Life in OUR America, Volume 5, the Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

But I thought we were were the world's only SUPERPOWER .....

SO ....

How come we're not SUPER?

"Study: Canadians healthier than Americans"

By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press
Last updated: 4:25 p.m., Tuesday, May 30, 2006

ATLANTA -- You can add Canadians to the list of foreigners who are healthier than Americans.

Americans are 42 percent more likely than Canadians to have diabetes, 32 percent more likely to have high blood pressure, and 12 percent more likely to have arthritis, Harvard Medical School researchers found.

That is according to a survey in which American and Canadian adults were asked over the telephone about their health.

The study comes less than a month after other researchers reported that middle-aged, white Americans are much sicker than their counterparts in England.

"We're really falling behind other nations," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a co-author of the Canadian study.

Canada's national health insurance program is at least part of the reason for the differences found in the study, Woolhandler said.

Universal coverage makes it easier for more Canadians to get disease-preventing health services, she said.

James Smith, a RAND Corp. researcher who co-authored the American-English study, disagreed.

His research found that England's national health insurance program did not explain the difference in disease rates, because even Americans with insurance were in worse health.

"To me, that's unlikely," he said of the idea that universal coverage explains international differences.

Woolhandler said her findings were different in at least one important respect: In the Canadian study, insured Americans and Canadians had about the same rates of disease.

It was the uninsured Americans who made the overall U.S. figures worse, she said.

The study, released Tuesday, is being published in the American Journal of Public Health.

It is based on a telephone survey of about 3,500 Canadians and 5,200 U.S. residents in 2002-03.

Those surveyed were 18 or older.

The results are based on what those surveyed said about their health.

In contrast, the researchers in the American-English study surveyed participants and also examined people and conducted laboratory tests on them.

The new study found that 6.7 percent of Americans and 4.7 percent of Canadians reported having diabetes; 18.3 percent and 13.9 percent, respectively, reported having high blood pressure; and 17.9 percent and 16.0 percent said they had arthritis.

The Americans also reported more heart disease and major depression, but those difference were too small to be statistically significant.

About 21 percent of Americans said they were obese, compared with 15 percent of Canadians.

And about 13.5 percent of the Americans admitted to a sedentary lifestyle, versus 6.5 percent of Canadians.

However, more Canadians were smokers -- 19 percent, compared with about 17 percent of Americans.

About 42 percent of the Americans rated their quality of health care as excellent, while 39 percent of Canadians did.

Also, 92 percent of American women said they had a Pap test within the last five years, while 83 percent of Canadian women had.

But Canadians have lower death rates from cervical cancer.

"It's a little hard to interpret," Woolhandler said.

One more plus for the Americans: Fewer than 1 percent said they were unable to get needed care because of long waits, compared with 3.5 percent of Canadians.

However, about 80 percent of Americans had a regular doctor, while 85 percent of Canadians did.

And nearly twice as many Americans said there were medicines they needed but couldn't afford (9.9 percent versus 5.1 percent).

[Livyjr]

"Pentagon: Iraq insurgency steady until '07"

By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:16 p.m., Tuesday, May 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Sunni Arab heart of the Iraqi insurgency seems likely to hold its strength the rest of the year, and some of its leaders are now collaborating with al-Qaida terrorists, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

In a report assessing the situation in Iraq, required quarterly by Congress, the Pentagon painted a mixed picture on a day when the U.S. military command in Baghdad said 1,500 more combat troops have arrived in the country.

The extra troops are part of an intensified effort to wrest control of the provincial capital of Ramadi from insurgents.

The report to Congress offered a relatively dim picture of economic progress, with few gains in improving basic services like electricity, and it provided no promises of U.S. troop reductions anytime soon.

On the other hand, it said the Iraqi army is gaining strength and taking lead responsibility for security in more areas.

The U.S. government has struggled for three years to understand the shadowy insurgency in Iraq, which began in the Sunni Triangle west and north of Baghdad.

In Tuesday's report, the Pentagon said the "rejectionists" who are a key element of the insurgency are holding their own against U.S. and Iraqi forces.

"MNF-I expects that rejectionist strength will likely remain steady throughout 2006, but that their appeal and motivation for continued violent action will begin to wane in early 2007," the report said.

The term MNF-I refers to the Multinational Force-Iraq, the top American military command in Baghdad.

It also said for the first time that the Sunnis who reject the U.S.-based government are collaborating with al-Qaida.

"Some hardline Sunni rejectionists have joined al-Qaida in Iraq in recent months, increasing the terrorists' attack options," the report said.

It said a separate element of the insurgency that U.S. officials describe as former loyalists of the Saddam Hussein regime remains an important enabler of the violence in Iraq.

But the Saddam loyalists have "mostly splintered" into other groups.

As a result, they are now "largely irrelevant" as a threat to the fledgling Iraqi government, said Lt. Gen. Victor E. Renuart, the head of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who helped prepare the report.

The report also said that while security in much of Iraq has improved, total attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces have increased in recent months, following the Feb. 22 bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra.

President Bush said he remained hopeful that the new Iraqi government will succeed in stabilizing the country.

"Although there's been some very difficult times for the Iraqi people, I'm impressed by the courage of the leadership, impressed by the determination of the people," Bush said Tuesday in the Oval Office during the credentialing ceremony for Samir Sumaidaie, Iraq's ambassador to the United States.

The troop move announced Tuesday involves about 1,500 soldiers from an armored brigade on standby in Kuwait and reflects a deteriorating security situation in the volatile provincial capital of Ramadi.

It raises the number of U.S. military brigades in Iraq from 15 to 16 -- just five months after the number was cut from 17 to 15.

A brigade has at least 3,500 troops.

The administration is under election-year pressure to demonstrate concrete progress in Iraq and to begin reducing U.S. troop levels at a time when the Army and Marines in particular are stretched thin by war deployments.

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq watcher with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Tuesday there is no clear basis for believing U.S. troop levels can be reduced anytime soon without risking further deterioration in the security situation.

He said the best measure of progress is not the number of U.S. troops in Iraq but the degree to which their role in counterinsurgency operations is assumed by Iraqis.

"I think, in honesty, that now looks a lot more like 2007 at the earliest (for) really having serious reductions in the U.S. combat role (and) being certain that the U.S. casualty levels are going down on a lasting basis and being able to reduce the costs of the war," Cordesman said in a telephone interview.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said there are 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

It was not clear whether that included the 1,500 soldiers from two battalions of the 2nd brigade of the 1st Armored Division whose deployment to the Ramadi area was described as "short term" in a U.S. military statement from Baghdad.

A defense official said the two battalions were expected to be in Anbar for a maximum of four months, operating as part of a Marine force.

The official was not authorized to discuss such details and so spoke on condition of anonymity.

A third battalion from the brigade in Kuwait was sent to Baghdad in March as part of a broader plan to improve security in the capital during the formation of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's new cabinet.

That cabinet was announced and put in place more than a week ago but still lacks ministers of defense and interior, who control the Iraqi army and police.

Whitman said that battalion is still operating in the Baghdad area.

------

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

[Livyjr]

CORRUPT GOVERNMENT .....

Outside of Washington, D.C., which may or may not have the MOST CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IN OUR AMERICA, and there, I mean the federal government, New York State is in the TOP TEN ....

CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS in the United States that is ...

Or maybe even the world, for that matter .....

Since we are supposed to have some of the very best politicians in the world that money can buy ....

And so ....

Being from here, I shine a spotlight on government corruption here in New York State from time to time ....

And so ....

With OUR governor's office being up for grabs this November ...

It is never too early to get that spotlight turned on bright ...

And when it is ...

The picture that is revealed is not at all a pretty or welcome one to us common citizens who do not live or reside in the New York City METRO AREA ....

Where New York State Attorney General Eliot "BIG EL" Spitzer holds sway with all the big-money interests .....

"Big EL", or "Old Uncle Eliot" as he is sometimes known up here in the hinterlands, is soft, oh so very soft, on government corruption here in the State of New York ...

Which makes him the "enemy" of the PEOPLE of the State of New York who want corruption gone from OUR government ....

But because "Old Uncle Eliot" is soft on corruption in government, HE HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE "MACHINE" that helps to produce and promote and prolong that corruption ......

And so ...

As originally posted in ....

http://commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/...php/t24721.html

We have ....

And this is catchy CAMPAIGN RHETORIC by New York State Attorney General and GUBERNATORIAL HOPEFUL Eliot Spitzer, right above here, of course .....

Which the Albany, New York Times Union editorial staff will never question ....

But as the record above here clearly demonstrates ....

IT IS PATENTLY FALSE .....

Because ...

Jeffrey Pelletier of Poestenkill, New York is VERY CLEARLY so powerful that he is above the reach of the law .....

Not only in the State of New York .....

Where Eliot Spitzer clearly is "THE POWER" .....

But in the federal Northern District of New York, as well .....

Where Spitzer flexed his muscles ...

And exercised his CLOUT ...

On behalf of Jeffrey Pelletier .....

Who is clearly so powerful ...

Thanks to Eliot Spitzer ....

That he is and remains above the reach of the law ...

In the State of New York ...

And the federal Northern District of New York ....

As is alleged New York State Veterans' Counselor and "political operative" William "BUCK" Shea ....

Who was Eliot Spitzer's CLIENT in this above matter ...

Who made patently false statements to the VA Police ....

And allegedly ...

The Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York ....

On Pelletier's behalf ....

As well as the New York State Police .....

Who are also "clients" of Eliot Spitzer .....

In the 8/22/01 combined Rensselaer County/State of New York effort to have PLAINTIFF locked away and "TREATED" by "Dr. Adrian" in the Northeast Health, Inc. "GULAG", or "political re-conditioning facility" in Troy, New York as an alleged dangerous "mental patient" ......

So as to DESTROY his mind, forever ....

Make him "cross-eyed" and drooling a lot ....

WITH ELIOT SPITZER'S BLESSINGS ....

And thus, to render him totally incapable .....

Of ever being an expert witness ...

Against corrupt practices ...

In the State of New York ...

Involving administrative agencies in the State of New York ...

Like the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ....

The New York State Department of Health ....

