Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - One Decision down, Two to go...is Mr. Bush Daring Congress to Impeach Him?

host · 01-10-2007, 01:43 AM

Mr. Bush has just rolled back a moratorium signed by former president Clinton on oil drilling in Bristol Bay, in Alaska, an environmentally sensitive area projected to yield $2 billion per year in commercial fishing revenue, versus an estimated "one time and it's gone", $8 billion yield in petroleum resources.

Mr. Bush is poised to sign a 2004 treaty with Mexico, the details of which his administration fought FOIA lawsuits for 3-1/2 years to keep secret. The treaty is reported to contain a provision that will qualify Mexicans with just 18 months of work time in the US, with Social Security benefits that native US workers must work 10 years to qualify for. The main criticism by the GAO is that there is no accurate prediction of how much this treaty provision will end up costing the already overburdened and underfunded Social Security Agency, which is solely funded by contributions of workers and their employers, not by federal tax revenue. If Mr. Bush signs this treaty, isn't he giving away some of the retirement money and survivors and disability insurance funds of every US worker, to Mexicans who have not contributed nearly as much into the SSI fund?

Mr. Bush is expected to announce a troop surge order of up to 20,000 US troops into Baghdad, and he talks of "winning" the "war" in Iraq. The newly written "US Army Manual on Counterinsurgency, authored under the direction of Gen. David Petraeus, makes it quite obvious that the US has never deployed anyway near the "20 combat troops per 1,000 Iraqis that the new Army field manual determines as a minimum for such a mission". Today, there are only 70,000 US combat troops in all of Iraq, (support and rear echelon troops are not "combat" troops) nowhere close to the 100,000 combat troops that the Army manual displays as a "minimum" to man a counterinsurgency military mission to deal with the 5 million population in Baghdad, alone, plus a minimum 300,000 additional combat troops to control a population of 20 million, across the rest of that country.

The field manual brings new support, in hindsight, to General Shinseki's late 2002 estimate of an US Iraqi occupation force requirement of 400,000 troops.
The numbers demonstrate that Mr. Bush has never committed to the combat force size necessary to "win" in Iraq, and that he is not doing so, now....so, what is he doing by ordering a "surge" which his "commanders on the ground", spoke publicly against, beginning in Dec., 2006?

Cumulatively, does it seem to you that Mr. Bush's decision making ability, if he signs the treaty with Mexico, and orders a troops surge of 20,000 troops to Iraq, and waging an unnecessary war with a poorly manned and managed military force and strategy, coming on the heels of the decision to put one of the most delicate, profitable, and productive marine fisheries in the world at risk from oil spills, are grounds to hold impeachment hearings in the US congress....or not?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010901647.html
Bush Lifts Oil-Drill Ban in Alaska's Bristol Bay
Royalties to Rise for Some Offshore Wells in Advance of Democrats' Plans to Roll Back Tax Breaks

By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page D01

...Congress first barred drilling in Bristol Bay in 1989 after the huge Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill damaged Alaska's coast. Congress lifted the ban in 2003 at the urging of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). But a moratorium President Bill Clinton declared on drilling in the area in 1998 remained in effect, so it took Bush's action yesterday to open it to development. Bush also lifted a presidential moratorium on part of the Gulf of Mexico that Congress opened for drilling in December.

Kempthorne said the offshore drilling in both areas and the increase in royalty fees would "enhance America's energy security by improving opportunities for domestic energy production, and will also increase the revenues that the federal government collects from oil and gas companies on behalf of American taxpayers."

Bob Greco, group director of upstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum Institute, said that "increasing access to those resources is an important step toward meeting our growing energy demand." But he said that goal would be offset in part by the increase in royalty payments, which he said would undercut industry's enthusiasm for drilling in deep waters off U.S. coasts, where a single well can cost $100 million. Higher royalties could also result in lower bids for leases in deep water, Greco said.

"President Bush's decision to lift this moratorium is welcome news for people who live and work in the Bristol Bay region," Stevens said in a written statement. "Imported farmed salmon, high energy costs, and the area's remoteness have limited economic development and contributed to high poverty in the region."

Other Alaskans decried the decision, saying development would bring in less than $8 billion once all the energy was tapped while undermining a fishing industry that brings in $2 billion a year.

"This decision borders on irresponsible, from our perspective," said Eric J. Siy, executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. The bay has the world's biggest wild sockeye salmon run as well as abundant red king crab, Pacific halibut and Bering Sea pollock and cod fisheries, he said. "The wise thing to do is to invest in the health of that sustainable economy."

