The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

Feature from 7/30 NY Times on a conservative preacher who feels that the Christian church needs to distance itself from the religious right-wing of politics: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html

In his ... sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek “power over” others — by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. Christians should instead seek to have “power under” others — “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

“America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

“I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ.”

[Miulang]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

Feature from 7/30 NY Times on a conservative preacher who feels that the Christian church needs to distance itself from the religious right-wing of politics: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html

Yeah, I saw that too and immediately thought, "OMG! He sees the Light!" (pardon the pun)

Miulang

[Miulang]

The "true" story of 9/11 coming to light?

One of the good and bad things about living in a free society is sometimes things are said or done to keep the American public in the dark as in the events that led to the tragedy that was 9/11.

Now, evidence is sufacing that the Pentagon may have lied to the 9/11 Commission about the events immediately leading up to Flight 93 crashing into the field in Pennsylvania.

"... Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

"...For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft - American Airlines Flight 11 - long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes - along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence - led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11...."

Here is a transcript (plus actual segments of tape recordings) from Norad that are being published in this month's Vanity Fair. It appears that our guys who were supposed to be monitoring the airspace were kind of asleep at the wheel until it was too late to do anything. Why is the truth such a scarce commodity in the military and the government?

Miulang

[Miulang]

Speaking of "Regime Change" in Cuba

Well, it appears that Uncle Fidel is on the ropes. If he bounces back like the proverbial cat with 9 lives, perhaps the Bush Administration should resurrect some of the other hare brained operations schemes that were drawn up a few years back. Man, that must have been one brain storming session (what the hell were those guys smoking anyway? ) Read 'em and cry tears of laughter...all 8 pages worth (and where did they come up with some of those names?).

Miulang

[Leo Lakio]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

I was waiting for Operation #10 to be "Operation SNAKES on a PLANE."

[Miulang]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

I was waiting for Operation #10 to be "Operation SNAKES on a PLANE."

So Congress is on the verge of allocating $80 million to Castro opponents to try regime change. Hmmmm...I guess we don't seem to remember that it was US that put Castro into power in the first place(we deliberately caused the fall of the Batista regime by withdrawing funding for it, in effect, causing that government to collapse and allowing Castro to take power).

Once again, we're poised to make the same mistake we have made there before... You just watch. The "dissidents" will take our money, and then turn around and run Cuba the way they want to, not the way we want them to. In the meantime, the Cuban government is calling up its military forces to prevent outbreaks of rioting.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

One really good reason to live in the US: Today, a federal judge in Detroit declared the NSA's policy of warrantless wiretapping to be unconstitutional and ordered that such practices be stopped immediately.

Oh, I'm sure the White House will take this all the way to the Supreme Court, where there's a good chance that this judge's order will be reversed due to the composition of the current Supreme Court. But it hopefully will shed some light on the tip of the iceberg that this particularly pernicious program is a part of. And that's a good thing.

Miulang

[Miulang]

The Presidential Scorecard

After reading this list of things that the current Administration has done, I'm wondering if any clear-headed thinking person in this country would still support this President and his administration. If George W. Bush was running for re-election today, and knowing what we know now about this dismal track record, would he still get "re-elected"?

Miulang

[Mahi Waina]

Re: The Presidential Scorecard

If George W. Bush was running for re-election today, and knowing what we know now about this dismal track record, would he still get "re-elected"?

Miulang

Unfortunately, yes. The ignorant redneck majority is more concerned about flag burning and gay marriage than power-mad sociopaths destroying the planet.

[Miulang]

The Universal National Service Act of 2006

With very little fanfare or discussion, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) proposed a bill informally known as the "Universal National Service Act of 2006"

"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women. There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age.

Those who are not sent overseas to the war theater would, according to the clauses of the bill, be inducted into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties, including the Citizens Corps, the "Neighborhood Watch Teams" and the "Volunteer Police Service" established in partnership with local law enforcement. (see http://www.citizencorps.gov/pdf/council.pdf )

While there is at present significant opposition to the bill on both sides of the House, the US military is overextended and lacks the manpower to carry out its global war agenda. This shortage of military personnel is blatantly obvious in Iraq, where the occupation forces are meeting fierce resistance.

The situation regarding the draft could also change if the war were to be extended into Iran. In which case, the substance of this bill could indeed be adopted to meet the manpower requirements of the US military.

