Sunday, July 27, 2003
Bush Gets Even
How does the Bush administration get even with people that embarrass them? Well if you are former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, you leak the fact that his wife is a deep-cover CIA officer.
On July 14 Robert Novak from the Sun Times, stated in his article that, two unnamed "senior administration officials" had leaked this information.
Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in February 2002 to check out an allegation that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from them. He reported back that the charge was probably false. He recently wrote an article in the New York times and challenged the Bush administration's account of the Niger episode.
Scott McClellan, the new White House press secretary, acknowledged the news article and said "That is not the way this president or this White House operates." He did not state that anything was going to be done about it.
This White House has been pretty consistent at sending "messages". They like making examples of anyone who speaks up against the President or his policies.
One example comes from what recently happened to Senator Voinovich from Ohio. He had the gaul to oppose Bush's original $750 billion tax cut.
Once it was apparent that the normal arm twisting was not getting the good Senator to budge, Bush, decided to visit the Senator's home state. The purpose for the President's trip was to put pressure on Voinovich from the people within his own state, Television ads were also aired. They compared Senator Voinovich's, opposition to the tax cut, as comparable to French opposition of the Iraq war.
Did senior Bush officials break the law just to smear a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
The FBI and other legal institutions in Washington must have noted the Novak and Time articles, but no obvious investigations seem to be taking place.
Wilson will not confirm whether the allegations about his wife are true or not. If it is true, her career is over and all the operations she participated in, are in jeopardy.
"Stories like this," Wilson says, "are not intended to intimidate me, since I've already told my story. But it's pretty clear it is intended to intimidate others who might come forward. You need only look at the stories of intelligence analysts who say they have been pressured. They may have kids in college, they may be vulnerable to these types of smears."
If this is true, what does this mean to our democratic process?
Stay tuned.
Sources Cited:
A White House Smear
David Corn
The National
ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
On July 14 Robert Novak from the Sun Times, stated in his article that, two unnamed "senior administration officials" had leaked this information.
Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in February 2002 to check out an allegation that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from them. He reported back that the charge was probably false. He recently wrote an article in the New York times and challenged the Bush administration's account of the Niger episode.
Scott McClellan, the new White House press secretary, acknowledged the news article and said "That is not the way this president or this White House operates." He did not state that anything was going to be done about it.
This White House has been pretty consistent at sending "messages". They like making examples of anyone who speaks up against the President or his policies.
One example comes from what recently happened to Senator Voinovich from Ohio. He had the gaul to oppose Bush's original $750 billion tax cut.
Once it was apparent that the normal arm twisting was not getting the good Senator to budge, Bush, decided to visit the Senator's home state. The purpose for the President's trip was to put pressure on Voinovich from the people within his own state, Television ads were also aired. They compared Senator Voinovich's, opposition to the tax cut, as comparable to French opposition of the Iraq war.
Did senior Bush officials break the law just to smear a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
The FBI and other legal institutions in Washington must have noted the Novak and Time articles, but no obvious investigations seem to be taking place.
Wilson will not confirm whether the allegations about his wife are true or not. If it is true, her career is over and all the operations she participated in, are in jeopardy.
"Stories like this," Wilson says, "are not intended to intimidate me, since I've already told my story. But it's pretty clear it is intended to intimidate others who might come forward. You need only look at the stories of intelligence analysts who say they have been pressured. They may have kids in college, they may be vulnerable to these types of smears."
If this is true, what does this mean to our democratic process?
Stay tuned.
Sources Cited:
A White House Smear
David Corn
The National
ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
# posted by Thomas @ 3:50 AM 
Monday, July 21, 2003
A Casualty of Distinction
The number of Iraq War casualties keep climbing. Here is the story of one such casualty.
President Bush had just finished making his historic landing on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. He posed for the cameras and claimed that victory had been achieved in Iraq. The truth of the matter was that, the war was hardly over; it had simply morphed into a different phase of combat which was as deadly as ever, with very little cover.
His group had been taking sniper fire for several weeks. He was an Iraqi war veteran with considerable experience, a trained professional, respected by his team. The enemy however, just considered him to be a target, someone to be treated without respect or compassion.
He was performing a very unfamiliar and dangerous, new task which had evolved as a result of the miscalculation and lack of proper planning by the administrations in Washington and 10 Downing Street. He lacked the proper training and mental where-with-all to perform his new task well. The combination of these deficiencies, in an otherwise, distinguished and highly trained professional, cost him his life.
The enemy had just discovered his presence. Then, they methodically tracked him down and isolated him from his group. The attack was unmerciful and unrelenting. Afterwards, he was left badly shaken, but otherwise appeared in tact. Time proved the opposite to be true. 24 hours later he bled out and died.
His body did not land on the torrid hot sands of Iraq itself, but had instead fallen on the soft grass, in the woods near his Oxfordshire home in England.
He was Dr. David Kelly, 59, a former United Nations weapons inspector who had advised the British Government on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
This last Thursday, Dr. Kelly was reported missing by his wife. His body was later found about 2 miles from his home. His body lay, on the crest of a hill near a copse, of ash and oak trees, where, according to the police, he apparently took some prescription pain killers and slit his left wrist.
The chain of events leading up to his death, are both outrageous and unnerving
Andrew Gilligan, of the BBC had broken a story, a short time ago, referring to "senior and credible" intelligence services source, who stated that the Blair administration had modified a report on Iraq' WMD capabilities. The allegedly modified report, made the claim that not only did Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that Iraq was now capable of launching these WMD's in 45 minutes.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended the inclusion of the 45 minute claim in the dossier and Tony Blair's director of communications, Allister Campbell, vehemently denied the accusation that the report was modified and demanded an apology from the BBC. Meanwhile, there was a furious manhunt by the British, for the "mole" that the BBC reporter, was using as his source.
It was known that as a former United Nations weapons inspector, Dr. Kelly was at odds with the statement made, by both George Bush and Blair, who claimed that two alleged mobil chemical weapons labs had been found. Dr. Kelly told the press, that he had examined the alleged labs in person and agreed with the Iraqi's explanation; the two vehicles, were intended for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons.
Kelly had also acknowledged that he had some conversations in the past with Andrew Gilligan, That was enough for the Ministry of Defense to publicly reveal, that an unnamed man had come forward which it believed was the "mole" behind Andrew Gilligan's disputed report, regarding the Iraq intelligence dossier.
