Sunday 22nd of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

one potato, two potato .....

one potato, two potato .....

‘President George W. Bush vetoed legislation on Tuesday that would have required him to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq this year, setting up a new showdown with Democratic leaders over funding the war, the White House said.

Bush's veto, only the second of his presidency, came on the four-year anniversary of a speech he delivered announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

His veto of a bill that would fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with $100 billion was a rejection of attempts by Democrats who control the U.S. Congress to force him into a shift in strategy in the unpopular war.

Since Democrats did not appear to have enough votes to muster a two-thirds majority in Congress to override the veto, compromise talks between them and the White House were expected to take place.

Congressional leaders are expected to meet Bush at the White House on Wednesday.’

Bush Vetoes War Spending Bill

and for anyone who has a less than reliable memory of events these past four years, the Centre for American Progress reminds us …..

Mission Accomplished?

On May 1, 2003, in a carefully orchestrated photo-op, President Bush landed aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln dressed in full fighter gear, announced to the nation and the world that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Standing under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," Bush declared with gusto, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Unfortunately, the naive bluster and confidence of Bush's now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech have been undermined by the harsh reality of the facts on the ground. Four years later, with 146,000 American soldiers stuck in the middle of Iraq's anarchic civil war, the battle of Iraq rages on with deadly consequences. Last month, 104 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, marking "the deadliest month so far this year" and the sixth deadliest month of the entire war. The anniversary of this fateful photo-op comes as Bush continues to threaten to veto legislation passed by the Congress and supported by the majority of the American people that would set a timetable for withdrawal and begin to bring an end to the war in Iraq. The best available alternative to Bush's course remains Strategic Redeployment

In the four years since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished," the war in Iraq has cost America and its allies dearly in both lives lost and resources spent. When Bush made his speech, 139 members of the military had lost their lives. As of April 26, there have been 3,337 military fatalities in Iraq. Five hundred twenty-four Americans had been wounded in Iraq by this date in 2003, while today, 26,188 Americans have been injured in the war zone, many of whom have in turn received sub-par treatment in over-taxed military hospitals. In 2003, there was an average of eight insurgent attacks a day. Today, American soldiers face a daily toll of 148.9 attacks. At the time of the speech, America had spent $53 billion on the war. Currently, $448 billion has been spent, with another $124 billion set to be spent in the war funding supplemental passed by Congress. The public's attitude toward Iraq has shifted dramatically over the past four years as well. In 2003, 75 percent of the public approved of Bush's handling of the war while today only 24 percent of Americans support his leadership on the issue. In 2003, 70 percent of Americans believed the Iraq war was "worth fighting." Now a minority of Americans -- only 34 percent -- believe that war has been worthwhile.

Appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) noted that the Bush administration has shown "disregard and disrespect for the will of the American people" with their stay-the-course mentality in Iraq. Americans are speaking up to tell the administration that they are tired of being "disregarded." In New York, the state legislature passed a resolution yesterday "urging President Bush not to veto a bill passed by Congress that calls for a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq." Nineteen other states have introduced similar resolutions. Upset with the war policies coming out of the White House, students and faculty at two universities are actively protesting upcoming commencement addresses by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. At Brigham Young University in Utah, the announcement of Cheney as the graduation speaker "set off a rare, continuing protest at the Mormon university, one of the nation's most conservative." St. Vincent's College, a Benedictine school located in Western Pennsylvania, has been a hot spot of controversy ever since Bush's speech was announced as "some alumni have threatened to stop donating to the school, opponents have begun weekly protests and C-Span recently broadcast a heated student debate." When Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has tied his name to Bush's course in Iraq, visited his home state on Saturday, he was greeted with "the biggest group of anti-war protesters he has seen."

The war supplemental passed by Congress last week is set to be delivered to Bush today for his expected veto. Appearing on NBC's Today show Tuesday, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a prominent proponent of withdrawal, chastized the President for ignoring the will of the American people if he vetoes the supplemental because of the timetable for withdrawal. "The American people want [the military] out. The Iraqis want them out. The world wants us out of Iraq, and it's going to happen," Murtha said. "The president better plan for redeployment or he's going to have the kind of chaos he's predicting." With the veto expected, the post-veto legislative fight is just beginning. Iraq critics in Congress are already considering a number of options for the next phase, including an interim spending bill that would fund the Pentagon for a few months and the passage of a bill with provisions that "contribute to putting pressure on Bush" over his war policies. Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta, along with senior fellows Lawrence Korb, Scott Lilly, and Brian Katulis have issued a memo that lays out four principles to remember and four scenarios for Congress to consider in the wake of Bush's veto. The scenarios include providing a short infusion of funding of $40 billion, demanding that the President account for military readiness of units sent to Iraq, demanding the certification of progress towards benchmarks for Iraq's political progress, and continuing pressure for redeployment dates by offering redeployment language in the markups of fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization and Appropriations bills.’

great minds .....

great minds think alike Gus ....

