Bush, the failed president

Do you still need evidence this president is one of the worst presidents ever? Read on:

Nearly a year after Congress demanded action, the Pentagon still hasn't figured out a way to reimburse U.S. troops for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.

Can you believe that our soldiers in the war zone have to spend their own money to buy protective gear, because the military doesn't provide them with it? How screwed up is that? And the GOP is supposed to be the party that cares about the military? And protects us from the enemy? They can't even protect the people who are supposed to protect us!!

He and other soldiers and their parents are still spending hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for armor they say the military won't provide. One U.S. senator said yesterday he will try again to force the Pentagon to obey the reimbursement law it opposed from the outset and has so far not implemented.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he will offer amendments to the defense appropriations bill working its way through Congress to take the issue out of the hands of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and give control to military unit commanders in the field.

"Rumsfeld is violating the law," Dodd said. "It's been sitting on the books for over a year. They were opposed to it. It was insulting to them. I'm sorry that's how they felt."

Dodd said men and women in uniform "are serving halfway around the world. And they shouldn't have to rely on bake sales and lemonade stands to raise money" to get them the equipment they need.

This problem has existed for the longest time. Congress acted upon it, passing a law forcing the government to reimburse the soldiers, but the Pentagon still isn't doing it. Who do they think they are? Not even they are above the law. Incredible.

This is what a frustrated father of a soldier had to say:

"I wouldn't have cared if it cost us $10,000 to protect our son, I would do it," said Gordon. "But I think the U.S. has an obligation to make sure they have this equipment and to reimburse for it. I just don't support Donald Rumsfeld's idea of going to war with what you have, not what you want. You go to war prepared, and you don't go to war until you are prepared."

He's so right. The government should equip its soldiers or not go to war at all. Would they send our soldiers to war with sticks if guns were too expensive? Will they stop providing bullets when they become too expensive?

Under the law Congress passed in October, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations for the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Pentagon officials called it "an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden."

AN UNMANAGEABLE PRECEDENT THAT WILL SADDLE THE DOD WITH AN OPEN-ENDED FINANCIAL BURDEN!? Are they kidding me? The US military gets more taxpayer money than any other military apparatus in the world by a mile. It's the mightiest military machine on the planet and they are worried about the financial burden of reimbursing the soldiers that are FORCED to buy their own equipment to protect themselves because the government won't provide them with it?

FIRE DONALD RUMSFELD. NOW!

The Government isn't above the law

Last week a federal judge ordered (again) the government to release another series of pictures and videos (can you imagine they even made videos!?) from Abu Ghraib. This is his reasoning for turning down the government's case:

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures in a 50-page decision that said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."

Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that releasing the photos would hinder his work against terrorism. "When we continue to pick at the wound and show the pictures over and over again it just creates the image--a false image--like this is the sort of stuff that is happening anew, and it's not," Abizaid said.

The judge said, however, that "the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed."

Judge Hellerstein said today that publication of the photographs will help to answer questions not only about the unlawful conduct of American soldiers, but about “the command structure that failed to exercise discipline over the troops, and the persons in that command structure whose failures in exercising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldiers who were court-martialed for perpetrating the wrongs.”

And to get an idea of why it is so important to release these pictures, no matter the risks to the American military image in the world (especially the Muslim world,) here's the ACLU's take on the matter:

Today's historic ruling is a step toward ensuring that our government's leaders are held accountable for the abuse and torture that happened on their watch, said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. The American public has a right to know what happened in American detention centers, and how our leaders let it occur."

That must get Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's panties in a bunch so tight it hurts!

GOP = corruption

The following is from the same article as my previous post. It was so good, I had to share it:

Sixty percent of respondents in a recent Democracy Corps poll say the country is moving in the wrong direction. A generic Democrat running for Congress in 2006 beats a generic Republican by 9 percent in polls. Congress's approval is at an all-time low, and so is Bush's: 45 percent of respondents in a recent Democracy Corps poll are "finished with him." More and more Americans will learn about Congressional leaders through the lens of scandal and sleaze, underscoring the impression that Republicans care more about special interests than average Americans. "DeLay's name ID spiked as the scandals grew," says Karl Agne of Democracy Corps. "Now it's up to Democrats to distance themselves from the mess in Washington and articulate what they're going to do differently."

