"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun." ---October 18, 2000
Monday, January 31, 2005
Sunday, January 30, 2005
BUSHISM of the Day
"I recently met with the finance minister of the Palestinian Authority, was very impressed by his grasp of finances." ---May 29, 2003
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Friday, January 28, 2005
BUSHISM of the Day
"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating." ---April 3, 2000
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
BUSHISM of the Day
"I don't think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs." ---September 12, 2000
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Monday, January 24, 2005
Strategic Support Branch of the Defense Intelligence Agency
According to a report published in Sunday's Washington Post, the DoD has set up a special operations unit that reports directly to the SecDef for conducting clandestine human intelligence-gathering operations and special covert operations. Many inside the defense establishment see this move as an attempt by Donald Rumsfeld to set up a competing organization within the DoD similar to the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
In a statement released yesterday afternoon by the DoD press secretary, Lawrence DiRita, "There is no unit that is directly reportable to the Secretary of Defense for clandestine operations as is described in the Washington Post article of January 23, 2005" and the DoD "is not attempting to 'bend' [federal] statutes to fit desired activities." The further assertion by the Post was that the DoD's covert operations would not be reported to Congressional leaders because they would not fall under the same category as operations by the CIA.
This reportage echoed a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh (more to come about this) that asserts the United States not only has this capability, but that DoD special ops have been sent into Iran, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the last few months. This also follows the report I mentioned last week regarding 'death squads' similar to those used in El Salvador in the 1980s. Additionally, the New York Times today asserts similar arguments and facts about the Strategic Support Branch as those found in the Post article on Sunday.
Additional reporting today from both the NYTimes and the WashPost indicate that Congress and the Senate may be interested in investigating the accuracy of the recent media reports. If the SSB is tasked to perform 'covert' operations, then it would likely fall under the same categorization as CIA Directorate of Operations activities. If Congress determines that this is indeed the case, then the DoD may face some serious repercussions for failing to report the covert actions to Congressional leadership, as required by federal law.
I have a feeling that much more about this story will be showing up in major media outlets in the coming days. Keep your eyes peeled, and keep this thought in mind, "How likely will it be that Rumsfeld will be forced out if this story goes south for the Bush administration?"
In a statement released yesterday afternoon by the DoD press secretary, Lawrence DiRita, "There is no unit that is directly reportable to the Secretary of Defense for clandestine operations as is described in the Washington Post article of January 23, 2005" and the DoD "is not attempting to 'bend' [federal] statutes to fit desired activities." The further assertion by the Post was that the DoD's covert operations would not be reported to Congressional leaders because they would not fall under the same category as operations by the CIA.
This reportage echoed a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh (more to come about this) that asserts the United States not only has this capability, but that DoD special ops have been sent into Iran, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the last few months. This also follows the report I mentioned last week regarding 'death squads' similar to those used in El Salvador in the 1980s. Additionally, the New York Times today asserts similar arguments and facts about the Strategic Support Branch as those found in the Post article on Sunday.
Additional reporting today from both the NYTimes and the WashPost indicate that Congress and the Senate may be interested in investigating the accuracy of the recent media reports. If the SSB is tasked to perform 'covert' operations, then it would likely fall under the same categorization as CIA Directorate of Operations activities. If Congress determines that this is indeed the case, then the DoD may face some serious repercussions for failing to report the covert actions to Congressional leadership, as required by federal law.
I have a feeling that much more about this story will be showing up in major media outlets in the coming days. Keep your eyes peeled, and keep this thought in mind, "How likely will it be that Rumsfeld will be forced out if this story goes south for the Bush administration?"
BUSHISM of the Day
"The best way to relieve families from time is to let them keep some of their own money." ---September 13, 2000
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Re-evaluation of Iraqi Police and Military Training
Gen. Gary Luck (Ret) was sent to Iraq two weeks ago to assess the operations on the ground. His assessment so far has centered around providing more and faster training of Iraqi police and military forces. He argues that U.S. troops should double or triple the number of military advisors (up to 8000-10,000) that are currently training the Iraqi units. In his estimation, not enough is being done to increase the knowledge and skills of the Iraqi units so they are better able to conduct independent operations against the insurgents following the January 30 elections.
