|
|
An auditing board sponsored by the United Nations recommended Friday that the United States repay as much as $208 million to the Iraqi government for contracting work in 2003 and 2004 assigned to Kellogg, Brown & Root, the Halliburton Co. subsidiary. The work was paid for with Iraqi oil proceeds, but the board says it was either carried out at inflated prices or done poorly. The board did not give examples of poor work. Some of the work involved postwar fuel imports carried out by KBR that previous audits have criticized as grossly overpriced. But this is the first time that an international auditing group has suggested that the United States repay some of that money to Iraq. The U.N. group, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for Iraq, compiled reports from an array of Pentagon, U.S. government and private auditors to carry out its analysis. A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Cathy Mann, said the questions raised in the military audits, carried out in the Pentagon's Defense Contract Auditing Agency, had largely focused on issues of paperwork and documentation and alleged nothing about the quality of the work done by KBR. The monitoring board relied heavily on the Pentagon audits in drawing its conclusions. Mann said, in an e-mail response to questions, that it would be completely wrong to say or imply that any of these costs that were incurred at the client's direction for its benefit are 'overcharges.' The monitoring board, created by the United Nations specifically to oversee the Development Fund -- which includes Iraqi oil revenues and some money seized from Saddam Hussein's government -- said that because the audits were continuing, it was too early to say how much of the $208 million should ultimately be paid back. The KBR contracts that have drawn fresh scrutiny also cover services other than fuel deliveries, like building and repairing oil pipelines and installing emergency power generators in Iraq. The documents released Friday by the monitoring board do not detail problems with specific tasks in those broad categories but instead summarize a series of newly disclosed audits that call into question $208,491,382 of the company's work in Iraq. The monitoring board's authority extends only to making recommendations on any reimbursement. It would be up to the U.S. government to decide whether to make the payments, and who should make them. Vice President Dick Cheney's former role as chief executive of Halliburton has led to repeated charges, uniformly dismissed by Cheney and the company, that it received preferential treatment in receiving Iraq-related contracts. The Bush administration repeatedly gave Halliburton special treatment and allowed the company to gouge both U.S. taxpayers and the Iraqi people, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, the senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, said in a statement on the new audits. In Iraq on Friday, insurgent attacks -- including one in which the attackers disguised themselves as women -- left at least 16 Iraqis dead. Al Qaeda in Iraq, the leading insurgency group, said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site that two Moroccan Embassy employees had been condemned to death, the Associated Press reported. There was no indication Friday that they had been killed. The U.S. military said Friday that two more soldiers had died the previous day, one in a noncombat incident and one when his convoy struck an explosive. In the day's deadliest assault, insurgents dressed in women's clothing attacked a police checkpoint in Buhruz, 35 miles north of Baghdad, killing at least six Iraqi police and injuring at least 10 others, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. The gunmen were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, and pulled up in five cars, an Interior Ministry official said. The policemen managed to kill at least two of the gunmen, he added Senate to vote on S. 2611 that allows up to 30 million illegal The Senate is about to vote on a crucial bill, the revised H.R. 4437, that could give amnesty to 12-30 million illegal aliens and open the door for their relatives and a new flood of illegals to enter, which could mean 100-200 million new people coming into the country in 20 years according to expert analysis, virtually all poor, diminishing wages, increasing the crime rate, and bankrupting tax coffers. Now is the time to call any of the key Senators who could be persuaded into a NO vote, otherwise, there is a chance the House-Senate joint committee will approve for a likely vote in the House: Lindsay Graham (SC): (202) 224-5972 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. Ike turns aim on Galveston-Houston Metroplex with 5 million on Is there something wrong with this picture, or is it just me? BTW, I live in the bullseye. WaMu Exec walking away with a cool $11.6 Million? plus $7.5 million in (something else). He was top exec for 3 weeks! I just caught the tail end of this info on Oprah and have been looking for verification of this. Haven't found it yet. They might keep this under wraps since the bail out still hasn't happened yet. I'm curious if this is true and if it is.....
