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
|
| George Washington: "I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice & liberality" |
| 07.31.04 (4:18 pm) [edit] |
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then … we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.""
- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
[b]George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and our Founding Fathers considered themselves[i] Liberal [/i]men with[i] Liberal [/i]ideas that came out of the[i] Age of the European Enlightenment[/i], the [i]Age of Reason[/i]. Washington said "[i]As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality[/i]." ...[/b] Tragically the traitorous right-wingers have co-opted the honorable name of [i]"Liberal" [/i]and have twisted and transformed it into something convoluted that is diametrically opposed to its' true meaning ... America is at heart a[i] Liberal [/i]nation, and[i] not [/i]a nation of neo-con, neo-fascist ideologues fearful of diversity, science, rational thought and civilized dialogue ... That is why "We the People" must return to our roots and be unafraid to take back the proud appellation of [i]"Liberal"[/i] and to take our nation back from the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who stand opposed to our[i] Liberal [/i]ideals of freedom, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all men and women ...
[b]Consider also [i]Think Again: The Word 'Liberal' [/i]...[/b]
If all you knew about the word "liberal" is what came up when you plugged the word into Amazon's search engine on any given day in January 2004, you'd think it was among the worst insults one human being could hurl at another. There's Ann Coulter, "Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right" and "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism;" Michael Savage: "The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Languages and Culture;" Mona Charen, "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First;" David Limbaugh, "Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity;" and Sean Hannity, "Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism." Of course these titles represent a kind of consensus on the right and in much of America. When Rush Limbaugh returned to the airwaves on November 17, 2003, he admitted to his 15-20 million listeners that while he may be "powerless" to overcome his drug addiction without professional help, he would not, he promised, turn into "a linguini-spined liberal." The national media, alleged by all to be infested by closet liberals, reported these insults verbatim, as if to be so obvious that they were undeserving of refutation or even reply.
At first blush is this odd. After all, 52 percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they "didn't respect Limbaugh now and never did," putting them, no doubt, in the "linguini-spined" category. In recent times, much of the mainstream media have incorporated many of these same attitudes, if not their occasionally obscene terminology. Liberalism, according to much of the coverage of the recent convention in Boston, is something from which savvy politicians must run—or perhaps hide under the bed at least until the guests have gone home.
Ever since George McGovern was defeated in 1972 with the help of the criminal conspiracy that was Richard Nixon's re-election campaign, the media have made a sport of bashing liberals come election time. As Michael Kinsley pointed out recently, "It's true enough that this is a moment when the Democrats are called upon to reject extreme liberalism (whatever that might be) and to embrace moderation. But that is only because every moment is such a moment. The opinion that the Democrats need to foreswear McGovernism and prove their commitment to moderation is one of the very safest in all of punditry." Yet Republicans, Kinsley notes, receive the equivalent of a free ideological pass regardless of the fact that they are led by two men whose political extremism has no analogy in power circles in the other party.
Extremism versus moderation is a beloved media leitmotif at the Republican convention as well. But there's a difference, at least in tone. It is generally considered enough if the Republicans prevent their nuttier element from actually taking over the convention. The GOP is rarely threatened with oblivion if it fails to stage a public festival of contrition. And the Republicans are under no pressure to avoid the word "conservative."
The demonization of the word "liberal" has been an ongoing project of the well-funded right and draws its fire from intellectuals who should really know better. Shelby Steele, for instance, has provided useful and interesting challenges to conventional wisdom on race and affirmative action but look what he wrote on the [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]editorial page about John Walker Lindh and liberals. Speaking of the allegedly liberal values of Marin County, California, where Lindh was raised, and taking a page from the playbook of former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Steele charged, sans evidence that "This liberalism thrives as a subversive, winking, countercultural hipness...Cultural liberalism serves up American self-hate to the young as idealism. It's too much to say that treason is a rite of passage in this context. But that is exactly how it turned out for Walker. In radical Islam he found both the victim's authority and the hatred of America that had been held out to him as marks of authenticity...And when he turned on his country to be secure in his new faith, he followed a logic that was a part of his country's culture." This begs the question, why does Shelby Steele hate America? An interesting line of reasoning, this, considering that conservatives normally reject victimization in favor of personal responsibility. Apparently, liberalism trumps free will in Steele's sociological methodology.
Ann Coulter, whom fellow right-winger Jonah Goldberg once called "barely coherent," adding that in one [i]National Review [/i]column (which the magazine refused to publish and ultimately led to her departure) she was guilty of "emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as 'judgment.'" Her book, "Treason" took liberalism to task for just about everything, from "undermining victory in the Cold War," by "Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country...[liberals] aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth." The problem with her "reasoning, "of course, stems from the fact that without the Democratically-controlled Congress of the Cold War years, none of those large defense appropriation bills would have been passed. But no matter. She continues that "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America." And yet despite all of the above—as well as her joking about how lovely it would be if terrorists blew up the [i]New York Times[/i]—she was rewarded with a convention column by [i]USA Today [/i]until she turned in her unreadable personal attacks on the physical appearances of the delegates and [i]USA Today [/i]suddenly decided that hiring her was not such a brilliant idea after all.
Even so, it works. As Princeton professor Paul Starr notes, "The use of the vocabulary of treason is a measure of how thoroughly conservatives have transferred the passions of anticommunism into an internal war against those whom they think of as the enemies of American culture and values. And these were, as I recall from the 1960s, the same people who decried the loss of civility."
Given the rhetorical dominance of conservatives over the past several decades, one might be surprised to learn from a June[i] Wall Street Journal [/i]analysis that "[The] proportion of Americans calling themselves "liberal" edged up to 21 percent in [ pollster Stan] Greenberg's May poll from 16 percent a month earlier. Self-identified "conservatives" dropped to 37 percent from 41 percent. And why not? One of the most honored guests here in Boston this week turns out to be none other than George McGovern. As he told a reporter from National Journal when queried about his apparently alien ideological affiliation "Every program that ever helped working people -- from rural electrification to Medicare -- was enacted by liberals over the opposition of conservatives. When people tell me they don't like liberals, I ask, 'Do you like Social Security? If so, then shut up!' "
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Special Interest Takeover by the Bush Regime and the Dismantling of Public Safeguards |
| 07.31.04 (10:01 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" are being placed in dangerous jeopardy by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]...[/b]
Special interests have launched a sweeping assault on protections for public health, safety, the environment, and corporate responsibility – and unfortunately the Bush administration has given way. Crucial safeguards have been swept aside or watered down; emerging problems are being ignored; and enforcement efforts have been curtailed, threatening to render existing standards meaningless.
This agenda puts special interests above the public interest, sacrificing a safer, healthier, more just America at the behest of industry lobbyists, corporate campaign contributors, and professional ideologues – many of whom the president has appointed to "regulate" the very interests they used to represent.
Over the last 30 years, we have made significant progress through strong public safeguards. Our air and water are cleaner, our food, workplaces, and roads are safer, and corporations and government are more open and accountable to the public. These protections have saved thousands upon thousands of lives and improved the quality of life for all Americans – without hobbling industry or the economy.
Nonetheless, significant problems remain. Every year, more than 40,000 people die on our nation's highways. Foodborne illnesses kill an estimated 7,000 and sicken 76 million. Nearly 6,000 workers die as a result of injury on the job, with an additional 50,000 to 60,000 killed by occupational disease. And asthma – linked to air pollution – is rising dramatically, afflicting 17 million, including six million children.
We should address these problems by building on past successes. Instead, the Bush administration has reversed course. [u]For complete details, please continue[/u]: http://www.americanprogress.o... .
|
|
|
| |
| Under the Radar ... It's Starting to Sound Alot Like Fascism ... |
| 07.30.04 (7:09 pm) [edit] |
[b]Under the radar ... This alarming report didn't make the[i] national news[/i] and probably never will ... but, it's starting to sound alot like[i] fascism [/i]...
RIGHT-WING – YOU MUST SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO BUSH-CHENEY:[/b] The Albuquerque Journal reports that New Mexico locals hoping to attend a rally for Vice President Dick Cheney in Rio Rancho were "asked to sign an endorsement form if they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters." http://www.abqjournal.com/ele... The requirement to pledge allegiance to the Bush-Cheney ticket in order to attend the event was confirmed by a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. The endorsement read: ""I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."
Signing allegiance-endorsements?? ? ... [i]What next??? [/i]... Allegiance-oaths to Herr Fuhrer Bush & Reich Marshall Cheney??? ... [i]This is madness!!! [/i]... What is the corrupt Bush regime [i] gonna' do[/i] if the attendee [i]so foolish [/i]as to sign this neo-fascist allegiance-endorsement changes their mind and decides to vote for Kerry/Edwards??? -- Categorize [i]'em[/i] as "enemy combattants" and[i] ship 'em off [/i]to Guantanamo Bay??? ... [i]Jeez[/i] ...
