Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

And speaking of ineptness by the Bush Co.'s, separate and apart from the "knee-jerking", it would seem that it is the talk of the town these days, down there in Washington, D.C., but really, who should be surprised?

Politics - AFP

"Iraq reconstruction scandalous: Democrats"

WASHINGTON(AFP) - The Bush administration was accused of allowing the US rebuilding of Iraq to become as chaotic as the Wild West, of protecting a US contractor accused of fraud and of censorship.

Senator Harry Reid, head of the opposition Democrats in the US Senate, was visibly angry over accounts of incompetence and corruption from former staff of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq.

"This is a scandal," said a visibly angry Reid.

"We are close to 24 months into this conflict with Iraq, and the administration (of US President George W. Bush) still can't seem to get it right," he said.

Reid spoke during hearings in Congress into the management of the CPA's multi-billion dollar reconstruction program.

In the hearings, civilians compared CPA operations to the Wild West, saying bags full of cash were tossed freely about, at times as footballs.

Franklin Willis, who supervised aviation for the CPA in late 2003, accused the organization of "poor execution" and called it "naive."

He said that millions of dollars in 100-dollar bills stored in the basement of the CPA offices were casually distributed to favored contractors with little accounting discipline.

Another witness accused the government of hampering an investigation into alleged fraud by US-based Custer Battles, which had contracts worth as much as 100 million dollars in Iraq for airport security and other jobs.

Custer Battles was accused of repainting old airport equipment and billing the CPA for new equipment, among other schemes.

"We estimate that the government's total losses are tens of millions of dollars," said lawyer Alan Grayson, who represents former employees of the company.

"Yet for more than a year, the Bush administration has done nothing to recover these ill-gotten gains," Grayson said.

And as for me, I would say "war is a dangerous place", because war is an unpredictable place, or rather, "outcomes" in war, or as a result of war, just might not be what you want or need them to be, as this next news item hints at:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Iraq winners more than U.S. bargained for - Many in newly elected government are closely allied with Iran"

ANALYSIS By Robin Wright

Updated: 10:49 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2005

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago this month, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy — potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base — and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door.

It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy — $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.

"In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star, "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened."

"Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false."

And what a joke this all is!

While this Democratic Senator is taking a tally of how the Bush Co.'s have mismanaged and allegedly misspent millions already in Iraq, the head Bush Co. himself is coming in and asking for BILLIONS MORE!

And in the meantime, we, of course, are to tighten up OUR belts, because not only do we have to pay for this multi-million dollar mismangement, we also have to go without, ourselves, so that the Bush Co. will have more money, OF OURS, to mismanage, and misspend!

How droll!

How very droll, indeed!

White House - AP

"Bush Wants $82B More for Iraq, Afghan Costs"

36 minutes ago

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday urged Congress to approve quickly his request for $82 billion to cover the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a myriad of other internationally related expenses, such as training Iraqi security forces, aiding tsunami victims and helping military forces in other nations.

"The majority of this request will ensure that our troops continue to get what they need to protect themselves and complete their mission,'" Bush said in a statement released before the White House officially sent the supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill.

"It also provides for the continued pursuit of al-Qaida and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan and elsewhere," the president said.

"I urge the Congress to move quickly so our troops and diplomats have the tools they need to succeed."

Included in the request is $74.9 billion for the Defense Department.

About $5 billion is for reorganizing Army divisions and brigades and $5.7 billion for training and equipping Iraqi military and police, according to a federal official familiar with the request.

The remaining money in the supplemental request includes:

_ $2.242 billion to counter drugs, pay for security, and support democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan.

_ $950 million to help areas affected by the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean.

_ $660 million for construction of a U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

_ $400 million to reward nations that have taken political and economic risks to join the U.S.-led coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

_ $242 million for the Darfur region of western Sudan where a two-year civil conflict has left tens of thousands of people dead and more than 2 million displaced.

_ $200 million in education and border security aid for the Palestinians.

_ $200 million for economic and military aid in Jordan.

_ $150 million in military aid for Pakistan.

_ $100 million for southern Sudan where a treaty recently was signed to end a 22-year civil war.

_ $60 million for Ukraine, which recently elected Viktor Yushchenko president.

In a written statement on this issue earlier, Bush had said the special appropriation would support U.S. troops and help the United States "stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights."

The Army wants to use the $5 billion to convert 33 brigades and regiments — about 30 of which are organized into 10 divisions — into a force of 43 to 48 brigades that would operate more independently.

"Instead of having the brigade communicate with their divisions and the divisions communicate with their higher-ups, all 43 to 48 would be allowed to communicate with higher-ups and operate more or less independently," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies.

Last week, Bush submitted an overall $2.5 trillion budget for fiscal 2006.

That document called for restraining spending across a wide swath of government programs from popular farm subsidies to poor people's health programs.

Spending on the military, the biggest part of discretionary spending, would rise by 4.8 percent in 2006 to $419.3 billion.

The money requested for the military did not include the additional $82 billion, but administration officials point out that while it was not in the 2006 budget request, the $82 billion for ongoing military expenses in Iraq and the Middle East was built into the administration's deficit projections.

Still, the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 35 moderate and conservative Democrats, known as fiscal and defense hawks, are criticizing the administration for using the supplemental budget request to ask Congress for more money to finance the war.

Supplemental budget requests often don't receive as much scrutiny and often don't include the same amount of detail as regular budget requests.

"The Blue Dog Coalition recognizes that we must support our troops, but the Congress cannot continue to write blank checks," the group said in a statement.

Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer.

Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the new request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion.

That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Livyjr]

And pardon me here, for going back into Volume I of "Life in OUR America" to retrieve this following story, but I have done so, as there is an update on it to follow, and it ties directly into this alleged mismanagement of OUR tax dollars by the Bush Co.'s, which seems to be for the express purpose of lining the pockets of the Bush Co.'s political supporters, at OUR expense:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Long fall for Pentagon star - Druyun doled out favors by the millions"

By Renae Merle, Washington Post

Updated: 4:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2004

WASHINGTON - In the macho world of the Pentagon, Darleen A. Druyun was rare: a woman who had scaled the heights of power, controlled billions of dollars in weapons programs and could punish or reward global corporations and the men who ran them.

Once the most feared woman in the world of military contracting, Druyun, 57, helped direct the Air Force's $30 billion procurement budget — nearly three times the size of the Army's.

She was at the peak of her power as a top Air Force weapons buyer in 1999 when she scolded leaders of Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest defense contractor, for some of its work on satellites and rockets.

Her tone was blunt: One program had "pitiful" software and a company proposal had a "crappy design."

The incident contributed to the early retirement of one Lockheed executive and the company rushed to address Druyun's concerns, according to several people familiar with the situation.

But now it is Druyun who has fallen from grace.

In April, she pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge for negotiating for a job with Boeing Co. while still supervising the company's work for the Air Force.

Last month she stunned military and industry leaders by admitting that she gave Boeing preferential treatment for years before taking a job with the company.

The Pentagon announced last week that because of Druyun's illegal behavior it has begun investigations into all of her contracting-related actions during her nine years as the Air Force's deputy acquisition chief.

The Defense Department also began the largest review of how it buys weapons since the investigation of influence peddling in the 1980s known as Operation Ill Wind.

The fallout could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars as companies unfairly ruled out of contracts seek restitution for the costs they incurred during the bidding process.

Since she was sentenced to nine months in prison, a portrait of Druyun has emerged from court papers and interviews with her associates of a woman who acquired power beyond her status at the Air Force then walked over subordinates, humbled industry executives and sought personal advantage at government expense.

Druyun is an imposing figure with a sharp — and sometimes vulgar — tongue, who was right at home in the male-dominated Pentagon world.

Her renown as a tough government negotiator and stickler for the rules encouraged her superiors to rely on her judgment, according to industry insiders.

For nearly 40 percent of her time at the Pentagon she had no supervisor at all.

Her rise to power coincided with a government-wide push to build closer relationships with contractors as partners.

