posted on February 2, 2007 12:27:06 PM new
Molly Ivins sure had BUSHY's NUMBER.
Bush's Kiss of Death
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted June 9, 2004.
We're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically.
AUSTIN, Texas -- As Lily Tomlin observed, "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." But as Con Ed used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of David Sirota at americanprogress.org, we find the following matches between word and deed:
Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died a-borning after it hit the newspapers.
In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay." A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in "imminent danger" pay (from $225 to $150) and family separation allowance (from $250 to $100).
In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance. What a nice thank you note.
A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing." Progressive lawmakers counter-proposed an amendment to restore $1 billion in housing funds and pay for it by reducing new tax cuts Bush was proposing for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of getting $88,000 in tax cuts, the poor millionaires would get only $83,000. The House, with White House backing, voted the proposal down. (All thanks to Sirota.)
With the release of the 2006 budget, we're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically in order to pay for making his tax cuts permanent.
According to The Washington Post, the White House guidelines for the 2006 budget include a $1.7 billion cut for education, supposedly his signature program. That neatly wipes out last year's increase -- and, you may recall, the administration has never funded education at anything close to the figures in the original agreement with Sen. Ted Kennedy. Teachers say the No Child Left Behind law should be called "No Dollars Left Behind to Pay for It." Head Start is to be cut by $177 million, and the highly successful nutrition program for women, infants and children is to be cut by $100 million.
Any time Bush goes out into the country and claims credit for, or praises the work being done by, some government program, it is an almost-certain kiss of death -- budget cuts follow.
Back to veterans. This year, the administration increased spending on veterans by $519 million. In 2006, it plans to cut veterans spending by $910 million.
Also on the list for substantial cuts are the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and police assistance and crime prevention programs. When something like the West Nile virus gets out of control, can't you just envision the independent investigation committee that will have a look into that government failure? Can we fire George Tenet again?
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., points out the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut $682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire that the latest Republican scheme is to not pass a budget at all this year (until after the election), lest people notice what is going on.
The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.
Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always timely, "What the hell will they do to us next?"
posted on February 2, 2007 12:41:14 PM new
WAKE UP yo-yo.
We are NOW currently in FY 2007 and our congress will SOON be working on our budget for 2008
TRY your best to KEEP UP.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 2, 2007 02:26:10 PM new
Liar_k,
Stand up against the Surge Molly Ivins says.
Stand Up Against the Surge
The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like the dumbest president ever. People have done dumber things. What were they thinking when they bought into the Bay of Pigs fiasco? How dumb was the Egypt-Suez war? How massively stupid was the entire war in Vietnam? Even at that, the challenge with this misbegotten adventure is that WE simply cannot let it continue.
It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost. Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.
His assessment is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who only recommend releasing forces with a clear definition of the goals for the additional troops.
Bush's call for a "surge" or "escalation" also goes against the Iraq Study Group. Talk is that the White House has planned to do anything but what the group suggested after months of investigation and proposals based on much broader strategic implications.
About the only politician out there besides Bush actively calling for a surge is Sen. John McCain. In a recent opinion piece, he wrote: "The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own — impose its rule throughout the country. ... By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed." But with all due respect to the senator from Arizona, that ship has long since sailed.
A surge is not acceptable to the people in this country — we have voted overwhelmingly against this war in polls (about 80 percent of the public is against escalation, and a recent Military Times poll shows only 38 percent of active military want more troops sent) and at the polls.
We know this is wrong. The people understand, the people have the right to make this decision, and the people have the obligation to make sure our will is implemented.
Congress must work for the people in the resolution of this fiasco. Ted Kennedy's proposal to control the money and tighten oversight is a welcome first step. And if Republicans want to continue to rubber-stamp this administration's idiotic "plans" and go against the will of the people, they should be thrown out as soon as possible, to join their recent colleagues.
Anyone who wants to talk knowledgably about our Iraq misadventure should pick up Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone." It's like reading a horror novel. You just want to put your face down and moan: How could we have let this happen? How could we have been so stupid?
As The Washington Post's review notes, Chandrasekaran's book "methodically documents the baffling ineptitude that dominated U.S. attempts to influence Iraq's fiendish politics, rebuild the electrical grid, privatize the economy, run the oil industry, recruit expert staff or instill a modicum of normalcy to the lives of Iraqis."
