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
|
| ... Iraq: 2003 vs. 2004 ... What's Going to be Different in 2005??? ... |
| 12.31.04 (10:07 am) [edit] |
"George Bush ended 2004 on a sour note. But at least he maintained his record as the most disingenuous president since Richard Nixon. ... What the president did not say is that this initial commitment is less than the planned expenditure for his Jan. 20 inauguration: $40 million." - John Nichols
[b]What's going to be different in 2005??? ... Please [i]don't[/i] answer that at the end of January there are going to be Bush's so-called "elections" in Iraq!!! ...[i] Jeez [/i]... Many, many Iraqis have confessed that they're[i] not [/i]going to vote because they are living in fear for their lives ... These sham "elections" are only being "held" for the Mad King George's edification and are a betrayal of everything that any true democratic state holds dear for they will [i]not[/i] reflect the will of the people ... But not to worry:-- Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rove (and their incompetent & corrupt neo-con cabal of War Criminals) are now focused on their inaugural (coronation) balls, parties, dinners, fireworks, etc. to be held for 4 days from January 20th onwards ... While our U.S. Soldiers & innocent Iraqi civilians are dying, injured & maimed, and living in misery on a daily basis (with no end in sight)-- the Bush gang will be partying-- dancing-- laughing & joking-- celebrating-- swilling lots of costly booze-- and gorging on lots of rich, expensive food ... [i]Only in America!!! [/i]... "We the People" should be ashamed of ourselves ...[/b]
[b]"Mission accomplished"??? ... Or something like that http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... ...[/b]
* The U.S. military suffered at least 348 deaths in Iraq over the final four months of the year, more than in any other similar period since the invasion in March 2003.
* The number of wounded surpassed 10,000, with more than a quarter injured in the last four months as direct combat, roadside bombs and suicide attacks escalated. When President Bush (news - web sites) declared May 1, 2003, that major combat operations were over, the number wounded stood at just 542.
* The number of attacks on U.S. and allied troops grew from an estimated 1,400 attacks in September to 1,600 in October and 1,950 in November. A year earlier, the attacks numbered 649 in September, 896 in October and 864 in November.
That's serious attrition. But of course, "we're making progress".
[b]Sources:[/b]
DailyKos, http://www.dailykos.com
John Nichols, [i]The Online Beat[/i], TheNation, http://www.thenation.com
|
|
|
| |
| ... Republican Dictionary: Parts 1 & 2 & 3 ... |
| 12.30.04 (2:02 pm) [edit] |
"Words are like planets, each with its own gravitational pull." ~ Kenneth Burke
"Define your terms." ~ Socrates
"We agree that language functions in a certain way so that we can understand each other; but within that are built all sorts of sentimental codes, codes of authenticity, codes of certain kinds of emotion." ~ John Yau
[b]The right-wing neo-con propagandists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]are experts at providing coded terms; loaded rhetoric; and outright mendacious falsehoods cloaked in convoluted language designed to hide criminal actions that represent the opposite of the actual meaning of words conveyed to lull us into a false sense of security ... "We the People" must learn their language of Orwellian deception in order to fight their neo-fascist transformation of our nation into their Global Corporate Empire ...[/b]
[b]Katrina vanden Heuvel's excellent 'Republican Dictionary' has been making its way around the web ... Refer to the "Republican Dictionary (Part 1)" on http://www.thenation.com/edcu... ... and, "Republican Dictionary (Part 2)" on http://www.thenation.com/edcu... ...[/b]
[b][u]Republican Dictionary (Part 3)[/u] ... http://www.thenation.com/edcu... ...[/b]
This past November, I wrote about the right's semantic trickery and proposed an idea for how we could debunk and decode the conservative's Orwellian Code of encrypted language: A Republican Dictionary.
I put together a small list and asked readers to send me their own entries. Response has been overwhelming--more than 375 people have sent definitions.
I published a small sample of the entries I've received in this space earlier this month. Below I'm publishing a second batch of reader submissions to this on-going project. We're going to continue posting additional entries in the weeks ahead, so click here to suggest your contributions.
ALARMIST, n. Any respected scientist who understands the threat of global warming. (Dave Nold, Berkely, California)
ALLIES, n. Foreigners who do what Republicans tell them to do. (Gary Schroller, Bellaire, Texas)
BALANCED, adj. 1. favoring corporations (a more balanced approach to the environment.); 2. favoring conservatives (fair and balanced reporting). (Scott Davis, Grand Prairie, Texas)
CLASS WARFARE, n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage. (Don Zwier, Grayslake, Illinois)
VERY CLEAR, adj. Modifier used immediately before any preposterous explanation or rationale. (Lance L. Prata, Eastlake Weir, Florida)
COALITION, n. One or more nations whose leaders have been duped, pressured or bribed into supporting ill-conceived, unnecessary, under-planned and/or illegal US military operations. (Michael Shapiro, Honolulu, Hawaii)
CONVICTION, n. Making decisions before getting the facts, and refusing to change your mind afterward. (Paul Ruschmann, Canton, Michigan)
CULTURE OF LIFE, n. A reduction of reproductive freedoms. (Sean Sturgeon, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada)
DEMOCRACY, n. My way or the highway. (Daniel Quinn, London, UK)
ECONOMIC RECOVERY, n. When three out of five software engineers who lost their jobs to outsourcing are able to find part-time work at Wal-Mart. (Rob Hotman , Houston, Texas)
ELECTION FRAUD, n. Counting every vote. (Sean O'Brien, Chicago, Illinois)
GIRLY MEN, n. Those who do not grope women. (Nick Gill, Newton, MA)
HARD WORK, n. What Republicans say when they can't think of anything better. (Brian McDowell)
HEALTHY FORESTS, n. No tree left behind. (Ron Russell, San Francisco, California)
JOB GROWTH, n. Increased number of jobs an individual has to take after losing earlier high-paying job. (John E. Tarin, Arlington, Virginia)
JUNK SCIENCE, n. Sound science. (Geoffrey King, Austin, TX)
OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, n. Christian Right payoff. (Michael Gendelman, Fair Haven, New Jersey)
OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, n. A society in which no one ever needs to own up to their mistakes or the consequences of their actions. (Sharon Gallagher, New York, New York)
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, n. A non-medical term invented by anti-choice zealots that refers to a broad class of abortion procedures; employed as a first step in reversing Roe v. Wade. (David McNeely, Lutz, Florida)
POLITICAL CAPITAL, n. What a Republican president receives as a result of a razor-thin margin of victory in an election. (Joy Losee, Gainesville, Georgia)
PRESS CONFERENCE, n. A rare event designed for the President to brag about his prowess as a leader while simultaneously dodging difficult questions. (Jim Nidositko, Westfield, New Jersey)
REFORM, n. Rollback of New Deal reforms, laws, standards and social protections. (Nick Gill, Newton, MA)
RESOLUTE, adj. Pig-headed. (Paul Ruschmann, Carlton, MI)
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, n. rich person (Michael Mannella, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM, n. Leave no Wall Street broker behind. (Ann Klopp , Princeton, NJ)
STAYING THE COURSE, v., The act of being stubborn and unable to admit glaring policy mistakes; being wrong and sticking with the wrong idea regardless of the consequences. (Jillian Jorgensen, Staten Island, New York)
TAX SIMPLIFICATION, n. A way to make it simpler for large US corporations to export American jobs to avoid paying US taxes. (Seth Hammond, Goodwell, Oklahoma)
[b]Source:[/b]
Katrina vanden Heuvel, [i]Editor's Cut[/i], TheNation, http://www.thenation.com
|
|
|
| |
| ... Best Of 2004: Middle-Class Squeeze ... |
| 12.30.04 (9:08 am) [edit] |
"As with the Iraq war, proponents of the Bush plan seek to tar their better-informed opposition as irresponsible and not to be trusted. [i]New York Times' [/i]conservative columnist, David Brooks complained that "The people setting the tone for the opposition to the Bush Social Security effort depict the financial markets as huge, organized scams where the rich prey upon the weak. Their phrases are already familiar: a risky scheme, Enron accounting, a gift to the securities industry, greedy speculators preying upon Grandma's pension." Once again, we are expected to take the Bush administration's intentions, competence and veracity on faith; once again, reporters are assisting in the creation of a fictional universe in which "reality" only rears its head after the damage done to those least able to bear it is permanent and irreversible."
