Sunday, June 29, 2003
George Bush's short list for the replacement of EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. suddenly got shorter. Linda Fisher, the deputy administrator of the EPA, was being considered for the position by Bush, but, she also submitted her resignation. Fisher told President Bush in her resignation letter that she planned to step down July 11.
Questions arise over which issues caused the resignations. When one person from a department leaves, well, I guess that just happens sometimes, but when two people from the same department resign one right after another; it is more than coincidence. So what is the story?
Could it have been the White House mandated revision of the global warming report?
Was there an issue with the White House directing a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, which removed all references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures? According to an April 29 EPA staff memo, The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.
Could it have been the Bush administration's reversal of Clinton's effort to protect the national forests? The protections had covered 58.5 million acres of federal forest, nearly one-third of all national forest land.
The Bush administration said that it will exempt the nation's largest national forest from rules banning road construction, logging and other development. Rule making to implement the change would begin by early fall. One eventual net result could be intensive logging on 300,000 acres in the 17 million-acre forest in southeast Alaska. Administration officials also said that in addition to waiving the rules for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, they will propose allowing governors to ask for exemptions from the conservation rule in other states.
Could it have been Bush's arrogance involving needed safeguards for genetically altered food?
Was it the significant potential of another billion dollar fiasco regarding another genetically developed animal food crop, which could be accidentally enter the human food chain, Could we have another StarLink corn disaster?
Back in 2000, a genetically modified corn called StarLink was developed to resist insects. It had built in insecticide. It was approved as animal feed, however some of it, actually a lot of it was mixed in with corn, meant for human consumption. StarLink was not designed for human consumption and scientists had concerns that StarLink corn could trigger potentially dangerous allergic responses in humans.
A massive recall went into effect. One company, Western Family Foods, had StarLink in their products. They marketed 6,400 products under a variety of labels. The products were distributed to more than 3,500 stores in 23 states and overseas.
Kraft also mistakenly sold some of the contaminated corn to grocery stores under the Taco Bell name. StarLink was also found in Taco shells produced by Mission Foods Inc. and they accidentally distributed it under various house brand names, including Safeway.
The EPA had not conducted long term studies of the potential health and environmental problems that may be associated with this revolutionary new product. By the way, Aventis CropScience of Triangle Research Park, N.C., admitted it could not account for 9 million bushels of StarLink, about 12 percent of the crop. This all happened in 2000, but there are still ripples from that event today.
Recently, more corn was genetically engineered so it won't contain molds. It is known as Bt corn, Initial tests have indicated, however, that it contains the mold fusarium, which can sicken animals and humans. There is also risk of another more significant side effect, sterilizaton. Agriculture Department researchers suspected some Iowa cattle and hogs became sterile after eating the potentially moldy corn. Jerry Rosman, a farmer who operates Rolling R Farms in Harlan, Iowa fed his pigs the modified corn. The sows appeared to be pregnant but produced no litters. He destroyed the herd, Midwestern farmers and some veterinarians have come forward, saying they saw reproductivity drop in hog and cattle herds because of the grain.
This new genetically modified corn has all the potential of being introduced into the food chain that StarLink had. That would be an even more costly replay of the StarLink scare . Recovery efforts from that disaster cost the food and farming industry billions of dollars.
There are other EPA disasters that could have caused those resignations as well; emission standards, clean water acts, the list goes on and on. Maybe it was all of them.
Who will lead the EPA now?
A major part of the Bush administration's selection process, seems to be the candidate's support for "message discipline". The success of cabinet members, seems, to hinge on how well they broadcast policies received whole from the White House. They are not to pass on or create or involve themselves in developing any of their own guidance. When Paul O'Neill was fired from his post as Treasury Secretary last year, it didn't take a political scientist to predict the qualities that his successor would have: consistency, loyalty and message discipline. They do not need to really serve the country, they have to serve the President.
I didn't know Bush was an expert on EPA matters, I thought his expertise only lay in foreign affairs.
He obviously has the power and the ability to deceive the country on the Iraq war, he can use those same skills and lots of campaign money, to deceive the country on how well he is handling the environment too.
Sources Cited:
Emily Gersema
MMII The Associated Press.
AP Online
Unapproved Corn Variety Found Again
Phillip Brasher
United Press International
October 25, 2000,
Third brand of taco shells contains StarLink
Marcella S. Kreiter Chicago
Bernard Sanders
Member of Congress
Miguel Llanos
MSNBC
ERIC ROSTON USA TODAY
Tom Kenworthy USA TODAY
H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Questions arise over which issues caused the resignations. When one person from a department leaves, well, I guess that just happens sometimes, but when two people from the same department resign one right after another; it is more than coincidence. So what is the story?
Could it have been the White House mandated revision of the global warming report?
Was there an issue with the White House directing a major rewrite of an assessment of climate change, which removed all references to health and environmental risks posed by rising global temperatures? According to an April 29 EPA staff memo, The changes demanded by the White House were so extensive that the climate section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," It characterized the revised draft as an embarrassment to the agency.
Could it have been the Bush administration's reversal of Clinton's effort to protect the national forests? The protections had covered 58.5 million acres of federal forest, nearly one-third of all national forest land.
The Bush administration said that it will exempt the nation's largest national forest from rules banning road construction, logging and other development. Rule making to implement the change would begin by early fall. One eventual net result could be intensive logging on 300,000 acres in the 17 million-acre forest in southeast Alaska. Administration officials also said that in addition to waiving the rules for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, they will propose allowing governors to ask for exemptions from the conservation rule in other states.
Could it have been Bush's arrogance involving needed safeguards for genetically altered food?
Was it the significant potential of another billion dollar fiasco regarding another genetically developed animal food crop, which could be accidentally enter the human food chain, Could we have another StarLink corn disaster?
Back in 2000, a genetically modified corn called StarLink was developed to resist insects. It had built in insecticide. It was approved as animal feed, however some of it, actually a lot of it was mixed in with corn, meant for human consumption. StarLink was not designed for human consumption and scientists had concerns that StarLink corn could trigger potentially dangerous allergic responses in humans.
A massive recall went into effect. One company, Western Family Foods, had StarLink in their products. They marketed 6,400 products under a variety of labels. The products were distributed to more than 3,500 stores in 23 states and overseas.
Kraft also mistakenly sold some of the contaminated corn to grocery stores under the Taco Bell name. StarLink was also found in Taco shells produced by Mission Foods Inc. and they accidentally distributed it under various house brand names, including Safeway.
The EPA had not conducted long term studies of the potential health and environmental problems that may be associated with this revolutionary new product. By the way, Aventis CropScience of Triangle Research Park, N.C., admitted it could not account for 9 million bushels of StarLink, about 12 percent of the crop. This all happened in 2000, but there are still ripples from that event today.
Recently, more corn was genetically engineered so it won't contain molds. It is known as Bt corn, Initial tests have indicated, however, that it contains the mold fusarium, which can sicken animals and humans. There is also risk of another more significant side effect, sterilizaton. Agriculture Department researchers suspected some Iowa cattle and hogs became sterile after eating the potentially moldy corn. Jerry Rosman, a farmer who operates Rolling R Farms in Harlan, Iowa fed his pigs the modified corn. The sows appeared to be pregnant but produced no litters. He destroyed the herd, Midwestern farmers and some veterinarians have come forward, saying they saw reproductivity drop in hog and cattle herds because of the grain.
This new genetically modified corn has all the potential of being introduced into the food chain that StarLink had. That would be an even more costly replay of the StarLink scare . Recovery efforts from that disaster cost the food and farming industry billions of dollars.
There are other EPA disasters that could have caused those resignations as well; emission standards, clean water acts, the list goes on and on. Maybe it was all of them.
Who will lead the EPA now?
A major part of the Bush administration's selection process, seems to be the candidate's support for "message discipline". The success of cabinet members, seems, to hinge on how well they broadcast policies received whole from the White House. They are not to pass on or create or involve themselves in developing any of their own guidance. When Paul O'Neill was fired from his post as Treasury Secretary last year, it didn't take a political scientist to predict the qualities that his successor would have: consistency, loyalty and message discipline. They do not need to really serve the country, they have to serve the President.
I didn't know Bush was an expert on EPA matters, I thought his expertise only lay in foreign affairs.
He obviously has the power and the ability to deceive the country on the Iraq war, he can use those same skills and lots of campaign money, to deceive the country on how well he is handling the environment too.
Sources Cited:
Emily Gersema
MMII The Associated Press.
AP Online
Unapproved Corn Variety Found Again
Phillip Brasher
United Press International
October 25, 2000,
Third brand of taco shells contains StarLink
Marcella S. Kreiter Chicago
Bernard Sanders
Member of Congress
Miguel Llanos
MSNBC
ERIC ROSTON USA TODAY
Tom Kenworthy USA TODAY
H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
# posted by Thomas @ 12:41 AM 
Friday, June 27, 2003
Blair is in major trouble so the United States is going to give him a medal.
The Press has been unmerciful in their pursuit of Tony Blair's real involvement with the manipulation of information he used to get the public to support England's involvement in the Iraq War.
