-
9/13/05 - KEEPING WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN NEW ORLEANS IN PERSPECTIVE
-
8/17/05 - Ignorance Seems To Be Bliss On The Other Side Of The Fence
-
8/11/05 - What Did Poor Cindy Sheehan Do To Be Attacked Like This?
-
7/28/05 - Why Does Anyone In Their Right Mind Still Support George W. Bush?
-
7/28/05 - What Has Happened To Intelligent Discourse In This Country?
As the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina continues, it is very important that we all keep in perspective
what happened in New Orleans and the reality of what type of evacuation could have taken place and what actually caused the city to flood
last Tuesday morning. If everyone is to be taken seriously in their ongoing criticisms of the Bush Administration's historical failure to
adequately respond to Katrina, it is important that those criticisms be based on legitimate, rationale arguments and facts:
1. THE BREACHING OF THE LEVEES:
Everyone talking about the flooding in New Orleans has blamed it on the breaching of the levee system. But it is extremely critical to note
that there is a big difference between levees and flood walls in the flood control system.
A. The levees are typically very large earthen berms that are basically reinforced, big sloping hills of dirt used as flood barriers.
B. Flood control walls are the two-feet thick vertical concrete walls mainly along the many miles of drainage and navigation canals in New
Orleans that are backed up by earthen works much narrower than a typical levee.
NO levees failed in New Orleans! I repeat, NO levees failed in New Orleans! The flooding was caused by the failure of
three sections of FLOOD CONTROL WALLS at:
- The 17th Street Canal
- The London Street Canal
- The Industrial Canal - IMPORTANT UPDATE -
The Times Picayune is reporting that a loose barge may have caused a large breach in the east side of the Industrial Canal
floodwall that accelerated Hurricane Katrina's rising floodwaters in the Lower Ninth Ward and St. Bernard Parish.
The storm surge from the hurricane overflowed the canal walls and caused the earthen works behind them to be washed or "scourged" away.
With no support behind them, the concrete walls could not stand up to the huge amount of force being placed on them by the amount of water
in the canals and they failed and the city flooded. Plain and simple.
Last night on 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley confirmed all of this and also
interviewed Al Naomi, who manages the flood walls for the Army Corps of Engineers. Naomi stated clearly, that even if he had all of the necessary
funds had been available to him to improve the flood walls to withstand a Category 4 storm like Katrina, the work would have had to begun TWENTY
YEARS ago in order to have prevented what happened in New Orleans last week. Al Naomi's comments make perfect sense.
This controversy really boils down to simple physics as improving the flood walls would have involved a combination of adding height to them with
more concrete and exponentially increasing the size of the earthworks behind them to properly support the added weight and water pressure against
them. If you look at
pictures (#2 & #5) of the 17th Street Canal breach, you can clearly see that there are houses and other structures built very close to
the walls. Increasing the height and/or thickness of the walls would have required that hundreds (maybe thousands) of houses along the flood walls be torn down to
make room for the enlarged earthen support works behind them. That would have involved the government using imminent domain to seize the property and compensate
the homeowners. Law suits would have inevitably been filed and the subsequent appeals could have delayed these improvements an unknown number of years.
A sad commentary on our society, but an unfortunate reality non-the-less.
This dramatically points out that the Bush Administration's de-funding of the levee improvements did NOT cause this disaster like a lot of people are
continually claiming. It has been pointed out to me that the levee improvements would have
“both help improve the flood control system in general but would also have improved the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to respond to the disaster.”
I think that is only partly true since, while the levee enhancements did include installing additional pumping capacity, all of the practical capacity that could have
been installed would not have been able to overcome the overwhelming waters that poured in the three flood wall breaches. The additional pumping
capacity would have been helpful in draining the city once power is restored and the pumping system repaired.
While there are other countless examples of stupidity and incompetence by FEMA and other government agencies, the flood wall collapse cannot legitimately be
blamed on Bush or his minions. I am NOT excusing what the Bush Administration did in taking funds away from the levee projects. I just don't want to
see any more energy focused on this area of criticism, when there are much more valid lapses by the Bush Administration in regards to Katrina that we can focus on.
