Janet's Conner

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

Thursday, August 31, 2006


Beauprez sorry for comment

Blacks say abortion remark offensive and "unacceptable"

Rocky Mountain News
By: Stuart Steers
August 31, 2006

Congressman Bob Beauprez outraged several black officials this week when he said 70% of pregnant African-Americn women have abortions.

Beauprez, the Republican candidate for governor, made the comments in a radio interview on KCFR's Colorado Matters program Monday.

"I've seen numbers as high as 70%, maybe even more, in the African-American community that I think is just appalling." Beauprez told the station during a discussion of his position on abortion.

***Sounds to me like he was trying to push his agenda for the Republican base! There are more than just Republicans in Colorado, and they all don't believe in abortions. They believe in a "choice," which doesn't always mean "abortion!"

On Wednesday, Beauprez apologized.

"I was wrong about the statistic I quoted in a recent interview," he said in a statement.

"I apologize to the African-American community and anyone else who was offended. I should have verified the statistic before repeating it."


But many of Colorado's black leaders said they were still deeply offended by Beauprez's comments and wouldn't forget them.

"He was trying to create a wedge issue and chose the African-American community as his whipping boy," said Rep. Terrance Carroll (D-Denver). "Apparently, he pulled the figures out of the air."

***Wedge issues, huh? That's a Rove tactic that Rove thinks will make the Republicans win this election! Don't any of these Republicans have minds of their own?

Beauprez's statement was the latest stumble for the congressman, who has stepped on toes of other minority groups with previous comments.

Denver City councilwoman Elbra Wedgeworth called Beauprez's comments "unacceptable."

Baueprez is "a nice person," she said, but "last time I checked, he'd never been pregnant and he definitely has never been black."

A federal study in 2005 estimated there were 495 abortions among black women for every 1,000 births. That means that of 1,495 pregnancies, roughly one-third end in abortion, about three times the rate among whites.

Rep. Rosemary Marshall (D-Denver), said Beauprez's comments show a lack of sensitivity to what is often a tragic situation.

"He was trying to push his right-wing, anti-abortion agenda and using an ethnic minority group to do that," said Marshall.

This was the latest stuble for the congressman, who has said his diverse experience as a dairy farmer, banker and developer prepares him to be "a governor for all of Colorado."

***Sounds too racist to me! If elected, he will push the Republican agenda all everyone! And probably make only one religion allowed in Colorado!

"I fit Colorado," Beauprez has said.

Earlier this month Beauprez drew criticsim when he chose a running mate, Mesa County Commisioner Janet Rowland, who once compared homosexuality to beastiality.

Last year, Beauprez offended many Hispanics when he commented on the apparently slow-moving extradition of a Mexican national accused of killing a Denver police officer.

"I've vacationed in Mexico before---I know exactly what Mexican time is," Beauprez said.

He later apologized.

***This guy sounds too prejudice to be the head of anything let alone a governor.


A DAMNING six-page letter on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction was suppressed by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, according to a former senior diplomat.

The Age/Australia
By: Marian Wilkinson
August 31, 2006

Dr. John Gee, a world-renowned expert on chemical weapons, worked with the US-led weapons hunt, the Iraq Survey Group, after the war and wrote the critical letter when he decided to resign.

In it he warned the Australian Government the hunt was "fundamentally flawed" and that there was "a distinct reluctance on the part of many and in Washington to face the facts" that Iraq had no WMD.

Dr. Gee recorded in an email soon after that "Downer has issued instructions it (my letter) is not to be distributed to anyone." Dr. Gee wrote to his colleague on the Iraq Survey Group that a senior official in ONA, the Prime Minister's intelligence advisory agency, had told him of Downer's instructions.

In another email, Dr. Gee revealed that the head of the Defence Dept, Ric Smith, informed him his department did not receive a copy of the critical letter even though Dr. Gee was working in Iraq under contract to the department.

Dr. Gee said senior Defence officials told him, "DFAT (the Dept of Foreign Affairs) had not passed the letter on to Defence."

Last night, a spokesman for Mr. Downer said the minister "did not recall" receiving Dr. Gee's letter and described as "a conspiracy theory" material showing that the letter had not been given to the head of the Defence Dept. "I have heard a lot of conspiracy theories over the years, but I have not heard that one before."

However, documents including Dr. Gee's resignation letter and a series of emails he wrote to his colleague, Rod Barton, another senior weapons inspector in Iraq, reveal efforts to contain his findings. Mr. Downer has previously acknowledged that he was personally briefed by Dr. Gee when he returned, but never has revealed the contents of that briefing.

