Political
Staged pullout from Iraq a priority - Rudd
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald 03/20/2007
THE NATION
KEVIN RUDD has nominated the withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq as a priority should Labor win this year's election.
"My first responsibility will be to then speak with the President of the United States and to speak with the Government of Iraq," the Opposition Leader said yesterday, the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion.
"I would then commence a process of negotiations with the end point of a staged, negotiated withdrawal of that combat force."
The Prime Minister, John Howard, who will today make a speech arguing the need to stay in Iraq to give the violence-ravaged nation a chance of success, berated Mr Rudd in Parliament yesterday.
Mr Howard said it was inconsistent for Labor to support the war in Afghanistan but oppose the Iraqi war.
"While it's good to defeat terrorists in Afghanistan, it's not good to defeat terrorists in Iraq," Mr Howard goaded. "I find that a puzzling disconnect."
Mr Howard visited Iraq and Afghanistan last week.
With the Iraq war now in its fifth year, Mr Rudd listed statistics showing the secular and terrorist violence and civilian deaths had escalated dramatically over the past 12 months.
Mr Rudd challenged Mr Howard to admit the original strategy had "demonstrably failed".
At one stage, Mr Howard appeared to mishear a question from Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Robert McClelland.
Mr McClelland asked if Mr Howard was aware of the US plan to withdraw should its current strategy of a surge in troops fail. He further asked whether Australia had a similar contingency plan.
Mr Howard replied: "Yes, it is normal for the contingency to be made."
Labor then asked Mr Howard to outline the strategy but he claimed to have been misrepresented, saying he was aware only of the US plan.
"Perhaps the Prime Minister has accidentally revealed that the Government's contingency plans for a withdrawal of our combat troops in Iraq is whatever the Bush Administration tells them," Mr McClelland said later.
"But such an important national security task should never be delegated to the administration of another country, however friendly."
Mr Howard agreed with Mr Rudd that overall violence in Iraq had worsened over the past 12 months. But he said he had left Iraq last week in a more optimistic frame of mind than when he arrived.
As well as visiting Australian troops, Mr Howard met the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and the new commander of US forces in the country, General David Petraeus.
Mr Howard said he was impressed by both men, especially Mr Maliki and his commitment to govern for all Iraqis and not just the Shiites.
He said the new surge strategy must be given a chance to work.
"I don't want to read too much into just a few weeks - and what I'm about to say is tinged with the utmost caution - but the early indications are promising," he said.
"There has been some decline in sectarian violence."
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Great Britain Leads in Saving the Earth
Political
battle for the planet Voters be warned: Britain is going to save the Earth Locked in a struggle for control of the environmental agenda, Britain's political leaders have committed the nation, and its taxpayers, to stringent new carbon-cutting policies. But, reveals Richard Gray, they are facing tough questions over how much gain there will be for the pain
Source: The Daily Telegraph 03/19/2007
As David Cameron planted a tree in north London last weekend, it was his funky trainers as much as his handy spadework that caught the attention of onlookers.
Cameron was officially marking the Conservative Party's "Green Action Day'', but there was also a message in his green-laced, camouflage-soled footwear. Central Office was happy to let it be known that they were, in fact, recycled from old firemen's trousers and car seats, part of a limited edition of 400 pairs produced to mark last year's 15th anniversary of The Big Issue.
As a symbol, it was true to form from a politician who, since taking over his party's leadership, has rarely missed an opportunity to advertise his green credentials, whether by cycling to work or putting a windmill on his house.
Cameron's intention has been to rebrand the Tories as a party in tune with the concerns of the modern-day voter. And, as the polls show, it has been working. But last week, the gameplan went awry. The Tory leader unveiled concrete proposals to tackle climate change, harsh new taxes on air travel, including a strict personal flight "allowance'' which would penalise anyone who took more than one flight a year. He drew stinging criticism from the aviation industry, tourist groups and business leaders.
Gordon Brown and his supporters were cock-a-hoop. A day later, as the Government unveiled its own climate-change action plan, the Chancellor lost no time in declaring himself on the side of "incentives'', rather than "penalties'', to encourage voters to behave in an environmentally friendly fashion.