Word is already filtering out that homeowners in the more upscale areas of New Orleans are planning to sue the government for the loss of their homes.
Just what we need, a bunch of frivolous lawsuits from homeowners that will be compensated from their homeowner's policies. And in the end the lawyers
will make all of the money anyway.
2. THE “PRE-STORM” EVACUATION THAT COULD HAVE, BUT DIDN'T OCCUR - PART 1
This is NOT an effort to blame people that couldn't or didn't evacuate for causing their own deaths. It is simply an effort to make people understand
that many things were a factor in many residents not being able or willing to leave the city before Katrina arrived. It has been stated repeatedly in the
media that the still unknown thousands that probably died in New Orleans did so because they had no means of evacuation. In many cases this is undoubtedly
true and in many others it is quite clear that those that died, sadly did so, because of their own ill-informed, mis-guided, or just plain bad decisions.
A. Many people that didn't evacuate did have personal vehicles to do so, but
didn't have the money to purchase enough gasoline or to stay in any type of lodging once they left the city. It was the end of the month and the many
people on public assistance had not received their monthly checks, which could have paid for gasoline and some lodging. Some people that did have extra room
in their vehicles left neighbors behind.
B. As more and more evacuated survivors are being interviewed by the media, many of them are telling stories of family members that refused to evacuate for
a wide variety of reasons:
1. They had "ridden out" numerous hurricanes before and were confident they could survive Katrina.
2. Many refused to leave without their pets and many shelters would not allow pets. One elderly couple that was refused entry to a shelter because of
their pet returned to their home and died in the storm.
3. Many people were scared to leave their homes and personal belongings behind and were afraid of losing it to looters after the storm.
4. Many people didn't believe the "media hype" of what could happen when a Category 4 or 5 storm hit New Orleans. And as many people have noted, the city did
survive the storm itself relatively intact. It was the collapse of the flood walls AFTER the storm that has caused all subsequent death and damage.
5. Many residents that refused to leave were people whose families have lived in New Orleans for generations and the city is all they had ever known. A fear
of the unknown outside the city probably contributed to their staying in the city during the storm. On 9/7 NBC News interviewed several survivors that said
"I can't imagine not living in New Orleans" and "my home is all I've got!" (sorry, but transcript on MSNBC.com)
6. Previous hurricanes had "veered" off at the last minute and not hit New Orleans directly. NOTE: This is what happened with Katrina as she veered east
towards Mississippi at the last minute before making landfall.
I haven’t pulled these “reasons” out of thin air. I saw them mentioned (some many times) during interviews of Katrina victims on CNN,
NBC, and ABC.
And now, as rescuers are reaching more parts of the city they are running into many people that
still refuse to leave their homes,
even after explaining to them that they will undoubtedly get sick and die from the contaminated flood waters. So even if an adequate, effective, and timely pre-storm
evacuation had been mounted, many people still would have died from their refusal to take advantage of any available evacuation.
THE “PRE-STORM” EVACUATION THAT COULD HAVE, BUT DIDN'T OCCUR - PART 2
As I sat and watched TV coverage last week of the horror in New Orleans, I kept asking myself why government officials (city, state, or federal) didn't use every
available municipal bus and school bus to evacuate those that wanted to leave before the storm. Yes, it would have been difficult logistically and they may not
have found drivers for all of the available buses, but at least many thousands of people would have been able to escape and would still be alive today.
But, apparently, the city’s evacuation plan DIDN'T include what to do with the
100,000 residents that don’t own cars. If a 20-year-old kid, Jabar Gibson, with no previous experience driving a bus,
could drive a school bus full of people from New Orleans all the way to Houston by himself, anything is possible. That kid is a true hero.
INTERESTING UPDATE: When I used Yahoo! to find a link to this story, I found a story on
NOLA.com reporting that on August 18th a Jabar Gibson, same age, was arrested after the stolen car he was riding in struck a New Orleans police car head-on
during a car chase. Both officers in the car were sent to the hospital. What are the odds that there are two Jabar Gibsons, age 20 in New Orleans? If it’s the same guy,
pretty ironic, huh? But if it is, the same guy, in my opinion he more than redeemed himself with his heroic actions after Katrina.