Kempthorne said that any proposed project in Bristol Bay or the Gulf of Mexico "would receive thorough environmental reviews."

But Siy noted that a 1985 federal environmental impact statement suggested that the region posed a danger of a major oil spill. "This is a place with hurricane-force winds, with floating sea ice," he said. An oil spill could be "a nightmare" in an area home to 1 million migrating waterfowl and such marine mammals as endangered right whales, he added....

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2157155/?nav=tap3
war stories: Military analysis.
Mission ImpossibleBush's smart new general can't save Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, at 7:04 PM ET

Gen. David Petraeus. Click image to expand. Gen. David Petraeus
George W. Bush has named a new man to take charge in Iraq as a prelude to his announcement of (allegedly) a new strategy. Will either make any difference?

The new commander, Lt. Gen. (soon to be promoted to simply Gen.) David Petraeus, is probably the smartest active-duty general in the U.S. Army today. Late last year, he co-authored the <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf">Army's field manual on counterinsurgency</a> —its first in over 20 years. During the early phase of the Iraq occupation, as commander of the 101st Airborne Division, he was one of the very few American officers who understood how to win over the populace, not just bash down their doors. In those halcyon days of the summer of '03, commanders had free access to Saddam Hussein's captured <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2091857/">slush funds</a>, and Petraeus used the money shrewdly to build local projects and to build trust with local leaders. It may be no coincidence that things started going to hell in northern Iraq, the 101st Airborne's area of operation, when the commanders' fund dried up—and no further funds poured in.

Alas, Petraeus is in much the same situation he found himself back then—loaded with enormous responsibility, the right skills, but not enough resources, either in money or, especially, in troops.

The big talk this past week, and probably the centerpiece of Bush's announcement (to take place <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010800237.html">Wednesday night</a> ), is the "surge"—20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to be deployed to Baghdad, as part of a classic strategy of "clear, hold, and build." This means swooping a lot of troops into a particular area (a town, a village, a neighborhood, whatever), clearing it of insurgents (i.e., killing or capturing them), and leaving behind enough troops or police to maintain order so that reconstruction can take place—while other troops move on to clear, hold, and build in the next troubled area on the list.

Petraeus and his co-authors discussed this strategy at great length in the Army's counterinsurgency field manual. <h3>One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.

Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required—and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.</h3>

In the short term, then, say for a year or so, enough troops might be concentrated in Baghdad if troops now deployed in Iraq have their tours of duty extended, troops due for redeployment to Iraq are mobilized several months ahead of schedule, nearly all these troops are transferred to Baghdad, and enough Iraqi troops can be mobilized to make up the remaining slack.

Meanwhile, how will Petraeus be able to keep Baghdad's insurgents from simply slipping out of town and wreaking havoc elsewhere? This is what happened in Fallujah when U.S. troops tried to destroy the insurgents' stronghold in that city.......

http://www.slate.com/id/2157155/pagenum/2/
......The purpose of an Army field manual is to lay down the requirements of combat—in the case of this field manual, a type of combat that the U.S. Army hasn't focused on for decades. It generally takes years, if not decades, for a new culture—which this field manual calls for and outlines—to take hold of any military. Petraeus is a brilliant officer, but it's questionable whether even he can force-feed a new culture in just a matter of months.

If he manages to succeed in Baghdad, how will he be able to "hold" it while proceeding on to Iraq's other troubled cities? (Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, who came up with the "surge" strategy, proposes expanding the Army's ranks by 30,000 combat soldiers over the next two years. The problem is, well-placed officers calculate that, even if enough recruits can be found, the Army could support an expansion of just 7,000 combatants per year.)

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...03/ldt.01.html
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Battle on the Hill; Bush Calls for Unity to Tackle Nation's Problems; U.S. Military Outlines New Plans for the Iraqi Army

Aired January 3, 2007 - 18:00 ET

............And the Bush administration appears determined to give amnesty to illegal aliens and benefits that hard-working Americans have taken years to earn.

We'll have that special report, a great deal more still ahead.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: An agreement with Mexico awaiting the president's signature could put benefits from our overburdened Social Security system in the hands of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.

And Immigration Customs Enforcement finds itself under legal attack over its raids that swept up more than 1,200 illegal aliens.

Christine Romans tonight reports on a government plan that will make it easier for illegal aliens to collect U.S. Social Security.

Bill Tucker reports on the Catholic Church and its efforts to attack ICE for its raids on illegal workers.