The Government's proposals locked five-year targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions into legislation, legally binding future governments to cut carbon emissions by 60 per cent before 2050. Mr Brown opted for a light touch on details, urging, for example, people to change the type of lightbulb they use.
As one ally said: "Cameron got it wrong. He misread the public mood and made big mistakes in the presentation of his proposals. Gordon was more in tune with what people want - practical proposals and incentives not penalties.''
Whoever are the short-term winners and losers at Westminster, it is clear that an environmental "arms race'' has begun. For the foreseeable future, our politics will no longer be simply blue, red and yellow, but made up of different shades of green. Voters be warned: Britain is going to save the planet.
It is, to put it mildly, an ambitious goal. And this weekend, a number of searching questions are being asked. For example, can a country that contributes just 2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions really make much of a difference to the planet? And, if not, are politicians justified in asking the voters to dramatically change their lifestyles and, inevitably, pay more tax?
Similarly prohibitive measures are not being undertaken by China, India and America, the world's largest polluters. In fact, with the science around global warming still evolving, some ask whether now is the right time to fix on specific policy commitments at all.
And then there is the basic question: has it been definitively proved that human behaviour is causing the planet to warm? Even scientists who believe this to be the case have begun to warn of the dangers of "eco-hype'' - of exaggerating the nature and speed of climate change.
It is now generally agreed in the scientific community that the Earth is getting hotter, with environmentalists insisting the temperature rise is due to carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by human activities. Over the past 50 years, global temperatures have risen by about half a degree, which they link to a rise in carbon dioxide levels of 25 per cent since the industrial revolution. The prediction is that global temperatures are likely to rise by between 1.8C to 4C over the next 100 years.
Such rises would send British summer temperatures soaring, making it normal to experience the kind of weather seen during the 2003 heatwave, when temperatures climbed to 37C. More than 2,000 people died as a result.
The predictions for the effects elsewhere in the world are more catastrophic: widespread extinctions, swathes of farmland turned to desert and entire swathes of coastland drowning under rising seas.
The sceptics accept that the earth is heating up. But they think the warming is due to its natural cycles, and so doubt that humans are the cause. Therefore there is little humans can do to stop it.
Prof Bob Carter, a marine geophysicist at James Cook University, in Queensland, Australia, argues: "Public utterances by prominent persons are marked by an ignorance of the important facts and uncertainties of climate science.
"The evidence for dangerous human-caused global-warming forced by human carbon-dioxide emissions is extremely weak. That the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and that even the ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates that a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change ... is now negated.''
The debate is far from over. The arguments of doubters suffered a significant blow when Channel 4's recent high-profile programme, The Great Climate Change Swindle, which presented the sceptical view, was accused of inaccuracy. One contributor claims he was misled over the programme's content.
But there is also flak heading the way of Al Gore, the former US vice-president, who won an Academy Award for his film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. At the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Prof Don Easterbrook, a geologist from Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts of his concerns at "inaccuracies'' in Mr Gore's arguments: "The real danger of the IPCC report and Al Gore's film is they suggest that, by diminishing carbon dioxide levels, it will solve the global-warming problem and we won't have to worry about the catastrophe they are predicting.''
For the public, the science of global warming remains baffling. Advocates on both sides of the argument can produce reams of statistics to support their opposing views. A poll by ICM, published yesterday in the Guardian, revealed that voters are less engaged with green issues, and more doubtful of the ability of politicians to tackle climate change, than either Gordon Brown or David Cameron might have thought. More than a third said they did not believe MPs could tackle climate change at all. Between them, the Tories and Labour attracted only 30 per cent support for their green strategies.
This growing public disaffection may be behind a sudden move by some prominent climate-change scientists to warn against sensationalist predictions on the part of the environmental lobby.
"It is dangerous for politicians to say the science of climate change is now complete,'' said Dr Piers Forster, an earth and environment researcher at the University of Leeds and a lead author on the UN's influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Dr Forster believes human activities are without doubt causing the climate to warm, but insists that it is impossible to make clear policy decisions at local or even on continental-wide levels at this stage.
"We really don't know how it is going to effect our day-to-day lives over the next 100 years,'' he states. "People are making decisions about exactly what to do without making sure they are based on the best scientific evidence we have.''
Fears about this "eco-hype'' were echoed yesterday by two senior members of the Royal Meteorological Society at a conference in Oxford. Profs Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier hit out at researchers who, they say, are "overplaying'' the global warming message. Some of their peers, they warn, are making claims about future impacts that cannot be justified by the science. Regardless of the ongoing debate, Britain's political parties have chosen to fight among themselves for the privilege of saving the planet. Last week, it was the Government's draft Climate Change Bill that won most praise - although it also attracted criticism. It aims to use the law to bind future governments to cutting carbon emmissions by 60 per cent.
Environmental groups claimed this did not go far enough towards addressing the problem. The latest report from the IPCC, published in January, said that an 80 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions was needed to prevent concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere from rising further.
Under the draft Bill, businesses could see "caps'' being placed on the amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. Those wishing to use more energy would be forced to buy low-carbon technology or purchase carbon credits.
Julian Morris, the executive director of the think tank International Policy Network (IPN), believes this could harm Britain by making it more expensive for companies to operate here. "Companies that are able to will simply move their production to countries where they don't have such penalties. While we will see greenhouse gas emissions going down locally, we may end up shifting those emissions elsewhere.''
The Government estimates that meeting the 60 per cent reduction target will cost about one per cent of the country's gross domestic product. But experts fear that Britain is still ill-equipped to switch to a low-carbon lifestyle.
"It is not obvious we have all the infrastructure and institutional tools in place to do this properly just yet,'' warned Dr Dave Frame, of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute. "The clean technology needed to reduce emissions is not in place.''
Unlike the Tories, the Government excluded the aviation and shipping industries from its Bill. As well as calling for new taxes on air travel, Mr Cameron's consultation paper included levying VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights for the first time.
While there were a few noises of approval from environmental groups, the policy was branded a "tax on fun'' by the travel industry and consumer groups. Business leaders warned that it would harm the economy by stifling commercial travel. Critics point out that aviation accounts for just 10 per cent of the carbon emissions from transportation and about 2 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. And, despite concern about the rapid growth of the aviation industry, less than half of the UK's population flies each year.
"There is little point in Britain going heavily after the aviation industry, unless it is part of a wider approach internationally to cut carbon emissions,'' said Mr Frame. "Trying to lead behaviour change through taxation works only if people have something to change to. At this stage, we run the risk of green taxes becoming a way of raising revenue rather than changing behaviour.''
Despite their embrace of radical environmental policies, neither party has a convincing answer as to why Britain should take the global lead on climate change, other than as a "moral obligation''.
In worldwide terms, Britain contributes just a fraction of total carbon emissions - about 544 million tons. By comparison, America pumps out more than 5,844 million tons. China and India, two of the fastest-growing economies, emit 3,263 million tons and 1,220 million tons respectively. China alone has more than 2,000 coal-fired power stations in operation and a new one opens every four days. If the UK stopped all of its emissions today, China would have replaced the lot within a year.
In such developing countries, climate-change issues receive little attention. What concerns the people and politicians is how to drag themselves out of poverty. Almost 300 million Indians still live on less than 50p a day: convincing them that development must be balanced with care for the environment is not easy, even though they are most at risk from climate change.
"The climate debate has been captured by people who have at heart an interest in exerting control over people's lives rather than letting them live better lives,'' said Julian Morris, from IPN. "It is extremely sad to see Britain's political parties trying to capitalise on this.''
battle for the planet Voters be warned: Britain is going to save the Earth Locked in a struggle for control of the environmental agenda, Britain's political leaders have committed the nation, and its taxpayers, to stringent new carbon-cutting policies. But, reveals Richard Gray, they are facing tough questions over how much gain there will be for the pain
Source: The Daily Telegraph 03/19/2007
As David Cameron planted a tree in north London last weekend, it was his funky trainers as much as his handy spadework that caught the attention of onlookers.
