Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
Contact Congress
Casualties in Iraq
National Debt Clock
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Mutiny in Iraq |
| 04.30.04 (3:40 pm) [edit] |
"[i]For fools rush in where angels fear to tread[/i]." - Alexander Pope
[b]Even Americans will eventually tire of the massacres, carnage, torture and abuse, and horrors of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] insane neo-con war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire in Iraq ... [/b]No conscientious human being can consider the horrendous U.S. Occupation so badly mismanaged by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the neo-cons in the Defense Department, and [i]not [/i]recoil in disgust ...
"We the People" should never have allowed ourselves to be scammed, bamboozled and neo-con conned into blindly following the traitorous Bush regime, their neo-con "crazies" ([i]Pentagon's terms for the 'neo-con' ideologues[/i]), and their neo-fascist corporate interests who have hijacked our foreign and domestic policies and are leading us on a disastrous course to chaos, bloodshed and misery ... It is time to contact Congress http://www.congress.org and insist that our troops be [i]brought home [/i]and that [i]impeachment hearings[/i] be called to rid ourselves of the traitorous Bush regime ... We must not become willing collaborators in the neo-hitlerian [i]Project for the New American Century[/i]: the neo-con's ghoulish plan to impose their Global Corporate Empire unwillingly upon the rest of the world resulting in perpetual wars for perpetual profits ...
Consider "[b]Mutiny in Iraq[/b]" by[i] Naomi Klein[/i], The Nation on http://www.thenation.com/doc.... : - [i]Excerpt[/i] -
[i]... Who will follow the Bush clan off this precipice, and who will refuse to jump? ...[/i]
More and more are, thankfully, choosing the second option. The last month of inflammatory US aggression in Iraq has inspired what can only be described as a mutiny: Waves of soldiers, workers and politicians under the command of the US occupation authority are suddenly refusing to follow orders and abandoning their posts. First Spain announced it would withdraw its troops, then Honduras, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Kazakhstan. South Korean and Bulgarian troops were pulled back to their bases, while New Zealand is withdrawing its engineers. El Salvador, Norway, the Netherlands and Thailand will likely be next.
And then there are the mutinous members of the US-controlled Iraqi army. Since the latest wave of fighting began, they've been donating their weapons to resistance fighters in the South and refusing to fight in Falluja, saying that they didn't join the army to kill other Iraqis. By late April, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, was reporting that "about 40 percent [of Iraqi security officers] walked off the job because of intimidation. And about 10 percent actually worked against us."
And it's not just Iraq's soldiers who have been deserting the occupation. Four ministers of the Iraqi Governing Council have resigned their posts in protest. Half the Iraqis with jobs in the secured "green zone"--as translators, drivers, cleaners--are not showing up for work. And that's better than a couple of weeks ago, when 75 percent of Iraqis employed by the US occupation authority stayed home (that staggering figure comes from Adm. David Nash, who oversees the awarding of reconstruction contracts).
Minor mutinous signs are emerging even within the ranks of the US military: Privates Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey have applied for refugee status in Canada as conscientious objectors and Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia is facing court martial after he refused to return to Iraq on the grounds that he no longer knew what the war was about [see Christian Parenti, "A Deserter Speaks," at www.thenation.com].
Rebelling against the US authority in Iraq is not treachery, nor is it giving "false comfort to terrorists," as George W. Bush recently cautioned Spain's new prime minister. It is an entirely rational and principled response to policies that have put everyone living and working under US command in grave and unacceptable danger. This is a view shared by fifty-two former British diplomats, who recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair stating that although they endorsed his attempts to influence US Middle East policy, "there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure."
And one year in, the US occupation of Iraq does appear doomed on all fronts: political, economic and military. On the political front, the idea that the United States could bring genuine democracy to Iraq is now irredeemably discredited: Too many relatives of Iraqi Governing Council members have landed plum jobs and rigged contracts, too many groups demanding direct elections have been suppressed, too many newspapers have been closed down and too many Arab journalists have been murdered while trying to do their job. The most recent casualties were two employees of Al Iraqiya television, shot dead by US soldiers while filming a checkpoint in Samarra. Ironically, Al Iraqiya is the US-controlled propaganda network that was supposed to weaken the power of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, both of which have also lost reporters to US guns and rockets over the past year.
[b]For the entire article click on [/b] http://www.thenation.com/doc....
|
|
|
| |
| Criticism of Israel Is Not "Anti-Semitic" ... |
| 04.30.04 (3:40 pm) [edit] |
[b]The fever pitch of debate in our nation concerning the Middle East is rising to frightening and shrill levels that drown out any rational discourse.[/b] The American people desperately need to conduct a reasoned discussion upon the nature of our relationships, allegiances and policies associated with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians and the entire region, because it has become well-documented that the neo-conservative movement that has hijacked our Executive Branch of government (and is using Bush as their Useful Idiot) has unusually close and biased ties http://www.counterpunch.org/n... with Ariel Sharon and the Likud government, that diverges from our long-standing position in the Middle East intended to broker peace between the Israeli government and the Palestinian people. Moreover, during Sharon's recent visit to the White House, Bush flip-flopped http://www.wnd.com/news/artic... on his own regime's position and our long-standing policy established by the American governments going back over 30 years; and Bush sanctioned Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories in violation of U.N. resolutions http://www.jatonyc.org/UNreso... enflaming even more anger, indignation and turmoil throughout the Middle East ... Bush's flip-flop on a vital foreign policy issue was hoisted upon the American people without any national discussion or debate or understanding of the consequences ... Consequences of actions taken and decisions made do not appear to be important to the neo-fascist Bush regime although they affect the lives and treasure of our people and others around the world ...
To what extent is the United States of America obliged to carry-out warfare in the Middle East on behalf of Israel? http://www.wnd.com/news/artic... To what extent is the United States of America obliged to accept the Israeli government's positions? To what extent is the United States of America obliged to subsidize the Israeli government irrespective of its' actions? Should the United States of America be an honest broker or side with Israel? These are valid questions, and yet it is difficult to conduct any kind of discussions and/or debates without a horrific neo-fascist blowback of irrational accusations claiming "anti-semitism". Understandably, proponents of the extremist Likud party's positions are fearful of any debate and figure that employing intimidation tactics will terrify and scare people into silence. To be silenced on the basis of being mis-labelled is an anathema to our national heritage of open debate and discussion in the United States of America and we should heartily reject any such neo-fascist intimidation and scare tactics.
"We the People" must commence to understand the dynamics in the Middle East between the various groups [i]in greater depth[/i], otherwise, we may find ourselves extravagantly drained of our U.S. Soldier's lives and our U.S. Treasury, not only to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, and the neo-fascist Bush Crime Family-- but also because we are drawn into taking sides in conflicts without fully comprehending whether or not alternative peaceful solutions that demanded compromises (but that one side or another refused to accept) were in fact possible, with leaders of vision instead of the neo-con extremists including Bush and Sharon who have done their respective nations no favors. [Refer to "Are Foes of Israeli Policy Enemies of Jews??? ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template... ]
Consider "[b]CRITICISM OF ISRAEL IS NOT "ANTI-SEMITISM"[/b] on http://whatreallyhappened .com... :
While the media is proclaiming the recently concluded European Conference a reaffirmation of the fight against anti-Semitism, the reality is that Israel has been dealt a stunning political setback.
Long used to equating criticism of Israel as an expression of hate against the Jewish people, Israeli supporters attending the conference (when they were not vandalizing artwork) tried repeatedly to define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, and were rebuffed at every turn. Even Colin Powell, Secretary of State to the one nation always willing to protect Israel at the United Nations, delinked criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. In the end, even the ADL's Abe Foxman had to grin and try to put the best face on it. But Israel has lost one of its oldest and most effective means to deflect criticism of its actions.
Simply put, it is NOT anti-Semitism to criticize Israelis for what they DO.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to report on Israeli spies in this country taping into police phone systemsd and warning Israeli drug dealers of investigations that threaten them.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to point out that Israel has defied more UN Resolutions that Iraq.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to mention that Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that actually HAS weapons of mass destruction.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to remind people that Ariel Sharon has been charged with war crimes.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to oppose the continuing sending of US tax dollars to Israel (totally four times the cost of the entire Apollo Moon Program) during times of great economy hardship in this country.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to express concern over the vast sums of money that pro-Israel lobbyists are pouring into Congressional coffers.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to be concerned about reports that the Mossad has suceeded in tapping even the White House phone system.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to point out that many of these supposed "hate crimes" Israel loves to hide behind are hoaxes.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to want the US Government to be more concerned with the American people than with Israelis.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to reject politicians who openly display their loyalty to a foreign power.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to be angered by Philip Zelikow's admission that the war in Iraq was not fought to protect the US, but to protect Israel.
It is NOT anti-Semitism to tell Israel's supporters that hiding their crimes behind the entire Jewish people by screaming "anti-Semite" at every criticism is a really good way to set those same people up as targets!
Make no mistake, Israel has been dealt a serious blow by the conference in Europe. While there is no question that Israe's supporters will go on harassing and spearing those who dare criticise the policies of Ariel Sharon, the tar won't stick. It's official. Criticism of Israel is NOT anti-Semitism.
My lawyer will be instituting legal proceedings against all search engines, ISPs, and content filtering companies which have labeled this site as "anti-Semitic". -
|
|
|
| |
| Americans and Iraqis Agree: End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq ... |
| 04.29.04 (10:56 pm) [edit] |
[b]The majority of Americans and Iraqis agree:-- the U.S. Occupation of Iraq should[i] end[/i], and should [i]end now[/i] ... [/b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta:-- do not respect [/i]the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights -- [i]do not respect [/i]the rule of law --[i] do not respect [/i]"We the People" or the Iraqi people ... Therefore, does our collective opinion[i] matter [/i]to our (s)elected leaders??? ... It certainly [i]should[/i]!!! ... And if the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime does not respond, then we must [i]take action [/i]by contacting Congress http://www.congress.org and also[i] by voting [/i]in November to hold them [i]accountable [/i]...
There is one thing that most Iraqis and many Americans agree on: it's time to end the occupation. A [i]New York Times/CBS [/i]poll http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... shows plummeting support for the war in Iraq at home:
"Asked whether the United States had done the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, 47 percent of respondents said it had, down from 58 percent a month earlier and 63 percent in December, just after American forces captured Saddam Hussein." Almost as many (46 percent) want the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq as those who agree that we should stay the course.