"I was surprised that someone who was around [during the Ill Wind investigation] would be in essence doing the same things that Ill Wind was all about," said Joseph J. Aronica, the lead prosecutor in that investigation, now a lawyer with Duane Morris LLP.

"I guess these things in a way are cyclical."

"She may have thought no one was looking any more."

Druyun did not respond to letters and could not be reached by telephone to comment on this article.

Her lawyer declined comment through his secretary.

Druyun began her career in government work in 1970 when she landed a job as an Air Force contractor negotiator at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia.

Her father, who had worked at the base for 40 years, was "instrumental" in getting her the job, according to court documents.

Druyun's husband, William S. Druyun, is a retired Air Force official who was a mid-level manager at Falls Church-based General Dynamics Corp. before retiring in September.

For the next 20 years, she bounced between the Air Force, the Office of Management and Budget and NASA before being named the Air Force's deputy acquisition chief, a position she would hold until her retirement in November 2002.

Controversy begins early

But no sooner had she climbed the heights of Air Force procurement than she became involved in a controversy over work she had done three years before.

She and four other Air Force officials were accused by Pentagon inspector general of improperly funneling $349 million to McDonnell Douglas Corp. in 1990 to keep the C-17 transport aircraft program on track.

After a separate Air Force investigation found no wrongdoing, Defense Secretary Les Aspin dismissed one general and disciplined three others, saying the program was poorly managed.

Druyun was cleared.

Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff at the time, said he petitioned Aspin on Druyun's behalf.

"I thought she was a strong person, giving strong leadership in the acquisition community, so if I was going to save one person I thought" it should be Druyun, said McPeak, who retired in 1994 and is now president of an aerospace consulting firm.

"She was the one who would come into my office and tell me I was wrong about something. ... She had the stomach to not be a yes-woman."

Druyun then reinvented herself as a reformer, developing "Lightning Bolt" initiatives that aimed to make Air Force weapons procurement more efficient and stressed the importance of a company's past performance in awarding new contracts.

The Air Force said the program saved $20 billion.

The fortunes of defense contractors rested on Druyun's decisions on competitions, her policy decrees and her awards of bonuses.

In 1999, she emerged as the Pentagon's top advocate of the F/A-22, a boon to Lockheed, the fighter jet's manufacturer.

In 2001, Druyun eliminated Raytheon Co. from a $2.5 billion competition to build the small-diameter bomb, surprising industry handicappers and realigning the competitive landscape.

An official at Druyun's level would not normally decide the outcome of as many competitions as she did or get involved in the nitty-gritty of contract negotiations, according to people in the industry.

Those tasks were left to underlings who made the decisions themselves or offered their recommendations.

"Once in a blue moon there will be a mess where you can't resolve an issue and the issue will float up the chain of command," said John W. Douglas, the former assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition.

Druyun, however, actively discouraged her staff from making recommendations, according to a former defense official who worked with her.

"She began accreting this authority up to her," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigations.

"She would say, 'Don't send it up with a recommendation, just send it up with information.'"

The power creep did not escape the notice of her superiors.

In one or two cases, "I was surprised she was getting involved, but they were large [contracts] and ... she was a hands-on kind of person," said Jacques Gansler, the Pentagon's acquisition chief from 1997 to 2001.

"People above and around her in the Air Force should have been overseeing her."

Abrasive side

The rough edges of Druyun's personality also emerged.

Staff members who seemed unprepared or provided Druyun with inadequate or faulty information would be frozen out of later meetings, according to government and industry officials who worked with her.

"Those who have feared going to see the 'Dragon Lady' only feared if they didn't have their act together, or were trying to 'cover' an error," retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Lawrence A. Mitchell said in a letter of support included in court records.

"She justifiably had no time for 'BS-ers' or liars."

Gradually, Druyun's allegiances began to shift as her personal and professional lives became entangled.

When her daughter's fiance, Michael McKee, was looking for a job in 2000, she contacted a longtime Boeing associate, Michael M. Sears, the company's chief financial officer, for help, according to court records.

McKee was hired for a position in St. Louis.

Druyun also helped her daughter, Heather, land a job at Boeing two months later — a position created for her, the records show.

After years fostering a reputation as the defense contractors' toughest adversary, Druyun felt indebted to Boeing.

She then made a series of decisions that were rooted in her sense of gratitude, she told the court.

In 2000, she agreed to increase the size of a Boeing contract for C-17 transport planes by $412 million.

Two years later, she restructured the company's program to modernize 18 NATO planes used as airborne command posts, and approved a $100 million payment.

In 2001, Druyun picked Boeing over Lockheed to upgrade the avionics on C-130 transport planes.

The decision stunned industry analysts because Lockheed had built the planes and was considered the most probable choice to modernize them.

Industry analysts pointed to the competition as proof that Boeing's strategy to apply commercial technology to the military sector was working and that Lockheed was failing to capture the Air Force's imagination.

But Druyun soon had a new boss: Marvin R. Sambur, who managed the $1.5 billion defense business of ITT Industries Inc., was appointed Air Force acquisition chief in late 2001.

Sambur said he was surprised to learn that Druyun, not her subordinates, was deciding the outcome of competitions and contract bonuses, which often made up a company's profit margin.

Druyun also hoarded information and kept the decision-making process secret, he said in an interview.

He felt, Sambur said, like summer help.

"At the beginning when I came in here, a lot of people in the meetings would look to her to see if she agreed with what I had to say," Sambur said.

"The recognition was ... she's going to be here for a long time and I may be like the other acquisition people who stayed here for a relatively short period of time or didn't have the type of background necessary to run this."

Sambur said he began dismantling Druyun's power.

First, he stripped her of the ability to decide competitions, then took away her authority to negotiate final contract terms or change requirements.

With her authority diminished, Druyun told Sambur that she intended to retire.

Federal regulations restricted what kind of job Druyun, now the civilian equivalent of a lieutenant general, could take in the defense industry, but she soon forged a handshake agreement to join the executive ranks of Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest contractor.

Meanwhile, Druyun also met with Lockheed's largest rival, Boeing, about a job, according to court documents.

She initially used her daughter Heather as intermediary.

In e-mails to Sears, Heather said that her mother would consider moving out of Washington but insisted on a position with considerable responsibility.

Druyun soon reneged on her agreement with Lockheed, according to court records, and accepted a position at Boeing as a vice president.

She had barely moved in when she became the center of controversy again.

In her final months at the Pentagon, Druyun was the chief negotiator of a $20 billion program to lease, then purchase, Boeing 767s converted into refueling tankers.

The proposal had attracted the attention of the Senate Commerce Committee chairman, John McCain (R-Ariz.), who called the proposal a welfare program for Boeing and criticized Sambur and other Air Force officials for their handling of the deal.

Critics said it was more than a coincidence that Druyun, the chief Air Force negotiator, would take a $250,000-a-year job with Boeing.

Boeing publicly defended the tanker proposal and its employment of Druyun, but also hired an outside law firm to investigate the hiring.

The firm found that the employment talks had occurred while Druyun was overseeing Boeing contracts — a violation of federal law.

Druyun was fired and pleaded guilty, sparing prosecution of her daughter, who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Sears, who negotiated Druyun's employment, is scheduled to plead guilty on Monday.

Druyun would still not reveal the entire truth for several months — and only then after failing two polygraph tests.

After initially admitting only to a technical violation — holding improper employment discussions — she acknowledged years of preferential treatment of Boeing.

She agreed to a higher price on the tanker deal as a "parting gift" to the firm, she told the court.

"Getting to the truth of matters can sometimes be difficult," Druyun's lawyer, John M. Dowd, told the judge before she was sentenced.

"There is no denying [Darleen] made a serious mistake and there is no denying she had difficulty coming to grips with certain matters."

