SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1839)4/28/2003 9:07:05 AM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 10965
 
you have no idea how to think anything through. your mind is ruined from so much hate, and blindness. take a hike, loser.

Everyone needs to just ignore anything you have to say.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1839)4/29/2003 9:00:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
To Tell the Truth is Not George W. Bush's Game
_______________________________________________

by Ed Garvey

Published on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 by the Madison Capital Times

From time to time, we have all encountered, for lack of a better term, a pathological liar. You know, the person without that little voice in the back of his head that says "tell the truth." Some of those with this illness move on to positions of great power perhaps because of their facility for always saying what the audience wants to hear.

Richard Nixon comes to mind. While it finally caught up with him, truth was never his guide. If he told the truth it was not premeditated.

Now we have George W. Bush. Examples of lack of truthfulness include his shameful campaign against John McCain in South Carolina, the extraordinary Florida and Supreme Court scandal, and debates with Al Gore.

The one exchange in a debate that sticks in my mind was the question regarding affirmative action. In listening to Bush, an avowed opponent of affirmative action except for the wealthy, one could have been convinced that Bush was admitting that he would "act affirmatively" to give opportunities to minorities. With his play on words, he must have known he was deliberately misleading. Of that there could be little doubt, and his shameful position on the University of Michigan case is proof of his real intentions. But I suspect if you could ask him about it, he would say, "Hey, look at Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. I'm a man of my word."

Bush favors open government except for his and his father's. He's an "environmentalist" except for drilling in Alaska, clean air and water. He would leave "no child behind" except for those in public schools. He leans forward on the podium and says it like he means it.

He took us into combat. Not one child of a member of Congress or an official of the administration was wounded or killed in Iraq.

As I looked at the pictures and read the short stories about those killed in action, I saw they could have been a next-door neighbor. They were not worried about the Bush tax plan affecting their lives or their parents'. They were poor or middle class. Dreams of a better life motivated most to join the military. It would be a short-term commitment and on to college - perhaps the first in that family's history. Young, good-looking in those uniforms, they meant it when they said the Pledge of Allegiance. They believed their commander-in-chief.

Now, while Bush marches around like a tin soldier, Donald Rumsfeld declares that he is master of the universe and he wants to make certain that citizens of the world know that it was his plan, his war, and his victory. But it was Bush's lie.

We went into combat, we caused the deaths of those Marines and Army soldiers, and we killed and wounded thousands of citizens. The picture of a 13-year-old without arms and with burns over most of his body, whose family was wiped out in front of him, says volumes. But then Charlie Sykes and Rush Limbaugh will say we are just pathetic bleeding hearts. "We liberated that boy!" they'll say.

And what was the reason for combat? George W. Bush said it over and over and over that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had the capacity to harm the United States with those weapons. That was the reason we could not let the United Nations continue to inspect. We had to act. We had to protect ourselves.

Now we know the real reason. Events proved what we argued in opposition to the invasion. The United Nations inspectors knew what Rummy knew. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. If the administration had given Hans Blix more time, the U.N. inspectors would have proven what we now know. Iraq didn't pose a threat after 11 years of American bombing and international sanctions. It didn't have an air force, it didn't have the capacity to fight, and it did not have the capacity to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Knowing that, Bush knew this would not be a war. It was target practice on live targets.

Now the apologists are saying, ironically, "give us more time and we will find" those weapons. The last guy who said that, Blix, was vilified by the administration. But suppose they find some. What's the point? They had no capacity to deliver them, and the proof was that in total defeat such weapons were never used.

But one rule of President Bush is to never admit a lie and never apologize for your actions. He lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq to grab the oil fields, create profit for Halliburton and Bechtel, and tell the world that we are No. 1.

This is a tragedy of almost unimaginable proportions. The United States will be viewed for generations to come as a country that will lie to gain its ends. We, as a nation, are missing that little voice we call a conscience. If the world needed proof, listen to Bush and Rummy say that we invaded for "democracy." But, of course, we will impose democracy on our terms. We liberated them, and by God we will democratize them.