Yeah, well 1 million protested our Govt recently too. nm Bottom line...they made a 68 million dollar PROFIT. PROFIT is AFTER expenses. So I am thinking they are doing pretty darn well, don't you? They are not in it for the goodness of their hearts. And it says plainly on the website they will take checks for anything but abortions. So that says to me cash or credit card. IF there is another explanation for that, please share. It has been awhile since there was a bombing or a shooting, and I don't condone either. Killing abortionists or bombing clinics is not the answer. Changing minds and providing alternatives is the answer. But going with the flow and remaining quiet while mass murder of the unborn goes on is something I cannot do, and sorry if I find it horrifying that PLanned Parenthood makes such a KILLING for killing. THere is THAT. I'm so relieved. We're spending $6 million for explosives detection I was just thinking the other day: If I'm Obama, I'm saying to he!! with spending enough money to secure the borders. The main threat is that Jackson Hole airport. I'm telling you, people, the government has gone positively insane. $6 million would go a VERY long way at the border. Oh, but wait - that wouldn't make good pork politics, now, would it?
I'm so relieved. We're spending $6 million for explosives detection I was just thinking the other day: If I'm Obama, I'm saying to he!! with spending enough money to secure the borders. The main threat is that Jackson Hole airport. I'm telling you, people, the government has gone positively insane. $6 million would go a VERY long way at the border. Oh, but wait - that wouldn't make good pork politics, now, would it?
There are over ONE MILLION hits on Google when you enter...George Bush Atheist...sm Does that make him an atheist? GET the point? 2 million of whose money?? And yet the media criticizes Palin for her expensive clothes! But it's okay to spend that kind of money - he's a Democrat, so no one will say anything about it. They only make an issue of it when it's concerning a Republican. Everything is suddenly an issue only when it's conerning a Republican... Nation has lost 4.4 million jobs since recession began in Dec. 2007 Unemployment rate soars to 8.1 percent WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983, as cost-cutting employers slashed 651,000 jobs. Both figures were worse than analysts expected and the Labor Department's report shows America's workers being clobbered by a relentless wave of layoffs. The net loss of jobs in February came after even deeper payroll reductions in the prior two months, according to revised figures. The economy lost 681,000 jobs in December and another 655,000 in January. Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost 4.4 million jobs, more than half of which occurred in the past four months. Employers are shrinking their work forces at alarming clip and are turning to other ways to slash costs — including trimming workers' hours, freezing wages or cutting pay — because the recession has eaten into their sales and profits. Customers at home and abroad are cutting back as other countries cope with their own economic problems. With employers showing no appetite to hire, the unemployment jumped to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent in January. That was the highest since December 1983, when the jobless rate was 8.3 percent. All told, the number of unemployed people climbed to 12.5 million. In addition, the number of people forced to work part time for "economic reasons" rose by a sharp 787,000 to 8.6 million. That's people who would like to work full time but whose hours were cut back or were unable to find full-time work. Meanwhile, the average work week in February stayed at 33.3 hours, matching the record low set in December. Job losses were widespread in February. Construction companies eliminated 104,000 jobs. Factories axed 168,000. Retailers cut nearly 40,000. Professional and business services got rid of 180,000, with 78,000 jobs lost at temporary-help agencies. Financial companies reduced payrolls by 44,000. Leisure and hospitality firms chopped 33,000 positions. The few areas spared: education and health services, as well as government, which boosted employment last month. A new wave of layoffs hit this week. General Dynamics Corp. said Thursday it will lay off 1,200 workers due partly to plummeting sales of business and personal jets that forced it to cut production. Defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp., and Tyco Electronics Ltd., which makes electronic components, undersea telecommunications systems and wireless equipment, also are trimming payrolls. "This is basically cleaning house for a lot of firms," said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia. "They are using the first quarter to cut back employment and figure out what they want." Disappearing jobs and evaporating wealth from tanking home values, 401(k)s and other investments have forced consumers to retrench, driving companies to lay off workers. It's a vicious cycle in which all the economy's negative problems feed on each other, worsening the downward spiral. "The economy is in a tailspin. Businesses are jettisoning jobs at an unprecedented pace," said Richard Yamarone, economist at Argus Research. The country is getting bloodied by fallout from the housing, credit and financial crises_ the worst since the 1930s. And there's no easy fix