Just a qucik note to break my vacation from work. I noticed ten new comments, all of which were spam advertising prescription medications, and decided to take this time to post a warning:
This site does not accept posts that are nothing more than bogus attempts to sell goods. There may be some ads in the future, but they will be selected by myself.
I've deleted the offending spam, but any further blog spam will result in me tracking down the site and adverstiser and filing formal complaints with the Federal Trade Commision. Spammers, you have been warned.
An interesting set of Bush Administration Claims of success for the year compared with the reality of the situation. From Tompaine.com
2003: Claim Vs. Fact
The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute based in Washington, D.C.
Editor's Note: The article first appeared on the Center for American Progress Web site and is reprinted with permission.
On Dec. 13, the White House issued a document entitled "2003: A Year of Accomplishment for the American People." The document made various inaccurate and deceptive claims about the administration's record over the last year. This report by the Center for American Progress seeks to correct those distortions, matching the White House's rhetoric with facts.
Drug Coverage
White House Claim: "The historic legislation the president signed will create a modern Medicare system, providing seniors with prescription drug benefits."
Fact: "The new law gives private insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare. Beneficiaries will have to choose a drug insurer without knowing exactly what drugs that insurer will cover. Premiums will be higher in areas with older or sicker seniors."—American Progress Fellow Jeanne Lambrew, 12/4/03
Fact: "The Congressional Budget Office projects that 2.7 million retirees are expected to lose the drug coverage they currently receive through their former because their employers will drop such coverage when the Medicare drug benefit becomes available." —Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/11/03
Fact: "[T]he insurance plan would provide little relief for about 3 million people with moderate assets and incomes near the poverty level and would cost seniors with drug expenses under $835 a year more than they currently spend." — The Boston Globe 11/18/03
Fact: "A substantial number of the 6.4 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also are eligible for Medicaid and currently receive prescription drug coverage through Medicaid would be made worse off under the Medicare conference agreement." —Center of Budget and Policy Priorities Report, 11/21/03
Fact: "The Congressional Budget Office estimates about 2.7 million seniors could lose benefits that may be more generous than those that will be offered under Medicare." —USA Today, 11/25/03
Drug Costs
White House Claim: "Beneficiaries who lack coverage will cut their yearly drug costs roughly in half, in exchange for an approximately $35 monthly premium. The more than one-third of seniors with low incomes will be eligible for even greater drug savings, paying as little as $1 per prescription."
Fact: "[U]nder the new plan, seniors in the middle income quintile will pay an average of $1,650 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs in 2006. This figure is nearly 60 percent more than they paid in 2000, even after adjusting for inflation. Expenses are projected to continue to rise so that by 2013 middle-income seniors will be paying more than two and a half times as much for prescription drugs (adjusting for inflation) as they did in 2000." —Ctr. for Economic and Policy Research, 12/04/03
Health Savings Accounts
White House Claim: The historic Medicare legislation that the President signed included a provision establishing Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)...These HSAs will allow more Americans to save for health care needs, and will allow more small businesses to help workers secure health coverage."
Fact: The creation of "Health Care Savings Accounts" provides an "incentive to shift more costs to workers, who may be asked to 'match' their employer's contribution to a HSA with its high deductibles and high co-payments." Urban Institute economist Len Burman said HSAs will become "a boon to the healthy and wealthy and a bane" to older, sicker co-workers left to confront higher costs and premiums in traditional health plans. —Scripps Howard News, Scripps Howard, 12/3/03
Fact: According to major studies conducted in the past by RAND, the Urban Institute, and the American Academy of Actuaries, "premiums for comprehensive, employer-based coverage could more than double if such accounts became widespread." —CBPP, 11/18/03
Economy
White House Claim: "President Bush's economic leadership is producing positive results."
Fact: "More than 2.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. Bush is still on pace to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss over his four year term."— BLS Data
Fact: In July 2003, the Counsel of Economic Advisors predicted that the President's latest round of tax cuts would produce 1,530,000 jobs would be created in the first five months. In fact, only 271,000 jobs were created over those five months for a cumulative shortfall of 1,259,000 jobs. — Economic Policy Institute
Fact: "Twenty-five major American cities saw a 19% increase in the need for emergency food last year alone." —UK Guardian, 11/3/03
Fact: "New jobs created during the 2004-05 period are forecast to pay an average of $35,855, far lower than the $43,629 average pay of those jobs lost between 2001-03." —U.S. Conference of Mayors, 11/10/03
Fact: "Only 14% of CEOs are planning to increase the pace of hiring." —Business Council Poll, 10/9/03
Fact: Poverty levels have risen for the second straight year in a row—the first time in more than 13 years. — Economic Policy Institute
Deficits
White House Claim: "Maintaining Fiscal Discipline: [The president has] continued to restrain spending."