From the emails it appears tha Mr. Downer received the damning findings months before he and Prime Minister John Howard finally accepted that no WMD would be found in Iraq.

One month after his briefing with Dr. Gee, Mr. Downer made a public appearance with the US head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer. At their press conference, Mr. Downer insisted that the weapons hunt "was still a work on progress" and he could not draw any conclusions.

But Dr. Gee's emails reveal that every senior level of the Australian Government, including Mr. Howard's office, ONA, Defence and Mr. Downer's Iraq Taskforce was briefed by him when he returned from Baghdad in March 2004. They also suggest that Mr. Downer knew about his letter.

In a blunt conclusion, Dr. Gee's letter stated: "I now believe that there are no WMD in Iraq and that while the ISG has found a number of research activities...it has found no evidence so far on ongoing WMD programs of the type I had assumed would be there."

Summing up his difficulties in Baghdad, Dr. Gee wrote: "I have concluded that the process here is fundamentlly flawed and that there is a distinct reluctance on the part of many here and in Washington to face the facts."


President Bush is insisting the United States needs to "win" in Iraq---whatever that means anymore---otherwise the "terrorists" will take over and pose a greater threat than Afghanastan had while ruled by the Taliban. Apparently, he believes muttering such statements make both he and the Republcians appear "strong on national security."

Sadly Bush is half right, which just happens to be twice again right as he is usually.

There now exists, a real danger that a government very much anti-American will rise from the dust of Iraq's ruin. Not likely that government will be a terrorist regime, however, as Iran won't tolerate a Sunni dominated, al-Qaeda sponsored regime to form in their backyard. Considering too, that the Shia have become quite a bit more proficient at the game of slaughter than have Iraq's Sunnis, and it is all the more unlikely "terrorists" will rule Iraq. Even so, after foolsihly invading Iraq, it it quite obvious Mister Bush's incompetence and gross negligence has resulted in a resounding defeat.

The war in Iraq is already lost. Everyone knows that except for President Bush, his administration, most Republicans in Congress, and people who feel a need to apologize for and continue blindly supporting the President's failure. The President and Republicans can, and likely will, continue pretending there is yet hope for "victory" in Iraq, but it is merely political gamesmanship and nothing more.

Yet, regardless of fact and reality, the President will bobble 'round the country insisting America must, at all cost, win the war he's already long ago lost. If he doesn't play this game of political make-believe, he and Republicans cannot present themselves as the Party of "national security."

***Hey! Didn't the Republicans portray themselves as the "moral" majority? We all know that that turned out to be a lie. So why should we believe them now that they claim to be the party of "national security?" If I had heard just a bit of truth from this administration, then maybe I could think about thinking that maybe they are the party that can keep us protected from terrorists. But when you weight the pros and cons of this situation, it only shows how much more terrorism Bush has caused not only for America, but across the world. And Iraq is one of the main reasons that so much more terrorism is going on across the world. How can anyone agree that the Republicans are keeping us safe when they are casuing "more" terrorism? It's just not logical! THE REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERS ARE BLIND OR THEY LIKE THOSE TAX CUTS THEY KEEP GETTING!

They forget one important aspect in regard to national security---starting a war is the easy part. It is something that happens literally everyday. All around the globe one tinhorn dictator or another decides he wants what the neighboring country has, and war begins.

Starting a war is as simple as one, two, FIRE! The trick is in knowing when a war is needed in order to truly defend the nation and the people from legitimate harm. Then, on the rare occasion war is truly needed and can be morally justified, it requires strong and sound leadership in order to win the war. That is, in essence, being strong on national security. Starting a war for no possible justifiable reason and then either winning or losing that war isn't "being strong on national security." That is foolish, reckless, and dangerous and there is a big difference. It is a difference that neither Mister Bush, nor Republicans have been able to figure out.

***They have been able to figure it out. They think that as long as the war in Iraq and the war against terrorism continues, they can continue to take our rights away from us due to the war. They know exactly what they are doing! You don't hear about the arrests being made on Bush dissenters! How people are on house arrest and can't get medical treatment or see their families anymore because the President did all of his signing statements! The Democrats aren't aware of it either. The Republicans are doing things in silence!

So. Mister Bush can bleat and bah all he wants about how vital an American victory in Iraq is, but the fact of the matter remains---there were no terrorists in Iraq before he invaded the country, the war is already long ago lost, he and Republicans lost that war, and the entire fiasco has seriously damaged America's "national security." If the President was concerned about the country's national security and worries now that his mistakes may imperial the nation, he should have considered all those issues before declaring war.

