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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:36:15 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
The questions a shocked America is asking its President

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 03 September 2005

Why has it taken George Bush five days to get to New Orleans?

President Bush was on holiday in Texas when Katrina struck. He then spent Monday on a pre-arranged political fundraising tour of California and Arizona, which he did not cancel or curtail. On Tuesday he surveyed the hurricane damage - but only from the flight deck of Air Force One, prompting criticism that he was too detached from the suffering on the ground. He didn't give a speech until Tuesday afternoon - 36 hours after the storm first hit - and didn't embark on a proper tour of the region until yesterday. Key advisers have come under fire for similar levels of detachment. As the full magnitude of the disaster unfolded, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was seen buying shoes in New York, and Dick Cheney remained on holiday.

How could the world's only superpower be so slow in rescuing its own people?

It will probably take months, even years, to answer that question. But here are a few factors to consider: 1) the federal government's disaster relief agency, Fema, has lost considerable clout because the priority at the Department of Homeland Security has been counter-terrorism; 2) the homeland security director, Michael Chertoff, has no experience in disaster relief; 3) because of Fema's low profile, almost no contingency measures were taken before Katrina struck; 4) the under-resourced local Army Corps of Engineers appeared completely unprepared to conduct emergency operations after the levees were breached; 5) nobody appears to have considered the communications problems inherent in loss of phone and cell-phone service.

Why did he cut funding for flood control and emergency management?

Another question likely to be the subject of official investigations. Local and former federal officials are in little doubt that the budgetary priorities of Iraq, tax cuts and the "war on terror" are to blame. Disaster prevention experts have been studying New Orleans for years and urging upgrades to its levees and other preventive measures. The Army Corps of Engineers was supposed to carry out some of this work last year, but its funding was cut. It seems the Bush administration considered the risk of malicious human attack and the risk of the ravages of nature, and found itself incapable of holding both ideas in its head.

Why did it take so long to send adequate National Guard forces to keep law and order?

The National Guard is under pressure in every US state because of the strains of deployment in Iraq. More than one-third of Louisiana's 10,000 guardsmen are either in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mass deployment of guardsmen from other states is being contemplated because they are all needed in Iraq too. At first, only 3,000 guardsmen were sent to New Orleans, but that was increased to about 10,000 as looting and gun violence became widespread.

How can the US take Iraq, a country of £25m people, in three weeks but fail to rescue 25,000 of its own citizens from a sports arena in a big American city?

America's obsession with maintaining its pre-eminent position as the world's largest superpower means it is incapable of responding swiftly and effectively to a humanitarian crisis. While it has the firepower for fighting wars, it does not have the leadership and skills to combat natural disaster.

news.independent.co.uk



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:37:30 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
Iraq civil war fears grow as sectarian violence spreads

By Kim Sengupta
Published: 03 September 2005

Sectarian fighting among Shia and Sunnis spread across Iraq amid renewed warnings that the country is sliding into civil war.

Tensions over the country's new constitution - approved by the Shia and Kurds but rejected by Sunnis - as well as continuing anger surrounding the stampede death of almost 1,000 Shia pilgrims spilt into violence.

After months of attacks on Shia targets by Sunni insurgents designed to start, the government claimed, an internecine religious conflict, the first signs came of a Shia backlash.

A young girl was killed yesterday in a gun battle in Baghdad that followed a march by hundreds of Shias on the al-Aima bridge where most of the stampede deaths had taken place.

Soldiers guarding the bridge opened fire on the demonstrators. Sunnis on the other side of the River Tigris, believing they were under attack from the Shia marchers then opened fire themselves, in turn drawing fire from Shia gunmen.

Two separate blasts in a Sunni neighbourhood led to two deaths and Sunni residents said they had been subjected to sniper fire and petrol bomb attacks.

Gunmen opened fire on Sunni Muslim worshippers at Friday prayers in two mosques south of Baghdad, killing two people and injuring four, police said.

The first attack occurred when a lone gunman entered the Mizael Basha mosque near the town of Zubeir, 20 km (12 miles) south-west of Basra and sprayed automatic fire on worshippers during dawn prayers. One man was killed and four injured, police Col. Nouri al-Fayadh said. Another Sunni mosque, the Rashidiya, was later attacked by a group of gunmen who killed a guard.

Sunnis in the British-controlled south, which is also predominantly British, say the local police force has been heavily infiltrated by Shia militias and were actively encouraging a sectarian campaign.

An American journalist researching the allegations was recently shot dead after being taken by men in police uniforms.

Ali Mohammed, a Sunni schoolteacher, said "the attacks have got much worse. The police even come into our mosques and steal money and valuables."

Meanwhile, bereaved families buried the dead from the stampede and there were angry accusations that Sunni insurgents were behind the massacre.

Ahmed Chasib, 31, whose wife and sister were both killed claimed armed Sunnis had attacked Shia pilgrims during one of their holiest days of the year.

"We were travelling together but when we were near the bridge, the women ahead of us were hit by chemicals coming from Aadhamiya," he said.