The House of Representatives recently agreed to award the Congressional Gold Medal to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The House resolution, passed by a voice vote. It was stated that he is a staunch and steadfast ally of the United States.
Blair would be the first British leader to receive Congress' most prestigious award since Sir Winston Churchill was honored posthumously in 1969. The Senate already has approved giving Blair the medal.
With the medal, Congress was "perhaps trying to influence the outcome of some very serious investigations going on in Britain," said Representative Jim McDermott, an opponent of the war. ``We are trying to prop up Mr. Blair."
Since it was first given to George Washington in 1776, the Congressional Gold Medal has been bestowed on some 300 people, including Thomas Edison, Irving Berlin, Bob Hope, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul.
This medal may be the last thing Tony needs right now. Have you ever worked in a company where an "employee of the week" program is run? The "employee of the week" gets a ton of shit for it.
He is already being seen as a Bush lackey. So the Medal will just emphasis the approval of his "master". It will stir up the issue of how Tony and England are subject to Bush and his policies.
It just goes to show you, that supporting George Bush may cost you, especially if you decide to follow him blindly.
Sources Cited:
BBC
The Press has been unmerciful in their pursuit of Tony Blair's real involvement with the manipulation of information he used to get the public to support England's involvement in the Iraq War.
The House of Representatives recently agreed to award the Congressional Gold Medal to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The House resolution, passed by a voice vote. It was stated that he is a staunch and steadfast ally of the United States.
Blair would be the first British leader to receive Congress' most prestigious award since Sir Winston Churchill was honored posthumously in 1969. The Senate already has approved giving Blair the medal.
With the medal, Congress was "perhaps trying to influence the outcome of some very serious investigations going on in Britain," said Representative Jim McDermott, an opponent of the war. ``We are trying to prop up Mr. Blair."
Since it was first given to George Washington in 1776, the Congressional Gold Medal has been bestowed on some 300 people, including Thomas Edison, Irving Berlin, Bob Hope, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul.
This medal may be the last thing Tony needs right now. Have you ever worked in a company where an "employee of the week" program is run? The "employee of the week" gets a ton of shit for it.
He is already being seen as a Bush lackey. So the Medal will just emphasis the approval of his "master". It will stir up the issue of how Tony and England are subject to Bush and his policies.
It just goes to show you, that supporting George Bush may cost you, especially if you decide to follow him blindly.
Sources Cited:
BBC
# posted by Thomas @ 12:15 AM
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
I have often heard that you are judged by the company you keep. It is one of those time worn phrases that almost every parent uses at one time or another. You are also judged by the people you hire. Like it or not, they are a reflection of you your biases. your values.
Alberto R. Gonzales is a Harvard-educated lawyer that went on to become the Texas secretary of state and a justice on the Texas supreme court. He became the legal counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. He is now the White House counsel, and widely regarded as a likely future Supreme Court nominee.
One of the legal counsel's major responsibilities was to prepared very important memorandums for Governor Bush prior to each scheduled execution of an inmate from death row. These summaries were Bush's primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die.
Each summary was only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant's personal background, and a condensed legal history. Governor George W. Bush signs his name to the confidential memorandum, and placed a bold black check mark next to a single word: DENY when the execution was ordered to take place.
A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.
Gonzales never intended his summaries to be made public. Almost all are marked CONFIDENTIAL and state, "The privileges claimed include, but are not limited to, claims of Attorney-Client Privilege, Attorney Work-Product Privilege, and the Internal Memorandum exception to the Texas Public Information Act." Summaries and related documents were obtained, which have never been published. They were made public after the Texas attorney general ruled that they were not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Public Information Act.
The Gonzales's summaries all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, then there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes.
The recent release of 12 inmates from Tulia a town about 65 miles north of Lubbock seems to contradict all of that.
These 12 people were arrested and accused of possessing cocaine following an 18-month undercover operation by Tom Coleman. Coleman claimed he bought drugs from the defendants during the investigation in which he worked alone and used no audio or video surveillance. No drugs or money were found during the arrests. His word was the sole reason for all of the convictions. The bust drew national attention and led to investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Texas Attorney General's Office. Swisher County Jail released the 12 pending a ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In late April, Coleman was indicted on three charges of aggravated perjury stemming from his testimony during the hearings, which Chapman oversaw. I guess it could be said that Coleman was not a credible witness under oath. The appeals court are looking into overturning the convictions of all 38 people prosecuted and new trials were ordered. The fault goes beyond just one rogue cop. The issue also involves the district attorney and Coleman's supervisors in the Swisher County Sheriff's Department and the Panhandle Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force. They should be thankful that Bush and Gonzales have moved on.
Back to death row executions by Gonzales and Bush in Texas
There were many questionable expert medical witnesses which some Texas prosecutors used in these cases. Take the example of Stoker, Ralph Erdmann, a doctor who had relinquished his medical license in 1994 after pleading no contest to seven felonies tied to falsified evidence and botched autopsies. A special prosecutor's investigation of Erdmann concluded that he falsified evidence in at least thirty cases in support of prosecutors. All this information was in the public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his memorandum to Bush.
James Grigson, a psychiatrist who often testified for the prosecution, had on occasion even failed to examine patients and claimed they were sociopaths without even examining them. His expert testimony has helped send dozens of men to death row, earning him the nickname Dr. Death. He had been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association two years before the Stoker case was reviewed by Gonzales and Bush. His testimony had repeatedly been found to be unethical. All this information was in the public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his memorandums to Bush.
Stephen Latimer, who represented one death row inmate received a call from Gonzales's office about a week to ten days before the execution, advising him that there would be no reprieve. The timing is significant, because Gonzales's execution summary is dated June 16, 1997, the day of his client's execution. The decision had been made a week or more before Bush even read the summary,
The handling of this clemency appeal was not unusual. Consider the case of Billy Conn Gardner, whose death-penalty case was plagued by issues of incompetent counsel, dubious witness testimony, and unheard mitigating evidence. Gonzales's report to Bush gave no sense of these circumstances. And there were some pretty significant facts missing from Gonzales's memo on his case as well. Critical information, was received, only after the prosecutors threatened to bring other charges against one Melvin Sanders, who then fingered Gardner as the murderer in the case. In exchange for this testimony Sanders received complete immunity from prosecution for the murder and probation for pending forgery and firearms charges. All this information was in the public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his memorandums to Bush.
During Bush's six years as governor, he placed many bold black check marks on those summaries and 150 men and women went to their deaths. Bush set an american record for executions, ordered by a governor.
Gonzales and Bush did not consider mental illness or incompetence, childhood physical or sexual abuse, remorse, rehabilitation, racial discrimination in jury selection, the competence of the legal defense, or disparities in sentences between co-defendants or among defendants convicted of similar crimes.
Compassion and mercy are critical to the idea of clemency, and it has been central to the Supreme court which goes back to 1855. Neither compassion or mercy, are acknowledged as being of any account in Bush and Gonzales's review of summaries.
In his autobiography,"A Charge to Keep" George Bush says, that everyone had "a fair hearing and full access to the courts". This apparently means nothing more than that a case had received some sort of legal attention at all state and federal levels
Well, a lot of people don't seem to care and Americans still support the death penalty in large numbers despite an awareness that innocent people are executed. Gallup's most recent polls also find that seventy-three percent of Americans "believe an innocent person has been executed under the death penalty in the last five years.
So, the question of how many innocent people did Bush and Gonzalez kill is mute, but the process they followed is very telling, especially when you apply those same traits when it comes to Guantanimo prisoners, people being held without counsel, secret government court trials, domestic and foreign policy decisions. Hang em high George, let Jesus sort them out.
Sources Cited:
The Atlantic Monthly
Alan Berlow
JOHN W. DEAN
Alberto R. Gonzales is a Harvard-educated lawyer that went on to become the Texas secretary of state and a justice on the Texas supreme court. He became the legal counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. He is now the White House counsel, and widely regarded as a likely future Supreme Court nominee.
One of the legal counsel's major responsibilities was to prepared very important memorandums for Governor Bush prior to each scheduled execution of an inmate from death row. These summaries were Bush's primary source of information in deciding whether someone would live or die.
Each summary was only three to seven pages long and generally consists of little more than a brief description of the crime, a paragraph or two on the defendant's personal background, and a condensed legal history. Governor George W. Bush signs his name to the confidential memorandum, and placed a bold black check mark next to a single word: DENY when the execution was ordered to take place.
A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.
Gonzales never intended his summaries to be made public. Almost all are marked CONFIDENTIAL and state, "The privileges claimed include, but are not limited to, claims of Attorney-Client Privilege, Attorney Work-Product Privilege, and the Internal Memorandum exception to the Texas Public Information Act." Summaries and related documents were obtained, which have never been published. They were made public after the Texas attorney general ruled that they were not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Public Information Act.
The Gonzales's summaries all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, then there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes.
The recent release of 12 inmates from Tulia a town about 65 miles north of Lubbock seems to contradict all of that.