Fact: The House recently passed a massive $373 billion spending bill, laden with pork-barrel spending and controversial provisions as far as the eye could see. "The size of the measure invites abuse. Spending set-asides for home-state projects have grown to extraordinary levels, filling scores of pages in the Congressional Record." President Bush issued a "personal appeal" to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to "push the spending package through the Senate" without changes after the House passed the pork-laden bill." —AP, 12/8/03, 12/5/03, The Wall Street Journal 12/3/08
Fact: "For the 2003 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government recorded a deficit of $374.8 billion, according to revised figures. In November alone, the deficit swelled to nearly $43 billion." — AP, 12/12/03
Fact: : "Most observers familiar with the budget outlook, including the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, agree that deficits will become even larger after 2013." — American Progress Senior Economist Christian Weller, 12/12/03
White House Claim: "91 million taxpayers received, on average, a tax cut of $1,126. Since the President took office, 109 million taxpayers have received, on average, a tax cut of $1,544. Without the fiscal measures implemented under President Bush, there would be as many as 2 million fewer jobs for American workers today."
Fact: 80% of taxpayers would receive less than $1,083, and half would receive $100 or less. The handful of millionaires who would get about $90,000 artificially inflates the average. —Citizens for Tax Justice, 5/22/03, CBPP, 5/28/03
Fact: 'The economic consulting firm Economy.com found that the tax cuts were responsible for only 13 percent of the growth last quarter—meaning that we still would have seen GDP growth of about 7 percent without the tax cut." — American Progress Fellow Gene Sperling, 12/11/03
White House Claim: 23 million small business owners received tax cuts averaging $2,209."
Fact: "Nearly four out of every five tax filers (79%) with small business income would receive less than $2,209." Additionally, "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less."—Urban Inst.-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 1/21/03
'Healthy Forests'
White House Claim: "As part of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, he signed bipartisan legislation to improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires while upholding environmental laws, restoring our nation's forests, and preserving the forest economy."
Fact: The Congressional Research service reported that the "Health Forests" bill may actually increase the risk of fire. CRS expert Ross W. Corte said, "Timber harvesting removes the relatively large diameter wood that can be converted into wood products but leaves behind the small material, especially twigs and needles" that contributes to fires. —CRS report, 8/22/2000
Fact: In fact, the bill was sought by the timber industry "not because they wanted to remove brush and chaparral" which can cause forest fires but because it would "increase commercial logging with less environmental oversight." —CBS News, 12/3/03
Power Plant Emissions
White House Claim: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules on power plant emissions."
Fact: "The Bush administration on Friday eased clean air rules to allow utilities, refineries and manufacturers to avoid having to install expensive new anti-pollution equipment when they modernize their plants." —CBS News, 11/22/02
Fact: "More than a dozen state attorneys general yesterday sought to block the federal government from implementing a rule change they argued would lead to more air pollution from the nation's power plants. Fourteen states, and a number of cities—including New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.—are seeking a court injunction to impede a measure by the Environmental Protection Agency before it goes into effect." —AP, 11/18/03
Fact: "The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's civil enforcement office has resigned, complaining the White House is undermining anti-pollution efforts at power plants that violate clean air laws. Eric Schaeffer, a lawyer at the EPA for a dozen years dating from the first Bush administration, said in a letter to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman that the White House "seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce."—CBS News, 3/1/02
Mercury Emissions
White House Claim: "The Bush Administration proposed stringent new rules which will result in dramatic reductions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury."
Fact: Two separate reports issued by the GAO and the Rockefeller Family Fund project and Council of State Governments stated that the Administration's relaxation of pollution rules for power plants would lead to reduced fines and pollution controls as well as 1.4 million tons more air pollution. —CBS News, 11/6/03
Fact: "The Administration is proposing to use a provision of the Clean Air Act never before used to regulate toxics and setting a level of reductions for mercury emissions far below what the Clean Air Act toxic provisions would require. Using the [traditional] provisions of the Clean Air Act would achieve at least a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 2008. The Administration’s proposals suggest only a 30% reduction, to the benefit of Coal-fired power plants and utilities." — Former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, 12/4/03
Education
White House Claim: "Parents, teachers, and principals are seeing a positive difference in America's schools. The No Child Left Behind Act is raising standards for students and putting the focus on student achievement."
Fact: "The sweeping federal law left cash-strapped states battered and confused in 2003. More nationwide provisions will take effect in 2004, along with the threat of losing millions of dollars for states that don’t pass muster." —Stateline, 12/8/03
White House Claim: "The Bush Administration is investing more money in elementary and secondary education than at any time in American history."