[Livyjr]

And pardon me here, for going back into Volume I of "Life in OUR America" to retrieve this following story, but I have done so, as there is an update on it to follow, and it ties directly into this alleged mismanagement of OUR tax dollars by the Bush Co.'s, which seems to be for the express purpose of lining the pockets of the Bush Co.'s political supporters, at OUR expense:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Long fall for Pentagon star - Druyun doled out favors by the millions"

By Renae Merle, Washington Post

Updated: 4:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2004

WASHINGTON - In the macho world of the Pentagon, Darleen A. Druyun was rare: a woman who had scaled the heights of power, controlled billions of dollars in weapons programs and could punish or reward global corporations and the men who ran them.

Once the most feared woman in the world of military contracting, Druyun, 57, helped direct the Air Force's $30 billion procurement budget — nearly three times the size of the Army's.

She was at the peak of her power as a top Air Force weapons buyer in 1999 when she scolded leaders of Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest defense contractor, for some of its work on satellites and rockets.

Her tone was blunt: One program had "pitiful" software and a company proposal had a "crappy design."

The incident contributed to the early retirement of one Lockheed executive and the company rushed to address Druyun's concerns, according to several people familiar with the situation.

But now it is Druyun who has fallen from grace.

In April, she pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge for negotiating for a job with Boeing Co. while still supervising the company's work for the Air Force.

Last month she stunned military and industry leaders by admitting that she gave Boeing preferential treatment for years before taking a job with the company.

The Pentagon announced last week that because of Druyun's illegal behavior it has begun investigations into all of her contracting-related actions during her nine years as the Air Force's deputy acquisition chief.

The Defense Department also began the largest review of how it buys weapons since the investigation of influence peddling in the 1980s known as Operation Ill Wind.

The fallout could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars as companies unfairly ruled out of contracts seek restitution for the costs they incurred during the bidding process.

Since she was sentenced to nine months in prison, a portrait of Druyun has emerged from court papers and interviews with her associates of a woman who acquired power beyond her status at the Air Force then walked over subordinates, humbled industry executives and sought personal advantage at government expense.

And here is that follow-up!

And keep in mind that when this above news article says "the fallout (from the Druyn affair) could cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars as companies unfairly ruled out of contracts seek restitution for the costs they incurred during the bidding process", it really means US, as we are the government, and it is us!

And every dollar that the government has, IS OURS, and every dollar it spends, COSTS US!

Outside of us, there is no government!

SO!

IT IS US WHO ARE BEING ROBBED HERE!

YOU and ME!

After all, who else is there to rob?

White House - AP Cabinet & State

"More Air Force Contracts to Be Probed"

Mon Feb 14, 2:25 PM ET

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is investigating eight additional Air Force contracts to determine whether they were manipulated or influenced illegally by Darleen Druyun, a former Air Force official who was convicted last year of giving Boeing Co. special treatment on a tanker lease deal.

The eight contracts range in value from $42 million to $1.5 billion and their total value is about $3 billion, according to a summary provided by the Pentagon on Monday.

Michael Wynne, the acting chief of Pentagon acquisition programs, told reporters that the eight contracts were identified as suspicious from among 407 reviewed by a team of military and civilian contracting experts.

They referred the eight to the Pentagon's inspector general.

The eight are in addition to seven others that already are being investigated.

At least four of the eight contracts involve Boeing.

Wynne stressed that it is not yet clear that any of the additional eight have been tainted.

They were picked for further investigation because they "seemed to be out of the normal process."

The review and investigations are an outgrowth of revelations about Druyun's handling of the multibillion-dollar deal with Boeing that would have allowed the Air Force to lease a fleet of new aerial refueling aircraft.

Congress eventually killed the deal because of Druyun's involvement.

Druyun was an Air Force acquisition executive who later was hired by Boeing as a top executive.

Druyun pleaded guilty last year and is serving nine months in federal prison.

Boeing's former chief financial officer, Michael Sears, has also pleaded guilty for his role in hiring Druyun.

He is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday.

Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said Monday that the firm would continue to cooperate with the government to resolve any outstanding questions.

"We'll continue to cooperate as these go to the IG and we'll be responsive to every request for information from DoD."

"If any problems are found, we've got both the will and the processes to fix them," Beck said.

The eight contracts that were referred for further investigation were awarded between 1998 and 2002, Wynne said.

The contractors involved are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Andersen Consulting, Systems & Electronics Inc., and Pemco.

The biggest was a $1.5 billion award to a Boeing-Pemco team in 2000-01 for depot maintenance for the Air Force's KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft.

Wynne said the reviews and investigations have not identified any other Air Force acquisition executive, besides Druyun, who acted improperly or illegally in the contracting process.

Meanwhile, two separate federal criminal investigations into Boeing in Los Angeles and Virginia were expected to end soon without more indictments, government and industry sources told the Los Angeles Times.

"It appears what we had here was a fairly straightforward two-person conspiracy," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst for the Lexington Institute in Virginia with close ties to Pentagon investigators.

"There were no wider ramifications."

The company has maintained that any ethical violations were confined to Sears and Druyun.

Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher told analysts a week ago that he believed the investigations "now are all completed."

By the end of this month, he said, Boeing will "be able to move forward in settling a bunch of these issues."

end quotes

And we will all be watching!

DISINTERMEDIATION in action, here, in OUR America!

[Livyjr]

From USA Today, letters to the editor:

"Military, sporting events don't mix"

There has been a lot of focus on the great commercials shown during the Super Bowl.

But one commercial we don't hear much comment about is the patriotic message of war during the game.

We saw marching soldiers, fighter jets, a reading of the Declaration of Independence and a fireworks display during Paul McCartney's performance of Live and Let Die.

Combining the excitement of football fans with our country's military efforts seems inappropriate.

The mixture reminded me of Adolf Hitler's use of the Olympics and rallies at Nuremberg to whip up support for nationalism, militarization and wars of aggression.

One might get the impression from watching the game that Americans are unanimously in support of President Bush's war against Iraq.

But let's not forget that many Americans are opposed to the war and any further unilateral military aggression.

Americans must not degenerate into a mindless mob mentality, cheering for wars under the banner of patriotism.

Let sporting events be sporting events, not war commercials.

Robert E. Griffin

Forty Fort, Pa.

[Livyjr]

From USA Today, letters to the editor:

"Military, sporting events don't mix"

There has been a lot of focus on the great commercials shown during the Super Bowl.

But one commercial we don't hear much comment about is the patriotic message of war during the game.

We saw marching soldiers, fighter jets, a reading of the Declaration of Independence and a fireworks display during Paul McCartney's performance of Live and Let Die.

Combining the excitement of football fans with our country's military efforts seems inappropriate.

The mixture reminded me of Adolf Hitler's use of the Olympics and rallies at Nuremberg to whip up support for nationalism, militarization and wars of aggression.

One might get the impression from watching the game that Americans are unanimously in support of President Bush's war against Iraq.

But let's not forget that many Americans are opposed to the war and any further unilateral military aggression.

Americans must not degenerate into a mindless mob mentality, cheering for wars under the banner of patriotism.

Let sporting events be sporting events, not war commercials.

Robert E. Griffin

Forty Fort, Pa.

I had to go to a funeral this morning, and as I was sitting in church during the funeral mass, I noticed that the priest said several times that "we are people of faith!"

With emphasis on that phrase, "people of faith"!

And I really had to wonder, when he said that, about what he actually was meaning by this phrase "we are people of faith", as I have never heard that phrase used in such a peculiar manner in a church before this time!

Specifically, WHO IS NOT?

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WITHOUT FAITH, I wonder?

That is part of what went through my mind, anyway, when the priest said his words about "us", presumably including me, but maybe not!

Maybe his message was only for his flock, of which I am not a member, since I am not affiliated with that church in any way, shape, or manner!

SO?

Maybe I am one of these alleged people without faith, then, in the eyes of this particular priest.

People of faith!

Flung like a "war cry", in a sense, at least to me!

"People of faith, rise up, destroy the unbelievers!"

And NO, this was not a Muslim funeral service, lest someone take my meaning wrong here!

This in fact was a Catholic Church, and those words were spoken by a priest of the Catholics.

When I heard these words, George W. Bush and the Republican Party actually popped into my head, as well!

