not to be affected by Moore's movie."
-Barclay Fitzpatrick, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Capital BlueCross
Digby:
...it made me cry and a Michael Moore film has never made cry before. I've laughed and cheered and certainly gotten enraged, but even through all of those emotions in this film --- and there were plenty of them --- I remained choked up. I just couldn't get past the idea that people could make these life-ending and life-ruining decisions about other people --- for profit. It's so fundamentally at odds with what I think of as normal human empathy that on some levels it seems akin to being a concentration camp guard or an executioner. (And from the emotional reaction from those who'd worked in the industry and had quit, it takes a toll those with empathy who are asked to perform that dirty function as well.)
There is one story in the film of a woman whose husband was denied a bone marrow transplant allegedly because it was an "experimental procedure," --- is one a thousand excuses health insurance companies use to keep from having to provide care for those whose premiums they eagerly cashed in the years before their customer got sick. But I think what got me about that particular story was the fact that this woman worked in the hospital where the board of directors of this managed care company also worked. She spoke to them personally. She wasn't just a piece of paper in an in-box. It was a real live person, a colleague and neighbor, literally begging for her husbands life ... and they said no. For profit. It makes me want to howl in pain and outrage.
Moore's movie is actually quite successful in showing that people in other first world countries with universal care live very well despite the fact that they pay higher taxes for medical care (and other things) because --- they don't have to pay for medical care and those other things. The people who live middle and upper middle class lives as professionals don't lose anything --- and the society as a whole gains tremendously because those crippling worries are removed from all, the poor and middle class alike. I don't think Americans have any idea that they are not actually living at the top of the heap --- they think what we have is a good as it can possibly be, and it just ain't true.
Take a minute and read that last paragraph again.
Yes, the tax bracket is higher for everyone with a nationalized health care program.
But one doesn't have to take into consideration while seeking employment what level of health insurance is offered above and beyond all other aspects of potential employment--like what the actual job is, whether one is qualified and/or trained for it, schedule and pay, full or part time status, etc.
What a freakin' concept, eh?
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
What would you spend 1.4 trillion on?
Noah Shachtman:
Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.
Ummmmm, maybe some Universal Health Care of some kind or another?
NHS services are largely "free at the point of delivery", paid for by taxes; the NHS's budget for 2007-08 is £104($208) billion.
Or maybe rebuilding New Orleans...ten times over?
Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst for emergency response at the Environmental Protection Agency, said New Orleans may need one of the largest public building programmes ever seen in the US at a cost of $80-100bn - approximately the same as the yearly cost of the war in Iraq.(yearly cost of the war before the infamous surge...)
How about revamping the education system in this country?
The vast majority of students (up to 70 percent) lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender.
Or research into altenative energy?
Consider the U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror vs. $3.4 billion on energy research, according to the National Science Foundation.
What would you spend it on?
Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.
Ummmmm, maybe some Universal Health Care of some kind or another?
NHS services are largely "free at the point of delivery", paid for by taxes; the NHS's budget for 2007-08 is £104($208) billion.
Or maybe rebuilding New Orleans...ten times over?
Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst for emergency response at the Environmental Protection Agency, said New Orleans may need one of the largest public building programmes ever seen in the US at a cost of $80-100bn - approximately the same as the yearly cost of the war in Iraq.(yearly cost of the war before the infamous surge...)
How about revamping the education system in this country?
The vast majority of students (up to 70 percent) lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender.
Or research into altenative energy?
Consider the U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror vs. $3.4 billion on energy research, according to the National Science Foundation.
What would you spend it on?
Thursday, July 5, 2007
I think he may know what he's talking about...
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.
Of course, no U.S. forces have found themselves being used a literal pawns in a colossal power and resource grab that the occupation of Iraq has become.
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.
Of course, no U.S. forces have found themselves being used a literal pawns in a colossal power and resource grab that the occupation of Iraq has become.
Oh, spiders, what beautiful webs you weave...
My head is seriously hurting after reading this:
Before entering government, Libby was a private attorney who represented billionaire international commodities trader Marc Rich.
Rich was indicted in 1983 by then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal dealing with Iran during the American hostage crisis.
Rich fled to Switzerland. He also occupied a spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is now a leading Republican presidential candidate. He endorsed Bush's decision to spare Libby jail time even though he had tried to put Libby's client behind bars.
