Something has nagged me for the last week or so. It has to do with the child health care bill that Bush vetoed. I just got angrier the more I thought about it, yet I couldn't pin point the exact why.
Then, I picked it apart. It wasn't one reason, it's many. So, this is my rant...
Conservatives hate the plan. Let's examine why.
First, they are bitching and whining about the cost. Yet Bush's little Iraq war (remember "cake walk", "seen as liberators"...?) is costing the poor taxpayer hundreds of thousands per MINUTE! And that's just fine with them. I don't mean poor tax payer as in I feel sorry for them. I mean poor as in not wealthy. With the tax breaks for the rich, it is the poor and middle class that will pay. Besides, us evil smokers are the ones footing this bill, and I would pay happily for it.
Now, money aside, let's talk about the self proclaimed moral majority. These people want to banish abortion. They want abortion illegal, for any and all reasons. They insist stem cell research shall never be in their lifetime. Now, these hypocrites, demanding that you carry, birth and raise a child you can't afford, refuse to lift a penny to help that child. If a child's life is so damn important to these.... people, then why is caring for their health so bad to them?
Don't even get me started on the Christian right!
Do you remember Bush calling Kerry a "flip-flopper"? If you do, you might remember the 2004 campaign where Bush himself rode the vote train on promising to pass a bill such as this one. Flop-Flip-Lie. In vetoing the bill, he made a statement that "The middle class wants a right of passage.." or something similar. Funny, I didn't think we had a middle class anymore.
Six years ago, I was doing well. My husband and I made about $100 or so a year. We had a nice little house and traveled, raised three sons... We were living the American dream. Now, six years later, we have two in college and one coastie. Both of the college boys are basically self supporting though we do help them with food and books and some odd expenses. We make about the same, kids all moved out and we moved down two steps on the "Class Meter". The cost of living has sky rocketed to the point that put us one step up over the poverty line. I can't even fathom starting with less six years ago.
The Right does not what health care for children to have a human face. They want to call themselves "kinder & gentler" but the fact is, that they are cold hearted. They want to talk about dying children as abstract theory. They resent the idea that we might say, "We are talking about real children and this what they look like." How else are we and the American people to keep our focus on the real significance and impact of the policies that we are discussing. The Republicans are outraged now, but they have no qualms about using children as poster children for their favorite causes like "freedom of no choice" and denying life saving stem cell research. That is perfectly okay.
Showing posts with label Neocons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neocons. Show all posts
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Bushco's War on Terror Report Card
If we are to truly understand the War on Terror and it's effects, we must first understand the word.
Terror:
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demand
Now, we have all heard that we Americans are fighting a vital war on terror. We have heard that this war is helping us in our quest for safety.
But, is it?
Bush may not listen to the experts but I think it's a good idea none-the-less. Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress once again turned to the very people who have run the United States national security apparatus during the past half century. Surveying more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy experts—Republicans and Democrats alike.
This is what they had to say:
*Six years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just 29 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war on terror—the lowest percentage at any point since 9/11. More than 60 percent of Americans now say that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake.
*The world these experts see today is one that continues to grow more threatening. Fully 91 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percentage points since February. Eighty-four percent do not believe the United States is winning the war on terror, an increase of 9 percentage points from six months ago. More than 80 percent expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade, a result that is more or less unchanged from one year ago.
*Nearly every foreign policy of the U.S. government—from domestic surveillance activities and the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. energy policies and efforts in the Middle East peace process—was sharply criticized by the experts. More than 6 in 10 experts, for instance, believe U.S. energy policies are negatively affecting the country’s national security. The experts were similarly critical of the CIA’s rendition of terrorist suspects to countries known to torture prisoners and the Pentagon’s policy of trying detainees before military tribunals.
*No effort of the U.S. government was more harshly criticized, however, than the war in Iraq. In fact, that conflict appears to be the root cause of the experts’ pessimism about the state of national security. Nearly all—92 percent—of the index’s experts said the war in Iraq negatively affects U.S. national security, an increase of 5 percentage points from a year ago. Negative perceptions of the war in Iraq are shared across the political spectrum, with 84 percent of those who describe themselves as conservative taking a dim view of the war’s impact.
*More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all. When the experts were asked to grade the government’s handling of the Iraq war, the news was even worse. They gave the overall effort in Iraq an average point score of just 2.9 on a 10-point scale. The government’s public diplomacy record was the only policy that scored lower.