And the Office of Professional Discipline ...

Of the New York State Department of Education ....

Which "agency" upheld the position taken by REPUBLICAN Rensselaer County Personnel Director Felix "Iron Felix" Pugliese above here on March 13, 1989 ....

That in the State of New York ...

New York State licensed professional engineers serving THE PUBLIC in the capacity of associate public health engineers in county health departments in the State of New York .....

ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN "INDEPENDENT THINKING" .....

But instead ...

MUST DO WHAT THE "POLITICAL BOSSES" WANT DONE ....

Even if it constitutes PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ....

And misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance .....

And so ....

And just as clearly .....

PLAINTIFF herein .....

And us along with him ....

ARE SO POWERLESS .....

That WE, THE PEOPLE are beneath the protection of the law .....

Not only in the State of New York ...

But in the federal Northern District of New York, as well .....

And so .....

Some "truth in advertising" here ...

Even if in the State of New York ...

The truth is no longer in vogue ...

Thanks in large part to the ambitious and self-serving New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer .....

And so .....

And starting out the day with .....

What else in this election year ....

But politics ....

"Party choice shows unity - Democrats designate Spitzer their candidate for governor as he promises extensive, rapid reform of state government"

By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

BUFFALO -- Pledging swift and far-reaching reform of state government, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on Tuesday was designated the candidate for governor by an unusually united Democratic Party hungry to win back the executive mansion after nearly 12 years.

Spitzer minced no words in lambasting Albany, which he said "had stood remarkably still," causing the state's economy to stagnate as the rest of the nation, and the world, advance.

"In this campaign, we are fighting for the very soul of government; the very future of New York," Spitzer said.

"The crowd in charge in Albany is out of touch, out of ideas, and come Jan. 1, they'll be out of time."

"Because on Day One of a Spitzer administration, everything changes."

Spitzer promised to overhaul Albany with the same fervor with which he investigated the insurance and finance industries, earning him national renown as "the Sheriff of Wall Street."

Without getting into specifics, Spitzer said that if elected he will immediately focus on health care reform, property tax relief, full public education funding, revitalization of urban downtowns, investment in transportation, broadband infrastructure, energy systems, high-tech industries and assistance to small businesses.

"It's gonna be a busy first day," Spitzer joked.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver delivered the most red meat of the convention speakers, condemning the Pataki administration as "a 12-year-long plague that has sucked the life out of communities from Van Buren Point to Montauk Point."

Silver said he did not take Spitzer's remarks about Albany as an attack on him or the Assembly Democratic majority, but that the target was "clearly the second floor" of the Capitol, where the offices of Gov. George Pataki and his top staff are located.

Observers have speculated the relationship between Spitzer and Silver, who has been the state's top Democrat since he became speaker in 1994, will sour if Spitzer is elected.

But Silver said he doesn't believe that will be the case.

"As far as myself and my colleagues, we are delighted to have a partner to work with," Silver said.

"We're committed to bring about change on a number of fronts," including the budget.

"It was clear he's going to have the Legislature working, which is fine," Silver said.

David Catalfamo, Pataki's communications director, accused Spitzer of coming late to the government reform discussion, and said Silver, whose chamber has been roiled by sex and ethics scandals, is part of the problem.

"After almost eight years as Shelly Silver's silent partner in Albany, Rip Van Spitzer awoke from his slumber to talk about ethics in government," Catalfamo said.

"New York's top law enforcement official needs to look no further than across the convention hall to see his pal Speaker Silver for the most obvious source of concern."

With no opposition on the convention floor, Spitzer and his hand-picked running mate, Senate Minority Leader David Paterson, D-Harlem, were both approved by a voice vote.

Democrats were positively gleeful about the prospect of taking back the governor's mansion, which they lost after Pataki in 1994 beat former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.

Given the state GOP's disarray, some Democrats are hoping for a sweep in November, which would put one party in control of state government for the first time since 1949.

"With Eliot Spitzer and (U.S. Sen.) Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket, we are going to have the biggest Democratic victory of our lifetime," said U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty, D-Green Island.

The overwhelming support sharply contrasted with Spitzer's first run for attorney general in 1994.

Without enough support at the Democratic convention to get on the ballot, he petitioned his way on, and finished last in a four-way primary.

Four years later, Spitzer received 25 percent of the convention's weighted vote, but was not its designee for attorney general.

He went on to win both a primary and a tight race in the general election against Republican Dennis C. Vacco.

At this convention, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, who is mounting a long-shot primary challenge to Spitzer, finds himself in straits similar to those Spitzer faced in 1994.

Lacking sufficient party support to get on the ballot or even address the delegates, Suozzi skipped the convention and held a rally several blocks away in downtown Buffalo.

"Down the street they're holding the clubhouse convention," Suozzi cried at a rally at which blues music and free hot dogs and soda attracted a few hundred people.

Billing himself as an underdog who shouldn't be counted out, Suozzi told the crowd he's the only candidate with the guts to challenge "the establishment."

Suozzi, who had his parents and wife, Helene, with him, said Spitzer is unlikely to really fix Albany because he's bound to the status quo and the dysfunctional government that is causing taxes to rise and the economy to fail.

He said Spitzer, underwritten by lobbyists, trial lawyers and those who profit from health care spending, has refused to specify what he would do if he became governor.

"What are Eliot Spitzer's priorities?" Suozzi asked again and again.

After his rally, Suozzi worked the crowd and refused to take questions from reporters.

He drove off in what he has dubbed the "Fix Albany" van to begin what he said will be a statewide tour.

Citizen Action of New York, a grass-roots group that has endorsed Spitzer and often defends him from Suozzi's attacks, issued a statement declaring the county executive's "Fix Albany" van in "need of drastic repair" because he has accepted campaign contributions from Ken Langone, a Home Depot co-founder who's been sued by Spitzer, and from people who do business with Nassau County.

Benjamin can be reached at 454-5081 or by e-mail at ebenjamin@timesunion.com.

Staff writer James Odato contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"Party choice shows unity - Democrats designate Spitzer their candidate for governor as he promises extensive, rapid reform of state government" 
 
By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

BUFFALO -- Pledging swift and far-reaching reform of state government, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on Tuesday was designated the candidate for governor by an unusually united Democratic Party hungry to win back the executive mansion after nearly 12 years.
 
Spitzer minced no words in lambasting Albany, which he said "had stood remarkably still," causing the state's economy to stagnate as the rest of the nation, and the world, advance.

"In this campaign, we are fighting for the very soul of government; the very future of New York," Spitzer said.

"The crowd in charge in Albany is out of touch, out of ideas, and come Jan. 1, they'll be out of time."

"Because on Day One of a Spitzer administration, everything changes."

David Catalfamo, Pataki's communications director, accused Spitzer of coming late to the government reform discussion, and said Silver, whose chamber has been roiled by sex and ethics scandals, is part of the problem.

"After almost eight years as Shelly Silver's silent partner in Albany, Rip Van Spitzer awoke from his slumber to talk about ethics in government," Catalfamo said.

"New York's top law enforcement official needs to look no further than across the convention hall to see his pal Speaker Silver for the most obvious source of concern."

Suozzi, who had his parents and wife, Helene, with him, said Spitzer is unlikely to really fix Albany because he's bound to the status quo and the dysfunctional government that is causing taxes to rise and the economy to fail.

He said Spitzer, underwritten by lobbyists, trial lawyers and those who profit from health care spending, has refused to specify what he would do if he became governor.

As Attorney General for the State of New York ....

Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer ....

Has been in a position ...

For these last years ...

Of where he could have rooted out CORRUPTION in New York State government ....

IF HE HAD WANTED TO ....

And in fact, "Old Oncle Eliot" was in the prime position in the State of New York ...

To have done just that .....

ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT ....

BUT HE DID NOT ...

To the contrary ...

I would say ....

That if anyone in New York State government today ....

Is a certified CHAMPION OF CORRUPTION ......

It would be the HYPOCRITE Eliot "Big EL" Spitzer .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

And in the meantime ....

What's up with "GOD'S OWN PARTY" .....

Here in the corrupt State of New York ....

Where government corruption ...

Has nothing to fear ...

As long as Eliot Spitzer is here ...

Serving as the alleged "top law enforcement official" ....

In the State of New York ....

"Faso's camp wants their votes back - Republican state convention delegates seek to rescind proxy pact with Weld supporter"

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

GARDEN CITY -- A behind-the-scenes battle over proxy votes is brewing at the Republican convention as rank-and-file delegates from at least one county are revolting against their leader over whom to support for governor.

Several committeemen from Orange County who support John Faso are said to be trying to revoke the proxy votes they earlier gave their county chairman, Bill DeProspo, a supporter of former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld.

With Faso, a former Assembly minority leader, gaining support, the committeemen plan to attend and vote rather than let DeProspo vote for them by proxy, insiders said.

DeProspo has been a big Weld backer, having earlier this month sent out a letter criticizing Faso as being too far to the right to get elected in New York, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 5-3.

Regardless of how it plays out, the proxy fight has been symptomatic of the Weld-Faso conflict leading up to this week's GOP convention.

Weld has the support of state Republican Chairman Stephen Minarik and is considered to have Gov. George Pataki's tacit backing.

Weld's supporters say his socially moderate stance on issues like abortion and gay marriage make him the most viable Republican candidate for New York.

But Faso has been gaining momentum, with his supporters, many of whom are county committee members, saying Republicans should stick to their principles, even if it means fielding a conservative candidate in New York, one of the most Democratic, and liberal, states.

On Tuesday, the Erie County Republican Committee supported Faso.

Last week, Albany County committee members held a Faso fundraiser, and he drew a lot of support from members of the Saratoga County committee as well, despite talk that those counties' leaders were under pressure from the governor's office to deliver Weld votes.

[Livyjr]

And starting off with something completely different, this evening ....

From what we otherwise might have started out with ..

We have ....

What is quite old news, actually ....

As follows ....

"Scientists say Arctic once was tropical"

By SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press
Last updated: 4:26 p.m., Wednesday, May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees.

It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however.

The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peek at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

And what a watery, swampy world it must have been.

