One detects a certain crying of wolf on the part of Bush critics, such rodomontade involving adjusting growing collectives of subfederal officials saying Bush has left them bereft of money despite what's already been sent to States, Counties, and Cities during Bush...in the nature of saying they've not gotten enough to finish what was started or to even start much of anything other than subprime, non-commercial type housing mass construction, or that more money is needed to provide services to such developments, or both.

 

As examples: all this year, Illinois Democrats in the State legislature grappled with a Cook-Lake County transit issue in the millions and on precept of merely having everyday service funds; last week, Bush helped Illinois find $21 million to keep services through year end; all of a sudden the other day, Chicago transit officials said they alone now need $6 BILLION dollars by January 20 or service will be cut due to aged infrastructure (one assumes the long in-progress and many completed elevated and other train and transit renovations will simply be missed, and all will think Chicago has teh same Els as were tehre for the 19th century Columbian Exposition); elsewhere, officials such as Louisiana Democrat U.S. Senator Landrieu recently said Bush is leaving people in trailers in her State and further that it's just not safe at all (one assumes all will not know or see vast housing and other re-developments always ongoing but apparently locals don't think hurricane victims are a part of their scheme or budget).

 

Okay, maybe some think that if we wish all this "need" for cash on terms such that non-Conservatives ferociously resist State and local accountability being written into fundings, we can just take all that Middle East "waste" and use say Iraq money for things we can trust our local pols and Dems and non-Conservatives to use it to keep our taxes low and build more opportunities for all already here.

 

There are flaws in such thinking. President Bush has an easily justifiable reason for staying the Mid-East course: not all, but an element throught the Arab world seems ensconced in a mentailty such that they constantly use real and bluffed knives to the throats of each other and of the world at-large, seeming dependent on such element's sole militant bent that the way someone fails to use oil or share its profits is all it takes to get hit or threatened...gee, I wonder why some, part of or by circumstance in craven admiration of, such element wouldn't want the USA or anyone else so much as policing the area, since that alone makes it harder to bluff or come into real possession of real death-delivering capability or massings.

 

But fine...toss out all Mid-East money toute-suite! While many subfederals presently balk on accountability from SCHIP funds to infrastructure and blame Bush for needing mass housing of all foreign born folks more to pacify them than provide say jobs or otherwise notice those already here as nationals or legal residents, some subfederal non-Conservatives will be forthright in their intentions of what Iraq money should be used for in lieu of troops.

 

At http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-08-muslims_N.htm, there now appears a story re the Los Angeles Democrat Mayor wanting the LAPD to both cast an air of criminality over all Muslims there, while concurrently saying that if any are upset or open to recruitment by say bin Laden, then what you do is give them a house or otherwise bring them into the New Urban ways immediately...i.e., give candy to everyone who says they'll go jihad otherwise, and by all means invite as many more such folks as we can. Paragraph seven of the said link currently says verbatim: "If a community is isolated, it may be determined that it is susceptible to extremist ideology, Downing said. In such cases, he said, police could then go into those communities and try to head off potential problems by offering people access to government and social services."

 

Wherefore, I continue to support President Bush re the whole war on terror, as having no troops in the Mid-East NOR the USA (see BRAC) and bringing in all Muslims who share bin Laden's fundamentalism, bin Ladenism being the AUMF enemy of the United States Of America...well, I have no sovereign immunity/police tactics to hide behind, and I respectfully submit that were I to endorse the bringing in and capitulating to operatives of al-Qaeda inter alia...group(s) the enemy of many people including peace-seeking Muslims...as a private USA national I would be left open to charge of treason against the United States Of America, and crimes abetting the martial enemy thereof and of USA allies...not to mention being put on other nation's watch lists for welcoming and coddling jihadists.