Jack's posts with tag: wdyha?
Have you reaffirmed your allegiance to our Nation today?
Loyalty Day, 2007
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
America was founded by patriots who risked their lives to bring freedom to our Nation. Today, our citizens are grateful for our Founding Fathers and confident in the principles that lead us forward. On Loyalty Day, we celebrate the blessings of freedom and remember our responsibility to continue our legacy of liberty.
Our Nation has never been united simply by blood, birth, or soil, but instead has always been united by the ideals that move us beyond our background and teach us what it means to be Americans. We believe deeply in freedom and self-government, values embodied in our cherished documents and defended by our troops over the course of generations. Our citizens hold the truths of our founding close to their hearts and demonstrate their loyalty in countless ways. We are inspired by the patriotic service of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform with honor and decency. The military spouses and families who stand by their loved ones represent the best of the American spirit, and we are profoundly grateful for their sacrifice. Our country is strengthened by the millions of volunteers who show deep compassion toward their neighbors in need. All citizens can express their loyalty to the United States by flying the flag, participating in our democracy, and learning more about our country's grand story of courage and simple dream of dignity.
The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." This Loyalty Day, and throughout the year, I ask all Americans to join me in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Loyalty Day. I call upon the people of the United States to participate in this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day as a symbol of pride in our Nation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH
From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-3.html
With homage to:Happy Loyalty Day, Fascists!
The Quiet Plan to Kill Medicare
(My estemed collegue Amy Traub wrote this post for us so I can't take credit). President Bush's new health care proposals have so many destructive features it took DMI nine pages to outline them all
in our State of the Union rapid response last month. And we were really
trying to brief. But it appears that the President didn't even mention
all of the harmful plans he has in store for the nation's health care
system. Like getting rid of Medicare as we know it. You read that correctly. The President's proposed 2008 budget includes a plan to do away with Medicare. Why haven't you heard this before? On his blog, "Beat the Press"
economist Dean Baker takes the media to task for failing to report on
the plan to phase out one of the nation's most crucial -- and treasured
-- public programs even as he cogently explains just how the President
aims to drive guaranteed health care for our nation's seniors into the
sunset. The plan involves means-testing many Medicare benefits so they
won't be available to anyone making over $80,000 a year. That income
level isn't indexed to inflation, so over the years the income
threshhold will drop in real terms, reducing Medicare to a program for
only the poor, then only the very poor... and Medicare is gone as a
vital support for all seniors.
Yes, this is the same President who just expanded Medicare with a flawed and yet hugely expensive prescription drug benefit. And it's the same President who just said in his State of the Union
that "when it comes to health care, government has an obligation to
care for the elderly." So maybe it's no surprise that he didn't
announce his plan to wriggle out of that obligation in the very same
speech. And maybe the media figures that the President's plan to
gradually eliminate the program more than 40 million seniors rely upon
for their health care would never be enacted, or would be repealed or
adjusted before it had a chance to fully decimate Medicare. But as Dean
Baker points out, under Bush's plan "many middle income elderly people
would face the loss of their Medicare subsidy before Social Security
faces any funding shortfall" and we've all heard the hue and cry about the 'crisis' facing Social Security. Contrast
the media's (lack of) coverage of the planned phase-out of Medicare
with the response to presidential candidate John Edwards' plan for
universal health coverage. A look at the headlines suggests the most
important thing about Edwards' plan is not that it would cover every
American by 2012, or that it builds on the current employer-based
system, or even that it would be more affordable for the middle class.
Instead headline after headlinea tax increase (really a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year). trumpets the fact that his plan involves Yes,
folks, to get health care, you have to pay for it. And if you want to
save a lot of money, I suppose that one way to do it is to gradually
stop offering public health care to the elderly. But by highlighting
the proposed budget savings and tax increases rather than what these
numbers mean for the ability of actual people get the medical care they
need, the media is doing us all a disservice.
Elana Levin is Communications Manager at The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy and runs the DMIBlog.
