As for Harper's [Afghanistan] benchmarks, they come with their own risks.
French analyst de Durand remembers how U.S. forces famously obsessed on benchmarks during Vietnam.
"They loaded all their benchmark data into a computer in 1968 asking: `When are we going to win?' The answer came back: `You won in 1964.'"
Monday, April 07, 2008
Quote du Jour: Benchmarks
Via the The Star:
The Global Food Crisis: More Riots on the Horizon
What does that have to do with the price of rice in China, you ask?
As it turns out, everything.
Via The Guardian, Food riots fear after rice price hits a high:
Just this past week, there were food riots in Haiti in which 4 people ended up dead.
And yet here we are, in the western world, wasting billions and billions of dollars on warfare to boost corporate profits with the goal of empire-building for its own sake.
Meanwhile the World Food Program has issued yet another urgent appeal for more funds
The reasons for the crisis:
At the same time, Oxfam has raised the alarm over the lack of promised aid follow through from rich nations.
So, once again, we're in the midst of this so-called global war on terror engaged in hyper-military spending with no end in sight while completely ignoring some of its root causes. As Bob Marley reminded us, "a hungry man is an angry man".
These increasing prices and related conditions cannot be sustained without a major impact to all humanity. It's long past time that rich countries change their priorities with a view to ensuring food security and life itself to those who need their help. Words are not enough and half-hearted actions have only created a much larger crisis that we all need to pay attention to right now. Spread the word. Take some action. Demand accountability. Make your voice heard.
Related:
Paul Krugman: Grains Gone Wild
Is India facing a food crisis?
Food prices rising around the world (noting violence in Egypt, Burkino Faso, Italy and Cameroon)
The Guardian offers this roundup:
A horribly bleak situation...
As it turns out, everything.
Via The Guardian, Food riots fear after rice price hits a high:
A global rice shortage that has seen prices of one of the world's most important staple foods increase by 50 per cent in the past two weeks alone is triggering an international crisis, with countries banning export and threatening serious punishment for hoarders.
With rice stocks at their lowest for 30 years, prices of the grain rose more than 10 per cent on Friday to record highs and are expected to soar further in the coming months. Already China, India, Egypt, Vietnam and Cambodia have imposed tariffs or export bans, as it has become clear that world production of rice this year will decline in real terms by 3.5 per cent. The impact will be felt most keenly by the world's poorest populations, who have become increasingly dependent on the crop as the prices of other grains have become too costly.
Rice is the staple food for more than half the world's population. This is the second year running in which production - which increased in real terms last year - has failed to keep pace with population growth. The harvest has also been hit by drought, particularly in China and Australia, forcing producers to hoard their crops to satisfy local markets.
The increase in rice prices - which some believe could increase by a further 40 per cent in coming months - has matched sharp inflation in other key food products. But with rice relied on by some eight billion people [since the world population now sits at 6.6 billion, as pointed out in the comments, that figure is obviously a mistake. -catnip], the impact of a prolonged rice crisis for the world's poor - a large part of whose available income is spent on food - threatens to be devastating.
Just this past week, there were food riots in Haiti in which 4 people ended up dead.
And yet here we are, in the western world, wasting billions and billions of dollars on warfare to boost corporate profits with the goal of empire-building for its own sake.
Meanwhile the World Food Program has issued yet another urgent appeal for more funds
The World Food Program called on donor nations for urgent help in closing a funding gap of more than $500 million by May 1. If money doesn't arrive by then, Executive Director Josette Sheeran said in a letter to donors, the WFP may be forced to cut food rations "for those who rely on the world to stand by them during times of abject need."
The poorest face hunger as people around the world are being "priced out of the food market," Sheeran told reporters Monday in a conference call.
Citing food prices that had ballooned 55% since June, the WFP disclosed a $500-million shortfall Feb. 25, and the gap has continued to grow ever since, Sheeran said.
[...]
The Rome-based WFP feeds at least 73 million people in nearly 80 nations with an annual operating budget of $2.9 billion.
"We've never quite had a situation where aggressive rises in food prices keep pricing operations out of our reach," Sheeran said.
The reasons for the crisis:
Food commodities are becoming more expensive because of rising demand in developing countries, natural disasters and climate change, and the shift of millions of tons of grains to the production of biofuels.
At the same time, Oxfam has raised the alarm over the lack of promised aid follow through from rich nations.
