Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Domestic Issues: PELOSI: REPUBLICAN CUTBACKS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT LEAD TO INCREASED CRIME



Washington, D.C.---On August 31, 2006, House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the Bush administration's admission that they have failed to serve local law enforcement:

"The police chiefs are right: Severe Republican funding cutbacks to local law enforcement and the COPS program have led to increased crime.

"The Bush administration, through the Deputy Attorney General, today admitted that 'there are many needs and desires on the part of law enforcement that we have not been able to serve well.'

"In fact, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have cut $2.2B from state and local law enforcement since 2001---a 46% decrease from 2001.

"The American people have seen firsthand the results: Dramatic increases in murders and violent crimes across the nation. Last year, murders rose 4.8%, the largest increase in 15 years.

"The police chiefs know what all Americans know: We must fight crime by putting cops on the streets, not eliminating their positions as the Bush Administration and Republicans have done. Democrats have fought---and will continue to fight---to fund COPS and put cops back on the beat. It is time for a new direction for America."

***So, once again, who is strong on national security? Our police departments are a big part of our national security. The Repubs should be giving them all that they need to go on, not taking it away! Sure, you can see a lot of security at our airports, but what about where it really matters? Where it all starts? In our neighborhoods! Bush and the Repubs are not concerned about the American people. They just don't want their busniesses flown into again!

LET'S FACE IT, 9/11 HAPPENED ON THE REPUBLICANS' WATCH!

COLORADO SOLDIER TO SURRENDER TO ARMY



The soldier clutched the steering wheel of his pickup truck crammed with his belongings, his pockets stuffed with cash, his eyes darting nervously between the rearview mirror and the road stretching before him.

A million thoughts raced through his mind: What will my parents say? What if the police stop me? Did the soldiers who said they supported me and wished they could do this really mean it?

On Thursday, a year and a half after going absent without leave before his second deployment to Iraq, Army Spc. Mark Wilkerson plans to return to Fort Hood to face his fellow soldiers and superiors.

"I just could not in good conscience go back to a war I felt was wrong," Wilkerson, 22, of Colorado Springs, Colo., said Thursday at Cindy Sheehan's protest camp site.

About 50 protesters joined Wilkerson at Sheehan's site near President Bush's ranch. Roughly a dozen in the group planned to travel with him about 40 miles south to the central Texas Army post near Killeen.

Wilkerson, who said he never left the country but won't reveal where he was, has consulted with an attorney but does not know exactly what penalties he faces. Others have served time in military prisons.

Simple desertion has been decreasing in the military in recent years---about 2,500 troops last year simply didn't show up for work, down from almost 5,000 in 2001, according to the Pentagon public affairs office.

Wilkerson was just 17 when he enlisted in the Army. He wanted to follow in the footsteps of his father and grandparents, who also served in the military. Then after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he felt even more sure of his decision, he said.

Wilkerson went to Iraq at the start of the March 2003 invasion and returned to the U.S. a year later, having lost one friend in his unit. He began seeing more news of Iraqi civilians being killed and reports on whether American companies were profiting from the war, he said.

Wilkerson said his views of the war changed and he realized he could no longer stay in the military, so he applied for conscientious objector status. But his request was denied a month before his unit was to return to Iraq.

He said he was told his appeal would not be considered until after he came back. So Wilkerson decided not to return from the two weeks of approved leave before the January 2005 deployment.

Wilkerson is vague about what he and his wife did after leaving their 2-bedroom Killeen apartment near the central Texas Army post. He said he got jobs, using his real Social Security number, and drove but never flew.

He started wanting more from his life though: school would mean applying for student loans and having people delve into his background, or even "something as stupid as being on a reality show."

When Wilkerson decided to stop his life on the run, he heard that Sheehan's new site near Bush's Crawford ranch was a "war resister refuge."

Sheehan protested for a month last summer near Bush's ranch, but she recently bought a 5-acre lot in town as a permanent site for vigils and as a clearinghouse for information about soldiers' rights to resist deployment to Iraq.

After talking to protesters, Wilkerson finalized his pans recently and came to Crawford. He met with group members camping there, including Veterans Against the War, which Wilkerson has since joined.

Wilkerson, now seperated from his wife, saod he knows some people disapprove of his decision.

"Having gone to Iraq once, I saw what happened there," he said. "I saw what was the right thing to do, and I had to do what was right for me."

Yahoo! News
By: Angela K. Brown (AP)
August 2006

Iraq: PELOSI: "IRAQ WAR IS WEAKENING OUR ABILITY TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERRORISM"



WASHINGTON, D.C.---On Aug 31, 2006, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on President Bush's speech in Salt Lake City to the American Legion:

"Today, once again, President Bush demonstrated that he is in denial about his historic blunder in Iraq. We must win the war on terror, but the war in Iraq is the wrong war. Today, just as it has since the war began, Iraq is weakening our ability to fight the war on terrorism.

"The strain that the Iraq war has put on our military has crippled our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism and has dangerously limited our ability to respond to real challenges to our national security around the world.

"Mr. Bush's failed war in Iraq come at a huge cost, first and foremost in human lives, and at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. It also has a tremendous cost to reputation, damaging our ability to engage other countries in diplomacy to make the world safer.

"Democrats are proposing a new direction with policies that are tough and smart that will make our country safer, our military stronger, and the world more stable."

Politics: GOP CONGRESS BLOCKED CLINTON PUSH FOR ANTI-TERROR LEGISLATION

Pay attention to the dates on this article. I'm going to take you back to 1996 to show you that the Clinton administration and the Democrats tried, long ago for anti-terror legislation that the GOP stopped. The GOP was the majority in the Senate in 1996. It goes to show you that when it came to legislation, Clinton didn't break the law, but Bush is!

America blog dot com
By: John in DC
September 4, 2006

*****CNN, July 30, 1996

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UTAH), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get" ...[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

*****September 4, 2006

So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did, decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop terrorists---stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop September 11---well no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all of the tools he needed to stop the actual Spetember 11. Could September 11 have been stopped of the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?

*****July 30, 1996

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terror measures.

There's evan an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tolls he needed to stop Osmam and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?


THE REPUBLICANS STOPPED PRESIDENT CLINTON FROM GETTING ALL THE TOOLS HE NEEDED

PRESIDENT WANTS SENATE TO HURRY WITH NEW ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

U.S. News
July 30, 1996

*****July 30, 1996

WASHINGTON (CNN)---President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MISSISSIPPI), doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and try to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out---that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UTAH), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants---chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists---"a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

Back to today

***Now, who is weak on national security? It appears to me that maybe, just maybe, September 11th might have been stopped if the REPUBLICANS would have done what President Clinton wanted. The Repubs seem to think it's O.K. that Bush has expanded the wiretapping while breaking the law! Are the Repubs being so boisterous about national security because it all falls in their lap since they wouldn't give Clinton what they wanted. All of the Repubs mentioned in these articles were in office both in 1996 and now.

The Democrats ARE NOT weak on national security. 9/11 HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH AND VERY WELL MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE BEEN STOPPED IF THE REPUBS WOULD HAVE GIVEN CLINTON WHAT HE WANTED TO AVOID ANY FUTURE ATTACKS!

These Repubs should not be re-elected! As a matter of fact, they need to resign!