"People of faith!"

Hhhhmmmmm!

Can't escape politics and political messages anywhere, it seems, these days, even at a funeral mass!

SO?

I wonder if they now show patriotic commericals in the churchs at half-time of the Bingo Games?

And if Karl Rove and the Bush Co. "Office of Strategic Initiatives" have their way, I just bet they do!

Peace!

Who needs it?

Who wants it?

It's just plain bad for the economy!

SO!

Thump them tubs, cry the war cries, let slip the dogs of war!

The Bush Co's buddies need the geetus, after all, and it is OUR patriotic duty to open OUR pockets and give them all we have got!

And who better to drive that message home but the local parish priest!

Trust versus faith!

An interesting proposition, indeed!

[Livyjr]

And here I am just coming back from checking my e-mail, where I just deleted a message that said "do not delete".

As I began to scroll down through the message, it began by listing a number of very petty complaints that people might be making these days, like being upset if you are cut off in traffic, etc.

Then it began to show a bunch of soldiers in Iraq sleeping in the mud, etc.

Then it concluded with a message to us over here to not be such cry-babies, and whiners, and instead, to be very thankful to these soldiers sleeping in the mud in Iraq, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLEGEDLY KEEPING US SAFE TO BE CRY-BABIES, OVER HERE.

Well, sorry, but I just don't buy into this, at all, and I told the sender of this e-mail so, in a reply!

What I said exactly was that I too have been there, TO WAR, allegedly on behalf of America; I have done that, slept in the mud, many times, and NEVER have I asked anyone to thank me for doing what I thought then was my duty, and that I was not going to start now, by forwarding that offensive message to anyone else, TELLING THEM, IN A SHAMING TYPE OF MANNER, that they now had some obligation to thank these present-day soldiers sleeping in the mud in Iraq, who are there precisely because George W. Bush put them there, for his purposes, which are not necessarily my purposes at all!

What is this crap, anyway, that we are now being told what we have to do, which is go out and find a soldier and thank that soldier for keeping us safe?

How has George W. Bush's action of starting a HOLY WAR in Iraq imposed a duty upon us as free American citizens to now have to be beholden to a soldier, ANY SOLDIER, for our alleged "freedom"?

And the operative words here are "have to"!

Soldiers are soldiers, in my own day, and especially these days, BECAUSE THEY VOLUNTEERED TO BE SO!

They took on a duty, TO THE PROTECTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, and by God, they had better dispatch that duty to the best of their ability is how I see it, HAVING BEEN ONE, MYSELF; and so, I do not "owe" them any thanks whatsoever for the fulfillment of that "duty", as that "owing" then strips me of something that I just do not choose to give, never having asked for it myself!

Somehow, this "mind-whipping" that is going on these days with these pictures of our soldiers sleeping in the mud in Iraq is getting to be just a bit obscene, at least to me.

In OUR American Pledge of Allegiance, it states "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL", and when one goes and does some research on what this word "LIBERTY" means, to us, as Americans with a Constitution, one finds that the “liberty” guaranteed and protected by constitutional provisions denotes not only freedom from unauthorized physical restraint, but embraces also the freedom of an individual to use and enjoy his faculties in all lawful ways, acquire useful knowledge, marry, establish a home, and bring up children, worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, live and work where he chooses, engage in any of the common and lawful occupations of life, enter into all contracts which may be proper and essential to carrying out successfully the foregoing purposes, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly "pursuit of happiness" by free people.

FREE PEOPLE, of course, are free, and that means free from coercion by others to have to hold a certain "mindset" about this HOLY WAR that Bush Co. has now got us embroiled in over in Iraq, where these soldiers are now having to sleep in the mud, just as soldiers have always done, and for some, not only mud, but frozen ground, as well.

What is now different is that these images of "reality" for a soldier in any war are now being used as whips and goads to make us feel guilty, and I do not like that, to be quite truthful!

OUR soldiers now appear to be used as pawns in some kind of propaganda campaign the likes of which I have never seen before, and I find it quite disturbing, this "cult-like" atmosphere that is beginning to surround our soldiers in Iraq, especially, and this continuing message that if it were not for them, none of us in this country would be free!

That is a false message, and completely and totally so!

We are free in this country, IF, AND ONLY IF, EACH OF US EMBRACES FREEDOM, for ourselves, and then, for all of those who surround us, without them having to fear us, at all, in any manner, including us coercing them to have to think and believe like we do.

Freedom cannot be forced upon someone who does not desire it, and when you are being coerced to have to thank someone else for your alleged and supposed freedom, THAT IS EXACTLY WHEN YOU ARE THE LEAST FREE!

So, please, all of you out there in America spreading these "mind-whipping" coercive messages telling all of us in America that we must be thankful to George W. Bush or some soldier for OUR freedom, please leave off right now, especially with this exploitation of OUR soldiers in Iraq for your own partisan political purposes!

THEN, we shall be free!

And not a minute before!

[Abu Beacon]

And speaking of ineptness by the Bush Co.'s, separate and apart from the "knee-jerking", it would seem that it is the talk of the town these days, down there in Washington, D.C., but really, who should be surprised?

"Inept " ---" Knee Jerk Response " ------ Descriptive words when we speak of the leaders of the " world's only superpower " That is how the United States is continually referred to in many foreign newspapers. " The world's only superpower " These should be words indicating admiration --- respect -- deference. Actually, they are used in most cases with Contempt -- Fear -- Hatred
The world watches and waits. They rejoice when we stumble. They cheer when our soldiers die. They dance in the streets when we suffer a defeat.

My parents, who emigrated from Lebanon to the " Land of the Free " almost 100 years ago, passed on stories to me when I was young about how the feeling in the Arab World toward the United States was of LOVE -- High Esteem -- Approval. Now what is their strongest feeling toward us? Hate -- Disgust -- Disbelief.

How could it not be so? They have silently watched as we exploited their oil fields, and then demonized them for raising the price of oill

They have pleaded for the U.S. to show a fair and balanced attitude toward them
in their conflict with Israel.

We looked the other way.

We interfered constantly in their internal affairs, culminating in an invasion of an Arab country with trumped up and self serving motives, and then claimed " self defense "

We treated them with a master/slave attitude and took away their rights because
they look " Middle Eastern "

We invented the most barbaric ways to torture them in the hell hole of Abu Ghraib, then blamed it on a few enlisted men.

Hundreds of them languish in Guantanomo with no rights, no charges made against them, no plans to ever set them free.

I am speaking of their feelings toward the United States Government, not primarily toward the American people, although that is slipping, too. They really think we are just stupid, especially when we re elect these " INEPT " self serving, people who are trying their best to take our country down.

The politicians sit around the tables in Washington, they eat the best of food, drink the best wine, shake their heads and say to each other ------

" Why Do They Hate Us? "

On the CNN program " Crossfire " tonight, James Carville said it wasn't considered

nice to call the president a liar. So Carville said, " O.K. He's a bald faced liar. "

Tomorrow, Carville will be hung by the thumbs by the ' compassionate conservatives, ' the elite ruling class who fortunately for all of us, know what's best for us and for everyone else in the world.

How did we ever make it without them?

A.B.

[jeffmoskin]

But, of course, Eisenhower had actually seen war...

And, on the eve of June 5, 1944, he was extremely concerned because he KNEW how many men would be killed in the coming D-Day landing. Every one of those men was of concern to him.

Senator Harry Reid, head of the opposition Democrats in the US Senate, was visibly angry over accounts of incompetence and corruption from former staff of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq.

"This is a scandal," said a visibly angry Reid.

"We are close to 24 months into this conflict with Iraq, and the administration (of US President George W. Bush) still can't seem to get it right," he said.

I am starting to like Harry Reid. I think he may turn out a lot better than I initially gave him credit for.

"Inept "  ---" Knee Jerk Response " ------ Descriptive words when we speak of the leaders of the " world's only superpower " That is how the United States is  continually referred to in many foreign newspapers. " The world's only superpower " These should be words indicating admiration  ---  respect  --  deference. Actually, they are used in most cases with Contempt  --  Fear -- Hatred
The world watches and waits. They rejoice when we stumble. They cheer when our soldiers die. They dance in the streets when we suffer a defeat.

