Having successfully purchased several right wing commentators, the Bush administration is moving on to its next media target: closing down Al Jazeera, the television station that provides a major source of news for much of the Arab world.
After squandering any chance of influencing the balance of Al Jazeera's coverage by refusing to make U.S. officials available for interview and arranging for our strongman in Baghdad to ban the network and seize its equipment and personnel there, and having failed to starve the fledgling network out of business by covertly intimidating its advertisers, the Bush administration has decided to pressure the government of Qatar to close down the satellite network.
Al Jazeera has been a fiercely independent voice in the middle east, and a growing irritant to U.S. friendly governments, especially in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. No doubt Al Jazeera regularly gives airplay to taped message from Osama bin laden, and, following a page from the Fox News Live playbook, tends to repeatedly run video of civilian casualties and feature prominently the other side of stories like the leveling of Fallujah by U.S. forces, but why would anyone expect Bush to defend freedom of the press over there when he's so clearly intent on dismantling it here?
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Under Pressure, Qatar May Sell Jazeera Station
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Saturday, January 29, 2005
It's My Party, Too Bad the Patient's Terminal
In the usual run-up to a book release, Christie Todd Whitman was everywhere last week. The former Republican Governor of New Jersey and former EPA chief, was pleading with us to believe that the majority of Republicans are actually "moderate," and that, any day now, these "moderate" Republicans will wrest control of the G.O.P. from the right-wing power mongers who are now bent upon transforming America from merely the most conservative and violent nation in the history of human kind into a true fascist theocracy ... and intent on getting it all done before the mid-term elections in 2006.
She's even got a web spiffy site, "It's My Party Too", which encourages "moderate" Republicans to contribute money and join forces to focus on the 2008 elections. Clearly a case of too little, too late, Whitman admits to delaying the release of her book to avoid any impact on the election, "If I had spoken up during the campaign, people would have viewed it in the context of the election." Exactly the point: too little, too late!
Meanwhile the right-wing bloggers (for example NewsMax (FL) - Boneheaded Advice: Christie Todd Whitman and the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party just don't get it) are busy taking her apart and the White House has unleashed the usual attack dogs. Un-named "sources" have even compared her to (shudder) Michael Moore!
"I expected criticism," Mrs. Whitman, said last week, sitting in the living room of Pontefract*, her family's gracious farm in New Jersey's hunt country. "But I'm surprised at how personal the attacks are."
There's a chance it might work. Maybe. But picture this:
After four years of costly and increasingly frantic attempts at all manner of surgery, medication, and rehabilitation they finally have to admit that all along the patient's brain cancer has been too virulent, too extensive, and now it's clear that the G.O.P. is hopelessly and dangerously psychotic. And while they've been trying to save their terminally ill patient, hundreds of thousands more have been killed as a result of the invasion of Iran and Syria, thousands more Americans have been locked up indefinitely and held in secret, the U.S. debt has grown larger than the sum of all of the Third World's economies, their god is worshiped in public school classrooms (and several chapters have been ripped from the science text books), no woman any longer has the right to choose ...
Given the symptoms and the danger this patient presents to all of the rest of us, it's time to make the hard choice. Euthanasia is the only sensible treatment, and the sooner the better.
New York Times - Loyal to Her Party, but Not in Lock Step
* Pay attention! "Pontefract" is the Whitman family compound named after Pontefract Castle in England, built in 1080’s by Ilbert de Lacy, who was given the land (at the time owned and occupied by local farmers) by William the Conqueror as a reward for his faithful service. Keep that image in mind the next time you're thinking about voting Republican because of their stand on "moral values."
She's even got a web spiffy site, "It's My Party Too", which encourages "moderate" Republicans to contribute money and join forces to focus on the 2008 elections. Clearly a case of too little, too late, Whitman admits to delaying the release of her book to avoid any impact on the election, "If I had spoken up during the campaign, people would have viewed it in the context of the election." Exactly the point: too little, too late!
Meanwhile the right-wing bloggers (for example NewsMax (FL) - Boneheaded Advice: Christie Todd Whitman and the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party just don't get it) are busy taking her apart and the White House has unleashed the usual attack dogs. Un-named "sources" have even compared her to (shudder) Michael Moore!
"I expected criticism," Mrs. Whitman, said last week, sitting in the living room of Pontefract*, her family's gracious farm in New Jersey's hunt country. "But I'm surprised at how personal the attacks are."
There's a chance it might work. Maybe. But picture this:
After four years of costly and increasingly frantic attempts at all manner of surgery, medication, and rehabilitation they finally have to admit that all along the patient's brain cancer has been too virulent, too extensive, and now it's clear that the G.O.P. is hopelessly and dangerously psychotic. And while they've been trying to save their terminally ill patient, hundreds of thousands more have been killed as a result of the invasion of Iran and Syria, thousands more Americans have been locked up indefinitely and held in secret, the U.S. debt has grown larger than the sum of all of the Third World's economies, their god is worshiped in public school classrooms (and several chapters have been ripped from the science text books), no woman any longer has the right to choose ...
Given the symptoms and the danger this patient presents to all of the rest of us, it's time to make the hard choice. Euthanasia is the only sensible treatment, and the sooner the better.
New York Times - Loyal to Her Party, but Not in Lock Step
* Pay attention! "Pontefract" is the Whitman family compound named after Pontefract Castle in England, built in 1080’s by Ilbert de Lacy, who was given the land (at the time owned and occupied by local farmers) by William the Conqueror as a reward for his faithful service. Keep that image in mind the next time you're thinking about voting Republican because of their stand on "moral values."
Friday, January 28, 2005
American Style Elections: The Second Invasion of Iraq
The same Republican strategists who came up with the plan to short-change poor black precincts in the U.S. must be the ones organizing the Iraqi election. Even the most ardent partisan G.O.P. organizer in Ohio couldn't dream up a sham election like the one the Bush administration is holding in Iraq this weekend.
Since it's still too dangerous on the streets of Iraq, we've banned driving for the three days leading up to the election ... ensuring that the only ones to have a vote will be those daring souls willing to dart on foot to the polling place. Even then, assuming they make it to the polls in one piece, they'll have a bit of a challenge making an informed choice because we've prohibited any rallies or overt campaigning prior to the election ... which was probably redundant anyway since most candidates are running anonymously out of fear for their own lives.
