This information is good to know, especially if you are searching for a new area or home to live in. I typed in one zip code that I used to live in and it had far more offenders than the one I'm in now.
www.familywatchdog.us
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
We've now been in Iraq longer than WWII
Yesterday marked the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.
That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.
And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.
Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.
Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:
** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.
Meanwhile, Bush comes out today to say we wont leave until the mission is completed. But I thought it was already "accomplished."
Let's get the fuck out of dodge already! No more U.S. deaths!
That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.
And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.
Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.
Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:
** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.
Meanwhile, Bush comes out today to say we wont leave until the mission is completed. But I thought it was already "accomplished."
Let's get the fuck out of dodge already! No more U.S. deaths!
Sunday, November 26, 2006
9/11 widows demand accountability
NEW PETITION, PLEASE SIGN
9/11 WIDOWS PETITION TO HOLD THE ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS ON POSSIBLE 9/11 FOREKNOWLEDGE:
[Fwd from 9/11 Widows: Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken --
Please help us break the 100k mark with this important petition and use it to build support for a new investigation in the new year. Please forward and post widely]
All American Citizens,
Please join us by adding your name to the online petition at the link below. If you experience problems with the link, copy and paste into your browser. Please pass this on! Thank you,Patty CasazzaMonica GabrielleMindy KleinbergLorie Van Auken
Public's Right To Know - Declassification and Release of Documents
To: U. S. Congress; Press/Media
We, the undersigned, demand the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. It has been alleged that this urgent and out-of-the-ordinary meeting was called to discuss the increasingly dire warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack within the U.S.Given that much of the July 10, 2001 meeting has already been made public in Bob Woodward’s newly released book, “State of Denial”, it is unacceptable to continue to keep these documents and transcripts hidden from the American public’s view.In addition, we again call for the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General’s report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks”.
The disastrous nature of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks warrant the release of all of this information so that the American public may learn what its government did or did not do to protect them. Had this nation been properly warned of the looming and imminent terrorist threat, life saving choices could have been made that day.
Sincerely,
http://www.petitiononline.com/july10/petition.html
9/11 WIDOWS PETITION TO HOLD THE ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS ON POSSIBLE 9/11 FOREKNOWLEDGE:
[Fwd from 9/11 Widows: Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken --
Please help us break the 100k mark with this important petition and use it to build support for a new investigation in the new year. Please forward and post widely]
All American Citizens,
Please join us by adding your name to the online petition at the link below. If you experience problems with the link, copy and paste into your browser. Please pass this on! Thank you,Patty CasazzaMonica GabrielleMindy KleinbergLorie Van Auken
Public's Right To Know - Declassification and Release of Documents
To: U. S. Congress; Press/Media
We, the undersigned, demand the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then-National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. It has been alleged that this urgent and out-of-the-ordinary meeting was called to discuss the increasingly dire warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack within the U.S.Given that much of the July 10, 2001 meeting has already been made public in Bob Woodward’s newly released book, “State of Denial”, it is unacceptable to continue to keep these documents and transcripts hidden from the American public’s view.In addition, we again call for the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General’s report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks”.
The disastrous nature of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks warrant the release of all of this information so that the American public may learn what its government did or did not do to protect them. Had this nation been properly warned of the looming and imminent terrorist threat, life saving choices could have been made that day.
Sincerely,
http://www.petitiononline.com/july10/petition.html
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
An Inconvenient Truth
Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is now on video to rent or own.
It makes a great educational gift for the holidays. Set up a family or mass viewing. Help spread this urgent message.
Global Warming by the Numbers
Some chilling statistics to think about:
1 - Rank of 2005 as hottest year on record (tied with 1998), according to NASA.100 % - Increase in intensity and duration of hurricanes and tropical stormssince the 1970's, according to a 2005 MIT study.
$100 billion - Estimate of damage caused by hurricanes hitting the U.S. coast in 2005 alone, according to the National Climatic Data Center.
2030 - Year by which Glacier National Park will have no glaciers left, according to the U.S. Geological Survey predictions.
400,000 - Square miles of Arctic sea ice that have melted in the last 30 years (roughly the size of Texas), threatening polar bear habitats and further accelerating global warming worldwide, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
15-37%- Amount of plant and animal species that global warming could wipe out by 2050.
1 - Rank of the United States as a global warming polluter compared to other large nations.
6- Number of former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency leaders who say the U.S. is not doing enough to fight global warming.
0- Number of bills passed by Congress to cut global warming pollution.
0- Number of times President Bush has mentioned the words "global warming," or "climate change" in previous State of the Union addresses.
2003 - Europe suffered worst heat wave in history where 27,000 people died
US and Australia didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty
It took 10 centuries for the oceans to rise as much as they did in the 20th century.
Sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2005 Study, Nature Magazine January 2004, National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
Buy the DVD here: http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al-Gore/dp/B000ICL3KG/sr=8-1/qid=1164211813/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3139561-5622534?ie=UTF8&s=dvd
Buy the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671/sr=8-2/qid=1164211840/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-3139561-5622534?ie=UTF8&s=books
Or rent it at any Blockbuster or Hollywood Video store
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Real Deal on Iraq
Leave our country now
From the first days of the US-British invasion of Iraq, oil workers have resisted foreign occupation.
Hassan Juma'a Awad
The Guardian
"We lived through dark days under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. When the regime fell, people wanted a new life: a life without shackles and terror; a life where we could rebuild our country and enjoy its natural wealth. Instead, our communities have been attacked with chemicals and cluster bombs, and our people tortured, raped and killed in our homes.
