Stay The Course or Bring ‘Em Home?

$50 Billion more for Iraq after throwing $500 billion into the war profiteer bank accounts…

How much did we spend on rebuilding New Orleans and helping Katrina victims and how are they doin after 2 years?

Just proof that the American People are an after thought to Bush. His wars, political power, corporate wellfare, and governing via fear come first.

Rate this comment: 0  0

McJoan over at dKos reminds me that a little over a month ago, 70 Democrats sent President Bush a letter:

“Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.

We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.”

Rate this comment: 0  0

WaPo:

“Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.”

Rate this comment: 0  0

Does this mean that he really didn’t have confidence in Gonzales when he gave him the power to wiretap American citizens?

I’m lost here.

I understand that he has more information than we do. I also understand that the other Congressfolks have the same information and are voting for a pullout and against expanding the executive’s power to wiretap.

Is he saying that they have bad judgment?

Sounds like bet-hedging to me.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Clearly pols are afraid they won’t be re-elected if their constituents perceive that their votes “make Americans less safe”. We all know how Bushco has manipulated voters with this fear. It’s a shame that our elected officials still cave in to these tactics.

Yes, a reasonable person wants protection from a terrorist attack. But it is insulting to the American public to assume that the average voter cannot understand that “Iraq War” does not equal “The War on Terror”. All we need are public officials who have the willingness and common sense (and perhaps courage) to stand up and say something to the effect of, oh I don’t know,

“Spending 50 billion dollars of tax payers’ money in Iraq will not do a damn thing to make any of you safer”

or maybe,

“Unfortunately, whether we’re in Iraq or not, we will continue to be targeted by terrorists. That is the reality of terrorism. Another unfortunate reality is that, despite our best efforts, we will not be able to prevent every attack. We can use this 50 billion dollars of your money to improve public safety on our soil, decrease the likelihood of successful terrorist attack, and respond to the needs of our people should an attack occur”.

or how about

“Terrorists want to kill people. Spending 50 billion dollars in Iraq guarantees the deaths of thousands of American citizens, not to mention untold numbers of Iraqi civilians. Doesn’t that mean the terrorists win? Terrorists want to destroy America. When we allocate our resources to the war in Iraq don’t we take them away from the needs of the American people on our soil? When we infringe on civil liberties in the search for terrorists aren’t we undermining our own Constitution? Doesn’t that mean the terrorists win? When we spend 50 billion dollars in Iraq we limit our ability to keep bridges from falling, rebuild lives destroyed by hurricanes, and prevent the unnecessary deaths of Americans who have no access to affordable health care. Doesn’t that mean the terrorists win? Let’s defeat terrorism by allocating our resources to improving the lives of our citizens, protecting ourselves on our soil, and upholding the rights granted to us by our Constitution.”

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear Democrats publicly and emphatically take a stand and really lead for once instead of cowering and voting in lockstep with Republicans whenever Bushco whispers the word “TERROR”?

Anyone think we’ll hear anything like this from Heath Shuler?

Sorry to be so long-winded but Gordon did a great job tapping into my outrage with this post.

Rate this comment: 0  0