[b]Access to good healthcare, affordable education, decent housing and a secure retirement are hallmarks of a healthy nation. In 2004,[i] TomPaine.com [/i]kept track of attacks on programs—like Social Security, Pell Grants, Medicare—that most Americans rely on as a stepping stone to economic security. "We the People" should be[i] very, very concerned [/i]regarding the reckless direction that the wanton, craven and corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]is taking our country ...[/b]
[b][u]The $2 Trillion Question[/u]
Robert Walker - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
Our reliance on payroll tax is already too high, and further reducing workers won't help when millions of baby boomers are ready to leave the workforce. So here's a bright idea: Instead of taxing hiring to cover Social Security and Medicare when we desperately need more jobs—why don't we tax natural resources, which we desperately need to use more efficiently? Get America Working president Robert Walker explains http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
[b][u]Not Just Your Mom's Retirement[/u]
Nancy Duff Campbell and Joan Entmacher - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
Did you know that children, disabled workers and families of prematurely deceased workers all collect Social Security benefits? The program truly serves the role of government safety net as it was intended—lending a hand to Americans in their time of need. The personal investment accounts idea being floated by the White House and its surrogates would effectively shred that safety net. Duff Campbell and Entmacher of the National Women's Law Center show how http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
[b][u]Shafting Kansas[/u]
Robert L. Borosage - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
The recent omnibus bill included in its 1,000 pages a provision that allows the secretary of education to cut Pell grants—which allow many low-income students to pay for college. But It's a typical trick of conservatives, says Robert Borosage: play up middle-American values while quietly wreaking economic chaos http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
[b][u]A Lump Of Coal For America's Poor[/u]
Bill Vaughan - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
With President Bush set to make his tax cuts permanent for 2005 and push Social Security privatization, the extra money to make up the difference has to come from somewhere. Bill Vaughan of Families USA says it's likely to come from one of the largest—and most vital—government programs: Medicaid. In a season of doing good unto others, cutting taxes for millionaires and leaving severely ill seniors in nursing homes without care is an immoral choice http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
[b][u]Health Care: The Real Crisis[/u]
Jonathan Tasini - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
George Bush is beginning to frame his Social Security reform agenda as a way to help workers. That leaves Democrats the opportunity to reframe the debate about the best way to do so. Jonathan Tasini argues what will help workers—and American employers—is a single-payer health plan http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
[b][u]Dismantling The Dream[/u]
Ambassador Andrew Young - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
Former mayor of Atlanta Andrew Young says the federal government has created a number of legislative programs that encourage hard work and facilitate economic mobility into America’s middle class. Essential to this transition for African Americans, in particular, Young says, is the Community Reinvestment Act, which helps low-income families own homes. Last week, the Bush administration took steps to dismantle the CRA—exposing the rift between reality and Bush’s stated interest in creating an “ownership society.” http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
[b][u]Leaving Women Behind[/u]
Karen Kornbluh and Laurie Rubiner - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
The president has been touting his plan for an "ownership society" a lot on the campaign trail, and in his nomination acceptance speech, he claimed it would benefit working moms. But his approach is classic bait-and-switch politics, say policy experts Karen Kornbluh and Laurie Rubiner. The ownership society would simply ask Americans to "own" the risks they now share with the government in programs like employer-sponsored health care. What American women really need is reform of outdated New Deal programs. For more analysis of Bush's "ownership society," see [i]Bush And The Vision Thing [/i] http://www.tompaine.com/artic... by Roger Hickey. http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
[b][u]High-Yield Investment: Kids[/u]
Roger Hickey - http://www.tompaine.com/artic... [/b]
A new study http://www.ourfuture.org/docU... released today by the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for America’s Future proves that spending government money on early childhood programs isn’t just good for children—it’s good for taxpayers and society. What’s most hopeful about this study is that the policies it recommends are increasingly being embraced by experts across the political spectrum http://www.tompaine.com/artic... .
[b]Sources:[/b]
TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
Think Again: Selling Social Security (Down the River), Eric Alterman with Paul McLeary, The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Obstructing Justice ... |
| 12.22.04 (8:18 am) [edit] |
"Nearly nine months after detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere became public, there still has been no independent, overarching investigation of the scandal." http://www.slate.com/id/21113...
"The Department of Defense has assured you, has assured the public that they take these issues seriously, that they have investigations going on."
– Scott McClellan, on investigating charges of detainee abuse, http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...
[i]VERSUS[/i]
"In-house Pentagon probes don't require sworn testimony, don't have subpoena power and are examples of the military trying to police itself."
– Letter from retired military leaders detailing insufficiencies in the administration's investigation into the scandal, http://www.usatoday.com/news/...
[b]Why aren't "We the People" outraged by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]sanction of murder, torture, rape and abuse that represents heinous Crimes Against Humanity perpetrated upon human beings held by the U.S. (in contravention of the Geneva Conventions)??? ...[/b]
A wave of new documents suggest "the abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody was more widespread, varied and grave http://www.washingtonpost.com... in the past three years than the Defense Department has long maintained." The new documents reveal "the misconduct included shocking detainees with electric guns, shackling them without food and water, and wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag." Amrit Singh, a lawyer for the ACLU, said, "the documents show so far that the abuse was widespread and systemic, that it was the result of decisions taken by high-ranking officials http://www.washingtonpost.com... , and that the abuse took place within a culture of secrecy and neglect." White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said, "President Bush expects a full investigation and corrective actions 'to make sure that abuse does not occur again.'" But Slate points out that while the White House now promises an investigation of the latest disclosures, "there has been no independent http://www.usatoday.com/news/... or overarching investigation of the abuses, and the administration has opposed the creation of one http://www.washingtonpost.com... ." (American Progress has been calling for an independent investigation since May http://www.americanprogress.o... .)
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Stealing From The Elderly ... |
| 12.22.04 (8:01 am) [edit] |
"If the president is truly worried about the federal coffers running dry he should stop cutting taxes for us better-off folk and stop spending so much money on boondoggles like the occupation of Iraq."
"The income that Social Security provides to the elderly benefits multiple generations. Reliable, inflation-adjusted Social Security income has helped many older Americans live more independent lives. It has eased the financial burden on adult children who may be raising and trying to save for their own families."
"Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies. It leaves many retirees in poverty."
[b]The American people are being swindled out of one of their most important safety nets created after the Great Depression by FDR in order to keep the elderly from living in abject poverty, misery and/or illness ... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]are out to destroy Social Security in order to line their own pockets & those of their Wall Street Cronies [like the crook, Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay] with the hard-earned collective investment that keeps our society from being a 3rd world military junta exploiting slave labour ... "We the People" should be outraged and contact Congress http://www.congress.org to demand that this neo-fascist corporate (and rich) take-all rape of Americans be put to a stop ...[/b]
[b][u]Sabotaging Social Security[/u]
GOP uses scare tactics against system that isn't broke[/b]
Just my luck: I finally get to be a senior citizen only to discover that the president considers my longevity a grave threat to the nation. Apparently, my collecting Social Security checks for as long as I have left on this Earth is going to help bankrupt the economy and/or be an unbearable burden on young Americans.
That's why, after seven decades of unmitigated success in protecting seniors from the vagaries of market forces, the White House now wants to turn Social Security itself over to the vagaries of market forces. The conservative mantra, whether it comes to energy policy, war in Iraq or education, is to siphon public money into the private sector whenever and wherever possible, through such gimmicks as agribusiness subsidies, school vouchers and the hiring of private mercenaries.
Greed perfectly meshes with ideology in the Republican Party, and the attempted sabotage of Social Security is just another example. While the followers of Milton Friedman talk about the free market in religious terms, Wall Street is slavering at the possibility of one of the biggest potential windfalls in human history if the Social Security spigot is turned its way. The attendant investment fees alone would be enormous -- certainly higher than the minimal 1% overhead costs the current Social Security system consumes.
What's astonishing is that despite the recent spate of abrupt corporate bankruptcies and Wall Street corruption scandals, the president would have us believe only stockbrokers can save Social Security, and the stability of the entire fund would be tied to a stock market that has been known to tank now and again. Further, even the president's key advisors admit that the short-run cost of "privatizing" Social Security would add trillions of dollars to the Bush legacy of federal government red ink.
While I am all for expanding opportunities to invest in tax- deferred retirement accounts (like 401k's), it does not follow that Social Security should be exposed to the same risks. Social Security is the safety net for the elderly that has since its inception protected millions from facing abject poverty upon retirement -- even if their pensions should evaporate, as they did for the employees of Enron.
Along with Medicare, Social Security is the key reason seniors are no longer the most impoverished class in our society or a crushing burden on their children. This last needs to be mentioned to counter the argument that ensuring the security of baby boom seniors would impose an intolerable burden on younger workers. For who is going to replace those Social Security checks, should they stop coming because Grandpa picked the wrong stock? The kids and grandkids, that's who, if they have any real family values.
I speak out of an experience I'm sure many of you share. My mother retired after 40 years as a garment worker, after which she lived with me until she died at the thankfully old age of 88. Her presence was of great emotional value to our family, but because of her two-decade bout with Parkinson's, it would have represented a serious financial burden on my wife and me had it not been for government support.
The president says the system that has served us well in the past is no longer sustainable. He, or rather those cooking the books for him, attempts to scare us with projections that the Social Security trust fund will begin to run deficits 38 years from now.
But those numbers assume no dramatic change in the increasing ability of seniors to retire later and otherwise continue to earn income that is taxable. The anti-Social Security crowd is trying to make this a young-versus-old generational fight, even though seniors still pay taxes like anybody else. We even pay taxes on most of our Social Security earnings, if our household income rises above a pittance.
If the president is truly worried about the federal coffers running dry he should stop cutting taxes for us better-off folk and stop spending so much money on boondoggles like the occupation of Iraq. However, if it turns out that we need additional taxes to cover the obligations of the Social Security trust fund four decades from now, so be it. After all, money distributed to the elderly through Social Security is poured right back into the economy.
For three-quarters of a century, Social Security has guaranteed us all a life of modest dignity as we live out the end of this mortal coil.
So -- if you'll pardon this senior's use of a curmudgeonly truism -- I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Robert Scheer, WorkingForChange, http://www.workingforchange.c...
"Not Just Your Mom's Retirement", TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
"Buying Into Failure", Paul Krugman, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%2 0and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd% 2fColumnists
TalkingPointsMemo, Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| ... A Voice In The Wilderness ... |
| 12.19.04 (6:58 am) [edit] |
"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing which you think you cannot do." - Eleanor Roosevelt
On Friday, President Bush signed into law a bill to[b] reform the intelligence system[/b]. The bill was 563 pages long and was rushed through the Senate without enough time for senators to read and debate it adequately. Among other things, it creates a position of director of national intelligence and tightens border controls. [b]Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia [/b]was one of few Democrats who spoke publicly against the bill on the Senate floor.
[b]"We the People" are fortunate to have a Senator like Robert Byrd with the courage to stand up to the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]and the wisdom to say what needs to be said ...
