As Term Ends, Bush Becomes the Scapegoat for Everything

By James Shott

It is difficult to know just where to start in discussing the column in last Friday’s local newspaper by Bonnie Erbe titled “How can Obama fix so much that went wrong?”

Undoubtedly, that’s all some readers need to know, because so many people uncritically accept all criticisms of George W. Bush. She cites an article in the current edition of "Vanity Fair'' magazine, which she said “tries to explain how so much could have gone wrong in so few years. In less than eight years, the Bush White House managed to accomplish the following:” “[From the Vanity Fair article] The threat of 9/11 ignored. The threat of Iraq hyped and manipulated. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Hurricane Katrina. The shredding of civil liberties. The rise of Iran. Global warming. Economic disaster. How did one two-term presidency go so wrong?"

To this list Ms. Erbe added “a monstrously useless expenditure of human life and taxpayers' limited resources (to wit, the war in Iraq, implied in the Vanity Fair quote but not spelled out) and the decimation of America's financial watchdog system designed to prevent the kind of economic mess we're now experiencing.”

But before getting into the goo and muck contained in Ms. Erbe’s rant, it needs to be said that there is ample room for legitimate criticism of Mr. Bush’s presidency. He did a lousy job on illegal immigration; he abandoned the conservative ideals of fiscal responsibility and of small government, to name just two areas deserving criticism.

But by blindly dittoing Vanity Fair’s list, Ms. Erbe shows herself to be either a victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome, or a lazy journalist. Lazy journalism is in vogue, these days; she has lots of company.

She doesn’t actually say so, but one gets the idea that both she and Vanity Fair actually believe that Mr. Bush caused Hurricane Katrina, although neither says so. Ms. Erbe, in fact, said nothing of substance; she just alleged a lot of things. What she likely meant is that Mr. Bush was responsible for the poor response to the storm, despite the plain fact that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, both Democrats, sat on their hands instead of taking action to help their constituents, and that many of those constituents sat on their hands waiting for the government to come and save them from themselves.

Then, there’s “the threat of Iraq hyped and manipulated. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.” The revision of history, whether through willful intent and intellectual dishonesty or out of laziness and ignorance, is rampant these days. Knowledgeable people remember that not only the Bush administration, but also the Clinton administration (Remember Madeline Albright?), Tony Blair and the British Parliament, the United Nations, and several European nations, believed that Saddam Hussein harbored WMD (he used them against his own Kurdish civilians), and was at least friendly with the goals of al Qaeda. Others have offered evidence that some WMD were found in Iraq, and still other offer evidence of a massive transfer of WMD to Syria and other places prior to the US attack.

And like so many people, she apparently believes that terrorists are boy scouts, and are either criminals subject to our laws and entitled to our court protections, or soldiers protected by the Geneva Conventions. They are neither.

How about the shredding of civil liberties? She apparently gives no credit to Mr. Bush for having successfully defended America from further terrorist attacks, while other nations like England, Spain and France have been attacked. But have any of you readers had your bank account seized (aside from punitive tax rates, of course)? Has your property been seized? Do you have police watching your every move? Has your ability to move about the country or visit another country been impeded?

Yet, Ms. Erbe makes the following statement: “If America was so spellbound by what I always viewed as the GOP's gross manipulation of the terror issue, I would go so far as to say we need to revisit how we elect our presidents [never mind the Constitution]. Something in our system is going seriously wrong. 9/11 was a horrible event. Still, Americans should have been able to see through Republicans' fear-driven '04 campaign to recognize the danger was more imagined than real.”

Ms. Erbe conveniently ignores the dirty hands of Congressional and other Democrats in the recent financial crisis, and blames that, too, on Mr. Bush, even though the seeds were sown by the Carter administration, watered and fertilized by the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration attempted a few times to alert a compliant and complicit Democrat-controlled Congress to the coming problems. Instead of acting on the warnings, Democrat committee chairs and members like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Christopher Dodd, humiliated and shouted down the regulators, and Ms. Waters even praised Franklin Raines.

Were it not for Barack Obama being elected Messiah, Ms. Erbe seems to think John Kerry could have filled those shoes. Of Mr. Kerry she says: “In fact, if he had won in '04, chances are we would have been out of Iraq by now, and much of the mortgage and housing crisis that rocked Wall Street and the global economy would not have taken place.”

Towards the end she says this: “Clearly, President-elect Obama is a much better choice [than Mr. Bush]. As it has been said by some, the grownups are back in town.”