Jamal al-Hakim, who lost his 12-year-old son, added: "They (the Sunnis), first of all, attacked us with mortars then they started the rumour that there were suicide bombers. That started the panic."

In a flexing of Shia muscle at least 5,000 people marched in support of the new constitution in Basra.

The march, organized by the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Shia Dawa Party, was larger than rallies against the constitution staged by Sunni Arabs elsewhere in the country in recent weeks.

The two parties are the largest Shia political groupings in Iraq, and their representatives have played a key role in drafting the new charter which will be presented to voters in a referendum on 15 October.

* Iraqi authorities have set 19 October as the date for the start of the trial of Saddam Hussein, an official said yesterday speaking on the condition of anonymity. Authorities want the trial to start soon after Iraqis finish their referendum.

Sectarian fighting among Shia and Sunnis spread across Iraq amid renewed warnings that the country is sliding into civil war.

Tensions over the country's new constitution - approved by the Shia and Kurds but rejected by Sunnis - as well as continuing anger surrounding the stampede death of almost 1,000 Shia pilgrims spilt into violence.

After months of attacks on Shia targets by Sunni insurgents designed to start, the government claimed, an internecine religious conflict, the first signs came of a Shia backlash.

A young girl was killed yesterday in a gun battle in Baghdad that followed a march by hundreds of Shias on the al-Aima bridge where most of the stampede deaths had taken place.

Soldiers guarding the bridge opened fire on the demonstrators. Sunnis on the other side of the River Tigris, believing they were under attack from the Shia marchers then opened fire themselves, in turn drawing fire from Shia gunmen.

Two separate blasts in a Sunni neighbourhood led to two deaths and Sunni residents said they had been subjected to sniper fire and petrol bomb attacks.

Gunmen opened fire on Sunni Muslim worshippers at Friday prayers in two mosques south of Baghdad, killing two people and injuring four, police said.

The first attack occurred when a lone gunman entered the Mizael Basha mosque near the town of Zubeir, 20 km (12 miles) south-west of Basra and sprayed automatic fire on worshippers during dawn prayers. One man was killed and four injured, police Col. Nouri al-Fayadh said. Another Sunni mosque, the Rashidiya, was later attacked by a group of gunmen who killed a guard.

Sunnis in the British-controlled south, which is also predominantly British, say the local police force has been heavily infiltrated by Shia militias and were actively encouraging a sectarian campaign.
An American journalist researching the allegations was recently shot dead after being taken by men in police uniforms.

Ali Mohammed, a Sunni schoolteacher, said "the attacks have got much worse. The police even come into our mosques and steal money and valuables."

Meanwhile, bereaved families buried the dead from the stampede and there were angry accusations that Sunni insurgents were behind the massacre.

Ahmed Chasib, 31, whose wife and sister were both killed claimed armed Sunnis had attacked Shia pilgrims during one of their holiest days of the year.

"We were travelling together but when we were near the bridge, the women ahead of us were hit by chemicals coming from Aadhamiya," he said.

Jamal al-Hakim, who lost his 12-year-old son, added: "They (the Sunnis), first of all, attacked us with mortars then they started the rumour that there were suicide bombers. That started the panic."

In a flexing of Shia muscle at least 5,000 people marched in support of the new constitution in Basra.

The march, organized by the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Shia Dawa Party, was larger than rallies against the constitution staged by Sunni Arabs elsewhere in the country in recent weeks.

The two parties are the largest Shia political groupings in Iraq, and their representatives have played a key role in drafting the new charter which will be presented to voters in a referendum on 15 October.

* Iraqi authorities have set 19 October as the date for the start of the trial of Saddam Hussein, an official said yesterday speaking on the condition of anonymity. Authorities want the trial to start soon after Iraqis finish their referendum.

news.independent.co.uk



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:38:35 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1586448
 
Amid Images of Black Victims, Many Ask: Was Race a Factor?


by Martha Mendoza

New Orleans neighborhoods, once lined with old live oaks, charming cottages and imposing mansions, had been proof of the ease with which black and white could live side by side. With the exception, perhaps, of the toniest areas of St. Charles Avenue, and the poorest blocks of housing projects, black and white homeowners chatted to each other from their front porches and greeted each other as they walked their dogs down the streets.

I do think the nation would be responding differently if they were white elderly and white babies actually dying on the street and being covered with newspapers and shrouds and being left there.

David Billings of The People's Institute

While Hurricane Katrina had no deliberate target as it ravaged the Gulf Coast, in the aftermath it's clear that the victims are mostly black and mostly poor. So many photographs from the devastation of New Orleans show the same faces: Desperate. Grief-stricken. Black.

"Love has no color," Cassandra Robinson said huddling with her family in a parking entrance along New Orleans' Convention Center Boulevard. "But I've seen where this is all black and everybody else who is Caucasian, they're up high in the hotels."

In fact, those in hotels complained bitterly they also were neglected. But Robinson's comment echoes those of others who question the part race may have played in New Orleans' crippling crisis.

Would the response have been more urgent if the victims had been mainly white? Is economic class a factor even more than race?

