Cant Keep Quiet!

A provision in a draft of the energy legislation being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would ban the Environmental Protection Agency from granting waivers for states to implement laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This would keep a dozen states from requiring stronger standards than those required by the Federal government.

The provision was buried deep in the bill given to committee members Monday. I imagine the two who are pushing for the inclusion of this provision were hoping it would be missed amongst the other provisions.

Just who is pushing such an attack on states rights in favor of big business? Not who you would expect.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle

The proposal was written by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents a coal-producing district in southwest Virginia and chairs the House Energy and Commerce’s subcommittee charged with crafting climate change legislation. The full committee’s chairman, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime ally of the auto industry, also played a key role in putting together the new legislation.

Yes, you read that right. Both men are Democrats.

The language in the provision specifically prevents the EPA from granting waivers to states for vehicle emissions if “such state standards are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

The bill would also overturn the Supreme Court ruling in April regarding the EPA’s role in the area of greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants. The Supreme Court also ruled that the EPA must regulate vehicle emissions or give a valid reason why it won’t.

The draft bill says the power of the EPA is limited to requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets fuel economy standards, must regulate vehicle emissions.

This provision will hopefully not be included in the final bill that the House Energy and Commerce Committee presents to Congress. Too many people are aware of what these two are trying to pull.

Cross posted on Bring It On!

Sometimes you have to call them as you see them. In this particular instance, I have to say “Bull!”

Yesterday Bush held a story conference in the Rose Garden. Sorry, but I can’t call what Bush did news.

Here’s the transcript from the photo and story telling op. If you want to watch the story being spun you can watch a video of it here. Both are provided by the White House. The only problem with the video is the sirens heard in the background.

Now, Bush sprinkles in just enough truth and news to make it seem like he’s telling nothing but truth and news. Instead, much of what he says is bullshit.

Let’s just take a single paragraph. In particular, this paragraph:

The bottom line is this. Congress’s failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war earlier than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

You can watch Bush say that single paragraph if you don’t feel like reading his whole speech or listening to the whole thing by clicking on the YouTube link below.

So where’s the bullshit? Well, think all the way back to Bush’s speech in January about having a “surge” of troops into Iraq. During his speech he didn’t say how he was going to “surge” the troops, but it was discussed shortly after the speech by military officials. According to an article posted by CNN.com in January,

To implement the Bush plan, which he outlined in a speech to the nation Wednesday night, officials said soldiers will spend three or four months longer on their Iraq tours, and the Pentagon is expected to have to activate more National Guard and Reserve units. – emphasis mine

Also, back on March 16, 2007, before Congress settled on a bill, the Army announced that they were sending their 3rd Infantry Division back to Iraq ahead of its original schedule.

Since Bush was already forcing military families to “wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines” and to “see their loved ones headed back to the war earlier” in order to provide the human resources for his “surge,” how are the Democrats to blame?

Also, if Bush vetos the bill, just who is keeping the funding from the troops? The Democratic Congress that approved the bill with the needed funding and sent it to the president? Or the president who vetoed the bill because it contained non-binding benchmarks?

What was that? Did I write that the bill contains non-binding benchmarks? Why yes, I believe I did.

From an article supplied by AP to CNN.com on March 29, 2007

In a mostly party line 51-47 vote, the Senate signed off on a bill providing $122 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also orders Bush to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of passage while setting a nonbinding goal of ending combat operations by March 31, 2008. – emphasis mine

Yes, the beginning of the withdrawal is not non-binding. However it is 4 months from the signing of the bill if Bush would stop being a petulant child and sign the bill. If Bush really wants to call this a temporary troop “surge” then beginning to redeploy troops in 4 months would be in line with his terminology. Surge, after all, means temporary not permanent.

Bush needs to stop passing the blame to others and open his eyes to the reality he is facing. 59% of Americans support a troop withdrawal bill. Not the other way around.

Cross posted on Bring it On!

I am so sick and tired of people taking what Barbara Boxer said to Condoleezza Rice last week and twisting it to be an insult to single, childless women in general and Rice in particular. It was nothing of the sort.

Boxer said this

I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.” — emphasis mine.

Immediate family does not mean only your spouse and children. Immediate family means your siblings and your parents, possibly your siblings’ families. It does not mean strictly your spouse and children.