That sentiment is echoed even more resoundingly in Iraq, where a new [i]USA Today/CNN/Gallup [/i]poll reveals that only a third believe that the U.S. occupation is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout irrespective of the chaos that may ensue. [i]USA Today [/i]reports http://www.usatoday.com/news/... , "Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as 'liberators' or 'occupiers,' 71 percent of all respondents say 'occupiers.'" Those numbers get worse if Kurds are excluded from the results.
Not surprisingly much of the rising anger at the occupation is being directed at the U.S. troops: "Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions." - http://www.alternet.org/waron...
|
|
|
| |
| While Our Soldiers Die, Bush/Cheney Inc. Junta's Halliburton Makes A Killing!!! |
| 04.29.04 (6:44 pm) [edit] |
"[i]Private profit is made out of the dead bodies of men. The more we see of the munitions business, of the use of chemicals, of the traffic in armaments, the more we realize that human cupidity is as universal as human heroism.... If we are to do away with the war idea, one of the first steps will be to do away with all possibility of private profit [from warfare]." [/i]- Eleanor Roosevelt, http://www.thirdworldtraveler...
[b]Winston Churchill considered war-profiteering a crime and put in place laws in Great Britain to prohibit such heinous blood-thirsty exploitation of human life as cannon-fodder to be abused by the powerful corporations, wealthy oligarchs & hyper-rich plutocrats.[/b] Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman also took measures to confiscate immoral (and at that time illegal) profiteering from warfare ... Even Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke out against the evils of the military industrial complex, which he warned: "[i]Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed[/i].". Eisenhower recognized that those who profit from warfare have a vested interest in perpetual war for perpetual profits ...
"We the People" are witness [i]today[/i] to the most horrific scourge disastrously [i]brought down upon our heads [/i]by the corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i], whose lust for infinite power and vast riches [i]knows no bounds [/i](certainly the rule of law does not apply to the Mad King George and his neo-fascist entourage ...) ... Moreover, the criminal Bush regime has demonstrated that it will ruthlessly lie, cheat and steal and defraud our nation (and the entire world community) in order to wage illegal and immoral neo-con, neo-fascist warfare ... Surely we must bring this insanity to a[i] halt [/i]... [i]Who[/i] is profitting from the war in Iraq? ... [i]Not[/i] the American working people; [i]Not[/i] the Iraqi people-- Just ask Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. and the Bush Crime Family:-- the vile and traitorous war-profiteers ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b]Controversial US oil and services group Halliburton has said that its contracts in Iraq had helped boost its turnover by about 80% in the first three months of the year. [/b]
Support work to US military operations and US-funded reconstruction projects made up $2.1 billion out of the company's $5.5 billion of revenue in the first quarter, the Houston-based group said in a statement on Wednesday.
The contracts also contributed $32 million of operating profit to Halliburton, which was run from 1995 to 2000 by Vice President Dick Cheney.
The Defence Department is investigating some of the work of Halliburton and its Kellogg, Brown and Root subsidiary following allegations of overcharging. The group has seen 34 workers killed in Iraq since the US invasion last year.
But Halliburton said it was determined to stay in Iraq.
[b]'Committed'[/b]
Chief executive Dave Lesar said "we are committed to honour our contracts and I am extremely proud of the tenacity, the courage and sacrifice of our employees in Iraq. In the face of a hostile environment, KBR performs well."
"I am disappointed that the allegations, by politicians and in the media, have increased security risks for our employees," he said.
"We are uniquely qualified to provide military logistical support. We have been doing that for 60 years," Lesar told a conference call.
"We continue to see improvement in the energy services business. While oilfield activity and pricing was essentially flat until late in the first quarter, we are beginning to see signs that customer spending and pricing for our services are improving," Lesar added.
[b]Billion dollar contracts[/b]
Halliburton, mainly through KBR, has about six billion dollars worth of contracts in Iraq, mainly for logistics - food supplies for troops, base construction and fuel deliveries. It is also helping to rebuild the Iraq oil industry.
It employs about 20,000 people in Iraq, directly or through sub-contractors.
On top of the 34 dead, truck driver Thomas Hammill is held hostage in Iraq and two others are missing.
Lesar said the value of the contracts hit a peak in the first quarter and would fall from now on, especially after the 30 June handover of power by the US-led occupation in Iraq.
Halliburton said its overall revenues were about 80% higher than the first quarter of 2003 thanks to KBR's engineering and construction work in the Middle East. It said energy services revenues were up 13%.
Consolidated operating profit was $175 million in the first quarter against $142 million in the same period last year.
Halliburton recorded a $65 million loss because of funds put in to pay for compensation for asbestos workers. ([i]AFP[/i])
|
|
|
| |
| America is Asking ... About the Patriot Acts ... |
| 04.29.04 (4:48 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should be very, very concerned about the so-called "Patriot [[i]sic[/i]] Acts" ... These heinous un-patriotic acts represent an infringement upon the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... [/b]Please visit the ACLU web-site that provides useful information regarding the abuses that occur by our government on http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr... when excessive power is handed-over without lawful restrictions, oversights, prohibitions and legal recourse to challenge by the citizenry ... We should not give up our freedoms and rights for the sake of being intimidated on issues of national security by the corrupt Bush regime ...
Controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act were the topic of hot debate last week, with President Bush calling for their renewal in his weekly radio address and in stump speeches in Pennsylvania and New York. Amidst growing concerns over the sweeping surveillance and detention provisions in the act, El Paso yesterday became the 299th city in the country to adopt a resolution opposing it. Newspaper editorial boards across America are voicing their concern about the act and worrying about the consequences of stripping away American's basic civil liberties.
[b]Jackson, Miss. – [u]The Clarion-Ledger[/u]
April 21, 2004[/b]
"Ashcroft and Bush are basically saying 'trust us' when it comes to spying on Americans, collecting information and deciding who will be targeted. But, since when was it the intention of the Founders, or even wise, to trust government?
The 'Patriot' Act is downright un-American."
[b]Detroit, Mich. - [u]The Detroit News[/u]
April 21, 2004[/b]
"There are some good things in the controversial Patriot Act, things that do make the country less vulnerable to terrorist attacks. But other elements of the act trample on civil liberties and lack adequate oversight, and should be reconsidered at a much more deliberate pace. Fixes should be made to better balance the needs of the government to root out terrorists against the desire to protect the constitutional rights of individuals."
[b]Honolulu, Hawaii - [u]Honolulu Star-Bulletin[/u]
April 15, 2004[/b]
"[S]hortcomings in the FBI's effort to protect the country from terrorist attacks had nothing to do with the lack of government authority that the Patriot Act was intended to correct. The Patriot Act was enacted in haste brought about by the Sept. 11 attacks. It should be scrutinized thoroughly before any of its provisions are extended beyond next year."
[b]Saint Louis, Mo. - [u]Saint-Louis Post Dispatch[/u]
April 21, 2004[/b]
"The authors of the Constitution and our other founding fathers agonized over the Bill of Rights ... They were designed simply to ensure Congress could not easily pass laws to take them away. Our precious liberties are the envy of the world. Should they be so freely given away, so cheerfully surrendered? … The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon hated America and all it stands for. It was a horrible and horrifying event. Wouldn't it be tragic if the freedom they so hated was destroyed because of their evil actions?"
[b]Missoula, Mont. - [u]The Missoulian[/u]
April 21, 2004[/b]
"On the campaign trail this week, President Bush reiterated his insistence that the Patriot Act is essential to America's security. The only evidence of this assertion is the so-called Lackawanna Six, the half-dozen Yemeni-Americans from upstate New York who pleaded guilty to charges stemming from their attending an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. We don't have much sympathy for those men, who contend they meant no harm to America. But not even the government suggests they were involved in any kind of plot to attack America."
[b]Albany, N.Y. - [u]The Times-Union[/u]
April 21, 2004[/b]
"[T]here is the matter of growing skepticism about Mr. Ashcroft's credibility. His eagerness to twist the truth was on ugly display last week as he attempted to discredit a member of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. One has to wonder if his claims that the Patriot Act must be extended and strengthened might be exaggerated."
[b]Reno, Nev. - [u]Reno Gazette-Journal[/u]
April 21, 2004 - Letter to the Editor[/b]
"By submitting to the Patriot Act, we are being asked to allow greater scrutiny of our privacy to fight an enemy that the administration itself says cannot win. I feel that even if this increased scrutiny makes us safer (I have my doubts it does), it is not worth it or in line with the principles that founded this country."
[b]Albuquerque, N.M. – [u]Albuquerque Tribune[/u]
April 13, 2004[/b]
"Shortly after 9-11, I listened to [New Mexico U.S. attorney, David] Iglesias debate about the Patriot Act. When asked about the enforcement of some of its provisions, his reply was to 'just trust us.' With all sorts of mandatory minimum sentences being used to bludgeon accused people to relinquish the very thing I thought our brave soldiers around the world are fighting and dying for, I can't.
To 'just trust' federal prosecutors - with a blind eye to the Constitution - frightens me."
|
|
|
| |
| Are Foes of Israeli Policy Enemies of Jews??? ... |
| 04.29.04 (12:53 pm) [edit] |
[b]There are significant debates occurring today in our nation and around the world regarding Israeli policy, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and anti-semitism ... [/b]
It is understandable that all conscientious citizens should be concerned about heinous bigotry and hatred by any group towards those who hold different beliefs, heritages and/or cultures ... The Holocaust that resulted in the massacre of millions of Jews, Dissidents, anti-Nazi Protestors, Intellectual Elites and others, whom Hitler's Nazi Party considered dangerous or unfit to live in their New World Order was a horrendous tragedy in the history of mankind. We must all be prepared to fight against any such horror being perpetrated again, by any nation hijacked by tyrannical arrogant zealots, upon other human beings who are tragically demonized for pernicious motives buried inside of insane ideologies with gluttonous lusts for infinite power and vast riches ... (The neo-con, neo-fascist Bush cabal unfortunately fits into this ugly profile of neo-imperial imposition of their bizarre Global Corporate Empire unwillingly upon the rest of the world ...)
