Tuesday, January 25, 2005

President Bush Asks For More Iraq War Money, Representative Pelosi Asks Plain Questions.

Responding to the President Bush's request for an additional $80 Billion (US), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi asked several questions which should be both taken seriously and answered sufficiently.

Representative Pelosi's comments and questions:
"As Members of Congress, our highest responsibility is to provide for the common defense, and we have pledged to give our armed forces the support they need in these difficult and dangerous days -- both to win this war and to win the peace.

"As Congress works to ensure our troops have what they need to be safe, we owe it to them to critically examine President Bush's request and ask: What are the goals in Iraq, and how much more money will it cost to achieve them? Why hasn't the President and the Pentagon provided Members of Congress a full accounting of previous expenditures? Why, after all the effort dedicated to training Iraqi troops, aren't more Iraqi troops trained, equipped, and prepared to play a bigger security role?"

There is cause for concern when several hundred billion dollars is spent and yet even elected government officials on both sides of the isle are unaware of how exactly it is being put to use.

In an effort to reach out to my conservative friends, please note both my desire for fiscal responsibility and the wry humor of this sentence.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

The Salvador Option

The Salvador Option

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal.

The idea that the American government would set up and support teams whose aims are to kidnap and assassinate is repulsive and possibly the most counter-productive move in a "War on Terrorism".

In what way can we retain even a shred of credibility during this struggle if we resort to terrosrism? We cannot simultaneously fight and commit terrorist acts.

I thought that I would have more to say regarding this issue, but I am speechless. The most I can hope for is to see a strong effort made by citizens to pressure our elected officials to combat this initiative at every level.