U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., delivered the following remarks as the Senate prepared to vote on the conference report on the National Intelligence Reform Act. Byrd criticized the hasty passage of the most significant reform of the nation's intelligence agencies since 1947, with Senators having less than 24 hours to review the final legislation.[/b]
[b]Byrd also was critical of many of the provisions within the legislation. For instance, Byrd noted a provision requiring the new National Intelligence Director to submit any testimony before Congress to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval prior to delivery. Byrd is concerned that requiring OMB approval can prevent Congress from receiving non-partisan intelligence analysis.
Overall, the West Virginia lawmaker believes that such substantial legislation deserves a higher standard of consideration in the world's foremost deliberative body.[/b]
_________________________ _____________________
When the elected representatives of the people allow themselves to be coerced into a process that encourages the abdication of our responsibility to understand and thoroughly review legislation, the people are robbed of their voice in their government.
Senators take an oath to defend the Constitution, and common sense suggests that that means reading and studying the legislation before the Congress. We are duty bound to explore the opinions on all sides of an issue, and to work toward a process that does not exclude opponents or silence the opposition.
In its heyday, the Senate was known as the greatest deliberative body in the world. What we have seen in recent times, however, is a hollow shell of that noble tradition. Time after time, the Senate forgoes its responsibility to deliberate and carefully review legislation, and even defers to others to craft legislation for it.
Legislation is passed by the Senate, and then, too often, hastily rewritten in a conference committee behind closed doors marked, "no minority view admitted." All too often during the 108th Congress, the party leadership has held bills until just before a recess, and then employed disingenuous rhetoric about last opportunities to get something done. Senators preoccupied with holiday schedules and travel plans, for example, timidly roll over and accept whatever is placed in front of them. They do it time and time again.
I anguish about the eroding character of the Senate, and the message it sends to the American people, when this body allows itself to be stampeded into passing legislation without thorough examination. We congratulate ourselves on a job well done, and vote overwhelmingly in support of legislation, and yet we cannot even be bothered to ask questions about the changes made in conference. Like pygmies on the battlefield of history, we cower like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure when it comes to issues like intelligence reform.
I do not claim to know as much about this legislation as the managers of the bill, but I do know about process, and it galls me that the Senate has allowed itself to be jammed against a time deadline in considering this conference report.
This is the most far reaching reorganization of our intelligence agencies since 1947. These changes will remain for decades, and they will impact the security of our nation at countless levels. Such matters ought to be held to a higher standard of consideration by the Congress than is the case here.
This conference report has been reworked and redrafted over the course of two months in a closed door conference, and the Senate has only received a printed copy of the conference agreement less than 24 hours ago. As late as yesterday, the conferees were making changes. It is outrageous to expect Senators to read and understand a 600-page bill in less than 24 hours.
This conference agreement is very different from the legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate two months ago. For example, a number of provisions related to the Patriot Act and law enforcement powers have been inserted into this bill, which, again, have never been considered on the Senate floor.
This legislation has encountered virulent opposition since the time of its conception, and while it may enjoy the support of a majority of members here today, nobody can say with any confidence or certainty as to how this new layer of bureaucracy will affect our intelligence agencies or the security of our country. We don't know if it will enable them to better guard against a terrorist attack or whether it will cause a host of unforseen problems. And we are failing, in yet another misguided rush to judgment, to take the time and effort to find out.
The Senate barely understands how the experts line up on this bill. The 9-11 Commission is for it, that much we know. But former CIA Director George Tenet said last week that he opposes this bill. That is sobering criticism from someone who, having left government months ago, no longer has any turf to protect.
A distinguished group of national security experts wrote in September that they oppose any intelligence reform this year. That group included former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Boren; former Senator Bill Bradley; former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci; former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen; former CIA Director Robert Gates; former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre; former Senator Gary Hart; former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn; former Senator Warren Rudman; and former Secretary of State George Schultz.
We do not know how these experts regard the bill today. Why should Senators forgo the valuable insight of almost every public figure who may actually be able to assess what is in this new version of intelligence reform?
I say again, let us not believe that we understand what has been included in this conference report. It is, in effect, a new bill that is very different from anything the Senate has considered to date. Common sense suggests that the Congress ought to hold hearings on the contents of this new bill, so that we may be informed by experts about its benefits and defects.
There is no reason why the Senate cannot proceed in this prudent manner early next year. Instead of viewing this conference report as the final stage of the process, we ought to consider it the starting point for debate next year. We ought to invite witnesses back to testify on it, and then allow the process to begin anew, outside the election cycle and built on the foundation of knowledge acquired this year.
Instead, we are allowing ourselves to be lulled into the fallacious belief that we must accept this bill or risk its not passing next year, with some even suggesting that a terrorist attack could result without it. That's nonsense, and don't you believe it. No legislation, alone, can forestall a terrorist attack on our country.
The momentum is strong now to reform our intelligence agencies, and I submit that the greater risk is not that the momentum will dissipate next year if this bill does not pass this week, but that the passage of this bill will remove any incentive to focus on the broader intelligence failures that have occurred outside the war on terror.
This legislation is appropriately focused on the failings of 9-11, but oblivious to the many other glaring deficiencies in our intelligence community. Our country went to war in Iraq on the shoulders of false claims about weapons of mass destruction, but this bill dances around that issue on tippy-toes. It is as though Congress is too afraid to mention the fact that faulty intelligence claims deceived the public into believing that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.
Why is Congress avoiding that critical issue? Is it because some do not wish to expose the role of the White House in feeding bad intelligence to the American people? The Founding Fathers intended Congress to be a check on the power of the Chief Executive, but increasingly Congress appears content to be merely a cheerleader for the president, depending upon which party might be in control at a given moment.
The intelligence bill fails to address the unfolding prison abuse scandals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. The Armed Services Committee has held six hearings on the abuse of prisoners in U.S. military jails. There is mounting evidence that the CIA had some hand in the mistreatment of detainees. The Red Cross has reported on the illegal practices of U.S. intelligence agencies holding "ghost detainees" in secret prisons. Why is this intelligence bill silent on such outrageous policies? How can Congress claim to fix what is wrong with our intelligence agencies if this major piece of legislation doesn't even address such colossal intelligence failures?
The only way to reduce the risk of such failures is to ensure the accountability of this new Intelligence Director to the people's representatives in the Congress. It is Congress that must make the decision to declare war, and it is the Congress that is responsible for the oversight of this new Intelligence Program to help guard against future intelligence failures. It is paramount that the Congress do everything possible to ensure itself access to timely, objective intelligence. Yet, that is not what we see in this legislation.
The conference agreement eliminates provisions to ensure that the Congress receives timely access to intelligence, and it also allows the White House's Office of Management and Budget to screen testimony before the Intelligence Director presents it to the Congress. Whistle blower protections for intelligence officials who report to the Congress also have been stricken from the Senate-passed bill.
The conference agreement creates senior intelligence positions, but exempts many of them from confirmation by the Senate. It eliminates the privacy and civil rights officers included in the Senate-passed bill, and it strips 18 pages of legislative text that would have created an Inspector General and Ombudsman to oversee the Intelligence Director's office. That language has been replaced with one paragraph, authorizing the Intelligence Director, at his discretion, to create or not to create an Inspector General, and provides the Director with the power to decide which, if any investigative powers, to grant the Inspector General.
That means the new Intelligence Director could exempt his office from Inspector General audits and investigations, and that the Congress would not receive reports from an objective internal auditor. The Congress is limiting its own access to vital information within this new Intelligence Office, and it will have, thereby, compromised an essential mechanism for identifying potential abuses within the new Intelligence Program.
Given the dark history of abuses of civil liberties and privacy rights by our intelligence community, I had hoped that the Congress would exercise more caution, but it has not done so in this legislation.
The 9/11 Commission recognized that its recommendations call for the government to increase its presence in people's lives, and so it wisely endorsed the creation of an independent Civil Liberties Board to defend our privacy rights and liberties. The Senate-passed bill embraced this recommendation and included additional protections to help ensure that executive agencies could not exert undue influence on the Board. This conference agreement scuttles those protections by burying the Board deep inside of the Office of the President, subjecting Board members to White House pressure.
The conferees included language making changes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the law that blurs the rules on electronic surveillance and physical searches by the U.S. government. This conference report states that the Intelligence Director shall have authority to direct or undertake electronic surveillance and physical search operations pursuant to FISA if authorized by statute or executive order. This is dangerous ground to walk when the president, through executive order, and, without the authorization of the Congress, can direct this new Intelligence Director to undertake electronic surveillance and physical search operations.
Yet another provision would make terrorist crimes subject to a rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention, which means that prosecutors won't be required to show a judge that the defendant is a flight risk. Instead, the defendant will be presumed to be a flight risk. Are Senators sure we are not trampling on the civil liberties of the American people with the hasty passage of this conference report?
Again, few, if any, Senate hearings have been held on these provisions by the full Senate Judiciary Committee. The inclusion of these provisions in Title VI, with so little examination of their real meaning, reminds me of how the Patriot Act itself was enacted: in haste, with insufficient review, and with no real understanding of its true consequences.
These are unsettling provisions, and the Senate ought to insist on its rights to consider them more carefully. The Senate has not had enough time to understand this legislation or its implications. This new Intelligence Director has been granted significant authorities, and the Congress has not done enough to ensure adequate checks on the actions of the Intelligence Director.
With regard to homeland security, the bill authorizes a significant increase in the number of border patrol agents, immigration investigators, and a significant increase in the number of beds for immigration detention. The bill also authorizes increased funding for air cargo security and for screening airline passengers for explosives. All of these are worthy goals, but the provisions are just empty promises. Last September, when I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill to fund these precise activities, the White House opposed the amendment and my Republican colleagues lined up and voted against it. Today, members will line up and vote for more empty promises.