These are just snip-its of the entire article. I'd be more that happy to send it to Bush, but I don't think he can read.
Terror:
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demand
Now, we have all heard that we Americans are fighting a vital war on terror. We have heard that this war is helping us in our quest for safety.
But, is it?
Bush may not listen to the experts but I think it's a good idea none-the-less. Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress once again turned to the very people who have run the United States national security apparatus during the past half century. Surveying more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy experts—Republicans and Democrats alike.
This is what they had to say:
*Six years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just 29 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war on terror—the lowest percentage at any point since 9/11. More than 60 percent of Americans now say that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake.
*The world these experts see today is one that continues to grow more threatening. Fully 91 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percentage points since February. Eighty-four percent do not believe the United States is winning the war on terror, an increase of 9 percentage points from six months ago. More than 80 percent expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade, a result that is more or less unchanged from one year ago.
*Nearly every foreign policy of the U.S. government—from domestic surveillance activities and the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. energy policies and efforts in the Middle East peace process—was sharply criticized by the experts. More than 6 in 10 experts, for instance, believe U.S. energy policies are negatively affecting the country’s national security. The experts were similarly critical of the CIA’s rendition of terrorist suspects to countries known to torture prisoners and the Pentagon’s policy of trying detainees before military tribunals.
*No effort of the U.S. government was more harshly criticized, however, than the war in Iraq. In fact, that conflict appears to be the root cause of the experts’ pessimism about the state of national security. Nearly all—92 percent—of the index’s experts said the war in Iraq negatively affects U.S. national security, an increase of 5 percentage points from a year ago. Negative perceptions of the war in Iraq are shared across the political spectrum, with 84 percent of those who describe themselves as conservative taking a dim view of the war’s impact.
*More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all. When the experts were asked to grade the government’s handling of the Iraq war, the news was even worse. They gave the overall effort in Iraq an average point score of just 2.9 on a 10-point scale. The government’s public diplomacy record was the only policy that scored lower.
These are just snip-its of the entire article. I'd be more that happy to send it to Bush, but I don't think he can read.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wiretapping Terrorists?
Would you be shocked if you found out that this administration was spying on anti-war groups? Would it shock you that this is, in part, part of the terrorist watch program, the one with all of the warrantless wire tapping? No? Me either.
If Bush is refusing to get a warrant to tap your phone, then it can't be for a "real reason." Similar to his refusal to go under oath, he won't because he most certainly isn't going to tell the truth.
The Pentagon's new intelligence undersecretary is recommending the Defense Department shut down a controversial classified database that has been criticized for improperly collecting information on anti-war groups and citizens.
Recommending?
The database has been under critical review since it was publicly disclosed in December 2005.
Anti-war groups and other organizations, including a Quaker group — the American Friends Service Committee — protested after it was revealed that the military had monitored anti-war activities, organizations and individuals who attended peace rallies.
Pentagon officials last year said the program was productive and had detected international terrorist interests in specific military bases. But they also acknowledged that some workers may not have been using the system properly.
So, peaceful anti-war protesters are actually terrorists in disguise?
Why are we so eager to lay down our civil liberties? Why isn't the public storming the castle over this? Why do we not care? Are we that afraid? Or, do we just not care?
A wise friend told me (I don't actually know how accurate this is, but...) the attacks of 9/11 took ten years from planning to execution. With a grin, he remarked it was "Bush to Bush". He also, in his infinite wisdom, declared that if this warrantless wiretapping was working here.... maybe we should try that in Iraq, rather than this so-called "surge". I think he may have a point.
The TALON reports — collected by an array of Defense Department agencies including law enforcement, intelligence, counterintelligence and security — are compiled in a large database and analyzed by an obscure Pentagon agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity. CIFA is a three-year-old outfit whose size and budget are secret.
Last year, a Pentagon review found that as many as 260 reports in the database were improperly collected or kept there. At the time, the Pentagon said there were about 13,000 entries in the database, and that less than 2 percent either were wrongly added or were not purged later when they were determined not to involve real threats.
Pissed off yet?
If Bush is refusing to get a warrant to tap your phone, then it can't be for a "real reason." Similar to his refusal to go under oath, he won't because he most certainly isn't going to tell the truth.
The Pentagon's new intelligence undersecretary is recommending the Defense Department shut down a controversial classified database that has been criticized for improperly collecting information on anti-war groups and citizens.
Recommending?
The database has been under critical review since it was publicly disclosed in December 2005.