In her testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, SecState nominee Condoleeza Rice said that about 120,000 Iraqi troops have been trained by U.S. forces. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware called that assertion "malarkey" and responded that in his own interviews with soldiers in Iraq and visitation with troops on the ground, the number of Iraqi forces that have been trained to an acceptable level is closer to 4000!!
What I find amazing is that the experts that the Bush administration sends to Iraq are now repeating some of the same assertions and conclusions that Sen. John Kerry pointed out to the American people during the campaign for President last fall. Kerry repeatedly claimed that the U.S. was not doing enough to prepare Iraqi forces to take over responsibilities on the ground in Iraq, and that U.S. forces should step up training to better prepare Iraqis to fight the insurgency. His proposal, if he were elected, centered around increasing this training so that U.S. troops could come home sooner. Obviously, his assessment of the situation on the ground was correct, and our DoD has repeatedly failed to use the appropriate strategies to protect our troops and to get them home sooner. Should Donald Rumsfeld be held accountable? It certainly seems that way more and more often.
In her testimony last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee, SecState nominee Condoleeza Rice said that about 120,000 Iraqi troops have been trained by U.S. forces. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware called that assertion "malarkey" and responded that in his own interviews with soldiers in Iraq and visitation with troops on the ground, the number of Iraqi forces that have been trained to an acceptable level is closer to 4000!!
What I find amazing is that the experts that the Bush administration sends to Iraq are now repeating some of the same assertions and conclusions that Sen. John Kerry pointed out to the American people during the campaign for President last fall. Kerry repeatedly claimed that the U.S. was not doing enough to prepare Iraqi forces to take over responsibilities on the ground in Iraq, and that U.S. forces should step up training to better prepare Iraqis to fight the insurgency. His proposal, if he were elected, centered around increasing this training so that U.S. troops could come home sooner. Obviously, his assessment of the situation on the ground was correct, and our DoD has repeatedly failed to use the appropriate strategies to protect our troops and to get them home sooner. Should Donald Rumsfeld be held accountable? It certainly seems that way more and more often.
IRAQ Quote of the Day (from the NYTimes)
"Let me tell you something important. As long as my country is under occupation, I feel that my vote means nothing." ---WALID MUHAMMAD, the imam of a major Sunni mosque in Iraq.
It seems that most of the Sunni population of Iraq feels this way about not only the election, but about the presence of U.S. military personnel on Iraqi soil. This position either comes directly out of the al Qaeda/Osama bin Laden rhetoric regarding Muslim lands, or it comes from a reaction to the Shiite majority's position on the elections.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, the leading Shiite religious leader in Iraq, has encouraged all Shiites in Iraq to vote and to participate in the new government process. His position is that a secular government with an undercurrent of religion is acceptable; whereas, the Sunni position (in particular bin Laden's position) is that the government must be completely based upon the Qu'ran--the new government must be a theocracy.
It is interesting that these positions contradict existing governments in the Muslim world. For example, in Turkey--a Sunni government--the leadership takes a largely secular position in its governance even though a large majority of the parliament (and the prime minister) consists of observant Muslims who feel strongly about the importance of Islamic law. However, in Iran, the government is a complete theocracy governed by a relatively small group of Shiite mullahs (with an apparent democratically elected legislative body).
It seems that most of the Sunni population of Iraq feels this way about not only the election, but about the presence of U.S. military personnel on Iraqi soil. This position either comes directly out of the al Qaeda/Osama bin Laden rhetoric regarding Muslim lands, or it comes from a reaction to the Shiite majority's position on the elections.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, the leading Shiite religious leader in Iraq, has encouraged all Shiites in Iraq to vote and to participate in the new government process. His position is that a secular government with an undercurrent of religion is acceptable; whereas, the Sunni position (in particular bin Laden's position) is that the government must be completely based upon the Qu'ran--the new government must be a theocracy.
It is interesting that these positions contradict existing governments in the Muslim world. For example, in Turkey--a Sunni government--the leadership takes a largely secular position in its governance even though a large majority of the parliament (and the prime minister) consists of observant Muslims who feel strongly about the importance of Islamic law. However, in Iran, the government is a complete theocracy governed by a relatively small group of Shiite mullahs (with an apparent democratically elected legislative body).