The OECD said aid totalled $103.7bn (£51.8bn) in 2007, a fall of 8.4% in real terms. At the 2005 Gleneagles summit, G8 leaders, led by Tony Blair, committed to a doubling of their aid and to provide an additional $50bn a year by 2010. Three years on, this target looks likely to be missed by as much as $30bn a year, said Oxfam, enough to save 5 million lives. "These figures leave us in no doubt that the world's richest countries are failing to meet their promises to the poorest countries, especially in Africa," said Max Lawson, policy adviser at Oxfam. "The human cost is huge."
The EU's spending target on aid of 0.7% of national income by 2015 also looks badly off track, with aid from the world's richest countries falling from 0.31% in 2006 to 0.28% in 2007.
The OECD report shows only seven countries met or surpassed the 0.7% target, with Norway (0.95%) and Sweden (0.93%) topping the chart.
Though the United States made the largest donation ($21.75bn), it contributed lowest percentage of national income, coming bottom of the charts at 0.16%. The US spends the equivalent of $73 per American each year on aid, but $1,763 a person on defence.
So, once again, we're in the midst of this so-called global war on terror engaged in hyper-military spending with no end in sight while completely ignoring some of its root causes. As Bob Marley reminded us, "a hungry man is an angry man".
These increasing prices and related conditions cannot be sustained without a major impact to all humanity. It's long past time that rich countries change their priorities with a view to ensuring food security and life itself to those who need their help. Words are not enough and half-hearted actions have only created a much larger crisis that we all need to pay attention to right now. Spread the word. Take some action. Demand accountability. Make your voice heard.
Related:
Paul Krugman: Grains Gone Wild
Is India facing a food crisis?
Food prices rising around the world (noting violence in Egypt, Burkino Faso, Italy and Cameroon)
The Guardian offers this roundup:
There have been protests in Guinea, Egypt, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Niger, Uzbekistan, Senegal, Haiti, Bolivia and Indonesia. In the last two months Vietnam, Cambodia, Egypt, India, the Philippines and Thailand have stopped crop exports or raised prices to more than $1,200 a tonne to discourage exports.
A horribly bleak situation...
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Sunday Food for Thought: Softening Torture
Dan Eggen, writing for the Washington Post on Sunday, uses the term "permissable assaults" in his headline to his story about the newly-released John Yoo torture memo.
Eggen notes this "dry discussion", as he phrases it but also adds, "No maiming is known to have occurred in U.S. interrogations".
Tell that to Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and several other prisoners of the Bush administration who have lived to tell of their torture. And it is torture. The use of the word "maiming", along with the word "assault" only serves to soften the offences that Yoo attempted to minimize on behalf of the bloodthirsty, fearful, and paranoid administration. Parsing words in the legal sense is only presented by Yoo in order to circumvent the relevant Geneva Conventions which prohibit such abhorrent treatment of prisoners while the passage of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported by some so-called Democrats in the house and senate, granted CIA interrogators immunity from prosecution for torture - a blank slate to continue at will no matter who succeeds Bush.
There was a huge public outcry following the airing of the Abu Ghraib torture photos but it seems the American public has simply given up on the idea of prosecuting the Bush administration for its war crimes. The fact that the release of the latest Yoo memo was just another 30-second story in the MSM last week shows the world that there is no longer any mainstream interest in what is the worst kind of inhumanity (along with the placing of the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the illegal occupation on the back burner while too many Americans are much too eager to believe that the so-called surge is actually working.)
Horror has become commonplace.
The Bush administration years are a textbook case on how totalitarianism is allowed to take root in a nation. Very simply, a compliant public surrenders.
Bush's biggest war hasn't been the so-called war against terror. It has been, instead, the war against domestic rebellion in the Unites States in the face of his dictatorial power grabs. And he has succeeded.
Through his application of the unitary executive theory, the rights-suppressing Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, invasion of privacy, relentless fear mongering and his willingness to detain people without due process while justifying the circumvention of the most basic human and civil rights with the help of lawyers like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales, the message George W Bush has sent is clear: he is the law.
Meanwhile, the American citizenry has decided to just wait him out - hoping that a new administration will not retain or add to the powers Bush has declared to be within the scope of the presidency. A dangerous gamble, no doubt, no matter who wins the White House. The balance among the three branches of the US government has shifted to the point that there is no longer, for all practical purposes, any way to ensure accountability. Who can the people trust when the Democrats refused to even attempt to impeach anyone in the face of such obvious crimes? No one.