It is really difficult to take pap like this seriously. What is sad is that lots of people do take it seriously.

SCHIP: The S is for Socialized Medicine

“You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the House can look at themselves in the mirror” – Daily Kos

“Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties ever looking into the mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!” – Faultline USA

Here’s an excerpt of ABC’s blather that passes for journalism these days.

. . .Gathering on the White House lawn and the steps of Congress, the throngs were joined by children who pulled red wagons filled with over a million petitions, urging Congress to expand health insurance coverage for children.

Yet, it appears that the effort may be in vain after Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have renewed and expanded SCHIP. . .

Health policy experts now say low and moderate income families like the Taylors will be hit the hardest if the veto stands, and individuals fear the social and financial consequences.

Congress has already passed legislation which would reauthorize and expand the program by adding $35 billion over five years, and covering an additional 4 million children — a plan funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. . .

Sweets & Light has a great response to ABC’s blatant pandering to the left on the SCHIP veto.
Here’s an excerpt (but please go read all of it).

. . .Never mind that President Bush only vetoed a $35 billion dollar expansion of the SCHIP program. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this suddenly precious boondoggle (that most people had never even heard of before) will be eliminated. . .

. . .But just look at this exercise in objective journalism. See if you can find any mention of any possible objections to the SCHIP program. . .

Did ABC News speak to anyone except those who were benefiting from the taxpayers’ (unwitting) generosity? Did this reporter ask any hardworking families what they thought about paying for other peoples’ kids health insurance? . . .

. . .Unfortunately, every day we are fed an endless stream of execrable, agenda-driven articles like this one, masquerading as news. Articles so blatant in their purpose they would have even made Hitler or Stalin’s minions at their respective ministries of propaganda blush.

But because our watchdog media think they are serving such a noble purpose they are proud of their efforts rather than ashamed.

Of course that is exactly what they believed in Hitler and Stalin’s ministries as well.

Politico writers Kady II and O’Connor believe that an override veto is unlikely. . . Here’s an excerpt.

It’s highly unlikely any House Republican will turn 180 degrees and vote to override President Bush’s veto, but nonetheless, Democrats have decided to draw the issue out for two more weeks, until they hold the veto override.

Interviews with several of the targeted House Republicans — all of whom are considered vulnerable in next year’s elections and are under pressure to change their vote on State Children’s Health Insurance Program — give little indication that any of them would flip-flop on such a high-profile issue.

If an override passes, the Daily Kos confirms our worst fears with typical forked-tongue twisting. No I won’t hyperlink this far left nutcase blog. Here’s the link.

www(dot)dailykos(dot)com/storyonly/2007/10/4/81915/3035

Here’s an excerpt:

Which uninsured children are the wrong people? And who is this program intended to help?

This report provides an overview of citizen and noncitizen children in immigrant families in the United States and their access to SCHIP. The section entitled "Immigrant Children at Risk" describes the population, their rising numbers, and their lack of health insurance. The next section reviews the effects of the 1996 welfare reform law on immigrants' eligibility for health care, and studies that indicate enrollment is down even for eligible immigrant families. The report then examines some of the factors affecting enrollment, such as fears of public charge, verification of citizenship and immigrant status, and language and cultural barriers. Finally, the paper outlines examples of state responses through state-funded health care and improvements in outreach, application and enrollment. Examples from California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida are given. The appendices include definitions for common immigration terms and a description of federal funds available for outreach and enrollment to the immigrant population (SCHIP, Medicaid, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.)

. . . While Boehner appeals to Fortress America, state legislatures are trying to sign these eligible kids up, because we all pay for their care in ERs when they don't get care in a medical home. That's why 45 governors support SCHIP, from Jodi Rell (R-CT) to Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA).

You have to wonder sometimes how Boehner and his Republican allies in the House can look at themselves in the mirror.

Well we don’t have to worry about these far, far lefties looking into the mirror. Like most social vampires, they cast no reflection!

SCHIP
socialized medicine

Tags: health care, politics, democrats, republicans, bush, senate, elections, news, republican, government

Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, The Populist, Stuck On Stupid, Adeline and Hazel, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Most Dangerous Bills Before Congress: Amnesty (isn't dead) and Hate Speech

The Hate Speech Bill has left the House and is about to go to the Senate. For background on this frightening legislation read Hateful Conservatives Beware.

H/T to Rick Coddington of the SmallTownPapers News Service for the latest on the Hate Speech legislation.