Ears...Bleeding...
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," Giuliani said in a written statement Monday evening.
Rich's fugitive days ended when former President Clinton pardoned him in January 2001, a move that prompted a congratulatory call from Libby to Rich.
**Nervously twitching**
Clinton, of course, is married to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is the Democratic front-runner for the White House.
She blasted Bush's decision on Libby, leaving out any mention of Libby's connection to Rich -- or Rich at all, for that matter.
OOooooo, look at all the pretty strands in the sunlight...
Before entering government, Libby was a private attorney who represented billionaire international commodities trader Marc Rich.
Rich was indicted in 1983 by then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal dealing with Iran during the American hostage crisis.
Rich fled to Switzerland. He also occupied a spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is now a leading Republican presidential candidate. He endorsed Bush's decision to spare Libby jail time even though he had tried to put Libby's client behind bars.
Ears...Bleeding...
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," Giuliani said in a written statement Monday evening.
Rich's fugitive days ended when former President Clinton pardoned him in January 2001, a move that prompted a congratulatory call from Libby to Rich.
**Nervously twitching**
Clinton, of course, is married to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is the Democratic front-runner for the White House.
She blasted Bush's decision on Libby, leaving out any mention of Libby's connection to Rich -- or Rich at all, for that matter.
OOooooo, look at all the pretty strands in the sunlight...
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
And President George Bush threw it all away...
Robert J. Elisberg:
There's a singular moment that stands out in Michael Moore's new film, SiCKO. The moment bursts your heart with joy and gnashes your teeth with fury. That's a tough trick to pull off.
The moment in question comes during the highly-publicized sequence when Moore has brought a boatload of seriously-ill 9/11 rescue volunteers to Gitmo for treatment. Unable to land, they put ashore instead at Cuba. But the specific moment isn't about any of that, isn't about health care at all.
Just before Moore and his companions are set to leave Cuba, they're told that a local fire department has heard there are 9/11 rescue heroes and would like to meet them. When the Moore group arrives at the station, there are the firefighters standing at full-salute attention. The Cubans explain they wish they could have joined the Americans to help out on 9/11, but add that all firefighters are brothers, all rescue volunteers are honored.
As the Americans movingly head down the line to shake hands with the Cuban firefighters, suddenly they all break into hugs.
It's a glorious, emotional scene, that swells the heart with the sense of decency from both sides. The Cubans nobly reaching out, and the Americans who nobly risked their lives.
When I lived in PA, I was a volunteer firefighter with the local department for a few years in high school and college. I've often thought about it for the past five and a half years, knowing that hundreds or maybe even thousands of individual volunteers like I was during that time in my life rushed up to lower Manhattan and offered to do whatever needed to be done. Seeing these few folks in the film and hearing additional testimony from the in their appearance on Democracy Now! made me ponder the fact that I most likely would have gone up there myself if I hadn't have turned the page to this current chapter of my life here on the gulf coast, and most likely would have been in the same dire straits as Reggie and John.
But Mr. Elisberg uses the example of solidarity between emergency workers across physical and ideological barriers to springboard to a larger theme on squandered opportunities and potential global solidarity in favor of power and resource grabbing:
After 9/11, as horrific as that day was, there was an apparent thought in the air: that through tragedy, the world had come together. The entire world. Friends and enemies alike all over the globe were holding vigils for the stricken-America, knowing that in this disaster, everyone was connected. If there was to be a fight against terrorists, here was the world opening its door and its heart to America. United, the world had a chance to connect and work together to achieve whatever heights it wanted.
And President George Bush threw it all away.
He not only lost the rarest chance of uniting the entire world, but did the unimaginable: he got the world -- ready to support America -- to distrust, even in-part hate the United States to depths this country has never known.
There was our enemy, Cuba -- a nation we've been at conflict with for half a century, a nation off-limits to Americans without special permission -- standing at ready-salute to the heroic men and women who risked themselves in the 9/11 attack. Five years later, still swelling with honor towards them. Not just any nation, but Cuba. Our bitter enemy. Hugging Americans in support for 9/11. Still standing by us, five years later.
And President George Bush threw this all away.
