Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Chavez Takes Bush to Task Over Iraq War

Posted By: Democrat on 2005-09-18
In Reply to:

See link



LINK/URL: Chavez Takes Bush To Task over War In Iraq


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Not to mention, Chavez blasting the US over Iraq on the floor of the UN...nm
x
Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
*Whatever It Takes* by Peggy Noonan re: Bush's out of control spending

 


WSJ.com OpinionJournal



Warning: This is a L-O-N-G article, written by a conservative former speech writer for both President Reagan and Bush's daddy. The condensed version for the conservative trolls with admitted limited attention span:  Bush is a very UNconservative BIG SPENDER with no means or concern how all this will be repaid.  In other words, he represents the complete ANTITHESIS (opposite) of conservative values that you all claim to have.  I guess that's what happens when you elect a spoiled, rich kid who was born to privilege and never had to worry about paying for anything.


PEGGY NOONAN


'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?

Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.

George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--But where's the money going to come from?--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying Republicans don't care about black people, and They're always tightwads with the poor.


In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.

That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--whatever it takes--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.


hspace=0


George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.


This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.

Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.

Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.

As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.


hspace=0


Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.


A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.

The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.

Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.

At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration the pre-Bush era. See where it got them.

Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?

The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger. That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.

But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.


hspace=0


Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.


First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.

Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.

Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.

The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.

Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it. We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.

Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.

Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--Here's a check? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy. Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?


hspace=0


At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a compassionate conservative. The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.


But conservatives also understood compassionate conservatism to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.

I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.

I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.

The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: We're having some trouble with part of the base but--smile--we can weather that.

Well, they probably can, short term.

Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.


hspace=0


Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.


If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;

If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;

If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;

If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is Whatever it takes;

If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?

And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?

It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



 


Iraq And Bush

I would like to call him "The Hitler of the 21st Century". Any comments?


Bush: It's bad in Iraq....sm (no you think?)
Is democratic house and senate control what Bush needed to wise up about Iraq. I'm glad to see he's considering other options in Iraq, than policing the country indefinitely.
-----------------------------------------
(AP) President Bush, admitting that it's bad in Iraq, acknowledged Thursday that the United States needs a new approach in the unpopular war and promised to unveil details in an upcoming speech.

Bush said he was disappointed in the progress in Iraq, but continued to oppose direct U.S. talks with Iran or Syria and remained steadfastly committed to spreading democracy across the Middle East.

see link for full article
It takes so little to make you laugh - in fact, it takes nothing at all. NM
x
Still think Bush lied about Iraq?

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998


He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003







Still think Bush lied?


bush tried to connect 9/11 and iraq
I disagree cause Cheney has many times stated that 9/11 and Iraq were linked up together..And...if we need to get rid of the nutcases, why werent we and why arent we focused on getting the head of the nutcases..bin laden?  Why did we lose focus three years ago and let him live and build up his army against America?  Listen very carefully and open your eyes..WE INVADED IRAQ FOR OIL, LOGISTICS..I.E., AN AMERICAN BASE IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR OIL AND PROTECTION OF ISRAEL..WE INVADED FOR CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST..Something we would never have agreed to, to send our children to die for this stupid idiotic asinine idea but, however, this lying murderous administration linked it up with 9/11 and most Americans (not me I state proudly) went along with it cause they were still hurting from 9/11 and wanted revenge..I have three republican friends who were so for the war and wanting to blow away anyone possibly connected..Now all three agree with me and also agree Bush is a monster and America is on the wrong track.
Fox News is pro-Bush, pro-war in Iraq. sm
There may be a few reports on that broadcast that play devil's advocate for the other side, but all in all they lean more to the right on most issues.
Bush: All or nothing with booze and with Iraq = Dysfunctional





  MSNBC.com

Murtha’s Moment
The White House is still attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. But Congress—and the public—are becoming more skeptical.


WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY


Newsweek

Updated: 3:12 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2005



Nov. 18, 1005 - Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha is a burly ex-Marine with a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts who rarely speaks to the press. But he came out of the shadows Thursday to call for a complete pullout from Iraq within six months. “Our military has done everything that’s been asked of them. It is time to bring them home,” he said. Murtha’s hawkish record on military matters made his announcement all the more surprising. “It’s like George W. Bush saying he wants to raise taxes,” says Lawrence Korb, a defense analyst who served in the Reagan administration.


Democrats gave Murtha a standing ovation behind closed doors, but most kept their distance in public. “It’s a trap,” explained a Democratic strategist. “If the party comes out for a unilateral six-month withdrawal, that would become the issue for ’06, and they [Republicans] would kill us again.” 


Administration officials were less reticent. A White House statement said Murtha was “endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party.” Indeed, the election campaign tactics are back in all but name, with the president and the vice president attacking critics by questioning their patriotism. The strategy may rally some of the Republican base. However, the broader public has made up its mind about this administration’s credibility, and Murtha isn’t the only member of Congress paying attention.  


We learned in Vietnam that in a democracy you can’t sustain a war without public support, and time is running out for the Iraq war. Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to demand accountability on the progress of the war, a meaningless gesture in the sense it requires the administration to do nothing other than supply quarterly reports. But it signals the first cracks in the Republican coalition, and it emboldens Democrats to keep up their drumbeat assailing the credibility of the leaders who took us into a war we can’t win and don’t know how to end. 


Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, for example, defends the right of critics to question and criticize their government and its policies. Hagel served in Vietnam, which he says was “a lie at the beginning.” He explained in an interview aired last weekend on C-Span how his views about Vietnam were altered when he learned how his government falsified information in order to win congressional approval for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to prosecute the war unchecked. “And so we have now pretty much come to the same place,” he said, meaning our government committed us to military action based on bits and pieces of evidence that bolstered its case for war. Hagel did have qualms about the invasion, but he voted for the resolution that gave President Bush a blank check for war with Iraq. Now that we’re there, he says, “We cannot allow this to become a 1975 when we took the last remnants of our influence out on a helicopter on top of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.”