Saddam's secret police used to creep over the roofs into our homes at night; occupation troops now break down our doors in broad daylight. The media do not show even a fraction of the devastation that has engulfed Iraq. Journalists who dare to report the truth of what is happening have been kidnapped by terrorists. This serves the agenda of the occupation, which aims to eliminate witnesses to its crimes.
Workers in Iraq's southern oilfields began organising soon after British occupying forces invaded Basra. We founded our union, the Southern Oil Company Union, just 11 days after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. When the occupation troops stood back and allowed Basra's hospitals, universities and public services to be burned and looted, while they defended only the oil ministry and oilfields, we knew we were dealing with a brutal force prepared to impose its will without regard for human suffering. From the beginning, we were left in no doubt that the US and its allies had come to take control of our oil resources.
The occupation authorities have maintained many of Saddam's repressive laws, including the 1987 order which robbed us of basic union rights, including the right to strike. Today, we still have no official recognition as a trade union, despite having 23,000 members in 10 oil and gas companies in Basra, Amara, Nassiriya, and up to Anbar province. However, we draw our legitimacy from the workers, not the government. We believe unions should operate regardless of the government's wishes, until the people are able finally to elect a genuinely accountable and independent Iraqi government, which represents our interests and not those of American imperialism.
Our union is independent of any political party. Most trade unions in Britain only seem to be aware of one union federation in Iraq, the regime-authorised Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, whose president, Rassim Awadi, is deputy leader of the US-imposed prime minister Ayad Allawi's party. The IFTU's leadership is carved up between the pro-government Communist party, Allawi's Iraqi National Accord, and their satellites. In fact, there are two other union federations, which are linked to political parties, as well as our own organisation.Our union has already shown it is able to stand its ground against one of the most powerful US companies, Dick Cheney's KBR, which tried to take over our workplaces with the protection of occupation forces.We forced them out and compelled their Kuwaiti subcontractor, Al Khourafi, to replace 1,000 of the 1,200 employees it brought with it with Iraqi workers, 70% of whom are unemployed today. We also fought US viceroy Paul Bremer's wage schedule, which dictated that Iraqi public sector workers must earn ID 69,000 ($35) per month, while paying up to $1,000 a day to thousands of foreign mercenaries. In August 2003 we took strike action and shut down all oil production for three days. As a result, the occupation authorities had to raise wages to a minimum of ID 150,000.
We see it as our duty to defend the country's resources. We reject and will oppose all moves to privatise our oil industry and national resources. We regard this privatisation as a form of neo-colonialism, an attempt to impose a permanent economic occupation to follow the military occupation.The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country.
We will solve our own problems. We are Iraqis, we know our country and we can take care of ourselves. We have the means, the skills and resources to rebuild and create our own democratic society."
Hassan Juma'a Awad is general secretary of Iraq's Southern Oil Company Union and president of the Basra Oil Workers' Union
From the first days of the US-British invasion of Iraq, oil workers have resisted foreign occupation.
Hassan Juma'a Awad
The Guardian
"We lived through dark days under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. When the regime fell, people wanted a new life: a life without shackles and terror; a life where we could rebuild our country and enjoy its natural wealth. Instead, our communities have been attacked with chemicals and cluster bombs, and our people tortured, raped and killed in our homes.
Saddam's secret police used to creep over the roofs into our homes at night; occupation troops now break down our doors in broad daylight. The media do not show even a fraction of the devastation that has engulfed Iraq. Journalists who dare to report the truth of what is happening have been kidnapped by terrorists. This serves the agenda of the occupation, which aims to eliminate witnesses to its crimes.
Workers in Iraq's southern oilfields began organising soon after British occupying forces invaded Basra. We founded our union, the Southern Oil Company Union, just 11 days after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003. When the occupation troops stood back and allowed Basra's hospitals, universities and public services to be burned and looted, while they defended only the oil ministry and oilfields, we knew we were dealing with a brutal force prepared to impose its will without regard for human suffering. From the beginning, we were left in no doubt that the US and its allies had come to take control of our oil resources.
The occupation authorities have maintained many of Saddam's repressive laws, including the 1987 order which robbed us of basic union rights, including the right to strike. Today, we still have no official recognition as a trade union, despite having 23,000 members in 10 oil and gas companies in Basra, Amara, Nassiriya, and up to Anbar province. However, we draw our legitimacy from the workers, not the government. We believe unions should operate regardless of the government's wishes, until the people are able finally to elect a genuinely accountable and independent Iraqi government, which represents our interests and not those of American imperialism.
Our union is independent of any political party. Most trade unions in Britain only seem to be aware of one union federation in Iraq, the regime-authorised Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, whose president, Rassim Awadi, is deputy leader of the US-imposed prime minister Ayad Allawi's party. The IFTU's leadership is carved up between the pro-government Communist party, Allawi's Iraqi National Accord, and their satellites. In fact, there are two other union federations, which are linked to political parties, as well as our own organisation.Our union has already shown it is able to stand its ground against one of the most powerful US companies, Dick Cheney's KBR, which tried to take over our workplaces with the protection of occupation forces.We forced them out and compelled their Kuwaiti subcontractor, Al Khourafi, to replace 1,000 of the 1,200 employees it brought with it with Iraqi workers, 70% of whom are unemployed today. We also fought US viceroy Paul Bremer's wage schedule, which dictated that Iraqi public sector workers must earn ID 69,000 ($35) per month, while paying up to $1,000 a day to thousands of foreign mercenaries. In August 2003 we took strike action and shut down all oil production for three days. As a result, the occupation authorities had to raise wages to a minimum of ID 150,000.