But first we turn to Christine Romans with an astounding story -- Christine.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, after three and a half years of legal battle, details are emerging now about an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to expand Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens working in the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS (voice over): An illegal alien working with a fraudulent Social Security number has been paying into Social Security. Once that worker gains legal status, he can claim those Social Security credits and tap into Social Security benefits.

The Bush administration wants Mexico's citizens working in this country to qualify for Social Security payments and, in some cases, illegal aliens will benefit, too. The U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Act will help workers qualify even sooner, in as little as 18 months.

SHANNON BENTON, TREA SENIOR CITIZENS LEAGUE: As far as how much they have to work in the United States to eliminate the dual taxation and claim benefits here in the U.S., they would only have to work six credits.

ROMANS: She represents 1.2 million senior citizens who filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get a look at the agreement which awaits the president's signature. Critics say it's a costly giveaway at a time when Social Security's solvency is in doubt. But the Social Security Administration estimates the agreement will cost $105 million for the first years and will have "... a negligible long- range effect on the Social Security trust fund."

But there have been concerns for years about this. The Government Accountability Office in 2003 warned, "The proposed agreement will likely increase the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for Social Security benefits."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The White House today says the president has not yet signed this agreement and he has no immediate plans to. But under current law, many of these benefits are already available to illegal aliens once they do gain legal status -- Lou.

DOBBS: Now, let's put this in context.

ROMANS: Sure.

DOBBS: It takes an American citizen 10 years to gain Social Security eligibility and benefits? ROMANS: That's right.

DOBBS: An illegal alien, under this law, should the president have the temerity to sign it -- and he's shown no reluctance to work on behalf of the Mexican government -- how long do they have to work?

ROMANS: Six credits they call it. That's 18 months. So they work eight and a half years in Mexico, and then the U.S. government recognizes that time in Mexico as part of the 10 years it's needed in the United States.

DOBBS: That is absolutely insane. How do they excuse this? And how do they come up with an estimate of $105 million?

This government doesn't even know how many illegal aliens are in this country. Somewhere between 11 million and 20 million are the estimates.

So how can they have an estimate of any kind?

ROMANS: Well, that's something the GAO pointed out. They said any -- any risk would be to the high side of any kind of estimates. But the Social Security Administration disputed that GAO finding.

In terms of how they can -- how they can, you know, say that they want to do this with Mexico, they do it with 21 other countries. But those are industrialized countries. And the critics point out that their Social Security operations in, say, Switzerland, in Canada and some of these other countries, the U.K., are far, far different than Mexico's.

DOBBS: And this president, with the audacity to go forward with this -- I mean, this is -- just when you think that this government can't show more arrogance or more ignorance on the issue of border security and immigration, it outdoes itself.

Christine, thank you very much.

ROMANS: You're welcome.

DOBBS: Christine Romans.

That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight.

Do you believe our already broken Social Security system can handle the demand of paying benefits to illegal aliens who have worked in this country a whole 18 months? Yes or no?

Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. The results coming up here later........

Quote:

http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/102800.asp
Social Security Agreement with Mexico Released After 3-1/2 Year Freedom of Information Act Battle

Illegal Mexican Workers Could Receive Billions of Dollars from U.S. Social Security System

January 4, 2007 (Washington, DC) – After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government made the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group.

The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund.

A loophole in current Social Security law could allow millions of today's Mexican workers to eventually collect billions of dollars worth of Social Security benefits for earnings under fraudulent or "non-work authorized" Social Security numbers, putting huge new pressures on the Social Security Trust Fund.

If an illegal worker working in the United States today gets a "work authorized" Social Security number through guest worker immigration legislation, the Totalization Agreement, or perhaps just over time, that worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once he or she has met eligibility requirements.

In addition, that worker could be able to claim credits for work performed while in the U.S. illegally. The SSA maintains an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages that cannot be posted to individual workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number. Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number – whether a legal citizen or not – wages earned while in the U.S. unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account.

The Congressional Research Service reports the earnings suspense file currently stands at approximately $520 billion. According to the congressional testimony of SSA Inspector General Patrick P. O'Carroll in February 2006, "We believe the chief cause of wage items being posted to the earnings suspense file instead of an individual's earning record is unauthorized work by non citizens."

The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without Congressional vote, either House of Congress would have 60 days to disapprove the agreement by voting to reject it.

"The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy – yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, Chairman of the TREA Senior Citizens League. "Our 1.2 million elderly members didn't sacrifice through difficult times so we could fund millions of workers who crossed the border and decided to work here illegally."

The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S.

For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage.

But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non-government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest.