I have an interest in Great Britain and will post more articles about our sister country.
At last, the family takes centre stage in politics
Source: The Business 03/01/2007
THE politics of the family are on the cusp of changing for good in Britain, in one of the most fundamental intellectual shifts since the rise of new Labour in the mid-1990s. The leaders of both parties now speak out unashamedly in support of two-parent families and even marriage as the best parental arrangement; to argue that, in an ideal world, children would be best brought up by two parents, rather than one, no longer marks a politician out as a mean-spirited, bigoted reactionary. The statistical evidence is at last spreading its light among politicians.
A sign of this welcome shift is that the support for marriage expressed by David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is seen as being integral – rather than somehow in opposition – to his modern image.
There is, of course, resistance to this new consensus, especially by some politicians who try to pervert the debate by claiming that to support the two-parent family is synonymous with attacking single mothers, even though it is nothing of the sort. These include Harriet Harman, a candidate for Labour’s deputy leadership, who has espoused much of the social policy that has done much to undermine the family and who glibly dismisses Cameron’s family policies as “back to basics with an open-necked shirt”; and the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, another contender, who should know better because of his working class roots. This should have given him an understanding of how the collapse of two-parent families has turned a section of the working class into an underclass. However, he delivered an absurd speech on Tuesday billed as a push-back against the pro-marriage tide.
John Major’s botched Back to Basics campaign in the mid-1990s foolishly suggested that if you were pro-marriage, you had to be anti-single mothers. The sight of the most powerful men in the country railing against some of the most vulnerable women in
society turned stomachs (especially since their own private lives were hardly an example); it also set the debate back a dozen years.
It is time for politicians of all parties to review the evidence dispassionately. Sensible social policy should try to bolster marriage and help keep families together, inspired by America’s successful welfare reforms.
The extent of the retrograde revolution in British family life is rarely understood. In the past quarter of a century, the number of children being brought up by a lone parent has more than doubled to 3.2m. In 1972, 92% of children were being brought up by a couple; by spring 2005, that number had dropped
to 76%.
As recently as 1980, only 12% of all British births were outside of wedlock – although up from 8% in 1970. By 2004 that figure had spiked to 42%. Remarkably, no fewer than 15% of all children are now born and brought up without their father being present; the figure is far higher among the poor.
We now live in a society where lone-parent families are becoming the norm. According to the Office for National Statistics’ 2006 Social Trends survey, 64% of non-African, non-Caribbean black families with dependent children are single-parent families. Among blacks of Caribbean descent the figure is 57% and among those of African descent 47%. In 2001, in nine London boroughs 40% or more families were lone parent families, with the percentages rising to 48% in Lambeth, 47% in Islington and 46% in Southwark, three of the poorest boroughs.
In 2004, 149,300 children experienced the divorce of their parents – a fifth were under five and almost two-thirds under 10. Around 45% of British marriages end in divorce.
The malign consequences of this social revolution are being passed down through the generations. Great Britain has, by a 19% margin, the highest rate of teenage births in the European Union, at 26 live births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19. This is despite 46% of British pregnancies to under-18s ending in an abortion. In Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia and Cyprus there are only about six births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19.
While some single parents cope admirably (and some two-parent families do not), for most the
odds against success are stacked too high against them and their children. There is evidence to show that hundreds of thousands of children are suffering from the collapse of the traditional family and that poorer children in single-parent families tend to get hurt more than wealthier ones.
Kids growing up in lone-parent families in Britain are twice as liable to suffer from a mental disorder compared with those living with married parents: a fifth of boys living with a single parent who is divorced, separated or widowed are afflicted with a mental disorder; by comparison, the number among those living with married parents is only 8%. Children raised in reconstituted families have a 14% rate of mental disorders, compared to a 9% rate for those in a household with no stepchildren.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that children raised in either lone-parent families or broken homes are three to six times more likely to have been abused; no wonder a quarter of children in stepfamilies run away from home before they reach 16. Regardless of other factors, 17-year-olds not living with two-parent families are one and a half times more likely to do drugs. Just as depressingly, 70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families.
Children growing up without two parents are also losing out materially. While the overall percentage of households living in over-crowded accommodation has dropped from 7% in 1971 to 3% in 2005, 8% of lone parent households are in such accommodation. These children are also at far greater risk of living in a low-income family.
For all Chancellor Gordon Brown’s boasts, around 41% of lone-parent households with dependent children are workless, compared with just 5% of working-age couple households with children. Approximately three-quarters of children in workless households are living in homes with less than 60% of median income once housing costs have been deducted.
The costs to the public purse of family breakdown are considerable. In 2003-2004, 56% of lone parents with dependent children were on income-related benefits, compared with just 10% of couples. While 81% of “coupled parents” were employed, only 54% of lone parents were. Only about a quarter of 16 to 24-year-old lone mothers are in work and only 46% of those aged 25 to 34 with dependent children are. Iain Duncan Smith’s Social Justice Policy Group report estimates that family breakdown costs the state £20bn ($39.2bn, e29.7bn) to £24bn, close to the £32bn spent on defence in 2006-2007, and equivalent to £620 to £820 per taxpayer.
Many people, especially in politics and the broadcast media, even those who accept that two-parent households are on average better for children than one-parent homes, still feel queasy about the state actively encouraging marriage, feeling that this would somehow be illiberal. But the statistics show that children born to married, as opposed to cohabiting couples, are far more likely to grow up in a stable environment.
Almost half of cohabiting couples break up before their child turns five; only one in 12 married parents have split up by the same point. Holding all other socio-economic and demographic factors constant, cohabitees with young children are more than twice as prone to relationship failure as married couples. A recent study of 15,000 women who became mothers in the millenium found that unmarried parents account for almost three-quarters of all family breakdowns; it is hard enough getting and staying married; the omens for those who choose to cohabit are truly grim.
So those who wish for a tax and benefit system that is “bias-free” should think again. If nothing else, they ignore how the current system discriminates heavily against couples staying together. Jill Kirby, the Centre for Policy Studies scholar, calculates that if a family breaks down or a child is born to a single mother the cost to the state is £4,000 to £12,000 a year in additional benefits and reduced tax revenue. A couple with one working parent on £24,000 a year with a mortgage and two kids pay £5,000 more in tax than they receive in benefits per year. However, if they were to break up their two households could make £7,000 more from benefits than they contribute in tax.
Anyone who doubts that changing the tax and benefits system can tackle family breakdown should look across the Atlantic. While it is well known that the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reforms of 1996 ended the automatic entitlement to benefits and slashed welfare rolls from 12.2m to 4.5m, few in Britain realise that it was also designed to strengthen the family and deter teenage pregnancies.
By the end of the Clinton administration child poverty was at its lowest level since 1979 and the poverty rate for children of single mothers its lowest in US history. This was thanks to the incomes of poor mother-led households increasing by more than a quarter. The employment rates of even the least-qualified single mothers rose by 40%, while teenage pregnancies are down by 30%. The growth in out-of-wedlock births has also slowed radically, confirming that changing economic incentives can have an important effect on family structures.
Johnson argued on Tuesday that the “debate is about ensuring politicians don’t go back to moralising about the nature of the relationship and concentrate on helping the child.” We have no desire to moralise but politicians should be practical – and all the evidence shows that if we are to concentrate on helping the child the state should encourage marriage. This does not mean, though, that society should stop offering its love and support to single parents, many of whom achieve heroic successes with their children despite all the obstacles.
But the simple truth, buttressed by dozens of studies and oodles of hard data, is that in the majority of cases, marriage works better than any other child-raising system – and the poorer you are, the truer that is. Britain urgently needs a US-style welfare revolution, which puts at its heart the restoration of the traditional family and which ends the current system’s undermining of marriage.
The shift in the British debate is a positive first step; now our political elite needs to follow words with deeds and move to reverse the catastrophe that is Britain’s family policy.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
OBAMA & BLACK VOTERS
Political
Why Obama will surprise national political pundits
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
02/23/2007
Memo to all national political journalists, columnists, pundits, etc.:
Please, get a clue.
Perhaps because I live in and cover the politics of a state which has elected two African-American U.S. senators, a black mayor of our largest city and a black secretary of state who four years ago carried all 102 counties, I find your coverage of the "race issue" in the presidential contest to be utterly devoid of insight and context. I'll try to fill you in.
First, just because a prominent African-American leader endorses Hillary Clinton, that doesn't mean Barack Obama's campaign has suffered a mortal wound. It may seem unusual to you that some black leaders aren't supporting a black candidate, but, take it from me, this happens all the time.
Just look at Obama himself. Obama has endorsed Mayor Daley (who is white) over two black opponents. The reason is pretty clear: Daley is a surefire bet for winning his re-election and Hizzoner can help Obama raise money and eat into Clinton's support with other mayors and assorted big shots.
You want more evidence? Fine. Back in 2004, Cook County Board President John Stroger endorsed two-term Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes (white) for the U.S. Senate instead of Obama. Obama won Stroger's own ward by a huge margin.
That's another lesson for you. An endorsement by an influential black person does not usually translate into actual Democratic African-American votes for a white candidate who's up against a viable, attractive black candidate.
Yet another example along those lines was the 1983 Chicago mayoral race when incumbent Jane Byrne (white) was endorsed by a whole host of black political leaders. African-American Congressman Harold Washington came in at the right time, with the right message and the right campaign, set fire in the precincts and won the race, carrying the black wards by a large margin. In the end, the endorsements did Byrne no good.
Next, you "experts" assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.
Wrong again.
In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they "break late."
Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama's own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began "breaking" in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.
This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn't start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.
Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African- American voters. Obama is far less known. It's perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama's candidacy remains viable through early next year, I'd bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.
To recap, because I know you're all very busy: Black leadership endorsements of white candidates over black opponents are not necessarily important because they don't automatically translate into black votes; and black voters take their time deciding whether to vote for a fellow African American, but if that candidate looks like a potential winner, they usually end up voting for him or her.
I hope this helps.
Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.
Why Obama will surprise national political pundits
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
02/23/2007
Memo to all national political journalists, columnists, pundits, etc.:
Please, get a clue.
Perhaps because I live in and cover the politics of a state which has elected two African-American U.S. senators, a black mayor of our largest city and a black secretary of state who four years ago carried all 102 counties, I find your coverage of the "race issue" in the presidential contest to be utterly devoid of insight and context. I'll try to fill you in.
First, just because a prominent African-American leader endorses Hillary Clinton, that doesn't mean Barack Obama's campaign has suffered a mortal wound. It may seem unusual to you that some black leaders aren't supporting a black candidate, but, take it from me, this happens all the time.
Just look at Obama himself. Obama has endorsed Mayor Daley (who is white) over two black opponents. The reason is pretty clear: Daley is a surefire bet for winning his re-election and Hizzoner can help Obama raise money and eat into Clinton's support with other mayors and assorted big shots.
You want more evidence? Fine. Back in 2004, Cook County Board President John Stroger endorsed two-term Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes (white) for the U.S. Senate instead of Obama. Obama won Stroger's own ward by a huge margin.
That's another lesson for you. An endorsement by an influential black person does not usually translate into actual Democratic African-American votes for a white candidate who's up against a viable, attractive black candidate.
Yet another example along those lines was the 1983 Chicago mayoral race when incumbent Jane Byrne (white) was endorsed by a whole host of black political leaders. African-American Congressman Harold Washington came in at the right time, with the right message and the right campaign, set fire in the precincts and won the race, carrying the black wards by a large margin. In the end, the endorsements did Byrne no good.
Next, you "experts" assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.
Wrong again.
In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they "break late."
Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama's own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began "breaking" in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.
This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn't start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.
Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African- American voters. Obama is far less known. It's perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama's candidacy remains viable through early next year, I'd bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.
To recap, because I know you're all very busy: Black leadership endorsements of white candidates over black opponents are not necessarily important because they don't automatically translate into black votes; and black voters take their time deciding whether to vote for a fellow African American, but if that candidate looks like a potential winner, they usually end up voting for him or her.
I hope this helps.
Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.
Dick Cheney, its time to resign
Haliburton needs you.
Political
THE ABC OF CHENEY
Source: The Age 02/23/2007
US POLITICS
Dick Cheney, currently in Australia, is often described as the most powerful vice-president in American history. He's also one of the most controversial. Here's why:
D is for Defence: Dick Cheney served as defence secretary under President George Bush snr between 1989 and 1993. During this time, he oversaw the US invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, in 1989 to depose the country's de facto military leader, General Manuel Noriega.
Involving more than 27,000 troops and 300 aircraft, the invasion was powerful and swift. Within days, Noriega was on the run and sought diplomatic refuge in the Vatican's mission in Panama City. Subjected to loud rock'n'roll 24 hours a day, he lasted only days in the Vatican mission before handing himself over to the US military. In 1991, Cheney devised the US-led multinational action Operation Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein's regime after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts. But after inflicting a crushing defeat on Saddam, the US decided to let him remain in power instead of deposing him. The ramifications of this decision are still being felt today.
