Iraq: Bush's Bottomless Money Pit

The President announced that he would seek $196.4 Billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year beginning October 1, which is an increase from his previous announced $141.7 Billion.  This is the same President who recently vetoed a program to increase the children's health insurance program that was paid for by an increase in the tobacco taxes.  The Republicans in congress up held his veto.

 

Now it is time for congress to end the war with a date certain for a safe withdrawal of our troops and no longer fund the war beyond that date.  Congress should also pass legislation for the Defense Department to draw up plans for the safe withdrawal of our troops by that date certain.  The nation can not trust Mr. Bush to act properly or Presidential concerning this issue.

 

The war in Iraq is costing the U.S. over $10 Billion a month and total of over $500 billion since it began.  And more important than the cost of money, there is of course the cost of lives, all over WMD that did not exist.  It should also be noted the President has never intended to have a plan to pay for this war except to mortgage our children and grandchildren's future.

 

It is past time for congress to step in and put a stop to Mr. Bush's madness.  Our country, our people, and especially our men and women in uniform are paying a harsh price for Bush's reckless behavior and incompetence.

 

What we will begin to see now is the all to familiar spin of Mr. Bush.  He will direct people in his administration and our military leaders to go on the offense and tell the American people how wonderful everything is going in Iraq.  He and other Republicans already are using the "support our troops" or be branded as "unpatriotic" ultimatum. Republicans can not be allowed to tell the American people that those who are against the war are "unpatriotic".  It is a lie and it's wrong.  

 

The only thing for certain about this unnecessary war is that in the final analysis, when all is said and done, Iraq will be aligned with Iran and the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. because of Bush's policy will have gone for naught.

 

In the last few days we have seen the President plead with Turkey's prime minister Erdogan not to invade Iraq in pursuit of the PKK rebels who have been attacking Turkey.  Bush said that action would destabilize Iraq-----Bush should know since his own order to invade and occupy Iraq destabilized both it and the Middle East.

 

Make no mistake about the fact that the war itself proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was an unnecessary war over WMD that did not exist.  Saddam was a threat to no one except his own people.  George Bush knew those WMD did not exist.  I will cover that story in a future commentary.  In the meantime brace yourself for the coming spin for the fifth straight year about this war.

Brownback To Endorse Giuliani?

As we all know, Sen. Sam Brownback dropped out of the race for president a couple of weeks ago. We also know that Rudy Giuliani is the frontrunner of the GOP Presidential candidates. What we do not know is whether or not Sam Brownback will throw his support behind his Mayor Giuliani.

Now the general consensus with anyone reading this question would be "of course not". Brownback is the picture-perfect conservative. His presidential campaign had one focus----what Brownback called his "moral" credentials. He wanted to "rebuild the family". Brownback is strongly pro-life, strongly anti-gay, and strongly against gun control. Giuliani, on the other hand, is pro-choice, pro-gay, and strongly for gun control(well, he used to be before he "refined" his positions). So the question is: why has Brownback been seen talking highly favorable of Rudy Giuliani? Was it not just a few debates ago when Brownback said the GOP would "never nominate a pro-abortion candidate"? Well now it seems that a Brownback endorsement of Giuliani is not too far away.

If Brownback does indeed endorse Giuliani, he will claim it will be because of Giuliani's tough stance on foreign issues. I can assure you Brownback will conveniently forget Rudy's liberal social views. My thought----Brownback is a sell-out. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt, Brownback hasn't endorsed Rudy yet, but he has been clearly warming up to the idea of a Giuliani presidency. If anything, if Browback truly feels the way he does on social issues, he should be using everything in his power to keep Giuliani from becoming the nominee. But he won't. Brownback, like many politicians, wants to "get in good" with the candidate who is most likely to win. I hope, if Brownback continues to show support for Giuliani, or if an endorsement does take place, that the Christian Right raises hell with Brownback. There is nothing I hate more than people suddenly changing their opinions when it suits them.

How Much More?

The newest projection of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show that the the two conflicts could cost $2.4 trillion. It is also important to take into account that this analysis was done by a non-partisan group, the Congressional Budget Office. Here is a quote from CBO Director Peter Orszag:

"It's clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path ... with the higher debt and interest costs."

