I am an American. I have spent the past year grinding my teeth, losing sleep, screaming until I’m hoarse. My government is failing me and I’m almost at a loss as to what I should do. Rallies seem pointless; letters and phone calls to congressmen are ignored. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a cancer living in DC. It is called Congress and I fear it may be fatal. The ridiculous manner in which both House and Senate leadership have pursued health care reform is reason enough to believe things are coming apart at the seams. Then there’s the endless, clueless, careless spending. Those who are supposed to represent us are selling us into slavery to China, Japan, Britain, Russia, and on goes the list. Sorry Ms. Pelosi, I don’t recall signing up anywhere to be a slave.
As the country I love is being dismantled before me, I am confronted with new absurdities every day. Take today for example. I made the mistake of reading an AP article posted on the Washington Post website. It took me several minutes to read the brief missive because my eyes kept fogging over with rage. According to the piece, we should all rejoice that a Philadelphia architectural firm has won the bid to design our new, “carbon neutral,” state-of-the-art London Embassy. The price tag? $1 Billion. That’s right, Billion with a B. You’re probably thinking it must be a sprawling facility with thousands of employees. No, it is not. This outrageously expensive complex — to be completed by 2017 — will be a mere 12 stories and accommodate only 1,000 employees. Don’t worry, your math is correct. We are poised to spend $1 Million per employee so they can have shiny-new, eco-friendly offices. Will this insanity ever end? Adam Namm, acting director of the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, admits the structure will be “in the ballpark of the most expensive embassies we have built.” Really? No kidding.
Things like this only make me wonder what other enormous wastes are looming out there ready to swallow our country whole. I am angry and sad and like many of you reading this, I feel helpless to stop what is happening. I try to remain hopeful that November will bring a changing of the guard. But in many ways the trust has been lost; the trust that those we send to Washington will truly represent us, will uphold the Constitution, and will serve honorably, wisely, and without greed, ego, and pettiness. The only thing I know for sure, is that something must change and change fast if we are to survive as a free people.
Heather Hayman is a conservative who divides her time between Philadelphia and Aruba. She is married to novelist Daniel Putkowski.
I think you have captured the feelings of many of us in this once great country. Your comments reflect my feelings of doom that can only be changed by a change in Washington. I wish that we could oust EVERY single one of the 535 people now in power, and start over. I admit that we would be ousting some very good people, but what else is there? The power of Washington must be broken and returned to the States as the CONSTITUTION proclaims. We have come a long way from States rights to the RIGHT of Washington to tell us how to live. Education, abortion, drilling rights, and so much more. Change must come or we will become a weak third world country.
The people that feel all should be replaced and would vote that way, lean to the conservative side. This sentiment will have the effect of replacing all the conservatives with new comers and leaving the corrupt and bent progressives sitting behind whatever desk they choose.
Careful people. Pick your battles and think.
But the best part of this new embassy is that it is made out of glass. Now what could go wrong with that in England with rioting thugs? What’s next a embassy in France made out of flash paper?
Bone heads!
Green technologies and ideas make for the worst armor against physical assaults by the enemy. The most fancy of embassies do not change the fact British and French Governments are facing a major dilema with power shifting to an Islamic faction that would see fit to demolish any American embassy be it eco-friendly or not. It is tragic that the United States Government does not understand that diplomacy and appeasement is not working with hostile groups, and no matter how fancy an embassy is it can not suddenly enlighten our foes to have a warm fuzzy heart.
Mr. Irons,
I believe “United States Government” in your post should be replaced with “Barack Obama”. He’s the silver-tongued boy wonder sure that his brilliant oratory will change the world.
@Dennis,
You are on target.
Heather, keep your spirits up – things are going to get better. People are fed up!
Ooooo! A carbon neutral embassy. What a perfect edifice. A billion dollar building that houses no one. After all we can’t allow those carbon dioxide emitting homo sapiens running about spouting their noxious gasses everywhere they go. What can be a better demonstration of the perfect world the globophobes are striving to achieve? A nice sterile ball hanging in space as a monument to human endeavor.