The images of the black poor struggling in New Orleans' chaos should be "a powerful wake-up call," said Dr. Jeff Johnson, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Medicine.

"The message is that these people are in some sense abandoned, and that's why they're so angry," he said, "but that abandonment occurred not just around this storm. They've been abandoned by our society in the last decade. That's something as a society we have to acknowledge and grapple with."

Jesse Jackson said racial injustice and indifference to black suffering was at the root of the disaster response. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the administration's highest-ranking black, dismissed any such suggestion.

Although she agreed that the black community has been heavily affected, Rice said "nobody wants to see Americans suffer, and I think everybody understands that."

In Orleans Parish, where the boundaries are the same as the city limits, 66.6 percent of the residents are black. The black population nationwide is 12.1 percent.

D.J. Kelly, stood on a wet New Orleans sidewalk Friday with an American flag that he plucked from a gutter and washed with "some of my precious water." Kelly, who is black, said the disaster has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin.

"Don't make it seem like no racial thing," he said. "That's not the way I feel. We all is in this together."

Black members of Congress, however, denounced the slow federal response to the storm.

"We cannot allow it to be said by history that the difference between those who lived and those who died in the great storm and flood of 2005 was nothing more than poverty, age or skin color," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md. "It would be unconscionable to stand by and do nothing."

New Orleanians were divided not so much by race as by economic class, a daily fact of life in a city where birthlines mean much. Sen. Mary Landrieu, a blue-eyed blonde, is the daughter of a former mayor. Marc Morial, who is light-skinned, followed his father into the mayor's office.

The political power structure is, to the eye, firmly controlled by people with African blood in their veins; most of the economic power of the city is held in very white hands.

Some even point to the city's geography: uptown New Orleans, around Tulane University, was mostly white and affluent; the areas north of the French Quarter and east of downtown tended to be poorer and more heavily populated by minorities.

When 80 percent of the city's population, according to the mayor, evacuated before Hurricane Katrina, that left behind those with no cars, no resources, no way out. Twenty-one percent of Orleans Parish households earn less than $10,000 a year. Nearly 27,000 families are below the poverty level. Most of those families are black.

Larry E. Davis, director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center on Race and Social Problems, said images of the disaster are an embarrassment to this nation.

"It suggests that the residuals of a racist legacy are still very much intact," he said. "It's as though you are looking at a picture of an African country."

Racial disparity in access to health care has been documented. Last December, the American Journal of Public Health reported that 886,000 African American deaths could have been prevented between 1991-2000 if they had the same care as whites.

There has been an outpouring of donations from throughout the United States in response to the images seen in news coverage - but might it have been greater if those images did not show black faces?

"I do think the nation would be responding differently if they were white elderly and white babies actually dying on the street and being covered with newspapers and shrouds and being left there," said David Billings of The People's Institute, a 25-year-old New Orleans-based organization focused on ending racism.

Ben Burkett, a black farmer whose fields of kale, spinach and broccoli and acres of soft pine trees were wiped out by Katrina, said the initial disaster made no distinctions, but he expects relief to be inherently biased.

"The eye of the storm made everybody equal, black or white, rich or poor, big house or small house," he said. "But believe me, when the relief comes - and we haven't seen anything yet - the small farmer is going to be at the end, and the small black farmer is going to be at the end of that.

"Basically I expect it because that's the way it's always been."

EDITOR'S NOTE - Contributing to this report were AP writers Rebecca Carroll in Washington D.C., Charlotte Porter in Baton Rouge, and Allen G. Breed in New Orleans.

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press




To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:39:35 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
The questions a shocked America is asking its President

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 03 September 2005
Why has it taken George Bush five days to get to New Orleans?

President Bush was on holiday in Texas when Katrina struck. He then spent Monday on a pre-arranged political fundraising tour of California and Arizona, which he did not cancel or curtail. On Tuesday he surveyed the hurricane damage - but only from the flight deck of Air Force One, prompting criticism that he was too detached from the suffering on the ground. He didn't give a speech until Tuesday afternoon - 36 hours after the storm first hit - and didn't embark on a proper tour of the region until yesterday. Key advisers have come under fire for similar levels of detachment. As the full magnitude of the disaster unfolded, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was seen buying shoes in New York, and Dick Cheney remained on holiday.

How could the world's only superpower be so slow in rescuing its own people?

It will probably take months, even years, to answer that question. But here are a few factors to consider: 1) the federal government's disaster relief agency, Fema, has lost considerable clout because the priority at the Department of Homeland Security has been counter-terrorism; 2) the homeland security director, Michael Chertoff, has no experience in disaster relief; 3) because of Fema's low profile, almost no contingency measures were taken before Katrina struck; 4) the under-resourced local Army Corps of Engineers appeared completely unprepared to conduct emergency operations after the levees were breached; 5) nobody appears to have considered the communications problems inherent in loss of phone and cell-phone service.

Why did he cut funding for flood control and emergency management?

