Comparing Bubble-Boy's First Year vs Obama's First Year on Terror Attacks

Okay, so let's get this straight: During Bubble-Boy's first year of being President, his administration ignored a warning regarding al-Qaeda's plans to attack America and approximately 3000 Americans died. In Obama's first year of being President, according to the right-wing pundits, his administration ignored warnings about the Nigerian who attempted to destroy an American airliner and no Americans died. Yet, amazingly, according to the right-wing pundits, it is the Obama administration and not the Bubble-boy administration that failed the national security test in its first year.

Here's what Democrats need to start saying: In Bush's first year of being president we lost 3,000 Americans to organized terrorism. In Obama's first year of being President, we lost zero Americans to organized terrorism. That simple fact, repeated over and over, says everything that needs to be said about which administration did a better job of protecting the American people.

Voinovich Only Shows Guts Where Dems Are Involved

We were never wild about the choice of Tim Geithner for Treasury Secretary. His background seemed to be that of a person too close to the financial services industry to suit us. One of the big problems in the financial services industries is that the people who run it are too infatuated with their own brilliance to suit us. They also possess an arrogance that only comes from being able to control huge sums of money that others have earned. They seem to think that the rules don't apply to them.

The revelation that Geither didn't pay all his taxes only reinforces our opinion. He comes across as a guy who believes that he the rules don't apply to him. So if his nomination was defeated, we wouldn't be heartbroken.

Having said that, however, we find the attacks on him by Republicans like George Voinovich to be just a tad off putting. When the Bushies were lying about weapons of mass destruction, allowing Americans to die after Hurricane Katrina, passing tax cuts that plunged us into huge deficits, where was Voinovich?

As a member of Bush's own party, his criticisms would have carried some weight. Yet, while he was somewhat critical of Bush's tax cuts, he voted for them. He voted for the war in Iraq and voted against resolutions to end the war. He was a typical Republican "moderate" voicing concerns about Bubble-Boy's policies, but, in the end, enabling him by voting his way in the House or Senate.

Now, though, that's there a Democrat in the White House, Georgie has found his voice. Now, he is unafraid to speak truth to power. Pardon us for not being impressed.

Same Old Bush _________(You Fill in the Blank)

Today Bubble-Boy told the American public that he realized that the economy was in a "tough time" but that there would be a rebound. Well, yes, there will be eventually be a rebound, but the question isn't if but when. Of course, BB has no way of knowing when, since he seems to have absolutely no knowledge of economics.

His observations about the economy rank up there with his belief that our nation could afford his tax cuts and still have a surplus, his confident assertions about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, Dick Cheney's warnings about Iraq and mushroom clouds, and observations about American troops being greeted as liberators.

On just about every major pronouncement of policy, BB has been proved wrong. To quote Stephen Colbert, "the facts are biased against the President."

McCain Supports Bush's Plans for Social Security

Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security is back. McCain told the Wall Street Journal that he favors Bubble-Boy's approach to "fixing" Social Security. This approach calls for privatizing Social Security and was so unpopular with the public that the Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't even have the legislation introduced.

This is from the Wall Street Journal article:

On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.

He also came out in favor of extending BB's reckless tax cuts to the rich and lowering the corporate tax rate. This means, of course, that the United States would face even more deficit spending. This is also from the WSJ article:

Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain's tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.

In all, his tax-cutting proposals could cost about $400 billion a year, according to estimates of the impact of different tax cuts by CBO and the McCain campaign. The cost will make it difficult for him to achieve his goal of balancing the budget by the end of his first term.

So let's see what the McCain record is:

1. Doesn't care if the U.S. is in Iraq for a 100 years;

2. Makes jokes about bombing Iran;

3. Has flip-flopped on Bubble-Boy's tax cuts, being against them in 2001 and now for them in 2008;

4. Wants to privatize Social Security; and

5. Wants to cut taxes for corporations.

Question for Bubble-Boy and His Supporters: If the Surge is Going so Well, Why Will There be More Troops in Iraq After it is Over than Before

Bubble-Boy had a statement to the press and that was that he won't promise that more troops will be coming home from Iraq this summer. This means that there will probably be around 8,000 more American troops in Iraq at the end of the "surge" than there were when the surge started. How, in any context, can this be called a success?