Kelly had unwillingly been put under the spotlight as the alleged mole. He was put before a House of Commons committee, to deny he had told journalist Andrew Gilligan that the Government had 'sexed up' its crucial September dossier that made the case for war against Iraq.
Afterwards, he complained to his family about his distress, He was being publicly humiliated by the Ministry, as they questioned him in connection to Gilligan's "mole".
On 15 July, Dr. Kelly was ordered to appear before Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where he faced an unrelenting barrage of questions. Kelly was alone in his defense. Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, aggressively, taunting the scientist. 'You've been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like the fall guy? I mean, you've been set up, haven't you?'
The following day, he went before an even more formidable interrogation. Kelly was in a private session before the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Kelly took his life 24 hours after wards.
After consulting with Dr. Kelly's wife, the BBC publicly stated that Dr. Kelly had indeed been Gilligan's source.
Not all the casualties are in Iraq proper, and the power to destroy people, is not only the province of tyrants in remote parts of the world. The enemies are apparently, amidst us and they are willing to destroy anyone in their desire to avoid either inquiry nor explanation.
President Bush had just finished making his historic landing on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. He posed for the cameras and claimed that victory had been achieved in Iraq. The truth of the matter was that, the war was hardly over; it had simply morphed into a different phase of combat which was as deadly as ever, with very little cover.
His group had been taking sniper fire for several weeks. He was an Iraqi war veteran with considerable experience, a trained professional, respected by his team. The enemy however, just considered him to be a target, someone to be treated without respect or compassion.
He was performing a very unfamiliar and dangerous, new task which had evolved as a result of the miscalculation and lack of proper planning by the administrations in Washington and 10 Downing Street. He lacked the proper training and mental where-with-all to perform his new task well. The combination of these deficiencies, in an otherwise, distinguished and highly trained professional, cost him his life.
The enemy had just discovered his presence. Then, they methodically tracked him down and isolated him from his group. The attack was unmerciful and unrelenting. Afterwards, he was left badly shaken, but otherwise appeared in tact. Time proved the opposite to be true. 24 hours later he bled out and died.
His body did not land on the torrid hot sands of Iraq itself, but had instead fallen on the soft grass, in the woods near his Oxfordshire home in England.
He was Dr. David Kelly, 59, a former United Nations weapons inspector who had advised the British Government on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
This last Thursday, Dr. Kelly was reported missing by his wife. His body was later found about 2 miles from his home. His body lay, on the crest of a hill near a copse, of ash and oak trees, where, according to the police, he apparently took some prescription pain killers and slit his left wrist.
The chain of events leading up to his death, are both outrageous and unnerving
Andrew Gilligan, of the BBC had broken a story, a short time ago, referring to "senior and credible" intelligence services source, who stated that the Blair administration had modified a report on Iraq' WMD capabilities. The allegedly modified report, made the claim that not only did Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction, but that Iraq was now capable of launching these WMD's in 45 minutes.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended the inclusion of the 45 minute claim in the dossier and Tony Blair's director of communications, Allister Campbell, vehemently denied the accusation that the report was modified and demanded an apology from the BBC. Meanwhile, there was a furious manhunt by the British, for the "mole" that the BBC reporter, was using as his source.
It was known that as a former United Nations weapons inspector, Dr. Kelly was at odds with the statement made, by both George Bush and Blair, who claimed that two alleged mobil chemical weapons labs had been found. Dr. Kelly told the press, that he had examined the alleged labs in person and agreed with the Iraqi's explanation; the two vehicles, were intended for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons.
Kelly had also acknowledged that he had some conversations in the past with Andrew Gilligan, That was enough for the Ministry of Defense to publicly reveal, that an unnamed man had come forward which it believed was the "mole" behind Andrew Gilligan's disputed report, regarding the Iraq intelligence dossier.
Kelly had unwillingly been put under the spotlight as the alleged mole. He was put before a House of Commons committee, to deny he had told journalist Andrew Gilligan that the Government had 'sexed up' its crucial September dossier that made the case for war against Iraq.
Afterwards, he complained to his family about his distress, He was being publicly humiliated by the Ministry, as they questioned him in connection to Gilligan's "mole".
On 15 July, Dr. Kelly was ordered to appear before Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where he faced an unrelenting barrage of questions. Kelly was alone in his defense. Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, aggressively, taunting the scientist. 'You've been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like the fall guy? I mean, you've been set up, haven't you?'
The following day, he went before an even more formidable interrogation. Kelly was in a private session before the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Kelly took his life 24 hours after wards.
After consulting with Dr. Kelly's wife, the BBC publicly stated that Dr. Kelly had indeed been Gilligan's source.
Not all the casualties are in Iraq proper, and the power to destroy people, is not only the province of tyrants in remote parts of the world. The enemies are apparently, amidst us and they are willing to destroy anyone in their desire to avoid either inquiry nor explanation.
# posted by Thomas @ 6:18 PM
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Give it Up George
We desperately need a gutsy, pragmatic President right now, not just a politician. Is Bush up to the task?
Bush has control of both houses of Congress, he has millions of dollars in his re-election war chest, he has the most powerful, most advanced armed services in the world. He has almost everything a world leader would want, with the exception of a good solution to our predicament in Iraq.
Bush's administration has bullied, bought and bribed the Coalition of the Willing" for support, only to find out the majority of them are ...not willing.
Lets be honest with ourselves, Bush gambled by rushing to war without UN approval. he lost. To put it in "Bush terms" his cards stink and its time to dump the hand and draw some other cards.
Its time to call in the U.N Cavalry.
George W. has been wounded by the Niger fiasco. Those "16 words"in his State of the Union speech hurt him. How hurt he is, depends on how far up, the blame goes; the amount of violence against our troops in that hot, torturous, bloody mound of sand over there; and the status of the ongoing search for WMD, of course.
Bush's selection of cabinet members with their singular ideologies, seems to have locked him into severely limited political courses' of action. Any move towards abdicating power of any sort to the UN could adversely risk the wrath of his "base" of support; something he will avoid with a passion. The loss of Bush Sr's "base", cost his father, re-election. Bush Jr seems to be taking all his cues from his father's experience. This becomes just one more factor to limit Bush Jr's options. He probably feels like a driver stuck on the inside lane of a roundabout.
