posted on February 23, 2003 02:53:20 PM new
The Washington Post caught him. I remember his announcement in the State of the Union and then the subsequent news release that is referred to by the Post which left the impression that AIDS prevention and treatment funding would no longer be tied to the abortion issue. However, the administrations' proposal is exactly the opposite.
Spinning Aids
Sunday, February 23, 2003; Page B06
THE ADMINISTRATION is sending out a confused message on its global AIDS initiative announced in the State of the Union address. A recent internal memo was portrayed as a deepening of the president's resolve. "Abortion Providers May Get AIDS Money," one headline read, implying that the president had nobly set aside political pressure from antiabortion groups to focus on the bottom line: "getting help to people with AIDS," as an unnamed official said. But the real news of the White House memo in question, circulated last week, seems to be the opposite. It alludes to White House plans to extend the "Mexico City policy" -- what abortion rights group call the "gag rule" -- to AIDS funding, meaning many clinics that receive U.S. money to combat AIDS could not discuss abortion as part of family planning.
Until now, AIDS money has been channeled mostly through the U.S. Agency for International Development with no strings attached. If the administration follows through on this plan, the AIDS treatment and prevention work in poor countries the president so admirably promised to boost would be greatly hampered. In many places AIDS treatment and family planning happen in one clinic. Resources are scarce, and field workers say people feel less stigma about going to a general health clinic than a stand-alone HIV/AIDS clinic. Subjecting them to the scrutiny of the gag rule would mean that clinics with few resources would have to find some way to restructure or choose between Bush money and other family planning money. In addition, experts say abortion is sometimes a choice of last resort for AIDS patients: A pregnant woman comes into a remote clinic weak with AIDS. The medicine to prevent mother-to-infant transmission is not available. The pregnancy will weaken her immune system further. Her choices are bleak: her other children orphaned, or an abortion.
The administration has done this before: In a negotiation with Asian regions on HIV prevention in December, officials tried to delete a mention of condom use and substitute abstinence-only education. In the domestic context this stance is mistaken; in the context of AIDS in poor countries it is myopic and dangerous.
When challenged, White House officials said they might give money to integrated clinics that won't abide by the Mexico City policy and require or ask them to refer their AIDS patients for family planning advice elsewhere. This seems unrealistic, as there often is no "elsewhere," but it would at least give clinics some flexibility.
The president's emphasis in the State of the Union address on stemming the AIDS epidemic was a breakthrough. He should not risk eroding that progress. Already his budget offers a tentative start, pledging only $500 million in the first year of Mr. Bush's promised $10 billion. And with his latest proposal he risks letting domestic political considerations blur the focus on the emergency work at hand, which, as the clever official said, is "getting help to people with AIDS."
posted on February 23, 2003 04:01:15 PM new
All I half to say about Bush is that hes an idiot and a BSer.And when it comes to the economy,hes like a lost torrist that refuses to ask for directions.
I was surprised that Bush made this announcement during his state of the union address because just last April, he withheld $34 million appropriated by Congress for the U.N. Population Fund because of accusations that it condones forced abortions in China. (This was found to be untrue). A spokesman for the fund, Stirling Schruggs, said that according to its estimates of how the loss of #34 million would affect the recipients of family planning aid - "this could mean 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 300,000 abortions, 4, 700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths."
Amy Coen, the president of Population Action International said, "When the most powerful president in the world will not release money already allocated to prevent unwanted pregnancy, to stop the spread of H.I.V./AIDS, for the poorest citizens in the world," she said, "where is the morality in that? This is pure politics."
posted on February 23, 2003 06:32:14 PM new
While I am extremely disappointed, I am not in the least bit surprised. Once again his personal religious beliefs are dictating public policy.
posted on February 23, 2003 06:46:31 PM new
Nah that has nothin to do with the comments I posted.I dont think theres anything wrong with him expressing his beliefs,but I do think he is FAKE! It makes me sick to see these brainwashed followers on TV that clap for every little thing he says when its all FAKE and B.S.I will almost gauarantee he wont be voted back into office.And if he does it will be rigged just like the first election.