To dissent, disagree and/or question a government's decisions and actions, however, is the highest form of patriotism. If the horrors of Nazi Germany teach us anything, it is that to follow a misguided, idealistic and corrupt zealot leads to chaos & misery, murderous atrocities and disastrous consequences. For conscientious citizens who dare to dissent, disagree and/or question their leaders, to be intimidated, slandered, libelled and/or destroyed, ends up creating the very type of fascist political environment enabling blood-thirsty leaders to wantonly abuse power against its' most vulnerable citizens as well as commit unconscionable atrocities against innocent people.
There is no absolute right or wrong side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian suicide-bombers are committing atrocities against the Israelis by killing innocent people. The Israeli government is committing atrocities against the Palestinian people by illegally occupying land that is in contravention/violation of UN Resolutions 242, 446, etc. http://www.jatonyc.org/UNreso... . The Israeli government has no right to roll massive tanks into villages like Jenin and wipe-out local populations of innocent men, women and children. The Palestinian people have no tanks and massive armaments, so they fight back using suicide bombers. It is a cycle of death that has increased dramatically under the Bush/Sharon administrations.
[b]Is it anti-semitic to question or criticize or disagree with Bush and Sharon??? [/b][b][i]No, of course it isn't[/i]!!![/b] And when such emotive rhetoric is used in order to intimidate, scare and terrify people into being silent, then we undermine the very freedom to discuss and resolve conflicts through diplomacy that is necessary in order to live humanely in accordance with a system of laws, in a civilized world.
"We the People" must not be afraid to demand that our leaders' insane exploitation of the tools of death and destruction [i]be put away[/i], and that the un-sexy, painful and slow process of reason, diplomacy and compromise[i] be brought to bear [/i]in order to solve problems. Arm-chair chicken-hawks find it easy and emotionally satisfying to see immediate action of violence perpetrated against a so-called enemy. The "let's-wipe-'em-out" philosophy mistakenly is adopted by the adolescent mind who sees brute force as the solution, because frankly it requires no brain-matter, no intellect and no give-and-take. Reason, diplomacy and compromise require greater intellectual faculties, patience and the mature adult recognition that to live in the world, one might not have everything that one wants-- one must be willing to share and participate with others who are different.
Eventually Israeli and Palestinian citizens will tire of the blood-shed and violence (as did the Irish Catholics and Protestants) and will agree to a compromise solution-- There will be no perfect solution and there will be both progress and setbacks. However, the current direction set by Bush and Sharon is bankrupt, barbaric and bloody, and it is a disgrace to humanity and civilization.
"We the People" should reject the corrupt Bush regime, who have done no favors for the United States of America, for Israel, for the Palestinians, for the Iraqis, or for any peoples around the world.
An article worth pondering is "[b]Are foes of Israeli policy enemies of Jews?[/b]" by[i] Matthew Schofield[/i], Knight-Ridder News Service on http://www.kentucky.com/mld/h... :
Delegates to one of the largest European anti-Semitism conferences in recent memory struggled yesterday with a question that kept coming up: Should opposition to Israeli policy be considered anti-Jewish?
Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who is Jewish, addressed it. German President Johannes Rau talked about it. So did Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"Logically, I should associate with the Palestinian people," Wiesel said at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe conference. "But I cannot."
He added that while it's difficult to dismiss the argument of a people wanting a homeland, suicide bombings by Palestinians are a crime against humanity, and the Palestinian position seeks the elimination of Israel.
The question has relevance. Several European countries recently criticized Israel for the killing of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin and, just weeks later, his successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, calling the deaths "extra-legal assassination."
It isn't anti-Semitic to criticize Israel's policies, Powell said, then added: "But the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example, by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures."
Two reports issued this week found that anti-Semitic attacks are increasing worldwide, with France, the United Kingdom, Russia and Germany joining Canada as the countries with the largest number of cases.
The conference, organized to discuss the rise in anti-Semitism, brought delegates from 55 countries to a symbolic site: a large conference room in what 60 years ago was Nazi Germany's Central Bank. Not far from this Berlin government office, now the Foreign Ministry, Adolf Hitler planned the Holocaust.
The Nazis killed an estimated 6 million Jews under Hitler.
"Once upon a time, when both the world and I were young, gigantic meetings were being held in Berlin for anti-Semitism," Wiesel said, adding that the German capital was an appropriate site for this conference. "Let us hope now the cycle has been closed."
No one at the conference thought it had been, however. Simone Veil, a French survivor of the Bergen Belsen concentration camp, said that even as old excuses for anti-Semitism fail, new ones are created.
"Anti-Semitism in France has lost its roots, it lost its traditional arguments," she said. "And yet it persists. And yet it rises again."
She added that the new wave of hatred for Jews comes from young supporters of Palestine.
A report by Human Rights First criticized the "official indifference" of "European government's response to rising anti-Semitism in the region."
"Governments cannot address crimes they do not record or report," said Michael Posner, the group's executive director.
Still, a report from Tel Aviv University, while noting the increase in serious incidents, said: "In one very important respect there is a great difference between the present and the 1930s: awareness to and analysis of anti-Semitism have been fostered by a large number of surveys, polls, conferences and international (or at least European) seminars, many of which are conceived and conducted by non-Jews."
Rau, Germany's president, said his country and Europe are very different from what they were in the 1930s. As Nazism rose, anti-Semitism became official state policy. Now, he added, while Nazism exists in Germany, the government is strongly opposed to it.
"There are many who, like me, experienced the Nazi era themselves, wished and hoped that anti-Semitism and xenophobia would have no place in the world," he said.
Still, Europe needs more "civil courage," he said, individuals willing to stand against acts of xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism.
He added that while the increase in anti-Semitic activity is a cause for concern, criticism of Israel need not be.
"Strong criticism is allowed, and needed," he said.
|
|
|
| |
| SECRECY: Bush/Cheney/Scalia Do Not Respect Our Nation's Heritage ... |
| 04.28.04 (9:16 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_59810 1162.gif[/image]
[b]SECRECY: [i]Scalia Shows His Cards [/i][/b]- http://www.americanprogress.o...
In a last ditch effort to keep the American people in the dark, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued before the Supreme Court that the activities of Vice President Cheney's 2001 energy task force should remain completely secret. The argument has already been rejected by two federal courts. To avoid making even the most preliminary disclosures, the vice president has had to defy an explicit court order. At issue is a relatively obscure 1972 law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires government advisory committees that have members from outside the government to meet in public. Although no formal members of Cheney's energy task force were from outside government, a 1993 federal appeals court ruling – stemming from efforts by conservatives to learn the details of then first lady Hillary Clinton's health care task force – found that outsiders who play an active role should be considered members. It is already well-known that former Enron CEO Ken Lay and other energy industry executives were involved in shaping the nation's energy policy through the task force. But Dick Cheney doesn't believe the American people have the right to know the extent of their involvement. See the amicus brief American Progress filed with the Supreme Court about this case.
[b]SCALIA SHOWS UNFLINCHING SUPPORT FOR ADMINISTRATION ARGUMENTS:[/b] Particularly receptive to Cheney's arguments: long-time friend and duck hunting partner Justice Antonin Scalia. After flying on Cheney's government jet to a private Louisiana retreat in January, Scalia insisted that "his friendship with Cheney did not affect his ability to impartially decide the legal issue before the court." Specifically, Scalia claims his friendship with Cheney is irrelevant because "nothing the court says on those subjects will have any bearing upon the reputation and the integrity of Richard Cheney." Yet, during yesterday's argument Scalia "left little doubt that he agreed with the Bush administration's argument." At one point during the argument Scalia said "I'm asking whether they were members of the committee, and the answer has to be no." Scalia elaborated that the notion a private individual should be considered a member of the panel regardless of that person's formal designation was "not plausible."
[b]ADMINISTRATION TELLS AMERICA TO STAY OUT OF ITS BUSINESS:[/b] Many have suggested the administration has devoted significant taxpayer resources to withhold information from the American people, hoping to avoid "a major embarrassment for the president" by revealing how he allowed energy executives to write the nation's energy policy. But Paul Krugman suggests an even more frightening motivation: "the administration is really taking a stand on principle." The case is indicative of the "administration's deep belief that it has the right to act as it pleases, and that the public has no right to know what it's doing." The arguments presented in yesterday's case were "'strikingly similar' to those [the administration] makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant."
[b]TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE KEN LAY'S FINGERPRINTS:[/b] However the Supreme Court rules, it is clear that the national energy policy produced by the vice president has the fingerprints of industry executives all over it. First, the task force recommends opening up the nation's treasured Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and examining "the potential for the regulated increase in oil and natural gas development on other federal lands." Another revolutionary idea: more coal power plants. The task force notes "the U.S. has enough coal to last for another 250 years. Yet very few coal-powered electric plants are now under construction." Meanwhile, the task force cautions "the day [renewable energy sources] fullfills the bulk of our needs is still years away."
[b]Shouldn't "We the People" fight against this pernicious and destructive secrecy??? Bush, Cheney & Scalia do not respect our nation's heritage and they are tearing asunder the vital principles of accountability and transparency of government to the American people ... Write to Congress http://www.congress.org to express your concern that the Executive Branch of our government has no right to abuse their powers in order to allow corporations, wealthy oligarchs and hyper-rich plutocrats to hijack our foreign and/or domestic policies ... "We the People" have the right to know who is formulating our policies and what they are being promised in return by our elected officials and servants in office ... [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| The Chaperone: The President's Date With the 9/11 Commission ... |
| 04.28.04 (6:55 pm) [edit] |
[b]The Chaperone??? Nope,[i] not [/i]Condi Rice ... [/b]In fact, at a dinner recently Rice committed a freudian slip and called Dubya her "husband" http://www.tblog.com/template... ... Cheney will be accompanying his ventriloquest's dummy Dubya on their date with the 9/11 Whitewash Commission (in order to keep their stories [i.e. [i]lies[/i]] straight ...) ...
"We the People" should be enraged that the 9/11 Whitewash Commission has agreed to outrageous, outlandish terms that will enable the corrupt Bush regime to avoid their right and proper accountability to the American people ...
[b]The Chaperone: [u]The President's Date With the 9/11 Commission[/u][/b] - http://www.americanprogress.o...