for a quick turnaround, economists said. President Barack Obama is counting on a multipronged assault to lift the country out of recession: a $787 billion stimulus package of increased federal spending and tax cuts; a revamped, multibillion-dollar bailout program for the nation's troubled banks; and a $75 billion effort to stem home foreclosures. Even in the best-case scenario that the relief efforts work and the recession ends later in 2009, the unemployment rate is expected to keep climbing, hitting 9 percent or higher this year. In fact, the Federal Reserve thinks the unemployment rate will stay elevated into 2011. Economists say the job market may not get back to normal — meaning a 5 percent unemployment rate — until 2013. Businesses won't be inclined to ramp up hiring until they are sure any economic recovery has staying power. The economy contracted at a staggering 6.2 percent in the final three months of 2008, the worst showing in a quarter-century, and it will probably continue to shrink during the first six months of this year. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress earlier this week that recent economic barometers "show little sign of improvement" and suggest that "labor market conditions may have worsened further in recent weeks." Consumers’ growing frugality has hammered automakers, among other industries. General Motors Corp.'s auditors on Thursday raised "substantial doubt" about the auto giant’s ability to continue operations, and the company said it might have to seek bankruptcy protection, sending its shares below $2. Bill Hampel, chief economist for the Credit Union National Association, said his group’s members are reporting record increases in deposits. Government figures show the savings rate jumped to 5 percent in January from zero last spring. That’s the highest rate since 1995 and a much faster shift than he had expected, Hampel said. Consumer spending makes up about 70 percent of the economy. It topped out at 71 percent in 2005, Hampel said, but will likely drop by 2 to 3 percentage points over the next few years. Increased savings can actually lower economic growth. Economists call it the “paradox of thrift”: What’s good for each of us individually — being thrifty, limiting our spending — can worsen a recession when everyone does it all at once. Hoffman said about half the 6.2 percent drop in economic output last quarter was attributable to lower consumer spending. How are Americans going if they keep being divided and separated? Liberals need to talk to conservatives, libertarians to progressives, etc. Without the exchange, liberals are just going to sit around saying "Bush is bad, this and this were lies" and conservatives "We love Bush, liberals are bad." Ho hum. Exchange, debate, and yes even arguing are the very spirit of America in a political forum. Good debate makes you keep your facts straight and forces you to really define your beliefs to yourself as well as others. Information for good or bad is exchanged - people learn things they won't learn otherwise from just a bunch of nodding heads. Who really wants the forums restricted to same-view postings? *95% of Americans are going to get a much "phonier" than that! That is just a dribble of a long line. Many Americans were against the war..... but their voice didn't count. AND I know of NO ONE who does not support our troops. What gets MOST AMERICANS Madame, Nobody here -- or anywhere else that I know of -- thinks that welfare is "new." What IS NEW is the road to socialism that this country is on at breakneck speed. What IS NEW is the "redistribution of wealth" mentality -- taking the hard-earned incomes of working middle class and giving it to those WHO DO NOT WORK IN THE FORM OF "TAX REBATES," even though they DO NOT PAY TAXES. This is IN ADDITION TO the existing welfare programs, food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc. The middle class are SICK AND TIRED of being TAXED TO DEATH TO SUBSIDIZE LOSERS. And that goes DOUBLE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. Why are Americans so angry? Why Are Americans So Angry? by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, June 29, 2006 I have been involved in politics for over 30 years and have never seen the American people so angry. It’s not unusual to sense a modest amount of outrage, but it seems the anger today is unusually intense and quite possibly worse than ever. It’s not easily explained, but I have some thoughts on this matter. Generally, anger and frustration among people are related to economic conditions; bread and butter issues. Yet today, according to government statistics, things are going well. We have low unemployment, low inflation, more homeowners than ever before, and abundant leisure with abundant luxuries. Even the poor have cell phones, televisions, and computers. Public school is free, and anyone can get free medical care at any emergency room in the country. Almost all taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners. The lower 50% pay essentially no income taxes, yet general dissatisfaction and anger are commonplace. The old slogan “It’s the economy, stupid,” just doesn’t seem to explain things. Some say it’s the war, yet we’ve lived with war throughout the 20th century. The bigger they were the more we pulled together. And the current war, by comparison, has fewer American casualties than the rest. So it can’t just be the war itself. People