These 12 people were arrested and accused of possessing cocaine following an 18-month undercover operation by Tom Coleman. Coleman claimed he bought drugs from the defendants during the investigation in which he worked alone and used no audio or video surveillance. No drugs or money were found during the arrests. His word was the sole reason for all of the convictions. The bust drew national attention and led to investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Texas Attorney General's Office. Swisher County Jail released the 12 pending a ruling by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In late April, Coleman was indicted on three charges of aggravated perjury stemming from his testimony during the hearings, which Chapman oversaw. I guess it could be said that Coleman was not a credible witness under oath. The appeals court are looking into overturning the convictions of all 38 people prosecuted and new trials were ordered. The fault goes beyond just one rogue cop. The issue also involves the district attorney and Coleman's supervisors in the Swisher County Sheriff's Department and the Panhandle Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force. They should be thankful that Bush and Gonzales have moved on.
Back to death row executions by Gonzales and Bush in Texas
There were many questionable expert medical witnesses which some Texas prosecutors used in these cases. Take the example of Stoker, Ralph Erdmann, a doctor who had relinquished his medical license in 1994 after pleading no contest to seven felonies tied to falsified evidence and botched autopsies. A special prosecutor's investigation of Erdmann concluded that he falsified evidence in at least thirty cases in support of prosecutors. All this information was in the public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his memorandum to Bush.
James Grigson, a psychiatrist who often testified for the prosecution, had on occasion even failed to examine patients and claimed they were sociopaths without even examining them. His expert testimony has helped send dozens of men to death row, earning him the nickname Dr. Death. He had been expelled from the American Psychiatric Association two years before the Stoker case was reviewed by Gonzales and Bush. His testimony had repeatedly been found to be unethical. All this information was in the public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his memorandums to Bush.
Stephen Latimer, who represented one death row inmate received a call from Gonzales's office about a week to ten days before the execution, advising him that there would be no reprieve. The timing is significant, because Gonzales's execution summary is dated June 16, 1997, the day of his client's execution. The decision had been made a week or more before Bush even read the summary,
The handling of this clemency appeal was not unusual. Consider the case of Billy Conn Gardner, whose death-penalty case was plagued by issues of incompetent counsel, dubious witness testimony, and unheard mitigating evidence. Gonzales's report to Bush gave no sense of these circumstances. And there were some pretty significant facts missing from Gonzales's memo on his case as well. Critical information, was received, only after the prosecutors threatened to bring other charges against one Melvin Sanders, who then fingered Gardner as the murderer in the case. In exchange for this testimony Sanders received complete immunity from prosecution for the murder and probation for pending forgery and firearms charges. All this information was in the public record, yet Gonzales mentioned none of it in his memorandums to Bush.
During Bush's six years as governor, he placed many bold black check marks on those summaries and 150 men and women went to their deaths. Bush set an american record for executions, ordered by a governor.
Gonzales and Bush did not consider mental illness or incompetence, childhood physical or sexual abuse, remorse, rehabilitation, racial discrimination in jury selection, the competence of the legal defense, or disparities in sentences between co-defendants or among defendants convicted of similar crimes.
Compassion and mercy are critical to the idea of clemency, and it has been central to the Supreme court which goes back to 1855. Neither compassion or mercy, are acknowledged as being of any account in Bush and Gonzales's review of summaries.
In his autobiography,"A Charge to Keep" George Bush says, that everyone had "a fair hearing and full access to the courts". This apparently means nothing more than that a case had received some sort of legal attention at all state and federal levels
Well, a lot of people don't seem to care and Americans still support the death penalty in large numbers despite an awareness that innocent people are executed. Gallup's most recent polls also find that seventy-three percent of Americans "believe an innocent person has been executed under the death penalty in the last five years.
So, the question of how many innocent people did Bush and Gonzalez kill is mute, but the process they followed is very telling, especially when you apply those same traits when it comes to Guantanimo prisoners, people being held without counsel, secret government court trials, domestic and foreign policy decisions. Hang em high George, let Jesus sort them out.
Sources Cited:
The Atlantic Monthly
Alan Berlow
JOHN W. DEAN
# posted by Thomas @ 10:40 PM
Friday, June 20, 2003
It looks like Tony will take the hit.
Last month, President Bush startled observers by saying on Polish TV: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories . . . . And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
Bush was referring to two mobile units that the CIA had concluded were designed to manufacture biological substances. George's speech writer creatively managed the phrases "manufacturing devices or banned weapons" in one sentence, his comments nicely fuzzed up what he meant by saying, "We found them."
An official British investigation into the two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded that they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush. They were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, just like the Iraqis have been saying all along.
This is one more very big embarrassment for Tony Blair, who supported George Bush's claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.
The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons is especially embarrassing for Tony Blair, because Iraqi's so called "mobil weapons labs" were sold to Iraq, by the British company, Marconi Command & Control to make hydrogen for weather balloons.
Al Capone has been rumored to have said "It pays to have a judge in your pocket". The Bush presidency has expounded on that saying, in a huge way. He controls the Senate, the House, the Justice department and the Intelligence agencies. He has such a stranglehold, on our judicial process that he can determine the kind of investigation that can take place. So, the question over how much he knew prior to invading Iraq is mute. The question is, does Tony have as many judges in his pocket as George?
Many of the lies, and maybe Bush's presidency may start to unravel. It will begin off the American coast, beyond Bush's neo-con's long arm of control; England's judiciary system.
According to some British publications, the Iraq war is the most important "defining moment" in British history since the Suez War of 1956. It is even possible Prime Minister Tony Blair will eventually be forced to resign, just as Anthony Eden resigned after the Suez debacle. The former Labour cabinet minister Lord Dennis Healy has said Blair should resign if he is shown to have been wrong over weapons of mass destruction.
The controversy over the war on Iraq is intensifying daily, particularly with the failure so far of the coalition forces to find weapons of mass destruction. Former foreign minister Robin Cook, who resigned from his cabinet position as leader of the House of Commons in protest at the war, has said the government clearly sent troops into battle on the basis "of a mistake" and that it had committed a "monumental blunder."
There are growing suspicions that the British and U.S. governments manipulated and exaggerated the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war.
The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is of particular significance in Britain. The idea of going to war was very unpopular among the public as shown by the anti-war demonstrations by around 1.5 million people in London on February 15, the biggest demonstration in Britain's history.
Blair stated that the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was his main justification for going to war. Weapons of mass destruction were also the basis on which the attorney general advised the government that the war was legal.
Blair won, the parliamentary vote on going to war, which followed the debate on 18 March.
139 Labour members of parliament voting against the motion. Some Labour members who had opposed war decided to support the government in the vote because of the evidence Blair presented on weapons of mass destruction. It has been said that many of those that voted for the war now feel betrayed and regret supporting the war.
The war has damaged Britain's standing in the Middle East.
The stakes over Iraq are very high, for Blair; he has gambled his political future on it. His credibility is being damaged by current allegations over the intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction, newspaper articles. There are already daily cartoons in the papers, portraying him as being untrustworthy. This is extremely serious, if Blair loses the trust of many in his own party, and among the public, no one will believe anything he and his government tells them, and he may be out of a job.
There will be investigations by two committees in parliament - the intelligence and security committee, and the other by Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee has asked both Blair and his powerful director of strategy and communications Alastair Campbell to give evidence, but they appear to have refused to do so. This refusal is seen as arrogant and as strengthening the impression that they have something to hide.
The Conservatives are calling for an independent enquiry and backed a motion from the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons calling for an independent judicial enquiry, but the motion was defeated by 301 votes to 203.
Blair faces a growing chorus of attacks from Labour members of parliament and from former members of the government who resigned over Iraq. A number of junior ministers joined Robin Cook in resigning before the war, and on 12 May Clare Short, the former secretary of state for International Development, resigned. She has launched a series of allegations against Blair, including that he secretly agreed with Bush at their meeting at Camp David last September to go to war, something Blair has strongly denied.
There are more and more people asking for answers. My money is on the British people. They will draw first blood, the Bush administration may get a glancing blow.
Perhaps it will only take a glancing blow to wake the American people up.
Last month, President Bush startled observers by saying on Polish TV: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories . . . . And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
Bush was referring to two mobile units that the CIA had concluded were designed to manufacture biological substances. George's speech writer creatively managed the phrases "manufacturing devices or banned weapons" in one sentence, his comments nicely fuzzed up what he meant by saying, "We found them."
An official British investigation into the two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded that they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush. They were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, just like the Iraqis have been saying all along.
This is one more very big embarrassment for Tony Blair, who supported George Bush's claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.
The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons is especially embarrassing for Tony Blair, because Iraqi's so called "mobil weapons labs" were sold to Iraq, by the British company, Marconi Command & Control to make hydrogen for weather balloons.
Al Capone has been rumored to have said "It pays to have a judge in your pocket". The Bush presidency has expounded on that saying, in a huge way. He controls the Senate, the House, the Justice department and the Intelligence agencies. He has such a stranglehold, on our judicial process that he can determine the kind of investigation that can take place. So, the question over how much he knew prior to invading Iraq is mute. The question is, does Tony have as many judges in his pocket as George?
Many of the lies, and maybe Bush's presidency may start to unravel. It will begin off the American coast, beyond Bush's neo-con's long arm of control; England's judiciary system.