There will no doubt be a huge inquiry as to what did and didn't happen in New Orleans and I look forward to hearing the excuses as to why the "Great Katrina Bus Lift"
didn't happen.
UPDATE: - The media (NBC News specifically) finally got around to asking the same question today (9/6) and Mayor
Nagin’s office “wouldn’t comment.”
3. WHAT TOOK THEM SO LONG?
Before Katrina had hit New Orleans, FEMA people were all over the media telling everyone how they would rapidly respond to the storm. We all know how long it took
the government (and is still taking them in some areas) to provide food and water to the Super Dome, the Convention Center, and other areas (I-10 overpasses) where
large groups of people were gathered, but:
A. Why were Wal-Mart and Hyatt Hotels able to get truck loads of food and water to the city
from out-of-state before the government? And what happened to all of the "
pre-positioned" supplies that Michael Brown bragged about in many interviews?
B. Why were all of the major media outlets easily able to get into many parts of the city days before any government help arrived?
C. How could FEMA NOT know that there were thousands of people at the convention center without food or water when it was being reported all over the media,
including FOX News (the Bush News Channel)? And why did some National Guard troops prevent some people from using supplies in the convention center's kitchen
freezers to feed people? These people, that had cooking experience, were only trying to prepare meals for these victims but were stopped from doing so. The food was
thawing out anyway and would be a total loss. It was wasted.
D. Why weren't pallets of food and water lowered from cargo slings below military helicopters to people at the Convention Center? Someone from the military was asked
the same question and he responded that "FEMA hadn't asked them to." So they sat around waiting for orders that never came and that has been reported from numerous active
duty military units in surrounding states that could have responded quickly.
E. Why did the U.S. Navy hospital ship Comfort not set sail from Baltimore until Thursday of last
week when the government knew a week earlier that Katrina was going to hit somewhere on the Gulf coast?
F. Why did the USS Bataan, a 844-foot ship designed to dispatch Marines in amphibious assaults,
sit off of New Orleans underutilized until Labor Day? The ship has helicopters, doctors, hospital beds, food and water. It also can make up to 100,000 gallons of its own drinking water a day.
The Bataan rode out the storm and then followed it toward shore, awaiting relief orders. Helicopter pilots flying from its deck were some of the first to begin saving New Orleans residents from rooftops,
etc. The Bataan's hospital facilities, including six operating rooms and beds for 600 patients, has sat empty for days. A good share of its 1,200 sailors, that could also go ashore to help with the
relief effort, sat idle for days because they hadn't been asked to help.
"Could we do more?" said Capt. Nora Tyson, commander of the Bataan. "Sure. I've got sailors who could be on the beach plucking through garbage or distributing water and food and
stuff. But I can't force myself on people.
G. Why did FEMA Director Brown tell people that they would have to rely on the Red Cross and other local organizations for relief until the feds could get into town after the Homeland
Security Department insisted that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans? HSD's excuse was
that Red Cross relief efforts would encourage people to stay in the city. According to Renita Hosler, spokeswoman for the Red Cross, "Right now access is controlled by the National Guard
and local authorities. We have been at the table every single day [asking for access]. We cannot get into New Orleans against their orders." Idiot point for Brownie!
Tell that to the people that endured the horrible conditions at the Super Dome, the Convention Center, and the I-10 overpasses.
H. Why was FEMA Director Michael Brown so surprised by the lawlessness that took place in
New Orleans? Appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," the FEMA director said he "never thought I'd see" the lawlessness that has overtaken the city and interrupted emergency relief efforts.
"It's heartbreaking and very, very frustrating to me from a broad operational perspective," he said.
Hello? This is New Orleans, the city that had a rising murder rate for the two years previous to the hurricane. And you didn't expect lawlessness? Another idiot point for Brownie!