complain about corruption, but what’s new about government corruption? In the 19th century we had railroad scandals; in the 20th century we endured the Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate, Koreagate, and many others without too much anger and resentment. Yet today it seems anger is pervasive and worse than we’ve experienced in the past. Could it be that war, vague yet persistent economic uncertainty, corruption, and the immigration problem all contribute to the anger we feel in America? Perhaps, but it’s almost as though people aren’t exactly sure why they are so uneasy. They only know that they’ve had it and aren’t going to put up with it anymore. High gasoline prices make a lot of people angry, though there is little understanding of how deficits, inflation, and war in the Middle East all contribute to these higher prices. Generally speaking, there are two controlling forces that determine the nature of government: the people’s concern for their economic self-interests; and the philosophy of those who hold positions of power and influence in any particular government. Under Soviet Communism the workers believed their economic best interests were being served, while a few dedicated theoreticians placed themselves in positions of power. Likewise, the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution were few, but rallied the colonists to risk all to overthrow a tyrannical king. Since there’s never a perfect understanding between these two forces the people and the philosophical leaders and because the motivations of the intellectual leaders vary greatly, any transition from one system of government to another is unpredictable. The communist takeover by Lenin was violent and costly; the demise of communism and the acceptance of a relatively open system in the former Soviet Union occurred in a miraculous manner. Both systems had intellectual underpinnings. In the United States over the last century we have witnessed the coming and going of various intellectual influences by proponents of the free market, Keynesian welfarism, varieties of socialism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy we’ve seen a transition from the founder’s vision of non-intervention in the affairs of others to internationalism, unilateral nation building, and policing the world. We now have in place a policy, driven by determined neo-conservatives, to promote American “goodness” and democracy throughout the world by military force – with particular emphasis on remaking the Middle East. We all know that ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas, even when supported naďvely by the people, will have bad results. Could it be the people sense, in a profound way, that the policies of recent decades are unworkable – and thus they have instinctively lost confidence in their government leaders? This certainly happened in the final years of the Soviet system. Though not fully understood, this sense of frustration may well be the source of anger we hear expressed on a daily basis by so many. No matter how noble the motivations of political leaders are, when they achieve positions of power the power itself inevitably becomes their driving force. Government officials too often yield to the temptations and corrupting influences of power. But there are many others who are not bashful about using government power to do “good.” They truly believe they can make the economy fair through a redistributive tax and spending system; make the people moral by regulating personal behavior and choices; and remake the world in our image using armies. They argue that the use of force to achieve good is legitimate and proper for government – always speaking of the noble goals while ignoring the inevitable failures and evils caused by coercion. Not only do they justify government force, they believe they have a moral obligation to do so. Once we concede government has this “legitimate” function and can be manipulated by a majority vote, the various special interests move in quickly. They gain control to direct government largesse for their own benefit. Too often it is corporate interests who learn how to manipulate every contract, regulation, and tax policy. Likewise, promoters of the “progressive” agenda, always hostile to property rights, compete for government power through safety, health, and environmental initiatives. Both groups resort to using government power – and abuse this power – in an effort to serve their narrow interests. In the meantime, constitutional limits on power and its mandate to protect liberty are totally forgotten. Since the use of power to achieve political ends is accepted, pervasive, and ever expanding, popular support for various programs is achieved by creating fear. Sometimes the fear is concocted out of thin air, but usually it’s created by wildly exaggerating a problem or incident that does not warrant the proposed government “solution.” Often government caused the problem in the first place. The irony, of course, is that government action rarely solves any problem, but rather worsens existing problems or creates altogether new ones. Fear is generated to garner popular support for the proposed government action, even when some liberty has to be sacrificed. This leads to a society that is systemically driven toward fear – fear that gives the monstrous government more and more authority and control over our lives and property. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people. Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming. It is said that without an economic safety net – for everyone, from cradle to grave – people would starve and many would become homeless. It is said that without government health care, the poor would not receive treatment. Medical care would be available only to the rich. Without government insuring pensions, all private pensions would be threatened. Without federal assistance, there would be no funds for public education, and the quality of our public schools would diminish – ignoring recent history to the contrary. It is argued that without government surveillance of every American, even without search warrants, security cannot be achieved. The sacrifice of some liberty is required for security of our citizens, they claim. We are constantly told that the next terrorist attack could come at any moment. Rather than questioning why we might be attacked, this atmosphere of fear instead prompts giving up liberty and privacy. 9/11 has been conveniently used to generate the fear necessary to expand both our foreign intervention and domestic surveillance. Fear of nuclear power is used to assure shortages and highly expensive energy. In all instances where fear is generated and used to expand government control, it’s safe to say the problems behind the fears were not caused by the free market economy, or too much privacy, or excessive liberty. It’s easy to generate fear, fear that too often becomes excessive, unrealistic, and difficult to curb. This is important: It leads to even more demands for government action than the perpetrators of the fear actually anticipated. Once people look to government to alleviate their fears and make them safe, expectations exceed reality. FEMA originally had a small role, but its current mission is to centrally manage every natural disaster that befalls us. This mission was exposed as a fraud during last year’s hurricanes; incompetence and corruption are now FEMA’s legacy. This generates anger among those who have to pay the bills, and among those who didn’t receive the handouts promised to them quickly enough. Generating exaggerated fear to justify and promote attacks on private property is commonplace. It serves to inflame resentment between the producers in society and the so-called victims, whose demands grow exponentially. The economic impossibility of this system guarantees that the harder government tries to satisfy the unlimited demands, the worse the problems become. We won’t be able to pay the bills forever, and eventually our ability to borrow and print new money must end. This dependency on government will guarantee anger when the money runs out. Today we’re still able to borrow and inflate, but budgets are getting tighter and people sense serious problems lurking in the future. This fear is legitimate. No easy solution to our fiscal problems is readily apparent, and this ignites anger and apprehension. Disenchantment is directed at the politicians and their false promises, made in order to secure reelection and exert power that so many of them enjoy. It is, however, in foreign affairs that governments have most abused fear to generate support for an agenda that under normal circumstances would have been rejected. For decades our administrations have targeted one supposed “Hitler” after another to gain support for military action against a particular country. Today we have three choices termed the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq or North Korea. We recently witnessed how unfounded fear was generated concerning Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction to justify our first pre-emptive war. It is now universally known the fear was based on falsehoods. And yet the war goes on; the death and destruction continue. This is not a new phenomenon. General Douglas MacArthur understood the political use of fear when he made this famous statement:
We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight. We’re being told of the great danger posed by Ahmadinejad in Iran and Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Even Russia and China bashing is in vogue again. And we’re still not able to trade with or travel to Cuba. A constant enemy is required to expand the state. More and more news stories blame Iran for the bad results in Iraq. Does this mean Iran is next on the hit list? The world is much too dangerous, we’re told, and therefore we must be prepared to fight at a moment’s notice regardless of the cost. If the public could not be manipulated by politicians’ efforts to instill needless fear, fewer wars would be fought and far fewer lives would be lost. Fear and Anger over Iraq Though the American people are fed up for a lot of legitimate reasons, almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the list of why the anger is so intense. Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature, are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally end them. This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a prolonged war without real success are the reality. The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course, angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American. Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger of those who have seen battle up close and question our campaign in Iraq. When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad, while funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they become angry. They can’t understand why the money is being spent, especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention of remaining permanently in Iraq. The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely to occur. The neoconservative instigators of the war are angry at everyone: at the people who want to get out of Iraq; and especially at those prosecuting the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending more troops, and expanding the war into Iran. As our country becomes poorer due to the cost of the war, anger surely will escalate. Some of it will be justified. It seems bizarre that it’s so unthinkable to change course if the current policy is failing. Our leaders are like a physician who makes a wrong diagnosis and prescribes the wrong medicine, but because of his ego can’t tell the patient he made a mistake. Instead he hopes the patient will get better on his own. But instead of improving, the patient gets worse from the medication wrongly prescribed. This would be abhorrent behavior in medicine, but tragically it is commonplace in politics. If the truth is admitted, it would appear that the lives lost and the money spent have been in vain. Instead, more casualties must be sustained to prove a false premise. If the truth is admitted, imagine the anger of all the families that already have suffered such a burden. That burden is softened when the families and the wounded are told their great sacrifice was worthy, and required to preserve our freedoms and our Constitution. But no one is allowed to ask the obvious. How have the 2,500 plus deaths, and the 18,500 wounded, made us more free? What in the world does Iraq have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national security threat prompted American’s first pre-emptive war? How does our unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions enhance our freedoms? These questions aren’t permitted. They are not politically correct. I agree that the truth hurts, and the questions are terribly hurtful to the families that have suffered so much. What a horrible thought it would be to find out the cause for which we fight is not quite so noble. I don’t believe those who hide from the truth and refuse to face the reality of the war do so deliberately. The pain is too great. Deep down, psychologically, many are incapable of admitting such a costly and emotionally damaging error. They instead become even greater and more determined supporters of the failed policy. I would concede that there are some – especially the die-hard neoconservatives, who believe it is our moral duty to spread American goodness through force and remake the Middle East – who neither suffer regrets nor are bothered by the casualties. They continue to argue for more war without remorse, as long as they themselves do not have to fight. Criticism is reserved for the wimps who want to “cut and run.” Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face. They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not related to terrorism. They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war. They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama Bin Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few bad apples. They won’t admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran’s radical regime. The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over, and the deficit spirals up without concern. They ridicule those who point out that our relationships with our allies have been significantly damaged. We have provided a tremendous incentive for Russia and China, and others like Iran, to organize through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They entertain future challenges to our plans to dominate South East Asia, the Middle East, and all its oil. Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israel’s security, and increase the odds of this war spreading. War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family turns on us – regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water problems, food shortages, and electricity outages. As long as our political leaders persist in these denials, the war won’t end. The problem is that this is the source of the anger, because the American people are not in denial and want a change in policy. Policy changes in wartime are difficult, for it is almost impossible for the administration to change course since so much emotional energy has been invested in the effort. That’s why Eisenhower ended the Korean War, and not Truman. That’s why Nixon ended the Vietnam War, and not LBJ. Even in the case of Vietnam the end was too slow and costly, as more then 30,000 military deaths came after Nixon’s election in 1968. It makes a lot more sense to avoid unnecessary wars than to overcome the politics involved in stopping them once started. I personally am convinced that many of our wars could be prevented by paying stricter attention to the method whereby our troops are committed to battle. I also am convinced that when Congress does not declare war, victory is unlikely. The most important thing Congress can do to prevent needless and foolish wars is for every member to take seriously his or her oath to obey the Constitution. Wars should be entered into only after great deliberation and caution. Wars that are declared by Congress should reflect the support