Saturday, November 19, 2005
From this month's Atlantic Magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com
If America Left Iraq
The case for cutting and running
by Nir Rosen
.....
A t some point—whether sooner or later—U.S. troops will leave Iraq. I have spent much of the occupation reporting from Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Fallujah, and elsewhere in the country, and I can tell you that a growing majority of Iraqis would like it to be sooner. As the occupation wears on, more and more Iraqis chafe at its failure to provide stability or even electricity, and they have grown to hate the explosions, gunfire, and constant war, and also the daily annoyances: having to wait hours in traffic because the Americans have closed off half the city; having to sit in that traffic behind a U.S. military vehicle pointing its weapons at them; having to endure constant searches and arrests. Before the January 30 elections this year the Association of Muslim Scholars—Iraq's most important Sunni Arab body, and one closely tied to the indigenous majority of the insurgency—called for a commitment to a timely U.S. withdrawal as a condition for its participation in the vote. (In exchange the association promised to rein in the resistance.) It's not just Sunnis who have demanded a withdrawal: the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is immensely popular among the young and the poor, has made a similar demand. So has the mainstream leader of the Shiites' Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who made his first call for U.S. withdrawal as early as April 23, 2003.
If the people the U.S. military is ostensibly protecting want it to go, why do the soldiers stay? The most common answer is that it would be irresponsible for the United States to depart before some measure of peace has been assured. The American presence, this argument goes, is the only thing keeping Iraq from an all-out civil war that could take millions of lives and would profoundly destabilize the region. But is that really the case? Let's consider the key questions surrounding the prospect of an imminent American withdrawal.
Would the withdrawal of U.S. troops ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites?
Advertisement
No. That civil war is already under way—in large part because of the American presence. The longer the United States stays, the more it fuels Sunni hostility toward Shiite "collaborators." Were America not in Iraq, Sunni leaders could negotiate and participate without fear that they themselves would be branded traitors and collaborators by their constituents. Sunni leaders have said this in official public statements; leaders of the resistance have told me the same thing in private. The Iraqi government, which is currently dominated by Shiites, would lose its quisling stigma. Iraq's security forces, also primarily Shiite, would no longer be working on behalf of foreign infidels against fellow Iraqis, but would be able to function independently and recruit Sunnis to a truly national force. The mere announcement of an intended U.S. withdrawal would allow Sunnis to come to the table and participate in defining the new Iraq.
But if American troops aren't in Baghdad, what's to stop the Sunnis from launching an assault and seizing control of the city?
Sunni forces could not mount such an assault. The preponderance of power now lies with the majority Shiites and the Kurds, and the Sunnis know this. Sunni fighters wield only small arms and explosives, not Saddam's tanks and helicopters, and are very weak compared with the cohesive, better armed, and numerically superior Shiite and Kurdish militias. Most important, Iraqi nationalism—not intramural rivalry—is the chief motivator for both Shiites and Sunnis. Most insurgency groups view themselves as waging a muqawama—a resistance—rather than a jihad. This is evident in their names and in their propaganda. For instance, the units commanded by the Association of Muslim Scholars are named after the 1920 revolt against the British. Others have names such as Iraqi Islamic Army and Flame of Iraq. They display the Iraqi flag rather than a flag of jihad. Insurgent attacks are meant primarily to punish those who have collaborated with the Americans and to deter future collaboration.
Wouldn't a U.S. withdrawal embolden the insurgency?
No. If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left? When I asked Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics who support them why they were fighting, they all gave me the same one-word answer: intiqaam—revenge. Revenge for the destruction of their homes, for the shame they felt when Americans forced them to the ground and stepped on them, for the killing of their friends and relatives by U.S. soldiers either in combat or during raids.
But what about the foreign jihadi element of the resistance? Wouldn't it be empowered by a U.S. withdrawal?
The foreign jihadi element—commanded by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—is numerically insignificant; the bulk of the resistance has no connection to al-Qaeda or its offshoots. (Zarqawi and his followers have benefited greatly from U.S. propaganda blaming him for all attacks in Iraq, because he is now seen by Arabs around the world as more powerful than he is; we have been his best recruiting tool.) It is true that the Sunni resistance welcomed the foreign fighters (and to some extent still do), because they were far more willing to die than indigenous Iraqis were. But what Zarqawi wants fundamentally conflicts with what Iraqi Sunnis want: Zarqawi seeks re-establishment of the Muslim caliphate and a Manichean confrontation with infidels around the world, to last until Judgment Day; the mainstream Iraqi resistance just wants the Americans out. If U.S. forces were to leave, the foreigners in Zarqawi's movement would find little support—and perhaps significant animosity—among Iraqi Sunnis, who want wealth and power, not jihad until death. They have already lost much of their support: many Iraqis have begun turning on them. In the heavily Shia Sadr City foreign jihadis had burning tires placed around their necks. The foreigners have not managed to establish themselves decisively in any large cities. Even at the height of their power in Fallujah they could control only one neighborhood, the Julan, and they were hated by the city's resistance council. Today foreign fighters hide in small villages and are used opportunistically by the nationalist resistance.
When the Americans depart and Sunnis join the Iraqi government, some of the foreign jihadis in Iraq may try to continue the struggle—but they will have committed enemies in both Baghdad and the Shiite south, and the entire Sunni triangle will be against them. They will have nowhere to hide. Nor can they merely take their battle to the West. The jihadis need a failed state like Iraq in which to operate. When they leave Iraq, they will be hounded by Arab and Western security agencies.
What about the Kurds? Won't they secede if the United States leaves?
