Debating Universal Public Health Care With A Conservative

I try to avoid getting into debates with conservatives, not because I am afraid to stand up for what I believe in, but, rather, because I tend to be "long-winded" when the debate takes place online which is very time-consuming and I don't have a lot of time to spend. Plus, time spent doing such things is usually wasted because, as this study shows, conservatives don't deal well with change, so it is a waste of time if you expect to change their minds (not that it's impossible, just don't expect it to happen).

As a side note, I think this might explain why conservatives are so hopelessly devoted (like the song from the movie Grease) to the Republican Party. Or as Al Franken puts it, Republicans love their party the way a child loves its parent: uncritically and blindly. (How else could we explain the many conservatives who willingly would sacrifice American ideals, human rights, and freedom in exchange for authoritarian ideals, torture, and a law-breaking presidential administration.) Democrats, on the other hand, love their party like an adult loves its parent: critically and analytically.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I recently succumbed to the temptation to engage in a debate with a conservative (who was not my father for once), and I spent enough time on it that I wanted to post what I wrote so that it might not have been a complete waste of time.

I won't post what the conservative in the debate wrote because I haven't asked for his permission to do so (nor do I plan to), but my responses should be sufficient to help you guess at what was written by him.

The topic was health care, and here was my first response to what the conservative initially wrote (edited to ensure anonymity and proper grammar):

[...][I]t really infuriates me when conservatives accuse Democratic (with a capitol 'D') voters of "pretzel logic."

Pretzel logic is voting for Republicans who campaign on their belief that government doesn't work and then, when elected, ensure that the government doesn't work by bankrupting it (which is what Bush is doing). If they actually tried to make government work, then they would negate their entire belief system. It makes better sense to put your trust in someone who has trust in the American government and is willing to make it work. Democratic voters don't distrust the government; we distrust Bush and the people like him who are trying to destroy our government to
"prove" their self-fulfilling belief that government doesn't work.

Pretzel logic is wanting to continue a for-profit health care system with greedy private insurance companies who's goals are to make money, not keep their customers healthy. It makes more sense to have a health care system that is health-driven, not profit-driven.

Pretzel logic is believing the lie that our profit-driven health care system is somehow better than the universal health care system that EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION has that produces better results, a healthier general public, longer life expectancies, and lower overall cost. I don't understand conservatives who claim they want fiscal responsibility, but then ignore the BETTER results for a LOWER price
that public health care systems in other countries get.

Pretzel logic is saying other countries have long wait times. The long wait times thing is a myth. It exaggerates the wait times in other countries and ignores the wait times in our own country. My dad had to wait a month to see a specialist after having a transient ischemic attack (a mini-stroke), so don't believe the hype on wait times. Other countries have a sensible triage system that treats patients according to the urgency of their health needs. It's not like they have thousands of people dying because they can't see a doctor in time. That is what happens in OUR country. We have thousands of people dying each year because they can't afford to see a doctor at all. So I never want to hear another lie about the wait times in other countries when people in our own country our dying from waiting until it is too late because they have no insurance. The lack of compassion for those in our country without health insurance makes me physically ill and makes those people
without health insurance physically dead. There are serious consequences for our lack of universal public health care, and we need to take them seriously.

Pretzel logic is thinking it is okay for our government to be in charge of public roads, public schools, public police, public fire departments, public military, and so on, but somehow public medicine is the most evil concept ever conceived by mankind (despite the fact that we already have public medicine for some people through Medicare and Medicaid). If the government does such a good job with all these other public needs, why is it so hard to believe that a universal health care system run by our government would be desirable by the MAJORITY of Americans (55-65%, depending on what poll you look at)?

I wrote a post about this topic and Sen. Clinton's health care plan (which is a government mandate for everyone to buy health insurance (like how we have to buy car insurance), not a government run health care system, and not a good idea, in my opinion) on my blog. You can tell from the title (Worst Universal Health Care Plan Ever) that I am not a fan of her health care plan: http://the-liberal-media.blogspot.com/2007/09/worst-universal-health-care-plan-ever.html

-Bryan

Of course, that response elicited a response from the conservative, and here is my response to the response to the response (again, edited for blah blah blah):

[...]Anyway, since you asked, I feel compelled to answer your questions.