"Imagine a world where there are dense sequoia trees and cypress trees like in Florida that ring the Arctic Ocean," said Pagani, a member of the multinational Arctic Coring Expedition that conducted the research.

Millions of years ago the Earth experienced an extended period of natural global warming.

But around 55 million years ago there was a sudden supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.

Scientists already knew this "thermal event" happened but are not sure what caused it.

Perhaps massive releases of methane from the ocean, the continent-sized burning of trees, lots of volcanic eruptions.

Many experts figured that while the rest of the world got really hot, the polar regions were still comfortably cooler, maybe about 52 degrees Fahrenheit.

But the new research found the polar average was closer to 74 degrees.

So instead of Boston-like weather year-round, the Arctic was more like Miami North.

Way north.

"It's the first time we've looked at the Arctic, and man, it was a big surprise to us," said study co-author Kathryn Moran, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island.

"It's a new look to how the Earth can respond to these peaks in carbon dioxide."

It's enough to make Santa Claus break into a sweat.

The 74-degree temperature, based on core samples which act as a climatic time capsule, was probably the year-round average, but because data is so limited it might also be just the summertime average, researchers said.

What's troubling is that this hints that future projections for warming, several degrees over the next century, may be on the low end, said study lead author Appy Sluijs of the Institute of Environmental Biology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Also it shows that what happened 55 million years ago was proof that too much carbon dioxide -- more than four times current levels -- can cause global warming, said another co-author Henk Brinkhuis at Utrecht University.

Purdue University atmospheric sciences professor Gabriel Bowen, who was not part of the team, praised the work and said it showed that "there are tipping points in our (climate) system that can throw us to these conditions."

And the new research also gave scientists the idea that a simple fern may have helped pull Earth from a hothouse to an icehouse by sucking up massive amounts of carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately, this natural solution to global warming was not exactly quick: It took about a million years.

With all that heat and massive freshwater lakes forming in the Arctic, a fern called Azolla started growing and growing.

Azolla, still found in warm regions today, grew so deep, so wide that eventually it started sucking up carbon dioxide, Brinkhuis theorized.

And that helped put the cool back in the Arctic.

Bowen said he has a hard time accepting that part of the research, but Brinkhuis said the studies show tons upon tons of thick mats of Azolla covered the Arctic and moved south.

"This could actually contribute to push the world to a cooling mode," Brinkhuis said, but only after it got hotter first and then it would take at least 800,000 years to cool back down.

It's not something to look forward to, he said.

[Livyjr]

Ah, yes ...

"THE MESSAGE" .....

George W. Bush's MESSAGE ....

Leaves me feeling quite queasy ..

And sick at my stomach ...

IN ABSOLUTE DISGUST ...

At the thought ...

That OUR America ....

Is ruled by a CRO-MAGNON ....

Or a NEANDERTHAL ....

Or some kind of BRUTE, anyway ....

Far removed from rational humanity ....

And so ....

BRUTE IS ....

AS BRUTE DOES ...

And so ....

Here is some of the NEANDERTHAL'S handiwork, now ....

"U.S. troops kill pregnant woman in Iraq"

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press

Last updated: 7:17 p.m., Wednesday, May 31, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women -- one of them about to give birth -- when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday.

Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday.

Jassim, the mother of two children, and her 57-year-old cousin, Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were killed by the U.S. forces, according to police Capt. Laith Mohammed and witnesses.

The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings.

"Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," the military said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.

"Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds ... and one of the females may have been pregnant."

Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital.

Her husband was waiting for her there.

"I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans."

"It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said.

"God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here."

"They have no regard for our lives."

He said doctors tried but failed to save the baby after his sister was brought to the hospital.

The shooting deaths occurred in the wake of an investigation into allegations that U.S. Marines killed unarmed civilians in the western city of Haditha.

The U.S. military said the incident in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was being investigated.

The city is in the heart of the so-called Sunni Triangle and has in the past seen heavy insurgent activity.

"The loss of life is regrettable and coalition forces go to great lengths to prevent them," the military said.

The women's bodies were wrapped in sheets and lying on stretchers outside the Samarra General Hospital before being taken to the morgue, while residents pointed to bullet holes on the windshield of a car and a pool of blood on the seat.

Khalid Nisaif Jassim, the pregnant woman's brother, said American forces had blocked off the side road only two weeks ago and news about the observation post had been slow to filter out to rural areas.

He said the killings, like those in Haditha, were examples of random killings faced by Iraqis every day.

The killings at Haditha, a city that has been plagued by insurgents, came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated war veteran who has been briefed by military officials, has said Marines shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot others.

Military investigators have evidence that points toward unprovoked murders by Marines, a senior defense official said last week.

In his first public comments on the incident, President Bush said he was troubled by the allegations, and that, "If in fact laws were broken, there will be punishment."

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi told the BBC that the allegations have "created a feeling of great shock and sadness and I believe that if what is alleged is true -- and I have no reason to believe it's not -- then I think something very drastic has to be done."

"There must be a level of discipline imposed on the American troops and change of mentality which seems to think that Iraqi lives are expendable," said Pachachi, a member of parliament.

If confirmed as unjustified killings, the episode could be the most serious case of criminal misconduct by U.S. troops during three years of combat in Iraq.

Until now the most infamous occurrence was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse involving Army soldiers, which came to light in April 2004 and which Bush said he considered to be the worst U.S. mistake of the entire war.

Once the military investigation is completed, perhaps in June, it will be up to a senior Marine commander in Iraq to decide whether to press charges of murder or other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The incident has sparked two investigations -- one into the deadly encounter itself and another into whether it was the subject of a cover-up.

The Marine Corps had initially attributed 15 civilian deaths to the car bombing and a firefight with insurgents, eight of whom the Marines reported had been killed.

"People in Samarra are very angry with the Americans not only because of Haditha case but because the Americans kill people randomly specially recently," Khalid Nisaif Jassim said.

end quotes

George W. Bush is like some creature up from Hell ....

And everything that he touches ...

Turns to **** ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

BRUTE IS ....

AS BRUTE DOES ...

And so ....

Here is some of the NEANDERTHAL'S handiwork, now ....

"U.S. troops kill pregnant woman in Iraq" 
 
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press

Last updated: 7:17 p.m., Wednesday, May 31, 2006

"God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here."

"They have no regard for our lives."

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi told the BBC that the allegations have "created a feeling of great shock and sadness and I believe that if what is alleged is true -- and I have no reason to believe it's not -- then I think something very drastic has to be done."

"There must be a level of discipline imposed on the American troops and change of mentality which seems to think that Iraqi lives are expendable," said Pachachi, a member of parliament.

end quotes

George W. Bush is like some creature up from Hell ....

And everything that he touches ...

Turns to **** ....

And so ....

George W. Bush's MESSAGE ....

Leaves me feeling quite queasy .. 

And sick at my stomach ...

IN ABSOLUTE DISGUST ...

And so ...

And George W. Bush's PROMISES ....

Are empty ...

Worthless ...

Not worth the paer they are printed on ...

And so ....

"Bush upset with Iraq killings reports"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press
Last updated: 5:46 p.m., Wednesday, May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush promised on Wednesday that any Marines involved in the alleged murders of Iraqi civilians will be punished.

A senior officer said the case could undermine Iraqis' support for the presence of American troops.

"I am troubled by the initial news stories," Bush said in his first public comments about the deaths of about two dozen civilians at Haditha last January.

"I'm mindful that there's a thorough investigation going on."

"If in fact, laws were broken, there will be punishment."

Military investigators have evidence that points toward unprovoked murders by Marines, a senior defense official said last week.

The shootings came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine.

Residents of Haditha said Marines then went into nearby houses and shot members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl.

At first, the American military described what happened as an ambush on a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol, with a roadside bombing and subsequent firefight killing 15 civilians, eight insurgents and a Marine.

The statement said the 15 civilians were killed by the blast, a claim the residents strongly denied.

With some in Congress alleging a cover-up, the Bush administration offered assurances the facts will be made public.

Bush's spokesman, Tony Snow, urged patience as the Marines conduct what he called a vigorous investigation.

He said a report will come out in "a matter of weeks, not a matter of months" and include public release of photographic evidence.

"We're going to see everything," Snow said.

Once that investigation is completed, a senior Marine commander in Iraq will decide whether to press charges of murder or other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

At the Pentagon, Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham would not discuss any aspect of the probe, but he stressed the potential harm caused by allegations alone.

"Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate," said Ham, a deputy operations director for the Joint Staff and a former commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq.

"We do rely very heavily -- and more importantly, the Iraqi security forces rely heavily -- on the support from the Iraqi people," Ham said.

"And anything that tends to diminish that, obviously, is not helpful to what we're trying to do."

The toll of Iraqi civilians climbed on Wednesday when two women, including one being taken to a maternity hospital, died when coalition troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad.

The U.S. military said the vehicle entered a clearly marked prohibited area but failed to obey repeated warnings.

The president was asked about the Haditha allegations during a photo opportunity with the president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.

Bush said he had discussed Haditha with Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"He's a proud Marine."

"And nobody is more concerned about these allegations than the Marine Corps."

"The Marine Corps is full of honorable people who understand the rules of war."

"If in fact these allegations are true," Bush said, "the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that that culture -- that proud culture -- will be reinforced."

"And that those who violated the law, if they did, will be punished."

Until now the most infamous violation of military law in Iraq was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse involving Army soldiers, which came to light in April 2004.

Bush said last week he considered Abu Ghraib to be the most costly U.S. mistake of the war.

------

Associated Press military writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.

"If in fact these allegations are true," Bush said, "the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that that culture -- that proud culture -- will be reinforced?"

Uh, George ...

If I understand what you are saying here ....

These killings of these civilians ....

Were because of PRIDE ...

YOUR PRIDE, IN FACT .....

And you want that reinforced in the Marine Corps?

What a sick idea that is, George ....

But typical ....

And so ...

[jeffmoskin]

I fear that our soldiers in Iraqniam are tired, frustrated, even p*ssed off.

That is a bad situation waiting to turn into a DISASTER.

One of your men is blown up by an IED.

You go ballistic.

