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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: elpolvo who wrote (89917)11/26/2006 7:43:13 AM
From: James Calladine  Respond to of 361836
 
Dems in Control? We're Still Staying in Canada
by David Drucker


MY WIFE AND I AWOKE, as usual, to NPR. Before political correspondent Mara Liasson got to the end of her first sentence, I knew the news was disastrous. George W. Bush had been reelected.

"Honey," I said, "remember when we talked about moving to Canada?"


I'm sure a lot of other dyed-in-the-organic-wool liberals muttered something similar that dark morning in 2004, but unlike most of them, we meant it. Plan A: John Kerry wins, we build that dream ski house in Vermont. Plan B: Move to Vancouver, Canada.

So, Plan B it was. We'd had enough of Bush, the direction the United States was going, and this was the last straw. Never mind that we lived in Cambridge, Mass., arguably the most liberal city in the bluest of the blue states. We were packing our bulk granola into our diesel Beetle and heading out.

Eight months later, we were settling into a new home and jobs in British Columbia, when Canada had its own election. For those unfamiliar with the Canadian system of government, the prime minister is elected by parliament — not every four years but after losing a no-confidence vote. After a few of those there was a parliamentary election in January, which led to the election of a new prime minister, Stephen Harper, of Canada's Conservative Party.

Harper ran on cutting taxes and turning a federal child-care program into a monthly payment per child. The opposition's negative campaign ads sounded eerily familiar: He supported Bush's war in Iraq, was against signing the Kyoto environmental accord and wanted to "reexamine" gay marriage (which is legal in Canada). A shiver rippled down from our berets to our Birkenstocks.

Then, a few weeks ago, we awoke, as usual, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Before CBC morning show host Tom Allen got to the end of his first sentence, I knew: Back in the United States, the Democratic Party had won control of the House and the Senate.

"Honey, did we make a big mistake?"

By "big mistake," I mean, not the kind in which you switch lines at Whole Foods and the line you'd been in suddenly starts to move. We're talking big mistake like selling all of your stock in Ben & Jerry's the day before Unilever buys the company.

But it turns out that Canadian conservatism can look awfully liberal. So far, Harper — derided as "Bush lite" — has, for instance, introduced a partial tax credit for monthly transit passes. The Conservatives have proposed a Clean Air Act for Canada, and although it's not ideal, it's still something. Harper said that these new laws would "institute a holistic approach that doesn't treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation." When was the last time you heard any U.S. politician utter the word "holistic"?

Did I mention universal healthcare? Even Harper seems committed to keeping that.

We've come to the conclusion that the United States has drifted so far to the right that any self-respecting Canadian Conservative would be considered a raving liberal in Washington. Stephen Harper is no George W. Bush. We may not agree with him, but we don't feel ashamed every time he opens his mouth. We might yawn, though.

So we're staying in Canada. But good luck with that new Congress, eh?

commondreams.org



To: elpolvo who wrote (89917)11/26/2006 8:27:07 AM
From: 10K a day  Respond to of 361836
 
WOW



To: elpolvo who wrote (89917)11/26/2006 11:17:26 AM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361836
 
We don’t have to cut and run. Cut and walk. Cut and swim. Cut, but get out, as fast as you can, because we’re not doing any good there. We’re not helping the situation. We’re not bringing peace. We’re not bringing a democracy. We’re not bringing stability. For about $200 million a year - which is what it costs the US PER DAY - Iraqi "insurgents" can now sustain their fight against our occupation:
(11-26) 04:00 PST Baghdad -- The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified U.S. government report has concluded.

The report, obtained by the New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many of the insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising between $70 million and $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says that between $25 million and $100 million of the total comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by "corrupt and complicit" Iraqi government officials.

As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid to save hundreds of kidnap victims in Iraq, the report said. It estimates that unnamed foreign governments -- previously identified by senior American officials in Iraq as including France and Italy -- paid Iraqi kidnappers an estimated $30 million in ransom last year.

A copy of the report was made available to the Times by American officials who said the findings could improve American understanding of the challenges facing the United States in Iraq.

The report offers little hope that much can be done, at least anytime soon, to choke off insurgent revenues. For one thing, it acknowledges how little the American authorities in Iraq know -- 3 1/2 years after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein -- about key aspects of insurgent operations. For another, it paints an almost despairing picture of the Iraqi government's ability, or willingness, to take measures the report says will be necessary to tamp down the insurgent financing.

"If accurate," the report says, its estimates indicate that these "sources of terrorist and insurgent finance within Iraq -- independent of foreign sources -- are currently sufficient to sustain the groups' existence and operation."

To this, it adds what may be its most surprising conclusion: "In fact, if recent revenue and expense estimates are correct, terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq."

Some terrorism experts outside the government who were given an outline of the report by the Times criticized it for a lack of precision and a reliance on speculation.

Completed in June, the report was compiled by an interagency working group investigating the financing of militant groups in Iraq.

A Bush administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the group's existence. He said it was led by Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser for combatting terrorism, and was made up of about a dozen people, drawn from the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Treasury Department and the U.S. Central Command.

The group's estimate of the financing for the insurgency, even taking the higher figure of $200 million, underscores the David-and-Goliath nature of the war. American, Iraqi and other coalition forces are fighting an array of shadowy Sunni and Shiite groups that can draw on huge armories left over from Saddam's days, and benefit from the willingness of many insurgents to fight with little or no pay.

If the $200 million-a-year estimate is close to the mark, it amounts to less than what it costs the Pentagon, with an $8 billion monthly budget for Iraq, to sustain the American war effort here for a single day.

For Washington, the report's most dismaying finding may be that the insurgency now survives off money generated from activities inside Iraq, and no longer depends on sums Saddam and his associates seized as his government collapsed. American officials said that as U.S. troops entered Baghdad, Hussein's oldest son, Qusai, took more than $1 billion in cash from the Central Bank of Iraq and stashed it in trunks aboard a flatbed truck. Large sums of cash were found in Hussein's briefcase when he was captured in December 2003.

But the report says Hussein's loyalists "are no longer a major source of funding for terrorist or insurgent groups in Iraq."

Part of the reason, the report says, is that an American-led effort has frozen $3.6 billion in "former regime assets." Another reason, it says, is that Hussein's erstwhile loyalists, realizing that "it is increasingly obvious that a Baathist regime will not regain power in Iraq," have turned increasingly to spending the money on their own living expenses.

The Hussein loyalists -- some leading insurgent groups in Iraq, many others fugitives -- retain control of "tens or hundreds of million dollars," the report says.

The document says the pattern of insurgent financing changed after the first 18 months of the war, from the Saddam loyalists who financed it in 2003 to "foreign fighters and couriers" smuggling cash in bulk across Iraq's porous borders in 2004, to the present reliance on a complex array of indigenous sources.
sfgate.com



To: elpolvo who wrote (89917)11/26/2006 3:23:47 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361836
 
That was long and very good.