1. How much am I willing to pay out of my paycheck for public health care?

Well, looking at my paycheck, I already pay about 7% on health and dental insurance, so 5% sounds like a bargain.

Note: I recently recalculated that percentage. I pay over 8%.

But this is before I account for deductibles and co-pays. Some people pay more than they make if they have serious medical issues like cancer. So, if you gave them a choice between paying, say, 300% of their paycheck and paying 5% or 10% or even 20%, I am certain they would not choose 300%.

According to an article from The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact):

"Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year."

Wow! Americans spend more than DOUBLE the world's median on health care. But wait there's more:

"What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance."

You ask me if I would be okay with more of my paycheck going to taxes. The answer is yes, if it meant we spent less overall. Public health care would save money for our country and for all Americans. The question I would ask you is: why don't you want to save money?

Other countries spend less on universal health care, but we spend more and more every year. From The Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_health_insurance_costs_rise_near_09122007.html):

"US Health Insurance Costs Rise Nearly Twice As Fast As Pay: Survey

The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007, with family coverage costing employers around 1,000 dollars (714 euros) a month, a poll showed Wednesday.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent in 2007, while wages went up by 3.7 percent, the Employer Health Benefits Survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust showed.

The 6.1 percent rise in health insurance premiums marked a slowdown from the rate of increase last year, but also strongly outpaced inflation, running at 2.6 percent.

'In 2007, the increase in health insurance premiums was about twice the rate of inflation and not quite twice the increase in workers' pay,' Kaiser vice-president Gary Claxton said in a webcast.

Premiums for family coverage have surged by 78 percent since 2001, while wages have gone up 19 percent."

That is what happens when health care is PROFIT-DRIVEN rather than HEALTH-DRIVEN. Costs spiral out of control. So much for free market competition keeping prices low for consumers, huh? This is what happens with deregulation of public needs. Right now, I'm listening to a report on the radio about how pro-energy deregulation people are now regretting their stance in Ohio. I lived in California when deregulation of power companies caused energy prices to sky rocket and numerous brownouts. That was in the good old days of Enron. Now they REALLY knew how to exploit deregulation.

I am all for strongly-regulated free market capitalism, but not when it comes to public needs like utilities, roads, schools, police, fire departments, judicial system, et cetera.

2. Do statistics exist for people dying in the U.S. from lack of insurance?

I'm glad you asked because the cost of human life is way more important than the cost of money. Yes, statistics exist, and they are harrowing.

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm):

"18,000 Deaths Blamed On Lack Of Insurance

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care."

18,314 people die YEARLY from lack of health insurance. That is horrific. It is disgusting. It is wrong. I don't know about you, but that is not something that I am willing to live with in the greatest country in the world.

Many people like to claim that this is a Christian country. Well, if that is the case, then how are over 18,000 people dying each year from a lack of medical care. From what I remember in Sunday school, Christ was pretty concerned with taking care of the sick. As a Christian, I think that we should be taking care of the least of our brethren and making sure everyone has health care coverage.

So far, I've shown that other industrialized nations get BETTER health care for LESS money. From what I can tell, conservatives want WORSE health care for MORE money. It defies logic.

3. Your concerns about giving health care to the lowest bidder is moot. That is not at issue here. We don't have contractors bid on running public schools, fire departments, or our law enforcement. Why would we have contractors bid on public health care?

Also, the reason why public schools, public police, public fire departments, and other public services are public is because we need those services to focus on their jobs and not on maintaining profit margins for stock holders.

As an example, it would not make sense to have privatized fire departments because if people couldn't afford to pay the fire department when their house is on fire, then their house would burn down. And yet, this is what is happening to people without health insurance, only it is their lives instead of their houses that are being destroyed.

4. Competition does not belong in the health care industry, at least not in the way that you mean. Competition in our current health care system is driven by profits. With health care providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, a significant portion of that money goes to advertising, not to Research & Development, because they are in competition with other entities. Other countries don't have this problem. Competition in other countries are driven by health. For example, doctors in England are given paycheck bonuses when they get their patients to quit smoking. If you want competition, it should be for health, not greed.