Maybe we are just being picky here, but wouldn't a success mean that more American troops could leave Iraq? What is success? Is success being measured by Iraqi standards or by American standards? That is, is the surge a success if it prevents Iraqi deaths or leads to American troops being withdrawn?

Maybe it is just us, but we believe that American troops should be dying for American interests, not Iraqi interests, not oil company interests, not neo-con interests, but American interests. You know, the interests of the American people as a whole.

If you look at the surge from that standpoint, then can you say it is a "success"?

GOP Deficits Transfer Wealth from Working Class to Rich Americans

Since 1980 the GOP has been in the thrall of supply side economics, aka, trickle down economics. What this theory holds is that if you cut taxes on the rich, they will invest the money in ways that will help create jobs. Proponents of the theory hold that not only will this create jobs, it will grow revenue since more people will be employed and therefore will pay more into the government in the form of taxes.

Now there are several problems with this idea. The first is that the money that the rich save may not be invested in ways that create jobs. Rich people may decide that the best thing to do is loan the money to the Federal government by buying Treasury bonds. It is probably the safest investment out there since such bonds are backed by the Federal Government. In fact, under Republican presidents who have cut taxes, Reagan and Bush, the Federal Government had to dramatically increase its indebtness to pay for the Federal Government. Under Bubble-Boy Bush, for example, the national debt went from around four trillion dollars to around nine trillion dollars.

This debt is not being financed by selling $25.00 savings bonds to grandmothers to give to their grandchildren for presents. No, this debt is being financed by selling $10,000.00 Treasury bonds to rich Americans and rich foreigners. This means that rich Americans can take their savings from Bush's tax cuts, and use the money to buy Treasury bonds, which pay a guaranteed rate of return.

Meanwhile, of course, under this plan the debt service charge for the Federal government keeps increasing. This means that an increasing share of your tax dollar is being used to make interest payments to rich Americans and foreigners, instead of being used to finance government spending on infrastructure, defense, education, and healthcare.

What is suprising isn't that Republicans do this stuff, what is surprising is that Democrats don't call them on it. When the Federal government runs a deficit, it has to engage in wealth transfer to pay for it by taking money from working class people in the form of taxes and giving it to the rich in the form of interest payments. Republicans like to rail against government programs that transfer wealth, except, of course, when the wealth is being transferred upwards. Then, they like it such programs just fine.

Once Again Bush Shows He Doesn't Understand Constitution He Swore to Uphold

The Hill newspaper is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is rejecting a claim by President Bush that he has pocket vetoed the defense authorization bill that was passed in December. The Constitution provides that if a President neither signs or vetoes legislation 10 days after he receives it from Congress, not counting Sundays, and the Congress is not in session, the bill doesn't become law. This provision is sometimes referred to as a "pocket veto" from the idea that the President put the bill in his or her "pocket" as opposed to taking official action.

The problem in this case is that the Congress hasn't been out of session because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been conducting short "pro-forma" sessions to keep Bubble-Boy from making recess appointments. Therefore, according to Pelosi and Reid, the conditions for a pocket veto don't exist. The Bush administration counters with the novel argument that it can avail itself of the pocket veto in this case because the House of Representatives is not in session. According to a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress this argument is, to use a technical term, bunk.

So now the question becomes what is the status of the legislation? Pelosi argues that if the bill is returned by the administration, she will regard it as having been vetoed and will schedule an override vote. The Bush administration argues that the Congress should pass new legislation. Once again Bush's lack of knowledge about what our Constitution does and does not permit him to do is responsible for uncertainity, this time involving funding our nation's defense.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel Calls for Direct Talks with Iran

The Washington Note, a blog run by Steve Clemons, reports today, October 31, 2007, that Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, R-NB, sent a letter to Bush calling for direct and uncontional talks with Iran. He copied the Secretaries of Defense and State, and the National Security Advisor. He apparently did not copy the Vice-President.