of the people, and the goal should be a quick and successful resolution. Our undeclared wars over the past 65 years have dragged on without precise victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce UN resolutions, and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that we once spread American values by persuasion and setting an example – not by bombs and preemptive invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty. We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped empower – like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden – even when they pose no danger to us. The 2002 resolution allowing the president to decide when and if to invade Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the president illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on its responsibility as a separate branch of government, and should be held accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the president. Constitutional questions aside, the American people should have demanded more answers from their government before they supported the invasion and occupation of a foreign country. Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I remember something about “Blessed are the peacemakers.” My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of “Just War Theory.” This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:
The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community. Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry because they see Christianity as a religion as peace and forgiveness, not war and annihilation of enemies. Constitutional and moral restraints on war should be strictly followed. It is understandable when kings, dictators, and tyrants take their people into war, since it serves their selfish interests – and those sent to fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the decades following WWII. Many members have confided in me that they are quite comfortable with this arrangement. They flatly do not expect, in this modern age, to formally declare war ever again. Yet no one predicts there will be fewer wars fought. It is instead assumed they will be ordered by the executive branch or the United Nations – a rather sad commentary. What about the practical arguments against war, since no one seems interested in exerting constitutional or moral restraints? Why do we continue to fight prolonged, political wars when the practical results are so bad? Our undeclared wars since 1945 have been very costly, to put it mildly. We have suffered over one hundred thousand military deaths, and even more serious casualties. Tens of thousands have suffered from serious war-related illnesses. Sadly, we as a nation express essentially no concern for the millions of civilian casualties in the countries where we fought. The cost of war since 1945, and our military presence in over 100 countries, exceeds two trillion dollars in today’s dollars. The cost in higher taxes, debt, and persistent inflation is immeasurable. Likewise, the economic opportunities lost by diverting trillions of dollars into war is impossible to measure, but it is huge. Yet our presidents persist in picking fights with countries that pose no threat to us, refusing to participate in true diplomacy to resolve differences. Congress over the decades has never resisted the political pressures to send our troops abroad on missions that defy imagination. When the people object to a new adventure, the propaganda machine goes into action to make sure critics are seen as unpatriotic Americans or even traitors. The military-industrial complex we were warned about has been transformed into a military-media-industrial-government complex that is capable of silencing the dissenters and cheerleading for war. It’s only after years of failure that people are able to overcome the propaganda for war and pressure their representatives in Congress to stop the needless killing. Many times the economic costs of war stir people to demand an end. This time around the war might be brought to a halt by our actual inability to pay the bills due to a dollar crisis. A dollar crisis will make borrowing 2.5 billion dollars per day from foreign powers like China and Japan virtually impossible, at least at affordable interest rates. That’s when we will be forced to reassess the spending spree, both at home and abroad. The solution to this mess is not complicated; but the changes needed are nearly impossible for political reasons. Sound free market economics, sound money, and a sensible foreign policy would all result from strict adherence to the Constitution. If the people desired it, and Congress was filled with responsible members, a smooth although challenging transition could be achieved. Since this is unlikely, we can only hope that the rule of law and the goal of liberty can be reestablished without chaos. We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world’s policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose: defending our national security. It’s time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it. The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions. Today we constantly hear innuendos and direct insults aimed at those who dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the war in Iraq. Remember, the original American patriots challenged the abuses of King George, and wrote and carried out the Declaration of Independence.