After opposing the creation of the 9/11 Commission, blocking access to documents, and refusing to testify in front of it for months, President Bush sits down tomorrow to answer their questions. The catch? In an unprecedented move, under a deal struck by the White House Counsel, the Vice President Cheney will be by his side. While the commission has agreed to meeting under these unusual circumstances, the American people – and especially the media – should not let this decision go unquestioned. When the president was asked about the joint-appearance, he said, "Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them." The real answers are clear.
[b]. Only an hour long.[/b] Between the president and the vice president, they will be able to eat up the clock. Splitting the time between the two them, the commissioners will be limited to asking only a few questions. Following up on important leads and digging into the critical details won't be possible. And of course, the president can always burn the hour talking at endless length about his performance post-9/11.
[b]. No transcript.[/b] Unlike other witnesses who have testified before the commission in public and under oath, there will be no public record of the president or vice president's answers. Thus, whatever happens behind closed doors, will be reduced to post-testimony recollections from the president, the vice president and the commission. Conceivably, the most important details and points of interest to the American public will remain largely unknown.
[b]. Eliminates the chance of differing stories.[/b] In the past the president and the vice president have given differing answers on questions of national security. Allowing them to testify together allows them to avoid making contradictory statements or stating mismatched facts (i.e. Aug 6, 2001 PDB), which could allow critical issues for exploration to slip through the cracks.
[b]. Allows passing the buck.[/b] If the president simply feels like passing a question, he can do so by calling on the vice president to rescue him. Similarly, if he is unable to answer a question or is put in an uncomfortable position, the vice president will be there to clean up the mess. If both men's memories fail, neither the commission nor the American people will get the answers they deserve.
[b]. No outside fact check.[/b] Outside of the scrutiny of the media's eye, unless caught by the commissioners themselves, the president and the vice president will be able to get away with making misleading or inaccurate statements. The range of issues expected to be addressed such as charges in Dick Clarke's book, the Justice Department's budget, and the number of principals meetings, would all benefit from outside attention.
[b]. No national discussion.[/b] Unlike the drama of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony, which captured the nation's interest, it is unlikely that there will be the necessary focus on new information coming out of this meeting. The commission's work should be sparking a national dialogue on issues of homeland security, emergency preparedness, and accountability. Instead, in line with its approach to the commission to date, the administration appears to want to sweep things under the rug.
|
|
|
| |
| ... Make No Mistake: 1930's Nazi Germany Here We Are ... |
| 04.28.04 (5:27 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should take a very careful look at what is happening in our nation today ... [/b] [i]It is terrifying[/i] ... The traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has created an atmosphere of corruption, intimidation and fear http://www.tblog.com/template... that is restraining Congress from taking the right and proper actions against the Executive Branch's tyrannical grab for dictatorial powers irrespective of the destruction done to our citizens (and other people around the world) and the demolition of our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ...
An example is as follows http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... ...
[i]Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Ct., noted differences that he had with Negroponte when the diplomat was ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s. "Those differences stem largely from a lack of candor about what the U.S. was and wasn't doing in Central America in the conflict at that time," Dodd said. "And although I intend to support and strongly support this nomination when it comes to a vote in this committee, and later on the Senate floor, I want to make one point especially clear: That same issue -- candor -- in my view, is going to be critical with respect to continued support for U.S. policies in Iraq." Dodd told Negroponte that if the administration's policies are not working, "it'll be your duty to the American people to say so, and to say so very clearly and without any hesitation so that we can make course corrections before it's too late." [/i](from FOX News http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,118272,00.html )
This is a real moment of danger for America.
The Bush/Limbaugh Republicans are the 1930's Nazis, period. And these eunuchs that make up the Democratic Party - these battered wives who will come up with any excuse to allow these Nazis to continue doing what they are doing - means that America will go the way of Nazi Germany.
I mean, look at who this Negroponte is and what his record is: READ HERE http://www.moderateindependen... And then look at Dodd's words.
Dodd knew about all of this when it was occurring - the horrible human rights abuses that occurred on Negroponte's watch - and which Negroponte covered up for. Dodd knows that's who Negroponte is and what he has done, and he made an issue of it when Negroponte was nominated for Ambassador to the UN just three years ago.
And as he says plainly, he knows it is exactly the, "...same issue -- candor… (which) is going to be critical," for the post Negroponte is being assigned to as the Ambassador to Iraq. In other words, Dodd knows Negroponte lied (ie the issue of "candor") last time the nation gave him its trust, oversaw illegal operations, covered up horrible, butcherous human rights abuses, and he knows President Bush is now nominating him as our Ambassador to Iraq, putting him in exactly the position to cover up horrible abuses once again (in fact, it seems the only reason President Bush would have taken Negroponte away from his UN post to put him there) - but Dodd won't hold him accountable. All he can say to this man who has shown his horrible nature, "I'll let you get away with all of that. Oh, and by the way, don't do that this time, please."
As always, when the Democrats initially stood up to the nomination of Negroponte as UN Ambassador, the Bush/Limbaughians, rather than cave in, fired back twice as hard - and the response is always the wuss Democrats caving in.
Here Dodd knows what he is faced with, with a situation similar to the one in the 1980's in Honduras. Dodd knows Negroponte's record. But not only won't he oppose the nomination - as anyone who cares about America or human rights would - but he will "strongly" support it. Again, in his words, "I intend to support and strongly support this nomination..." It wasn't enough for him to even support this horrible man who he stood up against before, but as a true gutless coward, he now wants to make sure he says he will "strongly" support him.
Make no mistake, America is in a lot of trouble. A lot. The Bush/Limbaughians - even if defeated this election - won't go away, and will continue to fester and fester into a parallel version of imperial terrorists, ala the Nazis, Napoleon, or the countless other examples of this occurring throughout history. That is, this will happen unless you stand up become the leadership of the future, because certainly the morality-free Republicans nor the ball-free Democrats will. It is up to us Moderate Independents to boldly, strongly stand up now in defense of our nation - not by stupid, useless protesting, nor by stupid violence, but by getting involved - yes you - in the political process as candidates.
Is there anyone with both balls and a conscience living in America - who is willing to put down their remote control and stand up in defense of their nation?
|
|
|
| |
| ... They Hate Us Because of Our Freedom ... |
| 04.28.04 (2:39 pm) [edit] |
"[i]They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other[/i]." - George W. Bush, Address to Congress, http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...
[b]In fact, it is the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who hates "We the People" because of our freedoms that they are[i] eroding, dismantling and destroying [/i]as fast as their neo-fascist hands can [i]tear asunder [/i]our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... [/b]
"We the People" should analyze the[i] facts[/i]:
- The corrupt Bush regime has[i] abused religious zealotry and medieval superstitious rhetoric [/i]in order to foster hatred and increase the support by the American people for their insane neo-con's illegal and immoral war-turned-bloody-guerril la quagmire in Iraq; http://www.johnworldpeace.com... http://www.post-gazette.com/n... http://www.pbs.org/wnet/relig... http://writ.news.findlaw.com/...
- The corrupt Bush regime has[i] used neo-nazi intimidation, slander, libel, fear and scare tactics to silence & punish[/i] any and all political opposition, whistleblowers or questioning of their neo-fascist foreign and domestic policies; http://www.wage-slave.org/sco... http://www.thewbalchannel.com... http://www.commondreams.org/h... http://www.signonsandiego.com... http://www.comicscommunity.co...;read=86829
- The corrupt Bush regime [i]engaged in illegal and fraudulent election rigging[/i] in the presidential (s)election of 2000 and are conducting another potential hijacking of our nation (using illegal electronic election rigging; slander-and-libel propaganda to mislead the public; and out-and-out lies in their mendacious neo-fascist campaign). Moreover, Bush refuses to debate with Kerry (not exactly open government); http://advaloreminternati onal... http://www.oilempire.us/elect... http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/... http://www.commondreams.org/h...
- The corrupt Bush regime is[i] using the monstrous Patriot Acts to conduct illegal surveillance, arrests and detentions [/i]of those who they label as "enemy combattants" and also those who conduct peaceful protests in our nation. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr... http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/0... http://www.refuseandresist.or... http://www.wired.com/news/pol...,1283,61341,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Do these traitorous, undemocratic activities sound like they are conducted by "freedom-loving" leaders???[i] Of course not[/i]!!! The tyrannical Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]hate us because of our freedoms, far more so than any so-called terrorists do ... http://writ.news.findlaw.com/...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b][u]'They Hate Us Because of Our Freedom'[/u][/b] - http://www.strike-the-root.co...
Whenever I hear “they hate us because of our freedom” or "because they hate our way of life" or some other such drivel, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. If real people didn’t suffer the consequences of it, such ignorance would be amusing. But another annoying thing about statements like these is that they perpetuate the myth that we live in a land of freedom. The sad fact is, we are not free, and haven't been for a long, long time.
In [i]They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45[/i], http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...%3D1082338420/sr%3D1-1/10 2-3834985-1485733 Milton Mayer wrote about how the German people kept believing they were still free while the Nazis were tightening their control and extending their power over every facet of life. At first people refused to see the obvious, because the infringements on their freedom were coming in small steps. Each of those small steps, on its own, seemed to be no big deal, nothing to rebel against. But by the time you could no longer ignore the big picture, it was too late. “Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing) . . . You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.” Remember, all the people had to do for all that to happen was--nothing. The same phenomenon is happening right here, right now, in the U.S. of A. It had been proceeding at a slower rate than 70 years ago in Germany , but now the pace quickens.
I know there are some who will say, “Wait a minute, fella. You’re going too far. The U.S. of A. is still a free country.” O.K., then. If you’re free, you should have no trouble doing something that people have done for time immemorial. Buy a cow, shelter and feed and care for it, milk it, and sell the milk. Go ahead, try it and see what happens. Come back and let us know how free you are to do such a simple thing, which has been done since the dawn of civilization.
Freedom is a state of being where an individual does not have to get permission in order to do something that harms no one else’s person or property. How many things can you do without getting some form of government permission? Can you build your house on your own property without obtaining government approval? Can you put a new room on your house? Or a new porch? Put in a new toilet? Or even put a shed in your backyard? If you are not free to make your home on your own property, you are not free.
Once you have that home, can you refuse to sell it to the government if they want to use your land for some other purpose? Can you make them go away simply by telling them, “I will not sell you my property, at any price!” If you are not free to choose if, when, how, to whom, and for how much you will sell your property, you are not free.