President Bush had the opportunity to support Congressman Sensenbrenner and insist on tougher immigration reforms in this bill, but he welched. Senators talk about reforms needed to protect against terrorism, and the fact is that this bill is a hodge podge of empty border security promises that the Administration has no intention of funding, and that will only encourage the kind of illegal immigration that leaves our country wide open to terrorists.
It may well be that the only problem that this bill will actually fix is one of politics. Passing this bill in the waning hours of the 108th Congress means that, for all intents and purposes, intelligence reform will be removed from the agenda of the next Congress. By passing this bill today, the Senate will be giving political cover to those who wish to dismiss calls for more thorough reform of intelligence agencies to fix problems that are not addressed in the legislation, including the Iraq WMD fiasco and the abuse of prisoners in secret detention facilities.
Intelligence reform should be done right the first time. But the actual implementation of this bill will be shrouded in secrecy and hidden from public scrutiny. Under this conference report, the total amount of intelligence spending will remain classified, so the American people may never know if the President is short-changing the reform effort that this bill requires. Senators ought not be so willing to rush this bill through, knowing that it may serve as political cover for an Administration that has a sorry history of promising big reform efforts that it never funds.
The 9/11 Commission's endorsement of this legislation will mean nothing if these so-called reforms lead to future intelligence failures.
What the American people will remember is that the Congress abdicated its role to protect their security interests. The American people will remember that the Congress empowered an unelected bureaucrat while doing little else to protect against future intelligence failures.
This process has been hurried and rushed from the beginning, and it has been tainted ever since the decision was made to tie its consideration to a political schedule.
When the 9/11 Commission needed more time to conduct its investigations into the September 11 attacks, the Congress acted magnanimously in granting a two month extension. Senators said at the time: "It would be counterproductive to deny the commission the extra two months it now says it needs to complete its investigations...we cannot feel we are successfully prepared to fight and win the war on terrorism and to protect the American people at home..."
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the notion that time is a luxury reserved for the unelected members of independent commissions. What about the Senate, and the elected representatives of the people that serve in this Body? The Framers of the Constitution conceived a Senate that would resist the forces that urge us to bend with each change in the political breeze. To the contrary, the Constitution binds Senators to serve the greater causes of the Republic, and reserves the power of each member to demand more time for debate and thoughtful consideration.
Shame on us for not invoking that wisdom in claiming the additional time we need to better assess this legislation.
[b]Source:[/b]
TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
|
|
|
| |
| ... What America is Asking… About Morals After Election 2004 ... |
| 12.18.04 (3:46 pm) [edit] |
"Morals consist of political morals, commercial morals, ecclesiastical morals, and morals." - More Maxims of Mark Twain, Johnson, 1927
"The political and commercial morals of the United States are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet." - Mark Twain in Eruption
[b]The subject of "morals" was apparently [i]in play [/i]during the Election 2004 ... The irony is that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]is the most immoral, corrupt and craven administration that our nation has ever had the misfortune to have thrust upon us after it has cheated its' way into power ... "We the People" must be very deluded indeed[i] if we fall [/i]for the traitorous Bushies' hypocritical rhetoric and sanctimonious howling about "morals" because they have none (... i.e. [i]none[/i] that are [i]any[/i] good) ... Happily, [i]not[/i] everybody is fooled ...[/b]
With the 2004 presidential election over, Americans are reflecting on and commenting about what the election really meant. One particular post-election survey showed that many voters found "morals" to be the main issue and political analysts proclaimed progressives dangerously out of touch. Another survey challenges much of the conventional wisdom and points to a new, silent majority of religious moderates, religious progressives, and other non-traditional religious voters who hold similar moderate to progressive views on domestic and national security issues. What values motivate Americans? Citizens from around the country are weighing in on the meaning of "morals" and Election 2004.
[b]Cleveland, Ohio – The Plain Dealer
[u]Interpreting the vote along morality lines – Link Unavailable[/u][/b]
[i]November 14, 2004[/i]
"I would like to remind our representatives in Washington and Columbus that a moral agenda is more than defending the sanctity of marriage."
"As Hubert Humphrey said in 1977, 'The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'"
[b]Baltimore, Md. – The Baltimore Sun
[u]Don't forget about the religious left – Link Unavailable[/u][/b]
[i]November 8, 2004[/i]
"I am writing to express my chagrin at the usurpation of the phrase 'moral values' by the religious right and to remind the politicians and pundits that there is a 'religious left' as well. We too have strong moral values."
"We believe that one of the most important gifts of our Creator is free will … and that to impose our choices on others is not only wrong, but a denigration of that gift."
"Nonetheless, I believe it is time for the religious left to step out of the closet and try to be heard above the din of those who would speak for us."
[b]St. Louis, Miss. – The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
[u]Put moral values into practice[/u][/b]
[i]November 7, 2004[/i]
"Now it is time to put these 'moral values' to work. We have 45 million people with no health insurance. We have 35 million people living below the poverty line. Some elderly must choose between food and medicine or heat and medicine."
"Morals and family values mean caring for the vulnerable in our society. If we cannot translate these values into actions, they are just meaningless words."
"I challenge those who hold pro-family, pro-life values to protect all life including the poor, the elderly and children. If you can put your moral values into action, I believe we can be united this country."
[b]Milwaukee, Wis. – The Journal Sentinel
[u]Our 'mainstream' is actually quite diverse[/u][/b]
[i]November 6, 2004[/i]
"…please don't tell us that the values of half of the people who live in the United States - including the majority of people in Wisconsin and 19 other states - are not part of the 'mainstream.' The advancement of this erroneous idea is a misleading and divisive public relations tool, not to mention a great example of 'fuzzy math.'"
"No one group has a monopoly on moral values - and the 'mainstream' in this country is much wider and more diverse than some would have us believe."
"If Bush is truly interested in uniting a nation he helped divide with a bitterly antagonistic presidential campaign, he needs to recognize the values of all American citizens - regardless of age, race, gender, religious orientation or political party affiliation."
[b]Washington, D.C. – The Washington Post
[u]Where Is Charity for Our Troops?[/u][/b]
[i]November 29, 2004[/i]
"When I discovered that our wounded GIs … needed certain simple things to help make their recovery easier – snap-on pants for use when legs are put in metal "cages," with rods holding the bones in place; zippered hooded sweatshirts; phone cards; postage stamps; carry-on luggage for when they are transferred or discharged – I appealed to friends to help me provide some of these things by Thanksgiving."
"Why can't our government provide these simple things?"
"If snap-on pants make recovery from smashed legs or amputations easier, why not issue them?"
"If our new Congress and our president got elected on 'moral values,' perhaps they need to remember, 'And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity'" (I Corinthians 13).
[b]Milwaukee, Wis. – The Journal Sentinel
[u]There are two kinds of values – Link Unavailable[/u][/b]
[i]November 6, 2004[/i]
"Traditionally, Republicans have emphasized personal values, such as chastity, honesty, hard-working habits, etc.; Democrats, on the other hand, have emphasized societal values, such as affordable medical care, adequate salaries for workmen, no transfer of money from the poor to the wealthy, etc."
"Let us hope that President Bush does not forget societal values during the next four years of his tenure."
[b]Seattle, Wash. – The Seattle Post Intelligencer
[u]It's troubling to learn what drove the election[/u][/b]
[i]November 4, 2004[/i]
"Many of us, about half of the nation, are disappointed, sad and concerned today."
"What I am surprised about is the reporting about being an election about moral values."
"What moral value represents the attempt to deny gays and lesbians their rights?"
"What moral value represents the fact that millions have lost their health insurance?"
"What moral value represents the destruction of the environment?"
"What moral value represents the denying of civil liberties?"
"What moral value represents infringement of women's reproductive rights?"
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... TDR Debates Intel Reform ... |
| 12.18.04 (7:10 am) [edit] |
"Our forefathers founded our country on the notion that authority is not always to be listened to and followed. Thus, we must take a lesson from them and challenge the shabby morality and failed policies of our government. It is time to reject their vanity and dishonesty. It is time to pursue our passion for democracy and our vision for justice. It is not only time, but it is our responsibility. Are we really that scared of how our government might react? What are they gonna do? Ground us?" - Who's Your Daddy?, http://www.commondreams.org/v...
[b]There wasn't even a proper public debate on the [i]flawed intelligence bill [/i]that Bush signed into law yesterday http://www.thestate.com/mld/t... ... Last minute changes were made by Bush's GOP toadies to this[i] Big Brother legislation [/i]and "We the People" were not told what the provisions of this bill will mean for our society and what impact they will have upon our civil liberties ... The corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]are transforming our Republic into a 3rd world fascist military dictatorship ... And yet "We the People" [i]have the power [/i]to put this insane treason to a stop ... Why don't you call http://www.congress.org for the impeachment of the War Criminals Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. today on the grounds of Treason & Crimes Against Humanity ...[/b]
[b]AMY GOODMAN:[/b] Good to have you with us. Can you talk about your concerns about the bill that President Bush is about to sign?
[b]ROBERT DREYFUSS:[/b] Well, I think first of all, you need to put it in context. After 9/11, and since then, there's been a stampede toward creating a surveillance society, toward creating a larger and more powerful intelligence community and merging the CIA and the FBI. We saw that in the PATRIOT Act that passed 99-1 in the Senate. We saw it again with this latest intelligence bill, which comes, by the way, after a tremendous expansion of the U.S. intelligence community. The budget -- and of course these figures are somewhat in doubt because they're so secret -- but the budget apparently for the intelligence community has gone from something like $26 or $27 billion before 9/11, to about $40 billion today. So, there's been a gigantic expansion of the intelligence community already.