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Guantanamo Detainees
While watching the C-SPAN morning show Washington Journal today, there was a segment with an attorney for Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo. His position is that most of the Kuwaitis are not terrorists, but were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are now twelve detainees from Kuwait who have been at Getmo for over three years. One additional detainee was released earlier this month. He was a teacher who had traveled to Pakistan to help Pakistani refugees, he was picked up by a local tribe and sold to the American military for a bounty price of $5000.
The Geneva Conventions guarantee a hearing for any detainee who might not be a combatant as soon as possible. This hearing is designed to determine whether the detainee is a legitimate enemy combatant, and if not it is designed to allow him/her to go free immediately. Unfortunately, it has taken a ruling by the United States Supreme Court to get these hearings for the Kuwaiti detainees.
Could some of these detainees actually be terrorists? Certainly. But we have no way of knowing whether they are or are not at this time without conducting the proper inquiries and hearings. Our government needs to step up to uphold the requirements of the Geneva Conventions so that our soldiers can feel that they too have recourse against their captors. By appealing to the Conventions, captured soldiers or combatants must be accorded consistent protections. The Conventions are not 'antiquated', as Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales would have us believe!!
Check out the website set up by the families of those twelve Kuwaitis who are being held in Cuba.
The Geneva Conventions guarantee a hearing for any detainee who might not be a combatant as soon as possible. This hearing is designed to determine whether the detainee is a legitimate enemy combatant, and if not it is designed to allow him/her to go free immediately. Unfortunately, it has taken a ruling by the United States Supreme Court to get these hearings for the Kuwaiti detainees.
Could some of these detainees actually be terrorists? Certainly. But we have no way of knowing whether they are or are not at this time without conducting the proper inquiries and hearings. Our government needs to step up to uphold the requirements of the Geneva Conventions so that our soldiers can feel that they too have recourse against their captors. By appealing to the Conventions, captured soldiers or combatants must be accorded consistent protections. The Conventions are not 'antiquated', as Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales would have us believe!!
Check out the website set up by the families of those twelve Kuwaitis who are being held in Cuba.
The Bush Inaugural Speech
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
...
And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
...
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies...
The quotes above offer some well-placed platitudes and resounding rhetoric, but does the world truly believe that we mean these words? Do Arabs, Persians, Palestinians, Egyptians, or Pakistanis really believe that we support the freedom of all people to choose their own forms of government while we send money (often in large quantities) and the materiel of war to oppressive regimes throughout the Middle East? Mr. Bush says that we will support the populace in countries who long for and fight for freedom. I have no doubt that he is largely referring to Iran and Syria and maybe North Korea or China; however, I do not think that he is referring to the citizens of Saudi Arabia or Egypt or to the Palestinian people. Do the oppressed people of the world really believe that we will stand up for their rights to freedom and to self-government? NO. In today's WashPost, Scott Wilson writes about the Arab response to Mr. Bush's Inaugural address. He points to the very arguments that I am making here. The people of the world do not believe that America means what it says when its practices do not reflect those words.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!
...
Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon.
Does this line represent George Bush's attempt at saying, "When we went into Iraq, we had no idea what we would be getting ourselves into. Of course, it is too late now and we just have to suck up our mistake and deal with it."? Or, instead, is it his effort to side-step the issue all together while justifying the promise of a freely elected government in Iraq?
...
From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
One might argue that our character in events such as Abu Ghraib (and the detention of so many 'illegal combatants' in Guantanamo, Cuba who might be innocents) has not brought credit to this nation of freedom. This nation who traditionally prides itself in preserving the rights of humankind to live as they believe. The tradition, so many would have us believe, extends only to citizens of the United States itself; in reality, our Constitution guarantees rights to all, not just citizens. The extention of rights to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or place of origin, represents the defining principle upon which this country was founded. We have forgotten the American place in history in offering these freedoms and rights without reservation to all who step onto our shores and to all with whom we come in contact. THAT is what liberty is all about!
...
We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them.
