Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I stated 8 years ago that Bush' foreign "Policies"

Posted By: Would get us in trouble with the rest of the world on 2009-03-13
In Reply to: Who Indeed? - Mrs. Bridger

,


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

New Bush rule makes it easier to hire foreign workers

Dec 10, 8:43 PM EST


Administration changes to farm worker hiring afoot


By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) -- As it prepares to leave office, the Bush administration is moving to make it easier for U.S. farming companies to hire foreign field workers, which farmworker groups say will worsen wages and working conditions.


Farm groups said that changes to the H2A visa program, used by the agriculture industry to hire temporary farm workers, were posted on the Labor Department's Web site at midnight Tuesday but have since been taken down.


Labor Department spokesman Terry Shawn said whatever was posted wasn't the final version of the new rule, which Shawn said would be released Thursday and published in the Federal Register on Dec. 18.


The Bush administration published a proposed version of the new rule last Feb. 13 and received nearly 12,000 public comments, Shawn added. The next version will be a final rule and can take effect 30 days after publication. Some of its provisions would take effect in mid-January and others later in the year, the farmworker groups said.


Farm worker advocates and the United Farm Workers union said the version that appeared on the Web site would lead to a flood of cheaper workers.


"The government has decided to offer agriculture employers really low wages, low benefits, no government oversight to bring in foreign workers on restricted visas and thereby convince them they should do this instead of hiring undocumented workers," said Bruce Goldstein, executive director of Farmworker Justice, a group that advocates for farmworkers.


The changes in the posted version would drop a requirement that an employer get the Labor Department to certify it faces a worker shortage before it can get visas for foreign workers; instead, employers would be allowed to simply attest in writing to a shortage. That version of the new rule also would change the method for calculating wage minimums for workers and relieve employers of a requirement to recruit in states or communities where other employers already are hiring farm workers, Goldstein said.


But Assistant Labor Secretary Leon Sequeira said Wednesday evening the agency is not dropping the obligation to obtain certification, which is required by law.


Paul Schlegel, American Farm Bureau public policy director, said many of the changes will make the program a little less burdensome for employers. He said existing laws prevent employers from hiring foreign workers if the jobs can be filled by U.S. workers.


"My members want to make sure they have a legal supply of labor," said Schlegel, who added that he had not reviewed all the proposed changes.


The rule changes are a part of a pattern of last-minute regulatory changes being rushed into effect by the Bush administration before President-elect Barack Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration.


The effect is to make it harder for Obama to change course on some policies favored by Republicans and the business community.


"We are hopeful that the Obama administration would recognize the utter mistake and unfairness of this proposal," Goldstein said. Congress has a procedure for reversing the rules, he said.


Many of the last-minute changes by the Bush administration have come in the area of public lands and the environment, including easing regulations on mining waste and allowing handguns in national parks. Another pending rule would grant greater leeway to railroads to transport hazardous materials through densely populated areas.


Pres. Bush holds completely stated "teleconference" with troops

Gads, I think he's a slow learner.  This sort of stuff doesn't go over well, IMHO.  Might make people think he is a big phony.


Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged


AP - 42 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution. This is an important time, Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you..


 


8 years under 'Herr Bush' can do that
Heil!
You mean 16 years - Both Bush AND Clinton
Disastrous!
Bush = 6 years before Dems took
a tiny barely majority in Congress, but not enough to override his vetos, and the damage was already done by then, so yes, BUSH and the republicans are completely to blame.
ZERO years. He's done no harm. Now BUSH,
*
Buck up!! We got through the Bush years, and how
did that work out for you?  Oh, that's right, we're still living with the consequences of his two terms because of his economic and foreign policy disasters.  Whatever Obama does or doesn't do cannot be any WORSE than what Bush has DONE.  Bush has brought the US to its knees, and while on your knees, PRAY for this new prez. 
Absolutely! If you want 8 more years of the Bush Admin! nm
nm
Bush had a republican congress for 6 years and,.sm
for the last 2 years we had a republican president, who was always threatening to veto, and a democratic congress by a very small margin. You can't blame everything on the democrats for the last 2 years.
The economy was great for 6 years of Bush until
nm
Look to the leader of USA for past 8 years GW BUSH nm
n
That has been an ongoing tradition for years, not just Bush (nm)
x
gee, and it was okay for Bush to be the elusive target for the last 8 years??....s/m
...and probably beyond.....that wasn't unhealthy????? from the DNC, liberal democrats, and the liberal media???


and you haven't had enough of being trampled by Bush for the last eight years?