I is for Iraq: President George W. Bush decided in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks on the US to finish what his father did not. Again, Cheney was a key player, this time as Vice-President. Cheney, together with his mentor and friend, former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was among the chief architects of the plan to remove Saddam for good. As the US-led coalition, including Britain and Australia, powered into Iraq in March 2003, Cheney predicted US forces would be "greeted as liberators".
But the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the US, Britain and Australia said were the justification for the war were never found and probably never existed. Fuelled by the US occupation, sectarian violence continues on a horrific scale, with hundreds of Iraqis dying every month. In America, support for the war has plummeted as more than 3000 US military personnel have lost their lives. Cheney remains resolute in his belief that progress is being made in a war that was "the right thing to do".
C is for CIA: One of the biggest scandals Cheney has been implicated in is the leaking of information about a covert CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former US ambassador, has claimed members of the Bush Administration revealed his wife's covert identity as payback for him criticising its justifications for the Iraq war. In October 2005, Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted by a grand jury investigating the leak. Libby, who promptly resigned, was charged with lying to FBI agents and the grand jury, and obstructing justice. The trial jury was still considering its verdict yesterday. During the long-running saga, it has been reported that Cheney and Bush advised Libby to disclose Plame's identity, something Libby himself denies.
K is for Kennedy County Sheriff's Office: The sheriff's office in the southern Texas county cleared Cheney of any criminal wrongdoing in one of the most bizarre episodes of his life when he accidentally shot hunting partner Harry Whittington during a quail shooting expedition in February last year.
Turning to blast a bird, Cheney peppered Whittington in the torso, face and neck with shotgun pellets, causing the 78-year-old Texas lawyer to suffer a minor heart attack. Cheney was criticised at the time for not releasing details of the incident for 18 hours. The chief deputy of the Kennedy County Sheriff's Office, Gilbert San Miguel, said, "This was a hunting accident. . . there was no alcohol or misconduct."
C is for Chief of Staff: Cheney assumed the mantle of chief of staff to President Gerald Ford in 1975 after he and Rumsfeld oversaw sweeping changes to Ford's cabinet in a series of political manoeuvres immediately dubbed the "Halloween Massacre". The pair are said to have persuaded Ford to replace James Schlesinger as defence secretary with Rumsfeld, which opened the door for Cheney to become the president's chief of staff. Henry Kissinger was fired from the National Security Council and William Colby sacked as CIA director and replaced by George Bush snr. Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller also announced he would not be Ford's running mate in the 1976 elections.
H is for Halliburton: The giant US engineering and oil services company is where Cheney served as chief executive and chairman between 1995 and 2000. His personal fortune, which runs into tens of millions of dollars is derived mostly from his time at Halliburton. Before running for vice-president in 2000, Cheney put all his shares in a blind trust and has repeatedly claimed to have no ties to the company. But he has still received financial gain from it in recent years due to a deferred compensation or payment program Cheney arranged with the company in 1998.
With the Democrats now in control of the US Congress, an investigation into Halliburton's $7 billion no-bid contract with the Pentagon to help rebuild Iraq is possible. Cheney's office has repeatedly claimed to have had no involvement in the decision. But Democrats argue emails between Pentagon and White House officials in 2003 clearly link Cheney to the contract.
Halliburton's work in Iraq has been mired in controversy, with US Government audits finding the company's subsidiary KBR charged millions of dollars for work it never completed. The company was also under fire for hiring cheap foreign labour to work in Iraq. In 2004, Cheney clashed with Democrat senator Patrick Leahy during a Senate photo shoot after Leahy had criticised his links to Halliburton, with the Vice-President telling Leahy to "go f--- yourself".
E is for Executive Powers: Cheney has been a strong advocate for Bush to be able to exercise executive powers such as phone-tapping in America's war on terror. In response to revelations that the National Security Agency was conducting phone-taps without warrants in violation of existing laws, Cheney said "we believe . . . we have all the authority we need".
As Vice-President, Cheney has been influential in advising Bush that he needs to execute his executive powers to defend America. In 2002, his office supervised the drafting of memos that advised Bush the Geneva Convention on torture need not apply to terrorist suspects. "Bottom line is we've been very active and very aggressive defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that," Cheney told reporters in December 2005. He derided senior Republican John McCain's introduction of legislation to ban the inhumane treatment of detainees, saying it would cost "thousands of lives".
N is for Neo-Conservative: Cheney, along with Rumsfeld and his former deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, are leading proponents of the neo-conservative ideology that has driven America's domestic and foreign policies since Bush's ascension to the White House in 2000. The classic definition of neo-conservative ideology is less taxation to stimulate economic growth, strong domestic government and ensuring the national interest is protected at all times in regards to foreign affairs.
Many neo-conservatives started out as Democrats dissatisfied with the move to the left of their party in the 1970s, but today most are associated with the Republican Party. In the late 1990s, Cheney was a member of the Project for a New American Century - a Washington think-tank many accuse of agitating for US global domination. The group was a significant supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
America's woes in Iraq in recent years have caused the downfall of many of the neo-conservative agenda's leading lights, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Recent reports out of Washington also suggest Cheney's influence in the Bush Administration may be on the decline.
E is for Environment and Energy: Once described by serial presidential candidate Ralph Nader as a dinosaur living among mammals, Cheney has often been criticised for his record on environmental issues during his time as a congressman, political adviser, business executive and vice-president. Cheney has advocated drilling for oil in Arctic wildlife reserves, strongly pushed for the expansion of America's nuclear industry and been accused of having secret meetings with fossil fuel company chiefs on setting energy policies.
He has headed the Bush Administration's energy taskforce and presided over extreme secrecy regarding its operations. In 2005 it was revealed executives from companies such as Exxon Mobil, Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell and BP met energy taskforce members while they were developing energy policy. Cheney's office has fought against judicial rulings to release information on the taskforce and has rejected a series of freedom-of-information law requests seeking documents.
Y is for Yale: The prestigious university is where Cheney briefly studied for a few semesters in 1959 after a Republican businessman from his home state of Wyoming helped him get a scholarship. Former Yale classmates of Cheney's have recounted his disdain for study and liking of a good time. "He spent his time partying with guys who loved football but weren't varsity quality," his former room mate Stephen Billings told Rolling Stone magazine.
Cheney has since sought to explain why he failed to stay the course at Yale by saying "wasn't gonna go to college and buckle down" and "I didn't like the east". He later gained a master's degree in political science from the University of Wyoming. Like Cheney, Bush also spent time at Yale, as did his father, the first President Bush.
Richard Baker is an Age reporter.
