Is George W. Bush determined to break the military, until it can't be broken anymore?

There are some very interesting reads today, about Bush's broken military.

First comes word that, because of Bush's rush to escalate the war in Iraq and send more troops there to die, two (2) Army units will NOT receive their usual desert training.  They are being rushed to Iraq without receiving the very desert training that was designed in the first place to help them in places like Iraq.

From the Associated Press:

Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases.

Some in Congress and others outside the Army are beginning to question the switch, which is not widely known. They wonder whether it means the Army is cutting corners in preparing soldiers for combat, since they are forgoing training in a desert setting that was designed specially to prepare them for the challenges of Iraq.

Army officials say the two brigades will be as ready as any others that deploy to Iraq, even though they will not have the benefit of training in counterinsurgency tactics at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., which has been outfitted to simulate conditions in Iraq for units that are heading there on yearlong tours.

And as if that were not bad enough, Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admits that the U.S. military's capability is eroding, and that there is a "significant" chance that the U.S. military will not be able to respond to another crisis.

From the Associated Press:

Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.

2 Army Units Will Forgo Desert Training

Pace: U.S. Military Capability Eroding

Those dear, sweet delusional Repulican friends of ours! Check out their latest talking points on Iraq.

1.  During an appearance on Larry King this evening, Laura Bush said everything is really going swell in Iraq.  She said it's just that "one bombing a day" that's got everyone in a frenzy!  Laura Bush told Larry King "Many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, uh, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone."  Gee Laura, if you're really so encouraged about the state of Iraq, how about sending the twins over there for a vacation?  Should be fun, don't ya think?

2.  Then there's Fox News' John Gibson.  For John Gibson, he's been focusing like a laser beam on the death of Anna Nicole Smith.  He wants All Anna, All The Time.  And he said that those reporters who have chosen to ignore the Anna Nicole story, and focus on Iraq instead, are "snobs." He accused people like Anderson Cooper who have covered the war aggressively, of "news-guy snobbery."  (Don't want to talk about that pesky war in Iraq, huh John?)

Is this the best the Republicans can offer us?  Don't let that "one bombing a day" in Iraq discourage you, and don't be a "snob" by forsaking the Anna Nicole story in favor of the Iraq war?

Laura Bush: Iraq is mostly stable, it's just that "one bombing a day that discourages everyone"

Gibson: Reporters Who Ignore Anna Nicole Smith To Focus On Iraq War Are ‘Snobs’

 

What part of 'we want out of Iraq' does George Bush not understand?  What part of 'we think your Iraq policy sucks, Mr. President' doesn't he get?

According to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, for the very first time, a majority of Americans support having a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.  Moreover, they support putting conditions on our nation's military, that would in effect limit the number of personnel that would be available to go to Iraq.

The message that the American people are sending is loud and clear.  Unfortunately, this Administration, the Republican minority in Congress, and a few others (read: Joe Lieberman) seem to be tone deaf.

Another interesting snapshot from the poll: only 35% of those polled, said they trust the Bush regime to report potential threats from other countries honestly and accurately.  In other words, Americans do not trust this 'President,' and for good reason.

Majority of Americans Support Setting a Deadline for Troop Withdrawal, Poll Finds

No...not the Bushes...but America's REAL first family. As Ellen Degeneres pointed out, the one America voted for!

 

UPDATE: Congratulations to Al Gore!  His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," just won the Oscar for Best Documentary- Feature!

Well done!

According to a recent analysis of the 2005 census figures (conducted by the McClatchy Newspapers), the number of Americans who are living in severe poverty is at a 32-year high.  Approximately 16 million Americans are experiencing deep or sever poverty.

And where is their government on this issue?  MIA, of course.  In the aftermath of Katrina, George W. Bush stood in Jackson Square in New Orleans, talking about the issues of race and poverty that Katrina revealed, and pledging to do something about it.  He hasn't, of couse.  As he once warned us, the "have nots" are not his base.

THE UNDERCLASS

More and more Americans pushed into poverty

America's humming economy is leaving more and more people behind as poverty deepens to record levels

 

 

Newsweek magazine has a very interesting read on a U.S. official who, during a briefing in Bagdad, overstated the involvement of Iran in Iraq.

