Secy. of State Rice expresses concern over Chinese military build up

Item: The United States is concerned about China's military build-up and Beijing should make its intentions clear, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said.

Very interesting - Condi says the US govt. is concerned that China; a nation with a population of 1.3 billion people is increasing its military spending by double digits each year to - horrors - $35 billion dollars! Oh my God! Let's see that's $35 billion divided by 1.3 billion or $26.92 a year per capita. That's twenty-six dollars and ninety-two cents (Source - CIA World Fact Book)

This from the highest diplomatic representative of a country with around 300 million people with a FY 2007 defense budget of $439.3 billion or $1,464.33 per capita. $173 million of that is for NEW nuclear weapons - bridge funding of $50 billion for 2 wars etc. The White House is actually bragging that the war budget has gone up by 48% since 2001 (Source White House OMB)

If we followed the Chinese formula of - let's call it $27 dollars per capita we'd have a military budget of $8.1 billion. WOW! We'd save $430 billion dollars (just think of what we could do with that) - but then we couldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan (oh nooo) we would only be able to protect our own territory. Interesting thought that - then maybe we wouldn't be seen as such a threat to millions of people around the world? Then maybe we wouldn't be such a target and 9/11 might not have happened? Nah - impossible. Just the deranged ramblings of some old hippie liberal dude.

So anyway - who's worried about who? When's the last time the Chinese invaded a country under a false pretext? Yes, we suppose they could invade Taiwan. It is a possibility, one we've planned for over many years. And as my Dad says - "we'll blow that bridge up when we get to it." But the fact of the matter is it's not the Chinese who rampage all over the world abducting innocent civilians and putting them away for years without trial, torturing them in secret prisons, invading countries, threatening military action against Iran. Ok, OK, they do torture innocent civilians – whose copying who? Are they just like us or are we just like them?

But we're "concerned" about the Chinese? What does that mean Condi? Concerned enough to do what? Talk? "Concerned" has got to mean something. The Secretary of State doesn't just speak without meaning something. Doesn't have to be the truth - just look at Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq War. Does it mean we're going to face them down? Put in sanctions? Forget that; too many rich Americans make too much money exporting jobs to China. What does it mean? We've already invaded two counties, we're thinking about a third - how about paint ball?

I'm not saying that the Chinese aren't something to be concerned about but this remark of hers just made my blood boil especially when she brought up the size of their military budget. Criminy! $35 billion? Chicken feed. We spend that in one month in Iraq. Wake up America! Don't they think we are listening? This administration are not even real Republicans. They are just incompetent robber barons. And with all due respect to my family in Wyoming, among whom are some real Republicans, 'ol "Buckshot" Cheney is the worst of the bunch.

Message to the Democrats - PLEASE DONT IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH - IF WE DO WE'LL END UP WITH CHENEY!! And if we impeach Cheney we'll get Denny Hastert... fuggedaboudit. It's really not worth it. Actually we should impeach the whole lot and then not convict. Maybe that will teach them a lesson but I doubt it. Here's an interesting scenario - Bush is impeached and Cheney takes over. Who does he appoint as his VP? Bill Frist? Think about it. Then the appointed Veep runs for President in '08 as a semi-incumbent. Hmmm... or would Cheney run? Aaah - get me out of this nightmare!

One more thing and I'll shut up.

I know I'm not the only one who's noticed GWB hasn't vetoed a single piece of legislation in 5+ years. And the only vetoes he's even threatened were: a) against McCain's bill to prohibit torture which he eventually was shamed into signing but with a little "signing statement" on the side saying in effect he could ignore the law if he wanted to. Just like FISA - which he's not just ignoring but breaking the law and thumbing his nose at the American people, Congress and the Judiciary and all the while just daring someone to do something about it. As Gloria Steinem said the other day "he invaded the wrong country - what makes you think he's spying on the right people?" Woo hoo - good one G! And b) the other threatened veto was against the bill Congress was planning to introduce banning the Dubai Ports World deal. Not that I was against that. Tells a story doesn't it? Or does it, I dunno ask Bill O’Reilly. He’ll tell you a story or two.

Bush won't veto all the profligate deficit spending he shoves down our throats. He won't veto massive cuts to the most unfortunate in our society - oh yeah - those are his cuts why veto your own proposals?? But he would veto to protect his right to be like the Chinese and torture innocent civilians and for a bunch more of the super rich to make even more money? Something wrong with this picture?

Sheesh - it's enough to make you want to turn on "Desperate Housewives" scarf down another beer and a burger and forget the whole mess. Unfortunately too many of us Americans do just that and trust this gang who can't shoot straight (literally... duck, here comes Buckshot Cheney!) with our precious democracy. 49% of the eligible voters in this country didn't even bother to vote in 2004. It's so sad that after all millions of people around the world risk their lives to vote (yes the Iraqis & Afghanis too and couldn't have unless we invaded) and we won't get off our fat asses and spend 20 minutes at our local polling place.

I propose that next time there is an election we do the real American thing: watch TV! No, I mean make sure we are registered - make sure all our friends and family are registered and then when election day rolls around drag the SOBs down to the polling place with us. If we could reduce the non-voters by half at least we'd have a large majority of eligible voters voting on the questions of the day and we Americans could look each other in the eye and say we had a real election. Not one where the winner was appointed/anointed or where the winner was elected by a minority of eligible voters. A real election for a real democracy; not some Faux News version of an ersatz democracy. Then would I shut up? Probably not - there is always some injustice, some outrage, it's the nature of the world. Doesn't mean we have to take it lying down. I mean come on... $26.92 and she's worried???