn thing is just an explosion that's about to happen," says Rangel. Bush officials "can say all they want that they don't want the draft, but there's not going to be that many more buttons to push."
"TIM DICKINSON"
The choice is yours, you can vote for Dick Cheney's rubberstamping Congressman Hal Rogers, or you can vote for Democrat Kenneth Stepp, who will say "NO" to renewing the military draft. Kenneth Stepp plans to introduce legislation in Congress next year to terminate the Federal draft registration program. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting women into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting African-Americans into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting immigrants into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting hillbillies into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting anyone into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to having a draft registration program. Let's gut the Federal military draft program now, so that they can't bring it back. Vote against a rubber-stamp Congress, elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House for the Kentucky Fifth District.
"The Return of the Draft
"With the army desperate for recruits, should college students be packing their bags for Canada?
"Uncle Sam wants you. He needs you. He'll bribe you to sign up. He'll strong-arm you to re-enlist. And if that's not enough, he's got a plan to draft you.
"In the three decades since the Vietnam War, the "all-volunteer Army" has become a bedrock principle of the American military. "It's a magnificent force," Vice President Dick Cheney declared during the election campaign last fall, "because those serving are ones who signed up to serve." But with the Army and Marines perilously overextended by the war in Iraq, that volunteer foundation is starting to crack. The "weekend warriors" of the Army Reserve and the National Guard now make up almost half the fighting force on the front lines, and young officers in the Reserve are retiring in droves. The Pentagon, which can barely attract enough recruits to maintain current troop levels, has involuntarily extended the enlistments of as many as 100,000 soldiers. Desperate for troops, the Army has lowered its standards to let in twenty-five percent more high school dropouts, and the Marines are now offering as much as $30,000 to anyone who re-enlists. To understand the scope of the crisis, consider this: The United States is pouring nearly as much money into incentives for new recruits -- almost $300 million -- as it is into international tsunami relief.
"The Army's maxed out here," says retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who served as Air Force chief of staff under the first President Bush. "The Defense Department and the president seem to be still operating off the rosy scenario that this will be over soon, that this pain is temporary and therefore we'll just grit our teeth, hunker down and get out on the other side of this. That's a bad assumption." The Bush administration has sworn up and down that it will never reinstate a draft. During the campaign last year, the president dismissed the idea as nothing more than "rumors on the Internets" and declared, "We're not going to have a draft -- period." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an Op-Ed blaming "conspiracy mongers" for "attempting to scare and mislead young Americans," insisted that "the idea of reinstating the draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration."
"That assertion is demonstrably false. According to an internal Selective Service memo made public under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency's acting director met with two of Rumsfeld's undersecretaries in February 2003 precisely to debate, discuss and ponder a return to the draft. The memo duly notes the administration's aversion to a draft but adds, "Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc." The potentially prohibitive cost of "attracting and retaining such personnel for military service," the memo adds, has led "some officials to conclude that, while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis." This new draft, it suggests, could be invoked to meet the needs of both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.
"The memo then proposes, in detail, that the Selective Service be "re-engineered" to cover all Americans -- "men and (for the first time) women" -- ages eighteen to thirty-four. In addition to name, date of birth and Social Security number, young adults would have to provide the agency with details of their specialized skills on an ongoing basis until they passed out of draft jeopardy at age thirty-five. Testifying before Congress two weeks after the meeting, acting director of Selective Service Lewis Brodsky acknowledged that "consultations with senior Defense manpower officials" have spurred the agency to shift its preparations away from a full-scale, Vietnam-style draft of untrained men "to a draft of smaller numbers of critical-skills personnel."
"Richard Flahavan, spokesman for Selective Service, tells Rolling Stone that preparing for a skills-based draft is "in fact what we have been doing." For starters, the agency has updated a plan to draft nurses and doctors. But that's not all. "Our thinking was that if we could run a health-care draft in the future," Flahavan says, "then with some very slight tinkering we could change that skill to plumbers or linguists or electrical engineers or whatever the military was short." In other words, if Uncle Sam decides he needs people with your skills, Selective Service has the means to draft you -- and quick.
"But experts on military manpower say the focus on drafting personnel with special skills misses the larger point. The Army needs more soldiers, not just more doctors and linguists. "What you've got now is a real shortage of grunts -- guys who can actually carry bayonets," says McPeak. A wholesale draft may be necessary, he adds, "to deal with the situation we've got ourselves into. We've got to have a bigger Army."
Michael O'Hanlon, a military-manpower scholar at the Brookings Institute, believes a return to a full-blown draft will become "unavoidable" if the United States is forced into another war. "Let's say North Korea strikes a deal with Al Qaeda to sell them a nuclear weapon or something," he says. "I frankly don't see how you could fight two wars at the same time with the all-volunteer approach." If a second Korean War should break out, the United States has reportedly committed to deploying a force of nearly 700,000 to defend South Korea -- almost half of America's entire military.
* * *
"One of the few politicians willing to openly advocate a return to the draft is Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, who argues that the current system places an immoral burden on America's underprivileged. "It shouldn't be just the poor and the working poor who find their way into harm's way," he says. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft -- with absolutely no deferments. "If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone -- no question in my mind," he says. "The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the quicker we'll be out of Iraq."