"Sh*t happens" - Ronald Dumbsfeld.

[Snuffysmith]

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html



BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION
(Updated 5/27/03)


As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with oil." <1> He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on 11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

Speaking to British MPs, Prime Minister Tony Blair was just as explicit: "Let me deal with the conspiracy theory idea that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever if oil were the issue that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam...." (London Times 1/15/03).

Nor did Bush's State of the Union Message, or Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council, once mention the word "oil." Instead the talk was (in the president's words) of "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

However our leaders are not being candid with us. Oil has been a major US concern about Iraq in internal and unpublicized documents, since the start of this Administration, and indeed earlier. As Michael Renner has written in Foreign Policy in Focus, February 14, 2003, "Washington's War on Iraq is the Lynchpin to Controlling Persian Gulf Oil."

But the need to dominate oil from Iraq is also deeply intertwined with the defense of the dollar. Its current strength is supported by OPEC's requirement (secured by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia) that all OPEC oil sales be denominated in dollars. This requirement is currently threatened by the desire of some OPEC countries to allow OPEC oil sales to be paid in euros.

The Internally Stated US Goal of Securing the Flow of Oil from the Middle East

As early as April 1997, a report from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of "energy security" for the United States, and noted that the US was increasingly threatened by oil shortages in the face of the inability of oil supplies to keep up with world demand. In particular the report addressed "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq's borders.

The Bush Administration returned to this theme as soon as it took office in 2001, by following the lead of a second report from the same Institute. <2> This Task Force Report was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, another group historically concerned about US access to overseas oil resources. The Report represented a consensus of thinking among energy experts of both political parties, and was signed by Democrats as well as Republicans. <3>

The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, concluded: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments."

The Task Force meetings were attended by members of the new Bush Administration's Department of Energy, and the report was read by members of Vice-President Cheney's own Energy Task Force. When Cheney issued his own national energy plan, it too declared that "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy." It agreed with the Baker report that the U.S. is increasingly dependent on imported oil and that it may be necessary to overcome foreign resistance in order to gain access to new supplies.

Later the point was made more bluntly by Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves."


The Unstated US Goals of Increasing the Flow of Oil from the Middle East, and US Dominance of the Area

Behind the acknowledged concern about the "free flow" of Persian Gulf oil are other motives. Following the recommendations of the Task Force Report, the Bush administration wishes to increase international (which may well turn out to mean US) investment in the under-developed Iraq oilfields. On 1/16/03 the Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization). The Journal story has since been denied by Administration officials; but, as the Guardian noted on 1/27/03, "It stretches credulity somewhat to imagine that the subject has never been broached." <4>

It is worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein already has offered exploratory concessions (which remained inactive because of the UN sanctions) to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. If Saddam is replaced by a new client regime, it seems likely that these concessions will be superseded, although there are reports that the US has offered France, Russia and China a share of post-war Iraqi oil, as an inducement to get their support in the Security Council. <5> Last September former CIA Chief Woolsey threatened in the Washington Post (9/15/02) that the price for participation by France and Russia in the post-war Iraq oil bonanza should be their support for "regime change." <6> It would not take much of such menacing talk from official sources to turn the Bush campaign against Iraq into a campaign against Europe (see Postscript).

Iraq's proven oil reserves are 113 billion barrels, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia, and eleven percent of the world's total. The total reserves could be 200 million barrels or more, all of it relatively easy and cheap to extract. Thus increasing Iraqi oil production will diminish the market pressure on oil-importing countries like the US. It will also weaken the power of OPEC to influence oil markets by decisions to restrict output. Indeed, were Iraqi oil production to expand to near its capacity, the quotas established by OPEC would cease to be honored in today's market. <7>

But the US is not just interested in oil from Iraq, it is concerned to maintain political dominance over all the oil-producing countries of the region. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a glimpse of US intentions when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 6 that success in the Iraq war "could fundamentally reshape that region in a powerful, positive way that will enhance U.S. interests." In conceding that it will be necessary to station US troops in occupied Iraq for the foreseeable future, the US is serving notice to Iran and to Saudi Arabia (both of which were once secure bases for US troops but are so no longer) that the US will reassert its presence as the dominant military power in the region.

The Unstated US Goal of Preserving Dollar Hegemony Over the Global Oil Market

Dominance of Middle Eastern oil will mean in effect maintaining dollar hegemony over the world oil economy. Given its present strategies, the US is constrained to demand no less. As I explain in this extract from my book, Drugs, Oil, and War (pp. 41-42, 53-54), the present value of the US dollar, unjustified on purely economic grounds, is maintained by political arrangements, one of the chief of which is to ensure that all OPEC oil purchases will continue to be denominated in US dollars. (This commitment of OPEC to dollar oil sales was secured in the 1970s by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia, before the two countries began to drift apart over Israel and other issues.) <8>

The chief reason why dollars are more than pieces of green paper is that countries all over the world need them for purchases, principally of oil. This requires them in addition to maintain dollar reserves to protect their own currency; and these reserves, when invested, help maintain the current high levels of the US securities markets.

As Henry Liu has written vividly in the online Asian Times (4/11/02),

"World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.

"By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56 percent premium compared with emerging markets."

But central bankers around the world do not expect either the US dollar or the US stock markets to sustain their current levels. As William Greider in The Nation (9/23/02) has pointed out:

"US economy's net foreign indebtedness--the accumulation of two decades of running larger and larger trade deficits--will reach nearly 25 percent of US GDP this year, or roughly $2.5 trillion. Fifteen years ago, it was zero. Before America's net balance of foreign assets turned negative, in 1988, the United States was a creditor nation itself, investing and lending vast capital to others, always more than it borrowed. Now the trend line looks most alarming. If the deficits persist around the current level of $400 billion a year or grow larger, the total US indebtedness should reach $3.5 trillion in three years or so. Within a decade, it would total 50 percent of GDP."

There is also a major potential threat to the overpriced dollar in Japan's unresolved deflationary crisis. As observers like Lawrence A. Joyce have commented, the dollar would take a major pummeling if the Japanese government (as seems quite possible) were suddenly required to fulfil its legal obligations to bail out failed Japanese banks (which could easily happen if a sustained scarcity of oil were to keep oil prices at $40 a barrel or higher):

"There is only one place where the Japanese government can get enough money to bail out its banking system: The Japanese government owns about 15% of our U.S. Treasury securities. And it would have to start selling them if it found itself facing a major banking crisis.

"That would send the already ailing dollar down even further. And the initiation of a sale of our Treasury securities by Japan, of course, would immediately trigger a worldwide stampede to do the same before the securities become worth only a fraction of what they were purchased for. At the same time, interest rates in the U.S. would immediately go through the roof."

Washington is of course aware of these problems, and believes that overwhelming military strength and the will to use it supply the answer, persuading or forcing other countries to support the dollar at its artificial level as the key to their own security. In an article entitled "Asia: the Military-Market Link," and published by the U.S. Naval Institute in January 2002, Professor Thomas Barnett of the US Naval War College, wrote: "We trade little pieces of paper (our currency, in the form of a trade deficit) for Asia's amazing array of products and services. We are smart enough to know this is a patently unfair deal unless we offer something of great value along with those little pieces of paper. That product is a strong US Pacific Fleet, which squares the transaction nicely."

There is some merit to this argument with respect to friendly countries like Japan, whose defense costs have been lowered by the US presence in Asia. But of course the Islamic countries of the world are less likely to appreciate the "great value" of a threatening US presence. Instead they are more likely to follow the example of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and turn to the Islamic gold dinar as a way to diminish dollar hegemony in world markets and increase the power of Islamic nations to challenge US policies.

The United States has at present little reason to fear a challenge to the dollar from Malaysia. But Malaysia is an Islamic country; and the US has every reason to fear a similar challenge from the Islamic nations in OPEC, were they to force OPEC to cease OPEC oil sales in dollars, and denominate them instead in euros.

The Unstated US Goal of Preserving Dollar Hegemony Against Competition from the Euro

As noted in a recent article by W. Clark, "The Real But Unspoken Reasons for the Iraq War", the OPEC underpinning for the US dollar has shown signs of erosion in recent years. Iraq was one of the first OPEC countries, in 2000, to convert its reserves from dollars to euros. At the time a commentator for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty predicted that Saddam's political act "will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue." In fact Iraq has profited handsomely from the 17 percent gain in the value of the euro against the dollar in that time. <9>

Other countries have gradually been climbing on to the euro bandwagon. An article in the Iran Financial News, 8/25/02, revealed that more than half of Iran's Forex Reserve Fund assets had been converted from dollars to euros. In 2002 China began diversifying its currency reserves away from dollars into euros. According to Business Week (2/17/03) Russia's Central Bank in the past year has doubled its euro holdings to 20 percent of its $48 billion foreign exchange reserves. And for a very good reason, according to its First Deputy Chairman Oleg Vyugin: "Returns on dollar instruments are very low now. Other currency instruments pay more."

Business Week continues:

`The story is the same across the globe. Money traders say that institutions as diverse as Bank of Canada, People's Bank of China, and Central Bank of Taiwan are giving more weight to the European currency. By the end of this year, they predict, the euro could account for 20% of global foreign currency reserves, which today amount to a cool $2.4 trillion. Little more than a year ago, the euro made up just 10%. "No one is saying that the euro's going to replace the dollar as the premier reserve currency," says Michael Klawitter, a currency strategist at WestLB Research in London. "But it will increase in importance for many central banks."...

`The shift to the euro has big implications for the foreign exchange markets and the U.S. and European economies. Currency specialists say the yawning U.S. current account deficit, now at 5%, is bound to drive the dollar down further, and the euro still higher, over the next two to four years. Although the greenback may stage a short-term recovery once the looming war with Iraq is over, predictions are that it will then continue its downward trend, and that central banks will play their part in the descent. "Even if central banks increase their euro holdings by just a few percent, it will have a major impact in the markets," says Klawitter. "We're talking many billions of dollars."'

If not deterred, OPEC could follow suit. Libya has been urging for some time that oil be priced in euros rather than dollars. Javad Yarjani, an Iranian senior OPEC official, told a European Union seminar in April 2002 that, despite the problems raised by such a conversion, "I believe that OPEC will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future."

