Democratic Party of Oregon passes resolution for investigation and impeachmen
Democrats called for investigation into the Bush Administration's misrepresentations to the American people and to Congress in the run up to the Iraq War, and impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Passed at the March 10th meeting of the State Central Committee, the resolution was sponsored by John F. Bradach, Sr., whose nephew Travis Bradach-Nall was killed in Iraq the day George said "Bring 'em on."
The text of the resolution follows. You can also download a copy in PDF.
The text of the resolution follows. You can also download a copy in PDF.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007 – 777
A RESOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party of the State of Oregon passed a resolution calling for impeachment proceedings against the current Bush Administration on the 16 day of July, 2005,th as Resolution No. 2005-0009, which Resolution is attached and incorporated herein, and
Whereas, Congress, under the control of the Republicans, took no action to investigate the potential for impeachment arising out of the events preceding the invasion of Iraq by the United States of America; and
Whereas, the bipartisan commissions which looked into the attacks of September 11, 2001 ("the 9/11 Commission") and the War in Iraq ("the Iraq Study Group") each declined to extend their respective inquiries into the precursor events and responsibility for the Iraq War; and
Whereas, Congress under the control of the Democrats has yet to begin effective inquiry into possible impeachment; and
Whereas, the President and Vice President have each been fully and directly engaged in the policies and actions of their Administration;
Whereas, many Members of the House of Representatives, of both parties, debating the Iraq War and the February 16, 2007 Resolution against the Bush Administration’s "troop surge", argued facts which, if true, constitute high crimes and misdemeanors in office, by both the President and Vice President, (in particular, that critical intelligence presented to Congress and the United Nations was manipulated and falsified, not erroneous); and
Whereas, the cost of the War in Iraq is approaching $400 Billion, and
Whereas, the President and Vice President have demonstrated complete unwillingness to heed the November 2006 vote of the American people, or the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report issued that same month, with regard to continued prosecution of the Iraq War; and
Whereas, Marine Corporal Travis Bradach-Nall and the other members of the military from Oregon who have died in Iraq since the invasion, and the over 3190 American soldiers, marines sailors and coast guards who have died in Iraq, are all still dead; and
Whereas, all of their friends and members of their families have been irreparably harmed and are continuously hurting from their loss, and
Whereas, absent some process to effectively assess and enforce responsibility and accountability for the Bush Administration’s acts, omissions and misrepresentations to justify and launch the War in Iraq, the number of dead, and of injured family members will only increase, exponentially:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF OREGON RESOLVES, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Democratic Party of the State of Oregon supports immediate investigative hearings before appropriate Congressional committees into the Bush Administration’s misrepresentations to Congress the American people and the United Nations, which induced the Act of Congress (PL 107-243, October 16, 2002), regarding the use of force against Iraq; and
Section 2. The Democratic Party of the State of Oregon supports the commencement of impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors in the processes and propaganda which preceded the invasion of Iraq by the United States of America.
Ephemeral will be on hiatus for about 10 days.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Ending the War
Senate Backs Pullout Proposal
Hagel Joins Democrats On War Funding Bill
By Shailagh MurrayWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01
Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.
The Senate withdrawal provision, which sets a March 31, 2008, target for ending U.S. combat operations, is tucked into a $122 billion package to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a must-pass bill that Democrats view as their best shot at forcing Bush to change direction. The withdrawal language was nearly identical to that of a Senate resolution rejected 50 to 48 two weeks ago
Wow let's see, another 1000 or so Americans will die between now and March 2008 another 200 billion or so dollars wasted in Iraq. Good job senators!!
_______________________________________
I would like to see this happen here in NY State where the trees have plastic bags caught in the limbs.
S.F. Leaders OK Plastic Grocery Bag Ban
(AP) San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi hands out canvas shopping bags, Tuesday, March 27, 2007,
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - City leaders approved a ban on plastic grocery bags after weeks of lobbying on both sides from environmentalists and a supermarket trade group. If Mayor Gavin Newsom signs the ban as expected, San Francisco would be the first U.S. city to adopt such a rule.
The law, passed by a 10-1 vote, requires large markets and drug stores to give customers only a choice among bags made of paper that can be recycled, plastic that breaks down easily enough to be made into compost, or reusable cloth.
_______________________________________
Half Would Not Vote for ClintonThough most polls show Sen. Hillary Clinton as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new Harris Poll finds that 50% of American adults say they would not vote for her if she was the Democratic candidate, while only 36% say they would, with 11% unsure. More striking is that many Democrats are not behind her either, as 21% say they would not vote for her
_______________________________________
Monica Goodling a graduate of Pat Robertson U.
McClatchy reports on Goodling, the top aide to Alberto Gonzales who is taking the Fifth Amendment:
Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit."
She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."
E-mails show that Goodling was involved in planning the dismissals and in later efforts to limit the negative reaction. As the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, she could shed light on the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals.
She says will use the 5th amendment if called to testify.
_______________________________________
Administration’s Secret Plan To ‘Gut’ Endangered Species Act Revealed
A 117-page document obtained by Salon.com highlights a "secretive plan" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to "gut" the Endangered Species Act.
The law, which is credited with saving the American Bald Eagle from extinction," would be changed to limit the number of species that can be protected," curtail preserved acres of wildlife habitat, and "dilute legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or mining."
These proposed changes are the latest in the Bush administration’s attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act in favor of special interests:
– Scientists pressured to alter findings. FWS scientists had been "forced to alter or withhold findings that would have led to greater protections for endangered species," according to a 2005 survey.
– Political appointees overruled scientists’ findings in favor of industry positions. Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald consistently "rejected staff scientists’ recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act." She called scientific studies "opinion" and told employees to treat them "as we would treat an industry publication."
– FWS lists fewer endangered species under Bush. Since January 2000, President Bush has listed only 57 species as endangered — "fewer than any other administration in history." George H. W. Bush listed 234 and Bill Clinton listed 512.
The proposed changes are also "littered with language lifted directly" from former Rep. Richard Pombo’s (R-CA) failed attempt in the 109th Congress to cripple the Endangered Species Act, and mirrors legislation that current Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthrorne — who oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — attempted (and failed) to pass while in the Senate in 1998
Posted by Guest at 4:17 pm
Warning: Endangered polar bears threaten ‘all 50 states.’
The Western Business Roundtable (run by a former employee of Vice President Cheney) has sent out an activist email warning of the "major new threat to all businesses/industries" if the polar bear is added to the endangered species list:
Environmental extremists and activist lawyers are pushing the federal government to add the Polar Bear to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list. Such a listing would have major negative implications for virtually every business and industry operation in the United States. The ESA is a very powerful law and could subject virtually any human activity in ALL 50 STATES to review and regulation by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) bureaucrats if the Polar Bear is listed as threatened or endangered. This will essentially declare "open season" for environmental lawyers to sue to block virtually any project that involves carbon dioxide emissions.
_______________________________________
Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research
March 27, 2007 12:13 PM
Justin Rood Reports:
Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.
Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.
The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.
The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.
"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report
Hagel Joins Democrats On War Funding Bill
By Shailagh MurrayWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, March 28, 2007; Page A01
Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.
The Senate withdrawal provision, which sets a March 31, 2008, target for ending U.S. combat operations, is tucked into a $122 billion package to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a must-pass bill that Democrats view as their best shot at forcing Bush to change direction. The withdrawal language was nearly identical to that of a Senate resolution rejected 50 to 48 two weeks ago
Wow let's see, another 1000 or so Americans will die between now and March 2008 another 200 billion or so dollars wasted in Iraq. Good job senators!!
_______________________________________
I would like to see this happen here in NY State where the trees have plastic bags caught in the limbs.
S.F. Leaders OK Plastic Grocery Bag Ban
(AP) San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi hands out canvas shopping bags, Tuesday, March 27, 2007,
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - City leaders approved a ban on plastic grocery bags after weeks of lobbying on both sides from environmentalists and a supermarket trade group. If Mayor Gavin Newsom signs the ban as expected, San Francisco would be the first U.S. city to adopt such a rule.
The law, passed by a 10-1 vote, requires large markets and drug stores to give customers only a choice among bags made of paper that can be recycled, plastic that breaks down easily enough to be made into compost, or reusable cloth.
_______________________________________
Half Would Not Vote for ClintonThough most polls show Sen. Hillary Clinton as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new Harris Poll finds that 50% of American adults say they would not vote for her if she was the Democratic candidate, while only 36% say they would, with 11% unsure. More striking is that many Democrats are not behind her either, as 21% say they would not vote for her
_______________________________________
Monica Goodling a graduate of Pat Robertson U.
McClatchy reports on Goodling, the top aide to Alberto Gonzales who is taking the Fifth Amendment:
Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit."
She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."
E-mails show that Goodling was involved in planning the dismissals and in later efforts to limit the negative reaction. As the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, she could shed light on the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals.
She says will use the 5th amendment if called to testify.
_______________________________________
Administration’s Secret Plan To ‘Gut’ Endangered Species Act Revealed
A 117-page document obtained by Salon.com highlights a "secretive plan" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to "gut" the Endangered Species Act.
The law, which is credited with saving the American Bald Eagle from extinction," would be changed to limit the number of species that can be protected," curtail preserved acres of wildlife habitat, and "dilute legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or mining."
These proposed changes are the latest in the Bush administration’s attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act in favor of special interests:
– Scientists pressured to alter findings. FWS scientists had been "forced to alter or withhold findings that would have led to greater protections for endangered species," according to a 2005 survey.
– Political appointees overruled scientists’ findings in favor of industry positions. Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald consistently "rejected staff scientists’ recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act." She called scientific studies "opinion" and told employees to treat them "as we would treat an industry publication."
– FWS lists fewer endangered species under Bush. Since January 2000, President Bush has listed only 57 species as endangered — "fewer than any other administration in history." George H. W. Bush listed 234 and Bill Clinton listed 512.
The proposed changes are also "littered with language lifted directly" from former Rep. Richard Pombo’s (R-CA) failed attempt in the 109th Congress to cripple the Endangered Species Act, and mirrors legislation that current Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthrorne — who oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — attempted (and failed) to pass while in the Senate in 1998
Posted by Guest at 4:17 pm
Warning: Endangered polar bears threaten ‘all 50 states.’
The Western Business Roundtable (run by a former employee of Vice President Cheney) has sent out an activist email warning of the "major new threat to all businesses/industries" if the polar bear is added to the endangered species list:
Environmental extremists and activist lawyers are pushing the federal government to add the Polar Bear to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list. Such a listing would have major negative implications for virtually every business and industry operation in the United States. The ESA is a very powerful law and could subject virtually any human activity in ALL 50 STATES to review and regulation by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) bureaucrats if the Polar Bear is listed as threatened or endangered. This will essentially declare "open season" for environmental lawyers to sue to block virtually any project that involves carbon dioxide emissions.
_______________________________________
Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research
March 27, 2007 12:13 PM
Justin Rood Reports:
Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.
Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.
The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.
The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.
"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Corn $5 an ear
If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels
Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people. People - and the environment - will lose. By George Monbiot.Tuesday March 27, 2007
It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow - it is released again when the fuel is burned. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be "decarbonising" our transport networks.
This week George Bush announced that he would quintuple the US target for biofuels: by 2017 they should be supplying 24% of the nation's transport fuel.
So what's wrong with these programmes? Only that they are a formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004 I warned, on these pages, that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are richer than those who are in danger of starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats. I received more abuse than I've had for any other column - except for when I attacked the 9/11 conspiracists. I was told my claims were ridiculous, laughable, impossible. Well in one respect I was wrong. I thought these effects wouldn't materialise for many years. They are happening already.
Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.
Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat.
Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild.
But it gets worse. As the forests are burned, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.
There are similar impacts all over the world. Sugarcane producers are moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil, and soya farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it's likely to become a lot worse. Indigenous people in South America, Asia and Africa are starting to complain about incursions onto their land by fuel planters. A petition launched by a group called biofuelwatch, begging western governments to stop, has been signed by campaigners from 250 groups.
The British government is well aware that there's a problem. On his blog last year the environment secretary David Miliband noted that palm oil plantations "are destroying 0.7% of the Malaysian rainforest each year, reducing a vital natural resource (and in the process, destroying the natural habitat of the orang-utan). It is all connected." Unlike government policy. .
We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugar cane. Even then, the targets should be set low and increased only cautiously. I suggest a five-year freeze.
This would require a huge campaign, tougher than the one which helped to win a five-year freeze on growing genetically modified crops in the UK. That was important - GM crops give big companies unprecedented control over the foodchain. But most of their effects are indirect, while the devastation caused by biofuel is immediate and already visible.
This is why it will be harder to stop: encouraged by government policy, vast investments are now being made by farmers and chemical companies. Stopping them requires one heck of a battle. But it has to be fought.
______________________________________
Sticky times for the maple tree
Its leaves are a riot of colour; its sap produces one of America's favourite delicacies. But the effects of climate change may soon drive the maple tree out of Vermont
By Rupert Cornwell
Published: 27 March 2007
As April Fool's Days jokes go, the one about exploding sugar maple trees was pretty good. Apparently, the low-carb diet (all the rage a few years ago) had led to a steep fall in demand for maple syrup, the National Public Radio announcer solemnly intoned. As a result maple trees were being left untapped, turning them into time bombs of pent-up sap that could go off at any time - and did.
Needless to say, when that same announcer reported that the health authorities in Vermont - the state most celebrated for production of this uniquely North American delicacy - had already reported 87 deaths and 140 maimings of people who had strayed too close, you suddenly remembered that the date was 1 April 2005 - even if you did vaguely continue to wonder what might happen to maple trees when there could be no escape for surplus sap.
That same day an NPR listener, entering into the spirit of things, came up with a fine solution: why not train local squirrels to colonise the neglected maples during winter? That way they could nibble the bark to allow the trees to let off steam (or rather, sap) before anyone might get hurt by flying timber.
There is, however, a touch of irony at this point. Red squirrels native to the region actually do rip open the bark of maples when their other food sources are blanketed in snow. The sap flows out, and evaporates in the winter sun. The squirrels then return to gobble up crystallised sugar. One way and then another, the line between fiction and fact in the lore of the sugar maple can be blurred.
But now a real and far more serious threat is afoot, and this time not to unwary humans, but to the trees themselves. Climate change is pushing the North American maple zone gradually but inexorably northwards towards Canada.
One day it may be gone. Without the maple, Vermont would not be Vermont. Mention the name of this beautiful, quirky and fiercely Democratic sliver of New England wedged against the Canadian border, and maple is probably the first association that comes to mind.
The tree itself comes to mind, which in autumn produces the dazzling palette of colours that lures tourists from all over the world - but also the famous and delicious aromatic syrup that is derived from its sap.
In plain economic terms, the maple syrup business doesn't add up to much. The estimated 2,000 producers scattered across Vermont deliver between 400,000 and 500,000 gallons of syrup a year, generating $20m (£10m) of retail sales. Even the overall value of the industry to the state's economy of $200m (£100m) is small - far less than that of the boutique ice cream manufacturer Ben and Jerry's, another of the state's gastronomic titans (along with Vermont's exceptionally tasty cheddar cheese).
But as a symbol of Vermont, nothing can match the maple.
_______________________________________
We take you now to the Oval Office.)
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?Condi:
Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No
.Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk.
Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people. People - and the environment - will lose. By George Monbiot.Tuesday March 27, 2007
It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow - it is released again when the fuel is burned. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be "decarbonising" our transport networks.
This week George Bush announced that he would quintuple the US target for biofuels: by 2017 they should be supplying 24% of the nation's transport fuel.
So what's wrong with these programmes? Only that they are a formula for environmental and humanitarian disaster. In 2004 I warned, on these pages, that biofuels would set up a competition for food between cars and people. The people would necessarily lose: those who can afford to drive are richer than those who are in danger of starvation. It would also lead to the destruction of rainforests and other important habitats. I received more abuse than I've had for any other column - except for when I attacked the 9/11 conspiracists. I was told my claims were ridiculous, laughable, impossible. Well in one respect I was wrong. I thought these effects wouldn't materialise for many years. They are happening already.
Since the beginning of last year, the price of maize has doubled. The price of wheat has also reached a 10-year high, while global stockpiles of both grains have reached 25-year lows. Already there have been food riots in Mexico and reports that the poor are feeling the strain all over the world. The US department of agriculture warns that "if we have a drought or a very poor harvest, we could see the sort of volatility we saw in the 1970s, and if it does not happen this year, we are also forecasting lower stockpiles next year". According to the UN food and agriculture organisation, the main reason is the demand for ethanol: the alcohol used for motor fuel, which can be made from maize and wheat.
Farmers will respond to better prices by planting more, but it is not clear that they can overtake the booming demand for biofuel. Even if they do, they will catch up only by ploughing virgin habitat.
Already we know that biofuel is worse for the planet than petroleum. The UN has just published a report suggesting that 98% of the natural rainforest in Indonesia will be degraded or gone by 2022. Just five years ago, the same agencies predicted that this wouldn't happen until 2032. But they reckoned without the planting of palm oil to turn into biodiesel for the European market. This is now the main cause of deforestation there and it is likely soon to become responsible for the extinction of the orang-utan in the wild.
But it gets worse. As the forests are burned, both the trees and the peat they sit on are turned into carbon dioxide. A report by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics shows that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 10 times as much as petroleum produces. I feel I need to say that again. Biodiesel from palm oil causes 10 times as much climate change as ordinary diesel.
There are similar impacts all over the world. Sugarcane producers are moving into rare scrubland habitats (the cerrado) in Brazil, and soya farmers are ripping up the Amazon rainforests. As President Bush has just signed a biofuel agreement with President Lula, it's likely to become a lot worse. Indigenous people in South America, Asia and Africa are starting to complain about incursions onto their land by fuel planters. A petition launched by a group called biofuelwatch, begging western governments to stop, has been signed by campaigners from 250 groups.
The British government is well aware that there's a problem. On his blog last year the environment secretary David Miliband noted that palm oil plantations "are destroying 0.7% of the Malaysian rainforest each year, reducing a vital natural resource (and in the process, destroying the natural habitat of the orang-utan). It is all connected." Unlike government policy. .
We need a moratorium on all targets and incentives for biofuels, until a second generation of fuels can be produced for less than it costs to make fuel from palm oil or sugar cane. Even then, the targets should be set low and increased only cautiously. I suggest a five-year freeze.
This would require a huge campaign, tougher than the one which helped to win a five-year freeze on growing genetically modified crops in the UK. That was important - GM crops give big companies unprecedented control over the foodchain. But most of their effects are indirect, while the devastation caused by biofuel is immediate and already visible.
This is why it will be harder to stop: encouraged by government policy, vast investments are now being made by farmers and chemical companies. Stopping them requires one heck of a battle. But it has to be fought.
______________________________________
Sticky times for the maple tree
Its leaves are a riot of colour; its sap produces one of America's favourite delicacies. But the effects of climate change may soon drive the maple tree out of Vermont
By Rupert Cornwell
Published: 27 March 2007
As April Fool's Days jokes go, the one about exploding sugar maple trees was pretty good. Apparently, the low-carb diet (all the rage a few years ago) had led to a steep fall in demand for maple syrup, the National Public Radio announcer solemnly intoned. As a result maple trees were being left untapped, turning them into time bombs of pent-up sap that could go off at any time - and did.
Needless to say, when that same announcer reported that the health authorities in Vermont - the state most celebrated for production of this uniquely North American delicacy - had already reported 87 deaths and 140 maimings of people who had strayed too close, you suddenly remembered that the date was 1 April 2005 - even if you did vaguely continue to wonder what might happen to maple trees when there could be no escape for surplus sap.
That same day an NPR listener, entering into the spirit of things, came up with a fine solution: why not train local squirrels to colonise the neglected maples during winter? That way they could nibble the bark to allow the trees to let off steam (or rather, sap) before anyone might get hurt by flying timber.
There is, however, a touch of irony at this point. Red squirrels native to the region actually do rip open the bark of maples when their other food sources are blanketed in snow. The sap flows out, and evaporates in the winter sun. The squirrels then return to gobble up crystallised sugar. One way and then another, the line between fiction and fact in the lore of the sugar maple can be blurred.
But now a real and far more serious threat is afoot, and this time not to unwary humans, but to the trees themselves. Climate change is pushing the North American maple zone gradually but inexorably northwards towards Canada.
One day it may be gone. Without the maple, Vermont would not be Vermont. Mention the name of this beautiful, quirky and fiercely Democratic sliver of New England wedged against the Canadian border, and maple is probably the first association that comes to mind.
The tree itself comes to mind, which in autumn produces the dazzling palette of colours that lures tourists from all over the world - but also the famous and delicious aromatic syrup that is derived from its sap.
In plain economic terms, the maple syrup business doesn't add up to much. The estimated 2,000 producers scattered across Vermont deliver between 400,000 and 500,000 gallons of syrup a year, generating $20m (£10m) of retail sales. Even the overall value of the industry to the state's economy of $200m (£100m) is small - far less than that of the boutique ice cream manufacturer Ben and Jerry's, another of the state's gastronomic titans (along with Vermont's exceptionally tasty cheddar cheese).
But as a symbol of Vermont, nothing can match the maple.
_______________________________________
We take you now to the Oval Office.)
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?Condi:
Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No
.Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
WAR NOT EVIL ???
Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.
Congressman David Obey
I have been a reader of the Washington Post for years. A former liberal paper it is now a
Neo- Conservative one.
_____________________________________
The real danger for Democrats in the Iraq debate isn't that they'll oppose the war too aggressively; it's that they won't oppose it aggressively enough. In 1972, Nixon attacked McGovern as a liberal extremist, which wasn't exactly wrong. But the Democratic Party has become more moderate since the Clinton years, and in the past two presidential elections the G.O.P. has attacked Al Gore and John Kerry less as ideological radicals than as soulless opportunists, weather vanes willing to say whatever it took to win. As pollster Ruy Teixeira has noted, surveys in recent years show Democrats trailing the G.O.P. by more than 20 points when it comes to "know[ing] what they stand for."If the public doesn't like what you stand for, then you should probably adjust your views. But if the public doesn't believe you stand for anything, then you had better show them that you do. That's the problem the Democratic Party faces today. And the solution is to end the war in Iraq.
_______________________________________
173,000. $532 billion.
Unless there's a political tsunami, by the Fourth of July American troop strength in Iraq is going to be the highest it's ever been, according to Newsweek:
There will soon be more American soldiers in Iraq than at any point in the war so far. The incoming surge of 21,500 troops is only part of that picture; in addition, the U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has asked for an additional Army aviation brigade, as well as a couple thousand military police. Other support troops will be coming in to Iraq as well, and they weren't all included in the original 21,500 estimate announced by President Bush last month. When all this is complete, sometime in July, the grand total of U.S. troops in Iraq will be 173,000, U.S. military officials here confirmed on background, apparently because of the sensitivity of these details. And it's likely that U.S. troop numbers will stay at that level for months more, perhaps even into 2008. That's only part of the picture, however; the total number of U.S. troops deployed into the war theater, that is, Iraq and neighboring countries, may be as much as 100,000 more than that. ...
Some things are getting smaller. The projected size of the Coalition of the willing has reached a historic low, but by July the number of soldiers from U.S. allies in Iraq will actually climb a tad, to 13,000, thanks to a commitment from the former Soviet republic of Georgia for a new brigade of 2,300 troops. More than half of that 13,000 are British, who are also in the process of withdrawing more of their troops by next year, and the remainder are small contingents from 23 other contributing countries, major powers ranging from Mongolia to Peru.
And the cost:
So far, $351 billion has been spent or appropriated between 2003 and 2007, and the president's additional budget request of $68 billion in 2007 will bring that to $419 billion, if it passes, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (these figures include U.S. military expenditures, expenditures for Iraqi security forces, and spending for foreign aid and diplomatic operations in Iraq). With another $113 billion predicted for the 2008 budget, the total direct cost of the war will by then top half a trillion dollars, $532 billion in all. That naturally does not even begin to take into account indirect costs, from veterans' care to oil-price rises.
Friday, March 23, 2007
They're Here
France opens secret UFO files covering 50 years
Mar 22 09:32 AM US/Eastern
France became the first country to open its files on UFOs Thursday when the national space agency unveiled a website documenting more than 1,600 sightings spanning five decades.
___________________________________
Former Arizona Governor Now Admits Seeing 'Phoenix Lights' UFO
Leslie Kean, Mar. 17 2007 (Credit: UFO Updates) - 3/22/2007go to original article fair use notice Ten years after the Arizona UFO incident known as the 'Phoenix Lights', former Arizona Republican Governor Fife Symington, III, now says that he himself was a witness to one of the strange unidentified flying objects, even though he originally did not say so publicly.
