|
Post by Scott Hays on Jan 22, 2005 19:54:38 GMT -5
Whoa! I have to back this discussion up a couple of messages and address two issues that I am not buying, and no one else should buy, either:
(1) Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator
Okay... Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. That didn't stop the USA from supplying him with tons of weapons and money when he fought a decade-long war with Iran. Who was the Director of the CIA when that war was being fought? The same guy who led us into the Gulf War in 1990 when he was caught drilling laterally into "Kuwait's" oil fields by Halliburton (who had given him the lateral technology in the first place).
We are much more expedient and imperial than we are idealistic and moralistic when it comes to international relations. We have supported and helped brutal dictators since we first acquired the rights in Panama to dig a ditch (after first helping Panamania "patriots" overthrow their "brutal" Columbian overlords). Look at Augosto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Idi Amin, Josef Stalin, Manuel Norriega, Batista, and a host of other large and small brutal dictators who have been our good buddies and close allies, regardless of how they treated their (and our) citizens. I won't go into how Norriega and Pinochet came to power ... but they never would have even risen to prominence without direct intervention and support on our part.
And you know something ... the whole idea that Saddam Hussein had wmds (and we even were pretty sure we knew where they were) is because it was US who gave them to him.
Whether he deserves to be in office or not, to lead a country or not, is a different type of question than the expedient (and fraudulent) concern that George W Bush expresses (or Condaleeza, for that matter). It's simply that his day has come, his usefulness expired, and he is paying the piper. I would point out that nothing has yet become of him. Granted, he is not luxuriating in some penthouse "prison", as is Manuel Norriega ... but I will not be surprised if that is not the fate awaiting a good puppy.
(2) Democracy can work in a non-pluralistic society that has no democratic traditions
The "nation" of Iraq is a false premise. There never has been any such place, and we cannot create it simply because we name it so. The British, who moved into the Middle East to fill the vaccuum created by the fall of the Turkish Ottoman Empire in 1919 (in part owing to British imperial aims for Middle Eastern crude ... still the driving force what goes down on the Anatolian Penisula and around the Caspian, Aral and Black Seas), needed expedient administrative regions. The Tigris and Euhphrates Valley seemed logical, so they created "Iraq". It consisted of Kurdish peoples in the north (now divided between a historically hostile oppressor -- Turkey -- and this new entity called Iraq) and Arabic speaking tribes who had historical roots all the way back to Xerxes and the Persian invasion of Greece. These Arabic speaking (but non-Arabic) peoples were also bitterly divided into two distinct groups -- Sunni and Shiite Muslims. A "king" was installed by the British to give the semblance of some order (king being a British, not an Arabic notion), and the British and their "Iraqi" surrogates locked down and controlled the long-warring factions. When the "king" was overthrown and a civilian government took over, there was chaos and typical tribal alliances and nepotism and corruption (etc.) until a secular dictatorial power was put into place. This was Saddam Hussein. He made the trains run on time. He repressed dissent. He persecuted his enemies. Ruthlessly.
And he made the western and soviet power brokers salivate. As long as the Shah was in power in Iran, Iraq was in the Soviet satellite. But the Shah went down to Shiite fundamentalists, and we needed a countervoice. He became our buddy. The rest, as the say, is history.
But the Iraqi people, themselves, have little to no experience with "democracy". And they do not share any common sense of values. Between Kurd and Shiite/Sunni Muslim, there is nothing but trouble and no experience in democratically (let alone peacefully) resolving the many conflicts between them. It is ironic. Hussein was a Sunni and a secular leader ... the type we suppposedly try to cultivate. The Sunnis are in a minority in Iraq. The Shiites spawn folks like the Taliban (those we just kicked out of Afghanistan) and Osama bin Laden. It is the Shiites whom are going to win this election and impose whatever "equality" they can grant to the Sunni and Kurdish minorities.
It is a nice rallying cry to call for democracy in Iraq. It would be un-American for anyone to say that is not a great idea. But what are we going to do when this Iraqi "democracy" either turns into a full-blown religious/Shiite state and demands that we get our butts out, or somehow really does develop some thin veil of democracy but still does not agree with us? Are we going to then accept the "will of the Iraqi people"? Or will we claim that some ideologue is stirring them up and we just need to spend more time over there until they get it "right"?