So that's where America stands today - waiting to move on from these horrors while having no concrete assurances that that will even take place. And it's the waiting and the silence that are the problems. As Benjamin Franklin declared and as we are so often reminded: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
And those who refuse to stand up to their government when it tortures get exactly the government they deserve. Waiting solves nothing and turning a blind eye is cowardice.
Thirty pages into a memorandum discussing the legal boundaries of military interrogations in 2003, senior Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo tackled a question not often asked by American policymakers: Could the president, if he desired, have a prisoner's eyes poked out?
Or, for that matter, could he have "scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance" thrown on a prisoner? How about slitting an ear, nose or lip, or disabling a tongue or limb? What about biting?
These assaults are all mentioned in a U.S. law prohibiting maiming, which Yoo parsed as he clarified the legal outer limits of what could be done to terrorism suspects as detained by U.S. authorities. The specific prohibitions, he said, depended on the circumstances or which "body part the statute specifies."
But none of that matters in a time of war, Yoo also said, because federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes by military interrogators are trumped by the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief.
Eggen notes this "dry discussion", as he phrases it but also adds, "No maiming is known to have occurred in U.S. interrogations".
Tell that to Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and several other prisoners of the Bush administration who have lived to tell of their torture. And it is torture. The use of the word "maiming", along with the word "assault" only serves to soften the offences that Yoo attempted to minimize on behalf of the bloodthirsty, fearful, and paranoid administration. Parsing words in the legal sense is only presented by Yoo in order to circumvent the relevant Geneva Conventions which prohibit such abhorrent treatment of prisoners while the passage of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported by some so-called Democrats in the house and senate, granted CIA interrogators immunity from prosecution for torture - a blank slate to continue at will no matter who succeeds Bush.
There was a huge public outcry following the airing of the Abu Ghraib torture photos but it seems the American public has simply given up on the idea of prosecuting the Bush administration for its war crimes. The fact that the release of the latest Yoo memo was just another 30-second story in the MSM last week shows the world that there is no longer any mainstream interest in what is the worst kind of inhumanity (along with the placing of the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the illegal occupation on the back burner while too many Americans are much too eager to believe that the so-called surge is actually working.)
Horror has become commonplace.
The Bush administration years are a textbook case on how totalitarianism is allowed to take root in a nation. Very simply, a compliant public surrenders.
Bush's biggest war hasn't been the so-called war against terror. It has been, instead, the war against domestic rebellion in the Unites States in the face of his dictatorial power grabs. And he has succeeded.
Through his application of the unitary executive theory, the rights-suppressing Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, invasion of privacy, relentless fear mongering and his willingness to detain people without due process while justifying the circumvention of the most basic human and civil rights with the help of lawyers like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales, the message George W Bush has sent is clear: he is the law.
Meanwhile, the American citizenry has decided to just wait him out - hoping that a new administration will not retain or add to the powers Bush has declared to be within the scope of the presidency. A dangerous gamble, no doubt, no matter who wins the White House. The balance among the three branches of the US government has shifted to the point that there is no longer, for all practical purposes, any way to ensure accountability. Who can the people trust when the Democrats refused to even attempt to impeach anyone in the face of such obvious crimes? No one.
So that's where America stands today - waiting to move on from these horrors while having no concrete assurances that that will even take place. And it's the waiting and the silence that are the problems. As Benjamin Franklin declared and as we are so often reminded: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
And those who refuse to stand up to their government when it tortures get exactly the government they deserve. Waiting solves nothing and turning a blind eye is cowardice.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Quote du Jour: Gates Slams the NATO Allies - Again
You'd think Robert Gates would have learned a bit about humility when he had to backpeddle from insulting comments he made about NATO allies not knowing how to run counterinsurgency operations.
Apparently, he didn't learn a thing. Or perhaps, more correctly stated, he continues to believe that only the Great American Empire understands military realities.
How else can you explain this?
The only rational conclusion I can come to, looking at this criticism of his NATO allies, is to posit that Secretary Gates is involved (whether he knows it or not) in projecting the US administration's major mistakes in Afghanistan onto those countries who continued to take on the burden long after Bush basically abandoned the mission.