So the intrepid citizens of Iraq, having risked their lives to participate in what George W. Bush has proclaimed "the miracle of democracy," will have the opportunity to cast their ballot for slates of anonymous candidates, and then run for their lives to make it back to the relative safety of their homes before dark.
Meanwhile, we've arranged to allow about 250,000 Iraqi expatriates, who live in American, Australia, and a dozen other countries, to vote at their leisure during the days before election day. They'll drive to a polling place in a secure government building after having had the opportunity to consider the candidates and their stands on the issues.
So what's wrong with that? Just this: the proportionate turnout among expatriates is certain to be much higher than that of any other group in Iraq. By definition, expatriate means "one who has renounced one's native land." But Bush has arranged it so that those who renounced their native land, in some cases decades ago, will be over represented in the outcome of this "election."
This is not so much an election as it is another invasion. And what of those Iraqis who stayed in their homeland? How will they receive these new invaders, former Iraqis returning to occupy the land that they abandoned?
No matter, because in the end Bush will insist that Iraq has held its first free and open election, and that at last it has a sovereign government which we will respect ... unless they ask us to withdraw our troops currently standing guard over the second largest petroleum reserve on the planet.
International Herald Tribune (France) - Iraq: This election is a sham
Reuters - Arabs say Iraq vote gives democracy a bad name
Since it's still too dangerous on the streets of Iraq, we've banned driving for the three days leading up to the election ... ensuring that the only ones to have a vote will be those daring souls willing to dart on foot to the polling place. Even then, assuming they make it to the polls in one piece, they'll have a bit of a challenge making an informed choice because we've prohibited any rallies or overt campaigning prior to the election ... which was probably redundant anyway since most candidates are running anonymously out of fear for their own lives.
So the intrepid citizens of Iraq, having risked their lives to participate in what George W. Bush has proclaimed "the miracle of democracy," will have the opportunity to cast their ballot for slates of anonymous candidates, and then run for their lives to make it back to the relative safety of their homes before dark.
Meanwhile, we've arranged to allow about 250,000 Iraqi expatriates, who live in American, Australia, and a dozen other countries, to vote at their leisure during the days before election day. They'll drive to a polling place in a secure government building after having had the opportunity to consider the candidates and their stands on the issues.
So what's wrong with that? Just this: the proportionate turnout among expatriates is certain to be much higher than that of any other group in Iraq. By definition, expatriate means "one who has renounced one's native land." But Bush has arranged it so that those who renounced their native land, in some cases decades ago, will be over represented in the outcome of this "election."
This is not so much an election as it is another invasion. And what of those Iraqis who stayed in their homeland? How will they receive these new invaders, former Iraqis returning to occupy the land that they abandoned?
No matter, because in the end Bush will insist that Iraq has held its first free and open election, and that at last it has a sovereign government which we will respect ... unless they ask us to withdraw our troops currently standing guard over the second largest petroleum reserve on the planet.
International Herald Tribune (France) - Iraq: This election is a sham
Reuters - Arabs say Iraq vote gives democracy a bad name
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Candor, Bush Style
It's no wonder that George W. Bush's handlers try their best to avoid press conferences. He just doesn't do well in these setting where they cannot carefully control admittance to ensure a room full of sycophants and where he has to think on his feet.
But because the media allots only enough space for small clips of the entire proceeding, most of Americans miss some of the better moments:
In response to the straightforward question: "What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?" Bush blamed it on the Iraqi people:
Or, in response to a more complex query asking if, philosophically, the long struggle for civil rights in this country should be considered a part of his rubric to bring freedom to the world, he deftly redefined "civil rights" (the grammar is all his):
But when he's really cornered, and all else has failed, he reverts to his frat-boy sense of humor and simply bullies the reporter into submission thereby avoiding the question entirely, as in this exchange with a reporter from Texas:
New York Times Transcript: President Bush's News Conference 01/26/2005
But because the media allots only enough space for small clips of the entire proceeding, most of Americans miss some of the better moments:
In response to the straightforward question: "What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?" Bush blamed it on the Iraqi people:
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Listen, this problem will eventually be solved when the Iraqis take the initiative. And the Iraqi people see Iraqi soldiers willing to defend them. And so...and the American people, when they see the Iraqis step up and begin to fight, will see progress being made toward an objective which will make this world a better place."(If your son or daughter was among those killed or maimed, I'm sure that would make it all worthwhile.)
Or, in response to a more complex query asking if, philosophically, the long struggle for civil rights in this country should be considered a part of his rubric to bring freedom to the world, he deftly redefined "civil rights" (the grammar is all his):
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Yeah. Civil rights is...is a good education. Civil rights is opportunity. Civil rights is homeownership. Civil rights is owning your own business. Civil rights is making sure all aspects of our society are open for everybody. And we discussed that yesterday. And I believe that what I said was important; that we've got to, you know, shed ourselves of bigotry if we expect to lead by example. And I'll do the very best I can, as the president, to make sure the promise...and I believe in the promise of America...is available for everybody. Let's see."(That sound is the gasping of all of those who have died fighting civil rights in this country as their struggle is reduced to some capitalist-utopian venture.)
But when he's really cornered, and all else has failed, he reverts to his frat-boy sense of humor and simply bullies the reporter into submission thereby avoiding the question entirely, as in this exchange with a reporter from Texas:
Q: "I seem to remember a time in Texas on another problem...taxes...where you tried to get out in front and tell people it's not a crisis now, it's going to be a crisis down the line. You went down in flames on that one. Why is there..."(Interestingly, it seemed like that reporter was actually trying to ask a softball question favorable to Bush's alarmist approach to Social Security.)
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Actually, I...let me...let me, if I might...I don't think a billion dollar tax relief that permanently reduced property taxes on senior citizens was flames..."
Q: ...(attempting to continue, but off mike)...
PRESIDENT BUSH: "...but since you weren't a senior citizen, perhaps that's your definition of flame. Yeah..."
Q: "What is there about government..."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "...'cause you're not a senior citizen yet."
Q: "I'm getting there. What is there about government that makes it hard..."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Acting like one, however. Go ahead."
Q: "...that makes it hard for government to get..."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Faulty memory."
Q: "...to address things in advance, before it's a crisis?"