Now, as sort of part of a political football debate in Congress, the 9/11 commission recommendations have basically, with some changes, been enacted into law, which leads to yet another expansion, not only of the size of the intelligence community, but of the scope of the intelligence community. It creates, just like the PATRIOT Act did, new powers for the federal government, creates a centralization of the intelligence community under what they're calling a National Intelligence Director. And it was basically rushed through Congress with almost no voice being raised about the kind of concerns that I have about this bill. In fact, all of the opposition to it, at least if you read the newspaper accounts of this, was coming from the Pentagon, which feared that this new Intelligence Director would agglomerate too much power, reducing the Pentagon's control over its share of the intelligence community activity and budget. Once that was resolved through a compromise, there was nobody, I think, with the exception of Senator Byrd from West Virginia, who even blinked about the dangers in this bill. I'm -- I frankly -- I'm shocked that no Democrats have gotten up to scream about this. In fact, they all saw it as some sort of a perverse triumph over the White House to have enacted this bill. Meanwhile, I think it's just yet another part of the pendulum, which is continuing still to swing away from civil liberties, and toward a surveillance state because of the alleged threat of terrorism since 9/11.
It creates, just like the PATRIOT Act did, new powers for the federal government, creates a centralization of the intelligence community under what they're calling a National Intelligence Director. And it was basically rushed through Congress with almost no voice being raised about the kind of concerns that I have about this bill. In fact, all of the opposition to it, at least if you read the newspaper accounts of this, was coming from the Pentagon, which feared that this new Intelligence Director would agglomerate too much power, reducing the Pentagon's control over its share of the intelligence community activity and budget. Once that was resolved through a compromise, there was nobody, I think, with the exception of Senator Byrd from West Virginia, who even blinked about the dangers in this bill. I'm -- I frankly -- I'm shocked that no Democrats have gotten up to scream about this. In fact, they all saw it as some sort of a perverse triumph over the White House to have enacted this bill. Meanwhile, I think it's just yet another part of the pendulum, which is continuing still to swing away from civil liberties, and toward a surveillance state because of the alleged threat of terrorism since 9/11. " READ THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW HERE http://www.democracynow.org/a... .
[b]Sources:[/b]
Robert Dreyfuss, [i]The Dreyfuss Report (TDR)[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
Who's Your Daddy?, The Role of Our Government and Our Relationship With It, http://www.commondreams.org/v...
Flawed intelligence bill advances Bush agenda, http://www.pww.org/article/ar...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Are You Better Off??? ... |
| 12.16.04 (1:20 pm) [edit] |
"Life is made up, not of great sacrifices or duties, but of little things, in which smiles, and kindnesses, and small obligations, given habitually, are what win and preserve the heart and secure comfort." - Humphrey Davy (English chemist, 1778-1829)
[b]"We the People"[i] "live in interesting times"[/i] (a Chinese Curse) whereby the best and brightest ideas that represented the Enlightenment which under-pin the foundation of our nation, and our Founding Fathers' noble vision of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for All; is tragically being undermined and replaced with the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]greed-ridden, rich & priviledged take-all neo-fascism, with no care for citizens in need -- no care for the future of people, the environment or our great heritage -- no care for the obligation that those with power and wealth have to be responsible, moral and caring guardians & care-takers of our system of government to ensure equity, fairness and the general welfare of All of our citizens ... [/b]
Is America better off now than it was a year ago? I'm sure everyone has a quick answer, but the Drum Major Institute's Year in Review http://www.drummajorinstitute...*/2775 provides you with the hard facts, evidence, and analysis to back it up.
From changes in rules governing overtime to the proposed gutting of the Community Reinvestment Act, the DMI http://www.drummajorinstitute... Review offers a scathing indictment of the national Administration.
In fact, with top-level support for the outsourcing of jobs and federal inaction on the skyrocketing costs of health care and higher education, this Administration showed a staggering disinterest in reversing the squeeze on America's middle class http://www.alternet.org/story... , content to allow our nation to be divided into those with vast wealth and then everyone else.
At the same time, the Year in Review highlights the success of local organizations and policymakers from both parties to expand access to affordable prescription drugs, stall the steady encroachment of big-box mega-stores into middle-class communities, raise the minimum wage http://www.thenation.com/doc.... , and provide entry for immigrant children to attain a higher education--all of which the President would not do.
The DMI 2004 Year in Review http://www.drummajorinstitute...*/2775 also offers its take on the best and worst in public policy, a recap of the 2004 national election (how divided are we, really?), a 2004 Injustice Index (the real state of the union, by the numbers), report recommendations, a highlight of efforts on the frontlines in five states (from California's struggle against Wal-Mart to Washington, DC's struggle for taxation with representation), and more. Click here http://www.drummajorinstitute...*/2775 to download and circulate the full report.
[b]Source:[/b]
Katrina vanden Heuvel, [i]Editor's Cut[/i], TheNation, http://www.thenation.com
|
|
|
| |
| ... Conservatives' Frustration With Rumsfeld's Failures Grows ... |
| 12.16.04 (9:49 am) [edit] |
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attempted to diminish a troop's concern that the army was short of fully armored vehicles, saying, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can still be blown up." http://www.dod.gov/transcript... Of course, when the Defense Secretary comes to Iraq, he travels in fully "up-armored" vehicles. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...+b+9yVeoxQ&pagewanted=pri nt&position=
[b]Rumsfeld is discredited, incompetent, arrogant, craven and corrupt ... Rummy should resign in the best interests of the United States of America [i]as well as [/i]the U.S. Military that he has exploited, abused and squandered [i]via [/i]his inept "planning"; insane ideology; and, outright corruption in the service of corporate interests over the well-being of our U.S. troops ... But what is[i] even more bizarre [/i]is that the stupid Bush and callous Cheney haven't fired the creep ... "We the People" must conclude that War Criminals Bush and Cheney are [i]as[/i] guilty of committing Crimes Against Humanity[i] as [/i]Rumsfeld-- and all of these neo-fascist monsters should be impeached ...[/b]
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's condescending remarks http://www.americanprogressac... to American troops last week in Kuwait have sparked a barrage of criticism from fellow conservatives in recent days. Over the weekend, [b]Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)[/b] claimed the "irresponsible" Rumsfeld had "dismissed his generals… [and] all outside influence," http://transcripts.cnn.com/TR... while [b]Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)[/b] said he had "no confidence" http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... in Rumsfeld, citing "very strong differences of opinion."[b] Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf [/b]has confessed to being "angry" at Rumsfeld for acting like he "didn't have anything to do with the Army http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6... and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up." More recently, [b]Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)[/b], noted "increasing concerns about the secretary's leadership of the war." http://www.iht.com/bin/print_... And[b] Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) [/b]said that he is "not a fan" of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, adding, "we do need a change at some point." http://www.sunherald.com/mld/... Even GOP hawks are eyeing Rumsfeld like vultures. [b]William Kristol[/b], the prominent neoconservative cheerleader for the Iraq invasion, slammed Rumsfeld Wednesday in the [i]Washington Post[/i], arguing American soldiers "deserve a better defense secretary http://www.washingtonpost.com... than the one we have." Will these conservatives demand accountability and call for Rumsfeld's resignation? Stay tuned. In the meantime, we echo the [b]Republican Senate aide [/b]quoted in the [i]New York Times[/i]: [b]"What does it take to get fired around here?"[/b] http://www.iht.com/bin/print_...
[b]Source:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Iranian Manchurian ... |
| 12.16.04 (8:07 am) [edit] |
"If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army." – Frederick the Great
[b]If our U.S. soldiers were to begin to think (and research to find out the ugly truth about the neo-con's insane, illegal and immoral war-mongerings ...) and realize that they are putting their lives[i] on the line [/i]([u]not[/u] to defend our nation ... but instead ...) based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods (so that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]can enrich itself & Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.)-- then they would refuse to be sent to die in the Middle East ...[/b]
So now the Iraqi defense minister is the latest to say that Abdel Aziz Hakim and Ayatollah Sistani’s Shiite fascist party is a Trojan Horse for Iran.
The statement from Defense Minister Hazim Shalaan is a stunner, and the fact that he is a chief actor in the puppet U.S. interim government doesn’t take away from the fundamental truth of what he had to say.
Most of today’s papers cover Shalaan’s remarks, but without the prominence they deserve.
The Sistani-backed Shiite party, organized by Hussein Shahristani, a Sistani acolyte, is the “Iranian list,” says Shalaan. “Iran is the big link in terrorism in Iraq. … I want to warn you that Iran is the most dangerous enemy to Iraq and to all Arabs. Shahristani went to Iran after 1991 and worked on building an Iranian nuclear reactor. We will not let him come back and become an Iraqi prime minister.” He warned that Iran and Sistani want “turbaned clerics to rule.”
He is exactly right—and the neoconservatives backing the rise of Shiite fascism in Iraq are to blame.
Incredibly, SCIRI—the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Abdel Aziz Hakim, a semi-ayatollah—is leading the Sistani list, despite its official backing from Iran. And Al Dawa (The Call) is another Shiite fascist party. Its members actually blew up the American embassy in Kuwait in 1983, with Iranian help, and carried out hundreds of assassinations and terrorist acts in Iraq between 1969 and 2003, also backed by Iran. These are the parties that President Bush wants to rule Iraq? Their leaders ought to be arrested for espionage and put on trial for terrorism by the Iraqi authorities. Hopefully, Shalaan will do just that, but Prime Minister Iyad Allawi isn’t there yet.