Another question likely to be the subject of official investigations. Local and former federal officials are in little doubt that the budgetary priorities of Iraq, tax cuts and the "war on terror" are to blame. Disaster prevention experts have been studying New Orleans for years and urging upgrades to its levees and other preventive measures. The Army Corps of Engineers was supposed to carry out some of this work last year, but its funding was cut. It seems the Bush administration considered the risk of malicious human attack and the risk of the ravages of nature, and found itself incapable of holding both ideas in its head.

Why did it take so long to send adequate National Guard forces to keep law and order?

The National Guard is under pressure in every US state because of the strains of deployment in Iraq. More than one-third of Louisiana's 10,000 guardsmen are either in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mass deployment of guardsmen from other states is being contemplated because they are all needed in Iraq too. At first, only 3,000 guardsmen were sent to New Orleans, but that was increased to about 10,000 as looting and gun violence became widespread.

How can the US take Iraq, a country of £25m people, in three weeks but fail to rescue 25,000 of its own citizens from a sports arena in a big American city?

America's obsession with maintaining its pre-eminent position as the world's largest superpower means it is incapable of responding swiftly and effectively to a humanitarian crisis. While it has the firepower for fighting wars, it does not have the leadership and skills to combat natural disaster.

Why has it taken George Bush five days to get to New Orleans?

President Bush was on holiday in Texas when Katrina struck. He then spent Monday on a pre-arranged political fundraising tour of California and Arizona, which he did not cancel or curtail. On Tuesday he surveyed the hurricane damage - but only from the flight deck of Air Force One, prompting criticism that he was too detached from the suffering on the ground. He didn't give a speech until Tuesday afternoon - 36 hours after the storm first hit - and didn't embark on a proper tour of the region until yesterday. Key advisers have come under fire for similar levels of detachment. As the full magnitude of the disaster unfolded, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was seen buying shoes in New York, and Dick Cheney remained on holiday.

How could the world's only superpower be so slow in rescuing its own people?

It will probably take months, even years, to answer that question. But here are a few factors to consider: 1) the federal government's disaster relief agency, Fema, has lost considerable clout because the priority at the Department of Homeland Security has been counter-terrorism; 2) the homeland security director, Michael Chertoff, has no experience in disaster relief; 3) because of Fema's low profile, almost no contingency measures were taken before Katrina struck; 4) the under-resourced local Army Corps of Engineers appeared completely unprepared to conduct emergency operations after the levees were breached; 5) nobody appears to have considered the communications problems inherent in loss of phone and cell-phone service.

Why did he cut funding for flood control and emergency management?
Another question likely to be the subject of official investigations. Local and former federal officials are in little doubt that the budgetary priorities of Iraq, tax cuts and the "war on terror" are to blame. Disaster prevention experts have been studying New Orleans for years and urging upgrades to its levees and other preventive measures. The Army Corps of Engineers was supposed to carry out some of this work last year, but its funding was cut. It seems the Bush administration considered the risk of malicious human attack and the risk of the ravages of nature, and found itself incapable of holding both ideas in its head.

Why did it take so long to send adequate National Guard forces to keep law and order?

The National Guard is under pressure in every US state because of the strains of deployment in Iraq. More than one-third of Louisiana's 10,000 guardsmen are either in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mass deployment of guardsmen from other states is being contemplated because they are all needed in Iraq too. At first, only 3,000 guardsmen were sent to New Orleans, but that was increased to about 10,000 as looting and gun violence became widespread.

How can the US take Iraq, a country of £25m people, in three weeks but fail to rescue 25,000 of its own citizens from a sports arena in a big American city?

America's obsession with maintaining its pre-eminent position as the world's largest superpower means it is incapable of responding swiftly and effectively to a humanitarian crisis. While it has the firepower for fighting wars, it does not have the leadership and skills to combat natural disaster.

news.independent.co.uk



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:40:21 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
World Stunned as U.S. Struggles with Katrina

by Andrew Gray

LONDON - The world has watched amazed as the planet's only superpower struggles with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with some saying the chaos has exposed flaws and deep divisions in American society.

World leaders and ordinary citizens have expressed sympathy with the people of the southern United States whose lives were devastated by the hurricane and the flooding that followed.

APOCALYPSE NOW
With residents in desperate need of aid, many bodies have been ignored. Criticism of government response mounts. (AFP/Getty Images)

But many have also been shocked by the images of disorder beamed around the world -- looters roaming the debris-strewn streets and thousands of people gathered in New Orleans waiting -- as the authorities fail to provide food, water and other aid.

"Anarchy in the USA" declared Britain's best-selling newspaper The Sun.

"Apocalypse Now" headlined Germany's Handelsblatt daily.

The pictures of the catastrophe -- which has killed hundreds and possibly thousands -- have evoked memories of crises in the world's poorest nations such as last year's tsunami in Asia, which left more than 230,000 people dead or missing.

But some view the response to those disasters more favorably than the lawless aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"I am absolutely disgusted. After the tsunami our people, even the ones who lost everything, wanted to help the others who were suffering," Sajeewa Chinthaka, 36, as he watched a cricket match in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

"Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the U.S. we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is."