Your idea that health care would plateau or decline is false. That has not happened in other countries because they don't let that happen. Their governments support scientific research, as opposed to this country where we can't even get our government to support stem-cell research.

5. You say that you don't want the government running our health care system and that we should let the insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals figure it out. Well, they already have it figured out. They figured out how to squeeze more money out of the American people. Every other industrialized nation has already figured out how to solve the problems we have today. They solved those problems with public health care.

6. As for people that cannot pay for health care, gratis and payment plans are short-term and expensive. Do you know who ends up paying the difference? We do. When doctors and hospitals are required to perform expensive services for people who can't afford them, it drives up medical costs and insurance premiums.

Here is what happens. Billy has no health insurance. Billy gets sick, but doesn't go to the doctor because Billy has no insurance. Billy gets sicker. Billy still doesn't go to the doctor. Billy gets really sick and passes out. Billy's family calls an ambulance. The ambulance takes Billy to the emergency room. Doctors at the hospital try to save Billy's life with expensive procedures and machines and tests. Billy dies. Who pays the ambulance? Who pays the doctors and nurses? Who pays the hospital? Not Billy. Not Billy's family, they have no money. The hospital has to make up the difference so they raise their prices on customers who HAVE health insurance. The health insurance companies don't want to lose their profit, so they raise their premiums and their co-pays and their deductibles. Americans lose more of their hard-earned paychecks.

Now here is what would happen if we had public health care. Billy is covered by public health care. Billy gets sick. Billy goes to the doctor. Billy gets cheap medicine and cheap preventative care. Billy gets better. Hospitals don't need to raise their prices. Private health insurance companies don't have to worry about profit margins because they don't exist. Americans get to keep more of their money for themselves. They spend money on other things. The economy grows.

Now what conservative could be against Americans saving money and a growing economy? And what human being could be against preventing Billy's death?

Well, take a look at the White House. That's who is against all that. Take a look at the Republicans and in Congress. They're against all that too. These so called fiscal conservatives are against saving money. These hypocrites are against saving human lives. No, they want US, the hard-working American public, to keep paying more money while their stock portfolios increase and they get more campaign contributions from insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and health care provider groups.

And the Democrats are not much better because they say they want universal health care coverage for all Americans, but some of them, like Hillary Clinton, want to continue to give all our hard-earned money to greedy insurance companies through mandating that we all buy health insurance, and the other ones are too spineless to provide public health care which is what the majority of Americans (55%-65%) want. The majority of Americans want it, but some Democrats are afraid some mean conservative talk show host will call them names like "socialist" or "commie." What they don't realize is that conservatives will call them those names regardless. At least if they provided public health care for all Americans, the majority of Americans would be on their side and be inspired to continue to vote for them. As it is, Americans are frustrated with the lack of action on this issue.

This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and if the majority of Americans want public health care, then we should have it. Instead, we get a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, and a very small minority in power (the politicians) is willing to do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists because of all the money they donate to political campaigns.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I would argue that we need public health care if we are going to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. We need public health care to live up to the ideal that all men are created equal. If we want to uphold the standards that this nation was founded on, we need to remove corporate influence from our government, and remove profiteering from our health care system. Because this is America, and Americans deserve better.

-Bryan

P.s. I am sorry for the length of the e-mail, but this is a topic that I am very passionate about. I've had to live without health care before. I know how scary it can be.

That e-mail was probably my best contribution to the debate (and obviously influenced by Michael Moore's SiCKO), so if you feel satiated, now is a good time to stop reading this post.

The conservative did respond again, but the response was more of a friendly farewell. He did concede that I made some good points, but he was ultimately not convinced that the U.S. should have a universal public health care system.

So, maybe the whole debate was a waste of time, maybe not. I don't know. Anyway, here was my final response (once more, edited for blah blah blah):

Well, right, I didn't mean to imply that Democratic politicians don't have stock portfolios. They can be just as easily influenced by campaign contributions and stock portfolio increases. That's why I dislike Hillary Clinton's health care plan. She receives a lot campaign contributions from the health insurance companies, which explains why her plan mandates that everyone buy health insurance from them. However, I still tend to be in opposition to Democrats much less than I am to Republicans.

