Dear Reader,
You will now notice a "Support My Blog" gadget on the left-hand side of this page. All payments made to my blog via this gadget will be donated to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). I have really enjoyed writing this blog and hope that you have enjoyed reading it, if each reader donated just $5 I think that we could easily raise thousands to support and organization that looks out for the interests of our newest generation of veterans.
Being an Iraq War veteran I am very passionate about veteran's issues and believe that giving a little to those who gave so much for us is the least we can do to show our appreciation and will let Iraq and Afghanistan vets know they're not forgotten.
Sincerely,
Chris Reese
(aka Fistshaking Liberal)
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Rick Santorum Must Apologize
Last week Senator John McCain gave a passionate speech on the Senate floor dispelling rumors that information leading to the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was garnered from the "enhanced interrogation" method known as waterboarding, or more accurately, torture. Senator McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for 5 1/2 years and was subjected to torture at the hands of his captors during this period, if anybody holding elected office today is an authority on torture and its effectiveness it is John McCain. Not so according to former Senator Rick Santorum, a 2012 Republican Party presidential hopeful, who claims in during a radio interview conducted Tuesday that "everything I've read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten from information from people who were subjected to enhanced interrogation." He went on to add "he (McCain) doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works."
Of course Mr. Santorum is no longer in government and would not be privy to any official information regarding the assassination of OBL or the discovery of information leading the US to Bin Laden, but like most other public figures who are no longer in government he claims to know for certain that torture played a vital role in our killing of Bin Laden. The fact that John McCain is a sitting US Senator and that his floor speech was based on information given to him directly by CIA Director Leon Panetta seems to be of no consequence to Mr. Santorum.
I can fully understand former Bush administration officials who proclaim that torture led us to Bin Laden, they violated US and international law by waterboarding detainees and don't want their legacy to be that their policies not only didn't lead us to Bin Laden but hindered our efforts in obtaining vital information and put the lives of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at greater risk. They are willing to continue to lie even when presented with factual evidence of events leading to the raid by SEAL Team Six in an effort to save face. But I fail to understand why Rick Santorum would even address this issue, the politically safe thing would be to congratulate those involved in killing OBL and leave it at that. Yet Mr. Santorum sees the need to align himself with a position held by an unpopular former administration and to slander a respected Senator and former POW in the process. And Mr. Santorum does this with absolutely no evidence to support his position, even when presented with the facts provided by CIA Director Panetta that not only was the prisoner who fingered Bin Laden's messenger Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti not waterboarded, the US wasn't even in possession of nor interrogated said prisoner.
I have yet to see a current or former interrogator support waterboarding methods, most all of them agree that torture did not lead us to Bin Laden and that techniques such as waterboarding hinder our intelligence gathering efforts. Yet some media outlets give credence to those former politicians who never participated in interrogations nor have any intelligence experience over those who actually interrogate or have interrogated prisoners. Not only is Mr. Santorum wrong factually he is wrong to claim that a former POW who was subjected to torture "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works." It is because of this that we must demand that Rick Santorum apologize not only to Senator McCain but those members of our armed forces and intelligence services who know first-hand that waterboarding doesn't work. He cannot be taken seriously as a candidate for president until he's willing to embrace the facts.
Of course Mr. Santorum is no longer in government and would not be privy to any official information regarding the assassination of OBL or the discovery of information leading the US to Bin Laden, but like most other public figures who are no longer in government he claims to know for certain that torture played a vital role in our killing of Bin Laden. The fact that John McCain is a sitting US Senator and that his floor speech was based on information given to him directly by CIA Director Leon Panetta seems to be of no consequence to Mr. Santorum.
I can fully understand former Bush administration officials who proclaim that torture led us to Bin Laden, they violated US and international law by waterboarding detainees and don't want their legacy to be that their policies not only didn't lead us to Bin Laden but hindered our efforts in obtaining vital information and put the lives of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at greater risk. They are willing to continue to lie even when presented with factual evidence of events leading to the raid by SEAL Team Six in an effort to save face. But I fail to understand why Rick Santorum would even address this issue, the politically safe thing would be to congratulate those involved in killing OBL and leave it at that. Yet Mr. Santorum sees the need to align himself with a position held by an unpopular former administration and to slander a respected Senator and former POW in the process. And Mr. Santorum does this with absolutely no evidence to support his position, even when presented with the facts provided by CIA Director Panetta that not only was the prisoner who fingered Bin Laden's messenger Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti not waterboarded, the US wasn't even in possession of nor interrogated said prisoner.
I have yet to see a current or former interrogator support waterboarding methods, most all of them agree that torture did not lead us to Bin Laden and that techniques such as waterboarding hinder our intelligence gathering efforts. Yet some media outlets give credence to those former politicians who never participated in interrogations nor have any intelligence experience over those who actually interrogate or have interrogated prisoners. Not only is Mr. Santorum wrong factually he is wrong to claim that a former POW who was subjected to torture "doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works." It is because of this that we must demand that Rick Santorum apologize not only to Senator McCain but those members of our armed forces and intelligence services who know first-hand that waterboarding doesn't work. He cannot be taken seriously as a candidate for president until he's willing to embrace the facts.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
It's Not About The Budget
Tonight Senate Republicans filibustered a bill that would have ended the $21 billion Big Oil would have received in tax subsidies over the next 10 years. The procedural motion that would have put the bill up to a vote failed with a tally of 52 - 48, and yes for those of us that passed grade school math 52 is more than 48 but due to the filibuster by the GOP the motion required 60 votes to break said filibuster. The House GOP passed a bill extending these subsidies on Tuesday even though according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey I referenced in a previous blog post noted that 75% of Americans are against continuing these subsidies.