It was a US government decision to bail on Afghanistan, leaving any hope of mounting an effective counterinsurgency in the dust by choosing to focus militarily on Iraq. It was the US government that decided that taking care of Afghanistan after the initial shock and awe that it manifested there would be a much smaller task. It was the US government that chose to be ignorant in the face of Afghanistan's history with invaders. It was the US government that chose the same war plan (or severe lack thereof) and the same tactics in Afghanistan that it went on to use in Iraq. It's the US government that has failed on both fronts.
And yet Gates has the audacity to insult America's allies once again while only committing to helping Canadian troops in Kandahar after strong-arming France into sending troops to eastern Afghanistan to replace American soldiers posted there? A move was only made, btw, to ensure that Canada's minority Conservative government would follow through on its commitment to extend the mission to 2011 as expressed in a recent motion which was supported by the spineless Liberal party. If those American troops hadn't been pledged to Kandahar, Canada's mission would have ended in February, 2009.
The US only has 17,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. It has 160,000 in Iraq.
Canada lost its 82nd soldier in Afghanistan today.
We don't need to be told by Gates or anyone else about how long or hard this fight has been or that our government was clueless when it signed up for this war in the first place (a decision I was and remain opposed to).
Is it any wonder that US allies are extremely reluctant to send more troops into this failed war zone considering the hubris displayed by people like Gates who would rather lecture and cast blame on every other country than his own?
On top of all of that, we have Bush acting as if he's still going to be the president in 2009:
I guess he can make those kinds of predictions considering that he will never be held responsible for anything and we know that even if a Democrat wins the presidency (if Bush in fact decides to actually vacate the WH) that both Clinton and Obama have both promised to sink ever more money into the military-industrial complex - feeding the corporate beast almost on par with the Republicans should John McSurge win. But to pledge a "significant" number of troops? What does Bush know that the public doesn't? And what does "significant" mean?
The US military is so completely stretched to the limits thanks to the decisions of the Bush/Cheney/neocon administration and Rumsfeld's Pentagon (with Gates continuing down Rumsfeld's road) that experts have testified that it will take years to restore its capabilities. So, don't count on anything of significance happening on the Afghanistan front any time soon. The only thing we know is that the fighting will go on for a long time to come and soldiers from other NATO countries will continue to die while Gates, apparently, will continue to insult them.
Apparently, he didn't learn a thing. Or perhaps, more correctly stated, he continues to believe that only the Great American Empire understands military realities.
How else can you explain this?
He [Gates] said when NATO took on the task of helping stabilize all of Afghanistan few or none of the allies "understood what we were getting into as an alliance, that the nature of the mission would change from what they anticipated it was likely to be, being much harder and taking much longer."
The only rational conclusion I can come to, looking at this criticism of his NATO allies, is to posit that Secretary Gates is involved (whether he knows it or not) in projecting the US administration's major mistakes in Afghanistan onto those countries who continued to take on the burden long after Bush basically abandoned the mission.
It was a US government decision to bail on Afghanistan, leaving any hope of mounting an effective counterinsurgency in the dust by choosing to focus militarily on Iraq. It was the US government that decided that taking care of Afghanistan after the initial shock and awe that it manifested there would be a much smaller task. It was the US government that chose to be ignorant in the face of Afghanistan's history with invaders. It was the US government that chose the same war plan (or severe lack thereof) and the same tactics in Afghanistan that it went on to use in Iraq. It's the US government that has failed on both fronts.
And yet Gates has the audacity to insult America's allies once again while only committing to helping Canadian troops in Kandahar after strong-arming France into sending troops to eastern Afghanistan to replace American soldiers posted there? A move was only made, btw, to ensure that Canada's minority Conservative government would follow through on its commitment to extend the mission to 2011 as expressed in a recent motion which was supported by the spineless Liberal party. If those American troops hadn't been pledged to Kandahar, Canada's mission would have ended in February, 2009.
The US only has 17,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. It has 160,000 in Iraq.
Canada lost its 82nd soldier in Afghanistan today.
We don't need to be told by Gates or anyone else about how long or hard this fight has been or that our government was clueless when it signed up for this war in the first place (a decision I was and remain opposed to).
Is it any wonder that US allies are extremely reluctant to send more troops into this failed war zone considering the hubris displayed by people like Gates who would rather lecture and cast blame on every other country than his own?
On top of all of that, we have Bush acting as if he's still going to be the president in 2009:
MUSCAT (Reuters) - President George W. Bush pledged at a NATO summit to provide a "significant" number of extra U.S. troops to the alliance mission in Afghanistan in 2009, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday.
