Republicans’ Criticism of Healthcare Bill Pretentious

Tags

Congress, Democrats, government, government and politics, government-run healthcare, health care, health care reform, Obama Care, Politics, Republicans, Senate

Even though the Democrats’ attempts to reform health care is wrought with problems, the Republicans’ bashing of the Democrats and the proposed legislation has more of an air of hypocrisy than sincerity and appears more pretentious than real.

There is no argument that the health reform that many of us voted for is turning out to be a watered-down mess.  Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stripped the public option from the bill that would have competed against the insurance industry powerhouses.  And the bill has now morphed into a 2,700-plus page monster with questionable additions to benefit the states of key Senators to secure votes.

But the Republicans bang the same old tired drum that “their plan” was not heard or listened to by “the majority” and that they were not not given an opportunity to participate in reform.

Really?

What were you Republicans doing for at least six years during the Bush Administration? Remember, you were the majority then and you had a friendly White House, so why didn’t you do something then?

This health care crisis isn’t anything new.  Costs have been steadily rising and it has been known since the 1990’s that the American health care system was heading for trouble.

The Republicans are now vying for votes and favor after a disastrous performance.  They are posturing to appear that they have ideas to cure health care.  But why didn’t they legislate their ideas into law when they had the majority and a willing President with Bush?

The Democrats aren’t above criticism; their caving into one or two Senators by stripping key parts of the legislation along with back room deals is not going to sit well with voters in the coming elections.  But, they are, at least, trying to achieve a start at reform which could be improved over time.

I would accept the Republicans’ objections more if they had at least made an attempt when they were in power.

Advertisements

Kucinich Reminds Us of Consequences in Rush to Judgment

Tags

Afghanistan, Bush, Iraq war, Kucinich, Obama

I received this email from Representative Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio).  The contents of Kucinich’s message (below) spell out clearly why a rush to judgment – when it comes to whether or not we go to war, or stay in one – can have dire consequences.  The Bush Administration used whatever tactics were necessary to rush this country into war on two fronts.  They had no plan, no strategy, and, in the case of Afghanistan, did not finish the job there before getting us involved with Iraq.  Now, nearly a decade later, we are still trying to resolve the mess created by those reckless decisions of the previous Administration.

Rather than repeating the same mistakes, Obama is taking time to make an informed decision regarding Afghanistan by discussing possible solutions with everyone involved including the commanders in the field.  He will, after hearing from all sides, make a decision, and probably a tough one; this is the President’s job – to make the hard choices.

Obama’s approach is more intelligent than Bush’s hectic utilization of troops and treasure.  But those with vested interests in continuing this war, at the expense of the lives of American soldiers and of our economy, want to steer public opinion away from a President who thinks things through.

Let’s give President Obama a chance to get this country out of this mess.  For the sake of our soldiers, and all future soldiers, let’s all practice some patience and give Obama this time to make, God willing, the right choices.

OCTOBER 2002 – IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION REVISITED

COMING TOMORROW…
"The Condition of
Health Care."

Download, print and circulate the petition among friends and neighbors.

Dear Friends,
Seven years ago this week the House of Representatives debated the Iraq War Resolution which was presented by President Bush. I made the case for NOT going to war. I analyzed the Bush war resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and pointed out "Key Issues" which argued against Congress voting to go to war. I distributed the attached analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred.
When you hear people say: "If only we had known then what we know now," remember, some did know of the false case for war against Iraq. And since so many know now that we should not have gone to war against Iraq, then why are we still there?
Please read this analysis and let me know what you think.
Thank you.

P.S. – The "Whereas" clauses were verbatim from the 2003 Bush Iraq War Resolution. The "Key Issue" represented my commentary.

---

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq
by Dennis J. Kucinich
October 2, 2002
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
KEY ISSUE: In the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
KEY ISSUE: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq’s WMD capabilities.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
KEY ISSUE: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the US continues to thwart (the Administration’s word) weapons inspections.
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
KEY ISSUE: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A "continuing" threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
KEY ISSUE: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq’s imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit US troops to recover Kuwaiti property.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
KEY ISSUE: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
KEY ISSUE: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
KEY ISSUE: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the US to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
KEY ISSUE: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11.
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
KEY ISSUE: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions.
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force.
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
KEY ISSUE: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
KEY ISSUE: This "Sense of Congress" resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy.

Technorati Tags: Kucinich,Afghanistan

Bush Opens Up, Encourages US Ending World Poverty

Tags

Bush, economic meltdown, Obama, Politics, Washington

After 5 months of silence, former President George W. Bush finally spoke at an appearance yesterday in Michigan and is scheduled today to speak in Canada in a joint appearance with former President Clinton.

Unlike his administration’s partner, former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Bush did not verbally attack the current Obama administration or its policies.  However, Bush made a point of defending his own decision-making and also offered solutions, if Obama is listening, to current problems including world poverty.

“We should care about poverty” globally “for our own self-interest,” Bush told the audience, according to the Detroit Free Press.  Bush explained his reasoning that our self-interest is served because fanatics “can only recruit when they find hopeless people.”

In Michigan, Bush talks of war, economy | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press.