Former Arizona Governor Now Admits Seeing UFO Fife Symington Decides To Set Record Straight Ten Years After Famed Phoenix Lights Incident By Leslie Kean Ten years after the Arizona UFO incident known as the 'Phoenix Lights', former Arizona Republican Governor Fife Symington, III, now says that he himself was a witness to one of the strange unidentified flying objects, even though he originally did not say so publicly. "It was enormous and inexplicable", he said in an exclusive interview from his home in Phoenix. "Who knows where it came from? A lot of people saw it, and I saw it too" On March 13, 1997, during Symington's second term as Governor, thousands saw multiple triangular and V-shaped craft, gliding slowly and silently across the sky for half an hour beginning at approximately 8:15 pm. Awestruck witnesses, throughout the state, estimated that the eerie, lighted vehicles were bigger than many football fields, up to a mile long. Arizona Senator John McCain, a friend of Symington's who the former Governor describes as "open-minded", acknowledged at a 2000 press conference that lights were seen over Arizona. "That has never been fully explained. But I have to tell you that I do not have any evidence whatsoever of aliens or UFOs", he said. The evidence for a possible UFO, which simply means something in the sky that can't be identified, lies in the fact that countless witnesses reported seeing low, gigantic, technological flying machines that blocked out the stars - not merely lights. Now the former Governor attests to that. Symington says he saw a large triangular "craft of unknown origin" with lights, moving slowly. "It was dramatic. And it couldn't have been flares because it was too symmetrical", he says. "It had a geometric outline, a constant shape" The sightings of the objects that evening are sometimes confused with the row of lights that appeared at about 10 pm, near Phoenix, and have been shown repeatedly on television news. These later lights were probably flares. People witnessed the objects at around 8:30 because they were outside on that pleasant, cloudless night watching the Hale-Bopp Comet. Symington was known for ridiculing the incident at a spoof press conference, so his statement marks a dramatic turnaround. He wants to make amends to his constituents and set the record straight. On the morning of June 19, 1997, when pressure was building from frustrated citizens who wanted answers, the Governor announced on television that he was ordering a full investigation and would make "all the necessary inquiries" "We're going to get to the bottom of this. We're going to find out if it was a UFO", he said in a serious tone. Later that same afternoon, Symington suddenly called a press conference and told viewers that he had found the source behind the Phoenix Lights. His chief-of-staff, Jay Heiler, was escorted in by public safety police officers while handcuffed, wearing a large rubber mask and dressed as a space alien. The Governor presented the costumed extraterrestrial as the "guilty party" While laughter filled the room, he joked that "this just goes to show that you guys are entirely too serious" "It was an insult to the intelligence of the witnesses", Barwood recalls. "The message to Arizona citizens was that reporting this was stupid" "If I had to do it all over again I probably would have handled it differently", Symington explains. He says that the state of Arizona was "on the brink of hysteria" about the UFO sighting when he called the press conference, and the frenzy was building. "I wanted them to lighten up and calm down, so I introduced a little levity. But I never felt that the overall situation was a matter of ridicule", he says. The former Governor, a cousin of the late Missouri Senator Stuart Symington, states that the incident remains open and unsolved, and should be officially investigated. The US Government has never acknowledged that something was in the sky that night. Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions. "The government never interviewed even one witness", she says. Symington also attempted to find an explanation. He called the Commander at Luke Air Force Base, the General in charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety in 1997. None of these officials had answers, and they were "perplexed", he says. In 2000, the Department of Defense maintained that it could not find any information about the triangular object, in response to a court-ordered search requested by a U.S. District court in Phoenix, as part of a class action suit filed by witnesses. "How could they possibly not know about these huge craft flying low over major population centers? That's inconceivable, but it's also frightening", Barwood commented. Symington's announcement is bolstered by the fact that similar flying objects have been documented by the governments of England and Belgium. On March 30, 1990, the Belgian Air Force sent two F-16s armed with missiles to intercept a black triangular UFO displaying bright lights on its underside. The object could accelerate or dive at tremendous speeds, starting from a stationary position, as recorded on radar. It flew at the speed of sound without making a sonic boom. The Belgian Ministry of Defense released all its data on the UFO to the press, after eliminating American stealth aircraft and all other possible explanations. On the night of March 30, 1993, three years later to the day, a vast triangular-shaped craft, also capable of rapidly accelerating in seconds from a virtual hover, was seen by over a hundred witnesses in England, including police officers and military personnel.
Mar 22 09:32 AM US/Eastern
France became the first country to open its files on UFOs Thursday when the national space agency unveiled a website documenting more than 1,600 sightings spanning five decades.
___________________________________
Former Arizona Governor Now Admits Seeing 'Phoenix Lights' UFO
Leslie Kean, Mar. 17 2007 (Credit: UFO Updates) - 3/22/2007go to original article fair use notice Ten years after the Arizona UFO incident known as the 'Phoenix Lights', former Arizona Republican Governor Fife Symington, III, now says that he himself was a witness to one of the strange unidentified flying objects, even though he originally did not say so publicly.
Former Arizona Governor Now Admits Seeing UFO Fife Symington Decides To Set Record Straight Ten Years After Famed Phoenix Lights Incident By Leslie Kean Ten years after the Arizona UFO incident known as the 'Phoenix Lights', former Arizona Republican Governor Fife Symington, III, now says that he himself was a witness to one of the strange unidentified flying objects, even though he originally did not say so publicly. "It was enormous and inexplicable", he said in an exclusive interview from his home in Phoenix. "Who knows where it came from? A lot of people saw it, and I saw it too" On March 13, 1997, during Symington's second term as Governor, thousands saw multiple triangular and V-shaped craft, gliding slowly and silently across the sky for half an hour beginning at approximately 8:15 pm. Awestruck witnesses, throughout the state, estimated that the eerie, lighted vehicles were bigger than many football fields, up to a mile long. Arizona Senator John McCain, a friend of Symington's who the former Governor describes as "open-minded", acknowledged at a 2000 press conference that lights were seen over Arizona. "That has never been fully explained. But I have to tell you that I do not have any evidence whatsoever of aliens or UFOs", he said. The evidence for a possible UFO, which simply means something in the sky that can't be identified, lies in the fact that countless witnesses reported seeing low, gigantic, technological flying machines that blocked out the stars - not merely lights. Now the former Governor attests to that. Symington says he saw a large triangular "craft of unknown origin" with lights, moving slowly. "It was dramatic. And it couldn't have been flares because it was too symmetrical", he says. "It had a geometric outline, a constant shape" The sightings of the objects that evening are sometimes confused with the row of lights that appeared at about 10 pm, near Phoenix, and have been shown repeatedly on television news. These later lights were probably flares. People witnessed the objects at around 8:30 because they were outside on that pleasant, cloudless night watching the Hale-Bopp Comet. Symington was known for ridiculing the incident at a spoof press conference, so his statement marks a dramatic turnaround. He wants to make amends to his constituents and set the record straight. On the morning of June 19, 1997, when pressure was building from frustrated citizens who wanted answers, the Governor announced on television that he was ordering a full investigation and would make "all the necessary inquiries" "We're going to get to the bottom of this. We're going to find out if it was a UFO", he said in a serious tone. Later that same afternoon, Symington suddenly called a press conference and told viewers that he had found the source behind the Phoenix Lights. His chief-of-staff, Jay Heiler, was escorted in by public safety police officers while handcuffed, wearing a large rubber mask and dressed as a space alien. The Governor presented the costumed extraterrestrial as the "guilty party" While laughter filled the room, he joked that "this just goes to show that you guys are entirely too serious" "It was an insult to the intelligence of the witnesses", Barwood recalls. "The message to Arizona citizens was that reporting this was stupid" "If I had to do it all over again I probably would have handled it differently", Symington explains. He says that the state of Arizona was "on the brink of hysteria" about the UFO sighting when he called the press conference, and the frenzy was building. "I wanted them to lighten up and calm down, so I introduced a little levity. But I never felt that the overall situation was a matter of ridicule", he says. The former Governor, a cousin of the late Missouri Senator Stuart Symington, states that the incident remains open and unsolved, and should be officially investigated. The US Government has never acknowledged that something was in the sky that night. Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions. "The government never interviewed even one witness", she says. Symington also attempted to find an explanation. He called the Commander at Luke Air Force Base, the General in charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety in 1997. None of these officials had answers, and they were "perplexed", he says. In 2000, the Department of Defense maintained that it could not find any information about the triangular object, in response to a court-ordered search requested by a U.S. District court in Phoenix, as part of a class action suit filed by witnesses. "How could they possibly not know about these huge craft flying low over major population centers? That's inconceivable, but it's also frightening", Barwood commented. Symington's announcement is bolstered by the fact that similar flying objects have been documented by the governments of England and Belgium. On March 30, 1990, the Belgian Air Force sent two F-16s armed with missiles to intercept a black triangular UFO displaying bright lights on its underside. The object could accelerate or dive at tremendous speeds, starting from a stationary position, as recorded on radar. It flew at the speed of sound without making a sonic boom. The Belgian Ministry of Defense released all its data on the UFO to the press, after eliminating American stealth aircraft and all other possible explanations. On the night of March 30, 1993, three years later to the day, a vast triangular-shaped craft, also capable of rapidly accelerating in seconds from a virtual hover, was seen by over a hundred witnesses in England, including police officers and military personnel.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
KING GEORGE
BUSH: I WILL OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO SUBPOENA WH OFFICIALS
IMPEACH THE BASTARD
______________________________________
The Decider
One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.As bad a president as George W. Bush has been (and lets face it, not only is he the worst ever, he's actively lobbying to be considered worse than at least the next five, possibly six presidents, and that includes President Patrick McHenry [warning: video] who will come to power following the Great Munchkin Uprising of 2021. You don't want to know...) he is a worse person and it shows whenever he is under pressure; he melts down into a greasy little puddle of glares and smirks and incipient panic. But tonight was special. Tonights performance lays to rest any notion other than the fact that he's not a very bright man who has nothing but contempt for a world that refuses to dumb down for him.
_______________________________________
Iraq insurgents used children in car bombing:
Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.
The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.
The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.
A US defense official said the incident occurred on Sunday in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district, a mixed neighborhood adjacent to Sadr City, which is predominantly Shiite.
After going through the checkpoint, the vehicle parked next to a market across the street from a school, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
"And the two adults were seen to get out of the vehicle, and run from the vehicle, and then followed by the detonation of the vehicle," the official said.
"It killed the two children inside as well as three other civilians in the vicinity. So, a total of five killed, seven injured," the official said.
Officials here said they did not know who the children were or their relationship to the two adults who fled the scene. They had no information about their ages or genders.
"The brutality and the ruthlessness of this enemy hasn't changed," said Barbero, deputy director of regional operations of the Joint Staff. "They are just interested in slaughtering Iraqi civilians, to be very honest."
Attacks on Iraqi civilians are down by a third and sectarian murders have fallen by 50 percent since mid-February when US and Iraqi forces began moving into Baghdad as part of a new security crackdown, the general said.
On the other hand, there has been no let-up in attacks on US forces by Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni extremist groups, he said.
The incidence of car bombings and suicide attacks, which are typically carried out by Sunni extremist groups against Shiites, also have gone up even though their effectiveness is down, he said.
"As our checkpoints, and control points have been more effective, as they try to execute these high profile attacks with these vehicle-borne IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Baghdad, we're stopping a lot of them at these checkpoints and they are not getting to their intended targets," he said.
But he said they will change their tactics.
Barbero pointed to the recent use of chlorine bombs as another example of the shifting tactics.
Three trucks with chlorine were blown up by suicide bombers over the weekend in Al-Anbar province, killing two policemen and releasing toxic fumes that sickened an estimated 350 people.
Barbero said Al-Qaeda in Iraq appeared to be resorting to use of chlorine bombs to intimidate tribal leaders that have turned against them in Al-Anbar.
"We assess those as relatively ineffective. However, that is an emerging tactic that we are seeing."
"We think it will continue to be exercised in Iraq. Chlorine is readily accessible and we've had a number of these," he said.
He said US commanders remain concerned about the Shiite militias led by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, even though US forces are now operating freely in Sadr City and his Mahdi army militia is quiet.
Sadr is still in Iran but in communication with leaders of his movement in Iraq, he said.
"Where we are with the leaders of his movement is at a pretty delicate point, and I probably don't want to talk any more about his followers, and where we are in our relationship with them," he said.
_______________________________________
Why Conservatives Can't Govern By Robert L. Borosage TomPaine.com
Monday 19 March 2007
Donald Rumsfeld has been axed. Tom DeLay cut and ran. "Scooter" Libby stands convicted. Michael "you're doing a heck of a job" Brown was tossed. Newt Gingrich disgraced himself. And now the clueless Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is surely the next to go.
Why this confederacy of dunces? The conservative National Review cover asks plaintively, "Can't Anyone Here Play this Game?" Time Magazine puts conservative icon Ronald Reagan on its cover, a tear rolling down his face, reporting on "How the Right Went Wrong." But it's not incompetence or corruption-although both abound-that fostered the misrule of this conservative administration. And Reagan would feel not dismayed, but right at home with the follies and crimes. Remember: Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, was disgraced. His national security advisor copped a plea. Oliver North stood convicted. His defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, would have been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice if George Bush the first hadn't issued a preemptive pardon.
What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals-ideology is.
Conservative presidents-from Nixon to Reagan to Bush-believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere. Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.
Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divides with back-alley brass knuckles-from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless in seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.
Gonzales' imbroglio is a direct expression of this. At its core is the run-up to the 2006 elections with the Republicans under siege for the most corrupt Congress ever. The White House and Republican politicians grew exercised at Republican prosecutors who they considered too lax in exposing potential Democratic corruption, too avid in pursuing Republican crimes or too slow in prosecuting reports of "voter fraud," the GOP code for using investigations to disrupt minority registration and get out the vote programs, and to intimidate wary black and Latino voters. Justice was ranking U.S. attorneys based on whether they were "loyal Bushies."
IMPEACH THE BASTARD
______________________________________
The Decider
One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.As bad a president as George W. Bush has been (and lets face it, not only is he the worst ever, he's actively lobbying to be considered worse than at least the next five, possibly six presidents, and that includes President Patrick McHenry [warning: video] who will come to power following the Great Munchkin Uprising of 2021. You don't want to know...) he is a worse person and it shows whenever he is under pressure; he melts down into a greasy little puddle of glares and smirks and incipient panic. But tonight was special. Tonights performance lays to rest any notion other than the fact that he's not a very bright man who has nothing but contempt for a world that refuses to dumb down for him.
_______________________________________
Iraq insurgents used children in car bombing:
Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.
The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.
The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.
A US defense official said the incident occurred on Sunday in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district, a mixed neighborhood adjacent to Sadr City, which is predominantly Shiite.