Cameron was officially marking the Conservative Party's "Green Action Day'', but there was also a message in his green-laced, camouflage-soled footwear. Central Office was happy to let it be known that they were, in fact, recycled from old firemen's trousers and car seats, part of a limited edition of 400 pairs produced to mark last year's 15th anniversary of The Big Issue.
As a symbol, it was true to form from a politician who, since taking over his party's leadership, has rarely missed an opportunity to advertise his green credentials, whether by cycling to work or putting a windmill on his house.
Cameron's intention has been to rebrand the Tories as a party in tune with the concerns of the modern-day voter. And, as the polls show, it has been working. But last week, the gameplan went awry. The Tory leader unveiled concrete proposals to tackle climate change, harsh new taxes on air travel, including a strict personal flight "allowance'' which would penalise anyone who took more than one flight a year. He drew stinging criticism from the aviation industry, tourist groups and business leaders.
Gordon Brown and his supporters were cock-a-hoop. A day later, as the Government unveiled its own climate-change action plan, the Chancellor lost no time in declaring himself on the side of "incentives'', rather than "penalties'', to encourage voters to behave in an environmentally friendly fashion.
The Government's proposals locked five-year targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions into legislation, legally binding future governments to cut carbon emissions by 60 per cent before 2050. Mr Brown opted for a light touch on details, urging, for example, people to change the type of lightbulb they use.
As one ally said: "Cameron got it wrong. He misread the public mood and made big mistakes in the presentation of his proposals. Gordon was more in tune with what people want - practical proposals and incentives not penalties.''
Whoever are the short-term winners and losers at Westminster, it is clear that an environmental "arms race'' has begun. For the foreseeable future, our politics will no longer be simply blue, red and yellow, but made up of different shades of green. Voters be warned: Britain is going to save the planet.
It is, to put it mildly, an ambitious goal. And this weekend, a number of searching questions are being asked. For example, can a country that contributes just 2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions really make much of a difference to the planet? And, if not, are politicians justified in asking the voters to dramatically change their lifestyles and, inevitably, pay more tax?
Similarly prohibitive measures are not being undertaken by China, India and America, the world's largest polluters. In fact, with the science around global warming still evolving, some ask whether now is the right time to fix on specific policy commitments at all.
And then there is the basic question: has it been definitively proved that human behaviour is causing the planet to warm? Even scientists who believe this to be the case have begun to warn of the dangers of "eco-hype'' - of exaggerating the nature and speed of climate change.
It is now generally agreed in the scientific community that the Earth is getting hotter, with environmentalists insisting the temperature rise is due to carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by human activities. Over the past 50 years, global temperatures have risen by about half a degree, which they link to a rise in carbon dioxide levels of 25 per cent since the industrial revolution. The prediction is that global temperatures are likely to rise by between 1.8C to 4C over the next 100 years.
Such rises would send British summer temperatures soaring, making it normal to experience the kind of weather seen during the 2003 heatwave, when temperatures climbed to 37C. More than 2,000 people died as a result.
The predictions for the effects elsewhere in the world are more catastrophic: widespread extinctions, swathes of farmland turned to desert and entire swathes of coastland drowning under rising seas.
The sceptics accept that the earth is heating up. But they think the warming is due to its natural cycles, and so doubt that humans are the cause. Therefore there is little humans can do to stop it.
Prof Bob Carter, a marine geophysicist at James Cook University, in Queensland, Australia, argues: "Public utterances by prominent persons are marked by an ignorance of the important facts and uncertainties of climate science.
"The evidence for dangerous human-caused global-warming forced by human carbon-dioxide emissions is extremely weak. That the satellite temperature record shows no substantial warming since 1978, and that even the ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998, indicates that a key line of circumstantial evidence for human-caused change ... is now negated.''
The debate is far from over. The arguments of doubters suffered a significant blow when Channel 4's recent high-profile programme, The Great Climate Change Swindle, which presented the sceptical view, was accused of inaccuracy. One contributor claims he was misled over the programme's content.
But there is also flak heading the way of Al Gore, the former US vice-president, who won an Academy Award for his film on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. At the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Prof Don Easterbrook, a geologist from Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts of his concerns at "inaccuracies'' in Mr Gore's arguments: "The real danger of the IPCC report and Al Gore's film is they suggest that, by diminishing carbon dioxide levels, it will solve the global-warming problem and we won't have to worry about the catastrophe they are predicting.''