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Do we have a crisis in Texas now in school property taxes?"
Q: "Yes, we do."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Thank you. Therefore, the...it is important that we continue to press forward with proper training."
New York Times Transcript: President Bush's News Conference 01/26/2005
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Canada Joins the Axis of Evil
"Some future president is going to say, 'Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " Thus George W. Bush, with his usual level of appreciation for subtlety and nuance, inserted himself into the internal affairs of the Canadian people as they decide whether or not to allow the U.S. to build bases in their country as a part of the star wars missile defense system.
Let's remember, The Most Moral Man in America and Leader of the Free World also said, "The moral choice is between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right," and "We have lit a fire ... It warms those who feel its power. It burns those who fight its progress."
A senior administration official did not deny rumors that Donald Rumsfeld has ordered an update of Pentagon contingency plans for an invasion of Canada, saying, however, "all those Canadians who would oppose missile defense ought to remember that they're within driving distance."
CTV (Canada) - Bush wasn't pushy on missile defence, U.S. says
Let's remember, The Most Moral Man in America and Leader of the Free World also said, "The moral choice is between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right," and "We have lit a fire ... It warms those who feel its power. It burns those who fight its progress."
A senior administration official did not deny rumors that Donald Rumsfeld has ordered an update of Pentagon contingency plans for an invasion of Canada, saying, however, "all those Canadians who would oppose missile defense ought to remember that they're within driving distance."
CTV (Canada) - Bush wasn't pushy on missile defence, U.S. says
Monday, January 24, 2005
Little Lies
Momm always said, "don't tell lies," and then she listed all the usual reasons, "it's wrong, people won't trust you," and so on. But the last reason on her list was always the practical one, "and besides, it gets too complicated to have to remember what you said and when. Telling the truth is a lot easier."
So what's wrong with these Bushies? Thirty years ago George was arrested for drunk driving. Ten years ago he had his lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, cut a backroom deal with a judge to get him off jury duty in order to avoid the chance that the DUI might become a public embarrassment for the then Governor of Texas. Now, during his Senate confirmation to be Attorney General, Alberto insists he has no recollection of the matter and that he was just there to observe the proceedings. And then a half dozen folks who were there come forth with the truth: Alberto brokered a deal with the judge and lawyers to keep his boss out of that particular limelight.
Wouldn't it be a lot less complicated to tell the truth? "I want Alberto as my attorney general because he's a reliable toady lawyer who'll eagerly provide me with legal justification for whatever I want to do from torturing prisoners to spying on U.S. citizens." Or how about this: "We invaded Iraq to settle the score for my dadd and steal their oil," instead of "A power from beyond the stars has sent us on a mission to bring freedom and democracy to the world."
MSNBC - Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet?
So what's wrong with these Bushies? Thirty years ago George was arrested for drunk driving. Ten years ago he had his lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, cut a backroom deal with a judge to get him off jury duty in order to avoid the chance that the DUI might become a public embarrassment for the then Governor of Texas. Now, during his Senate confirmation to be Attorney General, Alberto insists he has no recollection of the matter and that he was just there to observe the proceedings. And then a half dozen folks who were there come forth with the truth: Alberto brokered a deal with the judge and lawyers to keep his boss out of that particular limelight.
Wouldn't it be a lot less complicated to tell the truth? "I want Alberto as my attorney general because he's a reliable toady lawyer who'll eagerly provide me with legal justification for whatever I want to do from torturing prisoners to spying on U.S. citizens." Or how about this: "We invaded Iraq to settle the score for my dadd and steal their oil," instead of "A power from beyond the stars has sent us on a mission to bring freedom and democracy to the world."
MSNBC - Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet?
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Much more than "merely an inspirational speech"
Plenty of commentators have discounted George W. Bush's inaugural speech as mere rhetoric. But was it just a speech? Or is something more sinister afoot?
If you wanted to accomplish the complete take-over of the United States, if you wanted to institute a police state in America, how would you go about it? A simple two step process would do it without a single shot being fired. First, adopting a plain spoken manner, you'd tell the folks what ever they wanted to hear in order to win their confidence and their votes. Then, once you're in, you'd scare the bejeebers out of them so they hush up. And Americans would enthusiastically line up to surrender their cherished liberties and, yes, their freedom, to "our" president.
But it couldn't happen here, right? Last Thursday was just a speech, right? George was just riffing a bit for the crowd when he said he had authority from "a power beyond the stars" to take America to war with any nation that doesn't see things our way, wasn't he?
No, he wasn't just playing to the audience. And he wasn't kidding. It was the next step in yet another sleight-of-hand maneuver by Bush to hoodwink the American people. Suddenly gone were the moderated and somewhat reasonable tones of his campaign, no longer useful having served their purpose in getting the 51% vote required to put him in office for another four years. Now that he's been sworn in he's announcing his true ambitions which, as in the past, are quite different than those for which most Americans voted.
In other words, the man who controls the most powerful and violent military force in the history of human kind is willing to routinely lie in order to get his way.
In his inaugural address Bush proclaimed that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." At confirmation hearings earlier in the week Condoleezza Rice named Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe as "outposts of tyranny" and the primary targets for the Bush administration. On Friday, a senior official said the administration also would demand that even "friendly" governments like Russia, China, Pakistan and Egypt institute democratic reforms to our liking, noting that some of the pressure to change would be "private" (read: "clandestine special operations") rather than public since the administration would want to be careful to avoid undermining a leader like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whom it counts as a democratic reformer.
Another senior official, a leading neoconservative who refused to be named, said that one of the chief "lessons learned" is an argument that neoconservatives have long made: a central goal of the United States should be "systemic change" - changing hostile states' regimes, not merely their policies.
In other words, now the U.S. policy is to proactively overthrow the governments of those with whom we disagree and to do so through any means at our disposal.
This turn in U.S. policy is so radical that it's even rattled many Republicans. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it ... [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."
But make no mistake: he did mean it. Every word of it. Why would anyone think otherwise? It's a strategy that's worked well for him before. Next will come even more bellicose rhetoric in the State of the Union Address soon followed by loud and urgent proclamations of some new threat, one that could put at risk our very way of life. Inevitably all of the threatening and bluster will lead to an attack killing Americans some where in the world (if Bush is really lucky he'll again "hit the trifecta," as he once described 9/11, and it will happen on American soil).