"We the People" should be concerned about the ugly, nasty tactics being exploited by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i] to intimidate and suppress voters ... and, to terrorize and scare people into submission ... Some Republicans http://world.std.com/~3Diff/rab.html are coming [i]out of the closet [/i]to express outrage that they have been unable to challenge any of the traitorous Bush regime's foreign or domestic policy nightmares and are excluded from debate and/or discussion on national issues ... It would be worthwhile [i]not[/i] to believe anything that the [i]"win-at-all-costs"[/i] Bushies propagate until it is [i]double, triple and quadruple checked [/i]...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Two Paths for America ... |
| 07.30.04 (1:14 pm) [edit] |
[b]Now is the time for "We the People" to come to the aide of our country ...[/b]
Americans face a critical decision about the direction of our country, not just in 2004 but for the long term. One is the conservative path for America: tax breaks for the wealthy that do little for the middle class while saddling us with massive debt; government by and for corporations that is indifferent to the struggles of everyday families; and a radical and destabilizing foreign policy that has overburdened our military and left our nation less secure. The other is a progressive path for America:
[b]. Middle class tax breaks, affordable health care, and increasing economic opportunities to help the middle class. [/b]The progressive path for America is one that believes every American should have the opportunity to make the most of their lives given their talents and ambitions. Government has an important role in helping people reach their potential by promoting good paying jobs at home, supporting affordable health care for all, and providing quality education as the foundation of an increasing quality of life.
[b]. Honest and fair government that puts the needs of citizens above all else.[/b] The progressive path honors our democratic values by focusing on what is right and necessary for all Americans, not just those with high paid lobbyists and political or financial clout.
[b]. And a strong and measured foreign policy that fights our enemies everywhere and earns respect for American values and intentions.[/b] As former President Clinton stated earlier this week, "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values." America must relentlessly hunt down and eliminate fundamentalist extremists who aim to destroy our way of life. But in doing so, we must uphold our basic values, honor our international allies and prove to the world that the American way is a just and righteous way toward global security.
[b]Bush's Inflation For "We the People"[/b] ... http://www.tblog.com/template...
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Inflation For "We the People" ... |
| 07.29.04 (3:47 pm) [edit] |
"[b]We the People" are facing a terrible period of inflation as mortgage rates climb http://www.forbes.com/home/fe... -- the cost of gas at the pump is at the highest levels in years http://seattletimes.nwsource.... -- the prices of milk, food and other necessities of life including health care (not affordable for millions of our fellow citizens) are rising http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb... -- and all of these burdens represent a back-breaking hardship for working families across America ... [/b]Moreover, the wages of working people are[i] not [/i]keeping up with inflation http://www.americanprogress.o... unless you are amongst the richest of the rich and then you are living the [i]Belle Epoque[/i] because CEO pay continues to[i] skyrocket [/i] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin... and tax cuts for the wealthiest are a real[i] boon [/i]for them ... The rest of us must make sacrifices in lives and treasure as Bush has recklessly squandered our budget surplus to create the most heinous record-level deficit spending on wars, corporations and wealthy plutocrats, in our nation's history ...
The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is unfit for office because there is[i] no area [/i]of foreign or domestic policy that the neo-cons have touched that has benefitted working American people and we are now facing the extravagantly costly bills for their illegal and immoral war games; gifts to the rich and corporations; and, the wasteful wreckage in the aftermath of their corporate-take-all rape of America ...[i] It's time for a change [/i]... "We the People" have the power to make that change by voting for Kerry-Edwards ...
[b]Consider also "[i]Oil price at 21-year record as fears grow[/i]" on http://news.ft.com/servlet/Co... :[/b]
Oil prices hit 21-year highs on Wednesday as fears grew about interruptions to world oil supply.
The sharp increase came as Yukos, one of Russia's biggest oil companies, threatened to halt production and concerns grew over whether the world's limited spare oil capacity would be able to satisfy growing demand in a tight market.
Crude oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange on WEednesday surged $1.21 to $43.05 a barrel, breaking the 21-year-old exchange's $42.45 record set in June. In London, September Brent oil on the International Petroleum Exchange was 99 cents higher at $39.53 a barrel, a 14-year high.
World oil producers, almost all of which are pumping at full capacity, have only a 1.5m-2m barrels a day cushion of spare oil left to make up any shortage. Yukos is enmeshed in a tax dispute with the Russian authorities that has led to Mikhail Khordokovsky, its former chief executive, being jailed. If its production is halted, the shortfall would be 1.7m b/d.
"Although Yukos management has warned that intensifying pressure may have a negative impact on production due to its inability to finance exports, this appears to be a plea for sympathy rather than a real concern," said Yulia Woodruff, Russia analyst for Energy Security Analysis, the Boston-based consultants.
The latest increase in already high oil prices is especially costly for the US. Figures on Wednesday showed the world's largest oil consuming country is more dependent on foreign oil than ever. Weekly government data showed the US imported 11.3m barrels of crude oil and 1.3m barrels of petrol last week. With oil prices at record highs, analysts calculated the overall daily bill for oil imports at more than $500m. "We are obviously monitoring that situation," said Spencer Abraham, the US energy secretary.
In real terms oil prices are still only about half as high as they were in the early 1980s following the Iranian revolution in 1979. But Goran Trapp, managing director of commodities at Morgan Stanley, said: "The way the market is moving, the oil price could easily go to $44 to $45 soon, and I believe we will see a $50 oil price by the end of the year."
Oil prices, which have increased by more than 30 per cent so far this year, have become a factor in the US presidential elections. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, is expected to make US dependence on foreign oil a central theme in his speech to the Democratic national convention tonight. .
The world's biggest energy companies, including ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco of the US and Anglo-Dutch Royal Dutch/Shell announce their earnings this week.
|
|
|
| |
| ....... Think Again: The Word 'Liberal' ....... |
| 07.29.04 (9:28 am) [edit] |
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then … we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.""
- John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960
[b]George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and our Founding Fathers considered themselves[i] Liberal [/i]men with[i] Liberal [/i]ideas that came out of the[i] Age of the European Enlightenment[/i], the [i]Age of Reason[/i]. Washington said "[i]As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality[/i]." ...[/b] Tragically the traitorous right-wingers have co-opted the honorable name of [i]"Liberal" [/i]and have twisted and transformed it into something convoluted that is diametrically opposed to its' true meaning ... America is at heart a[i] Liberal [/i]nation, and[i] not [/i]a nation of neo-con, neo-fascist ideologues fearful of diversity, science, rational thought and civilized dialogue ... That is why "We the People" must return to our roots and be unafraid to take back the proud appellation of [i]"Liberal"[/i] and to take our nation back from the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who stand opposed to our[i] Liberal [/i]ideals of freedom, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all men and women ...
[b]Consider also ...[/b]
If all you knew about the word "liberal" is what came up when you plugged the word into Amazon's search engine on any given day in January 2004, you'd think it was among the worst insults one human being could hurl at another. There's Ann Coulter, "Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right" and "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism;" Michael Savage: "The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Languages and Culture;" Mona Charen, "Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First;" David Limbaugh, "Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity;" and Sean Hannity, "Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism." Of course these titles represent a kind of consensus on the right and in much of America. When Rush Limbaugh returned to the airwaves on November 17, 2003, he admitted to his 15-20 million listeners that while he may be "powerless" to overcome his drug addiction without professional help, he would not, he promised, turn into "a linguini-spined liberal." The national media, alleged by all to be infested by closet liberals, reported these insults verbatim, as if to be so obvious that they were undeserving of refutation or even reply.
At first blush is this odd. After all, 52 percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they "didn't respect Limbaugh now and never did," putting them, no doubt, in the "linguini-spined" category. In recent times, much of the mainstream media have incorporated many of these same attitudes, if not their occasionally obscene terminology. Liberalism, according to much of the coverage of the recent convention in Boston, is something from which savvy politicians must run—or perhaps hide under the bed at least until the guests have gone home.
Ever since George McGovern was defeated in 1972 with the help of the criminal conspiracy that was Richard Nixon's re-election campaign, the media have made a sport of bashing liberals come election time. As Michael Kinsley pointed out recently, "It's true enough that this is a moment when the Democrats are called upon to reject extreme liberalism (whatever that might be) and to embrace moderation. But that is only because every moment is such a moment. The opinion that the Democrats need to foreswear McGovernism and prove their commitment to moderation is one of the very safest in all of punditry." Yet Republicans, Kinsley notes, receive the equivalent of a free ideological pass regardless of the fact that they are led by two men whose political extremism has no analogy in power circles in the other party.
Extremism versus moderation is a beloved media leitmotif at the Republican convention as well. But there's a difference, at least in tone. It is generally considered enough if the Republicans prevent their nuttier element from actually taking over the convention. The GOP is rarely threatened with oblivion if it fails to stage a public festival of contrition. And the Republicans are under no pressure to avoid the word "conservative."