Can you drive a motor vehicle across this “free” country without someone in government approving of you as a driver? Or without getting government permission to use that vehicle on the roads? If you are not free to travel without permission, you are not free.
Can you buy a pistol without government permission? Can you drive across the country with it on your person, even if you have permission to drive a properly permitted vehicle? There’s a man, a good man from what I’ve heard, who got in trouble in Ohio for doing just that. And I’ll bet there are many more good people that I haven’t heard of who wound up in similar trouble. Let’s remind them how free they are. Could anyone even ride a horse cross-country, with an old Winchester rifle in a scabbard, without being hassled? If you are not free to have a firearm at hand for self-defense, no matter where you go, you are not free.
Are you free to say to the government, “I don’t like your retirement plan; therefore, I will no longer pay for it?” Can you, without penalty, tell the government that you will no longer pay for subsidies, for regulations, for wars, for empire, or for any activities that you disapprove? If you are not free to refuse to pay for things that you do not want, you are not free.
If the government decides it needs more troops to build and maintain its empire, can you refuse to go if it calls for you? Will they leave you alone if you tell them you won’t kill and die for them? Can you simply ignore the draft, without consequence? Can you refuse to be a conscripted slave? If you are not free to tell the government “Hell no, I won’t go!” you are not free.
Can you open a business, like a simple barbershop, without government permission? Or how about a bakery? A diner? A hot dog stand? A gun shop? It’s been said that before we invaded Iraq , there were more gun shops in Baghdad than in Washington D.C. Can you wire or plumb or fix TVs or cars without a government license? If you’re not free to make a living without getting permission, you are not free.
And once you have government approval to open a restaurant or bar, are you free to decide what people may do within your business? Can you choose whether or not they may smoke on the premises? Are you free to invite them to light up and enjoy a cigarette, a cigar, or a pipe with their drink, or after their meal? If you are not free to decide what people may or may not do on your property or within your business, you are not free.
Are you free to smoke a joint? Are you free to hire someone to help you satisfy a physical urge? You can do both in the same afternoon in Amsterdam . I haven’t heard of anybody attacking the Dutch because of their freedom. If you are not free to entertain your mind and body in any way that does not harm another, with anyone who is willing, you are not free.
Can you undergo any medical treatment you think is in your best interest? Can you use whatever drug you deem appropriate for your condition? Can you even get some marijuana to help you avoid nausea so you can keep your meds from coming back up? Can you get it just to feel a little better for a little while? If you are not free to pursue any treatment or use any substance you think might help you obtain, regain, or retain your health, you are not free.
Are you able to criticize political candidates by name? A week before the next election or primary, place a newspaper or TV or magazine or radio ad criticizing a candidate. Let us know how you fare. The Supreme Court says it’s okay to make that a crime. If you are not free to talk about politicians at any time, at any place, by any means, in any form, you are not free.
Can you take your children out of a government or conventional private school setting, without explaining to some bureaucrat how you plan to educate them? Can you homeschool them without getting government approval of your lesson plans? Can you tell everyone to buzz off, that it’s none of their business how or if you educate your kids? If you are not free to teach your children what you want, where you want, when you want, and how you want, you are not free.
So, let’s reiterate. You need government permission to make your home, travel, earn a living, defend yourself, obtain medical treatment, and educate your children. You will never get government approval for many of those things in many places. You will never get government permission to entertain your mind and body in unapproved ways. At certain times, you cannot criticize those who decide who and what gets approved. You must sell your property to the government if they want it, and you must kill and die for them if they tell you to. And you have no choice but to pay for it all anyway, whether you like it or not.
And still, we think we are free.
|
|
|
| |
| Canadians Don't Want the Bush/Cheney Inc. Junta's FOX (News) Propaganda Channel |
| 04.28.04 (2:22 pm) [edit] |
[b]Intelligent, well-educated and conscientious people around the world can tell the difference between real news and fascist state propaganda ... [/b]Interestingly, the Canadian people don't want the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] neo-con, neo-fascist FOX (News [[i]sic[/i]]) Propaganda Channel ...
If "We the People" were smart, we wouldn't want it [i]either[/i] ...
Consider "[b]Canadians Take Fright At Fox News Channel[/b]" by [i]Big News Network [/i]on http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.c... :
A cross-border dispute has developed over the ban on Fox News imposed by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.
Fox earlier this year applied to televise their popular Fox News Channel throughout Canada. The commission turned them down earlier this month.
Fox is one of the most popular news services in the U.S. and is seen in many parts of the world. It beat CNN and MSNBC combined in viewership and demographics in prime time and 24-Hour time periods for April 2004, according to Nielsen Media Research. In addition, Fox captured ten out of the top eleven shows in cable news. CNN's only show in the top eleven, Larry King Live, remained at number four with 1,335,000 viewers. King trailed FNC's The O'Reilly Factor (2,240,000 viewers), Hannity & Colmes (1,638,000 viewers) and The FOX Report with Shepard Smith (1,465,000 viewers).
The channel is a devout Bush administration fan and employs commentators that fall into the Republican line. It is said to be so biased it has to tell viewers that it is 'fair and balanced', that it is the channel, 'America can trust', and says repeatedly, 'we report, you decide.' Others say it is as close to a state-run news service as you can get. Canada, in any event, says it won't have a bar of it. But Fox News is to apply again.
Meantime one of Fox's commentators Bill O'Reilly has taken exception to comments made by journalist John Doyle from Canada's major newspaper, The Globe and Mail.
It seems Doyle started the blue by saying he had read, 'some honchos in the cable-TV racket are applying for permission to offer the Fox News Channel in Canada. Beauty. Bring it on, I say. We're all in need of a good laugh. The barking-mad Fox News Channel is something that most Canadians have only heard about. It's time we saw it for ourselves, and made up our own minds about the phenomenon. We'll find out if this Bill O'Reilly fella is as stupendously pompous and preening as he appears to be in the rare clips we see of Fox News.'
O'Reilly quickly learned of the comments, immediately labelled the respected Canadian newspaper as the 'far left' Globe and Mail, and responded, 'so they see rare clips, but think we're laughable. The Globe and Mail sounds like a real responsible enterprise, doesn't it? Hey you pinheads up there, I may be pompous, but at least I'm honest.'
That perhaps should have been the end of it, however Fox News viewers thought differently. They were angered and let Doyle know. During the course of the days that followed the brief exchange between the two veteran journalists, Doyle received hundreds of emails from Fox News viewers:
To: Doyle, John
Subject: you are a [expletive]
Please don't sleep on your side, because your tiny little brain will roll out your ear, you communist [expletive].
.........................
To: Doyle, John
Subject: Fox and your newspaper
. . . I imagine you are one of those middle-aged creeps sitting on your fat [expletive] drooling with envy at the success of others. From your photo it appears you have a receding hairline.
Charles
..........................
To: Doyle, John
Subject: Fox News
Your [expletive] attitude exists because you are Canadian. Canadians are worthless. Canadian equals coward. You don't need just Fox News Channel. First you need to stop being Canadian.
Steve
In Texas. Stay Away.
..........................
To: Doyle, John
Subject: Your article
This article was written by an idiot. Canadians are far too dumb to appreciate Fox News anyway. Don't confuse their little heads with the facts. . . . My husband has been forced to work in Canada for awhile this spring. He said most Canadians are [expletives].
Have a good day.
..........................
Ruth, from the wonderful state of Colorado.
(Don't come for a visit.)
..........................
To: Doyle, John
Subject: what a joke - Fox
. . . Clearly you believe Americans must be stupid. But clearly not as dense as Canadians, who are spoon-fed their news by heavily tilted 'non partial' partisans such as yourself.
Your problem, you creep, is that you are Canadian.
Regards,
Ron
..........................
To: Doyle, John
Subject: nice try [EXPLETIVE!]
{hellip}True freedom of speech and diversity of opinion TERRIFIES you left-wing [expletives]. That is why your '1st Amendment' equivalent has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. You Canadians are really quite sad to us Americans. We generally feel sorry for you and your weak, dependent country.
John
Springfield, Va. ****USA****
.........................
To: Doyle, John
Subject: Your article
Why don't you just shut your damn mouth. Your lucky we don't attack Canada next. We hate communists here.
........................
Now we know who watches Fox News, and it is probably little wonder why the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission doesn't want to turn Canadians into Fox News viewers.
John Doyle put it this way, 'I lost count of the number of times I was called 'an a**hole.' It was at least 43 times, anyway. I was called 'a pussy,' 'a wussy,' 'a pr**k,' 'a jerk,' 'a hack' and 'a creep.' A man in Cleveland not only called me 'an a**hole' but also wished me a 'f***ed-up day.' A lady -- and I use the term advisedly -- in Colorado wrote to say that all Canadians are 'a**holes' and then ordered me not to visit her state. I was also called a Canadian numerous times, as if that were an automatic and withering insult.'
'In a nice touch, a man from somewhere-in-the-USA opened by cheerfully calling me 'sonny bub' and, after some confusing name-calling that involved the word 'intellectual,' he rose to a great rhetorical flourish -- he asked if I had served in Vietnam! Nothing of the sort has ever come from viewers of Newsworld, CTV Newsnet, CNN, MSNBC or, indeed ROB-TV. My point was that we have a great deal to learn from the Fox News Channel. And I am proved right. Talking to Americans is always a tonic. Bring on Fox News and bring it fast. Let's see this thing that has so many ardent and incredibly aggressive viewers.'
Well that was pretty cool, but we can't leave it there. As with 'The O'Reilly Factor,' we leave it to Bill O'Reilly for the final word:
'Earlier this week we told you that many Canadians want the Fox News Channel, that so far the government up there has blocked. . . .
Now I receive scores of letters like this one from Donna in Toronto:
'We need fair and balanced news from Fox because The Globe and Mail and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are so far left. The CBC is called by many the Communist Broadcasting Corporation. Please don't use my last name because I don't want the government to know that I'm illegally watching Fox on the satellite. You see, we're allowed to hear only what they want us to hear.'
|
|
|
| |
| Conservative Economic Rhetoric vs. Reality |
| 04.28.04 (11:43 am) [edit] |
[b]Dubya's ponzy scheme has enriched his own criminal family and that of his gluttonous corporate cronies, campaign contributors and political toadies ... [/b]However, the corrupt Bush regime's insane, reckless and rapacious economic policies are [i]tragically destructive[/i] for the majority of Americans and Working people ... http://www.tblog.com/template...