According to some British publications, the Iraq war is the most important "defining moment" in British history since the Suez War of 1956. It is even possible Prime Minister Tony Blair will eventually be forced to resign, just as Anthony Eden resigned after the Suez debacle. The former Labour cabinet minister Lord Dennis Healy has said Blair should resign if he is shown to have been wrong over weapons of mass destruction.
The controversy over the war on Iraq is intensifying daily, particularly with the failure so far of the coalition forces to find weapons of mass destruction. Former foreign minister Robin Cook, who resigned from his cabinet position as leader of the House of Commons in protest at the war, has said the government clearly sent troops into battle on the basis "of a mistake" and that it had committed a "monumental blunder."
There are growing suspicions that the British and U.S. governments manipulated and exaggerated the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war.
The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is of particular significance in Britain. The idea of going to war was very unpopular among the public as shown by the anti-war demonstrations by around 1.5 million people in London on February 15, the biggest demonstration in Britain's history.
Blair stated that the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was his main justification for going to war. Weapons of mass destruction were also the basis on which the attorney general advised the government that the war was legal.
Blair won, the parliamentary vote on going to war, which followed the debate on 18 March.
139 Labour members of parliament voting against the motion. Some Labour members who had opposed war decided to support the government in the vote because of the evidence Blair presented on weapons of mass destruction. It has been said that many of those that voted for the war now feel betrayed and regret supporting the war.
The war has damaged Britain's standing in the Middle East.
The stakes over Iraq are very high, for Blair; he has gambled his political future on it. His credibility is being damaged by current allegations over the intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction, newspaper articles. There are already daily cartoons in the papers, portraying him as being untrustworthy. This is extremely serious, if Blair loses the trust of many in his own party, and among the public, no one will believe anything he and his government tells them, and he may be out of a job.
There will be investigations by two committees in parliament - the intelligence and security committee, and the other by Foreign Affairs Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee has asked both Blair and his powerful director of strategy and communications Alastair Campbell to give evidence, but they appear to have refused to do so. This refusal is seen as arrogant and as strengthening the impression that they have something to hide.
The Conservatives are calling for an independent enquiry and backed a motion from the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons calling for an independent judicial enquiry, but the motion was defeated by 301 votes to 203.
Blair faces a growing chorus of attacks from Labour members of parliament and from former members of the government who resigned over Iraq. A number of junior ministers joined Robin Cook in resigning before the war, and on 12 May Clare Short, the former secretary of state for International Development, resigned. She has launched a series of allegations against Blair, including that he secretly agreed with Bush at their meeting at Camp David last September to go to war, something Blair has strongly denied.
There are more and more people asking for answers. My money is on the British people. They will draw first blood, the Bush administration may get a glancing blow.
Perhaps it will only take a glancing blow to wake the American people up.
# posted by Thomas @ 1:10 AM
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Does President Bush support volunteerism or not?
AmeriCorps is a network of national service programs that engage more than 50,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment.
They tutor and mentor youth, build affordable housing, teach computer skills, clean parks and streams, run after-school programs, and help communities respond to disasters.
These programs engage more than 2 million Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service each year.
Bush, often meets with AmeriCorps volunteers on his trips around the country. He seeks these people for photo ops, so he clearly wants to highlight their efforts as worthwhile.
Rob Waldron, the head of Jumpstart, a Boston-based Americorp program, pairs college students with preschool children, to help the children develop literacy and language skills. Waldron said that Bush met personally with some of his volunteers last October and that Laura Bush wrote all of the tutors, urging them to consider teaching careers.
George Bush's interest continues to show itself in his speeches and few subjects are addressed more frequently by President Bush than voluntary national service. In the State of the Union addresses and in dozens of speeches around the country, this president has urged Americans to devote time and energy to community projects. And he has pledged his best efforts to expand government programs of national service.
In last Sunday's radio Address Bush, he brought the subject of volunteerism again. He said " Our nation is strengthened every time a citizen steps forward to serve a cause greater than self-interest. And each of us can serve and strengthen America by reaching out to neighbors in need. There are so many ways to improve the lives of fellow Americans -- by answering the call to feed the hungry, or caring for the elderly, or teaching a child to read, or joining with neighbors to support the police, fire fighters and medics who respond to emergencies. Every action you take will strengthen the bonds of community that unite all Americans, and extend the promise of American life to another citizen.
One would think that such a well-mentioned and worthwhile activity would be a priority for the Bush administration. He may say it is important over and over again but government funding for Americorp will be cut this year.
Memos sent to the states by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the parent agency for AmeriCorps, indicate that dozens and perhaps hundreds of long-established programs, including some which were praised by the president and first lady Laura Bush, will lose their funding.
As if the current job market isn’t bad enough for college grads, one of the largest national employers of that labor pool could be forced to cut back on thousands of openings.
AmeriCorps Director Rosie Mauk issued a statement saying, "We are keenly aware of the impact that the reduced level of funding for 2003 will have on the entire field of national service." But she held out hope that additional grants may be made later this year. In a recent interview she said
The cutback in funding could have a nasty "domino effect" on other sources of funds as well. The loss of existing programs may mean that private sector partners such as Starbucks -- which contributes $1 million a year -- may also withdraw their support.
"It's hard to understand why this should be happening when the president says he wants us to grow by 50 percent," Schmitz said. "He seems to get everything else he asks for." As of the President's speech this last Sunday, Bush has not intervened to block the cutbacks.
The actions of Bush's administration seem to betray his speeches about helping people. If he doesn't believe in it, he should stop the rhetoric. If he does support what he says, he should put the money where his mouth is.
He can offset the program cost by reducing the public relations program designed to win the hearts and minds of in the Arab world. That is pretty much a lost cause anyway.
Sources cited:
The Washington Post Company
AmeriCorps
Miguel Llanos
MSNBC
AmeriCorps is a network of national service programs that engage more than 50,000 Americans each year in intensive service to meet critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment.
They tutor and mentor youth, build affordable housing, teach computer skills, clean parks and streams, run after-school programs, and help communities respond to disasters.
These programs engage more than 2 million Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service each year.
Bush, often meets with AmeriCorps volunteers on his trips around the country. He seeks these people for photo ops, so he clearly wants to highlight their efforts as worthwhile.
Rob Waldron, the head of Jumpstart, a Boston-based Americorp program, pairs college students with preschool children, to help the children develop literacy and language skills. Waldron said that Bush met personally with some of his volunteers last October and that Laura Bush wrote all of the tutors, urging them to consider teaching careers.
George Bush's interest continues to show itself in his speeches and few subjects are addressed more frequently by President Bush than voluntary national service. In the State of the Union addresses and in dozens of speeches around the country, this president has urged Americans to devote time and energy to community projects. And he has pledged his best efforts to expand government programs of national service.
In last Sunday's radio Address Bush, he brought the subject of volunteerism again. He said " Our nation is strengthened every time a citizen steps forward to serve a cause greater than self-interest. And each of us can serve and strengthen America by reaching out to neighbors in need. There are so many ways to improve the lives of fellow Americans -- by answering the call to feed the hungry, or caring for the elderly, or teaching a child to read, or joining with neighbors to support the police, fire fighters and medics who respond to emergencies. Every action you take will strengthen the bonds of community that unite all Americans, and extend the promise of American life to another citizen.
One would think that such a well-mentioned and worthwhile activity would be a priority for the Bush administration. He may say it is important over and over again but government funding for Americorp will be cut this year.
Memos sent to the states by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the parent agency for AmeriCorps, indicate that dozens and perhaps hundreds of long-established programs, including some which were praised by the president and first lady Laura Bush, will lose their funding.
As if the current job market isn’t bad enough for college grads, one of the largest national employers of that labor pool could be forced to cut back on thousands of openings.
AmeriCorps Director Rosie Mauk issued a statement saying, "We are keenly aware of the impact that the reduced level of funding for 2003 will have on the entire field of national service." But she held out hope that additional grants may be made later this year. In a recent interview she said
The cutback in funding could have a nasty "domino effect" on other sources of funds as well. The loss of existing programs may mean that private sector partners such as Starbucks -- which contributes $1 million a year -- may also withdraw their support.
"It's hard to understand why this should be happening when the president says he wants us to grow by 50 percent," Schmitz said. "He seems to get everything else he asks for." As of the President's speech this last Sunday, Bush has not intervened to block the cutbacks.
The actions of Bush's administration seem to betray his speeches about helping people. If he doesn't believe in it, he should stop the rhetoric. If he does support what he says, he should put the money where his mouth is.
He can offset the program cost by reducing the public relations program designed to win the hearts and minds of in the Arab world. That is pretty much a lost cause anyway.
Sources cited:
The Washington Post Company
AmeriCorps
Miguel Llanos
MSNBC
# posted by Thomas @ 12:21 AM
Sunday, June 15, 2003
I have been reviewing some journalistic principles and I am concerned that I have been too hard on Georgie Boy and Rummy.
As much as I enjoy using George and his administration as targets for a majority of my sarcasm, I should really try harder to find opposing views and publish them along with the jabs I give out.