So this reputed antiwar Democrat was the one who re-introduced this bill in Feb. 2006. All American citizens between 18 and FORTY-TWO had better keep their eyes on the news over the next couple of weeks to see what happens in the UN with regard to sanctions against Iran and how Bushco react, and then if you don't want to get drafted, think of some way to keep yourself from getting shipped to the Middle East. The Congress is primed to put this act in place.

Miulang

[glossyp]

Re: The Universal National Service Act of 2006

With very little fanfare or discussion, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) proposed a bill informally known as the "Universal National Service Act of 2006"
The Congress is primed to put this act in place.

Miulang

What is the source for your comment that Congress is primed to do this? The article itself said there is significant opposition. I find it hard to believe that either house of Congress would put something like this in place especially before the upcoming midterm elections.

[Miulang]

Re: The Universal National Service Act of 2006

What is the source for your comment that Congress is primed to do this? The article itself said there is significant opposition. I find it hard to believe that either house of Congress would put something like this in place especially before the upcoming midterm elections.

IF we invade Iran (possibility it might happen in the Sept or Oct timeframe), and IF Iraq gets worse and the President intends to "stay the course", we won't have enough able bodies (besides all the IRRs that are now vulnerable, I think I read someplace that there are only about 80,000 of those) for both fronts. So Congress and the White House have 3 options: 1) redeploy troops in Iraq to Iran or 2) reinstate a draft AFTER the November elections or 3) get over the notion that a military option in Iran is something we can afford both from a manpower and humanitarian standpoint (e.g., more than likely some nuclear force will be required). Which of those options would you prefer?

Miulang

P.S. It's still mandatory for males to register with the Selective Services within 30 days of their 18th birthday. I couldn't find any more recent stats than 2004, but here's a scorecard of how each state ranked in compliance. And if the draft ever is reinstated the SSS already has rules outlining how it would be done. Actually, here's the actual bill as submitted to Congress this past Feb. I think if it passes, it will supercede the current Draft procedures, because in this newer bill, women would also be included in a draft.

[glossyp]

Re: The Universal National Service Act of 2006

IF we invade Iran (possibility it might happen in the Sept or Oct timeframe), and IF Iraq gets worse and the President intends to "stay the course", we won't have enough able bodies (besides all the IRRs that are now vulnerable, I think I read someplace that there are only about 80,000 of those) for both fronts. So Congress and the White House have 3 options: 1) redeploy troops in Iraq to Iran or 2) reinstate a draft AFTER the November elections or 3) get over the notion that a military option in Iran is something we can afford both from a manpower and humanitarian standpoint (e.g., more than likely some nuclear force will be required). Which of those options would you prefer?

So basically your earlier statement that I asked about "The Congress is primed to put this act in place." was really speculation based on a lot of ifs.

[Miulang]

Re: The Universal National Service Act of 2006

So basically your earlier statement that I asked about "The Congress is primed to put this act in place." was really speculation based on a lot of ifs.

True, but in this case, I think pre-emptive action to prevent this from being implemented at this time is a worthy objective. As it stands now, Congress could still impose a draft without this new proposal because the Selective Services still is registering young men. It has also raised the draftable age from 35 to 42 for the Army, even without this new proposal.

I am against all wars that are being fought "in our name" overseas. I would have no problems signing up and fighting if the enemy was invading the US. In peacetime, it makes perfect sense for all young individuals between the ages of 18 and 26 to be "drafted" into some form of service (military or alternative). It does not make sense, however, to send these young people overseas to be killed. If you look at the experience of Israel, where it used to be that military service was mandatory for all young men and women, you will see that that system has now eroded to the point where the young people in the large cities, especially, are finding ways to get out of doing service for the country and leaving that obligation for the large part for the young people on the kibbutzim to do the fighting. This is what happened in this country during the Vietnam era too (remember Dubya and his "military" experience?)

Miulang

P.S. Congress is in recess until after the November elections now. However, checking on the status of the bill, it is still an active one under consideration in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, where it was sent on Feb. 23, 2006.

[twosparrows1611]

Re: The Bush Watch - Chapter 2

Not intending to butt in, just new to the site. Has anyone noticed that President Bush is the third "George" in the history of American Presidents? It wa George, 1789, George 1989 and George 2001. In history, it was King George I, King George II, King George III and ...bang...the American Revolution. So, what is going on in the Middle East with America in Iraq is like a baseball game; three strikes and your'e .....Unless I miss my guess, just like England lost, America will, too.
twosparrows