"But instead of exploring how to share the burden more fairly, the military is cooking up new ways to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. Rangel says military recruiters have confided in him that they're targeting inner cities and rural areas with high unemployment. In December, the National Guard nearly doubled its enlistment bonus to $10,000, and the Army is trying to attract urban youth with a marketing campaign called "Taking It to the Streets," which features a pimped-out yellow Hummer and a basketball exhibition replete with free throwback jerseys. President Bush has also signed an executive order allowing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship immediately -- rather than wait five years -- if they volunteer for active duty.
"It's so completely unethical and immoral to induce people that have limited education and limited job ability to have to put themselves in harm's way for ten, twenty or thirty thousand dollars," Rangel says. "Just how broke do you have to be to take advantage of these incentives?" Seducing soldiers with cold cash also unnerves military commanders. "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary,' " Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the commander of the Army Reserve, wrote in a memo to senior Army leadership in December.
"The Reserve, Helmly warns, "is rapidly degenerating into a broken force." The Army National Guard is also in trouble: It missed its recruitment goals of 56,000 by more than 5,000 in fiscal year 2004 and is already 2,000 soldiers short in fiscal 2005. To keep enough boots on the ground, the Pentagon has stopped asking volunteer soldiers to extend their service -- and started demanding it. Using a little-known provision called "stop loss," the military is forcing reservists and guardsmen to remain on active duty indefinitely. "This is an 'all-volunteer Army' with footnotes," says McPeak. "And it's the footnotes that are being held in Iraq against their wishes. If that's not a back-door draft, tell me what is."
"David Qualls, who joined the Arkansas National Guard for a year, is one of 40,000 troops in Iraq who have been informed that their enlistment has been extended until December 24th, 2031. "I've served five months past my one-year obligation," says Qualls, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the military with breach of contract. "It's time to let me go back to my life. It's a question of fairness, and not only for myself. This is for the thousands of other people that are involuntarily extended in Iraq. Let us go home."
"The Army insists that most "stop-lossed" soldiers will be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months. But Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is representing eight National Guardsmen in a lawsuit challenging the extensions, says the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. According to Lobel, the military is telling soldiers, "We're giving you a chance to voluntarily re-enlist -- and if you don't do it, we'll screw you. And the first way we'll screw you is to put you in until 2031."
"But threatening volunteers, military experts warn, could be the quickest way to ensure a return to the draft. According to O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institute, such "callousness" may make it impossible to recruit new soldiers -- no matter how much money you throw at them. And if bigger sign-up bonuses and more aggressive recruitment tactics don't do the trick, says Helmly of the Army Reserve, it could "force the nation into an argument" about reinstating the draft.
"In the end, it may simply come down to a matter of math. In January, Bush told America's soldiers that "much more will be asked of you" in his second term, even as he openly threatened Iran with military action. Another war, critics warn, would push the all-volunteer force to its breaking point. "This damn thing is just an explosion that's about to happen," says Rangel. Bush officials "can say all they want that they don't want the draft, but there's not going to be that many more buttons to push."
"TIM DICKINSON"
The choice is yours, you can vote for Dick Cheney's rubberstamping Congressman Hal Rogers, or you can vote for Democrat Kenneth Stepp, who will say "NO" to renewing the military draft. Kenneth Stepp plans to introduce legislation in Congress next year to terminate the Federal draft registration program. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting women into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting African-Americans into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting immigrants into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting hillbillies into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to drafting anyone into the military. Kenneth Stepp is opposed to having a draft registration program. Let's gut the Federal military draft program now, so that they can't bring it back. Vote against a rubber-stamp Congress, elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House for the Kentucky Fifth District.
IT IS THE VETERAN
It is the VETERAN, not the preacher,
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN, not the organizer,
Who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer,
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the VETERAN, not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.
Thank you, VETERAN, for your part in maintaining the freedom that we all enjoy as Americans.
Submitted by the Staff and Students of
Mt Carmel Christian Academy, Luray, VA.
Who has given us freedom of religion.
It is the VETERAN, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the VETERAN, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the VETERAN, not the organizer,
Who has given us freedom to assemble.
It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer,
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the VETERAN, not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.
Thank you, VETERAN, for your part in maintaining the freedom that we all enjoy as Americans.
Submitted by the Staff and Students of
Mt Carmel Christian Academy, Luray, VA.
Americans want America troops out of Iraq.
This from Bluegrass Report:
"Tuesday, February 13, 2007
"USA Today/Gallup Poll: Americans Wants Troops Out Of Iraq By End Of 2007; Blame Senate Republicans For Lack Of Debate
"It's astounding that the Republicans just don't get it. The American public wants out of Iraq. Now. And they overwhelmingly blame Republicans for preventing debate on the war in the Senate:
"From the just released USA Today/Gallup poll:
"By a 60% to 38% margin, Americans oppose Bush's surge plan;
"By a 57% to 40% margin, American favor a cap on troops in Iraq;
"By a remarkable 63% to 35% margin, American want a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2007;
"By a 51% to 19% margin, Americans blame Republicans for the failure to debate the war in the Senate.
"Will they listen?