After going through the checkpoint, the vehicle parked next to a market across the street from a school, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
"And the two adults were seen to get out of the vehicle, and run from the vehicle, and then followed by the detonation of the vehicle," the official said.
"It killed the two children inside as well as three other civilians in the vicinity. So, a total of five killed, seven injured," the official said.
Officials here said they did not know who the children were or their relationship to the two adults who fled the scene. They had no information about their ages or genders.
"The brutality and the ruthlessness of this enemy hasn't changed," said Barbero, deputy director of regional operations of the Joint Staff. "They are just interested in slaughtering Iraqi civilians, to be very honest."
Attacks on Iraqi civilians are down by a third and sectarian murders have fallen by 50 percent since mid-February when US and Iraqi forces began moving into Baghdad as part of a new security crackdown, the general said.
On the other hand, there has been no let-up in attacks on US forces by Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni extremist groups, he said.
The incidence of car bombings and suicide attacks, which are typically carried out by Sunni extremist groups against Shiites, also have gone up even though their effectiveness is down, he said.
"As our checkpoints, and control points have been more effective, as they try to execute these high profile attacks with these vehicle-borne IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Baghdad, we're stopping a lot of them at these checkpoints and they are not getting to their intended targets," he said.
But he said they will change their tactics.
Barbero pointed to the recent use of chlorine bombs as another example of the shifting tactics.
Three trucks with chlorine were blown up by suicide bombers over the weekend in Al-Anbar province, killing two policemen and releasing toxic fumes that sickened an estimated 350 people.
Barbero said Al-Qaeda in Iraq appeared to be resorting to use of chlorine bombs to intimidate tribal leaders that have turned against them in Al-Anbar.
"We assess those as relatively ineffective. However, that is an emerging tactic that we are seeing."
"We think it will continue to be exercised in Iraq. Chlorine is readily accessible and we've had a number of these," he said.
He said US commanders remain concerned about the Shiite militias led by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, even though US forces are now operating freely in Sadr City and his Mahdi army militia is quiet.
Sadr is still in Iran but in communication with leaders of his movement in Iraq, he said.
"Where we are with the leaders of his movement is at a pretty delicate point, and I probably don't want to talk any more about his followers, and where we are in our relationship with them," he said.
_______________________________________
Why Conservatives Can't Govern By Robert L. Borosage TomPaine.com
Monday 19 March 2007
Donald Rumsfeld has been axed. Tom DeLay cut and ran. "Scooter" Libby stands convicted. Michael "you're doing a heck of a job" Brown was tossed. Newt Gingrich disgraced himself. And now the clueless Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is surely the next to go.
Why this confederacy of dunces? The conservative National Review cover asks plaintively, "Can't Anyone Here Play this Game?" Time Magazine puts conservative icon Ronald Reagan on its cover, a tear rolling down his face, reporting on "How the Right Went Wrong." But it's not incompetence or corruption-although both abound-that fostered the misrule of this conservative administration. And Reagan would feel not dismayed, but right at home with the follies and crimes. Remember: Reagan's attorney general, Edwin Meese, was disgraced. His national security advisor copped a plea. Oliver North stood convicted. His defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, would have been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice if George Bush the first hadn't issued a preemptive pardon.
What is it about conservative administrations that lead them into disgrace and indictment? Incompetence isn't at the core of these scandals-ideology is.
Conservative presidents-from Nixon to Reagan to Bush-believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law. So Reagan spurned the Congress when it cut off funds for his loony covert war on tiny Nicaragua. And Bush trampled the laws to set up the torture camps in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere. Each would seek to keep their lawlessness secret; and that would foster lies, obstruction of justice and ultimately disgrace.
Second, conservatives are acutely aware that they represent a minority, not a majority, position in America. From Nixon to Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, they play politics and exploit America's divides with back-alley brass knuckles-from Reagan's welfare queen to Bush's impugning the patriotism of Georgia Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who literally sacrificed his limbs in the service of his country. They excel in the politics of personal destruction, as Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Kerry discovered. And in the grand tradition of the establishment in American politics, they are relentless in seeking to suppress the vote, particularly of the poor and minorities who would vote against them in large numbers.
Gonzales' imbroglio is a direct expression of this. At its core is the run-up to the 2006 elections with the Republicans under siege for the most corrupt Congress ever. The White House and Republican politicians grew exercised at Republican prosecutors who they considered too lax in exposing potential Democratic corruption, too avid in pursuing Republican crimes or too slow in prosecuting reports of "voter fraud," the GOP code for using investigations to disrupt minority registration and get out the vote programs, and to intimidate wary black and Latino voters. Justice was ranking U.S. attorneys based on whether they were "loyal Bushies."
HAPPY SPRING
A Laugh,
Somebody just sent a fax to every member of the Bush administration in the White House all got the same message " The press has found out everything". All the offices emptied out in thirty minutes.
_______________________________________
Tuesday Check Of The Osama Clock
Hey, if it's Tuesday, it's time to check the BobGeiger.com Osama clock.It has now been five and a half years since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001 and exactly 2,009 days since George W. Bush (The Resolute One) said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.And so, as we ask every week -- but especially as he continues to escalate a war in a country that did not attack us -- Mr. Bush: Where's Osama
_______________________________________
Feingold On Fourth Anniversary Of Iraq War
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) released the following statement on the four-year anniversary of George W. Bush starting the Iraq war debacle:
"March 19th marks the four-year anniversary of the Iraq war, one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation. On this solemn anniversary, we remember the more than 3,000 brave Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, the tens of thousands of brave Americans who have been injured while serving in Iraq, and the countless families and communities across this country who have provided unwavering support for their loved ones, friends, and neighbors serving overseas."President Bush and his Administration made a tragic mistake in going to war in Iraq, and that mistake has only been compounded by their refusal to change their failed policy. The war in Iraq has weakened our military readiness, sapped our resources, undermined the fight against al Qaeda and jeopardized our national security."The President has made it clear he will not end our military involvement in Iraq -- it is up to Congress to use its constitutional powers to do just that."
_______________________________________
Democrats turn up heat on firing of U.S. attorney
They allege Carol Lam was ousted in San Diego because she was investigating Republican politicians in Southern California.
-
'Mistakes were made' in firing of 8 attorneys, Gonzales says
-
House panel subpoenas ousted U.S. attorneys
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight federal prosecutors abruptly ousted by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Atty. Carol C. Lam was fired in an attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California.Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) revealed evidence that Lam had notified Washington about search warrants in a Republican corruption case last year. Soon thereafter, a top Justice Department official in Washington wrote to the White House about a "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.""As the evidence comes in, as we look at the e-mails, there were clearly U.S. attorneys that were thorns in the side for one reason or another of the Justice Department," said Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."And they decided, by strategy, in one fell swoop to get rid of them
_______________________________________
Nasa's climate scientists 'gagged by White House'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 20 March 2007
James Hansen, the Nasa scientist who first warned the US government about global warming, yesterday delivered a withering critique of the way the White House has "interfered" with climate scientists at the space agency.
Dr Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, said that the space agency's budget for studying the Earth's climate has been slashed and that its scientists have been systematically gagged about speaking of their concerns.
In detailed written testimony delivered yesterday to the US House of Representatives, Dr Hansen said that there had been creeping politicisation of climate change with the effect that the American public has been left confused about the science of global warming.
"During my career I have noticed an increasing politicisation of public affairs at headquarters level, with a notable effect on communication from scientists to the public," Dr Hansen writes in his testimony. "Interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career," he says. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now.
Political appointees within the public affairs office at Nasa headquarters were accused by Dr Hansen of interfering in scientific statements and of blocking reports that link rising temperatures or melting sea ice with global warming. He says instructions and reprimands were often made orally so that there was no paper or electronic record of the interference, which allowed press relations personnel to dismiss gagging allegations as hearsay.
_______________________________________
Former White House official defends editing of climate papers
H. JOSEF HEBERT AP March 19, 2007 05:47 PM EST
WASHINGTON — A former White House official accused of improperly editing reports on global warming defended his editorial changes Monday as reflecting views expressed in a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
House Democrats said the 181 changes made in three climate reports reflected a consistent attempt to emphasize uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change and undercut the broad conclusions that manmade emissions are warming the earth.
Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were "to align these communications with the administration's stated policy" on climate change.
The extent of Cooney's editing of government climate reports first surfaced in 2005. Shortly thereafter, Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, left the White House to work at Exxon Mobil Corp.
"My concern is that there was a concerted White House effort to inject uncertainty into the climate debate," said Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Government Reform Committee in the House of Representatives.
_______________________________________
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad's Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.[..]
Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: "I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."
Somebody just sent a fax to every member of the Bush administration in the White House all got the same message " The press has found out everything". All the offices emptied out in thirty minutes.
_______________________________________
Tuesday Check Of The Osama Clock
Hey, if it's Tuesday, it's time to check the BobGeiger.com Osama clock.It has now been five and a half years since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001 and exactly 2,009 days since George W. Bush (The Resolute One) said that he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive.And so, as we ask every week -- but especially as he continues to escalate a war in a country that did not attack us -- Mr. Bush: Where's Osama
_______________________________________
Feingold On Fourth Anniversary Of Iraq War
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) released the following statement on the four-year anniversary of George W. Bush starting the Iraq war debacle:
"March 19th marks the four-year anniversary of the Iraq war, one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in the history of our nation. On this solemn anniversary, we remember the more than 3,000 brave Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, the tens of thousands of brave Americans who have been injured while serving in Iraq, and the countless families and communities across this country who have provided unwavering support for their loved ones, friends, and neighbors serving overseas."President Bush and his Administration made a tragic mistake in going to war in Iraq, and that mistake has only been compounded by their refusal to change their failed policy. The war in Iraq has weakened our military readiness, sapped our resources, undermined the fight against al Qaeda and jeopardized our national security."The President has made it clear he will not end our military involvement in Iraq -- it is up to Congress to use its constitutional powers to do just that."
_______________________________________
Democrats turn up heat on firing of U.S. attorney
They allege Carol Lam was ousted in San Diego because she was investigating Republican politicians in Southern California.
-
'Mistakes were made' in firing of 8 attorneys, Gonzales says
-
House panel subpoenas ousted U.S. attorneys
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight federal prosecutors abruptly ousted by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Atty. Carol C. Lam was fired in an attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California.Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) revealed evidence that Lam had notified Washington about search warrants in a Republican corruption case last year. Soon thereafter, a top Justice Department official in Washington wrote to the White House about a "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.""As the evidence comes in, as we look at the e-mails, there were clearly U.S. attorneys that were thorns in the side for one reason or another of the Justice Department," said Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."And they decided, by strategy, in one fell swoop to get rid of them
_______________________________________
Nasa's climate scientists 'gagged by White House'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 20 March 2007
James Hansen, the Nasa scientist who first warned the US government about global warming, yesterday delivered a withering critique of the way the White House has "interfered" with climate scientists at the space agency.
Dr Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, said that the space agency's budget for studying the Earth's climate has been slashed and that its scientists have been systematically gagged about speaking of their concerns.
In detailed written testimony delivered yesterday to the US House of Representatives, Dr Hansen said that there had been creeping politicisation of climate change with the effect that the American public has been left confused about the science of global warming.
"During my career I have noticed an increasing politicisation of public affairs at headquarters level, with a notable effect on communication from scientists to the public," Dr Hansen writes in his testimony. "Interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career," he says. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now.
Political appointees within the public affairs office at Nasa headquarters were accused by Dr Hansen of interfering in scientific statements and of blocking reports that link rising temperatures or melting sea ice with global warming. He says instructions and reprimands were often made orally so that there was no paper or electronic record of the interference, which allowed press relations personnel to dismiss gagging allegations as hearsay.
_______________________________________
Former White House official defends editing of climate papers
H. JOSEF HEBERT AP March 19, 2007 05:47 PM EST
WASHINGTON — A former White House official accused of improperly editing reports on global warming defended his editorial changes Monday as reflecting views expressed in a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
House Democrats said the 181 changes made in three climate reports reflected a consistent attempt to emphasize uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change and undercut the broad conclusions that manmade emissions are warming the earth.
Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were "to align these communications with the administration's stated policy" on climate change.
The extent of Cooney's editing of government climate reports first surfaced in 2005. Shortly thereafter, Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, left the White House to work at Exxon Mobil Corp.
"My concern is that there was a concerted White House effort to inject uncertainty into the climate debate," said Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the Government Reform Committee in the House of Representatives.
_______________________________________
His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad's Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.[..]
Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: "I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day."
Monday, March 19, 2007
Four Long Years
Photobucket Album
BOTTOMS UP GEORGE
_______________________________________
Bush's War Four Years ON !!
This from one of the architects of the War
Here's what Richard Perle said in September of 2003: "A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush."
_______________________________________
Happy Birthday, Iraq War
Iraq, Harry Shearer
My, you're all grown up now. You look so big. And you're so much more complex than we thought. You can do so many things--Shiite vs. Sunni, Shiite vs. Shiite, Shiite and Sunni vs. Americans--you're a little prodigy. Of course, raising you was a little more expensive than we imagined--I guess, like everybody else, we had stars in our eyes back then.
And we all love gathering around wondering what you're going to be--civil war, World War Three, or, like Uncle Dick continues to call you, a victory. Good times.
