Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Matter of National Security

Apparently hurricane Katrina is a member of Al Quaeda. Why else would President Bush and his administration not release documents regarding the White House response to the storm? Why would this administration stonewall the investigation into the federal response to a natural disaster?

It couldn’t be that the information would confirm their incompetence. It must be a matter of national security. The question we should ask ourselves is why was hurricane Katrina not included on the “no-fly” list along with Cat Stevens, the 5 year old and the elderly Chinese woman?
Our President also refuses to release pictures of himself and Jack Abramoff along with information describing meetings with White House staff and Abramoff. Is Jack Abramoff a terrorist? He had the Boris Badanov outfit on when he left court, but that was more Spy vs. Spy meets Inspector Gadget, not very Al Queda looking. If he is a terrorist it would help Tom Delay. He could claim he was brainwashed by Al Quaeda operatives and forced to sell our government to the highest bidder. Abramoff the terrorist made him do it. Delay might be given the Presidential Medal of Honor, or is that only given to those who provide this administration with faulty, manipulated intelligence?
Do either of these fall under the umbrella of “National Security?” Will these issues be discussed during “The State of The Union Address?”

Our President is once again trying to sell (SPIN) another of his bad ideas and bungled moves. Not as bad as putting a tragically unqualified buddy in charge of FEMA but close.
His NSA wiretapping of “international” phone calls is policy as usual for this administration. Disregarding the law in favor of his desire for infinite executive power once again demonstrates their dedication to the war on "Terror" and the Constitution and Civil Liberties. Why is he circumventing the law? “National Security?”

I’m looking forward to his explanation during the State of the Union Address of his Health Care plan that’s going so smoothly. I know he can’t take all of the credit for it because the pharmaceutical companies and HMO’s who will profit greatly on the backs of the poor and elderly are the ones who designed this easy to understand and organized policy. The Republicans met in closed door meetings to finalize this scam at the last minute. Why? Was it for National Security reasons?

I also look forward to his explanation for the 88million dollars left in lockers and stuffed in drawers in Iraq. Our government is going the extra mile for the Iraqi people, not only is reconstruction, the insurgency and our being viewed as liberators, going so well, but we have all this left over cash just laying around to be stolen and misused. Sounds like a Haliburton KBR truck must have tipped over. Will this be discussed during the “State of The Union” or would that put our troops in harms way? Would he be “aiding the enemy” or risking our “National Security” by clarifying this for the American people?

I look forward to his explanation as to how Donald Rumsfeld had not yet read the report the military did on the strain our military is under but was able to dispute their findings. His ability to dispute that which he has not yet read is borderline psychic or is the word psychotic? Rumsfeld is lying about the military's situation because of "National Security?"

Why with all this National Security do alot of Americans feel not so Secure with this administration?

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at January 30, 2006 10:58 AM
Comments
Comment #118490

Andre

A very slilted and partisian way to start off the week.

Mind if I pick just one of these bones of contention and comment,as it seems that you have lumped every post the last two weeks into one column making it difficult to reply.

Let’s talk Rumfield.

You don’t like him,I do.

I think that his vision of a more mobile military is the correct one and that is why there aren’t more boots on the ground there now.

In ten years,once the military transition is complete,America will able to respond faster and far more effectively than it did in Iraq.

Thousands of mistakes were made.Plus corruption is indeed overwhelming there.However,those responsible should be brought to justice…but surely you are not suggesting that he profited…are you?

On Katrina corruption was rampant too.

Throwing money at either problem is not the answer as that money ends up lining the pockets of the unprincipled.

This is not a partisian issue though..it trancends party lines.Greed exists like the air we breathe.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 30, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #118492

You are going to be dissapointed with his speach, i figure that since he hasn’t to this point (and its been five years of this bs) explained himself adequately on ANYTHING, there is no reason to expect that to change in the SOTU speech.

I just look forward to the ensuing comedic montages of his speech that show how similar they are to his last four.

Lets start a pot now, i bet he mentions 9/11 and how the world is different now 29 times.

Posted by: tree hugger at January 30, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #118503

SE,

“I think that his vision of a more mobile military is the correct one and that is why there aren’t more boots on the ground there now.”

But had there been more “boots on the ground” we would have been out of there long ago.
Had there been a more acurate plan we would have made contingencies for the utter lack of hearts and minds.
Was the “intellegence” that told us that there were WMD’s, the same as that wich told us we would be greeted as saviours?

