Signs of the times: In the annals of activism, this site has to be considered a classic. The idea is simple — put signs up on freeways containing antiwar or lefty messages and many people will read them. It’s freewayblogger.com and their slogan is Free Speech: Use It or Lose It. Check it out. Then put a thought on a sign and hang it from an interstate.
Coalition communications: This is probably something that will engender the disdain of Editor Trish, but I find myself drawn to the Department of Defense press releases like an IED to the roadside. It’s weird because these releases are terrible. They are poorly written, full of doublespeak and just plain old B.S., and often don’t make a lick of sense.
But nonetheless, I find myself every few months back on the DoD site, signing up like a G.I. junky for e-mailed press releases. I’ll keep getting them for a couple of weeks and then unsubscribe when I can’t stand it anymore. So, occasionally, until I make myself ill, I’ll share some of the choicer gems from these military missives in this space.
In a release about an al Qaeda operative who was captured and a suspicious individual was killed who was later determined to be a “non-combatant,” we find this quote:
“Coalition forces take every precaution to mitigate risks to civilians while in pursuit of terrorists, and deeply regret any injury or death to non-combatants,” a Multinational Force Iraq statement issued after the incident said.
In the same release, for some reason, there was a bit about 450 detainees being released back into the population to this cheery speech:
Iraq’s national security adviser, Muwafaq al-Rubai, addressed the detainees at the Abu Ghraib theater internment facility and asked them to return to their jobs and share in the wealth of their country.
He said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has declared a reconciliation program for all those who are not tied to terrorism, and that there is no room for terrorists in Iraq.
I suppose the “Abu Ghraib theater internment facility” must be where the prisoners stage skits and plays as part of their rehabilitation.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, important work was getting done on Wednesday:
Labor and Defense Department officials celebrated the federal government’s support of National Guardsmen and reservists and the government’s role as a “model employer” at a ceremony here today.
“The message to America, to employers, to Guardsmen and reservists is your government is a model employer — your agencies, your secretaries,” Thomas F. Hall, assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, said.
Today’s ceremony concluded an initiative to have all 16 cabinet secretaries sign an Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve statement of support. The heads of all 80 federal agencies also have signed the statement, Hall said.
The statement signed is a 5-Star Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve, meaning that the highest support criteria established by the Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve have been met. Those criteria include an employer’s willingness to sign a public statement of support, compliance with the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-Employment Rights Act and adopting policies that go “above and beyond” what’s required by law in supporting Guardsmen and reservists.
“This is the first document in U.S. history that has been signed by all the members of a president’s Cabinet in support of the National Guard and Reserves,” said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, the first non-defense cabinet member to sign statement, said. “This is an historic and sweeping pledge to support our Guard and Reserve.”
Wow, a 5-Star statement! That should shame all those folks with “Support Our Troops” ribbons on their Hummers.
And then there are the items that you wonder didn’t make it into the MSM. Like the 500 weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Seems like that should have garnered more attention:
[…]
This week’s issue of the World Health Organization (WHO) Weekly Epidemiological Record, sets out results from the first analysis of epidemiological data on all 205 laboratory-confirmed H5N1 avian influenza cases officially reported to WHO by onset date from December 2003 to 30 April 2006.
Data used in the analysis were collected for surveillance purposes. Quality, reliability and format were not consistent across data from different countries. Despite this limitation, several conclusions could be reached:
1. The number of new countries reporting human cases increased from four to nine after October 2005, following the geographical extension of outbreaks among avian populations;
2. Half of the cases occurred in people under the age of 20 years; 90 percent of cases occurred in people under the age of 40;
3. The overall case fatality rate was 56 percent. Case fatality was high in all age groups but, was highest in persons aged 10 to 39;
4. The case fatality profile by age group differs from that seen in seasonal influenza, where mortality is highest in the elderly;
5. The overall case fatality rate was highest in 2004 (73 percent), followed by 63 percent to date in 2006, and 43 percent in 2005;
6. Assessment of mortality rates and the time intervals between symptom onset and hospitalization and between symptom onset and death suggests that the illness pattern has not changed substantially during the three years;
7. Cases have occurred all year round. However, the incidence of human cases peaked, in each of the three years in which cases have occurred, during the period roughly corresponding to winter and spring in the northern hemisphere. If this pattern continues, an upsurge in cases could be anticipated starting in late 2006 or early 2007;
8. A more standardized collection of epidemiological data by countries and timely sharing of these data are needed to improve monitoring of the
situation, risk assessment, and the management of H5N1 patients.