Bush Presidency - eight years in eight minutes

I watch Olbermann.  Sometimes I agree with him.  Sometimes I don't.


However, last night he hit it into the park with his attempt to review what Bush did in the last eight years into eight minutes; he ran over time a little bit because there was so much to say.


I would strongly urge anyone who is not too busy whining, moaning, groaning, hating and raging about Obama -- anyone who is truly interested in the future of America -- to watch this, from beginning to end -- especially at the end (since this is done chronologically, not by matter of importance).


THESE are the reasons people voted for Obama.  THESE are the reasons that Obama supporters cannot understand why Bush worshippers still support him and reject the man who might undo the wreckage of Bush.


BUSH is the man who claimed to have a direct line to GOD.  Obama never claimed anything of the sort; if he had, I probably would not have voted for him for that very reason -- because it creeped me out so much when Bush did it.  So the assertion that Obama supporters are "worshippers" is ridiculous, when, in fact, it seems that those who still support Bush (the closest thing to the Anti-Christ that I'VE ever seen) are the ones who seem to think Bush is some sort of god.


Please watch every single SECOND of this video.  It will give you just a taste of the grueling task ahead of Obama in trying to correct all the damage that Bush has done.  We may, in fact, never know the full extent of the damage because Bush (as is mentioned in the video) has "exempted" himself from the Presidential Records Act.


THIS is why every truly honest, patriotic, honorable American who voted for Obama is so relieved he won.  Not so much "happy" -- but RELIEVED -- hoping (yes, HOPING) that our country may once again resemble the USA that once held respect throughout the world, the USA where hard work was once rewarded, the USA where families could afford to feed their children, and the USA where one's ability to obtain something as basic as healthcare wasn't only limited to the wealthy.  I'm not naive enough to believe this can all be fixed in four (or even eight) years, because Bush has been like a four-year-old sociopath that was armed with Daddy's credit card, an AXE and an arrogant giggle, each of which he used to its full capacity, and that's a LOT to clean up.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28699663


 


Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm

How many more lies before everyone wakes up?


Editorial Toledo Blade:  Another lie on Iraq


WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.




They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.




No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.




No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.




The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.




As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.




Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.




And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.




Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.




Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.




So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.


 


Bush lost the respect we held for him years ago.
and in no small measure is responsible for the divisions that we all find ourselves grapping with at this very moment. The election is over and the time is here for us to move on into the new age our fellow Americans have delivered to our feet.
Right, it'll be "it's Bush's fault" for at least the next two years. I wonder when O
and his own white house. I'm fearing he won't. It will be "Bush's fault" for a long, long time to come.

Marmann's just proved it.
If it Clinton screwed something up - why didn't Bush fix it? He had 8 years!

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?


Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.




Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.





We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)




All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.




Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.




THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 



Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.


Hello?! 8 years of Bush cratered the country & caused this
nightmare in the first place. They are all frantically trying to keep us from another Great Depression caused by Bush & republican control. I personally think the damage runs so deep that it can't be stopped in time, but at least they're trying! Maybe next time the idiots will remember what Bush & his cronies have done & will be smarter than to vote republican...
Spoken by someone who posted about Laura Bush's accident about 40 years ago. sm
But I guess we were supposed to forget about that, too?
They towed Bush's line for 6 long years. Ask any progressive
better still, branch out and listen to opposing media views, including progressive radio and newspapers...those guys have yet to get mainstream coverage. To get any kind of decent international coverage, one is forced to go to media source outside of our own country. You might be REALLY surpised at what you find there. Get real.
Yeah, and guess who he'll blame the whole four years....yep...bush...nm