Also, I appreciate that Al Gore is working to fight global warming, but carbon offsets are not a good solution in my opinion. If you ask me, buying carbon offsets while using fossil fuels is like if I bought some bullet-proof vests for some people and then went around shooting other people. That wouldn't make sense.

It is not uncommon for people to do what Al Gore is doing, pushing something that he is financially invested in. Everyone does that. That's business. The problem I have is when people in charge of our government push things they're financially invested in through legislation or executive order, like how Cheney pushes Halliburton. It's unethical.

In any case, you and I probably won't end up agreeing on much, but at least we agree that politicians in power need to spend more time working for the American people rather than themselves. You should hear my rant on why we need publicly-financed elections to oust corporate influence from government. :) However, you would probably rather talk to my father. You and he have a lot in common politically, and you would probably find more agreement with him. He's been the unfortunate recipient of most of my rants, and would probably be glad to know that he's not alone anymore.

-Bryan

THE END

(for now)

Bush Isn't Even Trying To Catch Bin Laden

There are no words to express how furious this makes me. There is nothing I can say about this that would satisfy my outrage. I am speechless.

Did The White House Miss A Chance To Catch OBL Again?

By: Nicole Belle on Thursday, October 25th, 2007 at 12:14 PM - PDT

[...]I’d think that it would be in the public’s interest to know how well we are going after known enemies before they create even more in Iran, wouldn’t you?

Col. David Hunt (ret.) on FOXNews.com (I’m citing the relevant portion if you don’t want to give them the hits):

Besides, these things are of little consequence when you realize how we missed, squandered, screwed up, made a mess of and were massively risk adverse - again - when we did not kill Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan just two short months ago.

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the world of intelligence - that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers - Seal Team 6 - nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys - now, pull the damn trigger.

Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.

You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no other reason than incompetence.

The current “boneheads” in charge will tell you all day long that we are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop terrorists there so they do not come here. Nice talk, how about - just for a moment - acting like you mean what you say? You know walk the walk. These incidents, where we displayed a total lack of guts, like the one in August, are just too prevalent. The United States of America’s political and military leadership has, on at least three separate occasions, chosen not capture or kill bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri. We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Bush Administration Endorses Torture

This comes as no surprise to those of us in the reality-based community, but it still infuriates me:

Bush’s Justice Department secretly endorsed torture

Posted October 4th, 2007 at 8:10 am

In December 2004, Bush’s Justice Department issued a statement insisting that “torture is abhorrent.” It was an encouraging step from administration officials who were willing to concede that there were limits to presidential authority when it came to brutal interrogations.

But it was a lie — shortly thereafter, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed off on a secret legal opinion, which, as the New York Times reported today, endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

And here we are. Given their conduct and contempt for the rule of law, administration officials are apparently well beyond the capacity for shame, but if they’re capable of embarrassment, now would be a good time for it. Indeed, now might be an equally good time to wonder whether criminal charges should be brought against several high-ranking officials in the Bush administration.

Every time Bush was asked about this, he merely replied, "We don't torture." And he was lying.

He and his administration have betrayed this country. They are traitors to the ideals of this country. We have always held ourselves up to a higher standard, and because of Bush, we can no longer do that.

Such a traitor to our country should not be president. Such traitors do not belong in our government. Such traitors should be impeached and punished for their crimes. They have committed crimes against our country, our people, our humanity.

After all the war crimes, the illegal spying, the torture, it is abundantly clear that they have broken the law and their oaths of their offices. They do not deserve to be in power. They should be in prison.

And the insane 30% of this country that still approves of this traitor and his criminal administration need to wake up and know the truth that is so hard for them to hear: Bush is a liar, and a criminal, and a torturer, and he doesn't deserve to be our president.

General Petraeus Did Betray Us

MoveOn.org has been getting a bit attention for their Petraeus ad. Republicans who refuse to listen to the content of the ad have been calling for Democrats to denounce it. Why should they? Why should the denounce an ad for telling the truth?

Gen. Petraeus did betray us. He lied to Congress. He lied to the American people. He lied to save the liar-in-chief George W. Bush.