We see it as our duty to defend the country's resources. We reject and will oppose all moves to privatise our oil industry and national resources. We regard this privatisation as a form of neo-colonialism, an attempt to impose a permanent economic occupation to follow the military occupation.The occupation has deliberately fomented a sectarian division of Sunni and Shia. We never knew this sort of division before. Our families intermarried, we lived and worked together. And today we are resisting this brutal occupation together, from Falluja to Najaf to Sadr City. The resistance to the occupation forces is a God-given right of Iraqis, and we, as a union, see ourselves as a necessary part of this resistance - although we will fight using our industrial power, our collective strength as a union, and as a part of civil society which needs to grow in order to defeat both still-powerful Saddamist elites and the foreign occupation of our country.
We will solve our own problems. We are Iraqis, we know our country and we can take care of ourselves. We have the means, the skills and resources to rebuild and create our own democratic society."
Hassan Juma'a Awad is general secretary of Iraq's Southern Oil Company Union and president of the Basra Oil Workers' Union
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Civil Liberties Links
There's a wealth of important information there.
Harmony's Home Page: Civil Liberties
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7076/civilliberty.html
Harmony's Home Page: Civil Liberties
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7076/civilliberty.html
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Vietnam reminder: a toxic legacy
Here's just one little reminder for George W. Bush what Vietnam accomplished, since he said this weekend on his 30-year-late trip to Vietnam, how we need to use Vietnam as an example for Iraq and stay and finish our job.
Vietnam's toxic legacy
Officials move to address lingering effects of Agent Orange contamination
By Anthony Faiola
DA NANG, Vietnam - For a stark reminder of the Vietnam War, people living near the airport in this central industrial city can still stroll along the old stone walls that once surrounded a U.S. military base. But Luu Thi Nguyen, a 31-year-old homemaker, needs only to look into the face of her young daughter.
Van, 5, spends her days at home, playing by herself on the concrete floor because local school officials say her appearance frightens other children. She has an oversize head and a severely deformed mouth, and her upper body is covered in a rash so severe her skin appears to have been boiled. According to Vietnamese medical authorities, she is part of a new generation of Agent Orange victims, forever scarred by the U.S.-made herbicide containing dioxin, one of the world's most toxic pollutants.
For decades, the United States and Vietnam have wrangled over the question of responsibility for the U.S. military's deployment of Agent Orange. But officials say they are now moving to jointly address at least one important aspect of the spraying's aftermath -- environmental damage at Vietnamese "hot spots" such as Nguyen's city, Da Nang -- that are still contaminated with dioxin 31 years after the fall of Saigon.Though neither Nguyen nor her husband was exposed to the Agent Orange sprayed by U.S. forces from 1962 to 1971, officials here say they believe the couple genetically passed on dioxin's side effects after eating fish from contaminated canals. "I am not interested in blaming anyone at this point," the soft-spoken Nguyen said on a recent day, stroking her daughter's face. "But the contamination should not keep doing this to our children. It must be cleaned up."
During the war, American forces sprayed about 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over the jungle canopies and jade-green highlands of Vietnam. The most toxic of the herbicides used for military purposes, it defoliated countless trees in areas where the communist North Vietnamese troops hid supply lines and conducted guerrilla warfare.
Because Vietnam lacked the resources to conduct its own environmental cleanup, dioxin-related birth defects have been diagnosed in thousands of children whose parents were not exposed during the war. In many cases, families such as the Nguyens were not warned of the hazard until it was too late.
At least one group of victims has already made a formal push for compensation, filing a lawsuit in New York against the chemical companies that produced Agent Orange, including Dow Chemical and Monsanto. In the late 1970s, U.S. veterans filed a similar case and settled out of court in 1984 for a $180 million payment. The Vietnamese case was dismissed last year, but an appeal hearing is expected next month.
The recent advances toward cleaning up the environment are of little solace to these Vietnamese. In a country where birth defects are considered by some an embarrassing reflection of the ill deeds of ancestors, many of the children born with the most severe defects end up abandoned or living in squalid conditions with families too poor to pay for adequate care.The lucky ones end up in the Peace Village ward for Agent Orange victims at a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon.
A 2004 study by the Vietnamese government indicated that birth defects in Sathay were 10 to 20 times more common than the national average. Duc Nguyen is engaged to be married next month to a beautiful young woman he met through his work at the hospital. But he is still far from finding peace."I find it ironic that on one hand you put [Saddam Hussein] on trial for using biological warfare, but in another country where you sprayed chemicals for warfare, you neglect your responsibility," said Duc Nguyen, who is not related to Luu Thi Nguyen in Da Nang.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15692010/from/ET/
If it had been up to Bush, we'd still be in Vietnam spraying WMD on the civilians. Here's another reminder for Bush since he forgets Vietnam probably because he was too busy skipping out on his National Guard duty to get drunk: 58,000+ dead American troops and thousands more scarred and maimed.
Vietnam's toxic legacy
Officials move to address lingering effects of Agent Orange contamination
By Anthony Faiola
DA NANG, Vietnam - For a stark reminder of the Vietnam War, people living near the airport in this central industrial city can still stroll along the old stone walls that once surrounded a U.S. military base. But Luu Thi Nguyen, a 31-year-old homemaker, needs only to look into the face of her young daughter.
Van, 5, spends her days at home, playing by herself on the concrete floor because local school officials say her appearance frightens other children. She has an oversize head and a severely deformed mouth, and her upper body is covered in a rash so severe her skin appears to have been boiled. According to Vietnamese medical authorities, she is part of a new generation of Agent Orange victims, forever scarred by the U.S.-made herbicide containing dioxin, one of the world's most toxic pollutants.
