Herr Bush is at it again (or is it still?). Everything is still someone else's fault. If the funding bill isn't they way he wants it then he'll veto it and it'll be Congress's fault when our Army and Marines are in the field without adequate funding. Surely nobody will see it as his fault for continuing to stubbornly pursue his insane war "plan".

He at one point in the story is quoted as saying something that indicates that he thinks he's speaking for the American people.

He also chides Congress for being on vacation before "finishing their work". (Of course their job, as he sees it, is rolling over for him).

This from the man who has spent more days on vacation than any President in our history.

Here's the story from the BBC, if you want it:

Bush warns over Iraq funds delay
US President George W Bush has warned that US troops will suffer if a dispute with Congress over a war funding bill is not resolved soon.
Speaking at the White House, Mr Bush said Congress was failing in its "basic responsibility" to give troops the equipment and training they need.

He renewed his threat to veto any bill that ties war funding with a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.

Both House and Senate have passed bills calling for troops to leave next year.

Mr Bush said both bills would "undercut the troops" in Iraq and Afghanistan and repeated his warning that he would veto them.

He also noted that 57 days had passed since he requested the war funding - and reproached members of Congress for having "left on spring break without finishing their work".

If Congress did not approve a war funding bill, "the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones", Mr Bush said, warning troops would spend longer on the front lines.

"That is unacceptable to me and, I believe, it is unacceptable to the American people."

In Iraq itself, police have announced that from Wednesday Baghdad's night curfew is to be shortened by two hours - beginning at 2200 local time until 0600.

The government introduced the curfew hours before launching a new offensive in Baghdad in mid-February.

The curfew had been shortened "because the security situation has improved and people needed more time to go shopping", AFP news agency quoted Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the Baghdad security operation.

'Cut off money'

President Bush's remarks came a day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would try to cut off money for most Iraq war operations after 31 March 2008, if the president vetoes Congress's proposals.

The end of March is the date set out in last week's Senate bill for the goal of pulling all combat troops out of Iraq.
In a statement on Tuesday, Senator Reid promised the Democrats would give US forces "the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices".

He said that if Mr Bush vetoed the bill, the president would be delaying funding for troops and keeping in place "his strategy for failure" .

Mr Bush and Defence Secretary Robert Gates have warned that money for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could start to run out from mid-April if the funding bill is not passed.

Analysts say the Pentagon has sufficient financial reserves to last until mid-July, if it moves money around.

But Mr Gates has said the military will be "forced to consider" altering training schedules for reserves and units to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as delays in repairing equipment and renovating barracks.

Close votes

The Senate legislation approves $122bn (£62bn) in funds - mostly for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - but also orders the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days of passage of the bill.

The House - whose $124bn bill imposes a 31 August 2008 deadline for troop withdrawal - and Senate must next reconcile their two versions of the bill and send the result to Mr Bush.

If the president refuses to sign it and returns it unsigned, the bill will not become law.

The votes in both the House and Senate were close enough to suggest Congress will not be able to override his threatened veto.

Mr Bush's Republican party lost control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats last year.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6523079.stm

Published: 2007/04/03 19:12:59 GMT

© BBC MMVII

1) Always look both ways before crossing the street.

2) It's not nice to hit people

3) I before E, except after C (or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh)

4) Two wrongs don't make a right

5) Better a broken promise than none at all

I can see it now, without a crystal ball (read the story below and then my prediction at the bottom; you'll probably have the same idea).

Hicks to serve nine months' jail
Australian Guantanamo detainee David Hicks will be sent home to serve nine months in prison after being sentenced by a military judge at the facility.
Hicks, 31, was sentenced to seven years in jail after pleading guilty to supporting terrorism, but all but nine months of the sentence was suspended.

The ex-kangaroo skinner has been in the prison for five years since his capture in Afghanistan as a Taleban fighter.

Australia's government has reacted coolly to news of his transfer.

Under a plea bargain deal with the prosecution, Hicks could only be sentenced to a maximum of seven years.

The plea deal also specifies that any term beyond nine months be suspended, the judge at the sentencing hearing on Friday evening revealed.

The US must now send Hicks to his home country within 60 days - by 29 May.

"We hope that it happens much quicker than that," said his defence lawyer, Col Michael Mori.

Abuse claims

The Muslim convert appeared in court on Friday in a suit and with his hair, which earlier in the week reached down to his chest, cut short.




As part of the plea bargain, Hicks also withdrew claims he had been beaten by US forces after his capture in Afghanistan and that he had been sedated before learning of the charges against him.

US civil rights groups have accused Washington of trying to cover up abuses and Hicks' father in Australia continued to insist his son had been maltreated.

"We know for a fact that he was, and I'm going to push that issue," Terry Hicks told Australian radio.

"The bottom line of all this is that at least he's back home. He's out of that hell hole."

However, Australian Prime Minister John Howard accused some of trying to turn Hicks into a "hero".

"Whatever may be the rhetorical responses of some and particularly the government's critics, the facts speak for themselves," he said in Sydney.

"He pleaded guilty to knowingly assisting a terrorist organisation - namely, al-Qaeda."

The BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says that while the conservative government is a supporter of the US military justice system, it has come under a great deal of pressure from Australians disturbed by Hicks' treatment.