"Posted by Mark Nickolas on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 08:23 PM in Bush Administration, Congress, Iraq, Partisan Politics Permalink "
Kenneth Stepp says bring the U.S. troops home from Iraq. Republicans Hal Rogers and Mitch McConnell way keep the U.S. troops in Iraq, and stay the course on the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. In 2006, 74% of the Kentucky Fifth District voters voted to "stay the course" and keep U.S. troops fighting in Iraq. Kenneth Stepp predicts U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for the next two years, because of the high level of support the "stay the course" officeholders have received from the voters of Kentucky.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/16116130
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USA Today/Gallup Poll: Americans Wants Troops Out Of Iraq By End Of 2007; Blame Senate Republicans For Lack Of Debate:
Comments
Well, of course they will listen, the good public servants that they are. They will pull the troops right out of Iraq any minute now ... and ship them directly to Tehran.
A month from now, we'll be wishing for mere missing limbs among our troops, who by then will be dying slow agonizing deaths from radiation poisoning.
Posted by: DemforChange Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 09:16 PM
Demfor: a grim assessment. Wish I could say with certainty that you're wrong.
But I can't.
Posted by: Rich Miles Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 09:40 PM
"Blame Senate Republicans For Lack Of Debate"
Let's be more specific. Blame their leader, Addison Mitchell McConnell, Jr.
JN
Posted by: jaytn Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Of course they won't listen as they're too busy getting ready to ramp up gay marriage, gay bashing, gay this, gay that and throw on a little abortion here and little abortion there and there you are. Forget about all the issues facing us and most all of which have been caused or largely contributed to by our great President and his cabal--let's get down to gay bashing. Oh, and thank God the Rev. Haggard completed a 3 week sex identity bootcamp run by a bunch of ministers and he has now proclaimed that he's hetero for life. Praise Jaysus. Lord, help us we are in deep, deep trouble.
Posted by: victory Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 02:47 PM
hostName = '.bluegrassreport.org'
"Tuesday, February 13, 2007
"USA Today/Gallup Poll: Americans Wants Troops Out Of Iraq By End Of 2007; Blame Senate Republicans For Lack Of Debate
"It's astounding that the Republicans just don't get it. The American public wants out of Iraq. Now. And they overwhelmingly blame Republicans for preventing debate on the war in the Senate:
"From the just released USA Today/Gallup poll:
"By a 60% to 38% margin, Americans oppose Bush's surge plan;
"By a 57% to 40% margin, American favor a cap on troops in Iraq;
"By a remarkable 63% to 35% margin, American want a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2007;
"By a 51% to 19% margin, Americans blame Republicans for the failure to debate the war in the Senate.
"Will they listen?
"Posted by Mark Nickolas on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 08:23 PM in Bush Administration, Congress, Iraq, Partisan Politics Permalink "
Kenneth Stepp says bring the U.S. troops home from Iraq. Republicans Hal Rogers and Mitch McConnell way keep the U.S. troops in Iraq, and stay the course on the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. In 2006, 74% of the Kentucky Fifth District voters voted to "stay the course" and keep U.S. troops fighting in Iraq. Kenneth Stepp predicts U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for the next two years, because of the high level of support the "stay the course" officeholders have received from the voters of Kentucky.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/16116130
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USA Today/Gallup Poll: Americans Wants Troops Out Of Iraq By End Of 2007; Blame Senate Republicans For Lack Of Debate:
Comments
Well, of course they will listen, the good public servants that they are. They will pull the troops right out of Iraq any minute now ... and ship them directly to Tehran.
A month from now, we'll be wishing for mere missing limbs among our troops, who by then will be dying slow agonizing deaths from radiation poisoning.
Posted by: DemforChange Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 09:16 PM
Demfor: a grim assessment. Wish I could say with certainty that you're wrong.
But I can't.
Posted by: Rich Miles Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 09:40 PM
"Blame Senate Republicans For Lack Of Debate"
Let's be more specific. Blame their leader, Addison Mitchell McConnell, Jr.
JN
Posted by: jaytn Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 09:32 AM
Of course they won't listen as they're too busy getting ready to ramp up gay marriage, gay bashing, gay this, gay that and throw on a little abortion here and little abortion there and there you are. Forget about all the issues facing us and most all of which have been caused or largely contributed to by our great President and his cabal--let's get down to gay bashing. Oh, and thank God the Rev. Haggard completed a 3 week sex identity bootcamp run by a bunch of ministers and he has now proclaimed that he's hetero for life. Praise Jaysus. Lord, help us we are in deep, deep trouble.
Posted by: victory Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 02:47 PM
hostName = '.bluegrassreport.org'
Staying the Course.
Last fall you voted to "stay the course" with the war in Iraq. You voted for Hal Roger the "stay the course" candidate, and voted against Kenneth Stepp the "bring the troops home" candidate, remember? Now, you called the tune, so you are paying the piper. How is it going? How does it feel. Are you happy we are "staying the course"? Will you vote for Hal Rogers next time. Read what "staying the course" means. Read how The New American explains the costs in American lives and money in "staying the course" and keeping American troops in a military occupation of Iraq, where we have lost over 3,000 troops already:
"How Much Time on the Front Line?