Ayn Rand had it right and this embassy is a perfect example:
“The only source of satisfaction open to the spiritual parasite, his only means of prestige is the most wasteful, useless, and meaningless activity of all: the building of public monuments.”
— Ayn Rand, “The Monument Builders” in The Virtue of Selfishness
@Davey
Sorry, monuments in space are out; the Obamaness has killed NASA.
Don —
So let me get this straight: you oppose building a safe, secure and environmentally friendly embassy in the country from which we sprung, which is one of our largest trading partners, and which hosts millions of our citizens each year? And in a city that has a history of terrorist attacks? Please give me every reason that you oppose this.
I saw an article that noted that the Iraq embassy cost $750 million, the Pakistan embassy is projected to cost $850 million. Given the difference in costs between London and Islamabad, $1 billion does not seem too ridiculous in perspective.
I don’t converse with liars…
Don —
A lie is an intentional falsehood. You cannot establish, of course, that I have lied about anything. So I will take your refusal to respond to my very simple questions as a weak a$$ed dodge. Because, again, I exposed the lunacy in your rantings against anything having to do with Obama.
@BRob:
Funny you should say that.
So then you would agree that the mantra that “Bush Lied” is in itself a fat lie?
Obama is lunacy who rants daily, it’s a shame some can’t or wont see. Makes it kind of easy to become dictators when so many are blinded by their own stupidity only to wake up and find they themselves are the real targets of the Obama’s of the world.
TSgt —
Er, yeah. I put the “Bush lied” people n the same category as truthers, birthers and teabaggers. Pretty much birds of a feather — nuts one and all, unable to be swayed by facts or rational argument.
Bush did not lie about Iraq; he just grossly miscalculated the risk posed by Saddam. After being caught asleep on 9/11, he was seeing al Qaeda around every corner. It’s a post traumatic stress type reaction. Understandable, but erroneous nonetheless. Just a monumental blunder by Bush and Co.
But the real Bush sin (besides not paying for the war and financing it with the ChiComs)? It was f-ing up the whole thing and being too stubborn to change course fast enough. Which is why we are in the mess we are in. If he had only not invaded Iraq, I just wonder how much better off the US would be. A lot less money spent, a lot of soldiers who would not have died, no 100,000 plus soldiers in the Middle East for the foreseeable future, and a military the is not overstretched.
i say it would be healththyer and cheaper to built it with wood from USA and put windows in every side and floor that anyone can open at will according to temperture it wood also open the jobs needed in USA as you employed only AMERICANS and pay their fares and so on ,bye
BRob,
” you oppose building a safe, secure and environmentally friendly embassy in the country from which we sprung, which is one of our largest trading partners, and which hosts millions of our citizens each year? ”
Your assessment of England is true, although I would add England has been our greatest ally. You, rightly so, hold England in high esteem. Unfortunately the Obama administration obviously does not value England’s special relationship with America. The affronts to England by Obama have been incredible. A “green embassy” isn’t going to make up for the insults already delivered. I imagine, in fact, that most Englishmen will scoff at the greenie project, having themselves been subjected to ridiculous green regulations for years now.
I question whether the new embassy will be safer than our present embassy. If security is the issue, I’m sure major improvements can be made at our current embassy for much less money.
Comparing the Iraq, Pakistan, and England embassies is like comparing charcoal to diamonds. What would we have been starting with in Iraq? Pakistan? What was the economy like when construction of the Iraqi and Pakistani embassies was started? I’m willing to bet the English embassy is still top notch. We all know the present economic picture is far from bright.
You may have a point that 1 billion is not “ridiculous” for London; however, we don’t have the money! Make necessary improvements to our current embassy and save the taxpayers a ton of money. After all, isn’t that what we do in our personal lives? If you don’t have the money for a new house, you paint and buy towels.
@BRob:
There are three elements to the Iraq invasion.
1) There was wide support in the belief that Saddam maintained and concealed his ability to produce WMD. At the very least, Saddam himself admitted before his execution that he intentionally cultivated that belief.
2) There was undisputed knowledge that Saddam supported terrorist all over the world, and no reason to believe that he couldn’t be supporting Al Qeada. It was expected that evidence of that support would be found. In fact there was evidence found. But that evidence has been either ignored or suppressed.