Congressman Rahm Emaneul weighed in on the situation on Hardball on MSNBC:

"America's future is being held hostage by the cost of the war."

So with the newest projections, I must ask: How much more? How much more money for this needless war? How much more are we going to spend acting as a police force in a foreign country instead of helping our own people? If there was no war in Iraq, we would have a budget surplus right now. We could have the social security problem largely fixed. We could have provided healthcare for every American. Or how about this----we could have spent the money actually fighting terrorists.

There is no excuse for this. Americans for generations will be forced to pay the price for this war. Enough is enough. And it's not just the Democrat's fault. What happened to the so called "fiscal conservatives"? Why is it that the only two presidents to balance the budget in the past 50 years, were Democrats? Why is it that two of our most conservative Presidents, Reagan and Bush, wrecked the economy by adding billions of debt? The Republicans have got to jump on board with the American people and the Democrats and vote to bring this war to a safe end. America can not afford this war any longer-----not the cost and certainly not the lives of our brave men and women. So I say with more urgency than ever: this war must end. If Bush and the GOP don't, it is the duty of us to elect a President who will end this war.

***On a side note, my thought and prayers go out to all those affected by the wildfires in Southern California. I can't help but feel that the recovery effort would be much easier if California had its National Guards(who are serving in Iraq). It seems more and more everyday we are seeing the unnecessary costs of this war in all aspects of American life.***

Clinton: "Absolutely" Would Give Up Some Power

Many Democrats have greatly criticized the power grab made by the Bush Administration. The Bush administration has given itself power that is arguably unconstitutional and the conservative Supreme Court and the GOP Congress of the last 7 years have done nothing about it. The next President, Republican or Democrat, will have to, in my book, relinquish some of the power that the Bush administration claims belongs to the office of the President. The Constitution and the law must be reinstated. The fear I have, is that if someone like Rudy gets elected, the powers of the President will grow even more than the Bush administration. This neocon philosophy is one that is dangerous to America and its people and the Constitution. That is why I was very pleased when Sen. Clinton strongly addressed this issue on Tuesday:

“There were a lot of actions which they (Bush-Cheney) took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted, or that in my view that was inherent in the Constitution."

Asked whether she would “actually give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle,” Sen. Clinton answered, “Absolutely.”

Kudos to Sen. Clinton for leading on yet another issue. For those who still question why she is so far ahead in the polls, it is because of things like this. No matter how much Obama and Edwards say "change", they have yet to step up as Clinton has and answer questions directly and clearly. It's not enough to say that the Bush administration has done wrong. Obama and Edwards need to be clear of what Bush and Cheney have done wrong and they have to address all of those issues. And even more important, they need to say what they'll do when they get in office, to fix it. While Obama is supporting a known homosexual basher, Clinton is leading on the issues that matter to all Americans. That is why she is leading in the polls and that is why she is likely to be the next President.

10/21 GOP Debate Thoughts

Well I must admit, aside from a few things, I was pleasantly surprised with tonight's Republican debate. I think the moderators did several of things I talked about earlier----pointing out that McCain runs better against Hillary in General Election polls than Rudy and giving Huckabee adequate time to showcase his credentials to be president.

Huckabee was the star of the debate. He got in quite a few good one liners and was funny, charming and looked as if he was the only major GOP candidate who would be able to put America ahead of his party. McCain also had a good night. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, and I do disagree with them, you must admit McCain is an honorable guy who says what he means and means what he says.

I was disappointed that the moderators didn't press Giuliani on what makes him supposedly so experienced on foreign policy. I think McCain tried to bring up the fact that he is more experienced than Giuliani, but the moderators failed to follow up. I think its crucial, for this country's future, to point out that, on many issues, Rudy is simply a fraud. That was my first out of two major complaints about the debate.

My second complaint is, yet again, that Ron Paul got no respect for the other candidates, and especially the crowd in attendance. I can understand if they do not agree with his policies (which, by the way are the best of all the GOP candidates'), but to boo Paul is just rude and unnecessary. It shows the character of those GOP voters in attendance. I don't care what conservatives say about us liberals, we are polite and give candidates, regardless of whether or not we agree with them, respect.