 


There is a parallel with Vietnam in the falsehoods advanced by government to rally congressional support and public opinion for war. Take the ongoing controversy over exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. Although analysts on the scene radioed back to Washington that there was no cause for alarm, President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara glossed over doubts about a second attack on American ships and trumpeted the alleged expansion of the war by the North Vietnamese to rally Congress and the American people to escalate a war that had been losing public support. Sen. William Fulbright, one of only two senators to oppose the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, said in a speech on the Senate floor, “We will rue this day.” 


Johnson and McNamara perpetrated an untruth for the larger good of increasing American firepower in the war, which they believed would deal a decisive blow to the enemy. Fifty-eight thousand American soldiers lost their lives in that senseless conflict. Does the fact that their political leaders thought they were acting in good faith at the time excuse the deception? President Bush and Vice President Cheney accuse Democrats of “rewriting history” by objecting to a war they voted for and claiming they were misled. But the information presented to lawmakers was selective, and efforts to learn more were stymied. Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkeley recalls being invited to a pre-war briefing at the White House with Bush and Cheney. When she expressed concern about Israel’s security in the event of a war, Cheney told her not to worry, that the administration knew where the missiles were that could reach Israel, and the U.S. military would go in and get them first thing. Using a pointer, he showed her the location on a map. Berkeley voted for the war in part because of false information.


Was this conscious deception? Should Bush and Cheney get a pass because they believed a show of strength in Iraq would serve U.S. interests? If Bush wants to retrieve his credibility, he should call off the attack dogs and make a televised speech to the American people conceding that the certainty he presented about weapons of mass destruction was not there, and that the administration relied on a single source, aptly named “Curveball,” who was later discredited. Bush can then present his case--what he saw, why he acted, and why he still believes he did the right thing. 


Bush won’t give that speech because he can’t tolerate ambiguity. It’s part of his personality. He gave up drinking cold turkey, and it’s all or nothing. He demands simplicity, and he equates dissent with disloyalty. The result is a White House that has become dysfunctional.


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.




src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=85588&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f10101981%2f

src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s03790180415547?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=20/10/2005%208%3A33%3A16%200%20300&pageName=Story%7CNewsweek%20H%7CPolitics%7C10101981%7CMurtha%27s%20Moment%7C%7C03%3A12%2C%2020/11/05&g=http%3A//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101981/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=Newsweek%20Home&c3=Eleanor%20Clift&c4=Newsweek%20Home&c5=Politics&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=10101981&c16=Story&c18=03&pid=Story%7CNewsweek%20H%7CPolitics%7C10101981%7CMurtha%27s%20Moment%7Cp1%7C03%3A12%2C%2020/11/05&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2710101981%27%29&ot=A&oi=693&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]

© 2005 MSNBC.com




URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101981/site/newsweek/


Hey, Bush, sign your daughters up for Iraq, such a *noble* cause

Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.


Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something, he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.







BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005

Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.


Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged noble cause (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):


Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.


Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush


Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond


Here is the complete chart:







Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another noble war, Vietnam.


Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is noble enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?


Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's noble war or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not noble enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.


Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk.


Bush tell your daughters they are needed in Iraq for a *noble* cause
Oh really, going off the deep end, LOL..by asking Bush and his daughters and other young people in his family to sign up for duty in Iraq since the Bush family thinks it is so important and the *Noble* thing to do?  And Im going off the deep end, LOL.  You are so silly sometimes in your posts.  I see nothing wrong in asking the chickenhawk warmongers to urge their children to join up..after all our country is fighting a *war on terrorism*..or..wait a minute..what is the new saying the WH is throwing out there..*a global war on extremists*..or....oh geez..I need to start writing down the reasons for our blood shed in Iraq..I cant remember all the reasons why we pre-emptively invaded Iraq..Cant keep up with the spin cycle of the WH..
Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout

Bush Lays Groundwork for Iraq Pullout

We noted last week that even as President Bush rejected a pullout from Iraq, the Pentagon was planning for a major withdrawl of troops. Now, the Los Angeles Times says Bush will give a major speech on Wednesday in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort... The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners.

I guess that would mean he was against it before he was for it.
Bush only interested in Iraq, ག campaign

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/delegates.htm (a conservative site, no less!)


 


President Bush has decided to stay out of the lion's share of decisions made by his administration.


 


Sources close to the administration said that over the last year, Mr. Bush has chosen to focus on two issues, leaving the rest to be decided by Cabinet members and senior aides. They said the issues are Iraq and the Republican congressional campaign in the 2006 elections.


 


Lots of important issues that deal with national security are never brought to the president because he doesn't want to deal with them, a source familiar with the White House said. In some cases, this has resulted in chaos.


 


The White House has acknowledged that Mr. Bush was not informed of the administration’s decision to approve a $6.85 billion takeover by the United Arab Emirates of a British firm that operates at least six major ports in the United States. The decision triggered a public firestorm and strong bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. This prompted the Dubai-owned company last week to bail on its bid to operate terminals in U.S. ports.


 


Vice President Dick Cheney also was not informed of the approval of the port takeover by the state-owned Dubai Ports World. The process was administered by the Treasury Department-aligned Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which sparked opposition from most of the Republican leadership in Congress.


 


My take on this is that the president relied on his CFIUS board, this Committee on Foreign Investment; that they did a superficial scrub on this, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said on March 7.


 


They've been trained to be more of a business, or more of an arm of the administration which is designed to expedite or to shape acquisitions so that they can take place rather than to stop acquisitions, said Mr. Hunter, California Republican.


 


The sources said Mr. Bush's lack of involvement on most issues has led to numerous errors in judgment. They said the DP World episode was handled by the Treasury and Commerce departments. From there, the proposed sale was meant to have been relayed through the National Security Council for a White House decision.


 


It should have gone to Karl Rove and then gone up the chain, the source said. For some reason, it didn't. I don't think people understood how important this was in terms of both national security and politics.


 


Mr. Hunter and other members of the House Armed Services Committee were shocked over how little White House staffers knew of the security record of the UAE, cited in testimony to the 9/11 commission as having withheld cooperation regarding al Qaeda in 1999. Last week, Mr. Hunter and Rep. Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, brought evidence of how the UAE port of Dubai allowed shipments of nuclear components as well as heavy water and a precursor to nerve gas to countries such as Iran, Libya and Pakistan.


