Democrats have listed several reasons why we need to get out of Iraq: needless American casualties, excessive war spending, our fueling of al-Qaeda, our letting al-Qaeda regenerate in Afghanistan, needing to get Osama bin-Laden, and of course the lack of any political progress.
Well as if things were not already looking grim for all of the above issues, it seems that the political progress has yet another reason to be seriously questioned. The Iraqi Prime-Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, basically said the following when visiting with Syria, who is not one of the U.S.'s close allies to say the least:
“If the Americans are getting impatient with us, then we’ll find other friends, we don’t have to abide by any timetables.”
Wow, American's are risking their lives when the leader of Iraq himself basically doesn't care if we stay or go. If the Iraqis don't care, why the hell should we care about their civil war. Lets fight al-Qaeda and thats it. Enough trying to help Iraqi factions make peace. Lets watch out for U.S. interests and let the Iraqis find "other friends" who will help them.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Pace expected to tell the President to reduce troop numbers
For over three years democrats and military officials have called Iraq a lost cause, and said that the occupation of Iraq is doing more harm than good. When people close to President Bush echoed similar, grim, feelings on the Iraq War, the President simply dismissed them from their service, but it now looks like there is someone who the President might not be able to overlook:
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war. Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."- Los Angeles Times
If this is true it could mean even bigger trouble for the president. While it may be easy to overlook the opinions of war veterans and low level generals, Peter Pace is a respected and honorable man, who has supported the president in the past. We have many enemies in the world that we may have to deal with in the future; Iraq is not one of them. The last thing we need to do is strain the military, let alone have more Americans killed because of a sectarian civil war. I just hope that the president and republicans begin to realize the truth about Iraq. The longer we stay, the worse, for us, it is going to get.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war. Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military."- Los Angeles Times
If this is true it could mean even bigger trouble for the president. While it may be easy to overlook the opinions of war veterans and low level generals, Peter Pace is a respected and honorable man, who has supported the president in the past. We have many enemies in the world that we may have to deal with in the future; Iraq is not one of them. The last thing we need to do is strain the military, let alone have more Americans killed because of a sectarian civil war. I just hope that the president and republicans begin to realize the truth about Iraq. The longer we stay, the worse, for us, it is going to get.
The latest scam from the GOP
Well it appears as if an initiative that would divide up California's 55 electoral votes is going to make it onto the ballot some time next summer. The proposal, proposed of course by a Republican, would divide California's electoral votes in the 2008 election. The winner of the popular vote statewide would get 2 electoral votes and the rest would be divided up by the popular vote in a particular district.
This is nothing but Republicans trying to cheap shot democrats. Democrats have recently carried, by a wide margin, the entire state's popular vote, but there are some small counties who vote Republican. What is so wrong with this proposal, besides its creation for partisan purposes, is that a district with a 200,000 people could vote for a democrat, while a district with 20,000 people could vote republican, yet both districts would carry the same amount of weight. A candidate could get millions of votes over another candidate and still technically "lose" California because districts with small populations voted for republicans. Its wrong no matter how you look at it and I encourage every Californian to vote against it!
This is nothing but Republicans trying to cheap shot democrats. Democrats have recently carried, by a wide margin, the entire state's popular vote, but there are some small counties who vote Republican. What is so wrong with this proposal, besides its creation for partisan purposes, is that a district with a 200,000 people could vote for a democrat, while a district with 20,000 people could vote republican, yet both districts would carry the same amount of weight. A candidate could get millions of votes over another candidate and still technically "lose" California because districts with small populations voted for republicans. Its wrong no matter how you look at it and I encourage every Californian to vote against it!
Are democrats better at lowering abortions than the GOP?
While watching a CNN special last night, titled, "God's Warriors: Christians", I was a actually taken aback when an evangelist preacher suggested that its democrats who would be better at lowering abortions than the republicans who use it as a major issue in their campaigns. As I said, I never thought I would hear those words, especially from a preacher, but after reflecting on it I began to realize, that indeed, he had a good point.