And then the neoconservatives will get what they really want: an expanded PATRIOT Act; "Homeland Security" modeled after the Gestapo; preemptive mass arrests of whomever they want to arrest and however they want to arrest them, taken where ever they want to take them and kept for as long as they want to keep them; phone conversations, computers and e-mail, tax returns, census information, and body cavities all subject to close examination ... the enforcers will have exactly what they want, just like in a police state.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows
If you wanted to accomplish the complete take-over of the United States, if you wanted to institute a police state in America, how would you go about it? A simple two step process would do it without a single shot being fired. First, adopting a plain spoken manner, you'd tell the folks what ever they wanted to hear in order to win their confidence and their votes. Then, once you're in, you'd scare the bejeebers out of them so they hush up. And Americans would enthusiastically line up to surrender their cherished liberties and, yes, their freedom, to "our" president.
But it couldn't happen here, right? Last Thursday was just a speech, right? George was just riffing a bit for the crowd when he said he had authority from "a power beyond the stars" to take America to war with any nation that doesn't see things our way, wasn't he?
No, he wasn't just playing to the audience. And he wasn't kidding. It was the next step in yet another sleight-of-hand maneuver by Bush to hoodwink the American people. Suddenly gone were the moderated and somewhat reasonable tones of his campaign, no longer useful having served their purpose in getting the 51% vote required to put him in office for another four years. Now that he's been sworn in he's announcing his true ambitions which, as in the past, are quite different than those for which most Americans voted.
In other words, the man who controls the most powerful and violent military force in the history of human kind is willing to routinely lie in order to get his way.
In his inaugural address Bush proclaimed that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." At confirmation hearings earlier in the week Condoleezza Rice named Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe as "outposts of tyranny" and the primary targets for the Bush administration. On Friday, a senior official said the administration also would demand that even "friendly" governments like Russia, China, Pakistan and Egypt institute democratic reforms to our liking, noting that some of the pressure to change would be "private" (read: "clandestine special operations") rather than public since the administration would want to be careful to avoid undermining a leader like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whom it counts as a democratic reformer.
Another senior official, a leading neoconservative who refused to be named, said that one of the chief "lessons learned" is an argument that neoconservatives have long made: a central goal of the United States should be "systemic change" - changing hostile states' regimes, not merely their policies.
In other words, now the U.S. policy is to proactively overthrow the governments of those with whom we disagree and to do so through any means at our disposal.
This turn in U.S. policy is so radical that it's even rattled many Republicans. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it ... [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."
But make no mistake: he did mean it. Every word of it. Why would anyone think otherwise? It's a strategy that's worked well for him before. Next will come even more bellicose rhetoric in the State of the Union Address soon followed by loud and urgent proclamations of some new threat, one that could put at risk our very way of life. Inevitably all of the threatening and bluster will lead to an attack killing Americans some where in the world (if Bush is really lucky he'll again "hit the trifecta," as he once described 9/11, and it will happen on American soil).
And then the neoconservatives will get what they really want: an expanded PATRIOT Act; "Homeland Security" modeled after the Gestapo; preemptive mass arrests of whomever they want to arrest and however they want to arrest them, taken where ever they want to take them and kept for as long as they want to keep them; phone conversations, computers and e-mail, tax returns, census information, and body cavities all subject to close examination ... the enforcers will have exactly what they want, just like in a police state.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Enter the Suburban Refugee
It's been a long strange trip. But, incredibly, George W. Bush has been inaugurated for a second time promising that his higher power from beyond the stars will guide the nation.
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
Enter the Suburban Refugee
It's been a long strange trip. But, incredibly, George W. Bush has been inaugurated for a second time promising that his higher power from beyond the stars will guide the nation.
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
"Power Beyond the Stars" says Iran is next
While Americans were distracted by the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration the rest of the world was paying closer attention, and the message was loud and clear: How will the U.S. mark the two year anniversary of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Why by attacking its neighbor Iran, that's how.
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
"Power Beyond the Stars" says Iran is next
While Americans were distracted by the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration the rest of the world was paying closer attention, and the message was loud and clear: How will the U.S. mark the two year anniversary of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Why by attacking its neighbor Iran, that's how.
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Condi's Ghost of Christmas Past
"The biggest regret is that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot," said Richard Armitage, outgoing Deputy Secretary of State.
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Condi's Ghost of Christmas Past
"The biggest regret is that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot," said Richard Armitage, outgoing Deputy Secretary of State.
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
Monday, January 17, 2005
Iraq? Don't blame Bush. It's your fault. It's all your fault.
It's official. You, as an American, are personally responsible for the mess in Iraq. The invasion, the occupation, the 100,000 dead civilians, the devastation, the hell that is daily life on the streets, the brutal political dictatorship ... it's all your fault.
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains the Suburban Refugee to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains the Suburban Refugee to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
Iraq? Don't blame Bush. It's your fault. It's all your fault.
It's official. You, as an American, are personally responsible for the mess in Iraq. The invasion, the occupation, the 100,000 dead civilians, the devastation, the hell that is daily life on the streets, the brutal political dictatorship ... it's all your fault.
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains Woodburydadd to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains Woodburydadd to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Destroying Buddhas and Babylon
Remember a couple of years back when the evil-doers called the Taliban shocked the world by using the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan for artillery targets? The world protested in outrage, but the Taliban said they had to destroy the graven images because they were an affront to god.
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
Destroying Buddhas and Babylon
Remember a couple of years back when the evil-doers called the Taliban shocked the world by using the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan for artillery targets? The world protested in outrage, but the Taliban said they had to destroy the graven images because they were an affront to god.
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
Friday, January 14, 2005
Norm Coleman's Strategy: Feign Horror at Petty Corruption and You Never Have to Say You're Sorry for All the Destruction
Now that we have "officially" admitted what we've known all along, that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction, perhaps Minnesota's own Norm Coleman will be the first to admit that the economic sanctions were working and that U.S. paranoia regarding Saddam Hussein is responsible for the mess that was made of the oil-for-food program.
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
The corruption evident in the oil-for-food program was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.Look at Baghdad in 2002, after years of the food-for-oil program that Norm Coleman condemns as "corrupt." Emerging from near total economic ruin after the first war with the U.S., Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks.