For the public, the science of global warming remains baffling. Advocates on both sides of the argument can produce reams of statistics to support their opposing views. A poll by ICM, published yesterday in the Guardian, revealed that voters are less engaged with green issues, and more doubtful of the ability of politicians to tackle climate change, than either Gordon Brown or David Cameron might have thought. More than a third said they did not believe MPs could tackle climate change at all. Between them, the Tories and Labour attracted only 30 per cent support for their green strategies.
This growing public disaffection may be behind a sudden move by some prominent climate-change scientists to warn against sensationalist predictions on the part of the environmental lobby.
"It is dangerous for politicians to say the science of climate change is now complete,'' said Dr Piers Forster, an earth and environment researcher at the University of Leeds and a lead author on the UN's influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Dr Forster believes human activities are without doubt causing the climate to warm, but insists that it is impossible to make clear policy decisions at local or even on continental-wide levels at this stage.
"We really don't know how it is going to effect our day-to-day lives over the next 100 years,'' he states. "People are making decisions about exactly what to do without making sure they are based on the best scientific evidence we have.''
Fears about this "eco-hype'' were echoed yesterday by two senior members of the Royal Meteorological Society at a conference in Oxford. Profs Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier hit out at researchers who, they say, are "overplaying'' the global warming message. Some of their peers, they warn, are making claims about future impacts that cannot be justified by the science. Regardless of the ongoing debate, Britain's political parties have chosen to fight among themselves for the privilege of saving the planet. Last week, it was the Government's draft Climate Change Bill that won most praise - although it also attracted criticism. It aims to use the law to bind future governments to cutting carbon emmissions by 60 per cent.
Environmental groups claimed this did not go far enough towards addressing the problem. The latest report from the IPCC, published in January, said that an 80 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions was needed to prevent concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere from rising further.
Under the draft Bill, businesses could see "caps'' being placed on the amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. Those wishing to use more energy would be forced to buy low-carbon technology or purchase carbon credits.
Julian Morris, the executive director of the think tank International Policy Network (IPN), believes this could harm Britain by making it more expensive for companies to operate here. "Companies that are able to will simply move their production to countries where they don't have such penalties. While we will see greenhouse gas emissions going down locally, we may end up shifting those emissions elsewhere.''
The Government estimates that meeting the 60 per cent reduction target will cost about one per cent of the country's gross domestic product. But experts fear that Britain is still ill-equipped to switch to a low-carbon lifestyle.
"It is not obvious we have all the infrastructure and institutional tools in place to do this properly just yet,'' warned Dr Dave Frame, of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute. "The clean technology needed to reduce emissions is not in place.''
Unlike the Tories, the Government excluded the aviation and shipping industries from its Bill. As well as calling for new taxes on air travel, Mr Cameron's consultation paper included levying VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights for the first time.
While there were a few noises of approval from environmental groups, the policy was branded a "tax on fun'' by the travel industry and consumer groups. Business leaders warned that it would harm the economy by stifling commercial travel. Critics point out that aviation accounts for just 10 per cent of the carbon emissions from transportation and about 2 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. And, despite concern about the rapid growth of the aviation industry, less than half of the UK's population flies each year.
"There is little point in Britain going heavily after the aviation industry, unless it is part of a wider approach internationally to cut carbon emissions,'' said Mr Frame. "Trying to lead behaviour change through taxation works only if people have something to change to. At this stage, we run the risk of green taxes becoming a way of raising revenue rather than changing behaviour.''
Despite their embrace of radical environmental policies, neither party has a convincing answer as to why Britain should take the global lead on climate change, other than as a "moral obligation''.
In worldwide terms, Britain contributes just a fraction of total carbon emissions - about 544 million tons. By comparison, America pumps out more than 5,844 million tons. China and India, two of the fastest-growing economies, emit 3,263 million tons and 1,220 million tons respectively. China alone has more than 2,000 coal-fired power stations in operation and a new one opens every four days. If the UK stopped all of its emissions today, China would have replaced the lot within a year.