The demonization of the word "liberal" has been an ongoing project of the well-funded right and draws its fire from intellectuals who should really know better. Shelby Steele, for instance, has provided useful and interesting challenges to conventional wisdom on race and affirmative action but look what he wrote on the [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]editorial page about John Walker Lindh and liberals. Speaking of the allegedly liberal values of Marin County, California, where Lindh was raised, and taking a page from the playbook of former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Steele charged, sans evidence that "This liberalism thrives as a subversive, winking, countercultural hipness...Cultural liberalism serves up American self-hate to the young as idealism. It's too much to say that treason is a rite of passage in this context. But that is exactly how it turned out for Walker. In radical Islam he found both the victim's authority and the hatred of America that had been held out to him as marks of authenticity...And when he turned on his country to be secure in his new faith, he followed a logic that was a part of his country's culture." This begs the question, why does Shelby Steele hate America? An interesting line of reasoning, this, considering that conservatives normally reject victimization in favor of personal responsibility. Apparently, liberalism trumps free will in Steele's sociological methodology.
Ann Coulter, whom fellow right-winger Jonah Goldberg once called "barely coherent," adding that in one [i]National Review [/i]column (which the magazine refused to publish and ultimately led to her departure) she was guilty of "emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as 'judgment.'" Her book, "Treason" took liberalism to task for just about everything, from "undermining victory in the Cold War," by "Betraying the manifest national defense objectives of the country...[liberals] aim to destroy America from the inside with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth." The problem with her "reasoning, "of course, stems from the fact that without the Democratically-controlled Congress of the Cold War years, none of those large defense appropriation bills would have been passed. But no matter. She continues that "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America." And yet despite all of the above—as well as her joking about how lovely it would be if terrorists blew up the [i]New York Times[/i]—she was rewarded with a convention column by [i]USA Today [/i]until she turned in her unreadable personal attacks on the physical appearances of the delegates and [i]USA Today [/i]suddenly decided that hiring her was not such a brilliant idea after all.
Even so, it works. As Princeton professor Paul Starr notes, "The use of the vocabulary of treason is a measure of how thoroughly conservatives have transferred the passions of anticommunism into an internal war against those whom they think of as the enemies of American culture and values. And these were, as I recall from the 1960s, the same people who decried the loss of civility."
Given the rhetorical dominance of conservatives over the past several decades, one might be surprised to learn from a June[i] Wall Street Journal [/i]analysis that "[The] proportion of Americans calling themselves "liberal" edged up to 21 percent in [ pollster Stan] Greenberg's May poll from 16 percent a month earlier. Self-identified "conservatives" dropped to 37 percent from 41 percent. And why not? One of the most honored guests here in Boston this week turns out to be none other than George McGovern. As he told a reporter from National Journal when queried about his apparently alien ideological affiliation "Every program that ever helped working people -- from rural electrification to Medicare -- was enacted by liberals over the opposition of conservatives. When people tell me they don't like liberals, I ask, 'Do you like Social Security? If so, then shut up!' "
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Progressive Foreign Policy Solutions: The Challenges Ahead ... |
| 07.28.04 (12:08 pm) [edit] |
... "[i][b]For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal[/b].[/i]..." - John F. Kennedy, [i]Speech at The American University, Washington, D.C., June 10, 1963[/i]
[b]Bush is a[i] divider [/i]and[i] not [/i]a uniter ... [/b]We need to vote for John F. Kerry because we need a leader who will restore our nation's dignity [i]here at home and abroad[/i], and who will deliver upon the promise of working well and honestly with other nations while defending our homeland in a sane and rational manner ... As Thomas Jefferson said "[i]Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none[/i]" has been a stalwart underlying our international policies[i] until now [/i]... Traditionally as John Quincy Adams stated ""[i]We do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy[/i]," and our Founding Fathers warned against imperial designs which they virulently condemned ... Tragically the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has treated our allies with contemptuous disregard-- squandered international good-will-- and, has ruthlessly and recklessly waged an illegal and immoral war upon a sovereign nation that did not threaten us, based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods ... "We the People" cannot trust the "word" of the traitorous Bush regime, [i]nor[/i] does the rest of the world ...
[b]An Interview with John Shattuck, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor[/b]
Ambassador John Shattuck is a foremost expert on human rights and humanitarian intervention. In 2003 he authored, "Freedom on Fire: Human Rights Wars and America's Response," in which he reflected upon his experience as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 1993 to 1998. Shattuck also served as U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic from 1998 to 2000 and is currently the chief executive officer of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston. He spoke with the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]last month.
[b]American Progress:[/b] The people of the Darfur region of Sudan are suffering a humanitarian crisis, as government-sponsored militias battle an armed insurgency. If you could snap your fingers and do three things to address the situation in Darfur, what would they be?
[b]Shattuck:[/b] Well, the first thing I would do is take a leadership role in pursing a resolution for intervention through the U.N. Security Council. The United Nations is waiting to be led on the Darfur issue. And I don't sense any division on the issue whatsoever.
I would also work with countries in the region and the European Union to establish a crisis resolution strategy that would provide authority for an international peacekeeping operation. A peacekeeping operation could be assembled through the African Union and involve participants from other places as well.
At the same time I would work with [U.N. Secretary-General] Kofi Annan and the leaders of the African Union to find a more aggressive diplomatic approach to dealing with what is clearly ethnic cleansing going on in Darfur. And there has been a peace process that while not particularly effective today, was much more effective a year ago. I'd try to get that jump-started again.
I'd have the peacekeeping operation and a Security Council resolution in the pocket, so basically you have diplomacy backed by force, which is really what the effective 1990s interventions were all about.
[b]American Progress:[/b] Can you comment on the disinclination of the United Nations to provide an aggressive Chapter VII mandate http://www.free-definition.co... that would enable a U.N. force to forcibly challenge the militia in Sudan if necessary?
[b]Shattuck:[/b] The good news in the field of peacekeeping is that we actually have quite a bit of experience. But the experience that we have with Chapter VI, which is the old-fashioned "white hat" peacekeeping force that basically goes in and observes, is that that kind of a peacekeeping force is hopelessly ineffective in any situation where there are any kinds of hostilities continuing.
It's an insult to the troops who are there. They're in a place where there are continued incidents of ethnic cleansing or other forms of violence. And yet the peacekeeping force lacks the authority to take appropriate measures when they observe an act of hostility, or, more importantly, when they are attacked themselves.
The one thing that really sent Rwanda into the ultimate conflagration that it became was three or four days after genocide began, ten Belgian peacekeepers were killed in a very brutal act conducted by the genocide planners. And there's a memo that was sent by the commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force, Gen. Romeo Dallaire, back to the United Nations a month before, about how an informant had said that one of the things that will be done when the genocide breaks out is that peacekeepers will be killed as a way of forcing the withdrawal of the whole peacekeeping force. It played out like a book. What happened in the bureaucracy of the United Nations to that warning? It never really reached anyone, it got stuck.
I'm totally in favor of giving Chapter VII authority when it may not even be needed. It can be a deterrent. It can actually be an element of the diplomacy. That's why I'd do it in Sudan.
[b]American Progress:[/b] Can you comment on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and its perceived ineffectiveness? What reforms would you like to see?
[b]Shattuck:[/b] The Commission's government members are elected by blocks within the commission. There's a European block; there's an African block; there's a Middle East block; there's an Asian block and a Latin American block.
One of the things that happens in United Nations voting is that you don't necessarily get a good match between the countries that are on the commission and the human rights function they're trying to perform. For example, last year's Commission chair was Libya. The U.N. Human Rights Commission and Libya is the chair? That doesn't sound quite right. At the very least, the Commission often gets into gridlock.
During the Clinton period, the United States actually pursued fairly aggressive diplomacy within the Human Rights Commission. We used it as a way of focusing attention on particular human rights crises like China and Cuba. But it doesn't have any enforcement authority.
What would make it better? I have to say I'm fairly conservative on this point. I'm more in favor of the community of democracies idea. I believe in working to develop, as we did in the Clinton administration—Madeline Albright was very active in this—a coalition of democratic states who would take the lead in, among other things, humanitarian interventions and dealing with international norms on human rights.
[b]American Progress:[/b] Can you comment on the administration's presumption that you can't fight the war on terrorism through the old rules? Do you believe that the old rules, the pre-9/11 rules, are still valid?
[b]Shattuck:[/b] Let's look at the Geneva Conventions and the interrogation of prisoners and the use of torture, or at least trying not to be subject to the various international prescriptions against torture. I think there are two levels on which the administration's claim that rules can be swept aside can be rebutted.
On one level there is very little evidence—according to all the experts, including the people who conduct the interrogations—that torture and coercive methods, systematically applied, actually produce truth and develop useful evidence.
I think the greater rebuttal, however, is the enormous danger that is presented, at the very least, to U.S. troops when it becomes clear that we are not following the Geneva conventions. Obviously no terrorist is going to follow international rules. But by and large the treatment of American troops around the world could change significantly.
There is also the larger foreign policy danger of effectively undermining our capacity to build alliances. To the extent it becomes clear that we are asserting that we and anyone who works with us are essentially above the law, it is going to be very hard for us to create alliances with other countries.
Having said that, I think the Geneva Conventions need to be updated. That's why I urge the U.S. take the lead in updating international law in this area, including developing an international treaty on terrorism.
[b]American Progress:[/b] The Bush administration is arguing that al Qaeda terrorists and other terrorists are not criminals because they're soldiers in a war against America, so U.S. criminal law does not apply to them. But neither are they protected by the laws of war. Thus, they are in a black hole. Should we undertake an effort to create a system of laws that would guide us in this conflict?