Yes, but that's going to happen anyway. All Iraqi Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. They do not feel Iraqi. They've effectively had more than a decade of autonomy, thanks to the UN-imposed no-fly zone; they want nothing to do with the chaos that is Iraq. Kurdish independence is inevitable—and positive. (Few peoples on earth deserve a state more than the Kurds.) For the moment the Kurdish government in the north is officially participating in the federalist plan—but the Kurds are preparing for secession. They have their own troops, the peshmerga, thought to contain 50,000 to 100,000 fighters. They essentially control the oil city of Kirkuk. They also happen to be the most America-loving people I have ever met; their leaders openly seek to become, like Israel, a proxy for American interests. If what the United States wants is long-term bases in the region, the Kurds are its partners.
Would Turkey invade in response to a Kurdish secession?
For the moment Turkey is more concerned with EU membership than with Iraq's Kurds—who in any event have expressed no ambitions to expand into Turkey. Iraq's Kurds speak a dialect different from Turkey's, and, in fact, have a history of animosity toward Turkish Kurds. Besides, Turkey, as a member of NATO, would be reluctant to attack in defiance of the United States. Turkey would be satisfied with guarantees that it would have continued access to Kurdish oil and trade and that Iraqi Kurds would not incite rebellion in Turkey.
Would Iran effectively take over Iraq?
No. Iraqis are fiercely nationalist—even the country's Shiites resent Iranian meddling. (It is true that some Iraqi Shiites view Iran as an ally, because many of their leaders found safe haven there when exiled by Saddam—but thousands of other Iraqi Shiites experienced years of misery as prisoners of war in Iran.) Even in southeastern towns near the border I encountered only hostility toward Iran.
What about the goal of creating a secular democracy in Iraq that respects the rights of women and non-Muslims?
Give it up. It's not going to happen. Apart from the Kurds, who revel in their secularism, Iraqis overwhelmingly seek a Muslim state. Although Iraq may have been officially secular during the 1970s and 1980s, Saddam encouraged Islamism during the 1990s, and the difficulties of the past decades have strengthened the resurgence of Islam. In the absence of any other social institutions, the mosques and the clergy assumed the dominant role in Iraq following the invasion. Even Baathist resistance leaders told me they have returned to Islam to atone for their sins under Saddam. Most Shiites, too, follow one cleric or another. Ayatollah al-Sistani—supposedly a moderate—wants Islam to be the source of law. The invasion of Iraq has led to a theocracy, which can only grow more hostile to America as long as U.S. soldiers are present. Does Iraqi history offer any lessons?
The British occupation of Iraq, in the first half of the twentieth century, may be instructive. The British faced several uprisings and coups. The Iraqi government, then as now, was unable to suppress the rebels on its own and relied on the occupying military. In 1958, when the government the British helped install finally fell, those who had collaborated with them could find no popular support; some, including the former prime minister Nuri Said, were murdered and mutilated. Said had once been a respected figure, but he became tainted by his collaboration with the British. That year, when revolutionary officers overthrew the government, Said disguised himself as a woman and tried to escape. He was discovered, shot in the head, and buried. The next day a mob dug up his corpse and dragged it through the street—an act that would be repeated so often in Iraq that it earned its own word: sahil. With the British-sponsored government gone, both Sunni and Shiite Arabs embraced the Iraqi identity. The Kurds still resent the British perfidy that made them part of Iraq.
What can the United States do to repair Iraq?
There is no panacea. Iraq is a destroyed and fissiparous country. Iranians and Saudis I've spoken to worry that it might be impossible to keep Iraq from disintegrating. But they agree that the best hope of avoiding this scenario is if the United States leaves; perhaps then Iraqi nationalism will keep at least the Arabs united. The sooner America withdraws and allows Iraqis to assume control of their own country, the better the chances that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari won't face sahil. It may be decades before Iraq recovers from the current maelstrom. By then its borders may be different, its vaunted secularism a distant relic. But a continued U.S. occupation can only get in the way.
http://www.theatlantic.com
If America Left Iraq
The case for cutting and running
by Nir Rosen
.....
A t some point—whether sooner or later—U.S. troops will leave Iraq. I have spent much of the occupation reporting from Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Fallujah, and elsewhere in the country, and I can tell you that a growing majority of Iraqis would like it to be sooner. As the occupation wears on, more and more Iraqis chafe at its failure to provide stability or even electricity, and they have grown to hate the explosions, gunfire, and constant war, and also the daily annoyances: having to wait hours in traffic because the Americans have closed off half the city; having to sit in that traffic behind a U.S. military vehicle pointing its weapons at them; having to endure constant searches and arrests. Before the January 30 elections this year the Association of Muslim Scholars—Iraq's most important Sunni Arab body, and one closely tied to the indigenous majority of the insurgency—called for a commitment to a timely U.S. withdrawal as a condition for its participation in the vote. (In exchange the association promised to rein in the resistance.) It's not just Sunnis who have demanded a withdrawal: the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is immensely popular among the young and the poor, has made a similar demand. So has the mainstream leader of the Shiites' Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who made his first call for U.S. withdrawal as early as April 23, 2003.
If the people the U.S. military is ostensibly protecting want it to go, why do the soldiers stay? The most common answer is that it would be irresponsible for the United States to depart before some measure of peace has been assured. The American presence, this argument goes, is the only thing keeping Iraq from an all-out civil war that could take millions of lives and would profoundly destabilize the region. But is that really the case? Let's consider the key questions surrounding the prospect of an imminent American withdrawal.
Would the withdrawal of U.S. troops ignite a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites?