Stick a fork in her (please): According to a new Strategic Vision poll, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, leads Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Cuckooland, 61 percent to 26 percent, with 13 percent undecided.
Yesterday, we reported that Harris had announced that her colleagues in the House Democratic delegation from Florida had told her that they hoped she would beat Nelson in November.
Meanwhile, in reality:
War is hell — on the budget: Congress Daily reports that a congressional study found that spending on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the war on terror will total more than $500 billion next year. Here’s the breakdown:
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a report that through the current fiscal year ending Sept. 30, the government will have spent $437 billion on overseas military and foreign aid funding. That includes the latest supplemental spending bill signed into law this month, which provided $69 billion for the war effort.
Congressional analysts are a bit mystified at the rapidly escalating costs.Add in roughly $1.5 billion in fiscal 2007 Foreign Operations funds for Iraq and Afghanistan; $50 billion in Pentagon “bridge” funds for the first half of fiscal 2007, plus as-yet-undetermined supplemental funds for the remainder of the next fiscal year, and total war-related costs will easily soar over $500 billion one year from now.
At least $37 billion or so will have gone to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction, embassy operations and other foreign aid programs. War costs alone are expected to be at least $450 billion, not including the expected supplemental request early next year.
Even assuming an eventual troop drawdown to 74,000 by fiscal 2010, war costs between fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2016 could total another $371 billion, the report said. Adding that to the $437 billion appropriated through the end of this fiscal year, total costs would reach $808 billion by fiscal 2016.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks military spending has been pretty much unchecked. In 2006 Congress will appropriate to the military about $115.8 billion — a 72 percent increase over fiscal 2004, according to CRS. The monthly “burn rate” of spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is averaging $9.7 billion this year, an 18 percent jump from 2005. One major problem with this runaway spending is that the people studying it can’t figure out why it’s happening.
Congressional analysts are a bit mystified at the rapidly escalating costs. Most of the increases are due to operations and maintenance costs, which have jumped from $42.7 billion in fiscal 2004 to $60.9 billion in fiscal 2006, and a threefold increase in procurement funds, to $24.4 billion in fiscal 2006 from $7.2 billion, CRS said.
They said some of the operational increase is due to expected factors, such as fuel price hikes, body armor purchases and training of Iraqi and Afghan security forces. “These factors, however, are not enough to explain a 50 percent increase of over $20 billion in operating costs,” the report states.
Likewise, while increases were expected for force-protection equipment like armored humvees and night-vision goggles, as well as to replace damaged equipment, “These reasons are not sufficient, however, to explain the level of increases or predict whether these procurement levels are temporary or likely to rise still further,” CRS argues.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon claims that it will be 2012 before it untangles its Byzantine accounting processes to give more transparency to its spending and maybe better justify to Congress its requests for mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money. Until then, Congress — and the rest of us footing the bill — is just going to have to trust Rumsfeld & Co. that they really need the dough, honest.
Support for Katherine Harris is so universal — according to Katherine Harris — that even Democratic lawmakers from Florida have told her they hope she beats Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson.
…According to the Palatka Daily News, Harris said, “I’ve had Democrats in the House of Representatives come to me and say, ‘You know, we’d really like to take the majority in the U.S. Senate’ — these are Florida Democrats in the U.S. Congress — ‘but you’ll do so much more for us if you’re there.’ ”
Somebody call Rush Limbaugh and have him bring her over some of the good stuffHarris said one Democrat — “one of the most liberal House members from Florida” — even offered her a slogan to use in her race against Nelson: “All about nothing for far too long.”
The problem is, none of the allegedly plural Democratic congresspeople in Washington are backing up Harris.
…all seven House Democrats from Florida told the Orlando Sentinel they never expressed any support for Harris. Responses from two — Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alcee Hastings — were typical.