Republicans are holding the world economy hostage with the threat of not raising the US debt ceiling unless we make serious budget cuts. Now as I've posted before and as the Tea Party has recently confirmed it's all a bluff, they will allow the debt ceiling to be raised prior to the Treasury running out of money in August. But all of this brings me to my point, it's not about the budget. The GOP really doesn't care about how much money the government spends, it's about where it's spent and who it's spent on. Tonight's vote was a perfect example, here you have a politically easy way to reduce spending by $21 billion for corporations who don't need the extra money. I say it's politically easy because you have the support of 75% of the public, but instead you vote against it. You vote against it because it's Big Oil who is making large contributions to your re-election effort. Instead you vote to cut Medicaid, do away with Medicare, shrink unemployment benefits, and cut education because the majority of those who benefit from these services are unable to make large contributions to your campaign. I know I sound like a broken record but the GOP only represents the few at the top, they do this at the expense of the rest of us.
This will probably get lost in the spin or the next political distraction but when 2012 comes around we need to remember who voted to keep tax subsidies for the most profitable industry in the country while making up for that loss on the backs of the elderly and our children. The GOP could have done the right thing tonight, but instead they focused on the money not the budget.
Republicans are holding the world economy hostage with the threat of not raising the US debt ceiling unless we make serious budget cuts. Now as I've posted before and as the Tea Party has recently confirmed it's all a bluff, they will allow the debt ceiling to be raised prior to the Treasury running out of money in August. But all of this brings me to my point, it's not about the budget. The GOP really doesn't care about how much money the government spends, it's about where it's spent and who it's spent on. Tonight's vote was a perfect example, here you have a politically easy way to reduce spending by $21 billion for corporations who don't need the extra money. I say it's politically easy because you have the support of 75% of the public, but instead you vote against it. You vote against it because it's Big Oil who is making large contributions to your re-election effort. Instead you vote to cut Medicaid, do away with Medicare, shrink unemployment benefits, and cut education because the majority of those who benefit from these services are unable to make large contributions to your campaign. I know I sound like a broken record but the GOP only represents the few at the top, they do this at the expense of the rest of us.
This will probably get lost in the spin or the next political distraction but when 2012 comes around we need to remember who voted to keep tax subsidies for the most profitable industry in the country while making up for that loss on the backs of the elderly and our children. The GOP could have done the right thing tonight, but instead they focused on the money not the budget.
Friday, May 13, 2011
How About Those Jobs?
On May 6th the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April 2011 jobs report showing that 244,000 jobs were created in April (actually 268,000 private sector jobs were created while we lost 24,000 in government jobs) with unemployment rising from 8.8% to 9%. The small increase in unemployment is usually considered a sign that confidence is up among job seekers with more people actively looking for jobs. In just the past 3 months the private sector has grown by 760,000 jobs. Surprisingly I have found it nearly impossible to find statistics for job growth outside of the past 3 months, from what I can put together I can estimate private sector job growth under the Obama administration to currently stand somewhere between 3.5 to 4 million (jobs have decreased in the public sector, that is a Republican initiative). If this estimate holds true we have recovered roughly half of the 7.7 million jobs lost during the recession.
Of course only recovering half of jobs lost isn't good enough and I'm certain that many of the unemployed are not comforted by the statistics that I have provided and that is completely understandable. That is primarily why we ended up with a GOP controlled House of Representatives after this most recent mid-term election. Republicans knew that voters were upset and discouraged by the slowness of job growth and made job creation their #1 campaign priority (or maybe a close 2nd behind repealing the Affordable Care Act). They chose to not mention the fact that it was the Republicans who filibustered, watered-down, and put up road blocks to many of the Dem's economic recovery policies, the policies that are creating jobs now at a much slower pace than what the Democrats wanted. Job growth was something the country could get behind and I think most voters figured they would give the GOP a chance to do better than the Democrats did. In January the House convened session and promised to focus on jobs.
So how have they done at this point? Over 200,000 private sector jobs created in each of the last 3 months, that's something right? Unfortunately for those who voted Republican this time around the job growth has nothing to do with GOP initiatives, in fact (remember this is a FACT) the GOP hasn't introduced a single bill that has anything to do with job creation. That's right, they campaigned on jobs being their #1 priority and even though it's now May they still haven't introduced any job-creating legislation. I went online to see how many bills have been passed in the House so far and what they pertain to. To date they have passed 40 bills (120+ if you count continuing resolutions, joint resolutions, and procedural rules) and almost none of them have made it passed the Senate and none of them have anything to do with jobs. Here's a few of the highlights from this session so far with links to the full bill and votes in parenthesis (Yea-Nay):
HR2 Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (245-189)
-I especially liked this title, it would repeal the Affordable Care Act and in doing so would add all of the savings outlined by the CBO back onto our deficit. Doesn't create jobs.
HR3 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (251-175)
-In its original format it redefined "rape" but that part got dropped once that was brought to light, essentially they passed a bill for something that's already illegal. Doesn't create jobs.
HR292 Stop the OverPrinting (STOP) Act (399-0)
-Requires bills to be communicated to members of congress in electronic format. Doesn't create jobs.