Advertisement
No. That civil war is already under way—in large part because of the American presence. The longer the United States stays, the more it fuels Sunni hostility toward Shiite "collaborators." Were America not in Iraq, Sunni leaders could negotiate and participate without fear that they themselves would be branded traitors and collaborators by their constituents. Sunni leaders have said this in official public statements; leaders of the resistance have told me the same thing in private. The Iraqi government, which is currently dominated by Shiites, would lose its quisling stigma. Iraq's security forces, also primarily Shiite, would no longer be working on behalf of foreign infidels against fellow Iraqis, but would be able to function independently and recruit Sunnis to a truly national force. The mere announcement of an intended U.S. withdrawal would allow Sunnis to come to the table and participate in defining the new Iraq.
But if American troops aren't in Baghdad, what's to stop the Sunnis from launching an assault and seizing control of the city?
Sunni forces could not mount such an assault. The preponderance of power now lies with the majority Shiites and the Kurds, and the Sunnis know this. Sunni fighters wield only small arms and explosives, not Saddam's tanks and helicopters, and are very weak compared with the cohesive, better armed, and numerically superior Shiite and Kurdish militias. Most important, Iraqi nationalism—not intramural rivalry—is the chief motivator for both Shiites and Sunnis. Most insurgency groups view themselves as waging a muqawama—a resistance—rather than a jihad. This is evident in their names and in their propaganda. For instance, the units commanded by the Association of Muslim Scholars are named after the 1920 revolt against the British. Others have names such as Iraqi Islamic Army and Flame of Iraq. They display the Iraqi flag rather than a flag of jihad. Insurgent attacks are meant primarily to punish those who have collaborated with the Americans and to deter future collaboration.
Wouldn't a U.S. withdrawal embolden the insurgency?
No. If the occupation were to end, so, too, would the insurgency. After all, what the resistance movement has been resisting is the occupation. Who would the insurgents fight if the enemy left? When I asked Sunni Arab fighters and the clerics who support them why they were fighting, they all gave me the same one-word answer: intiqaam—revenge. Revenge for the destruction of their homes, for the shame they felt when Americans forced them to the ground and stepped on them, for the killing of their friends and relatives by U.S. soldiers either in combat or during raids.
But what about the foreign jihadi element of the resistance? Wouldn't it be empowered by a U.S. withdrawal?
The foreign jihadi element—commanded by the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—is numerically insignificant; the bulk of the resistance has no connection to al-Qaeda or its offshoots. (Zarqawi and his followers have benefited greatly from U.S. propaganda blaming him for all attacks in Iraq, because he is now seen by Arabs around the world as more powerful than he is; we have been his best recruiting tool.) It is true that the Sunni resistance welcomed the foreign fighters (and to some extent still do), because they were far more willing to die than indigenous Iraqis were. But what Zarqawi wants fundamentally conflicts with what Iraqi Sunnis want: Zarqawi seeks re-establishment of the Muslim caliphate and a Manichean confrontation with infidels around the world, to last until Judgment Day; the mainstream Iraqi resistance just wants the Americans out. If U.S. forces were to leave, the foreigners in Zarqawi's movement would find little support—and perhaps significant animosity—among Iraqi Sunnis, who want wealth and power, not jihad until death. They have already lost much of their support: many Iraqis have begun turning on them. In the heavily Shia Sadr City foreign jihadis had burning tires placed around their necks. The foreigners have not managed to establish themselves decisively in any large cities. Even at the height of their power in Fallujah they could control only one neighborhood, the Julan, and they were hated by the city's resistance council. Today foreign fighters hide in small villages and are used opportunistically by the nationalist resistance.
When the Americans depart and Sunnis join the Iraqi government, some of the foreign jihadis in Iraq may try to continue the struggle—but they will have committed enemies in both Baghdad and the Shiite south, and the entire Sunni triangle will be against them. They will have nowhere to hide. Nor can they merely take their battle to the West. The jihadis need a failed state like Iraq in which to operate. When they leave Iraq, they will be hounded by Arab and Western security agencies.
What about the Kurds? Won't they secede if the United States leaves?
Yes, but that's going to happen anyway. All Iraqi Kurds want an independent Kurdistan. They do not feel Iraqi. They've effectively had more than a decade of autonomy, thanks to the UN-imposed no-fly zone; they want nothing to do with the chaos that is Iraq. Kurdish independence is inevitable—and positive. (Few peoples on earth deserve a state more than the Kurds.) For the moment the Kurdish government in the north is officially participating in the federalist plan—but the Kurds are preparing for secession. They have their own troops, the peshmerga, thought to contain 50,000 to 100,000 fighters. They essentially control the oil city of Kirkuk. They also happen to be the most America-loving people I have ever met; their leaders openly seek to become, like Israel, a proxy for American interests. If what the United States wants is long-term bases in the region, the Kurds are its partners.
Would Turkey invade in response to a Kurdish secession?
For the moment Turkey is more concerned with EU membership than with Iraq's Kurds—who in any event have expressed no ambitions to expand into Turkey. Iraq's Kurds speak a dialect different from Turkey's, and, in fact, have a history of animosity toward Turkish Kurds. Besides, Turkey, as a member of NATO, would be reluctant to attack in defiance of the United States. Turkey would be satisfied with guarantees that it would have continued access to Kurdish oil and trade and that Iraqi Kurds would not incite rebellion in Turkey.
Would Iran effectively take over Iraq?