Here’s an excerpt:
“ SOCORRO, New Mexico (STPNS) --
Are you following the so called “Hate Speech” debate? If not, let me bring you up to speed: the U. S. House of Representatives passed House Resolution 1592, which is now in the hands of our illustrious Senators. They will decide whether or not so called “Hate Speech” is going to become a federal felony.

Once again the Constitution is being trampled in the never ending quest for political correctness. In case this is sounding like just another silly DC issue – but it’s not. This particular bill has been called “The Most Dangerous Legislation” in America. I am beginning to think that may not be a very great exaggeration. . .”

The Amnesty bill for blessing ILLEGAL Immigration is about to be revived by President Bush and his allies. See A Skunk by Any Other Name is Still Amnesty.

Stop what you are doing! Get a cup of coffee, and Write Your Officials today! Then post your letters or excerpts from your letters under our comments. I think it helps others to start writing when they can see example letters.


Amnesty
illegal immigration
immigration
Hate Speech
Hate Crimes
Bush

More on Bush's VETO

Cross Posted from Wake up America

Yesterday we brought you President Bush fulfilling his vow to veto the surrender bill the Democrats tried to shove down America's throat and compliments of Jules Crittenden (thanks for the email) we have the request of a Gold Star Father, and some words for the left and the Democrats in Congress and the Senate.

George Bush vetoed the surrender bill today with a pen given to him by the father of Marine Cpl. Dustin Derga, killed in Anbar May 8, 2005. Robert Derga wanted him to ue the pen to sign that bill, and called to make sure he was going to do it.

Larry Gwin, former XO of 2/7 Cav, veteran of the Ia Drang battles of 1965 and author of “Baptism, A Vietnam Memoir,” is very familiar with death in war. He has not been a great fan of this war but has stated all along that once troops are committed, the nation must be behind them to the end. He circulated the following among some friends the other day and said I could run it. The Democratic-controlled Congress is giving Gwin a flashback. I’m guessing he’s not the only one:

Another Grunt’s Rant on Iraq

Am I wrong, or am I wrong? It looks like there’s going to be a Constitutional crisis on the war in Iraq – a showdown between Congress and the President. Congress has voted to tie military funding to a timetable for withdrawal, and the President has vowed to veto their bill. That will put the burden back on Congress to reconsider legislation that will fund the war, i.e. support the troops, and if they refuse, the Defense Department’s budget is going to take a hit.

The Democrats insist that what they’re doing is obeying the will of the people, as demonstrated by the November elections that gave them a majority in both houses. What a crock that is! There never was any referendum on the war– just a straight election for representatives in the House and Senate, some of whom supported the war, and some of whom didn’t. It seems to me that the Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994, now think they can ram a surrender down our throats in the name of the people, even though there has never been a specific referendum on making a stand or withdrawing in Iraq. So, who is right?

There is MUCH more to this letter and I suggest everone go read the full thing.

Two NYT articles and one Wapo article all showing basically the same thing, Bush told the Democrats in Congress and the Senate that he would not sign a surrender bill and knowing and ADMITTING that they did not have the votes to override the veto they still sent through the bill stuffed full of pork and setting artificial, arbitrary timelines.

Sending through a bill knowing it will be vetoed, IF you have the votes to override a veto is simply "process" but sending through a bill you know will be vetoed knowing and admitting beforehand that you do not have the votes to override that veto is the height of stupidityand irresponsibility and as the letter above as well as all the letters I have posted here in the last weeks as well as other blogs that have posted letters from our military to those that would try to force surrender down America's throat, our military is FIRMLY behind President Bush in this veto!!!!!

Here is the full text of the President's remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.

Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto -- and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach, and that there are not enough votes to override a veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message. And now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander -- General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation, and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived. And as General Petraeus has said, it will be at least the end of summer before we can assess the impact of this operation. Congress ought to give General Petraeus' plan a chance to work.

In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network, they've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda -- the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting. The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad -- and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda's global campaign."

Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September 11th, 2001 -- and wants to attack us here at home again. We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war spending bill quickly. I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow -- and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I am confident that with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war funding bill, the Armed Forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment. Without a war funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better -- and their elected leaders can do better.

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding -- and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

Thank you for listening. May God bless our troops.

So, how DID our troops feel about some of the pork that was stuffed into that Emergency Supplemental Bill?

Here are a couple that I think have made it quite clear.



They refer to this:

Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.

Guess we know what THOSE two soliders feel about Pelosi and Reid now, don't we?

How do our Veterans feel about this veto?

