Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.
ADVERTISEMENT
Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.
"I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way," Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.
Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.
He said he supports the
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell policy" in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by
President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said.
The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.
With Democrats in charge of Congress, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has introduced legislation to reverse the military's ban on openly serving homosexuals.
___
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Republican Election Fraud and the Firing of US Attorneys
"Since the 2000 election ended in dispute in Florida," MSNBC reports, "Republicans at the national and local levels have repeatedly raised concerns about possible voter fraud, alleging that convicted felons and other ineligible voters have been permitted to cast ballots to the benefit of Democrats." Imagine that, the Republicans complaining about FRAUD in connection with VOTING! Now isn't that the most ironic idea you can imagine? Perhaps not as ironic as it might be, if one considers the administration's subtle shift in terminology.
One should note the White House and Justice emphasis on voter fraud, as opposed to election fraud. The distinction is not a minor one. Voter fraud places the blame for election scandals on so-called felonious and 'dead' voters whose votes are reputedly cast for Democrats. These felons and dead-men-voting are the old boogie men of Republican rhetoric regarding elections.
Election fraud, on the other hand, might include organizational, party-level, state-collusive manipulation and/or purging of voter rolls, the failure to count or the miscounting of ballots, the destruction of ballots, the failure to recount ballots when legally required to do so by state laws, the illegal use of election facilities for party purposes, the state-sanctioned targeting of precincts for faulty or inadequate amounts of equipment, and of course, the manipulation of electronic voting machine tabulations.
In short, election fraud includes the very serious and major problems that did account for the election thefts of 2000 as well as 2004. While voter fraud is a notorious boogie man-the alleged dead-man-voting that no one can locate on the ground.
What then could be the reason for the White House's and Justice's emphasis on voter fraud? Might it have been means by which to distract attention away from the systemic and well-documented election scandals of the past six years? Might it have been a form of retribution against Democrats for the well-founded accusations, lingering anger and outrage, and possible investigations regarding the last two presidential "elections" that resulted in utterly discredited results-the "elections" of GW Bush? Might the attempt to replace US Attorneys have been an attempt to refocus any possible future investigations toward VOTER as opposed to the well-known and utterly outrageous practices of ELECTION fraud undertaken by Republican party operatives during the Rove era?
These motives, probably combined, account for the move to dismiss these and more US attorneys, and also explain the intimate involvement of Rove (and probably Bush) in the firings.
Remember, Bush and his ilk are going down soon, but they want to leave a judicial legacy that will survive them for decades, if not half-centuries. This legacy will, they hope, include prosecutors who will turn a blind eye to the kind of systemic election fraud that Republicans routinely undertake, while shifting attention to the minor issue of dead-men-voting. Voter fraud is a red herring and the firing of the US attorneys is apiece with the vast rightwing conspiratorial practice of ELECTION FRAUD.
Dr. Rec, The Rec Report
Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D.
Permanent URL for this article:
http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_report_140307.html
Friday, March 9, 2007
NAACP seeks state apology over slavery
The Georgia NAACP on Wednesday called for Gov. Sonny Perdue to follow Virginia's lead and issue an apology for the state's role in slavery and Jim Crow.
Edward O. DuBose, president of the Georgia State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said an apology would be "an acknowledgement that a wrong took place."
"An apology will not improve education, but an apology will acknowledge that whites benefited from the slavery and the inhumane treatment of African-Americans," DuBose said during a news conference at the state Capitol.
Perdue's office did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday.
The proposal's chances in the Republican-led Legislature appeared uncertain Wednesday.
Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams (R-Lyons) said, "I don't think I can apologize for something I haven't done. I don't agree with what my ancestors did. I believe what they felt and did was wrong, but I can't apologize for them. I can only apologize for me. While I am sorry for those past injustices, my efforts here have to be to make sure they don't ever occur again."
Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, a Republican who serves as president of the Senate, said through a spokewoman that he prefers to look ahead rather than dwell on the past.
"Of course, [Cagle] regrets the awful legacy of slavery, but he is focused on the future and providing hope and opportunity for every citizen regardless of the past," said spokeswoman Jaillene E. Hunter.