It will take YEARS for repubs to recover from PALIN AND BUSH AND FOX NEWS... sm
Because they have demeaned themselves and truly hurt the republican party.
For this you have to wait at least 3 years and 8 months , maybe 7 years and 8 mohths...nm
nm
Not quite- 2 years Catholic, 2 years Muslim. NM
X
Foreign language
Forgot to say that my foreign language was Latin and my memory is about as dead as the language.
Yeah. That "I don't think much about foreign
nm
Why should she think about foreign policy?
She was the governor of a state and that should have been her focus. Your #1 also has zero foreign policy experience. That is why he has Joe Biden. That is why Sarah has McCain. If something happened to McCain, she would have foreign policy advisors, just like Obama has in Biden. The thing is...she is the #2. If we elect Obama, we have zero foreign policy experience from day 1. It's pretty clear to me what I would rather see. I would like to at least start out with someone with several years foreign policy experience. But that is just me.
RE: Foreign Policy. Sam says we'd be just as well off

On the issues


Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy.


            No stance


Obama on Foreign Policy



  • Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)

  • Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)

  • Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)

  • Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)

  • Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)

  • Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)

  • President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)

  • Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)

  • China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)

  • Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung IL & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)

  • Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)

  • No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)

  • Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)

  • Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)

  • $50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)

  • No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)

  • At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)

  • Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)

  • Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)

  • My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)

  • China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)

  • Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)

  • No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)

  • Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)

  • Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)

  • FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)

  • U.S. needs to ameliorate trade relations with China. (Mar 2007)

  • U.S. funds for humanitarian aid to Darfur. (Mar 2007)

  • We cannot afford isolationism. (Mar 2007)

  • Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)

  • Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)

  • Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)

  • Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)

  • Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)

  • US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)

  • Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)

  • Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)

  • Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)

  • Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)

  • Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)

Sarah Palin on Homeland Security



  • Strong military and sound energy. (Aug 2008)

  • Armed forces, including my son, give us security and freedom. (Jan 2008)

  • Ask all candidates "Are you doing all you can for security?". (Oct 2007)

  • Visits Kuwait; encourages Alaska big game hunting to troops. (Sep 2007)

  • Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)

  • Let military personnel know how much we support them. (Nov 2006)

Obama on Homeland Security



  • No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)

  • Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)

  • Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)

  • Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)

  • Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)

  • Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)

  • FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)

  • No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)

  • No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)

  • Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)

  • No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)

  • Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)

  • Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)

  • Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)

  • 2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)

  • Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)

  • If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)

  • America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)

  • Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)

  • 2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)

  • We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)

  • Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)

  • Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them. (Mar 2007)

  • America must practice the patriotism it preaches. (Mar 2007)

  • Protecting nuclear power plants is of utmost importance. (Mar 2007)

  • Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age. (Mar 2007)

  • Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)

  • Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)

  • Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)

  • Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)

  • Going after AL Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)

  • Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)

  • We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)

  • Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)

  • Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)

  • Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)

Sarah Palin on War and Peace



  • We don't know what the plan is to ever end the war. (Aug 2008)

  • Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe. (Mar 2007)

Obama on War and Peace


            Iraq War



  • President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics. (Apr 2008)

  • President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission. (Apr 2008)

  • $2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable. (Feb 2008)

  • Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)

  • FactCheck: Overstated displaced Iraqis; actually 4.2 million. (Feb 2008)

  • The Iraq war has undermined our security. (Jan 2008)

  • Iraq is distracting us from a host of global threats. (Jan 2008)

  • End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war. (Jan 2008)

  • The Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start. (Jan 2008)

  • Title of Iraq war authorization bill stated its intent. (Jan 2008)

  • Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)

  • No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)

  • FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago. (Jan 2008)

  • Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president. (Dec 2007)

  • Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed. (Nov 2007)

  • Leave troops for protection of Americans & counterterrorism. (Sep 2007)

  • Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)

  • Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month. (Sep 2007)

  • No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options. (Aug 2007)

  • Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. (Jul 2007)

  • We live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions. (Jun 2007)

  • Case for war was weak, but people voted their best judgment. (Jun 2007)

  • War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment. (Apr 2007)

  • Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution. (Apr 2007)

  • Saddam is a tyrant but not a national security threat. (Mar 2007)

  • Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)

  • Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)

  • Iraq War has made US less safe from terrorism. (Oct 2004)

  • Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)

  • Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)

  • Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)

  • Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)

  • Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)

  • Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)

  • International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)

Trouble Spots



  • Iran is biggest strategic beneficiary of invasion of Iraq. (May 2008)

  • Military surge in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban. (May 2008)