Fact: "President Bush proposed a budget that was $9.7 billion below the amount needed to fund his own No Child Left Behind Bill. The budget eliminates 45 education programs, and slashes another 18 programs by $1.4 billion. Specifically, he proposes to cut $400 million (40%) out of after-school programs, resulting in 485,000 children being thrown off these programs. He proposes to freeze teacher training grants, meaning a loss of opportunity for 30,000 teachers. And, during a recession, he has proposed a $307 million cut for vocational/technical education grants, and a freeze on Pell Grants."—House Appropriations Committee report, 3/10/03
Consumer Protection
White House Claim: "Enhancing Consumer Credit Protections. The President proposed and signed into law legislation to ensure citizens are treated fairly when they apply for credit. It also addresses the growing problem of identity theft by establishing a nationwide fraud alert system."
Fact: "In addition to previous votes that gutted state provisions to prevent financial institutions from sharing customers' information with others, the final version of the bill will roll back states' anti-identity-theft measures." —SF Chronicle, 11/22/03
Fact: The Administration proposed new regulations that "would shield national banks from state laws enacted to protect consumers from predatory lending." The regulations were criticized by NY AG Eliot Spitzer as preventing the states from prosecuting "nationally chartered financial services companies for charging outsized fees and interest rates to poor consumers who have bad credit." —Financial Times, 12/11/03
Veterans
White House Claim: "Honoring Our Commitment to Veterans: America owes veterans and those on the front lines of freedom a great debt of gratitude."
Fact: The Administration is pushing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing/medical facility funding, despite the fact that UPI reports "hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait—sometimes for months—to see doctors." — The Washington Post, 1/17/03, UPI, 10/17/03
Fact: "One million children living in military and veteran families are being denied child tax credit help" in President Bush’s tax cut. "More than 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty."—Children’s Defense Fund, 6/6/03
White House Claim: "President Bush was pleased to sign legislation that resolved the issue of concurrent receipt in a fair and responsible manner."
Fact: In the fiscal year 2003 defense authorization bill, Congress stipulated that veterans with disabilities would no longer have to give up part of the retirement pay they have earned. In other words, they would receive retired pay and disability pay concurrently. Bush threatened to veto the bill if it includes concurrent receipt. —Baltimore Sun, 12/1/02, The Washington Post, 10/7/02
AIDS
White House Claim: White House Claim: "Leading the Fight Against HIV/AIDS: In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief an historic 5-year, $15 billion effort to turn the tide of the AIDS pandemic. Only 4 months later, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Emergency Plan based on the President's proposal."
Fact: President Bush's budget introduced four days after his State of the Union "only sought $2 billion for the year" for AIDS - 33% less than the $3 billion needed to keep his $15-billion-over-5-year pledge. When the Senate voted to increase the president's budget, the White House "repeated its strong opposition to any funding beyond $2 billion." — LA Times, 10/31/03
Fact: "President Bush plans to ask Congress for relatively small funding increases to fight AIDS and poverty in the developing world, stepping back from his highly publicized pledge to spend huge sums to help fight them." —WSJ, 12/10/2003
International Financing
White House Claim: "At the Madrid donors' conference, 73 countries and 20 international organizations joined together and pledged over $30 billion for Iraq."
Fact: "Six weeks after organizers of an international donors conference in Madrid said that more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged to help Iraq with immediate needs, a new World Bank tally verifies grants of only $685 million for 2004." —New York Times, 12/7/03
International Military Help
White House Claim: "Our mission has broad support from the international community, including troops from 18 out of 25 current and future NATO countries."
Fact: While the U.S. has over 160,000 troops in Iraq, the next largest force contingent is Britain, with about 9,000 troops. Additionally, since President Bush asked for more military help in September, not one additional new international soldier has been sent to Iraq. —UK Guardian, 12/12/03
WMD
White House Claim: "We are now learning the full truth about Saddam Hussein's regime: clear evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons program."
Fact: "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March." —Reuters, 9/15/03
Fact: "We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material...We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort...Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers...Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991...Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced —if not entirely destroyed —during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections."—Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
Saddam- Al Qaeda Ties
White House Claim: "[We have found] previously undocumented ties to terror organizations."
Fact: The bipartisan September 11th commission report "undercuts Bush Administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda." — LA Times, 7/19/03
Fact: "Since the fall of Baghdad, coalition forces have not brought to light any significant evidence demonstrating the bond between Iraq and Al Qaeda." —NY Times, 7/20/03
Fact: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies." —National Journal, 8/9/03
Military Support
White House Claim: "America and more than 20 allied countries are working to help the Afghan people rebuild their war-torn nation. More than 15 million Afghan citizens have been freed from the brutal zealotry of the Taliban."