Meanwhile Hugo Chavez has been taking Venezuelan oil out of the petrodollar economy by bartering oil directly for commodities from thirteen other third world countries. Although this has not yet qualified Venezuela for official membership in Bush's "axis of evil," the heavy hand of the Bush Administration in the recent coup attempt against Chavez was only too obvious. (See "Venezuela Coup Linked to Bush Team," London Observer, 4/21/02, for details about the roles of US officials Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, and John Negroponte.) <10>

Conclusion: How Should the US Be Addressing These Real Problems?

To conclude, the Bush administration is not threatening Iraq out of pique or whim. The recent policies of both parties have indeed made the US vulnerable to foreign oil and petrodollar pressures. But hopefully decent Americans will protest the notion that it is appropriate to rain missiles and bombs upon civilians of another country, who have had little or nothing to do with this crisis of America's own making.

Some in addition will continue to explore avenues whereby America's oil and financial vulnerabilities can be diminished without continuing down the road to Armageddon. These problems are serious, but economists have put forward proposals for diminishing them peacefully and multilaterally. With respect to oil, Ralph Nader has just written, "The demand is simple: Stop this war before it starts and immediately establish a sane national energy security strategy." In fact one key ingredient of such a strategy, restriction of demand, can be found in saner parts of the Baker Institute reports that the Bush administration has mostly chosen to ignore.

But an energy strategy for the United States must be addressed in the larger context of an economic and financial restructuring of global institutions and currency flows. With respect to the more esoteric financial problems of the dollar, the economist and futurist Hazel Henderson has written that "My recommendations for reforming current international institutions, revitalizing the UN and expanding civic society are summarized in Beyond Globalization (1999). A more balanced world order must center on reforming global finance, taxing currency exchange and reducing the dollar's unsustainable role as the world's de facto reserve currency (which is destructive for all countries -- even the US itself). I favor a global reserve currency regime based on the parity of the US dollar and the euro. The fundamentals in the USA and the EU suggest that the G-8 has an opportunity to peg the dollar and the euro into a trading band. This, together with the new issue of SDR's [Special Drawing Rights]. proposed by all the IMF country members, promoted by George Soros and opposed only by the USA, would lend to more stable currency markets."

Without endorsing these specific proposals, I wish to second two rather obvious principles:

1) The problems of global financial instability must be addressed. As George Soros, famed as the man who broke the British pound in 1992, wrote later in the Financial Times,” "To argue that financial markets in general, and international lending in particular, need to be regulated is likely to outrage the financial community. Yet the evidence for just that is overwhelming."

2) A multilateral approach to these core problems is the only way to proceed. The US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily. Economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly in debt. The Bush peoples' intention appears to be to override economic realities with military ones, as if there were no risk of economic retribution. They should be mindful of Britain's humiliating retreat from Suez in 1956, a retreat forced on it by the United States as a condition for propping up the failing British pound.

America's influence in the world has up to now been based largely on good will generated by its willingness to resolve matters multilaterally. This legacy of good will should be acknowledged and consolidated by the Bush Administration, as it faces the difficult post-war challenge of restoring law and order in Iraq. US military might may be unchallenged, but the health of our economy and finance depends on peace and cooperation with our friends.



FOOTNOTES
<1> Ari Fleischer Press Briefing of February 6, 2003:

Q Since you speak for the President, we have no access to him, can you categorically deny that the United States will take over the oil fields when we win this war? Which is apparently obvious and you're on your way and I don't think you doubt your victory. Oil -- is it about oil?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people....

Q There are reports that we've divided up the oil already, divvied it up with the Russians and French and so forth. Isn't that true?....

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no truth to that, that we would divide up the oil fields.

(Concerning Mr. Fleischer's second answer, see footnotes 4 and 5 -- PDS.)

For an exhaustive rebuttal of a similar statement by Ari Fleischer on 10/30/02, see Larry Chin, "The Deep Politics of Regime Removal in Iraq", onlinejournal.com.


<2> In an earlier draft of this essay I quoted extensively (as have many other writers) from a news story by Neil Mackay in the Scotland Sunday Herald (10/6/02). This story claimed that Vice-President Cheney himself commissioned the second Task Force Report, and that former US Secretary of State James Baker delivered the Report to Cheney. I now doubt that either claim is true.


<3> One of the Baker Task Force members was Kenneth Lay, the former chief executive of Enron, which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud. The Task Force Report begins with references to "recent energy price spikes" and "electricity outages in California," which we now know were engineered by Enron market manipulations for which two Enron energy traders have since pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges (Forbes, 2/5/03).


<4> An extremely interesting news item last October in Alexander's oilandgas.com revealed that the US was planning not only for the post-war exploitation of Iraq's oil reserves, but for Iraq's relationship to OPEC as well:

"30-10-02 The US State Department has pushed back its planned meeting with Iraqi opposition leaders on exploiting Iraq's oil and gas reserves after a US military offensive removes Saddam Hussein from power to early December. According to a source at the State Department, all the desired participants are not yet available.

"The Bush administration wants to have a working group of 12 to 20 people focused on Iraqi oil and gas to be able to recommend to an interim government ways of restoring the petroleum sector following a military attack in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible US military occupation government -- further fuelling the view that controlling Iraqi oil is at the heart of the Bush campaign to replace Hussein with a more compliant regime. (Emphasis added -- PDS)....

"According to the source, the working group will not only prepare recommendations for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi petroleum sector post-Hussein, but will address questions regarding the country's continued membership in OPEC and whether it should be allowed to produce as much as possible or be limited by an OPEC quota, and it will consider whether to honour contracts made between the Hussein government and foreign oil companies, including the $ 3.5 b[illio]n project to be carried out by Russian interests to redevelop Iraq's oilfields, which, along with numerous other development projects, has been thwarted by United Nations sanctions.


<5> "Oil firms wait as Iraq crisis unfolds" by Robert Collier, San Francisco Chronicle,9/29/02:

`Iraqi opposition leaders suggest that unless France, Russia and China support the U.S. line in the Security Council, their oil companies may find themselves blacklisted.

`"We will examine all the contracts that Saddam Hussein has made, and we will cancel all those that are not in the interest of the Iraqi people and will reopen bidding on them," said Faisal Qaragholi, operations officer of the Iraqi National Congress, the opposition coalition based in London that plays a central role in the American anti-Hussein strategy.

`Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, has gone even further, proposing the creation of consortium of American companies to develop Iraq's oil fields.'


<6> As the Asia Times reported on 10/21/02,

`The war of positioning for a possible post-Saddam Iraqi environment is getting more ruthless by the minute. American oil conglomerates are openly courting representatives of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the umbrella opposition. The darling of Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco is Ahmed Chalabi, US vice President Dick Cheney's pal and major contender for the title of Iraq's number one opposition figure. Chalabi, the INC leader, has already stressed on the record that he favors the creation of a "US-led consortium to develop Iraqi oil fields. American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."

`To widespread doubts about how a pro-American post-Saddam government would respect contracts signed with non-American oil giants, the INC has reassured all players - mostly Russian and European - that the new post-Saddam administration will honor all its PSAs.

`The Future of Iraq Group, a State Department task force, officially is not talking about oil - which sounds like a joke. [Cf. footnote 4 -- PDS] And there's also no official confirmation that oil has been a key issue in the current hardcore Security Council negotiations between the US and Britain, on one side, and France, Russia and China on the other. But it is obviously not by historical accident that oil companies from these five permanent Security Council members are all positioning themselves for the post-Saddam environment.

`People like former CIA supremo James Woolsey are not even disguising Washington's plan to turn Iraq into an American protectorate with an Arab Hamid Karzai al-la Afghanistan eager to open the oil taps for American oil giants. Woolsey had been openly saying that if France and Russia contributed to "regime change", their oil companies would be able to "work together" with the new regime and with American companies. Otherwise, they would be left contemplating passing cargoes in the Gulf.'


<7> Note that the true issue here is not just access to Iraq oil, but control over it. As Michael Parenti reminds us, in 1998, when the UN allowed Iraq to increase its exports into an already over-supplied oil market, this was perceived as a threat to US interests:

`The San Francisco Chronicle (22 February 1998) headlined its story "IRAQ'S OIL POSES THREAT TO THE WEST." In fact, Iraqi crude poses no threat to "the West" only to Western oil investors. If Iraq were able to reenter the international oil market, the Chronicle reported, "it would devalue British North Sea oil, undermine American oil production and---much more important---it would destroy the huge profits which the United States [read, US oil companies] stands to gain from its massive investment in Caucasian oil production, especially in Azerbaijan."'


<8> "The US handled the quadrupling of oil prices in the 1970s by arranging, by means of secret agreements with the Saudis, for the recycling of petrodollars back into the US economy. The first of these deals assured a special and on-going Saudi stake in the health of the US dollar; the second secured continuing Saudi support for the pricing of all OPEC oil in dollars. See David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999), x, 103-1a, 121). These two deals assured that the US economy would not be impoverished by OPEC oil price hikes. The heaviest burdens would be borne instead by the economies of less developed countries" (Peter Dale Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afganistan, Colombia, and Indochina, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 41-42; cf. 53-54).


<9> The 17 percent gain was calculated as of February 2003, when the euro was worth $1.08. Now, as of May 2003, the euro is worth $1.16.


<10> In August 2000 Chavez met with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, the first head of state to visit him since the 1991 Gulf War. Chavez told the press later that "We spoke at length on how to boost the role of OPEC." This was part of an extended Chavez tour to bolster OPEC unity against US-led pressure to lower oil prices, then at nearly $30 a barrel.

[Livyjr]

I fear that our soldiers in Iraqniam are tired, frustrated, even p*ssed off.

That is a bad situation waiting to turn into a DISASTER.

One of your men is blown up by an IED.

You go ballistic.

Good morning, jeffmoskin ....

And thank you for your observation ....

Which I would say ...

From my own experiences as an infantryman in Viet Nam ....

Which was one great big booby-trap, where I was anyway .....

That you are right on the money with your observation ...

And so ....