No. Iraqis are fiercely nationalist—even the country's Shiites resent Iranian meddling. (It is true that some Iraqi Shiites view Iran as an ally, because many of their leaders found safe haven there when exiled by Saddam—but thousands of other Iraqi Shiites experienced years of misery as prisoners of war in Iran.) Even in southeastern towns near the border I encountered only hostility toward Iran.
What about the goal of creating a secular democracy in Iraq that respects the rights of women and non-Muslims?
Give it up. It's not going to happen. Apart from the Kurds, who revel in their secularism, Iraqis overwhelmingly seek a Muslim state. Although Iraq may have been officially secular during the 1970s and 1980s, Saddam encouraged Islamism during the 1990s, and the difficulties of the past decades have strengthened the resurgence of Islam. In the absence of any other social institutions, the mosques and the clergy assumed the dominant role in Iraq following the invasion. Even Baathist resistance leaders told me they have returned to Islam to atone for their sins under Saddam. Most Shiites, too, follow one cleric or another. Ayatollah al-Sistani—supposedly a moderate—wants Islam to be the source of law. The invasion of Iraq has led to a theocracy, which can only grow more hostile to America as long as U.S. soldiers are present. Does Iraqi history offer any lessons?
The British occupation of Iraq, in the first half of the twentieth century, may be instructive. The British faced several uprisings and coups. The Iraqi government, then as now, was unable to suppress the rebels on its own and relied on the occupying military. In 1958, when the government the British helped install finally fell, those who had collaborated with them could find no popular support; some, including the former prime minister Nuri Said, were murdered and mutilated. Said had once been a respected figure, but he became tainted by his collaboration with the British. That year, when revolutionary officers overthrew the government, Said disguised himself as a woman and tried to escape. He was discovered, shot in the head, and buried. The next day a mob dug up his corpse and dragged it through the street—an act that would be repeated so often in Iraq that it earned its own word: sahil. With the British-sponsored government gone, both Sunni and Shiite Arabs embraced the Iraqi identity. The Kurds still resent the British perfidy that made them part of Iraq.
What can the United States do to repair Iraq?
There is no panacea. Iraq is a destroyed and fissiparous country. Iranians and Saudis I've spoken to worry that it might be impossible to keep Iraq from disintegrating. But they agree that the best hope of avoiding this scenario is if the United States leaves; perhaps then Iraqi nationalism will keep at least the Arabs united. The sooner America withdraws and allows Iraqis to assume control of their own country, the better the chances that Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari won't face sahil. It may be decades before Iraq recovers from the current maelstrom. By then its borders may be different, its vaunted secularism a distant relic. But a continued U.S. occupation can only get in the way.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more
money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war
because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your
term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen
to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's
speaking to you. Mission accomplished.
"Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and
walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company
and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next
fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're
saying: there's so many other things that you as President could
involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left
to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on
yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social
Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.
"But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you
govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised
that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks
like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never
conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.
"On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four
airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of
New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love
this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were
on the other side.
"So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' "
-- comedian Bill Mahr
money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war
because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your
term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen
to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's
speaking to you. Mission accomplished.
"Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and
walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company
and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next
fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're
saying: there's so many other things that you as President could
involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left
to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on
yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social
Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.
"But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you
govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised
that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks
like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never
conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.
"On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four
airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of
New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love
this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were
on the other side.
"So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' "
-- comedian Bill Mahr
Monday, September 12, 2005
"Brownie, your doing a heck of a job." -- US President George W. Bush to FEMA head Michael Brown.
"500 Florida airboat pilots volunteered to rescue Hurricane Katrina victims, and Florida Congressman Mark Foley contacted FEMA to offer them, but FEMA said it was unsafe and stressed that 'it's so important to be coordinated,'" -- Orlando Sentinel, September 2, 2005
"Three rescue helicopters were denied from the Air Force Reserve Command, offered by Col. Tim Tarchick of the 920the Rescue Wing, Air Force Reserve Command. FEMA told Tarchick it wasn't authorized to task military units." -- NEWSWEEK, September 12, 2005
"Red Cross food delivery was discouraged by FEMA which said, 'The Homeland Security Department has requested and continues to request that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans." -- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 4, 2005
"Wal-Mart sent three trailer trucks loaded with water and FEMA officials turned them away...1,000 gallons of diesel fuel from the Coast Guard were prevented from being delivered." The New York Times, September 5, 2005
"Trent Lott wanted Bush to authorize the immediate release of 20,000 trailers sitting in Atlanta, but Lott said FEMA has refused to ship the trailers because of red tape and paperwork." -- CNN, September 6, 2005
"Offers of generators were turned away. The mayor Slidell, Louisiana, Ben Morris, said FEMA turned away generators....FEMA refused Amtrak's offer of trains to evacuate victims." -- Associated Press, September 6, 2005
"FEMA refused personnel and equipment from the City of Chicago. Days before Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, the city of Chicago told FEMA that in the event of disater, it could spare more than 100 Chicago police officers, 36 Fire Department personnel, 8 Emergency Medical experts, more than 130 staff from Chicago's Department of Public Health, 140 staff from the Department of Streets and Sanitation, dozens of trucks and two boats. 'I was shocked', Chicago Mayor Daily said. 'I was ready to provide considerably more help then they asked for -- a single tanker truck." -- Salon.com, September 7, 2005
"HUD's readiness to send emergency housing to New Orleans was thwarted by FEMA's red tape." -- Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alfonso Jackson, September 6, 2005 Cabinet Meeting
Sunday, September 11, 2005
THIS IS WHY I LOVE AL GORE:
Al Gore helped airlift some 270 Katrina evacuees on two private charters from New Orleans, acting at the urging of a doctor who saved the life of the former vice president's son.