MoveOn.org told the truth. And I still believe that telling the truth is a good thing, especially when you speak truth to lying power:

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

Iraq Confronts Evil Blackwater

It is one of many sins in the long list of crimes against humanity that Bush has committed in his illegal war. The use of private mercenary forces that have no accountablity for the people they kill or harm is one of the more horrendous aspects of Bush's criminality.

Finally, it looks like Iraq is doing something about groups like Blackwater. It is a sad state of affairs that a country that barely has it together has to do this for us:

What happens to private contractors who kill Iraqis? Maybe nothing

Blackwater USA employees are accused of killing several civilians, but there might not be anyone with the authority to prosecute them.

By Alex Koppelman and Mark Benjamin

An incident this past weekend in which employees of Blackwater USA, a private security firm that has become controversial for its extensive role in the war in Iraq, allegedly opened fire on and killed several Iraqis seems to be the last straw for Iraqi tolerance of the company. Iraqi government officials have promised action, including but not limited to the suspension or outright revocation of the company's license to operate in Iraq.

But pulling Blackwater's license may be all the Iraqis can do. Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq. CPA Order 17 says private contractors working for the U.S. or coalition governments in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law. Should any attempt be made to prosecute Blackwater in the United States, meanwhile, it's not clear what law, if any, applies.

Of course, not paying for crimes and escaping justice is all part of the Bush plan for himself, Scooter Libby, his administration, and Blackwater. If this world has any sense of justice, all of them will see the inside a jail cell for 20 years or more.

Bush Lies, Petraeus Lies, Traditional Media Doesn't Care

I talked a little about this last week in a post called "Did Bush Escalate So That He Could De-escalate?", and it seems like my theory might prove to be correct (or at least close).

Gen. Petraeus talked about bringing troops home next year when he gave his white-wash of a report to Congress this week. Today, news reports are claiming that Bush will soon announce that he will bring troops home next year per Petraeus's suggestions.

This appears to be all a charade because our military will be stretched to its limits by next year, and Bush will be forced to reduce troop numbers in Iraq regardless.

The clueless traditional media seems so eager to report the future troop reductions that they are overlooking the fact that such reductions will occur not by Bush's choice but because Bush has no other options. In overlooking that fact and not reporting on it, the TM is making it seem like Bush IS choosing to bring troops home because he and Petraeus are claiming that the surge escalation has worked and conditions are improving in Iraq.

Of course they're not improving, the surge escalation hasn't worked, and Bush and Petraeus are lying, but the TM is too lazy or too foolish to report that either. Thank goodness we have Media Matters for America to correct the TM:

Myths and falsehoods about progress in Iraq

Summary: Supporters of the Iraq war -- rather than waiting for testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the effect of President Bush's troop increase in Iraq -- have engaged in a campaign to convince the media and public that progress is being made in Iraq and that the "surge" is "working." Media Matters has compiled some of the most pervasive myths and falsehoods advanced by opponents of withdrawal in service of the "surge is working" message, which many in the media have been complicit in perpetuating.

[...]On the August 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume said that "evidence mounts that the troop surge is working as planned." An August 16 editorial in Investor's Business Daily was headlined, "A Surge of Success." And on the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, U.S. News & World Report editor-in-chief Mortimer B. Zuckerman asserted: "[T]he fact is that, by far, the consensus is that the surge is working." However, by the administration's own standards, the national political reconciliation that the Bush administration identified as essential for the success of its escalation strategy has not occurred.

[...]an August 25 Associated Press article reported that while violence is down in Baghdad "from peak levels ... the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago." Moreover, McClatchy Newspapers reported on August 15 that while U.S. officials have said civilian casualties have decreased in Baghdad, they have "declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim."

[...]Statistics compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count on its website iCasualties.org, which publishes death count totals provided by the Department of Defense, show that more U.S. troops have died in Iraq during June, July, and August this year than the same three-month period in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006. The website currently lists the total U.S. death count for this period at 264.

Read the whole article for MMfA's list of myths and their debunking of those myths.

The ONLY way to support the troops, at this point, is to bring them home. Period. Not one more should die for Bush's lies.

2007 September 11

It's six years after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Does your president know where Osama bin Laden is?

Seriously, it's been SIX YEARS!