I just get so incensed at what I find out. Passion is good they say, but objectivity is needed to temper my enthusiasm. I list the sources which I cite. That is good, but I need to do a better job of balancing the views I present.
I challenge my readers to keep me honest. By that I mean to say, present me with a source for your opposing view along with the facts which you give me. If I do it you need to do it. Fair is fair.
Let the games begin!
As much as I enjoy using George and his administration as targets for a majority of my sarcasm, I should really try harder to find opposing views and publish them along with the jabs I give out.
I just get so incensed at what I find out. Passion is good they say, but objectivity is needed to temper my enthusiasm. I list the sources which I cite. That is good, but I need to do a better job of balancing the views I present.
I challenge my readers to keep me honest. By that I mean to say, present me with a source for your opposing view along with the facts which you give me. If I do it you need to do it. Fair is fair.
Let the games begin!
# posted by Thomas @ 12:57 AM
I have been reviewing some journalistic principles and I am concerned that I have been too hard on Georgie Boy and Rummy.
As much as I enjoy using George and his administration as targets for a majority of my sarcasm, I should really try harder to find opposing views and publish them along with the jabs I give out.
I just get so incensed at what I find out. Passion is good they say, but objectivity is needed to temper my enthusiasm. I list the sources which I cite. That is good, but I need to do a better job of balancing the views I present.
I challenge my readers to keep me honest. By that I mean to say, present me with a source for your opposing view along with the facts which you give me. If I do it you need to do it. Fair is fair.
Let the games begin!
As much as I enjoy using George and his administration as targets for a majority of my sarcasm, I should really try harder to find opposing views and publish them along with the jabs I give out.
I just get so incensed at what I find out. Passion is good they say, but objectivity is needed to temper my enthusiasm. I list the sources which I cite. That is good, but I need to do a better job of balancing the views I present.
I challenge my readers to keep me honest. By that I mean to say, present me with a source for your opposing view along with the facts which you give me. If I do it you need to do it. Fair is fair.
Let the games begin!
# posted by Thomas @ 12:57 AM
Saturday, June 14, 2003
When someone makes Bush back down, I think it is worth noting.
Tuesday, was not a good day for Georgie Boy. He was pissed. He was physically upset. You could see it in his face. He was seething. He had just found out that Israel had just staged a helicopter attack on Palestinian militant leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi. George had not even had time to unpack from his "historic" and well photographed Aqaba peace meeting. Bush then let the missile strike situation get the better of him and he publicly rebuked Sharon for the attack.
He had just spent a considerable amount of his political capital to go to the Middle east to broker a major deal between the new Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbasand and Ariel Sharon. He personally presented his "roadmap to peace in the Middle East" to them. There were many smiling diplomats and they were all shaking hands. He personally said he oversaw one meeting. He said he let the two men talk by themselves so "he can observe their body language " to see if they were communicating well.
The Israeli lobby quickly came down on President Bush for his comments against Sharon. The group defended the action as part of the Jewish state's war on terrorism.
America set a terrible precedent, when it attacked Iraq under the guise that Iraq MAY attack the U.S. Israel was very quick to pick up on the "terrorist" angle to justify their ever increasing attacks upon the Palestinians. Sharon stepped up their attacks while America was watching the Iraq war on CNN. Now every attack that Israel initiates uses that same mantra to justify the killings. "We are fighting terrorism"
Israel always state that they only kill terrorists. I didn't know Palestinian toddlers and infants could be considered terrorists. I didn't know news journalists, American college kids, and UN peace keepers are also considered terrorists. I guess they must be. Israel says so. Otherwise they wouldn't have been killed by Israeli troops using American supplied weapons.
There were helicopter attacks by Israel in the days that followed. Israeli officials said they should have given George advanced warning of the missile strike. It was their way of trying to mend fences with America.
The very powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, Americas Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Israel's supporters in Congress also put a lot of pressure on Bush to soften his criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Several Congressmen including, New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, defended the Israeli action as equivalent to U.S. strikes on members of the al Qaeda network, accused of masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. AIPAC has a lot of influence with both sides of the aisle in Congress.
AIPAC argued in a statement that Israel had no choice but to take on Hamas, and that "it should be the policy of the U.S. to support" Israeli actions.
By now Bush changes his tune and, he directly criticized Hamas. And on Thursday, the White House offered its support for a crackdown on the group, which it now singles out as the biggest obstacle to peace. Sharon was not blamed for doing anything wrong.
U.S. officials also deferred comment on an Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip that killed seven people including a senior Hamas militant, his wife and three-year-old daughter.
"The issue is Hamas. The terrorists are Hamas," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with Bush to Connecticut.
Israel and its supporters were clearly pleased. Congressmen supported by the Israeli lobby were clearly pleased. Everyone was pleased except the innocent bystanders who found themselves too close to someone considered to be Hamas in Palestine. They were not pleased, they were either wounded or dead.
"I hope we cleared the air," an Israeli source said. The air may be clear to some, but it stinks to high heaven to me.
AIPAC praised Bush's leadership and Fleischer's new statement as "another example of the clarity the administration is bringing to this subject."
It was a regular love feast after Bush fell back into the Israeli fold.
Doesn't it just boggle your mind that one group has that much power? AIPAC has more than 100 political Action Committees (PACs) set up to support pro-Israeli foreign policies. They spend very significant amounts of money on candidates who support Israel. They have become the dominant ideological force financing U.S. elections.
It makes me wonder. If Bush knew Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction, maybe Georgie Boy decided to remove Saddam to achieve other goals such as:
-eliminate an Israeli foe
-secure Iraqi oil for many years to come.
-make an example of Iraq; send the message to other Arab countries that support Palestinians that they may be next.
-give the neo-cons a country to play with
I would like to change an earlier statement I made on a previous Blog. I said George Bush is the most powerful man in the world. It is now more obvious to me that it may not be George,
AIPAC seems to be pulling the punches in the world of U.S. foreign policy. I don't remember seeing them listed on any ballot did you?
P.S. If anyone criticizes Israel they are considered anti-semetic. It is the same logic Bush supporters use. If you criticizes Bush you are un-american.
Sources Cited: Here are just some of the organizations under the AIPAC umbrella.
Aish HaTorah
Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) Fraternity And Foundation
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)
American Jewish Committee (AJC)
American Jewish Congress
Americans for Peace Now (APN)
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Hamagshimim, sponsored by Hadassah
Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
Israel Program Center
Israel University Consortium
Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA)
Jewish Heritage Programs
Jewish National Fund
KESHER
KOACH
Media Watch International
StandWithUsCampus.com
Union Of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Of America (OU)
United Jewish Communities (UJC)
USD/Hagshama of the World Zionist Organization
Zionist Organization of America
EDWARD ROEDER
News/Sun-Sentinel
Washington Post
Tuesday, was not a good day for Georgie Boy. He was pissed. He was physically upset. You could see it in his face. He was seething. He had just found out that Israel had just staged a helicopter attack on Palestinian militant leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi. George had not even had time to unpack from his "historic" and well photographed Aqaba peace meeting. Bush then let the missile strike situation get the better of him and he publicly rebuked Sharon for the attack.
He had just spent a considerable amount of his political capital to go to the Middle east to broker a major deal between the new Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbasand and Ariel Sharon. He personally presented his "roadmap to peace in the Middle East" to them. There were many smiling diplomats and they were all shaking hands. He personally said he oversaw one meeting. He said he let the two men talk by themselves so "he can observe their body language " to see if they were communicating well.
The Israeli lobby quickly came down on President Bush for his comments against Sharon. The group defended the action as part of the Jewish state's war on terrorism.
America set a terrible precedent, when it attacked Iraq under the guise that Iraq MAY attack the U.S. Israel was very quick to pick up on the "terrorist" angle to justify their ever increasing attacks upon the Palestinians. Sharon stepped up their attacks while America was watching the Iraq war on CNN. Now every attack that Israel initiates uses that same mantra to justify the killings. "We are fighting terrorism"
Israel always state that they only kill terrorists. I didn't know Palestinian toddlers and infants could be considered terrorists. I didn't know news journalists, American college kids, and UN peace keepers are also considered terrorists. I guess they must be. Israel says so. Otherwise they wouldn't have been killed by Israeli troops using American supplied weapons.
There were helicopter attacks by Israel in the days that followed. Israeli officials said they should have given George advanced warning of the missile strike. It was their way of trying to mend fences with America.
The very powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, Americas Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Israel's supporters in Congress also put a lot of pressure on Bush to soften his criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Several Congressmen including, New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel, defended the Israeli action as equivalent to U.S. strikes on members of the al Qaeda network, accused of masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. AIPAC has a lot of influence with both sides of the aisle in Congress.
AIPAC argued in a statement that Israel had no choice but to take on Hamas, and that "it should be the policy of the U.S. to support" Israeli actions.
By now Bush changes his tune and, he directly criticized Hamas. And on Thursday, the White House offered its support for a crackdown on the group, which it now singles out as the biggest obstacle to peace. Sharon was not blamed for doing anything wrong.
U.S. officials also deferred comment on an Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip that killed seven people including a senior Hamas militant, his wife and three-year-old daughter.
"The issue is Hamas. The terrorists are Hamas," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with Bush to Connecticut.
