"Over the next months, I expect a vicious cycle in which force-protection measures will alienate the population and create more opposition to the occupation, with rising casualties," said Laurence Pope, a retired State Department expert on the Arab world
Retired Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford was even gloomier, predicting "a long, tough haul in Iraq."
"The longer this goes on, the more violent these events will become," said Fulford, a former deputy commander of U.S. forces in Europe. "We learned this in Lebanon and Somalia -- and Iraq is much more challenging than either of these."
Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency expert on Arab military issues, said, "There are a lot of worrisome aspects about the current situation. Resistance is spreading geographically, resistance groups seem to be proliferating in Sunni areas, resistance elements appear to be tactically adaptive, resistance elements appear to be drawn from multiple elements of Sunni society, our operations inevitably create animosity by inflicting civilian casualties, disrupting lives, humiliating people and damaging property."
posted on June 28, 2003 03:17:40 PM new
The Halliburton administration doesnt care. As long as they are making billions off of the oil contracts its not their problem.
posted on June 29, 2003 06:30:44 AM new
10 Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq
By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet
June 27, 2003
What follows are just the most outrageous and significant of the dozens of outright lies uttered by Bush and his top officials over the past year in what amounts to a systematic campaign to scare the bejeezus out of everybody:
LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic that, "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."
LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."
LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." – CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." – President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." – President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?
LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." – Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own intelligence reports show that these stocks – if they existed – were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were are potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts – including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week – have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were, facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
-------------------------------------------
Since you opened up this can of worms on "government education", please show me in the Constitution as to where that is a proclaimed function of the United States government. I maintain that the national budget for education should be 0 (Zero). To have otherwise, invites government control and indoctrination. Heaven help us when we are all taught out of the same textbooks (and it is getting that way now).
For those interested in a further discussion of this topic and to participate in ENDING federal government control over our educational system, please see the following site.
My father went to a small-town one-room school of about 25 students in the 1920's. He learned reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic very well. Especially the reading part. He then continued to educate himself for his next 65 years. He could speak coherently on most subjects. How many children today "graduate" and can't even read.? It is so sad.
-------------------------------------------
The Defense of our Nation IS one of the main tenets of our constitution. The amount spent is a function of the Congress, not the President, although he proposes a budget. Congress controls the purse strings. They could have cut off funds and kept us out of Iraq, had that been their will.
Again, I believe your argument is moot.
(But thanks for all your hard work looking up that detailed budget info.)
The Score should read:
Federal Government Spending:
Education $0
Defense $The Budgeted Amount determined
by our elected officials.
YOU'RE the one that had brought up the education budget vs. defense budget theme. I was just responding. Sorry if I was "late". Not everyone can stay on the computer all the time. Maybe this is your full-time job? Hmmmm....
I noticed you didn't respond at all to my reply. I guess you need another hour or two to do some more "research".......
[ edited by bones21 on Jun 29, 2003 08:14 AM ]
I brought up the subject because I was searching for an answer to explain the level of apathy and gullibility of the average american leading them to accept the misinformation that was provided as a reason to invade Iraq. I did a cursory bit of research and posted it on a previous page. If you don't agree, I understand.
You, bones, are unworthy of my time, even if, as you suggest I have a full time job here.
posted on June 29, 2003 09:08:04 AM new
austbounty,
It seems that you are talking about our present educational system. It is such a dismal failure that it is not even debatable.
Most parents do care if their children get an education. For those that don't, it doesn't matter where the funding comes from. I just think that the U.S. Federal Government should not be involved in the process at all. Leave it up to the States and local governments.
I don't agree at all that the Bible has lost relevance. And I don't think that the U.S. Constitution was an "immaculate conception", but I do think it was written by inspired, thoughtful men. It wasn't brought down from Mt. Sinai on tablets and has been changed many times. In the mean time, the federal government should not usurp powers that were by implication given to the states.