From Newsweek:

An anonymous U.S. official, assigned to provide a recent “background” briefing to the news media in Baghdad, strayed from his script and overstated evidence linking Iranian leaders to weapons found in Iraq, according to four U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The White House is still trying to recover from the stumble, which happened during a much- anticipated Feb. 11 briefing. U.S. officials had hoped to use the event to ratchet up pressure on the Tehran regime. But instead of focusing public and congressional attention on the role of Iranian government agents in stoking violence in Iraq, the briefing wound up raising new questions about whether the Bush administration is hyping intelligence about Iran in much the same way it did about Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq four years ago.

The briefing has also inadvertently called attention to what may be an even more serious problem: the limits of U.S. intelligence in deciphering Iranian government actions. Unable to recruit enough reliable spies or collect sufficient hard technical intelligence about the country’s military and nuclear programs, U.S. intelligence agencies are being forced once again to fall back on “deductions” and “inferences.” In many ways, this is the same “guesswork” process that a White House review panel later concluded was governed by “groupthink” conclusions—which ultimately led to wrong calls about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

The entire article can be read at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17265231/site/newsweek

Of course, the Newsweek article mentions the "limits" of U.S. intelligence in trying to find out what is going on in Iran. 

However, it doesn't really tell you WHY the U.S. really has no valuable intelligence inside Iran.  But I will.  And it all goes back to former CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, whose identity was outed by the Bush Administration.

Before her cover was blown by the Bushies, Valerie Plame was working on issues of weapons of mass destruction and Iran.  Specifically, she was "part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran."  

But of course, that work had to stop when Valerie Plame and the CIA "front" company Brewster Jennings, were outed.

The reason why the United States doesn't have any valuable intelligence inside Iran, is because the Bush Administration outed a covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say 

I just love this administration's commitment and support of the troops. (NOT!)

The Washington Post tells the story of Sgt. David Thomas, an amputee.  He wanted to attend an event where George W. Bush would be awarding citizenship to one of Thomas' fellow amputees.  Thomas was asked by a case worker at Walter Reed what he would be wearing to the event (held in the summertime).  After he responded that he would be wearing shorts, he was lectured that he should wear pants instead, since the amputees such as himself would be seated in the front row. Ultimately, he was disinvited from the event. 

In others words, according to the movers and shakers at Walter Reed, heaven forbid that George W. Bush and the media should see a military amputee IN SHORTS.  What, we can talk about the war?  But we don't want the Commander-in-Chief who sent Sgt. Thomas into combat, or the media, to see the evidence of his service?  (His missing leg).

From the Washington Post:

Perks and stardom do not come to every amputee. Sgt. David Thomas, a gunner with the Tennessee National Guard, spent his first three months at Walter Reed with no decent clothes; medics in Samarra had cut off his uniform. Heavily drugged, missing one leg and suffering from traumatic brain injury, David, 42, was finally told by a physical therapist to go to the Red Cross office, where he was given a T-shirt and sweat pants. He was awarded a Purple Heart but had no underwear.

David tangled with Walter Reed's image machine when he wanted to attend a ceremony for a fellow amputee, a Mexican national who was being granted U.S. citizenship by President Bush. A case worker quizzed him about what he would wear. It was summer, so David said shorts. The case manager said the media would be there and shorts were not advisable because the amputees would be seated in the front row.

" 'Are you telling me that I can't go to the ceremony 'cause I'm an amputee?' " David recalled asking. "She said, 'No, I'm saying you need to wear pants.' "

David told the case worker, "I'm not ashamed of what I did, and y'all shouldn't be neither." When the guest list came out for the ceremony, his name was not on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021801335_5.html

Mr. Snow Job himself (that would be White House Press Secretary Tony Snow) will not even answer the question of what did George Bush know, and when did he know it, regarding the deplorable situation at Walter Reed, which the Washington Post reported on over the weekend.  Even more outrageous, Snow will not say what, if anything, that Bush is trying to do about the situation now.

From today's White House press briefing:

Q The administration's mantra for a long time has been "support the troops." What is the reaction, then, when you read this series of stories in The Washington Post about troops coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan and being treated so poorly, apparently, based on this long investigation? What's the President's reaction?