For decades, the United States and Vietnam have wrangled over the question of responsibility for the U.S. military's deployment of Agent Orange. But officials say they are now moving to jointly address at least one important aspect of the spraying's aftermath -- environmental damage at Vietnamese "hot spots" such as Nguyen's city, Da Nang -- that are still contaminated with dioxin 31 years after the fall of Saigon.Though neither Nguyen nor her husband was exposed to the Agent Orange sprayed by U.S. forces from 1962 to 1971, officials here say they believe the couple genetically passed on dioxin's side effects after eating fish from contaminated canals. "I am not interested in blaming anyone at this point," the soft-spoken Nguyen said on a recent day, stroking her daughter's face. "But the contamination should not keep doing this to our children. It must be cleaned up."
During the war, American forces sprayed about 12 million gallons of Agent Orange over the jungle canopies and jade-green highlands of Vietnam. The most toxic of the herbicides used for military purposes, it defoliated countless trees in areas where the communist North Vietnamese troops hid supply lines and conducted guerrilla warfare.
Because Vietnam lacked the resources to conduct its own environmental cleanup, dioxin-related birth defects have been diagnosed in thousands of children whose parents were not exposed during the war. In many cases, families such as the Nguyens were not warned of the hazard until it was too late.
At least one group of victims has already made a formal push for compensation, filing a lawsuit in New York against the chemical companies that produced Agent Orange, including Dow Chemical and Monsanto. In the late 1970s, U.S. veterans filed a similar case and settled out of court in 1984 for a $180 million payment. The Vietnamese case was dismissed last year, but an appeal hearing is expected next month.
The recent advances toward cleaning up the environment are of little solace to these Vietnamese. In a country where birth defects are considered by some an embarrassing reflection of the ill deeds of ancestors, many of the children born with the most severe defects end up abandoned or living in squalid conditions with families too poor to pay for adequate care.The lucky ones end up in the Peace Village ward for Agent Orange victims at a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, formerly Saigon.
A 2004 study by the Vietnamese government indicated that birth defects in Sathay were 10 to 20 times more common than the national average. Duc Nguyen is engaged to be married next month to a beautiful young woman he met through his work at the hospital. But he is still far from finding peace."I find it ironic that on one hand you put [Saddam Hussein] on trial for using biological warfare, but in another country where you sprayed chemicals for warfare, you neglect your responsibility," said Duc Nguyen, who is not related to Luu Thi Nguyen in Da Nang.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15692010/from/ET/
If it had been up to Bush, we'd still be in Vietnam spraying WMD on the civilians. Here's another reminder for Bush since he forgets Vietnam probably because he was too busy skipping out on his National Guard duty to get drunk: 58,000+ dead American troops and thousands more scarred and maimed.
Friday, November 17, 2006
After skipping out in the early 70's, Bush finally goes to Vietnam
George W. Bush is finally in Vietnam. It took him over 30 years, but he made it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15742536/
So where was he back then?
President Bush has failed to answer lingering questions about his Vietnam-era National Guard service. The American people deserve to know the answers to the following questions because the truth about a president's credentials are important:
● Bush has said he used no special treatment to get into the Guard, but how does he explain the fact that he jumped ahead of 150 applicants despite low pilot aptitude scores?
● Col. Albert Lloyd said, “A report from Alabama to Ellington should have been filed.” Where is that report?
● Why did Bush miss his medical exam in 1972?
● Where are the complete results of the required investigation into Bush’s failure to take that exam?
● Why does the White House say Bush was on base when Bush’s superiors had filed a report saying he was gone for a whole year?
● Why is the Pentagon under orders to not discuss Bush’s record with reporters?
● Where are Bush’s flight logs?
● Why was the microfilm containing Bush’s military records destroyed?
● On May 2, 1973, Bush’s superior officers William D. Harris Jr. and Jerry B. Killian, wrote on his yearly evaluation form, “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report” on the very day that pay records released by the White House say Bush was on the base. Those pay records, released in February 2004, along with dental records and retirement point summaries, suggest Bush performed some sort of service in Alabama at least sporadically between October 1972 and May 1973. But they do not account for a six-month gap in Bush’s record between May and October 1972.
● Only 1 man ( who happens to be his friend) remembers Bush serving at some point on the Alabama base, while over fifteen Guardsmen from Bush’s would-be unit say they have no recollection of him showing up for duty.
So now that Bush is finally in Vietnam, let's see what kind of mess he can get himself into there.
Just in case you want to argue that Clinton dodged the draft, we’ll clarify that he actually didn’t. This was just another spin that we have all heard through the dirty media. Clinton actually registered, showed up, and took a physical. 1- He failed his hearing test, which disqualified him from the Navy. 2- He did not have perfect vision, which prevented him from joining the Air Force. 3- His leg was injured as a teenager and never healed perfectly, which exempted him from any ground service. 4- He was a student on an academic scholarship and did not have to serve in the first place. 5- He did not believe in the war. You’re right, Clinton didn’t serve, but he has an admirable past since he came from a poor family and rose up through hard work and determination. When the Bush National Guard truth showed up, the media was criticized for attacking a candidate. But isn't a candidate's past accomplishments necessary in order to evaluate someone for a job? Clinton told the truth about this and he got attacked. Bush lied and he go away with it. Clinton lied about a personal affair and he got attacked. Bush lied about a war that killed thousands and he gets off scott free? Where is that liberal bias in the media now?
Oh and what about Dick? When is he finally going to get over to Vietnam?
When the draft began for Vietnam, Cheney woke up and enrolled at Casper Community College, (he had previosuly flunked out of college). Cheney then transferred to University of Wyoming, which kept him out of the draft until 8/7/64. Married Lynne Vincent earning another deferment. On Oct. 26, 1965 the Selective Service announced that childless married men were no longer exempted from service: 9 months and 2 days later, Cheney’s first daughter Elizabeth was born. Received a total of five deferments between ‘63 & ‘66. Turned 26 in January 1967 making him safe from the draft and enabling him to abandon his mock-doctoral work at the University of Wisconsin.