The NAACP request comes a little more than a week after Virginia legislators offered an expression of "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery. Lawmakers in Missouri and Tennessee also have begun discussing whether to issue apologies in their states.
The Virginia resolution was approved unanimously in the state House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans.
"We have noticed that the Commonwealth of Virginia took a bold step to apologize for slavery and the effects of Jim Crow," DuBose said.
The NAACP is hoping for Perdue's support for the resolution and that the General Assembly will approve before it adjourns in April, DuBose said.
"[Perdue] has a great opportunity to add to his legacy," DuBose said on the steps of the state Capitol, beneath a statue of segregationist politician Tom Watson.
But time is short. Georgia lawmakers are on a break until March 19, which will be the 27th day of the legislative session. Under legislative rules, by the 30th day (March 27) all bills must have passed at least one of the chambers.
State Rep. Al Williams (D-Midway), head of Georgia's Legislative Black Caucus, said it plans to introduce a resolution March 19. The caucus' power has eroded since Democrats lost control of state government, but Williams said he anticipates bipartisan support.
"It is long past due," said Williams. "An apology is the least we can do for the same reason Japan apologized to China for atrocities during World War II. There can be no healing until someone says 'sorry'."
Reps. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta) and Earnest "Coach" Williams (D-Avondale Estates), both African-Americans, attended Wednesday's news conference and promised to push the resolution.
Georgia was founded in 1732 by James Oglethorpe as a slave-free colony and remained that way until 1751. But between 1775 and 1783, the era of the American Revolution, African slaves constituted nearly half of Georgia's colonial population.
According to the 1830 Georgia Census, of the half-million people in the state, there were only 79,000 more whites than slaves. By 1850, as the population grew to 900,000, close to 400,000 Georgians were slaves.
Slavery was abolished at the end of the Civil War in 1865, but Georgia maintained Jim Crow laws, a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination.
Violence accompanied Jim Crow. According to the Tuskegee University archives' records of lynchings between 1882 and 1964, Georgia recorded 531 lynchings over that time, second only to Mississippi's 581.
If Georgia issues an apology, DuBose and those who joined him Wednesday acknowledged that it would send only a symbolic message. Nationwide, critics have denounced such resolutions as a step toward reparations, financial settlements with the descendants of slaves.
"This opens up an honest dialogue," DuBose said.
Sonji Jacobs and Joni Zeccola contributed to this article.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
justification?
Republicans are saying:
Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.
Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.
"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, ... the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.
"We are not five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."
This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.
The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. "Then we even have another problem," he adds, "and that's the Visa Waiver Program."
The federal government's Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. According to the U.S. State Department website, the waiver program was established in 1986 with the objective of "eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel," stimulating America's tourism industry, and allowing the government to focus consular resources in other areas.
Cutler says the U.S. retains the Visa Waiver Program because the nation's travel, tourism, and hospitality industries want America's borders wide open. In other words, the former INS official contends, the nation's security is being compromised in the name of trade. http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/february/0222_illegals_report.shtml
Prosecute or release Guantanamo detainees
Congress said what it meant and meant what it said in denying access to American courts for prisoners held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. If this ruling by a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., stands, the U.S. government could hold several hundred "detainees" for the rest of their lives if it so desires.
That is contrary to fundamental American principles of justice. Congress should repeal the law on which this ruling is based. Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court should grant review in this case and reverse the decision. Some so-called enemy combatants have been held at Guantanamo for more than five years without the benefit of charges or trial. It is not clear which, if any, are guilty of any crime against the United States. They deserve swift justice before an impartial court, or they should be released.