Political
THE ABC OF CHENEY
Source: The Age 02/23/2007
US POLITICS
Dick Cheney, currently in Australia, is often described as the most powerful vice-president in American history. He's also one of the most controversial. Here's why:
D is for Defence: Dick Cheney served as defence secretary under President George Bush snr between 1989 and 1993. During this time, he oversaw the US invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, in 1989 to depose the country's de facto military leader, General Manuel Noriega.
Involving more than 27,000 troops and 300 aircraft, the invasion was powerful and swift. Within days, Noriega was on the run and sought diplomatic refuge in the Vatican's mission in Panama City. Subjected to loud rock'n'roll 24 hours a day, he lasted only days in the Vatican mission before handing himself over to the US military. In 1991, Cheney devised the US-led multinational action Operation Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein's regime after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts. But after inflicting a crushing defeat on Saddam, the US decided to let him remain in power instead of deposing him. The ramifications of this decision are still being felt today.
I is for Iraq: President George W. Bush decided in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks on the US to finish what his father did not. Again, Cheney was a key player, this time as Vice-President. Cheney, together with his mentor and friend, former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was among the chief architects of the plan to remove Saddam for good. As the US-led coalition, including Britain and Australia, powered into Iraq in March 2003, Cheney predicted US forces would be "greeted as liberators".
But the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the US, Britain and Australia said were the justification for the war were never found and probably never existed. Fuelled by the US occupation, sectarian violence continues on a horrific scale, with hundreds of Iraqis dying every month. In America, support for the war has plummeted as more than 3000 US military personnel have lost their lives. Cheney remains resolute in his belief that progress is being made in a war that was "the right thing to do".
C is for CIA: One of the biggest scandals Cheney has been implicated in is the leaking of information about a covert CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former US ambassador, has claimed members of the Bush Administration revealed his wife's covert identity as payback for him criticising its justifications for the Iraq war. In October 2005, Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted by a grand jury investigating the leak. Libby, who promptly resigned, was charged with lying to FBI agents and the grand jury, and obstructing justice. The trial jury was still considering its verdict yesterday. During the long-running saga, it has been reported that Cheney and Bush advised Libby to disclose Plame's identity, something Libby himself denies.
K is for Kennedy County Sheriff's Office: The sheriff's office in the southern Texas county cleared Cheney of any criminal wrongdoing in one of the most bizarre episodes of his life when he accidentally shot hunting partner Harry Whittington during a quail shooting expedition in February last year.
Turning to blast a bird, Cheney peppered Whittington in the torso, face and neck with shotgun pellets, causing the 78-year-old Texas lawyer to suffer a minor heart attack. Cheney was criticised at the time for not releasing details of the incident for 18 hours. The chief deputy of the Kennedy County Sheriff's Office, Gilbert San Miguel, said, "This was a hunting accident. . . there was no alcohol or misconduct."
C is for Chief of Staff: Cheney assumed the mantle of chief of staff to President Gerald Ford in 1975 after he and Rumsfeld oversaw sweeping changes to Ford's cabinet in a series of political manoeuvres immediately dubbed the "Halloween Massacre". The pair are said to have persuaded Ford to replace James Schlesinger as defence secretary with Rumsfeld, which opened the door for Cheney to become the president's chief of staff. Henry Kissinger was fired from the National Security Council and William Colby sacked as CIA director and replaced by George Bush snr. Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller also announced he would not be Ford's running mate in the 1976 elections.
H is for Halliburton: The giant US engineering and oil services company is where Cheney served as chief executive and chairman between 1995 and 2000. His personal fortune, which runs into tens of millions of dollars is derived mostly from his time at Halliburton. Before running for vice-president in 2000, Cheney put all his shares in a blind trust and has repeatedly claimed to have no ties to the company. But he has still received financial gain from it in recent years due to a deferred compensation or payment program Cheney arranged with the company in 1998.
With the Democrats now in control of the US Congress, an investigation into Halliburton's $7 billion no-bid contract with the Pentagon to help rebuild Iraq is possible. Cheney's office has repeatedly claimed to have had no involvement in the decision. But Democrats argue emails between Pentagon and White House officials in 2003 clearly link Cheney to the contract.
Halliburton's work in Iraq has been mired in controversy, with US Government audits finding the company's subsidiary KBR charged millions of dollars for work it never completed. The company was also under fire for hiring cheap foreign labour to work in Iraq. In 2004, Cheney clashed with Democrat senator Patrick Leahy during a Senate photo shoot after Leahy had criticised his links to Halliburton, with the Vice-President telling Leahy to "go f--- yourself".
E is for Executive Powers: Cheney has been a strong advocate for Bush to be able to exercise executive powers such as phone-tapping in America's war on terror. In response to revelations that the National Security Agency was conducting phone-taps without warrants in violation of existing laws, Cheney said "we believe . . . we have all the authority we need".
As Vice-President, Cheney has been influential in advising Bush that he needs to execute his executive powers to defend America. In 2002, his office supervised the drafting of memos that advised Bush the Geneva Convention on torture need not apply to terrorist suspects. "Bottom line is we've been very active and very aggressive defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that," Cheney told reporters in December 2005. He derided senior Republican John McCain's introduction of legislation to ban the inhumane treatment of detainees, saying it would cost "thousands of lives".
N is for Neo-Conservative: Cheney, along with Rumsfeld and his former deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, are leading proponents of the neo-conservative ideology that has driven America's domestic and foreign policies since Bush's ascension to the White House in 2000. The classic definition of neo-conservative ideology is less taxation to stimulate economic growth, strong domestic government and ensuring the national interest is protected at all times in regards to foreign affairs.
Many neo-conservatives started out as Democrats dissatisfied with the move to the left of their party in the 1970s, but today most are associated with the Republican Party. In the late 1990s, Cheney was a member of the Project for a New American Century - a Washington think-tank many accuse of agitating for US global domination. The group was a significant supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
America's woes in Iraq in recent years have caused the downfall of many of the neo-conservative agenda's leading lights, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Recent reports out of Washington also suggest Cheney's influence in the Bush Administration may be on the decline.
E is for Environment and Energy: Once described by serial presidential candidate Ralph Nader as a dinosaur living among mammals, Cheney has often been criticised for his record on environmental issues during his time as a congressman, political adviser, business executive and vice-president. Cheney has advocated drilling for oil in Arctic wildlife reserves, strongly pushed for the expansion of America's nuclear industry and been accused of having secret meetings with fossil fuel company chiefs on setting energy policies.
He has headed the Bush Administration's energy taskforce and presided over extreme secrecy regarding its operations. In 2005 it was revealed executives from companies such as Exxon Mobil, Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell and BP met energy taskforce members while they were developing energy policy. Cheney's office has fought against judicial rulings to release information on the taskforce and has rejected a series of freedom-of-information law requests seeking documents.