“That would be a big ‘No,’ ” Wasserman Schultz said.
“Under no circumstances, in any way, shape or form am I supporting Katherine Harris, nor do I know anybody in the delegation who is.”
“I can assure you, Congressman Hastings is 110 percent committed to the re-election of Bill Nelson,” Hastings’ spokesman said.
“He wishes Katherine Harris well in her life as a private citizen next year.”
Harris’ current beleaguered spokesperson (she goes through them like water) says his boss is too principled to expose her supporters.
Her former campaign manager says she’s just wacked.
[Spokesman Chris] Ingram said Harris was “taking the high road” by protecting their identity. He did not respond to an e-mail asking for the names of others who might corroborate Harris’ account.
The episode creates for voters a rare moment of political clarity: Either some Florida Democrats are hiding something and actually told Harris they want her to win, or Harris is making up the whole thing.
Former Harris campaign manager Jim Dornan is convinced Harris invented the story.
Dornan said she told her senior staff the same thing last year. But she would not name names.
“I just figured it had never happened,” said Dornan, who has become a critic of Harris since leaving the campaign late last year.
“It was all too weird.”
Katherine has obviously forgotten to refill her prescription. Somebody call Rush Limbaugh and have him bring her over some of the good stuff.
As the Worst President Ever in American history, George W. Bush so incompetent that his presidency really can’t be compared with any other. Laughably, however, his acolytes and worshippers often compare him with Truman and Reagan, meaning he’s unpopular now but will be well-regarded by history.
But Joseph Nye says that while the comparisons to Truman and Reagan are wishful thinking of the highest order, there is a 20th Century presidency that compares with Bush’s on many levels — that of Woodrow Wilson:
Both are highly religious and moralistic. Both came to power as minority presidents focused on domestic politics. Both responded to an international crisis with a a bold policy, and both defined a vision that failed to balance ideals with national capacities. Their rhetoric about democracy is quite similar, though Wilson was interested in international institutions while Bush is not. But perhaps most important, both were poor managers, failing to organize diverse information flows in their administrations, and were resistant to new ideas. Persistance can be an admirable quality in a leader, but not if it means resistance to course corrections. Then it becomes blind stubborness. As Robert Lansing, Wilson’s secretary of state noted in 1917, “even established facts were ignored if they did not fit in with his intiutitive sense, his semi-devine power to select the right.” Sound familiar? And, of course, Wilson failed as a transformational leader as the country rejected his policies over the next two decades. Bush’s case is still open, but he is running against the odds.
The campaign staff of Sen. George Allen of Virginia attempted to swiftboat the senator’s Democratic opponent Jim Webb this week over the issue of flag burning. In stark contrast with the reaction by Sen. John Kerry to a similarly sleazy attack in the 2004 presidential campaign, Webb’s staff has attacked back:
The frission started when Allen mgr Dick Wadhams, in a statement on Webb’s oppositon to a flag burning amendment, said this: “Now that we know that James H. Webb, Jr. is following Kerry, Kennedy and Schumer in opposing the Flag Protection Amendment, maybe he will finally take a position on other ‘real issues’ such as immediate withdrawal from Iraq and immigration,” Wadhams said. “His positions change daily.”
Webb, a former Republican, is a much decorated former Marine and was the Sec. of the Navy during the Reagan Administration. His adviser Steve Jarding responded:
George Felix Allen Jr. and his bush-league lapdog, Dick Wadhams, have not earned the right to challenge Jim Webb’s position on free speech and flag burning. Jim Webb served and fought for our flag and what it stands for, while George Felix Allen Jr. chose to cut and run. When he and his disrespectful campaign puppets attack Jim Webb they are attacking every man and woman who served. Their comments are nothing more than weak-kneed attacks by cowards. George Felix Allen Jr. needs to apologize to Jim Webb and to all men and women who have served our nation.
Note to Dems: More of this!
Trump’s renaming of Lake Ontario has created a litmus test —
Yield, and rename it Lake America, at Donald Trump’s behest,
Like Google and Apple, which already capitulated,
Changing the name just like Dear Leader stipulated,
But there’s one defiant holdout — the original mapping site, Mapquest.
