Reflections on the "New American" Revolution
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Profiteering driving the war in Iraq?: "while Truman led this country in what Churchill called the 'most unsordid act in history,' the stories about Iraqi reconstruction keep getting more sordid. And the sordidness isn't, as some would have you believe, a minor blemish on an otherwise noble enterprise.
Cronyism is an important factor in our Iraqi debacle. It's not just that reconstruction is much more expensive than it should be. The really important thing is that cronyism is warping policy: by treating contracts as prizes to be handed to their friends, administration officials are delaying Iraq's recovery, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
It's rarely mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans were very concerned about profiteering in the name of patriotism. To get Congressional approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency independent of the White House, and Marshall promised that priorities would be determined by Europeans, not Americans.
Fortunately, Truman's assurances were credible. Although he is now honored for his postwar leadership, Truman initially rose to prominence as a fierce crusader against war profiteering, which he considered treason. "
Bush Insiders' New Firm Profits on Contracts in Iraq: "A group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family and his administration have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects.
The firm, New Bridge Strategies, is headed by Joe M. Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March. Other directors include Edward M. Rogers Jr., vice chairman, and Lanny Griffith, lobbyists who were assistants to the first President George Bush and now have close ties to the White House."
Bush administration's proud about reducing Welfare payments while increasing poverty rate: "What should be surprising, even alarming, is the reaction of the Bush administration, which seems to range from indifference to petulance. Just three weeks ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced proudly that the number of people receiving welfare benefits continued to fall last year. Does the administration really believe that when the number of people who need public assistance goes up, the number who actually receive it should go down? As recently as the mid-1990s, eight out of 10 families who were eligible for public assistance actually received it. Today, that figure is five out of 10.
...The number of jobless Americans who have exhausted their government unemployment benefits is twice as high as it was at a comparable point in the last recession, and yet President Bush has fought congressional efforts to extend unemployment benefits. More than 1 million Americans have lost their private health insurance during the last two years, yet the administration's answer is to propose shifting the responsibility for subsidized health insurance, through Medicaid, from Washington to the states."
White House Denies a Top Aide Identified an Officer of the C.I.A.: "'There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president's office as well,' he said.
Should any White House officials be found to have disclosed the information, he said, they would lose their jobs, 'at a minimum.'"
And what about those who lie to us? What are the penalties for that?
U.S.-British Differences Show Iraq Intelligence Gap (washingtonpost.com): "there were two points on which the United States and the British agreed: that there was no evidence before the war that Hussein had given chemical or biological materials to terrorists, and that the Iraqi leader probably would take such a step only if his government was about to collapse under attack.
Senior U.S. and British policymakers cited the threat of Iraq's turning such weapons over to terrorists as a reason for attacking Baghdad. "
Sunday, September 28, 2003
The Right's Grip on the Capitol: "under the political radar, a long-sought, hard-right G.O.P. agenda has been quietly progressing. Proposals dear to the Republican leadership that would undermine gun controls, women's reproductive freedom, a citizen's right to seek court redress, and a vital array of other constitutional bulwarks are moving slowly toward what in some cases seems like almost certain passage."
N Korea calls Rumsfeld 'psychopath': "North Korea has launched a scathing attack on US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, calling him a 'dictatorial psychopath'.
The official KCNA news agency commentary went on to call him a 'politically illiterate old man' who was 'cursed and hated worldwide' because of his belief that only the US can dispense international justice. "
Saturday, September 27, 2003
House Probers Conclude Iraq War Data Was Weak (washingtonpost.com): "Leaders of the House intelligence committee have criticized the U.S. intelligence community for using largely outdated, 'circumstantial' and 'fragmentary' information with 'too many uncertainties' to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.
Top members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which spent four months combing through 19 volumes of classified material used by the Bush administration to make its case for the war on Iraq, found 'significant deficiencies' in the community's ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq, and said it had to rely on 'past assessments' dating to when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 and on 'some new 'piecemeal' intelligence,' both of which 'were not challenged as a routine matter.' "
First they fail to arrest the 9-11 terrorists when they were watching them before the attacks, and now they lead us up the garden path in Iraq. We're spending $30 Billion + on this misleading "intelligence" community.
We'd be better off employing people to read the newspapers. Those of us who did read the news knew that the intelligence assesments touted by Bush et al. were exagerated. Despite that, we were railroaded into the war. And the consequences are in the newspapers every day; tragedy for hundreds of US families, and thousands of Iraqi families.
Leak of CIA Name Being Investigated (washingtonpost.com): "A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
'Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,' the senior official said of the alleged leak."
Review of Environment Rules Finds Benefits Outweigh Costs: "the benefits of some major environmental rules appear to exceed the costs by several times "
Bush: please note! When you weaken environmental regulations, you say you do it for the sake of jobs and industry. But this study proves that argument wrong.
The economy grows more with environmental regulation. That means its good for the economy and good for jobs.
Weakening regulations that are good for the environment is bad for the economy and hurts workers. Who does it benefit? The shareholders of polluting companies. And only in the short term. Which is pretty much what all your economic policies do.
CIA Seeks Probe of White House: "the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether White House officials blew [a CIA agent]'s cover in retaliation against Wilson. Revealing the identities of covert officials is a violation of two laws, the National Agents? Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act. "
Russia Sends Message to U.S. About Iraqi Oil Contracts: "Russia would agree to send troops to help the American-led coalition in Iraq if the Bush administration moved to protect Russian oil interests in that country, according to Russian businessmen"
The US is not the only cynical player in Iraq, that is clear. But this trading for oil with governments and armies is sickening. I mean, is our national interest the same as the interest of Exxon, Lukoil, and Chevron? Should our soldiers die to defend their oil contracts? Is that what they are in fact doing right now? Dying for the shareholders of our oil companies?
Friday, September 26, 2003
Bill O'Reilly to apologise for trusting Bush?: "'And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.' -- Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly on Good Morning America, March 18."
'You lied, they died,' US parents tell Bush: "The father of a soldier killed in Iraq accused President George Bush yesterday of being responsible for his son's death.
Fernando Suarez, whose 20-year-old son, Jesus, was one of the first fatalities, said: 'My son died because Bush lied.'
Mr Suarez, from Escondido, California, speaking at a press conference to publicise tomorrow's anti-war demonstrations in eight US cities, said that about 1,300 parents of troops stationed in Iraq were involved in a movement against the oc cupation. 'It is time for these troops to come home,' said Mr Suarez. 'Neither my wife nor my family want more children to die in this illegal war. We are no less patriotic for wanting peace. Bush wants $87bn [£52m] for this war, but what does he give us for our schools?' he asked. "
U.S. Poverty Rate Up, Income Down for Second Straight Year (washingtonpost.com): "Nearly 1.7 million people fell into poverty last year, ticking the official poverty rate up to 12.1 percent from the 2001 rate of 11.7 percent, the second straight year that poverty has increased in the United States, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. "
Wait for Bush to call for more tax breaks for the wealthy to end the scandal of rising poverty in the US. And to blame the democrats for the poverty.
TOMPAINE.com - What Can $87 Billion Buy?:
"$87b Is More Than Double The Total Amount The Government Spends On Homeland Security
The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet, Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote 'America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs' for homeland security without a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations]
$87b Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget Deficits In The United States
The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
$87b Is Rougly The Total Of Two Years Worth Of All U.S. Unemployment Benefits
The U.S. spends about $50 billion a year on unemployment insurance. At least 1.1 million people have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits without finding a job, and yet Congress has refused to extend benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
$87b Is Enough To Pay The 3.3 Million People Who Have Lost Jobs $26,363 Each
The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to 'workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work.' All told, two thirds of unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
The Deficit Disappeared, but That Was Then: "In the last couple of years, the 10-year deficit predicted by the Congressional Budget Office has swung from a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion to a total deficit of at least $2.3 trillion — the result of a sour economy, President Bush's tax cuts and unanticipated spending for war and domestic security.