HR359 To Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns and Party Conventions (239-160)
-Gets rid of that check box on your tax form asking if you wish to donate $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Doesn't create jobs.
HR570 Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2011(401-12)
-Adds dental health facilities to NHSS for public health emergencies. Doesn't create jobs.
HR836 Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act (242-177)
-Cancels all remaining funding for and terminates a program designed to help keep people in their homes and to help keep banks from taking a loss on foreclosures. Doesn't create jobs and puts people on the streets!
HR872 Reducing Regulatory Burdens ACT of 2011 (292-130)
-Prevents the EPA from enforcing the Clean Water Act, who needs clean water anyway? Doesn't create jobs.
HR1231 Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act (243-179)
-This was passed during the BP oil spill, the President placed a moratorium on offshore drilling until we could find out what caused the Horizon rig explosion. The GOP felt better about moving forward with drilling even though the same problems could have existed on other rigs. Doesn't create jobs.
That's pretty much it, there were a few bills to build new post offices, some procedural things, the budget bill, and a few more bills that attempted to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act and other Obama initiatives and items that help Americans. The fact is that the GOP doesn't care about jobs, I feel that I can safely say that because after 5 months in power they've not acted on job creation. As I've said time and time again, the GOP represents the interests of the very few at the very top which is why they've put more effort in reducing taxes for the rich and continuing corporate welfare programs (such as oil industry tax subsidies) than putting Americans back to work.
To borrow a phrase from Kieth Olbermann, where are the jobs Speaker Boehner?
Of course only recovering half of jobs lost isn't good enough and I'm certain that many of the unemployed are not comforted by the statistics that I have provided and that is completely understandable. That is primarily why we ended up with a GOP controlled House of Representatives after this most recent mid-term election. Republicans knew that voters were upset and discouraged by the slowness of job growth and made job creation their #1 campaign priority (or maybe a close 2nd behind repealing the Affordable Care Act). They chose to not mention the fact that it was the Republicans who filibustered, watered-down, and put up road blocks to many of the Dem's economic recovery policies, the policies that are creating jobs now at a much slower pace than what the Democrats wanted. Job growth was something the country could get behind and I think most voters figured they would give the GOP a chance to do better than the Democrats did. In January the House convened session and promised to focus on jobs.
So how have they done at this point? Over 200,000 private sector jobs created in each of the last 3 months, that's something right? Unfortunately for those who voted Republican this time around the job growth has nothing to do with GOP initiatives, in fact (remember this is a FACT) the GOP hasn't introduced a single bill that has anything to do with job creation. That's right, they campaigned on jobs being their #1 priority and even though it's now May they still haven't introduced any job-creating legislation. I went online to see how many bills have been passed in the House so far and what they pertain to. To date they have passed 40 bills (120+ if you count continuing resolutions, joint resolutions, and procedural rules) and almost none of them have made it passed the Senate and none of them have anything to do with jobs. Here's a few of the highlights from this session so far with links to the full bill and votes in parenthesis (Yea-Nay):
HR2 Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (245-189)
-I especially liked this title, it would repeal the Affordable Care Act and in doing so would add all of the savings outlined by the CBO back onto our deficit. Doesn't create jobs.
HR3 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (251-175)
-In its original format it redefined "rape" but that part got dropped once that was brought to light, essentially they passed a bill for something that's already illegal. Doesn't create jobs.
HR292 Stop the OverPrinting (STOP) Act (399-0)
-Requires bills to be communicated to members of congress in electronic format. Doesn't create jobs.
HR359 To Reduce Federal Spending and the Deficit by Terminating Taxpayer Financing of Presidential Election Campaigns and Party Conventions (239-160)
-Gets rid of that check box on your tax form asking if you wish to donate $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Doesn't create jobs.
HR570 Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2011(401-12)
-Adds dental health facilities to NHSS for public health emergencies. Doesn't create jobs.
HR836 Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act (242-177)
-Cancels all remaining funding for and terminates a program designed to help keep people in their homes and to help keep banks from taking a loss on foreclosures. Doesn't create jobs and puts people on the streets!
HR872 Reducing Regulatory Burdens ACT of 2011 (292-130)
-Prevents the EPA from enforcing the Clean Water Act, who needs clean water anyway? Doesn't create jobs.
HR1231 Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act (243-179)
-This was passed during the BP oil spill, the President placed a moratorium on offshore drilling until we could find out what caused the Horizon rig explosion. The GOP felt better about moving forward with drilling even though the same problems could have existed on other rigs. Doesn't create jobs.
That's pretty much it, there were a few bills to build new post offices, some procedural things, the budget bill, and a few more bills that attempted to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act and other Obama initiatives and items that help Americans. The fact is that the GOP doesn't care about jobs, I feel that I can safely say that because after 5 months in power they've not acted on job creation. As I've said time and time again, the GOP represents the interests of the very few at the very top which is why they've put more effort in reducing taxes for the rich and continuing corporate welfare programs (such as oil industry tax subsidies) than putting Americans back to work.
To borrow a phrase from Kieth Olbermann, where are the jobs Speaker Boehner?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
A Call To Serve Those Who Served
Veteran's issues have always been close to my heart, as an Iraq War veteran and Operation Enduring Freedom veteran I've seen first-hand the physical afflictions of war as well as the mental strain on those who have shared these experiences. I was both gratified and heartbroken when I learned of yesterday's 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals' ruling on Veterans for Common Sense vs Eric Shinseki et al. The Court ruled that the VA displayed incompetence in dealing with veteran's mental health issues and failed to fulfill their responsibilities to our nation's veterans.