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
Norm Coleman's Strategy: Feign Horror at Petty Corruption and You Never Have to Say You're Sorry for All the Destruction
Now that we have "officially" admitted what we've known all along, that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction, perhaps Minnesota's own Norm Coleman will be the first to admit that the economic sanctions were working and that U.S. paranoia regarding Saddam Hussein is responsible for the mess that was made of the oil-for-food program.
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
The corruption evident in the oil-for-food program was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.Look at Baghdad in 2002, after years of the food-for-oil program that Norm Coleman condemns as "corrupt." Emerging from near total economic ruin after the first war with the U.S., Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks.
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
When will they come for you?
Surprise! George W. Bush picked a loyal right-wing law enforcement officer to head the Department of Homeland Security. Michael Chertoff used to be a federal prosecutor before Bush appointed him as federal appeals court judge. Chertoff was also deeply involved in Federal prosecutions following 9/11 and a strong advocate for the elimination of civil liberties under Bush's Patriot Act.
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
When will they come for you?
Surprise! George W. Bush picked a loyal right-wing law enforcement officer to head the Department of Homeland Security. Michael Chertoff used to be a federal prosecutor before Bush appointed him as federal appeals court judge. Chertoff was also deeply involved in Federal prosecutions following 9/11 and a strong advocate for the elimination of civil liberties under Bush's Patriot Act.
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Faced with the Facts in the War on Victims of Medical Malpractice
George W. Bush launched a new war, this one on victims of medical malpractice, in a speech in Madison County, IL, which was described as a "judicial hellhole" because of its alleged history of lopsided pro-plaintiff verdicts.
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Faced with the Facts in the War on Victims of Medical Malpractice
George W. Bush launched a new war, this one on victims of medical malpractice, in a speech in Madison County, IL, which was described as a "judicial hellhole" because of its alleged history of lopsided pro-plaintiff verdicts.
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Delusions
"We're making great progress," and the Iraqi election is "a historical marker for our Iraq policy," chirped George W. Bush, adding, without a hint of irony, "I suspect if you were asking me questions 18 months ago and I said there's going to be elections in Iraq, you would have had trouble containing yourself from laughing out loud at the president."
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Delusions
"We're making great progress," and the Iraqi election is "a historical marker for our Iraq policy," chirped George W. Bush, adding, without a hint of irony, "I suspect if you were asking me questions 18 months ago and I said there's going to be elections in Iraq, you would have had trouble containing yourself from laughing out loud at the president."
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Our Newest Credibility Gap: Tsunami Warnings
Did the U.S. have advanced warning of the tsunami hurtling toward the populated areas of the Indian Ocean and choose not to warn anyone? Were U.S. experiments in electromagnetic wave propagation responsible for the earthquake? Did a top secret U.S. nuclear weapon test trigger the movement of the tectonic plates?
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's imminent plan to attack the U.S., and Iraqi involvement in 9/11 have undermined trust in U.S. intelligence agencies and our government... the list just goes on an on.
the fictional account of soldier Jessica Lynch's bravery and the outright lies surrounding the "friendly fire" killing of NFL hero Pat Tillman have caused the world to question the valor of U.S. soldiers
last week's news that conservative talk-show host and commentator Armstrong Williams was paid by the Bush administration promote No Child Left Behind
George W. Bush's claim last summer that Fidel Castro "welcomes sex tourism"
last year's "surprise" increase in the cost of Bush's prescription drug program
the Pentagon spokesman last fall who told CNN that the invasion of Fallujah had begun when it would not begin for another three weeks
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Our Newest Credibility Gap: Tsunami Warnings
Did the U.S. have advanced warning of the tsunami hurtling toward the populated areas of the Indian Ocean and choose not to warn anyone? Were U.S. experiments in electromagnetic wave propagation responsible for the earthquake? Did a top secret U.S. nuclear weapon test trigger the movement of the tectonic plates?
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's imminent plan to attack the U.S., and Iraqi involvement in 9/11 have undermined trust in U.S. intelligence agencies and our government... the list just goes on an on.
the fictional account of soldier Jessica Lynch's bravery and the outright lies surrounding the "friendly fire" killing of NFL hero Pat Tillman have caused the world to question the valor of U.S. soldiers
last week's news that conservative talk-show host and commentator Armstrong Williams was paid by the Bush administration promote No Child Left Behind
George W. Bush's claim last summer that Fidel Castro "welcomes sex tourism"
last year's "surprise" increase in the cost of Bush's prescription drug program
the Pentagon spokesman last fall who told CNN that the invasion of Fallujah had begun when it would not begin for another three weeks
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Friday, January 07, 2005
Stirring the Pot
U.S. military commanders declined to coordinate with local leaders in deployment of 10 Seahawk helicopters in Banda Aceh, and they flat out refused pleas from Major General Bambang Darmono, the commander of the military relief operation in Aceh, who was frantically trying to arrange for the use of aircraft to conduct damage assessment surveys in order to determine the needs of his people.
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Stirring the Pot
U.S. military commanders declined to coordinate with local leaders in deployment of 10 Seahawk helicopters in Banda Aceh, and they flat out refused pleas from Major General Bambang Darmono, the commander of the military relief operation in Aceh, who was frantically trying to arrange for the use of aircraft to conduct damage assessment surveys in order to determine the needs of his people.
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Thursday, January 06, 2005
A Quagmire by Any Other Name
A significant division of the army is "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." If called upon, several divisions would have to report, "not ready for duty" (a condition, by the way, finally made a reality by George W. Bush several years after he falsely accused Democrats of having caused it). Paid mercenaries replacing brave volunteer citizen-soldiers.
Sydney Morning Herald (AU) - U.S. Army Reserves a 'Broken Force' According to Top General
What is going on here? Does this sound like a victorious nation about to magnanimously bestow the gifts of freedom and democracy on the vanquished? Or does this sounds like ... Dare we say it? ... a quagmire?In a written warning to the Pentagon, the commander of the U.S. Army Reserve cited Army and Pentagon officials' refusal to deal with "dysfunctional" personnel policies for causing "the Army Reserve's inability ... to meet mission requirements associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom (Bush's War on Iraq) and Enduring Freedom (Bush's War on Afghanistan) and to reset and regenerate its forces for follow-on and future missions."
