What a difference a year makes

At the annual Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner, President Bush opened with a clever joke:

“A year ago, my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my Vice President had shot someone. Ahhh, those were the good old days.” (Whitehouse)

How else have things changed over the course of a year:

March, 2006
Well, on 20 March 2006, President Bush spoke of the successes in Iraq that the media never covers. At his speech in Cleveland, Ohio he stated:

“Today I'd like to share a concrete example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in their newspapers and on their television screens. I'm going to tell you the story of a northern Iraqi city called Tal Afar…See, if you're a resident of Tal Afar today, this is what you're going to see: You see your children going to school and playing safely in the streets…You see markets opening, and you hear the sound of construction equipment as buildings go up and homes are remade. In short, you see a city that is coming back to life.” (Whitehouse)

March, 2007
On March 28th, however, a truck bomb exploded in a Shiite neighborhood killing 83 people and wounding more than 185. The predominantly Shiite police force responded by systematically targeting Sunni homes. The police officers went “house to house in a Sunni neighborhood, dragged people into the street and shot them in the head.” All told, the retaliatory violence resulted in 70 people executed, 40 kidnapped and 30 wounded. Iraqi doctor, Salih Qaddaw, described the situation at his hospital:

“So many bloodied corpses were brought in on Tuesday night that the entry hall could not be kept clean,” he said. “If you would have a look inside the hospital yesterday, it would have looked as if it were painted red despite all our efforts to clean the entry. But the influx of casualties kept growing bigger.” (NYT)

If that was not enough to make your blood curdle (or after reading the entirety of Bush’s speech and visualizing the absolute horror Tel Afar citizens experience daily), more than 100 people were killed in Baghdad after a series of attacks, including two bombings at a busy street market (NYT). Absurdly, many conservatives and Iraqis consider this a positive step and a sign that the escalation is working because only 100 people, as opposed to 150 died on March 30.

Update: After writing this on Saturday March 31, Senator John McCain returned from Iraq touting the success of the escalation and the resulting increase in Baghdad security. Despite these proclamations, many more bombs exploded over the weekend (after the Tal Afar bombings, which were the deadliest of the war to this date), killing 50 and several US soldiers.

What struck me was the fact that McCain earlier last month said on CNN, “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee.” Then, on the Bill Bennett readio program, he said that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.” However, when he toured the city, McCain traveled in a convoy of armored military vehicles and was accompanied by a large contingent of heavily armed soldiers. He wore body armor while they shopped and other precautions, described shortly, were taken. Obviously, the streets are not quite as safe as they appear. (NYT)

Adding to the idiocy, he and his travelling partners described the Shorja market as a safe place to peddle wares. Representative Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, went so far as to say the Shorja market was “like a normal outdoor market in Indiana.” In today's New York Times, several Iraqis said what I assume most Americans already believe: he was flat wrong. From the Times article:

“What are they talking about?” Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday. “The security procedures were abnormal!”

The delegation arrived at the market, which is called Shorja, on Sunday with more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees — the equivalent of an entire company — and attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior American military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area and restricted access to the Americans, witnesses said, and sharpshooters were posted on the roofs. The congressmen wore bulletproof vests throughout their hourlong visit.

“They paralyzed the market when they came,” Mr. Faiyad said during an interview in his shop on Monday.

“This was only for the media.”He added, “This will not change anything.”

Making matters worse, at very the same market these men callously compared to an American market, at least 61 Iraqis were murdered and scores more wounded as the result of two vehicle bombs and a roadside bomb. More recently, “snipers hidden in Shorja’s bazaar have killed several people.” I have never been to a market, much less a mall where I feared for my life; and for these men to compare anything in Iraq to the US not only insults my intelligence, but also marginalizes the horrors the Iraqis have thus far endured. (NYT)

When hippies attack...

…usually nothing goes right. Precisely this occurred last week when three hippies (or possible GOP operatives) ambushed and filmed Wisconsin Rep. David Obey. In doing so, they embarrassed themselves, trivialized the Iraq War issue, and forced Obey to apologize (PFD). Although I do not feel that he even needed to apologize, thankfully he did not back down from his position. This group, for some unbeknownst reason, attacked one of the leading critics of the war who, unlike Kerry or Clinton, did not initially vote for the war. As Bru linked to in a previous post, he is not only against the escalation, but wants to end our involvement as soon as possible. This group would have been better served confronting John McCain of Joe Libbermann (especially given their proclivity to filibustering). Please enjoy watching these three make fools of themselves.