Fact: The U.N. delegation reported that "insecurity caused by terrorist activities, factional fights and drug related crime remain the major concern of Afghans today." Insecurity is especially a problem in the southern part of the country where "attacks against non-governmental organizations was contributing to the slowing of reconstruction." Throughout the nation "individuals and communities suffer from abuses of their basic rights by local commanders and factional leaders." The problems are exacerbated in many areas of the country "by terrorist attacks from suspected members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda." Also of serious concern: "Arbitrary control exercised by local commanders and factional armies [that] has resulted in heavy casualties."—UN Report, 11/11/03
Funding
White House Claim: "The U.S. Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act which authorizes $3.47 billion for Afghanistan over fiscal years 2003-2006."
Fact: While President Bush declared a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan" in April 2002, the nation has "received only a fraction of the $10.2 billion" that the World Bank said was necessary over the first five years. —Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony, 10/16/03
Terrorist Financing
White House Claim:"The Treasury Department has frozen over $136 million from over 240 terrorist-related entities."
Fact: "Federal authorities do not have a clear understanding of how terrorists move their financial assets and are still struggling to prevent the flow of money to terror groups," according to a new report by the GAO to be released Sunday.—NY Times, 12/12/03
First Responders
White House Claim: "Helping State and Local First Responders: The President is continuing to give our nation's first responder and public health system the training and equipment to prepare, prevent and respond to any future terrorist attack."
Fact: "Emergency Responders are drastically underfunded and dangerously unprepared. The United States remains dangerously ill prepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil. On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Police departments do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following a WMD attack. Public health labs in most states still lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack. Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing." —Council on Foreign Relations Report by former Sen. Warrren Rudman (R-NH), 7/29/03
Fact: "Despite a $2 billion federal investment, the nation's public health system is only marginally better prepared today to handle a bioterrorism attack or other health emergency than it was in 2001."—USA Today, 12/12/03
Fact: The federal program that added more than 100,000 cops to local police forces is being rolled back because local governments can't afford to keep many of the officers on the street. Law enforcement analysts say that the largest federally funded buildup of local police in U.S. history is being washed away by cutbacks." —USA Today, 12/2/03
Fact: "The White House is now saying that its spending plan does not provide enough money to protect against terrorist attacks on American soil. It concedes that domestic counterterrorism programs were shortchanged." —NY Times, 2/26/03
Cyber Security
White House Claim: "The President provided a framework for protecting our critical infrastructure by releasing for protecting our critical infrastructure by releasing the first-ever National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and the National Cyberspace Security Division."
Fact: The annual cybersecurity report card is out, and "the Department of Homeland Security—the government's lead agency on matters of Internet security—led the list of seven federal agencies that earned an "F" grade for their own network security efforts in 2003." And "also earning an 'F' was the Justice Department, the agency charged with investigating and prosecuting many cases involving hacking and other forms of cybercrime."— The Washington Post, 12/9/03
We headed out to see "the movie" Sunday afternoon on the largest screen in Boulder County, and it was well wortht he wait. Peter Jackson, despite his previous films pulled off a masterpiece. If you haven't seen it, do so soon.
My only disappointment came at the end of the movie, which Jackson moves through with some cumbersome fades, leaving out many important details. The plotline with Eowyn and Faramir falling in love after Aragorn saves their lives with the healing powr that marks him as King ended up on the cutting room floor. The scene where the mouthpice of Sauron throws Frodo's clothes and mithril armor to Gandalf and company at the gates to Minas Morgul was also cut. The "Scourging of the Shire" was never even filmed because Jackson didn't like it in the book, although it plays an important part in Tolkien's story of the Hobbits growing up and joining the world as equals.
Despite that, the movie was amazingly done. Hopefully the Tolkien estate will allow Jackson and New Line to make a movie version of the Hobbit. The Tolkien's had no say in the filming of The Lord of the Rings because they don't own the movie rights to the books. However, they seem to have at least some stake on the rights to The Hobbit.
With all the hubbub about al-Qaeda airline pilots and new threat levels an important comment I heard in passing on NPR yesterday seems to have been lost in the shuffle. Even with all of the screening of passengers and luggage at airports, nothing is being done to screen cargo that gets loaded on the planes.
Most people don't realize it, but most passenger liners also carry a fair amount of freight during their flight schedule, and none of it gets physically checked for weapons or explosives. Makes you stop and think doesn't it?
How hard would it be to get a big explosive device into an airliner's cargo hold? How big could it be? How much damage could you do during at the gate while surrounded by other planes and the terminal. The mere thought is appalling.
