Tuesday, March 13, 2007

AN ANGER-FILLED STROLL THROUGH THE NEWS

I'm too frustrated to speak intelligently/calmly/coherently about some of the major topics in the news this week. But suffice to say, they're all pissing me off.

A lot. To wit:

1. Congressional Democrats continue to ignore the mandate of the American people, choosing to cave to each and every Adminstration demand to feed the meatgrinder, and keep the War Wagon rolling. Bush wants more troops (in addition to the 21,000 he demanded two months ago), and the Dems seem disinclined to say no. Bush wants more money for the war(s), and the Dems seem ready to give it. The Democrats now say they'll remove a provision from the latest bill that insists on Congressional approval of any adventurism in Iran.

(Hmmmm, I thought that was required by THE CONSTITUTION regardless of what back-room agreements go down).

Meanwhile, soldiers die. For nothing.

2. Take that back: they die for the right of American companies to earn no-bid contracts for defense, reconstruction, support and the like. American companies such as Halliburton that move to Dubai so they can avoid paying federal taxes that pay for these no-bid contracts.

3. In addition to the 8 U.S Attorneys who were fired, we now learn that the White House -- via none other than Harriet Miers -- wanted to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys at the start of Bush's 2nd term.

No wonder Bush nominated her for Chief Associate Justice. (Thanks to George -- not that George -- for the correction)

4. And through it all, 4-in-10 American workers live paycheck-to-paycheck.

Impeach Bush? Sure. Then the fuckers should impeach themselves.

Labels: ,

17 Comments:

Blogger Comandante AgĂ­ said...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

9:47 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

I wasn't even looking for a boss, new or old. Just a few people with some stones who might tell the old boss to pound sand.

Alas.

9:52 AM  
Anonymous John Royal said...

Mike, I sense that you're upset about something. But I could just be misreading the whole situation.

10:32 AM  
Anonymous John Royal said...

Mike, forget about Halliburton skating on the taxes. This moves sets up the way for Halliburton to do business with Iran. Something which Cheney tried to do when he ran the company.

10:34 AM  
Blogger Shane Rollins said...

I find it ironic to read this post as my co-worker is playing Fight The Power

12:09 PM  
Blogger George said...

So you don't have to feel quite as vitriolic, they only nominated Harriet Miers for associate justice. Oh, and Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys to start his first term. The argument there is "I'm picking my own people--doesn't matter if you're good or bad." Of course, BushCo. fires people so friends of Karl Rove can get jobs and prosecutors of the Duke get punished.

12:46 PM  
Blogger Mort said...

Rant on. Congress is a joke, they have abdicated all power to the throne. This government needs to die on the vine, repeal congressional pensions now.

1:07 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

This moves sets up the way for Halliburton to do business with Iran.

Interesting. But is it illegal for American companies to conduct business with Iran now?

Fight The Power Man, I love that song.

nominated Harriet Miers for associate justice.

Ahhhh yes, this is true.

Oh, and Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys to start his first term.

Reason # 549 why I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of Slick Willie.

1:24 PM  
Anonymous John Royal said...

In defense of Slick Willie, it's a pretty common practice for the incoming president to replace all of the U.S. Attorneys -- especially since they were all political appointies appointed to the post by the person you just replaced. The big difference here is that Clinton had to get Congressional approval for the replacements, Dubya used an Arlen Specter provided loophole in the Patriot Act to replace the attorneys without Congressional approval.

1:51 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

The Patriot Act: the gift that keeps on giving.

2:27 PM  
Anonymous John Royal said...

You know, I think there's a provision in the Patriot Act that allows for you to be jailed for speaking sarcastically about the Patriot Act. And, because I've been in trouble for my own comments about the Patriot Act, I'm cutting a deal with DOJ and turning you in. They promised me I would get sent to a Caribbean locale to serve my term if I gave you up. And I couldn't resist.

2:44 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

speaking sarcastically about the Patriot Act.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm a Patriot, and I love Patriotic acts. Hence . . .

They promised me I would get sent to a Caribbean locale to serve my term

Last I checked, Gitmo was right smack in the middle of the Caribbean, John. Don't get too excited. But I'll do my part to make sure you get tropical drinks served in your cage.

2:58 PM  
Blogger Mort said...

The War Powers Act claims to limit the power of the president to initiate hostilities, while what it actually does is confirm his power to do so with only the "consultation" of CONgress. Like so many other pieces of legislation the name means exactly the opposite of what it does. The Patriot Act for example.

4:15 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

I find it just a tad ironic that the same Republicans who whine & carp about "the letter of the Constitution" and "Original intent," are the same Big Government bozos that ignore & argue against the clear division of war-making powers as set forth in the document itself: Congress declares; the Exec prosecutes. It could not possibly be clearer.

Hamilton was very clear on this division in The Federalist, #69:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

But "strict textualists" ignore what they want when it suits their agenda.

4:28 PM  
Blogger DED said...

Thanks for the post, Mike. I've been feeling the same lately and haven't had the time to vent in my blog.

10:13 PM  
Blogger Coop said...

Mike, what I find amazing is that people seem to forget one small thing about Halliburton -- that the company was NEVER incorporated in the US in the first place. It was the cayman islands or the bahamas or one of those island tax-sheltered paradises. so why does it surprise people that a.) The Dickster doesn't want to pay his taxes and 2.) that he's moving to the place that's made him the most money in his life???

4:42 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

I didn't know Halliburton was incorprated off-shore. It's not that uncommon, really, and I understand why firms do so.

But in the case of Halliburton, where they've made so much of their money on federal government contracts . . . well, that's a different story.

8:53 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home