  • Take no options off the table if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)

  • Two-state solution: Israel & Palestine side-by-side in peace. (Feb 2008)

  • Al Qaida is based in northwest Pakistan; strike if needed. (Jan 2008)

  • No action against Iran without Congressional authorization. (Dec 2007)

  • Iran: Bush does not let facts get in the way of ideology. (Dec 2007)

  • Meet directly for diplomacy with the leadership in Iran. (Nov 2007)

  • Committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. (Oct 2007)

  • Iran military resolution sends the region a wrong signal. (Oct 2007)

  • Deal with al Qaeda on Pakistan border, but not with nukes. (Aug 2007)

  • Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel. (Aug 2007)

  • FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda. (Aug 2007)

  • Focus on battle in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda. (Jun 2007)

  • Bush cracked down on some terrorists' financial networks. (Jun 2007)

  • Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)

  • Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007)

  • We did the right thing in Afghanistan. (Mar 2007)

  • We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave. (Oct 2006)

  • Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)

  • Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)

  • Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)

  • Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)

  • Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)

Voting Record



  • Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)

  • Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)

  • Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007)

  • Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)

  • Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)

  • Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)

  • Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

JM/SP foreign policy exactly what?
I notice you have expressed no defense of SP regarding the points I have raised in the previous post regarding her breathtaking lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy as was so painfully obvious in her first interview with Gibson and will be even more visible when she debates Biden. So you did what you always do and resorted to attacking Obama instead. OK. Let's go there for a minute.

You failed to mention who is the Chairman of the (full) Senate Foreign Relations Committee where hearings and strategies relative to NATO-Afghanistan relations are conducted. Lo and Behold. Would you look at that? It's Joe Biden, who served as chairman of that committee Jan 2001 to Jan 2003 and assumed his current incumbent chair position in Jan 2007. Looks like O made a pretty good choice of VP running mate when it comes to foreign policy experience. So if O is Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs, why shouldn't he be in California for a debate? I would argue that if the Foreign Relations Committee IS the place where policy is debated relative to NATO and its relationship to Afghanistan (last time I checked, NOT in Europe) and O has (according to you) 300 advisors, his attendance is not expected or required, then evidently he feels that he can confidently rely on his advisors to keep him up to speed on what actually IS within the realm of his duties as Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs since he is running for president.

By the way, how many foreign policy advisors does SP have at her disposal? Just curious. Also, it is notable that JM does not serve on any committees and his foreign policy experience is exactly what now? Speaking of advisors, for the life of me I cannot understand why you think there is something wrong with Obama having access to the insight of more than 300 people when it comes to foreign affairs. Sounds like a pretty impressive staff to me. Some might argue that that is an asset, not a liability. The world is a mighty big place and it is ludicrous to think that a president or a senator on a committee should not be taking advice and guidance from the experts on a given region.

Here's some foreign affairs stuff Obama did do during his time in the Senate before the campaign. Notice his interest in WMDs and his involvement in the strategy planning for controlling them in defense against terrorist attacks.

1. Introduced expansions to Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
2. Sponsor of Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act, signed by Bush, to restore basic services like clinics and schools, train a professional, integrated and accountable police force and military, and otherwise support the Congolese in protecting their human rights and rebuilding their nation.
3. As member of Foreign Relations Committee, he made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. His 2005 trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan focus on strategy planning for the control of world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons and WMDs and defense against potential terrorist attacks.
4. January 2006, met with US military in Kuwait and Iraq. Visited Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories. Asserted preconditions that US will never recognize legitimacy of Hamas leadership until they renounce elimination of Israel.
5. August 2006, official trip to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad where he made televised appearance addressing ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.

So that's about it for now. JM/SP foreign affairs experience is what now?

However, if foreign investors own some of those...
mortgages, then I guess we are...in a way. Need to do some more research on that.
Foreign leaders

I've seen a lot of the video clips and pictures also.  You know there is so much hoopla about everything in politics, it's really hard for me to believe anything I see much less anything I hear.  I think we've sunk so low in our politics that the one who can throw the most mud is the one who will win. I don't care about Obama's association of 40 years ago.  I do care about his recent so-called church affiliation.  I do not care if Palin fired the guy for not firing her ex-brother-in-law (of course she did).  I do care that all she can talk about is how "bad" Obama is and how "saintly" John McCain is.  Pull the string and see what Sarah says.


