Does the Plame leak investigation end only with VP Chief of Staff, Libby indicted--not for participating in the leak but for lying about his pre-leak actions? That's possible. And the prosecutor, US Attorney Fitzgerald refused to reveal any information about the case that was not included in the indictment. Who were Novak's sources for the leak? Fitzgerald wouldn't say. Is Official A a new name for Mr. X--the term used by reporters to refer to Novak's original source? Fitzgerald didn't say. Might Rove be Official A? Fitzgerald didn't say. Why did the leak refer to Valerie Wilson by her maiden name of Plame? Fitzgerald didn't say. What sort of cooperation did Fitzgerald receive from Novak? Fitzgerald didn't say. Was Cheney in cahoots with Libby regarding the latter's false testimony? Fitzgerald didn't say. How much damage was done to the CIA and its operations by the leak? Fitzgerald didn't say. Then, what about George W. Bush? What did he know and when did he know it?
--edited from an article in The Nation
More to come!
Blog On
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Interesting Discussion on Iraq at Daily Kos
*Just click on the link to read and/or participate in an interesting discussion on the situation in Iraq at Daily Kos.
--Please add your comments here, there and everywhere. . .
Blog On
--Please add your comments here, there and everywhere. . .
Blog On
Monday, October 24, 2005
Bush's Impoverished America
The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau conveniently and quietly released its annual report entitled, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." It provided a context to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. Despite another of President Bush's infamous lies last month that, "Americans have more money in their pockets," more and more people from the middle class are falling into abject poverty.
The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families- the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years! Check out the sadly and demonstrably uncompassionate results of Bush's economic policy:
*The average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.
*Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134 (the average income for white families was $48,977).
*The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389 (the lowest it has been since 1997).
*The portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year (the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent).
*The average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004 (the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase).
*Men working full-time had their annual incomes decline 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798 (the largest one-year decline in 14 years).
*Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223 (the largest one-year decline in nine years).
*Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year in all major sectors (e.g. in management women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services).
Most telling:
*There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty in 2004 (an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003). This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. Since Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have fallen into poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003!
*Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year (the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined).
*A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance (the uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics).
--The report by the Census Bureau reveals, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, that most Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the Bush administrated had the report released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
BLOG ON
The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families- the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years! Check out the sadly and demonstrably uncompassionate results of Bush's economic policy:
*The average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.
*Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134 (the average income for white families was $48,977).
*The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389 (the lowest it has been since 1997).
*The portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year (the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent).
*The average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004 (the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase).
*Men working full-time had their annual incomes decline 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798 (the largest one-year decline in 14 years).
*Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223 (the largest one-year decline in nine years).
*Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year in all major sectors (e.g. in management women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services).
Most telling:
*There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty in 2004 (an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003). This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. Since Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have fallen into poverty. There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003!
*Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year (the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined).
*A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance (the uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics).
--The report by the Census Bureau reveals, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, that most Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It's easy to understand why the Bush administrated had the report released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
BLOG ON
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Bush; Try Again
No crones, I mean cronies, on the Supreme Court!
--from a letter to the editor of The St. Augustine Record
BLOG ON
--from a letter to the editor of The St. Augustine Record
BLOG ON
Lose-Lose Situation in Iraq
Edited from: Inter Press Service, Washington
Five days before Saturday's referendum on Iraq's proposed constitution, the U.S. foreign policy elite appears both anxious and gloomy, increasingly worried that win or lose, the process will bring Iraq one step closer to civil war and, with it, the possible destabilisation of the wider region. The constitution's approval, in the view of many experts, will likely further alienate the Sunni population from the political process. . .
. . . "A defeat of the constitution [by Sunnis] could deepen Sunni-Shiite-Kurd divisions, and many observers fear that the odds of Shiite retaliation would increase," wrote Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, in the New York Times Sunday Magazine this week. "The fact that Shiites have not retaliated systematically (against Sunni attacks) is the only thing now standing between Iraq and a major civil war," he warned.