Israel and its supporters were clearly pleased. Congressmen supported by the Israeli lobby were clearly pleased. Everyone was pleased except the innocent bystanders who found themselves too close to someone considered to be Hamas in Palestine. They were not pleased, they were either wounded or dead.
"I hope we cleared the air," an Israeli source said. The air may be clear to some, but it stinks to high heaven to me.
AIPAC praised Bush's leadership and Fleischer's new statement as "another example of the clarity the administration is bringing to this subject."
It was a regular love feast after Bush fell back into the Israeli fold.
Doesn't it just boggle your mind that one group has that much power? AIPAC has more than 100 political Action Committees (PACs) set up to support pro-Israeli foreign policies. They spend very significant amounts of money on candidates who support Israel. They have become the dominant ideological force financing U.S. elections.
It makes me wonder. If Bush knew Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction, maybe Georgie Boy decided to remove Saddam to achieve other goals such as:
-eliminate an Israeli foe
-secure Iraqi oil for many years to come.
-make an example of Iraq; send the message to other Arab countries that support Palestinians that they may be next.
-give the neo-cons a country to play with
I would like to change an earlier statement I made on a previous Blog. I said George Bush is the most powerful man in the world. It is now more obvious to me that it may not be George,
AIPAC seems to be pulling the punches in the world of U.S. foreign policy. I don't remember seeing them listed on any ballot did you?
P.S. If anyone criticizes Israel they are considered anti-semetic. It is the same logic Bush supporters use. If you criticizes Bush you are un-american.
Sources Cited: Here are just some of the organizations under the AIPAC umbrella.
Aish HaTorah
Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) Fraternity And Foundation
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)
American Jewish Committee (AJC)
American Jewish Congress
Americans for Peace Now (APN)
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Hamagshimim, sponsored by Hadassah
Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
Israel Program Center
Israel University Consortium
Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA)
Jewish Heritage Programs
Jewish National Fund
KESHER
KOACH
Media Watch International
StandWithUsCampus.com
Union Of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Of America (OU)
United Jewish Communities (UJC)
USD/Hagshama of the World Zionist Organization
Zionist Organization of America
EDWARD ROEDER
News/Sun-Sentinel
Washington Post
# posted by Thomas @ 3:27 AM
Thursday, June 12, 2003
Who do you call if you are Tom Delay; you don't have a quorum and you need to railroad some legislation through the House that will effectively shuffle districts to unseat Democrats?
Do you just sit idly by, when the Democrats decide not to show up for the vote?
Are you going to take that? Hell no! You call out the Texas Rangers and track those bastards down! Oh, you also call the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and get the Department of Homeland Defense to help you track them down. Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, tsk tsk tsk. You can't do that!
You can't use federal resources for political purposes!
The 51 House Democrats were located outside of the reach of the Texas Rangers, so they could not haul their asses back into the State Capital. They went over the border to Ardmore, Oklahoma, just outside the jurisdiction of state police sent to take them back to Austin for the vote.
Guess who else is involved? None other than Georgie Boy himself!
Details of communication by President Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove, with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) about the partisan Texas dispute are in question.
Request for information on Bush Involvement is made.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs Committee had requested information about White House involvement. Lieberman's letter asked for a written description of White House involvement, including "any contacts and action.
The Democratic leader asked yesterday for details of communication
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs Committee and a presidential candidate, said White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told him by telephone Tuesday that DeLay spoke with Bush and Rove about the matter.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said that he did not intend to respond in writing to a request. I wonder why?
Homeland Security Involvement is noted.
The issue is politically sensitive because the Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged assisting law enforcement officers who were asked by Republicans to round up Democrats who had fled the state to avoid voting on a redistricting plan championed by DeLay. The plan died when a deadline passed without a quorum.
Texas Department Of Public Safety Department shreds records.
State Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston previously identified Roberta Bilsky as his source for allegations that Texas Department of Public Safety, (DPS) was destroying documents about the incident, Boyd said. Bilsky testified about information she said she received about document destruction from a DPS official.
Federal Aviation Administration Investigation is initiated!
Investigations are ongoing on the role of Federal Aviation Administration in the search. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has ordered a review of the Federal Aviation Administration's role in helping U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay track the plane of a Democrat who joined a walkout from the Texas Legislature.
The FBI is also Involved.
State Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, released cell phone records he said showed DeLays assistant made a call to the FBI in Ardmore, Okla..
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, and other Texas U.S. House members have sent letters to FBI Director Robert Mueller requesting phone logs, documents and other information on the FBI's role in the search. An FBI agent helped in the search, but the bureau said it did not act at the behest of politicians. No, he did it because he thought Al Queda terrorists had kidnapped all 51 Democrats, and, and they were forcing them to hear George Bush speeches against their wills.
Isn't it amazing how many Federal agencies Tom DeLay will use for pure political purposes when he wants to.
It sounds to me like he has taken a page out of Bush's play book.
DeLay used the local FAA, the FBI Department of Homeland Security, and the Texas Department of Public Safety for political purposes.
You think that's bad? Shit, that's NOTHING!
Bush has used several Federal Agencies plus a whole aircraft carrier group to advance his political goals.
Sources Cited:
Associated Press
Dave McNeely
Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Do you just sit idly by, when the Democrats decide not to show up for the vote?
Are you going to take that? Hell no! You call out the Texas Rangers and track those bastards down! Oh, you also call the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and get the Department of Homeland Defense to help you track them down. Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, tsk tsk tsk. You can't do that!
You can't use federal resources for political purposes!
The 51 House Democrats were located outside of the reach of the Texas Rangers, so they could not haul their asses back into the State Capital. They went over the border to Ardmore, Oklahoma, just outside the jurisdiction of state police sent to take them back to Austin for the vote.
Guess who else is involved? None other than Georgie Boy himself!
Details of communication by President Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove, with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) about the partisan Texas dispute are in question.
Request for information on Bush Involvement is made.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs Committee had requested information about White House involvement. Lieberman's letter asked for a written description of White House involvement, including "any contacts and action.
The Democratic leader asked yesterday for details of communication
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs Committee and a presidential candidate, said White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told him by telephone Tuesday that DeLay spoke with Bush and Rove about the matter.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said that he did not intend to respond in writing to a request. I wonder why?
Homeland Security Involvement is noted.
The issue is politically sensitive because the Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged assisting law enforcement officers who were asked by Republicans to round up Democrats who had fled the state to avoid voting on a redistricting plan championed by DeLay. The plan died when a deadline passed without a quorum.
Texas Department Of Public Safety Department shreds records.
State Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston previously identified Roberta Bilsky as his source for allegations that Texas Department of Public Safety, (DPS) was destroying documents about the incident, Boyd said. Bilsky testified about information she said she received about document destruction from a DPS official.
Federal Aviation Administration Investigation is initiated!
Investigations are ongoing on the role of Federal Aviation Administration in the search. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has ordered a review of the Federal Aviation Administration's role in helping U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay track the plane of a Democrat who joined a walkout from the Texas Legislature.
The FBI is also Involved.
State Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, released cell phone records he said showed DeLays assistant made a call to the FBI in Ardmore, Okla..
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, and other Texas U.S. House members have sent letters to FBI Director Robert Mueller requesting phone logs, documents and other information on the FBI's role in the search. An FBI agent helped in the search, but the bureau said it did not act at the behest of politicians. No, he did it because he thought Al Queda terrorists had kidnapped all 51 Democrats, and, and they were forcing them to hear George Bush speeches against their wills.
Isn't it amazing how many Federal agencies Tom DeLay will use for pure political purposes when he wants to.
It sounds to me like he has taken a page out of Bush's play book.
DeLay used the local FAA, the FBI Department of Homeland Security, and the Texas Department of Public Safety for political purposes.
You think that's bad? Shit, that's NOTHING!
Bush has used several Federal Agencies plus a whole aircraft carrier group to advance his political goals.
Sources Cited:
Associated Press
Dave McNeely
Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
# posted by Thomas @ 11:58 PM
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
President Bush has a bad habit of lowering expectations and it may be something the Democrats can use. He is also pretty good at revising history.
In the Middle East peace trip he just made, supporting his "roadmap" to peace involving an independent Palestinian state, Bush offered a modest definition of his expectations for the talks -- "I was hoping to have honest dialogues" -- and said those expectations were met.
Sounds like Georgie boy is not going to do much more except scowl when Israel kills more palestinians and make public statements about how suicide bombers do not help right now. He will be all talk and no more action. The great thing for him is that no one expected him to succeed in the crisis, so he can't loose if nothing more happens to settle the problem!
Bush raised expectations that Iraq would smoothly shift to stability and that weapons of mass destruction would be found in abundance, he is so far unable to meet those standards. Georgie was publically overjoyed that he got the $350 billion tax cut package. He publically stated that this will take care of all our economic problems, he may have screwed up because, he has raised hopes for an economic surge. If the economy does not pick up he may continue to fault the twin tower disaster of 2 years ago as the reason. But he can't keep whipping that horse, it is already half dead.
Jumping into Middle East peace negotiations after saying he would do so only if the time was right, he has encouraged a belief that the time is, in fact, right for peace. however, I believe he will begin revising history and say that he did get them together and that the rest of the process is incumbent on the two nations not the United States.