Here are a few of my other thoughts: It is a shame that Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo probably only got 10 minutes combined. The moderators would rarely go to them with questions and that is just not fair to voters who haven't made up their mind. They are essentially being denied, by the media, an opportunity to hear from certain people. I'll also say Fred Thompson performed slightly better than last time, but still far from great. He has a serious problem getting his point across and just comes across as sloppy. Rudy did okay. My problem with him is that he makes things up as he goes along. Last debate he said Romney raised taxes (Romney actually lowered taxes considerably); tonight Rudy said that he wasn't like Hillary on abortion, gun control, and gay issues. Well in fact, Rudy is indeed just like Hillary, if not even more liberal, on those issues. And finally, Mitt Romney continues to do well. He did a good job tonight defending his "flip-flops" and he definitely made an attempt to win over the Christian Right. He, even more so that Huckabee, flaunted his conservative credentials. Now whether or not his positions are genuine is a different story, but Romney did do an excellent job of making himself look like the most socially conservative candidate tonight.

So here are my rankings:
1. Mike Huckabee----the most charming candidate and the one who best connected with the audience
2. John McCain------his "straight-shooter" attitude, along with flaunting his foreign policy experience, made this one of McCain's best debate performances
3. Mitt Romney------he continues to make the case for why he is a true conservative, and it worked tonight
4. Rudy Giuliani-----for some reason beyond my comprehension, he is a favorite among the crowd and (sadly) does a good job at fooling them into believing he is someone he is clearly not
5. Ron Paul---------his anti-war message might have been unpopular with the audience tonight, but as anti-war sentiment grows among moderate Republicans, Paul's performance proves why he is their candidate
6, 7, 8: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson---I didn't even get to hear enough from Tancredo and Hunter to rate them, but I do know that Thompson still performed far below expectations and his poll numbers will continue to show that these poor debate performances are having a negative effect

So there are my thoughts. If anyone saw the debate, I would love to hear yours.

What I Want to See at Tonight's GOP Debate

Tonight, live from Miami, Fox News will host another Presidential debate for the Republican candidates. I am looking forward to seeing if Fred Thompson can fix some of the damage done by his last debate performance. This could be make or break for Thompson and his campaign. He has got to show some enthusiasm and knowledge about running for President and he has got to energize the live audience and the viewers watching at home.

Also look for the feud between Romney and Rudy to continue from the last debate. Romney needs to set himself up as the conservative alternative to Giuliani, while Giuliani needs to gain strength in the early primary states where Romney is far ahead.

What I'm hoping most for is good moderating. I want the moderators to point out that there are real conservatives, like McCain and Huckabee, in the race. I have a feeling that a lot of the time being spent tonight will be on who the "true" Republican is in the field. The moderators can not just sit back, as they did in the past, and let lies spew forth from some of the candidates and not call them out on it. It is the duty of the moderator to point out facts and to speak out when one of the candidates claims something absurd.

The other portion of the debate, one would have to assume, will be devoted to foreign policy. It's highly unlikely, (seeing Fox's apparent love for Rudy Giuliani) but I would like to see Rudy questioned on what exactly he has done to give him experience on foreign issues. I don't see how Rudy can claim to have so much foreign policy experience when he was just a mayor. John McCain has a ton more foreign policy credentials than Rudy does, and that needs to be pointed out.

What also needs to be pointed out by the moderators, is the fact that while Rudy says he is the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary, the polls show different. In head-to-head match-ups, John McCain either does just as well as Rudy or occasionally better. With Rudy as the frontrunner, he must be questioned more on his statements, as some of his are either ludicrous or just plain false. Fox News has no problem nitpicking every little thing Hillary says; they claim that she should be scrutinized because she is the frontrunner and people need to know her positions. Well, I only ask Fox to do the same for Rudy, and quite frankly, the other Republican candidates as well.