 


In 2003, Mr. Hunter said, Dubai allowed the shipment of 66 high-speed electrical switches designed to trigger and detonate nuclear weapons. He said Dubai rejected a U.S. request to stop the shipment.


 


The point is that if you are an outlaw regime, and you want to develop a nuclear weapons program, you have your components transshipped through Dubai, Mr. Hunter said. Dubai is a master at masking both the recipient of illegitimate weapons systems and the party that is sending, developing, selling those illegitimate weapons systems. I don't think those are the folks you want to have running your ports.


 


Neither Mr. Bush nor any of his aides ordered a change in CFIUS deliberations that would stress the security aspect of any foreign investments or operations in the United States. Mr. Saxton said the 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda had virtually no affect on the process.


 


The current system was designed, from what we can understand, to encourage foreign investment in our country, Mr. Saxton said. And 9/11 changed a lot of things, and CFIUS didn't change. And I guess it changed in some respects. We added a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, but it was still under the leadership of the Department of the Treasury. And so the mission of CFIUS remains pre-9/11, while the situation in post-9/11 is much different.


Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq...sm

Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq


But Leaders Say War Was Justified



Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 26, 2006; Page A01



President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair last night acknowledged a series of errors in managing the occupation of Iraq that have made the conflict more difficult and more damaging to the U.S. image abroad, even as they insisted that enough progress has been made that other nations should support the nascent Iraqi government.


In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate tough talk -- such as saying bring 'em on in reference to insurgents -- that he said sent the wrong signal to people. He also said the biggest mistake for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. We've been paying for that for a long period of time, he said.


Blair, who visited Baghdad this week, said he and Bush should have recognized that the fall of president Saddam Hussein would not be the rise of a democratic Iraq, that it was going to be a more difficult process because you're talking about literally building the institutions of a state from scratch.


While Bush increasingly has begun to acknowledge missteps in handling the war, his comments last night -- together with Blair's -- represent his most explicit acknowledgment that the administration underestimated the difficulty of the central project of his presidency


Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors

Obama Calls on Bush To Admit Iraq Errors


'Limited' Troop Reduction Urged



By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Page A03



CHICAGO, Nov. 22 -- Sen. Barack Obama said President Bush should admit mistakes in waging the Iraq war and reduce the number of troops stationed there in the next year. But the Illinois Democrat, a longtime opponent of the war, said U.S. forces remain part of a solution in the bitterly divided country and should not be withdrawn immediately.


Without citing specific numbers, Obama called for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops that would push the fragile Iraqi government to take more responsibility while deploying enough American soldiers to prevent the country from exploding into civil war or ethnic cleansing or a haven for terrorism.







src=http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/largerPhoto/images/enlarge_tab.gif
Sen.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) greets well-wishers at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations after he said the administration has not given straight answers to critical questions on Iraq. (By Jeff Roberson -- Associated Press)




Obama also faulted the administration for tarring its critics as unpatriotic naysayers and said it launched the war to topple Saddam Hussein in March 2003 without giving either Congress or the American people the full story.


Straight answers to critical questions. That's what we don't have right now, the high-profile freshman senator told the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Members of both parties and the American people have now made clear that it is simply not enough for the president to simply say 'We know best' and 'Stay the course.'


As other Democrats are finding their voice against Iraq policy, Obama took an approach closer to one taken by Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleague Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) than to that of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a former Marine, called last week for an immediate pullout of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops.


Four prospective Democratic presidential candidates -- Biden, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and former North Carolina senator John Edwards -- have advocated a more gradual approach, with no sudden steps. Biden called Monday for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops by the end of next year and all but 20,000 to 40,000 out by January 2008.


Obama told the audience of about 500 people that the war has siphoned assets from homeland security and the global anti-terrorism fight. He said the administration's attempt to equate the defeat of the Iraqi insurgency with the defeat of international terrorism is overly narrow and dangerously short-sighted.


In a 35-minute speech scheduled just days ago, Obama argued that public opinion has raced ahead of politicians in seeking a clearly etched policy that helps produce stability in Iraq and the Middle East without exposing the United States to a war without end -- a war where our goals and our strategies drift aimlessly, regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent.


Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide leadership on this issue, Obama said.


He maintained that Bush could take politics out of the Iraq discussion once and for all if he would simply go on television and say to the American people: 'Yes, we made mistakes. Yes, there are things I would have done differently. But now that I'm here, I'm willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats to find the most responsible way out.'


Bush Says U.S. Troops Will Stay in Iraq Past ང

GOP Unrest Dismissed As Sign of Election Year


Well it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that this mess was not going to get cleaned up on his watch.


This statement alone lets you know Bush is out of touch and in his own bubble.  * There's a certain unease as you head into an election year, he said.* Of course GOP unrest has a lot to do with the election year because they know they will have to answer to the people on election day, not Bush.


See link.


Bush's Iraq Speech: Long On Assertion, Short On Facts

Bush says "progress is uneven" in Iraq, but accentuates positive evidence and mostly ignores the negative.


June 30, 2005


Standing before a crowd of uniformed soldiers, President Bush addressed the nation on June 27 to reaffirm America's commitment to the global war on terrorism. But throughout the speech Bush continually stated his opinions and conclusions as though they were facts, and he offered little specific evidence to support his assertions.


Here we provide some additional context, both facts that support Bush's case that "we have made significant progress" in Iraq, as well as some of the negative evidence he omitted.



Analysis



 


Bush's prime-time speech at Fort Bragg, NC coincided with the one-year anniversary of the handover of soverignty to Iraqi authorities. It was designed to lay out America's role in Iraq amid sinking public support for the war and calls by some lawmakers to withdraw troops.


The Bloodshed


Bush acknowledged the high level of violence in Iraq as he sought to reassure the public.



Bush: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?


What Bush did not mention is that by most measures the violence is getting worse. Both April and May were record months in Iraq for car bombings, for example, with more than 135 of them being set off each month. And the bombings are getting more deadly. May was a record month for deaths from bombings, with 381 persons killed in "multiple casualty" bombings that took two or more lives, according to figures collected by the Brookings Institution in its "Iraq Index."  The Brookings index is compiled from a variety of sources including official government statistics, where those are available, and other public sources such as news accounts and statements of Iraqi government officials.


