Wednesday, May 23, 2007

What the F---?

As an artist, I believe it's my responsibility to be up on what's going on in the world. A part of being an artist is having your antennae up. An artist is a reporter of sorts, reflecting back what one sees in the world. And, as the saying goes, if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention...

Bush's new strategy in Iraq, which the White House and toady republicans all hailed as such - the NEW plan - is to send more troops to Iraq. Fortunately, we elected a majority of democrats into congress last round of national elections to turn this Titanic in a bath tub around. The democrats have been standing tough.

Their new strategy for ending the war?

Give Bush what he wants.

Give him more money to spend and more bodies to send home in caskets. Um...what the f---?

Granted, they are sneaking in some pet projects of theirs - stuff that deserves funding and legislation, and shouldn't have to be buried in a seperate bill - more aid to Katrina, more money and care for war veterans, a hike in the minimum wage....but you're still giving the president money to fund his hellbent war in Iraq that's generated more terrorism than it has curbed.

Remember when The War on Terror was about eradicating the Taliban in Afghanistan and finding Bin Ladin and bringing him to justice? Pardon me for waxing nostalgic, but those were two very good ideas directly linked to 9/11 that were put on the back burner so Bush, Jr could manipulate suspect intelligence to show his daddy how it's supposed to be done in Iraq. That, by the way, is the opinion I held BEFORE the war. I'm just some schmuck in Chicago and even I thought the intelligence the Bush administration was using to justify war wasn't good enough. I had hope the democrats would be able to stop funding the madness and get us the hell out of there. Some people say that stopping funding doesn't support our troops. I believe it does if it gets them out of there and uses them to a better purpose, like in Afghanistan, which has been falling apart since our focus has been on the monetary and human blood-letting that is Iraq.

Agreement Near on Iraq Funding Bill
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting atimeline for troop withdrawal.

Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion for Democratic domestic priorities _ originally resisted by the White House _ such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought.

Reid and other Democrats pointed to a provision that would set standards for the Iraqi government in developing a more democratic society. U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward meeting the goals, but Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed. (!) (That's my "!" by the way - Joe)

Republicans said that after weeks of struggle, they had forced Democrats to give up their demand for a date to withdraw the troops.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, added, "Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process."

You can read the full article by clicking HERE.