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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (62297)6/2/2005 5:30:42 PM
From: Land SharkRespond to of 81568
 
25,000 Iraqi's in one month? Kind of makes Saddam look like an angel, doesn't it?



To: American Spirit who wrote (62297)6/2/2005 11:04:01 PM
From: Glenn PetersenRespond to of 81568
 
25,000 Iraqis killed this month.

Rounding error? Care to share the source of your information, or misinformation as the case may be?

Spike in Iraq attacks exacts bloody toll in May

At least 670 Iraqis, 77 Americans killed last month, officials say


MSNBC News Services

Updated: 9:53 a.m. ET June 1, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq - New statistics show that a spike in militants attacks in May took a bloody toll on ordinary Iraqis and U.S. soldiers alike, with nearly 200 more Iraqis killed last month than in April and the highest American military death toll since January.

Figures released by the Iraqi government on Wednesday show that at least 670 Iraqis were killed in May. That compared to 485 who were killed in April.

Among them were 434 civilians, up from 299 killed in April, according to Health Ministry figures. Some 775 civilians were also wounded last month, compared with 598 in April.

Police were also severely targeted, with 151 killed in May compared with 86 in April. At least 325 policemen were also wounded, compared with 131 in April, the Interior Ministry said.

Some 297 insurgents were also killed in May, an almost 400 percent increase on the 60 militants killed in April, according to statistics obtained by The Associated Press from the interior, defense and health ministries.

The Iraqi government did not provide year-on-year figures for comparison or for the months before April.

U.S. death toll rises again

This latest spree of violence by insurgents, who rose up after the American-led invasion in 2003 toppled President Saddam Hussein, put a dramatic end to a period when attacks on U.S. forces had waned after the historic Jan. 30 elections.

At least 77 U.S. troops were killed in May, according to a count of deaths announced by the military. That is the highest toll since 107 Americans were killed in January. It marked the second straight monthly increase since 36 U.S. troops died in March, among the lowest tolls of the war.

Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said insurgents are staging about 70 attacks nationwide per day.

Defense analysts said the recent violence was the latest evidence Iraq remains an uncertain project for the United States.

“Those who believed that the elections would be a decisive turning point undermining the insurgency are disappointed yet again,” Cato Institute defense analyst Ted Carpenter said. “The insurgency seems as capable as ever.”

The latest Pentagon figures listed 1,658 U.S. military deaths since the war began, with another 12,630 wounded in combat. The United States has 139,000 troops in Iraq, with another 23,000 British and other foreign soldiers.

New Shiite-led government

The increase in deaths coincides with the April 28 announcement of Iraq’s new Shiite-led government, which was followed by a wave of violence believed launched by Sunni insurgents targeting Iraqi security forces and civilians.

“There was a lull in attacks after the elections” in January, Boylan said.

“There was a period of time right after the election until the beginning of April or middle of April that we actually saw them (daily rebel attacks) dip into the low 30s," he added.

Asked if the insurgents, a mix of indigenous Sunni Muslim Arabs and foreign radical Islamic fighters, could sustain the current level of violence, Boylan said, “Don’t know yet.”

Among the largest Iraqi police attacks was Monday’s twin-suicide bomb attack that killed at least 27 policemen and wounded 118 in Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack.

The Iraqi Defense Ministry said 85 soldiers were killed in May, up from 40 in April. Another 79 soldiers were wounded, compared with 63 in April.

Jump in insurgent deaths

But the most dramatic rise in deaths was among insurgents. The huge jump is believed linked to two large-scale U.S. military operations conducted in western Iraq during May, Operation New Market in the town of Haditha and Operation Matador around the town of Qaim, that killed about 140 insurgents and about 100 suicide bombings since April 28, according to an Associated Press count.

Boylan attributed the rise in U.S. deaths in May to several factors.

May was a record month for car bombs used by insurgents in suicide attacks and with remote-controlled detonations, he said. Boylan added U.S. forces suffered losses in the two offensives in western Iraq.

American generals in the weeks after the election had talked about a possible serious reduction in U.S. troop levels next year.

Gen. George Casey, top U.S. commander in Iraq, has not completed his assessment of future troop levels, Boylan said, adding that the level of violence and the capabilities of U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces would be crucial factors.

Boylan preached patience.

“This is the hardest type of fight to be in,” Boylan said. ”If we get too impatient and decide to throw in the towel too soon, then we give up everything we’ve gained up to this point.”

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

g.msn.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (62297)6/3/2005 6:31:45 AM
From: tontoRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
You and yields are nuts. Look how quickly he agrees with you on such a blatant lie...25,000 deaths in one month? You guys are absolutely stupid to believe that. Think things through for once...



