Monday, June 27, 2005
Oil Shortage Warnings from TomDispatch.com
Exxon quietly issued a report - The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View. The report predicted the moment of "peak oil" is only a five-year hop-skip-and-a-pump away.
'Oil Shockwave', a 'war game' recently conducted by top ex-government officials in Washington, including two former directors of the CIA, found the United States "all but powerless to protect the American economy in the face of a catastrophic disruption of oil markets," which was all too easy for them to imagine. The participants concluded almost unanimously that they must press the president to invest quickly in promising technologies to reduce dependence on overseas oil.
The Impending Decline of Saudi Oil Output - By Michael T. Klare
We ordinary folk are being fed the story by the oil community, including Bush and Cheney, that not only will the Saudis pump extra oil now to alleviate global shortages, it is claimed, but they will keep pumping more in the years ahead to quench our insatiable thirst for energy. And when the kingdom's existing fields run dry they will begin pumping from other fields that are just waiting to be exploited. We need have no worries about oil scarcity, because Saudi Arabia can satisfy our current and future needs. This is, in fact, the basis for the administration's contention that we can continue to increase our yearly consumption of oil, rather than conserve what's left and begin the transition to a post-petroleum economy.
But now, from an unexpected source, comes a devastating challenge to this powerful dogma: In a newly-released book, investment banker, Matthew R. Simmons, convincingly demonstrates that, far from being capable of increasing its output, Saudi Arabia is about to face the exhaustion of its giant fields and, in the relatively near future, will probably experience a sharp decline in output. "There is only a small probability that Saudi Arabia will ever deliver the quantities of petroleum that are assigned to it in all the major forecasts of world oil production and consumption," he writes in Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. "Saudi Arabian production," he adds, italicizing his claims to drive home his point, "is at or very near its peak sustainable volume . . . and it is likely to go into decline in the very foreseeable future."
In addition, there is little chance that Saudi Arabia will ever discover new fields that can take up the slack from those now in decline. "Saudi Arabia's exploration efforts over the last three decades were more intense than most observers have assumed," Simmons asserts. "The results of these efforts were modest at best."
*************************************************************************
Exxon quietly issued a report - The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View. The report predicted the moment of "peak oil" is only a five-year hop-skip-and-a-pump away.
'Oil Shockwave', a 'war game' recently conducted by top ex-government officials in Washington, including two former directors of the CIA, found the United States "all but powerless to protect the American economy in the face of a catastrophic disruption of oil markets," which was all too easy for them to imagine. The participants concluded almost unanimously that they must press the president to invest quickly in promising technologies to reduce dependence on overseas oil.
The Impending Decline of Saudi Oil Output - By Michael T. Klare
We ordinary folk are being fed the story by the oil community, including Bush and Cheney, that not only will the Saudis pump extra oil now to alleviate global shortages, it is claimed, but they will keep pumping more in the years ahead to quench our insatiable thirst for energy. And when the kingdom's existing fields run dry they will begin pumping from other fields that are just waiting to be exploited. We need have no worries about oil scarcity, because Saudi Arabia can satisfy our current and future needs. This is, in fact, the basis for the administration's contention that we can continue to increase our yearly consumption of oil, rather than conserve what's left and begin the transition to a post-petroleum economy.
But now, from an unexpected source, comes a devastating challenge to this powerful dogma: In a newly-released book, investment banker, Matthew R. Simmons, convincingly demonstrates that, far from being capable of increasing its output, Saudi Arabia is about to face the exhaustion of its giant fields and, in the relatively near future, will probably experience a sharp decline in output. "There is only a small probability that Saudi Arabia will ever deliver the quantities of petroleum that are assigned to it in all the major forecasts of world oil production and consumption," he writes in Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. "Saudi Arabian production," he adds, italicizing his claims to drive home his point, "is at or very near its peak sustainable volume . . . and it is likely to go into decline in the very foreseeable future."