As it is, before the President declared war on Iraq he didn't think of anything but himself, political victories, and vain-glory. Now, he's lost that war and because of that he has endangered the nation's national security.

The President can do and say as he pleases, but doing and saying won't win a war long lost and it certainly won't change the damage done to America's national security.

Progressive Daily Beacon
By: A. Alexander
August 31, 2006


***For those who couldn't get to the link I posted on my posting dated August 31, 2006---U.S. Iraq combat casualties rise to 21,868, here's the story:

IRAQ: The Uncounted
Nov. 21, 2004

(CBS)---Approximately 300,000 American men and women have served at one time or another in Iraq.

Most will return to the United States more or less intact. But some come home the hard way---on a stretcher, bloody and broken.

And, as Correspondent Bob Simon says, there are few bloodier and broken than Chris Schneider.

Schneider says he believed in the war in Iraq (take into consideration, the date of this writing). "[I was] proud to wear it. I loved wearing it," says Schneider, a Kansas City boy straight off the recruitment poster.

He went to college on a wrestling scholarship, started a family, and joined the Army Reserves. This past Januray, his unit was providing security for a supply convoy through 100 miles of dangerous Iraqi desert. He was riding in a two-and-a-half ton cargo truck, armed to the teeth.

"In my vehicle there was my driver, there was my 50-cal gunner who was in a turret on top," says Schneider. "And then there was myself and another individual in back. We both had M249 guns."

Schneider saw another convoy coming in his direction---a line of HETS (heavy equipment transports), big rigs on steroids, hogging the road. The first HET just missed hitting his truck. The second one did not.

"It threw me up over my vehicle, over the HET and about 50 feet into the field on the left," says Schneider. "When I landed, the next HET in line had locked up their brakes to keep from rear ending the one that we hit. And when he came to rest, the first set of tires on his trailer were parked on my pelvis. And the second set had my lower leg wedged in it to the axle. I've been told a rough estimate of approx. 120,000 to 140,000 pounds."

Today, Schneider walks with a limp, on his artificial leg. But even though he was injured while on a mission in a war zone---and even though he'll receive the same benefits as a soldier who was shot---he is not included in the Pentagon's casualty count. Their official tally shows only deaths and wounded in action. It doesn't include "non-combat" injured, those whose injuries were not a result of enemy fire.

"It's a slap in the face. Although it was through no direct hostile action, I was on a mission that they'd given me in hostile territory. Hostile enough that we had to have a perimeter set up at the time of my accident from an ambush or an attack," says Schneider. "For those of us that were unfortunate enough to get injured. Whether it was hostile action or not, we're all paying the same price."

How many injured and ill soldiers, sailors, arimen and marines---like Chris Schneider---are left off the Pentagon's casualty count?

Would you believe 15,000? 60 Minutes asked the D.O.D. to grant us an interview. They declined. Instead, they sent a letter, which contains a figure not included in published casualty reports: "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injures and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq."

Many of those evacuated are brought to Landstuhl in Germany. Most cases are not life-threatening. In fact, some are not serious at all. But only 20% return to their units in Iraq. Among the 80% who don't return are GI's who suffered crushing bone fractures; scores of spinal injuries; heart problems by the hundreds; and a slew of psychiatric cases. None of these are included in the casualty count, leaving the true human cost of the war something of a mystery.

"It's difficult to estimate what the total number is," says John Pike, director of a research group called Global Security dot org.

As a military analyst, Pike has spoken out against both Republican and Democratic administrations. He's weighed all the available casualty data and has made an informed estimate that goes well beyond what the Pentagon has released.

"You have to say that the total number of casualties due to wounds, injury, disease would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of over 20, maybe 30,000," says Pike.

His calculation, striking as it is, is based on the military's own definition of casualty---anyone "lost to the orgnization," in this case, for medical reasons. And Pike believes it's no accident that the military reports a number lower than his estimate.

"The Pentagon, I think, is afraid that they're going to lose public support for this war, the way they lost public support for Vietnam back in the 1960s," says Pike. "And minimizing the apparent cost of war, I think, is one way that they're hoping to sustain public support here at home."

60 Minutes asked the assistant secretary of Defense for Health Affairs about that claim---that casualties are being underreported, for political reasons. And we got a flat denial. In a letter, he told us, "We in the Dept of Defense categorically reject the notion that we are underreporting casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom."