Rumsfeld bears the brunt of the blame because he is the man at the top of the pole.

Posted by: Rocky at January 30, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #118504

sicilianeagle,

Thousands of mistakes were made.Plus corruption is indeed overwhelming there.However,those responsible should be brought to justice…but surely you are not suggesting that he profited…are you?

So far, Rumsfeld wasn’t forced to resign. Even after thousands of mistakes. But he managed (aka was protected, thanks to cronism) to keep his seat at White House. Usually when you screw several times in short period, you’re fired. Not him.
I guess many will call his today situation a personal profit.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 30, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #118509

There’s really no reason to listen to the SOTU speech.

It’s already been given twice…and will be given twice AFTER the SOTU speech.

1.) 01/24/2006:

For Immediate Release

Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2006

CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID ADDRESSES THE REAL STATE OF OUR UNION

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid at the Center for American Progress

Yes, you heard it right. Reid’s “REAL” SOTU speech was delivered January 24,2006. I’m SOOOOO glad he gave the “REAL” State Of The Union. Now I won’t have to listen to Bush’s “FAKE” SOTU speech.

2.) 01/30/2006:

For Planning Purposes

Date: Monday, January 30, 2006

CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

SENATOR REID TO ADDRESS SENATE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION

Washington, DC—Today at 2:00 PM Democratic Leader Harry Reid will deliver floor remarks on President Bush’s upcoming State of the Union…

OK…SOTU “take two”.

3.) 01/31/2006:

Bush will deliver the SOTU speech in front of Congress and the nation. But as Harry Reid has pointed out, it’s a “FAKE” SOTU speech. Reid’s was the “REAL” one.

4. and 5.) 01/31/2006:

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

CONTACT: Jim Manley / Fabiola Rodríguez (Reid), 202-228-5352

Brendan Daly / Federico de Jesús (Pelosi), 202-226-7616

Joe Ramallo (Villaraigosa) 213-435-9937

Democratic Leaders Announce Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Will Deliver the Democratic Response to the President’s State of the Union Address in Spanish

Washington, D.C. - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi announced today that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will deliver the Democratic response to President Bush’s State of the Union Address in Spanish on January 31st . Last week Leaders Reid and Pelosi announced that Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia will deliver the Democratic Response in English.

So there you go, boys and girls…5 (count ‘em) FIVE State Of The Union addresses. 4 “REAL” (Reid, et. al.)SOTU speeches and 1 “FAKE” (Bush) SOTU speech.

But those were not the best…or most telling…emails that I have gotten recently. This one tells you everything you need to know about their agenda…

For Planning Purposes

Date: Thursday, January 26, 2006

CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

**POSTPONED**

HONEST LEADERSHIP EVENT

Washington, DC— The press conference scheduled for Today, Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 12:30 PM with Senator Joe Liberman, Senator Russ Feingold and Senator Barack Obama has been postponed.

…followed closely by THIS one…

For Immediate Release

Date: Sunday, January 29, 2006

CONTACT: Jim Manley / Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID: REPUBLICANS ARE STANDING IN THE WAY OF REFORM

Washington, DC – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on Majority Leader Frist’s refusal to recognize the priority of lobbying and ethics reform legislation:

No, they’re just “postponing” it. Politics as usual.

Posted by: Jim T at January 30, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #118510

Re. State of the Union address
You can easily sum up what the message on Iraq, Hammas, border security, national security, Katrina, Medicare, corruption etc.
“Mission Accomplished.”

Posted by: another naysayer at January 30, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #118515

Rocky:

I think you’ve employed some faulty logic in your points. With every option, there are positives and negatives. We don’t know that more boots on the ground would have worked better. Lets say that it achieved its purpose, but….in doing so, provided more targets which led to more casualties than the current method. Note that I am NOT saying this would definitely have happened, but it certainly would be among the possibilities. Would more boots on the ground then still be your preferred approach?

We’ve seen this kind of commentary before. When the US first went into Iraq and secured the oil fields while ignoring the museums, an uproar ensued over the looting of artifacts etc. Had we secured the museums, thereby potentially allowing Saddam to torch the oil fields as he had done in Kuwait, an uproar over THAT would have ensued. Its really easy to create an uproar, since there is always something to complain about.