The President can't solve the Iraqi issue with the armed service personnel he now has. Rumsfield could start the Draft again, but many draftees do not work out as well, as an all volunteer army. Does anyone remember Vietnam?
I know it must be a major disappointment, for Bush to realize how powerless he is at this point, but the solution is obvious.
We need additional "boots on the ground" in Iraqi, our troops are on extended rotations (This has not happened since the Vietnam war)
The U.S. and Iraq also need:
financial support for the rebuilding effort
increased aid to the Iraqi people
international recognition of the new Iraqi counsel
International Monetary funds to help the Iraqi financial institutions
U.N's. nation rebuilding experience
U.N's international resolutions to sell and exportation Iraqi oil
So my advice to Bush is, use whatever kind of front door, back door, side door, or garage door diplomacy that may be needed. JUST DO IT! For the sake of our troops, our country and our future,
A pragmatic President with some guts can solve this. A purely political President will not. Lets see who shows up.
Bush has control of both houses of Congress, he has millions of dollars in his re-election war chest, he has the most powerful, most advanced armed services in the world. He has almost everything a world leader would want, with the exception of a good solution to our predicament in Iraq.
Bush's administration has bullied, bought and bribed the Coalition of the Willing" for support, only to find out the majority of them are ...not willing.
Lets be honest with ourselves, Bush gambled by rushing to war without UN approval. he lost. To put it in "Bush terms" his cards stink and its time to dump the hand and draw some other cards.
Its time to call in the U.N Cavalry.
George W. has been wounded by the Niger fiasco. Those "16 words"in his State of the Union speech hurt him. How hurt he is, depends on how far up, the blame goes; the amount of violence against our troops in that hot, torturous, bloody mound of sand over there; and the status of the ongoing search for WMD, of course.
Bush's selection of cabinet members with their singular ideologies, seems to have locked him into severely limited political courses' of action. Any move towards abdicating power of any sort to the UN could adversely risk the wrath of his "base" of support; something he will avoid with a passion. The loss of Bush Sr's "base", cost his father, re-election. Bush Jr seems to be taking all his cues from his father's experience. This becomes just one more factor to limit Bush Jr's options. He probably feels like a driver stuck on the inside lane of a roundabout.
The President can't solve the Iraqi issue with the armed service personnel he now has. Rumsfield could start the Draft again, but many draftees do not work out as well, as an all volunteer army. Does anyone remember Vietnam?
I know it must be a major disappointment, for Bush to realize how powerless he is at this point, but the solution is obvious.
We need additional "boots on the ground" in Iraqi, our troops are on extended rotations (This has not happened since the Vietnam war)
The U.S. and Iraq also need:
financial support for the rebuilding effort
increased aid to the Iraqi people
international recognition of the new Iraqi counsel
International Monetary funds to help the Iraqi financial institutions
U.N's. nation rebuilding experience
U.N's international resolutions to sell and exportation Iraqi oil
So my advice to Bush is, use whatever kind of front door, back door, side door, or garage door diplomacy that may be needed. JUST DO IT! For the sake of our troops, our country and our future,
A pragmatic President with some guts can solve this. A purely political President will not. Lets see who shows up.
# posted by Thomas @ 5:53 PM
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Have I ever lied to you?
The latest exchange from the Bush administration reads like a cartoon strip.
CHARLIE BROWN: Lucy, Is it true? I heard that some of the information you used in your yearly State of the Union speech was false. Iraq did not try to buy Uranium from Niger.
LUCY: Yea, I guess so, but, but it was not the whole reason for going to war!
CHARLIE BROWN: How could this happen? Isn't this speech the most reviewed speech a President ever gives?
LUCY: I guess so, but, but It was not the whole reason we used to attack Iraq!
CHARLIE BROWN: Did you make it up so the country would support you in attacking Iraq?
LUCY: If you listen to my speech, I said that according to British Intelligence, they were trying to buy materials from Niger. I never said that WE had proof that Iraq was trying to buy the materials!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, its the Brits fault?
LUCY: I didn't say that, its just that they told us the story and we put it in the speech.
CHARLIE BROWN: I still don't understand how everyone that wrote the story and everyone that previewed thee story didn't question it. Colin Powell did not have it in his UN speech a few days later, because he said it did not look credible?
LUCY: George Tenet should have said something, before I ever said it on TV. Yea, Its George Tenet's fault!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, you didn't make it up, George Tenet just didn't say it wasn't true. But Cheney asked Joseph C. Wilson, the former acting ambassador to Iraq in 1991, to go to Niger and check it out a year ago. He said there was no truth to Iraq buying materials from Niger. Didn't Cheney tell you either?
LUCY: At the time I didn't know it was not true. It was George Tenet's fault.
-------------------------------------------THE NEXT DAY:-----------------------------------------
CHARLIE BROWN: I see that George Tenet said it was all his fault, and that you didn't know it was forged information, because, he did not work hard enough to stop your speech writers from including the bad information in your speech.
LUCY: Yea, it was Tenet's fault alright, but he still has all my faith and support.
CHARLIE BROWN: Is that it, that is all there is to it?
LUCY: Yep, case closed!
CHARLIE BROWN: You mean, you are not going to fire him or anything?
LUCY: No, it was honest mistake, and besides, it was only one little bitty piece of information. There other reasons why we attacked Iraq. This was just a teensy weensie piece.
CHARLIE BROWN: Teensy weensie! Don't you think Congress and a lot of the country went along with you because of that teesy weensie piece?
LUCY: No, that's ridiculous and besides I was right about Iraq trying to buy material for a nuclear bomb!
CHARLIE BROWN: Oh yea?
LUCY: I was right all along! The Brits said they had more information to support the claim that Iraq ...was trying to get materials for an atom bomb to use against us!
CHARLIE BROWN:I know Tony Blair is under the same pressure about this forged piece of information and he said he has additional information to support the U.S. and Britain's pre-emption attack?
LUCY: Yup!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, did the Brits show you their information?
LUCY: Well, no, but I believe them.
CHARLIE BROWN: You said the first bit of information that the Brits gave you was false and that you should not have used it in your speech. What makes you think this information is right?
LUCY: Because.
CHARLIE BROWN: Because?
LUCY: Yup, just because. They are a trusted ally why wouldn't I believe them?
CHARLIE BROWN: I feel like I am on a merry go round.