My parents, who emigrated from Lebanon to the " Land of the Free "  almost 100 years ago, passed on stories to me when I was young about how the feeling in the Arab World toward the United States was of LOVE  --  High Esteem  -- Approval. Now what is their strongest feeling toward us? Hate --  Disgust  -- Disbelief.

How could it not be so? They have silently watched as we exploited their oil fields, and then demonized them for raising the price of oill

They have pleaded for the U.S. to show a fair and balanced attitude toward them
in their conflict with Israel.

We looked the other way.

We interfered constantly in their internal affairs, culminating in an invasion of an Arab country with trumped up and self serving motives, and then claimed " self defense "

We treated them with a master/slave attitude and took away their rights because
they look " Middle Eastern "

We invented the most barbaric ways to torture them in the hell hole of Abu Ghraib, then blamed it on a few enlisted men.

Hundreds of them languish in Guantanomo with no rights, no charges made against them, no plans to ever set them free.

I am speaking of their feelings toward the United States Government, not primarily toward the American people, although that is slipping, too. They really think we are just stupid, especially when we re elect these " INEPT " self serving, people who are trying their best to take our country down.

The politicians sit around the tables in Washington, they eat the best of food, drink the best wine, shake their heads and say to each other ------

" Why Do They Hate Us? "

On the CNN program " Crossfire " tonight, James Carville said it wasn't considered

nice to call the president a liar. So Carville said, " O.K. He's a bald faced liar. "

Tomorrow, Carville will be hung by the thumbs by the ' compassionate conservatives, ' the elite ruling class who fortunately for all of us, know what's best for us and for everyone else in the world.

How did we ever make it without them?

A.B.

Well said, A.B. We have, in our short history as a nation, experienced many bad presidencies. This one is clearly not only the worst IMHO but also the most DANGEROUS, both to us and to the rest of the world. We have, in their eyes, become a menace.

"Why do they hate us?"

Because of our outrageous unilateral conduct; because of our callous record of providing support for dispicable tyrants (Saddam) because it suits our commercial interests; because we blame Abu Ghraib on a "few bad apples" when those "apples" are really named Cheney and Gonzales; because we are now prejudiced against "middle eastern looking men" as a category. If Bush had been paying attention instead of clearing brush on his ranch (a task for which he is more competent than as president)

WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE SPOT WE ARE IN.

[Livyjr]

"Inept "  ---" Knee Jerk Response " ------ Descriptive words when we speak of the leaders of the " world's only superpower. "

That is how the United States is  continually referred to in many foreign newspapers.

"The world's only superpower!"

These should be words indicating admiration  ---  respect  --  deference.

Actually, they are used in most cases with Contempt  --  Fear -- Hatred!

The world watches and waits.

They rejoice when we stumble.

They cheer when our soldiers die.

They dance in the streets when we suffer a defeat.

A.B.

Well, A.B., YOU HAVE SPOKEN!

And so well and to the point!

It is indeed interesting, this "dynamic" which has arisen in here, with you and jeffmoskin entering the fray, as it were, which I think is a good combination.

jeffmoskin is a good counterpoint to me, because he has survived, as have you, and he has achieved a state of balance within himself that tends to offset me, who has found life at times quite a struggle back here, after returning home from Viet Nam as a disabled veteran.

I remember, A.B., when America was just plain, old America, with none of this "homeland" and "superpower" crap being bandied about as if it meant something, or anything at all, to anybody out there besides the blowhards who use this kind of hyberbolic language to make themselves sound like important, "big men" about town; and I am sure that you and jeffmoskin must have some "prior" memories as well of our "pre-superpower" days, when we were simply a land with the opportunity for liberty and justice for all.

I have spent many hours (and still not enough, never enough, actually) listening to people from your generation talking about their own childhoods during the depression days, and even though life must have been "tough", in some senses, I have never really heard people like you complaining about that "toughness", which is interesting, and up-lifting, at least to me, and encouraging, again, at least to me.

"Just get through!"

"Endure!"

"Persevere!"

Watch words, A.B., for living life to its fullest, as I understand it; and America was a place where you could actually do that, regardless.

Was it always fair, here?

I kind of doubt it, but still, one could even get beyond that, if one chose to!

America was that kind of place when I was young!

It's interesting that I was brought up with no prejudice, and probably did not learn of real prejudice until I got in the Army, and then somehow, it was an institutionalized thing, at that time, of course, aimed at the Vietnamese.

But before that, the only real rancor that I could detect from my "elders" was towards the Japanese, and that, I guess, was some real hatred, although I personally never bought into that, nor was I ever expected to "hate" the Japanese, myself, and actually, I was taught compassion towards those who did!

I was expected to try and see them as people "with issues", I guess you could say in modern-day parlance!

SO!

At one time, we were simply America!

NOW .....

Now, we have become this bloated, distended kind of arrogant abomination, and I am curious about that, although my own study of history tells me that that can happen to nations, and in fact does, which is why there are more nations on the face of the earth that are NOT HERE ANY LONGER, than there are enduring nations, that have been here for any real amount of time at all, as alleged superpowers.

What an ego term that is, and I personally find it quite off-putting, to be truthful, for the reasons that you express so well in your post above.

"Don't get above your raising, son!"

That was an admonition from some of the old folks around my area when I was young, and as I have gotten older, I have come to appreciate its simple wisdom more and more and more.

It is a complement to "you are heading for a fall", and boy, can that ever be a truth!

And if you want to find out some about that truth, just practice "arrogance", and the lesson comes stalking, in a hurry, sometimes.

SO!

That is why we have this particular thread, A.B., as I stated way back in the beginning, in Volume I, to remove "filters" that tend to mask who we really are as individual citizens over here, and thereby show our fellow "travelers" through life down here, that we are human, like them; nothing more, and nothing less!

And please, DO NOT TAR ME WITH A BRUSH BECAUSE OF WORDS COMING OUT OF THE HEAD OF GEORGE W. BUSH, if and when those words are not mine!

George W. Bush does not define me, nor does he speak for me, and he certainly is not a true example of what all Americans are really like!

That is my message, anyway!

Like all of you out there, I am simply a fellow human being, so, please, do as I do; not not hate me without cause!

And if I do give someone cause to hate me, please rise above that, and educate me, so as to remove the cause, and then, perhaps the world will be a little smoother place, despite the best efforts of George W. Bush and his crowd to have it be otherwise!

[Livyjr]

And speaking of George W. Bush and his crowd of "false-hearted lovers", who are not themselves at all representative of what all Americans can be like, or are like, we have this following from a former member of that Bush Co. crowd that is ruling the roost down there in the heavily-armed and fortified "fortress city" of Washington, D.C., these days:

White House - AP

"Former Aide Blasts Bush's Faith-Based Plan"

40 minutes ago

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is defending the president's faith-based agenda against criticism from a former White House staffer who alleges the president gained politically from his vow to let religious-affiliated organizations use federal money to help the needy, but lacks a commitment to the initiative.

David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, says that as soon as the president announced his faith-based agenda, "hackneyed church-state scare rhetoric made the rounds," yet congressional Republicans matched Democratic hostility with "snoring indifference."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Tuesday took issue with Kuo's depiction of the program.

"The president has made the faith-based initiative one of his highest priorities," he said.

"It was at the top of his list when he came into office and it remains on the top of the list as we move into the second term."

Kuo, in an article posted on the religious web site, beliefnet.com, argues that Capitol Hill gridlock could have been eased with minimal West Wing effort, but that over time, it became clear that the White House didn't need to expend Bush's political capital for "pro-poor" legislation.

"Who was going to hold them accountable?"

"Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA," Kuo said of the powerful National Rifle Association lobby.

"The initiative powerfully appealed to both conservative Christians and urban faith leaders — regardless of how much money was being appropriated," he writes.