The number of Iraqi police and military who have been killed is also rising, reaching 296 so far in June, nearly triple the 109 recorded in January and 103 in Febrary, according to a tally of public information by the website  Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, a private group that documents each fatality from public statements and news reports.  Estimates of the total number of Iraqi civilians killed each month as a result of "acts of war" have been rising as well, according to the Brookings index.


The trend is also evident in year-to-year figures. In the past twelve months, there have been 25% more U.S. troop fatalities and nearly double the average number of insurgent attacks per day as there were in the preceeding 12 months.


Reconstruction Progress


In talking about Iraqi reconstruction, Bush highlighted the positive and omitted the negative:



Bush: We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. . . .  Our progress has been uneven but progress is being made. We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.


Indeed, the State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report  shows progress is uneven. Education is a positive; official figures show 3,056 schools have been rehabilitated and millions of "student kits" have been distributed to primary and secondary schools. School enrollments are increasing. And there are also 145 new primary healthcare centers currently under construction. The official figures show 78 water treatment projects underway, nearly half of them completed, and water utility operators are regularly trained in two-week courses.


On the negative side, however, State Department figures show overall electricity production is barely above pre-war levels. Iraqis still have power only 12 hours daily on average.


Iraqis are almost universally unhappy about that. Fully 96 percent of urban Iraqis said they were dissatisfied when asked about "the availability of electricity in your neighborhood." That poll was conducted in February for the U.S. military, and results are reported in Brookings' "Iraq Index." The same poll also showed that 20 percent of Iraqi city-dwellers still report being without water to their homes.


Conclusions or Facts?


The President repeatedly stated his upbeat conclusions as though they were facts. For example, he said of "the terrorists:"



Bush: They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.


In fact, there have been withdrawals by allies. Spain pulled out its 1,300 soldiers in April, and Honduras brought home its 370 troops at the same time. The Philippines withdrew its 51 troops last summer to save the life of a Filipino hostage held captive for eight months in Iraq. Ukraine has already begun a phased pullout of its 1,650-person contingent, which the Defense Ministry intends to complete by the end of the year. Both the Netherlands and Italy have announced plans to withdraw their troops, and the Bulgarian parliament recently granted approval to bring home its 450 soldiers. Poland, supplying the third-largest contingent in the coalition after Italy's departure, has backed off a plan for full withdrawal of troops due to the success of Iraqi elections and talks with Condoleezza Rice, but the Polish Press Agency announced in June that the next troop rotation will have 200 fewer soldiers.


Bush is of course entitled to argue that these withdrawals don't constitute a "mass" withdrawal, but an argument isn't equivalent to a fact.


The same goes for Bush's statement there's no "civil war" going on. In fact, some believe that what's commonly called the "insurgency" already is a "civil war" or something very close to it. For example, in an April 30 piece, the Times of London quotes Colonel Salem Zajay, a police commander in Southern Baghdad, as saying, "The war is not between the Iraqis and the Americans. It is between the Shia and the Sunni." Again, Bush is entitled to state his opinion to the contrary, but stating a thing doesn't make it so.


Terrorism


Similarly, Bush equated Iraqi insurgents with terrorists who would attack the US if they could.



Bush: There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. . . . Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists .


Despite a few public claims to the contrary, however, no solid evidence has surfaced linking Iraq to attacks on the United States, and Bush offered none in his speech. The 9/11 Commission issued a staff report more than a year ago saying "so far we have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It said Osama bin Laden made a request in 1994 to establish training camps in Iraq, but "but Iraq apparently never responded." That was before bin Laden was ejected from Sudan and moved his operation to Afghanistan.


Bush laid stress on the "foreign" or non-Iraqi elements in the insurgency as evidence that fighting in Iraq might prevent future attacks on the US:



Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.


But Bush didn't mention that the large majority of insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners. The overall strength of the insurgency has been estimated at about 16,000 persons. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq is only about 1,000, according to estimates reported by the Brookings Institution. The exact number is of course impossible to know. However, over the course of one week during the major battle for Fallujah in November of 2004, a Marine official said that only about 2% of those detained were foreigners. To be sure, Brookings notes that "U.S. military believe foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq," with perhaps as many as 70 percent of bombers coming from Saudi Arabia alone. It is anyone's guess how many of those Saudi suicide bombers might have attempted attacks on US soil, but a look at the map shows that a Saudi jihadist can drive across the border to Baghdad much more easily than getting nearly halfway around the world to to the US.


Osama bin Laden


Bush quoted a recent tape-recorded message by bin Laden as evidence that the Iraq conflict is "a central front in the war on terror":



Bush: Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq..."The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."


However, Bush passed over the fact that the relationship between bin Laden and the Iraqi insurgents – to the extent one existed at all before – grew much closer after the US invaded Iraq. Insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not announce his formal allegiance with bin Laden until October, 2004. It was only then that Zarqawi changed the name of his group from "Unification and Holy War Group" to "al Qaeda in Iraq."


In summary, we found nothing false in what Bush said, only that his facts were few and selective.


--by Brooks Jackson & Jennifer L. Ernst


Researched by Matthew Barge, Kevin Collins & Jordan Grossman


First Iraq and now Bush leaves New Orleans rebuilding to future President.

Bush: New Orleans may need a decade


NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- As he headed for the Gulf Coast on Monday, U.S. President George Bush told an interviewer he expects the rebuilding of New Orleans to take a decade.


Bush planned to spend the anniversary of the U.S. Gulf Coast landfall of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans after a visit to Biloxi, Miss. It was his 13th visit to the devastated area.


We can rebuild buildings, the question is can we rebuild its soul, he told April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. We can. I believe, 10 years from now April, you and I will be thinking about our time here, and trying to remember what it was like 10 years ago


Bush came under fire last year for apparently ignoring Katrina immediately after New Orleans flooded and then flying over the city in Air Force One.