Veto Accomplished

so many amerikan sociopaths .....

from the Centre for American Progress …..

Between Rhetoric and Reality

‘It was another bloody day in Iraq yesterday. At least 95 Iraqis were killed or found dead, while 11 American soldiers and a civilian journalist died in attacks across the country. As the violence raged in Iraq, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) appeared on Fox News Sunday where he tepidly declared that conservatives "are supporting the President" and his war policy. Boehner, however, also indicated that the support of conservatives in Congress might be short-lived. "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B," said Boehner. If conservatives follow the example of the Los Angeles Times editorial page yesterday and finally break from President Bush on Iraq -- which some are already beginning to do -- they will join the majority of Americans who have been asking for a Plan B for a long time.

More and more conservatives continue to break away from the President. In a recently-released Newsweek poll, Bush's approval rating sunk to an all-time low of 28 percent, tied for the lowest of any president since Harry Truman. In the poll, which was taken the day after Bush vetoed a $124 billion war funding bill passed by Congress that had timetables for withdrawal, 62 percent of respondents said that they felt Bush's recent actions in Iraq "show he is stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes." Struggling to maintain conservative unity around his stay-the-course policy, Bush and his dead-end supporters have ratcheted up their rhetorical myths about the war.

"Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted change in our strategy in Iraq," said Bush on April 24. "I listened. Today General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course." Two days later, Deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino repeated this talking point, saying "the American people voted for a change in strategy in Iraq -- and the President listened." Neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer has also used this line of argument to bolster support for the President's escalation plan. "They [Democrats] campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November," Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post. "Which the president has done."

The "surge," the change to which Bush, Perino, and Krauthammer are referring, however, was not supported by the American people. In January, while the escalation plan was being debated, two-thirds of Americans -- 66 percent -- opposed sending more troops to Iraq. Another poll from the time found that 63 percent of Americans opposed sending more troops to Iraq. Rather than confining American soldiers in Iraq indefinitely, Americans want a plan like Strategic Redeployment. Center for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta, along with Center for American Progress senior fellows Larry Korb, Scott Lilly, and Brian Katulis have suggested a number of principles and scenarios for a new way on Iraq that Congress should consider in the wake of Bush's veto.

"At the end of the day...Iraq is not about a civil war. Iraq is about al Qaeda and 76 other terrorist groups operating there," said Boehner during his appearance on Fox News Sunday yesterday. "And all their effort is aimed at defeating the United States." "The Al-Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq," said Bush in his weekly radio address on Saturday. "They would be emboldened by their victory."

Boehner and Bush are wrong when they imply that violence in Iraq is primarily the result of al Qaeda. In a survey of diplomatic and foreign policy experts last month, McClatchy reported that "foreign-born jihadists are present in Iraq, but they're believed to number only between 4 percent and 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgent fighters." The National Intelligence Estimate released in February said that "the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements." According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, there are actually four wars going on in Iraq. "One is Shi'a on Shi'a...the second is sectarian conflict...third is the insurgency...and fourth is Al Qaeda."

Speaking on the floor of the House last week, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) compared the war in Iraq to a Major League Baseball game. "Imagine my beloved St. Louis Cardinals are playing the much despised Chicago Cubs," began Shimkus as he analogized withdrawing from Iraq as the equivalent of his favorite baseball team walking off the field during extra innings. "Who wins? We know it's the team that stays on the field. Arbitrary deadlines and a date certain accept defeat before the conclusion of the contest." Shimkus isn't the only war supporter to use a bad analogy to bludgeon criticism of the war. During a trip to Iraq last month, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) told reporters that his heavily-guarded trip to a Baghdad market "was like any open-air market in Indiana in the summertime."

Yesterday, Boehner compared Iraq to the small plastics and packaging company he used to run in Ohio, in an effort to justify setting toothless benchmarks for the Iraqi government. "I owned a small business. I have benchmarks every month, but if I didn't meet the benchmarks and if I missed the profit margin, I didn't shut down the business." Shimkus, Pence, and Boehner are callous and wrong in their analogies. No one gets killed in a Cardinals v. Cubs game, Hoosiers don't need to wear flak jackets to visit the local market, and 100 U.S. soldiers weren't killed every month if Boehner couldn't sell enough bubble wrap.’

but common

There is a commonly used expression in Europe — a short phrase that some people might find rude, but was the idea that underlined the facial expression I gave Junior on the cartoon at the head of this line of blogs. It describes someone who is so tantrumic about what they want that "they have no idea they are pissing in their pants".

This sums it up... It removes all the lame excuses...

vetomania?

from our ABC

Howard expected to veto Zimbabwe tour

There is growing expectation today that the Federal Government will ban the Australian cricket team from touring Zimbabwe.