"Democratic opposition was understood as an attack on his personal faith."

"... The Faith-Based Office was the cross around the White Houses' neck showing the president's own faith orientation."

"That was sufficient."

[Livyjr]

And, on the eve of June 5, 1944, he was extremely concerned because he KNEW how many men would be killed in the coming D-Day landing.

Every one of those men was of concern to him.

And that is a point, isn't it, jeffmoskin!

Eisenhower WAS a soldier!

He knew the "business", and he knew the "human costs" of that "business" only too well!

I have heard first-person accounts from WWII D-Day vets of how Eisenhower actually came around to shake their hands and wish them well and "God speed" in the hours before the actual D-Day invasion.

Quite a reversal from the gladiators in the ring having to salute the emporer of Rome before they died; which seems to be the "model" for the administration of this present incumbent that we have in power in OUR America these days!

Here, Eisenhower, the top general came to do the saluting!

Perhaps it was about being "fallible" back in those days, before we became this alleged "SUPERPOWER"; or maybe a lot more humble, when America was simply America, and not the "HOMELAND" of something or other that has never been explained to me, despite my being a natural-born American, myself!

Eisenhower knew, I would think, that in war, there is no "perfection", and so, people do die, and horribly so, and that was in his heart and on his mind, in those hours and days before that invasion, which was to eventually crush the menace that Hitler and his crowd represented to the civilized world!

Now, of course, we are a "SUPERPOWER", at least in the minds of the "big talkers" down there in Washington, and their media shills who exist for the purpose of spewing propaganda, to mislead us, and of course, AS A SUPERPOWER, we can do no wrong, especially when that is all we are doing, which is why we have these media shills, to make it sound as if the truth were just not so!

The demonstrable truth is a fabrication, and lies from George W. Bush are actually the truth!

And if Dwight David Eisenhower were to have been a general today, with this perverted Rumsfeld crowd that inhabits the highest corridors of power in the PERVERT-A-GON down there in Washington, he, Eisenhower, would probably be sacked, like General Shinseki was.

And looking at it the other way, can you possibly imagine what a dog's dinner D-Day in WWII would have been if this Bush Co. crowd had been in charge of things back then?

Of course, with the Bush Co.'s in charge back in the days of Hitler, it is likely that there would never have been an invasion of Germany at all, and that is something to think on as well, especially these days, where Karl Rove's "little red playbook" of political tricks seems to have come directly from the archives of the National Socialists in Germany in the days immediately before and after the Reichstag Fire that put Hilter firmly in power in Germany.

Wheels turning!

And yes, they are!

[Livyjr]

And here is a late-breaking story that I just encountered, which may have implications for the future of all of us, here in OUR America, and the candid world as well:

White House - AP Cabinet & State

"U.S. Withdraws Ambassador From Syria"

1 minute ago

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - The United States has recalled its ambassador to Syria amid rising tensions over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon.

Before departing, U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey delivered a stern note, called a demarche in diplomatic parlance, to the Syrian government, said an official who discussed the situation only on grounds of anonymity.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, announcing the move, said it reflected the Bush administration's "profound outrage" over Hariri's assassination.

Boucher refused to blame Syria outright for the bombing in Beirut Monday.

He would say only that it illustrates that Syria's strong military and political presence in Lebanon is a problem and has not provided security in the neighboring country.

"It reminds us even more starkly that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is not good," Boucher said.

"It has not brought anything to the Lebanese people."

Boucher refused to describe Syria's rection to Scobey's diplomatic messages in Damascus.

Syria has not yet taken any reciprocal action, such as withdrawing its own amabssador to Washington.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, apparently referring to the note Scobey delivered to the Syrian foreign ministry, said the United States has "made it clear to Syria that we expect Syria to act in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the disbanding of militias."

Also, McClellan said, "we also made it clear to Sryia that we want them to use their influence to prevent the kind of terroist attack that took place yesterday from happening."

The administration had earlier condemned the killing of Hariri, a billionaire construction magnate who masterminded the recovery of his country, and insisted that Syria comply with a U.N. resolution calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

Hariri, like most Lebanese politicians, walked a thin line between criticizing Damascus and deferring to the country that plays a dominant role in Lebanon's affairs.

He resigned four months ago in light of tensions with Syria but was weighing a political comeback.

A Sunni Muslim, Hariri was on good terms with Lebanese Christians and was especially close to French President Jacques Chirac, who has called for an international investigation into the assassination.

The Bush administration did not directly support Chirac on his call for an international inquiry, but the White House said those responsible for the bombing of Hariri's motorcade must be punished.

[jeffmoskin]

I remember, A.B., when America was just plain, old America, with none of this "homeland" and "superpower" crap being bandied about as if it meant something, or anything at all, to anybody out there besides the blowhards who use this kind of hyberbolic language to make themselves sound like important, "big men" about town; and I am sure that you and jeffmoskin must have some "prior" memories as well of our "pre-superpower" days, when we were simply a land with the opportunity for liberty and justice for all.

I also remember when we Americans were not...

HYPHENATED.

No Mexican-American, Italian-Americans, no African-Americans;

Just plain AMERICANS.

The most recent administrations, starting with Ray-gun, encouraged this hyphenation process during the 80s and 90s, perhaps because doing so emphasises the differences that could divide us rather than the similarities and values which would otherwise unite us. repubs have used a strategy of divide and conquer very effectively. Clinton (Repub-lite IMHO) did it too.

Also, bigger troughs always attract more snouts. Special funds were always set aside for the different hyphenated groups. They began to see themselves more as special interest groups than as American citizens.

Catering to special interest groups. What a concept. I'll bet they eventually became party contributors.

I don't like it. Never did.

There really is an American Creed; it was written by William Tyler Page, and it goes like this:

"I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

"I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."

–Written 1917, accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.

Sounds good to me. No hyphens, either.

[Abu Beacon]

[quote=Livyjr,Feb 15 2005, 01:00 PM]

"Former Aide Blasts Bush's Faith-Based Plan"

This post, frankly is addressed to Livyjr and jeff moskin.

Please excuse this one time use of this thread as a ' chat room '

I have been using the procedure to find both of your postings by using the - members - procedure. This sure does save time, although I do read other threads from time to time.

I started a new thread today - I debated with myself about using this thread for the postings but, frankly, I hope to have the new thread on going for a while and had no desire to monopolize what I will always consider the Livyjr files.

I thoroughly enjoy your postings jeffmoskin. I will respond to them from time to time. You sure have a lot to meditate on. You also save my brain a lot of work trying to figure out the true intent of the articles you quote.

Thank you very much for both of the above.

My new thread is titled " George Bush vs. The Holy Scriptures.

I would be honored if you would occasionally critique these. Have no fear. I am not looking for any ' attaboys '. I just feel very strongly about the content of this thread and want to make it as effective as possible. So let your true input be known.

Thank you.

A.B.

[jeffmoskin]

George Bush vs. The Holy Scriptures

I love it. Good for you, A.B.

[Livyjr]

This post, frankly is addressed to Livyjr and jeff moskin.

Please excuse this one time use of this thread as a ' chat room '

I have been using the procedure to find both of your postings by using the - members - procedure.

This sure does save time, although I do read other threads from time to time.

I started a new thread today - I debated with myself about using this thread for the postings but, frankly, I hope to have the new thread on going for a while and had no desire to monopolize what I will always consider the Livyjr files.

Thank you.

A.B.

A.B., I am for it, too!

Frankly, I think there should be many threads in here, hosted by individuals such as yourself, and you should feel very free, A.B., to advertise your new thread(s) in here, elsewise, I might not ever know, as I don't get out of here that much, and I would like an opportunity to comment over in the section on religion.

In the John Kerry forum, we had quite a discussion on the issue of religion, and George W. Bush, and that thread attracted a wide readership, plus a lot of positive collaboration by different forum members.

It was quite a positive experience for me, anyway, as well as being mentally stimulating.

And I appreciate your thoughts on "Life in OUR America", as well, A.B.

This thread is this thread!