What you are calling a disaster is happening ....

As we write these words in here ...

Just as it happened in Viet Nam ...

And so .....

And there is now no way to avert that disaster .....

Because George W. Bush has precluded that possibility ....

With all of his stupid blather and bluster ....

About TOTAL VICTORY ...

And so ....

In my combat infantryman's mind ....

TOTAL VICTORY means exactly that .....

One side has no one left standing ...

When the final bell sounds ...

To end the game ...

And so ...

Given that ....

And the level of beastiality that infantrymen occupy when performing the "duties of the trade", as it were ...

In a quest for TOTAL VICTORY ....

What happens is that everyone ....

And anything ....

In your sights ...

Gets blown away ...

And destroyed ....

As quickly as possible ....

To achieve that end ...

SINCE YOU ARE NOT GOING HOME UNTIL THAT END IS ACHIEVED .....

And so .....

[Livyjr]

And so ....

What you are calling a disaster is happening ....

As we write these words in here ...

Just as it happened in Viet Nam ...

And so .....

And there is now no way to avert that disaster .....

Because George W. Bush has precluded that possibility ....

With all of his stupid blather and bluster ....

About TOTAL VICTORY ...

And so ....

And as America walks blithely down the path to George W. Bush's version of TOTAL VICTORY .....

From my perspective as a disabled combat veteran of the VEET NAM war ....

It just looks like a lot more BULL ***** and lies to me ....

Just like it was back then ....

But what the hey ....

I'm almost ...

If not actually ....

Insignificant ....

Here in George W. Bush's version of America ....

Which seems chock right full of nothing but pure BULL **** to me ....

And so ....

WE HAVE THE LIES ...

And nothing else ....

In George W. Bush's QUEST FOR TOTAL VICTORY OVER EVERYTHING ...

And so ....

"Report: False testimony in Haditha probe"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush promised on Wednesday that any Marines involved in the alleged murders of Iraqi civilians will be punished.

A senior officer said the case could undermine Iraqis' support for the presence of American troops.

"I am troubled by the initial news stories," Bush said in his first public comments about the deaths of about two dozen civilians at Haditha last November.

"I'm mindful that there's a thorough investigation going on."

"If, in fact, laws were broken, there will be punishment."

Military investigators have evidence that points toward unprovoked murders by Marines in the Iraqi town of Haditha, a senior defense official said last week.

A U.S. military investigation will conclude that some officers gave false testimony to their superiors, The Washington Post reported on its Web site Wednesday night.

The superiors then failed to scrutinize reports adequately, the Post reported.

The probe, which is separate from an investigation into possible criminal actions by the Marines, also will call for changes in how troops are trained for duty in Iraq, the Post reported.

The top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey, is preparing to order all troops in Iraq to undergo "core values" training including humane treatment of civilians and an understanding of Iraqi culture, the Post and ABC News reported.

The shootings came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine.

Residents of Haditha said Marines then went into nearby houses and shot members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl.

At first, the American military described what happened as an ambush on a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol, with a roadside bombing and subsequent firefight killing 15 civilians, eight insurgents and a Marine.

The statement said the 15 civilians were killed by the blast, a claim the residents strongly denied.

With some in Congress alleging a cover-up, the Bush administration offered assurances the facts will be made public.

Bush's spokesman, Tony Snow, urged patience as the Marines conduct what he called a vigorous investigation.

He said a report will come out in "a matter of weeks, not a matter of months" and include public release of photographic evidence.

"We're going to see everything," Snow said.

Once that investigation is completed, a senior Marine commander in Iraq will decide whether to press charges of murder or other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

At the Pentagon, Army Brig. Gen. Carter Ham would not discuss any aspect of the probe, but he stressed the potential harm caused by allegations alone.

"Allegations such as this, regardless of how they are borne out by the facts, can have an effect on the ability of U.S. forces to continue to operate," said Ham, a deputy operations director for the Joint Staff and a former commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq.

"We do rely very heavily — and more importantly, the Iraqi security forces rely heavily — on the support from the Iraqi people," Ham said.

"And anything that tends to diminish that, obviously, is not helpful to what we're trying to do."

The toll of Iraqi civilians climbed on Wednesday when two women, including one being taken to a maternity hospital, died when coalition troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad.

The U.S. military said the vehicle entered a clearly marked prohibited area but failed to obey repeated warnings.

The president was asked about the Haditha allegations during a photo opportunity with the president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.

Bush said he had discussed Haditha with Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"He's a proud Marine."

"And nobody is more concerned about these allegations than the Marine Corps."

"The Marine Corps is full of honorable people who understand the rules of war."

"If in fact these allegations are true," Bush said, "the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that that culture — that proud culture — will be reinforced."

"And that those who violated the law, if they did, will be punished."

Until now the most infamous violation of military law in Iraq was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse involving Army soldiers, which came to light in April 2004.

Bush said last week he considered Abu Ghraib to be the most costly U.S. mistake of the war.
___

Associated Press military writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.

end quotes

The MOST COSTLY MISTAKE of the "war", George ......

For OUR America ....

Was you starting it ....

By running your big mouth ....

About "SHOCK AND AWE" ......

When you didn't have the slightest idea of what you were even talking about ...

And so ....

[jeffmoskin]

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

Thanks for posting this, snuff.

It summarizes all the data in a nutshell.

William R. Smith also wrote "Petrodollar Warfare" in addition to the article. Curiously, he was interviewed on Radio New Zealand (no USA network called him. I guess they are all busy with Hannity and Rush):

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/659


And I am an avid reader of Henry C K Liu on atimes.com. I urge all CGCSers to
read his many many articles about international trade and economics. A very smart cookie IMHO.

[Snuffysmith]

Thanks for posting this, snuff.

It summarizes all the data in a nutshell.

William R. Smith also wrote "Petrodollar Warfare" in addition to the article. Curiously, he was interviewed on Radio New Zealand (no USA network called him. I guess they are all busy with Hannity and Rush):

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/659
And I am an avid reader of Henry C K Liu on atimes.com. I urge all CGCSers to
read his many many articles about international trade and economics. A very smart cookie IMHO.

Good Morning Jeff
The Asia Times is one of my most favorite newspapers and I do try to post many articles from there routinely in the Op Ed section of the News Forum. They publish more accurate information on the scheme of things than most of what I see being published in the US. And they have very throughtful commentary. Also like to follow their coverage of China.

[Livyjr]

Reading this exchange between Snuffysmith and jeffmoskin above here ....

About "economics" .....

Makes me think back to my earlier days as an American .....

In that very small part of America where I came from ...

And still am, after all these years ...

And the fact that back then ...

"THE ECONOMY" .....

Was something that we never used to hear about ...

Or worry about ...

Or get concerned about .....

And so .....

How the times have changed in that regard ...

To the point of all we hear politicians talking about anymore ...

WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN NOT BEING AS GUILTY OF SOMETHING AS THE OTHER POLITICIANS ARE ....

Is this thing called the "ECONOMY" .....

Which all of these politicnas are trying to manipulate ....

AS IF THIS WERE THE OLD SOVIET UNION .....

With all of its "FIVE YEAR PLANS" .....

And "TEN YEAR PLANS" .....

For the "STATE ECONOMY" .....

Or as if this were MAOIST CHINA ....

WITH ITS "GREAT LEAP FORWARD" .....

And so .....

What foolishness, is all I can say .....

That being directed at these politicians .....

And not jeffmoskin ....

Or Snuffysmith .....

And so ....

Having seen the "future" of the old Soviet Union ....

And all of its various "plans" ....

And having seen the "future" of Mao's "GREAT LEAP FORWARD" .....

Which had to be one of the STUPIDEST THINGS ON EARTH FOR AN ALLEGED "LEADER" TO PUT FORTH AS AN ECONOMIC PLAN ....

All I can think ...

Is that STUPIDITY in politicians seems to be distributed on a world-wide basis ....

And being a big country ...

YEA, EVEN A SUPER-POWER .....

We have more politicians than a small country does ...

And hence ...

We seem to have a greater concentration of that STUPIDITY here ....

In our politicians ....

Than do other countries on the face of the earth ...

Especially now that GROSS STUPIDITY of the kind being practiced here by our politicians has taken down the old Soviet Union ....

And so ....

It kind of makes me think of a future classroom setting ....

Where a teacher asks little Johnny what happened to the old America .....

And little Johnny truthfully responds .....

That being as or more stupid than the old Soviet Union ....

It went the same way ....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

If you substitute George W. Bush for Chairman Mao .....

In this following article ....

And the REPUBLICAN PARTY ....

For the "hard-line Communists" in China under Mao ....

And the REPUBLICAN UPPER-CLASS in OUR America ...

For whom George W. Bush and his "HARD-LINERS" ....

Are creating a "WELFARE STATE" ....

For the urban proletariat in Maoist China ....

For whom a welfare state was created .....

By CHAIRMAN MAO ....

And substitute all of these cock-a-manie ECONOMIC PLANS of George W. Bush ...

And his "HARD-LINERS" ....

For the cock-a-manie plans of CHAIRMAN MAO and his "hard-liners" ....

During the "GREAT LEAP FORWARD" of Mao in China ....

And all of the entire world ....

In the case of George W. Bush ....

And his "hard-liners" .....

For just China ....

In the case of CHAIRMAN MAO ....

And his "hard-liners" ....

And the REPRESSION of George W. Bush ....

And his "HARD-LINERS" .....

For the REPRESSION of CHAIRMAN MAO .....

And his "HARD-LINERS" .....

Well ...

Don't take my word for it ....

Follow the logic yourself ...

And see where that takes you ...

Since I already know ...

Where it takes me ....

And so .....

We have ....

THE GREAT LEAP FOWARD OF GEORGE W. BUSH .....

As perfected by his PREDECESSOR IN ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY PERSONIFIED ........

Chairman Mao ....

And so ....

Great Leap Forward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Leap Forward of the People's Republic of China was an economic and social plan to use China's vast population to rapidly transform mainland China from a primarily agrarian economy dominated by peasant farmers into a modern, industrialized communist society.

Mao Zedong based this program on the Theory of Productive Forces.