Why has Bush been unable to capture him? Only a complete and utter failure of a president and human being could have failed to do so. Either that or Bush doesn't want to capture him. It may be that Bush prefers bin Laden to remain free to be a continuous distraction from Bush's horrific presidency and unconstitutional actions.

The victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and our country deserve better.

Not One More!

Not one more American should die in Iraq. Not one more soldier or marine should die for Bush's lies. Not one more parent, spouse, or child should lose a loved one in an occupation that never should have been started.

I am sick of all the stupid slogans from the Right that debase the argument and deny the truth. I am sick of "cut and run" and "defeatist." I'm sick of all their lies and propaganda. They want to fight with simple slogans and demogoguery? Fine. Here's my stupid slogan: "Not one more!"

I am tired of Democrats not willing to stand up for what the American people elected them to do. I am tired of Democrats being frightened by a presidential administration with 25%-30% approval ratings with insipid claims that they "support the troops" or "we're winning in Iraq." Democrats act like they don't have the support of 70% of the country and they have nothing to fight back with. Well, Democrats, fight back with this: "Not one more!"

I don't want to have to see any more news like this:

U.S. military reports seven troops killed in Anbar, northern Iraq

BAGHDAD (AP) — Four U.S. marines were killed in fighting in Anbar province, and three were killed by a roadside bomb in northern Iraq, the military said Friday.

Not one more!

I don't want any more capitulation from the Democrats:

Democratically Controlled Congress Stands on the Brink of Irrelevance on Iraq

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted September 6, 2007.

[...]The Democrats are reacting to this charade by conceding the battle before it begins, with Michigan's Carl Levin offering to remove a deadline from the amendment he and Jack Reed, D-R.I., co-sponsored (the deadline was already riddled with loopholes) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offering to "compromise" with Senate Republicans by dropping his already watered-down demand for a spring "withdrawal."

As Dick Durbin, the senate majority whip, told the Chicago Tribune, "When it comes to the budget, I face a dilemma that some of my colleagues do." He opposes the war, but "felt that I should always provide the resources for the troops in the field."

Not one more!

Not one more American should have to die for Democratic cowardice. Not one more should have to die for Republican deceit. Not one more should have to die for Bush's lies and war crimes:

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Not one more!

I am really far beyond fed up with this. I impatiently waited for Magic September, and the thought of the Democratic-controlled Congress giving more money to allow troops to continue to die in Iraq for lies and more lies has put me over the edge.

Not one more!

Tell your Representatives and Senators: Not one more!

And if they don't support "Not one more!", tell them you will support someone else who does (or run against them yourself).

Tell the presidential candidates: Not one more!

Tell the traditional media: Not one more!

Tell everyone: Not one more!

Repeat it over and over again until it becomes entrenched in the mind of every American like all those stupid slogans from the Right that we have to endure daily.

Repeat it until every American troop is safe at home with their families.

NOT ONE MORE!

Bush Knew Iraq Had No WMDs And Lied To Go To War

This news is huge, but I won't hold my breath while I wait for the traditional media to report on it.

Of course, it isn't really news to those of us on the left who have been saying this all along, but this reinforces our stance that Bush lied us into the war in Iraq. If he had any decency, Bush would resign for this, but since he doesn't, we should impeach him and prosecute him for the war criminal he is.

A diary by Chomskyface called "Bush Knew There Were No WMDs BEFORE Iraq War - New Salon Piece" on DailyKos.com first made me aware of this article on Salon.com:

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

Read the whole article, and tell your friends and family about it. If they aren't outraged, then they aren't paying attention.

Did Bush Escalate So That He Could De-escalate?

I was reading this post "Magical April" by BarbinMD on DailyKos.com when I had a thought.

Did Bush only escalate our involvement in Iraq so that, when he is forced reduce troop levels in April 2008, he could fool people into thinking that he is working to bring our troops home?

In April 2008, our military will be stretched to its limit, and Bush will be forced to reduce the number of troops in Iraq, and he may try to use that to deceive people into believing that he is making a proactive choice to bring some troops home from Iraq so that they will continue to support his failed policies. His defenders will say, "Look, he's not such a bad guy because he's bringing troops home, and that means we're succeeding in Iraq, and this isn't the worst mistake in the history of American foreign policy after all!"