Rocky, my point is simply to correct the flaws in logic. I tend to agree that more troops have been needed to police Iraq in the aftermath of the real military action. On the other hand, there is no way to foresee every contingency before hand. Reaction is always required.

Lastly, I’d put the onus on Rummy too. He is the top dog, makes the ultimate decisions, and deserves the credit and blame. Not entirely in either situation, but certainly deserves the brunt.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 30, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #118551
We’ve seen this kind of commentary before. When the US first went into Iraq and secured the oil fields while ignoring the museums, an uproar ensued over the looting of artifacts etc. Had we secured the museums, thereby potentially allowing Saddam to torch the oil fields as he had done in Kuwait, an uproar over THAT would have ensued. Its really easy to create an uproar, since there is always something to complain about.

You know a real simple way to solve that? Send in enough men to protect both areas. Funny how it always comes back to the fact that there just weren’t enough men to do what needed to be done.

Posted by: Jarandhel at January 30, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #118606

Sicilianeagle,

1) President Bush and his administration not release documents regarding the White House response to the storm. Why?

2) Our President also refuses to release pictures of himself and Jack Abramoff along with information describing meetings with White House staff and Abramoff. Why?

3) NSA wiretapping of “international” phone calls. Why not do it legally or change the law? Unless you are doing something you don’t want the people to know about it seems like a simple solution.

4) his Health Care plan that’s going so smoothly.
What a joke. A health care policy designed by HMO’s and pharmaceutical companies that are approved last second behind closed doors by Republicans after changes are made to screw the poor and elderly and provide more profits to large corporations. Why?

5) 88million dollars left in lockers and stuffed in drawers in Iraq. I think this speaks for itself.

6) Donald Rumsfeld had not yet read the report the military did on the strain our military is under but was able to dispute their findings.
He said he had not read the report. It sounds like the military did the report despite him. Rumsfeld is an idiot. If it were not for Bush, he’d be the biggest idiot in the United States.

Come on! How can you defend this group of retards?
This administration is a joke.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 31, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #118619

Bottom line being that there should have been more troops there if we had to be there at all. In a statement that I caught the tail end of this am, if there would have been more time before a final decision being made for invading Iraq to go over the information given there would have not been a yes vote made. Where Rumsfield gets the information that there is not a problem with our troop levels, it’s been all over the news about the army manditorily extending over 40,000 soldiers tours of duty for up to 18 months past their enlistments expiration. Sorry to me that is not, not a problem. For those of us that have family in the service, putting their lives on the line for those people in congress who have no clue what is going on is totally unacceptable. You are right Phillipe when you said that if it was a normal person that had screwed up as many times as Rumsfield has he’d have been fired. Maybe it’s past time for us as taxpayers do something about getting rid of the dead weight administration. Maybe if enough people were impeached or voted out of office, the ones that took their places would get the idea that whatever went on for years was no longer going to be acceptable and we could get back to what the founding fathers had in mind for this great country.

Posted by: Sherri at January 31, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #118633
We don’t know that more boots on the ground would have worked better.

JBOD, that’s actually a well-documented fact based on all the peacekeeping we did since the end of WWII. The more troops you have, the fewer casualties you take. Optimally, you need one trooper per 50 people to keep order.

I think that his vision of a more mobile military is the correct one and that is why there aren’t more boots on the ground there now.

SE, you need to understand that winning battles against a conventional force is vastly different from fighting an insurgency and doing nation building.

Our conventional warfare abilities will be greatly enhanced by Rumsfeld’s policies. Unfortunately, they don’t address the type of war we’re fighting in Iraq — or are likely to fight for decades.

If we’re going to do peacekeeping/nation building again (and we are), we’ll need to build a force targeted specifically for that kind of mission. It’ll mostly consist of Military Police, Civil Affairs officers, and Special Operations forces all coordinated under political leadership. Every military operation must be carried out in accordance to a political objective.

That’s not the way our military works right now. It was assinine to put in charge of nation building in Iraq a department who’s unofficial motto is, “We don’t do nation building”.

Excellent post, Andre. Even Republicans are scratching their heads over why President bush won’t release the photos of him and Abramoff.

Some of President Bush’s fellow Republicans in Congress are urging him to publicly disclose White House contacts with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Releasing records would help eliminate suspicions that Abramoff, who assisted in raising more than $100,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign but has since pleaded guilty to felonies, had undue influence on the administration, they said in television interviews Sunday.

Good point about Bush witholding Katrina documents, too. Congressional Republicans don’t understand that, either.

