« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »
September 30, 2005
Bush's Iraq War is Weakening America
By Sen. RUSSELL FEINGOLD
From the Floor of the United States Senate, September 29, 2005
I rise once again to comment on the deeply disturbing consequences of the President's misguided policies in Iraq. I have spoken before about my grave concern that the Administration's Iraq policies are actually strengthening the hand of our enemies, fueling the insurgency's recruitment of foreign fighters and unifying elements of the insurgency that might otherwise turn on each other.
But today I want to focus on a different and equally alarming issue which is, that the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq are making America weaker. And none of us should stand by and allow this to continue.
It is shocking to me that this Senate has not found the time and energy to take up the Defense Authorization bill and give that bill the full debate and attention that it deserves. Our men and women in uniform, and our military families, continue to make real sacrifices every day in service to this country. They perform their duties with skill and honor, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances. But the Senate has not performed its duties and the state of the U.S. military desperately needs our attention.
The Administration's policies in Iraq are breaking the United States Army. As soldiers confront the prospect of a third tour in the extremely difficult theater of Iraq, it would be understandable if they began to wonder why all of the sacrifice undertaken by our country in wartime seems to be falling on their shoulders. It would be understandable if they -- and their brothers and sisters in the Marine Corps -- began to feel some skepticism about whether or not essential resources -- like adequately armored vehicles -- will be there when they need them. It would be understandable if they came to greet information about deployment schedules with cynicism, because reliable information has been hard to come by for our military families in recent years. And it would be understandable if they asked themselves whether or not their numbers will be great enough to hold hard-won territory, and whether or not properly vetted translators will be available to help them distinguish friend from foe. At some point, Mr. President, the sense of solidarity and commitment that helps maintain strong retention rates gives way to a sense of frustration with the status quo. I fear that we may be very close to that tipping point today.
We may not see the men and women of the Army continue to volunteer for more of the same. It isn't reasonable to expect that current retention problems will improve, rather than worsening. We should not bet our national security on that kind of wishful thinking.
Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering. According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending one of every two years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. In an era in which we confront a globally networked enemy, and at a time when nuclear weapons proliferation is an urgent threat, continuing on our present course is irresponsible at best.
We are not just wearing out the troops; we are also wearing out equipment much faster than it is being replaced or refurbished. Just days ago the Chief of the National Guard, General H Steven Blum, told a group of Senate staffers that the National Guard had approximately 75% of the equipment it needed on 9/11. Today, the National Guard has 34% of the equipment it needs. And the response to Hurricane Katrina exposed some of the dangerous gaps in the Guard's communications systems.
What we are asking of the Army is not sustainable, and the burden is taking its toll on our military families. This cannot go on.
Many of my colleagues, often led by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, have taken stock of where we stand and have joined together to support efforts to expand the size of our standing Army. But this effort which I support -- is really a solution for the long-term, because it depends on new recruits to address our problems. We cannot suddenly increase the numbers of experienced soldiers so essential to providing leadership in the field. It takes years to grow a new crop of such leaders. But the annual resignation rate of Army lieutenants and captains rose last year to its highest rate since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are heading toward crisis right now.
Mr. President, growing the all-volunteer Army can only happen if qualified new recruits sign up for duty. But all indications suggest that at the end of this month, the Army will fall thousands short of its annual recruiting goal. Barring some sudden and dramatic change, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve too will miss their annual targets by about 20 percent. And Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, told Congress recently that 2006 "may be the toughest recruiting environment ever."
Too often, too many of my colleagues are reluctant to criticize the Administration's policies in Iraq for fear that anything other than staying the course set by the President will somehow appear weak. But the President's course is misguided, and it is doing grave damage to our extraordinarily professional and globally admired all-volunteer United States Army. To stand by while this damage is done is not patriotic. It is not supportive. It is not tough on terrorism, or strong on national security. Because I am proud of our men and women in uniform, and because I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to make this country more secure, I am convinced that we must change our course.
As my colleagues know, I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the US military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission and subsequently bringing our troops home. It is in our interest to provide some clarity about our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad that U.S. troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely. And I have tried to jumpstart this discussion by proposing a date for US troop withdrawal: December 31, 2006. We need to start working with a realistic set of plans and benchmarks if we are to gain control of our Iraq policy, instead of letting it dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time.