Gore criticized the Bush administration's slow response to Katrina in a speech Friday in San Francisco, but refused to be interviewed about the mercy missions he financed and flew on September 3 and 4.
However, Dr. Anderson Spickard, who is Gore's personal physician and accompanied him on the flights, said: "Gore told me he wanted to do this because like all of us he wanted to seize the opportunity to do what one guy can do, given the assets that he has."
THAT is the kind of man that should be in the White House. Not the weasely little fucker skulking around wondering how he can get away with screwing the country over even more.
YOU THINK HELP IS GETTING BETTER?
Susan: I live in Lafayette, LA and FEMA has just opened up an office 11 days after the storm. They have no computers with Internet access and no money for the thousands of evacuees here.
Our evacuees have been neglected. The first night the Cajundome Convention Center was opened for the homeless, they had no cots, bedding, or clothes for the people. Days later, a Red Cross trailer was found on the site that contained cots. Red Cross had dropped it off and not notified anyone.
"An Irate Soldier’s Open Letter Regarding George W. Bush"
One family travelled to a refugee camp and reports that its more like a detainment camp than a place to restart a new life:
"I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp"
KAREN HUGES: "IT'S THE LOOTING, STUPID"
Karen Hughes, "Image Czar," claims that the looting, not our government's disgraceful, inept response to the hurricane and its aftermath, will hurt America's image abroad. She states that "post-storm crime" is what the world will remember from this event! The fact that the world is watching a colossal failure in how our government has responded to this crisis and the fact that we do indeed live in "two America's," as John Edwards stated (and still states), is nothing compared to diaper theft.
Al Gore helped airlift some 270 Katrina evacuees on two private charters from New Orleans, acting at the urging of a doctor who saved the life of the former vice president's son.
Gore criticized the Bush administration's slow response to Katrina in a speech Friday in San Francisco, but refused to be interviewed about the mercy missions he financed and flew on September 3 and 4.
However, Dr. Anderson Spickard, who is Gore's personal physician and accompanied him on the flights, said: "Gore told me he wanted to do this because like all of us he wanted to seize the opportunity to do what one guy can do, given the assets that he has."
THAT is the kind of man that should be in the White House. Not the weasely little fucker skulking around wondering how he can get away with screwing the country over even more.
YOU THINK HELP IS GETTING BETTER?
Susan: I live in Lafayette, LA and FEMA has just opened up an office 11 days after the storm. They have no computers with Internet access and no money for the thousands of evacuees here.
Our evacuees have been neglected. The first night the Cajundome Convention Center was opened for the homeless, they had no cots, bedding, or clothes for the people. Days later, a Red Cross trailer was found on the site that contained cots. Red Cross had dropped it off and not notified anyone.
"An Irate Soldier’s Open Letter Regarding George W. Bush"
One family travelled to a refugee camp and reports that its more like a detainment camp than a place to restart a new life:
"I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp"
KAREN HUGES: "IT'S THE LOOTING, STUPID"
Karen Hughes, "Image Czar," claims that the looting, not our government's disgraceful, inept response to the hurricane and its aftermath, will hurt America's image abroad. She states that "post-storm crime" is what the world will remember from this event! The fact that the world is watching a colossal failure in how our government has responded to this crisis and the fact that we do indeed live in "two America's," as John Edwards stated (and still states), is nothing compared to diaper theft.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
How much do you stand to loose in your old age if Bush's Social Security "reform" plan becomes a reality ?
Take this simple test from the website of US Senator Chuck Schumer of NY and see:
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/calc/#
As far as I can tell the only people who are better off with this program would be all of George W. Bush's friends on Wall Street who are estimated to gain 100 billion dollars in first 10 years of the program. Everyone else would see a strong decline in their benefits even with taking "ownership". Owning nothing is nothing.
Yes there needs to be some reform done to adjust the Social Security program as the retiring baby boomers will eat through the surplus.. the surplus, they put there during their earning years. It's only right that they are entitled to get it back in their retirement.
For us behind the baby boomers, it's estimated that the current Social Security program will fund 75% of the need. That only means the government has to find the other 25%.
Take this simple test from the website of US Senator Chuck Schumer of NY and see:
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/calc/#
As far as I can tell the only people who are better off with this program would be all of George W. Bush's friends on Wall Street who are estimated to gain 100 billion dollars in first 10 years of the program. Everyone else would see a strong decline in their benefits even with taking "ownership". Owning nothing is nothing.
Yes there needs to be some reform done to adjust the Social Security program as the retiring baby boomers will eat through the surplus.. the surplus, they put there during their earning years. It's only right that they are entitled to get it back in their retirement.
For us behind the baby boomers, it's estimated that the current Social Security program will fund 75% of the need. That only means the government has to find the other 25%.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
from the desk of U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois
Dear Mr. President,
At a press conference in the White House on January
26, you stated that “there needs to be a nice,
independent relationship between the White House and
the press.” In that same press conference, you called
on a reporter then known as Jeff Gannon, who worked
for an organization called Talon News.
Since that time, the public has learned that the real
name of that reporter is James Dale Guckert, not Jeff
Gannon, and that he had regular access to the White
House press facilities for more than a year. We have
also learned that the questions he posed at White
House press briefings and the stories he filed for
Talon News frequently mirrored Republican Party
talking points, that Talon News is a news organization
in name only and that it has apparently close
connections to the Republican party.
Given the unprecedented level of security in
Washington since 9/11, it is troubling that that a
non-journalist using a false name and working for a
sham news organization could have gained regular
access to the White House for such an extended period
of time.