Bush Makes Right Move On Veto, Says American Legion:

Washington, DC (May 1, 2007) – “Sad but necessary,” was the way The National Commander of The American Legion Paul A. Morin described President Bush’s veto earlier today of an Iraq war spending bill that included timelines for withdrawing troops from the region.

“The American Legion is glad that the president vetoed this irresponsible legislation but saddened that Congress let it get this far,” Morin said. “First the House passed a blueprint for disaster and then the Senate passed a recipe for surrender. There can only be one commander in chief and he should be the one to determine when the mission is complete.”

Morin said it is essential that Congress immediately pass a bill that the president can sign – one that contains the necessary funding but not the deadlines. “The troops need Congress to fund their mission. It is immoral for Congress to approve a military mission and then not want to pay for it once the troops are in harm’s way. You can not possibly say `I support the troops but I don’t want to pay for their bullets, beans and billeting while in combat.’”

Morin pointed out that the bill contained billions of dollars in unrelated pork. “The congressional leadership knew that the only way they could pass this cut-and-run proposal was to entice members to vote for funding unrelated projects. Congress needs to pass a serious funding bill to win the war and it needs to pass it now,” Morin said.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq, has voiced concern that the timeline would send a message to the enemy to keep fighting. “Just a few months ago the Senate unanimously confirmed Gen. Petraeus to lead the Iraq mission. Let’s give him a chance to succeed,” Morin said. “We also can not send a message to our allies that we will abandon them in their time of need. We made that mistake in Vietnam and Somalia – examples that were cited by Osama bin Laden himself.”

Founded in 1919, the 2.7 million-member American Legion is the nation’s preeminent service organization for veterans of the U.S. armed forces, including active duty, National Guard and Reserves, and their families. A powerful voice for veterans in Washington, The American Legion drafted the original GI Bill and was instrumental in establishing the agency that today is the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs.

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOWAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!

That answers that doesn't it?

Oliver North brings us more words from our troops:

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly sixty percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying that losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, then it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers.

I’m not buying any of it — and neither are the troops who are fighting this war.

In the days since Mr. Reid announced that “this war is lost,” I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for FOX News. Some of those who correspond with me are there now, others are home and some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with the Majority Leader’s assessment.

• One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: “Good thing this guy Reid wasn’t around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but ‘blood, toil, tears and sweat.’”

• Another, a National Guardsman, recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that the Senate Majority Leader has become “Al Qaeda’s most powerful ally.”

• At Mississippi State University, a Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River — now a college student — asked me, “Do those people who think we’ve lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?”

It’s an important question that none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address.

According to military folklore, Napoleon kept a corporal at his side to ensure that the orders issued in battle were understandable by the troops who had to carry them out. Whether true or not, it’s time for Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi to find such a corporal who will ask them such questions, for if the Democrats continue their current course, we may well lose this war. This way, they will have embraced defeat and all that comes with it.

What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It’s a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam — 32 years ago next week — look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of the Republic of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than five million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates — no one knows for sure — at least a million others perished.

Read the rest....

They are right, we do not see the retreat in defeat crowd speak much about the consequences of withdrawal because to do so is to admit that they learned nothing from Vietnam and what happened after our soldiers had defeat rammed down their throat.



Cambodia Killing Fields, do a search, learn for yourself what happened because we withdrew before allowing our troops to finish their jobs.



These are the ramifications of a premature withdrawal, these are the consequences the Democrats in Congress and the Senate do everything in their power to avoid mentioning.

Now although I do not hold much stock in "polls" for a variety of reasons I have explained on different occasions, many of my commenters try to toss one poll after another out there to claim "they speak with the majority", well, fine then... see how you like gallups latest.

You could say they are right, American's DO favor a timetable BUT, take a look at the numbers.

Only 1 in 3 Americans favor timetable having troops out of Iraq by mid-2008

Now for the record, I still stand by the fact that America votes in the President and it is then the presidents decisions, as commander in chief, on how to conduct the war on terror, so polls mean exactly DIDDLY, whether they favor my position or not.

It is how our country works.

Then we have another American Hero that reads Baghdad Reid the riot act for his careless, dangerous words:

WASHINGTON - A tough U.S. Marine stationed in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq has a message for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid: "We need to stay here and help rebuild."

In raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.

"Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here," Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site, www.patdollard.com.

"Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces," Rock wrote.

