I was going to say that the Republicans voted against a bill today that would allow US troops to spend equal time at home with family as they do deployed in Iraq. The ratio of home/away time for the British is 4:1. Well, if i told you they voted against it, i'd be fibbing. they actually filibustered the bill so that no one would vote on it. It would have passed and the President would have to personally veto it. My question is why do this? the Senator takes heat for not being supportive of the troops and they KNOW the president would veto the bill without worrying about political heat for re-election. maybe my thinking is off here.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
I was reading the newest Harper's Index, and it said that approximately 1.2 million people have died in/since the US/Iraq war started. In this release, the White House says "Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims."
So what does this mean? did we end the 30 year rule of a cruel, despicable dictator, only to see a few hundred thousand MORE Iraqi's dead in 4 years? Are we seeing what Saddam took a generation to do come to pass in a handful of years? Truly, when does this become 'worth it'?
Monday, September 17, 2007
From the Times of London:
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Anyone see this reported in the US News programs? pretty big deal, I think.