PS -- I really like the fourth grade boys analogy! I am going to use that one!
Oh, and Marc ... I will gladly tip more than one tall cool one with you at the Far Bar, and never once utter a single word of political dissent! (I would not do the same if the President of the U.S. joined us, though ... I will express my disdain for his worldview and his arrogant belief that if he says it often enough and long enough that we all believe him ... or that he can change what he says in midstream and pretend that he had been saying that all along)
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Jan 23, 2005 1:37:00 GMT -5
Mark and Scott, What I wouldn't give to be in Jamaica so that I might join the 2 of you at the Far Bar. I, too, could easily set politics aside and simply sit back, enjoy the company of a couple of my LF message board friends, listen to great music, and soak up the sun and the rum! Mark, you might think that by my previous 2 postings that I am in complete disagreement with what you had to say in your latest posting to this site. That would not be entirely true (not that you, or anyone else, is in need of my endorsement of the opinions that you hold ). On January 20, 2005 Rollin' Mark On this quote I very much agree. When Saddam Hussein crossed the border and invaded Kuwait I felt we went over there for all the right reasons. When 1940s Germany was expanding through its conquests of France, the Netherlands, Poland, and so on, again we became involved for all the right reasons. To the west we were trying to prevent Japan from doing exactly the same thing at the same time. I feel that we were and are in Afghanistan for the right reasons. And I'm not opposed to Iraq being a free and democratic society if that is what Iraq wants. But I don't want people to forget that we were told we were going to Iraq to round up its WsMD. If we had listened to Hans Blix and to the United Nations perhaps the current mess we are in could have been averted. And it pains me to think of how many American soldiers would still be alive (as well as the many that are alive and would still be whole). Is there anyone that feels if we had been told that the reason we were going to invade Iraq was so that we could reshape its government (and if we were given no other reason than that) that that would have been weighty enough to justify our invasion? Personally, I do not. Was Saddam Hussein a despot who deserved to be removed from power? Of course. But the world is full of despots. Did we remove Slobodan Milosivec? How about Kim Jong Il?-(he's still around) Joseph Stalin? the list could go on and on. Scott says that we are expedient and imperialistic, but we are not only that. We are conquerers as well. The Seminoles, Sioux, Cherokee, Utes, Navajo, Apache, and all the other Native American tribes didn't just throw a welcoming party and say "Hey, we think it's great that you're here! Y'all just go on ahead and develop this land and we'll go live on these wonderful reservations!" I had hoped that we had evolved beyond that part of our history. I had hoped that we really had become the "defender" of the free world, rushing to the aid or the defense of a free society that had come under threat or attack. But with Iraq I can't help but feel that we've become the conquerer again. And I just cannot endorse that. Scott you may have to help me out here a little. I'm really not that knowledgable when it comes to knowing which Arab nations have a societal monarchy and which have a democratic society. But it seems to me there must an example in the middle east somewhere that serves as a good example of an Arabic monarchy that is well run and well behaved. Would Jordan be such an example? If we could impress upon Iraq, in some way, that we wish to be mindful and respectful of their religious and cultural way of life and yet expect them to behave themselves with regard to human rights within their own society. Then I might be persuaded to be more on board with our presence there. But I'm not getting that sense right now. I'm just not. - chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 23, 2005 13:21:50 GMT -5
A protest against this war (IMHO) is a protest against freedom. Iraqis and Americans are fighting and dying so that Iraq can have the right to hold a free national election. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”<br> but as long as we are considered the leaders of the free world, we have to accept certain responsibilites. Okay, I've ranted enough. Peace, Rollin' Mark First of all...the war wasn't started so that they could hold national elections. It was started so that we could find the WMD. Remember? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil..." That's a cool phrase, but easily twisted within our own borders when you have such sophisticated evil such as Rove, Cheney, Wolfie, Rummy, Baker, Limbaugh, ect.ect., and oh yeah, thier spokesman, Dubya, VERSUS good men who actually believe "the democrats will ban your Bible", and are duped into thinking they are stopping evil because they still think it is mandatory to believe The Gov't. I haven't suffered that affliction since The Gov't tried to sell me "The Single Bullet Theory". Obviously, you and I see the "good & evil" as reversed roles. However...I could go for evil chasing evil (Dubya chasing Bin Laden), but there just isn't any personal benefit for him (them) in that scenario! Oh well?!? Finally...I'm not so sure that we are "considered the leaders of the free world" any longer, because of said "certain responsibilities". Peace, Honesty, and Integrity. Mike