This brings me to another facet of this Administration's misguided approach to Iraq; another front on which our great country is growing weaker rather than stronger as a result of the Administration's policy choices: the tremendously serious fiscal consequences of the President's decision to put the entire Iraq war on our national tab. How much longer can the elected representatives of the American people in this Congress allow the President to rack up over a billion dollars a week in new debts? This war is draining, by one estimate, $5.6 billion every month from our economy, funds that might be used to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina recover, or to help address the skyrocketing health care costs facing businesses and families, or to help pay down the enormous debt this government has already piled up.
And not only are we weakening our economy today, this costly war is undermining our nation's economic future because none of that considerable expenditure has been offset in the budget by cuts in spending elsewhere or revenue increases. All of it -- every penny -- has been added to the already massive debt that will be paid by future generations of Americans. For years now, this Administration has refused to budget for the costs of our ongoing operations in Iraq that can be predicted, and has refused to make the hard choices that would be required to cover those costs. Instead, the President apparently prefers to leave those tough calls to our children. In effect, we are asking future generations to pay for this war, and they will pay for it in the form of higher taxes or fewer government benefits. They stand to inherit a weakened America, one so compromised by debt and economic crisis that the promise of opportunity for all has faded.
And there is no end in sight.
In addition to that debt, the war will leave other costly legacies. Here again, it is the members of the military and their families who will endure the most severe costs. But even if the war ended tomorrow, the nation will continue to pay the price for decades to come. Linda Bilmes of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard estimates that over the next 45 years, the health care, disability, and other benefits due our Iraq war veterans will cost $315 billion. We owe our brave troops the services and benefits they are due. We owe it to them and to their children and to their grandchildren to guide the course of this country and this economy to ensure that we are in a position to deliver for our veterans and for all Americans.
I cannot support an Iraq policy that makes our enemies stronger and our own country weaker, and that is why I will not support staying the course the President has set. If Iraq were truly the solution to our national security challenges, this gamble with the future of the military and with our own economy might make sense. If Iraq, rather than such strategically more significant countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were really at the heart of the global fight against violent Islamist terrorism, this might make some sense. If it were true that fighting insurgents in Baghdad meant that we would not have to fight them elsewhere, all of the costs of this policy might make some sense. But these things are not true. Iraq is not the silver bullet in the fight against global terrorist networks. As I have argued in some detail, it is quite possible that the Administration's policies in Iraq are actually strengthening the terrorists by helping them to recruit new fighters from around the world, giving those jihadists on-the-ground training in terrorism, and building new, transnational networks among our enemies. Meanwhile the costs of staying this course indefinitely, the consequences of weakening America's military and America's economy, loom more ominously before us with each passing week. There is no leadership in simply hoping for the best. We must insist on an Iraq policy that makes sense.
Russell Feingold represents Wisconsin in the US Senate.
Posted by Melissa at 04:30 PM | Comments (0)
September 26, 2005
DFH goes to Washington
Click image for larger version.
Posted by Jim at 01:46 PM | Comments (0)
September 16, 2005
Health Care Premiums Surpass Minimum Wage Salary
(From The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR)
California's leading nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization)
Santa Monica, CA -- A report released today that found the cost of health insurance for family coverage is now more than the annual salary of a minimum-wage worker is the "signal that out-of-control health insurance profiteering will reduce health care to a commodity that only the wealthy can afford," according to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).
"The U.S. is experiencing the health care equivalent of bread lines while HMO profits skyrocket and top executives receive 9-figure golden parachutes. The fact that working families can no longer afford the price of health insurance should be a wake-up call to politicians who have allowed private health insurers to drive the health insurance system into the ground," said Jerry Flanagan of FTCR. "Continued rate increases mark the the beginning of the end of the health care system as we know it because patients won't stand for further cutbacks and employers can no longer shift costs on to workers."
Posted by Melissa at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)
September 08, 2005
Worst disaster in the history of America
Posted by Jim at 02:28 PM | Comments (0)
September 05, 2005
Buses/Carpools for the Peace Rally on 9/24
This is from the Coalition for Peace and Justice
Please note the 9/19/05 deadline for checks to be received.
Say NO to the U.S. war on Iraq!