On the Fourth of July, we turn our thoughts to the Statue of Liberty, standing tall in the harbor, welcoming immigrants from around the world to the freedom of our shores. For 232 years, we have been a beacon to all such people and such hopes, and those around the world have looked at that Statue with arm raised and flame held high to stand for all that is good, noble, glorious and important about America.
And President George Bush threw all that away.
The Democrats and even some Republicans who are finally recognizing the antics of this administration for what they are--a shameless grab at as much power, wealth and control as absolutely possible, consequences and repercussions be damned--keep invoking the moniker of Richard Nixon, as in Nixonian Stonewalling, but this goes far beyond what Tricky Dicky tried to get away with. He was content to spy on political rivals and lie to the American people about the escalation of an unpopular war. The Shrub and the Shooter (or is it the other way around?), not to be outdone, have raised the bar to almost unfathomable heights (or depths) by adding torture, kidnapping, illegal and covert wars on non belligerent nations, and the blatant disregard for established international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The damage that has already been wrought and may be additionally wrought in the next 17 months is staggering and hard to comprehend. What's even harder to comprehend is how the damage can be repaired after January 20, 2009.
There's a singular moment that stands out in Michael Moore's new film, SiCKO. The moment bursts your heart with joy and gnashes your teeth with fury. That's a tough trick to pull off.
The moment in question comes during the highly-publicized sequence when Moore has brought a boatload of seriously-ill 9/11 rescue volunteers to Gitmo for treatment. Unable to land, they put ashore instead at Cuba. But the specific moment isn't about any of that, isn't about health care at all.
Just before Moore and his companions are set to leave Cuba, they're told that a local fire department has heard there are 9/11 rescue heroes and would like to meet them. When the Moore group arrives at the station, there are the firefighters standing at full-salute attention. The Cubans explain they wish they could have joined the Americans to help out on 9/11, but add that all firefighters are brothers, all rescue volunteers are honored.
As the Americans movingly head down the line to shake hands with the Cuban firefighters, suddenly they all break into hugs.
It's a glorious, emotional scene, that swells the heart with the sense of decency from both sides. The Cubans nobly reaching out, and the Americans who nobly risked their lives.
When I lived in PA, I was a volunteer firefighter with the local department for a few years in high school and college. I've often thought about it for the past five and a half years, knowing that hundreds or maybe even thousands of individual volunteers like I was during that time in my life rushed up to lower Manhattan and offered to do whatever needed to be done. Seeing these few folks in the film and hearing additional testimony from the in their appearance on Democracy Now! made me ponder the fact that I most likely would have gone up there myself if I hadn't have turned the page to this current chapter of my life here on the gulf coast, and most likely would have been in the same dire straits as Reggie and John.
But Mr. Elisberg uses the example of solidarity between emergency workers across physical and ideological barriers to springboard to a larger theme on squandered opportunities and potential global solidarity in favor of power and resource grabbing:
After 9/11, as horrific as that day was, there was an apparent thought in the air: that through tragedy, the world had come together. The entire world. Friends and enemies alike all over the globe were holding vigils for the stricken-America, knowing that in this disaster, everyone was connected. If there was to be a fight against terrorists, here was the world opening its door and its heart to America. United, the world had a chance to connect and work together to achieve whatever heights it wanted.
And President George Bush threw it all away.
He not only lost the rarest chance of uniting the entire world, but did the unimaginable: he got the world -- ready to support America -- to distrust, even in-part hate the United States to depths this country has never known.
There was our enemy, Cuba -- a nation we've been at conflict with for half a century, a nation off-limits to Americans without special permission -- standing at ready-salute to the heroic men and women who risked themselves in the 9/11 attack. Five years later, still swelling with honor towards them. Not just any nation, but Cuba. Our bitter enemy. Hugging Americans in support for 9/11. Still standing by us, five years later.
And President George Bush threw this all away.
On the Fourth of July, we turn our thoughts to the Statue of Liberty, standing tall in the harbor, welcoming immigrants from around the world to the freedom of our shores. For 232 years, we have been a beacon to all such people and such hopes, and those around the world have looked at that Statue with arm raised and flame held high to stand for all that is good, noble, glorious and important about America.
And President George Bush threw all that away.