--------------------------------------------
Helen,
Lighten up a little. I didn't mean to offend you. I was just responding your posts.
posted on June 29, 2003 09:45:45 AM new
Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq
June 28, 2003
Excerpt...
SAMARRA, Iraq -- U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders.
The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the U.S.-led occupation forces are not making good on their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for three decades by Saddam Hussein.
The go-slow approach to representative government in at least a dozen provincial cities is especially frustrating to younger, middle-class professionals who say they want to help their communities emerge from postwar chaos and to let, as one put it, "Iraqis make decisions for Iraq."
posted on June 29, 2003 10:26:49 AM new
Question. We've gone from a traditional, if you will, set of circumstances, rules of engagement, to more of a guerrilla war. Isn't that accurate?
Rumsfeld: "I don't know that I would use the word."
The operation, dubbed ``Sidewinder,'' was taking place in a huge swath of central Iraq stretching from the Iranian border to the areas north of Baghdad, and was expected to last several days, military officials said.
More than 20 raids involving air and ground forces were carried out, military officials said. The region has become ``the nexus of paramilitary activity in central Iraq,'' the military said in a statement.
``We go in with such overwhelming combat power that they won't even think about shooting us,'' Lt. Col. Mark Young said earlier.
U.S. officials in Washington have said repeatedly that no centralized Iraqi resistance to American rule remains. But from the view on the ground, Young said, U.S. military personnel face ``an organized effort.''
~
At least 63 American troops have died in Iraq since major combat was declared over on May 1. The military has confirmed the identities of 138 soldiers killed before that date, for a total of 201 so far, while the names of several other casualties have not yet been made available. Some 42 British troops have died in the current conflict.
posted on June 30, 2003 12:45:30 AM new
Helen your image may have been manipulated.
The white of the child’s eye looks too sharp in contrast, and when enlarged there is a blur around the adult’s head.
The warmongers may take this as evidence that no child suffered in Iraq.
Either way, how can they look at what this image represents and not be disgusted in what WE HAVE DONE.
We are all guilty, for not having done enough to prevent it.
I would really like to see our leaders stick their ugly faces in front of children like this and explain why this had to be done.
We are a sick screwed up society, led by a bunch of a-holes that have little or no moral restraints.
Images like these convince me that there is no god.
Only superman can save us now.
If I had 3 wishes, I would wish that 3 plagues sweep across the earth and kill all the most wicked among us. The top 1% I reckon would satisfy me.
I have long said that the best thing to do is throw paedophiles to a bunch of shopping mothers.
I reckon we should throw Bush Howard & Blair, not forgetting wolfowitz drumsfeld et. all., to a bunch of Iraqi mothers that have lost children, and let them rip their eyes out or what ever else they like.
Revenge is sweet they say, I sure as hell know that I would be looking for some.
Thanks for nothing hawks, you are doing well if destroying humanity is what you want.
Just look at yourselves, you ask for Osama and barbecue babies instead, the soldiers may anguish after realising what they’ve done but the true hawks won’t give a toss.
And what have they achieved for the billions they have spent, NOTHING, apart from death and they only ask for more.
They have brought on more hatred of us; and as far as I’m concerned rightly so.
I know that if anyone did this to my child, a 10 year occupation wouldn’t save their a$$ from me.
posted on June 30, 2003 05:58:36 AM new
Thanks for that photo information, Austbounty!
This a very interesting article about the possible finding of WMD and the new guy in charge, David McKay.
Monday, June 30, 2003
"David Kay has been appointed by CIA Director George Tenet to be Special Advisor for Strategy regarding Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. This means Kay will go to Iraq and lead the 1,300-member Iraq Survey Group to find those missing weapons of mass destruction. This is an extraordinary development for a number of reasons:"
excerpt...