"by Gary BenoitFebruary 5, 2007
"Email this article Printer friendly page
"With President Bush sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, and the new Democrats in Congress talking only about a phased withdrawal, when will our troops come home?
"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me," President George W. Bush acknowledged in his January 10 speech announcing his new strategy for Iraq. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
The soldiers have indeed done everything they were asked to do. More than 3,000 of them have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and many more have been maimed for life. But the war drags on and the casualties continue to mount — with no end in sight. Even the streets of Baghdad are not secure.
"According to the president, "Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have." To address these failings, President Bush announced that he's sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq and that Iraqi and American forces will now have a "green light" to enter "neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence."
"In past operations, the president acknowledged, "political and sectarian interference" have prevented the military from entering those neighborhoods. Now, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."
"Maliki's pledge rings hollow because he did more than "tolerate" the interference — he helped orchestrate it. As the New York Times recalled in its January 12 edition, Maliki "has consistently refused to sanction major offensives in Sadr City," the Shiite district in northeast Baghdad that serves as a major base of operation for the Mahdi Army led by radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. The Times also reported that Maliki has "postponed any action on a new law to disarm and demobilize the militias" and that he has "on at least one occasion ... intervened to secure the release of a man captured by American troops and identified by American commanders as a death squad leader with links to Mr. Sadr."
"Sadr's Mahdi Army, the most powerful of the Shiite militias, is responsible for so much of the sectarian violence now tearing apart Iraq that the Pentagon has described it as the country's biggest security threat. Yet this major security threat is also intertwined with Maliki's government. Sadr's "parliamentary bloc sustains Mr. Maliki in office," the Times noted.
"Not surprisingly, Bush said nothing about the Maliki-Sadr connection in his January 10 address to the American people. Nor did he try to explain why an Iraqi government that owes its very existence to American blood and treasure would ally itself with those responsible for much of the violence, why we would have continued supporting that government under those circumstances, and why we would have cooperated with political and sectarian restrictions that provided safe haven for insurgents and terrorists who targeted Americans as well as rival Islamic sects and Iraqi Christians.
"But Bush at least acknowledged that Maliki might fail to honor his pledge to no longer tolerate the political or sectarian interference. "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," Bush said in his nationally televised address. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people."
"As well it should! Furthermore, looking beyond Bush's declaration of limits on American support, questions should be raised: is the Iraqi government now deserving of the support of the American people? Is it deserving of the continued sacrifice of our soldiers? Was it ever deserving? And regardless of the answers to those questions, what exactly does President Bush hope to achieve by keeping our troops in Iraq, let alone escalating our involvement?
The New Iraqi Government
"In his January 10 speech, the president cautioned: "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship." He added: "Victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them."
"However, the regime we have installed in Iraq through our military intervention has not only harbored insurgents and terrorists but has also violated human rights. It has done this indirectly by allowing the Shiite-led death squads and militias to operate with impunity, and it has done this through direct government actions. Iraqi prisons, for instance, are once again becoming infamous for the widespread use of torture.
"The post-Saddam Iraqi government has also been moving steadily to establish closer relations with the radical Islamic regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad next door in Iran. Virtually all of the leading Shia Muslim figures in the Iraqi government have long ties to Iran. Post-Saddam Iraq's former prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is a radical Shiite Muslim and a disciple of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who labeled the United States the "Great Satan" and held our embassy and American citizens hostage. Prime Minister Jaafari made an historic pilgrimage to Tehran in July 2005, along with eight of his cabinet ministers, to lay a wreath on the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini. Jaafari spent nine years (1980-1989) in Iran, and at Ayatollah Khomeini's behest, became a founding member of the Ayatollah's Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Maliki, who replaced Jaafari as prime minister, was hosted by Ahmadinejad in Tehran in September 2006. Like Jaafari, Maliki is a member of the Iran-backed Dawa "Islamic Call" Party. Maliki has called for Iran to play a larger role in helping "stabilize" Iraq, though Iran, which is closely tied to Mahdi Army leader Moktada al-Sadr, appears to be helping not only Sadr but other warring factions fueling the violence. Iraq's President Jalal Talabani also promotes closer ties with both Iran and Syria and has made historic visits to both Tehran and Damascus to solidify relations with both terror regimes.
"Last December, U.S. forces captured Iranians, including a top commander of Iran's elite al-Quds Force, in a Baghdad compound belonging to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the same al-Hakim that the Bush administration was putting forth as a "moderate" element who would help bring peace to Iraq. Also captured were documents reportedly detailing Iran's support for Shiite and Sunni insurgents. Iraq's Maliki government pressed the United States to release the Iranians. Again, in January 2007, when U.S. forces captured members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard in northern Iraq, the Iraqi government came to the defense of the Iranians, claiming that they are "diplomatic" representatives of Iran.
"Iran, recall, was identified as an "axis of evil" nation by George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address in 2002. President Bush also said, nine days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Obviously that standard does not apply to Iraq's post-Saddam government, which is not only treated as a friend but is actually propped up by our continued military intervention.