Unraveling all this is too complicated for a blog entry. But the important thing to understand is that the forces in Iran supporting Sistani, Shahristani, Hakim and Al Dawa are a faction of Iranians amenable to collaboration with the United States, Israel and the neocons. They are still (of course) Islamic revolutionaries, but slightly more moderate than the hardest of hardliners in Iran. They are the faction of illusory moderates that Bill Casey, Ollie North and Michael Ledeen courted during Iran-Contra in the mid-1980s, and I believe that Hashemi Rafsanjani—who is now contemplating a run for the presidency of Iran—is one of them. As I reported in yesterday’s entry http://www.tblog.com/template... , this is a Big Mistake by the neocons, who seem to relish making Big Mistakes.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Robert Dreyfuss, [i]The Dreyfuss Report[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
Neo-Cons in Black Turbans, http://www.tblog.com/template...
U.S. Invasion of Iran Draws Closer, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Neo-Cons in Black Turbans ... |
| 12.15.04 (7:01 am) [edit] |
" Conservatives, rather than wringing our hands, must re-engage the debate [with the neo-cons to oppose their neo-imperial warmongers in the Middle East]. All is not lost. All is never lost." - Patrick J. Buchanan
[b]"We the People" should be alarmed by the terrifying (and dishonest) neo-fascist propaganda that the neo-cons in and out of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are disseminating over the right-wing airways ... They lust for never-ending warfare in the Middle East ... This neo-hiterlian aggression is insane, immoral and illegal ... What is more, it is catastrophic for the future of our nation ...[/b]
Not many neo-conservatives are descended from the Prophet Mohammed. But you wouldn’t know it from the way many neo-cons—and their puppet in the White House—are backing the Iraqi Shiites.
The black turbans, of course, are the Shiites (mostly clergy) who make the spurious claim that they are descended in a direct bloodline from the prophet himself. Now, unless they’ve hired the genealogical whizzes from the Mormons, it’s not likely that they can prove any such thing. But among the credulous faithful, it’s a big deal. One of those who makes that claim is Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Iranian-connected “Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.” You wouldn’t think that anyone whose party calls for “Islamic revolution” would be invited to the White House, but Hakim has cozied up with President Bush himself in the Oval Office. Hakim also loves to snuggle with Iranian ayatollahs, and his paramilitary praetorian guard, the Badr Brigades, were armed and trained since the 1980s by Iran’s Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard.
Lots to say on this today.
The[i] New York Times [/i]has a he-said, she-said page one article on Hakim today, raising some concerns about Hakim and then knocking them down. It’s a horrible article, full of contradictions and with little to none investigative content. (Where, oh where, have the investigative reporters gone?) One glaring contradiction, unremarked on, is that it quotes Ghazi Yawar, the president of Iraq, warning that more than a million people from Iran have crossed the border to vote in the election and than Iranian money and agents are being mobilized to tilt the vote. It then reports: “But American and Iraqi officials say that many of the migrants crossing the largely unmonitored border are Iraqi Shiite families that fled Saddam Hussein’s repression.” I would point out that Yawar, the president, is not so sanguine, and he counts as an Iraqi official.
In the [i]Washington Times [/i]today, Arnaud de Borchgrave, conservative but no neocon, says that Jordanian intelligence reports that three million Iranians have entered Iraq since 2003.
The [i]New York Times [/i]piece goes on to tell readers to relax—that Shiites in Iraq don’t like Iran, that they don’t believe clerics should run the government, and that there are bitter rivalries among them. (Indeed, Hakim’s brother was blown up last year in Iraq.) All true. Yet there is no question that a great Shiite fundamentalist power is arising in Iran, Iraq and surrounding areas, and it’s all happening with American support.
In yesterday’s [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute takes all this on in a piece called: “Will Iran Win the Iraq War?” The heart of Gerecht’s piece is this: That a Shiite power in Iraq will undermine the clergy’s rule in Iran, and is part of a needed Bush administration offensive against the hard-liners in Teheran. Quote: “Such a government supported by Iraq’s Shiite establishment is a dagger aimed at Teheran’s clerical dictatorship.”
This theory, now official doctrine for the neocons, is at the heart of their Iran strategy. It counts as second Big Mistake of the Iraq war. Big Mistake No. 1 was the neocon belief that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms—instead, they welcomed us with arms. Big Mistake No. 2, now taking shape, is that Iraq’s Shiites are Good Guys who will lead a pro-American Iraq against Iran’s “clerical dictatorship.” I believe that they really believe this. But the reality is that in a Shiite-dominated Iraq, the hard-liners and the people with guns (i.e., the Badr Brigades) will take over, and they will make common cause with some of the clergy in Iran. It will be a dagger all right, but one aimed at Saudi Arabia’s Sunni state. Of course, that too is part of the long-term Israeli-neocon strategy, to overthrow the Saudi king. It’s a regional regime-change strategy (one that includes Syria of course) and it has been central to their whole Middle East policy for a decade. It is also a fantasy, with a thousand possibilities for things to go terribly wrong. Big Mistake No. 1 led to the Iraqi insurgency. Big Mistake No. 2 could lead to a Middle East inflamed by Islamic revolution in spades.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Robert Dreyfuss, [i]The Dreyfuss Report[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
The Neocons Haven't Won Yet, by Patrick J. Buchanan, http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?a...
U.S. Invasion Of Iran Draws Closer, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Bush Monkey Portrait Sparks Protests ... |
| 12.14.04 (5:52 pm) [edit] |
"Good art can [u]not[/u] be immoral. By good art I mean art that bears true witness, I mean the art that is most precise." - Ezra Pound
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." - John Adams
[b]What this insane closure of an art exhibit in the wake of monstrous protests by neo-fascist thugs & neo-con goons shows is that [i]a chord has been struck [/i]in whatever remains of their criminal psyches ... That "We the People" don't want others to see what we don't choose to see ourselves, also shows how far we've fallen into a trap of bigotted, close-minded modern-day dictatorial 'group-think' ... Well done to Chris Savido for triggering a reaction showing us a mirror of our depraved culture led by a morally & intellectually deprived tyrant: Bush ...[/b]
A portrait of President George W. Bush using monkeys to form his image has led to the closure of a New York art exhibition over the weekend and anguished protests over freedom of expression.
"Bush Monkeys," a small acrylic on canvas by Chris Savido, created the stir at the Chelsea Market public space, leading the market's managers to close down the 60-piece show that was scheduled to stay up for the next month.
The show featured art from the upcoming issue of Animal Magazine, a quarterly publication featuring emerging artists.
"We had tons of people, like more than 2,000 people show up for the opening on Thursday night," said show organizer Bucky Turco. "Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."
Turco took the show down on Saturday and moved the art work to his small downtown Animal Gallery. Calls to the management of Chelsea Market for comment were not returned.
From afar, the painting offers a likeness of Bush, but when you get closer you see the image is made up of chimpanzees or monkeys swimming in a marsh.
Savido, 23, said he was surprised by the strong reaction to his painting, listed in the catalogue at $3,500 (1,820 pounds).
"It seems like people got a kick out of it," Savido said. "When they really see it, they almost do a double-take. I like to get a reaction from people."
The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-bred artist said he was happy for all the attention paid to his work but said the decision to shutter the exhibit was "a blatant act of censorship."
Savido plans to auction the painting and donate proceeds to an organization dedicated to freedom of expression.
"This is much deeper than art. This is fundamental American rights, freedom of speech," Savido said. "To see that something like this can happen, especially in a place like New York City is mind boggling and scary."
[b]Source:[/b]
Bush Monkey Portrait Sparks Protests, http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
|
|
|
| |
| ... U.S. Invasion Of Iran Draws Closer ... |
| 12.14.04 (1:53 pm) [edit] |
"War is a way of shattering to pieces...materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses... too intelligent." – George Orwell, "1984"
[b]"Will the newly energized President Bush interpret his narrow election win as public approval for his spaghetti Western-style shoot-’em-up foreign policy? Many neo-conservatives [inside and] outside the Bush administration have made noise about going after Iran. Could the swaggering sheriff be convinced by these pundits to take on the black-hatted mullahs of Iran? Let’s hope not; attacking Iran would be a bigger folly than invading Iraq." is the lede of a must-read editorial article entitled "Next Target: Iran?" http://www.antiwar.com/eland/... in which Ivan Eland poses the question that keeps us all on tender-hooks ... "We the People" must not let ourselves be fooled again by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]into another illegal and immoral war (outrageously) costing us http://www.tblog.com/template... the precious lives and treasure that is bankrupting our nation both morally and economically ...[/b]
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the US public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq.
With the US military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the US to attack Iran.
President Bush falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was linked to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, and that Iraq would give weapons of mass destruction to anti-American terrorists. Senior members of the Bush administration terrified the US public with prospects of mushroom clouds going up over US cities.
Having been proved 100% wrong about Iraq, the Bush administration now claims that the nonexistent WMD are in Iran, or maybe Syria. During recent weeks the Bush administration worked overtime to terrify the US public into believing that Iran is building nuclear weapons and missiles with which to destroy American cities.
To ward off yet another gratuitous and illegal US attack on a Muslim country, Europe, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and US experts such as Gordon Prather have exposed the Bush administration’s false claims.
But the Bush administration ignores factual truth. Bush has his own "truth," a delusional "truth" independent of all evidence.
Israel’s rightwing Likud Party regards Feith as one of its own. The[i] Jerusalem Post [/i]described Feith as "a staunch supporter of Israel" (Dec. 12). In an exclusive interview Feith told that paper that despite the intercession of Britain, France, Germany and the IAEA against a US attack on Iran, the Bush administration has not ruled out taking military action against Iran. [Feith to [i]'Post[/i]': US action against Iran can't be ruled out, By Caroline Glick]
In other words, the neocon Bush administration has already decided to attack Iran and Syria. The only question is what kind of lie can Bush use to get away with it.