We need another Bill Clinton becouse I dont care what anybody says he was a damn good presedent.He new what he was doing.Bush doesnt even have a degree in politics
posted on February 24, 2003 07:40:39 AM new
I think that the shock value is wearing off. Even the staunchiest or Republican supporters have had to admit that Bush is a monumental liar. Bush has lied to the American People on many issues. In fact, so many Americans distrust him, none of them believe a single word he says anymore. What's one more lie to add to the pile? IS there STILL anybody who thinks that Bush has never told a lie to us?
posted on February 24, 2003 12:29:04 PM new
The steady stream of deceit is directly analogous to corrupt business practice, i.e., the Enron model. Until the people begin to demand an audit of honesty and truth, the decline of morality and reason will continue until freedom, independence, and prosperity are bankrupt.
posted on February 25, 2003 04:14:42 AM new
It's not the subject that's important, it's the continuation of the lie. There's nothing without consistancy.
posted on February 25, 2003 10:52:22 AM new
"Washington - There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist."
"I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House."It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan.That's simply not the case."
Yes, there's been a steady stream of lies and deceptions. That's why the trustin and evil of questioning the present administration has become a mantra of the White House and other sources of disinformation. Though a political strategy based upon the premise that any means justifies the end may play well with small groups of delusional fundamentalists and neoconservatives, the majority of people are rational enough to realize that such perversion of responsible government of a free and principled people will only result in leading our nation into chaos. But the only vehicle for conveying truth to the nation is the media.
I've noticed a gradual change in the traditional, established mainstream media that is widespread, though it's not yet very deep. If it's able to prevail in re-establishing its role as the guardian and conveyor of truth, rather than as only a disseminator of government, corporate, and special interest propaganda and low-level current events entertainment, then there's still hope that we may survive as a free and prosperous society.
posted on February 25, 2003 11:50:44 AM new
>I've noticed a gradual change in the traditional, established mainstream media that is widespread, though it's not yet very deep.
You only have to go to the business reports for the answer. Ted Turned is retiring and he was a huge force in making the news into what it is today: all fluff and foaming at the mouth over Bush and the Republicans. Next you have AOL/Time/Warner which owns CNN News. With Steve Case screwing up AOL and their recent merger disaster that cut AOL/Time/Warner loose, AOL tends to be a bit more centrist and so, CNN has come back towards the center in their news reporting; i.e. they will now show anti-Bush/anti-Republican reports -- even giving the Democrats five or ten seconds of coverage per hour (compared with several minutes for the right agenda).
So I don't think that this really means that all of the media is swinging back towards the center.
[ edited by Borillar on Feb 25, 2003 11:51 AM ]
posted on February 25, 2003 11:54:54 AM newEditor: Bush Cited Report That Doesn't Exist
By James Toedtman CHIEF ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT
February 23, 2003
Washington -There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist.
Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by "Blue-Chip economists" that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president's tax cut proposal becomes law.
That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month.
"I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. "It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case."
Deputy White House Press Secretary Claire Buchan insisted Friday that the survey, which mentioned "the likelihood that some version of the Bush administration's latest stimulus package will be enacted," justified the president's claim. Moore said that a survey taken in January before the president announced his plan forecast 3.3 percent annual growth between the last quarter of 2002 and the last quarter of 2003. A survey taken in February reached the same consensus.
posted on February 25, 2003 01:45:29 PM new
The deep snow here -- it's going to continue to snow lightly for the next several days according to the forecast--has given me more time away from other obligations than usual to sample the news coverage.
This article from the very pedestrian, mild-mannered USA TODAY is representative of the increasingly widespread, critical national coverage of the Bush administration. It's quite different from coverage from the aftermath of 9/ll up to the November elections this year. There is a growing trend to present a diversity of viewpoint once again about domestic and foreign policy. The re-establishment of this climate will also allow for more articles like those above revealing outright deceptions and lies.
It's still possible for events to occur that could provide another opportunity for the creation of fear and hysteria that would allow for renewed intimidation and suppression of speech and information beyond what is already in place. But at this point, I don't think that the administration will risk it.