According to an e-mail from VA Deputy Secretary Ira Katz, and noted in Judge Reinhardt's opinion, on an average day 18 of our country's veterans take their own lives. No you did not just misread that statistic, each day we lose on average 18 of our nation's veterans from nothing other than afflictions that have gone untreated by those charged with their care. An additional 1000 of our veterans attempt suicide each month and according to a 2008 study by the RAND Institute 18.5% of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). These are appalling statistics.
But the VA, Congress, and the Bush and Obama administrations addressed this right? We must have anticipated that waging 2 wars would result in a huge influx of VA claims? Apparently not. According to Judge Reinhardt it takes on average more than 4 years to fully adjudicate a claim for benefits. Currently there are 756,000 pending claims according to VA budget documents with over 84,000 waiting for mental health care. In the meantime congress has kept itself busy by slashing the budget, extending tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, and attempting to redefine what "rape" is by passing a bill to make illegal what already is illegal via HR 3.
Why is this ruling and the problems identified by this lawsuit not front-page news? I need to give credit to my hometown paper the Kansas City Star for running an AP story on their front-page regarding this issue but after scanning the Internet there has been next to zero coverage of this, and any that I can find is buried. Where's the outrage? Where's the public outcry? We are a nation that is appreciative of our veterans, but we only seem to express this appreciation on Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day. I flew in full desert uniform on my way home from Iraq in 2006, nobody seemed to notice nor care. Sure we'll spend days covering a royal wedding, a birth certificate, and who will be voted off Dancing with the Stars but when an organization sheds light on the neglect of the needs of those who volunteered to sacrifice everything for us where is their support? Where is their voice? Who will speak on their behalf?
I am issuing a call to serve those who served. The American people need to be the voice of our protectors, we need to demand justice for our veterans. First we need to contact the Veteran's Administration and demand that they do not appeal this ruling, they need to address their shortcomings as identified by the 9th Circuit and draft a real plan to address these issues. Next we need to contact our representatives in congress to pass legislation necessary to hold the VA accountable and to provide protections and venues to our veterans who are not receiving the care they need. We then need to tell congress to stop worrying so much about the budget and authorize any funding necessary to help the VA facilitate care. Finally we need the Obama administration's leadership in helping to coordinate these efforts just as they have done with other policies as of late. And after we've made our voices heard by those who have turned a deaf ear each of us must look into ourselves to evaluate what we've done for our veterans lately. There are organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) who are always looking for volunteers to assist veterans, they're just waiting for you to answer the call.
The call is out, will you answer? Each day we delay action we lose another 18 veterans, we owe them more. We owe them everything.
According to an e-mail from VA Deputy Secretary Ira Katz, and noted in Judge Reinhardt's opinion, on an average day 18 of our country's veterans take their own lives. No you did not just misread that statistic, each day we lose on average 18 of our nation's veterans from nothing other than afflictions that have gone untreated by those charged with their care. An additional 1000 of our veterans attempt suicide each month and according to a 2008 study by the RAND Institute 18.5% of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). These are appalling statistics.
But the VA, Congress, and the Bush and Obama administrations addressed this right? We must have anticipated that waging 2 wars would result in a huge influx of VA claims? Apparently not. According to Judge Reinhardt it takes on average more than 4 years to fully adjudicate a claim for benefits. Currently there are 756,000 pending claims according to VA budget documents with over 84,000 waiting for mental health care. In the meantime congress has kept itself busy by slashing the budget, extending tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, and attempting to redefine what "rape" is by passing a bill to make illegal what already is illegal via HR 3.
Why is this ruling and the problems identified by this lawsuit not front-page news? I need to give credit to my hometown paper the Kansas City Star for running an AP story on their front-page regarding this issue but after scanning the Internet there has been next to zero coverage of this, and any that I can find is buried. Where's the outrage? Where's the public outcry? We are a nation that is appreciative of our veterans, but we only seem to express this appreciation on Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day. I flew in full desert uniform on my way home from Iraq in 2006, nobody seemed to notice nor care. Sure we'll spend days covering a royal wedding, a birth certificate, and who will be voted off Dancing with the Stars but when an organization sheds light on the neglect of the needs of those who volunteered to sacrifice everything for us where is their support? Where is their voice? Who will speak on their behalf?
I am issuing a call to serve those who served. The American people need to be the voice of our protectors, we need to demand justice for our veterans. First we need to contact the Veteran's Administration and demand that they do not appeal this ruling, they need to address their shortcomings as identified by the 9th Circuit and draft a real plan to address these issues. Next we need to contact our representatives in congress to pass legislation necessary to hold the VA accountable and to provide protections and venues to our veterans who are not receiving the care they need. We then need to tell congress to stop worrying so much about the budget and authorize any funding necessary to help the VA facilitate care. Finally we need the Obama administration's leadership in helping to coordinate these efforts just as they have done with other policies as of late. And after we've made our voices heard by those who have turned a deaf ear each of us must look into ourselves to evaluate what we've done for our veterans lately. There are organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) who are always looking for volunteers to assist veterans, they're just waiting for you to answer the call.