The Leap was initiated and led by Mao, and carried out by the Chinese Communist Party from 1958 to early 1962.

Mao believed that progress and its resulting abundance of goods, if implemented fearlessly, could come in great leaps and bounds.

The plan did not achieve the intended results, led to widespread economic dislocation, and is widely regarded both in and out of China as a policy disaster.

Historical background

In October 1949 after the retreat of the Kuomintang to Taiwan, the Communist Party of China proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China and assumed power in the country.

One of its first and most important policies was land reform, whereby the land holdings of landlords and more wealthy peasants was forcibly redistributed to poorer peasants.

Within the Party, there was major debate as to how and at what pace there should be further land reform.

A moderate faction including Politburo member Liu Shaoqi argued that change should be gradual and that any collectivisation of the peasantry should await industrialisation, which could provide the agricultural machinery necessary for mechanised farming.

A more radical faction led by Mao Zedong argued that the best way to finance industrialisation was for the Government to take control of agriculture, thereby establishing a monopoly over grain distribution and supply.

This would allow the State to buy at a low price and sell much higher, thus raising the capital necessary for the industrialisation of the country.

It was realised that this policy would be unpopular with the peasants and therefore it was proposed that the peasants should be brought under Party control by the establishment of agricultural collectives which would also facilitate the sharing of tools and draft animals.

This policy was gradually pushed through between 1949 and 1958, first by establishing "mutual aid teams" of 5-15 households, then in 1953 "elementary agricultural cooperatives" of 20-40 households, then from 1956 in "higher co-operatives" of 100-300 families.

These reforms (sometimes now referred to as The Little Leap Forward) were generally unpopular with the peasants and usually implemented by summoning them to meetings and making them stay there for days and sometimes weeks until they "voluntarily" agreed to join the collective.

Besides these economic changes the party implemented major social changes in the countryside including the banishing of all religious and mystic institutions and ceremonies and replacing them with political meetings and propaganda sessions.

Attempts were made to enhance rural education and the status of women (allowing females to initiate divorce if they desire) and end foot-binding, child marriage and opium addiction.

Internal passports were introduced in 1956 forbidding travel without appropriate authorisation.

Highest priority was given to the urban proletariat for whom a welfare state was created.

The first phase of collectivisation was not a success and there was widespread famine in 1956, though the Party's propaganda machine announced progressively higher harvests.

Moderates within the Party, including Zhou Enlai, argued for a reversal of collectivisation.

The position of the moderates was strengthened by Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 Secret speech at the Twentieth Congress which uncovered Stalin's crimes and highlighted the failure of his agricultural policies including collectivisation in the Soviet Union.

In 1957 Mao responded to the tensions in the Party, by promoting free speech and criticism under the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

In retrospect this proved to be a ploy to allow critics of the regime, primarily intellectuals but also low ranking members of the party critical of the agricultural policies to identify themselves.

Once they had done so, at least half a million were purged under the Anti-Rightist campaign organised by Deng Xiaoping, which effectively silenced any opposition from within the Party or from agricultural experts to the changes which would be implemented under the Great Leap Forward.

By the completion of the first 5 Year Economic Plan in 1957, Mao had come to doubt that the path to socialism that had been taken by the Soviet Union was appropriate for China.

He was critical of Khrushchev's reversal of Stalinist policies and alarmed by the uprisings that had taken place in East Germany, Poland and Hungary, and the perception that the USSR was seeking "Peaceful coexistence" with the Western powers.

Mao had become convinced that China should follow its own radical path towards a Communist utopia.

Great Leap Forward

rward was the name given to the Second Five Year Plan which was scheduled to run from 1958-1963, though the name is now generally limited to the first three years of this period.

Mao unveiled the Great Leap Forward at a meeting in January 1958 in Nanning.

The central idea behind the Great Leap was that rapid development of both China's agricultural and industrial sectors should take place in parallel.

The hope was to industrialize by making use of the massive supply of cheap labour and avoid having to import heavy machinery.

To achieve this Mao advocated that a further round of collectivisation modelled on the USSR's "Third Period" was necessary in the Chinese countryside where the existing collectives would be merged into huge People's communes.

An experimental commune was established at Chayashan in Henan in April 1958.

Here for the first time private plots were entirely abolished and communal kitchens were introduced.

At the Politburo meetings in August 1958, it was decided that these people's communes would become the new form of economic and political organisation throughout rural China.

Astonishingly for such a dramatic social change, by the end of the year approximately 25,000 communes had been set-up, each with an average of 5,000 households.

The communes were relatively self sufficient co-operatives where wages and money were replaced by work points.

Besides agriculture they incorporated some light industry and construction projects.

Mao saw grain and steel production as the 2 key pillars of economic development.

He forecast that within 15 years of the start of the Great Leap, China's steel production would surpass that of the United Kingdom.

In the August 1958 Politburo meetings, it was decided that steel production would be set to double within the year, most of the increase coming through backyard steel furnaces.

Mao was shown an example of a backyard furnace in Hefei, Anhui in September 1958 by provincial first secretary Zeng Xisheng.

The unit was claimed to be manufacturing high quality steel (though in fact the finished steel had probably been manufactured elsewhere).

Mao encouraged the establishment of small backyard steel furnaces in every commune and in each urban neighbourhood.

Huge efforts on the part of peasants and other workers were made to produce steel out of scrap metal.

To fuel the furnaces the local environment was denuded of trees and wood taken from the doors and furniture of peasants houses.

Pots, pans, and other metal artifacts were requisitioned to supply the "scrap" for the furnaces so that the wildly optimistic production targets could be met.

Many of the male agricultural workers were diverted from the harvest to help the iron production as were the workers at many factories, schools and even hospitals.

As could have been predicted by anyone with any experience of steel production or basic knowledge of metallurgy, the output consisted of low quality lumps of pig iron which was of negligible economic worth.

However, Mao's deep distrust of intellectuals and faith in the power of the mass mobilisation of peasants led him to order this massive countrywide effort without consulting expert opinion.

Moreover the experience of the intellectual classes following the Hundred Flowers Campaign led those aware of the folly of such a plan to not dare voice criticism.

According to his private doctor Li Zhisui, Mao and his entourage visited traditional steel works in Manchuria in January 1959 where he found out that high quality steel could only be produced in large scale factories using reliable fuel such as coal.

However he decided not to order a halt to the backyard steel furnaces so as not to dampen the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses.

The program was only quietly abandoned much later in that year.

Substantial effort was expended during the Great Leap Forward on large-scale but often poorly planned capital construction projects, such as irrigation works often built without input from trained engineers.

On the communes a number of radical and controversial agricultural innovations were promoted at the behest of Mao.

Many of these were based on the ideas of now discredited Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko and his followers.

The policies included close cropping, whereby seeds were sown far more densely than normal on the incorrect assumption that seeds of the same class would not compete with each other.

Deep plowing (up to 2m deep) was encouraged on the mistaken belief that this would yield plants with extra large root systems.

Even more disastrously it was argued that a proportion of fields should be left fallow.

The initial impact of the Great Leap Forward was discussed at a Party congress in Lushan in July/August 1959.

Although many of the more moderate leaders had reservations about the new policy, the only senior leader to speak out openly was Marshall Peng Dehuai.

Mao used the conference to dismiss Peng from his post as Defence Minisiter and denounce both Peng (who came from a poor peasant family) and his supporters as bourgeoisie and launch a nationwide campaign against "right opportunism".

Climate conditions and famine

Despite these harmful agricultural innovations, the weather in 1958 was very favourable and the harvest promised to be good.

Unfortunately, the amount of labour diverted to steel production and construction projects meant that much of the harvest was left to rot uncollected in the fields in some areas.

Although actual harvests were reduced, local officials, under tremendous pressure from the central authorities to report record harvests in response to the new innovations, competed with each other to announce increasingly exaggerated results.

These exaggerated results were used as a basis for determining the amount of grain to be taken by the State to supply the towns and cities and export markets.

This left barely enough for the peasants to eat, and in some areas, starvation set in.

During 1958-1960 China continued to be a substantial net exporter of grain, despite the widespread famine experienced in the countryside, as Mao sought to maintain face and convince the outside world of the success of his plans.

The Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbooks for 1958 to 1962 speak of abnormal weather: droughts followed by floods.

This includes 30 inches of rain at Hong Kong in five days in June 1959, part of a pattern that hit all of South China.

However it should be noted that all weather data for Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbooks came from Chinese government sources; the government had sought to portray the vast famine as due to 'natural disasters' rather than their policies, and could thus be seen as incented to falsify weather data to outsiders.

In 1959 and 1960 the weather was less favorable, and the situation got considerably worse, with many of China's provinces experiencing severe famine.

Droughts, floods, and general bad weather caught China completely by surprise.

In July of 1959, the Yellow River flooded in East China.

According to the Disaster Center [1], it directly killed, either through starvation from crop failure or drowning, an estimated 2 million people, and ranks as the seventh deadliest natural disaster in the 20th century.

In 1960, at least some degree of drought and other bad weather affected 55 percent of cultivated land, while an estimated 60 percent of agricultural land received no rain at all [2].

With dramatically reduced yields, even urban areas suffered much reduced rations; however, mass starvation was largely confined to the countryside, where as a result of massively inflated production statistics, very little grain was left for the peasants to eat.

Food shortages were bad throughout the country; however, the provinces which had adopted Mao's reforms with the most vigor, such as Anhui, Gansu and Henan, tended to suffer disproportionately.

Sichuan, one of China's most populous provinces, known in China as "Heaven's Granary" because of its fertility, is thought to have suffered the greatest absolute numbers of deaths from starvation due to the vigor with which provincial leader Li Jinquan undertook Mao's disastrous reforms.

At this time, despite the millions of its citizens starving to death, China continued to export vast amounts of agricultural products, particularly to the Soviet Union in exchange for military and industrial expertise and infrastructure.

The agricultural policies of the Great Leap Forward and the associated famine would then continue until January 1961, where, at the Ninth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee, the restoration of agricultural production through a reversal of the Great Leap policies was started.

Grain exports were stopped, and imports from Canada and Australia helped to reduce the impact of the food shortages, at least in the coastal cities.