Anti-war groups and other organizations, including a Quaker group — the American Friends Service Committee — protested after it was revealed that the military had monitored anti-war activities, organizations and individuals who attended peace rallies.
Pentagon officials last year said the program was productive and had detected international terrorist interests in specific military bases. But they also acknowledged that some workers may not have been using the system properly.
So, peaceful anti-war protesters are actually terrorists in disguise?
Why are we so eager to lay down our civil liberties? Why isn't the public storming the castle over this? Why do we not care? Are we that afraid? Or, do we just not care?
A wise friend told me (I don't actually know how accurate this is, but...) the attacks of 9/11 took ten years from planning to execution. With a grin, he remarked it was "Bush to Bush". He also, in his infinite wisdom, declared that if this warrantless wiretapping was working here.... maybe we should try that in Iraq, rather than this so-called "surge". I think he may have a point.
The TALON reports — collected by an array of Defense Department agencies including law enforcement, intelligence, counterintelligence and security — are compiled in a large database and analyzed by an obscure Pentagon agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity. CIFA is a three-year-old outfit whose size and budget are secret.
Last year, a Pentagon review found that as many as 260 reports in the database were improperly collected or kept there. At the time, the Pentagon said there were about 13,000 entries in the database, and that less than 2 percent either were wrongly added or were not purged later when they were determined not to involve real threats.
Pissed off yet?
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Spinning a Web of Lies
How many of us have heard the mantra, "We can win in Iraq" or something similar?
I have spent three years listening to this. Again, we are now listing to the minorities in Congress rant this phrase over and over. If it isn't this it's words like "victory" and another personal favorite, "losing is not an option." Which ranks right up there with "If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here". All lies.
We've heard that during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam.... Can we get some originality in this administration - please!
Back on the Iraq mantra's, what is there to "win" in Iraq? We are bombarded with this "victory" ideal, yet no one can seem to answer that question. Hell, I have yet to see anyone ask. According to Bush's speech leading us into this abyss, it was to find WMD's, oust Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people. Maybe I was dreaming, but it seems to me these points have been "mission accomplished". So, whats to win?
Let's see, Bush's new stock is in coffin making companies? Flag making Companies? Ethnic cleansing isn't "mission accomplished"?
Or could it be, this?
Iraq could hold almost twice as much oil in its reserves as had been thought, according to the most comprehensive independent study of its resources since the US-led invasion in 2003.
The potential presence of a further 100bn barrels in the western desert highlights the opportunity for Iraq to be one of the world’s biggest oil suppliers, and its attractions for international oil companies – if the conflict in the country can be resolved.
If confirmed, it would raise Iraq from the world’s third largest source of oil reserves with 116bn barrels to second place, behind Saudi Arabia and overtaking Iran.
Now, with such an honest and God fearing president, that can't possible be true right?
Remember this?
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
How about this?
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
We all know how that worked out, don't we?
Now, this:
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.
What about March of '03?
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Well, those are Bush's words, not mine. So, tell me, what's to win? Why are we still there? And what makes Bush or Cheney or any neocon for that matter believe that they are better than these "terrorist producing" states? Maybe it's just me, but when I re-read these speeches, I thought I saw this administration become what they say they are defending us from.
These words and actions are acts of treason. We must impeach now and bring our troops home. It will take decades to recover from the lies and hell the last six years have done to us, to other nations, to our reputation, to our people.
Support our troops with respect and honor they deserve. Demand Impeachment.
*Thanks to Jim at Derosas World for the Link.
I have spent three years listening to this. Again, we are now listing to the minorities in Congress rant this phrase over and over. If it isn't this it's words like "victory" and another personal favorite, "losing is not an option." Which ranks right up there with "If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here". All lies.
We've heard that during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam.... Can we get some originality in this administration - please!
Back on the Iraq mantra's, what is there to "win" in Iraq? We are bombarded with this "victory" ideal, yet no one can seem to answer that question. Hell, I have yet to see anyone ask. According to Bush's speech leading us into this abyss, it was to find WMD's, oust Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people. Maybe I was dreaming, but it seems to me these points have been "mission accomplished". So, whats to win?
Let's see, Bush's new stock is in coffin making companies? Flag making Companies? Ethnic cleansing isn't "mission accomplished"?
Or could it be, this?
Iraq could hold almost twice as much oil in its reserves as had been thought, according to the most comprehensive independent study of its resources since the US-led invasion in 2003.