And lastly, I just hope the moderators and the other candidates show Ron Paul some respect. I was so disgusted at the last debate to see the obvious bias of the moderators against Ron. The others candidates were extremely disrespectful as well; Rudy could be heard laughing whenever Ron answered a question. Ron Paul is possibly the only Republican with real solutions, and the media and the other candidates would do themselves, and the American people, much good to pay some attention to him and his policies.

I hope everyone has a chance to watch the debate tonight and I look forward to reading some of your thoughts in the comments below. I'll be back later on tonight with a recap and review of the debate and who I believe were the winners and losers.

Jindal wins Governorship

I am sad to announce that Republican Bobby Jindal has won the election for Louisiana Governor. I don't think there could be a worst person for the job. Bobby has agreed with everything President Bush has done----including his handling of Hurricane Katrina, and everyone knows that was a disaster.

One of the reasons for Jindal's clean, easy victory was his name recognition. Jindal represents the New Orleans metropolitan area in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was also a candidate for governor in 2003 against Kathleen Blanco. Blanco, deciding not to run for re-election, essentially left the seat for the taking of Bobby Jindal.

Big name Louisiana Democrats such as Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu(who by the way easily won re-election tonight) and former U.S. Sen. John Breaux decided not to run. These democrats could have won the election, but by not running, they left Jindal with virtually no big-name opposition. Democratic State Senator Walter Boasso was Jindal's only true competition, yet Jindal had millions more to spend and hence won the Governorship.

All I can do now is pray that, regardless of party affiliation, Jindal will do the right things for the people of Louisiana, and that means standing up to his good 'ole friend, Pres. Bush, and actually helping the state, unlike the President. Unfortunately, I don't think Jindal will do that. All you have to do is look at his Congressional record. He was ranked 432th out of 439 places on terms of leadership and effectiveness representing his people. Can Jindal get past his partisanship and actually help those in Louisiana who are desperate for change? I surely hope so, but sadly, I think not. He has proven, like many other Republicans lately, that he cares more about his own party, than the people he is elected to serve.

Romney Wins Over Conservatives.....Barely

At a Christian Conservative Conference, organized by the Family Research council, Gov. Mitt Romney won a straw poll with 27.6% of the "value voter's" votes. Mike Huckabee, who in my opinion is one of the strongest GOP candidates, finished at a very close second with 27.1%. Ron Paul came in third with 15% favoring him.

It proved to be a disappointing night for the two national frontrunners, however. Fred Thompson, who was hoping for the support of the Christian right to propel his campaign, only received about 9%. Rudy Giuliani, whose campaign banked on his (so called) national security credentials to overcome the social issues when it comes to winning over Christian conservatives, finished with under 2%.

Several important things strike me from the results of the straw poll. Now obviously, this isn't even close to all the Christian Conservative voters' support, but it is meaningful. It tells who the "value voter" community is drifting towards. First, I 'll be honest, I was shocked that Romney finished first. I thought for sure his flip-flop on abortion would keep him from being the favorite among Christians. Mike Huckabee, finishing a strong second, illustrates a trend in the campaign----his growing support. If Huckabee can finish strong in the early primaries, he might just be able to win enough Christian votes in the Southern states to win the GOP nomination. Another major upset has to be the fact that Ron Paul came in third. I could honestly see, if Rudy becomes the nominee, that Paul would run as a third party, anti-war, pro-life candidate and get the backing of some Christian conservatives. This could have the Nader effect on the GOP in '08 in some key battle ground states.

Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani can not be too happy tonight. If Fred can not rally up the Christian right, I don't see how he has a shot at the nomination. I think, as we get closer to January, that Huckabee will slowly over come Thompson in the polls and will prove to be the candidate of choice for the Christian Right. And finally we can see that Rudy is not winning over the social conservatives. Rudy himself has stated in the past that the way he will win the nomination is by convincing "value voters" that, while he might not be as socially conservative as they may like, he is the toughest candidate on national security. Well it seems that they're not buying it. I predict as we get closer to the primaries, and more people start paying close attention to the race, Rudy will lose some support once people know his positions.