Y is for Yale: The prestigious university is where Cheney briefly studied for a few semesters in 1959 after a Republican businessman from his home state of Wyoming helped him get a scholarship. Former Yale classmates of Cheney's have recounted his disdain for study and liking of a good time. "He spent his time partying with guys who loved football but weren't varsity quality," his former room mate Stephen Billings told Rolling Stone magazine.
Cheney has since sought to explain why he failed to stay the course at Yale by saying "wasn't gonna go to college and buckle down" and "I didn't like the east". He later gained a master's degree in political science from the University of Wyoming. Like Cheney, Bush also spent time at Yale, as did his father, the first President Bush.
Richard Baker is an Age reporter.
3 Candidates for President Already Out
I am ready to at least predict that Obama, Romney, and Edwards will loose and will not even come close to winning their parties nomination. They are already out the race to the next president of the United States. Read my blog, my political predictions are about 80% spot on. These candidates can maybe save time if they replace some key campaign staffers, but quickly. After reading this article one would guess they all have the same campaign manager or marketing firm, a loosing one. You tell me?
Romney, you're a Republican.
Edwards, you blew your shot.
Obama, my brother, some free advice. Change your name Mr. Vice-President to be.
Political
Presidential Hopefuls Buzzword Takes Off
Source: Associated Press Newswires 02/21/2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - Meet the transformers. No, they're not toy action figures or electrical components. They're candidates for president, and transformational leadership is their calling card.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama announced he was running for president by declaring, "I want to transform this country."
Republican Mitt Romney launched his candidacy by telling people, "If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now."
And Democrat John Edwards revved up his second presidential bid by offering "transformational change that will strengthen this country," as he phrased it in a recent Associated Press interview.
Just what is a transformational leader?
Presidential historian James MacGregor Burns, whose 1978 book "Leadership" is widely admired and studied, wrote that a "transformational leader stands on the shoulders of his followers, expressing coherently those ideas which lie inchoate in the hearts of the followers -- and in the process makes his followers into new leaders."
That's what Howard Dean tried to do in 2004 with his grass-roots-powered populism -- until his primeval scream in Iowa drowned out the whole thing.
Democratic consultant Joe Trippi, who helped to frame Dean's campaign after reading Burns' book, welcomes the talk about transformational leadership rippling through the early campaign rhetoric this time.
"You see it now popping up on the Internet," he says. "I think it's a very healthy thing that at least we're in some discussion."
He's not sure, however, that the candidates realize how hard it is to avoid the more traditional "transactional" form of political leadership typified by pitches such as: "I'll give you a tax cut for your vote."
"Any one of these candidates could be a truly transformational candidate," Trippi says, "and any one of them could immediately revert to being transactional."
Al Gore, who so far is staying out of the race, has clearly become a transformational leader with his campaign to fight global warming, Trippi says. But if he got back into the race, "the one question mark would be: Does running ruin him being a transformational guy?"
Burns, now 88, is happy to see that candidates are talking about transformational leadership, but he's not sure they fully understand it. And even if they do, he says, "it's hard for them to realize that you don't just suddenly turn yourself into a transforming leader."
From what he's seen of the candidates so far, Burns said: "I think it's a fancy choice of words to indicate that they're going to do big things. Will they do big things? No, not in my view."
The candidates themselves speak of the need for transformation with dead-serious earnestness. Edwards, for example, is out front in calling for tax increases to pay for universal health care coverage. "On these big issues like Iraq and health care, I want to lead, not follow," he said.
Romney uses his transformational pitch to try to distinguish himself from Washington politics-as-usual. "I don't believe Washington can be transformed from within by lifetime politicians," he said.
Obama managed to tweak Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's signature line that "I'm in it to win it," when he expanded on that: "I want to win, but I don't just want to win. I want to transform the country."
It's not just the 2008 candidates who have tried to claim the mantle of transformational leader.
President Bush's aides have often spoken of his desire to be a transforming leader.
But Burns dismisses that notion out of hand.
"I can't imagine him even being serious about that," the scholar said.
Republican consultant Rich Galen thinks that all the "transformational" talk is nothing more than the latest fad in presidential packaging.
"This is the 2008 version of 'soccer mom,'" he said, evoking a catch phrase from campaigns past. And, Galen adds, probably not a very smart one.
"Candidates that are on the edge, no matter how transforming their ideas are, don't really go very far because they just make people uncomfortable," he said. "American politics generally is glacial in its changes. The notion of having somebody burst upon that scene that just changes everything happens very rarely."
Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said people are "fairly cynical about grandiose claims and terms, and what does it translate into specifically."
"The question of what we're really ready for is complicated," he said. "I'm all for change -- as long as it make me healthier, younger and richer."
Romney, you're a Republican.
Edwards, you blew your shot.
Obama, my brother, some free advice. Change your name Mr. Vice-President to be.
Political
Presidential Hopefuls Buzzword Takes Off
Source: Associated Press Newswires 02/21/2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - Meet the transformers. No, they're not toy action figures or electrical components. They're candidates for president, and transformational leadership is their calling card.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama announced he was running for president by declaring, "I want to transform this country."
Republican Mitt Romney launched his candidacy by telling people, "If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now."
And Democrat John Edwards revved up his second presidential bid by offering "transformational change that will strengthen this country," as he phrased it in a recent Associated Press interview.
Just what is a transformational leader?
Presidential historian James MacGregor Burns, whose 1978 book "Leadership" is widely admired and studied, wrote that a "transformational leader stands on the shoulders of his followers, expressing coherently those ideas which lie inchoate in the hearts of the followers -- and in the process makes his followers into new leaders."
That's what Howard Dean tried to do in 2004 with his grass-roots-powered populism -- until his primeval scream in Iowa drowned out the whole thing.
Democratic consultant Joe Trippi, who helped to frame Dean's campaign after reading Burns' book, welcomes the talk about transformational leadership rippling through the early campaign rhetoric this time.
"You see it now popping up on the Internet," he says. "I think it's a very healthy thing that at least we're in some discussion."
He's not sure, however, that the candidates realize how hard it is to avoid the more traditional "transactional" form of political leadership typified by pitches such as: "I'll give you a tax cut for your vote."
"Any one of these candidates could be a truly transformational candidate," Trippi says, "and any one of them could immediately revert to being transactional."
Al Gore, who so far is staying out of the race, has clearly become a transformational leader with his campaign to fight global warming, Trippi says. But if he got back into the race, "the one question mark would be: Does running ruin him being a transformational guy?"