Later White House spokeswoman Dana Perrino said she wasn't aware of a specific time period but that the president has said all along that it would take more than a year to rebuild New Orleans.


In terms of like, 10 years, I don't know about exact time frame, but it's certainly going to take several years, Perrino said.


Bush asks Americans for charitable contributions to help Hallib..oops..to rebuild Iraq

It's working, too!!  So far, American citizens have donated a whopping $39.00!!


New twist on aid for Iraq: U.S. seeks donations





By Cam Simpson Washington BureauSun Sep 18, 9:40 AM ET



From the Indian Ocean tsunami to the church around the corner, Americans have shown time and again they are willing to open their pocketbooks for charity, for a total of about $250 billion last year alone.


But now, amid pleas for aid after Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration has launched an unusual effort to raise charitable contributions for another cause: the government's attempt to rebuild Iraq.


Although more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds have been appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction, the administration earlier this month launched an Internet-based fundraising effort that it says is aimed at giving Americans a further stake in building a free and prosperous Iraq.


Contributors have no way of knowing who's getting the money or precisely where it's headed because the government says it must keep the details secret for security reasons.


But taxpayers already finance the projects for which the administration is seeking charitable donations, such as providing water pumps for farmers. And officials say any contributions they receive will increase the scope of those efforts rather than relieve existing taxpayer burdens.


The campaign is raising eyebrows in the international development and not-for-profit communities, where there are questions about its timing--given needs at home--and whether it will set the government in competition with international not-for-profits.


On a more basic level, experts wonder whether Americans will make charitable donations to a government foreign aid program and whether the contentious environment surrounding Iraq will make a tough pitch even tougher.


I'm a little skeptical, and the timing certainly isn't the best, said James Ferris, director of the Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy at the University of Southern California. It's going to be a hard sell.


Cost of rebuilding skyrockets


The U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's primary distributor of foreign aid, said Friday, Charitable contributions play an important role in enriching and extending U.S. government efforts.


The effort is just the newest twist in the administration's struggle to rebuild Iraq. Andrew Natsios, head of USAID, first predicted it would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion. The tab has since risen to more than $30 billion, with congressional Republicans and Democrats sharply critical of the high cost and slow pace of progress.


In addition, the new campaign comes amid increasing concerns that some of the administration's major projects in Iraq will be scrapped or only partially completed because of rising costs, especially for security. Some officials fear money may run out before key projects are completed.


Natsios announced the campaign in a speech Sept. 9. In a press release issued the same day, USAID said its new Web site will help American citizens learn more about official U.S. assistance for Iraq and make contributions to high-impact development projects.


Although USAID has received private donations from corporations in the past, this might be the first time it has geared a charity pitch for U.S. foreign aid dollars to citizens.


Initially, the Web site, called Iraqpartnership.org, is offering potential contributors a choice of eight projects, each seeking $10,000 or less. They include purchasing computers for centers designed to assist Iraqi entrepreneurs, buying furniture and supplies for Iraqi elementary and high schools, paying for the production of posters to promote awareness of disabilities and rights issues, and buying water pumps for farmers.


There is also a general Iraq country fund, offering donors another high-impact giving opportunity without making them have to specify a project.


All of the projects are from USAID's existing portfolio of reconstruction programs in Iraq, according to the agency.


Security issues obscure details

Heather Layman, a USAID spokeswoman, said the efforts are being carried out by five private organizations working on Iraq reconstruction with USAID funding. The site does not provide details about the groups involved or the project locations because of security issues in Iraq.

The government says all contributions are tax-deductible.

William Reese, the president and CEO of the International Youth Foundation, said USAID officials did not discuss the campaign with a special advisory committee that he serves on and formerly headed.

That committee, made up primarily of representatives from non-profit groups working overseas, is supposed to help provide the underpinning for cooperation between the public and private sectors in U.S. foreign assistance programs, according to USAID.

Reese said some not-for-profit groups may see the effort as competition, but he predicted few would be concerned because of a more basic issue: While Americans are generous, he said, I don't think your average Joe is going to write a check to the U.S. government.

Carol Lancaster, a foreign aid expert and associate professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, also questioned the premise of the program.

Places that are seen as public agencies or clones of public agencies don't get private donations, said Lancaster, a former deputy administrator at USAID. People generally believe, `It's government, so government should pay for it.'

Nassarie Carew, a spokeswoman for InterAction, an umbrella group of more than 160 non-profits working overseas, said her organization also was not aware of the effort. Its CEO, Mohammad Akhter, serves on the USAID advisory panel. Carew declined to comment until the group had a chance to survey its members.

Layman, the USAID spokeswoman, called the Web site a passive solicitation, saying potential donors would likely find it only if they were looking for a way to support Iraq's redevelopment.

She also said some people who might have donated to projects in Iraq will now choose to put money toward Katrina relief, but that others will still want to help in Iraq.

She said Iraqi-Americans specifically had asked USAID to help them find an avenue for contributions.

Raising charitable contributions for overseas projects can be a challenge even when the U.S. government is not at the center of the pitch. And Iraq is one of the government's more controversial foreign policy ventures in decades.

DevelopmentSpace Foundation Inc., the group that set up the Web site for USAID, operates its own, separate Web site seeking charitable donations for small-scale projects in developing countries.

Since its founding in 2001, that effort has raised a total of about $2 million, said Allison Koch, a foundation spokeswoman.

The organization keeps a 10 percent commission for contributions and has received most of its operating funds through major grants from several other foundations. USAID also gave it a grant of $1.5 million.

So far, $39 donated

Although in its infancy, the Iraqpartnership.org Web site had generated contributions totaling $39 as of Friday night.

According to the Giving USA Foundation, which tracks annual charitable donations by Americans, international giving accounted for 2.1 percent of all charity in the U.S. last year.

Ferris, the director of the USC philanthropy center, said that's because people want to donate to causes closer to home.

Except for the fact that the aim of foreign aid is to bolster U.S. foreign policy objectives overseas, Ferris said the new USAID campaign seems like a natural extension of the growing trend toward public-private partnerships.

There is this blurring of the lines, he said. A lot of things once paid for by the public are now paid through private sources.