I. Why were military helicopter relief flights halted because a few pot shots were taken at them? It's not that I want to see any of our military personnel injured or killed while attempting
a rescue, but isn't that what the military does? Goes in under fire? And why didn't they put snipers on the helicopters to return fire and take those "lawless" folks out? That would have made
Pat Robertson happy! And speaking of Pat Robertson, why the heck was the government recommending that people
donate money to Robertson's Operation Blessing to support hurricane relief? It seems to be off the FEMA website now, but it was up there
last week.
ONE EXAMPLE SHOWING THAT SOME PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT KNOW HOW TO THINK ON THEIR FEET
Someone at Customs should get a commendation for
this example of quick thinking. But Bush will probably give Brownie a medal first as he asks Nancy Pelosi "
What didn't go right?" What a moron!
THE "LOOTING" VS. "FINDING" PHOTOS THING
On Tuesday, August 30th, Yahoo.com posted two photographs taken by two different photographers in New Orleans.
Photo #1, taken by Associated Press photographer Dave Martin, showed a young black man wading through chest-deep waters with a large black bag filled with items from a grocery store and a case of Pepsi.
In the caption accompanying this photo, the young man, who is black, is described as having "looted" the items.
Photo #2, taken by Agence France Presse (AFP) photographer Chris Graythen, showed two people wade through equally high waters, carrying bread and soda. In the caption accompanying this photo,
a white or light-skinned couple are described as "finding" the items.
Immediately, a rapidly rising storm of protest (no pun intended) labeled the photo captions as racist and the issue has been blasted all over the media. AFP eventually asked Yahoo! News to remove
Photo #2 from it's site because of the tremendous number of emails and phone calls it was receiving.
Were the photos and their captions racist? I can completely understand how anyone seeing the photos without knowing the context in which they were taken and captioned, could be initially outraged
by what they saw. But, as is typical, in our fast-moving media-based society, no one really wanted to hear about that context after the "racism" accusations had turned into a juggernaut.
Dave Martin, who took Photo #1 of the young black man, had actually seen him go into the grocery store and take the items he was carrying in the photo. Chris Graythen, who took Photo #2 of the
young couple, actually saw them pick up the bread and soda as they waded in the waters it was floating in. Graythen vented his frustration over the uproar on the photojournalism web site, SportsShooter.com.
"These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics," he wrote. "They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow."
While the Internet has no doubt been a great medium in increasing the speed that news races around the world and has saved many lives, etc., it has also rapidly increased the spread of rumors,
urban legends, and mis-information. I admit that when I first had access to the Internet, I was guilty of forwarding several incendiary emails whose
subjects and content I had not validated. After I was rightly blasted back by some recipients of the emails, I learned to at least use Google or Yahoo! to do a little research on the emails I was
forwarding.
More than a week after this "story" broke I still hear it being disseminated "out-of-context" across the airwaves. Al Franken devoted a whole segment to it today (9/8) on Air America Radio.
We have enough justified anger in this country over how the Bush Administration has handled Katrina. Let's not stoke these fires anymore than necessary with bad information. And the media has a responsibility
to go back and correct reporting errors they make. But they are typically in such a hurry to get onto the next story, they don't take the time to make such corrections.
CHENEY GETS A TASTE OF HIS OWN MEDICINE
How does it feel Dick? Here's the
whole story of what happened.
THE BUREAUCRACY OF FEMA
The stories are still coming out, and will for some time, about some of the mind-boggling decisions made by FEMA personnel in stopping relief efforts that were undertaken by businesses and local
citizens. FEMA:
- Turned back three trailer trucks of water in New Orleans.
- Ordered the Coast Guard not to provide emergency diesel fuel and cut emergency power and telephone lines.
- Ordered local citizens in Mississippi to stop clearing roads with their own equipment.
- Brought 1,400 firefighters to Atlanta, GA to be trained in handing out fliers in hurricane impacted areas. The firefighters
spent an entire day being trained on how to hand out fliers and the training also included a sexual-harassment course. Fifty of them were quickly flown to Louisiana on Labor Day to stand beside
President Bush as he toured devastated areas. What a waste of trained rescuers for a stupid photo-op!
