The White House, Morality and Fiscal Responsibility

--by Mike Adams

According to the NY Times Article U.S. Rule Limits Emergency Care for Immigrants by SARAH KERSHAW, under the GW Bush administration, Medicaid has been crippled in it's ability to provide many kinds of vital health care for immigrants. Not only are illegal immigrants being culled out of our population, legal student immigrants are being denied various life saving treatments as well. Perhaps the most disturbing revelation is that the US born children of immigrants are being targeted for health care denial. The explanation is that full medicaid is available only to US citizens...this confuses me, because I was under the impression that anyone born in the US is automatically considered a US citizen.

Somehow, the situation makes me think of Bush's platform as a "Compassionate Conservative." It never really made any sense to me. I wasn't sure what he meant by that statement. After watching his actions in office, I have to assume that it means he experiences a deep and overwhelming compassion for the needs of corporate America to profit while a the same time, experiencing a deep and overwhelming level of conservatism with regards to helping the most vulnerable people in our society to survive and have lives worth living.

I am reminded of W's position with regards to Terri Schiavo. I distinctly remember Mr. Bush weighing in on the topic in March of 2005 by stating that, "it is wise to always err on the side of life" It was Mr. Bush's position that the US Congress should intervene on behalf of Mrs. Shiavo's parents who wanted to keep Terri's body alive by any medical means necessary.

Mr. Bush's position on that issue seems to be in sharp contrast to his position with regards to Medicaid. The Bush administration has ordered extensive audits of Medicaid services and they are systematically denying immigrants the ability to receive vital health services like chemotherapy, one is left to assume that Mr. Bush was being rather insincere with regards to always erring on the side of life. I wonder if perhaps what Bush meant was that it is always wise to err on the side of life when the voting public is paying attention...otherwise, it is better to err on the side of profit.

A quick look at Mr. Bush's record seems to point at an ongoing effort to mislead the American voting public into believing that he is on our side. Take for example W's current showdown with congress. Mr. Bush has preemptively threatened to veto any increased funding for veterans, health care, medical research, education, law enforcement and public works. He claims to be pushing congress for fiscal responsibility.

The man who led a massive misinformation campaign in order to deceive the American public and gain support for an unnecessary war, which every year, costs US Taxpayers almost six times as much money as the philanthropic benefits being championed by Congressional Democrats. The man who took a balanced budget and created the highest deficit in US Government history. The man who led the US while unemployment and energy costs soared to new heights. This man, GW Bush now wants to claim leadership in the realm of fiscal responsibility.

While his assertions are amusing, they are hardly worth consideration as a serious source of leadership. There is no shred of evidence that GW has any practical experience with fiscal responsibility or with compassion. It seems clear that he is NO fiscal or a moral leader for our times unless of course our goal is to become bankrupt in both the fiscal and the moral sense.

Petraeus or Betray US...let's MoveOn!

-by Mike Adams

All right...I am no expert on the Middle East or on international politics. However, looking at available information about the situation, I have to weigh in on this topic.

I would agree with the sentiment that we should maintain a higher level of conduct with regards to our news and advertising than is often seen in today's media. However, having read the MoveOn ad in the NY Times, I can't see what the big deal is!

Seriously, Washington Republicans have very little wiggle room to point their fingers at anyone with regards to any alleged impugnment of a public figure. This is the same American right wing, which misled the American public with regards to John Kerry's military record. This is the same American right wing, which wasted countless hours in Washington holding impeachment hearings against Bill Clinton for having an extramarital affair. America's right wing has such a history of savagely misleading the American public with regards to political figures, who won't forward their conservative agenda that there really is no room to take any conservative criticism of MoveOn seriously.

Putting all of that aside, an examination of the facts is probably in order. According to three independent reports, the GAO report, the NIE report and the Jones report, CSIS, Petraeus' surge strategy has failed. Despite those facts, Petraeus has publicly indicated that the surge is working, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress." (The Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan). Washington Republicans want to portray MoveOn's advertisement as labeling General Petraeus a traitor. The fact is that MoveOn never used the word traitor...instead they indicated that perhaps the General has Betrayed us. It seems obvious to me that General Petraeus has in fact betrayed our trust. That he has allowed his position to be a political tool of the Executive Branch.

A quick look at MoveOn.org's site, shows that they have done their homework. They back up all of their allegations with external sources:

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. “Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07

The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front. “Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l

According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07

We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.Newsweek, “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07Ibid from the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”McClatchy, “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel. 8/15/07The New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07
(above italicized information taken from MoveOn site)

At a time when America's confidence in our elected officials is low, when Republican corruption is more rampant than at any time in the past several decades, when American service men and women are sacrificing their lives for an unjustifiable war started under false pretenses pushed by an Executive branch, who shows nothing but contempt for our Constitution and our Democracy...At a time like this, I wish there were more people and organizations willing to stand up and take some heat for telling the truth. Kudos to MoveOn.org.

Shame on Congress...quit wasting time trying to redirect the debate...its time that you deal with the war in Iraq. It's time you stop wasting American tax dollars on private militias, who's members are being paid five times as much as American service men and women. It's time you deal with America's health care and child care crisis. It's time you do the work which matters rather than focusing on fluff and giving the American public nothing more than smoke and mirrors.