Then there is the campaign for next year's election, in which Bush is the prohibitive favorite and his opponents are the ones fighting questions about their capabilities -- and therefore in a better position to exceed expectations.
"What he is doing systematically now is trying to reduce the expectations people have about what he's going to deliver," said Thomas E. Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. "It's worked exceptionally well. But in the end, reality counts. He can do whatever he wants with expectations on domestic and foreign policy, but if the economy is sluggish and the aftermath of Iraq sours, those are the realities he will face." One big problem is that the american people have been hijacked by bush's neo-cons. No one cares if he delivers or not.
Bush's political foes are grudgingly impressed by his ability to set low requirements for his success -- sometimes retroactively. "They created the science of setting the bar low," said John Weaver, the strategist behind the primary challenge to Bush by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "In fact, they dug a trench and set the bar in it, and he's able to walk over it. They should get some credit for that. He's been able to get away with that."
Isin't it interesting that Georgie is the most powerful person in the world. He has the most advanced fighting force in the world, he controls both houses in the Congress, the Supreme court is mostly conservative, the U.S. is the most powerful economic power in the world and yet, he continues to low ball what he is able to do.
President Kennedy stated a great vision, when he said he wanted someone on the moon, and used his influence to make it happen.
Bush has much more power than Kennedy. He could focus all his power and influence to significantly move us towards a cure for Cancer, AIDS, heart disease, or any number of diseases. He could focus his efforts on education, get a computer and the internet into every home. He could support teacher pay and support. He COULD do ant number of things.
Instead, he focuses on pro-big business items or items that sound good to low income people, knowing he will let them die in Congress.
Is it ashame and sinful that we LET him low ball expectations, when he is obviously in the driver seat with all the chips on his side of the table.
Has our country given up our power as citizens? I know he does not listen to "focus groups" no matter how large the protest gets. What will it take to make the people give a damn! No one seems to care to do something about Bush's obvious poor performance as a President. Have we all been cowed into saluting the flag and the president at the same time, without thinking?
I am starting to feel like a mad man screaming into the wind.
In the Middle East peace trip he just made, supporting his "roadmap" to peace involving an independent Palestinian state, Bush offered a modest definition of his expectations for the talks -- "I was hoping to have honest dialogues" -- and said those expectations were met.
Sounds like Georgie boy is not going to do much more except scowl when Israel kills more palestinians and make public statements about how suicide bombers do not help right now. He will be all talk and no more action. The great thing for him is that no one expected him to succeed in the crisis, so he can't loose if nothing more happens to settle the problem!
Bush raised expectations that Iraq would smoothly shift to stability and that weapons of mass destruction would be found in abundance, he is so far unable to meet those standards. Georgie was publically overjoyed that he got the $350 billion tax cut package. He publically stated that this will take care of all our economic problems, he may have screwed up because, he has raised hopes for an economic surge. If the economy does not pick up he may continue to fault the twin tower disaster of 2 years ago as the reason. But he can't keep whipping that horse, it is already half dead.
Jumping into Middle East peace negotiations after saying he would do so only if the time was right, he has encouraged a belief that the time is, in fact, right for peace. however, I believe he will begin revising history and say that he did get them together and that the rest of the process is incumbent on the two nations not the United States.
Then there is the campaign for next year's election, in which Bush is the prohibitive favorite and his opponents are the ones fighting questions about their capabilities -- and therefore in a better position to exceed expectations.
"What he is doing systematically now is trying to reduce the expectations people have about what he's going to deliver," said Thomas E. Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution. "It's worked exceptionally well. But in the end, reality counts. He can do whatever he wants with expectations on domestic and foreign policy, but if the economy is sluggish and the aftermath of Iraq sours, those are the realities he will face." One big problem is that the american people have been hijacked by bush's neo-cons. No one cares if he delivers or not.
Bush's political foes are grudgingly impressed by his ability to set low requirements for his success -- sometimes retroactively. "They created the science of setting the bar low," said John Weaver, the strategist behind the primary challenge to Bush by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "In fact, they dug a trench and set the bar in it, and he's able to walk over it. They should get some credit for that. He's been able to get away with that."
Isin't it interesting that Georgie is the most powerful person in the world. He has the most advanced fighting force in the world, he controls both houses in the Congress, the Supreme court is mostly conservative, the U.S. is the most powerful economic power in the world and yet, he continues to low ball what he is able to do.
President Kennedy stated a great vision, when he said he wanted someone on the moon, and used his influence to make it happen.
Bush has much more power than Kennedy. He could focus all his power and influence to significantly move us towards a cure for Cancer, AIDS, heart disease, or any number of diseases. He could focus his efforts on education, get a computer and the internet into every home. He could support teacher pay and support. He COULD do ant number of things.
Instead, he focuses on pro-big business items or items that sound good to low income people, knowing he will let them die in Congress.
Is it ashame and sinful that we LET him low ball expectations, when he is obviously in the driver seat with all the chips on his side of the table.
Has our country given up our power as citizens? I know he does not listen to "focus groups" no matter how large the protest gets. What will it take to make the people give a damn! No one seems to care to do something about Bush's obvious poor performance as a President. Have we all been cowed into saluting the flag and the president at the same time, without thinking?
I am starting to feel like a mad man screaming into the wind.
# posted by Thomas @ 1:49 AM
Saturday, June 07, 2003
We believe what we want to believe. We happily discard any information which contradicts our views. Engineers do it NASA scientists do it. Juries do it. Politicians do it. We all do it. Each of us have some core beliefs that get established somehow. Once they are there it is almost impossible to shake them off.
I have been involved in many situations where people ignored significant and important data, just because they did not agree with it and they were not open to it.
People in significant positions, where life and death decisions are being made must have a process to deal with this human trait. I would guess that there is a lot of discussion and questions about the topic. Perhaps there are think tanks dedicated to just those kinds of issues. The whole process must also have adequate checks and balances to insure well thought out answers, tactics and strategies.
I know this must exist in all major corporations and in government bureaus. I say I know this, not because I really know, but because I want to believe it.
So, what went wrong. How did the United States and Britain's Intelligence agencies message get so garbled? Their analysis stated the following:
Iraq does NOT have any known Nuclear weapons;
Iraq does NOT have any known connections to Al Queda.
Iraq does NOT have any significant amount of chemical or biological weapons
Iraq does NOT pose a threat to the U.S..
How did all of this information get subverted and converted?
Where did the following mantras come from?
Iraq HAS tones of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam HAS funded Al Queda terrorists just like the ones that hit the towers.
Iraq WILL use them on us, if we don't act NOW.
This message continues to be driven home. The transport planes of returning troops from Iraq, circle Ground Zero, in New York. They are shown the gaping hole in the earth and are told. "that hole is the reason you were sent to Iraq".
How did the original analysis get so scrambled?
The only thing that makes sense is that, Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney. Wolfowitz and Perle ignored the data they were given and chose to look at the data through hawk biased glasses. They only heard what they wanted to hear, and subverted the message for the American public to ensure our support. They did not want any roadblocks for their roadmap to acquiring the second largest oil fields in the world.
If anyone else has a better explanation, please tell me.
I have been involved in many situations where people ignored significant and important data, just because they did not agree with it and they were not open to it.
People in significant positions, where life and death decisions are being made must have a process to deal with this human trait. I would guess that there is a lot of discussion and questions about the topic. Perhaps there are think tanks dedicated to just those kinds of issues. The whole process must also have adequate checks and balances to insure well thought out answers, tactics and strategies.
I know this must exist in all major corporations and in government bureaus. I say I know this, not because I really know, but because I want to believe it.
So, what went wrong. How did the United States and Britain's Intelligence agencies message get so garbled? Their analysis stated the following:
Iraq does NOT have any known Nuclear weapons;
Iraq does NOT have any known connections to Al Queda.
Iraq does NOT have any significant amount of chemical or biological weapons
Iraq does NOT pose a threat to the U.S..
How did all of this information get subverted and converted?
Where did the following mantras come from?
Iraq HAS tones of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam HAS funded Al Queda terrorists just like the ones that hit the towers.
Iraq WILL use them on us, if we don't act NOW.
This message continues to be driven home. The transport planes of returning troops from Iraq, circle Ground Zero, in New York. They are shown the gaping hole in the earth and are told. "that hole is the reason you were sent to Iraq".
How did the original analysis get so scrambled?
The only thing that makes sense is that, Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney. Wolfowitz and Perle ignored the data they were given and chose to look at the data through hawk biased glasses. They only heard what they wanted to hear, and subverted the message for the American public to ensure our support. They did not want any roadblocks for their roadmap to acquiring the second largest oil fields in the world.
If anyone else has a better explanation, please tell me.
# posted by Thomas @ 12:44 AM
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Gulliver has marched through Afganistan and Iraq. He is the only giant in the land and he does what he wants when he wants to. No one can stand up to him. The liliputians are afraid of the giant. They know they are no match for him militarily or economically. They are going to give the giant grudging approval for what ever he wants to do, as long as they can collect some of the crumbs that fall off his table, hoping to get their economies going again.
