What About Dick?

Or maybe it should be what a Dick. I'm not sure. The Dick of course I'm referring to, in case you've been under a rock for the last few days, would be Dick Cheney. What to say about this person. I was thinking about that when I was riding my bike yesterday. I was especially thinking about it while viewing the Washington Monument and riding around the Lincoln Memorial.

I wondered what the two of them would think of all this.

I thought of a great many things to say in response to Dick. The absurd notion that enhance interrogation techniques, otherwise know as torture, saved hundreds of thousands of America lives. Wow, where'd he come up with that one. The Obama administration and Obama in particular have been very restrained in their response to this.

What Cheney is saying is nothing new. I thought I'd go on about that but then I thought of something else. Actually a couple of things.

I find it interesting that the far right and the Republicans (which I guess these days are one in the same) during the Bush Administration couldn't fathom that there was a first amendment to the Constitution.

You know the silly one about freedom of speech. Because boy they sure didn't believe in it when anyone criticized Bush especially on the war. But lo and behold Barack Obama is elected president and all of a sudden they found out there is a First Amendment. Here's what Bush press secretary had to say:

"Why shouldn't the vice president defend the Bush administration policies?" Dana Perino said yesterday by e-mail. "I am pretty sure we still have free speech in our country -- and he should exercise his right as he sees fit, just as every American should."

Gee too bad you didn't believe in that when you were in office.

As to the Democrats the story is just as interesting. Staunch defenders to the First Amendment when Bush was in power. And now well gosh maybe Dick should just shut up and go back to Wyoming.

I think I smell a whiff of hypocrisy from both sides.

And my other thought was this. I'm not sure why this came to mind but Dick Cheney reminds me of the big bad that used to be the major story arc in seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Sort of like Glory or the First but much more malevolent than both of them combined.

So what to do about Dick? Well, what we need to do is banish Dick back to the hell dimension from which he came. And I think that time should be right about now.

Interesting Link

Here's an interesting link. It's an amazing graphic created by the Atlantic comparing all sorts of things from the start of the Bush presidency to now. It's an eye opener. I got this from an article in the Post.

Here's a little excerpt:

Timothy Lavin writes for the Atlantic: "Since 2000, America has changed in small ways, in big ways, and in ways that seem innocent enough now but no doubt herald some radical disruptions to come. Many more people are poor, uninsured, and in prison. Many more are billionaires. The burden of health-care costs has grown heavier, and so have we. We charge more, save less, and play a lot more video games. Even the things that haven't changed much--like the amount of oil we consume, or the price of cocaine, or the size of our military--reflect not so much stasis as unsustainable trajectories. For Obama, responding to these problems will require breaking deep national addictions--to oil, to etherealized finance, to profligacy of all kinds--and, somehow, easing the tremens along the way."

Last Press Conference

Bush cannot be gone soon enough.

This from his last news conference:

President Bush this morning declared emphatically that “most people around the world respect America.”

What planet is this guy on. To think that our image in the world has not taken a huge hit during his administration. What a joke. Just like his presidency.

Our standing in the world is about at the same level that Bush’s popularity in US opinion polls.

This just shows once again the complete inability of Bush to comprehend what is going on. I can understand saying his course on Iraq was correct. After all what else can he say about that. He could have said that over time people will see that his decision in Iraq is the right (which is all he can hope for right now). But to say that most people in the world respect America is just plain silly.

The one consolation is that this is the last news conference we will have to suffer through from Bush.

The Year Begins

There's a great deal to happy about that 2008 is over. This was the headline to a story in the Post yesterday morning:
Wall Street's Final '08 Toll: $6.9 Trillion Wiped Out


Happy New Year indeed.

Then in today's post is a story which well read for yourself from two of Bush's top advisers. One can only say what fantasy world on these two living in. This is another in a series of attempts to reform Bush's image before he leaves office. Revisionist history before any of the history had even been written.

But in less than 20 days Bush will be gone. The healing can begin. Our long nightmare will be over.

There is so much to do so much to fix so much to make right. It will take a great deal and each and every one of us is going to have to help out.

Obama will be in DC by Monday. He will be discussing with Democrats how to frame a stimulus package. Something that is needed as soon as possible. The long it takes to pass the longer it will take to implement. Realistically anything that passes now won't have any type of impact on the economy until late spring or early summer. So the the sooner it is done the better.