In addition, there is little chance that Saudi Arabia will ever discover new fields that can take up the slack from those now in decline. "Saudi Arabia's exploration efforts over the last three decades were more intense than most observers have assumed," Simmons asserts. "The results of these efforts were modest at best."
*************************************************************************
Monday, June 20, 2005
New US Move to Spoil Climate Accord
By Mark Townsend - The Observer UK - Sunday 19 June 2005
Extraordinary efforts by the White House to scupper Britain's attempts to tackle global warming have been revealed in leaked US government documents obtained by The Observer.
These papers - part of the Bush administration's submission to the G8 action plan for Gleneagles next month - show how the United States, over the past two months, has been secretly undermining Tony Blair's proposals to tackle climate change.
The documents obtained by The Observer represent an attempt by the Bush administration to undermine completely the science of climate change and show that the US position has hardened during the G8 negotiations. They also reveal that the White House has withdrawn from a crucial United Nations commitment to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions.
The documents show that Washington officials:
* Removed all reference to the fact that climate change is a 'serious threat to human health and to ecosystems';
* Deleted any suggestion that global warming has already started;
* Expunged any suggestion that human activity was to blame for climate change.
Among the sentences removed was the following: 'Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans.'
Another section erased by the White House adds: 'Our world is warming. Climate change is a serious threat that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. And we know that ... mankind's activities are contributing to this warming. This is an issue we must address urgently.' The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has dismissed the leaking of draft communiques on the grounds that 'there is everything to play for at Gleneagles.' However, there is no doubt that many UK officials have become exasperated by the Bush administration's refusal to accept the basic principle that climate change is happening now and is due to man's activities.
Earlier this month, the senior science academies of the G8 nations, including the US National Academy of Science, issued a statement saying that evidence of climate change was clear enough to compel their leaders to take action. 'There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring,' they said.
It is now clear that this advice has been completely ignored by Bush and his advisers. 'Every year, it (local air pollution) causes millions of premature deaths, and suffering to millions more through respiratory disease,' reads another statement removed by Washington.
Washington also appears to be unsympathetic towards the plight of Africa, the other priority singled out by Blair for the G8 Summit in Gleneagles.
The documents reveal how the Bush administration has pulled out of financial pledges to fund a network of regional climate centres throughout Africa which were designed to monitor the unfolding impact of global warming.
'Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Arctic are particularly vulnerable to climate variability and are starting to experience the impacts,' reads another excerpt rejected by the US.
Other crucial schemes ditched by the US include the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up to help developing states develop economically while controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the documents, the American government has reneged on plans to 'ensure that the CDM executive board is adequately funded by the end of 2005.'
*************************************************************************
By Mark Townsend - The Observer UK - Sunday 19 June 2005
Extraordinary efforts by the White House to scupper Britain's attempts to tackle global warming have been revealed in leaked US government documents obtained by The Observer.
These papers - part of the Bush administration's submission to the G8 action plan for Gleneagles next month - show how the United States, over the past two months, has been secretly undermining Tony Blair's proposals to tackle climate change.
The documents obtained by The Observer represent an attempt by the Bush administration to undermine completely the science of climate change and show that the US position has hardened during the G8 negotiations. They also reveal that the White House has withdrawn from a crucial United Nations commitment to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions.
The documents show that Washington officials:
* Removed all reference to the fact that climate change is a 'serious threat to human health and to ecosystems';
* Deleted any suggestion that global warming has already started;
* Expunged any suggestion that human activity was to blame for climate change.
Among the sentences removed was the following: 'Unless urgent action is taken, there will be a growing risk of adverse effects on economic development, human health and the natural environment, and of irreversible long-term changes to our climate and oceans.'