"While there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime was a murderous and brutal dictatorship, the new Iraqi regime may prove to be even worse than Saddam's. Unlike Saddam's nonsectarian regime, which was an enemy of Iran, the new sectarian Iraq has not only enshrined Islamic law in its constitution but has aligned itself with Iran — and, by extension, Iran's terror network. And it is that terror network that makes Iran more dangerous than Saddam's despicable regime was.
"It is indeed tragically ironic that many American Christians have supported U.S. intervention in Iraq sincerely believing that this intervention would lead to a bastion in the Middle East against radical Islam, when in fact our intervention paved the way for a new Iraqi government that, by developing strong ties with Iran, appears to be headed in the opposite direction. Yet President Bush's new strategy is somehow supposed to result in "a democratic Iraq" that "fights terrorists instead of harboring them."
"Shifting Objectives
"The day after giving his speech announcing his new strategy, the president visited the troops at Fort Benning in Georgia. He told them: "It's important for our citizens to understand that as tempting as it might be, to understand the consequences of leaving before the job is done." "That job, however, is very different from how it was originally defined when the Bush administration launched its offensive war against Iraq in March of 2003. And that shift in mission has also meant a redefinition of what constitutes victory and what our soldiers are supposed to accomplish before being brought home.
When President Bush made the case for going to war against Iraq, he repeatedly stated that the purpose was to disarm Saddam's regime of its reputed weapons of mass destruction, pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions. On March 6, 2003, a few days before the offensive war was launched, Bush explained: "The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
"But after we went into Iraq, no WMDs were found, despite administration claims that Iraq not only possessed such weapons but possessed the military capability to directly threaten the United States. "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people," Bush said on March 6, 2003. "I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons." Of course, the relative quickness with which the Saddam Hussein regime fell demonstrated that the administration, in this and similar statements, had greatly overstated the threat. And the objective of getting rid of the reputed WMDs became moot.
"When the administration decided it had to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein of his reputed WMDs, another objective became removing him from power. Not only was that quickly accomplished, but Saddam is now dead.
"Still another objective, then as well as now, has been to wage war against the terrorists who had attacked us on September 11, 2001. During the months leading up to the war, and after, the Bush administration repeatedly juxtaposed references to Saddam Hussein and Iraq with references to 9/11, thereby creating the impression in the public mind that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks without explicitly making the assertion. But the administration did not possess evidence supporting such an assertion. As President Bush himself acknowledged on September 17, 2003, six months after our invasion of Iraq: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."
"Many Americans were also led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks because of repeated administration assertions of high-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. On February 5, 2003, the month before the invasion, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq's denials of its reputed ties with al-Qaeda were "simply not credible." However, 10 months after the invasion, Powell acknowledged during a January 8, 2004 press conference: "There is not — you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time we did."
"To this day the administration argues that we need to keep American troops in Iraq to fight the terrorists, including al-Qaeda. "On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities," President Bush said in his January 10 address announcing his new strategy. "For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq." Meanwhile, the new ties that the post-Saddam Iraqi regime has formed with Iran has actually strengthened the terror network's hand in Iraq.
"What Now?
"When President Bush sent American soldiers into Iraq, most Americans supported the war. But with the war approaching four years in duration with no end in sight, and with the deaths of more than 3,000 American soldiers and the expenditure of some $400 billion, American public support for the war is waning.
"In fact, the growing dissatisfaction with the war was a major factor in last November's congressional elections that transferred majority control of both the House and Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. Those elections were not so much an endorsement of the Democrats as they were a repudiation of the Republicans, whom the voters associated with the Republican president's Iraq policy.
"It is therefore not surprising that public-opinion surveys found that most Americans are opposed to the "surge" of additional troops the president announced on January 10: 61 percent are opposed according to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, and 70 percent are opposed according to an AP/Ipsos survey.
"The growing public dissatisfaction has fractured President Bush's Republican support for the war in the Congress, with some Republicans voicing unhappiness about the president's new "surge" strategy and his January 10 address. "This speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam War veteran, said in a Senate hearing. "I will resist it."
"Hagel, like most congressional Republicans and many Democrats, including new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), voted for the October 2002 resolution giving the president the authority to go to war against Iraq.
"Five days before the president made his announcement, Reid, together with new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), sent an open letter to President Bush asking him not to send additional troops to Iraq. "Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq," Reid and Pelosi wrote, "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."
"Reid and Pelosi also wrote that "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." But if Reid and Pelosi are correct about this, then why aren't they proposing to bring the troops home now? Why are they instead proposing a phased withdrawal that would not even begin until four to six months from now — and perhaps could be extended even further into the future if changing conditions are deemed to warrant a delay? If nothing more can be accomplished militarily, why maintain the status quo and keep our troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war while the body count mounts?
"One congressman who wants to bring home the troops now is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Paul, one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the 2002 Iraq war resolution, recently observed on the House floor that "preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster." (See the sidebar on page 14.) That has indeed been the case. And undoubtedly many more Americans would now agree with that stark assessment than in 2003 when the invasion of Iraq was launched.
"Saddam Hussein Is Dead — So Are 3,000 Americans
"y Ron Paul
"Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who is now considering running for president. During the last (109th) Congress, he earned a 100 percent cumulative score in this magazine's "Conservative Index." Rep. Paul made the following remarks on the floor of the House five days before the president gave his nationally televised address announcing his new strategy.
"Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is dead. So are 3,000 Americans. The regime in Iraq has been changed; yet victory will not be declared. Not only does the war go on; it is about to escalate. Obviously, the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war.
"We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. "That war went on for another decade. And by the time we finally finished that war and got out, 60,000 Americans had died. We obviously should have gotten out 10 years sooner. Troop surge then meant serious escalation.
"The election is over and Americans have spoken: enough is enough. They want the war ended and our troops brought home. But the opposite is likely to occur. With bipartisan support, up to 50,000 troops may well be sent. The goal no longer is to win. Now it is simply to secure Baghdad. So much has been spent with so little to show for it.
"Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the turmoil in Iraq, as have Iranian Shiites who are now in a better position to take control of southern Iraq.
"Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead, and only Sunnis mourn. The Shiites and Kurds celebrate his death, as do the Iranians and especially bin Laden, all enemies of Saddam Hussein. We have performed a tremendous service for both bin Laden and Ahmadinejad [the president of Iran], and it will cost us plenty. The violent reaction to our complicity in the execution of Saddam Hussein is yet to come.
"Three thousand American military personnel are dead. More than 22,000 are wounded, and tens of thousands will be psychologically traumatized by their tours of duty in Iraq. Little concern is given to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. We have spent $400 billion so far with no end in sight. This money we do not have. It is all borrowed from countries like China that increasingly succeed in the global economy while we drain wealth from our citizens through heavy taxation and insidious inflation. Our manufacturing base is now nearly extinct. Where the additional U.S. troops in Iraq will come from is anybody's guess, but surely they won't be redeployed from Japan, Korea, or Europe.
"We at least must pretend that our bankrupt empire is intact, but then again, the Soviet empire appeared intact in 1988. Some members of Congress intent on equitably distributing the suffering among all Americans want to bring back the draft. Administration officials vehemently deny making any concrete plans for a draft.
"But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq. Selective Service officials admit running a check of their list of available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the god of equality. Conscription is slavery, plain and simple, and it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement.
"Instead of testing the efficacy of the Selective Service System and sending more troops off to a war that we are losing, we ought to revive our love of liberty. We should repeal the Selective Service Act. A free society should never depend on compulsory conscription to defend itself.
We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or obeying the rule of law. "Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never would have been fought.
"If we did not create credit out of thin air, as the Constitution prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war directly by increased taxation. How long this financial charade can go on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes, it will not go unnoticed by any American."
You voted to "stay the course" now you got it. How do you like it?
"How Much Time on the Front Line?
"by Gary BenoitFebruary 5, 2007
"Email this article Printer friendly page
"With President Bush sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, and the new Democrats in Congress talking only about a phased withdrawal, when will our troops come home?
"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me," President George W. Bush acknowledged in his January 10 speech announcing his new strategy for Iraq. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
The soldiers have indeed done everything they were asked to do. More than 3,000 of them have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and many more have been maimed for life. But the war drags on and the casualties continue to mount — with no end in sight. Even the streets of Baghdad are not secure.
"According to the president, "Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have." To address these failings, President Bush announced that he's sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq and that Iraqi and American forces will now have a "green light" to enter "neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence."
"In past operations, the president acknowledged, "political and sectarian interference" have prevented the military from entering those neighborhoods. Now, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."
"Maliki's pledge rings hollow because he did more than "tolerate" the interference — he helped orchestrate it. As the New York Times recalled in its January 12 edition, Maliki "has consistently refused to sanction major offensives in Sadr City," the Shiite district in northeast Baghdad that serves as a major base of operation for the Mahdi Army led by radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. The Times also reported that Maliki has "postponed any action on a new law to disarm and demobilize the militias" and that he has "on at least one occasion ... intervened to secure the release of a man captured by American troops and identified by American commanders as a death squad leader with links to Mr. Sadr."
"Sadr's Mahdi Army, the most powerful of the Shiite militias, is responsible for so much of the sectarian violence now tearing apart Iraq that the Pentagon has described it as the country's biggest security threat. Yet this major security threat is also intertwined with Maliki's government. Sadr's "parliamentary bloc sustains Mr. Maliki in office," the Times noted.
"Not surprisingly, Bush said nothing about the Maliki-Sadr connection in his January 10 address to the American people. Nor did he try to explain why an Iraqi government that owes its very existence to American blood and treasure would ally itself with those responsible for much of the violence, why we would have continued supporting that government under those circumstances, and why we would have cooperated with political and sectarian restrictions that provided safe haven for insurgents and terrorists who targeted Americans as well as rival Islamic sects and Iraqi Christians.
"But Bush at least acknowledged that Maliki might fail to honor his pledge to no longer tolerate the political or sectarian interference. "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," Bush said in his nationally televised address. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people."
"As well it should! Furthermore, looking beyond Bush's declaration of limits on American support, questions should be raised: is the Iraqi government now deserving of the support of the American people? Is it deserving of the continued sacrifice of our soldiers? Was it ever deserving? And regardless of the answers to those questions, what exactly does President Bush hope to achieve by keeping our troops in Iraq, let alone escalating our involvement?