I am not predicting that this is what will happen for certain, but I am putting this out there in case it does.

Note To Self: Do Not Trust Bush On Nuclear Power

Bush keeps promoting nuclear power as "clean" energy, but while nuclear energy may not produce greenhouse gases, only a complete idiot would call it clean energy.

There is just no reason to trust someone on nuclear power when that person can't even pronouce "nuclear."

Bush Administration Is Soft On Terror

I don't know if this will be the final nail in the coffin of the lie that the Bush Administration is effective against terrorism, but this certainly is one of the nails:

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05

MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, July 7 — A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

We are approaching the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Bush Administration continues to fail to capture the psychopaths who planned those attacks. This story is another example of their monumental incompetence.

An Admission That We Are In Iraq For Oil

Finally, a conservative in government admits the real reason we are still in Iraq: oil.

Of course this conservative isn't from our government:

Australia 'has Iraq oil interest'

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq.

He said maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority.

[...]In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

"It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security."

There you have it, folks: A conservative admits the truth about why we are in Iraq.

It is not because we want to spread freedom or democracy. It is because the greedy men in power want oil, and they have sacrificed the blood of the innocent for that oil.

Naturally, this admission wasn't from an American conservative (I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen), and naturally, this is something we liberals have been saying throughout this tragic debacle.

We have the capability to ween ourselves off of oil and convert to a eco-friendly energy infrastructure, but evil men in power like Bush and Cheney would rather sacrifice the lives of Americans to keep us slaves to the oil industry. They are traitors to this country, and even if they spend the rest of their lives in prison (and they should), it wouldn't be enough of a punishment for all the evil they have wrought.

Bush Stabs Justice In The Back

Bush has absolutely ZERO credibility left now. He has, once again, proved to be a national disgrace and the worst president ever:

President commutes Libby's sentence

Calls 30-month term for ex-Cheney aide 'excessive'

By Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
Published July 3, 2007


KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine -- President Bush, calling the prison sentence for Lewis "Scooter" Libby "harsh" and "excessive," on Monday commuted the 30-month term that had been handed to the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.

[...]Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to a federal grand jury in special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity. Libby had spoken with reporters about Valerie Plame, the CIA operative whose husband, Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence in the run-up to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Libby was convicted of making conflicting statements to the federal prosecutors and the grand jury investigating the leak.

I can only hope Bush lives long enough to regret this and every other horrific mistake of his failed presidency, but I doubt that, even if he lives a thousand years, Bush will ever understand the evil and damage he has caused our nation and our world. He lacks the mental capacity.

Another Bush Administration Criminal: Griles

I cannot wait for Bush and Cheney to go to jail for their crimes, but until then, we can get some satisfaction from seeing other Bush administration criminals sentenced:

High ranking Bush administration official sentenced in lobbying scandal

WASHINGTON: A federal judge chastised a senior U.S. government official and doubled his proposed prison term to 10 months Tuesday for lying to senators in a lobbying scandal. He was the highest Bush administration official sentenced in the probe.

J. Steven Griles, the Interior Department's deputy secretary, pleaded guilty to obstructing a congressional investigation, but on Tuesday his lawyers tried to deflect blame for his faulty testimony.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle was not pleased.

"Even now you continue to minimize and try to excuse your conduct," she told Griles before doubling the five-month prison term he and prosecutors had agreed on.

Griles admitted to lying to Senate investigators about his relationship with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the central figure in a corruption investigation that has led to convictions of a former congressman, legislative aides, lobbyists and officials in the Bush administration.

26%!

I do not regularly write posts about the polls, but I pay very close attention to them by visiting PollingReport.com almost daily. Often, I will look at the job approval ratings for George W Bush and find the average of the five most recent ratings.

Yesterday, I was excited to see a post on DailyKos.com that had a 26% job approval rating for Bush, a new record low for Bush (at least, out of all of the polls that I have seen). Today, I saw that PollingReport.com reported the same Newsweek poll Bush job approval rating of 26% and the disapproval rating of 65%, which is one point away from the record disapproval rationg of 66% from a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from last week.

That NBC/WSJ poll and a Quinnipiac poll had the Bush approval ratings of 29% and 28% respectively. Before those two polls came out, my five poll average had never been below 32%, but after those polls, the average hit a new record low of 31.4%.