In such developing countries, climate-change issues receive little attention. What concerns the people and politicians is how to drag themselves out of poverty. Almost 300 million Indians still live on less than 50p a day: convincing them that development must be balanced with care for the environment is not easy, even though they are most at risk from climate change.
"The climate debate has been captured by people who have at heart an interest in exerting control over people's lives rather than letting them live better lives,'' said Julian Morris, from IPN. "It is extremely sad to see Britain's political parties trying to capitalise on this.''
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
President Bush Must Fire Gonzalez
If the Justice Department cannot maintain the highest standards of ethics in addition to engaging in a mission of cutting off partisanship before it enters the work of the department, then may God help the United States of America.
The President’s refusal to allow his staff to testify under subpoena has exacerbated this issue. There is that nothing that should be occurring in the White House that should not be public knowledge with the exception of matters of national security, intelligence or that violates individual rights to privacy. White House staffers are not obliged to tell the truth if they are not under oath. The public has the right to know the truth of this matter, which I question if it is constitutionally protected under executive privileged. This Administration is coming to a point where the President will be forced to pardon himself.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Featured News!!!: Halliburton Moves Abroad
Commentary: How can we as American citizens tolerate this private company, Halliburton, that besides the military has received the largest bulk of taxpayer dollars in this War on Terror to move its corporate head quarters and its jobs to the Middle East? I do not support such a move and encourage Congress to draft legislation restricting this move and all future companies whom are the recipients of millions of American dollars from setting up shop outside the United States. My analysis is that Halliburton is moving in order to avoid investigation of its billing, cost, fees, salaries and accounting practices here in the U.S.
By SONYA CRAWFORD
March 11, 2007 — The much-maligned defense contractor Halliburton is moving its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
"The Eastern hemisphere is a market that is more heavily weighted toward oil exploration and production opportunities," said CEO Dave Lesar at an energy conference in nearby Bahrain. "And growing our business here will bring more balance to Halliburton's overall portfolio."
The draw is obvious. Dubai's friendly tax laws will add to Halliburton's bottom line. Last year, it earned $2.3 billion in profits.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-N.H., called the company's move "corporate greed at its worst." He added, "This is an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years. At the same time they'll be avoiding U.S. taxes, I'm sure they won't stop insisting on taking their profits in cold hard U.S. cash."
Fellow Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has investigated contractor fraud, is planning to hold a hearing.
"This is a surprising development," he said. "I want to understand the ramifications for U.S. taxpayers and national security."
Waxman's committee estimates that Halliburton, once headed by Vice President Cheney, has received contracts valued at an estimated $25.7 billion for its work in Iraq.
Among the company's low points are said to be serving troops spoiled food, exposing troops to contaminated water from the Euphrates River and failing to adequately protect its contractors.
Last month, the government's special inspector general for Iraq found Halliburton overcharged the U.S. government $2.7 billion, a finding the company is still contesting.
Last month, the government's special inspector general for Iraq found Halliburton overcharged the U.S. government $2.7 billion, a finding the company is still contesting.
"This is part and parcel of the way they do business," said Robert Greenwald, the man behind the film, "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers," which documented Halliburton's excesses. "I hope it increases the number of investigations and subpoenas that they will be subjected to."
Halliburton will maintain a corporate office in Houston.Among the company's low points are said to be serving troops spoiled food, exposing troops to contaminated water from the Euphrates River and failing to adequately protect its contractors.
Last month, the government's special inspector general for Iraq found Halliburton overcharged the U.S. government $2.7 billion, a finding the company is still contesting.
"This is part and parcel of the way they do business," said Robert Greenwald, the man behind the film, "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers," which documented Halliburton's excesses. "I hope it increases the number of investigations and subpoenas that they will be subjected to."
Halliburton will maintain a corporate office in Houston.
Halliburton will maintain a corporate office in Houston.
Comments welcome
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Senate debates withdrawing US troops
Political
Senate debates withdrawing US troops from Iraq within one year
Source: Agence France Presse 03/14/2007
WASHINGTON, March 14, 2007 (AFP) -
Congress on Wednesday began its latest showdown over Iraq, this time over setting a deadline of a little more than a year for full withdrawal of US troops from the war-ravaged country.