"We the People" must learn quickly to separate the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] neo-orwellian rhetoric from the cold, hard and unpleasant reality of impoverishment of our nation's citizenry under the vile Bush Crime Family ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b][u]Conservative Economic Rhetoric vs. Reality[/u][/b] - http://www.americanprogress.o...
[i][b]On Employment[/b][/i]
[u]Rhetoric[/u]: "There are more Americans working today than ever before." – Heritage Foundation, Issues 2004
[u]Reality[/u]: The American economy has lost nearly 2 million jobs since President Bush was elected – the worst record of job losses during a recovery since Herbert Hoover.
[u]Reality[/u]: The unemployment rate has gone from 4.2 percent to 5.7 percent under Bush, and increased again just last month.
[i][b]On Job Creation[/b][/i]
[u]Rhetoric[/u]: "America's economy is strong and getting stronger. . . and new jobs were created in March." – President Bush, April 2, 2004
[u]Reality[/u]: The past few years have seen the worst monthly average job creation during a recovery in over 60 years.
[u]Reality[/u]: No other post-war administration has had as few good months of good labor market performance as the Bush administration. This includes the Kennedy and Ford administrations, which were in office for shorter periods of time than Bush's has been.
[b][i]On Unemployment[/i][/b]
[u]Rhetoric[/u]: "The unemployment rate edged up slightly to 5.7 percent [in March], which is low by historical standards …. It is already within the healthy range that most economists consider close to full employment." – Heritage Foundation, Web Memo #468
[u]Reality[/u]: The unemployment rate is low because many workers have simply given up looking for work. If this "missing labor force" were properly counted, the unemployment rate would average well above 7 percent.
[u]Reality[/u]: The unemployment rate has risen from a low point of 3.9 percent in December 2000 and remained consistently at or above 5.6 percent for several months. In fact, the unemployment rate was 5.6 percent when the recovery started in November 2001.
[b][i]On Real Wages[/i][/b]
[u]Rhetoric[/u]: "Average real wages have risen by 3 percent over the last three years." – Heritage Foundation, Issues 2004
[u]Reality[/u]: According to the Economic Policy Institute, 2003 was the worst year since 1998 for growth in real (inflation adjusted) hourly wages. While GDP has been growing strongly - 4.1 percent in the fourth quarter following 8.2 percent in the third quarter of 2003 – total wage and salary income saw meager increases of 0.8 percent and 1.3 percent at the same time.
[u]Reality[/u]: Wages have increased by less than 1 percent since the start of the recession through January 2004. That increase is at about half the rate of prior recoveries.
[b][i]On Tax Cuts and Recession[/i][/b]
[u]Rhetoric[/u]: "The conservative remedy of lower taxes and free trade halted the recession in its tracks." – Heritage Foundation, Issues 2004
[u]Reality[/u]: President Bush's tax cuts have made it harder for Americans to find jobs because they were targeted towards the rich, created enormous deficits and put economic growth in jeopardy.
[u]Reality[/u]: Most American households received less than the average tax cut (in 2003 the average cut was $1800, but the majority of Americans got less than $850 in tax cuts). Gains from these cuts were more than offset by cost increases in medical care (up 4.5 percent since last year), tuition (up 28 percent over the last three years) and housing. Government expenditures for programs that help working families to meet these rising costs have now been reduced to pay for the tax cuts.
[b][i]On Financial Aid[/i][/b]
[u]Rhetoric[/u]: "More students are receiving federal Pell grants than when President Bush took office." - Rod Paige, Secretary of Education, March 4, 2004
[u]Reality[/u]: Financial aid is primarily based on family income. Median household income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, has fallen for the last two years for which data is available (2001 and 2002).
[u]Reality[/u]: College tuition has gone up 28 percent over the last three years. Financial aid – much of which comes in the form of loans – has not been able to offset these costs. That is despite an alarming rise in debt among recent college graduates, families are still struggling to pay the bills.
[b][i]On Health Care[/i][/b]
[u]Rhetoric[/u]: "Even if you don't have health insurance you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage." - Secretary Of Health And Human Services Tommy Thompson, Seattle Times, March 3, 2004.
[u]Reality[/u]: The number of people with health insurance rose by 1.5 million and the number without increased by 2.4 million from 2001 to 2002. Currently, 43.6 million Americans lack health insurance. As health insurance coverage is declining, out-of-pocket medical expenditures rise. From 2000 to 2003, inflation adjusted out-of-pocket expenditures rose by more than 7 percent taking a bite out of consumption for other items.
[u]Reality[/u]: The overwhelming majority of Americans without health insurance say they don't have it because it is too expensive. Only 5 to 7 percent report that they don't need or don't want healthcare coverage.
[b]For another article outlining the break by moderate Republicans also opposed to the corrupt Bush regime's extremist favoritism towards corporations, wealthy oligarchs and hyper-rich plutocrats, read "A Task of Moderation" on [/b] http://nytimes.com/2004/04/28... .
|
|
|
| |
| George W. Bush in Wonderland |
| 04.28.04 (11:43 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" may [i]wake-up soon [/i]and find ourselves[i] shocked! shocked! shocked![/i] at the economic fiasco in this nation and look around in [i]wonder! wonder! wonder! [/i]asking "What Happened Here?" ... Let us [i]not[/i] be taken by surprise ... [/b]The U.S. economic indicators are [i]terrifying[/i] and it is time to[i] get rid of [/i]the corrupt Bush regime who has wantonly created an[i] economic train-wreck [/i]that will hit our citizens hard:-- with back-breaking debts to pay-off Bush's historical record-level deficits; the highest job losses & unemployment since the Great Depression; skyrocketing poverty & homelessness; the barbaric lack of health care for tens of millions; a crumbling national infrastructure; illegal and immoral neo-con warmongerings for war-profiteering by treasonous corporations & neo-fascist Bush cronies; etc. etc. etc. ... We need an administration who cares about the General Welfare of All ([i]as per the U.S. Constitution[/i]) in [i]Our Republic For Which It Stands [/i]and not this corrupt cabal of neo-con, neo-fascists in the traitorous Bush regime who are [i]Taking-the-Money-and-S taying-in-Power-to-Take-E ven-More-of-Our-Money [/i]...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[u][b]George W. Bush in Wonderland[/b][/u] - http://www.americanprogress.o...
[i]If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?[/i]
[b]– Alice, "Alice in Wonderland"[/b]
Listening to recent conservative interpretations of economic reports probably makes you think we are living in Alice's world. In this alternate universe, black is white, up is down and bad economic news is good economic news. Millions of people are still waiting for the jobs they were promised when President Bush pushed through massive tax cuts. Despite a surge in economic growth and profits, those who have jobs have seen minimal increases in their wages, while costs – especially for education, housing, and health care – have gone up. Yet the president and his conservative allies, by consistently lowering the bar on what constitutes economic progress, keep trying to convince the public that everything is hunky-dory in the U.S. economy.
For example, the Heritage Foundation claims that "there are more Americans working today than ever before." This specious argument is based on a survey of households, a much less reliable indicator than the more commonly used survey of firms (which shows that the economy had 1.9 million fewer jobs than when the recession started). Aside from this factual inconsistency, the claim in itself is largely irrelevant. Obviously, an economy with an expanding population (like the United States') should have more jobs. Saying that this is good is like arguing that the past year has been extremely successful for our personal maturity because we grew a year older. The real labor market issue is whether new entrants can find a job. Undoubtedly this is more difficult, as the share of the employed population is lower and the unemployment rate is higher than when the recession began.
Another recent example of turning bad economic news into good occurred this February when the president said things were looking better because, among other things, the inflation rate is low. Bush seemed to be saying it is too bad that people have lost their jobs, but at least the goods they cannot afford are not getting more expensive. The two issues are not unrelated. Inflation is low because increases in demand for goods and services have been slow. And because demand is not growing as fast as it typically does in a recovery, fewer people can find jobs, which keeps demand growth low. Car prices, for instance, are low because fewer people can afford to buy cars. How is this good news? In 2003, the inflation rate was actually slowing enough for the Federal Reserve to warn about the threats of disinflation as a precursor to deflation, something that would have a devastating effect on growth and employment.
Taking advantage of bad economic news has also led the administration to claim success in the education arena. Rod Paige, secretary of education, tried to portray the administration as strong on college financial aid when he said this month that more students are receiving Pell Grants than when Bush took office. However, financial aid is primarily based on family income, which, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, has fallen in recent years. In other words, because people have struggled in the labor market they have become eligible for financial aid. At the same time, college tuition has gone up 28 percent over the last three years, putting working families even more in a squeeze between lower income and higher tuition.
Even the weak labor market offers a ray of hope for those who want to make the world out to be rosier than it is. Conservatives often tout the fact that this March was the strongest month of employment creation in almost four years. Of course, compared to the abysmal job creation of the past few years, almost anything looks good. The truth of the matter is that employment growth in March was fairly typical for a recovery (neither above nor below average). But more importantly, claiming that one month of decent employment growth constitutes good labor market performance ignores the fact that this is still the weakest job market recovery since the Great Depression. Moreover, all post-war administrations (even those in office for less time than the Bush administration) have had substantially more months with this type of job creation than the current president has. Because the prior three years were so bad in terms of employment growth, however, Bush has easily been able to declare victory on a monthly basis.
A realistic assessment of the economy should be an honest accounting of where the economy really is. Growth in recent quarters has improved, but the labor market is still struggling. Millions of households continue to look for jobs and wage gains are hard to find. At the same time, costs (especially for important items like education and health care) are skyrocketing. For millions of working families, the economic picture is far from rosy. Yet while working families are struggling, conservatives are declaring victory because they have lowered the benchmark for economic progress. The next thing you know, conservatives will proclaim President Bush the "family president." After all, in his Alice-in-Wonderland-fanta sy world it is a good thing that working families get to spend more time with their children now that there are fewer of those pesky jobs to keep them busy.
|
|
|
| |
| Public Pressure Forces Judge to Open 9/11 Whistleblower Hearing |
| 04.27.04 (3:57 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People"[i] can [/i]make a difference ... [/b]It is imperative that we learn the[i] truth [/i]about what the corrupt Bush regime[i] actually knew and when they knew it [/i]leading-up to the 9/11 attacks upon America ... We already [i]know[/i] that the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] misled us into their insane neo-con war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire in Iraq for global hegemony and vast riches, based upon myriad lies, deceptions and falsehoods for which they should be [i]impeached [/i]from office ... Thus far, there are still [i]also[/i] unanswered questions about their intelligence prior to 9/11 ... http://www.americanprogress.o... ... Let us demand and insist upon [i]accountability[/i] from our government servants ... The neo-fascist Mad King George and his criminal neo-con entourage are not imperial rulers, but are working for [i]us[/i] ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b]A Victory for Accountability and Transparency [/b]
Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds could soon become the thorniest of thorns in the side of the most secretive administration in American history. Whether she does or not depends on whether or not the American public will stand up and challenge the Department of Justice’s attempt to quash the truth, avoid accountability and bury the facts behind lies, double speak and the National Security trump card.