Tonight
on 60 Minutes, Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA’s Europe
division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice
President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and
others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign
minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had
reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program. Watch it:
BRADLEY: According to Drumheller, CIA Director George
Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high
level meeting at the White House.
DRUMHELLER: The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice…
BRADLEY: And at that meeting…?
DRUMHELLER: They were enthusiastic because they said they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.
BRADLEY: And what did this high level source tell you?
DRUMHELLER: He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program.
BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on
good authority from a source within Saddam’s inner circle that he
didn’t have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?
DRUMHELLER: Yes.
BRADLEY: There’s no doubt in your mind about that?
DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.
BRADLEY: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.
DRUMHELLER: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they
were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the
policy.
Read the full transcript HERE.
UPDATE: More at CBS News.
O'Reilly: U.S. should leave Iraq "as fast as humanly possible" because "there are so many nuts in the country"
Summary: Bill O'Reilly suggested that the United States "hand over
everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "[t]here
are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't
control them." O'Reilly has previously called those advocating
immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler
appeasers.
During the February 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly
suggested that the United States "hand over everything to the Iraqis as
fast as humanly possible" because "[t]here are so many nuts in the
country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them." O'Reilly
then claimed that the "big mistake" was actually "the crazy-people
underestimation."
As Media Matters for America has documented, during a November 30, 2005, appearance on NBC's Today, O'Reilly called those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq "pinheads" and compared them to Hitler appeasers.
O'Reilly's comments followed his mention of a report regarding
Karbala, a province in the Shiite-controlled Iraqi south. O'Reilly
falsely claimed that "the mayor of Karbala ... has banned any further
government dealings with the American military in his province." In
fact, according to a February 20 Associated Press report,
the Karbala governing council suspended contact with U.S. forces "until
U.S. forces apologize" for their behavior during a recent visit to the
governor's office. The Karbala provincial spokesman complained that
"U.S. soldiers brought dogs inside the [governor's office] building,"
which was "considered an insult by the council," and "blocked roads
leading to the governor's office, preventing council members and the
governor from parking cars outside the building." While the AP reported
the Karbala spokesman's specific complaints, O'Reilly characterized the
complaints as "the mayor of Karbala" alleging that U.S. soldiers were
"not behaving well."
From the February 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Somewhat of a disturbing report out of Iraq, and it's more
important than it first appears. The governor of -- or the mayor of
Karbala, which is a town in the south part of Iraq, Shiite-controlled,
has banned any further government dealings with the American military
in his province, saying that they're not behaving well.
Now, it's a small little thing, but I picked up on it, because here is the essential problem in Iraq. There are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them. And I don't -- we're never gonna be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible. Because we just can't control these crazy people. This is all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America: They didn't -- it was the crazy-people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them -- still don't. But they're just all over the place.
— S.G.
Posted to the web on Wednesday February 22, 2006 at 3:02 PM EST
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON NOV 21, 2005 21:25:35 ET XXXXX
CNN MARKS CHENEY: NETWORK FLASHES 'X' OVER VP'S FACE DURING LIVE SPEECH
**Exclusive**
At 11:04:45 AM ET Monday CNN was airing Vice President Dick Cheney's
speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington --
when a large black 'X' repeatedly flashed over the vice president's
face!
The 'X' over Cheney's face appeared each time less than a second, creating an odd subliminal effect.
As this DRUDGE REPORT screen capture reveals, while one 'X' flashed
over Cheney's face CNN ran a headline at the bottom of its screen:
"CHENEY: I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO CRITICIZE."
One top White House source expressed concern about what was aired over CNN.
"Is someone in Atlanta trying to tell us something?"
A CNN spokesman did not return repeated calls late Monday night.
Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:03:24 PM PDT
(From the diaries -- kos)
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian
state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought
at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were
going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's
known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down
to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children.
Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150
metres is done for."