MR. SNOW: There are a couple of things. First, it's not a mantra. I would really choose words carefully. It's a commitment to support the troops. And the President, as you know, has visited the wounded many times at Walter Reed and we are concerned about it. And the people who --

Q Were you aware?

MR. SNOW: We are aware now, yes. And I would refer you to the Department of Defense, which I know is taking a very close look at it, too.

Look, the men and women who have gone and fought for our country over there, they deserve the best care.

Q So why has that not been guaranteed, then?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- you know, when you find a problem, you deal with it.

Q So you're saying the President learned about this from The Washington Post?

MR. SNOW: I don't know exactly where he learned it, but I can tell you that we believe that they deserve better. And, again, Ed, this is something where I'd suggest you give DoD a call, because I know they've taken a good, hard look at it.

Q Tony, can I follow on that? As Bob Dole might ask, where's the outrage?

MR. SNOW: There's plenty of outrage.

Q Is there?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So the President responded how when he learned about this? What, specifically -- did he order something to be done?

MR. SNOW: What I'm suggesting -- there's a reason I'm suggesting -- DoD is the proper place in which we'll be taking care of these issues. And I would refer you to them for comment. But this is something that's going to have to be an action item.

Q But is there any evidence that it was even looked at before the paper printed its two stories?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Then tell us about that evidence.

MR. SNOW: That's why -- again, I would refer you, Bill, to the Department of the Army, which runs the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This is the place where if you want to get --

Q That's just an easy way for you not to have to talk about it.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a way of pointing to the proper authorities, which is what you would want.

Q The White House doesn't want to be on record with a more emphatic expression of amazement and upset about this?

MR. SNOW: No. David asked where the outrage -- of course there's outrage that men and women who have been fighting have not received the outpatient care -- if you read the stories, there are many who are happy with it, some who are unhappy, and it's important that we show our commitment to the people who have served. I don't know what more you want me to do.

Q In December NPR ran a series looking at the quality of mental health care for Iraq veterans who have returned, showing that it's shocking how little care is provided to them. And several congresspeople -- Obama, Boxer and Bond -- sent a letter to the Pentagon, which you're referring us to, asking for an investigation, which they have not agreed to conduct. So you're referring us to the DoD, but they're not acting quickly on this. So does the President want them to act quickly?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you've asked me about two separate stories.

Q It seems there's a problem that's endemic to the system.

MR. SNOW: Well, rather than leaping to a conclusion, as I said, I would suggest you call them, and then we can talk about it later.

Q Off camera this morning you said that you would have something at noon; you said, I'll talk about it then. And now you're not really --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because -- again, I think that you may see some activity on it. And at this point I would refer you to the Department of Defense.

Q Is the system working?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what -- is the system working? Yes. Is it working perfectly? No.

Q It's good enough?

MR. SNOW: No, I said, it's not good enough. I just told you it's not working perfectly. But there are also thousands of people who have been through the system who have been cared for. But it is important that we maintain a commitment to following up or providing the treatment that these men and women deserve.

Q Do you think the President is going to say something about this later?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q You responded to me a moment ago that the administration was aware of this before the articles appeared in the paper.

MR. SNOW: That is my understanding. But, again, this is something that's an action item over at the Department of Defense and, in particular, the Department of the Army. I am not fully briefed on the activities or who knew what, when. And I suggest --

Q Was the President aware of it? Was the White House aware of it?

MR. SNOW: I am not certain --

Q May I follow on --

Q What is the President's --

MR. SNOW: -- when we first became aware of it.* Now the President certainly has been aware of the conditions in the wards where he has visited, and visited regularly, and we also have people from Walter Reed regularly over to the White House as guests, sometimes in fairly large numbers. So as I said, the President is committed -- committed to these people, committed to men and women who have served. We need to make sure that whatever problems there are get fixed. I couldn't be any stronger or plainer about it.

Q Has he given any new orders?

MR. SNOW: No. At this point, Helen, I think the most important thing -- the way this would work is the Department of Army has its own investigation about what's going on at Walter Reed. They will be taking action. The President certainly wants to make sure that, as I said before, whatever problems there are get fixed.