The New Iraqi Government
"In his January 10 speech, the president cautioned: "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship." He added: "Victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them."
"However, the regime we have installed in Iraq through our military intervention has not only harbored insurgents and terrorists but has also violated human rights. It has done this indirectly by allowing the Shiite-led death squads and militias to operate with impunity, and it has done this through direct government actions. Iraqi prisons, for instance, are once again becoming infamous for the widespread use of torture.
"The post-Saddam Iraqi government has also been moving steadily to establish closer relations with the radical Islamic regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad next door in Iran. Virtually all of the leading Shia Muslim figures in the Iraqi government have long ties to Iran. Post-Saddam Iraq's former prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is a radical Shiite Muslim and a disciple of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who labeled the United States the "Great Satan" and held our embassy and American citizens hostage. Prime Minister Jaafari made an historic pilgrimage to Tehran in July 2005, along with eight of his cabinet ministers, to lay a wreath on the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini. Jaafari spent nine years (1980-1989) in Iran, and at Ayatollah Khomeini's behest, became a founding member of the Ayatollah's Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Maliki, who replaced Jaafari as prime minister, was hosted by Ahmadinejad in Tehran in September 2006. Like Jaafari, Maliki is a member of the Iran-backed Dawa "Islamic Call" Party. Maliki has called for Iran to play a larger role in helping "stabilize" Iraq, though Iran, which is closely tied to Mahdi Army leader Moktada al-Sadr, appears to be helping not only Sadr but other warring factions fueling the violence. Iraq's President Jalal Talabani also promotes closer ties with both Iran and Syria and has made historic visits to both Tehran and Damascus to solidify relations with both terror regimes.
"Last December, U.S. forces captured Iranians, including a top commander of Iran's elite al-Quds Force, in a Baghdad compound belonging to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the same al-Hakim that the Bush administration was putting forth as a "moderate" element who would help bring peace to Iraq. Also captured were documents reportedly detailing Iran's support for Shiite and Sunni insurgents. Iraq's Maliki government pressed the United States to release the Iranians. Again, in January 2007, when U.S. forces captured members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard in northern Iraq, the Iraqi government came to the defense of the Iranians, claiming that they are "diplomatic" representatives of Iran.
"Iran, recall, was identified as an "axis of evil" nation by George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address in 2002. President Bush also said, nine days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Obviously that standard does not apply to Iraq's post-Saddam government, which is not only treated as a friend but is actually propped up by our continued military intervention.
"While there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime was a murderous and brutal dictatorship, the new Iraqi regime may prove to be even worse than Saddam's. Unlike Saddam's nonsectarian regime, which was an enemy of Iran, the new sectarian Iraq has not only enshrined Islamic law in its constitution but has aligned itself with Iran — and, by extension, Iran's terror network. And it is that terror network that makes Iran more dangerous than Saddam's despicable regime was.
"It is indeed tragically ironic that many American Christians have supported U.S. intervention in Iraq sincerely believing that this intervention would lead to a bastion in the Middle East against radical Islam, when in fact our intervention paved the way for a new Iraqi government that, by developing strong ties with Iran, appears to be headed in the opposite direction. Yet President Bush's new strategy is somehow supposed to result in "a democratic Iraq" that "fights terrorists instead of harboring them."
"Shifting Objectives
"The day after giving his speech announcing his new strategy, the president visited the troops at Fort Benning in Georgia. He told them: "It's important for our citizens to understand that as tempting as it might be, to understand the consequences of leaving before the job is done." "That job, however, is very different from how it was originally defined when the Bush administration launched its offensive war against Iraq in March of 2003. And that shift in mission has also meant a redefinition of what constitutes victory and what our soldiers are supposed to accomplish before being brought home.
When President Bush made the case for going to war against Iraq, he repeatedly stated that the purpose was to disarm Saddam's regime of its reputed weapons of mass destruction, pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions. On March 6, 2003, a few days before the offensive war was launched, Bush explained: "The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
"But after we went into Iraq, no WMDs were found, despite administration claims that Iraq not only possessed such weapons but possessed the military capability to directly threaten the United States. "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people," Bush said on March 6, 2003. "I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons." Of course, the relative quickness with which the Saddam Hussein regime fell demonstrated that the administration, in this and similar statements, had greatly overstated the threat. And the objective of getting rid of the reputed WMDs became moot.
"When the administration decided it had to forcibly disarm Saddam Hussein of his reputed WMDs, another objective became removing him from power. Not only was that quickly accomplished, but Saddam is now dead.
"Still another objective, then as well as now, has been to wage war against the terrorists who had attacked us on September 11, 2001. During the months leading up to the war, and after, the Bush administration repeatedly juxtaposed references to Saddam Hussein and Iraq with references to 9/11, thereby creating the impression in the public mind that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks without explicitly making the assertion. But the administration did not possess evidence supporting such an assertion. As President Bush himself acknowledged on September 17, 2003, six months after our invasion of Iraq: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th [attacks]."
"Many Americans were also led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks because of repeated administration assertions of high-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. On February 5, 2003, the month before the invasion, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq's denials of its reputed ties with al-Qaeda were "simply not credible." However, 10 months after the invasion, Powell acknowledged during a January 8, 2004 press conference: "There is not — you know, I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time we did."
