|
Post by Travelinman on Aug 18, 2005 13:07:02 GMT -5
This is an editorial from The Lone Star Iconoclast:
Unanswered Questions
There once was a word. It was called “accountability.” It meant that when a tragedy or mishap occurs, truthful answers would naturally follow. The requisite for truthful answers extends beyond the “why.” It is a mechanism geared toward avoidance of the same tragedy again. Cindy Sheehan is seeking answers, as are Americans throughout the nation. The Administration’s answers relating to America’s involvement in the war with Iraq keep changing, open proof that lies have been told. The recently unearthed Downing Street Memos take it a step deeper, indicating that a hidden agenda existed prior to day one of the involvement. Then we learned of the illegal ouster of an agent who was poised to blow the lid off the “fixing of facts” aimed at devising an untruthful reason to go to war. One thing is a fact: soldiers who die or are injured while serving under the flag of their country are patriots, having made an ultimate sacrifice, and should be always honored for this. It is the venue of politicians to assure that the expenditures of these lives are minimized and that the political reasons to activate a military into aggression are solid, sincere, and a last resort. This is the basis of one mother’s complaint. However, accurate answers and the attached motives remain hidden, as untruths have already been exposed. “Faith” is an acceptable virtue when forfeited to a supreme being. But even faith requires questions, for without them, it is worthless, blind. Remember President Reagan’s motto when dealing with the nuclear arms race and the Soviet Union: “Trust must verify.” “Facts” are the required measure on the world slide rule in assuring the accountability and motives of a politician. Yet unanswered questions prevail within this Administration — even beyond those related to the war in Iraq. These, too, might be asked of the President: • With this country so severely in debt, why did you grant tax cuts to the very wealthy? • Why did you attempt to undo our country’s Social Security system and why did you go back on your pre-election promise to not raid the Social Security trust fund? • Why did you develop plans, and then enact them, to disable fundamental portions of the Constitution of the United States? • Why did you try to stop the efforts of the 9/11 commission? Why don’t you want a full investigation as to what happened? • Why did you grant no-bid contracts to the Vice President’s former company? • Why have you promoted the export of American jobs overseas? • Why aren’t you supporting the needs of our veterans? • Why don’t you ever listen to or surround yourself with Americans who might not agree with you politically? • Why was Jeff Gannon planted in your press conferences to throw softball questions to you? • Why are depleted uranium weapons being used in Iraq? And there are many more. But this is the question of the moment: Why didn’t you stop for five minutes on your way back to the ranch Friday to answer Cindy Sheehan’s questions? You made time for a fund-raiser, time to throw the first pitch at a baseball game, time to meet with foreign heads of government — but no time to meet with and answer the questions of a mother whose son was killed in Iraq? This is what “war presidents” do. There is no vacation from reality. Ms. Sheehan made the long trip from California to Texas and has spent over a week in the boiling Texas sun, camping as close as she can get to your gate, fending off fire ants, attempting to let you know that she needs to speak with you. Her quest for your attention is important in that she represents many other mothers who want truthful answers to the same questions.. How hard can it be?
Well in MHO it is very hard, WHEN YOU KNOW THAT EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS A LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This really burns me. This idiot of a president can not find time to talk to the mother of a "fallen hero" she gave this country her child. Isn't that what they're all being called. I guess heros are not a special as they once where........Well Mr. president, ARE THEY?
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Aug 21, 2005 3:15:44 GMT -5
Travelinman, did you expect anything different? Like I said, he's all mouth and no balls. That editoral hit just the tip of the iceberg. I'm fed up with it all and with all of them.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Aug 29, 2005 1:01:15 GMT -5
He couldn't stop for 5 minutes on his way back to the ranch (in his gas guzzlin' SUV no less ) to talk to her because he literally can't...we all know the emperor has no clothes ...or as the snizz so succinctly put it ;D ...he ain't got the balls to back up his big mouth. Gee...and Rove must be slipping!! Took 'em a while to come up with their vile plot to spin Cindy into yet another of their manufactured imaginary 'villains.' Sorry DuHbya...but just as neither Hussein or a single Iraqi had anything to do with 9/11...you're BS fairytale doesn't work here with me either ...Cindy isn't there as an anti-war protester...She's there as a mother who lost her son- to a lie- and she wants your personal answer to the burning question at least 1/2 of all Americans have been asking for the past 3 years... WHAT is the noble cause?? WHAT freedoms of ours have you sent our soldiers to defend in IRAQ- putting their lives on the line- many of whom are being horribly maimed and killed?? WHY has every other country that's been the target of a terrorist attack since 9/11 captured the perpetrators of those attacks...yet Osama and Omar are still at large- 4 years later?? You refuse to answer any of 'us'...but since you don't have any of your own- the very least you can do is temporarily borrow some real balls and face the mother of a son you sacrificed...We already know you have no conscience or compassion- but show some RESPECT for once in your life!!