The next shoe to drop economically will be in the retail industry. Seems Christmas was a complete and total bust. There are predictions that thousands of stores could close. That malls will close as well. It will be a big hit on the economy. More importantly it will be a big hit on the American psyche which is almost as if not more important then the actual economic events taking place.

At the end of 2009, we might be waxing nostalgically for 2008.

If the Shoes Fit

Throw them at the president.

Here's the video:



Here's a link to a story in the Post.

There's not a great deal you can say about this except to laugh. Yet at the same time the upbeat talk from Bush about how it was all worth it makes you want to cry. He still does not get how angry people are about how he botched Iraq. I have a feeling he's going to be in for a rude awakening once he leaves office. I'll have some more thoughts on this latter.

We're in a Recession

So nice to hear from the government that they've figured out we are now in a recession. And a recession. at least according to this group, that started last December. Read more here.

The National Bureau of Economic Research said that:

a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators.

Glad they got that straight because I'm sure the vast majority of Americans still probably think the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

And from our president we got this take on the economic mess in a interview with Charlie Gibson:

"You know, I'm president during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived," he said.

Of course the fact that his administration decided to deregulate everything in sight. It then decline to perform any sort of oversight function well that couldn't possibly have made any difference. It seems the federal government was getting warnings about the potential mortgage mess as far back as January of 2006 but decided to do nothing about.

Yes many of the decisions that got us into this mess were made before Bush was in office. The problem is once in office the Bush administration showed no interest in seeing what was happening in the financial markets at all. Let market forces be the guide. Just look where that got us.

Agreement in Iraq

Remember a year ago or so when we all thought Iraq would be the issue that would dominate the election. It seems like a distant memory now.

This week there was finally a status-of-forces agreement that the Bush administration has been negotiating for months. This is going to allow US troops to remain in the country after the UN agreement expires at the end of this year.

The story in the Post states:

"The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground," the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord.

So now there is a time table to withdraw from Iraq with no conditions. No matter is going on in Iraq come December 31, 2001, US troops will be gone. In other words the Bush administration completely caved. No more BS about how a time table will let terrorists know how long they have to wait until they begin their attacks again. No well will get out only if some set of conditions are met. Nope none of that at all.

The Iraqi Parliament still has to approve the deal. So there is always the possibility that this might not happen. If that should happen, then there is precious little time to come up with something else since the UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

I thought this was an interesting point in the story:

American officials have pointed out that there is nothing stopping the next Iraqi government from asking some U.S. troops to stay. The Iraqi military is years away from being able to defend the country from external attack, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

I can see almost no circumstances where any Iraqi government would want US troops to stay longer. More fantasy from the Bush administration on Iraq.

Back to Stop Loss

Stop Loss is the policy used by the army to extend soldiers combat duty. The important thing to point out here that this is beyond the time when that combat duty should have expired. In other words, their tour of duty is being extended involuntary. The main reason for this is of course the situation in Iraq.

The army said that it was going to stop doing this but now that is not the case. According to a story in USA Today:

The number of soldiers affected by stop loss peaked in 2005 at 15,758. Gates ordered stop loss to be minimized in January 2007. It fell to 8,540 in May 2007 but rose to about 12,000 in March and has stayed near that level. The troop buildup in Iraq and extension of Army tours from 12 to 15 months last year resulted in more stop-loss orders.

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. It seems to me a simply question of fairness. The soldier has fulfilled his term of the enlist; the government should honor its side of the bargain as well. The strain this puts on troops must be incredible. I also can't see how this helps in retaining soldiers either.

The article continues:

If demand for U.S. combat troops stays constant through 2009, Moose said, the number of soldiers affected by stop loss will remain at about 12,000. "Stop loss is a function of how many units are preparing to deploy," he said. "We only use stop loss when we have to."

I really don't think the question is if. If not in Iraq then they will be needed in Afghanistan.

This is another legacy left to the country by the Bush administration. They simply did not plan the war well enough. The people who are suffering for it are our troops. And that is just wrong.

Down Only 128

On Most any other day the stock market going down by 128 points would be a pretty big deal. In light of recent sessions it seems well sort of quaint. Only 128 points. Well that's hardly anything compared to what it went down other days this week.

It's too bad the market isn't closed for Columbus Day. I guess the bloodletting will start again on Monday. Perhaps the meetings over the weekend with the G-7 heads will bring something new to the table or at least some sort of greater global strategy to deal with what is going on.