The one time Cheney has answered the question as to why he avoided serving in Vietnam he said, “I had other priorities.”
By the way, Al Gore, John Kerry, they did go to Vietnam.
So where was he back then?
President Bush has failed to answer lingering questions about his Vietnam-era National Guard service. The American people deserve to know the answers to the following questions because the truth about a president's credentials are important:
● Bush has said he used no special treatment to get into the Guard, but how does he explain the fact that he jumped ahead of 150 applicants despite low pilot aptitude scores?
● Col. Albert Lloyd said, “A report from Alabama to Ellington should have been filed.” Where is that report?
● Why did Bush miss his medical exam in 1972?
● Where are the complete results of the required investigation into Bush’s failure to take that exam?
● Why does the White House say Bush was on base when Bush’s superiors had filed a report saying he was gone for a whole year?
● Why is the Pentagon under orders to not discuss Bush’s record with reporters?
● Where are Bush’s flight logs?
● Why was the microfilm containing Bush’s military records destroyed?
● On May 2, 1973, Bush’s superior officers William D. Harris Jr. and Jerry B. Killian, wrote on his yearly evaluation form, “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report” on the very day that pay records released by the White House say Bush was on the base. Those pay records, released in February 2004, along with dental records and retirement point summaries, suggest Bush performed some sort of service in Alabama at least sporadically between October 1972 and May 1973. But they do not account for a six-month gap in Bush’s record between May and October 1972.
● Only 1 man ( who happens to be his friend) remembers Bush serving at some point on the Alabama base, while over fifteen Guardsmen from Bush’s would-be unit say they have no recollection of him showing up for duty.
So now that Bush is finally in Vietnam, let's see what kind of mess he can get himself into there.
Just in case you want to argue that Clinton dodged the draft, we’ll clarify that he actually didn’t. This was just another spin that we have all heard through the dirty media. Clinton actually registered, showed up, and took a physical. 1- He failed his hearing test, which disqualified him from the Navy. 2- He did not have perfect vision, which prevented him from joining the Air Force. 3- His leg was injured as a teenager and never healed perfectly, which exempted him from any ground service. 4- He was a student on an academic scholarship and did not have to serve in the first place. 5- He did not believe in the war. You’re right, Clinton didn’t serve, but he has an admirable past since he came from a poor family and rose up through hard work and determination. When the Bush National Guard truth showed up, the media was criticized for attacking a candidate. But isn't a candidate's past accomplishments necessary in order to evaluate someone for a job? Clinton told the truth about this and he got attacked. Bush lied and he go away with it. Clinton lied about a personal affair and he got attacked. Bush lied about a war that killed thousands and he gets off scott free? Where is that liberal bias in the media now?
Oh and what about Dick? When is he finally going to get over to Vietnam?
When the draft began for Vietnam, Cheney woke up and enrolled at Casper Community College, (he had previosuly flunked out of college). Cheney then transferred to University of Wyoming, which kept him out of the draft until 8/7/64. Married Lynne Vincent earning another deferment. On Oct. 26, 1965 the Selective Service announced that childless married men were no longer exempted from service: 9 months and 2 days later, Cheney’s first daughter Elizabeth was born. Received a total of five deferments between ‘63 & ‘66. Turned 26 in January 1967 making him safe from the draft and enabling him to abandon his mock-doctoral work at the University of Wisconsin.
The one time Cheney has answered the question as to why he avoided serving in Vietnam he said, “I had other priorities.”
By the way, Al Gore, John Kerry, they did go to Vietnam.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
The world sees the 2006 election as a turning point
World sees vote changing foreign policy
'The end of a six-year nightmare for the world,' EU parliamentarians say
The Associated Press
MADRID, Spain - The seismic shift that midterm elections brought to Washington’s political landscape was welcomed by many Wednesday in a world sharply opposed to the war in Iraq and outraged over the harsh methods the Bush administration has employed in fighting terrorism.
From Paris to Pakistan, politicians, analysts and ordinary citizens said they hoped the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives would force President Bush to adopt a more conciliatory approach to global crises, and teach a president many see as a “cowboy” a lesson in humility.
But some also expressed fears that a split in power and a lame-duck president might stall global trade talks and weaken much-needed American influence.
In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world” and gloated that they left the Bush administration “seriously weakened.”
In London's Guardian newspaper, commentator Martin Kettle wrote: "The cheering can be heard not just in America itself but around the planet."
In Paris, expatriates and French citizens alike packed the city’s main American haunts to watch results, with some standing to cheer or boo as vote tabulations came in.
One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, 53, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.
“Americans are realizing that you can’t found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes,” he said. “You can’t fool everybody all the time — and I think that’s what Bush and his administration are learning today.”
Bush is deeply unpopular in many countries around the globe, with particularly intense opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the U.S. terror detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of Washington sanctioned interrogation methods that some equate with torture.
In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez said the Democrats won the election thanks to a "reprisal vote."
'Bush is no longer acceptable'People across the Mideast also reacted swiftly, saying it appeared the U.S. president had paid the price for what many view as failed policy in Iraq.
Most governments across the region had no official comment, but some opponents of the United States reacted harshly. “President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide,” said Suleiman Hadad, a lawmaker in Syria, whose autocratic government has been shunned by the U.S.
Iranian state television blamed U.S. strategy in the Middle East for the change. "Experts believe that Bush's wrong strategy in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as financial corruption in the United States, was the main reason for the failure of Republicans in the midterm election."
Even some Iraqis voiced hope for change.