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
Published on Thursday January 11, 2007
Molly Ivins
[ edited by bigpeepa on Feb 2, 2007 02:50 PM ]
posted on February 2, 2007 02:56:11 PM new
I understand, 'waco'peepa....this IS a very hard issue for you to grasp.
molly has her opinions.....so do we ALL. Hers holds no more 'weight/power' than anyone elses does. There are thousands who earn a living writing their PERSONAL opinions in our MSM.
And I'll try to be gentle when I say:
"It is not a matter of whether we will lose or we are losing. We have lost."
She may have lost HER fight.....the US has NOT lost it's. No matter how much she or you wish it to be true.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 2, 2007 02:59:20 PM new
And again...I'll remind you that there are only a HANDFUL of radical liberals, like molly, who ARE currrently calling for us to get out of Iraq ASAP.....
Matter of fact...IF you read the other thread....you will see that the Senate is working out an agreement to 'promise not to stop funding our troops'.
That's pretty promising to me....for those who believe we NEED to stay and work to stablize Iraq BEFORE we leave.
NOT so promising from the radical liberals who THOUGHT their party would WITHDRAW our troops.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 2, 2007 07:08:32 PM new
Liar_k,
Bottom line is you made one big fool of yourself.
Donut Harry, I didn't post the January 11th 2007 article by Molly Ivins because of Kenndy's name. I posted it so all could see what a fool liar_k made of herself.
The good news is like mingo says NEW-CONS have been put in a "tiny minority". Plus we all around them watching their every move.
posted on February 2, 2007 08:06:07 PM new
who's Donut Harry???
I believe thats Sheepas new term of endearment for a retired NY cop, who is married to a liberal. Care to guess who?
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on February 2, 2007 08:52:22 PM new
These are NOT just "opinions":
"""Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died a-borning after it hit the newspapers.
In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay." A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in "imminent danger" pay (from $225 to $150) and family separation allowance (from $250 to $100).
In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance. What a nice thank you note.
A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing." Progressive lawmakers counter-proposed an amendment to restore $1 billion in housing funds and pay for it by reducing new tax cuts Bush was proposing for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of getting $88,000 in tax cuts, the poor millionaires would get only $83,000. The House, with White House backing, voted the proposal down. (All thanks to Sirota.)
With the release of the 2006 budget, we're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically in order to pay for making his tax cuts permanent."""
posted on February 3, 2007 05:17:22 AM new
Liar_k, our commander and failure is sending US troops off to war without proper equipment. Him own Pentagon says.
US troops in Iraq, Afghan wars lack equipment-poll
31 Jan 2007 00:16:01 GMT
WASHINGTON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - A lack of armored vehicles, weapons and other equipment is hampering missions of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon's watchdog agency said in a survey released on Tuesday.
Equipment shortages have been a near-constant issue since the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, with some soldiers using improvised armor to protect vehicles from rocket-propelled grenades and high-velocity rounds.
"Service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions," said a summary of the survey, based on interviews last year with some 1,100 troops by the Department of Defense's inspector-general.
Beyond armored vehicles, soldiers ran short of weapons operated by teams of troops, electronic countermeasure devices and communications gear, the summary said.
The full report remains classified. The summary did not say how widespread the problem was but described internal controls to ensure troops had the correct equipment as "not adequate."
Some soldiers resorted to borrowing and trading equipment with comrades to get what they needed, the survey found.
Among those suffering shortages were troops on missions they did not normally do -- such as training local security forces, reconstruction and bomb disposal -- which required equipment they did not usually have.
"Service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment," the summary said.
Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Department of Defense spokesman, said officials would work on the issues raised by the survey.
"We understand the importance of ensuring that all service members be properly equipped," he said.
President George W. Bush wants to send 21,500 extra soldiers to Iraq to bolster the 134,000 already there and clear Baghdad of Muslim insurgents, but he faces strong opposition from Democratic Party foes who now control Congress.
More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the nearly four-year-old war.
posted on February 3, 2007 05:51:42 AM new
"who's Donut Harry???
I believe thats Sheepas new term of endearment for a retired NY cop, who is married to a liberal. Care to guess who?"
well, I guess I dont have to look too far do I? LOL. Although he had me confused,because my name aint Harry,and I dont eat donuts.
I suppose he believes if he wants to find a cop,go to a Dunkin Donuts.Actually here in N.Y. we have a little more class..we go to Starbucks! Starbucks coffee is the best on the planet,and their pastries are good to. Dunkin Donuts coffee sucks and we call their donuts "belly bombs"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
Are YOU a Bunghole?