The Republican response to the threat is worse: they won't even consider setting up security standards and procedures to begin checking air cargo that gets loaded on passenger jets (or full time cargo planes for that matter). I guess real security would cost to much.
In the meantime, 2 year-olds get searched, Marine Corps Generals are told they can't bring their Medal of Honor on the plane, and we are herded like cattle to our destinations, all with the illusion that we're safer than we were 2 years ago.
Benjamin Franklin's dictum that those that would give up their liberty for security deserve neither has been bandied about quite a bit since Sept. 11, 2001, and American have given up a fair amount of their liberty to gain the perception of security. Too bad it's just that: an illusion.
The example of the Governor of Connecticut claiming that he has personal contact with God and that he should be absolved of the corruption charges against for that reason is yet another reason why I doubt the sincerity of the religious fervor of the President, Attorney general, and General Boykin. it's all a sham.
These guys make loud noises about how religious they are when it serves a political purpose, but when you look at their actions, you see the opposite is true. Just take a close look at the political agenda being pushed for an idea of how this works.
There's little inkling of Christian Charity, tolerance, or forgiveness here. Strictures that judgement of others should be reserved for God are right out the window, as are Comandments against adultery, theft, and killing. Don't trust me. Look in the Bible and see what it says. Then look at the real policies these gentlemen promote.
Looks like Haliburton is doing its best to cloud the issue surrounded its overcharging the Pentagon for all that gas from Kuwait.
I received an interesting article today that noted President Reagan dispatched Mr. Rumsfeld to Iraq in 1984 to reassure Saddam that no action would be taken over his battlefield use of chemical weapons.
Of course, at the time Saddam was seen as a "stabilizing influence" and hadn't irritated us yet.
The point is that given a justification for war that included twenty year-old use of chemical weapons, you'd think that those pushing the policy would've denounced it when the weapons were used, not two decades later.
This should hae been obvious on its face: you can't arrest a U.S. citizen in the United States and hold tham as unlawful enemy combatants without charging them or allowing them access to an attorney.
Even the Pentagon has rules regarding "Unlawful Enemy Combatants": to declare a foreign national as one you must have a military tribunal that opperates much like a courts martial detremine this status, although we've ignored this requirement for the people held down at Guantanamo Bay.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this back in the 1940s when the combatants in question were German military personnel, that were not in uniform, were captured during a sabotage mission on the East Coast. The rules for this have already been laid out.
Evidently the current President, operating in the Imperial fashion conservatives hav always claimed to be against, decided that didn't mean anything and that he got to make up rules as he goes.
The only question now is whether Jose Padllla gets released, gets charged, gets his attorney, or the Bush Administration ignores the ruling like it has in several cases so far. So much for the Rule of Law.
The story
The Fed Appeals Court Rulings
Here's a little piece by Paul Krugman regarding profiteering by U.S. and Kuwaiti corporations in Iraq. Seems like the whole Haliburton mess is even worse then previously suspected -- they buy their over priced gas from a little know Kuwaiti company. Wonder how that happened? It's also a reat example of why cost-plus contracts are a bad idea: if you are guaranteed x % profit, where is your incentive to find the best prices, or even to negotiate proces?
Patriots and Profits
By Paul Krugman
New York Times
Tuesday 16 December 2003
Last week there were major news stories about possible profiteering by Halliburton and other American contractors in Iraq. These stories have, inevitably and appropriately, been pushed temporarily into the background by the news of Saddam's capture. But the questions remain. In fact, the more you look into this issue, the more you worry that we have entered a new era of excess for the military-industrial complex.
The story about Halliburton's strangely expensive gasoline imports into Iraq gets curiouser and curiouser. High-priced gasoline was purchased from a supplier whose name is unfamiliar to industry experts, but that appears to be run by a prominent Kuwaiti family (no doubt still grateful for the 1991 liberation). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers documents seen by The Wall Street Journal refer to "political pressures" from Kuwait's government and the U.S. embassy in Kuwait to deal only with that firm. I wonder where that trail leads.
Meanwhile, NBC News has obtained Pentagon inspection reports of unsanitary conditions at mess halls run by Halliburton in Iraq: "Blood all over the floors of refrigerators, dirty pans, dirty grills, dirty salad bars, rotting meat and vegetables." An October report complains that Halliburton had promised to fix the problem but didn't.
And more detail has been emerging about Bechtel's much-touted school repairs. Again, a Pentagon report found "horrible" work: dangerous debris left in playground areas, sloppy paint jobs and broken toilets.
Are these isolated bad examples, or part of a pattern? It's impossible to be sure without a broad, scrupulously independent investigation. Yet such an inquiry is hard to imagine in the current political environment — which is precisely why one can't help suspecting the worst.