President Bush spoke to the nation again this morning:

President Bush today urged financial markets and the broader American public to remain calm in the face of the global financial meltdown, saying that "we'll get through this together."

This uncertainty has led to anxiety among our people," Bush said during a statement delivered in the White House Rose Garden. "And that is understandable. But anxiety can feed anxiety, and that can make it hard to see all that is being done to solve the problem."

"This is an anxious time," Bush said. "But the American people can be confident in our future."

One of the financial commentators on CNBC said the last thing that was needed was for President Bush to come out and spout more meaningless platitudes. The main problem with Bush is that his credibility is completely shot. He really can't move the majority of people one way or the other any more.

One thing to note is that a barrel of oil is trading around $77.00. At any other time that would be good news. But right now the fact that gasoline prices are coming down isn't much consolation because no one has any money to buy gas with.

So I guess the thing to do this weekend is forget all about what's happening until Monday dawns and the market starts dropping again. Maybe it will less than 100 points on Monday. Maybe.

Bailout Blues

Or maybe it's bailout hangover. Whatever it is things are sure on the skids. I've started to receive my quarterly financial reports in the mail. Glad I'm not planning on retiring anytime soon because I couldn't. My joke is I'll be working after I'm dead which may not be that much of a joke anymore.

As wild as the stock market was today that's not as important. Something behind the scenes is a much better indicator of how the credit market is doing. It is called LIBOR. It stands for the London Interbank Offered Rate. The LIBOR is:

An interest rate at which banks can borrow funds, in marketable size, from other banks in the London interbank market.

The LIBOR is the world's most widely used benchmark for short-term interest rates. It's important because it is the rate at which the world's most preferred borrowers are able to borrow money. It is also the rate upon which rates for less preferred borrowers are based.

Friday the LIBOR rate was at 4,33% a nine month high. Monday it was at 4.29%. Not much of a movement at all. If money is going to start moving again, if credit is going to start to be given again then this number needs to come down and come down a lot and come down fast. That is probably not going to happen.

There were reassurances from President Bush calling for patience. Probably the last person anyone wants to hear that from. Bush said in part:

"I believe that in the long run, this economy is going to be just fine," Bush said. In the short term, he said the Treasury Department must go about enacting its plan to buy up troubled assets from financial firms so that credit will start flowing again to consumers.

And that's something else that has to be done as quickly as possible enacting the plan or the markets are just going to fall apart.

To take a quote from All About Eve: Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night! Only I think the bump is going to last a lot longer than one night.

Presidential/Financial Follies

McCain Grandstands

That’s the only thing I can think of to call what McCain did Wednesday by cancelling his campaigning and returning to Washington to help with the economic crisis. Gee all of a sudden this is a huge crisis which is been going on for almost a week. Now is McCain a member of any of the committees that have any impact on the legislation being considered. Well no. So I’m not exactly sure how he is helping along the process. It seems his presence rather than helping matters along has hindered the possibility of a deal.

I guess we have to wait and see.

Bush’s Speech

Bush seemed in a complete daze when he gave the speech on Wednesday night. He really needed to sell the plan. He didn’t hurt his case but he didn’t sell it either. Also the speech should have come earlier in the week.

The administration needed to be out front and explain on a big stage what the plan was for. Paulson and Bernanke did a fairly good job in Congress but most people saw these statements filtered through the news media. By the time Bush spoke all sorts of concerns had been made and McCain had pulled his stunt.

Also of interest was the fact a whole lot of blame was assigned except to the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress that sat by and did nothing while this crisis gathered steam. Yes, it was those foreigners who helped contribute to the problem. Not an administration that didn’t believe in any regulation of the financial industry at all. Or a compliant roll over play dead Republican controlled Congress. Nor, might I add blame for the head of the Fed or the Treasury who both said that the subprime market mess would never leak into the overall economy.

At least the debate is on.

Congress Takes a Breath

For once that fact that Congress takes so long to do something is a good thing. This time around when the Bush administration is saying jump people on both sides of the aisle are asking questions.

That's not to say that something shouldn't be done. Something does need to be done. But maybe just maybe this time some deliberation and thought will happen instead of just passing whatever the Bush administration sends Congress's way.

There is a growing sentiment from both Republicans and Democrats that executive salaries should be reined in. Also that the American tax payer should be getting some of the assets of the companies that it's bailing out.