The potential presence of a further 100bn barrels in the western desert highlights the opportunity for Iraq to be one of the world’s biggest oil suppliers, and its attractions for international oil companies – if the conflict in the country can be resolved.
If confirmed, it would raise Iraq from the world’s third largest source of oil reserves with 116bn barrels to second place, behind Saudi Arabia and overtaking Iran.
Now, with such an honest and God fearing president, that can't possible be true right?
Remember this?
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.
How about this?
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
We all know how that worked out, don't we?
Now, this:
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.
What about March of '03?
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Well, those are Bush's words, not mine. So, tell me, what's to win? Why are we still there? And what makes Bush or Cheney or any neocon for that matter believe that they are better than these "terrorist producing" states? Maybe it's just me, but when I re-read these speeches, I thought I saw this administration become what they say they are defending us from.
These words and actions are acts of treason. We must impeach now and bring our troops home. It will take decades to recover from the lies and hell the last six years have done to us, to other nations, to our reputation, to our people.
Support our troops with respect and honor they deserve. Demand Impeachment.
*Thanks to Jim at Derosas World for the Link.
Friday, April 20, 2007
John McCain bomb bomb Iran song beach boys style
It's official, McCain has completely lost it.
McCain, campaigning Wednesday in South Carolina, answered a question about military action against Iran with the chorus of the surf-rocker classic "Barbara Ann."
"That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran," he said. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ..."
His audience laughed, but MoveOn.org called the comment dangerous.
"America has lived through six years of a reckless foreign policy," an announcer says in the ad. "We're stuck in Iraq. More than 3,000 Americans are dead. And thousands more wounded.
"Now comes John McCain with his answer to what we should do about Iran. John McCain? We can't afford another reckless president."
The head of MoveOn said McCain displayed "more out-of-control bravado."
"The point is, a presidential candidate just doesn't kid around about bombing other countries, especially countries with high tensions, and especially where a diplomatic solution is our only hope," Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said Friday.
McCain's comments, posted on YouTube.com, had been viewed at least 118,056 times as of Friday morning.
I honestly believe that the power and warmongering of these insane GOPers has gone straight to their heads.
His "joke" is not funny. It is a slap in the face to every single American GI and every single family member. Granted diplomacy is not one of the strong points of this administration, hell, with these "people" it isn't a point at all.
So, what's funny McClueless? That all the "brown" people aren't dead yet? Exxon doesn't control all the worlds oil? Fragments of the Constitution still remain? Pictures of Iraqi children -dead or worse? Your lack of respect for our troops? Their families? Our Fallen? Our disabled? What?
I have a great sense of humor. I really do. In fact, when you are laughed right out of this and any future campaigns, you worthless hack, I'll be laughing the loudest!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Delusions of Reality
Why I felt the need to take my fever and go slumming in the Red Zone, is beyond me. Maybe I was looking for humor, their whacked out ideas can be called comedy at times. Maybe I feel a need to understand where their lack of sanity comes from. Maybe I'm just a gluten for punishment. Either way, I happened across this at Red State.
More chemical weapons found in Iraq
Acting on a tip from neighbors, members of the Stryker Brigade's Alpha Company found 31 barrels of nitric acid Saturday in the walled-off front yard of a house that had been raided less than two weeks earlier.
Then the wingnuts (leaving out our white phosphorous) continue with this:
Well, that's no big deal. Don't you remember the President's statement that Saddam had, among other WMDs, Botulinum Toxin, which is used here in the US, by Nancy Pelosi and others, in the form of Botox? And don't you also remember the derision with which that warning was met by the reality-based community, which did an Olbermann on Mr. Bush, saying that it was absolutely ridiculous to be concerned about Saddam's having "botox?"
Oh give it up!!
The reasons for invading Iraq were WMD''s, bio chemicals and the al-Qaeda link. There wasn't any. NONE. Got that? NONE.
Thanks to the arrogance, lies and total stupidity of this administration, there are now. Yet these wingnuts insist on grasping at straws and insisting this invasion was the right thing to do. What a load of BS, eh? To think, bush actually had the audacity to call his little illegal war of aggression "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
What makes the remaining 23% cling to these lies and spins? Why can't they see the truth? Why can't they separate the fantasy from the reality?
So, the bad guys are making chemical weapons in Iraq...chemical weapons are classified by the UN as WMDs...so there are WMDs in Iraq...wait. That can't be right. The reality-based community said they weren't.