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jan 24, 2005 16:48:42 GMT -5
Mark,
It's FUN to talk about politics. You must remember that there are 100,000 (app.) Iraqi's who will never taste freedom. We have killed that many Iraqi civilians (according to every survey done other than Jr's who keeps insisting the number is between 23,000 and 24,000, another Bush lie). What everyone wants to forget is that the peace policy was working. Even according to Jr's lackeys the economic sanctions had the infrastructure of Iraq on the point of collapse; and believe me when the lights went out Saddam was not far behind. The WMDs that did exist in 1992 (we know they were there we gave them to Iraq) were gone (and according to Jr's own people the capability to replace them was also gone); and contrary to the lies we were told by Jr we KNEW they were gone, even the Mossad was telling us this (at great political risk). When we can't even get Canada, a country that has backed virtually all of our policy decisions, to go along with our invasion of Iraq don't you think that we should at least closely examine our decision to see if these unholy casualty counts are NECCESSARY. So why did we invade Iraq? Because Jr's administration was in big trouble. He was made to look like a big idiot on 9/11, as the evidence more and more points out. He couldn't find Osama. His policies were too stupid even for Republicans and were not getting through congress. Then, he picked up Machiavelli's "The Prince" and found his answer, always have an outside bad guy to point the finger at so the people won't notice you're screwing up. Was Saddam a bad guy? Yes. But there were much better, and less destuctive ways to rid the world of him. They just take some patience and intelligence, something Jr. and, I'm more and more fearful, the American public don't have.
Scott,
I'm loving Barbara Boxer more and more. She held old Condi's feet to the fire and ain't lettin' up. When Condi couldn't answer a question she used the old Republican gambit of accusing her of assaulting her integrity. You know what I say to that; Good. Her integrity should be questioned. She is an obvious liar. The Dems need to quit being so damn polite. When the Reps. called Clinton a liar over and over they didn't back off. Again the Republicans are using the tactic of accusing the Dems of what they themselves are much more guilty. Dr. Rice should be very very careful or she is going to suffer the same fate as Colin Powell. I can't help feeling that left to his own conscience he was and could be a good man, but due to what he saw as his role as an apoligist for the party line, has now damaged his domestic and international reputation so much that any good he could have done is now impossible. The Republicans keep trying to justify their insistance on WMD's by saying that the Dems said there were WMD. Well there were and now there ain't, different time, and whose policies got rid of them, Clinton's and he didn't have to kill 100,000 innocent Iraqi's to do it. Give me a President who likes a good hooter (in more ways than one) and doesn't cause the death of 1400 Americans for his own selfish agenda. The line of questioning I wanted to see more emphacized was her actions prior to 9/11; her ignoring of CIA and Clinton admin. warnings and especially her testimony to the 9/11 commision that she wasn't aware before 9/11 that her duties as NSA included domestic security (read the job description Condi).
Chad,
You are absolutely right about the lack of a connection between Osama and Saddam. Osama hated Saddam almost as much as he does the US. Saddam was a secular ruler and Osama is all about wanting a theocracy. When this administration keeps trying to slip this connection past you, remember Saddam was in Osama's way as much as the US is.
Now that the investigation into the Food for Oil program is complete, and it appears that the corruption was not widespread but more on the order of isolated incidents, where is Rush's retraction of his wild charges of endemic corruption. Another mistake that he is hoping his ditto heads forget. Does anyone out there understand this irrational fear of the UN, if so, please explain to me how having a forum to discuss the international situation can be bad?
We have installed a president with the lowest approval rating of any returning president in history (latest figures 45-49%, how did he get 51% to vote for him?) I head more boos than cheers at the inauguration, and amazingly a smoke bomb (Scott how did you get that in, just kidding FBI) made it through the tightest security in history. This is our president with an overwhelming mandate. Is he delusional?