SINKING INTO ANARCHY

Many newspapers highlighted criticism of local and state authorities and of President Bush. Some compared the sputtering relief effort with the massive amounts of money and resources poured into the war in Iraq.

"A modern metropolis sinking in water and into anarchy -- it is a really cruel spectacle for a champion of security like Bush," France's left-leaning Liberation newspaper said.

"(Al Qaeda leader Osama) bin Laden, nice and dry in his hideaway, must be killing himself laughing."

A female employee at a multinational firm in South Korea said it may have been no accident the U.S. was hit.

"Maybe it was punishment for what it did to Iraq, which has a man-made disaster, not a natural disaster," said the woman, who did not want to be named as she has an American manager.

"A lot of the people I work with think this way. We spoke about it just the other day," she said.

Commentators noted the victims of the hurricane were overwhelmingly African Americans, too poor to flee the region as the hurricane loomed unlike some of their white neighbors.

New Orleans ranks fifth in the United States in terms of African American population and 67 percent of the city's residents are black.

"In one of the poorest states in the country, where black people earn half as much as white people, this has taken on a racial dimension," said a report in Britain's Guardian daily.

Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn, in a veiled criticism of U.S. political thought, said the disaster showed the need for a strong state that could help poor people.

"You see in this example that even in the 21st century you need the state, a good functioning state, and I hope that for all these people, these poor people, that the Americans will do their best," he told reporters at a European Union meeting in Newport, Wales.

David Fordham, 33, a hospital anesthetist speaking at a London underground rail station, said he had spent time in America and was not surprised the country had struggled to cope.

"Maybe they just thought they could sit it out and everything would be okay," he said.

"It's unbelievable though -- the TV images -- and your heart goes out to them."

With reporting by Reuters bureaux around the world




To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:43:19 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
Katrina Elicits Sympathy, Jeers Worldwide

Even as they pledge aid, nations express surprise at the ineffective U.S. response to the crisis.

By Héctor Tobar, Times Staff Writer

MEXICO CITY — Around the world, the irony was too deep to ignore.

In teeming Mexico City, the newspaper Ovaciones took a break from its daily diet of kidnappings and gore to splash across its front page images of an American city reduced to "starvation, refugees … and helicopters under fire."

"Just Like Haiti!" the banner headline screamed.

From Beijing and Havana, as well as Paris and Berlin, there were offers of assistance to the most powerful nation on Earth as it struggled to cope in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Pledges of help came from more than 50 countries, including oil from Venezuela, generators from Japan and cash from Australia. Others offered boats, aircraft, medical supplies and blankets.

Even impoverished Sri Lanka made a $25,000 donation, a gesture in recognition of Americans' response to last year's tsunami.

But the expressions of sympathy were mixed with a worldwide sense of amazement and disgust at the failure of American authorities to effectively deal with the crisis.

After describing the plight of two Brazilians caught up in the fetid drama at the Louisiana Superdome in an editorial titled "Collapse," the Jornal do Brasil in Rio de Janeiro said New Orleans had been reduced to a "tribal area."

"To see homeless dying of thirst and lack of medical care in the middle of the street escapes comprehension," the paper said. "The world asks how [the Americans] were able to take food and water so quickly to remote Indonesia and cannot save New Orleans."


In Europe, some commentators saw links between the disaster and unpopular U.S. policies in Iraq. Germany's environment minister associated the catastrophe with the Bush administration's position on global warming. Others saw a racial dimension to the tragedy.

"The fast and secure evacuation has been of white people," said the German leftist daily Die Tageszeitung. "Poor and black people stayed behind. It is as if time had stopped between the racial unrest of the '60s and today."

Some of the most heartfelt expressions of sympathy were from Southeast Asia, where memories of the tsunami — another surge of angry waters that took tens of thousands of lives — are still fresh.

"The people of Aceh and Nias learned from the tsunami last year, and we are also grateful for the American people's generosity to help us here," said Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, Indonesia's director of tsunami reconstruction. "Perhaps we can find some lesson learned that we can share with the people of America."

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said his government was dispatching 20 disaster experts to the region and contributing $7.5 million to the Red Cross.

"There should not be an assumption that because America is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, this isn't a major challenge and a major crisis," he told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Other nations have offered help during previous U.S. emergencies, such as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But never in recent history has there been such an outpouring, said State Department spokesman Tom Casey.

The Bush administration has offered mixed signals on whether it would accept such aid. In an interview with ABC on Thursday, President Bush said the U.S. was not seeking foreign assistance. "This country is going to rise up and take care of it," he said.

That statement prompted an angry editorial Friday from the Jamaican newspaper the Gleaner: "Sometimes even the high and mighty need to realize that we all need each other and that they would not lose face were they to accept some tangible help from others who have been the beneficiaries of their generosity in the past."

But on Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed "the heartfelt thanks of the president, the United States government and all Americans" to those who had offered support. She said she was "deeply touched" by Sri Lanka's gesture.

"We've turned down no offers," she said.

A few offers of aid were not likely to be accepted.


latimes.com



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:46:20 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
American Caesar

ROSA BROOKS

NERO FIDDLED while Rome burned.