Another section erased by the White House adds: 'Our world is warming. Climate change is a serious threat that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. And we know that ... mankind's activities are contributing to this warming. This is an issue we must address urgently.' The government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has dismissed the leaking of draft communiques on the grounds that 'there is everything to play for at Gleneagles.' However, there is no doubt that many UK officials have become exasperated by the Bush administration's refusal to accept the basic principle that climate change is happening now and is due to man's activities.
Earlier this month, the senior science academies of the G8 nations, including the US National Academy of Science, issued a statement saying that evidence of climate change was clear enough to compel their leaders to take action. 'There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring,' they said.
It is now clear that this advice has been completely ignored by Bush and his advisers. 'Every year, it (local air pollution) causes millions of premature deaths, and suffering to millions more through respiratory disease,' reads another statement removed by Washington.
Washington also appears to be unsympathetic towards the plight of Africa, the other priority singled out by Blair for the G8 Summit in Gleneagles.
The documents reveal how the Bush administration has pulled out of financial pledges to fund a network of regional climate centres throughout Africa which were designed to monitor the unfolding impact of global warming.
'Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Arctic are particularly vulnerable to climate variability and are starting to experience the impacts,' reads another excerpt rejected by the US.
Other crucial schemes ditched by the US include the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up to help developing states develop economically while controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the documents, the American government has reneged on plans to 'ensure that the CDM executive board is adequately funded by the end of 2005.'
*************************************************************************
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Veterans More Likely to Be Homeless Than Other Adults
By Carolyn Bolls - CNSNews.com Correspondent
Government figures show that former members of the U.S. military comprise less than 13 percent of the American adult population, yet veterans account for roughly 33 percent of the nation's homeless adult population.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans charges that the government is not providing enough help to ex-servicemen and women transitioning to civilian life. But the government denies that there is a "causal relationship" between military service and homeless veterans.
"On any given day, as many as 200,000 veterans (male and female) are living on the streets or in shelters, and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year," according to the Department of Veterans Affairs website. The Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates that about 47 percent of the homeless veterans served in Vietnam.
But while the V.A. acknowledges that "many homeless veterans served in combat in Vietnam and suffer from [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]," it claims that "epidemiologic studies do not suggest that there is a causal connection between military service, service in Vietnam, or exposure to combat and homelessness among veterans."
Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, told Cybercast News Service that the military needs to do more for the men and women departing the service. She criticized the Department of Defense's program of Preseparation Counseling.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the most common mental illness in veterans, producing nightmares and other stress that can lead to suicide, Boone said. She also blamed the military's "macho environment" for discouraging veterans from seeking treatment for the problem.
"The military is providing support and counseling in very limited instances ... It depends on the leadership of that unit," Boone said.
Among the homeless veterans that Boone's group tracks, 76 percent of them "now have mental health and/or substance abuse issues," she said. "They're sick and they need more long term help." She added that approximately 11 percent of current homeless service members experiencing substance abuse problems cite their time in the military as a cause for the abuse.
But mental health and substance abuse are not popular topics in the military, according to Boone. "If somebody identifies that they have mental health or substance abuse issues while they are still on active duty, there are consequences for that in the military ... They don't want to talk about it," she said.
"In the next couple years, we will have a lot of veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are not prepared," Boone said.
*************************************************************************
Government figures show that former members of the U.S. military comprise less than 13 percent of the American adult population, yet veterans account for roughly 33 percent of the nation's homeless adult population.
The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans charges that the government is not providing enough help to ex-servicemen and women transitioning to civilian life. But the government denies that there is a "causal relationship" between military service and homeless veterans.
"On any given day, as many as 200,000 veterans (male and female) are living on the streets or in shelters, and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year," according to the Department of Veterans Affairs website. The Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates that about 47 percent of the homeless veterans served in Vietnam.
But while the V.A. acknowledges that "many homeless veterans served in combat in Vietnam and suffer from [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]," it claims that "epidemiologic studies do not suggest that there is a causal connection between military service, service in Vietnam, or exposure to combat and homelessness among veterans."
Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, told Cybercast News Service that the military needs to do more for the men and women departing the service. She criticized the Department of Defense's program of Preseparation Counseling.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the most common mental illness in veterans, producing nightmares and other stress that can lead to suicide, Boone said. She also blamed the military's "macho environment" for discouraging veterans from seeking treatment for the problem.
"The military is providing support and counseling in very limited instances ... It depends on the leadership of that unit," Boone said.
Among the homeless veterans that Boone's group tracks, 76 percent of them "now have mental health and/or substance abuse issues," she said. "They're sick and they need more long term help." She added that approximately 11 percent of current homeless service members experiencing substance abuse problems cite their time in the military as a cause for the abuse.
But mental health and substance abuse are not popular topics in the military, according to Boone. "If somebody identifies that they have mental health or substance abuse issues while they are still on active duty, there are consequences for that in the military ... They don't want to talk about it," she said.
"In the next couple years, we will have a lot of veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are not prepared," Boone said.
*************************************************************************
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Stop the Crime of the Century
by David Michael Green
On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the 'smoking gun' memo, which proves that everything the Bush administration said about the Iraq invasion was a lie. The memo discloses, "...The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."(the policy to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD)
Several days before their election, a patriot within the highest circle of British government leaked to the Times of London a memo. It is headlined in bold with this warning: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." The memo provides minutes from a meeting of Tony Blair's most exclusive war cabinet, held in July of 2002. In the meeting, two of Blair's top officials report on discussions they had just held in Washington with officials at the top levels of the Bush administration.
It needs to be pointed out that nobody in the British government has denied to even the slightest degree the authenticity of this document. And, a highly placed American source has verified, off the record, that it is completely accurate in its recounting of the events described.
The main points in the memo are as follows:
* "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action..." Later in the memo it notes that "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action".
* As Foreign Secretary Jack Straw notes in the meeting, "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran".
* Because the case was thin, the war would have to be "...Justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD".
* "...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
* The British Attorney-General said, "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization [which was never ultimately obtained from the Security Council]. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might change of course."
* "We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force". And, "The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors". And, "If the political context were right, people would support regime change".
* "US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime".
* "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".
This means the claims that the president did not have a war plan on his desk at that time are now proven lies. It means that the whole charade of going to Congress, going to the UN, sending over weapons inspectors, pulling them out before they could finish their work, requiring Iraq to report to the Security Council on its weapons of mass destruction, then immediately rejecting their report as incomplete and deceitful - all of this - was a completely counterfeit exercise conducted for public relations purposes only.
It also verifies the revelations of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former terrorism czar Richard Clarke that Bush had planned to attack Iraq from the beginning. And, it proves that former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wasn't kidding when he let slip that the weapons of mass destruction argument was decided on by the administration for "bureaucratic reasons", meaning a rationale that all the leading actors within the administration could agree on as the most effective public relations device for marketing the war.
Apart from 9/11, has there been a more important story in the last decade than that the president manufactured intelligence to dupe the American people into invading Iraq, which plunged the country into an illegal war which has alienated the rest of the world, lit a fire under the war's victims and the Islamic world generally, turning them into enemy combatants, locked up virtually all American land forces in a war without end in sight, cost $300 billion and counting, taken over 1600 American lives on top of more than 15,000 gravely wounded, and killed perhaps 100,000 Iraqis?
There could not be a bigger story! And, yet, it has been mostly censored from our press.
It appears that demanding that the government respect the will of the people is no longer enough in American democracy. We must now also carry the burden of demanding that the media do its job and cover developments which are disruptive to the corporate-political juggernaut of which these giant media corporations have become a part. The mainstream press which before the 'smoking gun' memo seemed only biased and intimidated, now appears entirely complicate. We cannot have a prayer of an informed public curbing the worst excesses of American government if, in fact, that public is not informed.