- Refused the help of 500 Florida-based airboat pilots.
- Turned away Loudon County, VA Sheriff's Deputies requested by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Department.
THE AFTERMATH
As time goes on, more and more stories of the good and bad that happened in the week after Hurricane Katrina will continue to come out. History has repeatedly shown that disasters of any kind bring
out the best and the worst in people. And while many stories of heroism and bravery came out last week, stories are now starting to come out from survivors about some of the
disgusting behavior exhibited by some would-be rescuers. We will be subjected to numerous books, nauseating, sappy interviews on Dateline, 20/20, and Larry King Live for months to come. Movies will be rushed into production
and onto TV and into theaters.
The White House blame game will continue in an effort to deflect from its
incompetence in providing timely relief to the area.
But for all of the critics of the post-Katrina relief effort, let's be realistic about the capabilities of any government, even one as large as ours. Providing relief to an area that is 90,000 square miles
is an incredible, daunting task. And the natural, logical progression of providing relief to a large disaster area is to first deliver help to areas where the largest amount of people are located. A mayor
of a very rural town interviewed on CNN said that FEMA stood for "Forget Everyone Except Metropolitan Areas." And Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio redefined FEMA as standing for "Failure to Effectively
Manage Anything." It's an important point that needs to be addressed in the future, but it's virtually impossible to rapidly deliver aid simultaneously to everyone over such a large area that has suffered
severed communications systems and major transportation arteries.
THE REBUILDING
As preparations are being made to completely drain the city; rescue remaining survivors; recover the thousands of bodies that remain in flooded houses; and to dispose of the millions of tons of debris, a debate
is already starting about how New Orleans should be rebuilt. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert made some very
ill-timed comments about what should be done about rebuilding New Orleans "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed," said Hastert in an interview about New Orleans last Wednesday with the Daily
Herald of Arlington Heights, Ill. Asked in the interview whether it made sense to spend billions rebuilding a city that lies below sea level, he replied, "I don't know. That doesn't make sense to me."
There is no doubt that New Orleans will be rebuilt, but Hastert does bring up some important points about how the city should be rebuilt. Any civil engineer will tell you that New Orleans never should have been
built where it was and that centuries of development eroded natural barriers around the city that could have better absorbed the huge storm surge. Tens of thousands of homes sitting in polluted water for over a
week are a total loss and will have to be destroyed. What to do with all of that debris is an unfathomable logistical nightmare all by itself.
New Orleans is a city that is vital to our economy and there is no doubt that it's port infrastructure needs to be rebuilt as soon as possible. But should homes located in the lowest lying areas of New Orleans be
rebuilt at a cost of billions of our tax dollars? It makes no sense to rebuild in these areas, if at all, unless the flood control/prevention
systems protecting these areas are improved to such a degree that it is virtually guaranteed what happened last week will never happen again. Many New Orleans residents have already said they will not return to the
area. They've lost everything they owned; didn't have insurance; and have no reason to return to the area.
It might be a very prudent thing to allow nature to reclaim some of the most low-lying areas in an effort to further protect the rebuilt New Orleans that is sure to rise out of the toxic waters it now is drowned in.
There will undoubtedly be an effort by developers to grab land made available by the flooding and displacement or death of their owners and redevelop it with more upscale dwellings. Louisiana has been rife with
corruption for years, so why should things change now? One thing the state and federal government can do is to quickly enact legal protections that may not currently exist to protect displaced homeowners from
having their land seized in the ongoing recovery and rebuilding efforts. Slate.com has a very interesting article on rebuilding New Orleans.
IN SUMMARY
As in any disaster of any significant magnitude, there are too many reasons that things can go horribly wrong afterwards. And while some people are still trying to focus on one or two things to blame the needless
deaths on, it's not a realistic path to continue on. For many horrible reasons, too many people died last week and will continue to die as the relief response continues. The incompetent response of the Bush
Administration has been one of the biggest humiliations this country has ever seen. And now our fearless leader is going to lead an investigation into his own failures. Way to go "W!" But should we really be
surprised?