_______________________________________
The Ides of March 2003 By Frank Rich The New York Times
Sunday 18 March 2007
Tomorrow night is the fourth anniversary of President Bush's prime-time address declaring the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the broad sweep of history, four years is a nanosecond, but in America, where memories are congenitally short, it's an eternity. That's why a revisionist history of the White House's rush to war, much of it written by its initial cheerleaders, has already taken hold. In this exonerating fictionalization of the story, nearly every politician and pundit in Washington was duped by the same "bad intelligence" before the war, and few imagined that the administration would so botch the invasion's aftermath or that the occupation would go on so long. "If only I had known then what I know now ..." has been the persistent refrain of the war supporters who subsequently disowned the fiasco. But the embarrassing reality is that much of the damning truth about the administration's case for war and its hubristic expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look.
By the time the ides of March arrived in March 2003, these warning signs were visible on a nearly daily basis. So were the signs that Americans were completely ill prepared for the costs ahead. Iraq was largely anticipated as a distant, mildly disruptive geopolitical video game that would be over in a flash.
Now many of the same leaders who sold the war argue that escalation should be given a chance. This time they're peddling the new doomsday scenario that any withdrawal timetable will lead to the next 9/11. The question we must ask is: Has history taught us anything in four years?
Here is a chronology of some of the high and low points in the days leading up to the national train wreck whose anniversary we mourn this week [with occasional "where are they now" updates].
March 5, 2003
"I took the Grey Poupon out of my cupboard."
- Representative Duke Cunningham, Republican of California, on the floor of the House denouncing French opposition to the Iraq war.
[In November 2005, he resigned from Congress and pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from defense contractors. In January 2007, the United States attorney who prosecuted him - Carol Lam, a Bush appointee - was forced to step down for "performance-related" issues by Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department.]
March 6, 2003
President Bush holds his last prewar news conference. The New York Observer writes that he interchanged Iraq with the attacks of 9/11 eight times, "and eight times he was unchallenged." The ABC News White House correspondent, Terry Moran, says the Washington press corps was left "looking like zombies."
March 7, 2003
Appearing before the United Nations Security Council on the same day that the United States and three allies (Britain, Spain and Bulgaria) put forth their resolution demanding that Iraq disarm by March 17, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reports there is "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.". He adds that documents "which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." None of the three broadcast networks' evening newscasts mention his findings.
[In 2005 ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.]
March 10, 2003
Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks tells an audience in England, "We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." Boycotts, death threats and anti-Dixie Chicks demonstrations follow.
[In 2007, the Dixie Chicks won five Grammy Awards, including best song for "Not Ready to Make Nice."]
March 12, 2003
A senior military planner tells The Daily News "an attack on Iraq could last as few as seven days."
"Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?"
- John McCain, writing for the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.
"The Pentagon still has not given a name to the Iraqi war. Somehow 'Operation Re-elect Bush' doesn't seem to be popular."
- Jay Leno, "The Tonight Show."
March 14, 2003
Senator John D. Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, asks the F.B.I. to investigate the forged documents cited a week earlier by ElBaradei and alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium transaction: "There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq."
March 16, 2003
On "Meet the Press," Dick Cheney says that American troops will be "greeted as liberators," that Saddam "has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization," and that it is an "overstatement" to suggest that several hundred thousand troops will be needed in Iraq after it is liberated. Asked by Tim Russert about ElBaradei's statement that Iraq does not have a nuclear program, the vice president says, "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong."
"There will be new recruits, new recruits probably because of the war that's about to happen. So we haven't seen the last of Al Qaeda."
- Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism czar, on ABC's "This Week."
[From the recently declassified "key judgments" of the National Intelligence Estimate of April 2006: "The Iraq conflict has become the cause cél bre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."]
"Despite the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden, according to administration officials and members of Congress. Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from White House, Pentagon and other government policy makers for intelligence that would make the administration's case 'and what they say is a lack of hard facts,' one official said."
- "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," by Walter Pincus (with additional reporting by Bob Woodward), The Washington Post, Page A17.
March 17, 2003
Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, writes the president to ask why the administration has repeatedly used W.M.D. evidence that has turned out to be "a hoax" - "correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear weapons from an African country, Niger."
[Still waiting for "an adequate explanation" of the bogus Niger claim four years later, Waxman, now chairman of the chief oversight committee in the House, wrote Condoleezza Rice on March 12, 2007, seeking a response "to multiple letters I sent you about this matter."]
In a prime-time address, President Bush tells Saddam to leave Iraq within 48 hours: "Every measure has been made to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it." After the speech, NBC rushes through its analysis to join a hit show in progress, "Fear Factor," where men and women walk with bare feet over broken glass to win $50,000.
March 18, 2003
Barbara Bush tells Diane Sawyer on ABC's "Good Morning America" that she will not watch televised coverage of the war: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
[Visiting the homeless victims of another cataclysm, Hurricane Katrina, at the Houston Astrodome in 2005, Mrs. Bush said, "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this - this is working very well for them."]
In one of its editorials strongly endorsing the war, The Wall Street Journal writes, "There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored Al Qaeda members."
[In a Feb. 12, 2007, editorial defending the White House's use of prewar intelligence, The Journal wrote, "Any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a separate issue that was barely mentioned in the run-up to war."]
In an article headlined "Post-war 'Occupation' of Iraq Could Result in Chaos," Mark McDonald of Knight Ridder Newspapers quotes a "senior leader of one of Iraq's closest Arab neighbors," who says, "We're worried that the outcome will be civil war."
A questioner at a White House news briefing asserts that "every other war has been accompanied by fiscal austerity of some sort, often including tax increases" and asks, "What's different about this war?" Ari Fleischer responds, "The most important thing, war or no war, is for the economy to grow," adding that in the president's judgment, "the best way to help the economy to grow is to stimulate the economy by providing tax relief."
After consulting with the homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, the N.C.A.A. announces that the men's basketball tournament will tip off this week as scheduled. The N.C.A.A. president, Myles Brand, says, "We were not going to let a tyrant determine how we were going to lead our lives."
March 19, 2003
"I'd guess that if it goes beyond three weeks, Bush will be in real trouble."
- Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel teaching at Boston University, quoted in The Washington Post.
[The March 2007 installment of the Congressionally mandated Pentagon assessment "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" reported that from Jan. 1 to Feb. 9, 2007, there were more than 1,000 weekly attacks, up from about 400 in spring 2004.]
Robert McIlvaine, whose 26-year-old son was killed at the World Trade Center 18 months earlier, is arrested at a peace demonstration at the Capitol in Washington. He tells The Washington Post: "It's very insulting to hear President Bush say this is for Sept. 11."
"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door on inspections after three and a half months," when Iraq's government is providing more cooperation than it has in more than a decade.
- Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector for the United Nations.
The Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans support going to war in Iraq, up from 59 percent before the president's March 17 speech.
"When the president talks about sacrifice, I think the American people clearly understand what the president is talking about."
- Ari Fleischer
[Asked in January 2007 how Americans have sacrificed, President Bush answered: "I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night."]
Pentagon units will "locate and survey at least 130 and as many as 1,400 possible weapons sites."
- "Disarming Saddam Hussein; Teams of Experts to Hunt Iraq Arms" by Judith Miller, The Times, Page A1.
President Bush declares war from the Oval Office in a national address: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure."
Price of a share of Halliburton stock: $20.50
[Value of that Halliburton share on March 16, 2007, adjusted for a split in 2006: $64.12.]
March 20, 2003
"The pictures you're seeing are absolutely phenomenal. These are live pictures of the Seventh Cavalry racing across the deserts in southern Iraq. They will - it will be days before they get to Baghdad, but you've never seen battlefield pictures like these before."
- Walter Rodgers, an embedded CNN correspondentt.
"It seems quite odd to me that while we are commenced upon a war, we have no funding for that war in this budget."
- Hillary Clinton.
"Coalition forces suffered their first casualties in a helicopter crash that left 12 Britons and 4 Americans dead."
- The Associated Press.
Though the March 23 Oscar ceremony will dispense with the red carpet in deference to the war, an E! channel executive announces there will be no cutback on pre-Oscar programming, but "the tone will be much more somber."
March 21, 2003
"I don't mean to be glib about this, or make it sound trite, but it really is a symphony that has to be orchestrated by a conductor."
- Retired Maj. Gen. Donald Shepperd, CNN military analyst, speaking to Wolf Blitzer of the bombardment of Baghdad during Shock and Awe.
["Many parts of Iraq are stable. But of course what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone."
- Laura Bush, "Larry King Live," Feb. 26, 2007.]
"The president may occasionally turn on the TV, but that's not how he gets his news or his information. ... He is the president, he's made his decisions and the American people are watching him."
- Ari Fleischer.
[The former press secretary received immunity from prosecution in the Valerie Wilson leak case and testified in the perjury trial of Scooter Libby in 2007.]
"Peter, I may be going out on a limb, but I'm not sure that the first stage of this Shock and Awe campaign is really going to frighten the Iraqi people. In fact, it may have just the opposite effect. If they feel that they've survived the most that the United States can throw at them and they're still standing, and they're still able to go about their lives, well, then they might be rather emboldened. They might feel that, well, look, we can stand a lot more than this."
Richard Engel, a Baghdad correspondent speaking to Peter Jennings on ABC's "World News Tonight."
Thursday, March 15, 2007
All Around The News
New E-Mails Put Rove At Center Of Attorney Purge
ABC News JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG March 15, 2007 04:48 PM
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.
The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel -- weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
______________________________________
Governor Richardson Poised to be First Presidential Candidate to Enact Medical Marijuana Legislation
New Mexico is on the verge of becoming the twelfth state to approve doctor-recommended medical marijuana for the sick and dying, and only the fourth state legislature to enact such a measure. Following intense debate, the New Mexico House passed the measure after including an amendment to prevent distribution of medical cannabis within 300 feet of any church, school or day-care center.
Gov. Richardson summed up the battle's high stakes, "I am pleased that the Legislature did the right thing, reconsidered this important bill and supported a humane option for New Mexicans who endure some of the most painful diseases imaginable
_______________________________________
“But Clinton Did It Toooooo!” Uh, No He Didn’t.
By Phoenix Woman @ 3:32 pm
Don't cha just love how the conservative "moral clarity" types suddenly become relativists when confronted by wrongdoing in their god-king Bush?
No matter the action, when Bush or his people are caught doing something, from abusing signing statements to firing US Attorneys en masse, the automatic, unthinking, Pavlovian screech from the perpetually whiny children that make up "the right" is: "But Clinton did it toooo! Moooooom!"
Except, of course, that 99.9% of the time Clinton really didn't do it.
______________________________________
Todays Quote
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-- George Orwell
_______________________________________
March 15th, 2007
Another Big GOP Supporter Funding Terrorists?
By: Jamie Holly @ 3:10 PM - PDT
(cross posted at Intoxination.net)
It appears that way:
Banana company Chiquita Brands International said Wednesday it has agreed to a $25 million fine after admitting it paid a Colombian terrorist group for protection in a volatile farming region.
The settlement resolves a lengthy Justice Department investigation into the company's financial dealings with terrorist organizations in Colombia.
In court documents filed Wednesday, federal prosecutors said several unnamed high-ranking corporate officers at the Cincinnati-based company paid about $1.7 million between 1997 and 2004 to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known as AUC for its Spanish initials.
Not very GOP sounding, unless you know about Chiquita. Chiquita was ran by Carl Lindner until March of 2002 (the time frame in which these crimes happened). If you are not from the Cincinnati area then you might not know old Carl, so let me fill you in.
Carl is a huge GOP supporter. If you go to the site Newsmeat and search for Carl Lindner and Carl Linder (some records have his name misspelled), you will get some interesting results. Here is a big one for you:
LINDER, CARLCINCINNATTI, OH 45243
SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH$350,000primary10/14/04
Yup, some of the same money that went to these terrorist organizations also went to the old Swift Boaters. Very interesting indeed. As matter of fact, Wikipedia has this to say about Carl and Bush's relationship:
A close ally of George W. Bush, Lindner secured the use of Great American Ballpark for the Bush's re-election campaign on October 31, 2004, a few days before the 2004 Presidential Election.
Ahh, so maybe that explains why the company Carl used to run (and of which he still owns a large part) received the harsh punishment of a $25 million dollar fine. If this was some blue company like Costco doing this the CEO's would now be in Gitmo.
Remember - if you want to support terrorism then just give to the GOP. That will make sure you get off easy if you are busted supporting terrorist organizations.
_______________________________________
from The Independent
Why a glass of grape may be best way to start your day
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 15 March 2007
If you think a glass of breakfast orange juice is the best way to start the day, think again. Grape juice could be more beneficial.
Scientists have carried out the first scientific analysis of fruit juices to measure their antioxidant activity - the anti-ageing compounds that protect against heart disease and other chronic conditions.
Top of the league is purple grape juice followed by apple juice and cranberry juice, according to the study by researchers at the University of Glasgow. Orange juice, the most popular fruit juice, comes way down the league. It contains fewer polyphenols than the other juices tested, which are strong antioxidants
"Purple grape juice made with Concord grapes contains the highest and broadest range of polyphenols as well as having the highest antioxidant capacity.
The finding comes in the wake of research by US scientists which showed an association between long-term fruit juice consumption and a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease.