One of the great puzzles of the attack on Iraq is the fact that the Americans have still not yet planted the weapons of mass destruction. With all the military in place it should have been a relatively simple matter to fly in some suspicious chemicals and laboratory equipment, and immediately 'find' them. Why hasn't this happened already? Did they try to do it and suffered some mishap which would account for the delay? Are they afraid that they cannot produce materials that look genuine? Are they afraid that someone in the military or the CIA would leak details of the planting? Obviously, being caught would be disastrous, so it will require a top expert to do the job. Is David Kay that expert? Might he be getting assistance from some military contractor that he used to work for that happens to be in Iraq for other secret and not-so-secret purposes?
We know the weapons aren't there due to the conveniently forgotten testimony of General Hussein Kamel and others, and due to the fact that American rewards and interrogation (carrots and sticks) applied to Iraqi scientists have not revealed one iota of evidence that such weapons still exist or existed prior to the attack on Iraq. We know that Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush were in receipt of CIA intelligence that should have left them unable to continue to use the excuse of weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent threat to the United States, but in the face of that intelligence they lied over and over again. Now a man who has been warmongering against Iraq for years based on the statement that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and a man with connections to a large military contractor with extensive ties to the Pentagon's missile defense program and Future Combat Systems Program, is being sent out to find these weapons. Do you think he'll find what he's looking for?
posted on June 30, 2003 08:37:08 AM new
Rest assured, I believe the man runing the show over there at the moment is Kissinger trained.
A good man that can be relied upon.
"The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning."-- CIA Intelligence Report for President Bush, July, 2001 (60 Days Prior to 9/11) LINK
"President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA early last August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had discussed the possibility of hijacking airplanes." - The Washington Post, May 16, 2002 LINK
"Family members of victims of the terror attacks say the White House has smothered every attempt to get to the bottom of the outrageous intelligence failures that took place on its watch."-- Salon.com, June 18, 2003 LINK
"If I did anything like this as a policeman, and killed 3,000 people, with this much evidence against me, I'd spend 100,000 years in jail." -- former New York City police officer Bruce DeCell, the Nation, June 19, 2003 LINK
posted on July 1, 2003 06:40:12 AM new
Investigate?
Kissinger comes highly recommended.
Security would be of paramount concern, it could be conducted in the scull and bones club room, it is well built.
Some oil companies can donate the transport and other facilities for all the judges to facilitate their efficacy, but in the interest of a ‘straight call’; political contributions should be prohibited between the hours of 9-5 on the days that the hearing is in session.
Is it too late for Bush the father to pick some judges, and put Bush's lawyer on the committee? and no need to call Bush the son in for questioning.
Self-regulation may be the way to go; it's character building.
Is Haleburton still doing deals with Libya?
How is it that a second hand dealer in Australia can see what's goin' down but some here can't.
We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed them as freedom fighters against the Russians?
Isn't that strange?
As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan?
Isn't that strange?
There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia,
but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.
Isn't that strange?
UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile long pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.
Isn't that strange?
UNOCAL spent $10,000,000,000 on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support inallowing the construction to begin.
Isn't that strange?
All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL in 1998.
Isn't that strange?
1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina.
Isn't that strange?
John Maresca VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established.
Isn't that strange?
1999-2000 The Taliban became the most evil people in the world.
Isn't that strange?
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Isn't that strange?
9/11 WTC disaster.
Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers
came from Afghanistan.
Isn't that strange?
Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a "secret".
Isn't that strange?
Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them some
proof. We refused; we bombed.
Isn't that strange?
Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the
terrorists."
Isn't that strange?
We have a new government in Afghanistan.
Isn't that strange?
The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL.
Isn't that strange?
Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new
government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL".
Isn't that strange?
The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil?
Isn't that strange?
Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company before
going to Washington.
Isn't that strange?
George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing in huge
oil investments around the world.
Isn't that strange?
Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before gong to Washington.
Isn't that strange?
Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condoleezza.
Isn't that strange?
Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming VP.
Isn't that strange?
Haliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000,000 as a farewell gift when he left Haliburton.
Isn't that strange?
Haliburton is in the pipeline construction business.
Isn't that strange?