But it gets worse. George W. Bush's bungling of his War on Terror is actually undermining Homeland Security.While that alone "is of great importance", the memo said, the Reserves are "in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements", including emergency needs in the U.S. and abroad.
And, perhaps worst of all, the Bush administration's Orwellian policies of deploying reserves for indefinite periods of time and into situations never before imagined is converting the U.S. Army into a mercenary force.Citing the Bush administration's plan to pay cash bonuses to those who re-enlist, he said, "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary'. Use of pay to induce 'volunteerism' will cause the expectation of always receiving such financial incentives in future conflicts."
Sydney Morning Herald (AU) - U.S. Army Reserves a 'Broken Force' According to Top General
A Quagmire by Any Other Name
A significant division of the army is "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." If called upon, several divisions would have to report, "not ready for duty" (a condition, by the way, finally made a reality by George W. Bush several years after he falsely accused Democrats of having caused it). Paid mercenaries replacing brave volunteer citizen-soldiers.
Sydney Morning Herald (AU) - U.S. Army Reserves a 'Broken Force' According to Top General
What is going on here? Does this sound like a victorious nation about to magnanimously bestow the gifts of freedom and democracy on the vanquished? Or does this sounds like ... Dare we say it? ... a quagmire?In a written warning to the Pentagon, the commander of the U.S. Army Reserve cited Army and Pentagon officials' refusal to deal with "dysfunctional" personnel policies for causing "the Army Reserve's inability ... to meet mission requirements associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom (Bush's War on Iraq) and Enduring Freedom (Bush's War on Afghanistan) and to reset and regenerate its forces for follow-on and future missions."
But it gets worse. George W. Bush's bungling of his War on Terror is actually undermining Homeland Security.While that alone "is of great importance", the memo said, the Reserves are "in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements", including emergency needs in the U.S. and abroad.
And, perhaps worst of all, the Bush administration's Orwellian policies of deploying reserves for indefinite periods of time and into situations never before imagined is converting the U.S. Army into a mercenary force.Citing the Bush administration's plan to pay cash bonuses to those who re-enlist, he said, "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary'. Use of pay to induce 'volunteerism' will cause the expectation of always receiving such financial incentives in future conflicts."
Sydney Morning Herald (AU) - U.S. Army Reserves a 'Broken Force' According to Top General
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Relatively Generosity
Dear President and Mrs. Bush:Woodburydadd notes that, like the space-time continuum itself, the Bush's generosity is all relative:
Thank you so much for your personal contribution of (US)$10,000 toward tsunami relief.
Things are very bad here, as we are sure you are well aware, and so your gift will be put to use immediately helping those of us who have lost everything we have.
It is great to see the outpouring of generosity from all around the world and we hope one day to be able to return the favor in kind.
Sincerely,
The Tsunami Victims
The Bush's $10,000 contribution is about 15% of their total charitable contributions of $68,360 and about 1% of their annual income of $822,126 (according to their 2003 tax return).Capital News 9 (Washington, DC) - Bush gives $10,000 to quake relief
Or, as a percentage of the Bush's wealth, it's about 0.08% of their $13,000,000 net worth (as estimated by the Los Angeles Times).
Relatively Generosity
Dear President and Mrs. Bush:Woodburydadd notes that, like the space-time continuum itself, the Bush's generosity is all relative:
Thank you so much for your personal contribution of (US)$10,000 toward tsunami relief.
Things are very bad here, as we are sure you are well aware, and so your gift will be put to use immediately helping those of us who have lost everything we have.
It is great to see the outpouring of generosity from all around the world and we hope one day to be able to return the favor in kind.
Sincerely,
The Tsunami Victims
The Bush's $10,000 contribution is about 15% of their total charitable contributions of $68,360 and about 1% of their annual income of $822,126 (according to their 2003 tax return).Capital News 9 (Washington, DC) - Bush gives $10,000 to quake relief
Or, as a percentage of the Bush's wealth, it's about 0.08% of their $13,000,000 net worth (as estimated by the Los Angeles Times).
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Worth a Thousand Words
Enjoying his well-earned and care-free vacation at the beach.
Western beachcombers return.
Western toruists pitch in to help with the clean-up.
Worth a Thousand Words
Enjoying his well-earned and care-free vacation at the beach.
Western beachcombers return.
Western toruists pitch in to help with the clean-up.
Monday, January 03, 2005
"Suspects"
The Bush administration is preparing lifetime imprisonment for suspects whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States, including the hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The administration is concerned that the government lacks sufficient evidence to convict these suspects in court even though they remain a danger to U.S. interests.
Let's be clear:
What country is this anyway? Maybe check Alexander Solzenytsin's Gulag Archipelago and compare notes. But watch your step! You wouldn't want to do anything that the Bush administration might view as "suspicious" ... like buying a book written by an insurgent.
Washington post - Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects
Let's be clear:
1) we grabbed them because we thought they were suspicious;However, those who are imprisoned for life may be the lucky ones. The administration is also expanding a policy of "rendition" under which the U.S. transfers captured suspects to other countries where they can be tortured and killed outside of U.S. law.
2) we don't have evidence to prove they are guilty of anything;
3) there's a danger that the courts would set the innocent free;
4) so we'll just keep them locked up forever.
What country is this anyway? Maybe check Alexander Solzenytsin's Gulag Archipelago and compare notes. But watch your step! You wouldn't want to do anything that the Bush administration might view as "suspicious" ... like buying a book written by an insurgent.
Washington post - Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects
"Suspects"
The Bush administration is preparing lifetime imprisonment for suspects whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States, including the hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The administration is concerned that the government lacks sufficient evidence to convict these suspects in court even though they remain a danger to U.S. interests.
Let's be clear:
What country is this anyway? Maybe check Alexander Solzenytsin's Gulag Archipelago and compare notes. But watch your step! You wouldn't want to do anything that the Bush administration might view as "suspicious" ... like buying a book written by an insurgent.
Washington post - Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects
Let's be clear:
1) we grabbed them because we thought they were suspicious;However, those who are imprisoned for life may be the lucky ones. The administration is also expanding a policy of "rendition" under which the U.S. transfers captured suspects to other countries where they can be tortured and killed outside of U.S. law.