The common sense side of me tells me that most of the garbage we hear from both campaigns is stuff dug up by the other side trying to discredit the other candidate. 


A MOST aggravating thing happened this morning.......a REPUBLICAN acquaintance stopped by to see us this morning.  The unexpected call was to campaign for John McCain.  He got ANGRY when I told him I wasn't voting for either candidate. Pretty much called me a redneck hillbilly for not agreeing with him.  LOL


VOTING WITH A WRITE IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS.


And do you buy foreign or domestic gas?
xx
I'd like to see a foreign car outdo that! n/m
x
Foreign Legion?


by: William Astore, TomDispatch.com


photo
New US Army recruits. (Photo: Tech. Sgt. Mike R. Smith / USAF)



    A leaner, meaner, higher tech force - that was what George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to transform the American military into. Instead, they came close to turning it into a foreign legion. Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks.


    Now would be a good time for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin to reclaim that military for its proper purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan.


    A few fortnights and forever ago, in the Bush years, our "expeditionary" military came remarkably close to resembling an updated version of the French Foreign Legion in the ways it was conceived and used by those in power - and even, to some extent, in its makeup.


    For the metropolitan French elite of an earlier era, the Foreign Legion - best known to Americans from countless old action films - was an assemblage of military adventurers and rootless romantics, volunteers willing to man an army fighting colonial wars in far-flung places. Those wars served the narrow interests of people who weren't particularly concerned about the fate of the legion itself.


    It's easy enough to imagine one of them saying, à LA Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the legion you have, not the legion you might want or wish to have." Such a blithe statement would have been uncontroversial back then, since the French Foreign Legion was - well - so foreign. Its members, recruited worldwide, but especially from French colonial possessions, were considered expendable, a fate captured in its grim, sardonic motto: "You joined the Legion to die. The Legion will send you where you can die!"


    Looking back on the last eight years, what's remarkable is the degree to which Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration treated the U.S. military in a similarly dismissive manner. Bullying his generals and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary of Defense even dismissed the vulnerability of the troops in Iraq, who, in the early years, motored about in inadequately armored Humvees and other thin-skinned vehicles.


    Last year, Vice President DickCheney offered another Legionnaire-worthy version of such dismissiveness. Informed that most Americans no longer supported the war in Iraq, he infamously and succinctly countered, "So?" - as if the U.S. military weren't the American people's instrument, but his own private army, fed and supplied by private contractor KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary whose former CEO was the very same DickCheney.


    Fond of posing in flight suits, leather jackets, and related pseudo-military gear, President Bush might, on the other hand, have seemed overly invested in the military. Certainly, his tough war talk resonated within conservative circles, and he visibly relished speaking before masses of hooah-ing soldiers. Too often, however, Bush simply used them as patriotic props, while his administration did its best to hide their deaths from public view.


    In that way, he and his top officials made our troops into foreigners, in part by making their ultimate sacrifice, their deaths, as foreign to us as was humanly possible. Put another way, his administration made the very idea of national "sacrifice" - by anyone but our troops - foreign to most Americans. In response to the 9/11 attacks, Americans were, as the President famously suggested only 16 days after the attacks, to show their grit by visiting Disney World and shopping till they dropped. Military service instills (and thrives on) an ethic of sacrifice that was, for more than seven years, consciously disavowed domestically.


    As the Obama administration begins to deploy U.S. troops back to the Iraq or Afghan war zones for their fourth or fifth tours of duty, I remain amazed at the silent complicity of my country. Why have we been so quiet? Is it because the Bush administration was, in fact, successful in sending our military down the path to foreign legion-hood? Is the fate of our troops no longer of much importance to most Americans?


    Even the military's recruitment and demographics are increasingly alien to much of the country. Troops are now regularly recruited in "foreign" places like South Central Los Angeles and Appalachia that more affluent Americans wouldn't be caught dead visiting. In some cases, those new recruits are quite literally "foreign" - non-U.S. citizens allowed to seek a fast-track to citizenship by volunteering for frontline, war-zone duty in the U.S. Army or Marines. And when, in these last years, the military has fallen short of its recruitment goals - less likely today thanks to the ongoing economic meltdown - mercenaries have simply been hired at inflated prices from civilian contractors with names like Triple Canopy or Blackwater redolent of foreign adventures.


