Excerpts from Troops Out Now Coalition Response to the State of the Union Address January 23, 2007
As the U.S. occupation of Iraq grinds on and the numbers of dead and wounded mount, President George W. Bush and Democratic Party leaders, the supposed opposition, continue to reject the growing demand to bring the troops home now. In Bush's State of the Union address to Congress last night, George W. Bush continued to stick to his "stay the course" position and claimed he has a "plan for victory" despite clear evidence that the attempt to colonize Iraq has been defeated. Bush made a desperate attempt to restore confidence in his failed adventure in Iraq, outlining a "new strategy" that is really just a repeat of the same lines he has been using since he declared "mission accomplished" almost four years ago. The so-called "surge" of 21,000 troops will not succeed in crushing the resistance of the Iraqi people; it will only bring more death and destruction. He did not mention the more than 600,000 Iraqi people that have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation. Nor did he address the fact that every reason he gave to justify the war has now been exposed as a deliberate lie. Despite his talk of "a democratic Iraq," the ghastly torture chambers of Abu Ghraib, the continued bombing of Iraqi homes, the use of depleted uranium, phosphorous, napalm, and other illegal weapons of mass destruction, all reveal the brutal nature of the war against the people of Iraq. This war is not and never was about bringing democracy to Iraq--it has always been about seizing control of the country's oil reserves. What Bush also failed to mention is that even as the attempt to colonize Iraq is clearly failing, the Bush administration is moving towards another reckless adventure-war on Iran. Bush has deployed two second aircraft carrier groups-with destroyers, cruisers, submarines, cruise missiles and combat aircraft-to the Gulf, while sources report that the Pentagon is already identifying targets for U.S. air strikes. Health care Bush attempted to deflect attention from the catastrophe in Iraq by offering a tax deduction for workers who purchase health insurance or use employer-supported plans. His plan would allow standard deductions for health insurance - $7,500 for individuals, $15,000 for families - while subjecting employer-paid health insurance to income taxes. Bush's plan would do nothing to help the estimated 47 million people in the US without health insurance. Rep. Pete Stark, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee's health subcommittee, has said that Bush's proposal to tax existing health benefits is so ludicrous that it is unlikely to be seriously considered by Congress. He said, "The president's so-called health care proposal won't help the uninsured, most of who have limited incomes and are already in low tax brackets. But it will hurt middle-income Americans, whose employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees.'' Most of the uninsured don't have coverage because they cannot afford to pay the premiums. Making those premiums tax-deductible will not make healthcare more affordable for most workers. Many others cannot get coverage because of pre-existing conditions, which Bush's plan does nothing to address. The net result of Bush's plan would be a decline in the number of workers having access to health coverage. Paul Fromstein, director of the health research and education programs at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, said the Bush proposal would ``mean the end of employment-based coverage as we know it because it gives employers an incentive to drop coverage. If employees can go out and get private coverage with the same tax breaks as they'd get through employer-sponsored coverage, more companies will simply give them the money and let them find their own coverage because they view [health coverage] as a headache." We must continue to demand health coverage for all. The $300 billion that the Bush Administration has spent on war on occupation could easily provide complete health coverage for all uninsured children in the U.S. Energy policy Every year, in an attempt to grab headlines on the following day, Bush has introduced a new initiative that never lasts longer than his address. A few years ago, he promised $15 billion for AIDS treatment in Africa--money that never materialized. Throughout his presidency--at every State of the Union address, Bush has talked about energy independence, but the funding for research and development never materializes. In last years address, he promised to take on the US "addiction to oil," but his 2007 budget actually proposed to spend less on energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy resources in inflation-adjusted dollars than was appropriated in 2001. In 2005, he cut the funding for alternate energy by 50%. As soon as Bush took office, he proposed cutting the Department of Energy's renewable fuels and energy efficiency budget by as much as 40 percent. Meanwhile, Vice President Cheney was in secret meetings with executives from Enron, Exxon, Conoco, Shell Oil and other energy companies, where they studied petroleum maps of Iraq and developed the national energy policy of the Administration. We can only conclude that when Bush talks about looking for "alternative fuel sources," he actually means looking for another oil-rich country to invade. For some, this policy has been enormously successful--oil companies are reporting record profits. But for others, like the people of Iraq or the soldiers and military families who are paying the ultimate price, Bush's policies have been an unmitigated disaster. We can be sure that, despite his talk about "alternative fuels," his primary and central goal is to ensure maximum profits for the oil companies. No Opposition from the Democrats Bush's criminal war against Iraq has brought justified resistance throughout Iraq and outrage across the globe. Everywhere he travels, he is met with massive protest in the streets. President Bush's poll numbers are in a freefall. A new CBS News poll has the President's approval rating at a career low of 28 percent-- 14 points below where he was at before he delivered his State of the Union speech a year ago. In November, he had a 34 percent approval rating. In December, it was 31 percent. In early January, it was 30 percent. Less than 3 months ago, voters in the U.S. made their opposition to the war very clear as they handed the Republican Party a resounding defeat at the polls. President Bush's announcement of a "surge" in the occupation was met with more than 500 protests across the U.S. Despite this clear and overwhelming opposition to the ongoing occupation, the Democratic response to the State of the Union offered no real opposition to the Bush Agenda. Senator James Webb did not call to bring the troops home--in fact, he waited until he was half way through his speech before even mentioning Iraq. When he did get around to it, he merely indicated that the U.S. needs a "new direction." It was clear from his remarks that his difference with the Bush Administration is only tactical. The Democratic Party criticism of the war in Iraq is not based on the fact that the war is a criminal act that has resulted in the death of more than 600,000 Iraqis, but on the fact that Bush has been unable to successfully crush the resistance and establish a stable puppet state. The Democrats in Congress marched in lockstep with the Administration when they thought the war to seize Iraq's oil would be over in weeks. Senator Webb claimed that the President "took us into this war recklessly." But the President could not and did not act alone. He could not have launched the war in Iraq without the eager complicity of the Democrats in Congress, a complicity that continues to this day, as Democrats continue to assert that they do not plan to carry out the mandate that brought them into office -- the demand to end the war now and bring all the troops home now. It is clear that politicians in Washington are not going to end the war. The people themselves must take action to force them to bring the troops home now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