Republicans and Democrats in the US Senate found themselves on opposite sides of a heated debate over whether or not to set the date of March 31, 2008 for the complete withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq.
Under the legislation drafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, US troop redeployments would have to commence within 120 days of the bill's passage.
Reid said Wednesday that after nearly five years of failed Bush policies in Iraq, the time had come for a new direction.
"This war has taken a tremendous toll on our country, our troops, and their families, and our standing in the world," he said on the Senate floor.
Another top Democrat, US Senator Ted Kennedy, called the Iraq debate -- which has consumed many hours of floor time in the weeks since Democrats took control of Congress last January -- "the overarching issue of our time."
"This is a defining moment. The American people are watching. The world is watching," Kennedy said.
"The issue is clear: Will we stand with our soldiers by changing their mission and beginning to bring them home? Or will we stand with the President and keep our soldiers in Iraq's civil war?"
Kennedy continued: "History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path, or embrace a new direction."
Democrats believe they have a mandate from US voters to begin a US troop withdrawal, after winning big in November elections and a stream of opinion polls showing strong public support for leaving Iraq.
But Republicans are zealous in their defense of keeping US troops in Iraq, and even adding thousands more as part of the "surge" strategy put in place by US President George W. Bush.
US Senator John McCain -- a US presidential contender and perhaps the most outspoken advocate in the Senate for keeping US troops in Iraq -- said repercussions of withdrawing US troops would make the debacle of Vietnam seem minor by comparison.
"If we walk away from Iraq now, we risk a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a haven for international terrorists, an invitation to regional war in this economically vital area, and a humanitarian disaster that could involve millions of people," said McCain.
"If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back -- possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."
His words reprised an argument made earlier in the week by US Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby group.
"A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone into fighting the global war on terror and result in chaos and mounting danger," the US vice president said.
"For the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen."
But Reid insisted Wednesday that America simply could no longer sustain the high price of its military mission there, noting: "3,200 American soldiers, sailors and marines have been killed in Iraq."
"We've seen tens of thousands wounded men and women who have come home to a health care system unprepared and ill-equipped to care for them, our army has been stretched dangerously thin, and our Treasury has been spending week after bloody week two billion dollars each week.
He stressed that he believed US military operations in Iraq have faltered because of lack of leadership by the commander-in-chief.
"President Bush didn't have a plan to win the peace, much less the war," said Reid.
Congress, the Constitution and War Powers
I try to refrain from using such strong words on my blog but I must coin a phrase for the purpose of accurately describing discussions by politicians that Congress does not possess the authority to end the War in Iraq.
The President yes has veto power but G.W. Bush is not a king in addition the President is not granted the final word in regards to War according to the Constitution, Congress can overturn such a veto. The Law clearly gives Congress power in that Congress shall declare war, Congress shall control the purse and Congress shall make law.
These rich big wigs dressed as representatives on Capital Hill all need to resign allowing regular folk to take their seats.
A vote by Congress even under threat of veto would be a grand political statement that the President must then respond too. A member of Congress should never allow for the shadow of a presidential veto to sway their solemn duty to represent their constituents.
Such an assertion that Congress lacks the authority to end this War in Iraq, and I say this with all reasonable respect, is out right bull shit.
Comments Welcome.
Tell your Rep what you think about Iraq:
Tell your Senator what you think about Iraq:
Clinton: Vast right wing conspiracy is real
Political
"Clinton: Vast right wing conspiracy is real
Source: Associated Press Newswires 03/13/2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - The "vast, right-wing conspiracy" is back, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan plotting.
Once derided for her use of the phrase, Clinton is now trying to turn the imagery to her advantage.
Speaking Tuesday to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities.
She also used the phrase similarly during a campaign appearance over the weekend in New Hampshire.
Clinton was first lady when she famously charged allegations of an affair between her then-president husband Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky were the result of a conservative conspiracy.
As evidence of the affair eventually came to light, the comment was ridiculed.But many Democrats have since insisted that Clinton was correct, pointing to the well-documented efforts by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife to fund a network of anti-Clinton investigations.