There is $6 Trillion dollars worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.
Isn't that strange?
The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
Isn't that strange?
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -Unocal)announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02)
Isn't that strange?
“Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03
Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].
“I hope people around this country realize that agencies such as this food bank need money. They need our contributions. Contributions are down. They shouldn't be down in a time of need. We shouldn't let the enemy affect us to the point where we become less generous. Our spirit should never be diminished by what happened on September the 11th, 2001. Quite the contrary. We must stand squarely in the face of evil by doing some good.”
- Bush, 12/19/02
The 2003 and 2004 Bush budgets proposes to freeze the Congregate Nutrition Program, which assists local soup kitchens and meals on wheels programs. With inflation, this proposal would mean at least 36,000 seniors would be cut from meals on wheels and congregate meals programs. Currently, 139,000 seniors are already on waiting lists for home-meal programs. His 2004 budget continues the freeze.
“These men and women are still the best of America. They are prepared for every mission we give them, and they are worthy of the standards set for them by America's veterans. Our veterans from every era are the finest of citizens. We owe them the life we know today. They command the respect of the American people, and they have our everlasting gratitude.” – Bush, 11/11/02
According to a letter sent to the President by the major veterans groups, Bush’s 2003 budget “falls $1.5 billion short” of adequately funding veterans care. [Independent Budget, 1/7/02].
“Within that budget I proposed last night is a substantial increase in Medicare funding of $400 billion on top of what we already spend, over the next 10 years. This is a commitment that America must make to our seniors. A reformed and strengthened Medicare system, plus a healthy dosage of Medicare spending in the budget, will make us say firmly, we fulfilled our promise to the seniors of America.” – Bush, 1/29/03
Under Bush’s proposal, there should be a roughly $40 billion increase in Medicare each year for a decade. However, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes just $6 billion – 85% less than what would be needed to meet his goal. Additionally, his budget would leave 67% of the total $400 billion pledge to be spent after 2008. [Bush Budget, pg. 318]
posted on July 1, 2003 07:39:42 AM new
Helping the Rich . . .
§ Protecting Tax Evaders. The Bush administration has gone out of its way to protect tax evaders and tax havens. In 2001, it quashed OECD efforts to pressure Bermuda and other countries to close tax havens for offshore companies. In May 2002, the Bush administration defended American corporations using offshore tax havens. Then after the mid-term election, the Bush administration successfully killed a provision that would prohibit offshore tax evaders from gaining Homeland Security Department contracts. (New Republic 12.02.02)
§ Protecting Corporate Law Breakers. Bush rewarded corporate lawbreakers by overturning regulations that required the government to consider a company’s record of compliance with labor, environmental, antitrust and consumer protection laws in awarding government contracts. (Sacramento Business Journal 01.11.02)
§ Looting the Treasury for the Rich – Part I. Over half of the 2001 Bush $1 trillion tax cut goes to the richest one percent of Americans, while less than a third of the tax cut goes to taxpayers earning $97,000 or less. (Citizens For Tax Justice 06.12.02)
§ Looting the Treasury for the Rich – Part II. The centerpiece of the Bush administration’s 2003 stimulus package, eliminating dividend taxation, would cost $300 billion and have no stimulus effect – making it another Bush giveaway to his supporters. As Paul Krugman points out, “instead of helping the needy, the Bush plan is almost ludicrously tiled toward the very, very well off.” This proposal only exacerbates the growing gap between the rich and regular Americans.
Even conservative economists recognize that the plan would “jeopardiz[e] the fiscal outlook” and “have an adverse impact on interest rates, and in time that will come back to bite us.” As explained by Fortune, the Bush plan “leads to a net loss in tax revenue that must be paid for either by cutting future spending or by increasing taxes. In other words, if this generation doesn't pay for it, the next one will.” One veteran of the four Republican administrations warned that this plan “may be the least defensible policy ever.” (Fortune 12.16.02, New York Times 01.06.03, Washington Post 01.06.03, New York Times 01.07.03, Investors Business Daily 01.08.03, Broder – Washington Post 01.12.03, Broder - Washington Post 01.22.03).
