Bushed: IEDs & corporate welfare

Here is another great version of Countdown's ongoing series, Bushed - this one hosted by Air America host Rachel Maddow. I love her show on Air America, and she has a great presence on television as well (are you listening, MSNBC execs?).

This edition is pretty damning, led off by some revelations about the IEDs that have been cutting out soldiers to pieces for five years now. Looks as if Our National Embarrassment's War on Terror isn't keeping us safer after all, despite what Dick Cheney and the rest of Bush's cronies would have you believe. As Maddow points out, over 600 IEDs have exploded in Iraq, but even more troubling - the number of IEDs detonated elsewhere around the world had increased for the third consecutive year, at over 300. It looks like the U.S. military's occupation presence in Iraq has tragically created the world's largest terrorism training school. I can almost hear the "school's" slogan now: iHate, iTrain, iBomb, iRaq.

The IED story is easily the most outrageous, but it should surprise no one that corporate America is making quite an outrageous money grab in the midst of the mortgage crisis. The Housing Bill being debated right now in the U.S. Senate is proposing $3.3 billion go to tax relief of homeowners, but about $12 billion is going to help out the companies involved. This should outrage every taxpayer in this country. Why in the world is the government bailing out companies who have made predatory loans in the first place. So let me get this straight - if homeowners make bad decisions by signing a high-risk mortgages because, heaven forbid, they want to achieve the American dream of buying a home, and they can't pay, they lose their money, and their homes. In other words, they pay for the mistake for a looong time in the form of destroyed credit, not to mention the loss of their homes.

If corporations and banks making these idiotic loans make bad decisions and have to foreclose on these homes, the government bails them out. I guess there really is no downside in the mortgage business. I really need to open my own bank. And we all need to contact our reps and senators in Congress to let them know how outraged we are. Click Here to find out who your reps and senators are, or you can call the Congressional Switchboard directly at (202) 225-3121 and an operator will connect you to your representative or senator(s).

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had this to say about the bill:

"We helped Wall Street. We're all glad that Bear Stearns was taken care of," said Reid on Wednesday. "But now it's our opportunity to take care of people on Main Street."

No Senator, we are not all glad that Bear Sterns is raping the taxpayer. Maybe you are, but I know I'm not. Reid has been little short of a total disaster as Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate. If the Democrats retain control of the Senate, they had better consider another leader, because Reid is a joke.

The last piece is quite a story about Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) being outraged that he couldn't use a gym for a workout while on a trip to Baghdad because he didn't have the proper credentials. McHenry called the guard a "two-bit security guard" in anger. Yet another elected politician who thinks he's God's gift, and who doesn't like being told the word "no." Maddow picks it up from here:

Just so you know, the gym McHenry wanted to use? It was in the Green Zone, in Baghdad. [Emphasis hers] The "two-bit security guard" McHenry derided was an American soldier in harm's way, protecting visiting Americans, like Congressman McHenry. And because this soldier followed proper procedure and refused special treatment to a big shot like Congressman McHenry, his reward? Did he get to go home, like McHenry did? No, this "two-bit security guard" stayed behind in Baghdad to fight McHenry's war for him. Congressman, you feel a little apology coming on?

Don't hold your breath, Rachel.

h/t Crooks & Liars for the links & video

As if we need another reason...

...to be thankful for the service of our troops in Iraq. I certainly don't agree why we are there (and I never will), but I'm forever grateful and full of admiration for the job our soldiers are doing in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Will aftermath of VT Massacre bring about a refocus of our priorities?

There's no question that the Virginia Tech Massacre is a national tragedy that will affect hundreds, if not thousands of people for the rest of their lives. It was a senseless, brutal, horrific, profoundly sad chapter in our nation's history. I seek in no way to minimize the pain or suffering of the victims, friends or families.

Having said that, I've heard some commentary in the last few days that really resonated with me. The loss of live in Virginia - 32 lives, as well as the killer, equals the last 10 days in Iraq, as Keith Olbermann sagely pointed out yesterday.

