Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

HURRICANE KATRINA

The Bush Administration's public relations blitz leading up to the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina doesn't change the fact that their response to Katrina was disastrous and failed to keep Americans safe.

***Yet another reason not to re-elect the Republicans who claim that they are so good for this nation's national security. They still haven't fixed this problem. Their first priority is Iraq, not America or it's people! Instead of watching all of the shows that have been leading up to the 9/11 avvicersary, maybe you should start watching the Hurricane Katrina stories. Anyone of these stories that don't have government people talking in them is going to be the truth. The Republicans want your mind set on 9/11, that's why it was allowed to happen. Don't forget, it happened on their watch. They didn't put any effort into stopping it either in hopes that we are reminded of it every September & October, because elections are held in November.

The federal government's immediate response to Katrina was marked by chaos, confusion and utter incompetence.

In the aftermath of the response, President Bush and congressional Republicans made many promises to the desperate residents of the region, but most were broken.

Largely as a result, much of the Gulf Coast remains devastated, and residents continue to suffer from inadequate housing, health care and other basic services, and an infrastructure that cannot support badly needed economic development.

We cannot change the past, but we can control the future.

America can and must keep its promises to the Gulf Coast. It is time for a new direction, where despair and destruction are replaced by hope and renewal.

***This country definitely needs a new direction ran by a different party. Bush needs to be made a lame duck President. The only way to accomplish that is to level out the majority in Washington. For this country's sake we must get rid of the Republicans or you will have nothing. They have big plans for the people if the Republicans are once again voted the majority.

The Democrats can't be blamed for what has happened to the people in the country since the Republicans control both houses of congress. The Democrats have written up legislation, but the Republican leaders like Hastert and Frist won't allow their legislation to get to the floor of the House. For this country's sake, vote out the Republicans.

General Discussion: MISLEADING AND INACCURATE STATEMENTS MADE BY PRESIDENT BUSH

19600745, Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statements Compiled from Public Sources
Posted by IChing on Tues Aug-22-06

You want ammo on proviing this lying sack of shit is a liar well here you go.

Bush on chemical weapons:

1. "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence agency who examined the trailers conducted that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

2. "Here's what---we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.S. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003)

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it claimed the purpose of the trailers was to produce biological weapons without disclosing that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

3. "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes by. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we fouind them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003)

Explanation: Same as above

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

4. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror than began on September the 11, 2001---and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men---the shock troops of a hateful ideology---gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."
Source: President Bush announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003)

Explanation: This statement was misleading because by referencing the September 11 attacks in conjunction with discussion of the war on terror in Iraq, it left the impression that Iraq was connected to September 11. In fact, President Bush himself in September 2003 acknowledged that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was invoved with the September the 11th."

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

5. "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union," White House (1/28/2003).

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought aluminum tubes for use in its nuclear program, failing to mention that the government's most experienced technical experts at the U.S. Dept of Energy concluded that the tubes were "poorly suited" for this purpose.

6. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union," White House (1/28/2003)

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. CIA Director George Tenet also warned against using the claim in a telephone call to Ms. Rice's deputy. In addition, the statement fails to mention that State Dept. Intelligence officials also concluded that this claim was "highly dubious."

7. "The report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including: ....attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it."
Source: Letter to Cheney/Senate, White House (1/20/2003)

Explanation: Same as above

8. "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002)

Explanation: Same as No. 5.

9. "If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than one year."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002)

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it failed to provide the context that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Iraq probably would not be able to make a nuclear weapon until near the end of the decade.

10. "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof---the smoking gun---that could come in the formation of a mushroom cloud."
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002)

Explanation: This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when there was a deep division in the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

And the biggest truth he told

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
Describing what it's like tobe governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

---From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

---CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," he said.

---Business Week, July 30



Veterans Issues: SHAME ON CONGRESS FOR MISTREATMENT OF MILITARY

The last guy in the first of those eight-hour London airport security lines searching for mouthwash and hair gel bombs hadn't even gotten close to the point of throwing away everything but his passport and clothing when Republican congressional campaigners were forming a conga line to celebrate a splendid opportunity.

***And that blew up in their faces!

A splendid opportunity to scare the wits out of the American public one more time and, they hope, seize a November victory from the ashes of a well-deserved defeat. They are ready to thank God, the Devil or Osama bin Laden for the chance to paint the Democrats as weak on national security and hang onto absolute control of the public through for two more years.

***It's outright ridiculous when anyone says that the Democrats are weak on national security. I want to know why the Republicans can take claim to being the better party to accomplish this? They have had no accomplishments when it comes to the war on terrorism. They used too. Afghanastan! But since Bush took all of our resources from Afghanastan, "the real war," and put them into Iraq where the "illegal war" is going on, THE TALIBAN HAVE RECONQUERED AND THE AFGHANI'S PREFER IT THAT WAY! Talk about our troops dying in vain!

If they get away with it again, then there's proof that you can fool all the people most of the time.