Consequences

The Great Leap Forward is now widely seen, both within China and outside, as a major economic disaster.

As inflated statistics reached planning authorities, orders were given to divert human resources into industry rather than agriculture.

According to various sources, the death toll due to famine was most likely about 20 to 30 million.

The three years between 1959 and 1962 were known as the "Three Bitter Years" and the Three Years of Natural Disasters.

According to Jasper Becker - a journalist with long experience in China - in his book Hungry Ghosts: China's Secret Famine, most of the critics of the Great Leap outside China "watched China from Hong Kong."

Thus, the conflict in the 1950s and 1960s over the Great Leap shaped up roughly along the lines of those who had experience living in Mao-governed China and those who did not.

Starting in the early 1980s, critics of the Great Leap added quantitative muscle to their arsenal.

U.S. Government employee Judith Banister published what became an influential article in the China Quarterly, and since then estimates as high as 30 million deaths in the Great Leap became common in the U.S. press.

Critics point to birth rate assumptions used in the most widely cited projections of famine deaths.

However, estimations vary, largely because of variations in data.

Today there is a growing exchange of ideas between China and the West.

Discussion of population projection and statistical issues of the Great Leap is becoming more frequent.

During the Great Leap, the Chinese economy initially grew.

Iron production increased 45% in 1958 and a combined 30% over the next two years, but plummeted in 1961, and would not reach the level it was at in 1958 until 1964.

Despite the risks to their careers, some Communist Party members openly laid blame for the disaster at the feet of the Party leadership and took it as proof that China must rely more on education, acquiring technical expertise and applying bourgeois methods in developing the economy.

Liu Shaoqi said: "The disaster was 30% fault of nature, 70% human error."[citation needed]

It was principally to crush this opposition that Mao launched his Cultural Revolution in early 1966.

Mao stepped down as State Chairman (President) of the PRC in 1959, predicting he would take most of the blame for the failure of the Great Leap Forward, though he did retain his position as Chairman of the CCP.

Liu Shaoqi (the new PRC Chairman) and Deng Xiaoping (CCP General Secretary) were left in charge to execute measures to achieve economic recovery.

Moreover, Mao's Great Leap Forward policy came under open criticism at a party conference at Lushan, Jiangxi Province.

The attack was led by Minister of National Defense Peng Dehuai, who had become troubled by the potentially adverse effect Mao's policies would have on the modernization of the armed forces.

Peng argued that "putting politics in command" was no substitute for economic laws and realistic economic policy; unnamed party leaders were also admonished for trying to "jump into communism in one step."

After the Lushan showdown, Peng Dehuai, who allegedly had been encouraged by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to oppose Mao, was deposed.

Peng was replaced by Lin Biao, a radical and opportunist Maoist.

The new defense minister initiated a systematic purge of Peng's supporters from the military.

Additionally, this failure in Mao's regime meant that Mao became a "dead ancestor," as he labeled himself: a person who was respected but never consulted, occupying the political background of the Party.

Furthermore, he also stopped appearing in public.

All of this he later regretted, as he relaunched his Cult of Personality with the Great Yangtze Swim.

In agrarian policy, the failures of food supply during the Great Leap were met by a gradual de-collectivization in the 1960s that foreshadowed further de-collectivization under Deng Xiaoping.

Political scientist Meredith Woo-Cumings argues:

"Unquestionably the regime failed to respond in time to save the lives of millions of peasants, but when it did respond, it ultimately transformed the livelihoods of several hundred million peasants (modestly in the early 1960s, but permanently after Deng Xiaoping's reforms subsequent to 1978.)" [3]

After the death of Mao and the start of Chinese economic reform under Deng Xiaoping, the tendency within the Chinese government was to see the Great Leap Forward as a major economic disaster and to attribute it to the cult of personality under Mao Zedong, and to regard it as one of the serious errors he made after the founding of the People's Republic of China.

References

The Most Deadly 100 Natural Disasters of the 20TH Century - an activist non-academic website

Asia Times - MAO AND LINCOLN - Part 2: The Great Leap Forward not all bad

Meredith Woo-Cummings, The Political Ecology of Famine: The North Korean Catastrophe and Its Lessons, ADB Institute Research Paper 31, January 2002.

Further reading

Li Zhisui. The Private Life of Chairman Mao, 1996.

Jasper Becker. Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine, 1998.

Philip Short. Mao: A Life, 1999.

This article incorporates public domain text from the Library of Congress Country
Studies. - China

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward"

[Livyjr]

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

"BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION"

(Updated 5/27/03)

To conclude, the Bush administration is not threatening Iraq out of pique or whim.

The recent policies of both parties have indeed made the US vulnerable to foreign oil and petrodollar pressures.

But hopefully decent Americans will protest the notion that it is appropriate to rain missiles and bombs upon civilians of another country, who have had little or nothing to do with this crisis of America's own making.

The US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily.

Economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly in debt.

The Bush peoples' intention appears to be to override economic realities with military ones, as if there were no risk of economic retribution.

They should be mindful of Britain's humiliating retreat from Suez in 1956, a retreat forced on it by the United States as a condition for propping up the failing British pound.

War Powers Resolution

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

© The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced --

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

© the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

© Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day.

Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action.

If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

© Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

© Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b).

The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b).

In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

© Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred --

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

© For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution --

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.

CARL ALBERT
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JAMES O. EASTLAND
President of the Senate pro tempore.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,

November 7, 1973.

The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.

[jeffmoskin]

According to various sources, the death toll due to famine was most likely about 20 to 30 million.

Which puts Chairman Mao in the race along with Hitler and Stalin for...

Who killed the most people in the 20th century?

Alex, may I have the envelope please.

[Livyjr]

Which puts Chairman Mao in the race along with Hitler and Stalin for...

Who killed the most people in the 20th century?

Alex, may I have the envelope please.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, jeffmoskin .....

You're being a bit unfair here ...

Calling for the envelope at this time .....

And limiting the competition ....

To just the 20th century .....

While the incompetent George W. Bush is just getting started ...

On eclipsing the records of all of those other contenders .....

So that he will be remembered for the rest of time ...

As the MONSTER who killed the most people in the world ...

And especially women and children .....

Who seem to be favorite targets for George ...

Likely because they are easier to find and kill ...

Along with old people ...

Who can't move that fast .....

To get out of George's "FIELDS OF FIRE" .....

And so ....

Where, jeffmoskin, is your AMERICAN PRIDE?

Why should the honor of who killed the most people in the world go to some foreigner ......

When we have a real contender just getting his feet under him in his own effort ...

Right here in the good old U & S of A ......

That being our own George W. Bush ....

A man who could make Hulagu Khan .....

Or Idi Amin ....

Or "Papa Doc" Duvalier .....

Seem like civilized gentlemen ....

In comparison .....

And so ....

[Livyjr]

War Powers Resolution

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

© The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,

November 7, 1973.

The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the resolution (H. J. Res 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, it was

Resolved, That the said resolution pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.

Attest:
W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

I certify that this Joint Resolution originated in the House of Representatives.

W. PAT JENNINGS
Clerk.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 7, 1973

The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 542) entitled "Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President", returned by the President of the United States with his objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originate, it was

Resolved, That the said joint resolution pass, two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in the affirmative.

Attest:
FRANCIS R. VALEO
Secretary.

And perhaps we are finally starting to get some TRUTH out of Washington, D.C. ......

In this following "e-letter" .....

To me ...

From United States Senator John F. Kerry .....

Who would have been a lucid, rational alternative to George W. Bush ....

As president of OUR America ....

If only lucid and rational had been more in vogue ....

Here in OUR America ...

When it really could have made a difference ....

And so ....

Dear Livyjr,

It's as simple as this.

Most members of Congress, myself included, share some responsibility for getting us into Iraq.

We've got to take responsibility for getting us out.

Since April, hundreds of thousands of you have joined me in calling for a change in policy, a change in course -- for Iraq, and for Americans here at home.

Now let's turn the volume up higher.

Washington needs to hear your voice.

The violence continues to spiral in Iraq.

But, instead of a deadline to bring our troops home and put the future of Iraq in the hands of Iraqi leaders, we get half-hearted comments about past mistakes, and cynical political calculation.

Last month, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 36 which calls for the withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

In the next few weeks, I am urging the Senate to take a strong stand on Iraq and pass this Resolution.

It's time to put the future of Iraq where it belongs - in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders.

Our valiant soldiers have done their job.

Tell your Senators: support Senate Joint Resolution 36 to bring our combat troops home in 2006

President Bush wants to stumble along, perpetuating his mistakes for the remainder of his time in office.

He's even suggested that decisions about withdrawing all of our troops from Iraq will be for the next president to make.

And, instead of statesmanship, the president's top advisor, Karl Rove, is worrying that the war has put voters in a "sour mood" for the 2006 elections.

He should be worried about the safety of our troops, not the job security of Republican congressmen.

It took President Bush three years to admit he was wrong to say 'bring it on.'

We can't afford years to go by until he admits the standstill in Iraq today is wrong.

Tell your Senators: support Senate Joint Resolution 36 to bring our combat troops home in 2006

After months of squabbling and delay, we now hear that the new Iraqi government will complete its cabinet in a matter of days.

So, it's time to act -- time to keep the pressure on.

Iraqi leaders have only responded to deadlines -- a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, a deadline to hold three elections, and their own constitutional deadline to establish a unity government.

Now we must set another deadline to get our combat troops out and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

We must agree with the new Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by the end of this year.

Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country, and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.

Tell your Senators: support Senate Joint Resolution 36 to bring our combat troops home in 2006

Our soldiers have done their job, and America is grateful to them for their honor and sacrifice.

Now it's time for the Iraqis to do their job of securing and governing their country and it is time to get our combat troops home in 2006.

Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

We need blunt talk and clear plans -- and only pressure from you can force Washington to change course.

I am committed to forcing Congress to speak out on Iraq.

Yesterday in Los Angeles I made it clear that I'm not going to stop fighting until we have a change in policy.

I urge you to keep supporting our efforts to force action when lives are on the line and leadership is desperately needed.

Sincerely,

John Kerry