Ditto al-Qaeda in Iraq - they definitely aren't there. Wait...
I rest my case!
More chemical weapons found in Iraq
Acting on a tip from neighbors, members of the Stryker Brigade's Alpha Company found 31 barrels of nitric acid Saturday in the walled-off front yard of a house that had been raided less than two weeks earlier.
Then the wingnuts (leaving out our white phosphorous) continue with this:
Well, that's no big deal. Don't you remember the President's statement that Saddam had, among other WMDs, Botulinum Toxin, which is used here in the US, by Nancy Pelosi and others, in the form of Botox? And don't you also remember the derision with which that warning was met by the reality-based community, which did an Olbermann on Mr. Bush, saying that it was absolutely ridiculous to be concerned about Saddam's having "botox?"
Oh give it up!!
The reasons for invading Iraq were WMD''s, bio chemicals and the al-Qaeda link. There wasn't any. NONE. Got that? NONE.
Thanks to the arrogance, lies and total stupidity of this administration, there are now. Yet these wingnuts insist on grasping at straws and insisting this invasion was the right thing to do. What a load of BS, eh? To think, bush actually had the audacity to call his little illegal war of aggression "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
What makes the remaining 23% cling to these lies and spins? Why can't they see the truth? Why can't they separate the fantasy from the reality?
So, the bad guys are making chemical weapons in Iraq...chemical weapons are classified by the UN as WMDs...so there are WMDs in Iraq...wait. That can't be right. The reality-based community said they weren't.
Ditto al-Qaeda in Iraq - they definitely aren't there. Wait...
I rest my case!
Monday, April 9, 2007
Enough!
Enough!
Enough of the rhetoric, enough of the lies, enough of the spin, enough of the name calling and anti-war bashing. Enough! We have had enough. The proof that Iraq is falling deeper into hell at the hands of this administration is out there. It's staring us in the face. Why the shrub administration and their asskissing followers refuse to see this is a complete unknown.
Recall that Bush saw Baghdad not as the final destination of his global war on terror but as a point of departure. He imagined that liberating Iraq might trigger a flowering of Arab democracy. He was counting on Saddam Hussein's ouster to jump-start a regional transformation. He expected a forthright demonstration of U.S. military might to enhance America's standing across the Muslim world, with friend and foe alike thereafter deferring to Washington.
None of that has come to pass. Baghdad has become a cul-de-sac. Having plunged into a war he cannot win, Bush will not relent. Iraq consumes his presidency because the president wills that it should. He has become Captain Ahab: His identification with his war is absolute.
As a consequence, the "global" effort aimed at eliminating Islamic terror, launched back in September 2001, has narrowed in scope. Today the global war is global in name only. In reality, it has become a war for Mesopotamia.
For his part, the president increasingly preoccupies himself with tactics at the expense of statecraft. Much as Lyndon Johnson once reviewed lists of targets to be bombed in Hanoi, Bush now ponders how many brigades will be needed to impose order on a handful of neighborhoods around Baghdad.
Ritualistic allusions to freedom as the antidote to terrorism still occasionally crop up in presidential speeches, but rhetoric no longer translates into action. An administration that once touted its expansive and principled approach to preventing another 9/11 has abandoned principle. Now there is only Iraq and the effort to ensure that today's news out of Baghdad isn't any worse than yesterday's.
Our political attention, then, needs to turn to whether the president's would-be successors can do what Bush cannot: acknowledge our failure in Iraq and look beyond it.
He will of course, not take the advice of experts. He will not listen to the cries of the Iraqi people. He will, however, do as the Carlyle Group et al. tell him to. It's a shame, really that in seven years, he was allowed to destroy a nation, it's good standing and the will of it's people. He has devastated Iraq. He has blamed others for his "missteps" his "errors in judgment" or as I like to call them, his "complete arrogant incompetence."
We, and the world, can not afford another administration such as this one. We can not afford the religious right to pluck away at our given liberties and freedoms over a book they have never read. We can not afford more Katrina's and ignorance of global warming. We can not afford more out souring of jobs and higher health and education costs.
Enough! It's time for us to speak even louder. Time to march on the White House, call our congressmen and women and demand to be heard. Time to canvas and talk and support those with our bests interests at heart. The time for dictatorship and war mongering is over. The time for the people is now.
Enough of the rhetoric, enough of the lies, enough of the spin, enough of the name calling and anti-war bashing. Enough! We have had enough. The proof that Iraq is falling deeper into hell at the hands of this administration is out there. It's staring us in the face. Why the shrub administration and their asskissing followers refuse to see this is a complete unknown.