***If we let this happen, then there is almost a guarantee that we won't have to worry about who we're going to vote for. The Republicans have messed up our country so badly, that there just might not be one anymore! If you know anyone who plans on voting for these misfits, you need to talk them out of it. We have to prove once and for all, that the American people aren't as stupid as the Republicans think we are, and we are NOT WEAK!

The happy members of Congress weren't even around when the news arrived. They had left a lot of important business---including the new defense budget to contribute financing the unnecessary war in Iraq and the forgotten war in Afghanastan---undone while they went home to campaign for a month or so.

This was surprising not so much for the jam they leave our soldiers and Marines in as the current fiscal year budget winds down---that's as traditional as apple pie and theiving politicians. But they also left hanging the $14.9B worth of pork and payoffs they have so energetically larded into the defense budget for fiscal 2007.

They really were in a hurry to get home and persuade folks of the great danger they are in, and how well the Republican administration and Congress have protected them; how much they care about our military men and women; and how much they deserve another term dipping into the river of taxpayer money.

And what have they left behind them?

They didn't provide enough money in the current budget to fight the wars, equip the military and fund the bases where those who wear the uniforms, and those who love them, live when they aren't off fighting.

So at bases like Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio the grass goes unmowed and the swimming pools aren't open and the Army in some places can't even pay the electric and water bills.

***This shows the real concern for our troops by the Republicans. They just don't care!!!!!

That's because the military, at such times, has to rob Peter to pay Paul. The money meant to pay for the small but important things like repairing family housing and running a recreation center for Army kids is siphoned off to pay for the wars.

***And the Republicans keep blaming the media and the bloggers for low morale among the troops. Could it be that they are worried about how their families are living?

There isn't enough money to pay for the tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees that have been destroyed or worn out by unceasing duty on the battlefields 24/7.

***But there's always enough to give the super-rich their tax breaks and give oil companies, what I call, welfare. There's always enough to do that so that the super-rich will give the Republicans their unwavering support.

There aren't enough troops in the ranks to staff all the brigades and divisions. So Peter is robbed in those areas of the budget as well.

The consequences are clear. The units leave their equipment behind in Iraq for their replacements to use. When they get home they have to turn loose thousands of troops whose enlistments ended months before and who were press-ganged into another combat tour by what is known as "stop-loss," or involuntray service in an all-volunteer military.

Thousands of other troops are "cross-balanced" or transferred into other units headed back to Iraq or Afghanastan, filling up all those vacancies in those outfits.

All of this leaves our nation without a credible reserve force in case of emergencies elsewhere in the world, and it leaves those outfits just home from combat without either the equipment or the troops to train for their next combat tour.

That's how well this Congress and this administration have taken care of our military. They are grinding down equipment and troops and families without a care.

***And by this, the Republicans claim they are good for national security!!!!!!

Shame on them who care so little about those who give so much, including their precious lives, in defense of our country.

***That's why nobody is flocking to the recruiting stations anymore!

Shame on them for simultaneously making certain that hundreds of billions of defense dollars are diverted to the kind of high-dollar aircraft and naval vessels so beloved of the defense contracting industry who happily fuel the campaign engines of the Republicans and happily provide post-retirement jobs for retired generals and admirals and, yes, out-of-office politicians.

If the latest airline terrorist thing scares you to death, and if you think this much more dangerous world we now have to live in requires a strong, competent, ready and well-equiped military to defend you, vote against the incumbents in Congress. All of them, no matter what party.

You will be a damn sight safer without their kind of stewardship of national security and our military. A Congress full of rookies always takes a good while figuring out how to get their snouts deep in the right trough, and that's a good thing.

Throw the bastards out in 2006 and again in 2008.

***My opinion is that the Republicans have to go and some of the Democrats. too. The Republicans are the majority in Washington. They do everything that the White House wants them too or they are threatened. This means they are weak. They aren't who you want in there. They are too busy filling their pockets instead of thinking about what the people back home in their own states think.

McClatchy Newspapers
By: Joseph Galloway
August 2006








Bush's Economy: BUSH OFFICIAL SAID THE ECONOMY IS NOT HOT FOR SOME

What's the Real Reason a Bush Official Is Saying the Economy Is Not Hot For Some?

AFL-CIO
By: Tula Connell
Augst 2006

What's this? A modicum of economic truth from a Bush administration official?

Seems that on August 1, brand-new Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave his first public speech since his appointment to the Bush cabinet. Speaking at the Columbian Business School, Paulson admitted many of America's workers aren't benefiting from the economic heyday Bush & Co. keep saying is all around us. Said Paulson:

"Amid this country's strong economic expansion, many Americans simply aren't feeling the benefits. Many aren't seeing significant increases in their take-home pay. Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health care costs, among others."

As The Washington Post put it, Paulson's remarks were:

"a somewhat unusual concession from an administration that has spoken only glowingly of recent economic gains and has generally joined with 'Republicans' in Congress dismissing Democratic concerns about growing economic equality in the United States as 'class warfare.'

Indeed. We've highlighted here how despite Bush's claims, the economy is still not generating enough jobs to keep up with the increase in the total population.