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 2, 2005 22:15:10 GMT -5
Once again, Nero fiddles while Rome burns and the man just keeps right on adding to his shining resume. Newsview: Rhetoric Not Matching in ReliefBy RON FOURNIER WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent's identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn't match the public's view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast. As New Orleans descended into anarchy, top Bush administration officials congratulated each other for jobs well done and spoke of water, food and troops pouring into the ravaged city. Television pictures told a different story. "What it reminded me of the other day is 'Baghdad Bob' saying there are no Americans at the airport,'' said Rich Galen, a Republican consultant in Washington. He was referring to Saddam Hussein's reality-challenged minister of information who denied the existence of U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. To some critics, President Bush seemed to deny the existence of problems with hurricane relief this week. He waited until Friday to acknowledged that "the results are not acceptable,'' and even then the president parsed his words Republicans worry that he looks out of touch defending the chaotic emergency response. "It's impossible to defend something like this happening in America,'' said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "No one can be happy with the kind of response which we've seen in New Orleans,'' said Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Bush got himself in trouble by trying to put the best face on a horrible situation. The strategy is so common in Washington that operatives have a name for it, ``spin,'' and the Bush White House has perfected the shady art. This is what the president had to say about the relief effort earlier in the week: "There's a lot of food on its way, a lot of water on the way, and there's a lot of boats and choppers headed that way.'' "Thousands have been rescued. There's thousands more to be rescued. And there's a lot of people focusing their efforts on that.'' "As we speak, people are moving into New Orleans area to maintain law and order.'' Technically, the president may have been right. Help was on the way, if not fast enough to handle one of the largest emergency response efforts in U.S. history. But the words were jarring to Americans who saw images of looters, abandoned corpses and angry, desperate storm victims. It was worse when he was wrong. In one interview, Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.'' In fact, many experts predicted a major storm would bust New Orleans' flood-control barriers. One reason the public relations effort backfired on Bush is that Americans have seen it before. On Iraq alone, the rhetoric has repeatedly fallen far short of reality. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. The mission wasn't accomplished in May 2003. Most allies avoided the hard work of his "coalition of the willing.'' And dozens of U.S. soldiers have died since Vice President Dick Cheney declared that insurgents were in their ``last throes.'' Bush often touts the health of the U.S. economy, which is fair game because many indicators point in that direction. But the public doesn't share his rosy view. The global economy had most Americans worried about job and pension security even before rising gas added to their anxieties. Bush's spokesman said anybody involved in leaking the identity of a CIA agent would be fired, but no action has been taken against officials accused of doing so. The president himself promised to fully pay for his school reform plan and strip pork-barrel spending from a major highway bill. The school money fell short. The pork thrived. The list goes on. But this didn't start with Bush. Former President Clinton certainly had his rhetoric vs. reality problems. Indeed, most politicians do. At some point, however, the spin can take a toll. Bush crafted a reputation as a blunt-speaking, can-do leader from his response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Five months later, about three-fourths of Americans viewed him as honest. But his trust rating dropped gradually to a slim majority by the 2004 election year and remained at the mid-50s through the early part of 2005. In August, an AP-Ipsos poll showed 48 percent of respondents considered Bush honest, the lowest level of his presidency. Americans like straight-shooters, especially in an era that has seen vast failures by government and social institutions. People are witnessing another institutional failure in the Gulf Coast, and Bush reluctantly acknowledged it Friday. "This is a storm that's going to require immediate action now,'' he said. Few would disagree. EDITOR'S NOTE - Ron Fournier has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 1993.
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Sept 3, 2005 2:29:22 GMT -5
Baghdad Bob, I forgot about that guy! It's funny how it took a Republican to make that comparison ;D Damned Dems blew it again! And pardon me while I find some amusement in Annan offering Bush the services of the UN's disaster experts for guidance in helping him deal with the situation. When the hell is this country going to finally get it's head out of it's ass with the friggin namby pamby "it can't happen here" bullsh#t? In my years on this earth, I've seen devastation in this country that equaled this, but never anything so disgraceful in my life. There's a lot of explaining to do, and it's not only the catastrophic failure at the federal level. Yea as usual, Nero was sitting on his ass fiddling again but he wasn't the only one. There was plenty of warning, so why didn't local officials and governors declare states of emergency before the storm struck? Why weren't there mandatory evacuations of hospitals, nursing homes and residents before the storm struck? It's done all the time, a lot of time with a hell of a lot less notice. Why didn't these governors declare states of emergency and have National Guardsmen in place and standing by and ready to move in before the storm struck? These are all vulnerable areas, so why didn't they have any permanently designated emergency shelters in place that were fully stocked with life sustaining supplies? We have them here and I can't say I don't know of anywhere up and down the eastern and western seaboards that don't. What about boats and evac choppers that were moved to a secure place so they could be quickly moved into place to immediately start search and rescue? There wasn't the slightest shred of friggin common sense preparedness on any level. What those people have been subjected to is an unspeakable disgrace there is no excuse for!