Q On Walter Reed, a lot of the veterans, the medical community, the doctors, the neighbors who have worked at Walter Reed are very upset about this move, pending move to Bethesda. In light of everything that's happening, does the administration still support uprooting --

MR. SNOW: The Department of Defense has made the decision to consolidate the treatment facilities at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center.

Q Is there any chance of a second look? Some of the facilities at Walter Reed are brand new.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm just going to refer you to that. This is -- all of a sudden people are trying to open up different avenues of inquiry. The fact is that those changes have, in fact, been decided upon by the Department of Defense. I am not aware of any decisions to change.

Q To clarify, were these -- any actions that the Pentagon has taken, these action items, were they done on its own, or did they do this in response to some order from here?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not aware that anybody has -- look, when you have a problem like this, the imperative is to fix it. I'm not sure that you have to issue orders; there are people there who know if they've got a problem they need to fix it. So I don't think that -- I will try to find out for you, but I'm not aware that the President has cut any special orders. But I will try to get for you additional information.

Q I think what we're --

MR. SNOW: I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to get a tick-tock on what did he learn and how did he respond and who did he call.

Q Yes, we're trying to determine if someone here built a fire under someone over there to do something.

MR. SNOW: You know, that's assuming that people there are callous about the fate of the people who are serving.

Q It isn't --

MR. SNOW: No, I think it is. When you say "light a fire," it's as if, you know, you find out that there's a problem and you don't move quickly to try to correct it. My sense is that there's plenty of fire for trying to get it right. But this is why I'm telling you if you want a more direct answer about this, you do need to talk to the people at the Department of the Army --

Q But, Tony, when you read --

MR. SNOW: -- who are at the ground level involvement here.

Q -- an account that says a commanding general, quotes a commanding general as saying, well, gee, we ordered repairs done, but they weren't done -- you'd think they would have known this hadn't been accomplished.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, that's why -- you've just made my point, which is you need to get back to them, and I will also get back for you with a tick-tock about what's going on at this end.

Q It's not just -- you're describing kind of a cold, detached bureaucratic process. We all know how this works. Something like this, this kind of story gets people's attention. You are now --

MR. SNOW: Well --

Q Wait a minute. You're now in the PR business, you know if something like this happens it's at odds with the commitments you make; the Commander-in-Chief might well stand up at a meeting and say, darn it, let's get to the bottom of this now and let's get answers. And this happened over the weekend, and you're saying you think the White House knew, but you're not sure; you're not sure when the President knew or if he said something to somebody. It just seems like you should have those answers.

MR. SNOW: Okay, but you also -- fine, I'll try to get them for you. But when you talk about cold detachment, I don't think saying that if it needs --

Q You're calling it an "action item"?

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, because what I'm telling you is that it is something that falls under the providence of the Department of the Army. Therefore, if you want the detailed answers about who knew what, when and how it's been handled, you do need to ask them, because they're going to have the information, David.

I can tell you that the President feels passionately about them, and you should have no doubt about it -- you've been at enough events where when he looks these people in the eye there is a commitment, a strong, profound emotional commitment to the people who serve this country. And it is one where the President is committed to doing right by the men and women who serve. There should be no doubt about that.

Q But, Tony --

MR. SNOW: Wait, wait. In that case, what I'm telling you is let's sort through the facts. I know that what you want is for me to tell you more than I know right now. So you keep at it --

Q But it would not be unreasonable for you or the President, through you, to express some kind of outrage over what has happened up there.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a matter of trying to figure out precisely what has happened. You have news stories, it is important to investigate. As you know, the most important thing is to fix a problem, correct? And there is absolute determination to fix the problem. The President is somebody, again, whose passion for these forces should never, ever be a topic of doubt on the part of the forces or the American people.

Q Right, but Tony, when you say he looks in the eyes of the families -- but what if the bureaucrats on the ground are not actually following through on the commitment you say he has? Doesn't he have a duty to follow through and say, what --

MR. SNOW: That's why I'm asking you to direct your questions to the people who are in direct line of responsibility for this, who are going to have more information on this than I do right now.

Q What is your reaction of Major General Weightman, who is the Commander at Walter Reed, also says in the bottom of the article on Sunday in The Washington Post, said that he's concerned and that they're bracing for, "potentially a lot more casualties," people coming to Walter Reed because of the surge. Does that cause the White House to think at all about that policy, because you have the Commander of Walter Reed --

MR. SNOW: There are a whole series of things, and, again, this is why you need to talk to people who are in the chain, because --

Q But this he said on the record.