2) we don't have evidence to prove they are guilty of anything;
3) there's a danger that the courts would set the innocent free;
4) so we'll just keep them locked up forever.
What country is this anyway? Maybe check Alexander Solzenytsin's Gulag Archipelago and compare notes. But watch your step! You wouldn't want to do anything that the Bush administration might view as "suspicious" ... like buying a book written by an insurgent.
Washington post - Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects
Sunday, January 02, 2005
100,000 dead here, 100,000 dead there
International relief agencies now report more than 100,000 have died as a result of last week's tsunami. Meanwhile the British journal Lancet estimates that at least that many Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invaded Iraq.
But is that all? Were the tsunami deaths unanticipated victims?
There's another dimension to this tragedy, one which we in the west seem to be trying our level best to avoid. We ought to consider this:
Over the three decades since the U.S. retreat from its war on Vietnam, Southeast Asia has become a vacation mecca for all sorts of affluent tourists, most of them from the western hemisphere. Attracted by the five-star resorts and the lure of low prices including $3/night beach front bungalows, tourists triggered an economic boom and an entire economy developed that was centered in the coastal regions and focused on the tourism industry.
Inevitably, local citizens in droves uprooted entire families to move to the coastal regions in order to take jobs serving the tourists. Abandoning their traditional villages inland, breaking up extended families and social support systems, a generation migrated in search of a measure of economic security. And the western tourists, coming from their worlds of plenty, provided the momentum by happily partaking of the bargain prices in this paradise on earth.
Cultural geographers point out that beach front regions are usually not favorable for human settlements. The soil is generally bad and the water is likely to be salty. There are frequent storms and, occasionally, a tsunami. And so settlements, particularly in agrarian societies, tend to be a way back from the beach. Unless there is some additional catalyst to encourage settlement, population centers tend to develop a safe distance away from the beach ... and often the catalyst is an economic one.
In Thailand alone tourism was a $20 billion industry last year. Is it any wonder then that government seismologists on the island of Sumatra, near the epicenter of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami, decided that it would be best delay issuing a warning because, if they were wrong, a false alarm might harm the tourism industry.
But now the tourists have gone leaving behind the locals to pick through the ruins, the air polluted with the stench of rotting corpses, perhaps pausing to contemplate what they have in common with the west ... and with the people of Iraq.
The Lancet (UK) - Mortality Before and After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The Star (Malaysia) - Thai tourism to suffer as tourists flee devastated beaches
100,000 dead here, 100,000 dead there: is there really any difference?Sure, you say, Woodburydadd's about to take an obviously true but none-the-less cheap shot and point out that in one case they died as a result of an unanticipated natural disaster, while in the other they were killed as a result of a conscious decision by the U.S. to invade another country.
But is that all? Were the tsunami deaths unanticipated victims?
There's another dimension to this tragedy, one which we in the west seem to be trying our level best to avoid. We ought to consider this:
How many permanent residents of the region were killed as a result of the economic system that forces them to live and work in the coastal areas?Plenty of western tourists now seem to be making their way to the safety of their homes (after stopping to provide their "survivor stories" for the television cameras). We ought to consider why these foreigners were there in the first place ... and how that added to the scale of this tragedy.
Over the three decades since the U.S. retreat from its war on Vietnam, Southeast Asia has become a vacation mecca for all sorts of affluent tourists, most of them from the western hemisphere. Attracted by the five-star resorts and the lure of low prices including $3/night beach front bungalows, tourists triggered an economic boom and an entire economy developed that was centered in the coastal regions and focused on the tourism industry.
Inevitably, local citizens in droves uprooted entire families to move to the coastal regions in order to take jobs serving the tourists. Abandoning their traditional villages inland, breaking up extended families and social support systems, a generation migrated in search of a measure of economic security. And the western tourists, coming from their worlds of plenty, provided the momentum by happily partaking of the bargain prices in this paradise on earth.
Cultural geographers point out that beach front regions are usually not favorable for human settlements. The soil is generally bad and the water is likely to be salty. There are frequent storms and, occasionally, a tsunami. And so settlements, particularly in agrarian societies, tend to be a way back from the beach. Unless there is some additional catalyst to encourage settlement, population centers tend to develop a safe distance away from the beach ... and often the catalyst is an economic one.
In Thailand alone tourism was a $20 billion industry last year. Is it any wonder then that government seismologists on the island of Sumatra, near the epicenter of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami, decided that it would be best delay issuing a warning because, if they were wrong, a false alarm might harm the tourism industry.
But now the tourists have gone leaving behind the locals to pick through the ruins, the air polluted with the stench of rotting corpses, perhaps pausing to contemplate what they have in common with the west ... and with the people of Iraq.
The Lancet (UK) - Mortality Before and After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The Star (Malaysia) - Thai tourism to suffer as tourists flee devastated beaches
100,000 dead here, 100,000 dead there
International relief agencies now report more than 100,000 have died as a result of last week's tsunami. Meanwhile the British journal Lancet estimates that at least that many Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invaded Iraq.
But is that all? Were the tsunami deaths unanticipated victims?
There's another dimension to this tragedy, one which we in the west seem to be trying our level best to avoid. We ought to consider this:
Over the three decades since the U.S. retreat from its war on Vietnam, Southeast Asia has become a vacation mecca for all sorts of affluent tourists, most of them from the western hemisphere. Attracted by the five-star resorts and the lure of low prices including $3/night beach front bungalows, tourists triggered an economic boom and an entire economy developed that was centered in the coastal regions and focused on the tourism industry.
Inevitably, local citizens in droves uprooted entire families to move to the coastal regions in order to take jobs serving the tourists. Abandoning their traditional villages inland, breaking up extended families and social support systems, a generation migrated in search of a measure of economic security. And the western tourists, coming from their worlds of plenty, provided the momentum by happily partaking of the bargain prices in this paradise on earth.
Cultural geographers point out that beach front regions are usually not favorable for human settlements. The soil is generally bad and the water is likely to be salty. There are frequent storms and, occasionally, a tsunami. And so settlements, particularly in agrarian societies, tend to be a way back from the beach. Unless there is some additional catalyst to encourage settlement, population centers tend to develop a safe distance away from the beach ... and often the catalyst is an economic one.