On Tuesday, she asserted the conspiracy is alive and well, and cited as proof the Election Day 2002 case of phone jamming in New Hampshire, a case in which two Republican operatives pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and a third was convicted.
"To the New Hampshire Democratic party's credit, they sued and the trail led all the way to the Republican National Committee," Clinton said.
"So if anybody tells you there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court," she said.
Former RNC operative James Tobin was convicted of telephone harassment and appealed his conviction. The investigation arose after Democratic organizers' phones were overwhelmed by annoying hang-up calls hindering their get-out-the-vote efforts.
Clinton accused the GOP of a number of other anti-voter actions, including intimidating phone calls during the contentious 2006 congressional elections.
New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said she absolutely agreed with the senator's description of the case.
"People think we're paranoid when we talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy, but there is a real connection of these groups -- the same names keep popping up," said Sullivan. "They are the most disgusting group of political thugs that I have ever seen."
RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt responded that Democrats "might be disappointed to learn that almost a decade later, the senator's playbook consists of little more than a resurrection of Clinton-era talking points."
Clinton made her charge of conspiracy in response to a question about her proposed bill that would make Election Day a federal holiday, and make it a crime to send misleading or fraudulent information to voters.
She also said the government should do more to end unusually long lines at certain polling places.
"It just so happens that many of those places where people are waiting for hours are places where people of color are voting or young people are voting. That is un-American, and we're going to end it," Clinton said. "
"Clinton: Vast right wing conspiracy is real
Source: Associated Press Newswires 03/13/2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - The "vast, right-wing conspiracy" is back, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan plotting.
Once derided for her use of the phrase, Clinton is now trying to turn the imagery to her advantage.
Speaking Tuesday to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities.
She also used the phrase similarly during a campaign appearance over the weekend in New Hampshire.
Clinton was first lady when she famously charged allegations of an affair between her then-president husband Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky were the result of a conservative conspiracy.
As evidence of the affair eventually came to light, the comment was ridiculed.But many Democrats have since insisted that Clinton was correct, pointing to the well-documented efforts by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife to fund a network of anti-Clinton investigations.
On Tuesday, she asserted the conspiracy is alive and well, and cited as proof the Election Day 2002 case of phone jamming in New Hampshire, a case in which two Republican operatives pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and a third was convicted.
"To the New Hampshire Democratic party's credit, they sued and the trail led all the way to the Republican National Committee," Clinton said.
"So if anybody tells you there is no vast right-wing conspiracy, tell them that New Hampshire has proven it in court," she said.
Former RNC operative James Tobin was convicted of telephone harassment and appealed his conviction. The investigation arose after Democratic organizers' phones were overwhelmed by annoying hang-up calls hindering their get-out-the-vote efforts.
Clinton accused the GOP of a number of other anti-voter actions, including intimidating phone calls during the contentious 2006 congressional elections.
New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said she absolutely agreed with the senator's description of the case.
"People think we're paranoid when we talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy, but there is a real connection of these groups -- the same names keep popping up," said Sullivan. "They are the most disgusting group of political thugs that I have ever seen."
RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt responded that Democrats "might be disappointed to learn that almost a decade later, the senator's playbook consists of little more than a resurrection of Clinton-era talking points."
Clinton made her charge of conspiracy in response to a question about her proposed bill that would make Election Day a federal holiday, and make it a crime to send misleading or fraudulent information to voters.
She also said the government should do more to end unusually long lines at certain polling places.
"It just so happens that many of those places where people are waiting for hours are places where people of color are voting or young people are voting. That is un-American, and we're going to end it," Clinton said. "
Monday, March 12, 2007
300: Prepare for Glory
Checks & Balances Movie Rating: C+
Yahoo Users: B+
AOL Movies: 4 Stars
This movie was good but much more could have been done to make it a great movie. Basically its a bunch of fighting and legs being chopped off. If a little more time would have been devoted to the Queen and her political adventures while her husband was away defending Sparta the movie would have had more substance. The ending also seemed to be rushed. You'll have to watch the movie to see for yourself. C+ from C&B.
Best role goes to the Queen (Lena Headey)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