Republicans responded by alleging he used "the worst cuss words in the book" and dubbed him "Dirty Mouth Dave." They even went so far as to say that for Obey to use his "foul mouth on the taxpayer dime is a disgrace to the office" (JSonline.com) What would make that Dick Cheney then ("Go F*** yourself)"?

Cal Thomas: the Voice of the Unelightened

In Cal Thomas’ recent column, “Congressional Indian Givers,” he equated the two most recent Iraq resolutions passed by Congress, as the title implies, to ‘Indian giving’. He writes,

How else should one interpret this "nonbinding" resolution when part one said,
"Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served
bravely and honorably in Iraq," but part two negates part one: "Congress
disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10,
2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to
Iraq. This is like sending your love a valentine last week and this week
sending a note withdrawing the sentiment.

How should a discerning reader interpret this – as nonsense. I interpreted this column as a job posting for an editor, because it is obvious he lacks one. The entire premise of his article rests on the notion that disapproval of the Iraq War escalation is tantamount to abandoning or not supporting the troops. However, as anyone can clearly see, for his 'Indian Giver' or valentine analogy to work, supporting the troops and resisting the escalation must represent diametrically opposed concepts. They, in fact, do not negate each other, regardless of personal opinions on the war and surge. Actually, as Tim Ryan eloquently explicated in a previous post, supporting the troops means ending the war. Even if we reject that notion, supporting the troops does not automatically equate to supporting the escalation.

I think Mr. Thomas should have penned this several months, if not years ago, when the Congress failed to support our troops and our veterans. Where was Mr. Thomas when the Republican controlled Congress cut funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts – the signature injury of the war (USA Today)? Did he admonish the administration for not supporting the troops when some soldiers resorted to ‘hillbilly armor’ because the pentagon did not provide sufficient protection for the vehicles? How come, more than two years after Secretary of Defense responded to equipment concerns by stating, “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” has the situation not improved? I did not notice an article condemning the administration for not supporting the troops. Nor did he comment on the lack of Congressional funding for Dr. Bob Meaders’ helmet upgrade. It took 3 years and Cher testifying before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces in order to obtain helmet upgrades for our soldiers (Operation Helmet). But yet, opposing the troop surge shows a lack of support for our troops?

Over a month ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Marine Corps General Peter Pace both testified to the House Armed Services Committee that a debate over the Iraq war does not undercut troop morale. General Pace:

As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide
the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops
will feel supported (ABC
News).

Congress pledged to support and protect the members of the US Armed Forces; in essence, doing exactly what Pace and Gates asked for. Unfortunately, it only occurred after Democrats gained control and 3 years after the war started.

Although both Senators Olympia Snowe and Barak Obama support the Iraq War resolution, they introduced new legislation establishing mandatory mental health screenings for all returning combat veterans. Mr. Thomas, this bill epitomizes the notion of supporting the troops.

And just recently, the Washington Post discovered the deplorable conditions our troops endure while convalescing at Walter Reed Medical Center. Do we really want to increase troop levels just to see more wounded soldiers face neglect while recuperating in moldy, rat-infested hospital rooms?

Further, Mr. Thomas quoted Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson’s disgust concerning the debate, in both this article and a previous column entitled “A Letter from Mosul.” In the column, Sgt. Dobson commented:

The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the
seething debate raging over Iraq. Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming,
visceral hatred. We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress.

And again in the Indian Giver column, stating:

…it made me furious to see congressmen unashamedly proclaim their cowardice, but
the reaction of the soldiers tore my heart in two. The faces were that of men
that looked as if they were just told there is no United States to go home to.
The fury gives way to depression: the thought alone that our elected
representatives do not represent us anymore is more than depressing. We see
cowardice, sickening spineless cowardice and it makes soldiers sick.

Although I am almost positive he cherry picked soldiers who agreed with him, I will provide a quote from, not a hand picked soldier against the war, rather Secretary Gates. At the House Armed Services Committee, he said:

I think they're sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's
really about.

Perhaps Sgt. Dobson is not sophisticated enough. Both General Pace and Secretary Gates understand the distinction between ending a war and not supporting our troops, maybe Mr. Thomas should as well.