The question of the legality of holding alleged enemies has been bruited about between the federal courts and Congress for nearly five years. Although the Bush administration initially insisted the courts had no jurisdiction over Guantanamo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise. The issue at the core is the writ of habeas corpus, which dates to early English law, giving a prisoner the right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The authors of the American Constitution said Congress could not suspend habeas corpus except when in "cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
On the eve of last November's elections, the Republican-led Congress, to its everlasting shame, passed legislation that pointedly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction in all Guantanamo cases, thus suspending habeas corpus for only the fifth time since 1789. In its ruling Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Congress could not have been more clear. Writing for the court, Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote, "It's almost as if [members of Congress] were slamming their fists on the table shouting 'When we say "all," we mean all - without exception!' "
While not disputing that conclusion, Judge Judith W. Rogers, writing in dissent, said Congress exceeded its authority. She is right, and her position likely will be supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. The question is whether habeas corpus covers prisoners held at Guantanamo: The administration says no because the base is technically outside the territory of the United States. The plaintiffs say yes because it is territory under U.S. jurisdiction. The court has suggested it takes the latter view, but the question has not been resolved.
Thus, while it is important that the Supreme Court reinstate the rights of so-called enemy combatants, the administration simply will relocate them to moot the point. That's why Congress should direct the administration to immediately review the status of all those held at Guantanamo, release those who present no threat and prosecute the rest under established rules of military tribunals. Then close this embarrassing symbol of injustice.
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/OPINION03/702220358/-1/ENT06
Cheney slams Iraq plan advocated by Dems
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent1 hour, 15 minutes ago
Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday harshly criticized Democrats' attempts to thwart President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, saying their approach would "validate the al-Qaida strategy." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) fired back that Cheney was questioning critics' patriotism.
"I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks," Pelosi said. She said she tried to complain about Cheney to President Bush but could not reach him.
"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.
The quarrel began in Tokyo, where Cheney used an interview to criticize Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., over their plan to place restrictions on Bush's request for an additional $93 billion for the Iraq war to make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.
"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."
In the interview, Cheney also said Britain's plans to withdraw about 1,600 troops from Iraq — while the United States adds more troops — was a positive step. "I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," the vice president said.
Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."
"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.
Later, Pelosi said she had tried to reach the president but was only able to get through to White House chief of staff Josh Bolten.
Bolten said he was certain no one was questioning her patriotism or commitment to national security, she told reporters.
"I said to him perhaps when he saw what the vice president said he might have another comment," Pelosi said. White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Cheney "was not questioning anyone's patriotism." But she said Bush and Cheney believe that Pelosi and Murtha's "position to immediately pull out our troops would be harmful to our national security and that it is the wrong strategy to pursue."
As for Cheney's assertion that the partial British pullout is a sign that things are going well in Iraq, Pelosi said: "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, said Britain's withdrawal, coupled with a Denmark's announcement to pull out its 460 troops by August, "accelerates the breakup of the coalition in Iraq."
He said the United States should reduce its forces "as a way of pressuring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to reach the political settlements that are essential to end the sectarian violence and defeat the insurgency."
Administration leaders, however, said Britain's decision was good news.
"The British have done what is really the plan for the country as a whole, which is to transfer security responsibility to the Iraqis as the situation permits," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a news conference in Berlin, where she was in meetings on the Mideast peace process.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, said the decision "reflects the progress that has been made on the ground in Basra and in the south," where British troops were stationed.
"So this is basically a good news story, an indication that progress is being made, and that events on the ground permit this kind of adjustment in forces," Hadley said. Still, he acknowledged the violence in Baghdad and said, "I'm not saying this is an unalloyed picture of progress."
___
Reasons for Iraq War: Bush or Cheney?