CHARLIE BROWN: So even though you have not found WMD and you took back the part about Iraq buying materials from Niger, you still stand by all the reasons you gave us to go to war?
LUCY: Yes, and Colin Powell Condoleezza Rice, and Rumsfield have all gone on TV to tell everyone what happened, It was Tenet's fault that the faulty Niger information; that little bitty piece of incorrect information got into my speech and by he way, we will find proof of Iraqi programs to build WMD.
CHARLIE BROWN: Wait a minute, You said Iraq had tons of weapons they could use right now. You specified that they had weapons not just weapons programs.
LUCY: No, I never said they had weapons, I said they had programs.
CHARLIE BROWN:Aren't you trying to change what you originally said?
LUCY: No, that's what everyone else is doing; THEY are revising history, not me!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, by changing what you said is OK?
LUCY: I am not changing what I said. We eliminated a terrible person who killed thousands of his own people and by the way, Saddam is not trying to buy any materials for a nuclear bomb right now! Haw Haw. Thats a good one!
CHARLIE BROWN: I just heard that no one has been able to make any connections between al-Qaida and Iraq. Didn't you say that was another reason for attacking Iraq?
LUCY: I believe we have made our case about that and we will be proven right ; did I mention that Saddam was terrible to his people and he killed thousands of his own people.
CHARLIE BROWN: OK, I'll buy that, but there are a lot of leaders who torture and kill their own people.
LUCY: Yea, but they violated over a dozen separate UN charters!
CHARLIE BROWN: Didn't you say the UN was irrelevant, and didn't you object about giving them any real power in either supporting the war or in rebuilding Iraq?
CHARLIE BROWN: Hasn't Israel violated several UN charters as well?
LUCY: Yea, but those were minor little bitty teensy weensie things.
CHARLIE BROWN: GOOD GRIEF!
LUCY: Come on Charlie Brown, lets go down to the park. I have a new football. I'll tee it up. I'll even let you be the first person to kick it.
CHARLIE BROWN: You promise not to pull it away again just as I run up to kick it!
LUCY: Of course I promise not to pull it away! I'll let you kick it. Have I ever lied to you?
CHARLIE BROWN: Lucy, Is it true? I heard that some of the information you used in your yearly State of the Union speech was false. Iraq did not try to buy Uranium from Niger.
LUCY: Yea, I guess so, but, but it was not the whole reason for going to war!
CHARLIE BROWN: How could this happen? Isn't this speech the most reviewed speech a President ever gives?
LUCY: I guess so, but, but It was not the whole reason we used to attack Iraq!
CHARLIE BROWN: Did you make it up so the country would support you in attacking Iraq?
LUCY: If you listen to my speech, I said that according to British Intelligence, they were trying to buy materials from Niger. I never said that WE had proof that Iraq was trying to buy the materials!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, its the Brits fault?
LUCY: I didn't say that, its just that they told us the story and we put it in the speech.
CHARLIE BROWN: I still don't understand how everyone that wrote the story and everyone that previewed thee story didn't question it. Colin Powell did not have it in his UN speech a few days later, because he said it did not look credible?
LUCY: George Tenet should have said something, before I ever said it on TV. Yea, Its George Tenet's fault!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, you didn't make it up, George Tenet just didn't say it wasn't true. But Cheney asked Joseph C. Wilson, the former acting ambassador to Iraq in 1991, to go to Niger and check it out a year ago. He said there was no truth to Iraq buying materials from Niger. Didn't Cheney tell you either?
LUCY: At the time I didn't know it was not true. It was George Tenet's fault.
-------------------------------------------THE NEXT DAY:-----------------------------------------
CHARLIE BROWN: I see that George Tenet said it was all his fault, and that you didn't know it was forged information, because, he did not work hard enough to stop your speech writers from including the bad information in your speech.
LUCY: Yea, it was Tenet's fault alright, but he still has all my faith and support.
CHARLIE BROWN: Is that it, that is all there is to it?
LUCY: Yep, case closed!
CHARLIE BROWN: You mean, you are not going to fire him or anything?
LUCY: No, it was honest mistake, and besides, it was only one little bitty piece of information. There other reasons why we attacked Iraq. This was just a teensy weensie piece.
CHARLIE BROWN: Teensy weensie! Don't you think Congress and a lot of the country went along with you because of that teesy weensie piece?
LUCY: No, that's ridiculous and besides I was right about Iraq trying to buy material for a nuclear bomb!
CHARLIE BROWN: Oh yea?
LUCY: I was right all along! The Brits said they had more information to support the claim that Iraq ...was trying to get materials for an atom bomb to use against us!
CHARLIE BROWN:I know Tony Blair is under the same pressure about this forged piece of information and he said he has additional information to support the U.S. and Britain's pre-emption attack?
LUCY: Yup!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, did the Brits show you their information?
LUCY: Well, no, but I believe them.
CHARLIE BROWN: You said the first bit of information that the Brits gave you was false and that you should not have used it in your speech. What makes you think this information is right?
LUCY: Because.
CHARLIE BROWN: Because?
LUCY: Yup, just because. They are a trusted ally why wouldn't I believe them?
CHARLIE BROWN: I feel like I am on a merry go round.
CHARLIE BROWN: So even though you have not found WMD and you took back the part about Iraq buying materials from Niger, you still stand by all the reasons you gave us to go to war?
LUCY: Yes, and Colin Powell Condoleezza Rice, and Rumsfield have all gone on TV to tell everyone what happened, It was Tenet's fault that the faulty Niger information; that little bitty piece of incorrect information got into my speech and by he way, we will find proof of Iraqi programs to build WMD.
CHARLIE BROWN: Wait a minute, You said Iraq had tons of weapons they could use right now. You specified that they had weapons not just weapons programs.
LUCY: No, I never said they had weapons, I said they had programs.
CHARLIE BROWN:Aren't you trying to change what you originally said?
LUCY: No, that's what everyone else is doing; THEY are revising history, not me!
CHARLIE BROWN: So, by changing what you said is OK?
LUCY: I am not changing what I said. We eliminated a terrible person who killed thousands of his own people and by the way, Saddam is not trying to buy any materials for a nuclear bomb right now! Haw Haw. Thats a good one!
CHARLIE BROWN: I just heard that no one has been able to make any connections between al-Qaida and Iraq. Didn't you say that was another reason for attacking Iraq?