If Bush supporters don't wake up and realize that they have been supporting one of the most evil, divisive, uncaring, and moronic presidents in our history, then they are obviously brain dead themselves.
Bush and his cast of slimy characters need to go! Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Chertoff and the others have consistently demonstrated for years that they don't care about anyone NOT like them. As in Iraq,
they lied and too many died.
And their vacations and shopping sprees while our own citizens died says it all.
Back to Top
Today, someone posted a link to this site on
RedStateRant.com with the comment "Gas prices are so high because of the War in Iraq."
If someone wants to criticize this site, then "bring it on" as Bush so enjoyed saying. I'm all about the Free Speech
thing and I welcome intelligent discourse on any topic. But it would be nice for once if I could actually see some commentary
from the other side of the fence that showed they did their research and then spent the time to put together a coherent
argument. "Hoss," the guy that posted this comment obviously didn't read the site. It seems that he just saw the oil barrels
in the logo with Bush's face on them and made the huge leap of logic that I was commenting on high gas prices! You can check out
this guy's other "intelligent" postings, here.
Back to Top
Every time I think the Bushies and their slimy, dim-witted supporters have reached an all time low, they seem
to find a way to reach even lower. How anyone could attack a grieving mother simply asking for a reasonable explanation as to why her
young son had to die in Iraq is beyond me. But here is a
typical example of the nasty attacks being made against Cindy.
This woman has more guts than most of the people in this country. She truly believes that Bush owes her an explanation as to why we
went into Iraq under false pretenses and she lost her son as a result. Her marriage has also been destroyed by the stress of her son's
death. She's determined to get an answer from ole' W and I personally think she's got them running scared. With Bush's poll numbers down
and the country finally starting to wise up to their lies and deceptions, the administration doesn't know how to deal with a pissed-off
mother that won't back down and isn't afraid to speak her mind.
Ironically, I happened to talk to someone yesterday that has met Cindy personally and they said she is the real deal. She isn't a
pawn of the liberal left. Yes, there are always people in this country that will try and ride the coattails of the Cindy Sheehans of this world
to exploit the media exposure down there. And the nut jobs with their wacky agendas are already starting to show up in Crawford with their signs
and banners. But Cindy Sheehan is focused solely on exercising her right to free speech and getting an explanation for her son's needless
death.
How sad that the most powerful, and well-protected man in the world is scared to meet with the grieving mother of a young man he sent to die based
on lies, deception, and greed. George W. Bush is nothing but a moronic coward and his refusal to take responsibility for his deadly decisions
could well cause a quicker unraveling of his ill-planned and poorly executed Iraq policy.
If Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin,
Matt Drudge and their ilk are going to attack this woman then have the guts to do it to
her face. Get Fox News to fly you down there on its corporate jet; trudge up that ditch-lined unpaved road; and have a face-to-face
conversation with Cindy. Quit hiding in your air-conditioned studios and offices and show some backbone. But you guys are cowards just
like the leader of your pathetic gravy train.
Back to Top
This has been one of the things that has just driven me crazy over the past few years. I can understand,
to some extent, that some people embraced George W. Bush's promises and hoped he would actually do what he said he would.
So as not to go on forever about how the Bush administration has lied and duped the American public, I thought I would make a list
of things that Bush supporters should think about in reconsidering their support for his actions and policies:
1. Why haven't we caught bin Laden yet? Since 9/11, the Bush administration has offered numerous excuses as to why bin Laden has eluded
our grasp. Yet they have never explained why we "outsourced" the hopeful capture of bin Laden at Tora Bora to Afghani warlords in 2001.
The story goes that bin Laden bribed these same warlords to let him escape from the area after we had paid them first to capture him. Was the
Bush administration so naive in thinking they could trust warlords whom have sold themselves to the highest bigger for generations? These
guys aren't much better than the Taliban in that they are major drug dealers and their treatment of women leaves something to be desired.
In June 2005, when CIA Director Porter Goss was asked about the progress of the hunt for bin Laden, he said he has an "excellent idea"
where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but that the United States' respect for sovereign nations makes it more difficult to capture the al-Qaida chief.