"To this day the administration argues that we need to keep American troops in Iraq to fight the terrorists, including al-Qaeda. "On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities," President Bush said in his January 10 address announcing his new strategy. "For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq." Meanwhile, the new ties that the post-Saddam Iraqi regime has formed with Iran has actually strengthened the terror network's hand in Iraq.
"What Now?
"When President Bush sent American soldiers into Iraq, most Americans supported the war. But with the war approaching four years in duration with no end in sight, and with the deaths of more than 3,000 American soldiers and the expenditure of some $400 billion, American public support for the war is waning.
"In fact, the growing dissatisfaction with the war was a major factor in last November's congressional elections that transferred majority control of both the House and Senate from the Republicans to the Democrats. Those elections were not so much an endorsement of the Democrats as they were a repudiation of the Republicans, whom the voters associated with the Republican president's Iraq policy.
"It is therefore not surprising that public-opinion surveys found that most Americans are opposed to the "surge" of additional troops the president announced on January 10: 61 percent are opposed according to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, and 70 percent are opposed according to an AP/Ipsos survey.
"The growing public dissatisfaction has fractured President Bush's Republican support for the war in the Congress, with some Republicans voicing unhappiness about the president's new "surge" strategy and his January 10 address. "This speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam War veteran, said in a Senate hearing. "I will resist it."
"Hagel, like most congressional Republicans and many Democrats, including new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), voted for the October 2002 resolution giving the president the authority to go to war against Iraq.
"Five days before the president made his announcement, Reid, together with new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), sent an open letter to President Bush asking him not to send additional troops to Iraq. "Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq," Reid and Pelosi wrote, "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."
"Reid and Pelosi also wrote that "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." But if Reid and Pelosi are correct about this, then why aren't they proposing to bring the troops home now? Why are they instead proposing a phased withdrawal that would not even begin until four to six months from now — and perhaps could be extended even further into the future if changing conditions are deemed to warrant a delay? If nothing more can be accomplished militarily, why maintain the status quo and keep our troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war while the body count mounts?
"One congressman who wants to bring home the troops now is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Paul, one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the 2002 Iraq war resolution, recently observed on the House floor that "preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster." (See the sidebar on page 14.) That has indeed been the case. And undoubtedly many more Americans would now agree with that stark assessment than in 2003 when the invasion of Iraq was launched.
"Saddam Hussein Is Dead — So Are 3,000 Americans
"y Ron Paul
"Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who is now considering running for president. During the last (109th) Congress, he earned a 100 percent cumulative score in this magazine's "Conservative Index." Rep. Paul made the following remarks on the floor of the House five days before the president gave his nationally televised address announcing his new strategy.
"Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is dead. So are 3,000 Americans. The regime in Iraq has been changed; yet victory will not be declared. Not only does the war go on; it is about to escalate. Obviously, the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war.
"We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. "That war went on for another decade. And by the time we finally finished that war and got out, 60,000 Americans had died. We obviously should have gotten out 10 years sooner. Troop surge then meant serious escalation.
"The election is over and Americans have spoken: enough is enough. They want the war ended and our troops brought home. But the opposite is likely to occur. With bipartisan support, up to 50,000 troops may well be sent. The goal no longer is to win. Now it is simply to secure Baghdad. So much has been spent with so little to show for it.
"Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the turmoil in Iraq, as have Iranian Shiites who are now in a better position to take control of southern Iraq.
"Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead, and only Sunnis mourn. The Shiites and Kurds celebrate his death, as do the Iranians and especially bin Laden, all enemies of Saddam Hussein. We have performed a tremendous service for both bin Laden and Ahmadinejad [the president of Iran], and it will cost us plenty. The violent reaction to our complicity in the execution of Saddam Hussein is yet to come.
"Three thousand American military personnel are dead. More than 22,000 are wounded, and tens of thousands will be psychologically traumatized by their tours of duty in Iraq. Little concern is given to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. We have spent $400 billion so far with no end in sight. This money we do not have. It is all borrowed from countries like China that increasingly succeed in the global economy while we drain wealth from our citizens through heavy taxation and insidious inflation. Our manufacturing base is now nearly extinct. Where the additional U.S. troops in Iraq will come from is anybody's guess, but surely they won't be redeployed from Japan, Korea, or Europe.
"We at least must pretend that our bankrupt empire is intact, but then again, the Soviet empire appeared intact in 1988. Some members of Congress intent on equitably distributing the suffering among all Americans want to bring back the draft. Administration officials vehemently deny making any concrete plans for a draft.
"But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq. Selective Service officials admit running a check of their list of available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the god of equality. Conscription is slavery, plain and simple, and it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement.
"Instead of testing the efficacy of the Selective Service System and sending more troops off to a war that we are losing, we ought to revive our love of liberty. We should repeal the Selective Service Act. A free society should never depend on compulsory conscription to defend itself.
We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or obeying the rule of law. "Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never would have been fought.
"If we did not create credit out of thin air, as the Constitution prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war directly by increased taxation. How long this financial charade can go on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes, it will not go unnoticed by any American."
You voted to "stay the course" now you got it. How do you like it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