Top Stories - USA TODAY
U.S. builds war coalition with favors -- and money
WASHINGTON -- President Bush (news - web sites) keeps warning that if the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council will not back a war in Iraq, he will assemble a ''coalition of the willing'' to depose Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). But the more than two dozen countries that have offered some measure of backing to the United States have complex motives that in many cases have more to do with placating the world's only superpower -- or trading their support for huge sums in U.S. aid -- than with a desire to rid the world of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction.
posted on February 25, 2003 03:42:27 PM newGood Lord!
On the theme of lying, this is an article worth reading.
Deborah Cook Is the Typical Bush Judicial Nominee So Watch Out
By ADAM COHEN
The case before the Ohio Supreme Court looked simple enough. Thomas Davis, a forklift operator at an Ohio Wal-Mart, was crushed to death at work. When his widow sued, Wal-Mart fought hard and its employees may have lied and destroyed evidence. When she learned of the possible deception, Mrs. Davis went to court to try to add an important legal claim. Too bad, Wal-Mart argued. She had missed her chance even if it did trick her by lying.
posted on February 25, 2003 06:38:32 PM new
Junquemama
Yes, we know that all corporate behavior is innately good and in our long-term best interests to support. With the proper judiciary we will never have to worry about corporate dishonesty again. Heaven knows, no problems along those lines have surfaced recently.
This fact from the article is especially revealing...
"The predominantly Republican court properly ruled, 6 to 1, that Wal-Mart's legal defense had been bogus. Even if it wasn't, the court held, it would be fundamentally unjust "to reward a party for misrepresenting or destroying evidence." Only one justice took Wal-Mart's side. That justice was Deborah Cook."
An extreme vote against those of the Republican majority. But after all, Wal-Mart was only caught lying. So Ms Cook's nomination must have been a reward for her futuristic outlook. Neomorality I suppose we could call it.
posted on February 25, 2003 10:24:36 PM new
I think one thing that has gotten the media to be so cowed is that if they give normal, broad coverage of the news and then another 9-11 attack occurs, many of them would be without a chair when the music stops playing. Or, rather, that's why they have been afraid to publish against Bush and his constant misdeeds against America. With the United Nations not in line and fighting Bush, they can take the heat while the meida expands coverage. So if another 9-11 attack does occur, the UN will take the heat instead.
posted on February 26, 2003 02:33:39 PM new
Warnings from the heartland about Bush/Ashcroft/Poindexter plans for the Homeland..............................
Journal Star, Peoria, Ill., on terrorism and national security:
Perhaps you saw the Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise flick "Minority Report" last year. It takes America 50 years into the future, one characterized by high-tech law enforcement that can predict and arrest murderers before they commit their crimes.
Of course, the people at the top abuse their frightening power, ultimately manipulating and corrupting the system to achieve their own selfish ends. The law-abiding become collateral damage, but so what as long as America, generally speaking, is safe? ...
...Currently the U.S. government is developing a system -- called Total Information Awareness -- that would give Uncle Sam access to the medical, financial, travel and telephone records of millions of Americans, in the hopes of targeting terrorists before they strike.
Meanwhile, TIA is headed by John Poindexter, the national security adviser under Ronald Reagan who was convicted of lying to Congress and destroying official documents during the Iran-Contra scandal before those verdicts were overturned on appeal.
That makes not only the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union nervous, but some in Congress. ...
Many Americans have looked the other way since 9-11 as their government held people without charge, denied them access to legal counsel, etc. ... Sure, Ashcroft & Co. may catch the big fish, but they're likely to net lots of little, innocent ones along the way.
We have argued all along that the greatest challenge to the U.S. post-9-11 might not be al-Qaida, but recognizing ourselves and our nation when the smoke clears. That would be the ultimate test of whether the terrorists had won. ...
posted on February 26, 2003 02:47:10 PM new
I assume that everyone here knows about Poindexter's past and how he especially fits well with this topic, but just in case...................
"Who's John Poindexter?