Another reason the Gannon/Guckert affair is disturbing
is because of what we have recently learned about
apparent efforts by some in your Administration to try
to “buy” favorable news coverage. These other efforts
include paying news personalities Armstrong Williams
and Maggie Gallagher large sums of money to promote
your Administration’s education and marriage
initiatives, and using tax payer dollars to produce
video news releases promoting the new prescription
drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and other
policies the Administration regards as
accomplishments. A recent report by the General
Accountability Office called such video news releases
illegal uses of public funds. More recently, we have
heard troubling reports that Social Security
Administration officials may be using public funds and
pressuring public employees to promote your goal of
privatizing Social Security.
As you know, concerns that government officials may be
trying to deceive the public by manipulating the media
can be extremely corrosive to public trust. For that
reason, we respectfully request that you order an
immediate and thorough investigation into the
Gannon/Guckert matter. How is it possible that a man
using a fake name, with dubious journalism
credentials, was able to clear the White House’s
extensive security screening process and gain such
close access to you and your staff for such an
extended period of time? Have there been other,
similar breaches of security and journalism standards?
We appreciate your prompt attention to this important
matter. We urge you to order a full inquiry so that
the American people know the facts.
Dear Mr. President,
At a press conference in the White House on January
26, you stated that “there needs to be a nice,
independent relationship between the White House and
the press.” In that same press conference, you called
on a reporter then known as Jeff Gannon, who worked
for an organization called Talon News.
Since that time, the public has learned that the real
name of that reporter is James Dale Guckert, not Jeff
Gannon, and that he had regular access to the White
House press facilities for more than a year. We have
also learned that the questions he posed at White
House press briefings and the stories he filed for
Talon News frequently mirrored Republican Party
talking points, that Talon News is a news organization
in name only and that it has apparently close
connections to the Republican party.
Given the unprecedented level of security in
Washington since 9/11, it is troubling that that a
non-journalist using a false name and working for a
sham news organization could have gained regular
access to the White House for such an extended period
of time.
Another reason the Gannon/Guckert affair is disturbing
is because of what we have recently learned about
apparent efforts by some in your Administration to try
to “buy” favorable news coverage. These other efforts
include paying news personalities Armstrong Williams
and Maggie Gallagher large sums of money to promote
your Administration’s education and marriage
initiatives, and using tax payer dollars to produce
video news releases promoting the new prescription
drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries and other
policies the Administration regards as
accomplishments. A recent report by the General
Accountability Office called such video news releases
illegal uses of public funds. More recently, we have
heard troubling reports that Social Security
Administration officials may be using public funds and
pressuring public employees to promote your goal of
privatizing Social Security.
As you know, concerns that government officials may be
trying to deceive the public by manipulating the media
can be extremely corrosive to public trust. For that
reason, we respectfully request that you order an
immediate and thorough investigation into the
Gannon/Guckert matter. How is it possible that a man
using a fake name, with dubious journalism
credentials, was able to clear the White House’s
extensive security screening process and gain such
close access to you and your staff for such an
extended period of time? Have there been other,
similar breaches of security and journalism standards?
We appreciate your prompt attention to this important
matter. We urge you to order a full inquiry so that
the American people know the facts.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Difference between men and women
Difference Between Women And Men
1.NAMES
If Laurie, Linda, Elizabeth and Barbara go out for lunch, they will
call each other Laurie, Linda, Elizabeth and Barbara.
If Mark, Chris, Eric and Tom go out, they will affectionately refer
to each other as Fat Boy, Godzilla, Peanut-Head and Scrappy.
2.EATING OUT
When the bill arrives, Mark, Chris, Eric and Tom will each throw in
a $20 , even though it's only for $32.50. None of them will have
anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.
When the women get their bill, out come the pocket calculators.
3.MONEY
A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need, but it's on
sale.
4.BATHROOMS
A man has five items in his bathroom: a toothbrush, shaving cream,
razor, a bar of soap, and a towel from the Marriott.
The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337.
A man would not be able to identify most of these items.
5.ARGUMENTS
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that... is the beginning of a new
argument.
6.CATS
Women love cats.
Men say they love cats, but when women aren't looking, men kick
cats.
7.FUTURE
A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
8.SUCCESS
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can
spend.
A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
9.MARRIAGE
A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change ! and she
does.
10.DRESSING UP
A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the
garbage, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.
11.NATURAL
Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.
12.OFFSPRING
Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about
dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods,
secret fears and hopes and dreams.
A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Any married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two
people remembering the same thing.
AND FINALLY....
A couple drove down a country road for several miles, not saying a
word. An earlier discussion had led to an argument and neither of
them wanted to concede their position.
As they passed a barnyard of mules, jack asses, and pigs, the
husband asked sarcastically,
"Relatives of yours?"
"Yep," the wife replied, "in-laws."
1.NAMES
If Laurie, Linda, Elizabeth and Barbara go out for lunch, they will
call each other Laurie, Linda, Elizabeth and Barbara.
If Mark, Chris, Eric and Tom go out, they will affectionately refer
to each other as Fat Boy, Godzilla, Peanut-Head and Scrappy.
2.EATING OUT
When the bill arrives, Mark, Chris, Eric and Tom will each throw in
a $20 , even though it's only for $32.50. None of them will have
anything smaller and none will actually admit they want change back.
When the women get their bill, out come the pocket calculators.
3.MONEY
A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need, but it's on
sale.
4.BATHROOMS
A man has five items in his bathroom: a toothbrush, shaving cream,
razor, a bar of soap, and a towel from the Marriott.