President Bush, who's not big on the classics, probably wasn't thinking about this when he mugged for the cameras Tuesday, playing a guitar presented to him by country singer Mark Wills.

But with the photo now Exhibit A for many liberal bloggers, he may find the comparison hard to shake.

True, while Bush enjoyed his vacation and strummed his new guitar, a great city was being devastated by water rather than fire.


And unlike the Emperor Nero, who was accused by the historian Suetonius of having deliberately started the fire that destroyed much of Rome in AD 64, no one is accusing President Bush of planning Hurricane Katrina.

But the Bush administration deserves substantial blame for the scale of the catastrophe in New Orleans.

An excellent article this week by Will Bunch in Editor & Publisher points out that it was the cost of the Iraq war that led the Bush administration to defund efforts to shore up the vulnerable city's levees.


After flooding in 1995 killed six people in New Orleans, the Army Corps of Engineers started work on a massive civil engineering project designed to strengthen the region's levees and improve the pumping system that regulates water levels.

The work got off to a good start, but in 2003 federal funding started to run dry, leaving many projects — including a planned effort to strengthen the banks of Lake Pontchartrain — on the drawing board.

As early as 2004, the New Orleans Times-Picayune began to report that local officials and Army Corps of Engineers representatives attributed the funding cuts to the rising cost of the war in Iraq.

Facing record deficits, the Bush administration cut costs — and cut corners — by including in its 2005 budget only about a sixth of the flood-prevention funds requested by the Louisiana congressional delegation.

The war in Iraq also has made recovery from Katrina slower and more challenging. The Army National Guard units normally available for domestic disaster relief found rapid emergency response unusually difficult since so many of their personnel are deployed in Iraq. Although more units were dispatched later in the week, the manpower shortage was painfully evident during the crucial first hours.

The Iraq war is not the only reason for insisting that the Bush administration deserves some blame for the magnitude of the still-unfolding catastrophe.

After 9/11, the president promised that the nation would never again be so unprepared in the face of disaster. The Department of Homeland Security was created with a view to ensuring that every American city had adequate emergency plans in place for the kind of large-scale crisis that could accompany either a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.

It was an empty promise.


Four years after 9/11, the fiasco in New Orleans underscores our nation's ongoing inability to cope with serious threats.

Take public health, for example: Hurricane preparation plans — supposedly prepared with the involvement and approval of Homeland Security officials — were grossly inadequate for ensuring a continued supply of medication to the sick and for the evacuation of the ill and disabled, for cleaning up, ensuring safe drinking water or preventing the spread of disease.

With floodwaters, broken sewage pipes, damaged petrochemical pipelines and floating corpses all over the city, no one seemed to have a clear plan.

If a terrorist's bomb, rather than a hurricane, had destroyed a levee around Lake Pontchartrain, no one would hesitate to condemn the administration for its lackluster emergency planning and response.

And federal officials had more than a week's warning that a hurricane was on track for New Orleans — far more time than they'd likely have of a terrorist attack on critical infrastructure.

Not everything can be blamed on the Bush administration, of course, but for millions of Americans, the catastrophic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is likely to stand as an indictment of Bush's false economies, empty promises and foolish priorities.


Consider Louisiana's wetlands, to take just one example. Policies associated with the administration exacerbated the geographical and ecological conditions for severe flooding. Over the decades, oil and gas company actions played a significant role in destroying the wetlands. Other factors also contributed, including residential development and, ironically, the overbuilding of some of the region's levees. But the "man-made" aspects of the disaster highlight the folly of the policies of unlimited development and environmental despoliation that the administration has so consistently embraced.

Two thousand years after his death, Nero's famous fiddling remains an allegory about feckless and selfcentered leadership in times of crisis.

Bush's guitar-playing antics in the face of the New Orleans devastation may doom him to a similar fate.

latimes.com



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:46:40 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
SNAP!



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:48:57 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
Corby Pelto: If Wellstone were still a senator
Corby Pelto


September 3, 2005 PELTO0903


If Sen. Paul Wellstone were alive today, he would have had a field day in those Washington hallways of hypocrisy and deceit that became the womb for President Bush's Iraq War strategy.

I didn't agree with everything that Paul Wellstone stood for. Indeed, there were times when I couldn't stand his oratory because he was so competitive and passionate about his position. However, I always respected him, and I always knew that his participation in a debate made things more interesting and well-rounded.

Americans miss Wellstone in Washington. He would have passionately, visibly and bravely challenged the Bush justification for the war in Iraq. What we citizens received instead were a bunch of political sheep who dared not to question anything too loudly, lest they upset the president or their voters back home.

Instead of standing up for principle, our politicians merely licked their finger and held it up in the air to see which way the political wind was blowing.

If it were politicians instead of 19-year-old kids going off to war, perhaps the debate would have been much more passionate.


The difference between Paul Wellstone and our less brave politicians is that he didn't need to have his own neck on the line in order to take a passionate stand on an issue -- he merely needed to know that some of his fellow citizens had their necks on the line, and this was enough justification for him to step into the ring.