In this letter, which the Washington Note has reprinted on its site and which Cleamons says he did not get from Hagel or his staff, Hagel tells Bubble-Boy that:

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

Of course, this approach is not what The Duck Hunter wants and so we fully expect that Hagel's suggestion will be rejected, if not explicitly, then implicitly. It is a good reminder, though, that not every Republican has drank the Bush Kool-Aid.

Is This Report True or Just More Bush BS?

In this article in the New York Times off the record sources are reported as saying that the Bush Administration is looking at cutting back troops in Iraq, beginning in late 2007 and continuing on into 2008. Here is a quote from the article:

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.

Now, consider the timing of this report. The Republicans in Congress just went through a tough time sustaining Bush's veto. They are being warned by the Democrats that there will be many more votes this summer regarding Iraq. So-called "moderate" Republicans up for election in 2008 are demanding some action by September, although, according to the General in charge, September won't necessarily show much progress from the troop "surge."

What to do if you are the stubborn Bush Administration? Maybe you float this story to try and shore up Republican support with the hope that even if you aren't pulling troops out in September, you will do so by the 2008 election. In short, we think it is just more bs from Bubble-Boy and his gang.

Halliburton Moves Headquarters to Dubai

Halliburton is moving its headquarters from Houston to Dubai. This is just another example of how multi-national corporations don't see themselves as American companies, even though they are incorporated in the United States. They see themselves as international companies whose operations are not in America but world-wide, even though most of their employees are Americans and even though they want help and contracts from the American government.

Well, here is a thought: if they don't seem themselves as American companies, why should we? More importantly why should the American government keep helping them out with contracts, sweetheart tax provisions, and other perks? Isn't it past time to start thinking of them the way they think of themselves? Isn't it past time to give them the same consideration they give American workers and taxpayers, which is to say, none?

These people aren't loyal to any one country, they are loyal to themselves and since so much of their compensation is paid in share options, to their shareholders. They don't care about this country except to make money off of it. They are perfectly to fund Republican candidates like Bubble-Boy and Dick "The Duck Hunter" Cheney who will protect their interests while shipping jobs and capital overseas. They are perfectly willing to have American troops in Iraq so they can access its oil fields but don't want their own kids serving in BB's ill-advised war. In short, they are perfect examples of the "me-first", piggish attitude that characterizes this administration and its supporters.

Iraq Parliment Wants Timetable for U.S. Withdrawal

Okay, so this is the situation regarding the Iraq War: A majority of the American public wants a timetable for U.S. withdrawal; a majority of the Congress wants a timetable for American withdrawal; and now the Washington Post is reporting that a majority of the Iraqi Parliment has signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for American withdrawal. This is the first two paragraphs of the Washington Post story:

A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.

The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

Now this is the irony of the situation: Bubble-Boy, aka our President, keeps telling the American public and the world that we are working to establish a democracy in Iraq. He bragged about the elections in Iraq. He claims to respect Iraq's emerging democratic institutions. Yet when the elected representatives of the Iraqi people come out in favor of a timetable, and when the elected representatives of the American people come out in favor of a timetable, Bush acts like they are traitors and his surrogates accuse them of caving in to terrorism.

So what example of democracy is Bush sending to the Iraqis and to the rest of the world?

You can read the Washington Post article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.

Media Starts Talking About Cost of War

McClatchy News Bureau in Washington has a story out today about how the war is soon going to cost over 500 billion. According to the story this is about 10 times what Bubble-Boy and his band of idiots predicated this war would cost when he began it. In fact, again according to the article, he got rid of an economic advisor, Lawrence Lindsay, after Lindsay said that the war would cost around 200 billion.

What Democrats should start pointing out to people is that Bush and his radical right-wing followers would never spend that much money to help Americans. They would never spend it for health care, or for education, or to fight poverty, or for mass transit so we aren't dependent on foreign oil, no, not for things that help Americans. But they will gladly spend money to fight a a war to supposedly help the Iraqis build a democratic government.

Three thousand lives, 500 billion dollars, and no end in sight. If you know any Bush supporters, ask them if this war has been worth it.

Bush Pawning off Iraq Mess on Next Prez?

Okay, so maybe it really isn't a question, maybe it is just a fact. A story in Saturday's New York Times shows the cynicism of the Bush Administration. They have been having their allies in Congress and in the media complain that Democrats weren't giving Bubble-Boy's "surge", aka escalation, a chance. Well, it turns out that they don't expect any progress for months.

This is from the article: "The Bush administration will not try to assess whether the troop increase in Iraq is producing signs of political progress or greater security until September, and many of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now anticipate that any gains by then will be limited, according to senior administration officials."

September? Does this mean that our glorious leader's "surge" is going to last for several months? Yep. Here's another quote: "In interviews over the past week, the officials made clear that the White House is gradually scaling back its expectations for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The timelines they are now discussing suggest that the White House may maintain the increased numbers of American troops in Iraq well into next year."

Next year? Wait a minute, isn't that 2008, a presidential election year? What happens to our troops in the meantime? Check this out: "That prospect would entail a dramatically longer commitment of frontline troops, patrolling the most dangerous neighborhoods of Baghdad, than the one envisioned in legislation that passed the House and Senate this week."

So, here's what we got: a surge that isn't a surge since it is apparently a long-term commitment of more American troops. A president who won't tell us when we can expect American involvement to end in Iraq. A political party that plans to call anyone who disagrees with Bubble-Boy anti-American. In short, a receipe for more and more American casualities.

You can read the whole NYT article here.

Democrats Not Shying Away From Tax Debate

As this New York Times article points out, Democrats are not shying away from pointing out that it is time to undo the damage done by Bush's reckless tax cuts. What they are proposing is a ceiling on the Bush tax cuts so that they are not extended in 2010 for the richest Americans.

f you remember, in 2001 and in 2003, to make it look like they weren't blowing a big hole in the Federal Budget, the Republicans put a sun-set clause in their tax cuts. What this means is that most of them expire in 2010. Since that year is only three years away, much of the debate in the 2008 presidential campaign will be about the fate of those tax cuts.

The Republicans will try and paint the Democrats as standing for massive tax increases. The reality is, of course, something different since the expiration of the tax cuts in 2010 would just restore the tax rates that existed when Bubble-Boy took office. There is a suggestion from the head of a liberal advocacy group that the Republicans have put the Democrats in a box. This is because if they leave the tax cuts in place they will less money to confront the problems caused by the retirement of baby-boomers and the impact on Social Security and Medicare. If they do away with the tax cuts, they get painted as tax and spend liberals.

The solution is to do what they are doing and confront the Republicans head on. Point out that it is time to undo the damage of tax cuts that benefit the middle class. Be bold and stand for something besides just getting elected. This seems to be exactly what they are doing.

George Voinovich Shows His True Colors: Bush Lap-Dog

There were two votes in the United States Senate that showed George Voinovich's true colors. The one was a vote on a cloture motion to stop debate on the Medicare prescription drug bill that would allow the government to negotiate with the insurance companies for the best possible price for drugs. Voinovich voted with the Republican leadership and the Bush Administration. (You can see that vote here.)

The second vote was on a cloture motion to stop debate on a bill that would fund the nation's intelligence agencies, but require more disclosure from the Bush Administration. Again, Voinovich voted with the Republican leadership and the Bush Administration. (You can see that vote here.)

Time and time again Voinovich talks the talk of opposing Bubble-Boy and his destructive policies, but, when it comes to walking the walk, he backs down. He won't confront Bush because in the final analysis he cares more about making right-wing Republicans happy than making most Ohioans happy. Since he has been doing it since 2000 and got re-elected in 2004 by a sizable vote, he thinks he can get away with it forever. Maybe he can, but maybe he can't. Its up to Ohio Dems to insist that Voinovich stop being a Bush enabler.