“We hope American foreign policy will change and that living conditions in Iraq will improve,” said 48-year-old engineer Suheil Jabar, a Shiite Muslim in Baghdad.
In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush’s values. He referred to the president as “that cowboy.”
In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.
The Democratic win means “there will be more control and restraint” over U.S. foreign policy. said Jehan Perera, a political analyst.
Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular despite billions in aid and support for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
One opposition lawmaker, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result but hoped for more. Bush “deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence,” he said.
But while the result clearly produced more jubilation than jitters, there were deep concerns.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told broadcaster TV2 he hoped that the president and the new Congress would find “common ground on questions about Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“The world needs a vigorous U.S.A.,” Fogh Rasmussen said.
Worries in China
Some also worried that Democrats, who have a reputation for being more protective of U.S. jobs going overseas, will make it harder to achieve a global free trade accord.
The accord, said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, “is very important for the future of trans-Atlantic relations.”
And in China, some feared the resurgence of the Democrats would increase tension over human rights and trade and labor issues. China’s surging economy has a massive trade surplus with the United States.
“The Democratic Party ... will protect the interests of small and medium American enterprises and labor and that could produce an impact on China-U.S. trade relations,” Zhang Guoqing of the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said in a report on Sina.com, a popular Chinese Internet portal.
The prospect of a sudden change in American foreign policy could be troubling to U.S. allies such as Britain, Japan and Australia, which have thrown their support behind the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Democrats campaigned on a platform that demanded a change of direction in Iraq, and the war has lost the support of the majority of American voters.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15618695/
'The end of a six-year nightmare for the world,' EU parliamentarians say
The Associated Press
MADRID, Spain - The seismic shift that midterm elections brought to Washington’s political landscape was welcomed by many Wednesday in a world sharply opposed to the war in Iraq and outraged over the harsh methods the Bush administration has employed in fighting terrorism.
From Paris to Pakistan, politicians, analysts and ordinary citizens said they hoped the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives would force President Bush to adopt a more conciliatory approach to global crises, and teach a president many see as a “cowboy” a lesson in humility.
But some also expressed fears that a split in power and a lame-duck president might stall global trade talks and weaken much-needed American influence.
In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world” and gloated that they left the Bush administration “seriously weakened.”
In London's Guardian newspaper, commentator Martin Kettle wrote: "The cheering can be heard not just in America itself but around the planet."
In Paris, expatriates and French citizens alike packed the city’s main American haunts to watch results, with some standing to cheer or boo as vote tabulations came in.
One Frenchman, teacher Jean-Pierre Charpemtrat, 53, said it was about time U.S. voters figured out what much of the rest of the world already knew.
“Americans are realizing that you can’t found the politics of a country on patriotic passion and reflexes,” he said. “You can’t fool everybody all the time — and I think that’s what Bush and his administration are learning today.”
Bush is deeply unpopular in many countries around the globe, with particularly intense opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the U.S. terror detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and allegations of Washington sanctioned interrogation methods that some equate with torture.
In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez said the Democrats won the election thanks to a "reprisal vote."
'Bush is no longer acceptable'People across the Mideast also reacted swiftly, saying it appeared the U.S. president had paid the price for what many view as failed policy in Iraq.
Most governments across the region had no official comment, but some opponents of the United States reacted harshly. “President Bush is no longer acceptable worldwide,” said Suleiman Hadad, a lawmaker in Syria, whose autocratic government has been shunned by the U.S.
Iranian state television blamed U.S. strategy in the Middle East for the change. "Experts believe that Bush's wrong strategy in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as financial corruption in the United States, was the main reason for the failure of Republicans in the midterm election."
Even some Iraqis voiced hope for change.
“We hope American foreign policy will change and that living conditions in Iraq will improve,” said 48-year-old engineer Suheil Jabar, a Shiite Muslim in Baghdad.
In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush’s values. He referred to the president as “that cowboy.”
In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.
The Democratic win means “there will be more control and restraint” over U.S. foreign policy. said Jehan Perera, a political analyst.
Passions were even higher in Pakistan, where Bush is deeply unpopular despite billions in aid and support for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
One opposition lawmaker, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, said he welcomed the election result but hoped for more. Bush “deserves to be removed, put on trial and given a Saddam-like death sentence,” he said.
But while the result clearly produced more jubilation than jitters, there were deep concerns.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told broadcaster TV2 he hoped that the president and the new Congress would find “common ground on questions about Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“The world needs a vigorous U.S.A.,” Fogh Rasmussen said.
Worries in China
Some also worried that Democrats, who have a reputation for being more protective of U.S. jobs going overseas, will make it harder to achieve a global free trade accord.
The accord, said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, “is very important for the future of trans-Atlantic relations.”
And in China, some feared the resurgence of the Democrats would increase tension over human rights and trade and labor issues. China’s surging economy has a massive trade surplus with the United States.
“The Democratic Party ... will protect the interests of small and medium American enterprises and labor and that could produce an impact on China-U.S. trade relations,” Zhang Guoqing of the state-run Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said in a report on Sina.com, a popular Chinese Internet portal.
The prospect of a sudden change in American foreign policy could be troubling to U.S. allies such as Britain, Japan and Australia, which have thrown their support behind the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Democrats campaigned on a platform that demanded a change of direction in Iraq, and the war has lost the support of the majority of American voters.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15618695/
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The day has passed
Election 2006 has passed, and even with voter fraud and intimidation occurring, the Democrats still took Congress. This was much expected and I clearly predicted this win in my book, even though I was concerned about the actual electoral process on voting day. With investigations into 2006 election allegations of fraud and intimidation being launched, with a Democratic Congress there will also now be more intensified investigations of election 2000, 2004, 9/11, the Iraq war intelligence, the Iraq war profiteers, and other forms of various corruption committed by our fading Republican Congress and their lame duck president.