He pointed out that he'd already provided us with some figures---the 15,000 evacuations of non-combat injured and ill. Still, Pike says the military is trying to minimize the casualty count. It's an effort Pike believes is misguided, because he says that even if Americans understood the full human cost of war, public support would not weaken.

"I think that all of the public opinion polling that we're seeing suggests that the public is prepared to sustain far higher casualties than politicians give them credit for," Pike said. "I think that it's basically the politicians and the Pentagon, don't have the confidence in the American people." (Let me remind you again that this report was made in Nov 2004)

The D.O.D. did not include non-battle injuries in its casualty reports in other recent wars, either. But that's of little comfort to Joel Gomez, who was riding in the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle, looking for insurgents, when disaster struck.

"Unfortuantely, the Bradley was too heavy for the road, a dirt road, and the ground gave way. And we wound up flipping down the mountain. And it landed upside-down in the Tigris River," says Gomez.

His two buddies were killed. Gomez made it out, but now he's paralyzed. "[It's] a horrific change. I can't move my legs. I can't move my arms," says Gomez. "It just totally changes your life in a manner that you could never imagine."

Even though Gomez tumbled into the Tigris while looking for insurgents, he is, by the Pentagon's definition, "non-combat injured."

"They blow it off and say it's just an accident," says Gomez. "I'm sure that somebody getting shot in the back would just be an accident. But that's how they see it."

The D.O.D. says the injuries and illnesses suffered by Gomez and thousands of other troops should not be taken out of contect. In their letter to 60 Minutes, they said: "In order to understand rates of injuries and diseases, it is necessary to understand what the normal or usual rates of injuries and diseases might be in other situations."

What does this mean? That there are always going to be a certain number of accidents and injuries, war or no war---though they offer no numbers for comparison.

"Soldiers and Marines are going to get sick. They're going to get into accidents. But there's gonna be more disease, more accidents, more psychiatric stress in Iraq than if they were back here," says Pike, who adds that hundreds of troops in Iraq have been so paralyzed by stress that they've had to be medically evacuated---though you won't see them reported in the casualty count.

Traditionally, that count has not included combat stress. It was long thought, in the military's macho culture, this psychological trauma is best suffered in silence.

Graham Alstrom has been back from Iraq for over a year, but he's still taunted by what he saw---and what he did to other people. "Some of them I shot. Some of them I blew up with grenades. Some of them were stabbed," says Alstrom.

The memories of killing invaded his mind. Soon after he returned home, Alstrom's life began to unravel.

"The drinking started immediately. I stopped sleeping. And I started getting very angry. I didn't want to talk to my family anymore. I didn't want them to see me. I didn't want to see them. I felt they were ashamed of me," says Alstrom. "I was partly ashamed of some of the things I had done...I couldn't seperate the killing people and killing them in combat."

He says that he's frustrated that the military says his illness is not combat-related. "I know what I was like before I went to combat. I had a life beyond the Army," says Alstrom. "I talked to my family. I shared feelings and emotions with people I cared about. I lived a regular life."

Alstrom won't get a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq. It was only his mind that was wounded in battle. "It doesn't matter what the paperwork says. We know what happened over there. We know what we did over there," says Alstrom. "And no piece of paperwork saying that I'm not a casualty could ever take that away. For any of us."

They've had so much taken away already, but both Alstrom and Schneider insist that what remains inside them is the heart of a good soldier.

"I'm very supportive of why we're there. I'm very supportive of what we did while I was there," says Schneider. "I believe wholeheartedly that not only should we have gone, but that we've done the right thing."

Now, he'd like the military to do the right thing, too.

"Every one of us went over there with the knowledge that we could die," says Schneider. "And then they tell you---you're wounded---or your sacrifice doesn't deserve to be recognized, or we don't deserve to be on their list---it's not right. It's almost disgraceful."

***I wonder how these guys feel now that the VA is cutting benefits from 'non-battle' injury veterans! That's how Bush and the Republicans"Support Our Troops!"


Military components of the US occupation of Iraq suffered 183 combat casualties in the week ending Aug 28 (up from 108 last week), bringing the total since the invasion to 21,868. Casualties from hostile causes included 19,773 and 2,095 killed in action.

US media chose to hide this total from the public by deviating from previous practice and ignoring troops wounded in action by not providing a total casualty count. Instead, they generally report only the much lower figure of 2,634 total deaths, which includes 539 (same as last week) from what the Pentagon classifies as "non hostile" causes. The survivors of those victims do not receive the same benefits and support as KIAs.