    With respect to demographics, it'll take more than the sons of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin to redress inequities in burden-sharing. With startlingly few exceptions, America's sons and daughters dodging bullets remain the progeny of rural America, of immigrant America, of the working and lower middle classes. As long as our so-called best and brightest continue to be AWOL when it comes to serving among the rank-and-file, count on our foreign adventurism to continue to surge.


    Diversity is now our societal byword. But how about more class diversity in our military? How about a combat regiment of rich young volunteers from uptown Manhattan? (After all, some of their great-grandfathers probably fought with New York's famed "Silk Stocking" regiment in World War I.) How about more Ivy League recruits like George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, who respectively piloted a dive bomber and a PT boat in World War II? Heck, why not a few prominent Hollywood actors like Jimmy Stewart, who piloted heavy bombers in the flak-filled skies of Europe in that same war?


    Instead of collective patriotic sacrifice, however, it's clear that the military will now be running the equivalent of a poverty and recession "draft" to fill the "all-volunteer" military. Those without jobs or down on their luck in terrible times will have the singular honor of fighting our future wars. Who would deny that drawing such recruits from dead-end situations in the hinterlands or central cities is strikingly Foreign Legion-esque?


    Caught in the shock and awe of 9/11, we allowed our military to be transformed into a neocon imperial police force. Now, approaching our eighth year in Afghanistan and sixth year in Iraq, what exactly is that force defending? Before President Obama acts to double the number of American boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan - before even more of our troops are sucked deeper into yet another quagmire - shouldn't we ask this question with renewed urgency? Shouldn't we wonder just why, despite all the reverent words about "our troops," we really seem to care so little about sending them back into the wilderness again and again?


    Where indeed is the outcry?


    The French Foreign Legionnaires knew better than to expect such an outcry: The elites for whom they fought didn't give a damn about what happened to them. Our military may not yet be a foreign legion - but don't fool yourself, it's getting there.


    --------

    William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" (Potomac Press, 2005), among other works. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.


»


concerning foreign politics he does..nm
nm
I wish he was in foreign politics
nm
Dirty foreign policy
Well, seems to be if we didnt have such a murderous dirty foreign policy for the last 50 years, the rest of the world might not be wanting to blow us to kingdom come.  You have to wonder why other people of the world hate us so.  It is because we have overthrown third world governments and placed puppets in, undermined elections in other countries, murdered duly legally elected leaders in other countries.  Heck, we were bombing Iraq nonstop through the 1990s and stepped it up right before this illegal criminal war.  The great thing is lots of those soldiers who took part in the bombing are now speaking out.  It has been my experience, from what I have seen in life, you can only bully for so long, then others will definitely strike back.  We are now being struck back. 
The Myth of Foreign Fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq feed the myth that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent). CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.

The CSIS report says: The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.

The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology.

The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.

The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not Saddam Hussein loyalists but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are wary of a Shiite-led government.

TheLos Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals.

Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].

Extremists in Iraq are exposed to international networks from around the world, said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and in establishing a politically viable state.

Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border – a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.

Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make, Bush said. 'They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.

The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. I doubt he would last a day, al-Faisal said.

Finally, The Guardian reports that ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along, the source said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
So sad..we need a foreign leader to help our poor
Venezuelan heating oil will be distributed to poor
U.S. communities via the
Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo.
Credit: Venezuelanalysis.com
<
http://Venezuelanalysis.com>

Caracas, Venezuela, November 18, 2005—The
Venezuelan-owned and
U.S.-basedfuel refiner and distributor Citgo will
begin distributing discounted heating oil to poor U.S.
communities next week. Rafael Ramirez, Venezuela's
Minister of Energy and Petroleum, made the
announcement yesterday, saying that the measure is
meant to show Venezuela's commitment to disadvantaged
sectors in the United States.

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez had originally
announced the measure last August, while the U.S.
civil rights activist Jesse Jackson was visiting
Venezuela.

The launch of the discounted heating oil program is
meant to coincide with the Thanksgiving holiday and
will benefit communities in poor communities of
Boston, Massachusetts and of the Bronx, New York.