July 1, 2006 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. My question to pro-war Americans...sm I have calmed down a lot from my anti-war stance over the past year. However, I do not agree with what is going on in Iraq. I do not think we should have gone in in the first place and the idea of policing that country the way we have is even more proposterous. Before I am labeled not supporting the troops, which is the usual plan of attack against anti-war people, let me explain. Before we even went into Iraq, I was totally against preemption there and made no bone about it. For the first year and so after entering Iraq, I still made no bone about the fact that I thought the war was the wrong decision and unfounded. I believed the head inspector's assessment that the WMD in Iraq (pre-war) was minimal to nil, and post-war no evidence has proven him wrong. Also, as for the postwar connecting the dots from al Quada to Saddam, excuse people for being skeptical of taking any of it serious after every other *reason* for the war has dissipiated right before our eyes without the tiniest of an explanation from our administration. Through it all, I have spoken my piece, written to congressmen, senators, etc., all while sending cards and sending what I could (a few care packages) to soldiers. I have commented to soldiers online who have shared their stories and told them THANK YOU!! for your service, because no matter how opposed I am to the war, I respect our soldiers. They are braver than many and tougher than most and who am I to denigrade a service that I have not performed in myself? Why is it that a person who opposes the war is seen as anti-military? And I'm not talking about people who will spit on soldiers or have tastless protests at funerals either. When I speak out against the war, I feel that I am speaking up for a soldier, whether his ideals be in the minority or not, whose voice may otherwise not be heard. I don't find it ironic that more soldiers get on the record for the war; after all, how many people would get on the record (media, print and broadcast) and blast their employer? Wacthing the news today has me sad, I'm past being mad. I'm saddened at the state of Iraq, and even sadder that Iraq has become America's baby. And to turn on the TV set today to hear that our base in Japan has been attacked, and more than 80 people dead from a car bomb in Iraq. Russia has something up their sleeves too. Sounds like WW-III is on the horizon. Exactly! Coming together as Americans... and out from under all "labels" is where the answer lies. No one truly believes in Democracy anymore. In days gone by, yes, there would be grousing going up to election, a little grousing after election, then we were all friends again until the next election cycle. All this polarization is ridiculous, and disliking someone strictly on their political stance, and saying silly things like "I have known people like you all my life" and focusing that frustration on one person they don't even know...how silly is that?? I suppose because they can't confront those people in "real life" they come here to unload on strangers. It is truly my way or the highway, and it is that way on BOTH sides. Would it not be wonderful to be Americans first and liberals or conservatives or polka-dotted SECOND? Native Americans My ancestors arrived just about in time to fight in the Revolutionary War. My great-grandfather died fighting in the Civil War. Yes, he fought for the South. He was there standing up for what he believed in. Others were there in WWI and WWII. Husband #1 a Marine Medic in Korea and husband #2 in Viet Nam. A nephew headed for Afghanistan in September. Husband #2's grandmother was a Polish immigrant. She learned English and that is what was spoken in her home. He only knows a few Polish words and I guess they are the ones she used when she was plenty angry. Never once have I heard a Native American complain. We just beat them in to submission. I find the Trail of Tears a whole lot more heart-wrenching than the plight of the Mexican citizens. We, a nation of LEGAL immigrants, had better start standing up for something or we are definitely going to FALL....hard. It is not that Americans won't do the jobs... it is really that they will not do them for the wages given. Unfortunately, we expect a cheap food source, which we get. If farmers have to pay Americans to labor away in fields, they will have to pay more than they do and our food costs will go up. I am actually okay with that. Perhaps retail markup will have to go down some, as well. Coming from California, I know what kind of living conditions migrant famers live in (huge amounts of people in subpar housing, etc.) and understand that Americans WILL do the work, but only for a fair amount of pay. Those crazy Americans....sm What our Indian and Pakistani counterparts must think, if they haphazardly happen to click onto this board!!!!!!! And what about the 30% of Americans who rent? You know, the ones of us who were responsible enough NOT to buy into a rip-off mortgage we knew we couldn't pay? Do we get stuck with government cheese? Or is Whoopi-dee-doo going to kick in some of her dough to give us an equitable share in this 'idea' of hers? Face it, if people hadn't been so greedy, trying to buy homes they couldn't afford, goaded on by left-wing Democrats pushing for ridiculous loans for unqualified minorities, we wouldn't have this huge problem right now. It's the age of ME-ME-ME-NOW-NOW-NOW. And now the whole country's paying for it. 
|  |
|||||||||||
marks the location of current message within thread
Yes Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of anger in this country. Much of it is justified; some of it is totally unnecessary and misdirected. The only thing that can lessen this anger is an informed public, a better understanding of economic principles, a rejection of foreign intervention, and a strict adherence to the constitutional rule of law. This will be difficult to achieve, but it’s not impossible and well worth the effort. |
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved |  |