The last time there was a spike in the federal deficit, it grew out of Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 and the deep recession in the early 1980's. Over the rest of that decade, politicians in Washington tried various gimmicks to deal with the situation, none of which worked.
Then, in 1990, after a year of wrenching negotiations, President George H. W. Bush and the Democratic Congress struck a deal in which income taxes were increased and rigid rules were imposed that limited spending.
... Without a single Republican vote, Mr. Clinton won approval of legislation in 1993 that raised income taxes, mostly on the wealthy, and kept the spending discipline rules that had been enacted in 1990.
... Then, unexpectedly, the economy began to soar. Tax revenue surged. Government spending leveled off."
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Inspectors Find No Weapons : "Even the Pentagon's intelligence agency had warned in a classified September 2002 report that 'there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.'5 "
With No Plan Apparent, GIs in Iraq Slowly Becoming Frantic: "We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of 'suck it up and drive on.' We just want somewhere to drive on to. "
With No Plan Apparent, GIs in Iraq Slowly Becoming Frantic: "Yes, we are physically able to finish our mission, but mentally and spiritually we are dying. "
Iraqi Broadcasters Risk Being Closed If They Put Saddam's Voice On Air: "After telling the world that most Iraqis are delighted with their 'liberation' and forthcoming 'democracy', the authorities are obviously aware that many Iraqis don't feel that way at all. Journalists must also inform the authorities of 'any acts of sabotage, criminal activity, terrorism or any violent action ... before or after an attack takes place'.
Journalists - even those with al-Jazeera - do not receive advance warning of ambushes. The rule is in effect asking them to become assistants to the occupation authorities. "
In GOP, Concern Over Iraq Price Tag (washingtonpost.com): "Senate GOP leaders are rushing to bring the $87 billion request to a vote by the end of next week, prompting Democratic complaints that the measure is not being fully considered. Daschle questioned the need for haste, noting that Bremer told Democrats this week that the money will not be needed until January."
In GOP, Concern Over Iraq Price Tag (washingtonpost.com): "A new curriculum for training an Iraqi army for $164 million. Five hundred experts, at $200,000 each, to investigate crimes against humanity. A witness protection program for $200,000 per Iraqi participant. A computer study for the Iraqi postal service: $54 million.
Such numbers, buried in President Bush's $20.3 billion request for Iraq's reconstruction, have made some congressional Republicans nervous, even furious. Although the GOP leadership has tried to unite publicly around its president, cracks are beginning to show."
Report Weakens Cheney Denial: "A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday. The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of 'retained ties' to his former company.
Cheney said Sunday on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that since becoming vice president, 'I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.' "
Israel Air Force pilots refuse to carry "out illegal and immoral orders to attack" Palestinian areas: "'We, both veteran and active pilots, who have served and who still serve the state of Israel, are opposed to carrying out illegal and immoral orders to attack, of the type Israel carries out in the territories,' the letter states. 'We, for whom the IDF and the air force are an integral part of our being, refuse to continue to hit innocent civilians ... The continued occupation is critically harming the country's
security' and moral fiber, it added. "
U.S. Income Gap Widening, Study Says: "The gap between rich and poor more than doubled from 1979 to 2000, an analysis of government data shows.
The gulf is such that the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2000 had more money to spend after taxes than the bottom 40 percent.
In 1979, the wealthiest 1 percent had just under half the after-tax income of the poorest 40 percent of Americans, analysis of new data from the Congressional Budget Office shows."
... "Federal tax burdens for most Americans had declined over the previous two decades, and not risen as some conservative policy experts have asserted, the center said. Congress enacted tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were heavily weighted to the top 1 percent, which supporters said would encourage them to invest more to the benefit of all Americans"
Yahoo! News - Bush Fails to Gain Pledges on Troops or Funds for Iraq: "Bush's empty-handed departure after two days at the United Nations (news - web sites), combined with warnings from the military that it will soon need fresh U.S. troops to relieve those in Iraq, makes it increasingly likely that the U.S. military will have to rely on its own reservists to do the job -- a politically dicey move for Bush, whose domestic support already has declined because of the continuing instability in Iraq. "
: "'As attacks against them continue, U.S. soldiers are sometimes resorting to deadly force in a reckless and indiscriminate way,' said Joe Stork, acting executive director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa Division. 'This puts all civilians, not just journalists, at grave risk.' "
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Straw defends Iraq invasion in UN speech: "Foreign secretary Jack Straw today defended the invasion of Iraq, saying that without military action Saddam Hussein would have been 'emboldened' and the United Nations 'gravely weakened'.
... I firmly believe that the decision we took was the right one. The authority of the United Nations was at stake. "
Mr. Straw: This is a travesty of the truth.
So the US and UK had to invade Iraq because the credibility of the UN was at stake. This is a new argument for the war in Iraq. Everyone else at the UN, except Spain and Romania, was of the opinion that the UN was doing something. UN inspectors were in Iraq searching for the WMD.
Press Watchdogs Concerned About Press Freedom in Iraq: "International press watchdogs and human rights groups say they are increasingly concerned about press freedom in Iraq (news - web sites).
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) this week said it was 'deeply troubled' by the decision of Iraq's governing council, which makes recommendations to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, to bar two major Arab satellite television stations from entering governing ministries or covering the council's press conferences.
At the same time, Reporters Without Borders, an international group based in Paris, 'strongly condemned' the Council's decision, calling it a 'clear and blatant attack on press freedom.' "
Yahoo! News - WHY WE HATE BUSH: "Fear breeds hatred, and Bush's policies create a lot of both. U.S. citizens like Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi disappear into the night, never to be heard from again. A concentration camp rises at Guantánamo. Stasi-like spies tap our phones and read our mail; thanks to the ironically-named Patriot Act, these thugs don't even need a warrant. As individual rights are trampled, corporate profits are sacrosanct. An aggressive, expansionist military invades other nations 'preemptively' to eliminate the threat of non-existent weapons, and American troops die to enrich a company that buys off the Vice President. "
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
A Judge decides on our constitutional right to speak out: "'As you know, the strength of our great country lies in its Constitution and her laws and in her courts. But more fundamentally, the strength of our great country lies in the resolve of her citizens to stand up for what is right when the masses are silent. And, unfortunately, sometimes it becomes the lot of the few, sometimes like yourselves, to stand up for what's right when the masses are silent.'"
Yahoo! News - U.S., Iraq Official Clash on Timetable: "The Bush administration is locked in a deepening dispute with the leader of Iraq (news - web sites)'s American-installed interim government, Ahmad Chalabi, over a timetable for self-rule — still another complication for U.S. efforts to rebuild the country"
...... "Ivo Daalder, a Brookings Institution analyst and co-author of a book on Bush's foreign policy, said the split is putting the administration in an embarrassing position.
The Iraqi authorities are 'not legitimate because we installed them,' Daalder said. 'And so we now have a problem of going against the people we put in power, saying they can't be trusted.' "
Yesterday Bush told the UN that events in Iraq should be determined by Iraqi's, not outside parties. "President Bush suggested that ..."The process should be 'neither hurried nor delayed by the wishes of other parties,"
Clearly, the US is an outside party. Yet, here is the leader of the Iraqi governing body that the US set up calling for rapid transfer of sovereignty to Iraqi's and guess who objects? The US. Pretty much calls Bush's bluff, don't you think?
I have posted some of the analysis of Bush's UN speech yesterday on this blog. It was a sad speech, full of bluster, as well as gratuitous and misleading statements. Really an exercise in hollow, insincere and contradictory claims--masking his true agenda--over reasonable policy.
His administration's hold on Iraqi sovereignty is basically illegal, and here he is resisting the calls of the very people he is trying to install in power. It's nonsensical, farcical. Could only happen with Bush. Fool on us for allowing him to get away with this BS. He needs to be held to account, and the chilling effect of his projected paranoia ended by either impeachment or defeat in 04.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Arab stations in Iraq face curbs: "The US-appointed Iraq Governing Council says it has decided to limit the operations of two leading Arabic news channels... "
AlterNet: IVINS: Bush-haters: "By now, we're starting to notice Bush's bait-and-switch con. Make a deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education, and then fail to put any money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow), but it turns out to be a cheap con � no new money. Bush comes to praise a job-training effort, then cuts the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy?