Burns, now 88, is happy to see that candidates are talking about transformational leadership, but he's not sure they fully understand it. And even if they do, he says, "it's hard for them to realize that you don't just suddenly turn yourself into a transforming leader."
From what he's seen of the candidates so far, Burns said: "I think it's a fancy choice of words to indicate that they're going to do big things. Will they do big things? No, not in my view."
The candidates themselves speak of the need for transformation with dead-serious earnestness. Edwards, for example, is out front in calling for tax increases to pay for universal health care coverage. "On these big issues like Iraq and health care, I want to lead, not follow," he said.
Romney uses his transformational pitch to try to distinguish himself from Washington politics-as-usual. "I don't believe Washington can be transformed from within by lifetime politicians," he said.
Obama managed to tweak Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's signature line that "I'm in it to win it," when he expanded on that: "I want to win, but I don't just want to win. I want to transform the country."
It's not just the 2008 candidates who have tried to claim the mantle of transformational leader.
President Bush's aides have often spoken of his desire to be a transforming leader.
But Burns dismisses that notion out of hand.
"I can't imagine him even being serious about that," the scholar said.
Republican consultant Rich Galen thinks that all the "transformational" talk is nothing more than the latest fad in presidential packaging.
"This is the 2008 version of 'soccer mom,'" he said, evoking a catch phrase from campaigns past. And, Galen adds, probably not a very smart one.
"Candidates that are on the edge, no matter how transforming their ideas are, don't really go very far because they just make people uncomfortable," he said. "American politics generally is glacial in its changes. The notion of having somebody burst upon that scene that just changes everything happens very rarely."
Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said people are "fairly cynical about grandiose claims and terms, and what does it translate into specifically."
"The question of what we're really ready for is complicated," he said. "I'm all for change -- as long as it make me healthier, younger and richer."
Clinton in Liberty City, FL
Political
Clinton makes early bid to court black voters; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped in Liberty City, as Florida draws candidates earlier than ever before. CAMPAIGN 2008 LIBERTY CITY
Source: The Miami Herald 02/21/2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Liberty City Tuesday for her first public appearance in Florida as a presidential candidate, signaling that she won't forfeit black voters to Democratic rival Barack Obama.
The senator from New York and former first lady set an informal tone at the Joseph Caleb Community Center, fielding questions from community activists seated all around her. She reminded the crowd that she had visited nearby Charles Drew Elementary School 13 years ago, calling out to the former principal, Fred Morley.
''I've been to Liberty City before, so I am happy to be back,'' she said.
Clinton's visit to Florida also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars from private campaign fundraisers in Coconut Grove, Hollywood and Tampa.
Though two South Florida members of Congress -- Alcee Hastings and Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- endorsed Clinton Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who hosted the public forum with her, did not join them. Considered a rising star, Meek said he wanted his constituents to hear Clinton first and that he would make a decision soon.
''It spoke volumes to me that someone ingrained in politics in Florida since 1991 would come here,'' Meek said. ``Usually, a stop like this in the black community is a month or two before the election.''
EARLIER PRIMARY
But the 2008 presidential campaign is far from usual. State lawmakers are poised to bump up the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January. That means Florida could, for the first time, play a make-or-break role in choosing presidential nominees.
Clinton's visit follows Florida appearances in the past few days by two Republican candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Florida voters preferred Clinton over her Democratic opponents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
''But can we ever elect a woman?'' Clinton asked the cheering crowd. ``We'll never know until we try. I am proud to be a woman . . . but I'm not running as a woman candidate. I am running because I believe I'm the best qualified and experienced candidate, who can hit the ground running.''
Clinton did not make any policy-related news Tuesday, repeating her call for universal healthcare and her opposition to President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. She also repeated her support for immigration reform that gives illegal workers a chance to become citizens.
''Let's bring them out of the shadows,'' Clinton said. ``If they're criminals, let's deport them, but for all the others, let's give them a path to legalization. But don't let them jump the line over people who have been waiting legally.''
Clinton responded to several questions of particular concern to minorities, like the achievement gap between white and black students. When asked about helping poor people, she referred to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who cultivated widespread support among black voters.
''We're not talking about ancient history,'' she said of his administration. ``We know what to do. We just have to look back a few years.''
Clinton recently hired Mo Elleithee, who knows Florida politics from working on Bob Graham's 2004 presidential campaign and Janet Reno's 2002 bid for governor. Reno lost to Democratic nominee Bill McBride, whose failure to inherit her popularity among black voters was partly blamed for his loss to then-Gov. Jeb Bush.
''Clearly it is an important constituency, and we're going to spend a lot of time campaigning and talking to folks in the community and in every community,'' Elleithee said.
Several black voters who attended Clinton's hourlong event said they faced a tough choice between her and Obama, campaigning to be the first black president.
`WE'RE TORN'
''We're torn, but when it comes down to it, you have to go with your heart, and I believe it will take a woman to straighten us out,'' said Beverly Bush, an AARP activist from Miami Gardens.
Miami Gardens Mayor Shirley Gibson said she hasn't made up her mind yet.
''As a black woman, at the end of the day I will make the decision of who is best for my community and my country,'' she said.
Obama supporters said they are confident he will pick up more support among black voters in Florida as the race proceeds.
''Like every other segment of America, you have to work for the vote,'' said Obama fundraiser Kirk Wagar, a Coconut Grove attorney. ``The numbers now certainly don't indicate where the race will end up.''
Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned in Florida since 1991, when Obama was just graduating from Harvard Law School.
Clinton makes early bid to court black voters; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped in Liberty City, as Florida draws candidates earlier than ever before. CAMPAIGN 2008 LIBERTY CITY
Source: The Miami Herald 02/21/2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Liberty City Tuesday for her first public appearance in Florida as a presidential candidate, signaling that she won't forfeit black voters to Democratic rival Barack Obama.
The senator from New York and former first lady set an informal tone at the Joseph Caleb Community Center, fielding questions from community activists seated all around her. She reminded the crowd that she had visited nearby Charles Drew Elementary School 13 years ago, calling out to the former principal, Fred Morley.
''I've been to Liberty City before, so I am happy to be back,'' she said.
Clinton's visit to Florida also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars from private campaign fundraisers in Coconut Grove, Hollywood and Tampa.
Though two South Florida members of Congress -- Alcee Hastings and Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- endorsed Clinton Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who hosted the public forum with her, did not join them. Considered a rising star, Meek said he wanted his constituents to hear Clinton first and that he would make a decision soon.
''It spoke volumes to me that someone ingrained in politics in Florida since 1991 would come here,'' Meek said. ``Usually, a stop like this in the black community is a month or two before the election.''
