Janet's Conner

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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006


The family of a decorated soldier and father of two who was killed last weekend while serving in Iraq lashed out at the war yesterday, calling his death "unnecessary."

The Boston Herald
By: Marie Szaniszlo
August 30, 2006

Army Spc. Edgardo Zayas, 29, of Dorchester was killed in Baghdad Saturday when an IED detonated near his patrol, officials said.

"When I went in '91, we knew who we were fighting against; now, we don't," said his cousin, Norberto Martinez, who served in the military from 1991 to 1994.

"He fought for his country, and it came to this point, which is completely unnecessary."

Yesterday, Martinez sat in the small, neatly kept apartment where his cousin grew up, not far from Zayas' alma mater, Dorchester High School, and the nursing home where he once worked and eventually met his wife.

It was one of a series of jobs Zayas worked after high school. But college was his goal, and the military, he decided, was going to get him there, Martinez said.

Enticed by its promise of tuition aid, Zayas joined the Army in 2004, against the wishes of his parents, his mother, Gloria said yesterday.

In the 2 years since, he began to question the purpose of the war, according to Martinez.

"He found it a lost cause," Martinez said. "He doesn't know why he went...I always told him, 'Keep your head high and watch your back.'"

And Zayas did, winning 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star in the process.

Last week, when he phoned his cousin, he seemed in good spirits.

"He was actually happy. He thought this was almost over," Martinez said. "They're (military officials are) feeding this to them: "It's almost over, it's almost over."

For Zayas, that prediction proved all too true and came with a finality his parents had feared.

Yesterday, his mother sat in her living room, cradling a photo of her son, and wept.

Today, Zayas' wife, now the widowed mother of a boy and a girl, ages 7 and 5, is scheduled to arrive from Kentucky, where he was stationed before he left for Iraq.

"The only thing keeping us motivated," Martinez said, "is he fought for his country, and he died a hero."


Michael Brown, who lost his job as director of the US Federal emergency Management Agency (FEMA) because of Hurricane Katrina, today said his biggest regret a year later was that he was not candid enough about the lack of a coherent federal response plan.

The Irish Examiner
August 29, 2006

"There was no plan. ... Three years ago, we should have done catastrophic planning," Brown said, Charging that the Bush administration and his department head, Michael Chertoff, "would not give me the money to do that kind of planning."

As levees broke down at Katrina's strike against New Orleans and people were forced from their homes, Brown said he sought futively to get the 82nd Airborne Division into the city quickly.

Appearing on NBC's Today show, he was asked about positive statements he had made at the time about how Washington would come through for storm victims, rather than leveling with the country about how bad the situation actually was.

"Those were White House talking points," Brown replied. "And to this day, I think that was my biggest mistake."

Brown said that at many intervals during the week the storm hit, he found himself asking: "Where in the hell is the help?"

"I have to confess...you want to protect the president because when you're a political appointee," he said, "so you're torn between telling the absolute truth and relying on those talking points. To this day, that is my biggest regret."

Brown said he had been made the scapegoat for the government's slow response "because I'm the low man on the totem pole." He said that he thought that President Bush and Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, should have shared the blame.

He denied that he lacked qualifications to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"That's just baloney. I spent more time in my career in local government and in state government and in emergency management experience," Brown said. "But what I regret the most: I let the American public down. I am a fighter...but for some reason, with Katrina crashing in on me, I didn't do it."


U.S. Senator Dick Durbin says President Bush's plans for Medicaid will cut as much as $130M in funding for Illinois schools.

***What happened to Bush's "No Child Left Behind?"

ABC 7 Chicago dot com
Associated Press
August 29, 2006

Durbin and leaders of several Illinois districts said at a news conference today that Medicaid helps pay for special education health programs required by federal law.

He says if Bush's 2007 federal budget is adopted, districts---especially large ones---could lose out on (M) millions of dollars. Chicago public schools CEO Arne Duncan says his district faces a 38 (M) million-dollar loss.

Under the Individuals with Disability Education Act, schools must transport children who have special needs to and from class and tend to their health care at school.

Since 1997, states and school districts have been reimbursed for these services for children who are on Medicaid.


"What bothers me the most is how clever the enemy is," Rumsfeld said. "They are actively manipulating the media in this country....They can lie with impunity."

***Is your reaction the same as mine? I almost fell off of my chair when I heard this. He's making it sound like someone else is manipulating the media when it's him and the Bush administration! What? Do they think just because he is saying it about someone else that we don't know it's them? How stupid do they think the American people are? And if someone is reading this and doesn't think that it's them doing this, YOU'RE STUPID!

Progressive Daily Beacon
By: A. Alexander
August 29, 2006

Let's see...who said Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States? Who said he knew EXACTLY where Saddam's supposed WMD were hidden...in the north, south, east and west---all around Tikrit? Who said the Iraq war would last days, weeks, maybe six months but not years? Lemme think about that for a moment.....Ah, yes! It was Donald Rumsfeld!

Now, ask yourself---who lies "with impunity?"