To: American Spirit who wrote (62297)6/4/2005 8:48:19 AM
From: stockman_scottRespond to of 81568
 
American democracy: Death by deception
______________________________________

Gunning for cover

by George Ochenski

While President Bush blunders about the world invading countries, bombing civilians and forcing “regime change” in sovereign nations, our democracy here at home is dying. It is dying not because it is under attack from foreign forces, it is dying because the Bush government has changed America forever through its policies of secrecy, deception and lies. No democracy can survive when its own citizens no longer trust what their government tells them—tragically, that time has come for our nation.

The indications that our democracy is sick are so numerous that it’s hard to figure out where to begin. But certainly the start of deep, nationwide mistrust in the basic tenets of our government began with the Supreme Court’s decision to stop the 2001 recount in Florida and declare—without the facts to back it up—George W. Bush the winner. Thus, by only the slimmest of majorities, America broke with 200 years of democratic tradition and went from a duly elected president to a politically appointed one.

Having shystered his way into the White House, Bush and cohort Dick Cheney began to dismantle the very systems upon which Americans have always relied to keep our government in its proper place—as the servant, not the master, of the citizenry.

Right out of the chute came Cheney’s secret Energy Task Force, presumably composed primarily of corporate raiders intent on feathering their own nests while unconscionably fouling ours. Everything from protected public lands to wide-open pollution of the global environment was up for grabs. After five years of court cases seeking to reveal the truth, the same Supreme Court that appointed Bush president decided our citizens do not have the right to see who is actually calling the shots for our country. Instead, Cheney’s little backroom secret will remain just that—a secret. “National security” wasn’t an issue here; it was simply a matter of corporate manipulation of government for its own profit motives, hiding behind the Bush-Cheney curtain of “executive privilege.”

But giving up our nation’s resources and environment to corporate raiders was just the beginning. Next came the bigger move—the one where Bush willingly squandered our country’s treasury and sacrificed our young men and women in reckless military adventurism abroad that (surprise, surprise) somehow always seems focused on attaining control of the world’s oil and gas reserves.

We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the decision to invade Iraq was a foregone conclusion. As revealed by secret British memos that were recently made public, the decision to “get Saddam” was made by the Bush administration long before the 9/11 attacks. Some might simplistically suggest that George W. was simply “finishing the job” his father began, while hiding behind the total fiction that we were threatened by Iraq’s non-existent weapons. That Iraq sits on a literal “sea of oil”—estimated to be the second largest in the world—was brushed off as mere coincidence.

In Afghanistan, the “front” for our invasion was the elimination of the Taliban regime. But closer to the truth is Afghanistan’s critical location on a natural gas and oil pipeline route long sought by America’s petroleum magnates. Trying to build and operate a vulnerable pipeline in a country ruled by a hostile government would be impossible, so we toppled the government, installed Karzai the Puppet and continue, to this day, to kill and be killed in the barren mountains of the Hindu Kush. Someday, though, don’t be surprised to see the pipeline go in—that is, if we ever truly “secure” any more of the country than the heavily guarded capital, Kabul.

To accomplish their propaganda goals, the Bush government egregiously lied to us about the death of Pat Tillman—the NFL safety-turned-Army Ranger—who was killed by our own soldiers. The fiction the Army invented was that he died charging bravely uphill to confront the enemy. In the words of Tillman’s mother: “The military let him down. The administration let him down. The fact that they lied about it afterward is disgusting.”

According to a story in last week’s Washington Post, the latest investigation “showed that soldiers in Afghanistan knew almost immediately that they had killed Tillman by mistake” and “also revealed that soldiers later burned Tillman’s uniform and body armor.” The story didn’t come out, however, until after a “nationally televised memorial service.” The icing on the cake? “President Bush offered a taped memorial message to Tillman at a Cardinals football game shortly before the presidential election last fall.”

As Tillman’s father said: “After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy.”

Perfidy mounts upon perfidy, fiction upon fiction, lie upon lie, until the American people can no longer believe their government about anything—even the deaths of their sons and daughters in the service of the country. The worse the lies, the more misleading the labels. Polluting our air with dirty, coal-fired power plants is dubbed “Clean Skies.” Unleashing the timber industry—including provisions that exclude public review and comment—is called “Healthy Forests.” And now, in a pattern we have come to know only too well, President Bush is promising to “save Social Security”—by destroying it.

