Posts filed under ‘Our Tax Dollars’
Yo, Americans, are you all-in with your tax Dollar$ and your sons and daughters on this? This is the beginning of a new war that was supposed to be over but will probably last for years. We’ll spend untold billions of dollars. Again, raise your hand if you’re in.
From the “official homepage of the United States Army:”
1st Infantry Division HQ Deploying to Iraq
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Sept. 25, 2014) — Soldiers from the “Big Red One” 1st Infantry Division headquarters will deploy to Iraq next month from Fort Riley, Kansas, DOD officials announced today.
“Yesterday the secretary (of Defense) signed a deployment for about 500 Soldiers from 1ID headquarters,” Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said at a Pentagon news conference.
Something tells me that those who’ve already died in Iraq are screaming from the grave: Don’t do it! It isn’t worth dying for! Nothing good will come of it!
One might call it “chutzpah,” as several irate lawmakers did, or “rubbing salt in the wounds” of the American taxpayer. But to a few Wall Street financiers, a lawsuit that accuses the government of shortchanging the American International Group in its 2008 bailout is something else: a promising investment in a cause they support.
Maurice R. Greenberg, 89, the former A.I.G. chief executive who still holds a large stake in the insurance company, filed the lawsuit on behalf of fellow shareholders. He has now raised several million dollars from three Wall Street companions to help cover the cost of the case. The investors, who are entitled to a cut of any damages Mr. Greenberg collects from the government, contributed about 15 percent of the tens of millions of dollars in legal costs, according to people with knowledge of the arrangement.
Six years after the government saved Wall Street from the brink of collapse, the lawsuit is coming to trial, reopening one of the ugliest chapters in modern financial history. The trial, which begins next week in Washington, will most likely hinge on testimony from the policy makers who orchestrated A.I.G.’s rescue, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
So Greenberg wants $40 billion more from us? Wanna bet he’s a Republican who favors “small government,” by which he means small for We the Peons, not small when it comes to bailouts.
Let’s ponder the long run for a sec here: Who’s smarter? Who’s doing the best job planning for the future?
I vote for China.
This is what the U.S. gets allowing itself to become a corporatocracy run by lobbyist$ who drain it via endless war.
Man-oh-man, this is one tough work schedule:
One vote on war and Congress is apparently all tuckered out.
[Republican} House leaders announced Thursday that they were cutting their already abbreviated fall session short and sending lawmakers back home – and onto the campaign trail – more than a week early.
The House had initially been scheduled to remain in Washington on Friday and during the first week of October, but Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told members they could leave on Thursday afternoon and wouldn’t be called back until after the November congressional elections.
Including the five-week summer recess, Congress will have been in session for a total of about eight days between the end of July and the middle of November.
So, they come back in November and then they break for Thanksgiving and then they break for Christmas.
Okaay. The year is shot.
The next time you hear a Republican yelling about how we need to create jobs, think about this. They might want to create their own jobs first.
Oh god, Obama hasn’t even made his big speech yet but we’re already seeing mission creep:
BAGHDAD — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry raised the possibility Wednesday that U.S. troops might be committed to ground operations in Iraq in extreme circumstances, the first hedging by an administration official on President Barack Obama’s pledge that there will be no U.S. boots on the ground to battle the Islamic State.
Kerry made the comment during a news conference after a day of meeting with Iraqi officials….
Here’s my Tweet of the Day
Stopping ISIS? Way harder than it sounds, i.e., what the hell are we getting ourselves into:
Even limited success for this new effort, analysts say, hinges on an unenviable to-do list for the Obama administration: foster cozier relations with Iran, gamble on the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, strong-arm Iraq’s Shiite Muslim leaders into power-sharing with the Sunni Muslim minority, and persuade Sunni-ruled nations in the Persian Gulf region not to undermine the whole effort by striking out on their own.
Piece of cake, right? Gawd.
And how about answers to at least some of these questions:
What do you [Obama] expect the response of ISIS to be, given especially that these killings that have gotten so much attention have been couched by the group as revenge for military action we’ve already taken? Why shouldn’t we expect more of the same if we do more of the same?
Have we considered whether part of the group’s purpose is to provoke more U.S. intervention, and therefore show themselves as the group standing up to the U.S.? Would we not indeed be playing into their hands by doing so?
Given that Matthew Olsen, the outgoing director of the NCTC [National Counterterrorism Center] made a statement the other day that we do not face the prospect of attacks by this group against the homeland, why are we focusing as much attention as we are against this one group? They’ve done certain dramatic things that have gotten our attention, and the press’s attention, but what exactly are the U.S.’s interests at stake?
Given that this group’s advances in Syria and Iraq have had a great deal to do with the larger sectarian conflict in those countries… how do we intervene without effectively taking sides in a sectarian conflict in which the United States has no interest? Why should we favor Shiites or Sunnis? Because that’s exactly how it will be seen. Have you considered the downside of being seen as taking sides in a sectarian conflict, in terms of the enemies that you make?
With particular regard to the question of intervening in Syria: What exactly would be our broader political objective? Do we still believe that [Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad] must go? And if we do, how do we square this with an intervention against ISIS, given that the regime and ISIS are the two most powerful interests in the Syrian civil war?
How effective would air strikes be against a group most of whose strength is closely intermingled with civilian populations? It does not consist of large military formations out in the desert. How do you do something effective militarily without causing casualties among innocent civilians?