The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337.
A man would not be able to identify most of these items.
5.ARGUMENTS
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that... is the beginning of a new
argument.
6.CATS
Women love cats.
Men say they love cats, but when women aren't looking, men kick
cats.
7.FUTURE
A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
8.SUCCESS
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can
spend.
A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
9.MARRIAGE
A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change ! and she
does.
10.DRESSING UP
A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the
garbage, answer the phone, read a book, and get the mail.
A man will dress up for weddings and funerals.
11.NATURAL
Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.
12.OFFSPRING
Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about
dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods,
secret fears and hopes and dreams.
A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Any married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two
people remembering the same thing.
AND FINALLY....
A couple drove down a country road for several miles, not saying a
word. An earlier discussion had led to an argument and neither of
them wanted to concede their position.
As they passed a barnyard of mules, jack asses, and pigs, the
husband asked sarcastically,
"Relatives of yours?"
"Yep," the wife replied, "in-laws."
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Tonight the History Channel aired a 90 minute show recalling a failed assassination attempt in 1974 on President Richard Nixon. The dramatization and file footage tells the tale of a mentall ill man who shot is way onto a Delta airlines flight preparing to leave Baltimore’s airport a mere 5 minutes away by air from the White House. His plan was to fly the plane into the White House killing President Nixon. While the part about him taking over the plane was covered in the newspapers of the time. His goal of flying the plane into the White House was kept quiet. It was however known as Baltimore police recovered two hours of audio tape from his car found in the airport parking lot detailing his plan and his reasons for doing so. This evidence was forwarded to both the US Secret Service who are in charge of protecting the President as well as the F.B.I.
The incident was also referenced in a 1995 White House Security Report.
This report’s unclassified portions are available on the web:White House Report
Under in the chapeter entitled “History of Ground and Air Assults on the White House Complex” in a section called “Air Incursions and Attempted Air Incursions” contains the following paragraph (emphasis added):
Samuel Byck (February 1974). Samuel Byck, a failed businessman with a history of mental illness, was investigated by the Secret Service in 1972 on the basis of reports that he had threatened President Nixon. In 1974, he hatched a plan called "Operation Pandora's Box" to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into the Executive Mansion. On February 22, less than a week after the Preston incident, Byck went to Baltimore/Washington International Airport carrying a pistol and a gasoline bomb. He forced his way onto a Delta flight destined for Atlanta by shooting a guard at the security checkpoint. He entered the cockpit and ordered the crew to take off. After the crew informed him that they could not depart without removing the wheel blocks, Byck shot the pilot twice and the co-pilot three times (the co-pilot died). Police outside the airplane shot into the cockpit and hit Byck twice. Byck fell to the floor, put the revolver to his head, and killed himself.
In her testimony before Congress as well as in the media, then National Security Advisor, Condisleea Rice repeatedly insisted that nobody had ever thought of flying a plane into a building before September 11, 2001. The Time magazine of May 17, 2002, even quotes her as saying as much:
Responding to the subtext, that the administration could have prevented 9/11, kept Ari Fleischer and Condoleeza Rice busy for the rest of the week. The explanation is the inherently obvious one: They surprised us, plain and simple, with a planes-as-missiles tactical leap. "There's been a long-standing awareness in the intelligence community, shared with the president, about the potential for bin Laden to have hijacking in the traditional sense," Fleischer said. Bush, he added, put out a secret alert based on the information the administration had, which wasn't much. Added Rice Thursday: "The government did everything that it could — in a period in which the information was very generalized, in which there was nothing specific in which to react — and had this president known of something more specific or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it.
Isn't it funny how lunatic madmen 30 years ago were able to think of things that government officals and people at the top levels of national security aren't ?
How could so many people in government security and intelligence be so unaware ?
The incident was also referenced in a 1995 White House Security Report.
This report’s unclassified portions are available on the web:White House Report
Under in the chapeter entitled “History of Ground and Air Assults on the White House Complex” in a section called “Air Incursions and Attempted Air Incursions” contains the following paragraph (emphasis added):
Samuel Byck (February 1974). Samuel Byck, a failed businessman with a history of mental illness, was investigated by the Secret Service in 1972 on the basis of reports that he had threatened President Nixon. In 1974, he hatched a plan called "Operation Pandora's Box" to hijack a commercial airliner and crash it into the Executive Mansion. On February 22, less than a week after the Preston incident, Byck went to Baltimore/Washington International Airport carrying a pistol and a gasoline bomb. He forced his way onto a Delta flight destined for Atlanta by shooting a guard at the security checkpoint. He entered the cockpit and ordered the crew to take off. After the crew informed him that they could not depart without removing the wheel blocks, Byck shot the pilot twice and the co-pilot three times (the co-pilot died). Police outside the airplane shot into the cockpit and hit Byck twice. Byck fell to the floor, put the revolver to his head, and killed himself.
In her testimony before Congress as well as in the media, then National Security Advisor, Condisleea Rice repeatedly insisted that nobody had ever thought of flying a plane into a building before September 11, 2001. The Time magazine of May 17, 2002, even quotes her as saying as much:
Responding to the subtext, that the administration could have prevented 9/11, kept Ari Fleischer and Condoleeza Rice busy for the rest of the week. The explanation is the inherently obvious one: They surprised us, plain and simple, with a planes-as-missiles tactical leap. "There's been a long-standing awareness in the intelligence community, shared with the president, about the potential for bin Laden to have hijacking in the traditional sense," Fleischer said. Bush, he added, put out a secret alert based on the information the administration had, which wasn't much. Added Rice Thursday: "The government did everything that it could — in a period in which the information was very generalized, in which there was nothing specific in which to react — and had this president known of something more specific or known that a plane was going to be used as a missile, he would have acted on it.