Thurday’s appearance was “semi-public” and the “media was allowed to attend but not record” the event, according to the Dallas Morning News.

George W. Bush ending his public silience with pair of speeches | DallasNews.com | The Dallas Morning News

Read more about this topic at condron.us.

Does Washington Get It?

Tags

Clinton, Congress, government and politics, McCain, Obama, Politics, presidentail power, Senator Patrick Leahy, Washington

Bob Woodward, yesterday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” said that the controversy resulting from Obama’s release of the Justice Department’s memos regarding enhanced interrogation would not be going away soon.  The debate over the serious issues of whether these memos recommended torture or not and what, if anything, we should do “has legs,” Woodward said.

Woodward joined Bob Schieffer as part of a panel discussion in the last half of the program following up on double interviews about the memos with Senators John McCain and Patrick Leahy.

Although McCain and Leahy are on opposite sides of the aisle, they both agree that abuses, like those which occurred in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the Bush Administration, can never again happen, but, that’s where their agreement ends.

No surprises that Republican McCain and Democrat Leahy would disagree on what should be done about what was revealed in these memos, but what is surprising is that McCain is actually more in agreement with Obama on this issue than Leahy!

McCain is all for moving forward…more a forgive and forget attitude with it being enough that our current President has ordered an end to such actions. This is essentially the same position supported by Obama.

Leahy, on the other hand, is still pushing for his Truth Commission which isn’t getting a lot of play from either party.  Yesterday, Leahy explained that this commission of his would combine the efforts of several Senate committees including his own Judiciary which he chairs.

Unfortunately, neither of these Senators get it.  They are both wrong in how they’re handling this situation.  And, both of them, if they do eventually get their acts together, either collectively with each other or by themselves, have the power to make lasting change which will return honor to our country!

First of all, we can’t just go on, taking it as enough that this Administration has ordered a stop to these actions, as McCain says, and that no future Administration would attempt such actions because of what’s happened.  Really?

Who can say what the future will bring?  And who can be sure of the character of any future administration, of either party?

Taking it on word, or faith alone, is not enough because we have already seen what can happen when leaders are filled with fear and ignorance on how to handle an enemy.

Leahy’s commission would be a mistake too!

To what ends would this commission go?  Would it turn into a witch hunt?  Would it wind up potentially prosecuting just a few who are low on the totem pole while letting the big guys go?  Or would it go after Bush himself, and Cheney?

And what good would that do if they did go after those at the top including Bush?

What if they just decided to go after the legal eagles – the attorneys and law advisors who wrote these memos?  Do you really believe, if they did, that any President in the future would ever be able to get advice again?  Not likely, if they’d have to fear that the next Administration, or thereafter, would come after them for their opinions!

I’m sure the Press would have a field day with a spectacle of former Bush officials, and even Bush or Cheney themselves, being called to the Hill and questioned under oath, but, a process like this would probably take years and would also be expensive.  No matter how it was conducted, it would turn into a media circus and become a distraction from important issues and a huge embarrassment for our country!  Besides, Obama would probably wind up pardoning top people anyway even if they did go after Bush or Cheney; like Ford pardoned Nixon.

I was a young adult during Watergate; this Truth Commission has the potential to be worse than Watergate and, right now, we cannot afford the distraction with all the challenges this nation faces!  Besides, I think a lot of us are sick and tired of this back and forth between parties and, if Leahy gets his way, it will look to many Americans as some sort of “get back” or getting even on the Republicans.

I remember the Clinton impeachment, which I thought was a waste of time and distraction.  Who knows how differently things might have gone had Congress had the wisdom to avoid such a sordid affair?

The fact is that both sides are now playing to supporters to fulfill their own agendas, and neither side is effectively dealing with the real issue at hand:  that is, making absolutely sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

These two honorable Senators – McCain and Leahy – have the ability in their hands to solve this, and yet, they don’t seem to realize it!

Both Senators, jointly or exclusively, should WRITE LEGISLATION and introduce it to the Congress to make sure that no President shall ever again consider or ask for advice on how to apply what some consider torture to captured prisoners of war.

Define it, Senators, spell it out in legislation!  Define in clear and certain terms what is considered torture.  Spell out, Senators, for future Administrations, what is considered "torture" so that there is no uncertainty what can and cannot be done!

Only through legislation can this country truly move forward and not risk this ever happening again!

NOTE:  If you want to read the released memos for yourself, here’s the link:  http://documents.nytimes.com/justice-department-memos-on-interrogation-techniques#p=1.

Technorati Tags: Obama,torture memos,McCain,Leahy,Truth Commission,Clinton,Nixon,Watergate,Bush,Cheney,Bob Woodward,Bob Schieffer,Meet the Press

Memos Reveal How Close We Came

Tags

government, government and politics, Obama, Politics, presidentail power

Memos released on Monday that were written during the former Bush Administration by their Justice Department reveal how close we came in this country to a dictatorship.  Nine memos from the former administration claim in stunning detail that the president had the authority to suspend First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, control or close the Press, seize people and property on his word alone, and order military attacks on any U.S. city which he determined to be a threat.