"When you go to the question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international
obligation, fair play. We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways." Question: Wasn't Iraq a sovereign
nation when we invaded it?
2. The Bush administration put on a full court press to convince us that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Yet,
no evidence of WMD has been found and the Bush administration "officially"
gave up its search for WMD.
A. On March 24, 2004 Bush attended the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner and made a "humorous"
slide presentation about the fact that no WMD had been found in Iraq.
Bush has no problem sending people to die based on his WMD lies and then making fun of the fact that nothing was ever found. The full
transcript of the insulting presentation is available here.
B. P.S. And don't forget Dick Cheney's repeated lies
and more lies about Iraq being involved in 9/11;
the illicit activities of Halliburton; and, of course, WMD.
3. The actual invasion of Iraq went very well (from a military perspective) and the Iraqi government was brought down rather quickly and efficiently. However,
the planning and establishment of security and the subsequent occupation of the country was woefully
inadequate.
A. The Iraqi infrastructure was almost completely looted by Iraqi citizens. They took anything and everything they
could get their hands on. Donald Rumsfeld's response was that "freedom is untidy"
was glib and uncaring. The Iraqi National Museum, hospitals, power plants, etc. were stripped by crowds initally unrestrained by U.S. or British forces.
Saddam Hussein's weapons warehouses were not secured by troops that discovered them and were then emptied by insurgents. Those munitions
are being used every day to kill U.S. troops and Iraqis alike.
B. After two years, Iraqis still don't have a reliable supply of electricity and water due to the looting and destruction caused by the insurgency.
This has negatively impacted Iraqi opinion of the U.S. and our ability to keep our promises to them.
C. The Coalition Provisional Authority fired the entire Iraqi army and put hundreds of thousands of Iraqis "on the street" without pay.
Many of these soldiers joined the insurgency. It also forced the US to rebuild the Iraqi military from scratch, an
effort that has been
less than successful to date.
4. George Bush has not attended ONE funeral or special ceremony for the military men or women killed in Iraq (bad photo-op). He did attend the
funeral of the Pope (good photo-op!) and has visited injured troops in several military hospitals (better photo-op!). In 1996, President
Clinton did attend memorial services held for U.S. airmen
killed in a bombing in Saudi Arabia. He also attended
memorial services in 1998 for victims of the embassy bombings and for
victims of the USS Cole bombing in 2000.
5. The Bush administration has continually tried to reduce the benefits received by our troops. The US Government Accountability Office has issued a
report on the subject. For a complete list of articles detailing Bush's screwing of our troops, click here.
6. Over $8 Billion of our hard earned tax dollars are missing in
Iraq with no accountability provided by the Bush administration. In January 2005, $300 million in cash was loaded on a plane and sent to Lebanon to allegedly buy weapons for the Iraqi army. In May 2005,
$100 million in cash was reported unaccounted for.
7. Finally, how can any Americans can continue to support and respect a president that talks like a moron and likes to
give people the finger? How embarassing for us that this is the leader of the FREE world.
Back to Top
Is is just me or did the brains of many Americans just turn to mush after 9/11/2001? I've lost count
of how many times I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with others about why we were attacked on 9/11 and why some people
in other countries hate us so much. The typical response I get is that their eyes glaze over and they seem to go into a catatonic,
zombie like state. Don't get me wrong, what happened on 9/11 was tragic and there was no excuse for what Al Queda did. But as
misguided as all of their attacks on American citizens have been, they do see the actions and policies of the US government in
the Middle East and other countries as justification for their hatred of us. And there are plenty of people in many other countries
that don't like us either. Are their negative feelings towards us unjustified?
Even with the volumes of documentation available on the tragedies we have caused, there seems to be no attempt by many Americans to
acknowledge the horrible things previous US administrations have done around the world. I guess denial is the answer for too many
selfish people these days. Read on and decide for yourself:
A. The Kennedy administration was involved in the 1963
coup against then-South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem after which Diem and his brother were murdered. While Diem was notoriously
corrupt and hated by the South Vietnamese people, the coup resulted in a more weakened Vietnamese government and forced an increase in
US involvement in the regional conflict.