It has its own character, and it serves its own purposes in here, and that is that!

There is room in here for many more threads such as this, on a host of other topics, such as your thread is going to be, and if this thread acts as a stimulus, or catalyst of some type in that process of threads proliferating in here, then I could not be happier.

SO!

Soon, I'm going to take a walk over and visit!

Good luck, A.B., on your new venture!

Thinking keeps the mind young; so keep at it, A.B. and God speed to you, on your way home!

[Livyjr]

My new thread is titled "George Bush vs. The Holy Scriptures."

I would be honored if you would occasionally critique these.

Have no fear.

I am not looking for any ' attaboys '.

I just feel very strongly about the content of this thread and want to make it as effective as possible.

So let your true input be known.

Thank you.

A.B.

And how about that, folks!

A.B. is participating in the adventure; this brand-new experiment, or maybe phase of an experiment, is a better way to put it; an experiment in participative democracy set in motion by OUR forefathers in liberty when they signed the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of England; and I wonder at how many people grasp the true significance of that action by A.B.?

And here I have to say that A.B. is sure a positive example of fortitude to me, as he is a generation older than I am, and here he is in here, using his mind, and his energy in a positive manner for the good of OUR democratic society!

Free speech!

Or maybe it is better to say unimpeded speech, or untrammeled speech; and to me, a younger American, I think that is a very good thing for all of us, when people from A.B.'s generation can come in to a forum like this, and therein, have a place in which to record their thoughts and memories for all of posterity to read and share!

SO!

To anyone stopping by here, do take a moment to go over and find A.B.'s new thread, and give it a visit.

That, after all, is how knowledge grows and spreads in a healthy society; and we should not only enjoy that access to knowledge, we should help it spread further, ourselves!

[Livyjr]

SO!

To anyone stopping by here, do take a moment to go over and find A.B.'s new thread, and give it a visit.

That, after all, is how knowledge grows and spreads in a healthy society; and we should not only enjoy that access to knowledge, we should help it spread further, ourselves!

And here I am, just returning from A.B.'s new thread, which is over in "religion and politics", and I hope that thread will be around for a while!

A.B. is devoting a thread to a discussion which I think is quite relevant to each of us in OUR America these days, and that is this question of "religion", which has got us in a war right now, that is sucking OUR national treasury dry, and for what?

To prove that some god that George W. Bush worships is stronger than some other god that someone else worships?

We're going to spend a BILLION DOLLARS of OUR money EVERY WEEK to prove to some other nation that George W. Bush's god is the best god?

I don't believe that myself, so, I am not supporting this use of our tax money, for religious war, or HOLY WAR in the Middle East!

Sorry, but I'm not!

I don't think that wars being fought over religion are in the best interests of this nation, and so, I am not going to pretend otherwise, and I do not have to, as my liberty as a free American citizen allows me to find and then worship "god" in my own way, so long as the "worship" is physically harmful to no other person!

And when a president of the United States begins to act in an apparently aberrent manner that is harmful to OUR own personal liberty to find god, OR NOT, in our own fashion, then that president is "off the reservation", and he, or she, would be just plain wrong, as George W. Bush will be if he persists in trying to limit our liberty in the manner of how we as individuals choose to worship "god", here, in OUR America.

I am almost sixty years old, now, and never have I felt so threatened over this issue of religion as I do right now, under this Bush Co. crowd, and this "presidential" emphasis on faith, and his "faith-based" government, which feels very exclusive to me, in violation of George W. Bush's own oath as United States president to uphold all of the precepts of the United States Constitution, including the "freedom of worship" clause!

And so, once again, I must commend A.B. for starting this new thread of his, and once again, I would encourage all who stop in here to go over there and give him a visit!

[Livyjr]

And what a joke this all is!

While this Democratic Senator is taking a tally of how the Bush Co.'s have mismanaged and allegedly misspent millions already in Iraq, the head Bush Co. himself is coming in and asking for BILLIONS MORE!

And in the meantime, we, of course, are to tighten up OUR belts, because not only do we have to pay for this multi-million dollar mismangement, we also have to go without, ourselves, so that the Bush Co. will have more money, OF OURS, to mismanage, and misspend!

How droll!

How very droll, indeed!

White House - AP

"Bush Wants $82B More for Iraq, Afghan Costs"

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday urged Congress to approve quickly his request for $82 billion to cover the costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a myriad of other internationally related expenses, such as training Iraqi security forces, aiding tsunami victims and helping military forces in other nations.

"The majority of this request will ensure that our troops continue to get what they need to protect themselves and complete their mission,'" Bush said in a statement released before the White House officially sent the supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill.

"It also provides for the continued pursuit of al-Qaida and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan and elsewhere," the president said.

"I urge the Congress to move quickly so our troops and diplomats have the tools they need to succeed."

And this is an up-date on the supplemental "war budget" that George W. Bush is about to submit to OUR Congress so that he can keep his HOLY WAR going to some as-of-yet undefined conclusion that he euphemistically calls OUR troop's "mission", whatever in the end that might actually be, beyond dying for the continued glory of Mr. George W. Bush, and his pack of NEW CONS who are the advocates of this present-day HOLY WAR that we are embroiled in over in Iraq, right now as I write these words in here!

And please take special note of the last sentence in this following article; it is quite revealing, indeed:

Top Stories - Chicago Tribune

"War budget request loaded with extras"

Tue Feb 15, 9:40 AM ET

By Stephen J. Hedges Washington Bureau

The Bush administration asked Congress on Monday to provide $82 billion to cover unbudgeted costs in the global war on terrorism, but the request includes funds for a long-planned military reorganization and for activities such as tsunami aid that are seemingly unrelated to terrorism.

The president's supplemental request seeks $42.5 billion that would pay for military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan through September, the end of the 2005 federal fiscal year, as well as $12 billion more to refurbish and replace worn-out vehicles, weapons and equipment used in those operations.

The request includes $3 billion that is unrelated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19 billion more that is not directly related to U.S. military costs there.

"These funds will support U.S. armed forces and coalition partners as we advance democracy, fight the insurgency, and train and equip Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their sovereignty and freedom," President Bush said in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

Bush urged Congress "not to attach to this proposal items that are not directly related to these emergencies abroad."

But the White House attached its extra spending request to a measure that is labeled "Funding for the War on Terror."

Among the extras is $5.3 billion to pay for a restructuring of the Army and, to a lesser degree, the Marine Corps.

The administration chose to not include those items in the $419.3 billion defense budget for 2006 that Bush submitted to Congress last week.

That omission has raised bipartisan concerns among members of Congress, who criticized the president for using the supplemental request to further bolster an already escalating defense budget, and to fund programs that are unrelated to military operations.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told military leaders last week that the administration's annual defense budget concealed the true cost of its military spending.

"It hides the true size of the overall budget deficit because it does not include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Levin said of the defense budget.

"It simply fails to include funding to pay for the incremental costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Others supported the White House request, including Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

On Monday, he told The Associated Press that he would push the bill "quickly and cleanly through the Congress."

Monday's supplemental request, if approved, would fund $7.4 billion to train Iraqi and Afghan security forces and $2 billion for Afghanistan reconstruction costs, as well as provide $2 billion to countries that have supported the U.S. efforts.

The White House also asked for $658 million to build a new embassy in Iraq and $717 million for staff and related security operations.

It also asks Congress to fund international aid and relief efforts that have nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, including:

- $950 million for the victims of the Dec. 26 Southeast Asian tsunami;

- $342.4 million for those suffering in the Darfur region of Sudan; and

- $780 million for the U.S. share of peacekeeping efforts in Haiti, Ivory Coast, Burundi and Sudan.

Congress previously has approved more than $192 billion in supplemental spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the new request is approved, the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other operations would jump to nearly $275 billion, far beyond the initial $200 billion estimate by Lawrence Lindsey, a former economic policy adviser to Bush.

Currently there are about 152,000 American troops in Iraq, a number that is expected to drop by about 15,000 next month.