Researchers who followed almost 2,000 volunteers for up to 10 years found the risk of Alzheimer's was 76 per cent lower for those who drank juices more than three times a weekBy quenching free radicals they help to maintain oxidative balance and prevent the development of diseases including cancer and heart disease.
_______________________________________
Senate putting off difficult decisions A Senate panel is poised to approve a budget blueprint awarding near-term spending boosts for Democratic favorites such as education and veterans programs, while putting off difficult decisions on taxes, Social Security and Medicare.
_______________________________________
ABC News JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG March 15, 2007 04:48 PM
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.
The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel -- weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
______________________________________
Governor Richardson Poised to be First Presidential Candidate to Enact Medical Marijuana Legislation
New Mexico is on the verge of becoming the twelfth state to approve doctor-recommended medical marijuana for the sick and dying, and only the fourth state legislature to enact such a measure. Following intense debate, the New Mexico House passed the measure after including an amendment to prevent distribution of medical cannabis within 300 feet of any church, school or day-care center.
Gov. Richardson summed up the battle's high stakes, "I am pleased that the Legislature did the right thing, reconsidered this important bill and supported a humane option for New Mexicans who endure some of the most painful diseases imaginable
_______________________________________
“But Clinton Did It Toooooo!” Uh, No He Didn’t.
By Phoenix Woman @ 3:32 pm
Don't cha just love how the conservative "moral clarity" types suddenly become relativists when confronted by wrongdoing in their god-king Bush?
No matter the action, when Bush or his people are caught doing something, from abusing signing statements to firing US Attorneys en masse, the automatic, unthinking, Pavlovian screech from the perpetually whiny children that make up "the right" is: "But Clinton did it toooo! Moooooom!"
Except, of course, that 99.9% of the time Clinton really didn't do it.
______________________________________
Todays Quote
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-- George Orwell
_______________________________________
March 15th, 2007
Another Big GOP Supporter Funding Terrorists?
By: Jamie Holly @ 3:10 PM - PDT
(cross posted at Intoxination.net)
It appears that way:
Banana company Chiquita Brands International said Wednesday it has agreed to a $25 million fine after admitting it paid a Colombian terrorist group for protection in a volatile farming region.
The settlement resolves a lengthy Justice Department investigation into the company's financial dealings with terrorist organizations in Colombia.
In court documents filed Wednesday, federal prosecutors said several unnamed high-ranking corporate officers at the Cincinnati-based company paid about $1.7 million between 1997 and 2004 to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, known as AUC for its Spanish initials.
Not very GOP sounding, unless you know about Chiquita. Chiquita was ran by Carl Lindner until March of 2002 (the time frame in which these crimes happened). If you are not from the Cincinnati area then you might not know old Carl, so let me fill you in.
Carl is a huge GOP supporter. If you go to the site Newsmeat and search for Carl Lindner and Carl Linder (some records have his name misspelled), you will get some interesting results. Here is a big one for you:
LINDER, CARLCINCINNATTI, OH 45243
SWIFT BOAT VETS AND POW'S FOR TRUTH$350,000primary10/14/04
Yup, some of the same money that went to these terrorist organizations also went to the old Swift Boaters. Very interesting indeed. As matter of fact, Wikipedia has this to say about Carl and Bush's relationship:
A close ally of George W. Bush, Lindner secured the use of Great American Ballpark for the Bush's re-election campaign on October 31, 2004, a few days before the 2004 Presidential Election.
Ahh, so maybe that explains why the company Carl used to run (and of which he still owns a large part) received the harsh punishment of a $25 million dollar fine. If this was some blue company like Costco doing this the CEO's would now be in Gitmo.
Remember - if you want to support terrorism then just give to the GOP. That will make sure you get off easy if you are busted supporting terrorist organizations.
_______________________________________
from The Independent
Why a glass of grape may be best way to start your day
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 15 March 2007
If you think a glass of breakfast orange juice is the best way to start the day, think again. Grape juice could be more beneficial.
Scientists have carried out the first scientific analysis of fruit juices to measure their antioxidant activity - the anti-ageing compounds that protect against heart disease and other chronic conditions.
Top of the league is purple grape juice followed by apple juice and cranberry juice, according to the study by researchers at the University of Glasgow. Orange juice, the most popular fruit juice, comes way down the league. It contains fewer polyphenols than the other juices tested, which are strong antioxidants
"Purple grape juice made with Concord grapes contains the highest and broadest range of polyphenols as well as having the highest antioxidant capacity.
The finding comes in the wake of research by US scientists which showed an association between long-term fruit juice consumption and a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease.
Researchers who followed almost 2,000 volunteers for up to 10 years found the risk of Alzheimer's was 76 per cent lower for those who drank juices more than three times a weekBy quenching free radicals they help to maintain oxidative balance and prevent the development of diseases including cancer and heart disease.
_______________________________________
Senate putting off difficult decisions A Senate panel is poised to approve a budget blueprint awarding near-term spending boosts for Democratic favorites such as education and veterans programs, while putting off difficult decisions on taxes, Social Security and Medicare.
_______________________________________
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Same Ole Same Ole
Business as Usual
Senate Democrats' budget leaves war funding intact
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats will unveil a 2008 budget today that would boost spending for uninsured children, students and veterans without cutting funds for defense or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The budget also would not roll back any of President Bush's tax cuts after 2010, when they are set to expire. It says the tax cuts can be extended if they are paid for.
The spending plan, to be voted on Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee, is more specific about its additions than its subtractions. Most decisions on how to pay for new spending or tax cuts are left to the committees that will turn the budget blueprint into legislation.
"We do not tell them how to raise the money," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the budget panel. "We do not tell (them) how to spend the money."
In fact, the budget is most notable for what it would not do, despite Democrats' attacks: reduce Bush's war spending or tax cuts. Senate Democrats do not want to be seen as hurting troops or taxpayers. House Democrats will unveil their proposal next week.
It will be the first budget written solely by Democrats in 13 years.
The omissions and lack of specifics on how the new initiatives would be paid for prompted questions from Republicans.
"We'll need to take a look at the details to see if the math adds up to a tax increase on American families and job creators, a move which would put our strong economy in jeopardy," White House budget director Rob Portman said.
The budget resolution sets the parameters for the tax and spending bills that comprise the federal budget. It does not have to get passed, and it does not require the president's signature. But without it, the budget process in Congress usually breaks down, as it did last year when Republicans failed to pass most appropriations bills.
Highlights of the plan:
•This year's $248 billion budget deficit would rise to $249 billion next year. By 2012, it would be replaced by a $132 billion surplus.
•The Children's Health Insurance Program would get up to $50 billion more over five years, about $45 billion more than Bush proposed and enough to insure all eligible children. Education programs would get about $6 billion more than Bush proposed next year, and veterans programs would rise by about $3.5 billion.
•The Defense and State departments would get the full $142 billion Bush seeks in 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats also kept Bush's proposed $481 billion defense budget, a $49 billion boost over this year.
•Tax rates would not be increased, but the budget would seek to clamp down on tax cheats and offshore tax shelters to raise new revenue. The alternative minimum tax, which targets the rich, would not raise taxes on the middle class for two years — one year more than Bush proposes
______________________________________
His Own Worst Enemy By Robert Scheer Truthdig.com
Tuesday 13 March 2007
The unctuous owl has hooted again. Only this time, Dick Cheney's cave has been invaded by the sudden sunlight of judicial and congressional revelations, making him appear more pathetic than intimidating as he once again charges critics of the Iraq war with giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
"A full validation of the al-Qaida strategy" are the shameless, slandering words the most powerful vice president in American history flung Monday at congressional critics of the war-including those from his own party.
While he is still as dangerous as any cornered animal, Cheney stands brightly revealed as the main culprit in cherry-picking the evidence to make the case for a stupid, failed war. He has been exposed as a vindictive, inflexible ideologue, who attempts to destroy all who publicly disagree with him, such as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Wilson's CIA agent wife, Valerie Plame Wilson. His extensive ties and loyal political service to energy and defense companies such as Halliburton (which now, in a burst of honesty, is moving its headquarters to Dubai), reveal him to be a man of deep corruption.
Like Nixon during Watergate, Cheney is now shrilly on the defensive. "National security made me do it!" he insists, clinging to pseudo-patriotism, that last refuge of scoundrels. But it is an argument that no longer flies with a public that has caught on to the rhythm of his screechy lies. After all, this is the leader, dominating a weak president, who pushed so hard for a complete occupation of a Muslim country not linked to 9/11. A man who hung his arguments for adventuristic war on known falsehoods, such as the attempted purchase of yellowcake uranium in Niger.
In fact, the recent terrorist bombing in Afghanistan that came too close to ending the vice president's life aptly underscored just how reckless the decision was to direct our policy away from the religious fanatics of al-Qaida, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and instead pour our resources into overthrowing Osama bin Laden's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein.
______________________________________
Quote of the day
"If we are serious about opposing the war, we must be serious about ending funding for the war."-- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), in a statement published in today's Congressional Record
_______________________________________
hits keep coming…
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:03 AM - PDT
Un-f**kin-believable. No, cancel that. Standard operating procedure*. Read it and scream:
The Army Corps of Engineers, rushing to meet President Bush's promise to protect New Orleans by the start of the 2006 hurricane season, installed defective flood-control pumps last year despite warnings from its own expert that the equipment would fail during a storm, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The 2006 hurricane season turned out to be mild, and the new pumps were never pressed into action. But the Corps and [MWI,] the politically connected manufacturer of the equipment are still struggling to get the 34 heavy-duty pumps working properly.
The pumps are now being pulled out and overhauled because of excessive vibration, Corps officials said. Other problems have included overheated engines, broken hoses and blown gaskets, according to the documents obtained by the AP.
And guess what the political connection was?
MWI is owned by J. David Eller and his sons. Eller was once a business partner of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in a venture called Bush-El that marketed MWI pumps. And Eller has donated about $128,000 to politicians, the vast majority of it to the Republican Party, since 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
There's a special place in hell reserved for these guys
Senate Democrats' budget leaves war funding intact
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats will unveil a 2008 budget today that would boost spending for uninsured children, students and veterans without cutting funds for defense or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The budget also would not roll back any of President Bush's tax cuts after 2010, when they are set to expire. It says the tax cuts can be extended if they are paid for.
The spending plan, to be voted on Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee, is more specific about its additions than its subtractions. Most decisions on how to pay for new spending or tax cuts are left to the committees that will turn the budget blueprint into legislation.
"We do not tell them how to raise the money," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the budget panel. "We do not tell (them) how to spend the money."
In fact, the budget is most notable for what it would not do, despite Democrats' attacks: reduce Bush's war spending or tax cuts. Senate Democrats do not want to be seen as hurting troops or taxpayers. House Democrats will unveil their proposal next week.
It will be the first budget written solely by Democrats in 13 years.
The omissions and lack of specifics on how the new initiatives would be paid for prompted questions from Republicans.
"We'll need to take a look at the details to see if the math adds up to a tax increase on American families and job creators, a move which would put our strong economy in jeopardy," White House budget director Rob Portman said.
The budget resolution sets the parameters for the tax and spending bills that comprise the federal budget. It does not have to get passed, and it does not require the president's signature. But without it, the budget process in Congress usually breaks down, as it did last year when Republicans failed to pass most appropriations bills.
Highlights of the plan:
•This year's $248 billion budget deficit would rise to $249 billion next year. By 2012, it would be replaced by a $132 billion surplus.
•The Children's Health Insurance Program would get up to $50 billion more over five years, about $45 billion more than Bush proposed and enough to insure all eligible children. Education programs would get about $6 billion more than Bush proposed next year, and veterans programs would rise by about $3.5 billion.
•The Defense and State departments would get the full $142 billion Bush seeks in 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats also kept Bush's proposed $481 billion defense budget, a $49 billion boost over this year.
•Tax rates would not be increased, but the budget would seek to clamp down on tax cheats and offshore tax shelters to raise new revenue. The alternative minimum tax, which targets the rich, would not raise taxes on the middle class for two years — one year more than Bush proposes
______________________________________
His Own Worst Enemy By Robert Scheer Truthdig.com
Tuesday 13 March 2007
The unctuous owl has hooted again. Only this time, Dick Cheney's cave has been invaded by the sudden sunlight of judicial and congressional revelations, making him appear more pathetic than intimidating as he once again charges critics of the Iraq war with giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
"A full validation of the al-Qaida strategy" are the shameless, slandering words the most powerful vice president in American history flung Monday at congressional critics of the war-including those from his own party.
While he is still as dangerous as any cornered animal, Cheney stands brightly revealed as the main culprit in cherry-picking the evidence to make the case for a stupid, failed war. He has been exposed as a vindictive, inflexible ideologue, who attempts to destroy all who publicly disagree with him, such as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Wilson's CIA agent wife, Valerie Plame Wilson. His extensive ties and loyal political service to energy and defense companies such as Halliburton (which now, in a burst of honesty, is moving its headquarters to Dubai), reveal him to be a man of deep corruption.
Like Nixon during Watergate, Cheney is now shrilly on the defensive. "National security made me do it!" he insists, clinging to pseudo-patriotism, that last refuge of scoundrels. But it is an argument that no longer flies with a public that has caught on to the rhythm of his screechy lies. After all, this is the leader, dominating a weak president, who pushed so hard for a complete occupation of a Muslim country not linked to 9/11. A man who hung his arguments for adventuristic war on known falsehoods, such as the attempted purchase of yellowcake uranium in Niger.