Now with the new 26% approval rating, a new record low average has broken the last record in only one week. The new record low Bush job approval rating is (drumroll, please): 29.8%!

This marks the first time that my five poll average of Bush job approval ratings has gone below 30%. That is quite a significant milestone. Similarly, the five poll average for Bush job disapproval ratings has reached a new record high of 64.6%.

With numbers like these and all the news that has been coming out about the Bush administration's illegal activities and unethical behavior, impeachment cannot be far behind. Happy days are here again.

Bush's Assault On The Constitution And The Law

Bush does not seem to understand what every fifth grader is taught regarding the three branches of government and the checks and balances between them:

'Signing Statements' Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 19, 2007; Page A04

President Bush has asserted that he is not necessarily bound by the bills he signs into law, and yesterday a congressional study found multiple examples in which the administration has not complied with the requirements of the new statutes.

Bush has been criticized for his use of "signing statements," in which he invokes presidential authority to challenge provisions of legislation passed by Congress. The president has challenged a federal ban on torture, a request for data on the administration of the USA Patriot Act and numerous other assertions of congressional power. As recently as December, Bush asserted the authority to open U.S. mail without judicial warrants in a signing statement attached to a postal reform bill.

[...]The instances of noncompliance were not as dramatic as some of the signing statements that have caused the most stir, such as Bush's suggestion that he was not bound by a ban on torture in U.S. military detention facilities. But congressional aides said they were significant.

Bush is essentially rewriting laws in violation of our U.S. Constitution. Bush should be impeached, convicted, and imprisoned for this.

Bush's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

If there was an Olympic gold medal for hypocrisy, Bush would win it by an exponential lead:

Bush Threatens To Veto Bill To Allow More Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Washington, D.C. (AHN)- President Bush plans to veto legislation that would have relaxed the ban on federally funded stem cell research.

[...]President Bush has criticized the Democrat-led Congress of recycling a measure he already vetoed, which passed in a Republican-controlled Congress. He said that the bill would mean that taxpayers would be deliberately funding the destruction of human life.

The man has ZERO intelligence if he does not comprehend the incredible, dumbfounding hypocrisy of that statement.

ATTENTION, GEORGE W BUSH: Taxpayers ARE deliberately funding the destruction of human life on DAILY BASIS in IRAQ! Your hypocrisy disgusts me, as it should disgust any human being with at least an ounce of gray matter! You are the worst president ever, and even if you had not broken the law with your warrant-less wiretapping, unconstitutional signing statements, and violations of the Hatch Act, you should still be impeached for your horrific job performance! If you want to value incinerator-bound embryos more than the lives of American troops in your personal life, that's fine, but don't force the rest of us to endure the consequences of your primitive, illogical, and hypocritical ideology!

Miliatary Mental Health

Add this to the list of ways we are failing to support our troops:

Report finds mental care for GIs lacking

By Renee Nadeau
Sunday, June 17, 2007

The Pentagon on Friday released its latest report on mental health care of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing to light disturbing statistics and shortfalls.

“Our troops give our country their brave service,” Sen. John Kerry said in a statement. “And we owe them the very best care when they come home, including healing the wounds of war, even those that might not be visible.”

The Mental Health Task Force Report found that 38 percent of returning troops show signs of combat stress. Adding to the problem is the stigma attached to mental health care among military members, which discourages many from seeking help. Other findings include the lack of accessible care and resources in the military system.

Magnetic yellow ribbons are not real support, and this is a sign of the hypocrisy by those who, like Bush, claim to support the troops, but do little to actually support them.

More White House Crimes

Add this to the list of crimes committed by the Bush administration:

Bush aides may have illegally lost e-mail, Dems say

By Andy Sullivan
Reuters
Monday, June 18, 2007; 4:34 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Karl Rove and dozens of other White House staffers appear to have illegally routed official e-mails through a Republican group that subsequently deleted them, a congressional report said on Monday.

By using Republican National Committee e-mail accounts for official business, senior White House aides may have broken a law requiring them to preserve presidential records, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in an interim report.

Seriously, how many more crimes can they commit before the American public demands impeachment?