[b]Shattuck:[/b] It's not easy to define terrorism. But I don't think we're even trying at the moment. There are people all over the world who say as a result of cultural or religious or political differences in philosophy, what we claim is terrorism may well not be within their definition. We are avoiding that debate at our peril.
Terrorism is not a U.S. problem alone. 9/11 was a terrible event to be sure, and it wakened Americans for the first time to the crisis of terrorism globally. But terrorism is affecting the whole world. Anyone who travels knows what it's like and what people live under. The Europeans have lived with it for a long time. I define the kinds of actions that were committed in Bosnia and Rwanda and Haiti as terrorism. They were crimes against humanity, even if they weren't conducted by al Qaeda terrorists.
There is enough good will and genuine interest out there in dealing with terrorism that if the United States were to take the lead with other countries in defining it, connecting it to international law, and updating the Geneva conventions, we could provide further legitimacy for the war on terrorism and further isolate the terrorists. This is a national security issue, not just a human rights issue.
[b]American Progress:[/b] It seems that there is a deeply entrenched sentiment of American exceptionalism, both among the general public and in high levels of government, with regard to binding the military to international norms. How can this sentiment be overcome?
[b]Shattuck:[/b] The issue of exceptionalism, as you've described it, has been with us for a long time. It's a long tradition in American foreign policy. It's also related to isolationism, and unilateralism for that matter. Those are the three great "ism's" that are really at the heart of historical American foreign policy. They have to do with where we are geographically, and now where we are in terms of the amount of power that we have.
The International Criminal Court is a complicated topic. I would be the first to say that. But [U.S. Ambassador at large for War Crimes in the Clinton administration] David Sheffer's point, and he's right, is that we ought to be at the table. We've got some strong interests to defend, including an interest in protecting our own troops against the possibility that some other country may end up trying to take them before the International Criminal Court and undermine our capacity to do the kinds of military operations that we need to do in the world.
But there are ways in which you can build protections into the International Criminal Court. And the Court now has a basic protection that it can't even take a case until the justice system in the country in question has fallen apart. So if the United States does anything to investigate or otherwise look into an allegation, that's enough to keep it off the Court's agenda.
These things, exceptionalism and all the others, have been with us for a long time and we're going to keep battling them. But it ought to be the role of progressive leadership in a world that is now so interconnected and international to try to find arguments to push back these longstanding tendencies in American foreign policy.
[b]American Progress:[/b] Thank you for speaking with us, Ambassador Shattuck.
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
http://www.atheism.org/" title="http://www.atheism.org/" target="_blank"http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html
|
|
|
| |
| Michael Moore Hits Cambridge ... |
| 07.28.04 (11:58 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" owe a debt of gratitude to Michael Moore for exposing the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and energizing the American public to sit-up and take notice of the vile political shenanigans that are being employed by the extremist fanatics on the neo-con right[i] who are out [/i]to destroy our nation ... [/b]
To strains of "You're Still The One," Senator Edward Kennedy exited stage left, surrounded by family—heading to a tribute at Boston Symphony Hall. "The only thing we have to fear," he told the cheering crowd, "is four more years of George Bush....We will retire Cheney to an undisclosed location."
Across the river, earlier in this afternoon, Michael Moore nearly caused a riot when some 3,000 people descended on the Royal Sonesta Hotel in Cambridge for a confab with America's hottest film-maker. Earlier that day, some Bush spokesman had called Moore "the leader of the hate and vitriol celebrity." Two thousand people were turned away by the organizers—the Campaign for America's Future—but they soon gathered on a side street outside the hotel, awaiting Moore's arrival later that afternoon.
Inside the hall, Moore enthralled the crowd with tales of Dale Earnhardt Jr, tirades against the corporate media, jabs at Disney and its honcho Michael Eisner, advice for John Kerry and a warning to Ralph Nader.
Check out these riffs: http://www.thenation.com/edcu... ...
|
|
|
| |
| ... GOP Calls for Voter Suppression ... Election Manipulation ... |
| 07.27.04 (11:14 am) [edit] |
[b]NOW Members Urge U.N. Oversight of 2004 Presidential Election [/b] http://www.tblog.com/template... is the [i]lede [/i]to a serious expression of [i]rising concern [/i]that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] will rig the upcoming 2004 presidential election in November and hijack the country [i]again[/i] like they did in their[i] heinous banana republican coup d'etat [/i]in 2000 ... "We the People" should contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand UN oversight for [i]all[/i] swing states where the polls show that the election is close between Bush and Kerry ...
[u][b]GOP Calls for Voter Suppression[/b][/u]
A string of recent declarations from top government officials and Republican party leaders are raising questions about whether the Bush administration is quietly attempting to manipulate voting in the 2004 presidential election. Last week, a GOP lawmaker and co-chair of the Bush-Cheney '04 Michigan Veterans Leadership Team called recently for his party to [i]"suppress the Detroit vote," [/i]making a mockery of President Bush's belated attempt to reach out to African-Americans in that city last week. Speaking at the National Urban League, Bush said, "I believe you've got to earn the vote and seek it," but State Rep. John Pappageorge (R) revealed a backup plan in the swing state of Michigan: "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election," he said. It is little secret what Pappageorge meant by the "Detroit vote" – while Michigan state is majority white (78 percent), Detroit boasts an overwhelmingly minority population (88 percent). State Sen. Buzz Thomas (D) told reporters, "I'm extremely disappointed in my colleague…That's quite clearly 'code' that they don't want black people to vote in this election."
[b]SAME OLD STORY:[/b] The idea the GOP might try to "suppress" votes is nothing new to minority voters. A BET/CBS poll shows "more than four in five blacks believe Bush did not legitimately win the [2000] election, and two-thirds think deliberate attempts were made to prevent black voters' ballots from being counted."
[b]BACK TO MESSING WITH FLORIDA:[/b] Earlier this month in Florida, where President Bush's brother Jeb is governor, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced it would ask the Department of Justice to investigate whether the state's aborted effort to "use of a flawed database to remove felons from the voter rolls was a deliberate attempt to block some voters from casting ballots." The Miami Herald reported that this year's list "included people – many of them black Democrats – who have had their right to vote restored."
[b]E-MACHINES MEAN NO RECORD: [/b]Efforts to suppress votes could only be aided by the proliferation of touch screen voting machines. The machines, despite coming under fire for technical glitches and a lack of transparency, "are poised for use in the November elections in more than 675 counties, comprising more than 30 percent of the nation's registered voters." Because many of the machines provide no paper record of votes, they could make a manual recount of a contested vote impossible.
[b]RIGGING THE SYSTEM:[/b] The CEO of the company which will provide many of the new voting machines is Diebold's Walden O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser (Pioneer) who wrote in a fundraising letter last August that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." Federal Election Commission data shows "at least eight million people will cast their ballots using Diebold machines next November," meaning 8 percent of the number of voters in 2000 will have their 2004 votes calculated on a machine created by a self-described Bush partisan.
[b]STILL STICKING WITH PUNCH CARDS?: [/b]Meanwhile, the ACLU is taking aim at problems with antiquated punch card ballots, which were the source of controversy during the 2000 election in Florida. AP reports an ACLU lawyer in Ohio is "arguing that even isolated malfunctions in Ohio could change the November election results in this swing state." Arguing for the machines to be judged unconstitutional, the ACLU maintains "that punch cards are more likely to go uncounted than votes cast with other systems, and that use of the ballots violates the rights of black voters, who mostly live in punch-card counties."
[b]CONTEMPLATING POSTPONEMENT:[/b] The Bush administration has reviewed "a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election" in the event of a terrorist attack. The Justice Department was going to move forward with an inquiry to "determine what the legal mechanism for calling a halt to a national election would be," despite the fact that "Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge…and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots." But because of public outcry, the White House has backed off.
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Government to Libraries:-- Destroy Documents!!! ... |
| 07.27.04 (10:54 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should be [i]very, very alarmed [/i]at the perniciously neo-fascist actions taken by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who are trampling upon our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Now they are ordering the destruction of copies of pamphlets on [i]"asset forfeiture[/i]" held in public libraries???[i] Why[/i]??? ... [/b]
[b]An excellent article is: [i]Four more years for Big Brother[/i]? on http://www.opendemocracy.net/... ...[/b]
The American Library Association is challenging http://www.boston.com/news/na... a new U.S. Department of Justice order that they destroy copies of certain pamphlets on [i]"asset forfeiture"[/i] kept on file.
No reason was given for requiring the destruction of the pamphlets, which the government routinely shihps to desginated libraries that hold virtually all federal government documents. Much, if not all, of the materials are[i] "the law of the land"[/i] readily available online and in law books.
[b]Source:[/b]
AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org
|
|
|
| |
| Why America's Corporate Newsfolk Have Abandoned their Integrity to Keep Bush in Office ... |
| 07.26.04 (4:02 pm) [edit] |
"[i]Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." [/i]--Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786. - http://etext.virginia.edu/jef...