[...]
"The president indicated that he expected in 2009 that the United States would make a significant additional contribution," Gates said.
I guess he can make those kinds of predictions considering that he will never be held responsible for anything and we know that even if a Democrat wins the presidency (if Bush in fact decides to actually vacate the WH) that both Clinton and Obama have both promised to sink ever more money into the military-industrial complex - feeding the corporate beast almost on par with the Republicans should John McSurge win. But to pledge a "significant" number of troops? What does Bush know that the public doesn't? And what does "significant" mean?
The US military is so completely stretched to the limits thanks to the decisions of the Bush/Cheney/neocon administration and Rumsfeld's Pentagon (with Gates continuing down Rumsfeld's road) that experts have testified that it will take years to restore its capabilities. So, don't count on anything of significance happening on the Afghanistan front any time soon. The only thing we know is that the fighting will go on for a long time to come and soldiers from other NATO countries will continue to die while Gates, apparently, will continue to insult them.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The Axis of Intolerance: Brad Wall, Tom Luwkiski & Kate McMillan
The Saskatchewan NDP is in possession of an allegedly damning 1991 tape containing "sexist, racist and homophobic comments" made by Saskatchewan's premier Brad Wall and Tory MP Tom Luwkiski.I've contacted the Saskatchewan NDP office to get a transcript and/or copy of the video and will post the response when I get it.
Speaking of Brad Wall and conservatives behaving badly:
Blog loses Wall backing over comments
REGINA -- Premier Brad Wall distanced the Saskatchewan Party from a popular right-wing blog Tuesday over controversial comments posted about inner city Saskatoon.
Wall told reporters that the Saskatchewan Party would remove from its own website an endorsement of Wall from Saskatchewan-based Kate McMillan of smalldeadanimals.com.
Saskatchewan Party MLAs have referenced the website approvingly in the legislature in the past but Wall said that would likely not occur in the future.
Following the government's cancellation of $8 million in funding for the Station 20 West project in Saskatoon's core, McMillan posted on her blog suggesting "economic stimuli" for the area to get a private sector grocery store.
These included "put the cap back on the used needle . . . failing that, share it with your friends. It's a quicker solution to your problem anyway."
She also suggested "cross your legs" and "put down the spray can." McMillan later posted "try not vandalizing every business still standing in your neighbourhood, try not selling your ass up and down the street in front of the doors. Try parenting your sticky-fingered brats."
Wall said the comments were "beyond the pale."
I don't think I need to point out how ironic it is that a bigoted premier would find the roadkill blog's comments as being "beyond the pale" while wondering aloud why, considering that site's endless record of intolerant hate speech, this just popped up on his radar screen now. Frankly, Wall and gutter-dwelling Kate deserve each other.
Update::
Luwkiski has apologized. Here are some of the remarks he made that were caught on tape:
‘Let me put it to you this way. There's A's and B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt in their fingernails that transmit diseases.'
More:
[NDP deputy leader] Ms. Atkinson said the pair is heard on tape ridiculing Roy Romanow, who defeated the provincial Tories in the 1991 election. “They're done in the context of Mr. Romanow and his descent, his ethnic background,” Ms. Atkinson said.
“I would say that he is using an immigrant accent of some kind and he is referring in the end to Mr. Romanow ... There are those of us who grew up at a time when, in the province of Saskatchewan, negative things were said about people of Eastern European background and they were hurtful things,” she added.
Ms. Atkinson also said there were inappropriate remarks about the gender of the provincial Liberal leader at the time, Lynda Haverstock.
Wall's office hasn't issued a response yet.
While the Globe & Mail has closed its comments on this story, the CBC hasn't and you can see just exactly how ignorant people will try to defend what these politicians said. Sorry - there is no excuse for that kind of bigotry, folks. None.
Update:
Luwkiski held a quick press conference in which he said: "I have no prejudice against gay people whatsoever". But he wouldn't explain why he made the comments in the first place, seeking instead to distance himself.
CBC TV is now showing portions of the tape. I suspect the video will be online somewhere soon. Stay tuned.
Update:
Wall's reaction:
The video also shows Wall, then a young PC staffer, engaged in a mock interview with Kathy Young, now the Saskatchewan Party's executive director of communications.
Apparently speaking as a voter from Preeceville, a rural community which has a large Ukrainian population, he talks about liking then-Premier Grant Devine.