In addition, eliminating the dividend tax would cost financially strapped states $4.5 billion while also reducing the value of tax-free municipal bonds. For states already facing an $85 billion shortfall, these losses far exceed the $10 billion in state aid proposed by Bush. Of course, utility companies stand to gain the most from a repeal. (New York Times 01.08.03, Investors Business Daily 01.08.03)
The tax plan also would allow small business to write off as much as $75,000 when buying an SUV for business use thereby creating a huge subsidy for vehicles not subject to fuel efficiency, emissions or safety standards. (Plungis – Detroit News 01.20.03
§ Broder: Bush’s Credibility Gap. Broder also criticizes the President for promising not to “pass along our problems” while “burdening the future irresponsibly with debts he will not pay. The budget message disclosed that n the next two years along, this administration will pass on to the next generation an unpaid bill of at least $611 billion in fresh budget deficits. The five-year total, by the White House’s own estimate, will be more than double that record amount.
Meanwhile, the president omits any provision for financing a possible war with Iraq. And he refuses to face up to the costs of retirement and heath care benefits for the baby boom generation, which will drain Social Security and Medicare coffers in the coming years.” (Broder – Washington Post Weekly 02.23.03)
§ Savings Tax Cut “Entirely Oriented To The Very Rich”. The Bush proposal to cut taxes on non-retirement savings is “entirely oriented to the very richest end of society and extending them yet another break” according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research. (Treaster and Walsh – New York Times 01.31.03)
§ Rich Need Not Sacrifice As Part of War With Iraq. While past presidents have raised taxes to pay for wartime costs, Bush recklessly wants to pursue massive tax cuts and a war with Iraq despite a growing deficit. As one former Reagan administration economist notes, “Does it make sense to ask the country to make a sacrifice to go to Iraq and simultaneous say we’re going to give you a tax cut? Is that what a call to common sacrifice means?” (Gosselin – Los Angeles Times 01.30.03)
§ Retroactive Tax Breaks To Enron, GE, GM, Phillips Petroleum, Chevron. Bush sought to repeal the alternative minimum tax that would have given retroactive tax breaks of at least $1 billion to IBM and Ford, while giving between $240 to 833 million to Enron, GM, Phillips Petroleum, GE, Texas Utilities, ChevronTexaco and other companies. (NOW: The Truth About George)
§ The Eli Lilly Security Act. The Bush administration rewarded Eli Lilly for contributing $14 million during the 2002 elections by sneaking in a provision into the Homeland Security bill that retroactively shielded the company from liability for a vaccine additive containing mercury that has been linked to autism and development problems (even the company’s own documents indicate it may cause minor to severe retardation), effectively killing pending lawsuits of injured families seeking billions. The Bush administration then tried to deny responsibility pushing the provision.
The Bush administration has strong ties to Eli Lilly as Bush’s father served on company’s board during the 1970s, budget director Mitch Daniels is a former Eli Lilly executive and Bush appointed the current Eli Lilly CEO to the Homeland Security Advisory Counsel. (Seattle Times 11.25.02, Washington Post 11.29.02, CBS News 12.12.02, Mercury Policy.Org, )
§ Protecting Pharmaceutical Companies. Vice President Cheney gave the pharmaceutical industry another Christmas present by killing a trade deal that would have provided cheap drugs to poor countries. (Guardian 12.21.02)
§ Assisting Corporate Media Consolidation. The Bush administration quietly has proposed eliminating long-standing rules that prohibit companies from owning a newspaper and TV station in the same market (or more than one TV station) and will only hold one public hearing on the matter. This dramatic change will permit large media corporations to exercise monopoly control over local markets and limit political discourse in those communities. (New York Times 01.07.03)
§ Fighting Workplace Safety. Bush killed regulations the Labor Department’s ergonomics regulations that would have benefited 100 million workers faced with repetitive stress injuries. In addition, despite the fact that nearly 7000 workers are killed each year from workplace injuries, the Bush administration has cut the Occupational Health & Safety Administration's budget. (The Nation 12.23.02, New York Times 01.11.03)
§ Voodoo Rituals. In order to disguise the fact that so-called fiscal conservations are now High-Priests of Voodoo Economics, the Republican House removed a House rule requiring a direct vote to raise the national debt ceiling so that they can allow the deficit to skyrocket without taking responsibility for it. (New York Times 01.15.03)
& lots more
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/2/index.htm
Sorry guys, but I can't help feeling that a a regiem change for you will not only help you but it will help the rest of us too.