However, some on the far left have already come out blasting Democrats in Congress for not launching their investigations or impeachment. This was all within 23 hours of our nation learning the Democrats had sealed the win. Relax, the Democrats aren't even in power yet. If a few weeks pass after they get in in January and they're saying the same thing then you can start putting pressure on them. But even if they don't say anything or say that they're not going to press the issue, it doesn't mean they're not actively pursuing it. Action is a lot louder than words. What would announcing a mission for impeachment do? Not much other than make them look like Republicans.
Let the Democrats get in there and start rebuilding. We can be assured that investigations are going to begin, continue, and intensify. We can also be assured that impeachment is only a step away. Don't take everything the Democrats say so literally. It's politics. They have to play the game too. Remember that while the House is secured for a time, the Senate can easily change again in just two years. Remember that we now have to focus on getting a progressive leader back in the White House in 2008. Attacking the ones trying to fix the problem isn't going to accomplish much.
This was a real American victory. A victory for democracy. Record numbers of voters turned out to clean up Congress and get the corruption out. A victory for progress. All of those corrupt Republican bigots like Senators Santorum and DeLay are gone. The very ones who helped seal our nation's dark fate, by installing George W. Bush twice, met their own fate with devastating losses, Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris. Many of the old timers were replaced with young progressive blood. But our nation is far from fixed. There is much to do for 2008 and beyond. So who will our leader be? Who will walk us into the light and restore morality to the White House? Who will be the one to fix our nation?
However, some on the far left have already come out blasting Democrats in Congress for not launching their investigations or impeachment. This was all within 23 hours of our nation learning the Democrats had sealed the win. Relax, the Democrats aren't even in power yet. If a few weeks pass after they get in in January and they're saying the same thing then you can start putting pressure on them. But even if they don't say anything or say that they're not going to press the issue, it doesn't mean they're not actively pursuing it. Action is a lot louder than words. What would announcing a mission for impeachment do? Not much other than make them look like Republicans.
Let the Democrats get in there and start rebuilding. We can be assured that investigations are going to begin, continue, and intensify. We can also be assured that impeachment is only a step away. Don't take everything the Democrats say so literally. It's politics. They have to play the game too. Remember that while the House is secured for a time, the Senate can easily change again in just two years. Remember that we now have to focus on getting a progressive leader back in the White House in 2008. Attacking the ones trying to fix the problem isn't going to accomplish much.
This was a real American victory. A victory for democracy. Record numbers of voters turned out to clean up Congress and get the corruption out. A victory for progress. All of those corrupt Republican bigots like Senators Santorum and DeLay are gone. The very ones who helped seal our nation's dark fate, by installing George W. Bush twice, met their own fate with devastating losses, Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris. Many of the old timers were replaced with young progressive blood. But our nation is far from fixed. There is much to do for 2008 and beyond. So who will our leader be? Who will walk us into the light and restore morality to the White House? Who will be the one to fix our nation?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
The day has arrived
Election 2006 has arrived. I brought a broom with me to the polls, as Michael Moore suggested in an email earlier today. When they asked what I was doing, I told them "cleaning up America," even though my New York votes are the ones that really matter in this race. In this election, it is the red and swing states that matter, the same ones where there are already reports of fraud and voter intimidation.
Election workers seeing voting problems
Complaints in Fla., Ind., Ohio, Miss. as workers tangle with new machines
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15590530/
FBI looking into possible Va. voter intimidation
Officials probing reports of phone calls allegedly intended to confuse voters
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15603344/
For on-going updates see:
http://bradblog.com/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/11/post.html
Let's see what happens!
Election workers seeing voting problems
Complaints in Fla., Ind., Ohio, Miss. as workers tangle with new machines
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15590530/
FBI looking into possible Va. voter intimidation
Officials probing reports of phone calls allegedly intended to confuse voters
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15603344/
For on-going updates see:
http://bradblog.com/
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/11/post.html
Let's see what happens!
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Friday, November 03, 2006
John Kerry's comments
I personally think it's silly that anyone even made such a big deal about this. Generally, the majority of troops in Iraq are not yet college educated. Most of them are also from middle to lower class families. These are all just facts. You can probably take anything said by any politician on any given day and blow it out of control. Why this one though? I'm not sure who is responsible for this outrage: Republicans, to change the subject even though it's actually putting more attention on Iraq? Kerry, to put more attention on Iraq? The media, to smear Kerry and/or Democrats? Or the media, to put more attention on Iraq?
And how about the fact that Hillary was one of the first to come out and say Kerry's comments were innappropriate? Just another reaon why I'm not voting for her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FfOGqLNweo&mode=related&search=
Either way, the Kerry comment is not changing the polls, which by the way, FOX are already starting their anti-poll campaign. "Polls are never right." "Polls don't say much." Etc. etc. etc. Are they getting ready for controversial results that conflict with the poll results???
And how about the fact that Hillary was one of the first to come out and say Kerry's comments were innappropriate? Just another reaon why I'm not voting for her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FfOGqLNweo&mode=related&search=
Either way, the Kerry comment is not changing the polls, which by the way, FOX are already starting their anti-poll campaign. "Polls are never right." "Polls don't say much." Etc. etc. etc. Are they getting ready for controversial results that conflict with the poll results???
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Who is profiting from the Iraq War?
Who is profiting from the Iraq War?
Parsons $5.3 billion
Dyncorp $1.9 billion
Trans Atlantic $5 billion
Titan $2 billion
Blackwater $200 million/ $73 million for Hurricane Katrina
CMCI $60 million
And last but not least, Halliburton - over $20 billion
All of these corporations have something in common:
Direct ties to Republicans
All of them have also mismanaged your tax dollars,
as there are millions of dollars that are unaccounted for.