LUCY: I believe we have made our case about that and we will be proven right ; did I mention that Saddam was terrible to his people and he killed thousands of his own people.
CHARLIE BROWN: OK, I'll buy that, but there are a lot of leaders who torture and kill their own people.
LUCY: Yea, but they violated over a dozen separate UN charters!
CHARLIE BROWN: Didn't you say the UN was irrelevant, and didn't you object about giving them any real power in either supporting the war or in rebuilding Iraq?
CHARLIE BROWN: Hasn't Israel violated several UN charters as well?
LUCY: Yea, but those were minor little bitty teensy weensie things.
CHARLIE BROWN: GOOD GRIEF!
LUCY: Come on Charlie Brown, lets go down to the park. I have a new football. I'll tee it up. I'll even let you be the first person to kick it.
CHARLIE BROWN: You promise not to pull it away again just as I run up to kick it!
LUCY: Of course I promise not to pull it away! I'll let you kick it. Have I ever lied to you?
# posted by Thomas @ 6:43 PM
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Overtime, seems to be the next target for Bush
The Bush administration's approach to solving the economy problem seems to give the richer people in our society more money while he is pushing for a modification of the Fair Labor Standards Act to take money away from others. It is like watching a circus magician who makes small colorful balls disappear in one hand only to have them reappear in a different one.
The recently passed Bush tax bill has been pretty well recognized as a windfall for upper income individuals. Prior to that bill passage, back on March 31, 2003, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulatory changes, which if adopted, could make more than eight million white-collar employees ineligible for overtime pay.
The Department of Labor rule changes proposed by the Bush Administration in March 2003 would make significant changes to tests which determine who can and can't collect overtime. The result of the new tests being proposed, make it likely that millions of workers will work longer hours at reduced pay. Nearly 80 percent of all workers are in jobs that qualify them for overtime pay, which is time-and-a-half for each hour that is worked beyond the normal 40-hour week. The administration wants to make it easier for employers to exempt many of those workers from overtime protection by classifying them as administrative, professional or executive personnel.
Under the old rules, "educated professionals" were people who had scientific or specialized degrees. These "educated professionals" are ineligible for overtime.
Under the new rules, work experience or technical training can be enough to reclassify them and make them ineligible for overtime.
In another example, according to the old rules "executives" are ineligible for overtime, "Executives" were people who hired and fired workers, set wages and assigned work. The new rules broaden the definition of "executives" to include any workers who occasionally, supervise other workers, even if they spend most of their time doing manual labor.
Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, the fear is that employers will schedule more of it, and the workers will have to work extra hours to make up for lost overtime.
On the low end of the pay scale, the proposal, states that any worker earning less than $22,100 a year automatically would be entitled to overtime pay, regardless of whether they are paid hourly or earn an annual salary. Workers would get overtime pay despite their management status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year. Some companies may decide that by boosting some salaries above the $22,100 cap they would avoid paying the overtime.
Employers have been asking for changes in overtime pay regulations because of the confusion around the rules for overtime and mounting lawsuits. Some also say that increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to over a billion dollar savings.
Businesses and labor unions both agree that the current regulations of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which were last updated in 1948, are confusing and outdated. The disagreement comes from how to update standards that determine what jobs must receive an hourly wage of time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.
Almost 110 million workers are covered by the law, or about 80 percent of the work force.
Officials say those requirements would exempt about 644,000 professional employees earning between $22,100 and $65,000 who now get overtime pay. That figure doesn't include another proposed exemption, for workers making $65,000 or more annually and meeting only part of the jobs duties criteria.
Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions would not be affected.
According to the Labor Department figures issues on July 3, the "total hours worked were unchanged in June. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.7 hours. In manufacturing, the average workweek was unchanged at 40.2 hours, including 4 hours of overtime."
In a separate adjustment to overtime, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill) introduced a bill called the Family Time Flexibility Act. It gives workers more quality time at home by offering workers time off instead of overtime pay.
The Family Time Flexibility Act would permit employers to allow employees who work more than 40 hours a week to have time off rather than overtime pay. If passed, it would modify the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
The bipartisan bill was introduced in March by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), with Rep. William Lipinski (D-Ill.) and more than 70 other representatives as co-sponsors. The House Education and Workforce subcommittee passed it April 3. The voluntary agreement was passed by the full committee April 9.
Unions oppose this bill because they fear employers will force workers to take compensatory time instead of overtime pay.
The act allows comp time only if both sides agree to it. And employees will be able to bank up to 160 hours to use for paid time off. They will be able to cancel the agreement at any time and ask for pay instead. Compensation would be at the traditional rate of time-and-a-half.
Another concern is that employers may decide when, the time off can be taken. On the surface, it looks like the proposal isn't such a bad payoff. But only if employees are not forced to take compensatory time instead of money..
So what we have is a nine year high in unemployment, Bush is working at reducing overtime pay for what could be, millions of workers. The The House Education and Workforce subcommittee agreed to a bill which gives workers time off instead of overtime pay. Meanwhile those fortunate few in the upper tax brackets will pay fewer taxes than ever.
The Bush proposal, if passed, will cause workers to work longer hours, if they are available to make up for lost overtime pay. (the Labor Department doesn't put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work) The Judy Biggert Bill wants people to have more time off. Meanwhile those stock dividends keep rolling in for those with significant investments. Where is Robin Hood when you need him?
Sources Cited:
Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
NYTimes Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein
Carol Kleiman Chicago Tribune
Bob Herbert Seattle pi.com
Leigh Strope The Associated Press
The recently passed Bush tax bill has been pretty well recognized as a windfall for upper income individuals. Prior to that bill passage, back on March 31, 2003, the Department of Labor (DOL) proposed regulatory changes, which if adopted, could make more than eight million white-collar employees ineligible for overtime pay.
The Department of Labor rule changes proposed by the Bush Administration in March 2003 would make significant changes to tests which determine who can and can't collect overtime. The result of the new tests being proposed, make it likely that millions of workers will work longer hours at reduced pay. Nearly 80 percent of all workers are in jobs that qualify them for overtime pay, which is time-and-a-half for each hour that is worked beyond the normal 40-hour week. The administration wants to make it easier for employers to exempt many of those workers from overtime protection by classifying them as administrative, professional or executive personnel.