EARLIER PRIMARY
But the 2008 presidential campaign is far from usual. State lawmakers are poised to bump up the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January. That means Florida could, for the first time, play a make-or-break role in choosing presidential nominees.
Clinton's visit follows Florida appearances in the past few days by two Republican candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Florida voters preferred Clinton over her Democratic opponents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
''But can we ever elect a woman?'' Clinton asked the cheering crowd. ``We'll never know until we try. I am proud to be a woman . . . but I'm not running as a woman candidate. I am running because I believe I'm the best qualified and experienced candidate, who can hit the ground running.''
Clinton did not make any policy-related news Tuesday, repeating her call for universal healthcare and her opposition to President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. She also repeated her support for immigration reform that gives illegal workers a chance to become citizens.
''Let's bring them out of the shadows,'' Clinton said. ``If they're criminals, let's deport them, but for all the others, let's give them a path to legalization. But don't let them jump the line over people who have been waiting legally.''
Clinton responded to several questions of particular concern to minorities, like the achievement gap between white and black students. When asked about helping poor people, she referred to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who cultivated widespread support among black voters.
''We're not talking about ancient history,'' she said of his administration. ``We know what to do. We just have to look back a few years.''
Clinton recently hired Mo Elleithee, who knows Florida politics from working on Bob Graham's 2004 presidential campaign and Janet Reno's 2002 bid for governor. Reno lost to Democratic nominee Bill McBride, whose failure to inherit her popularity among black voters was partly blamed for his loss to then-Gov. Jeb Bush.
''Clearly it is an important constituency, and we're going to spend a lot of time campaigning and talking to folks in the community and in every community,'' Elleithee said.
Several black voters who attended Clinton's hourlong event said they faced a tough choice between her and Obama, campaigning to be the first black president.
`WE'RE TORN'
''We're torn, but when it comes down to it, you have to go with your heart, and I believe it will take a woman to straighten us out,'' said Beverly Bush, an AARP activist from Miami Gardens.
Miami Gardens Mayor Shirley Gibson said she hasn't made up her mind yet.
''As a black woman, at the end of the day I will make the decision of who is best for my community and my country,'' she said.
Obama supporters said they are confident he will pick up more support among black voters in Florida as the race proceeds.
''Like every other segment of America, you have to work for the vote,'' said Obama fundraiser Kirk Wagar, a Coconut Grove attorney. ``The numbers now certainly don't indicate where the race will end up.''
Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned in Florida since 1991, when Obama was just graduating from Harvard Law School.
Iraq welcomes British troop reduction
Political
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Iraqi politicians welcome British troop reduction
Source: Guardian Unlimited 02/21/2007
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
Iraq's political leaders, who have been pressing the Bush administration to allow Iraqi forces shoulder more of the security burden in the country, today welcomed the news of an imminent British troop reduction in Basra.
The deputy prime minister, Barham Salih - who was praised by Mr Blair for directing a multi-million dollar reconstruction package for the oil-rich but poverty-ridden southern city, said: "British troops have helped liberate the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"We honour their sacrifices in helping Iraqis to live in freedom. The redeployment comes in the context of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi government, but activating the economy is the real key to stability."
Mr Salih said the new funds for Basra would be spent "on improving power and water supplies to the city as well as health and sewage and tackling unemployment".
He added that there were also plans to develop Basra's moribund port into the largest and most profitable in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, civic leaders and residents in Basra expressed relief at what they saw as the first step toward the end of the difficult British presence there.
Hakim al-Mayyahi, an influential member of the city's provincial council, said Mr Blair's statement was long overdue.
"Lately, they [the British troops] were not helping the stability of the security situation in Basra," he added. "On the contrary, their constant conflicts with the anti-British groups here was simply contributing to a negative impact among the public."
Mr al-Mayyahi said the city could do without the British presence, and would "depend on extra troops from Baghdad in case of emergencies".
The majority Shia city has largely avoided the sectarian violence and insurgency gripping Baghdad and central Iraq. But fierce rivalry for control among Shia groups and militias and oil-smuggling gangs, all of whom at times have targeted British forces, has kept it on a knife-edge.
Salam al-Maliki, a senior official in the bloc loyal to the radical young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - which has long opposed a foreign presence in Iraq - said any violence in the city would cease once the foreign troops had left.
"The militias and militant groups in these areas only fired their weapons at the occupier and, when they go, all of the violence here will end," he said.
Jasim al-Obeidi, a Sunni resident of Basra, agreed. "This is very good news, because the British were behind the lack of security," he said. "The city will be much quieter without them."
However, some expressed trepidation at the potential negative consequences of a withdrawal of British forces before their Iraqi counterparts were fully ready to take responsibility for security.
Ali Haidar, a 43-year-old civil servant, agreed with the idea of withdrawal, "but not at the moment." He said: "Iraqi security troops were not prepared to undertake security, and they lack training and weapons.
"Besides, the police in particular are infiltrated by members loyal to special groups, not to the state."
Ahmed al-Bakr, a teacher, said: "We need more time. The British have been acting as a referee between the rival groups, and if they leave it will be like a football game without a referee - chaos."
One senior provincial official in Basra said: "If, after four years, they can't withdraw 1,600 troops without destabilizing the situation, then God help us."
Capitalism Challenged
If Capitalist and corporate America are truly being forth coming with consumers then why do I have contrary observations? I welcome its supporters to please respond to my post.
In the field of health care capitalists including President G.W. Bush have said that technology will reduce cost. Government and polticians instead of addressing the practice that corporations do in fact charge far too exorbitant prices to the public above their cost for providing such services or producing such products give business a free ticket void of regulation. Why then do healthcare cost continue to skyrocket? Why then are medical bills the leading reason for working Americans filing for bankruptcy?
I believe my observation possess merit based on the example that a majority of college economics professors use when teaching the law of supply and demand. It is Oil. Next, health care will be added to this short list of static commodities that consumers and their buying power can have little effect on their cost. Corporate greed for profits has locked the law of supply and demand out of these markets. Call that a free market economy?
Corporations’ marketing strategies are misleading and their prices are irresponsible. I pay attention to the economy and read reports where the cost of crude oil goes down but the cost of gasoline goes up then you what? Something is very wrong in this scenario that is the reality of the American economy.
In the field of health care capitalists including President G.W. Bush have said that technology will reduce cost. Government and polticians instead of addressing the practice that corporations do in fact charge far too exorbitant prices to the public above their cost for providing such services or producing such products give business a free ticket void of regulation. Why then do healthcare cost continue to skyrocket? Why then are medical bills the leading reason for working Americans filing for bankruptcy?