UPDATE: You can read the New York Times article about the Senate vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill here.

For Bush & Rove Everything is About Right-Wing Republicanism

Although he campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in order to get power, Bubble-Boy Bush and his "brain", King Karl Rove, are right wing zealots. This is shown by their desire to do away with Social Security, by their response to Hurricane Katrina, by their willingness to use unilateral military force in Iraq, and by the current scandal with the fired U.S. Attorneys.

This is also shown by this article in the New York times about King Karl's influence in picking U.S. District Attorneys. Now, let's be clear about something: all presidents are influenced by politics when making selections for U.S. District Attorneys. Those positions are patronage positions and are political plums that presidents get to hand out.

What makes Rove's involvement in this process somewhat different is that he was interested in advancing a particular philosophy in making these political appointments. That philosophy is dedicated to reducing the role of government in people's lives, to increasing the prerogatives of corporations in our society, and to increasing the power and influence of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Anyone who gets in the way of their agenda, even other Republicans, gets cut down without mercy.

What is also obvious about Rove and Bush is that all ethical & moral considerations are subordinate to their desire to have a right-wing government. If they have to trash someone's reputation to get and maintain power, lie about their opponents, mislead the Congress, lie to the American people, to name just a few of the things they have done in their political careers, so be it.

Republican Attorneys Incensed over Firing of U.S. Attorneys

The article linked to in this entry's title reports on how former U.S. Attorneys, Republicans, are incensed over the firing of the U.S. Attorneys on December 7th, 2006. The former U.S. Attorneys don't dispute the Bush Administration's decision to terminate the U.S. Attorneys, or even necessarily why it was done, but they are upset with they consider the ruining of the reputations of the U.S. Attorneys involved. This article is interesting for several reasons.

One is that Republicans are starting to realize that the man they wanted to be king, Bubble-Boy Georgie, has absolutely no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself and his own family. In the Bush world, people are meant to serve them and once they are of no use, they are disposed of and the Bushes move on. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.

Second is that, at least in this story, the former Republican U.S. Attorneys don't seem upset that the Bush Administration sacked them for not carrying out political hits on Democrats or for purging U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted Republicans for corruption. They are mad because the professional reputations of the attorneys has been damaged. If true, this says a lot about their priorities both as lawyers and as people.

Third is that Republicans don't seem to have empathy or sympathy for people unless it affects them or people like them. An extreme example of this was when Bush went down to Mississippi and lamented about Sen. Trent Lott's house being destroyed in Katrina while poor people were dying in the streets of New Orleans. If it doesn't happen to them or their friends then it doesn't matter.

What Happens When You Start a Second War Without Finishing the First One

The New York Times has a story in its February 19th edition, which you can read by clicking on the link in this title's entry, about how Al Qaeda chiefs are re-establishing control over their world-wide network. They are doing this by basing themselves in the mountainous region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are getting away with this because Bubble-Boy Bush started one war without finishing the first one against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He was so eager to attack Iraq that he didn't stop and make sure that he had completely destroyed Al Qaeda before embarking on that adventure.

Bush likes to say that the Iraqi War is part of the War on Terror. Well, it seems to us that the first thing he should have done with his War on Terror is make sure that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-2001 were destroyed. He didn't and now all Americans are at risk from further attacks by these evil people. Just another screw-up from this administration.

Karl Rove: "I don't want my 17 year old son picking tomatoes."

Karl Rove allegedly said that at a meeting of GOP House members when asked to explain Bubble-Boy's immigration policy. The meaning is pretty clear: "my son is better than that, and therefore that kind of work should be done by immigrants." That is how the conservative National Review took his comments when one of their staffers blasted Rove for making such an elitist statement. Here's a news flash for King Karl: When the National Review, a magazine started by William Buckley, is attacking you for your stupid statements, you are in big trouble. (Click on the link in this entry's title to read more)