Under the old rules, "educated professionals" were people who had scientific or specialized degrees. These "educated professionals" are ineligible for overtime.
Under the new rules, work experience or technical training can be enough to reclassify them and make them ineligible for overtime.
In another example, according to the old rules "executives" are ineligible for overtime, "Executives" were people who hired and fired workers, set wages and assigned work. The new rules broaden the definition of "executives" to include any workers who occasionally, supervise other workers, even if they spend most of their time doing manual labor.
Once employers are not required to pay for overtime work, the fear is that employers will schedule more of it, and the workers will have to work extra hours to make up for lost overtime.
On the low end of the pay scale, the proposal, states that any worker earning less than $22,100 a year automatically would be entitled to overtime pay, regardless of whether they are paid hourly or earn an annual salary. Workers would get overtime pay despite their management status as long as they earn less than $22,100 a year. Some companies may decide that by boosting some salaries above the $22,100 cap they would avoid paying the overtime.
Employers have been asking for changes in overtime pay regulations because of the confusion around the rules for overtime and mounting lawsuits. Some also say that increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to over a billion dollar savings.
Businesses and labor unions both agree that the current regulations of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which were last updated in 1948, are confusing and outdated. The disagreement comes from how to update standards that determine what jobs must receive an hourly wage of time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours a week.
Almost 110 million workers are covered by the law, or about 80 percent of the work force.
Officials say those requirements would exempt about 644,000 professional employees earning between $22,100 and $65,000 who now get overtime pay. That figure doesn't include another proposed exemption, for workers making $65,000 or more annually and meeting only part of the jobs duties criteria.
Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions would not be affected.
According to the Labor Department figures issues on July 3, the "total hours worked were unchanged in June. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.7 hours. In manufacturing, the average workweek was unchanged at 40.2 hours, including 4 hours of overtime."
In a separate adjustment to overtime, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill) introduced a bill called the Family Time Flexibility Act. It gives workers more quality time at home by offering workers time off instead of overtime pay.
The Family Time Flexibility Act would permit employers to allow employees who work more than 40 hours a week to have time off rather than overtime pay. If passed, it would modify the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act.
The bipartisan bill was introduced in March by Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), with Rep. William Lipinski (D-Ill.) and more than 70 other representatives as co-sponsors. The House Education and Workforce subcommittee passed it April 3. The voluntary agreement was passed by the full committee April 9.
Unions oppose this bill because they fear employers will force workers to take compensatory time instead of overtime pay.
The act allows comp time only if both sides agree to it. And employees will be able to bank up to 160 hours to use for paid time off. They will be able to cancel the agreement at any time and ask for pay instead. Compensation would be at the traditional rate of time-and-a-half.
Another concern is that employers may decide when, the time off can be taken. On the surface, it looks like the proposal isn't such a bad payoff. But only if employees are not forced to take compensatory time instead of money..
So what we have is a nine year high in unemployment, Bush is working at reducing overtime pay for what could be, millions of workers. The The House Education and Workforce subcommittee agreed to a bill which gives workers time off instead of overtime pay. Meanwhile those fortunate few in the upper tax brackets will pay fewer taxes than ever.
The Bush proposal, if passed, will cause workers to work longer hours, if they are available to make up for lost overtime pay. (the Labor Department doesn't put any limit on the number of hours per week an employee must work) The Judy Biggert Bill wants people to have more time off. Meanwhile those stock dividends keep rolling in for those with significant investments. Where is Robin Hood when you need him?
Sources Cited:
Rex Nutting, CBS.MarketWatch.com
NYTimes Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein
Carol Kleiman Chicago Tribune
Bob Herbert Seattle pi.com
Leigh Strope The Associated Press
# posted by Thomas @ 1:50 AM
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Angry war spouses speak out
On this Fourth of July, we celebrate our independence. We pay tribute to those who protect our freedoms and are willing to lay their lives down for us, our servicemen and women. For many of those who now serve in Iraq, their once altruistic mission has become a frustrating and perilous task, and patience is running thinner and thinner by an unexpected group, the soldier's spouses and their families.
The soldiers patrolling the ever dangerous cities and villages in Iraq are obviously in a high stress situation; President Bush has now boosted the stress their wives and loved ones are feeling.
War causes stress for all concerned, however the stress being felt by the spouses left at home has been aggravated by George' Bush's celebrated aircraft carrier landing on May 1.
The televised images of President Bush in a Navy S-3B Viking jet landing onto the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, were intended to strike a note of triumph in the country, as he strode around the deck in his fighter pilot outfit. In a speech from the deck, Bush declared an end to major combat operations. Many people, including military families had the impression, that the war had come to a conclusive end. Those impressions were shattered by the loss of loved ones in the unsettled aftermath in Iraq.
The administration's apparent rush to begin his presidential campaign for 2004, left the impression that our soldiers would soon start be coming home and many of the servicemen's spouses counted on it. The president's speech made it apparent to all that we should put this particular conflict behind us. Saddam has been deposed, it did not matter if we find WMD's or Saddam himself. The Iraqi people have been freed, mission accomplished, its over. The only thing left is mop up work and setting up a democracy.
As we have noticed on the news, the war is hardly over, it has just morphed into "hit and run" fighting by the Iraqis. Our soldiers are being killed on a regular basis, with many more being wounded.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of ground forces in Iraq said an average of 13 attacks have been launched each day against occupation forces during the past 45 days, totaling roughly 585. In addition to the use of increasingly sophisticated explosive devices, Sanchez said, "we believe there may be regional cooperation of subversives," including Iraqis loyal to Hussein, Islamic radicals and common criminals.
Clearly, it doesn't take a "major combat operation" to claim a soldier's life. Call the killers, Baathist party members, Republican Guard, released criminals, Fedayeen, disgruntled Iraqi policemen, Islamic fighters from other countries, Saddam loyalists, or whatever. Our soldiers are being killed at a daily rate and the soldier's spouses are asking why.
Call the action, guerrilla warfare, coordinated attacks or uncoordinated attacks; it does not matter to the spouses. Our servicemen are being picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery and that point is being painfully felt by their families.