A retired Navy Admiral, John Poindexter lost his job as National Security Adviser under Ronald Reagan, and was convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and destroying evidence in the Iran Contra scandal. [1]"
posted on February 27, 2003 01:48:47 PM new
Democracy is alive and well. The opposition to the Bush administration has continued to spread through hundreds of smaller protest activities which have been largely ignored by the press. But some are impossible to ignore or downplay. The quite conservative, pro-war, Washington Post is even reporting again.
Truthful information = freedom.
'Virtual March' Floods Senate With Calls Against an Iraq War
Hundreds of thousands of antiwar activists flooded Senate phone lines yesterday as part of a "Virtual March" on Washington aimed at heading off a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
posted on February 27, 2003 02:11:34 PM new
Here is a list of artists so you can contact or their agents or employers and voice your disapproval as well as not buy entertainment they are involved with.
Gillian Anderson
Edward Asner
Rene Auberjonois
David Bale
Kim Basinger
Ed Begley, Jr.
Theo Bikel
Barbara Bosson
Jackson Browne
Peter Beck (REM)
Diahann Carroll
Eugene J. Carron, Jr., Rear Adm. U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Kathleen Chalfant
Don Cheadle
Jill Clayburgh
David Clennon
Jack Coleman
Peter Coyote
Lindsay Crouse
Suzanne Cryer
Matt Damon
Dana Daurey
Ambassador Jonathan Dean (U.S. Rep. to NATO
Warsaw Pact)
Vincent D'Onofrio
David Duchovny
Olympia Dukakis
Charles S. Dutton
Hector Elizondo
Cary Elwes
Shelley Fabaras
Mike Farrell
Mia Farrow
Laurence Fishburne
Sean Patrick Flanery
Bonnie Franklin
John Fugelsang
Janeane Garofalo
Larry Gelbart
Melissa Gilbert
Danny Glover
Elliott Gould
Samaria Graham
Robert Greenwald
Robert Guillaume
Paul Haggis
Robert David Hall
Ethan Hawke
Ron Howard
Helen Hunt
Anjelica Huston
LaTanya Richardson Jackson
Samuel L. Jackson
Jane Kaczmarek
Melina Kanakaredes
Casey Kasem
Mimi Kennedy
Jessica Lange
Tea Leoni
Wendie Malick
Camryn Manheim
Marsha Mason
Richard Masur
Dave Mathews
Kent McCord
Robert Duncan
McNeill
Mike Mills (REM)
Janel Moloney
Esai Morales
Ed O'Neill
Chris Noth
Peter Onorati
Alexandra Paul
Ambassador Edward Peck (former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq)
Seth Peterson
CCH Pounder
David Rabe
Alan Rachins
Bonnie Raitt
Carl Reiner
Tim Robbins
Steve Robinson, Sgt. U.S. Army (Ret.) (National Gulf War Resource Center)
posted on February 27, 2003 09:27:29 PM new
Trying to spin the real costs of Iraqi invasion and occupation............
Maybe the real costs will have to soon become classified information.
Unless we end up almost abandoning Iraq, like we did Afghanistan, I'm guessing between 500 billion and a trillion in total real costs before it's all said and done.
Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.
Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion."
Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.
"I think you're deliberately keeping us in the dark," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia. "We're not so naοve as to think that you don't know more than you're revealing."
Representative Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, also voiced exasperation with Mr. Wolfowitz: "I think you can do better than that."
Mr. Wolfowitz, with Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, at his side, tried to mollify the Democratic lawmakers, promising to fill them in eventually on the administration's internal cost estimates.
"There will be an appropriate moment," he said, when the Pentagon would provide Congress with cost ranges. "We're not in a position to do that right now."
At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments.
Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.
"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.
A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.
In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq.
He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it.
"I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.
In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, many nations agreed in advance of hostilities to help pay for a conflict that eventually cost about $61 billion. Mr. Wolfowitz said that this time around the administration was dealing with "countries that are quite frightened of their own shadows" in assembling a coalition to force President Saddam Hussein to disarm.
Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables.
Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.
At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I've already decided that. It's not useful."