Let's be clear: worries about profiteering aren't a left-right issue. Conservatives have long warned that regulatory agencies tend to be "captured" by the industries they regulate; the same must be true of agencies that hand out contracts. Halliburton, Bechtel and other major contractors in Iraq have invested heavily in political influence, not just through campaign contributions, but by enriching people they believe might be helpful. Dick Cheney is part of a long if not exactly proud tradition: Brown & Root, which later became the Halliburton subsidiary doing those dubious deals in Iraq, profited handsomely from its early support of a young politician named Lyndon Johnson.
So is there any reason to think that things are worse now? Yes.
The biggest curb on profiteering in government contracts is the threat of exposure: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yet it's hard to think of a time when U.S. government dealings have been less subject to scrutiny.
First of all, we have one-party rule — and it's a highly disciplined, follow-your-orders party. There are members of Congress eager and willing to take on the profiteers, but they don't have the power to issue subpoenas.
And getting information without subpoena power has become much harder because, as a new report in U.S. News & World Report puts it, the Bush administration has "dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government." Since 9/11, the administration has invoked national security to justify this secrecy, but it actually began the day President Bush took office.
To top it all off, after 9/11 the U.S. media — which eagerly played up the merest hint of scandal during the Clinton years — became highly protective of the majesty of the office. As the stories I've cited indicate, they have become more searching lately. But even now, compare British and U.S. coverage of the Neil Bush saga.
The point is that we've had an environment in which officials inclined to do favors for their business friends, and contractors inclined to pad their bills or do shoddy work, didn't have to worry much about being exposed. Human nature being what it is, then, the odds are that the troubling stories that have come to light aren't isolated examples.
Some Americans still seem to feel that even suggesting the possibility of profiteering is somehow unpatriotic. They should learn the story of Harry Truman, a congressman who rose to prominence during World War II by leading a campaign against profiteering. Truman believed, correctly, that he was serving his country.
On the strength of that record, Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his vice president. George Bush, of course, chose Dick Cheney.
Senator Byrd is one of the few rays of hope currently in the U.S. Congress. Here's the text of his most recent speech regarding Iraq policy.
Challenging 'Pre-emption'
by Senator Robert C. Byrd
Remarks on the 138th Anniversary Celebration of The Nation Magazine, December 14, 2003, in New York City
The older I get, the more I become convinced that wisdom is enhanced by age, and I think the same can be said of The Nation magazine. It is more than a good read. It has become, over the years, an essential publication and a voice for the loyal opposition that is needed today as perhaps never before.
Tonight, I have been asked to speak about Iraq.
Early this morning came news of the capture of Saddam Hussein. That is good news. Despite his fall from power many months ago, the specter of a possible return to power had cast a constant shadow over Iraq and the Iraqi people. I applaud the tenacious work of the military and intelligence communities for their success today.
But that success does not diminish the challenges that remain in Iraq, and it certainly does not tamp the passions inflamed against the United States throughout the Muslim world by our actions in Iraq. The capture of Saddam Hussein will not be the keystone for peace in that volatile region. This day's news does not lessen the danger that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike poses to international peace and stability.
In order to bring lasting stability to Iraq, that nation needs the help of the entire world, not just America and her fighting needs.
As each day passes and as more American soldiers are killed and wounded in Iraq, I become ever more convinced that the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. Contrary to the President's rosy predictions--and the predictions of others in the Bush Administration--the United States has not been universally greeted as a liberator in Iraq. The peace--if one can use the term "peace" to describe the chronic violence and instability that define Iraq today--the peace is far from being won. Iraqi citizens may be glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but they appear to be growing increasingly resentful that the United States continues to rule their country at the point of a gun.
What a huge price we are now paying for the President's bullheaded rush to invoke the unwise and unprecedented doctrine of pre-emption to invade Iraq, an invasion without provocation, an invasion without the support of the United Nations or the international community.
It would be tragic enough if the casualties of the Iraq war were confined to the battlefield, but they are not. The casualties of this war will have serious repercussions for generations to come. Truth is one casualty. Despite the best efforts of the White House to contort the invasion of Iraq into an extension of the war on terror, there was never a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. There was never a connection between Iraq and September 11. Not a single Iraqi was among the nineteen hijackers of those four planes. Despite dire warnings from the President, Saddam Hussein had at his fingertips neither the means nor the materiel to unleash deadly weapons of mass destruction on the world. Despite presidential rhetoric to the contrary, Iraq did not pose a grave and gathering menace to the security of the United States. The war in Iraq was nothing less than a manufactured war. It was a war served up to a deliberately misled and deluded American public to suit the neoconservative political agenda of the Bush White House.