Let's see...during the lead up to the war:

* who either buried information or refused to print or report intelligence agents' concerns that contradicted the White House's official line on Iraq's threat and WMD?

* Who parroted, verbatim, whatever the administrtion said?

* Who allowed members of the administration on their programs, so they could tell the American people that Iraq's reconstruction would pay for itself?

* Who continues to pretend Iraq isn't in the midst of a full-blown civil war?

* Who still, everything else having been proven a lie, provides more time and space to White House spin than they do reporting the facts relating to events in Iraq?

Ah yes! America's "terrorist" manipulated media!

When Rumsfeld made his "terrorist manipulated" media comments, he did so with a goal in mind. Of course, he knows the American corporate-owned media isn't being manipulated by terrorists. The corporate-owned media has been in the pocket of this administration from the get-go...their corporations for Jiminy Cricket's sake!

Corporations are the Republican Party and the Republican Party is the corporations. There isn't a smidge of daylight between the two. Bush or one of his lackey's mutters something, for the millionth time, and the media reports it without question. Even when the media does take a stab at reporting some mild version of the facts, they offset it with twice as much administration spin as actual recounting of relevent information.

No, Rumsfeld doesn't believe the media is being manipulated by the terrorists. He was, when making his comments, referring to reports regarding members of the U.S. military being caught doing bad things. Things like raping, killing, burning a young girl and then slaughtering her family. A case in which a member of the platoon involved had reported the incident. A case in which the military has jailed several of the perpetrators. That, according to Rumsfeld, is a blatant case of "terrorists" manipulating the media.

Sure, the corporate-owned media reported the incident, but they didn't spend much time discussing it and they made sure to include only enough facts to be buried under the official government spin.

Most of all, Rumsfeld wanted to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the American people. Whenever the people see or hear a report out of Iraq, a report that might be damning to his career and involves military wrongdoing: Rumsfeld wants the people to ask, "Can I trust that report, or is it just those 'terrorists' trying to trick me?"

As usual, Rumsfeld is participating in a stygian assault upon the very foundation of a free society: the information people use to make sound decisions concerning those who would represent them in government. Rumsfeld knows the "terrorists" aren't manipulating the media---that's the administration's realm. Rumsfeld was simply emplying a tool of the demagogue. HE WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE THAT THE "ONLY" INFORMATION THEY CAN TRUST AND RELY UPON IS THAT RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR THEIR CLOSELY ALIGNED PROPAGANDISTS.

Propagandists like Limbaugh or Coulter or Hannity or FOX News. Any other information, especially information not supportive of the government, should be considered as likely being tainted by the unseen enemy.

When the American people see their leaders making outlandish comments like Rumsfeld's, "the terrorists are manipulating the media" hogwash, the people should know they are hearing and seeing the only real enemy of the United States and its Constitution: the demagogues also known as the Bush and Republican Party.

And that isn't demagoguery---that is fact!


In the world's biggest economy, one in eight Americans and almost one in four blacks lived in poverty last year, the U.S. Census Bureau said on Tuesday, both ratios virtually unchanged from 2004.

Yahoo News!
By: Joanne Morrison
August 29, 2006

The survey also showed 15.9% of the population, or 46.6 million, had no health insurance, up from 15.6% in 2004 and an increase for a fifth consecutive year, even as the economy grew at a 3.2% clip.

***Only according to the "fuzzy" numbers that the Bush administration put ou there!

It was the first year since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 that the poverty rate did not increase. As in past years, the figures showed poverty especially concentrated among blacks and Hispanics.

In all, some 37 million Americans, or 12.6%, lived below the poverty line, defined as having an annual income around $10,000 for an individual or $20,000 for a family of four. The total showed a decrease of 90,000 from the 2004 figure, which Census Bureau officials said was "statistically insignificant."

The last time poverty declined was in 2000, the final year of Bill Clinton's presidency, when it fell to 11.3%.

The stagnant poverty picture drew attention from Democrats and others who said not enough is being done to help the nation's poor.

"Far too many American families who work hard and play by the rules still wind up in poverty," said Rep. George Miller (D-CALIF), the top Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Around a quarter of blacks and 21.8% of Hispanics were living in poverty. Among whites, the rate edged down to 8.3% from 8.7% in 2004.

"Among African Americans the problem correlates primarily to the inner-city and single mothers," said Michael Tanner of CATO Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington. He noted that blacks also suffer disproportionately from poor education and lower quality jobs.

Black median income, at $30,858, was only 61% of the median for whites.

Some 17.6% of children under 18 and one in five of those under 6 were in poverty, higher than for any other age group.

Still, real median household income rose by 1.1% to $46,326 from $45, 817---its first increase since 1999. This was taken as a positive move by Republicans and administration officials.

"While we still have challenges ahead, our ability to bounce back is a testament to the strong work ethic of the American people, the resiliency of our economy, and pro-growth economic policies, including tax relief," said Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman.

The figures contained wide regional variations, ranging from median household income of $61,672 in New Jersey to $32,938 for Mississippi.

Major cities with the highest proportions of poor people included Cleveland with 32.4% and Detroit with 31.4% under the poverty line.