The first phase of the program will begin in Boston
and will provide 4.5million liters (1.2 million
gallons) of heating oil at discounted rates, which
will mean a savings of approximately $10 million.
According to the Venezuelan government, the discounts
will be achieved by eliminating middle-men and
having Citgo deliver the heating oil directly to the
communities.
Accordingly, the plan does not involve any losses to
Citgo itself.

The logistics of the plan will involve non-profit
community organizations, which will help with the
selection of beneficiaries, distribution, and billing.
Heating oil costs are expected to reach historical
heights this year, which means that many poor
households might have to go without heat, despite
limited state programs to subsidize heating oil for
low-income
families.

Citgo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's
state-owned oil company PDVSA and operates five
refineries and licenses 14,000 gas stations throughout
the U.S.


For those who follow foreign politics...
I just heard on NPR that Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Russia during a marching and protest of Russia's voting practice.  This is NOT good.  Putin is a very dangerous individual who has been funding the middle east conflict and selling weapons to those who really shouldn't have them.  Kasparov is a potential light at the end of the tunnel for a more democratic and liberal Russian state.  I am afraid for him.
don;t forget foreign banks
successfully lobbied to be included in this bailout.  (John McCain's financial advisor Phil Gram is head of USB, Swiss bank)
Foreign cars are not better or cheaper.

If they are cheaper it is because they are literally that....cheaper cars.  You pay for what you get.  I've seen so many American made cars throughout my family where they have put 200,000+ miles on vehicles and they keep going.  I've driven so many different types of vehicles since my husband runs a car dealership and I have to say that American trumps foreign any day in my opinion.  I will NEVER own a foreign car.  Ain't happenin.  You will more than likely see my happy butt in a Chevy of some type.  I'm currently driving a Chevy Uplander and I friggin LOVE it!  I have no problem telling someone their vehicle is a foreign piece of crap.  In fact, I recently told my best friend's sister that was what her Honda was.  LOL!


you should update yourself on foreign politics,
especially North Korea, Israel and Iran, instead of trying to prove IN VAIN that Obama's and Biden's decisions are wrong!

They know what they are doing!
you should update yourself on foreign policies
He most certainly does NOT know what he is doing.
you stated this better than I could have.

I sickens me how the victims of this disaster are now being blamed and vilified by people on the conservative board!


My son (age 20) told me that he met some people last night who were speaking the same way - in essence, that it was the fault pf the citizens of New Orleans for not getting out in time, etc, that they deserved to not be rescued sooner, and that the government was not to blame at all.


And I'm sure those conservative posters on the other board probably consider themselves good Christians and not racist at all.


Meanwhile, it is apparent that our president could do (or not do) anything at all and they will blindly defend him...


I'm going to focus on the positive and not visit that board at all.


We have sent money to the Red Cross and all my children donated clothes to the Salvation Army. This morning our priest said that some evacuees may be relocating to our area, and our parish will welcome them! These are our brothers and sisters in Christ...


 


good night and peace to ya'll


As I stated above.......... sm
if this situation were to occur, and it does seem that it is with the advent of ASR, then our line rates would be lowered to those paid to Indian MTS, just as the UAW was offered what is paid to foreign auto workers. I could not survive on 0.05 cpl or less in our economy. I doubt anyone else could either.

I'm really sorry to hear about your hubby's situation. I know anyone in the housing industry is facing much the same situation. There is really not a lot of new house construction going on and there is no much call for a trim carpenter in most commercial building.

My opinion is to bring MT back inhouse and pay us a decent HOURLY salary. We deserve it as much as the next person.
he also stated that he

respects other people's beliefs that are different from his own and supports separation of church and state.  I guess all we can learn from this issue is that Joe Biden will never personally have an abortion.  Good job, Joe.


 


As stated above . . .
according to her a heterosexual relationship can be equated to a plastic cup and a turkey baster.
You stated

"My point is proven by your post.  You stated that when Obama gets into office, for me to look around and see how many names I can pronounce.. "


This happened under Clinton before Bush. Can't pronounce half the names now. Guess I fell down on my research a bit as I didn't see anything about the "Muslim for Stowe, OH" appointed by Bush.