The Democrats and even some Republicans who are finally recognizing the antics of this administration for what they are--a shameless grab at as much power, wealth and control as absolutely possible, consequences and repercussions be damned--keep invoking the moniker of Richard Nixon, as in Nixonian Stonewalling, but this goes far beyond what Tricky Dicky tried to get away with. He was content to spy on political rivals and lie to the American people about the escalation of an unpopular war. The Shrub and the Shooter (or is it the other way around?), not to be outdone, have raised the bar to almost unfathomable heights (or depths) by adding torture, kidnapping, illegal and covert wars on non belligerent nations, and the blatant disregard for established international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The damage that has already been wrought and may be additionally wrought in the next 17 months is staggering and hard to comprehend. What's even harder to comprehend is how the damage can be repaired after January 20, 2009.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
An apple a day keeps the doctor away (they're cheaper, too!)
I post about a lot of various issues and personal happenings. This film focuses on an issue that I really haven't devoted a great deal of time to, but that is a looming elephant in all of our lives. What happens if we get really sick? Will our insurance cover everything? How much will it cover if not? How much of what it doesn't cover will I be able to afford before I'm in serious trouble?
If you've never asked yourself these questions or if you don't think you'll ever need to, then you have to see this movie. Even if you know that you'll never be faced with having to ask or answer these questions, you should see the film, because under the main theme are some pretty far reaching questions:
If we as a society are measured by how we treat those members who are the worst off (think uninsured people who have to seek treatment in an ER, or worse, those who were unlucky enough to be in New Orleans twenty two months ago), then who are we?
How did we get here (this one is answered pretty easily and clearly in the film thanks to Tricky Dicky's obsession with archival documentation of the magnetic type)?
And it also raises the specter of why we don't do anything about it, namely that:
The best way to exercise and maintain control over a people is to keep them in three states: fear (the terrorists must be fought over there so we don't have to fight them over here), poverty (below poverty line minimum wage, anyone?), and demoralized (it doesn't matter if I vote or not, the crooks will always be in power in Washington/Austin/(insert county seat here)).
I don't know what will happen if I get sick or get in a serious accident. I'm not very confident, in part because of what I saw earlier tonight but also in light of the flap over which the GURD medication my insurance company would pay for even after being prescribed by my doctor and having him argue with the insurance company in a three way conference call. Formulary, non formulary, pre-certified, their all just words that mean nothing except for what color ink and how much of it ends up at the bottom of a balance sheet at the end of the day.
I can remember one time I got top notch free care after a serious accident: After I hit a telephone pole with a Postal jeep while on a collection run during the holiday season one year when I was in college and working as a Casual letter carrier during the Christmas break. The jeep only had a lap belt, so my face hit the steering wheel about as hard as the jeep hit the pole. About $5000.00 of oral surgery later, I had seventy stitches in my face and the right side of my upper jaw wired with braces. All courtesy of the USPS workman's comp insurance. So, unless you work for the government or a government connected entity and are smart enough to get hurt or fall ill on the job, you should probably stay on your toes and keep all your bases covered.
Oh, and please see the film. Keep an open mind, and SEE THE FILM.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Of the people, by the people, for the people
Jim Hightower:
Let’s be blunt. It’s no longer the Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, or al Queda bombers killing our troops in Iraq. Washington is killing them.
George W – still clinging to his disgraced neo-con fantasies – and the congressional leaders of both parties – unwilling to use their budgetary and oversight authority – are the ones who have 150,000 American men and women trapped in Iraq’s civil war. The troops are doing all they can, yet they have been betrayed by a White House and Congress that has no strategy to make “victory” possible and is unwilling either to provide the massive troop strength it would take to secure that country… or to bring our troops home.
So, our men and women are locked in a gruesome shooting gallery by U.S. politicians who apparently intend to keep them there for the year and a half or so left in Bush’s term. Hundreds of them will die, thousands will be horribly maimed, and all will suffer trauma. They are not victims of the “enemy,” but of America’s own failed “leaders.” It is immoral to do this to them, but there they are.
Meanwhile, Bush keeps saying that his war is essential to America’s own security and is the “challenge of our generation.” But he is obviously lying to us. If it was true, all Americans would be enlisted in the cause. If it was true, we’d have half a million troops in Iraq, or more.