The call is out, will you answer? Each day we delay action we lose another 18 veterans, we owe them more. We owe them everything.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
People Come First, Everything Else Is Second
I was watching TV the other day and saw a commercial for Allstate, in that commercial they talked about helping the people first. They gave examples of providing coffee for parents of a tragedy and handing out over 12,000 teddy bears for children, the commercial ends with the line "people come first, everything else is second." I'm certainly not plugging Allstate but I found that to be a very touching commercial and hope that Allstate truly feels and acts that way. Then it got me to thinking, isn't that the very principal our government should be operating on?
We have a government of the people, by the people, for the people; or at least that's what President Lincoln believed when giving the Gettysburg Address. But is that truly the desire of those who hold office in our government?
Healthcare
Unless you were sequestered last year you probably watched some coverage on the debate of the Affordable Care Act (or as the right endearingly refers to as "Obamacare"). The philosophy of one side is that healthcare is a privilege, for the other side it's a right. The conservatives feel that anybody who cannot afford insurance is not worthy of having it and should be relegated to dying on the streets, or at least that is what I'm left to suppose as they don't offer an alternative. The adage we often repeat that was penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" apparently doesn't apply. I suppose some will ignore the definition of "unalienable" or the fact that the right to life would include the healthcare necessary to sustain that life. Fortunately the Left was able to pass the Affordable Care Act that will provide healthcare to millions who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for insurance, putting people first. It had to be done with the health insurance mandate instead of the public option which is a Republican initiative. Don't believe me? Just look back to 1994 when Clinton was dealing with healthcare and see which party proposed the mandate or what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts.
Unemployment Insurance
If you work you pay into unemployment insurance through taxes, this provides you up to a 99 week safety net (depending on what state you live in) to help keep you sheltered, clothed, and fed if you are dismissed from your job through no fault of your own. This is not a "hand out" as you pay into this plan, just the same way your car insurance isn't a "hand out" if you need repairs to your vehicle after a car accident. But Republican legislators in states such as Michigan, Missouri, Florida, among others are looking to reduce these benefits in the name of balancing the budget (without actually balancing their respective budgets). The conservatives from these states choose to ignore the fact that it will cost more to house, clothe, and feed these individuals if they didn't have unemployment insurance to make their house payments and avoid foreclosure and instead become a burden on the state, but that's just splitting hairs I suppose. I guess children being able to live in their house while a parent, or both parents, look for a job is a luxury the state can't afford. Democrats are putting people first and fighting against these benefit reductions.
Medicare/Medicaid
The GOP members of the US House recently voted for a budget that would eliminate Medicare as we know it and reduce federal payments to Medicaid. As I've written about before these changes will shift the burden of healthcare costs to seniors (27% of out-of-pocket costs now compared to 68% under the GOP plan according to the CBO) and funnel that money private insurance. The primary recipients of Medicaid are the disabled, older citizens who require nursing home care, and children of poor families; people who cannot work to earn their own insurance nor have representation in Washington. This was done because the deficit weighs more importantly than the needs of the vulnerable; and the millions spent lobbying for privatization of Medicare by the insurance industry probably had something to do with it as well. Democrats in the House and Senate are standing up against this plan, putting people first.
Education
We've all seen the attack on teachers in states like Wisconsin and the attack on federal spending for education. Apparently the Right feels that ranking 21st in science and 25th in mathematics must be good enough because Republicans on the federal and state levels have been working to reduce funding for education with wild abandon. Even though our children are falling behind those in other nations we find ourselves competing with economically, we must sacrifice our children's success in the effort to save the government money. Obama and liberals in congress are standing up for our children and teachers to ensure America returns to number 1 in education, they are putting people first.
Regulation
Let us cut through the BS, regulations are put in place to protect people and not so incidentally they also help businesses. Take the BP oil spill for example, had we had effective regulation and regulators in place perhaps 11 rig workers would still be alive today, fisherman would not have lost thousands by not being able to fish, and (my conservative friends may want to sit down for this) BP would actually have benefited by not having to have spent billions in clean-up costs and compensation to victims (yes regulation does benefit businesses, whether they wish to believe it or not). But conservatives are always advocating against regulation because they falsely believe that it hurts business, ignoring that these regulations are put in place to help people. Liberals think otherwise and put the safety of Americans over the interests of profit margins.
"People first" is a philosophy that us bleeding-heart liberals live by and lead by. There is a distinct divide in our political prerogatives, conservatives govern for the almighty dollar, placing its importance above that of the people. Liberals believe that when people do well the country does well. People come first, everything else is second. This is the creed we should govern by, liberals already are.
We have a government of the people, by the people, for the people; or at least that's what President Lincoln believed when giving the Gettysburg Address. But is that truly the desire of those who hold office in our government?
Healthcare
Unless you were sequestered last year you probably watched some coverage on the debate of the Affordable Care Act (or as the right endearingly refers to as "Obamacare"). The philosophy of one side is that healthcare is a privilege, for the other side it's a right. The conservatives feel that anybody who cannot afford insurance is not worthy of having it and should be relegated to dying on the streets, or at least that is what I'm left to suppose as they don't offer an alternative. The adage we often repeat that was penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" apparently doesn't apply. I suppose some will ignore the definition of "unalienable" or the fact that the right to life would include the healthcare necessary to sustain that life. Fortunately the Left was able to pass the Affordable Care Act that will provide healthcare to millions who otherwise wouldn't be eligible for insurance, putting people first. It had to be done with the health insurance mandate instead of the public option which is a Republican initiative. Don't believe me? Just look back to 1994 when Clinton was dealing with healthcare and see which party proposed the mandate or what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts.