“We are entitled to know if someone from the Department of Homeland Security calls someone at the White House during this whole crisis period,” [Senator] Collins said. “So I think the White House has gone too far in restricting basic information about who called whom on what day.”

She also said that it “is completely inappropriate” for the White House to bar agency officials from talking to the Senate committee.

What’s he hiding? Even the Republicans don’t know…

Posted by: American Pundit at January 31, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #118639

JBOD,

“I think you’ve employed some faulty logic in your points. With every option, there are positives and negatives. We don’t know that more boots on the ground would have worked better. Lets say that it achieved its purpose, but….in doing so, provided more targets which led to more casualties than the current method.”

Classic military stratagy is you go in with a force that is twice as large or better as your opponent.
Advanced technology is not a panacea, and will never take the place of boots on the ground.
Rarely has there been a battle/police action/war, that hasn’t been won employing overwhelming force. More boots doesn’t mean more casualties, it means more eyes/security = less actual casualties.
That is not to say that a good plan isn’t important, but Blitzkrieg tactics work best when there is a force that secures that which is taken quickly.
What is the point of a rapid deployment force if you cannot hold and secure what you take?
Had we secured what we took in the early stages of the “war”, we wouldn’t have to face these nagging insurgencies that are using the ammo/explosive dumps that we failed to secure in our rush to Baghdad.

I hate to ask the same question over and over, but why do you think that Bush’s father employed 1/2 million troops to push Saddam out of a country smaller than New Jersey, and Bush used a force less than half that size to completely take over a country the size of California?

It just doesn’t make any sense.

Posted by: Rocky at January 31, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #118657

Mybe he’ll discus this little coincidence during the State of The Union Address:

“The investigation of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a surprising new turn on Thursday when the Justice Department said the chief prosecutor in the inquiry would step down next week because he had been nominated to a federal judgeship by President Bush.”

Unless that information will compromise “National Security.”

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at January 31, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #118676

Andre

Comments to your queries:

1.Let’s agree that EVERYBODY from the mayor to the governor to FEMA screwed up.After all it was the largest nationial disaster in US history.Also FEMA pulled back for 1 day in order to get security in place.First responders were getting shot at by looters as you recall.Tell me what specific documents you are referring to and I will see that you get them.

2.Dry hole,bucko.He did take pictures…he admitted that…they are called photo ops.This one is really weak.Corruption exists EVERYWHERE in Washington..trancending both aisles.

3.He was abiding by the law.It’s folks like you who say he wasn’t.Another non-issue.

4.Let’s see….tax the rich..I get it…roll back the tax..ya,that’s the answer.Here’s a rubric for you:


DEMOCRATIC View

You have two cows.
Your neighbor none.
You feel guilty for being succceful
Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN View

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none
So?

5.Bush did that,right?Or was it Rumsfield who took that cash?How abour the New Orleans vendors who got arrested yesterday in a kick back scheme over boxed lunches…Bush’s fault,right.

6.Retards?I don’t think that is a politicially correct term to use my friend.We view things differently,that’s all.

This sums it up: Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly, so they lit a fire in
the
craft. Unsurprisingly it sank, proving once again that you can’t have
your
kayak and heat it too.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at January 31, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #118827

Surprise, surprise the economy is growing and the American people are better off today than ever before. At least thats what was said not word for word during the SOU address. But here is part of an article in the Market Watch just posted awhile ago.

The Commerce Department told us this week that, for the first time since the Great Depression in 1933, consumers not only spent all their after-tax income but also borrowed more or dipped into their savings. As a result, the national savings rate was a negative 0.5%.

I don’t call this a glowing economy. But then I’m not one of the ones that has money in IRA’s etc. I’m one of the ones that barely have enough to pay my bills(most not on time) let alone save anything for whatever this so called president wants us to save for. Retirement, health care, etc. Thats just an easy way to not have to come up with a better plan. And by the way my husband and I both work and he has had to take on a second job just to get by on. So we are trying to help ourselves before that is brought up. We’re not looking for handouts but an administration that would go after the health care industry and the pharmacuticals to lower the cost of health care and medicine would be wonderful. And lets not forget the cost of gas and heating. Wonders will never cease Exon reported another record quarter, while the people who pay for them to have that record can hardly afford to put gas in their cars.

Posted by: Sherri at February 1, 2006 1:03 AM
Post a comment