Prime Minister John Howard will reportedly make an announcement on the subject later this morning.

Yesterday Mr Howard said the Australian team should not tour Zimbabwe because it would give comfort to the regime of President Robert Mugabe.

Earlier he compared the actions of the country's security forces to those of the Nazi Gestapo.

Mr Howard also said it was in the best interests of Australia and Australian sport for the team not to go.

The Prime Minister will appearing on ABC's Insiders this morning.

 

foreign adventures ....

This is absolutely disgusting Gus ...

How come coalition forces haven't invaded Zimbabwe to dispatch the evil dictator Mugabe & clear the pitch for freedom & cricket?

Little rattus seems to have lost his taste for the role of warrior prince, or is it that he only ever rattle his pocket sabre from the safety of the rear?

As to his proposal that the Awstraylen cricket team should be compensated if their tour doesn't go ahead, give 'em a gun & a corporal's pay & send 'em in to bat .... & send rattus & his awful pack with 'em.

Winston would be disgusted.

Let Mugabe play with himself?

From the ABC

Howard pulls plug on Zimbabwe tour

Prime Minister John Howard says the Government has written to Cricket Australia to tell it to cancel the controversial upcoming tour of Zimbabwe.

Speaking on ABC TV's Insiders program this morning, Mr Howard said the decision had been taken after legal advice that the Government had the authority to stop the tour.

He said the tour would have given an "enormous propaganda boost" to the regime of "grubby dictator" Robert Mugabe.

"Whilst it pains me both as a cricket lover and someone who generally believes these things should be left to sporting organisations ... I don't think we have any alternative," he added.

------------------

Gus: obviously there is no oil in Mugabeland... otherwise the alternative would have been to raid the place like Iraq: Pump and circumstances, oilness oblige... and stiff greasy bat, dear chap. Oily soit qui mal y prospect... No, just a dried old stick with forces "like the Nazi Gestapo"... "country's inflation problems reminded him [Howard] of Germany's pre-Nazi Weimar Republic"... Howard was there, of course, or was he not? Did he ever hear the resonating boots on the cobblestones? Ah... he saw the countless movies... and has bad dreams about ways to control Austrayan freedom of information... without appearing to do so. Another little decider one foot closer to despotism — all done under the law since "the decision had been taken after legal advice that the Government had the authority to stop the tour."

That sure is going to worry Mugabe.

And is there a media campaign in the west to show Mugabe is doing a bad job? As if the Iraq invasion was a model of "mission accomplished"? What does the majority of Mugabeans want?... 

 

 

Africanism gone wild?

from the Guardian

Fury at Zimbabwe UN role

West outraged as African nations help elect key minister to head environmental body

Tracy McVeigh, foreign editor
Sunday May 13, 2007
The Observer

A major rift between the West and Africa was exposed at the United Nations this weekend as Zimbabwe was controversially elected as head of the UN's main environment body.

Diplomats from the European Union and the US had strongly objected to a country that has destroyed a once-thriving farming industry, has a failing economy, an appalling human rights record and a poor record of looking after its wildlife and national parks, holding the post.

--------------------

Gus: It's quite telling that African nations seem to be supporting Zimbabwe, despite what the West is saying about it... So, is Mugabe, with his declining economic management, deliberately "returning the country to the natives and a wild environment" — the way it was before "colonialism" that did include forms of slavery, subservience, modern improvements... and cricket?

 

betrayal .....

‘We are witness to a spectacular surge of violence across the entire swathe of the Middle East and Central Asia. Some would take it as proof that the clash of civilizations is already upon us.

Marshalling the forces on one side of this conflict is the United States of George Bush - the greatest military power the planet has ever known. Indeed, if one were to measure the opponents by economic power and military strength, the victory of the U.S. and its minions would seem assured. It isn’t - as the current headlines make appallingly clear.

The United States seems to be waging not just a losing but an increasingly lonely struggle - despite the mammoth amounts of money, men and resources they have poured into the region.’

Coalition Of The Wilting

And, in probably what must rank as the greatest act of political betrayal ever perpetrated against the citizens of the failed amerikan republic, the Democrat controlled Congress has bowed to the maniac in the outhouse & approved the further financing of his crazed wars, abandoning the faith placed in them by the majority of amerikan voters, who elected them specifically to bring an end to amerika’s obscene grasp for global hegemony.

But, at least one public commentator is still prepared to call this shame for what it is ….

‘In a powerful edition of his "Special Comment", Keith Olbermann says that the Democrats capitulation on the Iraq War funding bill amounts to their "Chamberlain moment".’

The Entire Government Has Failed Us

Truly the death of amerikan democracy & truly the birth of the world’s greatest rogue empire …..