One thing is for sure coming out of this conference----it is essentially a battle between Romney and Huckabee for the Christian Right vote in the primaries. Also it's clear that Rudy is not going to get a majority of Christian votes and that Fred is, slowly but surly, fading away.

The Four Ring Circus

Republican Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and John McCain are going at each other as to who is the real conservative among them.  These children, dressed up like adults, are a sad bunch representing the Republican party who are trying to attract their base----those who prefer to wear the mantle of moral and family values. 

 

History has proven those who talk most about having family and moral values are the one who often violate those values.  We have seen many of them exposed in the last few years.  The people who really believe and practice family and moral values very seldom have to speak about those values because they live them.  In other words they lead by their deeds.

 

Has anyone heard this circus talk about being an American first?  I would bet not; their ideology and political persuasion comes first.  They think of being an American only when they need the extra votes.  The election of any one of these four children as President will just be an extension of the Bush administration with more reckless behavior and more reckless decisions, more attacks by Al Qaeda on the U.S., and more unnecessary wars.

 

Mr. Bush and his tough talking neocon friends failed to protect the country and its people on 9-11 from the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil.  And now this circus of four neocon's running for President are also trying to talk tough.  The American people are well aware of which party can best protect our country and people, and it is not the Republican Party.

 

It is almost laughable when you see them go after each other.  They can't live up to their positions on the issues, and when all else fails, they invoke the name of Reagan.  It must remind them of the Iran-Contra scandal.  Maybe that is why they are so casual about going to war with Iran.  Their motive must be to get back those weapons Reagan sold to Iran. 

 

Lets see, Giuliani likes to cross dress and hide behind the podium during the debates; Thompson is an actor with an undistinguished record while serving in Congress; McCain's wheels of his straight talking express came off a long time ago, and Romney is still trying to explain his positions. What a four ring circus with these children leading the Republican field for their party's leadership.

 

Are any of these four the best candidates to lead our country in the future?  The present administration has already set America back a decade with its reckless behavior.  When introducing the candidates for the next debate, maybe the moderator should just sing, "Send In The Clowns."

 

Why Not McCain?

Throughout this campaign season, we are hearing more and more about how GOP voters want a social-conservative who, at the same time, can be super-hawkish when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East. Many social conservatives say they wouldn't normally vote for a man with Giuliani's past(pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro- gun control, pro-illegal immigration, etc.), but they feel he is the only man with "enough experience" to protect the country. Well, I wish these conservatives would wake up. There is already a frontrunner who is a social conservative and who does have experience on foreign issues. So I ask them----why Giuliani, why not McCain?

John McCain, regardless of how much I might disagree with him, fits the description of what I hear every "value voter" wanting---someone who has a clear record of being pro-life, socially conservative, fiscally conservative, AND he, by far, has the most foreign policy experience and knowledge out of any GOP candidate. I'd like to know how exactly some people think Giuliani has "foreign policy experience". How do you get foreign policy experience from just being a mayor? You don't, and people should realize that. The only past discrepancy that I see affecting McCain is his stance on immigration reform. But that still doesn't explain why they would so quickly turn from McCain, who was the early front-runner, to Giuliani who is even more pro-illegal immigration that McCain.

I suppose it just angers me to continue to see Giuliani rise in the polls for reasons that simply aren't true. I might not vote Republican or even share their "values", but I must admit there are better people out there to be president than Giuliani. Someone who exploits the lives of those lost on 9/11 does not deserve to be president. Someone who is so willing to commit troops to another war with Iran does not deserve to be president. Someone who will forget his past positions and adopt new ones, just to win an election, doesn't deserve to be president. Someone who speaks out against children getting healthcare does not deserve to be president. In case you haven't caught on, that "someone" is Giuliani. This man is a disgrace to America. I ask all you conservatives, if you are truly concerned with social issues and national security, do not look to Rudy. Look to McCain, he has stood for your principles for as long as he has been in politics, and you conservatives have literally paid him nothing but hatred in return. So don't go on the news and complain you don't have a candidate, you do, and his name is John McCain. Conservatives do have a choice; it's not like Rudy is being pushed down their throats. I just hope they realize their choices before its too late.