Conservative Republicans have been running for years on the abortion issue, claiming they are pro-life and will end abortion. Yet strict conservatives have held the presidency the last 19 out of 27 years and nothing has been done yet. People need to come to the realization that abortion is a woman's right protected by our Constitution. While the courts could overturn Roe v. Wade, its highly unlikely that they ever would. Its been a key precedent for over 3 decades, and conservatives have had control of the Supreme Court for most of that time. What I'm getting at is that I would be willing to bet, like it or not, that abortion, as a right for every woman, will never be made illegal. So what is the next best thing?
Well one has to look at the statistics for that answer. It is a proven fact, that most women who commit abortions are below the poverty line, unable to pay for medical bills for the child, or simply unable to support a child period. There are other reasons, such as a women's life, that are also causes for abortion, but poverty is an issue that no one can dismiss. And who is better at helping the poor? The democrats. The democrats fight for healthcare for all, payed for by the government. They support (and recently have been successful at) raising the minimum wage significantly. They support taking away the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 and use that money back to assist people who make under $40,000. They support reduced college and other education costs. Just think if all those things were to happen, and they look like they will if a democrat is elected in 2008, what a difference it could make in the number of abortions. Those that think abortion is something a woman would enjoy or want to do is beyond me. I can only imagine that it would be the most difficult thing a woman would ever have to go through, and the same from the position of the father. Lets treat the source of the problem, and not try to make completely un-reasonable and untruthful promises. Maybe those who call themselves "pro-life" should think again before they vote for those who say they will end abortion, but never have, and likely, never will.
Conservative Republicans have been running for years on the abortion issue, claiming they are pro-life and will end abortion. Yet strict conservatives have held the presidency the last 19 out of 27 years and nothing has been done yet. People need to come to the realization that abortion is a woman's right protected by our Constitution. While the courts could overturn Roe v. Wade, its highly unlikely that they ever would. Its been a key precedent for over 3 decades, and conservatives have had control of the Supreme Court for most of that time. What I'm getting at is that I would be willing to bet, like it or not, that abortion, as a right for every woman, will never be made illegal. So what is the next best thing?
Well one has to look at the statistics for that answer. It is a proven fact, that most women who commit abortions are below the poverty line, unable to pay for medical bills for the child, or simply unable to support a child period. There are other reasons, such as a women's life, that are also causes for abortion, but poverty is an issue that no one can dismiss. And who is better at helping the poor? The democrats. The democrats fight for healthcare for all, payed for by the government. They support (and recently have been successful at) raising the minimum wage significantly. They support taking away the Bush tax cuts for those who make over $200,000 and use that money back to assist people who make under $40,000. They support reduced college and other education costs. Just think if all those things were to happen, and they look like they will if a democrat is elected in 2008, what a difference it could make in the number of abortions. Those that think abortion is something a woman would enjoy or want to do is beyond me. I can only imagine that it would be the most difficult thing a woman would ever have to go through, and the same from the position of the father. Lets treat the source of the problem, and not try to make completely un-reasonable and untruthful promises. Maybe those who call themselves "pro-life" should think again before they vote for those who say they will end abortion, but never have, and likely, never will.
Republicans-----fiscal conservatives? (a special editorial by John Lucia)
When George W. Bush leaves office in 19 months, the last three so called conservative republican presidents will have served 20 years at the helm without balancing one federal budget, without sending one balanced budget to congress, piling up record deficits and increasing the national debt to levels never heard of before. Ronald Reagan started it all with record federal deficits, then the Bush 41 broke Ronald Reagan records and then the present Mr. Bush broke both his fathers and Reagan's deficit spending records by whopping margins.
For the record, when Reagan left office after 8 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.9 trillion to the national debt. When George H.W. Bush left office after 4 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.1 trillion to the national debt. The combined deficit spending of Reagan-Bush (12 years) was over $2 trillion.