This country continues to know division and will continue to know division as long as this President, who may or may not have been legitimately elected in 2000, continues to govern as though he has a mandate of 65% of the vote. When he entered office in 2000, he offended the people of the country by making decisions contrary to American ideals and values. He continues to make those decisions without consulting with his opponents and without informing his detractors. Until this man finds some humility, he will continue to create divisions in this country, and not to heal them. When arrogance is justified, people are willing to forgive hubris; but, when there is no evidence to support conceit, most people (at least 48-50%) do not like the attitude! This President (and particularly this Vice President) will never be a uniter. Within days of the greatest unifying force this country had witnessed in half a century, Mr. Bush had pushed away half of the nation by pursuing his own radical agenda while using the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse for his actions. At a time when this country could have remained united in its efforts and its motivation, the Bush administration alienated half the population. He will continue to govern with this misplaced hubris and ill-conceived arrogance--mark my words.
...
And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
...
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies...
...
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
The quotes above offer some well-placed platitudes and resounding rhetoric, but does the world truly believe that we mean these words? Do Arabs, Persians, Palestinians, Egyptians, or Pakistanis really believe that we support the freedom of all people to choose their own forms of government while we send money (often in large quantities) and the materiel of war to oppressive regimes throughout the Middle East? Mr. Bush says that we will support the populace in countries who long for and fight for freedom. I have no doubt that he is largely referring to Iran and Syria and maybe North Korea or China; however, I do not think that he is referring to the citizens of Saudi Arabia or Egypt or to the Palestinian people. Do the oppressed people of the world really believe that we will stand up for their rights to freedom and to self-government? NO. In today's WashPost, Scott Wilson writes about the Arab response to Mr. Bush's Inaugural address. He points to the very arguments that I am making here. The people of the world do not believe that America means what it says when its practices do not reflect those words.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!
...
Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon.
Does this line represent George Bush's attempt at saying, "When we went into Iraq, we had no idea what we would be getting ourselves into. Of course, it is too late now and we just have to suck up our mistake and deal with it."? Or, instead, is it his effort to side-step the issue all together while justifying the promise of a freely elected government in Iraq?
...
From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
One might argue that our character in events such as Abu Ghraib (and the detention of so many 'illegal combatants' in Guantanamo, Cuba who might be innocents) has not brought credit to this nation of freedom. This nation who traditionally prides itself in preserving the rights of humankind to live as they believe. The tradition, so many would have us believe, extends only to citizens of the United States itself; in reality, our Constitution guarantees rights to all, not just citizens. The extention of rights to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or place of origin, represents the defining principle upon which this country was founded. We have forgotten the American place in history in offering these freedoms and rights without reservation to all who step onto our shores and to all with whom we come in contact. THAT is what liberty is all about!
...
We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them.
This country continues to know division and will continue to know division as long as this President, who may or may not have been legitimately elected in 2000, continues to govern as though he has a mandate of 65% of the vote. When he entered office in 2000, he offended the people of the country by making decisions contrary to American ideals and values. He continues to make those decisions without consulting with his opponents and without informing his detractors. Until this man finds some humility, he will continue to create divisions in this country, and not to heal them. When arrogance is justified, people are willing to forgive hubris; but, when there is no evidence to support conceit, most people (at least 48-50%) do not like the attitude! This President (and particularly this Vice President) will never be a uniter. Within days of the greatest unifying force this country had witnessed in half a century, Mr. Bush had pushed away half of the nation by pursuing his own radical agenda while using the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse for his actions. At a time when this country could have remained united in its efforts and its motivation, the Bush administration alienated half the population. He will continue to govern with this misplaced hubris and ill-conceived arrogance--mark my words.
BUSHISM of the Day
"Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history--revisionist historians is what I like to call them." ---June 16, 2003
Friday, January 21, 2005
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
North Carolina Superintendent of Public Education Election Results Under Dispute
Although the Democratic candidate won the election on November 2 by 8500 votes out of the 3 million cast, the Republican candidate is taking his case for reconsideration of 10,000 to 14,000 ballots to the state Supreme Court. Bill Fletcher, the Republican, argues that as many as 14,000 ballots were counted in the vote totals from out-of-district voters. These votes are prohibited by the state constitution, and he wants to see them disregarded in a recount. Whether he could actually win the race even if these votes are discarded remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the acting Superintendent, who was appointed by the Governor in August, will remain in the position until the dispute is settled. Read the full story in the Charlotte News-Observer.