In their continuing efforts by the Obama Administration to clean up the mess left by Bush/Cheney, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder released these memos in the public interest and to bring a greater sense of openness and transparency to government.

In commenting on the former administration’s memos giving the president extraordinary power, Holder said that the Bush Administration looked at the war on terror as overruling all else, including The Constitution, and in any dispute over rights that the former administration judged “the fight…as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties,” according to the NY Times.

One of memos, dated October 23, 2001, authorizes the use of force, including deadly, by the U.S. Military on American soil against citizens and even entire U.S. cities, or anyone who the president suspects of being a terrorist, which clearly violates and overrides the Posse Comitatus Act against the use of military force on domestic soil.

The memo also authorized warrentless seizure of property, a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The memo reasons that the Fourth Amendment does not apply using “self defense” as its argument to eliminate the Constitutional right against search and seizure without cause, according to the NY Times.

This October, 2001, memo was written by then deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo and  then special counsel Robert Delahunty, both at that time in the Office of Legal Counsel.  In addition to search and seizure and the use of deadly force against Americans and American cities, the October 23rd memo also authorizes the president to abolish the news media and annul freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, and “may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically,” also according the NY Times.

John Dean said on MSNBC’s Countdown last night said that the memos revealed that the Bush/Cheney Administration was an “unconstitutional dictatorship.”  (See video.)

In fairness, it’s a credit to Bush that he did not ACT on the authority given to him by his Justice Department.  But, the fact that these memos skirted all other branches of government, including the Congress, and handed totalitarian authority to one person — this needs to be looked at and perhaps have legislation passed so that this kind of thing can never happen again!

It is also a credit to Holder and to the Obama Adminstration to have released these documents!

Godspeed President Obama

Tags

election, Elections, government and politics, Obama, Politics, Washington

Congratulations President Obama on you innauguration!  And congratulations also to us – the people of the The United States – for overcoming the divisiveness that has separated this nation for too long!

I grew up in the ’60s Midwest and I saw segregation and discrimination first hand – my school, my neighborhood, my teachers were all white; I overheard the adults and, as I got older, argued even with my own father; I saw Selma on TV – and if anyone told me back then that I would be celebrating the innauguration of an African-American President, I would have said, “Dream on!.”

But more than finally getting past racial barriers, we, the voters, have finally made a real choice of a leader who, with our help and support, can get us out of this mess!

It seems to me that after all the years of  bad and, at times, horribly destructive and ignorant leadership, that finally we have a REAL President!  Obama is intelligent; he is also willing to LISTEN TO ALL SIDES of the issues; and Obama – so far – is making good on what he told us he would do during his campaign.  Obama is proving everyday that he really takes the Office and the People of this country seriously.  Rather than just going along with the status quo like some of his predecessors, Obama is setting the pace for open discussion and solutions.  Keep up the good work, Mr. President!

Lao Tzu, the ancient sage, said that “the great leader is he who the people say, we did it ourselves.”  To shouts of “Yes, We Can!” it appears that this time, hopefully, we are on the right track!

Um, That’s Obama With a “B”

Tags

election, Elections, McCain, Obama, Politics

Source:  New York Times – Opinion

NY Times article by The Editorial Board reveals an apparent (?) “typographical error” in some of New York’s Rennselaer County absentee ballots shocked voters by replacing a “b” with an “s”:

Voters who wanted absentee ballots in an upstate New York County were surprised to see the name of the Democratic Presidential candidate. On the ballot, it read “Barack Osama.”

Major oops or dirty trick?

After the Albany Times-Union newspaper revealed the problem ballots on Friday, the Rensselaer County Board of Elections inisisted that the rendering of Barack Obama’s name was a simple mistake, and insisted that it was included on “only 300 of more than 4,000″ ballots.

“The board of elections acted quickly to correct the typographical error and regrets the error,” the board said in a statement. “The error was not deliberate and the Board of Elections is continuing to fairly manage the upcoming General Election in a bi-partisan and cooperative manner.”

I suppose it might be possible that the mix-up is really an “error” but I highly doubt it; I mean unless the person doing the typing did it in the dark or perhaps the person was illiterate and can’t read the difference between an “s” and a “b” BUT I still don’t think so because if it was some kind of error due to a bad typist:

1. There would have been a lot more errors than just these two letter; and,
2. Proofreading would have and should have caught all typos.

Besides, the “s” and the “b” on the keyboard are, as most of us know, not even next to each other so, no, I don’t think it was so accidental but instead it was someone’s mean-spirited stunt.

If you click on the link below and scroll down to the end of the short Times article, you’ll see in the comments section that a lot of other people think it wasn’t an accident either and, apparently, the County Board of Elections in the upstate New York received lots of surprised and angry calls (see link inside articles block quote above).

Hatefulness is alive and unfortunately well in this election year!

Um, That’s Obama with a “B” – The Board Blog – NYTimes.com

Technorati Tags: 2008 election,2008 elections,2008 presidential,barack,barack obama,campaign watch,democrats,dnc,double standards,elections,elections 2008,john mccain,mccain,media scandals,news,obama,politics,polls,presidential campaign,sarah palin