Unemployment Insurance
If you work you pay into unemployment insurance through taxes, this provides you up to a 99 week safety net (depending on what state you live in) to help keep you sheltered, clothed, and fed if you are dismissed from your job through no fault of your own. This is not a "hand out" as you pay into this plan, just the same way your car insurance isn't a "hand out" if you need repairs to your vehicle after a car accident. But Republican legislators in states such as Michigan, Missouri, Florida, among others are looking to reduce these benefits in the name of balancing the budget (without actually balancing their respective budgets). The conservatives from these states choose to ignore the fact that it will cost more to house, clothe, and feed these individuals if they didn't have unemployment insurance to make their house payments and avoid foreclosure and instead become a burden on the state, but that's just splitting hairs I suppose. I guess children being able to live in their house while a parent, or both parents, look for a job is a luxury the state can't afford. Democrats are putting people first and fighting against these benefit reductions.
Medicare/Medicaid
The GOP members of the US House recently voted for a budget that would eliminate Medicare as we know it and reduce federal payments to Medicaid. As I've written about before these changes will shift the burden of healthcare costs to seniors (27% of out-of-pocket costs now compared to 68% under the GOP plan according to the CBO) and funnel that money private insurance. The primary recipients of Medicaid are the disabled, older citizens who require nursing home care, and children of poor families; people who cannot work to earn their own insurance nor have representation in Washington. This was done because the deficit weighs more importantly than the needs of the vulnerable; and the millions spent lobbying for privatization of Medicare by the insurance industry probably had something to do with it as well. Democrats in the House and Senate are standing up against this plan, putting people first.
Education
We've all seen the attack on teachers in states like Wisconsin and the attack on federal spending for education. Apparently the Right feels that ranking 21st in science and 25th in mathematics must be good enough because Republicans on the federal and state levels have been working to reduce funding for education with wild abandon. Even though our children are falling behind those in other nations we find ourselves competing with economically, we must sacrifice our children's success in the effort to save the government money. Obama and liberals in congress are standing up for our children and teachers to ensure America returns to number 1 in education, they are putting people first.
Regulation
Let us cut through the BS, regulations are put in place to protect people and not so incidentally they also help businesses. Take the BP oil spill for example, had we had effective regulation and regulators in place perhaps 11 rig workers would still be alive today, fisherman would not have lost thousands by not being able to fish, and (my conservative friends may want to sit down for this) BP would actually have benefited by not having to have spent billions in clean-up costs and compensation to victims (yes regulation does benefit businesses, whether they wish to believe it or not). But conservatives are always advocating against regulation because they falsely believe that it hurts business, ignoring that these regulations are put in place to help people. Liberals think otherwise and put the safety of Americans over the interests of profit margins.
"People first" is a philosophy that us bleeding-heart liberals live by and lead by. There is a distinct divide in our political prerogatives, conservatives govern for the almighty dollar, placing its importance above that of the people. Liberals believe that when people do well the country does well. People come first, everything else is second. This is the creed we should govern by, liberals already are.
Monday, May 2, 2011
OBL Assassination: Give Credit Where Credit Is Due
As you probably already know Osama Bin Laden was assassinated last night by US forces in Pakistan. The fact that he was hiding in Pakistan probably wasn't much of a surprise to anybody but what was surprising to many was that he was hiding in plain sight in Abbottabad, Pakistan which is a Pakistani 'military city" less than 2 hours north of the capital city of Islamabad. But should we have been surprised that he wasn't hiding in a cave in "no-man's land" near the Pakistan-Afghan border? I have suspected for quite some time that the Pakistani government has played a role in hiding Bin Laden and the details from last night's raid have helped to validate those suspicions. Fortunately President Obama wasn't to keen on playing along with Pakistan's ruse and focused his hunt for Bin Laden in that country despite protests from his critics.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to write a blog entry about the assassination of OBL at all, especially one that politicizes the issue. I have felt for quite some time that killing Bin Laden wasn't of much strategic value and would not make us safer. Al Qaeda has splintered into many factions since our invasion of Afghanistan and this along with the pressure from the international community searching for Bin Laden had essentially relegated him to just being a figurehead, not an involved leader. Don't get me wrong I still felt it was necessary to pursue and capture or kill him, but mainly because this would have been good for the American psyche and after the Bush administration became distracted I just assumed we would have to wait until he died of natural causes or an accident. But after watching and reading political assessments from commentators who are giving credit to President George W. Bush's policies and, even President Bush himself, I feel I must interject.
There are several flaws to the "continuation of Bush policies" argument and I'd like to start with the Bush administration's pre 9/11 mindset. Bill Clinton was said by some of his staff to be "obsessed" with Bin Laden, he had even given an order to the CIA after the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa to capture Bin Laden and even authorized use deadly force if needed. The US did launch multiple attacks on Bin Laden between 1998 to 2000 without success. Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke held initial meetings with Bush's incoming staff to include Condoleezza Rice stressing how important it was to take on al Qaeda, from their accounts (and those of others) those pleas fell on deaf ears. Richard Clarke made multiple requests to address the al Qaeda issue (you can read a released memo here) but to no avail (his position was eventually demoted to a non-cabinet level position). After serving less than 7 months in office President Bush decided he deserved a month long vacation to be taken in August 2001. At this point there was no substantial effort on the part of the Bush administration to deal with al Qaeda and it was during this vacation that the infamous August 6th Presidential Daily Brief that stated al Qaeda had and was planning to carryout attacks within the United States, likely with aircraft. It even said that al Qaeda operatives were witnessed conducting surveillance operations in New York City. Shortly after his month long vacation was over al Qaeda carried out their attacks on September 11th, we all are aware of what happened then. I think you will agree that Bush's pre 9/11 policy on terrorism was a failed policy.