Edmonds, showing such courage in the face of such stacked decks, deserves to be supported in her growing campaign to see that her first amendment rights as an American citizen are honored and that someone is held accountable at the FBI and elsewhere for the gross negligence or worse she uncovered as an FBI translator in the months immediately following the 9/11 attacks. [For background, please see other stories on Edmonds posted on this site: http://www.911citizenswatch.o... ]
The first victory in this effort occurred yesterday when the U.S. District Court proceedings previously ‘sealad’ (closed to the public and press) were forced open after members of the public and press confronted the court and then U.S. Marshals directly challenging the unjustified and undocumented order for official secrecy regarding the Edmonds case that morning. The hearing in the courtroom of Bush appointed Judge Reggie Walton was scheduled to be closed but in an apparent bow to vocal objections brought by a former CIA agent, a foreign print journalist, the author of this account and Edmonds’ lawyer, the Judge elected to open the doors and allow public and press scrutiny of the proceedings.
Upon hearing the news, former Bush I official, Catherine Austin Fitts, who helped orchestrate a grass-roots lobbying campaign, with the 9/11 Visibility Project, in support of Sibel Edmonds, said that this was a case in which citizen and press demands for transparency won out over the strong arm of the Department of Justice and the Court’s effort to keep all hidden behind closed doors. "It’s a great victory. Don’t underestimate your power," said Fitts. Edmonds is the latest in a string of FBI whistleblowers, including Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright, who have come forward before and since 9/11 with damning evidence and allegations which taken together show a disturbing pattern of spiked and compromised investigations and investigative or intelligence assignments of the most junior or incompetent of agents to the most important of charges.
A suspicious public, as they pay increasing attention to the mountain of questions surrounding the official 9/11 investigation, and witness its official obstruction, have begun to understandably entertain the unsettling notion that rogue elements within the FBI or elsewhere within the government, sufficiently high in office, may have been complicit in the 9/11 plot; that it would either have been exposed and prevented had it not been for certain actions which many suggest add up to a damning pattern indeed. Others simply insist that the lack of transparency, the resulting lack of accountability and the rewarding of failure and gross incompetence is inimical to a healthy functioning democracy as it perpetuates a cancerous, life-endangering ‘business as usual.’
Either way a hard nosed investigation and much greater public attention to these issues is what is required to effectively challenge a dissembling ‘official story’ and ferret out the truth. Currently, despite the spin, this is not what we are getting. In the absence of an uncompromising hardball official investigation it is incumbent upon those actively concerned to support and effect a Citizens’ Truth Commission and pertinent to the story at hand, support the few brave souls willing to put their necks on the lines to tell the truth as they know it—the 9/11 whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds.
While no one source or single Whistleblower will reveal the whole story, Sibel Edmonds’ case is quite instructive because it addresses the fundamental suggestions supported by a growing body of publicly acknowledged evidence that the government had quite specific forewarnings and detailed intelligence threats including the notion of planes being used as weapons and did so months in advance of 9/11; and yet did little or nothing.
In addition, Edmonds has exhibited unusual courage in calling a spade a spade when she directly accused Condoleezza Rice of lying regarding the extent of warnings. If she is fully supported we may see an important precedent and example set which could inspire others ‘in the know’ to speak out. As they do, independent researchers and citizens investigators will be able to ‘connect the dots’ themselves and in time the whole story will emerge, truth will see the light of day and accountability and transparency will win out over obfuscation, secrecy and denials.
Given the extraordinary secrecy, and in the Edmonds case, the extremely rare application of State Secrets ‘Immunity’ we may never know be able to confirm her allegation that the FBI had specific threat intelligence as to rough timing, targets and method. But foreign press accounts [see http://www.cooperativeresearc... ] and indeed the public record as reflected in the Congressional Joint Inquiry report already demonstrate that the government knew far more than they initially acknowledged in their early deceptive comments regarding the extant of pre-attack intelligence and threat assessments.
Playing the National Security trump card may just be the government’s attempt to protect the now unaccountable and avoid embarrassment. However, we do know enough to continue to press for full disclosure, continue to connect the dots on our own. Something the government is doing everything in its power in the Edmonds case to prevent.
In the end, despite pleading and arguments made by counsel Allan Gerson on behalf the 9/11 Families and their lawsuit, the U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton quashed the current deposition subpoena that would have had Edmonds testifying today [Tuesday, April 27th] before the lawyers for several thousand family members who has suing those they believe are behind terrorism. However, given the need for further review of the case, and perhaps the new public and press scrutiny, Judge Walton did set a date (June 14th) for another hearing and decision on whether to allow her deposition in some form. With this much advance time there is more than enough opportunity to rally a large public audience who would be willing to show Sibel Edmonds a very strong show of support and in the process help this disturbing information reach more Americans who deserve to know.
[b]Andrew Buncombe of the Independent was there:[/b]
Lawyers try to gag FBI worker over 9/11, http://news.independent.co.uk...
[b]Kyle F. Hence [/b]- http://www.unobserver.com/ind...
[b]Please also see:[/b]
U.S.: Today, in the 9/11 Cover-Up ‘Investigation’, http://www.unobserver.com/ind...
|
|
|
| |
| Iraqis Demand Full Sovereignty!!! ... It Is Their Country!!! ... What Will Bush Do??? ... |
| 04.27.04 (3:36 pm) [edit] |
[b]Iraqis are demanding full sovereignty! ... Now the corrupt Bush regime is saying that Iraq will be given "some" sovereignty! ... How can one be awarded [i]"partial"[/i] sovereignty? (Is there such as thing as [i]"partial"[/i] self-rule by a people of their nation? Methinks [i]not really[/i].) ... Iraq does [i]belong[/i] to the Iraqi people and [i]not[/i] to the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]... What will Bush [i]do[/i]??? Probably continue to behave as a tyrannical neo-hitlerian dictator ...[/b]
What will "We the People" [i]do[/i]??? ... Let us call upon Congress http://www.congress.org for [i]impeachment hearings [/i]in order to [i]get rid of [/i]the insane Bush liars, thieves, traitors and war criminals who perpetrate heinous lies, vile deceptions and treasonous falsehoods upon America and the entire world community in order to wage their illegal and immoral neo-con, neo-fascist warfare-turned-bloody-gue rrilla-quagmire in Iraq for global hegemony and to install their Global Corporate Empire that unconscionably gorges and swills on gluttonous war-profits while our U.S. Soldiers & Innocent Iraqi Civilians continue to die on a daily basis with [i]no end in sight [/i]... ([u]Bush's War-Profiteers[/u]: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.) ...
Consider "[b]Iraqis demand full sovereignty[/b]" by [i]BBC News[/i] on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi... :
Members of Iraq's interim Governing Council have called for "nothing less than full sovereignty" after the planned transfer of power on 30 June.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said Iraq would have to "give back" some power to the US in the early days.
That caused concern among Iraqi leaders and on the United Nations Security Council which is expected to be asked to support the new government in Iraq.
UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi later told the Council the role of Iraqis was vital.
He said the people of Iraq should be as involved as possible in forming the interim government which will administer the country until full elections, due in January next year.
Mr Brahimi favours the winding up of the 25-member Governing Council appointed by the US from veteran politicians to be replaced by technocrats.
He also suggested a national conference of more than 1,000 Iraqis from all walks of life be held in July.
That could offer support and advice to the government as it prepared for elections and act as a forum for reconciliation in the post-Saddam Hussein era, he said.
[b]Sensitive time [/b]
The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says it is clear that the US will remain the dominant power in Iraq in both military and financial terms for some time to come.
But he adds that the US has have to convince ordinary Iraqis that what is being billed as the handover of power will not be a purely symbolic moment.
Mr Powell's comments - which came a week after US administrator for Iraq Paul Bremer said local Iraqi forces could not maintain security by themselves - were criticised swiftly by Iraqi politicians.
A spokesman for the Iraqi Governing Council, Hameed al-Kafaei, said he believed Mr Powell was talking about co-operation over security.
"But sovereignty will have to be full on 30 June. Iraqis will not accept any less than full sovereignty," he said.
Public Works Minister Nesreen Berwari told the Associated Press news agency that Iraqis would welcome support for security and building democratic institutions from the UN and the US.
But she said Iraqis must take control of local and national government and make decisions on "day-to-day life," including budgets and "how to move the country politically".
As the members of the Security Council prepared to hear Mr Brahimi's latest report in New York, the only Arab member of the Council also called for Iraq to have full control after 30 June.
Algerian UN Ambassador Abdallah Baali said: "We definitely would like to see the Iraqi sovereignty restored in full and as soon as possible."
[b]UN 'leading role' [/b]
Separately, the former US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, was being questioned by senators deciding whether to approve him as the White House's new envoy in Iraq.
Mr Negroponte told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he expected the UN to take the lead in post-transition Iraq, in particular as it moves towards rule by an elected government.
If his appointment is confirmed, Mr Negroponte will replace Mr Bremer as the top US civilian in Iraq after 30 June when Mr Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority ceases to exist.
But US officials have said their military forces will still have control of some aspects of security and Mr Powell went further on Monday, saying that while Iraqis would have what he called sovereignty, "some of its sovereignty will have to be given back... or limited by them".
He told Reuters news agency that the coalition did not mean to "seize anything away" from the planned caretaker government but added: "It is with the understanding that they need our help and for us to provide that help we have to be able to operate freely, which in some ways infringes on what some would call full sovereignty."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Tuesday that it was important to separate "sovereignty" from "authority".