Sadly, the bravest and most passionate person in the Iraq-War debate today isn't a politician, media figure or other leader at all.

The bravest and most passionate person in the Iraq-war debate today is Cindy Sheehan, the mom from California who lost her soldier son in one of those unpreventable ambushes that has become a trademark for this war.

All alone and with little fanfare, Sheehan had the guts to go to Texas all by herself and set up camp outside of George W. Bush's ranch in the tiny town of Crawford.

Quite a few people and leaders have now jumped on her bandwagon.

If Paul Wellstone were alive, Sheehan would not likely have been so alone.


It seems somewhat embarrassing for a nation our size to have to rely upon the mother of a slain soldier to hold a mirror up to our public consciousness about a war that most Americans no longer support.

It is equally embarrassing to our country to have neoconservatives bashing Sheehan for having the guts and conviction to speak her mind after the death of her son.

Clearly, Sheehan has the right to stand upon any public podium in any county in this country. She is deserving of respect because unlike most who criticize her, she paid a dear price for this misleading and mismanaged war.

If Paul Wellstone were here, the halls of Washington would have been a much more lively place, and the Iraq war debates on the Senate floor would have been much more passionate and insightful affair.

Americans need leaders who have the vision, conviction and bravery to stand up and challenge the direction even when others fail to line up behind them.

America is missing a brave soul who would have challenged a decision to go into an ill-planned war that led us astray. Only fools and cowards rush in without a vigorous, passionate and ongoing debate.

startribune.com



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:52:47 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
Bush Balks at Pact to Fight Poverty

The Administration wants out of a multinational agreement to spend at least 0.7% of U.S. GDP on development assistance for poor nations

by Pete Engardio

In March, 2002, while the U.S. was still fighting in Afghanistan and gearing up for its other wars, President George W. Bush made a grand gesture at a United Nations-organized summit in Monterrey, Mexico, that surprised many of the Administration's critics. Bush pledged to boost U.S. development assistance to the world's poorest nations by $5 billion over five years.

He was also one of many heads of state to sign the Millenium Declaration -- better known as the Monterrey Consensus -- which pledged huge foreign-aid increases as part of a comprehensive approach to eradicate global poverty.

KEY DELETIONS. That consensus seems to have broken down, however. With leaders from more than 170 nations set to convene in New York on Sept. 14 for another U.N. Summit -- which in part will be devoted to assessing whether rich and poor nations are living up to their promises in Monterrey -- the Bush Administration has withdrawn its support for the Millenium Development Goals, a set of targets championed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and former World Bank President John Wolfensohn. Those goals include halving world poverty and providing basic education and medical care for the poor by 2015.

Among the hundreds of last-minute amendments to a draft U.N. consensus document proposed by John Bolton, Bush's controversial appointee as America's ambassador to the U.N., is a call to delete language indicating that greater foreign aid is needed to meet the Millenium Goals, to meet pledges to fully finance the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and to make primary education free for the poor.

The U.S. also opposes references to a goal that all rich nations eventually devote at least 0.7% of gross domestic product to development assistance. The U.S. currently spends about 0.1% of GDP on foreign antipoverty programs.

SCOTLAND PLEDGE. To Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, an architect of the Millenium Goals and a key advisor to Annan on poverty issues, the Bush move is a betrayal of the global antipoverty crusade that will impact millions of lives in Africa.

In an Aug. 31 conference call with journalists, Sachs accused the Bush Administration of trying to derail what he says has been growing momentum, especially in Europe, behind honoring the Monterrey foreign-aid commitments, "and to break free of U.S. responsibility, especially for the financing of these goals."

As recently as June, at a G-8 summit in Scotland, Bush joined other Western leaders in a communique endorsing greater funding to achieve the same poverty, health, and education goals, Sachs notes.

LIVES AT STAKE. Bolton argues that the U.S. never agreed in Monterrey to spending 0.7% of GDP on development assistance. Indeed, Washington has consistently opposed setting specific foreign-aid targets since the U.N. General Assembly first endorsed the 0.7% goal in 1970. The Declaration states, "we encourage developed countries that haven't done so to make concrete progress to 0.7%."

Even in Monterrey, though, Bush Administration officials stressed that they still oppose such targets. Instead, they argued that the development community should first focus more on improving the effectiveness of aid, to ensure that money spent actually alleviates poverty.

Sachs argues that there's more than ample evidence that well-managed international aid programs work, citing dramatic progress in initiates to fight diseases such as malaria and to provide safe drinking water. For example, he says, "it's possible to save the lives of millions of children who will die this year from malaria, which is entirely preventable because treatments are there."

BUDGET BOOST. Todd Moss, a research fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank, thinks the U.S. still has an argument. "The issue is, how do we build an international system that allows poor countries to prosper, not just transfer as much money as possible. I'm very skeptical that we have cracked the nut of aid effectiveness."

Moss notes that if rich countries really spend 0.7% of GDP on development assistance, that would come to about $200 billion. "Nobody thinks we can spend $200 billion sensibly because the current aid system is dysfunctional."