Peace j
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 29, 2005 12:48:32 GMT -5
Does anyone out there understand this irrational fear of the UN, if so, please explain to me how having a forum to discuss the international situation can be bad? Peace j Good question Jashley. Let me take a stab at it. IT'S DUBYA'S WAY, OR THE HIGHWAY!!! I've always been morbidly curious about how things would have turned out if Dan Quayle had been elected. That curiousity is now satisfied! Peace, Honesty, and Integrity. Mike
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Jan 30, 2005 12:06:18 GMT -5
On January 20th at 10:11 PM chadgumbo wrote: On January 23rd at 1:37 AM chadgumbo wrote: Both Reuters and the AP are reporting a strong turnout at polling places across Iraq. The AP is saying that as much as 57% of the eligible 14 million voters, or about 8 million voters will have cast a ballot when all is said and done. It seems the Iraqis want a democracy more than I was willing to give them credit for. While I still believe it is wrong for us to be there, at least the people of Iraq, on this day, are showing their support of President Bush and the USA's efforts. The AP is also reporting 36 dead in bombings at various election sites. I was worried that this figure might be higher as well. Thankfully I'm sometimes wrong when I get on my soapbox It can be a little slippery standing on that thing -chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 1, 2005 0:32:46 GMT -5
First of all...the war wasn't started so that they could hold national elections. It was started so that we could find the WMD. Remember? Finally...I'm not so sure that we are "considered the leaders of the free world" any longer, because of said "certain responsibilities". Peace, Honesty, and Integrity. Mike Chad, I don't think you have been wrong, and I don't think you've been on a soapbox. If the Iraqis get their democracy, and hell, if it's so successful that it actually last an entire month, it's still hard to make this into an honorable situation. There has been waaaay to much American sacrifice for a foriegn country, while we REMAIN vulnerable to other forces (that Bush says he hasn't given much thought to). If this was such an honorable event, why didn't "they" just say "we're going to ignore Bin Laden and Al Queda for now and go spend..oh..a few hundred billion $s and..oh..the lives of your sons, daughters, husbands, wives, dads, and mothers to go and liberate the people we've bitchin about for decades, cause suddenly, we feel bad for them. Just them. Not the people in the Congo, cause they don't have any oil. Little Kim in N. Korea is threatening to nuke us but...he doesn't have any oil! And you people of the USA...screw ya (unless it's an election year), you're not sittin on any oil! We're OILMEN, get it...nothing else matters!!!" I wonder why "they" didn't just say that. I could much easier buy that than this so-called noble crap about liberating Iraq. Here's my list: 1) Secure Al Queda (at the time, it did not involve Iraq!) 2) Fix...the USA. (that should keep "them" busy with honest work for 4 yrs) 3) Address N. Korea, Iran, and anyone else that wants to thereaten with nukes (again..does not involve Iraq!) 4) If "they" really want to do something noble and honorable, stop the brutallity in the Congo. 5) Get your ass out of my White House!!! You're stinking it up. Peace, Honor, and Integrity. Mike
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Feb 1, 2005 18:22:59 GMT -5
On January 30, 2005 chadgumbo wrote:
Hi Mike, Finally a minute to respond. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not going to completely capitulate with regard to my point of view concerning the war in Iraq. At this point the only thing I wish to admit to being wrong about was my underestimating the people of Iraq. They did, after all, come out and vote. Given the level of intimidation they were exposed to by the insurgents, I have to believe the numbers they put up at the polling places is nothing short of heroic on the part of the people of Iraq. But it's like you said Mike, will it last? For all of our country's sacrifices, I certainly am praying that it will.
That said, I still very much believe it was wrong of us to set foot inside their borders. When I said in a previous post that invading another country for the purpose of overthrowing the current government and helping to put into place a government that makes us more comfortable is not a weighty enough measure with which to proceed, I still stand on that position. And you're right, Mike. Iraq is floating on oil. North Korea and all the other countries we would wish to see become a democratic society don't have that precious fluid under their soil.
The bottom line is this, if I am personally going to be critical of the administration for being unable to admit when they are wrong (and I certainly have been), then I feel I need to be not only mindful, but vigilant, in being able to admit it when I believe myself to be wrong. Anything less puts me at the same level of the very people I am being critical of.
- chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 2, 2005 22:36:13 GMT -5
I just watched "Dubya the Great"s so-called State of the Union address, and all I can say is "mas caca de vaca!" (more shit of the bull!)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 4, 2005 8:45:15 GMT -5
I did not watch the State of the Union Address. I usually do, regardless of who the President is, because it is important (I think) to try to understand just what the President's vision for our future includes.
I cannot do that with this President. The vision that he presents is frightening, and turns its back on all progress made in social justice and efforts at levelling the playing field that have been made in the last 75-years. Whatever he says will be analyzed and parsed by the media to the point that it loses all meaning, anyway. And it's like sand ... whatever is important today will blow away and disappear tomorrow, shifting substance as his lawyers and spinmeisters read the public's reactions and adjust their emphasis.
Above that, he is arrogant and boorish. But we have had many an arrogant President, so that, in itself, is not a good reason to not want to watch him speak. More importantly, he is a bully. He represents all that, to me as a teacher, represents what is wrong with our attitudes to learning. He is so damned certain about EVERYTHING that there is no room in his world-view for learning new things (of course, he will change course in mid-stride if it suits his purposes, so the "certainty" is just a pose ... a "sign of strong leadership" ... that is more calculated than genuine).
Finally, this President is a whiner and a liar. The latter is the most disturbing. He lied about the reasons we had to confront an "imminent threat" from Saddam Hussein (remember the references to mushroom clouds? ... remember the elaborate schematic drawings of mobile bio labs presented to the U.N? ... remember the "proof" that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Nigeria? ... and what happened to the guy who prepared the report on which that "proof" was based when he went public and stated it was nonsense?). He lied about reasons major polluters should not have to be responsible for the crap they put in our air and water. He lied about the amount of oil in Alaska. He is lying now about the "threat" to social security.
The world is a scary place to George W. Bush, but we can "conquer" it if we are bold, resolute, and strong. The imagery that fills his vision is of conquest, struggle, toughness, independent action, and of an "all-knowing Father" that will make everything better. This is not my vision. I just came back from Jamaica (mon), and if I had taken those attitudes with me into the small town of Sav-la-Mar, I might still be sitting behind bars. Instead, I was open to understanding, was willing to negotiate, and recognized that I possessed no self-apparent superiority to the people of Jamaica, in whose country I was a guest.
Speaking of Jamaica ... Rollin' Mark and I were able to exchange more than a couple of toasts (one to Bill L, as well) to the world of featdom and the joy that a shared vision can bring to people. I think (but the thinking is just a bit fuzzy, you must understand) we also lifted a glass or two to all the folks in this discussion who could not be there with us. The Far Bar at one in the morning is a very cool place to refocus one's view on what is important. Commonalities were much more important than the silly political notions that separate us ...
Thanks, Mark. It was really important to me to chat with you and just kick back.
Finally (and this may be a topic for later discussion) I also have come to the conclusion that there are probably only 113 people in this entire country who do no partake (or have not partaken) of certain herbal substances. Wouldn't it be nice if some guy (or gal) running for important public office actually confronted this reality instead of continuing to extoll holier-than-thou, squeaky-clean attitudes and values that everyone seems to think must be uttered?
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Feb 4, 2005 17:38:48 GMT -5
On February 4, 2005 at 8:45 AM Scott Hays wrote: ... Scott, does this mean that you were, in fact, arrested and due to your diplomatic skills you're now enjoying freedom back in the states? Or does it mean that due to those same diplomatic skills you were never arrested in the first place? ;D The tales of these Jamaican Little Feat gatherings only seem to be growing towards mythical proportions as the years go by, and I'm beginning to think that I really do need to attend one of these events. '06 seems as good a start as any. Fill us in Scott... inquiring minds do want to know - chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 5, 2005 13:40:28 GMT -5
The "still sitting behind bars" reference is to what MIGHT have happened had I been more aggressive or assertive in a situation when the driver of our van was arrested. Helen and I avoided arrest for any number of reasons, none of which I can conclusively ascertain, so must only rely on intuition:
(1) we hadn't done anything (not always a reason to not be arrested) (2) we were "guests" to the island (again, not a sure-fire way to avoid arrest). (3) the jail was already full (though we saw three grown men crammed into a 6x8 cell) (4) we were polite and didn't give anyone a reason to be mad at us (5) it was Friday?