http://zfacts.com/p/775.html
| When elected, Bush was opposed to "nation building," but Dick Cheney brought in eight fellow neocons who advocated "regime change" and re-building Iraq. This was before 9/11 and had nothing to do with Bush's war on terrorism. Cheney's group all belonged to PNAC or IASPS. IASPS advocated regime change to increase Israeli security, while PNAC focused on our Middle East allies but named only Israel. Using 9/11, Cheney and the neocons convinced Bush to go against the long-standing conservative principles he proclaimed during his election campaign. |
| and their PNAC / IASPS backgrounds  Chart has Clickable popNotes. |
| A Short History of the Neocons' Push for War. Click Years for Details. 1996. Report: why removing Saddam is crucial to Israel. Written by Feith, Wurmser and Fairbanks. Delivered in person by Perle to the Israeli Prime Minister. 1997. PNAC's founding "principles" signed by necons: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams. 1998. PNAC letter to Clinton: removal of Saddam ... military efforts signed by: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Abrams Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough (NY Times) / A way to Oust Saddam ("the Wolfowitz plan ... US military might") —PNAC 1999. The Neocons' book on US/Israeli strategic interest in Iraq "Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, ..." —Wurmser PNAC Memo: "Above all, only ground forces can remove Saddam." 2000. Talk of war with Iraq was discontinued during the election. 2001. War planning by neocons' PNAC. Liberate Iraq—PNAC "At minimum, 50,000 troops." "Thousands of Iraqi soldiers would likely change sides and fight." "Chalabi may be ideal man to lead the opposition. He is rich and upper class." September 11, 2001 2001. War selling by neocons' PNACSept. 11. Rumsfeld: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Related and Not." Sept. 15. At Camp David, Wolfowitz made the case for action against Iraq. Sept. 19. Rumsfeld, Perle call two-day meeting. Outcome summarized in The PNAC Letter, signed by Perle. "Even if evidence does not link Iraq ... remove Saddam Hussein." Focuses on Iraq, Hezbollah, the Palesinian Authority, little on Bin Laden. All that remained was to convince Bush, and they had him surrounded. The man who did most to convince Bush and America, a long-time favorite of necons, was not even an American. Chalabi sold us the Iraq WMD hoax. The WMD Report to the President concluded that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed by 1991. Returning to Iraq, Chalabi, a Shiite, passed to the Iranians the most damaging top secret information—that we had broken their code. |
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Body armor for our Marines
A note from a concerned father to the Stratus Newspaper:
To the Editor:
I have a son going to Iraq this summer. I was able to afford to buy state-of-the-art body armor for his protection. Unfortunately there are many parents that are not able to afford this body armor.
My son’s outfit has 24 Marines. Two parents, including myself, have purchased this armor. Five others have been sponsored. The families of all the Marines in the unit have banded together to raise the additional money for the other 17 Marines.
The military has body armor available, but it’s heavy and not state-of-the-art. There is a company called Pinnacle Armor, out of California, that sells armor called Dragon Skin. This is what we have chosen for our sons. We need to raise $102,000 to outfit these 17 Marines. It’s approximately $6000 per Marine.
Any and all donations are welcome.
For more information please call Jesse Roe at 973-579-1982.
| |
| |
Monday, February 12, 2007
Journalists name additional leak sources
WASHINGTON - Three prominent journalists testified Monday that Bush administration officials volunteered leaks about a CIA operative, as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's attorneys sought to suggest he was not responsible for exposing her.
The jury in Libby's perjury trial heard a 66-second snippet of one of the deep background interviews given to Washington Post editor Bob Woodward for use in one of his books. They also saw a parade of Pulitzer-prize winning journalists discuss who did and did not leak the information that set off a scandal and ultimately brought Libby to trial.
Woodward, who never wrote about Plame, and columnist Robert Novak, who first identified her in print, testified that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage first told them in the summer of 2003 that the wife of prominent Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA.
Another Post reporter, Walter Pincus, testified that then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer "suddenly swerved off" topic during an interview to tell him of her employment.
This contradicted a point in Fleischer's testimony last week.
A major government witness, Fleischer testified Libby told him about Plame — earlier than Libby has told investigators he thought he first learned about her from NBC reporter Tim Russert.
On cross-examination, Fleischer also testified that he did not recall telling Pincus about Plame. The reporter's testimony Monday was the most direct hit the defense made on the prosecution's evidence that Libby lied to FBI agents and a grand jury about his talks with reporters about Plame and obstructed an investigation into how her name leaked.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is not charged with the actual leak.
The defense did show Libby had numerous opportunities to leak Plame's identity to reporters and did not. But none of Monday's testimony went directly to the precise charges that he lied about his conversations with three other reporters about her.