*************************************************************************
by David Michael Green
On May 1, 2005, The Sunday Times of London published the 'smoking gun' memo, which proves that everything the Bush administration said about the Iraq invasion was a lie. The memo discloses, "...The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."(the policy to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD)
Several days before their election, a patriot within the highest circle of British government leaked to the Times of London a memo. It is headlined in bold with this warning: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." The memo provides minutes from a meeting of Tony Blair's most exclusive war cabinet, held in July of 2002. In the meeting, two of Blair's top officials report on discussions they had just held in Washington with officials at the top levels of the Bush administration.
It needs to be pointed out that nobody in the British government has denied to even the slightest degree the authenticity of this document. And, a highly placed American source has verified, off the record, that it is completely accurate in its recounting of the events described.
The main points in the memo are as follows:
* "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action..." Later in the memo it notes that "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action".
* As Foreign Secretary Jack Straw notes in the meeting, "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran".
* Because the case was thin, the war would have to be "...Justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD".
* "...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
* The British Attorney-General said, "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization [which was never ultimately obtained from the Security Council]. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might change of course."
* "We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force". And, "The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors". And, "If the political context were right, people would support regime change".
* "US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime".
* "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".
This means the claims that the president did not have a war plan on his desk at that time are now proven lies. It means that the whole charade of going to Congress, going to the UN, sending over weapons inspectors, pulling them out before they could finish their work, requiring Iraq to report to the Security Council on its weapons of mass destruction, then immediately rejecting their report as incomplete and deceitful - all of this - was a completely counterfeit exercise conducted for public relations purposes only.
It also verifies the revelations of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former terrorism czar Richard Clarke that Bush had planned to attack Iraq from the beginning. And, it proves that former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wasn't kidding when he let slip that the weapons of mass destruction argument was decided on by the administration for "bureaucratic reasons", meaning a rationale that all the leading actors within the administration could agree on as the most effective public relations device for marketing the war.
Apart from 9/11, has there been a more important story in the last decade than that the president manufactured intelligence to dupe the American people into invading Iraq, which plunged the country into an illegal war which has alienated the rest of the world, lit a fire under the war's victims and the Islamic world generally, turning them into enemy combatants, locked up virtually all American land forces in a war without end in sight, cost $300 billion and counting, taken over 1600 American lives on top of more than 15,000 gravely wounded, and killed perhaps 100,000 Iraqis?
There could not be a bigger story! And, yet, it has been mostly censored from our press.
It appears that demanding that the government respect the will of the people is no longer enough in American democracy. We must now also carry the burden of demanding that the media do its job and cover developments which are disruptive to the corporate-political juggernaut of which these giant media corporations have become a part. The mainstream press which before the 'smoking gun' memo seemed only biased and intimidated, now appears entirely complicate. We cannot have a prayer of an informed public curbing the worst excesses of American government if, in fact, that public is not informed.
*************************************************************************
Monday, June 13, 2005
House Judiciary Democrats Fuming Over Hearing's Abrupt Adjournment
By Susan Jones - CNSNews.com Senior Editor
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, was out of line on Friday, when he adjourned a Judiciary Committee hearing on the USA Patriot Act by cutting off the microphones.
Pelosi is demanding an apology.
"As House Democratic Leader, I expect all Members to be treated by the majority with dignity and respect. I will ask Speaker Hastert to order Mr. Sensenbrenner to apologize for his behavior to the witnesses at the hearing [Friday], and to promise that this will never again happen," Pelosi said in a press release on Friday.
Pelosi called it an example of the "Republicans' abuse of power" reaching a new low.
"Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, and that Republicans will stop at nothing to silence Democrats. It is quite ironic that at a hearing on the impact of the Patriot Act on civil liberties, the Republicans attempted to suppress free speech," Pelosi said, adding that Democrats will not be silenced.
According to a report in the Boston Globe, Sensenbrenner, the Judiciary Committee chairman, gaveled the meeting to an end, then walked out of the room followed by other Republicans, leaving Democrats shouting into microphones that had been turned off. The newspaper called the hearing "raucous."