BUSHISM of the Day
"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case." ---January 30, 2000
Uh.....WHAT?!?!?!?!
Uh.....WHAT?!?!?!?!
Monday, January 17, 2005
BUSHISM of the Day
"My administration has been calling upon all the leaders in the -- in the Middle East to do everything they can to stop the violence, to tell the different parties involved that peace will never happen." ---August 13, 2001
...BECAUSE if peace happens, then I will be putting all of my friends (and VP Cheney's friends) in the defense contracting business out of work, and we just can't let that happen. What kind of President would I be if I put my friends out of business (or didn't give them huge tax cuts)?
...BECAUSE if peace happens, then I will be putting all of my friends (and VP Cheney's friends) in the defense contracting business out of work, and we just can't let that happen. What kind of President would I be if I put my friends out of business (or didn't give them huge tax cuts)?
Friday, January 14, 2005
BUSHISM of the Day
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." --May 19, 2003
SOMEBODY tell me this guy was joking, or something. PLEASE!!! If Bush was truly serious, how can we possibly believe that he is a 'man of the people'? The man who spoke these words is either deluded or completely out of touch with American society--and this country RE-ELECTED him!!! UGH!
SOMEBODY tell me this guy was joking, or something. PLEASE!!! If Bush was truly serious, how can we possibly believe that he is a 'man of the people'? The man who spoke these words is either deluded or completely out of touch with American society--and this country RE-ELECTED him!!! UGH!
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
BUSHISM of the Day
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Tsunami Disaster
I have not spoken out in this forum about the devastation that occurred in south Asia on Dec 26, 2004 largely because I do not think there is much that can be said. However, I think it is great to see stories such as this and this in the media along with the pictures and stories of disaster. Obviously, our sympathies are with all those who lost family and friends in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami, and we hope that all who read this commentary are able and willing to give their time, effort, and money as they can to help those on the other side of the globe from us.
In light of that idea, one local group of doctors has travelled to India to offer their assistance and are accepting donations of money to help purchase medical supplies for their efforts. This local delegation will be working with Sri Ramachandra Medical College in Porur, Chennai, India. Since these doctors are local folks, I know that they will be involved in worthwhile and successful endeavors to aid the victims of the tsunami in southern India. Please feel free to make contributions to their relief efforts by sending a cashier's check to the SRMC-Tsunami Relief Fund, Sri Ramachandra Medical College, 1 Ramach Nagar, Porur, Chennai 600116, INDIA. (This would probably take ten to fifteen days by mail.)
There are many other worthwhile causes to which one may contribute in an effort to help victims of the tsunami. Please research the organizations before contributing money. Some excellent and trustworthy faith-based charities and relief organizations are the following:
+ Catholic Relief Service
+ Christian Aid
+ Church World Service
+ Episcopal Relief and Development
+ International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
+ Lutheran World Relief
+ Mennonite Central Committee
+ Mercy Corps
+ World Relief
+ World Vision
In light of that idea, one local group of doctors has travelled to India to offer their assistance and are accepting donations of money to help purchase medical supplies for their efforts. This local delegation will be working with Sri Ramachandra Medical College in Porur, Chennai, India. Since these doctors are local folks, I know that they will be involved in worthwhile and successful endeavors to aid the victims of the tsunami in southern India. Please feel free to make contributions to their relief efforts by sending a cashier's check to the SRMC-Tsunami Relief Fund, Sri Ramachandra Medical College, 1 Ramach Nagar, Porur, Chennai 600116, INDIA. (This would probably take ten to fifteen days by mail.)