Halliburton’s KBR is responsible for safe water for the troops,
yet only 4 out of 67 water tanks were safe.
Halliburton is charging $47 per six pack of soda,
soda that is already made in the Middle East.
Halliburton is charging $100 per bag of laundry they wash for the troops.
When a $80,000 vehicles gets a flat tire or stuck in the mud,
Halliburton blows it up and orders a new one, all at taxpayer expense.
Halliburton gave over 4.3 million in contributions to
PAC and Republican lobbyists.
Halliburton’ s CEO David Legar made $42 million last year.
And Dick Cheney, he continues to receive over $150,000 a year
in deferred compensation, and that’s not even including his
million dollar profits from Halliburton stock.
Meanwhile, the U.S. national debt has hit an all time high.
Even worse:
Over 3,000 American troops are dead
Over 25,000 American troops are permanently injured
To stop the corruption,
Democrats introduced legislation:
Dodd Amendment 3313- June 16, 2004-
To stop contractor fraud
Final vote: (42 Democrats, 1 Independent, 0 Republicans)
Leahy Amendment 3293- June 16, 2004-
To stop profiteering
Final vote: (45 Democrats, 1 Independent, 0 Republicans)
Dorgan Amendment 2476- November 10, 2005-
To investigate contracts
Final vote: ( Dem 42, 1 Ind, 1 Republican -Chafee R.I.)
Waxman Amendment 746- March 16, 2006-
To prohibit future contracts to those who overcharged
Final vote: (Dem 181, 1 Ind, 11 Republicans)
Dorgan Amendment 4230- June 14, 2006-
To eliminate fraud
Final vote: (42 Democrats, 0 Republicans)
Dorgan Amendment 4292- June 20, 2006-
To establish an investigative committee
Final vote: (43 Democrats, 1 Republican- Chafee- R.I.)
Unfortunetly, Congress is controlled by a Republican majority,
so none of these bills stood a chance.
Which way are you going to vote on Tuesday?
For corruption or against it?
For more information see: http://iraqforsale.org/
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is the story of what happens to
everyday Americans when corporations go to war. Robert Greenwald's
new documentary reveals the truth.
Sources:
United States Congressional Records
United States Pentagon Records
http://home.ourfuture.org/straighttalklive/war-profiteers_senate.html
http://home.ourfuture.org/straighttalklive/war-profiteers_house.html
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pr
http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2006/
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004PMC.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/singer
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/outsourcing_blame.php
http://home.ourfuture.org/reports/report-war-profiteers.pdf
http://iraqforsale.org/facts.php
Parsons $5.3 billion
Dyncorp $1.9 billion
Trans Atlantic $5 billion
Titan $2 billion
Blackwater $200 million/ $73 million for Hurricane Katrina
CMCI $60 million
And last but not least, Halliburton - over $20 billion
All of these corporations have something in common:
Direct ties to Republicans
All of them have also mismanaged your tax dollars,
as there are millions of dollars that are unaccounted for.
Halliburton’s KBR is responsible for safe water for the troops,
yet only 4 out of 67 water tanks were safe.
Halliburton is charging $47 per six pack of soda,
soda that is already made in the Middle East.
Halliburton is charging $100 per bag of laundry they wash for the troops.
When a $80,000 vehicles gets a flat tire or stuck in the mud,
Halliburton blows it up and orders a new one, all at taxpayer expense.
Halliburton gave over 4.3 million in contributions to
PAC and Republican lobbyists.
Halliburton’ s CEO David Legar made $42 million last year.
And Dick Cheney, he continues to receive over $150,000 a year
in deferred compensation, and that’s not even including his
million dollar profits from Halliburton stock.
Meanwhile, the U.S. national debt has hit an all time high.
Even worse:
Over 3,000 American troops are dead
Over 25,000 American troops are permanently injured
To stop the corruption,
Democrats introduced legislation:
Dodd Amendment 3313- June 16, 2004-
To stop contractor fraud
Final vote: (42 Democrats, 1 Independent, 0 Republicans)
Leahy Amendment 3293- June 16, 2004-
To stop profiteering
Final vote: (45 Democrats, 1 Independent, 0 Republicans)
Dorgan Amendment 2476- November 10, 2005-
To investigate contracts
Final vote: ( Dem 42, 1 Ind, 1 Republican -Chafee R.I.)
Waxman Amendment 746- March 16, 2006-
To prohibit future contracts to those who overcharged
Final vote: (Dem 181, 1 Ind, 11 Republicans)
Dorgan Amendment 4230- June 14, 2006-
To eliminate fraud
Final vote: (42 Democrats, 0 Republicans)
Dorgan Amendment 4292- June 20, 2006-
To establish an investigative committee
Final vote: (43 Democrats, 1 Republican- Chafee- R.I.)
Unfortunetly, Congress is controlled by a Republican majority,
so none of these bills stood a chance.
Which way are you going to vote on Tuesday?
For corruption or against it?
For more information see: http://iraqforsale.org/
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is the story of what happens to
everyday Americans when corporations go to war. Robert Greenwald's
new documentary reveals the truth.
Sources:
United States Congressional Records
United States Pentagon Records
http://home.ourfuture.org/straighttalklive/war-profiteers_senate.html
http://home.ourfuture.org/straighttalklive/war-profiteers_house.html
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pr
http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2006/
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004PMC.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/fellows/singer
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/outsourcing_blame.php
http://home.ourfuture.org/reports/report-war-profiteers.pdf
http://iraqforsale.org/facts.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)