3) There was a general understanding that the sanctions could not be sustained and that they were being usurped as they were. The sanctions and embargo’s were being used as a foil to whip up support for Al Qeada and general Arab street resentment against the US. In fact, the Iraq embargo’s and sanctions were far more effective as a recruiting tool that Gitmo ever was. Never have Al Qeada called for Jihad against the US or European countries because of Gitmo and gotten a sympathetic ear on the Arab street. But they did have success in decrying the Iraq containment plan.
All three elements appeared to be factual before the invasion. Two remain indisputable to any honest broker. The third remains simply suppressed.
Any one of these elements is more than enough reason to oust Saddam and would have been malfeasance of the worst kind to not act on.
We would certainly be far worse off under any of the three conditions if Saddam survived in power today.
Iraq was a difficult road for a while, but it sharpened our understanding of the current battle space and it educated the Islamic world about the reality of religious zealots so effectively that now there is FAR less support for them than for US. It was a painful win, and costly win, big a critical win.
skat —
Uh, yeah. OK. Sure. I have seen the hyping here previously of the suposed “insults” to the Brits. Like “insulting” them by disagreeing with the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber. I saw one post here criticizing Michelle Obama for “insulting” the queen by putting her arm around her. Methinks the Brits are not as pissed off as you cons would have them be.
But I am trying to get a rational answer here as to why we should not build a new embassy to replace the fifty year old one that is overcrowded, according to the personnel there.
I mentioned the Iraq and Pakistan for price comparison purposes. If it costs $850 to build an embassy in Pakistan (which I am sure will not have 1,000 employees like the one in London), then $1 billion for a new embassy in London does not sound ridiculous to me, price wise.
As for fixing up the old one, you think that State and/or GSA haven’t considered that? The cost to build new is frequently much cheaper than rehabbing, especially if you are adding significant square footage.
This sounds like just another example of cons opposing something because Obama is proposing it. Like opposing his “work hard and stay in school” message to the school kids last fall. It’s just as Cong. Alan Grayson said: “If Obama has a b.l.t. sandwich, you can expect the Republicans to come out for a boycott of bacon.”
Sgt —
Er, no.
1) There was not even universal agreement in the government that Saddam had any nasty weapons. We know this.
2) There was no evidence that Saddam, a secular fascist, had any relationship with Osama, a messianic Islamists. In fact, no one has even made and argument as to how the would have worked together, nonetheless why they would have trusted one another to do anything. Saddam was the worst kind of takfir, from Osama’s perspective, possibly worse than the House of Saud. He may have backed terrorists against Israel, but not against us.
3) Probably right.
But the problem is: Saddam posed no threat to us, because of 1) and 2). So it was an unconscionable blunder to invade Iraq. As the results have shown.
My analogy: you have an enemy who would love to see you dead and would slit your throat if he had a chance. But he is homeless and living under a bridge in Los Angeles and you live in Westchester County, New York. Does he pose “a threat”. Yeah. Just not one worth caring about. But why would you then fly to L.A. and start checking out bridges searching for the guy? Makes no sense. You would only do that is you were paranoid and not judging risk properly, thinking he might find a credit card and fly to NY, get a gun and shoot you. What are the odds of that, if you are assessing risk clearly? Slim and none. But if you are hypervigilent, you are not thinking straight. That, unfortunately, is why Bush invaded.
Taking out Saddam made Iraq into an al Qaeda training ground. And worse, invading another Muslim country, like Osama said we would, served as great recruitment for Saddam and alienated us from our allies in Europe and the middle East alike. That is why Bush’s decision was just an utter f-up.