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 8, 2005 22:07:47 GMT -5
When the hell is this country going to finally get it's head out of it's ass with the friggin namby pamby "it can't happen here" bullsh#t? Looking back over history, I'd fathom to say never. When some disaster does happen, only those directly affected truly understand. The rest sympathize, mostly out of the fear it could happen to them. Then as a society we react out of fear and paranoia and resort to extremism, an extreme and dangerous shift that focuses only on the fear du jour to the exclusion of all else. As the effects of whatever disaster has taken place fade off in time, it becomes a distant memory that no one can any longer directly relate to, and the cycle of complacency takes root again until the next catastrophe. There are no words to begin to describe the cataclysmic failures on every level. As much as my heart goes out to all those who were caught in the middle, this wasn't the start of those failures, although hopefully this horrendous tragedy will be the beginning of the end to them. It may sound heartless, but perhaps now all those people who supported this administration and put all those inept and unqualified people back into office will finally realize their mistake and see that the rest of us weren't quite as unpatriotic and un-American as they were led down the garden path to believe.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Sept 19, 2005 0:24:49 GMT -5
Yeah well Roland, this may sound even more heartless - but that's politics...nothing but a vicious cycle that breeds corruption, which begets patronage and croynism and results in utter incompetence. And the people of this country let it happen through indifference, laziness...and sadly too often- simply complete ignorance. And ya'll left out one bunch...Congress. They're the ones who've let Bush run amok. They're the ones who let themselves get caught up in hysterical 'terrorism' paranoia.They're the ones who approved needlessly creating the counterproductive monolith: Dept. of Homeland 'Security.' While I don't believe they had any vote on Brown- they did on Chertoff and approved his appointment (as I myself wondered what the hell kind of qualifications does a lawyer/judge possess on matters of emergency management and security?? ). And the one glaring thing that no one I've noticed has picked up on amidst this epic failure...Why is it that Congress and Bush saw fit to interrupt a previous vacation and rushed back to DC to overstep their authority and meddle in the private family affairs of one unfortunate woman with no hope of recovery...yet when millions of lives were in very imminent danger- it wasn't something important enough for them to do the same- when overall public safety and welfare is their job and responsibility...especially when it became immediately obvious that the local and state governments were incapable of doing so??
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Sept 19, 2005 10:43:03 GMT -5
Oh I've noticed it plenty in the Op-Eds out there. When he was able to jet up for Terry Schaivo but he took his sweet time on this, they noticed. I've heard this described as his Waterloo.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 28, 2005 22:21:21 GMT -5
I've heard this described as his Waterloo. Given the more obvious parallels between Custer and W, I was almost tempted to say Little Big Horn. But Waterloo does seem to be the more appropriate choice. ;D
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 28, 2005 22:28:33 GMT -5
Yeah well Roland, this may sound even more heartless - but that's politics...nothing but a vicious cycle that breeds corruption, which begets patronage and cronyism and results in utter incompetence. And the people of this country let it happen through indifference, laziness...and sadly too often- simply complete ignorance. And ya'll left out one bunch...Congress. No LS, it's not heartless, it's the truth and often the truth can be a sad and ugly thing.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 28, 2005 22:31:17 GMT -5
Gov't Split on Katrina Victim Health Care
By KEVIN FREKING
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is fighting a congressional effort that would give low-income hurricane victims the same expanded access to health care under Medicaid that survivors of the Sept. 11 attacks received.
Gulf Coast governors pressed for action Wednesday amid reports that hundreds of poor people in Louisiana had been denied Medicaid benefits.
``We've got people who have needs today,'' said Gov. Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana.
Blanco and Govs. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Bob Riley of Alabama endorsed extending Medicaid coverage to Katrina victims who otherwise would not be eligible to participate in the program. The cost of the legislation, which includes other measures, is estimated at $9 billion.
The White House says the legislation is unnecessary because the government has created a temporary fund that is available when health care providers treat uninsured storm victims.