Bush promised during the 2000 presidential campaign to "change the culture of Washington." His Republican majority succeeded -- for the worse.

Let's just hope the Democrats figure out that this is THE issue that will put them back in power... if they can take advantage of it wisely.

Old habits die hard

So, Tom DeLay had to (temporarily, he says) relinquish his Majority Whip post in the House of Representatives last week after being indicted in a criminal investigation. And who did the GOP put in his place to repolish its image?

House majority whip Roy Blunt, recently dubbed one of the thirteen "most corrupt" members of Congress by CREW [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics,] will temporarily replace DeLay.

How shortsighted is that? Good job guys, just give us more of the same corruption we are trying to rid the place of!

Job position available; experience not required

So, our dear leader announced his next pick for Associate Justice to the Supreme Court this morning: Harriet Miers, the White House Counsel. Does that smell fishy to you? Me too.

Apparently, Bush has appointed another one of his cronies loyal advisers to a very important position (this one is even a lifetime appointment,) as he has done in the past with Michael Brown, former head of FEMA, and John Bolton, (appointed) US Ambassador to the UN, to name a few:

Miers's low-key but high-precision style is particularly valued in a White House where discipline in publicly articulating policy and loyalty to the president are highly valued. Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with him to the White House in 2001 as staff secretary, the person who screens all the documents that cross the president's desk. She was promoted to deputy chief of staff before Bush named her counsel after his reelection in November. She replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, another longtime Bush confidant, who was elevated to attorney general.

Ms. Miers is a lawyer, but she's never been a judge, although other people have served on the Supreme Court without previous judicial experience, so there is precedent -- I believe the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was put on the court as an Associate without any experience as a judge himself.

Since she was never on any bench, nobody can know what her judicial philosophy really is. However, I think we're in trouble here because, since they've worked together for so many years, Bush is the only one that really knows her and how she thinks (pro-life or pro-choice, pro-business or pro-environment, ...) and if he has picked her, he must like the way she thinks, which is troubling to me. I don't like how he thinks, so I probably wouldn't like how she thinks.

The biggest problem for the Democrats is that with Miers they have even less to fight than they had with Roberts. If she doesn't make missteps, will they be able to block her? And do we want to block her at all? The Jesus freaks certainly aren't too happy Bush didn't pick an ultra conservative, so if we fight this one, he might pick one like that the next time. Which one is the lesser evil?

Let the infighting begin.

Rita's aftermath

Let me put this plainly. In spite of its inadequacies at the time of Katrina's hit, the government has not learned anything. Its response to Rita was more immediate only because Katrina had just hit a couple weeks earlier. If a couple months had gone by, another immense disaster would have happened. To realize that, you just have to read the following paragraphs:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency delivered ice, water and packaged meals Wednesday to residents who rode out the storm, but some officials in hard-hit areas criticized the agency's response, with one calling for a commission to examine the emergency response.

In Houston, FEMA closed a disaster relief center just hours after its doors opened when some of the hundreds of hurricane victims in line began fainting in the heat. FEMA officials said they were caught off-guard by the roughly 1,500 people who showed up, but said it would reopen the center Thursday morning.

Local officials, including Port Arthur Mayor Oscar Ortiz and Jefferson County Judge Carl Griffith, said FEMA's response has been inadequate.

So, the hard-hit areas are not happy with FEMA's response. Did FEMA shun the hard work of helping people in the most vulnerable areas and go instead for the easy work? Who did they think would help the people in the hard-hit areas? FEMA was caught off-guard by the people (we're talking about 1,500 people in a city of 4 million,) showing up at a disaster relief center. Are you telling me they thought nobody would show up? Why did they open the center then?

Local officials said FEMA's response was inadequate, and that's just two weeks after the agency showed us its incompetence and was trying to regain its image as a well-oiled machine.

Sorry to break it to you guys, but you suck! If I lived in a coastal area prone to being hit by hurricanes, I'd be worried. A lot. What if there is a series of category 4 and above hurricanes making landfall in quick succession? Who would be able to respond to that emergency? Not FEMA, that's for sure. Who then?

Don't count on Bush solving that problem. He's busy riding his bike.

Blair is just like Bush, that's why they agree so much

Last week there was a Labour Party conference in England, where

Walter Wolfgang, a party member for 57 years, was bundled out of the conference hall by stewards after shouting "nonsense" as Mr Straw, the Foreign Secretary, defended Britain's role in Iraq. He was later stopped under anti-terrorist powers as he tried to re-enter the hall.