Still, the U.S. could claim that their promise to double development assistance shows they're making progress in moving to that goal. Besides boosting U.S. contributions to international antipoverty programs, such as the Global AIDS Fund, Bush pledged to devote another $5 billion to education, health, and development projects under the new Millenium Challenge Account.

NEOCONSERVATIVE DISLIKE. Under that program, the U.S. would fund programs in poor nations that have developed comprehensive development blueprints and set up systems to monitor the use of funds and their results. So far, only 16 nations are receiving these funds, and Congress has allocated just $1.5 billion for 2005. But the Bush Administration still has boosted development assistance by 50% in the past three years, something the Clinton Administration couldn't accomplish.

So why are Bolton and other U.S. officials now pushing to ditch the high-minded diplomacy altogether? After all, the Millenium Goals are also championed by Britain's Tony Blair, a staunch U.S. ally, not to mention the rest of Europe. One obvious explanation is that Bolton is no fan of the U.N. By attacking the Millenium Goals, he's going after the initiative upon which Kofi Annan's hopes to build his legacy.

The ambitious antipoverty agenda also binds America to funding the kind of multilateral programs that U.S. neoconservatives detest. The U.S. "is saying to the world that we don't accept global partnership," Sachs charges.

PR NIGHTMARE. In the past few months, most European nations have reaffirmed their commitments to meeting the 0.7% foreign-aid target. The Bush Administration thinks such promises are grandstanding because nations such as Germany have too many budget constraints to honor such pledges. Conservatives also note that nations that are very generous with aid, such as the Netherlands, have very small militaries and don't shoulder much of the expense of maintaining global military operations that the U.S. does.

But the embarrassment for the U.S. could continue to rise as the year 2015 draws near and it becomes increasingly clear that the Millenium Goals will not be achieved. As the world's richest nation, blame for not doing more to halt the crises of AIDS, tuberculosis, lack of education, and extreme poverty inevitably will fall most heavily on America.

Whatever the Bush Administration's motives, it's hard to see how waging a public fight against international antipoverty goals will shape up as anything but a public-relations headache for the Bush Administration come Sept. 14 in New York.

businessweek.com



To: steve harris who wrote (248961)9/3/2005 3:54:44 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1586448
 
Katrina's Assault on Washington


Published: September 3, 2005

Do not be misled by Congress's approval of $10.5 billion in relief for the Hurricane Katrina victims. That's prompted by the graphic shock of the news coverage from New Orleans and the region, where the devastation catapults daily, in heartbreaking contrast with the slo-mo bumblings of government.

There are dozens of questions Americans will demand to have answered once this emergency has passed. If the Homeland Security Department was so ill prepared for a natural disaster that everyone knew was coming, how is it equipped to handle other kinds of crises? Has the war in Iraq drained the nation of resources that it needs for things like flood prevention? Is the National Guard ready to handle a disaster that might be even worse, like a biological or nuclear attack?

One thing is certain: if President Bush and his Republican Congressional leaders want to deal responsibly with a historic disaster of this scale, they must finally try the path of honestly shared national sacrifice. If they respond by passing a few emergency measures and then falling back on their plans to enact more tax cuts, America will have to confront the fact that it is stuck with leaders who neither know, nor care, how to lead.

The pre-Katrina plan for this Congressional season was to enact more upper-bracket tax cuts for the least needy, while cutting into the safety-net programs for sick and impoverished Americans. These are the very entitlement programs most needed by the sudden underclass of hundreds of thousands of hurricane refugees cast adrift like Dustbowl Okies. Will Congress dare to go forward with these retrogressive plans in the face of the suffering from Katrina? Its woeful track record suggests that, shockingly, the answer may be yes.

G.O.P. leaders are set to mandate billions in Medicaid and antipoverty cuts this month, while the Senate is poised to try again to repeal the estate tax, a monumental folly that will deprive the deficit-ridden government of an estimated $750 billion in vital revenue in the first decade. The theory is that over the long run, the missing money will "starve the beast" and force Washington to make huge cuts in federal programs. The public has never bought this, but as long as the economy held up, it was willing to ignore the long-term implications.

That can't be the case now, when those implications are sitting in filthy refugee centers, when the streets of New Orleans are under water and when the nation must take care of hundreds of thousands of homeless people. Yet President Bush has still managed to repeat his no-taxes mantra.

Senator Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat, is now fighting for every available dollar to restore her state. Republicans had been wooing Ms. Landrieu as a possible supporter of the estate tax repeal. Now, we presume, she has higher priorities.

Washington's inspiration must now be the individual rescuers in New Orleans, who have labored so bravely and selflessly, as well as the charitable deeds of local and state governments. Houston's offer of shelter at the Astrodome has put self-regarding national politicians to shame.

Congress and the president had better get the message: an extraordinary time is upon the nation. The annihilation in New Orleans is an irrefutable sign that the national tax-cut party is over. So is the idea that American voters cannot be required to accept sacrifice or inconvenience, no matter how great the crisis. This country is better than that.

nytimes.com