Personally, I feel that a very valid question to ask everyone in the Bush administration is what price is their personal family potentially going to pay for the Iraq war.
More »« Less

Surge

1 : to rise and fall actively : TOSS {a ship surging in heavy seas}
2 : to rise and move in waves or billows : SWELL {the sea was surging}
3 : to slip around a windlass, capstan, or bitts — used especially of a rope
4 : to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value {the stock market surged to a record high}
5 : to move with a surge or in surges {she surged past the other runners}

The word surge indicates a temporary increase in something. A quick movement forward or up quickly followed by a retreat. Surge does not mean to rise to a particular point and then stay there.

Bush talked about a “surge” in the troops in Iraq. By using that word he implied that the troop numbers would rise quickly by 20,000 and would then drop down to the current numbers.

That’s what he implied by the word surge. That’s not what he said in his speech Wednesday night.

Nowhere in Bush’s address was the word timetable mentioned. Nowhere. Follow the link to the transcript above and do a search for the word timetable. You won’t find it. Nor will you find “time table.”

The link takes you to the government’s website so there can be no claim that some liberal has cut that word or words from the speech. They just aren’t there.

I know, you’re thinking “But Bush said our commitment was not open-ended.” True. But something not being open-ended does not mean that there is a definite timetable. School is not open-ended. You start in kindergarten and you will end 13 years later. Or maybe 17. Or 20. Or more. Or less for that matter. School will eventually end meaning it is not open-ended. However you don’t surge through school for 13 or more years.

A benchmark is also not a timetable. You can legally drink at 21 making that age a benchmark. It doesn’t mean that you have 21 years to become a fully mature adult. That would be more of a timetable. We all know people who were not a fully mature adult at 21 and even older.

Since there is no timetable, no drawing down of troops after the “surge” of 20,000 additional numbers in Iraq, I say that we should not use the word “surge” to describe Bush’s plan. It is a troop increase. A potentially very long term troop increase. It sure as hell isn’t a surge.

And while we are at it, let’s stop calling this a change in plans and/or policy in Iraq. The goals have not changed. I didn’t hear anything in Bush’s speech that sounded like a change that hasn’t been tried or talked about as part of their policy before (remember he increased troops by overlapping units in 2005 for the elections). What I did hear were tweaks to the same old policy. The only real difference seems to be in the terminology that the administration is using to talk about the war.

There was real big difference in policy Wednesday night. Not once in his address did he mention trying to diplomatically deal with Iran and Syria. In fact Bush specifically used the terminology “seek out and destroy” in regards to both nations.

We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Apparently that was included to justify the U.S. attack on an Iranian consular office in the northern Iraqi Kurdish city of Arbil while Bush was giving his speech. According to Iran, the U.S. troops arrested 6 people including Iranian diplomats.

A consulate of any country is considered to be the territory of that country no matter where in the world it is located. Technically, it would mean that during Bush’s speech we were invading Iran.

No, surge is definitely not the correct term to describe Bush’s troop increase. There’s nothing temporary about his plans.

Cross posted on Bring It On!

Last week I found out that one of my cousins will be joining the Army next week. He plans to go through artillery training after basic.

His announcement has made me feel two diametrically opposed opinions at the same time. I am both proud and terrified at the same time.

I’m proud because, at 18, he has made a mature decision to join the military to support his country and to help pay for future academic advancement.

I’m terrified because I fear he may end up in Iraq, further cannon fodder for Bush’s senseless war.

Bush wants to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. According to the BBC, the theme of Bush’s speech about his plan in Iraq will center on sacrifice.

Bush’s plan to sacrifice our troops for Iraq needs to be stopped. As long as our troops are in Iraq the violence will continue and the Iraqi government has no incentive to “stand up.” Like a 1 year old that is late learning to walk because there is always someone around to carry him, Iraq will not take control until forced to do so. A lesson Bush just doesn’t seem to understand.

If my cousin were to eventually be sent to Afghanistan I would worry about his safety, but I wouldn’t be terrified that he was being sent to die for senseless war and a foreign government that will not fend for itself.

Once again, Keith Olbermann eloquently states my feelings on Bush’s plan to surge and accelerate and to sacrifice our troops.

You can watch what Keith Olbermann has to say through two clips on YouTube

Part One

Part Two

Or go to AlterNet to watch the whole speech and read the transcript of Olbermann’s Special Comment.

Cross posted on Bring It On!