The next flaw of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument is perhaps the worst. The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored and aided Bin Laden in the training of his terrorist operatives, including those that carried out the attacks on 9/11. Going after the Taliban, Bin Laden, and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was good policy; pulling troops out of that fight to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, terrorism, or national defense was reckless. The worst thing that could have been done in regards to bringing Bin Laden to justice was moving resources to Iraq, we just didn't have enough boots on the ground to mount a serious effort to "get" Bin Laden. Let us be clear, according to internal accounts from Bob Woodward and others Iraq was foreign policy issue #1 for the Bush administration, even before the 9/11 attacks. They used the murders of thousands of Americans to help justify a war they wanted to wage before they took office anyway and ultimately helped Bin Laden escape and emboldened al Qaeda around the world. Then there's the Battle of Tora Bora, this is where US troops along with other allies had Bin Laden cornered but we let him get away. The Bush administration thought it would be beneficial to have Pakistani military forces go after Bin Laden, but as we now know those same forces helped escort him across the Afghanistan border into Pakistan to hide. Bush's lack of knowledge of that region, a tribal region sympathetic to Bin Laden and his efforts, allowed him to slip through our grasp. I think you will agree that Bush's war policy was a failed policy.
The final fault of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument was the administration's policy towards Pakistan. As I had stated earlier I felt that Pakistan aided Bin Laden and I believe that those in Pakistan's government were sympathetic to him (I'm confident that I wasn't alone in that feeling). Bush apparently did not share my assessment. Bush saw Pakistan as an ally, so much so that he authorized over $1.5 billion to be given to Pakistan to aid them in the war effort (you can see the administration's policy towards Pakistan here) but as we have now found out Bin Laden was hiding amongst the US funded army all along. Abbottabad is a military city, a military city that had a $1 million mansion/complex built 5 years ago that housed Bin Laden, and we're supposed to believe that nobody noticed. I think the New Yorker stated it better than I can "bin Laden was effectively being house under Pakistani state control." Anytime some military or intelligence officer suggested entering or flying over Pakistan then President Pervez Musharraf would protest, and Bush would appease him (and continue to give him US taxpayer dollars for "assisting" in our efforts). The good money was on Bin Laden being in Pakistan, but Bush decided not to pursue him there. I think you will agree that Bush's policy on Pakistan was a failed policy.
Enter Barack Obama. Candidate Obama campaigned on taking the fight to Bin Laden in Pakistan if there was intelligence that would validate such action. If you recall this was "controversial" and he was criticized by both the right and the left on this position. This included Republican candidate Senator John McCain who, like Bush, considered Pakistan an ally and felt that it would be inappropriate to conduct military operations within that country or over it's airspace. Unlike President Bush, President Obama has at least a basic knowledge of that region and realized that Pakistan wasn't an ally in the true sense of the word, they were our "ally" only because we were funneling over $1.5 billion to them. Their actions (or lack of action if you will) clearly demonstrated otherwise. He campaigned on making the monetary aid to Pakistan conditional and would take Pakistan to task on combating terrorism. After taking office he shifted our focus back on Afghanistan and Pakistan by withdrawing troops from Iraq, increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and began conducting drone strikes in Pakistan. He enacted policies that were a complete 360 to Bush's policies and made getting Bin Laden foreign policy issue #1 (remember Bush basically gave up in March 2002). He then authorized the operation that was conducted yesterday, a carefully and smartly planned operation at that. We all know the results of that action.
Make no mistake, it was the renewed search enacted by President Obama's policies that led to our killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Certainly we can't give full credit to the President, it took the intelligence community, our troops, and others in our government to execute these policies. But we have to give credit where credit is due, Bin Laden is dead today because of President Obama's policies and President Bush nor his policies had anything to do with it.
I thought about ending this blog with that last paragraph but felt that I couldn't leave out this quote from our "ally." Former President Perves Musharraf was quoted as saying (in response to the US killing Bin Laden, you know the guy they were helping us get) "America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty. Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct" and he went on to say "US forces should not have crossed into Pakistan." Some ally huh? Pakistan is a terrorist state, we will see that come to light as this story develops further, who knows what could have happened if Bush had come to that same realization.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to write a blog entry about the assassination of OBL at all, especially one that politicizes the issue. I have felt for quite some time that killing Bin Laden wasn't of much strategic value and would not make us safer. Al Qaeda has splintered into many factions since our invasion of Afghanistan and this along with the pressure from the international community searching for Bin Laden had essentially relegated him to just being a figurehead, not an involved leader. Don't get me wrong I still felt it was necessary to pursue and capture or kill him, but mainly because this would have been good for the American psyche and after the Bush administration became distracted I just assumed we would have to wait until he died of natural causes or an accident. But after watching and reading political assessments from commentators who are giving credit to President George W. Bush's policies and, even President Bush himself, I feel I must interject.