Based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., Rock catalogued a series of grim daily traumas in Iraq, like getting covered in ash and sleeping under a dirty rug in an Iraqi family's house, or watching "several terrorists die" on the same strip of pavement.

But he says he is optimistic about the future of a country that he says has "turned to complete s- - -" during a bloody insurgency.

He also spoke admiringly of the risks brave Iraqi citizens take every day.

"If Iraq didn't want us here then why do we have [Iraqi police] volunteering every day to rebuild their cities?" he asked.

"It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- - - more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.

"We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. And then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, 'Hey, that's not nice' again."

"And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time."

Rock's candid e-mail swept across the Internet after Dollard posted it on his site, and it was picked up by the Drudge Report and numerous other Web sites.

"What does [Reid] know about us 'losing' besides what he wants to believe? The truth is that we are pushing al Qaeda out and we are pushing the insurgency out. We are here to support a nation."

Harsh words, no sugar coating the situation in iraq, but a man that understands honor and completing the mission.

Right in a Left World has a great post up disecting and email he received from Pelosi whom he says is "in a tither" acting like she didn't expect the veto.... now THAT is funny since the President told them WEEKS ago, he would veto it.

So, I end this post as I ended yesterdays VETO post.

To Pelosi, Baghdad Reid and everyone that would try to ram surrender down America's throat, this is for you!!!!


Our troops deserve to be listened to, it is THEM risking their lives, it is THEM fighting to keep us safe, it is THEM witnessing the realities on the ground while we sit on our asses here at home, watch the news and determine WE know more about what is happening in Iraq than they do.

Thank you Mr. President for listening to our soldiers on the ground.

.

This is not Bush's War-- It is America's Fight

Cross Posted from Wake up America.

From the comment section on my last post "Welcome Home President Bush... I Missed You While You Were Gone, we have a decent debate going on (when not interrupted with foul mouthed, attitude ridden trolls) and there were some important points made that I thought deserved front page attention.

Thanks go to Amy Proctor, because as usual she nails the core issue and she provided me the links I emailed her for.

This is for those on the left that have convenient memories and continue to insist that this is Bush's war. I will show you why this is America's war.

On October 31, 1998, President William J Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

On December 16, 1998, President Clinton made a televised speech explaining why he attacked Iraq.

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

These two links and statements were what Amy Proctor posted in the comment section of my last piece and the point is that Clinton did the right thing with the Iraq Liberation Act and Bush has followed through with it in his two terms as President.

Lets take this a step farther for those that wish to rewrite history and claim that WMD's were the only reason we toppled Saddam Hussein, here is the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

For those that do not have the time to read the whole thing, here are seven OTHER reasons contained in the Joint Resolution linked above.

Hat Tip to Ankle Biting Pundits for listing the seven additional reasons, excluding the issue of WMD's that are part of this resolution.

1. Iraq's harboring of Al-Queda terrorists
2. Iraq's support for International Terrorism
3. Iraq's "brutal repression" of its citizens
4. Iraq's failure to repatriate or give information on non-Iraqi citizens detained and captured during Gulf War I, including an American serviceman;
5. Failing to properly return property wrongfully seized during the Kuwait invasion
6. The attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1991
7. America's national security interests in restoring peace and stability to the Persian Gulf

Read those two statements in full, every word of them, then read the Joint Resolution in full.

Saddam Hussein needed to be dealt with and he has been, that was agreed on by members of both sides of the aisle. We now OWE it to the Iraqi people to help them in their reconstruction phase, which by looking into our own history, takes years, patience and two steps forward then one backwards and continues along that same vein until it is done.

A Democratic President did the right thing with the Iraq Liberation Act and a Republican President has followed through with it.

This is not a Democratic or a Republican war... This is America's fight and surrender is NOT an option.

I will leave you with my new heading from the top of the page...in the immortal words of John F. Kennedy:

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."... John F. Kennedy

ANY price. ANY burden. ANY hardship.

I truly do not think he meant, UNTIL we lose patience, or UNLESS it costs money, or any number of reasons that the Democratic party wishes to spew forth.

He believed people deserved to be free... 12 MILLION Iraqi's risked their lives and those of their families in agreement.

Do we really wish to abandon them?

One last point, do we really wish to give Iraq over to al-Qaeda so that they have a safe haven to build their training camps and so that they can come to the US again and attack us, perhaps costing us more than 3,000 lives next time?


[UPDATE] Two links I would suggest at this time. The first is to John McCain's site with a petition stating Surrender is NOT an option. Please go sign that.