Then suddenly, in the greatest bait and switch of all time, Osama bin doesn't matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9-11. But he does have horrible weapons of mass destruction. So we take out Saddam Hussein, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed to see us. By now, quite a few people who aren't even liberal are starting to say, 'Wha' the hey?'
We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to hell, we're stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year, and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Krauthammer is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a president. "
'No WMD in Iraq', source claims: "No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq by the group tasked with looking for them, according to a Bush administration source who has spoken to the BBC.
The source told the presenter of BBC television's Daily Politics show, Andrew Neil, this was the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group's interim report, which the source said was due to be published next month.
Mr Neil said the draft report says it was highly unlikely that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were shipped out of the country to places like Syria before the US-led war on Iraq.
"
Iraqi Women Worse Off after US invasion, U.N. Official Says: "Iraqi women are worse off than before U.S. forces ousted Saddam Hussein and are too afraid to play a big political role for fear of being a target of extremists, a senior U.N. official said on Tuesday. "
Indignant Arabs Say Bush Must Fix Iraq Mess Solo: "``He should admit that he's wrong because he killed a lot of people and made them homeless. He deserves a good beating with my shoes,'' said Egyptian cleaning lady Raga Mohamed. ``He can't expect to destroy a country and then ask the world to help him.''"
A Vague Pitch Leaves Mostly Puzzlement (washingtonpost.com): "Bush tried to walk a fine line between defending a war deeply unpopular in much of the world and looking for help from reluctant countries to rebuild Iraq. The result left diplomats and lawmakers puzzled about his ultimate intentions.
Bush, in fact, sidestepped direct answers to many of the questions that have arisen since the administration said it would seek a Security Council resolution that would expand the United Nations' role in Iraq and call on countries to contribute more troops and money. How quickly would the United States grant sovereignty to the Iraqis? Would the administration grant any decision-making role to the United Nations in exchange for its imprimatur? Or does the administration simply want assistance without giving up much in return?"
Bush's plea for UN help in Iraq sparks hostile response: "Mr Bush, for his part, defended the war without apology, despite the continuing violence in the country and absence of any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Indeed Mr Bush raised the issue of the weapons once again: 'The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world.'"
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
PM's aide ordered dossier change to boost war case, admits spy chief: "Intelligence that undermined the case for war against Saddam Hussein was dropped from the Iraq dossier at the last minute after the intervention of Tony Blair's chief of staff."
Bush isolated as speech to UN falls flat: "'No one can act alone in the name of all and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules,' [Chirac] said. 'The war, launched without the authorisation of the security council, shook the multilateral system. The UN has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history.'
... Earlier the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, condemned the doctrine of preemptive military intervention, arguing that it could lead to the unjustified "lawless use of force" and posed a "fundamental challenge" to world peace and stability.
"My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification," said Mr Annan. "This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years."
The Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who also spoke before Mr Bush, said: "A war can perhaps be won single-handedly. But peace - lasting peace - cannot be secured without the support of all."
"
Kennedy's 'Uncivil' Truths on Iraq: "Kennedy raised a lot of eyebrows with some tough language, but unlike the president he had the facts behind him. Instead of complaining about language, Bush would be wiser to realize that the truth about bribery and an end to the fraud would be much more productive. "
Six Months After the Attack on Iraq: "Start working in partnership with the international community to turn power over to the Iraqis and bring peace to Iraq as quickly as possible. Work against terrorism and repression of human rights through international law, not wars. And drop the policy of pre-emptive attack before we make another mistake like the war against Iraq. The reality of war is not democracy and liberation, as the Bush administration has argued. In the words of hip hop artist Michael Franti, 'You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace.' "
Behind Bush's Speech at U.N. Today, a White House on Edge: "the White House goal is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next fall's re-election campaign."
Bush's U.N. Speech Gets Scathing Reviews on Capitol Hill: "'He has now asked for $87 billion more. And I wish he would have made a stronger case, a better case with more specificity about a plan. He hasn't presented a plan to the United Nations. He hasn't presented one to this country or to this Congress. It was a missed opportunity, and that's very disappointing.'
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said Mr. Bush's rhetoric was becoming 'more stirring.'
'But once again he has failed to tell us exactly what role he expects the United Nations to play now and what timetable he envisions for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people,' said Mr. Kerry, who is running for president. "
Monday, September 22, 2003
Former Bush Official uses spurious statements and untruths to defend Iraq costs:
Let's take these one at a time: "Critics are using words like ''massive'' and ''staggering'' to describe the cost. But what we really should ask is: Compared with what? We cannot walk away. "
Well, let's look at specific examples that put these costs in perspective. "The administration fought against a $200 million boost for America's police officers, firefighters and paramedics," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. "But Iraqi first responders would get $290 million through this" Bush proposal.
"Europeans never have repaid us for our efforts on their behalf during the 20th century."
That is simply a lie. The British had to pay back every penny of the loans the US government gave them during the war.
But it was still in America's own interest to be involved in those conflicts. The same is true of deposing Saddam and building a more democratic Iraq. It's worth it, whether or not countries like France contribute.
Is it really worth it, to have put US troops in the firing line of terrorists who otherwise couldn't have reached them? Is it really worth it to be spending more than $100 Billion in Iraq when we are having a jobless recovery at home. How many jobs would be created here with that money? And is it really worth it to have diminished the credibility of the USA by insisting on a war when none of the stated reasons for it hold water today? Not to me.
This has become a central battle in the war on terror only because Bush has fallen hook line and sinker for the terrorists bait. They are playing him like a fish, and he thinks he's showing leadership by doing exactly what they want him to. It's pathetic.
On 9/11, we were attacked because terrorists did not fear retribution. We had not retaliated against attacks abroad or against the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.
We were attacked because the terrorists hate us. They hate us because of our policies. Not because of our freedoms. They don't care about our freedoms. They would take them away from us, and guess what. They don't have to, because our own government is doing it for them.
The Clinton administration sent 70+ cruise missiles to kill Bin Ladin after the embassy bombings. They nearly got him. Bush backed off on that effort before 9-11.
And lastly, we did exact retribution for the WTC bombing in 1993. The perpetrators are in jail. They were given a trial in the US justice system, the same one that our current administration is usurping in the case of several US citizen whose basic human rights are being denied by our "Justice Department", and in the cases of hundreds of suspected material witnesses and enemy combatants. in the 1993 case, we found the murderous bombers, tried them and put them in jail through the justice system. And that is how crimes should be punished, in my opinion.
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Iraq attacks kill three US troops: "The growing insurgency has heightened international concern about the US strategy in Iraq. "
Fear as human shield faces jail: "To many she is a humanitarian, but in the eyes of the US Government she is a criminal. "
The Lost Vocabulary of Disinterested Politics: "Arnold Schwarzenegger began his campaign to lead California by pledging to become 'the people's governor,' vowing that he would accept no money from the 'special interests who have a stranglehold on Sacramento.' When it turned out that he had accepted contributions from developers and other wealthy individuals, he explained that those weren't special interests but merely 'powerful interests who control things.'
What he had meant, he said, was that he would refuse contributions only from public employee unions or other groups he might have to negotiate with as governor. He apologized for the confusion by saying, 'I was not articulate enough to explain that.'"
Yahoo! News - Soaring Iraqi Costs Mean More U.S. Business: "U.S. companies will likely reap billions of dollars in the next round of reconstruction contracts.
The U.S. Agency for International Development this week rolled out a $1.5 billion draft tender to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure when money runs dry for a contract it gave to San Francisco construction firm Bechtel. "
Bush steps up fight against European safety testing: "President George Bush is mounting an intensive campaign to force European countries to drop safety tests expected to save thousands of lives each year, internal US government documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal.