As for those who suffered collateral damage, or lost a son or daughter, well, no one ever said liberty comes without sacrifice.
______________________________________

Ed Garvey is a Madison lawyer who was the Wisconsin Democratic candidate for governor in 1998.

Copyright 2003 The Capital Times

commondreams.org



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1839)4/29/2003 10:05:18 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Are We Dumb or Just Numb?
_________________________________________

By Robert Scheer
Columnist
The Los Angeles Times
April 29, 2003

Forget truth. That is the message from our government and its apologists in the media who insist that the Iraq invasion is a great success story even though it was based on a lie.

In the statement broadcast to the Iraqi people after the invasion was launched, President Bush stated: "The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world." To which Tony Blair added: "We did not want this war. But in refusing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam gave us no choice but to act."

That claim of urgency — requiring us to short-circuit the U.N. weapons inspectors — has proved to be a whopper of a falsehood. Late Sunday, the U.S. Army conceded that what had been reported as its only significant WMD find — two mobile chemical labs and a dozen 55-gallon drums of chemicals — "showed no positive hits at all" for chemical weapons.

But we now live easily with lies. "As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war," writes Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times. The pro-administration rationalization holds that the noble end of toppling one of the world's nastier dictators — assuming that the Iraqi people end up freer and not ensnared in an Iranian-type theocracy — justifies the ignoble means of lying to the world. Or, as Friedman puts it, "Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White House hyped this issue.)"

Hyping? Is that how we are now to rationalize the ever more obvious truth that the American people and their elected representatives in Congress were deliberately deceived by the president as to the imminent threat that Iraq posed to our security? Is this popular acceptance of such massive deceit exemplary of the representative democracy we are so aggressively exporting, nay imposing, on the world?

It is expected that despots can force the blind allegiance of their people to falsehoods. But it is frightening in the extreme when lying matters not at all to a free people. The only plausible explanation is that the tragedy of Sept. 11 so traumatized us that we are no longer capable of the outrage expected of a patently deceived citizenry. The case for connecting Saddam Hussein with that tragedy is increasingly revealed as false, but it seems to matter not to a populace numbed by incessant government propaganda.

The only significant link between Al Qaeda and Hussein centered on the Ansar al Islam bases in the Kurdish area outside of Hussein's control. That's the "poison factory" offered by Colin Powell in his U.N. speech to connect Hussein with international terror. But an exhaustive investigation by the Los Angeles Times of witnesses and material found in the area "produced no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad and indicated that Ansar was not a sophisticated terrorist organization." Moreover, the purpose of this camp was to foster a holy war of religious fanatics who branded Hussein as "an infidel tyrant" and refused to fight under the "infidel flag" of his hated secular regime.

The embarrassingly secular nature of the government was summarized in another Los Angeles Times story on the status of women: "For decades, Iraqi women — at least those living in Baghdad and some other big cities — have enjoyed a degree of personal liberty undreamed of by women in neighboring nations such as Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates."

Those freedoms — to drive, study in coeducational colleges and to advance in the professions — are now threatened by the fundamentalist forces unleashed by the invasion. The former U.S. general now governing Iraq has stated that he will not accept a reversal of those freedoms, but our long history of cozy relationships with the oppressive Gulf regimes can't be reassuring to Iraq's women.

Such issues would be less compelling had the claim that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent security threat to the U.S. proved true. Our goal, the destruction of those weapons, would then have been clear, and once that goal was accomplished, an expeditious U.S. withdrawal would have been justified.

But in the absence of such a threat, the U.S. role in Iraq becomes inevitably stickier. For "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to be more than a catchy propaganda slogan assumes an enduring obligation to provide the content of freedom to the Iraqi people that Americans claim to believe in. It is hoped that will include the election of a leader who tells the truth.

latimes.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1839)4/30/2003 2:25:07 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
Bush Tries to Weaken Tobacco Treaty

__________________________________________________

Its controversial terms include world ban on advertising

by David Lazarus

Published on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 by the San Francisco Chronicle

As more than 160 nations prepare to sign a landmark treaty to control tobacco, the Bush administration is waging a last-ditch effort to gut the accord of its strongest provisions, including a worldwide ban on tobacco advertising.