The public is also given deliberately minimized and false casualty totals because the Pentagon keeps secret and the media do not investigate another estimated 20,000 casualties---troops whose often life altering injuries were sustained from the same "non-hostile" causes it reports from. See the old CBS news report below---note that its 15,000 figure is now almost 2 years old.

For one of the only mainstream reports on the 20,000 uncounted US casualties in Iraq, go to
Iraq: The Uncounted
Bob Simons Talks To Injured GIs Not Included In War Casualty Count'
broadcast on CBS News Nov. 21, 2004


Donald Rumsfeld: Failed Secretary of Defense, a man with little ability to tell the truth; the person who refused to heed his Generals' warnings concerning the number of troops that would be required to "win the peace" in post-invasion Iraq; the person who said, in very real terms, Iraq imposed an imminent threat to the United States; the person who claimed he knew exactly where Saddam's ficticious WMD were located; and the person who insisted the war in Iraq would last days, weeks, months, but not years---THAT Donald Rumsfeld says that whoever disagrees with his, Cheney and Bush's perspective on Iraq are either stupid or morally flawed.

Rumsfeld's exact words were that people who disagreed with the administration's position on Iraq are suffering from, "moral or intellectual confusion."

Furthermore, Rumsfeld insisted that the large majority in American who happen to disagree with the Iraq war are guilty of spreading "lies," creating "myths," and generating "distortions" about "our troops" and "our country."

First, this comes from one of the primary creators of lies, myths, and distortions regarding pre-war intelligence. Secondly, when Rumsfeld uses the term "troops" and "country," he means himself and the Bush administration.

In Donald Rumsfeld's feeble mind, the administration and Republican Party---specifically the Neo-Conservative movement---is the "country." Disagree with them or with their failed policy and you, America's vast majority, are attacking the "troops" and your "country." Point out the fact that their plan in Iraq is failing and you are telling lies, spreading myths, and generating distortions. Donald Rumsfeld has accused nearly the entire population of the United States of having committed treason. Donald Rumsfeld, has in essence, declared the majority of the people in the United States of America, as BEING ENEMIES OF THE STATE.

"Those who know the truth," Rumsfeld said, 'need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country.' (sounds like a message to his Republican operatives, doesn't it?)

It can only be considered ironic that those who know the truth:

* those who know the administration lied the people to war in Iraq;

* those who know Bush's plan in Iraq has failed;

* those who mention that more than 10,000 Iraqis have died in the past few months;

* those who know and have known that Saddam and Iraq were not part of 9/11, did not have ties to al-Qaeda, and posed no threat to the United States;

* those who know the troops are mentally and physically stretched beyond the limit and that it has led to the Haditha massacre and rape and murder of a young girl and her family;

* those who know the country's finances cannot long withstand this never ending war and fear for the nation's future;

* the people WHO KNOW THE TRUTH and speak out are those Rumsfeld considers guilty of treason and enemies of the state.

RUMSFELD ISN'T INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH! Rumsfeld wouldn't know the truth if it shook his hand, slapped his face, and bit his nose. What Rumsfeld was looking for and hoping for was that the few people left today---THOSE FEW THAT FOOLISHLY CONTINUE BUYING INTO THE ADMINISTRATION'S IRAQ WAR LIES, would be more vocal in defending those LIES!

What Rumsfeld meant to say was, "Those who still believe in our failed and fraudulent cause must defend us from the truth."


The Progressive Daily Beacon
By: A. Alexander
August 30, 2006


Despite the Bush administration's dismal record on privacy, there is still one area of privacy that it zealously safeguards---its own.

Courier News
By: Herb Kaufman (8/31/06)

The number of documents that have been listed as "secret" jumped from 9 milliom in 2001 to 16 million in 2004. Moreover, this same administration has granted the EPA, the Dept of Agriculture and the Health and Human Services Department to power to classify any of their documents as "secret." (I guess the purpose was to keep such vital information from falling into the hands of terrorists who might try, for example, to blow up a silo or two in the Midwest).

In that same period, thousands of unclassified documents have been purged from government Web sites and the National Archives. In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft instructed federal agencies to "resist" Freedom of Information Act requests whenever they could find legal grounds to do so.

If information is the oxygen of democracy (the system President Bush is trying to install in Iraq), the Bush administration seems to be doing everything in it's power to cut off the supply here in the good old USA.

Hail O mighty defender of the Constitution.