----------

csimpson@tribune.com


And that statement is ridiculous, Iran and Iraq enemies, remember the Iran-Iraq war? Iraq would jus
nm
Thank you Mr. Chavez
What a sorry state America is in when we have people scrounging around to try to fill up their cars to get to work and this winter people will be going broke just to stay warm and Bush does not offer any help, like maybe capping gas prices or releasing some gas from the reserves, yet, here we have a socialist leader, Chavez, offering to help the low income Americans with cheap oil.  Is this screwy or what?  Chavez is caring more about the downtrodden of America than our elected servant.
Chavez

Just imagine what COULD happen, though.


Chavez could take a good long look at all the problems with America that you have listed, decide that Bush is an evil, greedy tyrant, declare war on the USA to free us of this tyrant, with the promise of free medical care for all, no more homeless people, no more street crime, no more children being brutally molested and murdered, no more starvation for the poor, reasonable gas prices, etc., etc., etc. 


He could invade and occupy the USA, killing some innocent Americans, destroying our water supply, taking out our electricity, terrifying us all while he does it, turning our streets into IED targets, and do it with most of the world disapproving of such an action.


Sure is a good thing we don't live in a world where one president can actually to do such a thing, right???  RIGHT????!!! 


Chavez
I know, was really happy when I read about it. Did you see his picture? Sad and... But no, I don't think it is the end for him. He has a few more years as President? Dictator? and there is a lot he can still do. He is a crazy man with too much power on his hands. Let's just hope for the best and enjoy the victory in the meantime.
I am on task.
You answered your own challenge here. Of course you cannot reduce taxes, give tax breaks (or whatever other ill-considered literal read you may choose) on people who do not pay them. That would lead any person with a triple-digit IQ to conclude that he is referring to people currently paying taxes....wouldn't it? Your main premise is faulty, as in flawed, caput, no dice, etc. Let's state the obvious again, in case you weren't paying attention. You can't cut something that is not there. We agree on that one.

However, we not agree on your assertion that Obama is lying. According to you, any movement of wealth out of the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who didn't is redistribution of wealth. Perhaps those fat cat oil company CEOs and stockholders would not agree with your argument. The O windfall profit proposal is a one-time jump-start energy rebate aimed at economic stimulus for middle class families, who in case you haven't noticed lately, are having a helluva of time. It is not a permanent scheme where Americans become "collective owners" of the resource (decidedly more Marxist) as Palin's is...income sharing at its finest hour. There is a difference, all right, but not the one you are willing to concede.

Again, we see you dance around the issue of the long-established progressive tax structure question and just how is it socialist only when Obama reforms it? You cannot seem to answer that fundamental central issue, can you?

chavez threat
There have been many arrested over the past few years for just voicing threats that were meaningless, not like Robertson broadcasting all over the world about assassinating Chavez.  That most certainly is a crime.  You cannot threaten leaders of other countries, especially in a forum like Robertson has. 
One more thing about Chavez.
I will never forget MANY moons ago when I was in junior high school and learning about different kinds of governments in my Social Studies class.  I remember secretly thinking to myself that socialism seemed like the fairest kind of government.  Of course, I could never VERBALIZE that sentiment since we were still engaged in the *Cold War* at the time, as well as on the heels of the McCarthy era, and anyone expressing such a view was automatically labeled a *Communist*.  LOL.  In fact, this is the first time in my entire life I've ever shared these views with anyone. I grew up actually believing I was a horrible person for thinking what I thought and was very ashamed of it until lately.
Chavez has a lot of admirers. sm
It wasn't that long ago on this very board that he was spoken of very highly.
No, let's don't. Let's stay on task.
0
Again. Could you PLEASE stay on task.
!
Sorry. Just trying to stay on task.
Thread started out about hate speech, then turned toward lawsuit. Silly me. Do you always change the subject when you start to look stupid? The only plants at the SP rallies spring up from the seeds of bigotry and racism that come spilling out of her mouth every time she opens it...in the form of a crop of hateful ignorance. Must make you feel right proud.
You as well need to stay on task...
Fact. He has said he is going to give a tax break to 95% of the American people. 40% of the American people don't even pay federal taxes. How can you give a tax break to people who don't even pay taxes? In the form of a check. How ELSE is he going to do that? THAT is classic redistribution of wealth Marxist style. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to cut a lot of checks. YOU tell ME how he is going to do it.

As far as Palin...you really need to focus here. Yes, she did a windfall profits task. And yes, she distributed it to the Alaskan people. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, rich and poor alike, every single citizen of Alaska. That is NOT redistribution of wealth. See the difference? And it is not taking from the tax coffers that everyone in Alaska paid into...which is what Obama is going to do. He is going to tax small businesses and the so-called rich (the threshold for which gets smaller every day) and redistribute that to 95% of people...40% of whom don't even pay federal income tax.

Marxist re-distribution of wealth.

No soup for you either, but plenty of ice cream.
FYI-Chavez not dictator??? Venez's..sm

saw some thread either here or there (another board here) where someone challenged Chavez and said he is not a dictator....well, the middle class and upper class are leaving in droves....watch this from 2 days ago...(and I know they began leaving 8-10 years ago coming here to the states).


http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=71705&videoChannel=2602


 


Not interested in taking this off task.
nm
You seem to be having a little trouble staying on task.
Let's try this again. The subjct is guilt by association. The post you are answering listed Mc'Cain's associates as follows:

Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedo. Can you say Iran contra? How about dong business with terrorists (the arms seller AND the arms customer)?
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry and proud of it!
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.

Let me spell out the issue at hand. If we are to infer that Obama embodies the phuilisophies of each and every single person or organization that he has ever encountered dring the corse of his lifetime, then we can infer the same about McCain. Are you with me so far? an appropriate, direct and credible response would not include the word democrat in it. It would deal with the issue at hand and with the list of pub snakes McCain pals around with.
I think you're the one who needs to stay on task

you even asked it.  Go back up a few posts and you'll see where I said:


"I'd say the same about anyone who dies after they cast their vote but before the election.  It shouldn't count.  Where's the accountability?"