B. The United States government and the CIA sought the
overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1970, just before he took office. Allende, an avowed Marxist and close friend
of Fidel Castro, was despised by President Richard Nixon. Nixon tried to interfere with the Chilean elections and ordered the CIA and
the U.S. State Department to "put pressure" on Allende's government.
In 1973, Allende was overthrown and killed in a coup by General
Augusto Pinochet, the man Allende had chosen to succeed him as his own government was failing. The actual circumstances of Allende's
death are in dispute (Pinochet claimed he committed suicide with a machine gun), but there is no doubt he was killed during the takeover
of the Presidential palace by Pinochet's forces. The US government was suspected of having some involvement in the coup, but all
documents detailing any involvement (or lack of involvment) are still classified.
The Pinochet regime, upon taking power, immediately suspended the constitution, shut down the Chilean Congress, and introduced strict
censorship on the press. They also forbid all political activity and engaged in a campaign of terror against it's political enemies
in the country. Approximately 3,000 Chileans were executed or mysteriously disappeared and more than 27,000 were imprisoned and/or tortured.
An untold number of people were exiled and entered other countries as political refugees.
C. The US government supported Panamanian dictator,
Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, by keeping him on the CIA payroll for almost 20 years and paying him millions of dollars. In 1989, the US invaded
Panama to remove an increasingly pesky Noriega who has heavily involved in
drug trafficking and becoming a huge embarassment to the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. Noriega was put on trial in the US and it currently
serving a sentence in a Miami, FL federal prison.
D. The US was heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's during
the Iran-Iraq war. In 1982 Iraq was on the defensive against tremendous Iranian human-wave attacks. The Regan administration began supporting Iraq
by: 1) Removing Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. 2) Providing financial assistance through loan programs from the
U.S. 3) The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to also provide Iraq with financing, upgrade its credit standing and
approve it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. 4) The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans
for purchases of American agricultural products. 5) The U.S. restored formal diplomatic relations with Iraq in November 1984, providing it with
intelligence and military support as directed by President Regan. This support was provided secretly and in direct conflict with the U.S's official
neutral policy on the conflict.
Iran was reporting numerous uses by Iraq of chemical weapons against it in the war and the U.S. had evidence of such use against Iran and the Kurds. The
Iranians asked for a United Nations investigation. The Regan administration decided to ignore the situation, even though intelligence showed that
Hussein was likely to build up a huge stockpile of chemical weapons and would have no reservations in using them if threatened by Iran.
The U.S. State Department felt strongly that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to Iran's claims in order to maintain credibility in its official
opposition to chemical warfare and it's stated neutrality. It was recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.
In November 1983 Ronald Reagan ordered our government to ratchet up regional military efforts to defend oil facilities, and increase U.S. military
power in the Persian Gulf, and directed the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to respond to Iran-Iraq conflict.
In December 1983, now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sent to the Middle East as a diplomatic envoy. As part of his trip, Rumsfeld went to Baghdad
where he met with Saddam Hussein about the problems Iraq faced with exporting it's oil during the war. Iran had shut down Iraq's oil terminals
in the Persian Gulf and Syria had shut down a pipeline pumping Iraqi oil.
Rummy also met with then Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld confirmed the Reagan
administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it
difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights."
By the time Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in March of 1984, the U.S. had condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld met with Iraqi officials about
additional financing for Iraq and the Reagan administration's efforts to hamper arms purchases by Iran. At some point, in violation of official U.S. policy,
U.S. military equipment was exported to Iraq under a "don't ask - don't tell" environment. Notable, was the sale of helicopters used later to attack
the Kurds in northern Iraq with chemical weapons in the U.S. controlled "no-fly" zone after the 1991 Gulf War.
So it seems that our "national security" decisions to ally ourselves with the dictatorial scum of the earth always come back and bite us
in the ass, big time. In Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq military action resulted from our earlier eagerness to jump into bed with some
bad guys that suited our needs at the time. When are we going to learn?
Back to Top
|