I have shared this story at both hoyhoy and in the featfans excursion thread of this forum, so will make it brief here. We -- my wife and I -- arranged to take a private excursion to the small town of Sav-la-Mar on the south coast, about 45 minutes from Negril. We wanted to shop in an open-air market away from the tourist traps of Negril, and we wanted to photograph "natives". We arranged the trip through the hotel, trusting they would take good care of us. We still think we did the right thing, by the way ... everthing that happened suggests the driver was at all times taking care of us.
At any rate, the driver was caught going the wrong way on a one-way street by the local constabulary. The female officer was definitely pissed off before anything even happened -- she was one mean-looking lady -- and she quickly found the button to set our driver off. They ended up screaming at each other in the middle of the main drag, with a growing crowd gathering to watch the show. He got back in the car and parked; as it turned out, he was waiting for a police van to arrive from "downtown" to further discuss the "situation", mon, with a "higher-up". That discussion also turned into a shouting match. When the policeman demanded that our driver get out of the car, he refused. He rolled up the windows and locked the doors. We are pretty sure if he had gotten out, he would have been arrested and hauled off to jail -- leaving us in a rather awkward predicament. Instead, he rolled the window down a crack and offered to DRIVE to the police station. This was agreeable (though the cop followed us right on our tail to make sure that's where we went). When he walked inside the police station, he WAS arrested.
The police then talked to us for a while. They weren't particularly threatening, just informing us that we would be "inconvenienced" for a while (waiting for someone from the hotel to come and spring the driver loose and/or pick us up), but I suspect they were also feeling us out. One of the accusations made by the female cop (and one of the things that set our driver off) was that he was either getting drugs for us, or pimping for us. I think this is where our relatively mellow reactions saved our butts ... had we been pushy, or demanding, or implied that we were in some way deserving of special treatement, I think these police officers would have treated us very differently. Instead, they basically ignored us. We were free to come and go as we pleased (though we had no place to go; and the immediate environment was not particularly inviting to an exploration), but we chose to just stick close to the office.
Ultimately, we were rescued. The driver was released (the hotel guaranteed he would return for his day in court) and he brought us back to Negril. We have no souveneers to show for the experience, and no photos (the cops insisted that there be NO!!! photos taken), but the memories are quite strong.
Had anything gone differently, this tale might be different. Helen thinks we were in no danger at any time. I disagree. I think our driver did a great job of protecting us, but I think at any time the police could have left us down at the wharf, thrown us out into the streets of "downtown", or tossed us into the slammer. They could have taken our wallets (for ID purposes) and returned them minus certain important things (like cash or credit cards). And who knows what else could have happened. Maybe nothing.
We do now have a pretty up close and personal encounter with daily life in the third world. It isn't pretty.
And it won't stop us from going back to Negril, next year. We just will pay attention to Denny's admonition -- don't leave the resort.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 5, 2005 20:48:40 GMT -5
by the way ... everthing that happened suggests the driver was at all times taking care of us. It sure sounds that way.
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Feb 5, 2005 21:59:35 GMT -5
On February 5, 2005 at 1:40 PM Scott Hays wrote: Scott I had no idea! I'm glad to hear that nothing worse came of it. I've heard the same thing that Denny told you... don't leave the particular resort you're staying at. I believe you are correct in that your wife was underestimating the situation. If native Jamaicans can kill Peter Tosh, then they wouldn't give you or me a second thought. Please don't think lumping all Jamaicans into the same category. I know that the majority of its citizens are good, decent people, who would rather help than harm the visitors to the island. But there is an element there that can be dangerous, which I suppose is true anywhere one chooses to travel. Anyway, I'm glad you and your wife are alright. You've got quite a story for the grandchildren someday my friend. - chadgumbo
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 5, 2005 23:42:02 GMT -5
Mr. "If I were up front and honest, I wouldn't get evrything I wanted" has struck again. The White House released their new Budget Proposal after hours on Friday nite (their favorite method of avoiding attention and media coverage-now why would they need to do that?). It slashes funds for local law enforcement, funding for home heating aid for the poor, funds for environmental protection, native indian schools, ect. It seeks half of the increase for low-income school districts as sought last year.
Just more of the usual slimey crap you would expect from a CORPORATE PUPPET!
|
|