Now we come to the new champion of deficit spending, the present Mr. Bush. As of August 14, 2007 his administration has added over $3.1 trillion to the national debt and still has 18 more months to go in office and will add more. This despite a projected $5 trillion surplus left by the previous Clinton administration. The Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of this administration and rubber stamped Bush's deficit spending habit.
The Clinton administration inherited 12 straight years of budget deficits from the Reagan-Bush years, brought down the deficits and balanced the budget with record surpluses his last four years in office and paid down a net $14.2 billion of the national debt. When the democrats controlled congress in the early years of Clinton's administration, they passed his deficit reduction package and his economic package while not one republican voted yes.
Only two presidents in the past 45 years balanced the federal budget and had surpluses, both were democrats. Lynden Johnson's administration had a surplus of $13.4 billion in FY 1969 and Clinton's administration balanced the budget his last four years in office with record surpluses.
Try to understand this, Reagan and the two Bush's did not send one balanced budget to congress in their 20 years at the helm. Where were their character of courage? They try to seduce the tax payers with tax cuts that benefit the most wealthy and the average american and middle class end up paying more taxes because of their deficit spending and increases in the national debt.
Interest payments alone just on the national debt during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush cost the tax payers over $2 trillion. Interest payments on the national debt on the present Bush's watch will exceed by far the above payments of Reagan-Bush. Just think of what $4 + trillion could have paid for or provided had the tax payers not been saddled with their reckless spending habits. The interest payments on the national debt for FY ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Yes, you are reading correctly, that's $406 Billion.
The facts tell us those 3 republican presidents have been more than just reckless with spending tax payers money. They have misled the people about their true intentions and as a result, Americans have never received the benefits they deserve. When Ronald Reagan took office the national debt stood at less than one trillion dollars. The national debt as of 14 August 2007 was over $8.9 trillion.
Conservative Republican Presidents? Think Again!
For the record, when Reagan left office after 8 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.9 trillion to the national debt. When George H.W. Bush left office after 4 years of deficit spending his administration added over $1.1 trillion to the national debt. The combined deficit spending of Reagan-Bush (12 years) was over $2 trillion.
Now we come to the new champion of deficit spending, the present Mr. Bush. As of August 14, 2007 his administration has added over $3.1 trillion to the national debt and still has 18 more months to go in office and will add more. This despite a projected $5 trillion surplus left by the previous Clinton administration. The Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of this administration and rubber stamped Bush's deficit spending habit.
The Clinton administration inherited 12 straight years of budget deficits from the Reagan-Bush years, brought down the deficits and balanced the budget with record surpluses his last four years in office and paid down a net $14.2 billion of the national debt. When the democrats controlled congress in the early years of Clinton's administration, they passed his deficit reduction package and his economic package while not one republican voted yes.
Only two presidents in the past 45 years balanced the federal budget and had surpluses, both were democrats. Lynden Johnson's administration had a surplus of $13.4 billion in FY 1969 and Clinton's administration balanced the budget his last four years in office with record surpluses.
Try to understand this, Reagan and the two Bush's did not send one balanced budget to congress in their 20 years at the helm. Where were their character of courage? They try to seduce the tax payers with tax cuts that benefit the most wealthy and the average american and middle class end up paying more taxes because of their deficit spending and increases in the national debt.
Interest payments alone just on the national debt during the 12 years of Reagan-Bush cost the tax payers over $2 trillion. Interest payments on the national debt on the present Bush's watch will exceed by far the above payments of Reagan-Bush. Just think of what $4 + trillion could have paid for or provided had the tax payers not been saddled with their reckless spending habits. The interest payments on the national debt for FY ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Yes, you are reading correctly, that's $406 Billion.
The facts tell us those 3 republican presidents have been more than just reckless with spending tax payers money. They have misled the people about their true intentions and as a result, Americans have never received the benefits they deserve. When Ronald Reagan took office the national debt stood at less than one trillion dollars. The national debt as of 14 August 2007 was over $8.9 trillion.
Conservative Republican Presidents? Think Again!
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)