One thing that you have to admire about the Bush family is their ability to keep their children out of harm's way in Iraq. It takes a lot of nerve to send someone else's child to war while keeping your own safely in the United States. The Bush family is definitely up to the challenge, though. While some of their contemparies are dying in Iraq, the Bush twins are taking spinning classes at an exclusive Washington gym.
This ability to keep their children out of harm's way is not just limited to the Bushes. It is something that both the Congress and the Executive branch do quite well. When the vote was taken to give President Bush the authority to start the Iraqi War, only one Senator, Tim Johnson, D-South Dakota, had a child who would be going into combat as a result of his father's vote. To our knowledge the only Bush cabinet member who has had a child serve in Iraq is former Attorney General Ashcroft.
In fact, most of the cheerleaders for this war don't have to worry about their children fighting or dying in Iraq. It's never their children who are maimed, killed, or traumatized by the Iraqi War. It is never their families who receive the news that their child is coming home in a coffin. Here's our question: if the Iraqi War is such a great idea, why aren't the children of its backers volunteering to go fight it? For that matter, why isn't President Bush asking his supporters to encourage their children to enlist to spread democracy in the middle east?
____________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Sunday, April 16, 2006
People Who Hate Government Shouldn't Run Government
".....the country could, in fact, get very excited again about the opportunity to make government work", Newt Gingrich, April 16, 2006, talking about the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina.
The above quote illustrates a fundmental problem with Gingrich's logic. The problem is that a lot of conservatives in goverment don't want the government to work. They hate goverment, have contempt for government, and don't think that there is much that government can, and more importantly, should do. The problem is, of course, that the American public doesn't agree. So what happens is that radical conservatives hide their real feelings about government from the voters. They realize that American voters who aren't nearly as driven by ideology as by the desire for results won't accept candidates who come right out and say that they want to be elected so they can dismantle the government.
So they hide their real intentions. They don't say they want to destroy Social Security, they say they want to "improve it" and "reform it." They pass an education act that imposes mandates on public schools, but doesn't provide enough funding to meet these mandates, and call it the "No Child Left Behind" act. Tax breaks for the wealthy get packaged as "creating jobs."
Why do they resort to such dishonest language? Well, imagine what would happen if they actually used real language to describe what they want. Bush's poll numbers would be down below 30, instead of down below 40, in the "approve of" category.
Ever so often, though, something comes along with strips away the veneer and exposes the real aim of the radical right of the GOP. In September of 2005 it was Hurricane Katrina. Then it becomes very apparent that turning the government over to people who hate government can, literally, kill you.
This is the simple message that Democrats need to carry to the American people: you wouldn't turn your family, your home, or your church over to someone who hated them, why should you do that to your government?___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
The above quote illustrates a fundmental problem with Gingrich's logic. The problem is that a lot of conservatives in goverment don't want the government to work. They hate goverment, have contempt for government, and don't think that there is much that government can, and more importantly, should do. The problem is, of course, that the American public doesn't agree. So what happens is that radical conservatives hide their real feelings about government from the voters. They realize that American voters who aren't nearly as driven by ideology as by the desire for results won't accept candidates who come right out and say that they want to be elected so they can dismantle the government.
So they hide their real intentions. They don't say they want to destroy Social Security, they say they want to "improve it" and "reform it." They pass an education act that imposes mandates on public schools, but doesn't provide enough funding to meet these mandates, and call it the "No Child Left Behind" act. Tax breaks for the wealthy get packaged as "creating jobs."
Why do they resort to such dishonest language? Well, imagine what would happen if they actually used real language to describe what they want. Bush's poll numbers would be down below 30, instead of down below 40, in the "approve of" category.
Ever so often, though, something comes along with strips away the veneer and exposes the real aim of the radical right of the GOP. In September of 2005 it was Hurricane Katrina. Then it becomes very apparent that turning the government over to people who hate government can, literally, kill you.
This is the simple message that Democrats need to carry to the American people: you wouldn't turn your family, your home, or your church over to someone who hated them, why should you do that to your government?___________________________________________________________________
MCDAC gives permission for the use of the above without attribution.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Reader Submission: Illegal Immigration
I don't have a problem with "immigration". I do have a problem with the "illegal" part of theequation.
Yes, all of us have immigrants in our ancestry. I married a legal immigrant who is now a naturalizedcitizen.
What is the very first thing an illegal immigrant doeswhen he/she sets foot in the U.S. You got it, breaks our federal immigration laws. He/she starts out not respecting the laws of the land.