[b]"We the People" have been[i] betrayed [/i]by the neo-con press and right-wing media that have been [i]bought-up-lock-stock-a nd-smoking-barrel [/i]by corporate interests and they [i]no longer seek the truth [/i]to keep our citizenry informed ... [/b]How can we take our nation back??? ... [i]We must be creative and we must recognize that the "big-names" no longer inform us of real news ... We must seek information from foreign news services and cross-check "news" via a mutiplicity of sources ...[/i] We must recognize that neo-fascist propagandists like Fox News, WND, Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh and other [i]mad-dogs [/i]are the most vile partisan traitors who propagate[i] out-and-out lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]on orders from the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]... The rest of the major [i]"news players" [/i]simply regurgitate their [i]watered-down[/i] form of "news (?)" that the corporate interests decide is [i]sufficient [/i]for our consumption and to[i] lull us into a false sense [/i]that our "leaders (?)" represent us, when they[i] don't [/i]really represent[i] us [/i]...
How can Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert, Katie Couric, Dan Rather and the rest of the cast that makes up America's big name newspeople ([i]we use that term with a wince, a wink, and a snicker[/i]) keep dishing up pro-Bushie propaganda week after week? How do they sleep nights? How can they look at themselves in the mirror or - worse - look their kids in the eye? ... [i]Easy....M.O.N.E.Y.[/i] ... Keeping Bush in office benefits THEM directly. They are in that elite top 1% of Americans who benefits the most by Bush's tax cuts - which, if he is reelected, he plans to make permanent. Buzzflash presents a sampling of salaries: Brokaw: $7 million; Couric, $12 million, Rather, $7 milllion......Kinda makes it painfully clear, eh?
[i][b]More on [/b][/i] http://www.buzzflash.com/blog...
|
|
|
| |
| America's Myopia ... |
| 07.26.04 (11:40 am) [edit] |
"[i]The Americans occupied Iraq as part of a Zionist project. They will not leave Iraq because they intend to steal Iraq's oil. The new US-appointed Iraqi government are "collaborators[/i]"." - http://www.truthout.org/docs_...
[b]"We the People" have been duped in the most outrageous scam in our nation's history. [/b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]waged their illegal and immoral neo-con war in Iraq based upon myriad lies, deceptions and falsehoods and we have [i]nothing to show for it but[/i]:-- hundreds ([i]if not thousands[/i]) of our U.S. Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians ruthlessly slaughtered-- our nation's reputation in tatters and shreds because the world not only distrusts[i] our "word"[/i] now, but also distrusts[i] our "actions"[/i] in the aftermath of the heinous atrocities of murder, torture, rape, abuse and child sodomy committed by the US at Abu Ghraib ([i]and elsewhere[/i])-- hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars squandered, misappropriated and embezzled by the Bushies in order to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.-- all this [i]chaos, misery and mayhem [/i]while the callous, dim-witted and criminal Bush/Cheney awards massive tax cuts to the richest-of-the-rich, and lays the burden of their record-level debts and deficits upon the rest of us and our children ... Meanwhile, the dire situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate daily http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?... with the tragic death toll mounting and [i]no end in sight [/i]...
[b]It is time for "We the People" to take a serious look inwards and reflect upon our national myopia ...[/b]
One thing is certain: American taxpayers didn't get value for their money. Innumerable billions of dollars have been devoured by the biggest espionage machine ever imagined. Those dollars have only served, however, to prepare what will remain one of the most resounding intelligence services fiascos: their inability to detect the preparations for September 11 and their ability to invent weapons of mass destruction for Saddam Hussein who had none. The Americans may perhaps console themselves when they see that the British draw up a balance sheet quite as severe against the behavior of their own intelligence services, even though intelligence was a well-respected national specialty.
It's the slightly paradoxical grandeur of democracies to invent public commissions of inquiry to investigate secret activities that were designed to remain secret. Thus, we may learnedly ask ourselves about men who failed to see the bear stealing the honey pot out from under their noses and who confused the neighbor's seedy cat with a famished lion. The reconstitution of the failures of the intelligence instruments does not, all the same, constitute a revolutionary conceptual breakthrough. The American commission of inquiry was able to rediscover pieces of the puzzle and put them together, but did not entertain the notion of asking itself about the ideological causes for the intelligence services' myopia with regard to al-Qaeda (their long philo-Islamist "pal-ing around") or about the political causes of their Iraqi chimera (to supply evidence against the "axis of evil").
One of the American system's main defects relates to its overestimation of technical intelligence capacities at the expense of understanding and analysis of concrete situations. The commission itself is caught, however, in the inevitable "technical" or administrative limits of its mission, which should comprise a political supplement. About this, nothing remains but to hope that the voters will take care of it next November.
[b]By Gérard Dupuy, [i]Libération[/i][/b], http://www.truthout.org/docs_...
|
|
|
| |
| NOW Members Urge U.N. Oversight of 2004 Presidential Election ... |
| 07.25.04 (4:36 pm) [edit] |
[b]The "stakes" are[i] enormous [/i]in the upcoming 2004 presidential election in November ... Above all, unlike the unjust[i] banana-republican coup d'etat of 2000 [/i]whereby the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc[i]. junta [/i]engineered an illegal take-over of our nation, we have an obligation to make sure that [i]this next presidential election[/i] is conducted in a fair and proper manner ... [/b]
"We the People" should [i]demand[/i] that United Nations (U.N.) oversight be administered in [i]all swing-states [/i]including Florida where Bush and Kerry are tied in the polls http://www.google.com/url?sa=...://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/ state/9241228.htm (and where Jeb Bush has been up to his usual election-rigging, hijinks and dirty tricks http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/gene..., and a Florida state election official recently resigned in protest http://www.miami.com/mld/miam... ) ... Please contact your Senators and Representatives in Congress http://www.congress.org in order to[i] demand [/i]that an independent U.N. commission be assigned to ensure that all eligible voters are permitted to vote; that their votes are properly counted; and, that the results genuinely reflect the will of "We the People" as per the [i]correct tally of the votes [/i]as registered by our citizens ...
[b]There is a growing concern about the proper administration of the 2004 presidential election given the fact that the polls reflect it will be a very close race between Bush and Kerry ...[/b]
Calling attention to escalating concerns about the fairness of election practices in the United States, delegates in Las Vegas at the annual [u]National NOW Conference[/u] http://www.now.org/organizati... last week passed a resolution urging United Nations oversight of the November elections.
The resolution, which passed unanimously on July 18, supports the members of Congress who sent a letter http://www.house.gov/apps/lis... to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on July 1 asking for U.N. oversight of the presidential elections. It cites a number of troubling reports relating to the 2000 presidential election, including one by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), a bipartisan federal agency that investigated widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement and questionable practices in Florida relating to the purging of names from voter registration lists, methods of balloting, and the independence of counting and certification procedures.
NOW members vividly recall Dec. 2000, when the Supreme Court issued a decision in Bush v. Gore—one of the most controversial pieces of jurisprudence in history—preventing a complete re-counting of the votes in disputed Florida precincts and counties. Our fears were confirmed in June 2001, when the USCCR found that the electoral process in Florida resulted in the denial of the right to vote for countless persons and further that the "disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters" and in poor counties.
Despite promises and federal funds to improve voting accuracy and honesty, the USCCR in April 2004 reported that voting equipment, voter list maintenance and procedures for poll worker training, election certification and reinstatement of ex-felon voting rights have not been adequately reformed, as promised, and that the potential is "real and present for significant problems on voting day that once again will compromise the right to vote."
Another potential threat is the newer touch-screen machines that use a proprietary source code and lack a paper trail, meaning that voters and voting officials have no way to verify that the votes were counted. While NOW applauds this new technology for easing the voting process for many disabled citizens, NOW is also concerned about reports from computer security experts who say these machines are vulnerable to hacking and may create more opportunities for election tampering.
Following the National NOW Conference's overwhelming support for unbiased election monitors, women's rights leaders said they continue to be troubled by statements by key Bush administration officials suggesting that the November election could be postponed in the event of perceived terrorist threats.
"I find it very disturbing—and highly suspect—that higher-ups in the Bush administration are reportedly talking about formulating plans for postponing the November presidential election on the basis of a self-generated warning of a terrorist attack," said NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives. "Quite frankly, I am worried that some politicians have the power to manipulate the fairness of our elections—and are willing to use it."
Given these concerns, NOW members resolved that "the engagement of international election monitors has the potential to expedite the necessary reform as well as reduce the likelihood of questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day" and further resolved to support the efforts of the members of Congress who requested U.N. oversight of the November presidential election.
In passing the resolution, NOW activists also committed to encouraging their members of Congress to join the effort to guarantee that justice and equality are upheld for all in the upcoming elections.
"The presence of U.N. elections monitors would serve as a recognition of the serious flaws that exist in our voting system," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Activists have fought long and hard to extend the right to vote—the foundation of democracy—and it is vital to preserve those gains. We know that every vote counts, and we must ensure that every vote is counted."