MR. SNOW: I understand, Ed. But there are a series of things. First, for Walter Reed, what you end up having is treatment of people who are wounded -- and also this is Bethesda, as you know, different sorts of injuries are treated at the two facilities. And many of those people are there for months. And this story deals with outpatient care after that treatment, right? So it's important, I think, to understand that you've got to be prepared for all things that are going to come your way, including getting the piece right when it comes to outpatient care, and continuing also to do well by inpatients.

But, again, I know you want me to -- I'm simply not going to go beyond what I know. And in this particular case, the people who do know the facts and do know what's going on, and do know how the investigations are proceeding are the guys over at DoD.

Q I think that's part of the question. It doesn't seem like -- beyond what you know, it doesn't seem like you're asking that many questions to find out. I mean, you have a limited knowledge about the situation.

MR. SNOW: It's because they're working the issue, and I'm telling you, those are the people to talk to, the DoD.

Q -- I mean, you keep putting me off on other people --

MR. SNOW: I know.

Q This is a commitment the President has made, you said, to the families, right?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So why isn't the President, why isn't his staff saying, let's get to the bottom of it now?

MR. SNOW: We are trying to get to the bottom of it, and the people who are responsible for getting to the bottom of it work on the other side of the river.

Q But, again, you put it back on the Pentagon, you're not keeping --

MR. SNOW: Yes. The members of the Pentagon, of course, Cabinet agencies and people in the administration, do answer to the President. And I've said, what's wrong needs to be fixed. Now the people that are going to do the fixing are over there. So you might want to talk to them.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070220-3.html

Apparently George Bush knows exactly what he would do, if he were to get his hands on Osama bin Laden.

Ariel Sharon recounted to his biographer, that George Bush said if he were to catch Osama bin Laden, "I will screw him in the ass."

That line just speaks for itself. No need for any commentary on my part. 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/20/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

It must be that time again.  What time is that, you ask?  Why, that would be Republican presidential primary season, when the GOP whores pandering to their social conservative base, bring out the big old boogie monster known as Roe V. Wade.

John McCain is currently at bat.

In South Carolina today, he says he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  He told a crowd "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

Now let us rewind back to August 1999, when he held a different view.  Then, he said of Roe V. Wade "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary.  But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

I'd like for every "social conservative" who wants Roe V. Wade overturned, to ponder this one thought:

Since January 2001, your party controlled EVERY branch of government, until the Democrats regained control of the legislative branch last month.  In other words, your party had six years in which they controlled the entire government, and could have overturned Roe V. Wade.  Yet, they failed to do so.  Why do you think that is? 

Perhaps it's because those that control your party, really aren't interested in overturning Roe v. Wade. Pehaps it's because they WANT Roe v. Wade out there as an issue, in every election cycle. It helps them get money from YOU, if they are able to send out fundraising literature in every election that says "help us overturn Roe v. Wade."

McCain: Roe v. Wade should be overturned (John McCain's 2007 view on Roe V. Wade)

McCain Softens Abortion Stand (John McCain's 1999 view on Roe V. Wade)

 

George Bush loves to make the occassional stop at Walter Reed for the politically expedient photo ops with our heros wounded on the battlefield.

Instead of worrying about getting the photo ops, though, perhaps he could show the troops he REALLY supports them, by doing something about the disgusting conditions at Walter Reed.  No American who wears the uniform, should be subjected to these type of conditions at the army's top medical facility.

From a Washington Post article about the pathetic conditions at Walter Reed:

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Forced to battle the system at Walter Reed

Wounded soldiers face neglect, frustration at Army’s top medical facility

If the Republicans are so proud of Bush's Iraq policy, and feel that the cause there is truly just, then why are they so afraid to stand up on the floor of the Senate and say so?

It would seem to me that a debate on the Iraq war, would be the perfect opportunity for them to stand up and defend THEIR President's policy in Iraq.

They don't mind going on the talking heads shows every Sunday to defend Bushie's failed policy. Yet when the rubber meets the road and its time for them to go on record in the Senate as being FOR this war, they're so shy all of a sudden.