Here's the response from the White House by Tony Fratto on this:

"We certainly understand and are sympathetic to the sentiment regarding the pay of CEOs and senior management of these firms, but we have to focus on the problem, and the problem is that we need these firms to participate in the program and sell us this debt. Having punitive measures would provide a disincentive for firms to participate, and that would make the program much less likely to succeed.

"CEO compensation and corporate governance in public companies are very important issues -- especially when receiving taxpayer support -- but we need to be focused on fixing this problem in our markets right now. We can and should return to those issues once we get this legislation passed."

Except how exactly do you return to this issue when you've established the bailout package. The urgency presented by the White House and Fed makes it sound like the money is needed right away. It sounds like the buying of assets needs to start right away or else. But if that's the case then it seems to me there isn't going to be time to return to this issue.

The Post covers the hearings in this story and here's a great piece by Dan Froomkin.

I think this sums up what many people are thinking around the country and the type of comment Congress is getting:

"I don't think a single call to my office about this has been positive," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). He said there was "outrage from taxpayers" about bailing out Wall Street financiers whose country club memberships cost many times more than most Americans' salaries.

And you know what, and this has been a long time in coming, members of both parties were actually concerned about what this would do to average people. Of course they might be so concerned because of the fact that the election is exactly six weeks away. But, if Congress has to be scared into doing its job, of asking questions, of deliberating, of making sure the plan has a chance to work, that's fine by me.

Devil in the Details

Seems just about everyone is on board with the bail out. Bu the devil seems to be in the details.

Funny how John McCain suddenly is a fan of regulation:

"I am greatly concerned that the plan gives a single individual the unprecedented power to spend $1 trillion -- trillion -- dollars without any meaningful accountability," he said in prepared remarks.

At a rally in Scranton, Pa., McCain declared that "we will not solve a problem caused by poor oversight with a plan that has no oversight."

Gee, Senator and who was one of the biggest fan of as little oversight as possible. Oh yes that wold be you. Yeah maybe if Congress, the Republican controlled Congress, had done its job we might now be as big of a mess as we are. But they didn't and neither did you.

It seems that the bailout has gone over well on Wall Street but everyday ordinary people aren't as please. Here's a story from the Post.

The sentiment is pretty much summed up by this comment:

"If I spent more money than I have, I don't deserve to have somebody bail me out," said John Owens, 45, a developer who lives on Eagle Court, where three houses have gone through foreclosure.

I have to agree. I bought my home in the time of no money down, no interest loans. My real estate agent in the strongest terms told me not to use those options. I listened to him. What happens if in the coming economic downturn (all but promised because of the huge bail out) I loose my job. What if my house is put in jeopardy? Who's going to help me out? I played by the rules why am I now having to pick up the tab.

If the Bush administration is going to make this thing work they need to be much more upfront about what is going on. I know that is a stretch for them. Being open honest and upfront. Not things normally associated with them. But if this is going to work there needs to be a very hard sell for it. Because I happen to think doing nothing would be much worse.

So maybe George needs to start acting like he's in charge and address the American people and tell them exactly why we are mortgaging our future.

A Timetable But Not Really a Timetable

Well it seems there's deal for withdrawing American troops from Iraq by 2011. Interesting what Bush said on the subject in May of 2007:

"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing," he said last May. "All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible."

But, from an administration that has become an expert at splitting hairs and seeing the world one way when everyone else sees it the exact opposite, this from Secretary Rice:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said Thursday in Baghdad, "We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in such an agreement." Her use of the term "aspirational" suggested that the timetables would be linked in some undisclosed way to the attainment of measurable progress in the security, political and perhaps economic fields.

Even it the timetable is aspirational (whatever the hell that means), it is still a timetable. It will be interesting to see what spin the Bush administration applies to convince people it is not a timetable. How exactly are they going to fool the terrorist into not knowing when the timetable says when American troops will be gone.

Dam Froomkin of the Post has a great story on the coverage of this story.

It's also interesting to see how McCain will spin this one. In his "what things would look like at the end of my first term" speech a few months ago McCain envisioned "winning" the war in Iraq. But troops would be out by 2013 which is two years after the Bush agreement calls for.

It looks much like what Obama is currently proposing as he said: 'They are working on a plan that looks, lo and behold, like the plan that I've been advocating. I will encourage the administration to move forward with it.'