Some experts believe that a civil war is already underway, even if it is not yet a full-blown conflict. . . If accounts from the ground are to be believed, there is already some ethnic cleansing going on in some neighbourhoods and some areas within Iraq. The reason, according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, is clear enough. "We've looked for the constitution to be a national pact, and the perception now is that it's not," Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, told lawmakers here last week. Indeed, the most important parts of the draft charter -- or at least those to which the Sunnis are most strongly opposed -- were worked out between the Kurds and the major Shiite parties despite U.S. efforts [to the contrary]. . .
The Sunnis' main concerns include provisions that could be used to discriminate against ex-Baathist Party members, ambiguous language about how the country's oil wealth will be divided between the national and local governments, and, most important, the constitutional mandate that permits the establishment of a nine-province, highly autonomous region for the predominantly Shiite south, as well as a less controversial, three-province Kurdish region in the north. Sunnis object to this confederal structure because it would both severely weaken the central government, which Sunnis had dominated since the Ottoman Empire, and possibly exclude the predominantly Sunni western provinces from getting a proportional share of Iraq's oil wealth, which is produced only in the northern and southern parts of the country. In addition, Sunnis express concerns that an autonomous Shiite south will be dominated by neighbouring Iran, which is believed to provide material and other support to the Shiite parties there. Even some supporters of the U.S. invasion have complained about the result. . . that approval of the constitution could provoke civil war. . .
*****************************
The United States has 'Lebanonised' Iraq. It is ironic that a structure that worked so poorly for Lebanon is now the template for Iraq.
Five days before Saturday's referendum on Iraq's proposed constitution, the U.S. foreign policy elite appears both anxious and gloomy, increasingly worried that win or lose, the process will bring Iraq one step closer to civil war and, with it, the possible destabilisation of the wider region. The constitution's approval, in the view of many experts, will likely further alienate the Sunni population from the political process. . .
. . . "A defeat of the constitution [by Sunnis] could deepen Sunni-Shiite-Kurd divisions, and many observers fear that the odds of Shiite retaliation would increase," wrote Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq, in the New York Times Sunday Magazine this week. "The fact that Shiites have not retaliated systematically (against Sunni attacks) is the only thing now standing between Iraq and a major civil war," he warned.
Some experts believe that a civil war is already underway, even if it is not yet a full-blown conflict. . . If accounts from the ground are to be believed, there is already some ethnic cleansing going on in some neighbourhoods and some areas within Iraq. The reason, according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, is clear enough. "We've looked for the constitution to be a national pact, and the perception now is that it's not," Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, told lawmakers here last week. Indeed, the most important parts of the draft charter -- or at least those to which the Sunnis are most strongly opposed -- were worked out between the Kurds and the major Shiite parties despite U.S. efforts [to the contrary]. . .
The Sunnis' main concerns include provisions that could be used to discriminate against ex-Baathist Party members, ambiguous language about how the country's oil wealth will be divided between the national and local governments, and, most important, the constitutional mandate that permits the establishment of a nine-province, highly autonomous region for the predominantly Shiite south, as well as a less controversial, three-province Kurdish region in the north. Sunnis object to this confederal structure because it would both severely weaken the central government, which Sunnis had dominated since the Ottoman Empire, and possibly exclude the predominantly Sunni western provinces from getting a proportional share of Iraq's oil wealth, which is produced only in the northern and southern parts of the country. In addition, Sunnis express concerns that an autonomous Shiite south will be dominated by neighbouring Iran, which is believed to provide material and other support to the Shiite parties there. Even some supporters of the U.S. invasion have complained about the result. . . that approval of the constitution could provoke civil war. . .
*****************************
The United States has 'Lebanonised' Iraq. It is ironic that a structure that worked so poorly for Lebanon is now the template for Iraq.
BLOG ON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)