Not to say that we couldn't do with a regiem change.
posted on July 1, 2003 05:13:38 PM new
Americans are now far less positive about the merits of going to war in Iraq than they were two months ago, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. Currently, 56% of Americans say the situation in Iraq was "worth going to war over," while 42% disagree. In mid-April, just after the United States captured Baghdad, Americans said the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over by a 73% to 23% margin. The major reasons for the decline appear to be the coalition's failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the continuing turmoil in Iraq.
The number who are "very confident" the U.S. will eventually find WMDs has fallen from 52% in March to just 22% now.
The number who want the United Nations to take a leadership role in Iraq has grown from 50 percent in April to 64 percent now.
posted on July 1, 2003 05:25:53 PM new
Mistrust Mixes With Misery In Heat of Baghdad Police Post
Frustrated Reservists See a Mission Impossible
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 1, 2003; Page A01
BAGHDAD, June 30 -- To Staff Sgt. Charles Pollard, the working-class suburb of Mashtal is a "very, very, very, very bad neighborhood." And he sees just one solution.
"U.S. officials need to get our [expletive] out of here," said the 43-year-old reservist from Pittsburgh, who arrived in Iraq with the 307th Military Police Company on May 24. "I say that seriously. We have no business being here. We will not change the culture they have in Iraq, in Baghdad. Baghdad is so corrupted. All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks."
To Sgt. Sami Jalil, a 14-year veteran of the local police force, the Americans are to blame. He and his colleagues have no badges, no uniforms. The soldiers don't trust them with weapons. In his eyes, his U.S. counterparts have already lost the people's trust.
"We're facing the danger. We're in the front lines. We're taking all the risks, only us," said the 33-year-old officer. "They're arrogant. They treat all the people as if they're criminals."
"I pray every day on the roof. I pray that we make it safe, that we make it safe home," Pollard said. "The president needs to know it's in his hands, and we all need to recognize this isn't our home, America is, and we just pray that he does something about it."
Pollard is a 22-year veteran, and he had thought about retiring before his Iraq tour. Now, he says, he doesn't know when he will return to his job at the maintenance department at a community college in Pittsburgh, and that uncertainty nags at him.
Asked when he wanted to leave, he was blunt: "As soon as we can get the hell out of here."
“Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03
“I hope people around this country realize that agencies such as this food bank need money. They need our contributions. Contributions are down. They shouldn't be down in a time of need. We shouldn't let the enemy affect us to the point where we become less generous. Our spirit should never be diminished by what happened on September the 11th, 2001. Quite the contrary. We must stand squarely in the face of evil by doing some good.”
“These men and women are still the best of America. They are prepared for every mission we give them, and they are worthy of the standards set for them by America's veterans. Our veterans from every era are the finest of citizens. We owe them the life we know today. They command the respect of the American people, and they have our everlasting gratitude.” – Bush, 11/11/02
“Within that budget I proposed last night is a substantial increase in Medicare funding of $400 billion on top of what we already spend, over the next 10 years. This is a commitment that America must make to our seniors. A reformed and strengthened Medicare system, plus a healthy dosage of Medicare spending in the budget, will make us say firmly, we fulfilled our promise to the seniors of America.” – Bush, 1/29/03