Recall that Bush saw Baghdad not as the final destination of his global war on terror but as a point of departure. He imagined that liberating Iraq might trigger a flowering of Arab democracy. He was counting on Saddam Hussein's ouster to jump-start a regional transformation. He expected a forthright demonstration of U.S. military might to enhance America's standing across the Muslim world, with friend and foe alike thereafter deferring to Washington.
None of that has come to pass. Baghdad has become a cul-de-sac. Having plunged into a war he cannot win, Bush will not relent. Iraq consumes his presidency because the president wills that it should. He has become Captain Ahab: His identification with his war is absolute.
As a consequence, the "global" effort aimed at eliminating Islamic terror, launched back in September 2001, has narrowed in scope. Today the global war is global in name only. In reality, it has become a war for Mesopotamia.
For his part, the president increasingly preoccupies himself with tactics at the expense of statecraft. Much as Lyndon Johnson once reviewed lists of targets to be bombed in Hanoi, Bush now ponders how many brigades will be needed to impose order on a handful of neighborhoods around Baghdad.
Ritualistic allusions to freedom as the antidote to terrorism still occasionally crop up in presidential speeches, but rhetoric no longer translates into action. An administration that once touted its expansive and principled approach to preventing another 9/11 has abandoned principle. Now there is only Iraq and the effort to ensure that today's news out of Baghdad isn't any worse than yesterday's.
Our political attention, then, needs to turn to whether the president's would-be successors can do what Bush cannot: acknowledge our failure in Iraq and look beyond it.
He will of course, not take the advice of experts. He will not listen to the cries of the Iraqi people. He will, however, do as the Carlyle Group et al. tell him to. It's a shame, really that in seven years, he was allowed to destroy a nation, it's good standing and the will of it's people. He has devastated Iraq. He has blamed others for his "missteps" his "errors in judgment" or as I like to call them, his "complete arrogant incompetence."
We, and the world, can not afford another administration such as this one. We can not afford the religious right to pluck away at our given liberties and freedoms over a book they have never read. We can not afford more Katrina's and ignorance of global warming. We can not afford more out souring of jobs and higher health and education costs.
Enough! It's time for us to speak even louder. Time to march on the White House, call our congressmen and women and demand to be heard. Time to canvas and talk and support those with our bests interests at heart. The time for dictatorship and war mongering is over. The time for the people is now.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
WTF!!
Activist arrested for feeding homeless in Orlando
MIAMI, Florida (Reuters) -- Police have arrested an activist for feeding the homeless in downtown Orlando, Florida.
Eric Montanez, 21, of the charity group Food Not Bombs was charged with violating a controversial law against feeding large groups of destitute people in the city center, police said Thursday.
Montanez was filmed by undercover officers Wednesday as he served "30 unidentified persons food from a large pot utilizing a ladle," according to an arrest affidavit. The Orlando area is home to Disney World and Universal Studios Florida.
The Orlando law, which is supported by local business owners who say the homeless drive away customers but has been challenged in court by civil rights groups, allows charities to feed more than 25 people at a time within two miles (3.2 kilometers) of Orlando City Hall only if they have a special permit. They can get two permits a year.
Police collected a vial of the stew Montanez was serving as evidence.
Police spokeswoman Barbara Jones said in an e-mail it was the first time anyone had been arrested under the feeding ban.
Montanez was charged with a misdemeanor.
MIAMI, Florida (Reuters) -- Police have arrested an activist for feeding the homeless in downtown Orlando, Florida.
Eric Montanez, 21, of the charity group Food Not Bombs was charged with violating a controversial law against feeding large groups of destitute people in the city center, police said Thursday.
Montanez was filmed by undercover officers Wednesday as he served "30 unidentified persons food from a large pot utilizing a ladle," according to an arrest affidavit. The Orlando area is home to Disney World and Universal Studios Florida.
The Orlando law, which is supported by local business owners who say the homeless drive away customers but has been challenged in court by civil rights groups, allows charities to feed more than 25 people at a time within two miles (3.2 kilometers) of Orlando City Hall only if they have a special permit. They can get two permits a year.
Police collected a vial of the stew Montanez was serving as evidence.
Police spokeswoman Barbara Jones said in an e-mail it was the first time anyone had been arrested under the feeding ban.
Montanez was charged with a misdemeanor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