I think it speaks volumes on how they REALLY feel about this war. Maybe they aren't so delusional about the state of Iraq after all.

The Decider has decided to wear another hat.  He's now not only the "Decider."  He's also the Protector of our troops.

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

-snip-

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard your question, and I told you, I was confident that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, was providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so.

There's just one major problem, my fellow Americans.  It seems as though the Protector is really no good at protecting our troops at all. 

The troops don't have the body armor they need:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1489733

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-10/14/content_271800.htm

Their Commander-in-Chief (aka the Protector) sent them into combat without a post-war plan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

And just as badly wounded troops come home, the Protector has decided to propose CUTS to veterans' health care:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/vets.budget.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

So the Protector is really no good at protecting our troops at all.

Sen. John McCain never ceases to amaze me.

Over the weekend, there was an article in the WaPo that accused McCain of accpeting the very same soft money that he's previously worked to limit.

And McCain calls the WaPo article "The worst hit job that has ever been done in my entire political career." (Source: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/02/12/quote_of_t... )

Interesting. I would have thought that the hit job the Bushies did on you and your family in South Carolina in 2000, was the worst ever of your career. You know what I'm talking about, Sen. McCain. Those calls that were made to White households in South Carolina talking about your Black daughter.

From the November 20, 2000 issue of Time magazine:

"In a suite at the Greenville Grand Hyatt that afternoon, Bush's top aides came together to save the campaign, but they were really plotting a murder. It was the Bush high command, with its South Carolina auxiliary: Rove; spokeswoman Hughes, as well as Warren Tompkins, a longtime G.O.P. operative in the state; state attorney general Charlie Condon; Lieutenant Governor Bob Peeler; and former Governor David Beasley. As a participant put it later, this was the moment "we decided to take the gloves off."

The trick was to try to cast McCain as a phony, take a guy with a consistently conservative voting record and paint him as a dangerous liberal, suggest that the war hero was somehow un-American, or at least un-South Carolinian. Out came the antipersonnel weapons: "He's not one of us," and "He doesn't share our conservative values," and "He's outside the mainstream." On McCain's lack of "conservative values," Rove piped up to say, "We have to get in his face on that. He's vulnerable." Added Tompkins: "He's an insider. When I hear this populist stuff, it makes me wanna throw up."

But who could put out the message, given Bush's promise to be a uniter, not a divider? Several outside groups, including the National Right to Life Coalition, Americans for Tax Reform and the National Rifle Association, stepped right up. "Right to Life will do radio; A.T.R. will do TV ads," said one of Bush's South Carolina advisers. Even though coordinating with third-party groups is illegal, the discussion explicitly revolved around the idea that these groups could be counted on to do whatever it took--whether it was running ads, passing out literature or making phone calls--to destroy McCain and save Bush.

Briefed later that day in his hotel suite, Bush agreed to the battle plan. The next 18 days would be the ugliest of his political career. In the heart of the Confederacy, phone callers and leaflets attacked McCain's wife's drug addiction, made racial attacks on McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter and warned of "McCain's fag army." Bush won the state by 11 points."

Analysts within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) say that over 50% of the Bush Administration's justifations for invading Iraq were a lie!  (You don't say!  Who knew?!)

From an article in the LA Times:

As the Bush administration began assembling its case for war, analysts across the U.S. intelligence community were disturbed by the report of a secretive Pentagon team that concluded Iraq had significant ties to Al Qaeda.

Analysts from the CIA and other agencies "disagreed with more than 50%" of 26 findings the Pentagon team laid out in a controversial paper, according to testimony Friday from Thomas F. Gimble, acting inspector general of the Pentagon.

The dueling groups sat down at CIA headquarters in late August 2002 to try to work out their differences. But while the CIA agreed to minor modifications in some of its own reports, Gimble said, the Pentagon unit was utterly unbowed.

"They didn't make the changes that were talked about in that August 20th meeting," Gimble said, and instead went on to present their deeply flawed findings to senior officials at the White House.

Entire article at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-feith10feb10,0,4114134.story?track=mostviewed-homepage

It's amazing what manages to come out of the mouths of Republicans when they speak the truth.