Sensenbrenner reportedly objected to the direction the hearing took, when witnesses picked by Democrats started denouncing the war in Iraq and the detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay.
*************************************************************************
By Susan Jones - CNSNews.com Senior Editor
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, was out of line on Friday, when he adjourned a Judiciary Committee hearing on the USA Patriot Act by cutting off the microphones.
Pelosi is demanding an apology.
"As House Democratic Leader, I expect all Members to be treated by the majority with dignity and respect. I will ask Speaker Hastert to order Mr. Sensenbrenner to apologize for his behavior to the witnesses at the hearing [Friday], and to promise that this will never again happen," Pelosi said in a press release on Friday.
Pelosi called it an example of the "Republicans' abuse of power" reaching a new low.
"Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, and that Republicans will stop at nothing to silence Democrats. It is quite ironic that at a hearing on the impact of the Patriot Act on civil liberties, the Republicans attempted to suppress free speech," Pelosi said, adding that Democrats will not be silenced.
According to a report in the Boston Globe, Sensenbrenner, the Judiciary Committee chairman, gaveled the meeting to an end, then walked out of the room followed by other Republicans, leaving Democrats shouting into microphones that had been turned off. The newspaper called the hearing "raucous."
Sensenbrenner reportedly objected to the direction the hearing took, when witnesses picked by Democrats started denouncing the war in Iraq and the detention of foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay.
*************************************************************************
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Tactics Approved by Rumsfeld Put Soldiers at Risk
On May 17, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita told the public "we've not seen specific, credible allegations" of Quran mistreatment by U.S. guards or interrogators. Seventeen days later, the Pentagon acknowledged "that soldiers and interrogators kicked the Muslim holy book, got copies wet, stood on a Koran during an interrogation and inadvertently sprayed urine on another copy." That information was released at 7:15 PM on Friday night, after the evening newscasts, the best time to bury a story. But the specifics of the latest administration deception obscure the larger point: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld specifically authorized disrespecting one of the world's largest religions as an interrogation tactic. That ill-conceived policy has endangered the lives of U.S. soldiers and impeded the progress of peace and democracy in the Middle East.
RELIGIOUS DEGRADATION APPROVED BY RUMSFELD: The White House described the Quran mishandling as "a few isolated incidents by a few individuals." But religious degradation was an interrogation tactic approved at the highest levels. In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld "authorized interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay that included the removal of religious items, forced grooming such as shaving facial hair, and removal of clothing." These tactics were "designed to offend Muslims." An investigation of Guantanamo Bay by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church "found cases in which a female interrogator 'touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner in order to incur stress based on the detainees' religious beliefs.'"
ADMINISTRATION POLICIES PUT SOLDIERS AT RISK: Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) argued that Guantanamo Bay "has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world." As a result, "more Americans are in jeopardy." Detention policies also impede broader efforts to win over hearts and minds in the Middle East. The Christian Science Monitor reports "to much of the world the abuse of prisoners in US custody may now be emblematic of American foreign policy as a whole."
OFFICIALS IMPLICATED IN ABUSE GET PROMOTIONS: It's not only the abuse that is making soldiers' lives difficult; it's the administration's reaction. The top officials who authorized harsh treatment of detainees have been promoted. General Dan K. McNeill, who oversaw operations in Afghanistan during the time that detainees were tortured to death at the Bagram Air Force Base, "received a fourth star and was promoted to Commanding General U.S. Army Forces Command." Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, "the highest-ranking intelligence officer so far tied to the Abu Ghraib scandal, took charge of the Army's main interrogation training facility ... last month." And the list goes on. It's tough to make the case that the United States is taking the abuse seriously when top officials involved are rewarded.