Nice effort Heather, I might ask who are we trying to impress with our bold expenditure? The rest of the world is ready to replace the dollar as the standard of exchange. This isn’t from being bored with our currency: it is because of profligacy and irresponsible fiscal attitudes, like building an embassy when you should remodel the old one. The world is laughing at Obama and his attempts to impress them with a carbon neutral building, especially since the European Press isn’t reluctant to publish the truth about the Global Warming Hoax and the utter absurdity of building a Carbon Neutral building based on science that has been exposed as a fraud. Oh yes! President Obama, the whole world is impressed with the Embassy that we can’t afford, built with scientific principles that are fraudulent, this glass building will surely reflect the lunacy that exists within your Administration. Perhaps we can sublet sections to Third World Countries to offset Carbon Emissions, while another of Obama’s Follies display’s the ambiguity of the double entendre of a country that is nearly bankrupt building an Embassy to impress the world with endemic profligacy.
@BRob #21:
Since when is there ever “universal agreement”? But what were the majority in the government saying? Need we pull out all those quotes from Democrats regarding wmd and the threat that Saddam posed to international peace and stability?
Wordsmith comment #41, dude.
Wordsmith —
Can we agree on one thing? Saddam did not have wmd? OK. That means that someone miscalculated. Nuters say “Bush lied”; I say he f-ed up. And he did. Because we invaded over w.m.d. and there was none. If Bush has listened to the IAEA, this would not have happened. But he did not listen because he was paranoid about another attack. Understandable not wanting to get hit again, given that 9/11 was on his watch. But just an utterly bad decision.
I just read your other post. That is all very fascinating. But you know what was missing? Any actual connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Because, as I noted, Saddam could not control them . . . and unlike the Taliban al Qaeda could not control Saddam, either. There is not a single stitch of evidence that Saddam and Osama ever collaborated on anything, even a banquet. And how did the 9/11 commission describe it: “not an operative relationship” or something like that.
So let’s recap: no w.m.d., no involvement in 9/11, no actual relationship with Osama, and, thus, no real threat to the U.S. It was a monumental blunder. Nuters on the left confuse Bush stupidity and miscalculation with deviousness. It was just a stupid war that Bush blundered into.
Just a little video to watch…..
BRob,
Frankly, you might want to read the British newspapers accounts regarding Obama snubs of Britain. Apparently, those Brits are pretty thin-skinned, as well as idiots believing they’ve been insulted. Not my idea, theirs. You cite the special relationship between America and Britain, then say the facts regarding Obama’s actions and the perceptions of the Brits is unimportant. Really? Then why did you bring it up? You can’t have it both ways.
You are trying to get a “rational” answer? Fine.
Do I think the government hasn’t considered the cost of upgrading security, heating, or whatever is needed at the embassy vs building a new 1 billion dollar monstrosity? No, I doubt that they have really even considered that because it doesn’t fit in with their plans. After all, money is no object. They can just raise taxes and get some extra pocket change from us.
Since you’re so big on the “reasonable” price tag of 1 billion, let me ask you a question. How many government construction projects have been built at the estimated cost? We all know if the government is saying 1 billion, it’s going to cost a whole lot more. Waste, corruption, and incompetency always have to be figured into the final cost. Need I mention stimulus money going to non-existent zip codes?
WE CAN’T AFFORD IT! That’s the most rational answer because it is absolutely true. What is so hard to understand about that? I don’t care if Obama says Ronald Regan came to him as a ghost to tell him to build it then name it after Margaret Thatcher. I don’t care if GW stands with Obama out in the snow in the Rose Garden to say he personally designed the embassy, let’s build it. I don’t care if Dick Cheney has a hospital room news conference saying the old embassy only has outhouses – build a new embassy with modern plumbing. I’m not against this because Obama is proposing it. I’m against it because it’s a bad idea, made worse by bad timing. WE CAN’T AFFORD IT! That’s a really easy concept to grasp -just repeat it to yourself a few times.
Lastly, you aren’t trying to debate the value of a new embassy. You are changing the subject to GW by trying to re-write history. There’s really no point in trying to have a rational, friendly debate with you on the merits of the new embassy. You have your own objectives here. Have a good day.
BRob, OK Bud. When was the last time You visited Iraq or spoke with an Iraqi in Iraq
Or visited the Middle East for that matter? Got any first hand knowledge there?
I’m not holding my breath for an answer.