In Thailand alone tourism was a $20 billion industry last year. Is it any wonder then that government seismologists on the island of Sumatra, near the epicenter of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami, decided that it would be best delay issuing a warning because, if they were wrong, a false alarm might harm the tourism industry.
But now the tourists have gone leaving behind the locals to pick through the ruins, the air polluted with the stench of rotting corpses, perhaps pausing to contemplate what they have in common with the west ... and with the people of Iraq.
The Lancet (UK) - Mortality Before and After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The Star (Malaysia) - Thai tourism to suffer as tourists flee devastated beaches
100,000 dead here, 100,000 dead there: is there really any difference?Sure, you say, Woodburydadd's about to take an obviously true but none-the-less cheap shot and point out that in one case they died as a result of an unanticipated natural disaster, while in the other they were killed as a result of a conscious decision by the U.S. to invade another country.
But is that all? Were the tsunami deaths unanticipated victims?
There's another dimension to this tragedy, one which we in the west seem to be trying our level best to avoid. We ought to consider this:
How many permanent residents of the region were killed as a result of the economic system that forces them to live and work in the coastal areas?Plenty of western tourists now seem to be making their way to the safety of their homes (after stopping to provide their "survivor stories" for the television cameras). We ought to consider why these foreigners were there in the first place ... and how that added to the scale of this tragedy.
Over the three decades since the U.S. retreat from its war on Vietnam, Southeast Asia has become a vacation mecca for all sorts of affluent tourists, most of them from the western hemisphere. Attracted by the five-star resorts and the lure of low prices including $3/night beach front bungalows, tourists triggered an economic boom and an entire economy developed that was centered in the coastal regions and focused on the tourism industry.
Inevitably, local citizens in droves uprooted entire families to move to the coastal regions in order to take jobs serving the tourists. Abandoning their traditional villages inland, breaking up extended families and social support systems, a generation migrated in search of a measure of economic security. And the western tourists, coming from their worlds of plenty, provided the momentum by happily partaking of the bargain prices in this paradise on earth.
Cultural geographers point out that beach front regions are usually not favorable for human settlements. The soil is generally bad and the water is likely to be salty. There are frequent storms and, occasionally, a tsunami. And so settlements, particularly in agrarian societies, tend to be a way back from the beach. Unless there is some additional catalyst to encourage settlement, population centers tend to develop a safe distance away from the beach ... and often the catalyst is an economic one.
In Thailand alone tourism was a $20 billion industry last year. Is it any wonder then that government seismologists on the island of Sumatra, near the epicenter of the earthquake that triggered the tsunami, decided that it would be best delay issuing a warning because, if they were wrong, a false alarm might harm the tourism industry.
But now the tourists have gone leaving behind the locals to pick through the ruins, the air polluted with the stench of rotting corpses, perhaps pausing to contemplate what they have in common with the west ... and with the people of Iraq.
The Lancet (UK) - Mortality Before and After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The Star (Malaysia) - Thai tourism to suffer as tourists flee devastated beaches
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Whose Side is God on Anyway?
"Democracy is a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit. This concept is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God, which is Muslims' doctrine." Democracy amounts to idolizing human beings and "anyone who accepts or takes part in this dirty farce will not be safe," according to a joint statement issued by three Sunni Muslim groups in Iraq.
Meanwhile the opposing Shiite Muslim leaders claim that voting in the Iraqi election is every Muslim's holy duty. Shiite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the population, hope to use the vote to take power from the minority Sunni Muslims, who have controlled Iraq for decades.
In case you've lost your place: U.S. invaders support the Shiite Muslims and are hunting down and killing the Sunni Muslims (who were favored under Saddam Hussein's regime) in order to bring what George W. Bush has called "the Almighty's Gift of Democracy" to the long suffering people of Iraq.
History may well record was the concept of separation of church and state was the highest achievement of American democracy ... and that it took us a couple of centuries to prove it.
Star-Tribune (MN) - Democracy is un-Islamic, say extremists; vow to attack voters
Meanwhile the opposing Shiite Muslim leaders claim that voting in the Iraqi election is every Muslim's holy duty. Shiite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the population, hope to use the vote to take power from the minority Sunni Muslims, who have controlled Iraq for decades.
In case you've lost your place: U.S. invaders support the Shiite Muslims and are hunting down and killing the Sunni Muslims (who were favored under Saddam Hussein's regime) in order to bring what George W. Bush has called "the Almighty's Gift of Democracy" to the long suffering people of Iraq.
History may well record was the concept of separation of church and state was the highest achievement of American democracy ... and that it took us a couple of centuries to prove it.
Star-Tribune (MN) - Democracy is un-Islamic, say extremists; vow to attack voters
Whose Side is God on Anyway?
"Democracy is a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit. This concept is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God, which is Muslims' doctrine." Democracy amounts to idolizing human beings and "anyone who accepts or takes part in this dirty farce will not be safe," according to a joint statement issued by three Sunni Muslim groups in Iraq.
Meanwhile the opposing Shiite Muslim leaders claim that voting in the Iraqi election is every Muslim's holy duty. Shiite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the population, hope to use the vote to take power from the minority Sunni Muslims, who have controlled Iraq for decades.
In case you've lost your place: U.S. invaders support the Shiite Muslims and are hunting down and killing the Sunni Muslims (who were favored under Saddam Hussein's regime) in order to bring what George W. Bush has called "the Almighty's Gift of Democracy" to the long suffering people of Iraq.
History may well record was the concept of separation of church and state was the highest achievement of American democracy ... and that it took us a couple of centuries to prove it.
Star-Tribune (MN) - Democracy is un-Islamic, say extremists; vow to attack voters
Meanwhile the opposing Shiite Muslim leaders claim that voting in the Iraqi election is every Muslim's holy duty. Shiite Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the population, hope to use the vote to take power from the minority Sunni Muslims, who have controlled Iraq for decades.
In case you've lost your place: U.S. invaders support the Shiite Muslims and are hunting down and killing the Sunni Muslims (who were favored under Saddam Hussein's regime) in order to bring what George W. Bush has called "the Almighty's Gift of Democracy" to the long suffering people of Iraq.
History may well record was the concept of separation of church and state was the highest achievement of American democracy ... and that it took us a couple of centuries to prove it.
Star-Tribune (MN) - Democracy is un-Islamic, say extremists; vow to attack voters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)