The day's highlight was the tape of Woodward's June 13, 2003, interview with Armitage about how Bush decided to go to war. Armitage's name was never supposed to be connected publicly to what he said. The scandal prompted him to release Woodward from his pledge of confidentiality, which freed Woodward to share the tape with lawyers in the case.
Armitage has said he revealed the name accidentally, off-the-cuff, and didn't realize that Plame's employment was classified information.
With Armitage's frequent profanities deleted, the jurors heard him tell Woodward no less than four times where she worked.
Woodward asked about Wilson's 2002 fact-finding mission to Africa for the CIA that the ex-ambassador says helped him debunk prewar intelligence on Iraq.
"Why would they send him?" Woodward asked.
"Because his wife's a (expletive) analyst at the agency," Armitage replied.
"It's still weird," Woodward said.
"It's perfect. That's what she does. She is a WMD analyst," Armitage said.
Later Woodward asked if she was the WMD chief at CIA. Armitage said she wasn't but was in a position there to suggest that her husband had contacts in Africa.
Finally, Armitage said: "His wife is at the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that (expletive)."
Novak described trying to get an interview with Armitage in 2001 and being told the deputy secretary was "not too busy. He just didn't want to talk to me." Novak said he was rebuffed again after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then in the last week of June 2003, Armitage's office called to set up an interview. "I had not pressed my request for one in two years," Novak said. Once he asked about the Wilson trip, Armitage said "it was suggested by his wife, Valerie, who is employed in the counterproliferation division at CIA," Novak testified.
Novak testified he got confirmation from White House political adviser Karl Rove, who replied to him: "Oh, you've heard that, too."
Defense attorneys got Woodward, Novak, Pincus, New York Times reporter David Sanger, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas all to say they had talked to Libby about Wilson's allegations during the summer of 2003, but Libby had not disclosed Plame's identity or employment to them.
But Sanger, Kessler and Thomas said they didn't ask Libby about Wilson's wife. Woodward and Novak testified they didn't recall asking about her but said Libby didn't talk about her if they did. Pincus said Libby said he didn't know how the trip was arranged but their conversation occurred before June 12, when Libby now recalls he first learned the information from Cheney.
Defense attorneys brought out that Woodward, Pincus, Sanger and Kessler had all shared in Pulitzer Prizes.
"I believe you're the third Pulitzer prize winner to testify this morning," Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald quipped when he began questioning Sanger. He used the moment to bring out that an earlier prosecution witness, Judith Miller, also had shared a Pulitzer Prize while working at the Times.
___
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Monday, February 5, 2007
$2.90 Trillion Dollar Budget Sent to Congress
Monday, President Bush sent his 2008 fiscal year spending budget to congress. In the budget Bush has proposed vast increases in military spending, along with enough money to pay for the war in Iraq and the troop increases, making his tax cuts permanent, eliminating the deficit in five years, and meanwhile still trying to pinch the rest of the governments spending into the budget.
Making the tax cuts permanent will add a cost of $1.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years and adds $700 billion dollars in new military spending. Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) who is now the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said, "the president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality and continues to move America in the wrong direction"
Conrad also added, "this administration has the worst fiscal record in history and this budget does nothing to change that."
The savings to cut down the deficit would come from Medicaid and Medicare. $66 billion dollars would be cut over five years from Medicare and $13 billion dollars from Medicaid, a health program which gives aid to the poor who cannot afford it.
This budget is sure to draw a lot of criticism from the Democratically controlled congress. Bush made this statement about his budget; "My formula for a balanced budget reflects the priorities of our country at this moment in its history: protecting the homeland and fighting terrorism, keeping the economy strong with low taxes and keeping spending under control while making federal programs more effective."
Democrats have said that they will give the troops everything they will need to help the troops fight in Iraq and will look at the defense spending carefully.
Many of Bush's proposed cuts in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid in the past were rejected even by a Republican congress. It is unlikely that we will see many of these cuts in government programs.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Presidential Candidates
2008 Potential Republican Candidates
- Newt Gingrich
- George Pataki
- Chuck Hagel
- Mike Pence
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Bush-State of the Union Address Initiatives
- Bush envisions making the 20 percent gasoline reduction goal happen by instituting heavy increases in ethanol production along with other alternative fuels.