March & Rally against the war Washington, D.C. Saturday, September 24th. Bus transportation and car-pooling available from Columbia. The Howard County Coalition for Peace & Justice (HCCPJ) is organizing bus transportation and car-pooling from Columbia, Maryland, for the national antiwar demonstration being held in Washington D.C. on Sat., Sept. 24th. Bus riders will assemble at the Broken Land Park & Ride west lot (intersection of 32 & Broken Land Pkwy) at 9:30 a.m. The bus will leave D.C. at about 5:30 p.m. The cost is $15 per person round-trip. (Call 301-774-3636 if you need financial assistance.) To reserve a seat, we need to RECEIVE your money no later than Sept. 19. Please send a check to HCCPJ, P.O. Box 6446, Columbia, MD 21045. Write "9/24 bus" on the memo line. And -- very important -- give us your e-mail address and phone number in case we need to contact you with last-minute information.
To go with the carpool (to a Metro station), assemble at the same place and time. Cars will arrange their own return times.
For more info, go to
Posted by Melissa at 05:30 PM | Comments (0)
September 04, 2005
1000-2000 hurricane victims coming to Maryland!
I have been asked to put off delivery of hurricane supplies to DC until we know for certain, but the source is reliable. However, I will collect at the Labor Day picnic, my front porch, and at meetup. Give what you can.
Posted by Melissa at 06:41 PM | Comments (0)
Act Locally--- Ways to help in Howard County
Bring any of the following to meetup or to my house (see below)
Personal care items---soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes, deodorant, shampoo, feminine products, wipes, paper towels, kleenex
Kids stuff--coloring books, toys, books, games
Baby items- new bottles, New blankets, unopened bottled water in baby bottles, diapers, baby wipes
Clothing-- new underwear, t-shirts, sweat pants (all sizes for kids and adults)
New canvass bags, luggage
September 10th--Host or attend a Hurricane relief "party". Go here for details.
September 12th- Bring food donations to meet-up. Donations will be distributed to the local food bank and to victims of Katrina by the Howard County Muslim Foundation.
Posted by Melissa at 11:53 AM | Comments (0)
Read and Weep
(I received this from a friend. -MB)
For those of you with friends or family in the New Orleans area, or even an interest in efficient, responsible government, read the following time line and try not to let your blood pressure rise.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CHRONOLOGY.... Here's a timeline that outlines the fate of both FEMA and flood control projects in New Orleans under the Bush administration:
January 2001: Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh, a crony from Texas, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh has no previous experience in disaster management.
April 2001: Budget Director Mitch Daniels announces the Bush administration's goal of privatizing much of FEMA's work. In May, Allbaugh confirms that FEMA will be downsized: "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program...." he said. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level."
2001: FEMA designates a major hurricane hitting New Orleans as one of the three "likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country."
December 2002: After less than two years at FEMA, Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq. He is succeeded by his deputy, Michael Brown, who, like Allbaugh, has no previous experience in disaster management.
March 2003: FEMA is downgraded from a cabinet level position and folded into the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission is refocused on fighting acts of terrorism.
2003: Under its new organization chart within DHS, FEMA's preparation and planning functions are reassigned to a new Office of Preparedness and Response. FEMA will henceforth focus only on response and recovery.
Summer 2004: FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster mitigation funding requests. Says Jefferson Parish flood zone manager Tom Rodrigue: "You would think we would get maximum consideration....This is what the grant program called for. We were more than qualified for it."
June 2004: The Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee construction in New Orleans is slashed. Jefferson Parish emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri comments: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay."
June 2005: Funding for the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is cut by a record $71.2 million. One of the hardest-hit areas is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes.
August 2005: While New Orleans is undergoing a slow motion catastrophe, Bush mugs for the cameras, cuts a cake for John McCain, plays the guitar for Mark Wills, delivers an address about V-J day, and continues with his vacation. When he finally gets around to acknowledging the scope of the unfolding disaster, he delivers only a photo op on Air Force One and a flat, defensive, laundry list speech in the Rose Garden.
A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration's conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA's preparation and planning functions were taken away.
Actions have consequences. No one could predict that a hurricane the size of Katrina would hit this year, but the slow federal response when it did happen was no accident. It was the result of four years of deliberate Republican policy and budget choices that favor ideology and partisan loyalty at the expense of operational competence. It's the Bush administration in a nutshell.
--
Henry Breitrose
Professor of Communication
Department of Communication
Stanford University
Stanford, California USA 94305-2050
+650-723-470
Posted by Melissa at 11:51 AM | Comments (0)