Yesterday, Representative Peter Stark (D-CA) indicated that President Bush doesn't have the money for "children" or the war; one can only presume the gentleman from Fremont means that if Bush is going to make States and Cities and Counties be accountable for proving they spend SCHIP money on children and in the way it's sold via MoveOn, then he can lump actual hurricane victim and child money together with the money to continue in Iraq...further, Mr. Stark says our troops can expect only to get their heads blown off from now on if they stay.

 

I guess some in the global population could sound byte that and hear an inference that global insurgencies and even al-Qaeda ebb and flow based on the bluster of Democrats...especially where folks like Obama say the USA flag is sick and unworthy of pride, and it seems thumbs up or thumbs down from non-Conservatives re Iraq itself ebbs and flows on prospects of non-accountable sub-Federal funds. That sort of impression would undermine our troops' progress, purpose even Democrats and the United Nations wanted Iraq action even under Clinton, and signal even if falsely that insurgencies worldwide have a battering ram against the USA commander in chief and his and allied forces.

 

Then there's the non-Conservative position that things like SCHIP don't need sub-Federal accountability; considering that the DNC website contact page has a drop menu which lists "honest government" as a topic, and considering Democrats loudly proclaim they're for government accountability and transparency, why is wrong to suspect anything just because non-Conservatives adamantly oppose sub-Federal prove-ups of monies spent? How does that make it look when sub-Federals, like Cook County Illinois re its Board, have been asking to add jail guards, add mental health monitors, and raise their own salaries 27% before SCHIP veto vote, without regard or mention of area subprime and other ejectment issues looming, then say they can't pass such a budget as soon as the House sustains the veto? No GOP or Democrat Board member conjures that suspicion, Federal non-Conservatives who are not President Bush do it for them.

 

All armed conflicts from the beginning of history have been results of breakdowns in diplomacy. Once again, we have some who would do whatever they could to undermine anyone anywhere, and even infer they HAVE to close businesses and make mass housing to please Hu Jintao or Putin or the man in the moon as well as adopt a Socialist motif to make it happen...as on grounds known only to them so "going green" unilaterally would bring world peace, there being no such fiat(s) from foreign leaders themselves.

 

If Democrats and non-Conservatives want to stand on the principles of ancient Roman philosopher Helvidius Priscus and insist that Caesar has no rights to require States and Counties and Cities to account what they spend public money upon, they might simply say that and avoid the brinky inferences they draw to national security, our troops, all officials, and diplomacy.

 

I continue to support President Bush as he attempts to work with Congress in finding more direct and positive motion in improving things for as many as he can, and as he works toward helping global issues without expectation any nation(s) would have to do without free trade or would have to capitulate to groups like al-Qaeda.