One of the liliputian countries tried to assemble some of the other countries to oppose Gulliver, but France was not able to pull enough countries together. They were too poor to risk Gulliver's economic wrath.
The liliputians know not to assume Gulliver will have their interests at heart. If Gulliver does something for you, it is going to cost you big time.
Gulliver will continue to dominate the world, for a while anyway. The problem is that, the liliputian countries will smile outwardly, but many will work covertly to continuously undermine the United States.
How much effort do you think they will put into finding terrorists in their respective countries? Will they arrest the usual suspects? Will they look the other way? Will they even secretly fund their efforts? If, the saying "there is nothing like a woman scorned" is true, what are many scorned nations capable of?
Is it any wonder that no one in the world trusts the U.S.. Bush has shown the world that we are lawless, arrogant and powerful. Be careful Georgie boy, small people in small nations, will get even. Meanwhile, Gas masks might be a good investment.
One of the liliputian countries tried to assemble some of the other countries to oppose Gulliver, but France was not able to pull enough countries together. They were too poor to risk Gulliver's economic wrath.
The liliputians know not to assume Gulliver will have their interests at heart. If Gulliver does something for you, it is going to cost you big time.
Gulliver will continue to dominate the world, for a while anyway. The problem is that, the liliputian countries will smile outwardly, but many will work covertly to continuously undermine the United States.
How much effort do you think they will put into finding terrorists in their respective countries? Will they arrest the usual suspects? Will they look the other way? Will they even secretly fund their efforts? If, the saying "there is nothing like a woman scorned" is true, what are many scorned nations capable of?
Is it any wonder that no one in the world trusts the U.S.. Bush has shown the world that we are lawless, arrogant and powerful. Be careful Georgie boy, small people in small nations, will get even. Meanwhile, Gas masks might be a good investment.
# posted by Thomas @ 11:19 PM
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Compassionate conservative. What does that mean?
compassionate
adj 1: showing merciful compassion; "sparing the child's mother was a compassionate act" 2: showing or having compassion; "heard the soft and compassionate voices of women" [ant: uncompassionate] 3: showing recognition of unusually distressful circumstances; "compassionate leave"; "considered for a compassionate discharge because of domestic difficulties" v : share the suffering of [syn: feel for, pity, condole with, sympathize with]
conservative
\Con*serv"a*tive\, n. 1. One who, or that which, preserves from ruin, injury, innovation, or radical change; a preserver; a conserver. The Holy Spirit is the great conservative of the new life. --Jer. Taylor. 2. One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in politics; -- opposed to revolutionary or radical. 3. (Eng. Hist.) A member of the Conservative party.
Sarhan, a 22 year old woman, usually slept in the dining room. As she layed in bed on the night of April 22nd, a fragment from a U.S. tank round smashed though the front door, and into Sarhan's left leg, leaving it a tangle of exposed muscle and bone. She was rushed to the hospital amid the fighting and the doctors removed much of the leg. The amputation saved her life, leading Sarhan to write poems of thanks to her surgeons. But now she has been consigned to a wheel chair.
She had never been a supporter of the U.S. invasion, but has nonetheless forgiven the anonymous soldiers who injured her in pursuit of their enemies. She has asked for help from the United States in finding a prosthetic leg. But she has been told during visits from U.S. military officials and an army chaplain that none will be forthcoming. "They told me, 'We don't have anything for you right now. It's up to a higher authority.' " I guess that means either Allah or God must intervene.
The stub where her leg was still tingles from time to time. "I knew they would hurt us," she said. "Mr. Bush said this would be a clean war. Is this a clean war?"
Sarhan is one of thousands of Iraqis who embody the collateral damage of that war, described by the Bush administration as a means of liberating the country from former president Saddam Hussein.
To many who lost livelihoods and limbs in the process, a U.S. reconstruction effort in its seventh week should be as much about recompense as restarting electrical grids, and pumping stations.
U.S. officials have made it clear, that they do NOT intend to conduct any accounting of war damages, nor compensate those who say the occupying army owes them something.
Some are sympathetic to individual hardships suffered as a result of war, but U.S. officials say they are wary of beginning a legal process that could entail millions of claims against them. We can give Billions of dollars to Halliburton to repair physical damage to oil wells and other utilities but we turn our back on any human toll our invasion of their country caused.
International relief organizations, including the Islamic Red Crescent Society, say the conventions of war hold the United States responsible for paying out such claims. However, the U.S. has already made it abundantly clear that we pick and choose which international conventions we will follow.
-------------------
The innocents. the ones our leaders call "collateral damage" are either dead or hurting, and the Bush administration does not care. We were told how our advanced weapons would be a war of surgical strikes. There were not supposed to be very few civilian casualties. We were lied to. No one in our government wants to know how many innocents were really killed. We do not want to be responsible for the human carnage we caused. We do, however feel compunction toward repairing some of the physical assets, especially anything that dealt with oil
During the battle for Bagdad. The soldiers were specifically assigned to protect the oil ministry and the oil infrastructure. Museums hospitals and schools were not on their lists. Those things deal with humanity and human well being. Those things were and are vital to the people of Iraq, not to the conquerors.
What we are doing to Iraqi people like Sarhan, the 22 year old woman, who will be wheel chair bound for the rest of her life, is not christian. It is not conservative. She did not bring this upon herself! Her only sin, was to live in a country that has a natural resource we abuse and refuse to conserve.
If this is Christian conservative, it has a new definition. Uncaring, cold-hearted greed wrapped in altruistic propaganda.
compassionate
adj 1: showing merciful compassion; "sparing the child's mother was a compassionate act" 2: showing or having compassion; "heard the soft and compassionate voices of women" [ant: uncompassionate] 3: showing recognition of unusually distressful circumstances; "compassionate leave"; "considered for a compassionate discharge because of domestic difficulties" v : share the suffering of [syn: feel for, pity, condole with, sympathize with]
conservative
\Con*serv"a*tive\, n. 1. One who, or that which, preserves from ruin, injury, innovation, or radical change; a preserver; a conserver. The Holy Spirit is the great conservative of the new life. --Jer. Taylor. 2. One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in politics; -- opposed to revolutionary or radical. 3. (Eng. Hist.) A member of the Conservative party.
Sarhan, a 22 year old woman, usually slept in the dining room. As she layed in bed on the night of April 22nd, a fragment from a U.S. tank round smashed though the front door, and into Sarhan's left leg, leaving it a tangle of exposed muscle and bone. She was rushed to the hospital amid the fighting and the doctors removed much of the leg. The amputation saved her life, leading Sarhan to write poems of thanks to her surgeons. But now she has been consigned to a wheel chair.
She had never been a supporter of the U.S. invasion, but has nonetheless forgiven the anonymous soldiers who injured her in pursuit of their enemies. She has asked for help from the United States in finding a prosthetic leg. But she has been told during visits from U.S. military officials and an army chaplain that none will be forthcoming. "They told me, 'We don't have anything for you right now. It's up to a higher authority.' " I guess that means either Allah or God must intervene.
The stub where her leg was still tingles from time to time. "I knew they would hurt us," she said. "Mr. Bush said this would be a clean war. Is this a clean war?"
Sarhan is one of thousands of Iraqis who embody the collateral damage of that war, described by the Bush administration as a means of liberating the country from former president Saddam Hussein.
To many who lost livelihoods and limbs in the process, a U.S. reconstruction effort in its seventh week should be as much about recompense as restarting electrical grids, and pumping stations.
U.S. officials have made it clear, that they do NOT intend to conduct any accounting of war damages, nor compensate those who say the occupying army owes them something.
Some are sympathetic to individual hardships suffered as a result of war, but U.S. officials say they are wary of beginning a legal process that could entail millions of claims against them. We can give Billions of dollars to Halliburton to repair physical damage to oil wells and other utilities but we turn our back on any human toll our invasion of their country caused.
International relief organizations, including the Islamic Red Crescent Society, say the conventions of war hold the United States responsible for paying out such claims. However, the U.S. has already made it abundantly clear that we pick and choose which international conventions we will follow.
-------------------
The innocents. the ones our leaders call "collateral damage" are either dead or hurting, and the Bush administration does not care. We were told how our advanced weapons would be a war of surgical strikes. There were not supposed to be very few civilian casualties. We were lied to. No one in our government wants to know how many innocents were really killed. We do not want to be responsible for the human carnage we caused. We do, however feel compunction toward repairing some of the physical assets, especially anything that dealt with oil
During the battle for Bagdad. The soldiers were specifically assigned to protect the oil ministry and the oil infrastructure. Museums hospitals and schools were not on their lists. Those things deal with humanity and human well being. Those things were and are vital to the people of Iraq, not to the conquerors.
What we are doing to Iraqi people like Sarhan, the 22 year old woman, who will be wheel chair bound for the rest of her life, is not christian. It is not conservative. She did not bring this upon herself! Her only sin, was to live in a country that has a natural resource we abuse and refuse to conserve.
If this is Christian conservative, it has a new definition. Uncaring, cold-hearted greed wrapped in altruistic propaganda.
# posted by Thomas @ 12:14 AM