Anyone would refer to grandma, pap, brother, sis, aunt, uncle, etc. 


Geez, you people make it so easy for me to feel smart. 


Article on Chavez and oil to American poor

There are a few articles that I have read on this..here is one that originated from Reuters.  GT


Wednesday, August 24 2005 @ 08:06 PM MDT


General

Chavez Offers Cheap Gas To Poor In U.S.



Published on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 by Reuters

By David Pace

HAVANA, Cuba - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered on Tuesday to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline.

Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," the populist leader told reporters at the end of a visit to Communist-run Cuba.

Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States.


The offer may sound attractive to Americans feeling pinched by soaring prices at the pump but not to the U.S. government, which sees Chavez as a left-wing troublemaker in Latin America.

Gasoline is cheaper than mineral water in oil-producing Venezuela, where consumers can fill their tanks for less than $2. Average gas prices have risen to $2.61 a gallon in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.

Chavez oil versus American fat cat oil companies

Article from Juan Gonzalez, a NY Daily News columnist, RE:  Hugo Chavez and his oil versus American oil companies:












Oil fat cats vs. Hugo Chavez




I pulled into the Mobil gas station on 11th Ave. in Manhattan yesterday for my weekly stickup from the oil companies.

Their take this time was an astonishing $3.05 per gallon for premium unleaded.

"Every three or four days the price goes up," said Patel, the man in charge of the station. "Lots of complaints from my customers."

Complaints from everyone except oil executives.

Last year, Exxon/Mobil, the world's largest corporation, posted the highest profits of any company in history - more than $25 billion. The oil giant, based in Irving, Tex., is on track to shatter that mark this year, with revenues that now approach $1 billion per day.

Which brings me to Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez.

Robertson, the right-wing evangelist and friend of the Bush family, publicly called this week for the U.S. government to kill - or at least kidnap - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

"This is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly," Robertson said. His less-than-Christian remarks ignited an outcry and forced him to issue an apology of sorts, though he still insisted that he had at least "focused our government's attention on a growing problem."

That "problem," quite simply, is that Chavez, a radical populist who has been voted into office repeatedly by huge majorities in his own country, controls the largest reserve of petroleum outside the Middle East.

Neither Robertson, nor former oil executives George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, nor their buddies at Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, etc., are happy about all this.

Even more scandalous for Big Oil, Chavez is using Venezuela's windfall not to fatten his own country's oligarchy but to benefit the Venezuelan poor and help neighboring countries.

Yesterday, while Robertson was issuing his half-baked Chavez clarification, the Venezuelan president was in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where he announced a new oil agreement with that country's prime minister, P.J. Patterson.

Under the agreement, Venezuela will supply 22,000 barrels of oil a day to Jamaica for a mere $40 a barrel. That's far lower than the current world price of about $65 a barrel. With the price of gasoline in that destitute nation already more than $3.50 a gallon, the Chavez plan means more than half a million dollars a day in savings for Jamaica on oil imports.

Chavez also announced his government will provide $60 million in foreign aid to Jamaica and finance the upgrading of that country's oil refineries.

The agreement is part of a broader Chavez plan called Petrocaribe, which he unveiled at a Caribbean summit in Venezuela last June.

At that conference, Chavez offered the same kind of deal to the leaders of more than a dozen other neighboring nations, including Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Fernandez jumped at the offer because his government is nearly bankrupt from oil prices. Last year, the Dominican Republic spent $1.2 billion on oil imports; this year, it expects to fork out more than $3 billion. The price of gasoline in Santo Domingo has zoomed past $4 a gallon in recent days.

Pat Robertson looks at Chavez and sees a devilish danger. He wants our government to "take him out." Over at the White House, Bush and his aides may use more restrained language, but their goals are not much different.

But there's a whole different view down in Latin America, where a half-dozen nations have seen liberal and populist governments swept into office in recent years.

Down there, Chavez has become the new miracle man of oil. Unlike Exxon/Mobil and the Big Oil fat cats, who wallow in their record profits while the rest of us pay, Chavez is spreading the wealth around.

A dangerous man, indeed.


President Chavez offered to help America's
poor purchase oil at affordable prices while Bush's cronies are enjoying skyrocketing profits as a result of price gouging.  I've heard some poor people say that Chavez cares more about them than Bush does.  Who can possibly argue with that?
Chavez lost a lot of credibility with his UN antics...sm
Even in the most democratic circles, which I travel in. He made a mockery, not of Bush, but himself. Anything credible he had to say went out the window with *smells of sulfa.*

I agree with JDH, once I determine a person is a whacko I don't put much stock in what they have to say.
I'm ecstatic-CHAVEZ was defeated yesterday!!

http://voanews.com/english/2007-12-03-voa7.cfm









Venezuela Rejects Constitutional Changes


03 December 2007


Venezuelan voters have rejected a sweeping constitutional reform project launched by President Hugo Chavez. In Caracas, VOA's Brian Wagner reports opposition leaders see the vote as a major blow to the president's efforts to impose socialist changes.


(more info at above link) 


Next time, please try to stay on post task.
1st paragraph. I agree. That's why O's and B's supporters are voting for them. Not more government. Better government...smarter government…and one with vision for a different America than what you cons are peddling. You are straying from the subject again. Pay attention. The discussion is about O and JM how JM's plan differs from Bush's plan. On the voting record, last time I checked only O and JM are running for president and those are the voting records we are inspecting now. It is the 90+% of MC'CAIN'S votes in support of Bush's initiatives that we now showcase. Do not complicate the plan comparisons with a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors peripheral unknowns. Candidates. Got it?