@BRob:
Analogies are imperfect, but here’s one: If a police officer shoots and kills someone who has his hand in his jacket and makes threatening gestures and remarks that he’s going to pull out a gun, but after the fact, it turns out he was reaching for a wallet, toy gun, nothing at all- whatever…is the officer still at fault for his action? Or is the suspect who acted menacingly as though he were armed, the one at fault?
The person responsible, the person to be blamed for the invasion and the fall of Saddam’s Iraq is Saddam.
The cherry-picking, imo, was done by those who did not wish to go to war. Most of the evidence indicated that Saddam was hiding something. Refer back to Butler’s Unresolved Disarmament Issues and Hans Blix’ own report. There were those who also did believe Saddam was a wmd threat who still opposed the war anyway. Then you have someone like Douglas Feith who believed removing Saddam was the right thing to do, even in the absence of actual wmd possession. For Feith, the case against Saddam was strong enough to warrant enforcement of the original cease-fire agreement and a decade of violation of UNSCRs.
The wmd claims were flawed information handed to Bush by the CIA, who incidentally, understated/under examined the links regarding al Qaeda.
I’m glad you can say that Bush did not lie, and respect that you believe, however, that he was wrong.
But imo, the irresponsible thing to do would be to maintain the status quo with Saddam; to kick the problem of Saddam down the road for the next president, and the next, until finally sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam (and his muderous sons) would be free to reconstitute his wmd programs. He made no secrets about his love for all things wmd.
We did not invade over just wmd. Much of the language in the arguments were also about the “not knowing” as much as any claims that Saddam did in fact have them. It was the uncertainty. Also as much about capabilities as possession. Saddam did not do anything to instill confidence that he had in fact disarmed. And that was a problem.
After 12 yrs of getting away with deception and defiance, Saddam thought Bush was “more of the same”, initially. That all that would happen is empty threats, a few aspirin factories would be bombed, more harsh reprimands from the UN, followed by status quo. It’s the weakness and appeasement-mentality of avoiding war at all costs that gives us the Saddams and Ahmadinejads of the world. Were Saddam alive today, would the world be better off? Would we be any more safe? How would his relationship to Islamic terrorism have evolved post-9/11?
After Afghanistan, a number of al Qaeda fighters who fled the battlefield there didn’t just head toward Pakistan. They arrived in Iraq. Before we ever set our cross-hairs on OIF ’03.
B-Rob, Thanks for taking the time to read it. There is ample connections between Saddam and al Qaeda (and I’d even go so far as to say “cooperation”). What has been questionable is the depth and extent of actual operational collaborations.
I need to find where I put Ray Robison’s book, because he makes very persuasive points regarding this. But I have trouble remembering the specifics.
I don’t think Saddam trusted religious groups and avowed jihadis. But he was willing to work with and tolerate them, in part, because some of those within his own circle were not secular baathists, but Islamists; and he found that allowing some (if not others) Islamist groups to operate within Iraq was, in fact, a way to “control” them. Because so long as they weren’t plotting their attacks against secular Muslim governments to include his “secular” government (or finding Saddam insufficiently “pure” as a Muslim), then he didn’t mind allowing them a sort of safe haven.
Saddam did try to portray himself as a good Muslim, even unto the end. Doesn’t matter if it was for politics or sincerity of belief. I don’t see much distinction there.
This might be an interesting read for you: Secular Baathist/Islamic extremist divide overcome repeatedly in Iraq
Well….I don’t think that’s at all conclusive.
I think what they had said was “not enough evidence gathered”, leaving it open-ended for further investigation. There just hadn’t been enough research in the area.
Old Trooper don’t hold your breath, he used the term teabagger, so that means he is buddies with Anderson Cooper and we both know what Cooper does in his spare time.
@BRob,
Just another example of our dumb allies, the Brits, thinking the Obama adminstration is insulting and undermining them, thereby jeopardizing the special American/British relationship. Read the entire article for yourself, but below is a good summation. Doesn’t sound as if the English enjoy being betrayed, does it?
Clinton has demonstrated, not the first time, strikingly poor judgment as Secretary of State. While currying favour with a third rate kleptocracy in Latin America, she is alienating America’s most loyal and valuable friend at a critically important time.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100028048/hillary-clinton-slaps-britain-in-the-face-over-the-falklands/