In fact, the recent terrorist bombing in Afghanistan that came too close to ending the vice president's life aptly underscored just how reckless the decision was to direct our policy away from the religious fanatics of al-Qaida, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and instead pour our resources into overthrowing Osama bin Laden's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein.
______________________________________
Quote of the day
"If we are serious about opposing the war, we must be serious about ending funding for the war."-- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), in a statement published in today's Congressional Record
_______________________________________
hits keep coming…
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:03 AM - PDT
Un-f**kin-believable. No, cancel that. Standard operating procedure*. Read it and scream:
The Army Corps of Engineers, rushing to meet President Bush's promise to protect New Orleans by the start of the 2006 hurricane season, installed defective flood-control pumps last year despite warnings from its own expert that the equipment would fail during a storm, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The 2006 hurricane season turned out to be mild, and the new pumps were never pressed into action. But the Corps and [MWI,] the politically connected manufacturer of the equipment are still struggling to get the 34 heavy-duty pumps working properly.
The pumps are now being pulled out and overhauled because of excessive vibration, Corps officials said. Other problems have included overheated engines, broken hoses and blown gaskets, according to the documents obtained by the AP.
And guess what the political connection was?
MWI is owned by J. David Eller and his sons. Eller was once a business partner of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in a venture called Bush-El that marketed MWI pumps. And Eller has donated about $128,000 to politicians, the vast majority of it to the Republican Party, since 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
There's a special place in hell reserved for these guys
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Republicans on the Run
Well it's Tuesday evening and I wasn't going to post this week as there is so much bad news for the republicans about which I am glad and unfortunately for the Republic as well about which I am not.I frankly couldn't decide what to post it is all so bad and sad.I am sure you all are sick of hearing about and reading about actions that I call high crimes and misdemeanors by this administration.So all you will get is Frank Richs excellent article and a few words about the primaries which are still, hard to believe, a year away.
_____________________________________
With all the bad publicity that the republicans are now receiving you would think anyone could beat them in any election especially national and yet not so. Here is the latest Wall street Journal/CBS poll results of March 10,
Poll: GOP Frontrunners Still Edging Out Top Dems
By Eric Kleefeld bio
A new American Research Group poll shows that the two Republican frontrunners each hold narrow leads over the two Dem frontrunners:
* Rudy-Hillary 48%-42%* Rudy-Obama 46%-41%* McCain-Hillary 45%-42%* McCain-Obama 46%-42
By the way not shown here due to an error on my part are the results for Edwards, he beat both Rudy and Hillary as well as Romney by 2 to 3 percentage points. It appears to me at this early stage that the wrong candidates are getting all the attention and the one who could win in 2008 is not.
_______________________________________
Why Libby's Pardon Is a Slam Dunk By Frank Rich The New York Times
Sunday 11 March 2007
Even by Washington's standards, few debates have been more fatuous or wasted more energy than the frenzied speculation over whether President Bush will or will not pardon Scooter Libby. Of course he will.
A president who tries to void laws he doesn't like by encumbering them with "signing statements" and who regards the Geneva Conventions as a nonbinding technicality isn't going to start playing by the rules now. His assertion last week that he is "pretty much going to stay out of" the Libby case is as credible as his pre-election vote of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld. The only real question about the pardon is whether Mr. Bush cares enough about his fellow Republicans' political fortunes to delay it until after Election Day 2008.
Either way, the pardon is a must for Mr. Bush. He needs Mr. Libby to keep his mouth shut. Cheney's Cheney knows too much about covert administration schemes far darker than the smearing of Joseph Wilson. Though Mr. Libby wrote a novel that sank without a trace a decade ago, he now has the makings of an explosive Washington tell-all that could be stranger than most fiction and far more salable.
Mr. Libby's novel was called "The Apprentice." His memoir could be titled "The Accomplice." Its first chapter would open in August 2002, when he and a small cadre of administration officials including Karl Rove formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secret task force to sell the Iraq war to the American people. The climactic chapter of the Libby saga unfolded last week when the guilty verdict in his trial coincided, all too fittingly, with the Congressional appearance of two Iraq veterans, one without an ear and one without an eye, to recount their subhuman treatment at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
It was WHIG's secret machinations more than four years ago that led directly to those shredded lives. WHIG had been tasked, as The Washington Post would later uncover, to portray Iraq's supposedly imminent threat to America with "gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence." In other words, WHIG was to cook up the sexiest recipe for promoting the war, facts be damned. So it did, by hyping the scariest possible scenario: nuclear apocalypse. As Michael Isikoff and David Corn report in "Hubris," it was WHIG (equipped with the slick phrase-making of the White House speechwriter Michael Gerson) that gave the administration its Orwellian bumper sticker, the constantly reiterated warning that Saddam's "smoking gun" could be "a mushroom cloud."
Ever since all the W.M.D. claims proved false, the administration has pleaded that it was duped by the same bad intelligence everyone else saw. But the nuclear card, the most persistent and gripping weapon in the prewar propaganda arsenal, was this White House's own special contrivance. Mr. Libby was present at its creation. He knows what Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney knew about the manufacture of this fiction and when they knew it.
Clearly they knew it early on. The administration's guilt (or at least embarrassment) about its lies in fomenting the war quickly drove it to hide the human price being paid for those lies. (It also tried to hide the financial cost of the war by keeping it out of the regular defense budget, but that's another, if related, story.) The steps the White House took to keep casualties out of view were extraordinary, even as it deployed troops to decorate every presidential victory rally and gave the Pentagon free rein to exploit the sacrifices of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in mendacious P.R. stunts.
The administration's enforcement of a prohibition on photographs of coffins returning from Iraq was the first policy manifestation of the hide-the-carnage strategy. It was complemented by the president's decision to break with precedent, set by Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter among others, and refuse to attend military funerals, lest he lend them a media spotlight. But Mark Benjamin, who has chronicled the mistreatment of Iraq war veterans since 2003, discovered an equally concerted effort to keep injured troops off camera. Mr. Benjamin wrote in Salon in 2005 that "flights carrying the wounded arrive in the United States only at night" and that both Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda barred the press "from seeing or photographing incoming patients."
A particularly vivid example of the extreme measures taken by the White House to cover up the war's devastation turned up in The Washington Post's Walter Reed exposé. Sgt. David Thomas, a Tennessee National Guard gunner with a Purple Heart and an amputated leg, found himself left off the guest list for a summer presidential ceremony honoring a fellow amputee after he said he would be wearing shorts, not pants, when occupying a front-row seat in camera range. Now we can fully appreciate that bizarre incident on C-Span in October 2003, when an anguished Cher, of all unlikely callers, phoned in to ask why administration officials, from the president down, were not being photographed with patients like those she had visited at Walter Reed. "I don't understand why these guys are so hidden," she said.
The answer is simple: Out of sight, out of mind was the game plan, and it has been enforced down to the tiniest instances. When HBO produced an acclaimed (and apolitical) documentary last year about military medics' remarkable efforts to save lives in Iraq, "Baghdad ER," Army brass at the last minute boycotted planned promotional screenings in Washington and at Fort Campbell, Ky. In a memo, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley warned that the film, though made with Army cooperation, could endanger veterans' health by provoking symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The General Kiley who was so busy policing an HBO movie for its potential health hazards is the same one who did not correct the horrific real-life conditions on his watch at Walter Reed. After the Post exposé was published, he tried to spin it by boasting that most of the medical center's rooms "were actually perfectly O.K." and scapegoating "soldiers leaving food in their rooms" for the mice and cockroach infestations. That this guy is still surgeon general of the Army - or was as of Friday - makes you wonder what he, like Mr. Libby, has on his superiors.
Now that the country has seen the Congressional testimony of Specialist Jeremy Duncan, who has melted flesh where his ear once was, or watched the ABC newsman Bob Woodruff's report on other neglected patients in military medical facilities far beyond Walter Reed, the White House cover-up of veterans' care has collapsed, like so many other cover-ups necessitated by its conduct of this war. But the administration and its surrogates still won't face up to their moral culpability.
Mary Matalin, the former Cheney flack who served with Mr. Libby on WHIG and is now on the board of his legal defense fund (its full list of donors is unknown), has been especially vocal. "Scooter didn't do anything," she said. "And his personal record and service are impeccable." What Mr. Libby did - fabricating nuclear threats at WHIG and then lying under oath when he feared that sordid Pandora's box might be pried open by the Wilson case - was despicable. Had there been no WHIG or other White House operation for drumming up fictional rationales for war, there would have been no bogus uranium from Africa in a presidential speech, no leak to commit perjury about, no amputees to shut away in filthy rooms at Walter Reed.
Listening to Ms. Matalin and her fellow apparatchiks emote publicly about the punishment being inflicted on poor Mr. Libby and his family, you wonder what world they live in. They seem clueless about how ugly their sympathy for a conniving courtier sounds against the testimony of those wounded troops and their families who bear the most searing burdens of the unnecessary war WHIG sped to market.
As is often noted, any parallels between Iraq and Vietnam do not extend to America's treatment of its troops. No one spits at those serving in Iraq. But our "support" for the troops has often been as hypocritical as that of an administration that still fails to provide them with sufficient armor. Health care indignities, among other betrayals of returning veterans, have been reported by countless news organizations since the war began, not just this year. Many in Congress did nothing, and we as a people have often looked the other way, supporting the troops with car decals and donated phone cards while the same history repeats itself again and again.
Now the "surge" that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr's militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq's army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. And still, despite Thursday's breakthrough announcement of a credible Iraq exit blueprint by the House leadership, Congress threatens to dither. While Mr. Bush will no doubt pardon Scooter Libby without so much as a second thought, anyone else in Washington who continues to further this debacle may find it less easy to escape scot-free.
_____________________________________
With all the bad publicity that the republicans are now receiving you would think anyone could beat them in any election especially national and yet not so. Here is the latest Wall street Journal/CBS poll results of March 10,
Poll: GOP Frontrunners Still Edging Out Top Dems
By Eric Kleefeld bio
A new American Research Group poll shows that the two Republican frontrunners each hold narrow leads over the two Dem frontrunners:
* Rudy-Hillary 48%-42%* Rudy-Obama 46%-41%* McCain-Hillary 45%-42%* McCain-Obama 46%-42
By the way not shown here due to an error on my part are the results for Edwards, he beat both Rudy and Hillary as well as Romney by 2 to 3 percentage points. It appears to me at this early stage that the wrong candidates are getting all the attention and the one who could win in 2008 is not.
_______________________________________
Why Libby's Pardon Is a Slam Dunk By Frank Rich The New York Times
Sunday 11 March 2007
Even by Washington's standards, few debates have been more fatuous or wasted more energy than the frenzied speculation over whether President Bush will or will not pardon Scooter Libby. Of course he will.
A president who tries to void laws he doesn't like by encumbering them with "signing statements" and who regards the Geneva Conventions as a nonbinding technicality isn't going to start playing by the rules now. His assertion last week that he is "pretty much going to stay out of" the Libby case is as credible as his pre-election vote of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld. The only real question about the pardon is whether Mr. Bush cares enough about his fellow Republicans' political fortunes to delay it until after Election Day 2008.
Either way, the pardon is a must for Mr. Bush. He needs Mr. Libby to keep his mouth shut. Cheney's Cheney knows too much about covert administration schemes far darker than the smearing of Joseph Wilson. Though Mr. Libby wrote a novel that sank without a trace a decade ago, he now has the makings of an explosive Washington tell-all that could be stranger than most fiction and far more salable.
Mr. Libby's novel was called "The Apprentice." His memoir could be titled "The Accomplice." Its first chapter would open in August 2002, when he and a small cadre of administration officials including Karl Rove formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secret task force to sell the Iraq war to the American people. The climactic chapter of the Libby saga unfolded last week when the guilty verdict in his trial coincided, all too fittingly, with the Congressional appearance of two Iraq veterans, one without an ear and one without an eye, to recount their subhuman treatment at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
It was WHIG's secret machinations more than four years ago that led directly to those shredded lives. WHIG had been tasked, as The Washington Post would later uncover, to portray Iraq's supposedly imminent threat to America with "gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence." In other words, WHIG was to cook up the sexiest recipe for promoting the war, facts be damned. So it did, by hyping the scariest possible scenario: nuclear apocalypse. As Michael Isikoff and David Corn report in "Hubris," it was WHIG (equipped with the slick phrase-making of the White House speechwriter Michael Gerson) that gave the administration its Orwellian bumper sticker, the constantly reiterated warning that Saddam's "smoking gun" could be "a mushroom cloud."
Ever since all the W.M.D. claims proved false, the administration has pleaded that it was duped by the same bad intelligence everyone else saw. But the nuclear card, the most persistent and gripping weapon in the prewar propaganda arsenal, was this White House's own special contrivance. Mr. Libby was present at its creation. He knows what Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney knew about the manufacture of this fiction and when they knew it.
