Why another $50 billion. In the US Main Stream Media you get article's which W's crimes are exposed. The author, even as they expose the corrupt activity, wonder if the story will have "legs. Well, these are crimes-lying to the public, starting pre-emptive wars for phony reasons, ruining our country's economy and letting the Katrina victims suffer, among so many other crimes, should have "legs" if the 4th estate was doing its job of monitoring on the government's activities.
An editorial of the New Orleans Times Picayune, titled, "Treat us Fairly, Mr. President," today chiding the Bush administration for giving Republican-dominated Mississippi, which Mr. Bush also visited, a share that was disproportionate to the damage done in that state and
in largest Democratic Louisiana.
Keith Olbermann doesn't have a problem with pursuing a controversial topic.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 29 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20512898/
has Olbermann stating "The U.S. strategy in Iraq hereafter shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks. That is the letter of law laid out in Congress in May and it gave President Bush an additional $120 billion for his troop escalation."
W's surge has failed. According to the "letter of law laid out in Congress in May" the surge has to cease, but "despite the fact that the Iraqi national government has failed to meet any those benchmarks, the Bush administration is reportedly poised to ask for another $50 billion to keep the troop escalation going despite the lack of political progress here or there. Democrats are expected to give it to him. That is $50 billion extra on top of a pending $147 billion war supplemental funding bill, on top of the $120 billion already granted for extra war funding this year by Congress in May. All that is in addition to the regular Pentagon budget for next year, $460 billion. The extra war cash means that the cost of keeping American troops in Iraq just topped $3 billion per week."
His guest E.J. Dionne was asked to amplify that and said "The president is threatening to have a huge fight with Congress over the budget in general. He is saying that the Congress is overspending. The difference of the president and Congress is $22 billion. President Bush said in August, only in Washington is $22 billion called a small difference. Lo and behold, a month later, we are looking at this new $50 billion. We are going to have a huge fight over $22 billion for health care and other things. And we are not supposed to fight at all over $50 billion on top of all that other money in Iraq. When you think about it-what is it-seven weeks and a couple of days of this war equal the $22 billion that he is proposing to have a big fight over."
Dionne also speaks the truth about the Democrats problems with "What you have in the Congress is a nonexistent Democratic majority in the Senate. They do not really control the place. You have a small majority in the House. You have about 30 House Democrats, 40 sometimes, who do not want to cut off the funding for the troops. So that has kind of stalled things. As long as Bush is there and ready to veto proposals to withdraw troops, nothing will happen.
I wonder is if this additional $50 billion becomes a signal not only to the Democrats to say can this go on like this, but also to Republicans who have started to say, as Senator Warner has, we really think we should withdraw troops. I do not think this is going to end until a significant number of Republicans stand up and say we really think this was a mistake and we have to
narrow our objectives and start pulling the troops out. And I'm not sure that's going to happen this fall."
Olbermann wonders if "Is it still cynical, is it still out there at this point to suggest that maybe the point of this war, at heart, is to shovel as much taxpayer money possible into Dwight Eisenhower's military industrial complex?"
The man who pledged to be an "uniter not divider" has managed to divide the world. His domestic policies, which exclude 99% of US citizens by giving the top 1% income redistribution that they don't deserve, and cut needed social services for the needy, are atrocious. The most blatant example of W's hatred for the masses is how he allowed Katrina to occur and never helped the victims recover, or even talk about them in his state of the union address. In his recent speech in New Orleans he smirked that "And this town is coming back." He is a heartless demon with no ability to empathize with the downtrodden.
We were the beacon of hope in a despairing world prior to "Operation Iraqi Freedom". We could have united the world after 9/11, but W decided to divide both our citizens, and the world, against, us due to his dreams of US hegemony.
Related articles:
"Who's the Real Sectarian?" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801442.html
"Riots at Iraqi Religious Festival Leave 28 Dead" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082800303.html
"Sadr Orders
'Freeze' on Militia Actions" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082900586.html
The article "Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902434.html
"As Iraq Situation Varies, Bush Sticks With Encouraging Words" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801159.html
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 29 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20512898/
An editorial of the New Orleans Times Picayune, titled, "Treat us Fairly, Mr. President," today chiding the Bush administration for giving Republican-dominated Mississippi, which Mr. Bush also visited, a share that was disproportionate to the damage done in that state and
in largest Democratic Louisiana.
Keith Olbermann doesn't have a problem with pursuing a controversial topic.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 29 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20512898/
has Olbermann stating "The U.S. strategy in Iraq hereafter shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks. That is the letter of law laid out in Congress in May and it gave President Bush an additional $120 billion for his troop escalation."
W's surge has failed. According to the "letter of law laid out in Congress in May" the surge has to cease, but "despite the fact that the Iraqi national government has failed to meet any those benchmarks, the Bush administration is reportedly poised to ask for another $50 billion to keep the troop escalation going despite the lack of political progress here or there. Democrats are expected to give it to him. That is $50 billion extra on top of a pending $147 billion war supplemental funding bill, on top of the $120 billion already granted for extra war funding this year by Congress in May. All that is in addition to the regular Pentagon budget for next year, $460 billion. The extra war cash means that the cost of keeping American troops in Iraq just topped $3 billion per week."
Dionne also speaks the truth about the Democrats problems with "What you have in the Congress is a nonexistent Democratic majority in the Senate. They do not really control the place. You have a small majority in the House. You have about 30 House Democrats, 40 sometimes, who do not want to cut off the funding for the troops. So that has kind of stalled things. As long as Bush is there and ready to veto proposals to withdraw troops, nothing will happen.
I wonder is if this additional $50 billion becomes a signal not only to the Democrats to say can this go on like this, but also to Republicans who have started to say, as Senator Warner has, we really think we should withdraw troops. I do not think this is going to end until a significant number of Republicans stand up and say we really think this was a mistake and we have to
narrow our objectives and start pulling the troops out. And I'm not sure that's going to happen this fall."
Olbermann wonders if "Is it still cynical, is it still out there at this point to suggest that maybe the point of this war, at heart, is to shovel as much taxpayer money possible into Dwight Eisenhower's military industrial complex?"
The man who pledged to be an "uniter not divider" has managed to divide the world. His domestic policies, which exclude 99% of US citizens by giving the top 1% income redistribution that they don't deserve, and cut needed social services for the needy, are atrocious. The most blatant example of W's hatred for the masses is how he allowed Katrina to occur and never helped the victims recover, or even talk about them in his state of the union address. In his recent speech in New Orleans he smirked that "And this town is coming back." He is a heartless demon with no ability to empathize with the downtrodden.
We were the beacon of hope in a despairing world prior to "Operation Iraqi Freedom". We could have united the world after 9/11, but W decided to divide both our citizens, and the world, against, us due to his dreams of US hegemony.
Related articles:
"Who's the Real Sectarian?" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801442.html
"Riots at Iraqi Religious Festival Leave 28 Dead" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082800303.html
"Sadr Orders
'Freeze' on Militia Actions" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082900586.html
The article "Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902434.html
"As Iraq Situation Varies, Bush Sticks With Encouraging Words" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801159.html
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 29 at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20512898/
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