[i][b]For additional information about the appeal to the U.N. and to join 20,000 other progressives who have signed a petition http://democrats.com/elandsli... demanding that President Bush approve election monitors, contact Democrats.com.[/b][/i]
------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----
NOW salutes the 13 members of Congress that initiated the call to the UN to help ensure a fair and democratic election this November and encourages progressive activists to thank them with calls, letters or e-mails:
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), http://www.house.gov/ebjohnso...
Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), http://www.house.gov/corrineb...
Rep. Julia Carson (D-Ind.), http://www.juliacarson.house....
Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), http://www.house.gov/clay
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), http://crowley.house.gov/
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), http://www.house.gov/cummings...
Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.), http://www.house.gov/davis/
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), http://www.house.gov/grijalva...
Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.), http://www.house.gov/honda/
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), http://www.house.gov/lee/
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), http://www.house.gov/maloney/...
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), http://www.house.gov/nadler/
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), http://www.house.gov/towns/
[b]Source:[/b]
National Organization For Women, http://www.now.org/issues/leg...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Over 905 And Counting ... |
| 07.25.04 (8:45 am) [edit] |
"[i]The security situation [in Iraq] is calamitous. ... This, however, is the tip of the iceberg. ... The story of Abu Ghraib http://www.tblog.com/template... and Guantánamo Bay is a disgrace[/i]. ..." - [b]Iraq is not Improving, it's a Disaster [/b]- http://www.commondreams.org/v...
[b]"We the People" are engulfed in a disastrous and failed nightmare in Iraq [i]"thanks [sic]" [/i]to the blood-thirsty Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i]. Iraq is teetering on the edge of a catastrophic civil war http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?... and the corrupt Bush regime is already laying their illegal and immoral neo-fascist "ground-work" for an insane neo-con regime change in [b][i]Iran[/i][/b] http://www.sundayherald.com/4... [Iran is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq (Iran is 636,293 square miles / Iraq is 168,753 square miles) with a population nearly 3 times that of Iraq (Iran has a population of approx. 68 million people / Iraq has a population of approx. 25 million people)]!!!
We must[i] stop this insanity [/i]and [i]rid ourselves [/i]of the ruthless and reckless Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i] who are miserable failures ...[/b]
The fact that four Americans were killed in Iraq on Tuesday found itself mentioned in the 19th paragraph on an inside page of the [i]New York Times [/i]today, meaning that not only did those two marines and two soldiers die for nothing, but their deaths won’t even contribute much to the rising American disgust over Bush’s Iraq misadventure. More U.S. soldiers died yesterday, and the pace is continuing. An [i]AP[/i] story puts it thusly http://www.boston.com/dailyne...:.shtml :
... "[i]American soldiers in Iraq have been dying at a rate of two a day since Iraqis regained political control on June 28 a drop from the deadliest months of violence before the handover but still about the same rate overall as in the 16 months since the U.S. invasion.
The U.S. military death toll now has reached 900, and the number of American soldiers injured is approaching 6,000[/i]." ...
There are also signs that the insurgency in Iraq is on the verge of turning the quagmire into something much worse. One on hand, U.S. forces and their partners in the ersatz Iraqi quisling army are finding themselves personnel non grata in city after city in Iraq, not just in Falljuah. To demonstrate American might, it now appears as if U.S. forces are about to launch an all-out assault on Samarra, north of Baghdad, in a raid that could make the Alamo look like a picnic. First, the [i]Knight Ridder[/i] story this week http://www.realcities.com/mld... :
... "[i]After more than a year of fighting, U.S. troops have stopped patrolling large swaths of Iraq's restive Anbar province, according to the top American military intelligence officer in the area.
Most U.S. Army officers interviewed this week said the patrols in and around the province's capital, Ramadi—home to many Iraqi military and intelligence officers under Saddam Hussein—have stopped largely because the soldiers and commanders there were tired of being shot at by insurgents who've refused to back down under heavy American military pressure.
While American officials in Ramadi wouldn't provide exact figures for the change in numbers of patrols, there's obviously been a significant drop.
After losing dozens of men to a "voiceless, faceless mass of people" with no clear leadership or political aim other than killing American soldiers, the U.S. military has had to re-evaluate the situation, said Army Maj. Thomas Neemeyer, the head American intelligence officer for the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, the main military force in the Ramadi area and from there to Fallujah.
"They cannot militarily overwhelm us, but we cannot deliver a knockout blow, either," he said. "It creates a form of stalemate."
In the wreckage of the security situation, Neemeyer said, U.S. officials have all but given up on plans to install a democratic government in the city, and are hoping instead that Islamic extremists and other insurgent groups don't overrun the province in the same way that they've seized the region's most infamous town, Fallujah.
"Since Ramadi is the seat of the governate, we worry that if they could unsettle the government center here they could destabilize the al Anbar province," said Capt. Joe Jasper, a spokesman for the 1st Brigade.
The apparent failure of a long line of Army and Marine units to bring peace to the province, which makes up about 40 percent of Iraq's landmass, will be a major challenge for Iraq's new government and could prove to be a tipping point for the nation as a whole. Increasingly, Iraq is a place in which cities or part of cities have been taken over by insurgents and radicals.
To show how operations in Anbar have changed, Jasper sketched a map on a piece of paper.
Pointing to a neighborhood outside the town of Habbaniyah, between Fallujah and Ramadi, he said, "We've lost a lot of Marines there and we don't ever go in anymore. If they want it that bad, they can have it."
Looking up at a map on the wall, Neemeyer flicked his laser pointer across a large piece of land between Ramadi and Fallujah. "We don't go into that area anymore," he said. "Why go there when all that happens is we get hit?"
Many of those interviewed in Ramadi recently said they'd welcome a Fallujah-like rule by insurgents[/i]." ...
If they want it that bad, they can have it? They want the whole country that bad. Can they have that, too? According to the[i] Washington Post[/i], http://www.washingtonpost.com... they can’t have Samarra, at least—but we’ll see:
... "[i]Tens of thousands of people have fled Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, in recent weeks, expecting a showdown between U.S. troops and heavily armed groups within the city, according to U.S. and Iraqi sources.
Samarra is now controlled by a volatile mix of tribes and gangs, some split along religious lines, and supporters of ousted president Saddam Hussein, according to interviews with numerous Samarra residents who have fled to Baghdad. On July 8, some of those groups launched an attack in which a car bombing was followed by a fierce volley of mortar fire. Five U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi National Guardsman were killed and 40 people were injured.
U.S. military planners complained in private that Fallujah was a bad deal, allowing the city to become a rallying point and stronghold for guerrilla forces.
"It's the lily pad theory. Fallujah exports itself to Samarra, which exports itself to the next place," said Lt. Col. James Stackmo, an intelligence officer for the division, headquartered in Tikrit. "In Samarra, there's probably 100 to 300 fighters who are holding the town hostage. We're not going to allow a militia in Samarra. We're not going to do it."
The U.S. military will try to mount a joint operation with Iraqi security forces, officials said. Under the plan, U.S. forces would likely seize Samarra in a powerful assault, then have Iraqi National Guard or police officers patrol the city[/i]." ...
In fact, cities all over Iraq are totally outside the control of either the U.S. forces or the government of Iraqistan. Not only Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra, but other population centers in central Iraq are virtually self-contained city-states. The Kurds run their little enclave all by themselves. Parts of Baghdad are no-go zones for Americans. And in the south, fascist Shiite militia and armed gangs controlled by Iranian-backed mullahs and the likes of Ayatollah Sistani run things without any help from Baghdad.
[b][i]Nice going[/i], George.[/b]
[b]Sources:[/b]
Iran, Again: The Crisis Builds, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Iran End Game???, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Bob Dreyfuss, [i]The Dreyfuss Report[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
|
|
|
| |
| Law Not War ... |
| 07.24.04 (4:37 pm) [edit] |
"[i]Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel[/i]" - Samuel Johnson, April 7, 1775, http://www.samueljohnson.com/...
[b]Our Founding Fathers drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787 http://www.usconstitution.net... and the Bill of Rights in 1791 http://www.usconstitution.net... with the following preamble:[/b]
"[i]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America[/i]."
Our Founding Fathers believed[i] above all [/i]in a constitutional framework based upon [i]the rule of law [/i] under which all citizens are to be subject ... No man/woman including our servants: the President and his Cabinet, Congress, and/or the Supreme Court justices are [i]supposed to be [/i]above the[i] rule of law[/i] in our Republic ... Have "We the People" lost sight of how fundamentally important[i] the rule of law[/i] is to the vitality, well-being and survival of our nation??? ... The Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's [/i]insane neo-con warfare based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods represents a betrayal of our nation's founding principles and our Founding Fathers who were [i]courageous men who faced perilous danger and did not cower [/i]when under the dire threat of tyranny that [i]they fought with their "lives", their "fortunes" and their "sacred honor"[/i], would have hung their heads in shame ...
[b]The following is an excerpt from James Caroll's new book: [u]Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War[/u] http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... [/b]
How we love our country! For days now, we Americans, while mourning and shuddering, have felt the accumulating weight of our patriotic devotion. We are joined in the shocking recognition of what a rare and precious treasure is the United States of America. Our nation's sudden vulnerability makes us shrug off, just as suddenly, the habit of taking for granted its nobility. We see it in the throat-choking empty place of the New York skyline, and in the gaping wound of the building beside Arlington Cemetery. We see it in the grimy faces of the resolute rescue workers, and in the implication that doomed airline passengers fought back against hijackers. We see it in the splendid diversity of our features, our accents, our beliefs, our responses even. Never has the national motto seemed more true: out of many, one.