The treaty is being closely watched by Philip Morris, the world's largest tobacco company with $19 billion in sales last year, and other cigarette producers, which see it as a potential catastrophe for their businesses.

Instead of leading international efforts to reduce tobacco use, the Bush administration has repeatedly obstructed the development of a tough international tobacco control agreement.


U.S. Ambassador Kevin Moley staked out the administration's hard-line position in a meeting Monday with the director general of the World Health Organization in Geneva.

A copy of Moley's position paper was obtained by the Campaign for Tobacco- Free Kids, an anti-tobacco lobbying group. Government officials confirmed that Moley delivered the document to WHO Director General Gro Harlem Brundtland.

According to the position paper, the United States wants signatories to be able to ignore any provision of the treaty they disagree with. As it stands, the treaty does not allow signatory nations to express "reservations" about individual restrictions.

Reservations is diplomacy-speak for being able to overlook certain aspects of an international agreement.

"Our ability to sign and ratify the convention is undermined by the current prohibition on reservations," the document says. "We would like your support in deleting this provision from the (treaty) prior to its approval by the World Health Assembly."

It adds: "Deletion of this prohibition will enable us, and others, to pursue the process of signing and ratifying the convention, and will facilitate the level of wide international participation necessary for the convention to be a success."

Copies of the paper are being delivered to every government taking part in the treaty talks.

The United States has been one of the few holdouts refusing to sign the tobacco treaty in May after three years of negotiations. Other fence-sitters include Germany, Japan, China and Cuba, which also have lucrative and influential tobacco industries.

Specifically, the Bush administration opposes treaty provisions that ban or greatly limit cigarette advertising and require health warnings that would take up about a third of cigarette packages.

The treaty also would urge signatories to fund anti-tobacco programs and ban distribution of free cigarette samples. Enforcement would be up to each nation to oversee.

Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the treaty as written "can save millions of lives." But he said it would be virtually meaningless if the United States succeeds in allowing nations to pick and choose which provisions to follow.

"This is a poison pill that would undermine three years of hard work," Myers said.

Tobacco accounts for 5 million deaths worldwide every year, according to health officials. The global death toll is expected to reach 10 million annually within the next three decades unless steps are taken to curb tobacco use.

The White House referred calls on the administration's position paper to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Bill Pierce, department spokesman, insisted that the administration is eager to sign the tobacco treaty. "We'd just like a mechanism to invoke reservations we have," he said.

"This remains a fundamental issue for us," Pierce said. "We have concerns that we have to address."

Activists are worried because the U.S. position paper takes pains to emphasize all the funding that Washington provides worldwide for tobacco- control efforts.

"Many countries will interpret this as saying foreign aid is at stake if they don't go along with us," Myers said.

Pierce challenged this perception. "That's just reading between the lines," he said. "We're only making as strong a case as we can."

The treaty will be adopted one way or another. But without the United States as a signatory, it's unlikely developing nations -- where tobacco merchants are now busiest -- will find the will to enforce the pact's more stringent provisions.

Mark Berlind, legislative counsel for Altria, parent company of Philip Morris, said his firm is pushing for "a strong treaty that can be ratified by every country."

This can be accomplished, he said, not necessarily by allowing signatories to invoke reservations but by avoiding provisions that are contentious and controversial.

"It shouldn't be a question of opting out of provisions," Berlind said. "The provisions themselves should be widely agreed upon."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., sent a letter to President Bush last week asking him not to weaken the tobacco treaty.

"Instead of leading international efforts to reduce tobacco use, the Bush administration has repeatedly obstructed the development of a tough international tobacco control agreement," Pelosi said Tuesday in response to the position paper. "That is unacceptable. We can and must do better."

Coincidentally, the U.S. position paper was delivered to the WHO shortly after the WHO released a major study warning that new cancer cases worldwide will surge by 50 percent to 15 million by 2020 unless governments act to turn things around.

"We can make a difference by taking action today," said Dr. Paul Kleihues, co-editor of the 350-page World Cancer Report. "We have the opportunity to stem this increase."

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle

commondreams.org