``We feel like this is a very good approach to meet their needs immediately,'' Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman Christina Pearson.
Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Max Baucus, D-Mont., the bill's sponsors, questioned whether the fund would have enough money to compensate providers and whether the administration has the legal authority to set up such a fund.
``Could you please explain to us why the Katrina evacuees do not deserve the same assistance provided the people of New York,'' the senators wrote HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt.
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration approved a waiver program for New York that extended Medicaid coverage to people not normally eligible for Medicaid. The senators said they modeled their bill on that approach. But Pearson said expanding eligibility actually was approved before the terrorist strikes and was not connected to the events of Sept. 11.
Leavitt wrote Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Tuesday to say that his department is ``providing relief quickly, rather than waiting to implement an unprecedented new federal program as envisioned'' by the Grassley-Baucus bill.
Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said four or five senators were blocking action on the bill. Baucus tried to bring the bill up for a vote again Wednesday night, but Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected.
He also made it clear that the White House needs to work with him if it expects his committee later this year trim the size of the Medicaid program by $10 billion over five years.
``People at the White House need to know that the chances of our getting a (budget cut) bill moving out of my committee are very difficult if we don't get this behind us,'' Grassley said.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said the administration's proposal would result in states such as hers sending a bill to Louisiana and Mississippi for the cost of providing Medicaid services to residents forced to evacuate.
She said the Senate has become paralyzed by ``the web of red tape that this administration is spinning over our ability to provide the basic needs of health care to people who have been devastated.''
Medicaid workers in Louisiana reported that several hundred people have been rejected for benefits under the health insurance program for the poor, even though the hurricane has left them destitute.
Pearson said the department was working out an agreement with the state, similar to those reached with Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
Medicaid provides health care coverage for low-income people, primarily children, their parents, pregnant women, the disabled and the poor in need of long-term care. Thousands upon thousands of adults in Gulf Coast state do not fall into those categories.
How to help them is at the heart of the disagreement between senators and the administration. But other differences exists, too. For example, the Senate bill provides a relief fund so those with private insurance can pay the premiums needed to maintain the policy.
In a statement, the National Governors Association has praised the Grassley and Baucus bill. ``You have been willing to work with us in making sure that the needs of our most vulnerable citizens are addressed,'' they said.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said he wanted to expand Medicaid only to those people who were affected by the hurricane. He also wanted the help to be temporary. He said Congress would act ``with the help of the administration or without them.''
``I want action now. Our people are hurting. They need help. We're asking you for it, but to do it in a responsible way,'' Lott said.
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Sept 29, 2005 21:34:35 GMT -5
Haven't the once mighty become meek! Is Lott up for re-election next year? But Waterloo does seem to be the more appropriate choice. ;D Ow Roland man, that's cold. How friggin politically incorrect of you to make jokes, it's not funny -------- Nah, hell yea it is. ;D I reckon since El Capitan's taking this ship down with all of us on board and there ain't much any of us can do about it we may as well make the best of it and have a laugh. ;D I ran across this little blurb that the news barely mentioned. And we're supposed to be the most advanced and powerful country in the world. Torrential Rains, Floods Kill 56 in IndiaBy OMER FAROOQ HYDERABAD, India (AP) - Heavy downpours sent rivers over their embankments, killing at least 56 people and forcing the evacuation of thousands in southwest India, officials said Wednesday. Helicopters plucked people from danger in the worst hit areas of Andhra Pradesh state and delivered thousands of tons of food, medicine and blankets to camps for the displaced. Boats rescued hundreds of others. The rains flooded railroad tracks and major highways along the coast, marooning hundreds of trucks, buses and cars, said disaster relief official Shashank Goel in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh. Relief workers evacuated more than 140,000 residents of low-lying villages to 465 relief camps set up in government buildings and schools located on higher ground, Goel said. Officials said at least 50 people were killed by rain and strong winds, which flattened homes, knocked down power lines and uprooted trees. Six people were killed when their homes in coastal districts collapsed. The Godavari and Krishna rivers breached their banks at several places, flooding farms. Floods demolished more than 77,000 homes and damaged another 7,800 homes, Goel said. The surging waters washed away or damaged 254,000 acres of tobacco, rice and vegetable fields, said Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, the state's top elected official. In Bangladesh, a tropical depression churned through the Bay of Bengal and pushed walls of water onto the country's coast, forcing thousands to flee. At least 16 fishermen were killed when three boats capsized, the Janakantha newspaper said, quoting fishermen who returned to shore. Anxious relatives of fishermen gathered at beaches waiting for loved ones, local reporters said. ATN Bangla TV said that 200 fishing boats were missing.
|
|