Above, Nancy Smyth, center background, mother of Army Sgt. Adam Kennedy, her husband David Kennedy, right, and her youngest son Colin Kennedy, left, follow Adam Kennedy's casket out of St. Jude Church after a funeral Mass in Norfolk, Mass., yesterday. Kennedy, 25, was killed by an IED in Iraq on Sunday, April 8.

This begs the question - when will the War in Iraq get this type of grieving? I don't know that it will, but I hope it does. It underscores the fact that if you don't have a family member of friend in the Middle East, the war probably has very little impact on you.

I've already commented on the extensive media coverage, and this tragedy deserves all of the coverage it's getting, but I don't see the frenzied coverage of the War in Iraq, and that itself is a tragedy.

For instance, in Iraq, it's estimated that 600,000 people now lost their lives in the war. Above, two dead Iraqi policemen are covered up in a makeshift morgue.

Once more, I'm in no way minimizing what happened at Virginia Tech on Monday, but it's obvious to me after seeing all of the media coverage in Virginia these last few days that we really are getting highly sanitized coverage of the war (like THAT'S news).

There are "Virginia Techs" in Iraq each and every day.

It's my sincere hope that the war ends soon, but I'm not feeling optimistic about it. I'd love to see the Democrats grow a spine and simply stop funding the war. I'll have lots more on this tonight when I get home from work.

Photos from AP

Brit soldiers remain in Iran - uh-oh

This is a total disgrace - Iranians parading British soldiers before the cameras. The video is tough to look at for many reasons, but what's really the story here is that a viewer of this doesn't see - is a gun just off camera? Did Iranians threaten to kill the other hostages if this soldier didn't go before the cameras?

This situation is quite serious and bears watching.

It's being widely reported in Russia that the U.S. already has a date that the war with Iran will start - April 6. I don't know that I'm putting too much stock in that, but the fact that it cannot and is not dismissed out of hand by many is a sure indication of how far the Bush administration's credibility has suffered with many (most?) Americans.

I'll say this - if the Democrats had not taken control of Congress last November, we'd probably already be at war with Iran by now. You think that's a stretch? Take a quick read on a few snippets of Bush speeches from this year alone about Iran...

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges," said Bush on January 10 during a televised address about the troop surge. He was referring to Iran, which, he reasoned, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops."

(Later his comment was clarified - he was referring to some advanced IED devices - improvised explosive devices - given to some anti-American death squads.)

Bush then put a shot across Iran's bow:
"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

In an interview for NPR on January 29, Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric a bit higher, saying, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly ... It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people -- and the Iraqi government -- that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."

In his January address, Dubya also used the tried-and-true tactic for leading us to war - playing the nuclear weapon card. When asked to respond to the possibility of Iran's getting a nuclear weapon, Bush responded, "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East."

During a Valentine's Day press conference, the president confidently declared that there are weapons in Iraq that are linked back to the Iranian government. Just days before this press conference, some military commanders in Iraq stated privately that some elements of the Iranian military - specifically, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - were supplying IED devices to Shiite militias in Iraq, and that government officials high in the Iranian government knew about it. Other U.S. officials, including some in the House and Senate, expressed skepticism about the reliability of the evidence and the related intelligence. Does this sound familiar?!? However, none of this stopped Bush from plowing ahead:

"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known."

(Skepticism be damned)

What needs to be explored, he continued at the press conference, is exactly how high in the Iranian government was the go-ahead given leading to the IEDs delivery to the Shia militias in Iraq.

But, that's inconsequential, eh confidently asserted. "What matters is, is that they're there... [W]e know they're there, and we're going to protect our troops." As Commander-in-Chief, he insisted, he would "do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way."

I can just about guarantee you that we'd be at war if it weren't for a Democratic Congress. The whole script of "preventing [insert enemy of the United States Here] from obtaining a nuclear weapon" is the Dubya and Karl Rovian script for war.

And Bush might yet find a way to get us into a war with Iran. If it happens, I fearlessly predict that there will be a draft. Otherwise, I have no idea how our military would get the bodies to have a third war.

We watch, and wait. I hope those British troops are home safe and sound, very soon.

Some information for this post is from AlterNet. Click Here for the whole story, which is a good read.