The second is to a LA Times article called "Congress isn't commander in chief" (Can you BELIEVE that this is in the LA Times?... Hell must have somehow froze over).

[End Update]

.

Who runs the country? President Bush or Nancy Pelosi?

Cross Posted from Wake up America

Email From the ACLJ:

If anyone needed proof ... last week sealed the deal.

It seems the new liberal Congress on Capitol Hill has made its mark, shown its true colors, and clearly questioned the authority of our President.

With a new Congress in town ... distraction will be the name of the game.

Nancy Pelosi and her team are crying foul over the firings of eight U.S. federal attorneys.

But the hard truth is this: federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. It is perfectly legal for him to fire any - or all - of the U.S. attorneys for any reason at all.

In March of 1993, the Clinton administration fired all 93 federal prosecutors with absolutely no fanfare. No controversy. No congressional subpoenas or public hearings.

But the House of Representatives - and now a Senate panel as well - have issued the ''OK'' for subpoenas of key aides to the President. This is a significant issue!

Stand with the ACLJ now in this imperative matter and voice your support of President Bush and his constitutional authority by joining our online COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

A constitutional challenge has been issued. The liberal-leaning House of Representatives is pushing hard, putting on the pressure, grasping at whatever means possible to defy the President. True to form, the political spectacle is being led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This is unprecedented in United States history. The Constitution grants the executive privilege. A move to subpoena the President's top aides, such as Karl Rove or Harriet Miers, and force them to testify under oath sets up a political showdown unlike any we have ever seen.

Make no mistake: if the President's top White House aides are compelled to testify publicly, this issue will end at the Supreme Court of the United States.

And we at the ACLJ are going to be there every step of the way. We will not back down in the face of blatant politicking and political pandering. We ask that President Bush stand firm ... and come out fighting.

Who runs this country ... President Bush or Nancy Pelosi?

I urge you to add your name to our online COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION right now. I want to deliver to the White House tens of thousands of names of United States citizens who will be standing strong beside our President in the face of this significant issue.

Stand with the Constitution and with our President today.

Thank you!

.

When Bashing the Troops Backfires Count $$$

Another Columnist in H. Clinton's Pocket?

The latest leftist attack on the war in Iraq comes from John Allen Palous commentary (ABC News) “Who's Counting: How Iraq Trillion Could Have Been Spent”.

The price tag for the Iraq War is now estimated at $700 billion in direct costs and perhaps twice that much when indirect expenditures are included. Cost estimates vary — Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz puts the total cost at more than $2 trillion — but let's be conservative and say it's only $1 trillion (in today's dollars). . . .

Conservative, now that’s really funny! If Palous wanted to be “conservative” would the BOLD subtitle to his article read “The Cost of the Iraq War: Can You Say $1,000,000,000,000?”

The budget that President Bush will submit to Congress today shows the federal deficit falling in each of the next four years and would produce a $61 billion surplus in 2012, administration officials said.

See Monday's Wall Street Journal. “How War's Expense Didn't Strain Economy” By Deborah Solomon.

Since President Bush took office, he's boosted annual defense spending by 50% -- including $500 billion over five years for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and doubled spending on homeland security. At the same time, he's cut taxes, expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, approved $100 billion to clean up after Gulf Coast hurricanes, and signed bills that spend a little more each year on domestic programs.

For years, critics said it couldn't last, backed by some historical precedent: President Johnson is blamed by many for triggering inflation in the 1970s by spending on both guns and ...

But let’s get back to Palos and the leftist ABC Clinton lobby. Although Palous admits that the official price tag for the Iraq War “is now estimated at $700 billion,” why not just bump it up to $2 trillion for the sake of leftist argumentation. After all what’s a few billion here and there when spinning to the dupes who can’t read beyond his hyped sub-title???

Of course Palous was smart enough to search for the someone notable who came up with this 2 trillion dollar claim. And lo and behold he found Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz, a life long Democrat, won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001.

Wonder why Palous didn’t seek out other more recent Nobel Prize winners??? More jucy tidbits on that below . . .

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at Columbia University and was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Clinton and Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank. His latest book is Making Globalization Work.

According to his autobiography, he helped found the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, with support of the Ford, Rockefeller, McArthur, and Mott Foundations and the Canadian and Swedish government, to enhance democratic processes for decision making in developing countries.

To get a feel for just how left-leaning Stiglitz is read his “Will the Dam Break in 2007?”

When Bush assumed the presidency in 2001, many hoped that he would govern competently from the center. More pessimistic critics consoled themselves by questioning how much harm a president can do in a few years. We now know the answer: a great deal.