We are fortunate here in Montana because our state constitution demands fully open government on all levels, except where individual privacy would be violated. But on the federal level, secrecy, lies and distortion now rule the roost. Every secret, every lie, every distortion perpetrated by the Bush administration further erodes public trust, as American democracy dies a slow and horrible death by deception.
__________________________

missoulanews.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (62297)6/4/2005 12:39:59 PM
From: lorneRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
as. I hi-lighted a section just for you. :-)

Saudis Rebuked on Forced Labor
U.S. Critical of 4 Gulf Allies in Report on Trafficking of Humans

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 4, 2005; Page A10
washingtonpost.com

The United States yesterday named Saudi Arabia and three other Persian Gulf Arab allies as having among the world's worst records in halting human trafficking, a rebuke that could subject the countries to sanctions if they do not act quickly to address U.S. concerns.

The finding, in an annual report issued by the State Department, places Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in the same category as such countries as Cuba, Burma, North Korea and Sudan. Human rights activists said the inclusion of such close allies in the war on terrorism suggests that the administration is beginning to eliminate from its human rights policy what some have dubbed the "Middle East exception."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks at the release of the fifth annual "Trafficking in Persons Report." (By Jason Reed -- Reuters)

Last year, the State Department also faulted Saudi Arabia for the first time for its lack of religious tolerance.

The report said as many as 800,000 people, many of them women and children, are trafficked across international borders as sex workers and forced laborers in a modern-day slave trade. This is the fifth annual report, which was mandated by an act of Congress at the instigation of an unusual coalition of feminists and Christian evangelical groups. President Bush frequently denounced sexual slavery to motivate his evangelical base during the 2004 campaign.

In the report, the Gulf Arab states were cited primarily for practices that allowed the abuse of domestic servants and laborers who came to the Middle East primarily from Asia.

The report said the Saudis, for example, lack laws criminalizing most trafficking offenses, and there is little evidence of whether employers are ever prosecuted. Many of the foreign laborers in Saudi Arabia work as domestic servants, and they are not covered by Saudi labor laws.

In Saudi Arabia, "we have domestic workers being brought in from many countries into domestic servitude, child beggars, a lot of beatings, reports of beatings, and rape -- very difficult to get shelter, no convictions," said John R. Miller, the senior adviser for human trafficking.

"Trafficking in human beings is nothing less than a modern form of slavery," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "The United States has a particular duty to fight this scourge because trafficking in persons is an affront to the principles of human dignity and liberty upon which this nation was founded."

Rice has made promotion of democracy and freedom a central tenet at the State Department. A senior department official said she was involved in the decision making on where to rank individual countries and had directed analysts to make recommendations based on the criteria laid out in the law establishing the report.

Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said the inclusion of the Gulf states in this year's report was significant: "It is another positive sign that the administration is willing to be honest and straightforward about the shortcomings of its allies in the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia."

Other countries listed as poor performers in stopping trafficking include Bolivia, Cambodia, Ecuador, Jamaica, Togo and Venezuela. An additional 27 countries, including China, India and South Africa, were placed on a watch list, meaning they have significant problems but the governments appear to be making an effort to combat them.

Countries that are listed as poor performers can lose non-humanitarian, non-trade-related assistance from the United States, or be deemed ineligible to take part in cultural and educational exchange programs. But countries can avoid sanctions if they begin to take actions to address U.S. concerns in the next few months.

Two years ago, Turkey and Greece, two NATO allies, fell into the bottom category, but they have since improved their standing. Equatorial Guinea and Venezuela have been sanctioned since the reports began.

"The purpose of the law is not to sanction," Miller said. "It is to get progress in freeing the victims and throwing the traffickers in jail."



To: American Spirit who wrote (62297)6/5/2005 7:32:37 PM
From: stockman_scottRespond to of 81568
 
The revelations about Deep Throat aren't as noteworthy as the continuing audacity of the former president's apologists.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Nixon's Revenge
By Joe Conason
June 3, 2005
salon.com

Historical amnesia long ago leached away the meaning of Watergate for most Americans. With the revelation that former FBI official Mark Felt was the secret Washington Post source later known as "Deep Throat," an opportunity arises to examine the criminality that endangered the Constitution under the Nixon presidency and the role of the press in exposing that crisis -- as well as the continuing audacity of the Nixonian criminals, their enablers and their apologists in attempting to rewrite history.

Far beyond a "third-rate burglary" of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, Watergate came to stand for the wide-ranging gangsterism of the Nixon regime. At the bottom were fascist thugs like G. Gordon Liddy, who plotted the black-bag jobs, warrantless wiretaps, illegal spying and campaign dirty tricks, all in the cause of reelecting the president in 1972. In the middle were the Nixon operation's white-collar goons, those lawyers and bureaucrats who collected bundles of cash from corrupt corporations and then handed out the money for secret campaign slush funds and hush-money payoffs. And at the top sat Tricky Dick, along with his White House palace guard and his corrupted appointees at the Justice Department, the CIA and the FBI.

