Today's Note From a Madman
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
PNAC urges Congress to increase military size!
On January 28, 2005, the Project for the New American Century (started by Jeb Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) submitted a
letter to Leaders of Congress urging them to increase U.S. Military. What was implied was the request for Congress to push for the MILITARY DRAFT. This the full text of their letter to Congress (see URL http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm). PNAC is the principle think tank for neoconservatives:
Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
January 28, 2005
Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:
The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.
So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.
There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational
commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.
-Forwarded by numerous readers
Read what madman wrote LAST YEAR at http://www.nationalview.org/bush_draft.htm -NG
For the second time in a week, White House and other "important"
personnel were ushered underground due to a possible threat aimed at the
Presidential residence. Hustled underground were the
Cheneys; Laura Bush and a visiting Nancy
Reagan, among others.
According to reports, President Bush was "biking with a high school friend at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Beltsville, Md." at the time and "unaware" of what was going on. Similarly, Condoleezza Rice was being interviewed and also "unaware."
"Unaware"... The word of the day. The President and the Secretary of State who was, up until recently, the NSA head were "UNAWARE"! The Threat level in and around the capital was RED for eight minutes. You remember the threat level, don't you? That's the color scale that George W. Bush used to scare the electorate right before the 2004 presidential election.
I could just see the White House as one of those cheap arcade games where you have these plastic groundhogs popping up out of these fake holes and you have to hit them with a hammer.
Check e' Cheese, anybody?
Sign 'Em Up
Regarding the proposed National License Registration. This is
something that the Democrats have called for
many times in the past.
It is absolutely essential if we are to have any kind or control in our Homeland Security.
It could, and in my opinion should, be employed for a National Voter Registration Program also.
There is an inverse relationship between security and liberty. Total liberty leads to Anarchy. Total security leads to Dictatorship.
Since Bin Laden, not his brother, IS at war with us, we need to focus more on the security aspect, especially since our opponent is conducting guerilla warfare against us.
One of the reasons many people voted Republicans last November was because they see the Republicans stronger on defense and war issues.
Taking frivolous pot shots at things like the proposed National License Registration serves as a good example as to why they feel this way.
Wheels Within Wheels
It is now apparent that the converting of America's southwestern borders to a revolving door, was done so intentionally as to promote and pass evermore onerous legislation and laws , within their aim to arrest, control and curtail what if any personal freedoms might have been found falling through the cracks by her people. In short, America is now in the very throes of final lock down, being legislatively wrapped in duck tape for delivery to rail cars.
Welcome to the New America folks. . . ain't it a bitch.
Ain't it though! You've sure got that right! They don't give a rat's ass about immigrants. No siree, after all, they represent more cheap labor for those jobs that they DON'T outsource, while the rest of us are forced to sit on our a$$es and starve! And all the while they are moving us further in the direction of a totalitarian state. And, believe me, I know a totalitarian state when I see one! Ought to, since I lived in one for ten years. And, let me tell you, what those STATE terrorists in the White House have planned for us will make what folks experienced over there look like mere child's play! Most of the infrastructure needed has already been put in place. Just wait! You ain't seen nothing yet!
In response to "poor rich kid Bush," Robert Scardapane writes:
Poor (G)lobal (W)arming Bush - must be tough to be born with a silver foot in the mouth. Okay, I applaud him for beating an addiction to drugs but that doesn't make him a good leader. In fact, Bush has been one of the most divisive President in our history. People are extremely polarized today and that is not the sign of good leadership.
As for Mr. Mankiw, his statement on outsourcing was brazen, academically dubious and displayed an air of elitism. Mankiw had no experience at all in the private sector and it showed. I want a Chief Economic Council that understands the struggle to make ends meet. At the very least, that person should have experience with real world business.
That's "Dr. Mankiw" to you, Robert. -NG
Quotes and Stuff
"The Lebanese government
is responsible for all incidents which take place in
Lebanese territory, including
these attacks, which are conducted by terror
-An Israeli Army Statement
A rocket was fired from inside Lebanon into Israel. The rocket hit and destroyed a factory in Northern Israel. Rocket attacks had all but stopped since Israel left Southern Lebanon in 2000!
Who launched the attack? No one took responsibility. Why did they launch the attack? Because they could.
Why did President Bush meet with Nasrallah Sfeir, a strong supporter of Hezbollah at the White House on March 9th of this year? Hezbollah is the self-stated, Iranian-supported, terrorist-enemy of Israel, dedicated to her destruction.
Sure, Sfeir called for Hezbollah to disarm IN LEBANON. But what about Israel? Is it still okay for the militant-terrorist group to fire rockets at civilians across their southern border? It's funny (funny as in ironic, not funny as in ha-ha) how the Maronite Cardinal could meet with President Bush; speak to Hezbollah; talk to UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan about Lebanon and never once say that Hezbollah shouldn't fire rockets into Israel!
When Sfeir was "lobbying" for his "photo-op" with President Bush, wouldn't it have been nice for GW to say, "Hey, Cardinal Sfeir... I'd like you to tell Lebanon, in front of the world media, not to try and destroy the United States only real ally in the middle east, Israel. Could'ya do that for me, your eminence?"
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org