- Bush also seeks to raise fuel economy standards for passenger cars, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters Tuesday.
- The president will offer a $7,500 tax deduction for individuals and $15,000 for families, including those who are covered by employer health plans. Those who have employer-sponsored health plans, however, could be subject to a new tax, depending on whether their policies are more or less than the tax deduction. *
"...Bush will spend a "significant amount of time" in the State of the Union discussing Iraq and the global War on Terror."
Jim Web will be offering the rebuttal-
- most likely only focusing of the troop "surge"
- Democratic party leaders gave him an outline to follow
- Webb will speak for about five minutes after the president concludes his speech
Tonight will be the President's first time, before a Democratic Congress in control of power and an audience stocked with more than a dozen presidential hopefuls.
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Sen. Bernie Sanders: If You Are Concerned About Health Care, Iraq, the Economy, Global Warming You Must Be Concerned About Corporate Control of the Media
Sen. Bernie Sanders: If You Are Concerned About Health Care, Iraq, the Economy, Global Warming You Must Be Concerned About Corporate Control of the Media
Perhaps earlier than any other member of Congress, Bernie Sanders has been leading the charge against the growing consolidation of media in America and the dangers imposed on our democracy when a handful of corporations control what we see, hear and read. During the last year Bernie held the first Congressional Town Meeting on Corporate Control of the Media and has invited such media activists as Bob McChesney and John Nichols to Vermont. He has also introduced legislation that would rescind the terrible FCC decision of June 2, 2003 that would allow for more media consolidation and has presented the Speaker of the House with a letter signed by over 200 members demanding a vote on a Resolution of Disapproval with regard to that FCC decision.http://bernie.org/
Monday, January 22, 2007
Corporate Media Ownership
- NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world — and one with a long history of anti-union activity. GE, a major contributor to the Republican Party,
- ABC is owned by the Disney Corp., which produces toys and products in developing countries where they provide their workers atrocious wages and working conditions.
- CBS is owned by Viacom, another huge media conglomerate that owns, among other entities, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, VH1, TNN, CMT, 39 broadcast television stations, 184 radio stations, Paramount Pictures and Blockbuster Inc.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0615-03.htm
with all these companies owning the media
Troop "Surge"
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), expressed their support for a troop "surge" in Iraq - the plan reportedly being developed by the Bush administration to address growing insurgent violence.
McCain said withdrawing troops would leave Iraq without security, making it impossible for the nation to make political progress and economic development.
In a letter to Bush Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote that a troop surge would be more of the same of Bush's "failed" policy.-http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070105d.html
To read House Speaker Pelosi's letter to Bush Click Here
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Libby's "conveiniant" memory-loss
"Libby says he never lied — but that if he said things that were incorrect, it was because his memory was faulty." wow....
"Libby's defense is built around the premise that when he told the grand jury things that were not true, he was not lying -- that he was not hoping that no one would ever be able to prove that what he testified to was a lie. Instead, Libby says, he was so busy with so many urgent matters that he simply misremembered events." -npr
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Jury for Scooter Libby's Trial
SCOOTER LIBBYLibby, who was Cheney's chief of staff and national security adviser, is charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal agents investigating the illegal disclosure in 2003 of former CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
Tuesday was the first day of jury selection.
Of nine prospects questioned, three were excused.
Twelve are needed for trial, with four alternates.
The court session ended about 3 p.m., and the process is to resume at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.
There is a jury pool of about 60 people.
Libby is accused of lying about his knowledge of Plame's confidential status at the CIA and his contacts with journalists following allegations leveled by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson.
Wilson said the Bush administration "twisted" a piece of intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Libby is not charged with leaking Plame's identity, which was the original focus of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation.
Questions being asked to thecould be jury
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/01/16/voir.dire.questions.pdf
a list of high-profile witnesses that may be called during the course of the trial.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/01/16/listofnames.pdf