By the time Nixon was forced to resign or face impeachment in 1974, the great majority of citizens understood that this president and his mafia had perverted the electoral process, the law enforcement system and government itself in a manner the nation had not seen before. The breadth of the coverup conspiracy, which reached into the highest ranks of Washington's intelligence and law enforcement authorities, including then-FBI director Patrick Gray, helps explain why Felt decided that he should leak the information he had to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward.


It is certainly true, as Felt's critics now complain, that Nixon had passed him over in favor of Gray when appointing the latter to succeed J. Edgar Hoover as FBI director. Felt's motives may not have been pure, but many anonymous sources and whistleblowers have personal motives. It is also true that Felt was deeply troubled by the Nixon White House efforts to compromise the FBI investigation of Watergate, and that his choices, unless he decided to resign in protest, were limited. There was no trustworthy figure among the Nixon loyalists in the White House. His own boss, Gray, and then-Attorney General Richard Kleindienst were implicated in the coverup plot, too. And the Republicans in Congress, at that point, were still behind Nixon despite growing evidence of the president's guilt.

In Watergate, Felt was neither a hero nor a villain. He was a source.

There is a tendency to exaggerate the importance of Deep Throat that derives from the same mythology that lionizes the Post, Woodward and his former partner, Carl Bernstein. Without diminishing in any way the courage and enterprise they displayed, the truth is that their role in bringing down the Nixon gang has been exaggerated (in part because of "All the President's Men," the wonderful movie based on the reporters' book). Actually, the police, prosecutors, FBI agents and congressional investigators uncovered the key elements of the original crimes with little assistance from the press. But with Felt's guidance, Woodward and Bernstein played a critical role in keeping the story alive, maintaining pressure on the White House and alerting official Washington to the crimes being perpetrated in its midst. For that they still deserve our gratitude -- as do many others who played less celebrated but equally significant parts in the constitutional drama.

If the Post is now indulging in nostalgia and self-congratulation, that excess may only serve to remind us how little Washington's dominant daily -- which trumpeted the phony Whitewater scandals and buried its own stories debunking the case for war against Iraq -- now resembles the plucky paper that battled Nixon.

Of course, the Post currently operates in a very different political and media climate. The predominance of right-wing voices today represents a kind of vengeance for Nixon, who initiated the conservative crusade against the "liberal media" for both ideological and selfish reasons. (He once tried to persuade his ardent supporter, rightist billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, to buy the Post from the Graham family.) And in the echo chambers of the right and on talk radio and cable television, the attempts to rewrite the sordid history of the Nixon regime will never cease.

The loudest barking and snarling emanates from the likes of Liddy, who served time for betraying his country and has since become a successful talk show host. It is a measure of morality among those who call themselves conservatives that a fascistic nutcase like Liddy became a movement icon (even after instructing his listeners on the finer points of shooting a federal law enforcement officer).

In his zeal to restore Nixon's reputation, Liddy stands with Patrick Buchanan, who scarcely requires further introduction. The ultra-right pundit and presidential loser has always insisted that the downfall of Nixon was in fact a "coup d'état" by liberals, who had supposedly committed all the same crimes that brought down their old enemy.

But now Buchanan, and Rush Limbaugh, have gone still further, claiming that those who forced Nixon to quit were directly responsible for the ensuing communist victory in Vietnam and the Cambodian genocide. That makes about as much sense as blaming those events on Buchanan and Limbaugh because they both dodged the draft.

But the cannier figures on the right no longer seek to expunge Nixon's crimes. Consider a certain politician who got his start back then as a young activist running the College Republicans.

That budding pol spent the summer of 1974 in Washington, according to historian David Greenberg, circulating pro-Nixon memos from a phony grass-roots group called Americans for the Presidency, and fighting what he thought of as "the lynch-mob atmosphere created in this city by the Washington Post and other parts of the Nixon-hating media." He had worked so closely with the Nixon campaign's dirty tricksters, and become so immersed in their style of politics, that he briefly drew the attention of the Watergate prosecutors. Indeed, his reputation was so grimy that George Herbert Walker Bush, then the chairman of the Republican National Committee, had him investigated -- and then dismissed the accusations despite strong taped evidence against him.

That man is named Karl Rove, and he is now the White House deputy chief of staff, the unofficial boss of the Republican Party and the most powerful political figure in the nation aside from the president himself. He may well agree with Liddy and Buchanan, but such stale polemics cannot engage his attention. He is too busy wreaking Nixon's revenge on the rest of us.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer:
Joe Conason writes a weekly column for Salon and the New York Observer. His book "Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" is available here...

powells.com