Media ban

As part of his plea deal, Hicks has agreed not to speak to the media for a year, not to receive any money for his story and not to sue the US government.

He is the first Guantanamo detainee convicted of any terrorist offence since they began arriving at the camp a little over five years ago.

The US is gradually putting other prisoners through the same process.

Hicks is also the first person convicted by a US war crimes court since World War II.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6512945.stm

Published: 2007/03/31 06:26:32 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Once he's out of there my guess is that he won't feel constrained by much of his "agreement". If they abused him to the point that he agreed to plead guilty to something and make all these promises then he shouldn't feel obligated to live up to anything; I know I wouldn't. If he really did some nasty shit then possibly he's still a nasty boy and his word isn't worth much anyway. I imagine they're holding the rest of the sentence (6 years, 3 months) over his head if he blabs or otherwise violates his end of the deal. They threw everything in there too, didn't they, can't talk to the press, can't write a book, can't sue the U.S. Government. Maybe he should sue George Bush personally, or Cheney, or both. Anyway, I know I would like to know the whole story (and I most likely never will.

Trying hard to be

NotACynic

And now there's this:

"Can UK and Iran resolve their difference?
The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair says efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic moves fail.

Mr Blair said there was no justification for Iran holding them. Downing Street said the UK may release evidence proving the group had not ventured into Iranian waters.

Iran says they were trespassing in Iranian waters when they were seized on Friday - but the UK prime minister said the group were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate.

Is Iran justified in trying to protect its sovereignty or is it trying to taunt the West? Send us your views."

I read the first three "views", all very "those little piss-ants" and like that, nobody advocating throwing nukes (UK has nukes, right?) or anything but figuring that a beat down is called for.

I say back up here a little.

Why is Great Britain in the Persian Gulf to start with? Whose provoking whom?

I'm going to use the word we here some and by we, in this case, I mean the U.S. and the UK, the "coalition of the willing" dontcha know and my first question, then, is why is everything always the other guys' fault? Do we ever do anything wrong? Are we ever the provokers? Like, oh, say, now maybe (and the last four years)?

What would happen if Iraq, just for instance, invaded let's say Belgium, claiming that they were certain that Belgium had Weapons of Mass Destruction (should be some ominous music here) and they had to go into Belgium and overthrow the Belgian government and install a Muslim theocracy (or help one spring up spontaneously) and destroy all the WMDs in the name of their own national security?

And four years later Iran has ships in the English Channel as part of some multi-national force and the Royal Navy seizes fifteen Iranian sailors who had "strayed into British territorial waters (rather than some occupation zone of Belgian territory) and who's the provocateur then?

Can we please get out of there and stay out?

How hard is it?

Yes there is going to be holy hell over there for a while. And some of that's our fault. And most of it goes back a long long time. And let's just get the hell out and stay out.

Or do we have to stay over there now to prevent a massacre of the Sunni minority by the Shiite majority? You know there's going to be a reason given why we have to stay over there (other than we haven't "won" yet, that one's getting old).

Thoughts?

More trouble for the Bush administration, oh dear. I wonder if he's starting to feel a little stressed. I like his idea that they should just testify privately, without oath or transcript. Gee, that should be good enough, shouldn't it? Duh... Why don't we just take him at his word while we're at it.

From the BBC:

Bush advisers ordered to testify
A Congressional committee has voted to order key White House aides to testify under oath about the controversial firing of eight federal prosecutors.
The White House has offered to let the aides speak to Congress, but not under oath, and will resist the new order.

Congress wants to question Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, as well as Mr Bush's former lawyer.

Lawmakers are probing the dismissal last year of eight US attorneys, which critics say was politically motivated.

Mr Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has faced calls to resign over the dismissals.

The president has thus far stood by Mr Gonzales, a long-time confidant from their days in Texas before they came to Washington together.

Private offer

Mr Gonzales says the prosecutors were dismissed because their performances were below standard.

Congressional investigations have found that Mr Bush's former counsel, Harriet Miers, proposed firing all 93 US attorneys nationwide in 2005.

One of the attorneys who was fired was replaced by a former aide to Mr Rove.

Mr Bush said on Tuesday that Congress should accept his offer to let his aides testify privately, without oath or transcript.

He vowed to resist any order, or subpoena, for them to testify in public.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honourable public servants," Mr Bush said.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the House demand for testimony under oath sets up a constitutional battle between the president and Congress which could end up in the Supreme Court.

Democrats' anger

The criticism of Mr Gonzales began with the Democrats who now control Congress, but some Republicans have joined the chorus.

US ATTORNEYS
93 nationwide
Serve at the discretion of the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate
Prosecute criminal cases brought by the government
Prosecute or defend civil cases in which the government is a party
Collect debts owed to the government
Source: US Department of Justice

The Senate voted overwhelmingly - and with bipartisan support - on Tuesday to strip Mr Gonzales of the power to appoint US attorneys without its consent.

And the vote on Wednesday authorising the use of subpoenas to compel White House officials to testify passed on a voice vote with no dissent.

Critics of the prosecutor firings - including some of the prosecutors themselves - say they were removed for investigating Republican officials or failing to investigate alleged vote fraud in support of Democrats.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6475985.stm

Published: 2007/03/21 17:14:40 GMT

© BBC MMVII