He said Iraqis themselves wanted limits on the authority of the interim government which he said had just two roles before it is replaced by an elected body: to assume day-to-day responsibility for administration and to prepare the country for a national poll.
|
|
|
| |
| Dick Cheney Behaves Like An Opportunistic Fascist Thug, An Embarrassment |
| 04.26.04 (6:14 pm) [edit] |
[b]Don't "We the People" deserve [i]or[/i] desire better than this??? ...[/b]
Veep-n-Creep Dick Cheney behaves like an opportunist fascist thug, an embarrassment who would [i]do[/i] Hitler's Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbles [i]proud [/i]... Dick Cheney goes to Westminster College, http://www.westminster-mo.edu... the site of Winston Churchill's 'iron curtain' speech http://www.hpol.org/churchill... , and embarrasses himself by sandbaging the University President who accepted Cheney's request to speak at the college.
Here's the first graf of an email President Fletcher M. Lamkin http://www.westminster-mo.edu... sent to faculty, students and staff this afternoon ...
[i]I would like to thank each and every one of you who were so courteous and respectful to Mr. Cheney during his visit and speech. Frankly, I must admit that I was surprised and disappointed that Mr. Cheney chose to step off the high ground and resort to Kerry-bashing for a large portion of his speech. The content and tone of his speech was not provided to us prior to the event -- we had only been told the speech would be about foreign policy, including issues in Iraq. Nevertheless, I was extremely proud of the students, staff, and faculty who represented the College so well during the organization of the visit and during the speech itself -- inside and outside of the gym[/i].
More background http://www.thestate.com/mld/t... in this [i]AP[/i] article.
[b]Source:[/b]
Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| White GOP Elephant: Bush's Military Industrial Complex Boondoggle |
| 04.26.04 (5:42 pm) [edit] |
[b]Having been warned of the threat of terrorist attacks upon America prior to 9/11, the corrupt, sluttish Bush regime was pre-occupied with satisfying the never-ending lustful desires of their corporate pimps http://www.washingtonpost.com... ... The neo-con Bushies have been[i] very, very, very busy [/i]doling out hundreds of millions/billions of US Taxpayer dollars ([i]swindled from Middle Class & Working people, since gluttonous corporations, wealthy oligarchs & hyper-rich plutocrats were awarded massive immoral and treasonous tax cuts, tax loopholes & tax boondoggles[/i]) to their corporate cronies in the insane over-bloated Military Industrial Complex ... [/b]
"We the People" are being ruthlessly defrauded in one of the most heinous and extravagent Military Industrial Complex's White Elephants and Corporate Boondoggles enriching rapacious Corporate Executives & Bush Cronies http://www.pbs.org/now/politi... :-- [i]Missile Defense [/i]... The unbelievable multi-billion dollar Missile Defense black-hole and wastefully criminal con-game [i]doesn't even work [/i]... Unless the Missile Defense system is given the exact trajectory (road map with precise co-ordinates) of the incoming enemy missile,[i] it can't hit it[/i] ... Moreover, if the enemy sends dummy missiles along with the real missile, the Missile Defense [i]can't tell which one to go after [/i]... In fact, it can [i]easily veer off course[/i] and go after a commercial airplane in flight in the general area ... http://slate.msn.com/id/20970... ... Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that the criminal waste of US Taxpayer dollars on this nightmarish White GOP Elephant be brought to a halt ... It [i]won't [/i]protect us ... It[i] will only [/i]protect the[i] pocket-books [/i]of the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]neo-fascist corporations awarded massive contracts in [i]never-ending boondoggles and wasteful neo-con con-games [/i]...
[b]Read on ... [/b]
The General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov/ , a non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, has come out with its latest look at the Reagan-era brain-wave now known as National Missile Defense.
The Bush Administration insists that it will deploy some form of missile defense system by, believe it or not, September. This is one of those odd deadlines -- like the hand-over of "sovereignty" to Iraq by July -- driven by politics regardless of reality.
So consider some key findings from the GAO report, teased out by the Council for a Livable World http://64.177.207.201/pages/9... . (You can see the report itself, in all of its 145-page glory, as a PDF file here http://www.gao.gov/new.items/... ):
* [i]"system effectiveness will be largely unproven when the initial capability goes on alert at the end of September 2004[/i]."
That's auditor-speak for: It still doesn't work.
* [i]"Decision makers in [the Pentagon] and Congress do not have a full understanding of the overall cost of developing and fielding the Ballistic Missile Defense System and what the system's true capabilities will be[/i]."
Auditor-speak for: We don't even know what it's supposed to do, much less what it costs.
* [i]"[Key systems have] not been tested under unscripted, operationally realistic conditions ... In flight tests conducted during fiscal year 2003, MDA http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/b... [the Missile Defense Agency] achieved a 50 percent success rate in intercepting target missiles[/i]."
[b]Translation:[/b] Assume that we field this ridiculous Maginot Line http://www.wagingpeace.org/ar... in space -- and then assume further that an incredibly obliging future enemy actually meets the George W. Bush when-where-how standard http://www.kansas.com/mld/eag... for breaking off his vacation and paying attention http://www.thenation.com/outr... -- and lets slip the time, place and date of a nuclear missile attack. What luck! Provided we are armed with all of that information, so far we have a coin toss of a chance at stopping it.
Of course, if this enemy fires two missiles instead of one, the coin toss concerns whether we lose Washington or New York. (No voting -- I said a coin toss.)
* "[i]MDA estimates it will need $53 billion between fiscal years 2004 and 2009 to continue the development, fielding, and evolution of ballistic missile defenses[/i]."
[b]Translation:[/b] The Bush Administration is quite cheerful about coughing up about $10 billion each year for five years, for a contractor-fattening monstrosity that won't work. (While the ultimate price tag will by some counts run past $1 trillion dollars http://www.armscontrolcenter.... -- making missile defense a half-dozen times more costly than our war in Iraq to date.)
Meanwhile, this same spendthrift White House is balking http://www.washingtonpost.com...://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2890 3-2004Apr20.html at shelling out a fraction of that sum for, believe it or not, military equipment for troops under fire in Iraq.
* * *
[b]Bonus idiocy:[/b] Check out the MDA's press release about its 2005 budget request. Most press releases are a page or two long of clear language. But when MDA starts talking about how much pocket change it needs and expects, and for what, the resulting "press release" is an opaque 23-page term paper http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/b... -- complete with a two-page glossary of acronyms used. Don't miss the diagram on page 9 of the "evolutionary spiral development" of this particular species of elephantine http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/mean... waste.
[b]Sources:[/b]
"White GOP Elephant" by[i] Matt Bivens[/i], The Daily Outrage, The Nation on http://www.thenation.com/outr...
"Inside the Pentagon" by NOW with [i]Bill Moyers [/i]on http://www.pbs.org/now/politi...
"Bush's Latest Missile-Defense Folly: Why spend billions on a system that might never work?" by [i]Fred Kaplan [/i], Slate on http://slate.msn.com/id/20970...
|
|
|
| |
| Oil-Slick Moves Into The White House To Push Bush's Oil Grab |
| 04.26.04 (4:13 pm) [edit] |
[b]Why aren't Poppy Bush 41, Cheney and Rumsfeld in jail with Saddam Hussein and facing trial with[i] their [/i]buddy-butcher since without their aiding and abetting of the Iraqi Dictator, Hussein could not have committed the [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i] encouraged by Reagan-Bush 41, and moreover Iraq could never have posed a threat to anyone (which it [i]didn't anyway [/i]following the early 1990s Inspection/Weapons Destruction processes ...)?!? ... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime is now refusing to hand-over sovereignty to Iraq[i] as promised [/i] http://www.antiwar.com/robert... ([i]... Dubya's promises are as good as "used toilet paper"[/i] ...) and instead want to expand their insane neo-fascist Global Corporate Empire; plan to proliferate their illegal and immoral neo-con massacres in other Arab nations http://www.wnd.com/news/artic... ([i]Syria, Iran, etc[/i].); and to grab the Iraqi people's oil resources http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...,3604,1202253,00.html ([i]Embezzler, Liar & Thug Chalabi's nephew is running a ponzy-scheme with Bush's corporate cronies[/i] http://www.corpwatch.org/news... ) ...
"We the People" are witnessing our nation being hijacked by Oil Corporations, Thieves, Swindlers, Embezzlers, Frauds, Felons and War Criminals ... Let us fight back and demand that Congress http://www.congress.org put a stop to this despicable treason and betrayal of Our [i]Republic For Which It Stands [/i]...
Refer to "[b]Oil-Slick Jim Moves In[/b]" by [i]Greg Palast[/i], AlterNet, on http://www.alternet.org/story... :
I usually avoid the[i] New York Times[/i], but lately it's become a compulsion, though only for the new daily column titled, "Names of the Dead." Today's listing: "DERVISHI, Ervin, 21, Pfc, Army. Fort Worth."
I'm not one of those cynics who thought Bush sent us into to Iraq for the oil [But [i]I did and do[/i].]. To me, Saddam Hussein was always a Kurd-killing cockroach with a Hitlerian mustache. I never liked the guy – not even when he worked for George Bush Sr.
It's worth going over the work the Butcher of Baghdad did for his Texas patrons when he was [i]their [/i]butcher:
1979: Seizes power with U.S. approval; moves allegiance from Soviets to U.S. in Cold War.
1980: Invades Iran, then the "Unicycle of Evil," with U.S. encouragement and arms. (In fairness, credit here goes to Nobel Peace Laureate, James Carter.)
1982: Bush-Reagan regime removes Saddam's regime from official U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
1983: Saddam hosts Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad. Agrees to "go steady" with U.S. corporate suppliers.
1984: U.S. Commerce Department issues license for export of aflatoxin to Iraq useable in biological weapons.
1988: Gasses Kurds in Halabja, Iraq.
1987-88: U.S. warships destroy Iranian oil platforms in Gulf and break Iranian blockade of Iraq shipping lanes, tipping war advantage back to Saddam.
1990: Invades Kuwait with U.S. permission.
U.S. [i]permission[/i]? On July 25, 1990, the dashing dictator met in Baghdad with U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. When Saddam asked Glaspie if the U.S. would object to an attack on Kuwait over the small emirate's theft | |