Never has America’s standing in the world’s eyes been lower. Basic values that Americans regard as central to their identity have been subverted. The unthinkable has occurred: an American president defending the use of torture, using technicalities in interpreting the Geneva Conventions and ignoring the Convention on Torture, which forbids it under any circumstances. Likewise, whereas Bush was hailed as the first “MBA president,” corruption and incompetence have reigned under his administration, from the botched response to Hurricane Katrina to its conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. . .

So much for the continued doom and gloom of the left. Now, why didn’t Palous seek out an opinion from the most recent recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, EDMUND S. PHELPS??? Phelps, Professor of Political Economy at Columbia, was awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize for economics. But Phelps just happens to be a capitalist.

To get a feel about how Phelps feels about our economy read his “Dynamic Capitalism: Entrepreneurship is lucrative--and just”. Here’s an excerpt:

There are two economic systems in the West. Several nations--including the U.S., Canada and the U.K.--have a private-ownership system marked by great openness to the implementation of new commercial ideas coming from entrepreneurs, and by a pluralism of views among the financiers who select the ideas to nurture by providing the capital and incentives necessary for their development. Although much innovation comes from established companies, as in pharmaceuticals, much comes from start-ups, particularly the most novel innovations. This is free enterprise, a k a capitalism.

The other system--in Western Continental Europe--though also based on private ownership, has been modified by the introduction of institutions aimed at protecting the interests of "stakeholders" and "social partners." The system's institutions include big employer confederations, big unions and monopolistic banks. Since World War II, a great deal of liberalization has taken place. But new corporatist institutions have sprung up: Co-determination (cogestion, or Mitbestimmung) has brought "worker councils" (Betriebsrat); and in Germany, a union representative sits on the investment committee of corporations. The system operates to discourage changes such as relocations and the entry of new firms, and its performance depends on established companies in cooperation with local and national banks. What it lacks in flexibility it tries to compensate for with technological sophistication. So different is this system that it has its own name: the "social market economy" in Germany, "social democracy" in France and "concertazione" in Italy. . .

Ok, so now we know why Palous quoted Stiglitz instead of Phelps. Or do we? Is there more we need to know about Stiglitz???

This is from “The U.N. War Against America: Annual Briefing Report” PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE AGAINST THE U.N. TAKEOVER. Here's an excerpt on Stiglitz. (Highlights added by me).

Clinton Economist Promotes GlobalTaxes

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, perhaps the most prominent economic thinker in the Democratic Party, is also blowing the horn for global taxes. A chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bill Clinton Administration, Stiglitz has been described as a “real Democrat” and possible candidate to head the Federal Reserve16 in a Democratic Administration.

His first book, Globalization and its Discontents, was praised by billionaire leftist George Soros as “Penetrating, insightful.... A seminal work that must be read.”17 In it, Stiglitz suggested that while a global tax on currency transactions, the so-called Tobin Tax, was being seriously studied in Europe, it might involve serious “implementation problems.” But with his subsequent book, Making Globalization Work, those problems have vanished, as he argues for a variety of global tax schemes18 that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.

Stiglitz, who anticipates possibly serving in a Hillary Clinton Administration,19 foresees major changes in the global economy. Most of these involve soaking American taxpayers. He and Soros20 are among those proposing the creation of new currencies to finance more foreign aid spending.

For his part, Stiglitz wants to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in what he calls “global greenbacks.” This is a new form of “global money,” he says, constituting one of several “innovative approaches to financing economic development [which] need to be tested.”21

“Who would receive the annual emissions of global greenbacks?” he asks. He suggests various approaches:
“…to allocate funds to different countries on the basis of their income and population (consistent with principles of social justice, poorer countries would get a larger allocation per capita).”
“…funds would be distributed through international institutions, either existing ones or newly created ‘special trust funds’ established under the auspices of the United Nations…”
“A portion might be used to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals – the goals the international community set for itself in reducing poverty by 2015…”22

In Making Globalization Work, he specifically proposes several global tax schemes, arguing that:
“Taxation on global negative externalities, such as arms sales to developing countries, pollution, and destabilizing cross-border financial flows, can provide a third source of revenue for financing global public goods.”23

The term “global public goods” is part of a U.N. effort to claim there are certain matters beyond the ability of any one state to address and that the international community, including the U.N., must get involved in solving them.24 As Stiglitz puts it:

“Globalization entails the closer integration of the countries of the world; this closer integration entails more interdependence, and this greater interdependence requires more collective action. Global public goods, the benefits of which accrue to all within the global community become more important. These include, for instance, health (funding a vaccine against malaria or AIDS, and the environment (reducing greenhouse gas emissions, maintaining biodiversity in rainforests). These should be first priorities for the funds.”25

All of these ideas, which have been extremely popular at the United Nations, involve global taxes of some kind.