Obama's overall draw down would be slightly quicker than the one in the Bush agreement but the agreement would move troops out of combat operations in Iraqi cities by next summer faster than envisioned by Obama.

So why the cave by the administration? Well I guess I should be charitable and say why the change of heart. It seems to me the Bush administration thought it could force down the throats of the Iraqis an agreement the Iraqis found completely intolerable. One has to wonder if this administration was a bit more forward thinking and flexible if such an agreement could not have been concluded much earlier.

It also seems the Prime Minister Maliki was playing to the home crowd when getting tough with America. There are regional elections in Iraq in the not too distant future and Maliki didn't want to appear to be America's stooge. Also the UN mandate allowing American troops to stay in Iraq expires at the end of the year. So time was running out.

Thankfully time is also running out on this administration something we can all be grateful for.

Bush Blames the Democrats

If it wasn't such a serious subject this would make you laugh. The reason for high gas prices according to our illustrious president is because of the Democrats. This from a story in USA Today:

President Bush on Saturday blamed the Democratic-led Congress for the high cost of gasoline and renewed his call for expanded offshore drilling to increase U.S. oil supplies.

"To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Let's see who had majorities in both houses of Congress. Right that would be the Republicans. And that just so happens to be Bush's party. But somehow high gas prices are the fault of the Democrats.

Bush past up a great opportunity after 9-11 to rally this country. To ask for sacrifices. To end our addiction to foreign oil. But Bush passed on those opportunities. The fault is not the Democrats, Mr. President. The fault is yours for doing nothing when you had the chance of doing something.

A Pass at Justice

No legal actions are going to be pursued on those wonderful Bush appointees that used political considerations to hire non-political positions. I know that comes as a big surprise. You can read more about it in the Post here.

This is the decision of Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey:

He told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

Gee, only a violation of civil service laws. So nothing is going to happen to Monica Goodling and her partner in civil service violations D. Kyle Sampson. Guess they got a way with one. I do have to say I'm not sure what they could have been charged with. But, there should be some sort of punishment for politicizing career positions at the Justice Department.

At least the Democrats are not letting willing to settle for this:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Mukasey "seems intent on insulating this administration from accountability."

The Vermont Democrat said Mukasey's remarks "appear premature based on the facts and evidence that congressional investigators and the inspector general have uncovered so far" in the hiring scandal. "We must continue to pursue the truth and facts, and hold any wrongdoers accountable," Leahy said.

I think the question has to be asked if these two bozos were acting on their own or if this was being orchestrated at a higher level. If you decide not to pursue and sort of charges, you loose any leverage you might have on these two to find out anything further.

If there is a silver lining, and it is a very slim one, Mukasey urged those who were not hired to apply for open positions in the Justice Department. Of course that doesn't mean they get those jobs. But at least they will have a level playing field as opposed to the one they had.

The Department of "Justice"

The investigations into the practices of the Justice Department continue. The report that was released a couple of days ago is damning in the way that career employees were hired as if they were political appointees. Here's the story from the Post. This is from USA Today.

It seems a political hack of the Bush administration named Monica Goodling used political considerations in the hiring of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers. From the USA Today story:

In one instance, Justice investigators found, Goodling objected to hiring an assistant prosecutor in Washington because "judging from his resume, he appeared to be a liberal Democrat."

In another, she rejected an experienced terror prosecutor to work on counterterror issues at a Justice Department headquarters office "because of his wife's political affiliations," the report said. It also said she rejected at least one job applicant who was rumored to be a lesbian.

As long as it could be determined you were loyal to George Bush you'd be hired if you were qualified for the position or not. The person hired for the counter terror position was a registered Republican with three years of experience none of it dealing with terrorism.

Yet somehow we are to regard Ms. Goodling as some sort of a saint:

John M. Dowd, an attorney for Goodling, said yesterday that she deserved praise, not scorn, for her “exceptional candor” with Congress last year. “Each and every one of the core conclusions of the OIG/OPR report . . . is consistent with and indeed derived from Ms. Goodling’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee,” he said.

Wow talk about turning the world upside down. Goodling did something clearly unethical and probably illegal but because she told the “truth” about what she did she should be praised. What will they think of next?

And who was in charge of the Justice Department when this was going on of course the clueless Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

This is yet another reminder of how good it will be when this administration is no longer in power.