A lasting casualty is the international credibility and reputation of the United States of America. We have squandered the good will that had rallied to our side after the attacks of 9/11, attacks that struck just a few short blocks from where we sit tonight. At the end of that fateful day, the world was with us. The French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, "We Are All Americans." But we squandered that good will. We turned our sights on Iraq and turned our back on the United Nations. As a result, in some corners of the world, including some corners of Europe and Great Britain, our beloved nation is now viewed as the world bully.
Finally, and most disheartening to me, Congress allowed the Constitution to become a casualty of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Congress allowed its constitutional authority to declare war to fall victim to this irresponsible strategy. Just a little more than a year ago, in October 2002, the Senate obsequiously handed to the President the constitutional authority to declare war. It failed to debate; it failed to question; it failed to live up to the standards established by the Framers. Like a whipped dog, the Senate put its tail between its legs and slunk away into the shadows, slunk away from its responsibility. Congress--and I mean both houses--Congress delegated its constitutional authority to the President and effectively washed its hands of the fate of Iraq. It is a dark and despicable mark on the escutcheon of Congress.
The roots of this travesty can be traced directly back to the President's doctrine of pre-emption, that cockeyed notion that the United States can pre-emptively attack any nation that for whatever reason may--may!--appear to pose a threat in the future. Not only is the doctrine of pre-emption a radical departure from the traditional doctrine of self-defense but it is also a destabilizing influence on world affairs. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a dangerous precedent. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a reckless policy. The rising tide of anti-Americanism across the globe is directly attributable to the fear and distrust engendered by this Bush doctrine of pre-emption.
Yet too many Americans are willing--yes, even eager--to swallow the Administration line on pre-emption without examining it, without questioning it, without challenging it.
Thank God for courageous institutions--like this one--which are willing to stand up to the tide of popular convention. I commend The Nation magazine for filling this vacuum, and I urge you to continue in your mission, without fear, without constraint, and with an unyielding commitment to truth.
Today, for better or worse, the United States has embroiled itself in the future of Iraq. But that does not mean that we need to continue to be the lone wolf in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Administration's latest edict to freeze out the French, German, Russian and Canadian companies from Iraq gives me little reason to hope that the President is even remotely interested in internationalizing the political, economic and security reconstruction effort. As a result, the White House continues to feed the perception throughout the world that Iraq's reconstruction is a spoil of war. Reconstruction contracts, funded with $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer, seemingly have become kickbacks to those countries which dared not speak out--as Germany, France, Russia and Canada did speak out--against a policy of pre-emptive war.
Like all roads to peace in the Middle East, the path to stability in Iraq may still face obstacles. We cannot precisely predict what those obstacles will be. But we must demand accountability from the Bush White House. We must continue to raise questions. We must continue to seek the truth. We must continue to speak out against wrongheaded policies and dangerous strategies.
I am reminded of the closing lines from Tennyson's "Ulysses":
We are not now that strength which in old days...tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are--
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will,
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
For my part, I will continue to speak out, I will continue to challenge, to question, and never to yield in defense of the Constitution, the United States Senate and the American people. For your part, I hope that The Nation magazine will sail on, always serving as an advocate for the truth and an antidote to the tide of imperialism that threatens to encompass our government. Congratulations on your remarkable achievements.
Senator Bill Nelson, who voted for military action in Vermont is now claiming that someone from either the White House or DOD told the Senate that Iraq had the capability of hitting the East Coast of the United States with some sort of UAV flown off a "tramp steamer". The UAV in question, it was claimed, would have a cargo of chemical or biological weapons.
Now that Saddam has been captured, no weapons found, no UAVs found (other than some truly pathetic balsa wood things), Nelson is saying that the Senate was deceived.
Of course, he also says he can't identify the person who gave the Senate this information.
Which means that our beloved Senators wer duped, or allowed themselves to be duped. Did any of them ask pointed, pertinent question regarding these supposed capabilities? Did they question the source of the data?
In other words, did they fulfill their duty as legislators and representatives of the people?
Probably not.
Lately, our Representatives and Senators have done a woefully inadequate job of questioning the President and his cornies in the Executive Branch, a task they seemed quite willing to do under the Clinton Administration. And any who do question things are quickly branded as traitors. A case in point was Max Cleeland, a Vietnam Vet who lost three limbs in combat and was labelled a cowardly traitor and defeated in the 2002 elections.
We and our elected representatives at all levels need to start challenging the Bush administration claims on everything. It is fact that we were lied to about WMDs, Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda, and the WTC attacks. We've been kept in the dark about energy policy. We've been deceived about the utility of tax cuts and the time frame for Medicare reform. What does it take for people to start asking questions?