How worrisome is that? A lot if you ask me. No wonder the Labour party representatives were compared to communists in Russia and China. My friend Fabrizio is right, the terrorists have already won. They have fundamentally altered how we behave and how we respond to each other's behavior. They have essentially restricted the liberties we enjoyed as a "modern" society.

How can a simple expression of disagreement by an 82-year-old be viewed as such a threat to national security, that he is forcibly removed from the room and is not allowed back in by invoking anti-terrorism powers? That, by the way, is what the Patriot Act has done to America: it has severely restricted our liberties and rights, and it can turn our lives upside down for a simple disagreement with government policies or for checking out the wrong book at the local library. That's why we should revise it instead of making it permanent.

Apparently, Blair is facing increased pressure to bring British troops back home, just as Bush is being pressured here in the US. This does not, however, justify stifling an opinion expressed without a hint of violence by an old man who just so happens to disagree with his party's leaders.

How much worse is the situation going to get before it gets better? Worse yet, is it ever going to get better again?

Scrambling for a legacy

I came across this article a few days ago, and this sentence, by political scientist Cal Jillson, of Southern Methodist University, stuck in my head:

"There's no way back for Bush on Iraq. He can't run away from that policy. He has to secure something he can plausibly point to as success."

So true. The guy has nothing else to show for himself. If Iraq is a failure, his presidency is a failure (actually, I don't need that extra element of proof, I already consider his presidency a failure.)

Bush has not passed any positively received legislation in his time in office. His much touted No Child Left Behind was left by Bush himself grossly underfunded, which is what has now made it very controversial and fought against by several states (including Connecticut,) since it raises their education bill without providing the money to pay for it.

Besides that bill, what does Bush has to show for almost 5 years in office? Nothing good. His Medicare prescription drug bill is a mess, hated by most seniors, and has increased the federal budget exponentially. He hasn't been able to come up with a Social Security makeover that would satisfy the public's majority (and nonetheless, he hasn't tried to change it, since it's his way or the highway.) His tax cuts for the ultra rich have evaporated the budget surplus Clinton left him with and has put us in the red for decades to come. His energy bill, after saying he wouldn't have tolerated any pork barrel, is so chock full of it, it makes you fat just by mentioning it.

Furthermore, he promised to restore the credibility and honor of the office of the president, and instead, he has done just the opposite. People have much less trust in their government now then they did during the whole Clinton-Lewinsky debacle. Why? Because the president lied to us to go to war (an unjust, illegal, immoral war fought for oil ownership.) He lies to us about what happens in the world, expecting us to believe what he tells us and not what we see (he did it with Katrina, he's doing it again now with Iraq's readiness to defend itself.) He backpedals on promises to hold accountable people responsible for grave crimes (like Rove's compromise of our national security for political gain,) when he realizes that person is one of his closest allies. He doesn't distance himself from corrupt politicians like Tom DeLay, not even after they get indicted, calling them friends and standing behind them for moral support.

And those are just a few glaring examples of the Bush doctrine of government. Like Debra Messing as Grace said, in the season premiere of Will & Grace,

"I'll just close my eyes and do what I want. Hey, I'm George Bush!"

Sunday call

As I usually do on Sundays, I just called my parents. I miss them, although I'm happy to have my own life here in the States. I have a family of my own now, which is good, but I regret not been able to see my parents more, especially, not seeing them grow old, when they might be needing me the most. I lost a grandfather before I was born, and the second one when I was like 3, so I can't remember either of them. And both my grandmothers died when I was just over 10 (I think,) and we used to live a little far from them, so I really have no experience of people aging in front of my eyes on a daily basis, what their needs are, what their experience are. I do have Ray's parents, but it's not the same thing. I wish I could see my parents more. And now, with the kids, it's gonna be much harder to see them for a while, until they're a little older and less dependent. I hope I'll see them soon.

Countdown to October 1, 2005

Days left to the start of legal Civil Unions for same-sex couples in Connecticut: 0 That's it people. Today, October 1^st, 2005, it is legal for gays and lesbians in Connecticut to get a Civil Union. The battle for full fledged same-sex marriage, however, continues. Today is a day to celebrate :-)