When our fearless leader was running for President last year, he made a promise that most of America hoped that he would keep. He swore to run, "the most open and transparent government in history". Now that the public-option is in trouble, the debate has become as transparent as .... hmmm .... a large cherry wood door.
Previously, we have had the back-room deals struck with the hospitals, big pharmaceuticals, the AMA and AARP. But now we can't seem to get any information about what is going on while the various bills are being hammered out in the House and Senate.
Anyone else think that the next time we see these bills will be one or two days before they vote on them?
I envision a 2500 page bill being introduced to the Senate as a fait-accomplis. No one will have time to read it before voting, and the public won't get a chance to even look at it.
Possibly enough Senators will block the vote till everyone has enough time to read and debate it (no chance to get enough Representatives in the House to act sane). Is it too much to ask our Congress to at least read an important Bill before voting on it?
Hopefully I'm wrong and our elected officials will do the right thing. But I'm afraid this will just be an example of "Business As Usual" on the Beltway.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Where's The Transparency?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Arianna Huffington Is Right! ... Sort Of
Recently on her hate-filled web-site, Arianna Huffington wrote that Vice-President Biden should resign if we give General McChrystal any more troops for Afghanistan.
Ms. Huffington did not go far enough. I think that Secretary Clinton should resign if General McChrystal does not get the troops he needs.
And while we are at it, can we get resignations from Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid and the President too? By now they should have realized that they have gotten in too far over their heads and resign before they do serious damage.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
WHY DO WE EVEN BOTHER ASKING OUR GENERALS?
On June 10th 2009, General Stanley A McChrystal was made Comander of our forces in Afghanistan. He had the full backing of the President and the approval of the Senate. His job was to evaluate the situation on the ground and report back on what would be needed to complete the job.
Now the interpretation of what completing the job meant may mean different things to different folks, but what it means to me is that we WIN. The meaning of win is of course open to debate (we are talking about Washington DC ... where countless hours were devoted to figuring out what the meaning of "is" was). So to define it further, winning means 1) eliminating the ability of the Taliban and al-Qaeda to effectively mount any further insurgencies (or in lay-man's terms ... kill them) and 2) Install a sustainable Afghan government that is supported by the citizenry and will not harbor terrorists that wish to harm us.
General McChrystal has given a 66-page report describing what needs to be done to "Win" this war. It calls for an additional 40,000 troops to deal with the insurgency and accelerate the training of the Afghan police and military. This plan of action has been endorsed by General David Petraeus (the guy who brought us the "Surge" in Iraq, grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat).
However, there are a bunch of "Generals" in Washington DC that don't like McChyrstal's plan. General Joe (let's divide Iraq into 3 different countries and leave) Biden, thinks that we should stop fighting the insurgents and just train the Afghans, while occasionally firing missiles into Pakistan to kill al-Qaeda targets.
Generals Pelosi and Kerry of course just want to cut and run ... what a surprise!
Hey General Joe ... we tried fighting a war from DC twice before. During the end of the Korean War and during the Viet Nam war, and guess what?
Politicians make lousy Generals!!!