Saturday, September 20, 2003
The Observer | International | Bush covers up climate research: "White House officials have undermined their own government scientists' research into climate change to play down the impact of global warming, an investigation by The Observer can reveal.
... Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain.
The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney.
"
Energy Bill's Tax Breaks Weighed on Hill (washingtonpost.com): "Congressional negotiators are weighing House and Senate proposals to include dozens of tax breaks for industries in pending energy legislation, even though they could add as much as $19 billion to the federal budget deficit in the next decade.
... Republican lawmakers, trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the far-reaching energy legislation, say the tax proposals are part of a well-rounded package of incentives to make the U.S. energy system more self-sufficient and reliable."
Right. Even the Secretary of Energy says they are way too big. The Bush administration, which couldn't be much more pro-energy company, is "only" asking for $10 Billion.
These tax breaks are only needed to satisfy the greed of the managers and owners of the energy companies. They are needed to win campaign contributions for the GOP. They are a symptom of the corruption of our government and politicians, and the power of lobbyists.
I am in favor of tax breaks for wind, solar, hydrogen power. These energy sources deserve some support from our government, and have broad social benefits in addition to producing power. Namely, they are cleaner than carbon sources, they are emerging technologies which will create employment, they will reduce our dependence on imported oil and fuels with a finite supply--which adds to our security as a nation.
Mr. Ashcroft's Tantrum (washingtonpost.com): "The attorney general followed with a sarcastic harangue of critics of the Patriot Act. 'The charges of the hysterics are revealed for what they are: castles in the air,' he scoffed. 'Built on misrepresentation. Supported by unfounded fear. Held aloft by hysteria.' And he continued: 'Allow me to take a moment to clarify who should, and who should not, be worried about these tools in the hands of law enforcement. If you are spending a lot of time surveilling nuclear power plants with your al Qaeda pals, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If your idea of a vacation is two weeks in a terrorist training camp, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If you have cave-side dinners with a certain terrorist thug named bin Laden . . . if you enjoy swapping recipes for chemical weapons from your 'Joy of Jihad' cookbook . . . you might be a target of the Patriot Act.' "
What kind of statement is that? Surely, if any of the above conditions held, then you should be a target of investigation. The Patriot Act is criticised for extending the powers of government in ways that infringe our civil liberties.
The government already had enough power to investigate people who are haning out with Bin Laden. It needs to do more with what it has, not get more power. Especially not powers that are exercised in secret and infringe our rights. Those are the kind of powers that we would expect a fundementalist government to impose.
White House is Ambushed by Criticism from America's Military Community: "One big rallying point for the critics is the Pentagon's budget plan, which proposes cutting $1.8 billion (£1.1bn) from veterans' health benefits and reducing combat pay from the current $225 a month to $150, which is where it stood until the Iraq war began in the spring. The budget will not be finalized until later this month, and the White House - embarrassed by editorials in the Army Times and by news stories in the mainstream press throughout America - says it won't insist on the combat pay cutback.
Another rallying point is the lack of official explanation for more than 100 cases of respiratory illness in the Middle East. According to the Pentagon, 19 soldiers have required mechanical ventilation and two have died. Military personnel believe the use of depleted uranium may have played a part in this mystery illness."
Friday, September 19, 2003
Killing Them Softly: "'Bush does not realize how many people are going to suffer,' Mr. Awiti said. 'If you don't give money to the consortium, does he know how many deaths he will cause?'"
UN surges to Arafat's defence: "The UN demanded that Israel drop its threat to remove the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, by an overwhelmingly majority yesterday, thus isolating Israel and the US.
The general assembly voted 133-4 the day after President Bush blamed Mr Arafat for undermining the current round of peace negotiations, which have been stalled by renewed violence. "
Wasn't Bush saying yesterday that when the Palestinian's had a leader who renounced violence, the world would gather to support them? Well, clearly the world has spoken a different message today. Bush should listen.
TOMPAINE.com - Deconstructing George: "And one thing is for certain: no terrorist organization will ever get a weapon of mass destruction from Mr. Saddam Hussein. "
This is one thing I agree with Bush about. Clearly, Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMD, so he wouldn't have been able to give them to any terrorists.
Our Role in the Terror: "Ironically, we tend to become like our enemies. In describing his war against terror as a battle between good and evil, President Bush has unwittingly reproduced the rhetoric of Bin Laden.
... The west has also cultivated its future enemies, by arming Bin Laden and other Arab mujahedin in Afghanistan during the cold war and by giving initial support to the Taliban. These exploitative policies reflect a thinly veiled contempt; the religious ideas of these groups were dismissed as beneath serious consideration.
..."Terrorism is wicked and abhorrent, but it has not come out of the blue. If we simply write off these movements as irrational and inexplicable, we will feel no need to examine our own policies and behavior. The shocking nihilism of the suicide killers shows they feel they have nothing to lose. Millennial or fundamentalist extremism has risen in nearly every cultural tradition where there are pronounced inequalities of wealth, power and status. The only way to create a safer world is to ensure that it is more just. "
The Striking Similarities Between Vietnam and Iraq: Can You Say Quagmire?: "President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney told us that we'd be welcomed with open arms. We were not. We were told that weapons of mass destruction would be discovered. They were not. We were told that the conflict would be over quickly. It is not. We were told that we'd be pulling most of our troops out in a matter of months. We have not. We were told that selling Iraqi oil would pay for rebuilding that nation. It will not. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, we've already spent $74 billion on the war and Bush has asked our enabling Congress for an additional $87 billion. Is this another example of a huge credibility gap or are these guys utterly incompetent? "
US Battles Terror With a Touch of the Spanish Inquisition: "In his 2 1/2 years in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft has earned himself a remarkable distinction as the Torquemada of American law.
Tomas de Torquemada, you might recall, was the 15th-century Dominican friar who became the grand inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. He was largely responsible for its methods, including torture and the burning of heretics -- Muslims in particular.
Now, of course, I am not accusing the attorney general of pulling out anyone's fingernails or burning people at the stake (at least I don't know of any such cases). But one does get the sense these days that the old Spaniard's spirit is comfortably at home in Ashcroft's Department of Justice.
...There was something almost medieval in the treatment of Muslim suspects in the aftermath of 9/11. Many were held incommunicado, without effective counsel and without ever being charged, not for days or weeks, but for months or longer, some under harsh conditions designed for the most dangerous criminals.
It was in the spirit of the Inquisition that the Justice Department announced recently that it would begin gathering data on judges who give sentences lighter than called for by legislative guidelines.
Nothing so clearly evokes Torquemada's spirit as Ashcroft's penchant for overruling U.S. attorneys who have sought lesser penalties in capital cases. He has done this at least 30 times, says the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel. In several cases, Ashcroft actually has overturned plea bargains negotiated by those government prosecutors. "
France and America, A Shared History: "Last week, even the Financial Times of London - pro-American, pro-business, conservative to the bone - threw up its hands in despair at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. This is, said the lead editorial, a team whose 'instinctive and ideological tendency' from the start has been 'to regard international consultation and cooperation as a burdensome bore or intolerable constraint.' Don't they know, the paper asked, that 'alone the U.S. is far more vulnerable than it likes to believe, while in concert with free nations, it is far more powerful than even it can imagine.' "
AlterNet: Unraveling Deceit: "there was Bush's shifty claim that his first round of tax cuts would wipe out income taxes for a single-mom waitress making $22,000 and help her reach the middle class. When the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche analyzed Bush's plan, it found that it would do no such thing, for at that level of income she already owed no income taxes.
There was also the time the EPA compiled a climate report for the UN and noted that the United States would experience dramatic environmental changes due to global warming: heat waves, water shortages, pest outbreaks, loss of wetlands and coastland. Bush dismissed the 268-page report, remarking, 'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.' Days later, though, press secretary Ari Fleischer admitted Bush had not read the report. (What a surprise.)