Luisa Leija's husband, a young artillery captain in Iraq commands part of an artillery unit, 3-16 Bravo, also known as the Bulldogs. Like many of the soldier's wives, she has visions of a military champlain showing up at the door any day now. She was recently thrown in a panic when her 9-year-old daughter told her, a soldier dressed in full camouflage was on the doorstep. She quickly went into a panic at the sight of the soldier at her door. She calmed down when the soldier explained that he lived in the neighborhood and he had locked himself out of his house. Her panic soon subsided, but the weariness and the anger settled back in. She is angry that her husband, Capt. Frank Leija, and the rest of the Bulldogs have not come home yet, even though President Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq had ended. "I want my husband home," "I am so on edge. When they first left, I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what they trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They are not doing what they trained for. They have become police in a place they're not welcome."
Fort Hood received their orders to go to Iraq and 20,000 soldiers left the base earlier in the year. The neighborhood is now almost empty, pale yellow ribbons flutter from the trees, and the base has become a drab dreary, depressing and lonely place for the spouses and other loved ones who remained behind.
The ugly mood at Fort Hood is not unique. It exists at all the military bases.
Eight soldiers with Fort Carson ties have been killed since May 1, and many families at Fort Carson, are suffering from anxiety, depression and fear.
Menzer Bobonis, who is married to 42-year-old Sgt. Maj. Sigfrido Bobonis, is attached to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Carson.
Bobonis works at Fort Carson's Regional Training Support Center, where she sees plenty of soldiers and their spouses on a daily basis. She hears their fears. "They try not to listen to rumors or listen to the news," Bobonis said. "But there's still a lot of gossip going around about the dangers (in Iraq)." "We try to control that."
Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, Ga., that a colonel, had to be escorted from a meeting with 800 seething spouses. "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming for their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, director of community services at Fort Stewart.
Long deployment has led to dozens of delayed engagements, family financial problems, missed births and broken marriages. "Guys who had a rocky marriage before, it's worse now," says Staff Sgt. Gordon Baker, 26, of Tannersville, Pa. That may be why many soldiers beg international aid workers and journalists to use their satellite phones. Some vent their frustrations to the folks at home. Others reassure relatives they'll be home soon. Non-the-less, most families are especially grateful for the scratchy phone calls and the brief e-mails they receive.
The Red Cross has also been utilized to help everyone involved, with the stresses of deployment overseas. The Red Cross is charged with the responsibility of delivering emergency messages to those troops. And with more deployments, and longer ones at that, this task is becoming overwhelming for the local chapter.
Before the war in Afghanistan, the office received 15 to 20 emergency messages a month. When the troops were deployed, in late 2001, the monthly messages doubled, said Cecil Stout, disaster management director.
When Operation Iraqi Freedom was in full swing, the calls came to about 60 per month. But as of last month, the calls skyrocketed to nearly 200.
"Our office is just not designed to take that amount of calls," said Stout, who spent 25 years in the Marine Corps.
The photo op that the Bush team came up involving the carrier landing, overstated the war's end, just like they apparently overstated our reasons for going to war to begin with. This fact is not being lost on the spouses of the servicemen and women in Iraq.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of anger, weariness, depression and frustration in military homes throughout the country, which could have been alleviated somewhat by a truly compassionate, leader.
Sources Cited:
Molly Moore and Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Foreign Service
Charlie Brennan Rocky Mountain News
Jeffrey Getttleman New York Times
Chantal Escoto The Leaf-Chronicle
Greg Williamson The Leaf-Chronicle
The soldiers patrolling the ever dangerous cities and villages in Iraq are obviously in a high stress situation; President Bush has now boosted the stress their wives and loved ones are feeling.
War causes stress for all concerned, however the stress being felt by the spouses left at home has been aggravated by George' Bush's celebrated aircraft carrier landing on May 1.
The televised images of President Bush in a Navy S-3B Viking jet landing onto the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, were intended to strike a note of triumph in the country, as he strode around the deck in his fighter pilot outfit. In a speech from the deck, Bush declared an end to major combat operations. Many people, including military families had the impression, that the war had come to a conclusive end. Those impressions were shattered by the loss of loved ones in the unsettled aftermath in Iraq.
The administration's apparent rush to begin his presidential campaign for 2004, left the impression that our soldiers would soon start be coming home and many of the servicemen's spouses counted on it. The president's speech made it apparent to all that we should put this particular conflict behind us. Saddam has been deposed, it did not matter if we find WMD's or Saddam himself. The Iraqi people have been freed, mission accomplished, its over. The only thing left is mop up work and setting up a democracy.
As we have noticed on the news, the war is hardly over, it has just morphed into "hit and run" fighting by the Iraqis. Our soldiers are being killed on a regular basis, with many more being wounded.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of ground forces in Iraq said an average of 13 attacks have been launched each day against occupation forces during the past 45 days, totaling roughly 585. In addition to the use of increasingly sophisticated explosive devices, Sanchez said, "we believe there may be regional cooperation of subversives," including Iraqis loyal to Hussein, Islamic radicals and common criminals.
Clearly, it doesn't take a "major combat operation" to claim a soldier's life. Call the killers, Baathist party members, Republican Guard, released criminals, Fedayeen, disgruntled Iraqi policemen, Islamic fighters from other countries, Saddam loyalists, or whatever. Our soldiers are being killed at a daily rate and the soldier's spouses are asking why.
Call the action, guerrilla warfare, coordinated attacks or uncoordinated attacks; it does not matter to the spouses. Our servicemen are being picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery and that point is being painfully felt by their families.
Luisa Leija's husband, a young artillery captain in Iraq commands part of an artillery unit, 3-16 Bravo, also known as the Bulldogs. Like many of the soldier's wives, she has visions of a military champlain showing up at the door any day now. She was recently thrown in a panic when her 9-year-old daughter told her, a soldier dressed in full camouflage was on the doorstep. She quickly went into a panic at the sight of the soldier at her door. She calmed down when the soldier explained that he lived in the neighborhood and he had locked himself out of his house. Her panic soon subsided, but the weariness and the anger settled back in. She is angry that her husband, Capt. Frank Leija, and the rest of the Bulldogs have not come home yet, even though President Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq had ended. "I want my husband home," "I am so on edge. When they first left, I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what they trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They are not doing what they trained for. They have become police in a place they're not welcome."
Fort Hood received their orders to go to Iraq and 20,000 soldiers left the base earlier in the year. The neighborhood is now almost empty, pale yellow ribbons flutter from the trees, and the base has become a drab dreary, depressing and lonely place for the spouses and other loved ones who remained behind.