Clearly they knew it early on. The administration's guilt (or at least embarrassment) about its lies in fomenting the war quickly drove it to hide the human price being paid for those lies. (It also tried to hide the financial cost of the war by keeping it out of the regular defense budget, but that's another, if related, story.) The steps the White House took to keep casualties out of view were extraordinary, even as it deployed troops to decorate every presidential victory rally and gave the Pentagon free rein to exploit the sacrifices of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in mendacious P.R. stunts.
The administration's enforcement of a prohibition on photographs of coffins returning from Iraq was the first policy manifestation of the hide-the-carnage strategy. It was complemented by the president's decision to break with precedent, set by Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter among others, and refuse to attend military funerals, lest he lend them a media spotlight. But Mark Benjamin, who has chronicled the mistreatment of Iraq war veterans since 2003, discovered an equally concerted effort to keep injured troops off camera. Mr. Benjamin wrote in Salon in 2005 that "flights carrying the wounded arrive in the United States only at night" and that both Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda barred the press "from seeing or photographing incoming patients."
A particularly vivid example of the extreme measures taken by the White House to cover up the war's devastation turned up in The Washington Post's Walter Reed exposé. Sgt. David Thomas, a Tennessee National Guard gunner with a Purple Heart and an amputated leg, found himself left off the guest list for a summer presidential ceremony honoring a fellow amputee after he said he would be wearing shorts, not pants, when occupying a front-row seat in camera range. Now we can fully appreciate that bizarre incident on C-Span in October 2003, when an anguished Cher, of all unlikely callers, phoned in to ask why administration officials, from the president down, were not being photographed with patients like those she had visited at Walter Reed. "I don't understand why these guys are so hidden," she said.
The answer is simple: Out of sight, out of mind was the game plan, and it has been enforced down to the tiniest instances. When HBO produced an acclaimed (and apolitical) documentary last year about military medics' remarkable efforts to save lives in Iraq, "Baghdad ER," Army brass at the last minute boycotted planned promotional screenings in Washington and at Fort Campbell, Ky. In a memo, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley warned that the film, though made with Army cooperation, could endanger veterans' health by provoking symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The General Kiley who was so busy policing an HBO movie for its potential health hazards is the same one who did not correct the horrific real-life conditions on his watch at Walter Reed. After the Post exposé was published, he tried to spin it by boasting that most of the medical center's rooms "were actually perfectly O.K." and scapegoating "soldiers leaving food in their rooms" for the mice and cockroach infestations. That this guy is still surgeon general of the Army - or was as of Friday - makes you wonder what he, like Mr. Libby, has on his superiors.
Now that the country has seen the Congressional testimony of Specialist Jeremy Duncan, who has melted flesh where his ear once was, or watched the ABC newsman Bob Woodruff's report on other neglected patients in military medical facilities far beyond Walter Reed, the White House cover-up of veterans' care has collapsed, like so many other cover-ups necessitated by its conduct of this war. But the administration and its surrogates still won't face up to their moral culpability.
Mary Matalin, the former Cheney flack who served with Mr. Libby on WHIG and is now on the board of his legal defense fund (its full list of donors is unknown), has been especially vocal. "Scooter didn't do anything," she said. "And his personal record and service are impeccable." What Mr. Libby did - fabricating nuclear threats at WHIG and then lying under oath when he feared that sordid Pandora's box might be pried open by the Wilson case - was despicable. Had there been no WHIG or other White House operation for drumming up fictional rationales for war, there would have been no bogus uranium from Africa in a presidential speech, no leak to commit perjury about, no amputees to shut away in filthy rooms at Walter Reed.
Listening to Ms. Matalin and her fellow apparatchiks emote publicly about the punishment being inflicted on poor Mr. Libby and his family, you wonder what world they live in. They seem clueless about how ugly their sympathy for a conniving courtier sounds against the testimony of those wounded troops and their families who bear the most searing burdens of the unnecessary war WHIG sped to market.
As is often noted, any parallels between Iraq and Vietnam do not extend to America's treatment of its troops. No one spits at those serving in Iraq. But our "support" for the troops has often been as hypocritical as that of an administration that still fails to provide them with sufficient armor. Health care indignities, among other betrayals of returning veterans, have been reported by countless news organizations since the war began, not just this year. Many in Congress did nothing, and we as a people have often looked the other way, supporting the troops with car decals and donated phone cards while the same history repeats itself again and again.
Now the "surge" that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr's militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq's army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. And still, despite Thursday's breakthrough announcement of a credible Iraq exit blueprint by the House leadership, Congress threatens to dither. While Mr. Bush will no doubt pardon Scooter Libby without so much as a second thought, anyone else in Washington who continues to further this debacle may find it less easy to escape scot-free.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Talk
This bill is toothless ! Iraq Pullout Could Begin July 1 Under Democratic Plan
The House Democratic plan for funding the war in Iraq could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday.
Even under the least aggressive timetable laid out by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, U.S. forces will have withdrawn from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008.
When the pullout begins depends on the progress that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes in meeting political and military benchmarks. President Bush would have to certify by July 1 that the Maliki government is "making progress" toward those goals, or a U.S. withdrawal would start immediately and be finished in six months.
If Bush says there is some progress in reaching the benchmarks, the Maliki government would have until Oct. 1 to formally enact them. If they aren't, pullout begins, and again, it's a six-month timetable to complete withdrawal.
If the Maliki government meets both those deadlines, and Bush certifies that it has, withdrawal would begin on March 1, 2008, with almost all U.S. units out of Iraq by that September.
So the range for U.S. withdrawal under the Democratic plan is as early as July 1, 2007, with departure no later than September 2008.
This is a dramatic new dimension to the Iraq debate, and the structure of the proposal vividly demonstrates the intense pressure that Pelosi is under from the anti-war faction within her caucus to force a vote on a timetable for withdrawal. Pelosi indicated that she would not allow the Out of Iraq Caucus and other anti-war Democrats to have a separate bill requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by Dec. 31 of this year.
The speaker also dismissed a potential veto by Bush, or the likelihood that the bill would get bogged down in the Senate, as immaterial to what she and House Democrats were trying to do. Pelosi said worrying about whether Bush would sign a bill was "too limiting" for House Democrats.
Pelosi told reporters that the goal of the Democratic proposal, included within a $95 billion wartime spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, is to bring about an end to the war, "safely, reasonably and soon."
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) said Democrats are seeking to bring the Iraq conflict to "an orderly and responsible close" so that the United States could refocus attention on the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan.
Democrats also want to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, ban torture and limit the time of deployment to Iraq for combat troops while ensuring that no units deployed there lack proper equipment, training or rest.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman on the Defense Appropriatons Subcommittee, had earlier talked about inserting language in the Iraq bill to close the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but that language is not in the bill.
"This is a very important bill," Murtha said. "[Republicans] have to be very careful with this. ...They have a responsibility to the troops also.
_______________________________________
Patty Murray: "We Are Fighting A War With No Cause" Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) went to the floor of the Senate on Tuesday and said something I really admire. I respect her words because she made a statement that falls, for some incredibly dumb reason, right into that category of words we dare not speak."In truth, we are fighting a war with no cause," said the Washington Senator.Those are not easy words to say in a political environment where most Republicans will use them to say you're sleeping with Osama bin Laden and that you obviously love the terrorists, but Murray is right -- as was Barack Obama (D-IL) when he "slipped" and made the true statement that the needless troop deaths in Iraq are a waste.I'm hopeful that by the time Murray runs for reelection in 2010, those words will make her look thoughtful and prescient and not be a truth that her Republican opponent can use to smear her good name.Murray made the speech on the Senate floor earlier this week when she addressed the subject of funding for mental-health care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and the extent to which the White House and Republican party all sport "support the troops" ribbons on their SUVs but have done nothing but lie them into war and hang them out to dry if they make it home.Indeed, as Murray points out, the Bush administration has seen many reports over the years highlighting bad conditions in Veterans' medical care facilities and have shown that their pro-troop rhetoric doesn't extend to actually doing anything to help them."With minimal amounts of sleep, our service men and women work longer days than you and I can imagine. They see things none of us should ever witness: bodies blown to pieces, mutilation, the blood of their fellow soldiers on the streets of a country we have no place being," said Murray on Tuesday. "All of this is for a war we were misled into supporting. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was never connected to al Qaeda, and nobody can say we are spreading democracy to Iraq today.""In truth, we are fighting a war with no cause."And Murray was clear in laying the blame right at the doorstep of George W. Bush, who not only took our country into a needless war, but has resisted every attempt by Democrats to rescue our troops from this quagmire, while his Republican attack dogs have impugned the courage and patriotism of those who have tried."As Americans across this country -- but especially Senators -- it is our solemn duty, as those who have not seen the horrors of battle, to care for those who have," said Murray. "Even more so, as the one who sent Americans to Iraq, it is the duty of the President. Providing mental health care for our children falls under this duty -- a duty that, sadly, this President has failed to fulfill."
_______________________________________
Don't discuss polar bears": memo to scientists
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.
Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.
But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.
The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.
Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.
Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."
ARE POLAR BEARS 'THREATENED'?
Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.
That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.
"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.
"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.
The House Democratic plan for funding the war in Iraq could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday.
Even under the least aggressive timetable laid out by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, U.S. forces will have withdrawn from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008.
When the pullout begins depends on the progress that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes in meeting political and military benchmarks. President Bush would have to certify by July 1 that the Maliki government is "making progress" toward those goals, or a U.S. withdrawal would start immediately and be finished in six months.
If Bush says there is some progress in reaching the benchmarks, the Maliki government would have until Oct. 1 to formally enact them. If they aren't, pullout begins, and again, it's a six-month timetable to complete withdrawal.
If the Maliki government meets both those deadlines, and Bush certifies that it has, withdrawal would begin on March 1, 2008, with almost all U.S. units out of Iraq by that September.
So the range for U.S. withdrawal under the Democratic plan is as early as July 1, 2007, with departure no later than September 2008.
This is a dramatic new dimension to the Iraq debate, and the structure of the proposal vividly demonstrates the intense pressure that Pelosi is under from the anti-war faction within her caucus to force a vote on a timetable for withdrawal. Pelosi indicated that she would not allow the Out of Iraq Caucus and other anti-war Democrats to have a separate bill requiring all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by Dec. 31 of this year.
The speaker also dismissed a potential veto by Bush, or the likelihood that the bill would get bogged down in the Senate, as immaterial to what she and House Democrats were trying to do. Pelosi said worrying about whether Bush would sign a bill was "too limiting" for House Democrats.
Pelosi told reporters that the goal of the Democratic proposal, included within a $95 billion wartime spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, is to bring about an end to the war, "safely, reasonably and soon."
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) said Democrats are seeking to bring the Iraq conflict to "an orderly and responsible close" so that the United States could refocus attention on the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan.
Democrats also want to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, ban torture and limit the time of deployment to Iraq for combat troops while ensuring that no units deployed there lack proper equipment, training or rest.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman on the Defense Appropriatons Subcommittee, had earlier talked about inserting language in the Iraq bill to close the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but that language is not in the bill.
"This is a very important bill," Murtha said. "[Republicans] have to be very careful with this. ...They have a responsibility to the troops also.
_______________________________________
Patty Murray: "We Are Fighting A War With No Cause" Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) went to the floor of the Senate on Tuesday and said something I really admire. I respect her words because she made a statement that falls, for some incredibly dumb reason, right into that category of words we dare not speak."In truth, we are fighting a war with no cause," said the Washington Senator.Those are not easy words to say in a political environment where most Republicans will use them to say you're sleeping with Osama bin Laden and that you obviously love the terrorists, but Murray is right -- as was Barack Obama (D-IL) when he "slipped" and made the true statement that the needless troop deaths in Iraq are a waste.I'm hopeful that by the time Murray runs for reelection in 2010, those words will make her look thoughtful and prescient and not be a truth that her Republican opponent can use to smear her good name.Murray made the speech on the Senate floor earlier this week when she addressed the subject of funding for mental-health care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and the extent to which the White House and Republican party all sport "support the troops" ribbons on their SUVs but have done nothing but lie them into war and hang them out to dry if they make it home.Indeed, as Murray points out, the Bush administration has seen many reports over the years highlighting bad conditions in Veterans' medical care facilities and have shown that their pro-troop rhetoric doesn't extend to actually doing anything to help them."With minimal amounts of sleep, our service men and women work longer days than you and I can imagine. They see things none of us should ever witness: bodies blown to pieces, mutilation, the blood of their fellow soldiers on the streets of a country we have no place being," said Murray on Tuesday. "All of this is for a war we were misled into supporting. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was never connected to al Qaeda, and nobody can say we are spreading democracy to Iraq today.""In truth, we are fighting a war with no cause."And Murray was clear in laying the blame right at the doorstep of George W. Bush, who not only took our country into a needless war, but has resisted every attempt by Democrats to rescue our troops from this quagmire, while his Republican attack dogs have impugned the courage and patriotism of those who have tried."As Americans across this country -- but especially Senators -- it is our solemn duty, as those who have not seen the horrors of battle, to care for those who have," said Murray. "Even more so, as the one who sent Americans to Iraq, it is the duty of the President. Providing mental health care for our children falls under this duty -- a duty that, sadly, this President has failed to fulfill."
_______________________________________
Don't discuss polar bears": memo to scientists
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.
Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.
But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.
The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.
Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.
Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."
ARE POLAR BEARS 'THREATENED'?
Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.
That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.
"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.
"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)