Just the other day – and I couldn't get this into the book – Bush visited elementary schools to promote his education policies and claimed that his proposed 2004 education budget 'boosts' spending for elementary and secondary education. According to Education Department figures, he actually is requesting nearly a billion-dollar cut. "
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Blix adds to US and UK worries: "The former head of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, Hans Blix, has accused the American and British Governments of using spin and hype in making the case for war.
... Dr Blix compared the two governments' behaviour to people in Europe in the Middle Ages who were convinced that witches existed and so found them when they looked for them.
"
Steel Tariffs Appear to Have Backfired on Bush (washingtonpost.com): "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.
Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved, by driving up costs for automakers and other steel users. Politically, the strategy failed to produce union endorsements and appears to have hurt Bush with workers in Michigan and Tennessee -- also states at the heart of his 2004 strategy."
Thursday, September 18, 2003
We are facing death in Iraq for no reason: "A serving US soldier calls for the end of an occupation based on lies "
Misleader.org: In the Spotlight: "'This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes…Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money.' ... ' As Citizens for Tax Justice reported... Millionaires will enjoy tax breaks averaging $90,000 a year, while middle income Americans will pocket an average of $256. "
Thomas Friedman's ravings: "France is not just our annoying ally. It is not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy.
If you add up how France behaved in the run-up to the Iraq war (making it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam Hussein that might have avoided a war), and if you look at how France behaved during the war (when its foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, refused to answer the question of whether he wanted Saddam or America to win in Iraq), and if you watch how France is behaving today ... then there is only one conclusion one can draw: France wants America to fail in Iraq."
From my observations, France represents much more of the world's opinion than the US with regard to Iraq. And far from wanting the US to fail, France tried to prevent us from a crazy invasion. If we had listened to them, we might have still invaded, but with a UN mandate. We would now have allies to share the costs and troops from major allies.
As they said in vietnam, we have found the enemy. It's our administration that is responsible for the disaster in Iraq. Not France.
Bush Blames Arafat for Undercutting Peace Efforts: "Mr. Bush offered no clear path for how he would achieve that goal or even how he would revive the peace talks. He also did not mention Mr. Arafat's nominee for a new Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, who the administration has so far treated with reserve. Instead Mr. Bush simply repeated his demand that Palestinian terrorism must end.
'Mr. Arafat has failed in that effort, and hopefully at some point in time, a leadership of the Palestinian Authority will emerge which will then commit itself 100 percent to fighting off terror, and then we'll be able to consolidate the power necessary to fight off terror,' Mr. Bush said. 'And when that happens, the world will come together to provide the conditions for hope.'"
I get scared when he talks about the "world" coming together. He talked about the world taking action like this in Iraq before he attacked it with Britain. He seems to think that what he does is what the world does. Perhaps in his "world" all that matters is what he does?
$87 Billion War Request Details Spending (washingtonpost.com): "Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, issued a report showing how much the administration would pay to meet Iraqis' needs compared with Americans'. The budget proposal allocates $157 per Iraqi for sewage improvements, compared with $14 per American, for example. The administration is devoting $38 per Iraqi for hospitals, compared with $3.30 per American."
A Chink in the Armor: "With Americans increasingly critical of the situation in Iraq, opinion is now shifting on how the war has affected the likelihood of another terrorist attack in the United States. In April, an ABC News survey found, 58 percent thought the war reduced the chances of an attack, while only 29 percent thought it made domestic terrorism more likely. Now those figures are 40 percent and 48 percent, respectively.
... According to a Newsweek poll this month, his approval ratings on domestic issues are dismal: 32 percent on the budget, 38 percent on health care, 41 percent on the economy, 42 percent on energy policy."
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Losing Dollars and Sense in Iraq: "This President and this Administration have tried mightily to convince the people of America that attacking Iraq was critical to protecting them from terrorism. The case they make is false, flimsy, and, the war, I believe, was unwise. "
US Senator Robert C. Byrd
Floor Remarks - US Senate
September 17, 2003
AlterNet: The White House's Cynical Iraq Ploy: "The pattern is clear: Say what you want people to believe for the front page and on TV, then whisper a halfhearted correction or apology that slips under the radar. It is really quite ingenious in its cynical effectiveness, and Wolfowitz's latest performance is a classic example, even his correction needs correcting. "
Iraqis' Bitterness Is Called Bigger Threat Than Terror: "New intelligence assessments are warning that the United States' most formidable foe in Iraq in the months ahead may be the resentment of ordinary Iraqis increasingly hostile to the American military occupation, Defense Department officials said today.
That picture, shared with American military commanders in Iraq, is very different from the public view currently being presented by senior Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who once again today listed only 'dead-enders, foreign terrorists and criminal gangs' as opponents of the American occupation.
...To a lot of Iraqis, we're no longer the guys who threw out Saddam, but the ones who are busting down doors and barging in on their wives and daughters. "
AlterNet: The Scourge of Militarism: "After Congress voted in October 2002 to give the president unrestricted power to use any means, including military force and nuclear weapons, in a preventive strike against Iraq whenever he - and he alone - deemed it 'appropriate,' it would be hard to argue that the constitution of 1787 is still the supreme law of the land. "
AlterNet: If We Lose the Constitution, Who Wins Then?: "What Bush has done is the most radical destruction of civil rights this country has seen. George W. Bush, without consulting with the courts or congress, decides who is an enemy combatant. Currently two U.S. citizens, Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi, are being held indefinitely on military brigs, without charges or access to lawyers. This has never happened before.
The issue of enemy combatants is currently before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The most remarkable brief on the constitution that I have ever seen was recently sent to the Second Circuit. It was signed by judges and lawyers from all political backgrounds – Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Libertarians – and it said that Bush is turning the rule of law on its head. This will likely go to the Supreme Court, and if he upholds Bush, it means the President can take any citizen off the streets of America and hold them indefinitely. In effect, anyone could be picked up and disappear.
...U.S. attorney James Comey has said it explicitly and bluntly in referring to the President as Commander-and-Chief: "A court of the United States has no jurisdiction ... to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties." "
MediaGuardian.co.uk | | Intelligence staff complaints on dossier were kept secret from MPs: "Dissent within the intelligence community over the government's Iraqi weapons dossier was kept secret from MPs despite Tony Blair's appeal that if there were any complaints they should come out into the open, the Hutton inquiry heard yesterday.
Andrew Caldecott QC, counsel for the BBC, pointed to an intervention by Mr Blair in the Commons on June 4. Mr Blair told MPs that allegations of disquiet were 'completely and totally untrue'. If people had any evidence they should 'actually produce it', he said.
The inquiry has heard that two members of the defence intelligence staff did make formal complaints about the language in the dossier, including the claim that Iraq could fire chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes. "
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
BBC NEWS | UK | Pilot sues US over 9/11 arrest: "Arrested at the behest of the FBI, 10 days after two airliners smashed into New York's Twin Towers, Mr Raissi said he was attacked and verbally abused while in prison.
A British court said there was no evidence to back up the US extradition claim and now Mr Raissi wants compensation and an apology for his ordeal.
He is alleging false imprisonment, false arrest and malicious prosecution among other charges. "
Seeking Honesty in US Policy: "The president told us in his seminal speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that Iraq ``possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons . . . is seeking nuclear weapons . . . has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.''
...Now we know that even if we find chemical or biological weapons, the threat that they posed to our national security was, to be charitable, exaggerated.
It all but disappeared from the president's speech last week and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the leading proponents of the threat, now tells us that he didn't even ask the chief weapons-of-mass-destruction sleuth in Iraq, David Kay, for a status report during his recent trip to Baghdad, relegating such weapons to the same dark corner as bin Laden, whose name rarely passes the lips of our leaders these days.
Indeed, in the most telling revision of the justification for going to war, the State Department's undersecretary for arms control, John Bolton, recently said that whether Saddam's government actually possessed weapons of mass destruction ``isn't really the issue. The issue, I think, has been the capability that Iraq sought to have . . . WMD programs.''"
Scientist Says Iraq Never Revived Nuke Program: "Iraq never revived its secret nuclear weapons program after it was dismantled by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s, a senior Iraqi scientist at Iraq's new Ministry of Science and Technology said Tuesday."