"Roy Romanow got his head up his ass. I don't even know how he walks upright with his head so far up his ass," he said in a gravelly, accented voice.
Speaking to reporters Thursday, Wall said he would personally apologize to Romanow, who became premier after the NDP's landslide victory over Devine's Tories in that 1991 election, for his "bad language" and "disrespectful tone."
He said he didn't remember the evening but said he was doing an impression of a friend's accented uncle.
"It's not a bad impersonation of a people, it's a bad impersonation of one individual," he said.
However, he said he unequivocally apologizes if anyone was offended.
Typical response - just a lame explanation with the 'if anyone was offended' caveat. That's not going to cut it, Wall.
Let me add, as someone who went to school in Saskatchewan in the central/NE area heavily inhabited by Ukrainian people, (my daughter is, in fact, half Ukrainian - I'm French), that this type of bigoted ridicule will certainly not go over well. Saskatchewan's Ukrainian community has had to put up with decades of that type of intolerance - it certainly isn't a rare occurrence - so I suspect Wall may suffer enough of a backlash, as a result of these revelations, to force a more humble mea culpa than what he issued today.
Update:
The tape also shows the Sask. Party's Young joking about sending a letter bomb to union leader Barb Byers. The government has been embroiled in a fight with organized labour since taking office over a major overhaul of the province's labour laws.
Wall said Young's comments were not reflective of Young's and the government's views.
Update:
****CTV has posted the Luwkiski portion of the videotape****. (Right side of the page.)
Update:
You can see Luwkiski's comments at the end of this clip:
Update:
Giant Political Mouse has the full video and snippets from the transcript.
Related:
Follow the reactions of Saskatchewan bloggers at the Sask Blogs aggregator.
Regina Leader-Post
Refresh this page for updates.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
The Best US Campaign Commercial So Far
Yes, Gravel's still in the race having left the Democratic party to become a Libertarian.
Rock on, Mike!
(h/t Madman in the Marketplace)
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Quote du Jour: How to Debase Your Country
The new definition of debasing:OTTAWA–An expert panel has advised cabinet to oppose a move to lower the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower whenever a soldier dies in Afghanistan because it would debase the honour.
When Canada sends you off to war and if you die, don't worry about debasing our country by having the flag half-masted on your behalf. After all, stodgy protocol trumps everything - even your life in service to your country.
de·base (dĭ-bās')
tr.v. de·based, de·bas·ing, de·bas·es
To lower in character, quality, or value; degrade. See Synonyms at adulterate, corrupt, degrade.
(h/t penlan)
Iraq: Twisted Priorities
In March, US senators Carl Levin and John Warner sent a letter to the GAO to find out what the Iraq government has been doing with its money after they found out it has a projected surplus. "Also, the senators want to know why the Iraqi government has not spent more of its oil revenue on its own country."
Fair question.
So, on Monday, the Iraq government announced its decision to spend $5.9 billion dollars.
On what, you ask? Roads? Hospitals? Clean water? Food? Electricity generation? Houses for the millions of displaced homeless?
No.
On airplanes.
Yes, that's right. They've signed a contract with Boeing and Bombardier to buy 50 airplanes.
Maybe the government can move some of those millions of starving and parched Iraqi citizens who still live in the dark due to this endlessly corrupt occupation into those planes until they actually get their shit together enough to figure out what their priorities should be.
In the meantime, those two US senators need to spend their time explaining to the voters why they haven't bothered to impeach the boy king in the White House who created this mess in the first place instead of whining about how much money the US has had to spend to fix this mess it's created.
They're hardly models of anything resembling fiscal sanity.
Fair question.
So, on Monday, the Iraq government announced its decision to spend $5.9 billion dollars.
On what, you ask? Roads? Hospitals? Clean water? Food? Electricity generation? Houses for the millions of displaced homeless?
No.
On airplanes.
Yes, that's right. They've signed a contract with Boeing and Bombardier to buy 50 airplanes.
Maybe the government can move some of those millions of starving and parched Iraqi citizens who still live in the dark due to this endlessly corrupt occupation into those planes until they actually get their shit together enough to figure out what their priorities should be.
In the meantime, those two US senators need to spend their time explaining to the voters why they haven't bothered to impeach the boy king in the White House who created this mess in the first place instead of whining about how much money the US has had to spend to fix this mess it's created.
They're hardly models of anything resembling fiscal sanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)