I believe my observation possess merit based on the example that a majority of college economics professors use when teaching the law of supply and demand. It is Oil. Next, health care will be added to this short list of static commodities that consumers and their buying power can have little effect on their cost. Corporate greed for profits has locked the law of supply and demand out of these markets. Call that a free market economy?
Corporations’ marketing strategies are misleading and their prices are irresponsible. I pay attention to the economy and read reports where the cost of crude oil goes down but the cost of gasoline goes up then you what? Something is very wrong in this scenario that is the reality of the American economy.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Weekend Update: Blackness Scale
Humor about Senator Barrack Obama.
Disclaimer: This is not serious folk.
A Road Map Out of Iraq
I just recieved an e-mail from one Democratic Senator (whose name I will not mention) entitled "A roadmap out of Iraq".
Frankly, thats bull. You get paid to vote. Vote to End the War in Iraq!
Frankly, thats bull. You get paid to vote. Vote to End the War in Iraq!
Pentagon manipulated Iraq data
Political
"Accusations of "Twisted Intelligence"; Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers that Pentagon officials manipulated data before the invasion of Iraq
Source: BusinessWeek Online 02/13/2007
Top Pentagon officials, authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.
Gimble's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and a summary report of a year-long investigation by the Inspector General's office shows the deep divide between policymakers at the Pentagon and the intelligence community, as well as stark partisan disagreements on whether the Bush Administration used false data to justify its war in Iraq.
A 52-page rebuttal by the Pentagon disputes most of the inspector general's findings, "except the finding that the activities reviewed were lawful and authorized."
Congressional Clash
Committee Chairman Carl Levin [D-Mich.] said the inspector general's report provides a "devastating condemnation" of the Defense Dept. policy that started the war with Iraq.
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the intelligence community did not provide the desired compelling case," Levin said.
Senator James Inhofe [R-Okla.] disagreed with Levin. "You can read the same report and come up with different conclusions I don't think in any way that his report could be interpreted as a devastating condemnation, as you point out Mr. Chairman."
Just Following Orders?
Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Dept. expanded the duties of its policy office, then run by former Under Secretary Douglas Feith, to find any connections between al Qaeda and the Iraqi and other governments and to develop its own intelligence assessments -- separate from the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies. Feith's shop under then-Deputy Secretary Paul
"Accusations of "Twisted Intelligence"; Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers that Pentagon officials manipulated data before the invasion of Iraq
Source: BusinessWeek Online 02/13/2007
Top Pentagon officials, authorized by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "inappropriately" misled the White House in asserting strong prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out not to be true, and intentionally withheld data provided by outside intelligence agencies that challenged the Pentagon's conclusions, Acting Defense Dept. Inspector General Tom Gimble told lawmakers Feb. 9.
Gimble's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and a summary report of a year-long investigation by the Inspector General's office shows the deep divide between policymakers at the Pentagon and the intelligence community, as well as stark partisan disagreements on whether the Bush Administration used false data to justify its war in Iraq.
A 52-page rebuttal by the Pentagon disputes most of the inspector general's findings, "except the finding that the activities reviewed were lawful and authorized."
Congressional Clash
Committee Chairman Carl Levin [D-Mich.] said the inspector general's report provides a "devastating condemnation" of the Defense Dept. policy that started the war with Iraq.
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq when the intelligence assessments of the professional analysts of the intelligence community did not provide the desired compelling case," Levin said.
Senator James Inhofe [R-Okla.] disagreed with Levin. "You can read the same report and come up with different conclusions I don't think in any way that his report could be interpreted as a devastating condemnation, as you point out Mr. Chairman."
Just Following Orders?
Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Dept. expanded the duties of its policy office, then run by former Under Secretary Douglas Feith, to find any connections between al Qaeda and the Iraqi and other governments and to develop its own intelligence assessments -- separate from the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies. Feith's shop under then-Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz disseminated "alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaeda relationship, which included conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community and these were presented to senior decision-makers," Gimble said.
Levin said, "senior Administration officials used the twisted intelligence produced by the Feith office in making the case for the Iraq war."
Feith, who is now teaching at Georgetown University and has been criticized in the past for manipulating intelligence data, released a statement saying it is "bizarre for the Inspector General to disapprove of policy officials' doing work that they were directed to do by the secretary or deputy secretary of Defense." Feith led a group of private contractors who reviewed existing intelligence reports to find any links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Bush Administration has already received $503 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon recently asked Congress for another $235.1 billion to fund war operations this year and next. That's in addition to the $481.4 billion the Defense Dept. just requested from Capitol Hill to fund its regular operations in fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. "
Feith, who is now teaching at Georgetown University and has been criticized in the past for manipulating intelligence data, released a statement saying it is "bizarre for the Inspector General to disapprove of policy officials' doing work that they were directed to do by the secretary or deputy secretary of Defense." Feith led a group of private contractors who reviewed existing intelligence reports to find any links between al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Bush Administration has already received $503 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon recently asked Congress for another $235.1 billion to fund war operations this year and next. That's in addition to the $481.4 billion the Defense Dept. just requested from Capitol Hill to fund its regular operations in fiscal year 2008, which begins Oct. 1. "
Commentary: The Senate specifically must act to end the War in Iraq. It is in my analysis that the House of Representatives will pass significant measures to end the War void of pork baloney bills which on the other hand will be present in any Senate efforts. The U.S. Senate led by Harry Reid seems to be forgetting the mandate handed down by the People in November 2006. What the hell is a non-binding resolution on the desk of President & Commander-In- Chief G.W. Bush ? Let me answer that for you, poor use of a tree. Mr. Reid if it your last act as Senate Majority leader End this War in Iraq! Continued wasting time and tax payer dollars would surely spark debate of replacing you with those Senators sincerely committed to ending the War.
Here is a list of Democratic and Republican Senators that are pivotal in this matter: How shall they serve?
Here is a list of Democratic and Republican Senators that are pivotal in this matter: How shall they serve?
Majority Member State Carl Levin, Chairman Michigan Edward Kennedy Massachusetts Robert Byrd West Virginia Joe Lieberman Connecticut Jack Reed Rhode IslandDaniel Akaka Hawaii Bill Nelson Florida Ben Nelson Nebraska Evan Bayh Indiana Hillary Rodham Clinton New York Mark Pryor Arkansas Jim Webb Virginia Claire McCaskill Missouri
Minority Member StateJohn McCain, Ranking Member Arizona John Warner Virginia James Inhofe Oklahoma Jeff Sessions Alabama Susan Collins Maine John Ensign Nevada Saxby Chambliss Georgia Lindsey Graham South Carolina Elizabeth Dole North Carolina John Cornyn Texas John Thune South Dakota Mel Martinez Florida
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