Bush Would Use Mini-nukes, Prof Warns: "the administration has directed the military to prepare plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries - China, Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Iraq.
..."Some people make the assumption that using smaller nuclear weapons will allow accurate precision bombing, such as was claimed for the bombing of Iraq," he adds. "What was not reported by officials is that although the Iraq 'smart' bombs rarely missed a target by more than 13 feet, when a bomb blew up it sent high-speed shrapnel flying as far as a mile, causing many civilian casualties. The additional power of a nuclear bomb, together with its dispersal of radioactivity , is sure to produce infinitely more harm."
"...The problem we face today is one that Al Gore described as a new doctrine that destroys the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, in favor of the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States," Swomley insists."
The World Needs a New American Grand Strategy: "If we look at the flagship initiatives of the various American departments and agencies, we see this unbelievably consistent string of failure: the CIA�s global war on terror is doing little to make America safer and is motivating a new generation of frustrated militants. The State Department�s efforts to build consensus on Iraq in the UN Security Council has instead deepened the distrust of American intentions. The Department of Defense�s Operation Iraqi Freedom has produced Iraqi chaos, eliminated the possibility of Iraq becoming a swing oil producer before the 2004 elections, and constrains American freedom of action rather than increasing it. The Treasury Department�s efforts to get China to change its currency were rejected out of hand. The Office of Management and Budget�s tax cuts have hurt the economy, increased unemployment, and accelerated our short, medium, and long-term fiscal imbalance. And now we have the US Trade Representative�s failure in Cancun. "
Ashcroft Mocks Librarians and Others Who Oppose Parts of Counterterrorism Law: "The Justice Department, Mr. Ashcroft said, 'has no interest in your reading habits. Tracking reading habits would betray our high regard for the First Amendment. And even if someone in government wanted to do so, it would represent an impossible workload and a waste of law enforcement resources.'"
So why does he demand powers to do all those things?
Vice-President of the United States can't help lying?: "Why do 69% of Americans continue to believe that Iraq may have been involved in 9/11? Many reasons. But one of the most important is that their leaders keep lying to them. "
Handing Out Hardship (washingtonpost.com): "The administration wants $87 billion in new spending for Iraq, refuses to contemplate rolling back any of its tax cuts to pay for it -- and then proposes holding down new spending on child care for mothers trying to leave welfare.
... "Cheney was asked about freezing the administration's tax cut for the top 1 percent of Americans, which, as host Tim Russert pointed out, would generate enough money to cover the $87 billion for the war in Iraq.
No way, said Cheney. 'I think it would be a mistake,' he replied, 'because you can't look at that without considering what its impact would be on the economy. An awful lot of the returns in that top bracket are small businesses, and they provide an awful lot of job growth in this economy.'
In a nifty move, Cheney manages to hide all of the nation's millionaires and corporate CEOs -- New York Stock Exchange Chairman Dick Grasso and his $140 million compensation package come to mind -- behind the proprietor of your local laundry or the owner of the neighborhood machine shop. I guess that struggle is a real motivator for Burger King Mom, but not for guys like Grasso.
It would be hard to find a clearer example of why the administration is running into increasing bitterness and opposition over its Iraq policies. "
Who does this government represent? Clearly it is no longer a representative government, a government of the people by the people for the people. It is now a government of the people by the very wealthy for the extremely rich, at the expense of the majority of Americans.
Dear reader, we have an out of control virus for a government. A trojan horse. Something has taken over the institutions that should protect our interests and is using them for their own ends. Perhaps it is a cancer. Whatever it is, it is no longer ours.
Yahoo! News - When Will U.S. Hand Over Iraq?: "A Washington Post poll published Sunday shows a nine-point jump since late August, to 46 percent, in Americans 'disapproving' of Bush's handling of Iraq. The poll also finds that a majority of Americans balk at the president's request for an additional $87 billion for military and rebuilding work in Iraq next year. "
Monday, September 15, 2003
Yahoo! News - Constitution Battered by War on Terror, Says Lawyers Group: "Due process and privacy guaranteed under the U.S. constitution, open government, and respect for human rights around the world are taking a battering from the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) in prosecuting its 'war on terrorism,' according to a new report released today by a leading international human rights group.
'The U.S. government can no longer promise that individuals under its authority will be subject to a system bound by the rule of law,' according to the report by the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (LCHR). 'In a growing number of cases, legal safeguards are now observed only so far as they are consistent with the chosen ends of power.'
...the Justice Department (news - web sites) has insisted that any U.S. citizen may be detained indefinitely without charges or access to counsel if it presents "some evidence" that he is an "enemy combatant," a status that has yet to be defined.
... "Terrorism has become the new rubric under which opportunistic government seek to justify their actions, however offensive to human rights," according to the report. Many authoritarian and some democratic governments, the report says, have enacted sweeping "anti-terrorist" legislation, many provisions of which dispense with due process standards. At the same time, the administration has helped to undermine the power of independent courts in countries, including Bosnia and Malawi, where it spirited individuals out of the country in defiance of court rulings."
Isreal threatens to assasinate Arafat: "Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Vice-Prime Minister, that the decision by the full Cabinet last week to eliminate Mr Arafat could mean assassinating him. 'In my eyes, from a moral point of view, this is no different from killing others who were involved in ... acts of terror,' he said."
The Tax-Cut Con: "the selling of the tax cuts has depended heavily on chicanery. The administration has used accounting trickery to hide the true budget impact of its proposals, and it has used misleading presentations to conceal the extent to which its tax cuts are tilted toward families with very high income. "
Carter Prods Bush on Mideast Peace Plan: "Carter said Israel and the Palestinians had not only abandoned the U.S.-backed road map for peace but had violated it - Israel by threatening the 'removal' of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He suggested the Bush administration was tilted toward Israel.
'At this point, prospects are dismal,' Carter said. 'The U.S. does not seem to be making any strong effort to implement' the road map outlined by President Bush "
The Tax-Cut Con: "Irving Kristol, in his role as co-editor of The Public Interest, was arguably the single most important proponent of supply-side economics. But years later, he suggested that he himself wasn't all that persuaded by the doctrine: ''I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities.'' Writing in 1995, he explained that his real aim was to shrink the government and that tax cuts were a means to that end: ''The task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority -- so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.''
In effect, what Kristol said in 1995 was that he and his associates set out to deceive the American public. They sold tax cuts on the pretense that they would be painless, when they themselves believed that it would be necessary to slash public spending in order to make room for those cuts. "
Exploiting the Atrocity: "Mr. Bush's advisers were greedy; they saw 9/11 as an opportunity to get everything they wanted, from another round of tax cuts, to a major weakening of the Clean Air Act, to an invasion of Iraq. And so they wrapped as much as they could in the flag.
Now it has all gone wrong. The deficit is about to go above half a trillion dollars, the economy is still losing jobs, the triumph in Iraq has turned to dust and ashes, and Mr. Bush's poll numbers are at or below their pre-9/11 levels."
"...in the past six weeks President Bush has invoked 9/11 not just to defend Iraq policy and argue for oil drilling in the Arctic, but in response to questions about tax cuts, unemployment, budget deficits and even campaign finance."
Andrew Rawnsley: The questions keep coming: "on 10 February this year, the Prime Minister was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that al-Qaeda and its lethal fellow travellers 'continued to represent by far the greatest threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.' "
Bush Defends Plan to Ease Pollution Rules: "``The backdrop of President Bush's latest environment photo op -- the dirtiest power plant in Michigan -- says it all,'' said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., a presidential candidate. ``Under Bush's policies, this antiquated coal-burning plant will get a free pass to keep pumping smoke and soot into the air with impunity.''
The "plant is one of the dirtiest in the country, emitting nearly 150,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides every year, said Eric Schaeffer, the chief of civil enforcement under the Clinton administration's Environmental Protection Agency."