Sen. Tom Coburn, as quoted by the Tulsa World, speaking on the ethics reform bill that the U.S. Senate recently passed:

"If this becomes law, I will guarantee you I won't run again. I'm not about to put what I've worked for for 35 years as a physician and a businessman at risk so I can represent the people. I will say 'I'm cashing it in.'"

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070206_Ne_A13_Cobur51640

Dick Cheney's son-in-law, Phil Perry, has apparently been riding shotgun over at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Perry, who is married to Cheney's daughter Elizabeth, served as the Chief Counsel at DHS.  And according to testimony from the General Accouting Office (GAO) Comptroller General and the DHS Inspector General, Perry has stood in the way of investigations of his agency.

From the Think Progress website:

The Department of Homeland Security refuses to cooperate on oversight activities, according to testimony offered today by GAO Comptroller General David Walker and Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner. The investigators highlighted the role of Philip Perry — Chief Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security and Vice President Cheney’s son-in-law — as the major stumbling block in their investigations.

Walker said the DHS strategy in dealing with investigations is to “delay, delay, delay.” CongressDaily reports:

“[Homeland Security] has been one of our persistent access challenges,” GAO Comptroller General David Walker told the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. Walker said the problem is “systemic” and not the fault of any single individual. But he complained that GAO has had to go through the office of Chief Counsel Philip Perry. Perry is married to Elizabeth Cheney, a former State Department official who is one of the vice president’s two daughters. Walker said it is his understanding that Perry’s office has to review documents GAO seeks before they are released and that Perry selectively sits in on interviews with department employees.

Cheney’s Son-In-Law Blamed for Delaying Investigations of Homeland Security Department

It appears as though everything is coming back to Dick Cheney, during his former chief of staff Scooter Libby's trial.

Specifically, was Cheney so obsessed with blunting criticism from Joe Wilson regarding the Administration's false claim that Iraq tried to procure yellowcake uranium from Africa,  that he ordered the outing of Valerie Plame.

From a Washington Post article courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle:

Vice President Dick Cheney's press officer, Cathie Martin, approached his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, to ask how she should respond to journalists' questions about Joseph Wilson. Libby looked over one of the reporters' questions and told Martin: "Well, let me go talk to the boss and I'll be back."

On Libby's return, Martin testified in federal court last week, he brought a card with detailed replies dictated by Cheney, including a highly partisan, incomplete summary of Wilson's investigation into what was suspected to be Iraq's program for weapons of mass destruction.

-snip-

No evidence has emerged that Cheney told him to do it. But Cheney's dictated reply is one of many signs to emerge at the trial of the vice president's unusual attentiveness to the controversy and his desire to blunt it. His efforts included the extraordinary disclosure of classified information, including one-sided synopses of Joseph Wilson's report and a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq.

Under questioning from FBI agent Deborah Bond, Libby acknowledged that he and Cheney may have talked aboard the plane from Norfolk that day about whether to make public Valerie Wilson's CIA employment, Bond testified Thursday.

Her testimony brought Cheney closer than ever to the heart of the controversy surrounding the Bush administration's efforts to discredit Joseph Wilson, who had accused the White House of twisting intelligence he had gathered as it sought to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Testimony in CIA leak case shows Cheney's hand VP appeared eager to blunt criticism

Fitzgerald targets Cheney in Libby tapes

It's wonderful to finally have some oversight over this lawless Administration.

Rep. John Conyers, who of course chairs the Judiciary Committee, has indicated his committee will look into Bush's use of signing statements (he has issued 147 of them, according to Sen. Arlen Specter).

Signing statements are nothing new of course.  Past presidents have used them.  But this 'President' has used them to declare himself abouve the law; to say he is not obligated to abide by whatever it is that he just signed into law (such as John McCain's anti-torture legislation).

President's signing statements examined

A couple of questions jump out at me after reading this story....

1.  Is George Bush determined to break the military till they can't be broken anymore?

2.  Can we trust ANY information this Administration gives us?

The Bush Administration had estimated that the cost of Bush's planned escalation of the Iraq war, would be $5.6 billion.  But the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the "surge" might cost as much as $27 billion for a 12-month deployment.  The "hidden" costs include things like "substantial support forces, including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical and other services."

Cost balloons when 'surge' support troops are counted