TRIBUTE TO EXCESS!

Look, I'm fine with rebuilding the Twin Towers area as has been done as it has symbolic value in addition to economic value.  I'm fine with the "$1.8 avg. million dollar" payments to the families of the victims not to sue the airlines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11th_Victim_Compensation_Fund).  I'm fine with the tasteful list of the names of all the victims in the courtyard.

But I get into trouble with the 100,000 sq.ft. museum that is 7 stories  (7 STORIES) underground (UNDERGROUND) at a cost of a billion dollars PLUS $60 million/yr for upkeep of which $20 million/yr is to be provided by the Federal government.  Sen. Coburn has objected to this, and I am with him (http://www.politico.com/huddle/0912/huddle1122.html).  It seems like there is not enough that can be done for the victims, their families, and survivors of the Twin Towers disaster.  And you can add to that the health concerns of the survivors of which I am all in favor as I am for universal health care.

Look if some billionaire or group of billionaires were to bankroll this, I certainly wouldn't stand in the way and a billion dollar gift would provide a $50 million/yr for upkeep (@5% withdrawal/yr).

I also can't imagine what they are going to put into the museum.  I can see one story and maybe it has to be underground, but 7 stories and 100,000 sq.ft.?

SO, have we done enough for the U.S military victims (58,282 KIA and 153,303 WIA requiring hospitalization) and their families of Vietnam? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties)  And what about the 33,651 military and plus 3,262 other U.S. deaths in Korea? (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-507_162-202741.html)  And many of the injured have life changing wounds (lost arms, legs, and minds).

While I am at it, there were more troops killed in Iraq (4,409 plus 31,908 wounded) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) than in 9/11 twin towers (2,606 in the towers and on the ground).  This is not to say that the number killed in Afghanistan won't exceed the number killed on 9/11 as the casualties have passed 2,000 with 1-1/4 yrs to run plus another 17,382 wounded in action. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan).  Then there is the little contribution of $5 billion/wk to run these wars.  Though we may have invaded Iraq over oil and the threat to kill Bush-41, we certainly only invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11.  It seems to me that this blood and treasure are a huge monument to the victims of 9/11 by itself.

THE SERGEANTS (Poem)

Who are these sergeants, mostly men,

Dying in such numbers in far off lands?

Iraq, Afghanistan.

More than corporals,

More than privates.

Our top heavy military?

Some sergeants in their 50s.

More in their 40s.

Many in their 30s.

They must have been surprised

To be called at such ages

Into a savage war.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx Figures for Operation Enduring Freedom up to date were 525 sergeants, 339 corporals, 339 specialists, and 341 privates (both Pvt. and Pvt 1st Class).

Total figures from 3/21/2003 to 4/30/2006 only are 738 sergeants, 707 corporals and 339 privates. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=psc_working_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D4%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CEEQFjAD%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Frepository.upenn.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1000%2526context%253Dpsc_working_papers%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddeaths%2520by%2520rank%2520in%2520Iraw%2520and%2520Afghanitan%26ei%3DQAeSTqbMMYiltwfjpvSHDA%26usg%3DAFQjCNGwfVq1ubJusyLoQu72R7iOepBz0g%26sig2%3DPqxbeg0852-sVDIXG6Cm0A#search=%22deaths%20by%20rank%20Iraw%20Afghanitan%22

WOULD MC CAIN HAVE BEEN A BETTER PRESIDENT?

I ‘ve had another comment (#55) published by the NY Times on the op-ed by Ross Douthat, "Dreams Of a McCain Presidency: Would the country have been better off with McCain in the White House? "

John McCain's time to run for president was the 2000 election. The trouble is that John McCain was senile by the time of the 2008 election. He kept saying things like the Iranians (Shiites) were training the insurgents (Sunnis), and he is a bigger war monger than Obama. He doesn't want to reduce troops in Afghanistan, he wanted a bigger effort in Libya, and seemingly wanted to go to war over the country Georgia being disciplined by Russia. The surprise was that he did as well as he did in the election. It is fruitless to speculate on what he might have done as president. It could have been a horror.

What we had was a not well-qualified candidate against a senile candidate. I think the electorate chose the right person who I believe will go down as the Best One Term President Ever!: http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/08/best-one-term-president-ever.html

THE AMERICAN SOUTH AND WAR

The American South has a tendency to be very war-like. They not only were eager to start the Civil War, but, when the political Solid South was a part of the Democratic party, it was the Democratic Party that was the war party (WW-I, WW-II, Korea, early Vietnam). The Republican Party had an isolationist bent, and there were those who even opposed America’s involvement in WW-II. Then the Republicans adopted their Southern Strategy and lured the Solid South into the Republican Party, after which the Republican Party has become the war party (escalation of Vietnam, Lybia bombing, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq; I do not count Reagan’s Granada War as it was a joke. At least Reagan found someone we could beat.).


Now it seems there may be the beginnings of a rift in the Republican Party and an isolationist group of mainly northern Republicans seems to be raising their heads: Pat Buchanan has been an isolationist for a long time and George Will has opposed the Afghanistan war beginning with the last presidential election. Some others seemingly against the Afghanistan War are: Michael Steele, Michelle Bachman, Liz Cheney, and Ann Coulter, though one or more may really be in favor of the Afghanistan war (e.g. especially Michael Steele according to some) and are just using public opposition to the war as an election ploy to be used against the Obama regime and congressional Democrats. But they also seem to be adopting a conservative opposition to big government which has been missing for a long, long time in the Republican Party. Reagan never came close to balancing a budget, nor did Bush-41 or Bush 43. In fact if they could get tax cuts, primarily for the wealthy, they seemed to be happy with any resulting Federal deficits. After all Republicans pushed though two wars that they never tried to pay for, massive tax cuts primarily for the wealthy that they never paid for, and an increase in the large drugs benefit package that they never paid for. In fact, Bush-43 urged people to go out an shop after the disaster of 9-11-2001.

Personally, I have no opposition to these Republican’s claim that Afghanistan has become Obama’s war. It is very nice that several Republicans have come out and said that it is America’s war. But the Obama administration’s major escalation of the Afghanistan War shifts the "ownership" of the war to him. There is no sign the Democratic base favors this escalation, quite the contrary. But if the Afghanistan War should be successful and Afghanistan become a stable country that doesn’t harbor terrorists, then Obama also will deserve the credit