WHITE HOUSE BLAMES MEDIA: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan used the administration's admission of Quran mistreatment as another opportunity to blame the media. McClellan said that it was "unfortunate" that some media outlets "have chosen to take [the incidents] out of context." McClellan stressed that "99.9 percent" of Qurans were not mishandled. In a related story, there are 193 countries in the world – 99.5 percent were not invaded by the United States based on false claims the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.
American Progress
************************************************************************
On May 17, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita told the public "we've not seen specific, credible allegations" of Quran mistreatment by U.S. guards or interrogators. Seventeen days later, the Pentagon acknowledged "that soldiers and interrogators kicked the Muslim holy book, got copies wet, stood on a Koran during an interrogation and inadvertently sprayed urine on another copy." That information was released at 7:15 PM on Friday night, after the evening newscasts, the best time to bury a story. But the specifics of the latest administration deception obscure the larger point: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld specifically authorized disrespecting one of the world's largest religions as an interrogation tactic. That ill-conceived policy has endangered the lives of U.S. soldiers and impeded the progress of peace and democracy in the Middle East.
RELIGIOUS DEGRADATION APPROVED BY RUMSFELD: The White House described the Quran mishandling as "a few isolated incidents by a few individuals." But religious degradation was an interrogation tactic approved at the highest levels. In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld "authorized interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay that included the removal of religious items, forced grooming such as shaving facial hair, and removal of clothing." These tactics were "designed to offend Muslims." An investigation of Guantanamo Bay by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church "found cases in which a female interrogator 'touched and spoke to detainees in a sexually suggestive manner in order to incur stress based on the detainees' religious beliefs.'"
ADMINISTRATION POLICIES PUT SOLDIERS AT RISK: Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) argued that Guantanamo Bay "has become the greatest propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world." As a result, "more Americans are in jeopardy." Detention policies also impede broader efforts to win over hearts and minds in the Middle East. The Christian Science Monitor reports "to much of the world the abuse of prisoners in US custody may now be emblematic of American foreign policy as a whole."
OFFICIALS IMPLICATED IN ABUSE GET PROMOTIONS: It's not only the abuse that is making soldiers' lives difficult; it's the administration's reaction. The top officials who authorized harsh treatment of detainees have been promoted. General Dan K. McNeill, who oversaw operations in Afghanistan during the time that detainees were tortured to death at the Bagram Air Force Base, "received a fourth star and was promoted to Commanding General U.S. Army Forces Command." Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, "the highest-ranking intelligence officer so far tied to the Abu Ghraib scandal, took charge of the Army's main interrogation training facility ... last month." And the list goes on. It's tough to make the case that the United States is taking the abuse seriously when top officials involved are rewarded.
WHITE HOUSE BLAMES MEDIA: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan used the administration's admission of Quran mistreatment as another opportunity to blame the media. McClellan said that it was "unfortunate" that some media outlets "have chosen to take [the incidents] out of context." McClellan stressed that "99.9 percent" of Qurans were not mishandled. In a related story, there are 193 countries in the world – 99.5 percent were not invaded by the United States based on false claims the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.
American Progress
************************************************************************
Monday, June 06, 2005
Dems Say Republicans 'Turned Their Backs' on US Troops.
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
Congressional Democrats accuse Republicans of voting to "deny adequate health care" to part-time National Guard and Reserve troops.
The DCCC said it is airing radio ads in the districts of a dozen Republicans who "voted against members of the National Guard and Reserves."
"We at the DCCC are not going to let them get away with this," said a message signed by DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). He accused Republicans of catering to their "wealthy special interests" while turning their backs on heroic National Guard troops and Reservists.
"Since the beginning of our military action in Iraq, Republicans have tried to portray any criticism of Bush administration policy as an attack on our soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth," Emanuel said in his email message.
"Congressional Democrats have always supported our servicemen and women on the frontlines -- in our actions as well as our words."
The flap centers on an amendment to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill.