Asking tough questions and insisting on real answers is the only way to preserve our way of life...one that's based on indivdual freedom, not the best interest of politicians and corporations.
I'll admit it, I pirated this story from someone, and I have no idea who anymore. If anyone out there has seen it elsewhere, let me know and I'll happily credit it.
A Dallas area television news station reported that three men had been investigated and arrested for a plot to detonate a sodium cyanide bomb in a whiote supremacist terrorist act.
My only question (other than what these guys were thinking) is why wasn't this national news? Arresting an American citizen, who happens to have brown skin and be Muslim, on an airplane and accusing him of being involved in a "dirty bomb" plot that was less far along (I don't think Jose Padilla had materials or concrete plans) was on every TV station, newspaper, magazine, and web site in the country. These three guys, I found on a blog, and it's the only reference I've seen so far.
If this article is in anyway accurate, it represents exactly what we can expect of President Bush's education policies. After all, this is how it's working out in Texas.
Teaching to a test that doesn't match national standards or the skills to function in a college environment is worse than just a waste of time and money, it's also stupid.
That may be overstating it, but I'm sure the deaths of nine children from AC-130 gunfire seems that way to Afghans. All to kill a mid-level Taliban leader that the DOD can't really connect to actual terrorist acts. You'd think they'd try to capture some of these guys.
Interesting;y, while the military says they killed their man, reports from Afghanistan variously say that:
1. It wasn't him
2. He got away
3. He was never in the village to begin with.
So it's quite possible that we not only missed the target (if he was there), but we have a bunch of inoocent kids killed by stray rounds from one of the most powerful aircraft flying.
This is a Rules Of Engagement issue. The Air Force says that they didn't know there were kids playing in the area, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they used 20 mm cannon, and 40 mm cannon, and a howitzer from an airplane for the attack. There's very little chance that you can use those weapons in a village without causing civilian casualties. These are not precision weapons. Its the same thing as using the 120 mm gun on a tank within a crowded city.
If we suspect there's someone we need to kill or capture, we should be sending in ground troops that speak Farsi and Arabic to pick the guys up, after verifying that it is indeed ther right person. We've had problems with that on the ground, too, but it's a lot more likely that from an orbiting aircraft.
This is just common sense. We should be going out of our way to do things exactly the right way so we don't create additional enemies. That's the only way to create a better Afghanistan for everyone involved.
This story points out one of the untalked about results of the campaign and long occupation in Iraq - the effects on the Army's combat divisions. Four divisions, or 40% of the armies combat capability will be listed as not ready for comba for up to six months as vehicles are refurbishe and repaired, equipment fixed or replaced, and personnel get retrained.
With another four divisions deployed (three in Iraq and one in Afghanistan), this leaves two divisions for use during emergencies around the world. If I've done the math right, that's about 20,000 people that can be deployed by the Army for combat operations.
This has the potential to be a serious national security issue. What if North Korea decided to renew hostilities? We could do little to support South Korea and our 30,000 troops there othr than aerial bombardment. That's not a real good solution. Despite what Desert Storm and Persian Gulf War II accomplished via airpower, we've not seen what our modern weapons will do in the face of a determined, large-scale infantry assault.
WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all showed that airpower is vauluable, but not great at winning against large motivated forces by itself...and by all accounts North Korea has just that.
Comments will continue to be sparse for the next couple of days. I have two major projects to finish up. The first is my Civil War paper and the second is studying for the A+ Technician exam, which I stupidly put on my annual goals. As I have to turn in my annual self-assessment Friday morning, I have to take the test this week.
I guess this falls in the "no rest for the wicked" category...
Entries here may be a little sporadic until 11 December when I will be done with this semester's classes. For those of you who don't know, I'm working on an M.A. in History with and emphasis in Military History at Sam Houston State University. This semester's courses are "The Antebellum South, Civil War, and Reconstruction" and "The Early Cold War". Over the next seven days I'll be writing two 15 page papers. The first one examines the argument that the Cold War started at early as 1918, while the other looks at reasons, other than slavery, that led to the start of the U.S. Civil War. I imagine the total number of words to be in the neighborhood of 12-15,000
The Bill has passed and the President will sign it. What it means is that we may be seeing the end of Medicare. Cosider that the Bill does not allow Medicare to negotiate drug costs with manufacturers, will raise drug prices for the poorest seniors, dispose of supplemental meicare plans for drugs, and move to privatize medicare. It also has a provision that says that if 45% of the revenue used by medicare in a given year comes from the General Revenue Fund, the program can be shut down, or grossly curtailed, which means that many of our Grandparents could face a situation where there will be no one to pay their hospital bills. I fail to see how this helps.
So why did AARP support this thing? Simple: AARP will make approximately $12 billion on this bill.