However, despite a survey from the US Army, reported in the LA Times in December that shows “American soldiers who serve repeated tours of duty in Iraq are more likely to suffer from acute stress,” he supports the surge, which will decrease the time between deployments and increase the number of tours for more than 11,400 National Guard troops (Army, LA Times article, and NYT). If the primary means of supporting our troops is sending more into battle, should we not remain constantly at war, for ending war is tantamount to not supporting our troops.

Mr. Thomas, you are the Indian Giver. You sir, do not support the troops. Your desire to send more of America’s finest young men and women into battle ill-equipped and fatigued from shortened leaves and lengthened tours shows your contempt for the armed services.

Democrats: Support Our Troops = No Escalation

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) delivers a courageous and bold speech that cuts through the haze of bullshit the Republicans have peddled on the Iraq war.



You can also see the strong speeches of Wisconsin Democratic Reps. Obey and Kagen at Nancy Pelosi's YouTube page.

Anti-war Propaganda or Bastion of Truth?

I recently heard this speech concerning a war the United States initiated. Italics are mine.

Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have addressed the committee within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President[James K Polk]. I admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case. How I got this impression, and how it may possibly be removed, I will now try to show. When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading democrats, including Ex President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so.

[Snip]

[O]ne of my colleagues (Mr. Richardson) at a very early day in the session brought in a set of resolutions, expressly endorsing the original justice of the war on the part of the President. Upon these resolutions, when they shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; so that I can not be silent, if I would. Seeing this, I went about preparing myself to give the vote understandingly when it should come. I carefully examined the President's messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him. Under the impression thus made, I gave the vote before mentioned.

[Snip]

Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this,--issue and evidence--is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.

[Snip]

Let him answer, fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts, and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer, as Washington would answer. As a nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt no evasion--no equivocation. And if, so answering, he can show that the soil was ours, where the first blood of the war was shed--that it was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that the inhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas, or of the United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his justification. In that case I, shall be most happy to reverse the vote I gave the other day. I have a selfish motive for desiring that the President may do this. I expect to give some votes, in connection with the war, which, without his so doing, will be of doubtful propriety in my own judgment, but which will be free from the doubt if he does so. But if he can not, or will not do this--if on any pretence, or no pretence, he shall refuse or omit it, then I shall be fully convinced, of what I more than suspect already, that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrongthat he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him. That originally having some strong motive--what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning--to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where. How like the half insane mumbling of a fever-dream, is the whole war part of his late message! At one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever, that we can get, but territory; at another, showing us how we can support the war, by levying contributions on Mexico.

[Snip]

Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it's beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes--every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,--after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious, more painful than all his mental perplexity!

In the excised text, he continued by critically analyzing and questioning the evidence given for war. Now, this speech was not given by some ‘Defeatocrat’ or as Rep. Bill Sali of Idaho characterized recent oversight hearings simple “partisan finger pointing,” rather, one of the great statesman of our day: future President, Abraham Lincoln. Although Lincoln delivered this speech on January 12, 1848, the message is just as applicable today as it was when Lincoln gave it – simply insert Iraq for Mexico and Bush for Polk. However, had he read this today, in all likelihood, members of the Republican Party, the same party Lincoln helped establish, would deride him as unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Every day, whether through Congressional hearings, the Scooter Libby trial, or reports from the Inspector General, we learn more and more how the Bush administration manipulated evidence and lied our way into war with Iraq. Hopefully a Lincoln of our day will emerge.

Speech Transript:
Library of Congress (Original)
Reproduced (used in post)

What is responsibility when it comes to government spending?

Cross-posted at The New Vernacular

Politicians in America keep saying that we need to turn ideas into action if we want to keep this country great. They say we need to beef up security if we want to keep our families safe. According to them, Liberals think that money grows on trees in the yards of taxpayers.

Well, it's possible that the taxpayer dollars used to pay for the Iraq War, estimated to be over $1 trillion dollars, could have really made an impact if they were put to a different use.

Per John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University and graduate of the University of Wisconsin, $1 trillion could easily allow the EPA to clean up every environmental superfund site in the U.S. and then some. It could fund the Department of Education 18 times over and surely, "put muscle into the slogan "No child left behind." It could multiply our scientific research hundreds of times and put us years ahead in energy advances to cure our dependency on foreign oil and cure life-threatening diseases. It could secure nearly every port and chemical plant. It could even save the lives of million of children across the world dying of what to us are common, treatable illnesses.

Strangely, it seems that it would be almost impossible to convince Congress that any of these endeavors would be a strong investment.

ABC News: Who's counting: How Iraq's trillion could have been spent