But that would mean that the families of the elites would have to be called to duty – and this is politically unacceptable to Washington. As one Bushite, Sen. Jeff Sessions, put it: “We have a limited number of men and women we can send to Iraq.” In other words, don’t call on his family or friends to make any sacrifices for this "essential" war.
They are killing Americans in a war they know they can’t win – and a war their families won’t join. This is a dishonorable sham, and only We the People can stop it. Protest more. Protest louder.
Concur.
Do whatever you can, but do something if you believe in the idea that is America and everything it stands for, as opposed to the narrow agendas and priorities that the current administration and its Neo Conservative and elite backers would have us believe is the true meaning of this amazing group of people that make up America:
Dennis Kucinich:
We all know that the Iraq Study Group, in one of its major recommendations, Recommendation 63, said the United States should encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and international energy companies; that the United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise; that the United States should ensure the World Bank's efforts to assure that best practices are used in contracting.
Mr. Speaker, the last 50 minutes that I have spent talking about the effort to try to privatize Iraq's oil, if you go to one of the search engines, you can find perhaps 1 million different citations relating to this. So it is impossible to cover this kind of a subject, even in a period of an hour. But it needs to be said that this administration has pushed the Congress to put language in funding bills for Iraq that would set the stage for the privatization of Iraq's oil.
I am going to quote from the first war supplemental, that "the President shall make and transmit to Congress a determination, No. 2, whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydrocarbon law." Then under subsection (b), it says "if the President fails to make this determination, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of our Armed Forces from Iraq."
In other words, privatize your oil, or we are leaving you without having a security and peacekeeping force to replace the United States Army.
Let’s be blunt. It’s no longer the Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, or al Queda bombers killing our troops in Iraq. Washington is killing them.
George W – still clinging to his disgraced neo-con fantasies – and the congressional leaders of both parties – unwilling to use their budgetary and oversight authority – are the ones who have 150,000 American men and women trapped in Iraq’s civil war. The troops are doing all they can, yet they have been betrayed by a White House and Congress that has no strategy to make “victory” possible and is unwilling either to provide the massive troop strength it would take to secure that country… or to bring our troops home.
So, our men and women are locked in a gruesome shooting gallery by U.S. politicians who apparently intend to keep them there for the year and a half or so left in Bush’s term. Hundreds of them will die, thousands will be horribly maimed, and all will suffer trauma. They are not victims of the “enemy,” but of America’s own failed “leaders.” It is immoral to do this to them, but there they are.
Meanwhile, Bush keeps saying that his war is essential to America’s own security and is the “challenge of our generation.” But he is obviously lying to us. If it was true, all Americans would be enlisted in the cause. If it was true, we’d have half a million troops in Iraq, or more.
But that would mean that the families of the elites would have to be called to duty – and this is politically unacceptable to Washington. As one Bushite, Sen. Jeff Sessions, put it: “We have a limited number of men and women we can send to Iraq.” In other words, don’t call on his family or friends to make any sacrifices for this "essential" war.
They are killing Americans in a war they know they can’t win – and a war their families won’t join. This is a dishonorable sham, and only We the People can stop it. Protest more. Protest louder.
Concur.
Do whatever you can, but do something if you believe in the idea that is America and everything it stands for, as opposed to the narrow agendas and priorities that the current administration and its Neo Conservative and elite backers would have us believe is the true meaning of this amazing group of people that make up America:
Dennis Kucinich:
We all know that the Iraq Study Group, in one of its major recommendations, Recommendation 63, said the United States should encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and international energy companies; that the United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise; that the United States should ensure the World Bank's efforts to assure that best practices are used in contracting.
Mr. Speaker, the last 50 minutes that I have spent talking about the effort to try to privatize Iraq's oil, if you go to one of the search engines, you can find perhaps 1 million different citations relating to this. So it is impossible to cover this kind of a subject, even in a period of an hour. But it needs to be said that this administration has pushed the Congress to put language in funding bills for Iraq that would set the stage for the privatization of Iraq's oil.
I am going to quote from the first war supplemental, that "the President shall make and transmit to Congress a determination, No. 2, whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydrocarbon law." Then under subsection (b), it says "if the President fails to make this determination, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of our Armed Forces from Iraq."
In other words, privatize your oil, or we are leaving you without having a security and peacekeeping force to replace the United States Army.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)