The amendment, which passed the House Armed Services Committee on a 32-30 vote almost two weeks ago, would have expanded TRICARE Reserve Select health coverage to any drilling Guard or Reserve member who was willing to pay the premiums. As things stand now, the Guard and Reserve are covered by TRICARE only when they are mobilized for active duty.
Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) removed the TRICARE amendment after it passed committee for budgetary reasons, he said.
The problem, Hunter said, was that many civilian employers would stop covering drilling Guard and Reserve troops under their own health care programs.
"We looked at this thirty ways to Sunday and didn't see how we could keep people from gaming the system and piling enormous costs onto the federal government," Hunter was quoted as saying. He also said it the money would be better spent on weapons and equipment for Guard and Reserve troops.
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), sponsor of the expanded TRICARE amendment, was furious that Hunter stripped the amendment from the bill.
"The Guard and Reserve make up more than 40 percent of our forces in Iraq," Taylor said in a statement last week. "We're relying on them to shore up our active duty forces, and they're doing everything our active-duty troops are doing. Our Guard and Reserve personnel deserve similar benefits for similar services."
Emanuel notes that Republicans have managed to find money for oil industry tax breaks, repealing the estate tax, and pushing a Social Security "privatization" plan -- "even as they declared that we just 'can't afford' healthcare for our troops."
"We Democrats have nothing but profound admiration and gratitude for those fighting so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan... And in Congress, our actions will continue to live up to our words," Emanuel said.
On the Senate side, a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) also support the idea of expanding TRICARE to drilling Guard and Reserve troops.
***********************************************************************
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
Congressional Democrats accuse Republicans of voting to "deny adequate health care" to part-time National Guard and Reserve troops.
The DCCC said it is airing radio ads in the districts of a dozen Republicans who "voted against members of the National Guard and Reserves."
"We at the DCCC are not going to let them get away with this," said a message signed by DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). He accused Republicans of catering to their "wealthy special interests" while turning their backs on heroic National Guard troops and Reservists.
"Since the beginning of our military action in Iraq, Republicans have tried to portray any criticism of Bush administration policy as an attack on our soldiers. Nothing could be further from the truth," Emanuel said in his email message.
"Congressional Democrats have always supported our servicemen and women on the frontlines -- in our actions as well as our words."
The flap centers on an amendment to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill.
The amendment, which passed the House Armed Services Committee on a 32-30 vote almost two weeks ago, would have expanded TRICARE Reserve Select health coverage to any drilling Guard or Reserve member who was willing to pay the premiums. As things stand now, the Guard and Reserve are covered by TRICARE only when they are mobilized for active duty.
Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) removed the TRICARE amendment after it passed committee for budgetary reasons, he said.
The problem, Hunter said, was that many civilian employers would stop covering drilling Guard and Reserve troops under their own health care programs.
"We looked at this thirty ways to Sunday and didn't see how we could keep people from gaming the system and piling enormous costs onto the federal government," Hunter was quoted as saying. He also said it the money would be better spent on weapons and equipment for Guard and Reserve troops.
Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), sponsor of the expanded TRICARE amendment, was furious that Hunter stripped the amendment from the bill.
"The Guard and Reserve make up more than 40 percent of our forces in Iraq," Taylor said in a statement last week. "We're relying on them to shore up our active duty forces, and they're doing everything our active-duty troops are doing. Our Guard and Reserve personnel deserve similar benefits for similar services."
Emanuel notes that Republicans have managed to find money for oil industry tax breaks, repealing the estate tax, and pushing a Social Security "privatization" plan -- "even as they declared that we just 'can't afford' healthcare for our troops."
"We Democrats have nothing but profound admiration and gratitude for those fighting so bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan... And in Congress, our actions will continue to live up to our words," Emanuel said.
On the Senate side, a bipartisan group of lawmakers including Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) also support the idea of expanding TRICARE to drilling Guard and Reserve troops.
***********************************************************************