But first Bush has to take over the IAEA, which has steadfastly refused to go along with Bush’s propaganda against Iran. According to the [i]Washington Post [/i](Dec. 12), the Bush administration has been tapping the telephones of the head of the IAEA, M. ElBaradei, hoping to find damaging information with which to frame, blackmail, or taint him as an Iranian ally.
Unable to find or to manufacture any evidence against ElBaradei, the Bush administration is using an orchestrated campaign of anonymous accusations in an effort to oust the IAEA director and to replace him with a US puppet.
The problem is that ElBaradei is more highly regarded than any member of the tainted Bush administration, including President Bush himself. So far Bush cannot find anyone anywhere in the world, including our British puppet, who is willing to be associated with the Bush administration’s disgraceful intentions.
The important unanswered question is: why do the neocons with their proven record of duplicity and delusion still hold the reigns of power in the Bush administration?
[b]Why isn’t Feith in prison?[/b]
Martha Stewart is in prison for "lying" about a noncrime. Feith’s lies have killed thousands. The Iraq war is based entirely on neocon lies. The war is costing the US a fortune it does not have. The war is producing US casualties comparable to those of the Vietnam War and has killed a minimum of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
The neocons have destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure, alienated the entire Muslim world and made the US the most hated country on the planet.
What does Douglas Feith think the effect would be on Shi’ite Iraq of a US attack on Shi’ite Iran? The only reason the US army in Iraq has not been totally destroyed is the wait-and-see attitude of the majority Shi’ites, who expect to take control of Iraq once there is an election. If the US attacks Iran, the Iraqi Shi’ite clerics will not be able to maintain their neutrality toward the US occupation of Iraq.
The current Iraqi insurgency is drawn from Sunni ranks. Sunnis comprise only 20% of Iraq’s population. Yet, Sunnis have tied down 8 US divisions while inflicting horrendous casualties on US troops. If Bush escalates US aggression in the Middle East, he will create a larger insurgency.
Imagine the US casualty rate if the Iraqi insurgency was drawn from 80% of the population. The temporary Shi’ite insurgency of the minor cleric, Al Sadr, caused tremendous US consternation. What would be the US casualty rate if, instead of sitting on their hands, all the Shi’ites had joined the insurgency?
Iran covers almost four times the area of Iraq and has more than 2.5 times the population. If Bush attacks Iran, he will create an insurgency there as well, one that could spill over into Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
Bush’s war is achieving a Shi’ite unity that will redraw Middle Eastern boundaries and eliminate secular Muslim governments. Shi’ite unity will merge with the anti-American terrorists and drive all Western expatriates out of the Middle East. Indeed, the departures are already underway. Israel will be isolated, exposed to the consequences of its aggression against the Palestinians.
Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio crazies misinform us that we are kicking terrorist butt, but in non-delusional reality, we are unifying Islam and ending forever Western influence in the Middle East.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Cost of Bush's Illegal & Immoral Iraq War:-- Black Hole, http://www.tblog.com/template...
War on Iran, http://www.tblog.com/template...
Next Target: Iran?, http://www.antiwar.com/eland/...
U.S. Invasion Of Iran Draws Closer, http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone...
Neo-Con Traitor:-- Bolton's War, http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Cost of Bush's Illegal & Immoral Iraq War:-- Black Hole ... |
| 12.14.04 (7:59 am) [edit] |
"A black hole is a region of spacetime from which nothing can escape, even light." - Definition of Black Hole, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/us...
[b]The extravagant costs in precious human lives and U.S. taxpayer dollars to uphold the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]illegal & immoral neo-con war in Iraq are truly tragic ... Nearly 1300 U.S. Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Afghanistani & Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered in a bungled neo-fascist adventure waged by the traitorous Bush whores based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods:-- to enrich their pimps, the corporate robber-barons (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.) ... There is no end in sight to the wanton & craven waste as human lives & U.S. taxpayer dollars are sucked into the neo-con Bush Crime Family's Corporate-Take-All Black Hole to enrich these neo-fascist crooks ... "We the People" should demand http://www.congress.org that War Criminal Bush be impeached from office and put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity ...[/b]
The [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]reports that "Pentagon officials...will ask the Bush administration for an additional $80 billion in emergency funding http://online.wsj.com/article...,,SB110298641161299184,00 .html?mod=politics%5Ffirst %5Felement%5Fhs to help pay costs of the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan." That request would push "the total military costs, since the Iraq war began, to well over $230 billion." The additional funding "comes on top of $25 billion that Congress approved in August to help tide the Pentagon over until it could make a larger supplemental request."
[b]Sources:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
Casualties in Iraq, http://antiwar.com/casualties...
Cost of War, http://www.costofwar.com
|
|
|
| |
| ... Bush's Miserable Failure in Iraq:-- Failure To Plan = Planning To Fail ... |
| 12.13.04 (2:06 pm) [edit] |
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious." ~ General Smedley Butler
[b]Whether or not one agreed with Bush's illegal (and immoral) invasion of Iraq, nobody with an iota of brain-matter could deny that the handling of the war has been swamped with corruption, arrogance, and sheer-and-utter incompetence ... "We the People" should demand that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the insane neo-con fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]be impeached http://www.congress.org ...[/b]
Eighteen months after President Bush declared major combat operations were over, soldiers, National Guardsmen and reservists lack essential equipment and armor to fight the war in Iraq. The U.S. Army announced Friday it would be increasing the production of armored Humvees for American troops in Iraq by 100 a month. The steps to boost production came "despite recent assertions from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that soldiers could not be supplied with safer vehicles because Pentagon officials could not procure them faster." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) offered blistering criticism of the Secretary yesterday, saying, "I don't like the way he has done some things. I think they have been irresponsible. I don't like the way we went into Iraq. We didn't go into Iraq with enough troops. He's dismissed his general officers. He's dismissed all outside influence. He's dismissed outside counsel and advice. And he's dismissed a lot of inside counsel and advice from men and women who have been in military uniforms for 25 and 30 years." Rumsfeld's "irresponsible" policies have led to the lethal equipment shortage. As a result, the country's citizen soldiers are paying the price.
[b]FAILURE TO PLAN MEANS LACK OF EQUIPMENT:[/b] Before the war, the White House was anxious to garner support from the American people for the invasion. As a result, the administration concentrated solely on a best-case scenario in which U.S. troops would be greeted by a grateful population and the conflict would end quickly with little expense or effort. As a result, the Army today doesn't have the equipment it needs. The Pentagon, for example, originally said it would need 235 armored Humvees in Iraq. In reality, it needs 8,105, or thirty-five times the amount it predicted before the war.
[b]RELUCTANCE TO PAY WORSENS SHORTAGE:[/b] President Bush last week told the families of men and women stationed in Iraq, "we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones.'' However, a front-page story in today's Washington Post tells a different story. At the Red River Army Depot, the facility which repairs Humvees, hundreds of damaged vehicles which are desperately needed in Iraq are just sitting around waiting to be repaired. According to officials at the repair facility, this isn't the fault of the depot. Instead, "the real bottleneck may lie in Washington." Said one manager, "We'd like to produce them all today so the soldiers have their equipment. But…the reality is, there isn't the funding."
[b]NATIONAL GUARD PAYING THE PRICE:[/b] One major complaint from National Guard troops in the field has been that they have worse training and equipment than their active-duty counterparts. A new report by USA Today shows the tragic consequences: "In a reversal of trends from past wars, part-time soldiers in the Army National Guard are about one-third more likely to be killed in Iraq than full-time active-duty soldiers serving there." The statistics bear this out: the active army has seen one death for every 402 soldiers deployed. The Army Guard, however, sees "one fatality for every 264 soldiers who have served, or about a 35% higher death rate." This is a dramatic shift from the past, when the part-time citizen's army was less at risk. In the first Gulf War, for example, the Army Guard suffered no fatalities.
[b]SOLDIERS PUNISHED FOR EQUIPMENT SHORTAGE:[/b] The Washington Post reports, "At a time when some U.S. troops in Iraq are complaining they have to scrounge for equipment," six reservists from Ohio are being court-martialed for taking abandoned Army vehicles for parts they needed to carry out their own mission in Iraq. The reservists, unable to deliver fuel in the vehicles they had been provided, "took two tractor-trailers and stripped parts from a five-ton truck that had been abandoned in Kuwait by units that had already moved into Iraq." In return, they've been "charged with theft, destruction of Army property." The military maintains that, after delivering the fuel, the reservists should have tracked down the trucks' original unit and returned the vehicles.
[b]PLATOON REFUSES, LIVES:[/b] In October, members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company were "disciplined and demoted" for refusing to carry out a highly risky mission with their inadequately protected vehicles. The unit which eventually did carry out the mission was, in fact, hit. One soldier on that mission, Sgt. Scott Montgomery, was wounded by shrapnel in the attack. "Had we not had armor on our vehicle," he said, "my entire crew would have been killed." He further charged, "If the 343rd Quartermaster unit had taken that convoy with unarmored vehicles, there would certainly have been more unnecessary deaths of U.S. soldiers."
[b]Sources:[/b]
The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o...
From USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/... : "In a reversal of trends from past wars, part-time soldiers in the Army National Guard are about one-third more likely to be killed in Iraq than full-time active-duty soldiers serving there, a USA TODAY analysis of Pentagon statistics shows.
"According to figures furnished by the military branches, the active Army has sent about 250,000 soldiers to Iraq, and 622 have been killed. That works out to one death for every 402 soldiers who have deployed. About 37,000 Army Guard soldiers have been sent to Iraq since the war began and 140 have died there — one fatality for every 264 soldiers who have served, or about a 35 percent higher death rate."