One final observation. This type of conduct is a grab for power. To impose an ideological stamp on the Justice Department. While they were attempting to do this the business of protecting the people of this country was ignored. That's what angers me the most.

The Forgotten Forgotten War

If Iraq is the forgotten war, then Afghanistan is the forgotten forgotten war.

Well not any more. In the month of June, there were 28 American soldiers killed in Afghanistan. That's one less than in Iraq. The only thing is that the American force in Afghanistan is one-quarter the size of the force in Iraq. It means Afghanistan is extremely deadly to American forces right now. Most likely it will be for some time to come.

The Taliban is on the move. It kept it's head down for a few years and regrouped and is now at it again. Of course they were able to do this because the US was all caught up in the fight in Iraq. It now seems the military wants to send more troops to Afghanistan but can't because of Iraq.

This from a story in the Post:

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."

This statement comes from no less than Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It says to me we are in trouble. The idea is that, as things improve in Iraq and there's a draw down there, we send those forces to Afghanistan. Some experts think it might take a couple of years to accomplish that. My question is do we have a couple of years to wait. The Taliban certainly won't be waiting a couple of years.

One of the short term ways to solve this problem is to extend the tours of duty of soldiers. See the story here.

The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is doing combat operations in the volatile south, will stay an extra 30 days and come home in early November rather than October, Marine Col. David Lapan confirmed Thursday.

There are assurances from the Pentagon that there will not be an extension beyond those 30 days. But then again in early May no less than Secretary Gates said "no one has suggested even the possibility of extending that rotation." So this recent assurance should be taken with a grain of salt.

President Bush has stated that there will be a increase in troops sent to Afghanistan in 2009. Of course the details on how that will be accomplished are few.

Once again the lack of proper planning on Iraq is directly impacting our ability to defeat the Taliban, al-Qaida and other militants in Afghanistan. Chalk another one up for the Bush administration.

The idea of moving the troops from Iraq (once things are stable in Iraq) to Afghanistan posses a couple of questions. At what point does the equipment start to give out? How many tours of duty are these soldiers supposed to go through before they get a break? Or our leaders just going to keep using them until they are ground into the dust?

They deserve to be treated better. Most of all they deserve not to be forgotten which unfortunately has happened with the was in Afghanistan.

Problems with Iraq Treaty

Seems the Bush Administration is running into some problems with negotiating their "security framework" with Iraq. See this story in the Post. Here's a revealing quote:

The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq, said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.'

From reading the story it sounds like Bush and friends want to put American bases all over Iraq. The original idea was to have over 200 facilities across the country. How could this not be interpreted as a long term permanent presence in the country? And wouldn't these "facilities" as the story refers to them not be targets for terrorists? The number the Americans want has since come down to 58.

It makes you wonder if the administration is having problems with the Iraqis what problems they will have with Congress. And Congress on this one had better not roll over as they have in the past. I guess the White House is getting a little concerned about how Congress will react:

In Washington, the White House hastily organized a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday after Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, respectively, demanded Monday that the administration "be more transparent with Congress, with greater consultation, about the progress and content of these deliberations."

This is a treaty with Iraq no matter what the Bush Administration may want to call it and as a treaty it has to be ratified by the Senate.

Distrubing News from the Army

A very disturbing report out from the Army this week. Here's a story about it in USA Today and also from the Post.

There has been a record number of suicides reported in the Army. It's the highest since the Army started counting in 1980.

From the Post article:

"We see a lot of things that are going on in the war which do contribute _ mainly the longtime and multiple deployments away from home, exposure to really terrifying and horrifying things, the easy availability of loaded weapons and a force that's very, very busy right now," said Col. Elspeth Ritchie psychiatric consultant to the Army surgeon general.

The incredible strain the wars are putting on our troops is simply unacceptable. It once again shows the whirlwind we are reaping from the lack of proper planning by the Bush Administration in every aspect of this war.

About the only good thing that can be said is the Army has recognized the problem and is aggressively taking steps to try (try being the operative word here) to combat this issue:

The efforts include more training and education programs for troops and their families. Officials also have hired more mental health workers, increased screening to measure the psychological health of soldiers and worked to reduce any stigma that keeps them from going for treatment when they have symptoms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress and other emotional problems.

It seems once again we have failed our soldiers. It seems once again this administration in particular has failed them. Thankfully this administration's days are numbered. Let's hope the next one will immediately take steps to really and truly support our troops.