Have it your way. Bush adopted O's exit strategy first and JM followed his lead who followed O's lead. He did not start talking exit at all until the Bush flip-flop(s) (i.e., we dont negotiate with terrorists but a US interests section in Iran might work) began getting press during the primary campaigns. I have not had time to examine the context from which you lifted O's surge statement from the other O's Fox interview which you continually and confidently predicted he was too scared to do. Once I do that, I will comment further on the surge statement. Don't know how to tell you this, but the surge was not the greatest national security/foreign policy decision, although it is plain to see that the cons often get military strategies pretty mixed up with foreign policy. Again, ask the Iraqis how successful our missions have been at slaughtering more than 100,000 of their family members. Another bubble to burst here. There are many among us who do not feel that the war has made our nation safer from terrorists. So, in fact, we are not done with this subject, no matter how quickly you would like to dismiss it. Obama was simply trying to avoid MORE quagmire and advance the withdrawal plan that is not only promoted by him, but now suddently promoted by Bush and JM in tow. Some call it vision, others call it judgment.

Did not ask about JMs speeching. Asked about the plan. What is it, if he laid it out so plainly? Must have missed all that between the fear/military references last night. BTW, as I told you in the past post, govt transparency is a democratic initiative that was launched back in the early 90s during the Clinton administration, squashed during the undercover Bush administration and is now clearly articulated in O's technology section under issues.

Cons cannot speak for democrats as to how they can or cannot define pork barrel spending. I know very well what it is. I do find your example of moveon.org rather peculiar in this context. When was the last time they benefited from pork barrel legislation? Please do not reply with a regurgitation of Fox and O'Reilly campaign to demonize the group. You want to talk PACs, fine, but put them in the correct context and tread very lightly for your own sake.

The class warfare is waged by pubs against dem constituents, so yes, I am familiar with that subject and plan to continue to advocate and support measures that will level that playing field. I have a lot of company in that regard. TBone advocates drilling once or twice inside the context of a whole arsenal of other energy initiatives that you discount by omission. He does not, however, try to sell the public on the notion that this will bring prices down anytime in the first of second terms of the upcoming administrations like JM and company would have us believe. On the American imperialist delusions of grandeur, if you have to ask, no soup for you. Would be a waste of time, but this concept is not lost on the better versed in Bush/Cheney NeoCon visions which JM is trying to deny and embrace at the same time. Good luck with that one.

Stay on task, sam. This thread is about refuting
Guess you can't reconcile facts staring you straight in the face with the fiction you couldn't wait to post. Again, if O voted against Katrina funds, there had to have been something REALLY stinky the proposal, and I for one prefer to wait and see exactly what it was before passing judgment.
Why do pubs have so much trouble staying on task?
I like facts. Troopergate has lots of them. Try reading it. Then try answering the questions. Challenge yourself. Get though one single entire post, begining to end, without trashing Obama. Can you handle that? Probably not, but give it your best shot. By the way, there is only one person here who you need to educate....and it ain't me, babe.
Why do pubs have such difficulty staying on task?
Evidently smearing the dems is more important to you than equal pay for women. With this kind of tendency to self destruct, no wonder you folks lost so many elections.
Reasons Why Chavez Is Up For Noble Peace Prize

An article published in VHeadline.com on November 26
last year, headlined Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez Frias proposed for the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize aroused great interest


Since that piece was published, Chavez has continued
his humanitarian projects, the most recent of which
are extending Mission Miracle in alliance with Cuba to
correct blindness and sight disorders to the whole of
the American continent, including the US and the
Caribbean. He has also offered crude oil, gasoline and
heating oil at preferential, financed rates to smaller
Caribbean countries, as well as Uruguay and Paraguay
which are struggling with the sky high price of
energy.

The improvement in cash flow of these countries
generated by the financing aspect at 1% per year,
allows their governments to use this surplus to invest
in social programs.

This initiative has also taken into account poor
communities, schools, hospitals, old peoples homes
facing a predicted brutally cold winter in the United
States ... part of this program includes donations of
heating oil as well as financing part of the
deliveries from CITGO, a 100%-owned US-based
Venezuelan company based in Houston with 8 refineries
delivering to over 14,000 gasoline stations. Pilot
projects will be underway in Chicago and Boston as of
October 14.

As per the Nobel Peace Prize website the 2004 winner
was Wangari Maathai of Kenya for her contribution to
sustainable development, democracy and peace.

If these three qualities are key to winning the Nobel
Peace Prize then Chavez has all these in abundance ...
and more. He must be the world's leading democrat
having been to the polls 9 times since 1998. He
promotes peace by asking for troops out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, so that these sovereign nations can exercise
self-determination and define their own path in the
future.

Other accomplishments, which have been pushed by
Chavez' personal leadership in Venezuela are the
Social Missions, all grouped under the humanitarian
banner of Mision Cristo (Christ's Mission). The most
important of these, Mision Robinson has taught 1.4
million Venezuelans to read and write; Mision Barrio
Adentro (Neighborhood Within) offers free primary
healthcare in the poor areas and is now reaching 14
million Venezuelans out of a population of
approximately 25 million; Mision Mercal sells cheap
staple foods and has impacted more than half the
population at the time of writing.

Chavez, however, is up against some very stiff
competition including Colin Powell (for his efforts to
end the 21-year civil war in Sudan); the ex-governor
of Illinois, George Ryan (for his campaign to abolish
the death sentence in the US); Israeli Mordechai
Vanunu (for denouncing the existence of nuclear
weapons in his country); the Japanese Hidankyo group
(survivors of the US' atomic bombs dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki).


Counting by hand of 100 million votes would be a task...sm
Not that it is an unworthy one, I just doubt it will be done.

One idea was that the computer gives the voter a reciept of their selection and then the reciept, once verified by the voter, is deposited into the machine.

Brainstorming, I suggest they take it one step further and have a real time tally for each candidate per voting center. That way the voters can verify that their vote was casted, counted, and affected the number. The last voters, along with the volunteers could verify the final numbers for the districts.
Pubs can't stay on task if their lives depended on it.
Americans don't elect issues wimps.
You evidently have a hard time staying on task.
if your mother, father, daughter, son, grandmother, grandfather, husband or best friend cast a vote in the early election and passed away on November 4th, how would it make you feel if their votes were thrown out?
whatever it takes to get what

you want.  Sociopathic, much.


 


If this is all it takes to silence you....
your "issues" must not be worth caring about enough to post. How is it okay to silence me...that's fine. But then you complain that I am silencing YOU. Is this glaring double standard somehow escaping you? Are you so unconvinced in your "issues?"