But so far our main expression of this intense patriotism has been oddly in tension with its inner meaning, for the thing we treasure above all about America at this moment is the way it measures its hope by principles of democracy, tolerance, law, respect for the other, and even social compassion. Our supreme patriotic gesture in this crisis has been a nearly universal call for war, and indeed the growing sentiment for war, fueled by the rhetoric of our highest leaders, may soon be embodied in a formal congressional declaration of war. Before we go much farther, we should think carefully about why we are heading down this path, and where it is likely to lead. Do the rhetoric of war, and the actions it already sets in motion, really serve the urgent purpose of stopping terrorism? And is the launching of war really the only way to demonstrate our love for America?
Before going any farther, let me state the obvious. The nearly worldwide consensus that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington must be met with force is entirely correct. The network of suicidal mass murderers, however large and wherever hidden, must be eliminated. But force can be exercised decisively and overwhelmingly in another context than that of "war." One of the great advances in civilization occurred when human beings found a way to channel necessary violence away from "war" and toward a new, counterbalancing context embodied in the idea of "law." The distinction may seem too fine to be relevant in the aftermath of this catastrophe, but it is after catastrophe that the distinction matters most. The difference between "war" and "law" is not the use of force. The United States of America, with its world allies, should be embarked not on a war but on an unprecedented, swift, sure, and massive campaign of law enforcement. As the term law enforcement implies, the proper use of force would be of the essence of this campaign.
[b][u]Why does this distinction matter? Four reasons[/u]: [/b]
1. [u]War, by definition, is an activity undertaken against a political or social entity[/u], while the terrorist network responsible for this catastrophe, from all reports, is a coalition of individuals, perhaps a large one. Law enforcement, by definition, is an activity undertaken against just such individuals or networks. By clothing our response to the terrorist acts in the rhetoric of war, we make it far more likely that members of groups associated by extrinsic factors with the perpetrators (Arabs, Muslims, Afghans, Pakistanis, etc.) will suffer terrible consequences, from being bombed in Kabul to being discriminated against in Boston. Furthermore, the rhetoric of war, as it falls on the ears of such people (a billion Muslims), makes it all the more likely that they will only see America as their enemy.
2. [u]War, by definition, is relatively imprecise[/u]. Steps can be taken to limit "collateral damage," but the method of war, in fact, is to bring pressure to bear against a hostile power structure by inflicting suffering on the society of which it is part. History shows that once wars begin, violence becomes general. As President Bush threatened, no distinctions are made. In law enforcement, by contrast, distinctions remain of the essence. Law enforcement submits to disciplines that are jettisoned in war. Do we really have the right to jettison such disciplines now?
3. [u]War, similarly, is less concerned with procedure than with result[/u]; or, more plainly, in war the ends justify the means. In law enforcement, the end remains embodied in the means, which is why procedures are so scrupulously observed in criminal justice activity. To respond to a terrorist's grievous violation of the social order with further violations of that order means the terrorist has won.
4. [u]War inevitably generates its own momentum[/u], which has a way of inhumanely overwhelming the humane purposes for which the war is begun in the first place. In the death-ground of combat violence, self-criticism can seem like fatal self-doubt, and so the savage momentum of war is rarely recognized as such until too late. The rule of unintended consequences universally applies in war. Law enforcement, on the other hand, with its system of checks and balances between police and courts, is inevitably self-critical. The moral link between act and consequence is far more likely to be protected.
What does "winning" a war against terrorism mean? How has hatred of America become a source of meaning for vast numbers whose poverty already amounts to a state of war? Must a massive campaign of unleashed violence become America's new source of meaning, too? The World Trade Center was a symbol of the social, economic, and political hope Americans treasure, a hope embodied above all in law. To win the struggle against terrorism means inspiring that same hope in the hearts of all[i] who do not have it. How we respond to this catastrophe will define our patriotism, shape the century, and memorialize our beloved dead[/i].
[b]James Carroll is the bestselling author of the National Book Award-winning memoir [u]An American Requiem http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... ; Constantine's Sword http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... ,[/u] a history of Christian anti-Semitism; and ten novels. He lectures widely on war and peace and on Jewish-Christian-Muslim reconciliation. He lives in Boston, Massachusetts. [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry Slightly Ahead of Bush, Latest Time Magazine Poll Finds ... |
| 07.24.04 (10:22 am) [edit] |
"[i]A week is a long time in politics[/i]" - Harold Wilson, c.1964
[b]The margin of error is [i]oh so tiny [/i]in this[i] oh so tight[/i] race ... Polls can vary from [i]week to week [/i]and are only indicative of [i]major trends in attitudes [/i]... "We the People" must be [i]ever vigilant [/i]for come November, [i]each and every vote [/i]will count ([i]if it is counted ... Hmmm ...[/i]) ...[/b]
[b]Consider this ...[/b]
[b]U.S. Senator John Kerry, who next week will be formally nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, is 3 points ahead of President George W. Bush in a nationwide poll by [i]Time[/i] magazine.[/b]
The Massachusetts senator leads Bush 46 percent to 43 percent, with independent candidate Ralph Nader polling 5 percent, according to the telephone survey of 1,000 registered voters conducted July 20-22. Kerry's lead is within the poll's 4 percentage-point margin of error and similar to a 47 percent to 45 percent lead he had at the beginning of the month.
Kerry will spend this week in Boston at the Democratic National Convention, where on Thursday he will formally accept the party's nomination.
[b]The president's overall approval rating was 50 percent, while 53 percent of respondents said it was ``[i]time for someone else to be president[/i],'' the poll found. Only 29 percent of voters said they knew a ``great deal'' about Kerry.[/b]
The [i]Time[/i] survey also found that 17 percent of voters are ``very worried'' about a terrorist attack in the next few months, though 86 percent said the election shouldn't be postponed if the nation is attacked.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge this month warned that terrorists (?) may be planning attacks to ``[i]disrupt our democratic process[/i].''
A separate survey found that 47 percent of Americans expect Bush to win the November election, including 24 percent of Democrats. The Quinnipiac University survey polled 1,551 registered voters July 18-22 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 1/12 percentage points. - http://quote.bloomberg.com/ap...
|
|
|
| |
| No Oversight, No Shame ... |
| 07.23.04 (3:11 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should be outraged that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's [/i]GOP-controlled U.S. Congress has abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities while using its power to carry out a partisan witch hunt.[/b]
Despite major revelations that the Bush administration has inappropriately doctored agency documents, threatened government employees, allowed corporate shaping of federal policy, subverted sound science, and selectively declassified material for its own political gain, the congressional majority has refused to investigate any of the matters. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are promising a partisan witch hunt over lost National Archives documents by former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, even though the Justice Department has told news agencies it does not expect criminal charges, and even though Republicans on the 9/11 Commission acknowledge they saw all of the material in question.
[u][b]Congress Ignores Abuse of Classified Info, Starts a Partisan Witch Hunt[/b][/u]
In the controversy over National Archives documents misplaced by former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, the media has widely reported that law enforcement is not expected to file any charges, and a top GOP 9/11 Commissioner has stated that the panel saw everything that was missing. Nonetheless, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, is now promising his committee will launch an investigation into Berger http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/54635... Davis's aggressive stance represents a sharp departure from his refusal to investigate other serious issues. For instance, when he was asked by Democrats to investigate the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA officer's name, he said "I know Ashcroft very well, and I'm sure he'll go by the book," while his spokesman said such a probe (unlike Berger's, apparently) "should be conducted by career FBI agents." The contradiction highlights how Davis and the congressional majority have repeatedly refused to investigate serious national security matters in favor of partisan witch hunts.