There are many other worthwhile causes to which one may contribute in an effort to help victims of the tsunami. Please research the organizations before contributing money. Some excellent and trustworthy faith-based charities and relief organizations are the following:
+ Catholic Relief Service
+ Christian Aid
+ Church World Service
+ Episcopal Relief and Development
+ International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
+ Lutheran World Relief
+ Mennonite Central Committee
+ Mercy Corps
+ World Relief
+ World Vision
U.S. May Pursue 'Salvador Option' in Iraq
According to the CSMonitor, a Reagan-era plan for dealing with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s by using 'nationalist' sympathizers from among the Nicaraguan Contras movement including 'death squads' for the purposes of eliminating the leadership of the Sandinista regime may be the model for dealing with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. The plan, it seems, consists of forming similar tactical squadrons made up of Kurdish Peshmerga and Shiite militiamen to attack the Sunni insurgent groups, their leadership, and their sympathizers in Iraq.
What a better way to build unity among the various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq than to form 'death squads' and special operations forces from two of the three key groups so that they can attack the third group? The Sunni already plan to boycott the national elections, so why not just eliminate as many of them as we possibly can? Does this plan not sound exactly like the earlier Rumsfeld plans? First, we disbanded the Iraqi army so that all of those Sunni soldiers could form small groups of resistance fighters. Next, we cracked down on Fallujah and sent all of the Sunni insurgents scattering throughout Iraq rather than keeping them centrally located. Now, we will just send in small death squads to knock off as many of them as we can. And we won't even have to get our hands bloody because we will just release the Peshmerga and Shiites on their sworn enemies. What better planning could we have? Uh...do I really need to answer that question?
What a better way to build unity among the various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq than to form 'death squads' and special operations forces from two of the three key groups so that they can attack the third group? The Sunni already plan to boycott the national elections, so why not just eliminate as many of them as we possibly can? Does this plan not sound exactly like the earlier Rumsfeld plans? First, we disbanded the Iraqi army so that all of those Sunni soldiers could form small groups of resistance fighters. Next, we cracked down on Fallujah and sent all of the Sunni insurgents scattering throughout Iraq rather than keeping them centrally located. Now, we will just send in small death squads to knock off as many of them as we can. And we won't even have to get our hands bloody because we will just release the Peshmerga and Shiites on their sworn enemies. What better planning could we have? Uh...do I really need to answer that question?
BUSHISM of the Day
"See, we love--we love freedom. That's what they didn't understand. They hate things; we love things. They act out of hatred; we don't seek revenge, we seek justice out of love."
Monday, January 10, 2005
Friday, January 07, 2005
BUSHISM of the Day
"They said, 'You know, this issue doesn't seem to resignate with the people.' And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn't matter to me, because I stand for doing what's the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work."
Sunday, January 02, 2005
U.S. Fingerprint Database Still a Major Problem for Identifying Terrorism Suspects
Over three years after the attacks of 9/11-2001, there continues to be major infighting between the Justice Dept, Homeland Security, and the State Dept over how the fingerprint database should work. The FBI has used a ten-print system for many years, but the Departments of State and Homeland Security insist on using a two-print system because of the high demand that would be placed on our embassies overseas and our ports of entry here at home if they are required to adhere to the ten-print system. Because of this ongoing dispute, the universal fingerprint system that was envisioned after 9/11 to help identify potential terrorists entering the country continues to be mostly inoperable.
The findings of the 9/11 Commission spoke to the issues of inter-agency competition and disagreement as key blockages to identifying the attacks prior to 9/11. The Commission concluded that this issue of infighting is the one issue that could most easily be addressed for reforming the intelligence and counterterrorism programs in the United States.
The findings of the 9/11 Commission spoke to the issues of inter-agency competition and disagreement as key blockages to identifying the attacks prior to 9/11. The Commission concluded that this issue of infighting is the one issue that could most easily be addressed for reforming the intelligence and counterterrorism programs in the United States.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
'Spirit of the Anti-christ'
Tim Appelo of the Seattle Weekly writes that GWBush may be the Antichrist, or at least AN Antichrist. Somehow I think he may be exaggerating his point somewhat, but he writes a good column about the evils represented by the Bush administration on a large number of issues in contradiction to its 'moral values' stance on other issues. He quotes several liberal Christian writers and ministers who apparently spend a great deal of time and effort pointing out the religious shortcomings of this neocon, Right-wing Christian, pro-Jewish administration.
Read the column at the Seattle Weekly, and then make some comments here.
Read the column at the Seattle Weekly, and then make some comments here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