... "Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., said Bush's plan would allow the plant here to spew an additional 36,000 tons of additional sulfur dioxide, which causes soot and acid rain."
The decision to go to war was Tony Blair's, and his alone: "Trying to extract an explanation for the war from Mr Blair's own pronouncements is like aiming at a moving target, because the reasons he gives change with the changing political circumstances."
Up to "1,000 civilians a week" being killed in Iraq: The "rising death toll of ordinary Iraqis from lawlessness, banditry and American guns, which, according to an investigation by The Independent on Sunday's Robert Fisk, could be as high as 1,000 civilians a week."
Blair on Iraq Rack as Spy Chief Breaks Cover: "Britain's secretive intelligence chief conceded Monday that criticism of a dossier setting out Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s case for war with Iraq (news - web sites) was valid because its most sensational warning was 'misinterpreted.'
...The government was rocked further at the weekend when a new book claimed that just days before Iraq was invaded, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw begged Blair not to go to war. "
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Yahoo! News - Justice Dept. Defies Judge on Moussaoui: "The Bush administration on Wednesday defied a federal judge for the second time, refusing to allow terrorism defendant Zacarias Moussaoui to question senior al-Qaida captives in preparation for his criminal trial. "
Friends, this could be you; in jail, without access to a lawyer for years, charged with a capital crime (meaning you could be given the death penalty), and now the "Justice" Department refuses to comply with a court order. This is unconstitutional. It is a gross act of disrespect for the judiciary by the administration. It is the act of a group that thinks it knows best--the very definition of arrogance--and a slight to the judge who in this case applies the laws created by the other branch of government, the Congress.
What is really happening here is the justice dept. / Ashcroft is saying he and only he determines the fate of this man. That is the usurpation of the rule of law. It amounts to a revolution if allowed to stand. And it must not stand. Not if we are all to be protected by our laws rather than slaves to those who think it is their right to interpret them as they see fit, holding themselves as judge jury and executioner.
Remember, this could happen to any one of us.
Yahoo! News - Gaffe Casts Doubts on Electronic Voting: "During San Luis Obispo County's March 2002 primary, absentee vote tallies were apparently sent to an Internet site operated by Diebold Election Systems Inc., the maker of the voting machines used in the election. "
Preventive War 'the Supreme Crime': "As the US invaded Iraq, historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush's grand strategy is "alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy." FDR was right, he added, "but today it is we Americans who live in infamy." It is no surprise "that the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism", and the belief that Bush is "a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein.""
Who's Winning the War on Terror? Sorry, George: "It has been two years since U.S. President George W. Bush declared war on terrorism, and it's time to ask who's winning. Here's the score so far.
The United States is divided from its friends and allies. It dismissed the UN as irrelevant and now has to ask for its help. It is embroiled in guerrilla wars in two Muslim countries: Afghanistan and Iraq (for which the struggling U.S. economy is asked to produce $87-billion in new funding). All of that must delight Osama bin Laden or his heirs and successors.
...It's a classic terrorist tactic to attack with the intent of provoking an over response that arouses opposition in the target country and draws others into the battle abroad. If that was Mr. bin Laden's plan, he succeeded brilliantly in 9/11. But even he could not have imagined Mr. Bush would use that provocation as an excuse to invade Iraq. "
Bush administration proposals slash environmental safeguards : "New 'investor' and 'services' rules under negotiation under the WTO threaten the ability of local, state and federal governments to protect the environment. Under Bush administration proposals, these services agreements could slash environmental safeguards for such risky industries as mining, logging, and factory farming. Under proposed new investor rules, the home countries of foreign companies in the United States would gain new powers to sue taxpayers for cash damages if environmental laws or other safeguards affect their profits."
Ground Zero Air Quality was 'Brutal' for Months; UC Davis Scientist Concurs that EPA Reports Misled the Public: "'The site was hot for months. The metals burned into fine particles. They rose in a plume and moved over people's heads on most days. There were at least eight days when the plume was pushed down into the city. Then people tasted it, smelled it and saw it. But people who worked in the pile were getting it every day. The workers are the ones that I worry about most,' Cahill told The Chronicle.
Cahill's data found that the pollution included very fine metals, which interfere with lung chemistry; sulfuric acid, which attacks lung cells; carcinogenic organic matter; and very fine insoluble particles such as glass, which travel through the lungs and into the bloodstream and heart. "
France and Germany Seek Full UN Control Over Iraq: "France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country. "
Presidential Character: "Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy. There were times in the past three years when he has been much more than that, and he may no longer be a man who expects to find an easy way out of difficulties. But now, at the moment when we need strong leadership most, he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices. And we are paying the price."
Bush is asking people to make sacrifices--billions of them will pay for his policies. But he is not asking the wealthy in America to make any sacrifices. So, although I disagree with this column, I am glad that it has been published. Bush came to office claiming that his character was superior, but clearly he is a human being with failings and faults as small and as great as any average American. These are magnified out of all proportion by the immense power of the position he holds. And the extremism with which he wields it. The result is that his character does matter. The issue of his penchant for misleading arguments (and worse), dissembling, hiding the truth and closing off access to public information, as well as the chilling effect on our freedom of speech--all these issues need to be accounted for, as well as the ruinous impact of his appalling policies.
The truth about Bush's policy globalization is that it favors the rich and impoverishes the poor: "globalization remains a flawed game whose rules have been fixed by rich nations. The United States, Europe and Japan have succeeded in forcing others to reduce trade barriers in services and in the industrial goods they excel at producing, while maintaining high tariffs on imported agricultural goods."
9/11 Remembered: "The tragedy of the twin towers will be rightly recalled on Thursday. I doubt if the media will mention September 11 1906, when Mahatma Gandhi initiated non-violent, passive resistance as a means of social reform. The sufferings of the US were followed by calls for revenge and a hatred which contributed to the many deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. The message of Gandhi was about forgiveness, self-sacrifice and peace. 1906 has more to teach us than 2001.
Bob Holman
Easterhouse, Glasgow "
Tuesday, September 09, 2003
News: "senior US officials admitted they had no idea how long American troops would be staying in Iraq, or when the extra international forces sought by President George Bush would be deployed to help them."
These people are completely out of control. When are they going to stop? Who will stop them?
Bush aides admit Iraq missteps: "Administration officials said that the $87 billion request would not prevent the deficit from being cut in half over the next five years and that there are no plans to ask for spending cuts to offset its impact. The request also does not change the president's position that the tax cuts he has signed into law should be made permanent."
This is insane. Using the Bush administration's kind of logic I can say, categorically, that although I am gaining weight, that does not make me any heavier. It would be laughable if these arguments weren't being used by the most powerful government in the world.
What are they smoking? And what do they think we're smoking?
Boston.com / News / Nation / Washington / Bush aides admit Iraq missteps: "'We all want Iraq to become a peaceful democracy, but the White House and the Pentagon need to stop treating the American people and Congress like some kind of ATM machine to finance their foreign policy adventures,' said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont."
Hear, hear!
Wolfowitz hides and distorts the truth, again:Appearing in Congress today, Paul Wolfowitz said "As large as these costs are, they are still small compared to just the economic price that the attacks of Sept. 11 have inflicted, to say nothing of the terrible loss of human life. And even those costs are small in comparison to what future more terrible terrorist attacks could inflict.' "
Well, this is extraordinary bull... to claim that a war that has claimed the lives to thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of US and British soldiers, that is projected to cost over $100 Billion in the first year, with no end in sight to the guerrilla war... how can even this forked tongue spinmeister claim that these are small costs?
Even compared to the terror attacks on WTC on 9/11, they are not small. The Iraq war has killed more than the terrorists did on 9/11. And as for the economic cost, well, the federal government spent $20 B, reluctantly, on the WTC. So actually the cost of the war in Iraq has already cost US taxpayers three times as much, with no end is sight. But the Bush admin is already coming back for a doubling of the money they recieved just a few months ago.
So as usual, Wolfowitz's comments are a complete reversal of the truth.