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF LEAK OF CIA AGENT'S NAME:[/b] In a July 14 column, syndicated newspaper columnist Robert Novak named former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction, citing Bush administration sources. Novak claimed he learned of Plame's identity from "two senior Bush administration officials." Sources told CNN that "Novak was among as many as six journalists who were told Plame's name." When ranking Democrat Henry Waxman (D-CA) asked for hearings to investigate the leak, Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) declined, saying on 10/3/03, "I know Ashcroft very well, and I'm sure he'll go by the book." Apparently unlike the Berger controversy, Davis's spokesman said then that any probe "should be conducted by career FBI agents." [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]CNN[/i], 2/11/04, http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPO... ; [i]CBS[/i], 12/31/03, http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... ]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL LEAKS OF CLASSIFIED INFO TO BOB WOODWARD:[/b] While the White House refused to share its Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs) with the 9/11 commission, citing their classified nature, according to journalist Bob Woodward, it had no problem sharing the briefs with him. Woodward acknowledges he was given access to "notes taken during more than 50 National Security Council and other meetings" (many of which are classified), and cites specific PDBs in his book. The Providence Journal reported that Woodward said the President himself "often spoke candidly about classified information." Republicans in Congress have launched no investigation into the President Bush's potential discussions of highly classified national security information. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]Newsweek[/i], 2/18/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... ; [i]WP[/i], 11/19/02, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ; [i]Providence Journal[/i], 4/10/02]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF ASHCROFT'S SELECTIVE LEAK OF CLASSIFIED INFO:[/b] In a transparent attempt to deflect attention from his own lackluster efforts to combat terrorism before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft unilaterally declassified and distributed a 1995 memo written by commission member Jamie Gorelick on the day he was scheduled to testify. The move, intended to smear Gorelick and discredit the commission, was seized on by right-wing pundits and motivated calls for Gorelick's resignation. Ashcroft's action was so outrageous it earned him a rare rebuke from President Bush. Republicans in Congress, however, have launched no investigation into the matter of whether the Attorney General selectively leaked a classified document to discredit a member of the 9/11 commission. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]WP[/i], 3/19/04, 4/14/04; [i]Fox News[/i], 3/15/04, http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,117173,00.html ; [i]WH briefing[/i], 3/29/04, http://www.whitehouse.gov/new... ]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION INTO HIDING GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS:[/b] U.S. News and World Report earlier last year reported "the Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government--cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters. The result has been a reversal of a decades-long trend of openness in government while making increasing amounts of information unavailable to the taxpayers who pay for its collection and analysis." OMB Watch notes the administration specifically "ordered that thousands of documents and tremendous amounts of data be summarily removed from federal agency web sites. All of this was done without policy direction or maintaining a record of what information is now restricted." The Washington Post reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a fiat to federal agencies directing them "to be cautious in releasing records to journalists and others" and implicitly urging them to slow down or reject more Freedom of Information Act requests. To date, Republicans in Congress have held no investigation or hearing into how the administration's unprecedented secrecy policies. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]U.S. News & World Report[/i], 12/22/03, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/... ; [i]OMB Watch[/i], 10/25/02, http://www.ombwatch.org/artic... ; [i]AP[/i], 10/17/01, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
[u][b]Congress Ignores Abuse of Public Policy In Favor of a Partisan Witch Hunt[/b][/u]
Despite major revelations that the Bush administration has inappropriately doctored agency documents, threatened government employees, allowed corporate shaping of federal policy, and subverted sound science, the congressional majority has refused to investigate any of the matters.
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF WHITE HOUSE DOCTORING GROUND ZERO AIR QUALITY INFO:[/b] After 9/11, the White House intervened to force the EPA to downplay toxic dangers at Ground Zero, explicitly ignoring a top federal scientist who warned in a memo against the re-occupation of buildings in lower Manhattan because of dangers from asbestos and other toxins. Just seven days after the attack, the White House had the EPA delete words of caution and add reassuring language in a release that told New Yorkers the air around Ground Zero was safe. Republicans in Congress have launched no investigation into the White House's doctoring of information and endangerment public health. [[u]Sources[/u]:[i] New York Daily News[/i], 10/28/03, http://www.nydailynews.com/fr... ; [i]Knight Ridder[/i], 9/12/03, http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/... ; [i]NYT[/i], 10/28/03, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/... ]
[b]NO OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION OF HOW MEDICARE ACTUARY WAS THREATENED: [/b]An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that top Medicare official Thomas Scully threatened to fire chief actuary Richard Foster if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged. The investigation, which resulted in no criminal charges, was unsatisfactory to many democrats, who lobbied Davis for formal hearings. It did not address claims by Foster that "the White House participated in the decision to withhold" information from lawmakers. Republicans in Congress have launched no investigation into whether a top Medicare official, possibly in concert with White House officials, threatened to fire an employee for telling Congress the truth about the cost of the new Medicare legislation. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]NYT[/i], 7/7/04, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... ; [i]WP[/i], 3/19/04, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ;[i] Kaiser[/i], 3/18/04, http://www.kaisernetwork.org/... ]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF ENRON/ INDUSTRY INFLUENCE ON BUSH ENERGY POLICY: [/b]Vice President Cheney acknowledges meeting with Enron executives and other energy industry officials in creating the White House's energy proposal. Similarly, the Bush administration's budget director, Commerce Secretary, Treasury Secretary and Energy Secretary at the time all admit to taking phone calls from now-indicted Enron CEO Ken Lay. Even the nonpartisan General Accountability Office has cited serious corporate influence over the administration's energy policy and energy task force. Yet despite calls for an investigation, Republicans in Congress have refused. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]ABC[/i], 1/9/02, http://abcnews.go.com/section... ;[i] Washington Post[/i], 1/10/02, 1/11/02; [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], 1/15/02; [i]Washington Post[/i], 8/26/03, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION INTO SUBVERTING SCIENCE: [/b]The Government Reform Committee Democrats have outlined various ways the White House has tried to remove or obstruct sound science from public policy. Most recently, the White House actually prevented U.S. government scientists from communicating with officials from the World Health Organization. The Union of Concerned Scientist, a nonpartisan group of over 4,000 prominent scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, have signed a letter stating the Bush administration ignores and manipulates scientific knowledge in order to advance a political agenda. Nonetheless, Republicans in Congress have refused to investigate the issue. [[u]Source[/u]: [i]House Government Reform Committee website[/i], http://www.house.gov/reform/m... ; [i]Union of Concerned Scientists[/i], 7/04, http://www.ucsusa.org/documen... ]
[u][b]Congress Ignores Halliburton/Cheney Abuses, Starts Partisan Witch Hunt[/b][/u]
The Republican Congress has refused to investigate revelations that Vice President Cheney's "coordinated" of federal contracts for his former employer, Halliburton. Here are just a few controversies that Davis has refused to investigate, even as he begins his new partisan witch hunt.
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF CHENEY OFFICE INVOLVEMENT IN HALLIBURTON CONTRACTS:[/b] Shortly before the Pentagon awarded Halliburton a sole-source contract to help restore Iraqi oil fields last year, an Army Corps of Engineers official wrote an e-mail saying the award had been "coordinated" with the office of Vice President Cheney, Halliburton's former chief executive. "We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's office," the e-mail said. Three days later, the Halliburton subsidiary KBR was granted the contract, which was worth as much as $7 billion. Democrats have called for an investigation into the matter, but have been stonewalled. Republicans in Congress have launched no investigation into whether the vice president illegally "coordinated" a no-bid contract for Halliburton, the company Cheney used to be CEO of, still holds stock options in, and receives deferred compensation from. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]Time[/i], 5/30/04, http://www.truthout.org/docs_... ; [i]WP[/i], 6/2/04, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ; [i]CNN[/i], 6/1/04, http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO... ]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF HALLIBURTON DOING BUSINESS IN IRAN/IRAQ UNDER CHENEY:[/b] Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is under investigation for possible violations of sanctions on state sponsors of terrorism while Cheney was in charge. The Treasury Department has been investigating the matter, which involves contracts pursued by a Halliburton subsidiary with Iran, since 2001, and recently referred the case to the US attorney in Houston, something it does only after finding evidence of "serious and willful violations" of the sanctions law. CBS News reported Cheney was CEO of Halliburton at the very time the company "set up shop in Iran." Similarly, evidence has been revealed proving Halliburton did at least $73 million in business with Iraq while Cheney was CEO, even though during the 2000 campaign Cheney claimed he had a "firm policy" against Iraq business. Republicans in Congress have not launched an investigation into whether Cheney conducted business with Iran, in violation of US sanctions meant to cut off funding to terrorists. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]WP[/i], 7/21/04, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ; [i]CBS[/i], 1/26/04, http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... ; [i]LAT[/i], 7/21/04; [i]New Yorker[/i], 2/9/04, http://www.newyorker.com/fact... ; [i]Washington Post[/i], 6/23/01, http://www.truthout.org/docs_... ]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION OF CHENEY ROLE IN HALLIBURTON BRIBE SCANDAL:[/b] The Justice Department is inquiring into whether Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, "was involved in the payment of $180 million in possible kickbacks to obtain contracts to build a natural gas plant in Nigeria during a period in the late 1990's" when Cheney was CEO. In a 2002 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Halliburton admitted that "one of our foreign subsidiaries operating in Nigeria made improper payments of approximately $2.4 million." And investigators in France are "reported to have uncovered evidence showing that about $5 million of payments related to the Nigeria project were deposited into a Swiss bank account controlled by Albert Stanley, the former chairman of a Halliburton subsidiary while Cheney was CEO. Republicans in Congress have not launched an investigation into whether the vice president was complicit in illegal bribes and kickback schemes to help his company secure foreign contracts in Nigeria. [[u]Sources[/u]: [i]IHT[/i], 6/14/04, http://www.iht.com/articles/5... ; [i]Dallas Morning News[/i], 1/9/04, http://www.dallasnews.com/sha... ; [i]Newsweek[/i], 2/4/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... ]
[b]NO INVESTIGATION INTO HALLIBURTON ABUSE OF TROOPS:[/b] According to NBC News, in late 2003, "the Pentagon repeatedly warned contractor Halliburton-KBR that the food it served to US troops in Iraq was 'dirty,' as were the kitchens it was served in." Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root | |