There are several flaws to the "continuation of Bush policies" argument and I'd like to start with the Bush administration's pre 9/11 mindset. Bill Clinton was said by some of his staff to be "obsessed" with Bin Laden, he had even given an order to the CIA after the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Africa to capture Bin Laden and even authorized use deadly force if needed. The US did launch multiple attacks on Bin Laden between 1998 to 2000 without success. Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke held initial meetings with Bush's incoming staff to include Condoleezza Rice stressing how important it was to take on al Qaeda, from their accounts (and those of others) those pleas fell on deaf ears. Richard Clarke made multiple requests to address the al Qaeda issue (you can read a released memo here) but to no avail (his position was eventually demoted to a non-cabinet level position). After serving less than 7 months in office President Bush decided he deserved a month long vacation to be taken in August 2001. At this point there was no substantial effort on the part of the Bush administration to deal with al Qaeda and it was during this vacation that the infamous August 6th Presidential Daily Brief that stated al Qaeda had and was planning to carryout attacks within the United States, likely with aircraft. It even said that al Qaeda operatives were witnessed conducting surveillance operations in New York City. Shortly after his month long vacation was over al Qaeda carried out their attacks on September 11th, we all are aware of what happened then. I think you will agree that Bush's pre 9/11 policy on terrorism was a failed policy.
The next flaw of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument is perhaps the worst. The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored and aided Bin Laden in the training of his terrorist operatives, including those that carried out the attacks on 9/11. Going after the Taliban, Bin Laden, and al Qaeda in Afghanistan was good policy; pulling troops out of that fight to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, terrorism, or national defense was reckless. The worst thing that could have been done in regards to bringing Bin Laden to justice was moving resources to Iraq, we just didn't have enough boots on the ground to mount a serious effort to "get" Bin Laden. Let us be clear, according to internal accounts from Bob Woodward and others Iraq was foreign policy issue #1 for the Bush administration, even before the 9/11 attacks. They used the murders of thousands of Americans to help justify a war they wanted to wage before they took office anyway and ultimately helped Bin Laden escape and emboldened al Qaeda around the world. Then there's the Battle of Tora Bora, this is where US troops along with other allies had Bin Laden cornered but we let him get away. The Bush administration thought it would be beneficial to have Pakistani military forces go after Bin Laden, but as we now know those same forces helped escort him across the Afghanistan border into Pakistan to hide. Bush's lack of knowledge of that region, a tribal region sympathetic to Bin Laden and his efforts, allowed him to slip through our grasp. I think you will agree that Bush's war policy was a failed policy.
The final fault of the "continuation of Bush policies" argument was the administration's policy towards Pakistan. As I had stated earlier I felt that Pakistan aided Bin Laden and I believe that those in Pakistan's government were sympathetic to him (I'm confident that I wasn't alone in that feeling). Bush apparently did not share my assessment. Bush saw Pakistan as an ally, so much so that he authorized over $1.5 billion to be given to Pakistan to aid them in the war effort (you can see the administration's policy towards Pakistan here) but as we have now found out Bin Laden was hiding amongst the US funded army all along. Abbottabad is a military city, a military city that had a $1 million mansion/complex built 5 years ago that housed Bin Laden, and we're supposed to believe that nobody noticed. I think the New Yorker stated it better than I can "bin Laden was effectively being house under Pakistani state control." Anytime some military or intelligence officer suggested entering or flying over Pakistan then President Pervez Musharraf would protest, and Bush would appease him (and continue to give him US taxpayer dollars for "assisting" in our efforts). The good money was on Bin Laden being in Pakistan, but Bush decided not to pursue him there. I think you will agree that Bush's policy on Pakistan was a failed policy.
Enter Barack Obama. Candidate Obama campaigned on taking the fight to Bin Laden in Pakistan if there was intelligence that would validate such action. If you recall this was "controversial" and he was criticized by both the right and the left on this position. This included Republican candidate Senator John McCain who, like Bush, considered Pakistan an ally and felt that it would be inappropriate to conduct military operations within that country or over it's airspace. Unlike President Bush, President Obama has at least a basic knowledge of that region and realized that Pakistan wasn't an ally in the true sense of the word, they were our "ally" only because we were funneling over $1.5 billion to them. Their actions (or lack of action if you will) clearly demonstrated otherwise. He campaigned on making the monetary aid to Pakistan conditional and would take Pakistan to task on combating terrorism. After taking office he shifted our focus back on Afghanistan and Pakistan by withdrawing troops from Iraq, increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and began conducting drone strikes in Pakistan. He enacted policies that were a complete 360 to Bush's policies and made getting Bin Laden foreign policy issue #1 (remember Bush basically gave up in March 2002). He then authorized the operation that was conducted yesterday, a carefully and smartly planned operation at that. We all know the results of that action.
Make no mistake, it was the renewed search enacted by President Obama's policies that led to our killing Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Certainly we can't give full credit to the President, it took the intelligence community, our troops, and others in our government to execute these policies. But we have to give credit where credit is due, Bin Laden is dead today because of President Obama's policies and President Bush nor his policies had anything to do with it.
I thought about ending this blog with that last paragraph but felt that I couldn't leave out this quote from our "ally." Former President Perves Musharraf was quoted as saying (in response to the US killing Bin Laden, you know the guy they were helping us get) "America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty. Handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct" and he went on to say "US forces should not have crossed into Pakistan." Some ally huh? Pakistan is a terrorist state, we will see that come to light as this story develops further, who knows what could have happened if Bush had come to that same realization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)