Congress should not give them this money. The administration has lied and dug a deep hole. Those responsible should resign. Their replacements should come up with a solid strategy for our involvment in Iraq, and that should be debated in Congress. Then funded appropriately.
Remember, debates in congress? They seem to have stopped during this administration.
Bush's Plans on Iraq Draw Criticism From Senators: "Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska complaining that the administration had done 'a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq.'
'They treated many in the Congress, most of the Congress, like a nuisance,' Mr. Hagel said in an interview on the CBS 'Early Show' this morning. "
Why should Congress give Bush the $87 Billion he has demanded? Just because he invaded a country on bogus grounds and stirred up a hornet's nest? Would you trust an idiot who comes and says, well, I misled you before, and now things haven't gone as I said they would, so would you just give me $87 Billion for the next year? Those are no grounds to give him a blank check. We need to know how long this outrageous military adventure is going to go on and how much more money will be needed in the future?
Bush acts as though this was good policy. But it's not. It's obscene. He took 2 years to get money to the states and cities in the US to protect against terrorism. But only a few months to attack Afghanistan. And he is spending almost 40 times as much to attack and occupy Iraq, which was not a terrorist threat to the US before he invaded. The fact that it is a "terrorist magnet" now is completely his fault.
We should be impeaching him, not giving him $87 Billion.
Spy Agencies Warned of Iraq Resistance (washingtonpost.com): "U.S. intelligence agencies warned Bush administration policymakers before the war in Iraq that there would be significant armed opposition to a U.S.-led occupation, according to administration and congressional sources familiar with the reports.
...some administration officials have begun to fault the CIA and other intelligence agencies for being overly optimistic and failing to anticipate such widespread and sustained opposition to a U.S. occupation. But several administration and congressional sources interviewed for this article said the opposite occurred. They said senior policymakers at the White House, Pentagon and elsewhere received classified analyses before the war warning about the dangers of the postwar period. "
Other People's Sacrifice: "'We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary. . . .' What does he mean, 'we'? Is he prepared to roll back some of those tax cuts, now that the costs of war loom so large? Is he even willing to stop urging Congress to make the 2001 tax cut permanent? Of course not."
Air Travelers May Be Assigned Color Codes: "passengers will be assigned one of three codes, based in part on their travel plans, traveling companions and the date the ticket was purchased. Sources say those coded 'green' will easily pass through security checkpoints. Others will be coded 'yellow' and face additional screening. An estimated 1 percent to 2 percent who get 'red' coding will be barred from boarding and face police questioning. They may be arrested. "
This is an incredible report. If it's true that 1% of passengers face police questioning on every flight, that would be anywhere between 1 and 4 people, depending on the airplane capacity. Why would that many people need to be questioned by police? Why would 1% to 2% be arrested? That is simply harrasement.
And how would the airline know about your travel plans? It sounds like they would be asking you about them when you book your flight. Very intrusive.
Monday, September 08, 2003
Bush -- decieving us yet again?: "President Bush has changed his public rationale for the increasingly costly American military effort in Iraq. The once-heralded search for weapons of mass destruction is now little more than a footnote as Bush recasts Iraq into Ground Zero in a broader war against terrorism.
So downgraded has the hunt for such weapons become that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he didn't even bring it up when he met in Baghdad on Saturday with David Kay, the CIA adviser heading the search.
'I'm assuming he'd tell me if he'd gotten something,' Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him on Monday.
Saddam Hussein's arsenal isn't the only item dropped from the administration's rhetoric. Also gone are the early assurances that, unlike barren Afghanistan, Iraq could easily finance its own reconstruction from oil revenues."
U.S. Patriot says Rumsfeld must go: "Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, called for the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld and that of the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, over what he called the dishonesty of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, particularly on the issue of what it would require from taxpayers and the military."
Rumsfeld Strikes Back at Critics of U.S. Effort on Terror: "'If you've got Al Jazeera, day after day after day, pounding the region with things that aren't true, that makes it difficult,' Mr. Rumsfeld said."
Who exactly is pounding the region with lies? Isn't this the guy who is ultimately responsible for the Pentagon's office that disseminates lies to influence public opinion at home & in foreign allies' media. And isn't this the hero who told us that he knew where the Iraqi WMD were hidden. (though he failed to tell the UN inspectors who were charged with finding them.) This is the brave and fearless leader who accepts the death of soldiers in Iraq as a necessary consequences of doing "something".
This is the administration that invaded Iraq on the basis that they were an imminent threat to the US due to their WMD, and held out the terrifying prospect of attacks with nuclear weapons. But they knew that these were hyped up arguments. Wolfowitz admitted that the real reasons were compeletely different.
So again. Who is pounding the region with lies?
A Blunt Bow to Postwar Realities (washingtonpost.com): "In abandoning his go-it-alone approach, however, the president did not give significant ground to allies who had opposed him at the time of the war and who want reassurances about greater political and economic influence in Iraq if they participate. His call for United Nations involvement was stated in declarative, not conciliatory, language. Members of the United Nations, he said, have 'the responsibility' to help, he said.
...he is on the defensive over Iraq now, just as he is on the defensive at home over the sluggish economy, which continues to shed jobs despite the latest infusion of tax cuts.
...Last night he handed a new bill to the country, a stunning $87 billion for the coming year to stabilize and begin to rebuild Iraq -- with a tiny portion of that earmarked for Afghanistan.
...Former Vermont governor Howard Dean said, "A 15-minute speech does not make up for 15 months of misleading the American people on why we should go to war against Iraq or 15 weeks of mismanaging the reconstruction effort since we have been there." Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), who strongly supported the war, was also skeptical, saying Bush had presented "a goal, not a plan" for winning the peace.
"
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Bush's climbdown over Iraq: "Bush was expected to argue for more, not less, US commitment. His administration has recently characterised Iraq as the central battleground in the war on terrorism, while glossing over the fact that if this is the case, the US invasion itself has been largely responsible for making it so."
Why Are We In Iraq? (And Liberia? And Afghanistan?): "The Iraq intervention was the work of conservative radicals, who believed that the status quo in the Middle East was untenable -- for strategic reasons, security reasons and economic reasons. They wanted intervention to bring about a revolution in American power in the entire region. What made a president take the gamble was Sept. 11 and the realization, with 15 of the hijackers originating in Saudi Arabia, that American interests based since 1945 on a presumed Saudi pillar were actually built on sand. The new pillar was to be a democratic Iraq, at peace with Israel, Turkey and Iran, harboring no terrorists, pumping oil for the world economy at the right price and abjuring any nasty designs on its neighbors.
As Paul Wolfowitz has all but admitted, the ''bureaucratic'' reason for war -- weapons of mass destruction -- was not the main one."
Why Are We In Iraq? (And Liberia? And Afghanistan?): "soldiers from the 101st Airborne and First Armored Divisions are hot, dirty and scared. They want to go home, but instead they're pinned down, fighting off hit-and-run attacks and trying to stop sabotage on pipelines, water mains and electric grids. They were told they would be greeted as liberators, but now, many months later, they are an army of occupation, trying to save the reputation of a president who never told them -- did he know himself? -- what they were getting into.
"The Muslim fighters rushing to join the remnants of Saddam Hussein's loyalists in a guerrilla war to reclaim Iraq have understood all along what the war has been about -- that it was never simply a matter of preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction; rather, it was about consolidating American power in the Arab world. Some in the administration no doubt understood this, too, though no one took the trouble to explain all their reasons for going to war to the American people or, for that matter, the rest of the world. "
The Observer | International | Farah tried to plead with the US troops but she was killed anyway: "What is perhaps most shocking about their deaths is that the coalition troops who killed them did not even bother to record details of the raid with the coalition military press office. The killings were that unremarkable. What happened in Mahmudiya last week should not be forgotten, for the story of this raid is also the story of the dark side of the US-led occupation of Iraq, of the violent and sometimes lethal raids carried out apparently beyond any accountability. "
Friday, September 05, 2003
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | This war on terrorism is bogus: "it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that 'al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House'. "