U.S. commanders have not indicated when most of the U.S. forces might start returning home from the country, a consideration that is largely dependent on the ability of U.S.-trained Iraqi forces to take over security operations.

Pentagon planners have prepared for military operations in Iraq through 2010.

The latest supplemental request, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "provides funding to make sure we are doing everything we can to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan forces in those areas."

"We want to make sure that Iraqi forces are going to be in position to ultimately provide for their own security so that our troops will be able to return home with honor."

The Army has borne the brunt of the mission in Iraq, and the Pentagon contends that the Army's restructuring costs are an important part of its operations there.

The Army is changing its organization to reduce its reliance on large divisions of up to 20,000 soldiers and instead aims to form 33 to 43 brigades of about 5,000 soldiers each.

The new brigades will contain their own armor, helicopters, intelligence and other units that currently are drawn from within the larger divisions.

The hope is that they will be more self-sufficient and modular so they could be sent to foreign lands without the support of a larger force.

In the administration's 2006 Defense Department budget, the Army's overall budget actually drops by $300 million to $100 billion.

But Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have pointed to the unbudgeted Iraq-Afghanistan spending to show that Army spending is actually increasing.

Several military analysts have noted that more outside spending is creeping into the supplemental military requests, and more still may be added by Congress.

"It seems as though they're using the supplemental as a standard part of the budgeting process and it is becoming institutionalized," said Loren Thompson, who directs the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank.

"It's partly because the administration isn't eager to admit that it's spending half a trillion a year on defense."

"But it's also because it has discovered that it will meet no resistance on Capitol Hill if it's spending that is characterized as being for the troops."

[Livyjr]

And speaking of those inept, knee-jerkers down there in Washington. D.C.  who have given us one very expensive and largely botched-up HOLY WAR in the Middle East, here is another view of what they are now going to be jerking their knees to, over there in Iraq in the next weeks and months, and likely years, for us, anyway:

Top Stories - The Christian Science Monitor
 
"Shiite Islamists to shape new Iraq"

Mon Feb 14, 9:33 AM ET 

The election gave a Shiite Islamist slate more than 47 percent, a Kurdish alliance 25 percent, and Allawi's list 14 percent.

By Dan Murphy, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD - A slate packed with Shiite politicians who want Islam to govern much of Iraqi life rolled to victory in the country's first free election in 50 years.

Its members will take almost half the seats in a 275-member national assembly that will write a new constitution.

The results of the Jan. 30 vote, released Sunday, confirm a profound political shift, with Iraq's majority Shiite Arabs - treated as second-class citizens under Saddam Hussein - finally translating their numerical weight into political power.

But where Iraq's transformation will lead remains uncertain.

In addition to confirming the Shiite Arab dominance, the results showed abysmal turnout among the Sunni Arab minority who profited under Mr. Hussein and have driven the war against the US-led coalition and the interim government.

That leaves a Shiite-led government backed by the US military squaring off against a Sunni Arab-led insurgency that could cause Iraq's burgeoning civil strife to deepen.

And here is some further "development" on this important story as well, from the perspective of the Kurds:

Top Stories - The Christian Science Monitor

"Kurds emerge as power brokers"

Tue Feb 15,10:44 AM ET

At Iraq's polls, once persecuted Kurds won prominence in new assembly.

By Dan Murphy

BAGHDAD - There was no part of Iraq more joyous than Kurdistan on Sunday.

Election results confirmed the Kurds as the second most powerful, and probably most cohesive, faction in the new assembly that will shape Iraq's future.

The rise of the Kurds, who suffered under Saddam Hussein, not only makes them important power brokers in the new Iraq but is likely to add to the strains on Iraqi unity as the country's experiment in democracy rolls forward.

In the short term, their political position could secure the presidency for Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and should provide a secular counterbalance to the Shiite groups that will form the largest bloc in parliament.

But as Iraq's political debate evolves, particularly over the writing of the constitution, there are also many stumbling blocks.

Senior Kurdish leaders say they're committed to remaining part of Iraq.

"Independence is impractical,'' Mr. Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, who fought for independence for much of the last 20 years, told Reuters on Sunday.

But the independence yearnings of his followers, and the demands they are making for expanded territory and more of Iraq's oil revenues, could bring them into conflict with the demands of the country's now dominant Arab Shiites and minority Sunni Arabs, particularly over the flashpoint city of Kirkuk.

That was brought home by the celebrations in the cities of autonomous Kurdistan and in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk on Sunday, where Kurds poured into the streets and waved not Iraq's flag but their own, a symbol of an 80-year struggle for independence.

The Kurdish rise also emphasizes the weak position of Iraq's Sunni Arab minority, who ruled the country since its creation in the 1920s, and who mostly boycotted the election.

Sunni Arab fighters have been at the heart of Iraq's raging war, and their exclusion from government means it's unlikely they'll stop fighting any time soon.

"I think most Sunnis are extremely frustrated and I think there's a lot of support among them for the insurgency,'' says Kenneth Katzman, an expert on Iraq and Iran for the Congressional Research Service in Washington.

"Not only are they no longer No. 1 in Iraq, they're not even No. 2."

Mr. Katzman says the Kurdish rise, given their overt independence sentiments and desire to incorporate Kirkuk into their autonomous region, could end up opening another front in Iraq's war.

"I think it's very problematic,'' he says, adding that a Kurdish push for Kirkuk is probably "just a matter of time."

"And that could draw in other communities and could be a spark that sets this whole thing off."

The Kurdish position could also build an essential weakness into Iraq's interim arrangements, since it establishes a group that has traditionally been hostile to the Iraqi state as major player in shaping that state's new order.

The Kurds' 75 seats in the 275-member national assembly leaves them second only to the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), a coalition of mostly Islamist Shiite parties that won 140 seats.

Since rules for forming a government require a two-thirds majority, this points to a natural alliance between the Kurds and the Shiites.

The two groups' views differ vastly on everything from Islam (the Shiites hope it will form the principal basis for Iraq's laws while the Kurds want a secular state), to the status of Kirkuk (Shiites say giving up the city is unacceptable, while the Kurds say they want it to be the capital of their homeland).

But some Shiite and Kurdish politicians expect a short-term alliance to be possible.

Hamid al-Bayati, a top political adviser for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), one of the two main Shiite parties in the UIA, says a federal system that allows broad control over local laws could be the answer.

He says that any three provinces that want to form a federation could be allowed to do so, and that in practice, Shiite areas in the south that want sharia (Islamic law) would be allowed to do so while the Kurds, who currently control three provinces, would be free to hew to a more secular line.

"Some people are worried about federalism, but we think this will unite the country and not divide it."

But Kirkuk, he says, is not up for discussion.

The Kurds are a sprawling and diverse ethnic group with communities in northern Iran, southern Turkey, and Syria, and are mostly defined by similarities in their languages.

Kurds in all places have periodically fought central power, most frequently in Iraq and Turkey.

Iraq's Kurds were hammered by Mr. Hussein's army in the 1980s and 1990s for their independence sentiments, with villages destroyed and poison gas used against the population.

That has left them with an abiding distrust of the Iraqi state and with two strong militia groups of their own that have gained in influence since the fall of Hussein.

"Look at the election - there wasn't a single Kurdish poster to be found in Baghdad,'' says Ghassan Attiya, a political scientist and secular politician.

"The Kurds want nothing to do with Arabs."

One area in which the Kurds and the Shiites do have similar backgrounds is relations with Iran.

This is something that could complicate the US involvement here as time goes on.

"This is a big issue."

"We know that many of the parties in the new government are supported by the Iranians,'' says Iyad al-Sammarai, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party, a religious Sunni Arab group that boycotted the election.

Both SCIRI and the Dawa Party - the other major religious Shiite party - were sponsored by Iran in the 1980s and 1990s and thousands of the groups followers came home from exile there after the fall of Hussein.

"For SCIRI the ties are very deep."

"They won't necessarily take orders from Iran, but the relationship can be meaningful in many ways,'' says Katzman.

"The new government may stand up for Iran in international bodies when it takes heat on nuclear issues and other matters."