Isn't it funny how lunatic madmen 30 years ago were able to think of things that government officals and people at the top levels of national security aren't ?
How could so many people in government security and intelligence be so unaware ?
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
13 Americans with Some Balls
Senator Akaka (HI)
Senator Bayh (IN)
Senator Boxer (CA)
Senator Byrd (WV)
Senator Dayton (MN)
Senator Durbin (IL)
Senator Harkin (IA)
Senator Jeffords (VT)
Senator Kennedy (MA)
Senator Kerry (MA)
Senator Lautenburg (NJ)
Senator Levin (MI)
Senator Reed (RI)
Today the US Senate approved the President's nomination of Condisleeza Rice as Secretary of State by an 85-13 vote. This is the most votes against a nominee for Secretary of State since 1825. If one of your Senators is NOT on this list you should contact them and ask them why they approved such a poorly qualified candidate for such an important office.
Monday, January 03, 2005
In a new CNN/USAToday/Gallup Poll, a majority of Americans express the view that the U.S. made a mistake in going to war against Iraq.The poll, released on Tuesday, shows that 51% now hold this view, with 48% supporting the decision to go to war. In November those numbers were virtually reversed.
In January 2004, 63% approved of the war and 35% disapproved.
By 58% to 39% the public disapproves of the way the U.S. has handled things in Iraq in recent months.
Nearly half the sample says things are worse in Iraq than a year ago, with only 20% saying it is going better.
Sunday, January 02, 2005
There was no way to stop the massive waves triggered by the Dec. 26 earthquake from sweeping across South Asia and killing tens of thousands of people. But in Sri Lanka, where an estimated 25,000 people have lost their lives, Oxfam is in the rare position of being able-immediately-to help stop the second wave of death that follows such disasters: death from disease.
Because Oxfam was already working in the small island nation off the southern tip of India, the agency was able to spring into action soon after the tsunami crashed to shore. The story of A.R.M. Saifullah, Oxfam's assistant program coordinator in Trincomalee, is just one example of how the agency's close relationship with local partners, its knowledge of the Sri Lankan terrain and its people has allowed the aid group to move fast to save lives.
The disaster has displaced an estimated 1.2 million people in Sri Lanka. In places the wave washed more than a mile inland. People had already been hit by heavy floods over the last 10 days and half the paddy crop may have been lost. The flood waters have contaminated wells and clean water is scarce.
Reports are coming in from Oxfam staff members on the ground in several places and rapid field assessments are underway in six areas. In Trincomalee water still lies about six feet deep and crops have been destroyed. The flood waters have contaminated wells and clean water is scarce.
In Vavuniya and Batticoloa, Oxfam staffers are already providing temporary latrines, roofing sheets, plastic sheeting for shelter, mats, bed sheets, and sanitary napkins. In Killinochchi, staff members provided cooked food to people who were waiting for the release of the bodies of their relatives. In Batticoloa, too, staffers were involved in rescue and medical assistance, taking a number of people to hospital.
A cargo plane loaded with 27 tons of Oxfam emergency equipment worth about $190,000 was scheduled to leave England for Sri Lanka midweek. Half the water tanks, pumps, and taps in the shipment will be used to set up emergency drinking systems in Sri Lanka. Oxfam will send the other half to Indonesia.
Oxfam is preparing 25,000 packs of food locally, containing rice, flour, dhal, fish, sugar and cereal, plus 10,000 packs with soap, sanitary towels, candles and matches. Water points are being set up in seven places.
What Oxfam is doing
Donate to Oxfam America
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) emergency teams are on the ground in South Asia providing assistance to people affected by last Sunday's earthquake and the resulting tsunamis and carrying out multiple needs assessments in several countries in the region. To date, MSF has sent over 40 aid workers and 110 tons of relief materials to the region. Additional aid workers and relief cargos are en route and more will be deployed as needed.
Yesterday in the area of Tvri, the MSF team performed medical consultations for more than one hundred people, including those suffering from infected wounds and respiratory infections, and plans to conduct mobile clinics starting today.
Two cargo planes with approximately 70 tons of medical and sanitation materials have arrived in Medan in north Sumatra, close to Aceh. The cargo includes generators, water bladders, and tanks, plastic sheeting, mosquito nets, chlorination kits, and a hospital tent.
Donate to Doctors Without Borders
Following the disaster in Asia, the ICRC is concentrating its relief efforts on Sri Lanka and the Indonesian province of Aceh, areas where it had a strong presence before the catastrophe. The overall relief operations of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement are being coordinated by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Assistance activities were launched within hours of the disaster, with local ICRC and National Society staff distributing non-food relief items out of existing or locally bought stocks to several thousand families.
ICRC staff have also distributed medical items to two hospitals in northern Sri Lanka and dispatched several 15,000 litre water tanks to the affected areas.
The ICRC is also involved in tracing activities, with joint ICRC/Sri Lanka Red Cross field teams helping separated families restore contact through the use of satellite phones.
Since the beginning of the crisis, staff have also been transporting human remains to hospitals and morgues and, when possible, returning those identified to their families.
Over the coming days, the ICRC plans to further reinforce its assistance operations, continuing to deliver additional household goods, shelter and medical supplies while aiming to provide safe drinking water to about 200,000 people. To support these operations, additional staff are also being sent to Sri Lanka.
Donate to International Committee of the Red Cross
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)