We've noted how long-term trends---including an increase in the percentage of working poor and the decline of middle-class neighborhoods---indicate the Bush economy is on a downward spiral.

We've shared how the Bush administration officials---such as Ed Lazear, chief of the Council of Economic Advisers---have obfuscated or downright lied when it comes to discussing issues such as wage growth.

And new economic data---mostly bad---keeps coming in. Like the fact that wage stagnation is now hitting people with bachelor's degrees for the first time in 30 years, with earnings for workers who hold four-year degrees falling 5.2% from 2000 to 2004 when adjusted for inflation. And recent data showing economic growth slowed to 2.5% in the second quarter of 2006, down from 5.6% in the previous quarter, while housing growth sags across the nation.

But finally, a Bush administration official comes out and hints that we might be right.

Maybe because he's the new guy in the office.

Or maybe it's because Paulson, the former head of Goldman Sachs and clearly no slouch when it comes to strategic thinking, has another motive. Paulson also noted in his speech that he looks forward to working with Democrats on "revamping" Social Security.

As in taking away from America's workers the nation's most successful, guaranteed safety net, one that keeps retirees out of poverty. As in throwing up a stock market gamble the funds that workers count on to see them through retirement.

Between 1960 and 2004, Social Security helped cut the poverty rate among seniors by more than two-thirds, from 35% to 10%. But if the Bush administration gets away with its long-held goal of privatizing Social Security, workers' retirement funds would be invested by private corporations seeking to maximize their profits at workers' expense, while bad investments and an uncertain stock market rip retirement security out from under most workers.

Paulson's remarks on Social Security are in line with recent Republican comments, including House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who in an interview with The Washington Times said he promised to privatize Social Security.

So, if Paulson admits working people really aren't doing so well in this economy, something needs to be done, tight? So why not privatize Social Security?

IN THIS BUSH ADMINISTRATION, EVEN THE TRUTH HURTS WORKING PEOPLE.

***The Democrats are adamently against this and stopped it before. Hopefully, they can stop this again!

Bush's Economy: ARTIFICIAL RECOVERY; REAL JOB LOSSES

Will the Unemployed Become Cannon Fodder for Bush's War?

Baltimore Chronicle
By: Paul Craig Roberts
8/22/06


Readers want to know why I haven't reported on the payroll jobs statistics for the past two months. Does this mean, they ask, that the situation has turned around and that the US economy is again creating jobs in export and import-competitive sectors?

Alas, NO! I did not write about the past two payroll jobs data reports, because it is the same distressing story that other readers say they are bored with hearing.

The July report from the Bureau of Labor statistics lists 113,000 new jobs, all of which are in services.

"Leisure and hospitality" accounted for 42,000 jobs, most of which are waitresses and bar tenders.

"Education and health services" accounted for 24, 000 jobs.

"Professional and business services" accounted for 43,000.

Manufacturing lost another 15,000 jobs.

In the US today, government employs 7.7 million more people than does manufacturing. Little wonder we have an $800 billion annual trade deficit when the government sector is larger than the manufacturing sector.

American economists are yet to face up to the fact that offshoring high productivity, high value-added jobs that pay well and replacing them with waitresses and bartenders is a knife in the heart of the US economy. Charles. W. McMillion of MBG Information Services reports that compensation is falling behind price rises and that the US economy has been kept afloat by consumers overspending their disposable incomes by drawing down their accumulated assets and going deeper into debt.

McMillion reports that according to the Bureau of Economic Affairs, households outspent their disposable incomes by 1.5% in the second quarter of this year, a rate of dissaving equaled only by the depression year of 1933.

McMillion also reports that recent BLS data indicates that 25 states have lost manufacturing jobs year over year and that 25 states have lost jobs in the information sector.

Little wonder that permits for new private housing are down 20.5% year over year and that new housing starts are down 13.3% year over over. What will we do with the millions of illegal Mexicans when construction jobs dry up?

Wage data covering 82% of all private sector jobs show that the purchasing power of weekly wages today is less than it was when the economic recovery began in November 2001.

What kind of economic recovery is it when the purchasing power of wages falls instead of rises?

In my opinion, the recovery was artificial. It was based on extremely low interest rates orchestrated by the Federal Reserve. The low interest rates discourages saving, but the low rates reduced the mortgage cost of real estate, inflated home prices and encouraged consumers to refinance their homes and to spend the equity.

The federal government has been overspending its income also, and has wasted a minimum of $300B on an illegal, pointless, and lost war that has turned Iraq into a terror zone.

It is unclear how much longer the world will trade Americans real goods for pieces of paper that the US economy cannot redeem with tradable goods and services.

Considering the loss of good jobs, the high debt burden, and the dependence on imports, it is unclear what will enble America to pull herself out of the next recession.

PERHAPS GROWING RANKS OF THE UNEMPLOYED WILL BECOME CANNON FODDER FOR BUSH'S WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!


***On Monday, President Bush told the Republicans to run on the strong economy. If that's all that they have going for them then they need to definitely go!