While he embraces global taxation as one important source of revenue, Stiglitz identifies two other sources of international revenue as resulting from reform of the global monetary system and the “management of global resources.”

In the first instance, he says that the global monetary system of the world should be reformed in order to produce funds to “promote development, fight poverty, and provide better education and health for all,” he says.26 He says that global currency reserves, U.S. dollars held by various nations, especially China, should be transformed into “a new international currency” that can solve global problems. In the second instance, that of “management of global resources,” Stiglitz argues that revenue can be generated “for providing global public goods” through “auctioning off fishing rights, or the right to extract natural resources beneath the sea, or carbon emissions permits…” 27

At the “Second Annual Global Colloquium of University Presidents” last year, with then-United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in attendance, Stiglitz gave a talk entitled, “Innovative Sources of Funding for Global Public Goods,”28 in which he presented these ideas in some detail.

Now if that doesn't scare you, nothing, including war, will!!!

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, DragonLady's World, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

From the School of Neville Chamberlian: The Democratic Response to President Bush’s Address

Note: Neville “Chamberlain is perhaps the most ill-regarded British Prime Minister of the 20th century in the popular mind, because of his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany regarding the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich in 1938."

The Democratic "appeasement of our enemies" response was delivered by delivered by Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin on Wednesday evening.

Here’s an excerpt of that response:
. . .The president's response to the challenge of Iraq is to send more American soldiers into the crossfire of the civil war that has engulfed that nation.
Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction. . . .
. . .Twenty-thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost.
It's time for President Bush to face the reality of Iraq. And the reality is this: America has paid a heavy price. We have paid with the lives of more than 3,000 of our soldiers. We have paid with the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And we've paid with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America.

So what exactly do the Democrats want to do? In an interview with Durbin following the response this is what Durbin said:

. . .QUESTION: [Inaudible]... Do you think that the White House might actually change its position on it or scale it back?
DURBIN: I don't know. But I'll tell you this: I think that it's important that we finally have a voice.
It's been four years since we voted on the use-of-force resolution. If you look at the purpose of our invasion of Iraq, frankly every single element is unnecessary today. There is no Saddam Hussein. There are no weapons of mass destruction.
What we're talking about now is to really bring Congress into the debate, the American debate, about what's going to happen next in Iraq.
And we believe that if we can bring forward a resolution that really brings the president's policy before Congress [to] ask for bipartisan support; that's a debate that's long overdue.

So basically, the Democrats still want to sit at the table with Iran and Syria!

. . .QUESTION: In addition to withdrawal, the Iraq Study Group ... said that the U.S. should talk to Iran and Syria...
DURBIN: Yes.
QUESTION: ... you know, bring them into the fold with Iraq. And President Bush said -- he basically refuted that recommendation as well. How do you respond?
DURBIN: I think that's a mistake. If there's any surge that we need, it's a surge in diplomacy.
We need to have countries in that region, in the Middle East, who are interested in the stability, ultimate stability of Iraq, to get involved in its future.
We can't do this alone. The Iraqis, as I've said in this statement, have to really resolve that they're going to make their own nation strong and defend it.
But for its long-term future and the stability of its borders, we really need to engage other countries. I don't know how we can boycott countries in that region.
We need to at least sit at a table and find out if there is some common ground. That's the only way that I think we're going to find any long-term stability.

Read the entire response at theEagle.com

Hummm . . . Let’s see what common ground we can find to bring Iran “into the fold”?

The following excerpt from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2005 speech is from InformationClearinghouse.com (Bold added by me. Take note of how Ahmadinejad takes a jab at the weak. The left here and in Europe should take note. )

“But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:”

They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

"(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)"

To read the rest go to InformationClearinghouse.com

Ahmadinejad On Israel:
This is from the BBC.
"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
"Germany and Austria can provide the... regime with two or three provinces for this regime to establish itself, and the issue will be resolved."
The president's remarks were quickly condemned by Israel and the US.

Others writing about President Bush’s address and the Democratic Response:
Wake Up America
theneweditor
Almanak
Freedom Eden