The ugly mood at Fort Hood is not unique. It exists at all the military bases.
Eight soldiers with Fort Carson ties have been killed since May 1, and many families at Fort Carson, are suffering from anxiety, depression and fear.
Menzer Bobonis, who is married to 42-year-old Sgt. Maj. Sigfrido Bobonis, is attached to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Carson.
Bobonis works at Fort Carson's Regional Training Support Center, where she sees plenty of soldiers and their spouses on a daily basis. She hears their fears. "They try not to listen to rumors or listen to the news," Bobonis said. "But there's still a lot of gossip going around about the dangers (in Iraq)." "We try to control that."
Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, Ga., that a colonel, had to be escorted from a meeting with 800 seething spouses. "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming for their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, director of community services at Fort Stewart.
Long deployment has led to dozens of delayed engagements, family financial problems, missed births and broken marriages. "Guys who had a rocky marriage before, it's worse now," says Staff Sgt. Gordon Baker, 26, of Tannersville, Pa. That may be why many soldiers beg international aid workers and journalists to use their satellite phones. Some vent their frustrations to the folks at home. Others reassure relatives they'll be home soon. Non-the-less, most families are especially grateful for the scratchy phone calls and the brief e-mails they receive.
The Red Cross has also been utilized to help everyone involved, with the stresses of deployment overseas. The Red Cross is charged with the responsibility of delivering emergency messages to those troops. And with more deployments, and longer ones at that, this task is becoming overwhelming for the local chapter.
Before the war in Afghanistan, the office received 15 to 20 emergency messages a month. When the troops were deployed, in late 2001, the monthly messages doubled, said Cecil Stout, disaster management director.
When Operation Iraqi Freedom was in full swing, the calls came to about 60 per month. But as of last month, the calls skyrocketed to nearly 200.
"Our office is just not designed to take that amount of calls," said Stout, who spent 25 years in the Marine Corps.
The photo op that the Bush team came up involving the carrier landing, overstated the war's end, just like they apparently overstated our reasons for going to war to begin with. This fact is not being lost on the spouses of the servicemen and women in Iraq.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of anger, weariness, depression and frustration in military homes throughout the country, which could have been alleviated somewhat by a truly compassionate, leader.
Sources Cited:
Molly Moore and Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Foreign Service
Charlie Brennan Rocky Mountain News
Jeffrey Getttleman New York Times
Chantal Escoto The Leaf-Chronicle
Greg Williamson The Leaf-Chronicle
# posted by Thomas @ 12:10 AM
Thursday, July 03, 2003
The President actually told the Iraqi's to ""bring em on" asserting that the forces are "plenty tough" to deal with the threat. What good did that do?
George has said some pretty outrages things like "You're either with us or against us". He just can't seem to avoid polarizing countries, people and nations. This last episode seems to fit that pattern.
He has the habit of "hitting the pinata" and expecting candy to spill out.
In the months prior to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration gave the impression that bringing down Saddam Hussein would be like "hitting a pinata": He stated that we would not only destroy the target but release a cascade of blessings.
The administration was as wrong as could be on that one. Iraqi's so called welcome wagons became American ambulances carrying away our dead and wounded soldiers.
Every day we awake to more news of U.S. soldiers being ambushed. Over 200 soldiers have died and many more have been wounded. Bush's latest comments can't help but aggravate an already volatile situation. Our soldiers did not need this kind of help.
Is his rising anger and frustration about so many people are questioning his performance and the soundness of his decisions?
Is he upset because the latest polls show his popularity slipping by 10 points since last month?
Are the constant questions about his exaggerated claims of Iraqi WMD getting to him?
Are the strained relations with the majority of nations around the world causing him problems.
Does he sense that the recent UN draft which does not show any connection between Al Queda and Iraqi open up one more crack in his credibility?
Are the constant resignations of Bush appointees from several high level posts getting to him?
Is he having trouble getting other countries to send their military personnel to replace our soldiers in Iraq?
Is the latest request for American troops by Liberia, just prior to his African trip, make him think he is over his head now, and does this request push up against Rumsfield's idea of a leaner and meaner military?
Are the neo conservatives after him, because he has not been able to move Miguel Estrada through the Senate; which is especially critical, in light of the "leftward leaning" opinions such as support for affirmative action and the reversal of the Texas Sodomy law?
How many of all those chickens that George Bush let loose, are coming home to roost right now; and how many of them are out there yet to come in? This could leave a mark.
Sources Cited:
Dana Milbank and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post
Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian
George has said some pretty outrages things like "You're either with us or against us". He just can't seem to avoid polarizing countries, people and nations. This last episode seems to fit that pattern.
He has the habit of "hitting the pinata" and expecting candy to spill out.
In the months prior to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration gave the impression that bringing down Saddam Hussein would be like "hitting a pinata": He stated that we would not only destroy the target but release a cascade of blessings.
The administration was as wrong as could be on that one. Iraqi's so called welcome wagons became American ambulances carrying away our dead and wounded soldiers.
Every day we awake to more news of U.S. soldiers being ambushed. Over 200 soldiers have died and many more have been wounded. Bush's latest comments can't help but aggravate an already volatile situation. Our soldiers did not need this kind of help.
Is his rising anger and frustration about so many people are questioning his performance and the soundness of his decisions?
Is he upset because the latest polls show his popularity slipping by 10 points since last month?
Are the constant questions about his exaggerated claims of Iraqi WMD getting to him?
Are the strained relations with the majority of nations around the world causing him problems.
Does he sense that the recent UN draft which does not show any connection between Al Queda and Iraqi open up one more crack in his credibility?
Are the constant resignations of Bush appointees from several high level posts getting to him?
Is he having trouble getting other countries to send their military personnel to replace our soldiers in Iraq?
Is the latest request for American troops by Liberia, just prior to his African trip, make him think he is over his head now, and does this request push up against Rumsfield's idea of a leaner and meaner military?
Are the neo conservatives after him, because he has not been able to move Miguel Estrada through the Senate; which is especially critical, in light of the "leftward leaning" opinions such as support for affirmative action and the reversal of the Texas Sodomy law?
How many of all those chickens that George Bush let loose, are coming home to roost right now; and how many of them are out there yet to come in? This could leave a mark.
Sources Cited:
Dana Milbank and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post
Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian
# posted by Thomas @ 1:55 AM