Does he think that he can pick and choose the laws he wishes to obey and those he doesn't? Can we citizens do the same and get away with it?Why is there any question about this problem? What else is going on here? Our laws are our laws or they aren't.
What would happen if huge numbers of American citizenscofflaws were to hold rally/demonstrations in ourcities? Like in a sting operation, might they berounded up and dealt with while so convenientlygathered in one place?
____________________________________________________________________
Reader submissions do not necessarily represent the views of MCDAC, its officers, or anyone associated with MCDAC.
Yes, all of us have immigrants in our ancestry. I married a legal immigrant who is now a naturalizedcitizen.
What is the very first thing an illegal immigrant doeswhen he/she sets foot in the U.S. You got it, breaks our federal immigration laws. He/she starts out not respecting the laws of the land.
Does he think that he can pick and choose the laws he wishes to obey and those he doesn't? Can we citizens do the same and get away with it?Why is there any question about this problem? What else is going on here? Our laws are our laws or they aren't.
What would happen if huge numbers of American citizenscofflaws were to hold rally/demonstrations in ourcities? Like in a sting operation, might they berounded up and dealt with while so convenientlygathered in one place?
____________________________________________________________________
Reader submissions do not necessarily represent the views of MCDAC, its officers, or anyone associated with MCDAC.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Reader Submission: Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
Bush is Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
By AngiePratt - PoliticalPosts.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:“Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.”
George Bush and his administration have obstructed justice. He and Cheney have systematically attempted to mislead not only the American people but also Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Although Bush and Cheney did not testify under oath, due to an inexplicable extension of courtesy, both have still provided information that obfuscated the White House's use of classified information for political gain. In so doing they actually caused the perpetration of a series of crimes by Libby and Karl Rove.
Since Bush and Cheney conveniently declassified the information, Libby and Rove didn't break the law. What they did was attempt to cover up the fact that the White House declassified information for immoral, self-serving purposes. Had this come out prior to the 2004 election, Bush and Cheney would have undoubtedly been out of a job. That, friends and neighbors, is called motive.
This is evidenced by the fact that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby attempted to get the White House to stand up for him by admitting what had occurred. According to R. Jeffrey Smith, of the Washington Post: 'Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."'
In the White House's denial of Libby's request for exoneration, Bush and Cheney created the situation that caused the crimes that Libby is accused of to occur. By refusing to come clean with the American public and Fitzgerald, the President and Vice President of the United States of America committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
The fact is, it isn't against the law for the President and/or Vice President of the United States to lie to the American public. It also isn't against the law for the President to selectively declassify documents. It is, however, against the law to obstruct justice whether or not you live at the White House.
____________________________________________________________________
The author of the above editorial gave MCDAC permission to re-produce it.
By AngiePratt - PoliticalPosts.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:“Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.”
George Bush and his administration have obstructed justice. He and Cheney have systematically attempted to mislead not only the American people but also Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Although Bush and Cheney did not testify under oath, due to an inexplicable extension of courtesy, both have still provided information that obfuscated the White House's use of classified information for political gain. In so doing they actually caused the perpetration of a series of crimes by Libby and Karl Rove.
Since Bush and Cheney conveniently declassified the information, Libby and Rove didn't break the law. What they did was attempt to cover up the fact that the White House declassified information for immoral, self-serving purposes. Had this come out prior to the 2004 election, Bush and Cheney would have undoubtedly been out of a job. That, friends and neighbors, is called motive.
This is evidenced by the fact that former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby attempted to get the White House to stand up for him by admitting what had occurred. According to R. Jeffrey Smith, of the Washington Post: 'Once the disclosure of Plame's name became the target of an investigation, Libby "implored White House officials" to issue a statement exonerating him, according to Fitzgerald's account. When he was rebuffed, Libby requested that Cheney intervene. He also wrote a draft statement by hand, asserting that he "did not leak classified information."'
In the White House's denial of Libby's request for exoneration, Bush and Cheney created the situation that caused the crimes that Libby is accused of to occur. By refusing to come clean with the American public and Fitzgerald, the President and Vice President of the United States of America committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
The fact is, it isn't against the law for the President and/or Vice President of the United States to lie to the American public. It also isn't against the law for the President to selectively declassify documents. It is, however, against the law to obstruct justice whether or not you live at the White House.
____________________________________________________________________
The author of the above editorial gave MCDAC permission to re-produce it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)