Another Iraq Exit Strategy, What is so strategic about leaving a place that [i]you[/i] hold hostage?, http://www.antiwar.com/jeremy...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Views of America, Bush from Abroad ... |
| 12.13.04 (8:06 am) [edit] |
"Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it." - Thomas Jefferson
[b]Bush and Cheney have wantonly squandered the good will that the entire world community showered upon us in the aftermath of 9/11 ... But, what is much, [i]much worse[/i], is that the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]has treated the world with disdain & contempt-- a world which had held the U.S. in high regard (even if other nations didn't always agree with us); and now the majority of people throughout the world have lost their faith, trust and respect for our corrupt & incompetent leadership ... "We the People" should be demanding the impeachment http://www.congress.org of Bush because he is a War Criminal who has committed heinous Crimes Against Humanity, and thereby, we can re-gain our role of the moral leader in the world community, showing that we indeed do hold the rule of law protecting Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness, above all else ... [/b]
[u][b]Europeans take dim view of Bush re-election[/b][/u]
President Bush’s re-election was viewed negatively by a majority of people in several European countries — including those in Britain, America’s strongest ally in the war in Iraq, Associated Press polling found.
The president was not the only one viewed unfavorably. Americans generally were seen in an unfavorable light by many in France, Germany and Spain, countries not supportive of U.S. Iraq policies.
Bush pledged soon after his re-election victory Nov. 2 that he would work to “deepen our trans-Atlantic ties with the nations of Europe.” He plans a trip to Europe in February.
The president, and Americans generally, have plenty of work to do to win over Europeans, according to international AP-Ipsos polls.
Polling in the United States as well as Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain was done for the AP by Ipsos, an international polling company.
[b]Negativity extends to Americans in general[/b]
As reflected by his re-election, a majority in the United States viewed Bush favorably. Just over half in this country said they were hopeful and were not disappointed after Bush’s re-election.
At least seven in 10 in France, Germany and Spain said they have an unfavorable view of the U.S. president. Just over half of the French and Germans said they have an unfavorable view of Americans in general, and about half of Spaniards felt that way.
Especially inclined to have an unfavorable opinion of Bush in those countries were people between ages 18 and 24. A majority of all respondents in France, Germany and Spain said they were disappointed that Bush won a second four-year term, defeating Democrat John Kerry.
The rift with longtime allies France and Germany is the most serious in years, and relations with Spain are particularly frosty after Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq last April.
“Contrary to what usually happens just after a victory, George W. Bush’s re-election hasn’t improved his image in European public opinion,” said Gilles Corman, director of public affairs for Ipsos-Inra in Belgium.
The polls suggest an increasing lack of understanding about Americans in Europe, rather than a surge of anti-Americanism, said Corman, who studies public opinion trends in Europe.
[b]‘Disappointment and surprise’[/b]
“The predominant feelings about Bush’s re-election in the European countries are disappointment and surprise more than anger,” he said, noting that anger about Bush’s re-election was higher in Spain.
“Above all, they appear to be worried about the consequences of this election,” Corman said.
Polling found that Bush is viewed favorably by a majority of people in the United States. But that is not the case in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
A majority of people in Britain, America’s strongest ally in the Iraq war, have an unfavorable view of Bush. Six in 10 Britons said they were disappointed he was re-elected.
In Canada, about the same number of Canadians said they were disappointed with the re-election. The president was asked last month during a trip to Canada about various polls that show Canadians and Americans drifting apart.
“We just had a poll in our country where people decided that the foreign policy of the Bush administration ought to — stay in place for four more years,” he replied.
While just over half of the people in France, Germany and Spain had an unfavorable view of Americans, but a solid majority in Australia (69 percent), Britain (60 percent), Canada (80 percent) and Italy (56 percent) expressed a favorable opinion.
[b]War allies have brighter view[/b]
Australia, Britain and Italy are U.S. allies in the Iraq war. Canada did not send troops to support the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq but did send them to Afghanistan.
“The negative view that Canadians have of George Bush does not extend to Americans in general,” said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos-Reid Public Affairs-North America.
In Australia, seven in 10 surveyed had a favorable view of Americans; four in 10 had a positive impression of Bush. He got favorable reviews from more Australians than from those in any other country polled aside from the United States.
Randall Pearce, general manager of Ipsos Mackay Public Affairs, said Prime Minister John Howard’s public backing of Bush appeared to help the president. A majority of Howard’s supporters had a favorable view of Bush.
[b]Sources:[/b]
The AP-Ipsos polls of about 1,000 adults in each country were taken between Nov. 19-27 and have margins of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points., http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...
Americans suffer European sticker shock, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...
Britons flock to the U.S. for holiday deals, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...
|
|
|
| |
| ... War on Iran ... |
| 12.13.04 (6:48 am) [edit] |
"Today the real test of power is not capacity to make war but capacity to prevent it." - Anne O'Hare McCormick
[b]Iran is a nation that comprises 68 million people (approximately 3 times the population of Iraq) and is 636,293 square miles in land mass (nearly 4 times the size of Iraq) -- and the insane neo-con fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are now [i]beating the war drums [/i]to invade Iran!!! ... The U.S. military is over-stretched in Iraq[i] already[/i], and[i] that [/i]illegal and immoral war has been badly (criminally) bungled by the same incompetents, corrupt buffoons and arm-chair chicken-hawks howling for more warfare in the Middle East ... Yet, there is no legal, moral and/or ethical basis for war with Iran ... Are "We the People" going to fall for the same neo-con lies, deceptions and falsehoods perpetrated by the traitorous Bush regime as they cravenly proceed towards Armageddon??? ...[/b]
Amid all the talk about the supposed crisis in Iran, I haven’t heard anyone say what the legal basis would be for an attack on Iran. Is there any? Is there an international lawyer in the house?
My guess is: No. The invasion of Iraq was the [i]de facto [/i]implementation of the Bush administration’s preventive/pre-emptive war policy. But the neocons cooked up a legal justification, based on Iraq’s supposed violations of UN Security Council resolutions. (I personally interviewed the general counsel of the U.S. NSC about this, and listened in amazement as he spun the tale of how spurious Iraqi violations meant that the United States could invade Iraq in defiance of international law.)
Is this why the neocons are so hot to get the Iran nuclear issue to the UN? Usually they attack the UN lustily, but now they are pushing the issue there. Is it because they are seeking some vaguely worded UN resolution that they can use to invade or bomb Iran? As far as I can tell, Iran has every right in the world to develop nuclear weapons, since last time I checked it was a sovereign nation. We can be mad about it, but I don’t there is the slightest legal justification for an attack.
Of course, that doesn’t stop Bush and the denizens of Neocon World. Here’s the entire text of a UPI release http://interestalert.com/bran...%20News today:
... "WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- The U.S. Defense Department reportedly held simulations to determine the effectiveness of an attack on Iran, the Middle East Newsline reported Sunday.
The [i]Atlantic Monthly[/i] revealed the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The war games also included a ground invasion." ...
A silly piece in the [i]New Republic[/i]—a cover story no less—by Franklin Foer, purports to be an account of how the neocons are divided about how to deal with Iran. Maybe they haven’t settled on a specific plan yet (though the outlines are pretty clear), but Foer goes on and on about some supposed big division among them. Perhaps Foer ought to interview the neocons that run the [i]New Republic [/i]first.
As the [i]Times[/i] reported over the weekend, the United States (led by neocon-in-chief at the State Department John Bolton) and Europe are still at loggerheads over Iran, with the United States still trying to undermine the deal that Europe is trying to consolidate with Teheran. The article included this stunner http://www.iht.com/articles/2... :
... "U.S. officials say, however, they are suspicious of any partial deals that do not encompass an end to Iran’s support of insurgents in Iran and to groups that carry out attacks on Israeli citizens, including Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and militant factions within the Palestine Liberation Organization." ...
Huh? So it’s not enough to get Iran’s agreement to slow down its nuclear program, but Washington wants Iran to change its whole foreign policy and to bail out the United States’ bungled war in Iraq? Including a poison pill like this is obviously designed to scuttle an agreement.
[b]Sources:[/b]
Robert Dreyfuss,[i] The Dreyfuss Report[/i], TomPaine, http://www.tompaine.com
War Against Iran Would (They Think) Take Our Minds off Disaster in Iraq, http://www.commondreams.org/v...
Preemptive Strikes Will Not Disarm Iran, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/b...
|
|
|
| |
| ... Truth And Cowardice ... |
| 12.12.04 (3:05 pm) [edit] |
"The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." - Martin Luther King, Jr
[b]"Instead of democracy, U.S. policies have generated mistrust, hostility, and opposition, compounding the sense of degradation, indignity, and humiliation often found in the Islamic world. Both standing governments and legitimate opposition movements in these countries have come to see U.S. policies as a major obstacle to homegrown efforts to promote political reform. In the Islamic world, close association with the United States has become a kiss of death – figuratively and literally." says Ronald Bruce St. John in his excellent article entitled "Iraq Blowback Is Global and Growing" on http://www.antiwar.com/orig/s... ... "We the People" should demand an end to this insane neo-hitlerian war in Iraq waged by the neo-fascist Bush regime populated by neo-con thugs very similar indeed to the Nazi ideologues who promoted an imperial doctrine in Germany, in the late 1930s/early 1940s, resulting in death and destruction [i]too[/i] ... [/b]
[u][b]No Apologies For Dissent: Truth And Cowardice[/b][/u]
My November 23rd article "Loves, Hates, Kills, Dies," about an episode of fawning imperial war journalism at Time Magazine (see http://blog.zmag.org/index.ph... weblog/entry/loves _hates_kills_dies), continues to evoke angry resp | |