-- The Independent, US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah
"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an
effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at
two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon
against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could
not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at
the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
-- Field Artillery Magazine, via Steven D
I think we need to take a step back from the newest Fallujah
revelations. There's been a lot of confusion over what is or isn't a
"chemical weapon" vs. an "incendiary"; what aspects of the Geneva
conventions the United States is or is not signatory to; and whether or
not the United States is still bound by rules of warfare that they are
not direct signatories to.
Allow me to try to clear things up, if I can.
First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children.
As a natural corollary to this goal, I think the United States should avoid
dropping munitions on civilian neighborhoods which, as a side effect,
melt the skin off of children. You can call them "chemical weapons" if
you must, or far more preferably by the more proper name of
"incendiaries". The munitions may or may not precisely melt the skin
off of children by setting them on fire; they do melt the skin off of
children, however, through robust oxidation of said skin on said
children, which is indeed colloquially known as "burning". But let's
try to avoid, for now, the debate over the scientific phenomenon of
exactly how the skin is melted, burned, or caramelized off of the aforementioned children. I feel quite
confident that others have put more thought into the matter of how to
melt the skin off of children than I have, and will trust their
judgment on the matter.
Now, I know that we may be melting the skin off of children in order to
give them freedom, or to prevent Saddam Hussein from possibly melting
the skins off of those children at some future date. These are good and
noble things to bring children, especially the ones who have not been
killed by melting their skin.
I know, as well, that we do not drop "chemical weapons" on Iraq. We
may, in the course of fighting insurgents in civilian neighborhoods,
drop "incendiaries" or other airborne weaponry which may melt the skins
off of children as an accidental side effect of illuminating their
neighborhoods or melting the skins off their neighbors. In that this
still can be classified as melting the skins off of children, I feel
comfortable in stating that the United States should not condone the
practice. (This may mean, when fighting in civilian neighborhoods, we
take nuanced steps to avoid melting the skin off of children, such as
not dropping munitions that melt the skin off of children.)
And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United
States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part
of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children.
But all that aside, there are very good reasons, even in a time of war, not to melt the skin off of children.
- First, because the insurgency will inevitably be hardened by tales of American forces melting the skin off of children.
- Second, because the civilian population will harbor
considerable resentment towards Americans for melting the skin off of
their children.
- Third, BECAUSE IT FUCKING MELTS THE SKIN OFF OF CHILDREN.
And, unless Saddam Hussein had a brigade or two consisting of six year
olds, we can presume that children, like perhaps nine tenths or more of
their immediate families, are civilians.
These are, admittedly, nuanced points. "But Hunter", I can hear many
Americans say, "isn't it a natural byproduct of a war of preemption,
er, I mean liberation, to melt the skin off of children?"
Why yes, yes it is. Melting the skin off of children is an inevitable
part of urban warfare, which is one of the reasons that most military
planners and foreign policy leaders prefer to avoid putting themselves
in positions where melting the skin off of children comes into play.
George Herbert Walker Bush, when contemplating whether or not to engage
in the urban warfare that would, in all likelihood, melt the skin off
of children by exposing United States forces to a situation where city
defenders would be interspersed with those said civilians, choose the
course of not putting his forces in a position where melting the skin
off of children would prove necessary.
In any event, street fighting in neighborhoods where there are, indeed,
children -- as is evidenced by their skin, lying over there -- may or
may not be a wise military decision. But it is certainly
true that the whole child-melting decision, pro or con, should be
treated with some gravity, and perhaps methods of combat which do not
melt the skin off of children should be considered.
Because melting the skin off of children, as it turns out, is a very
good way to turn the opinion of the American population against a war
in general:
So in conclusion, I am going to come out, to the continuing
consternation of Rush Limbaugh and pro-war supporters everywhere, as
being anti-children-melting, as a matter of general policy.
Furthermore, I would suggest to the President of the United States that
if you find yourself in the position where your on-the-ground forces
find melting the skin off of children
to be the preferable of all available options, your military outlook is
well and truly fucked, and you might perhaps start considering
alternative means of stabilizing the country.
Thank you for your time.
| |
