Hurricane Katrina v.2.0 Could Be On It's Way This Summer

The U.S. Gulf Coast could be facing Katrina-esque Hurricanes this coming Hurricane Season, which lasts from June to November.

Although the 2006 season was distinctly milder than previously predicted, the coming 2007 season could threaten the Gulf with several high intensity storms.

Even a single high intensity storm hitting the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, which is still rebuilding after almost two years Katrina, could have devastating effects, reaching beyond the damage brought on by the 2005 storm season.

Although this year's predictions suggest fewer storms than during the active 2005 season, the forecast for the region will pack a punch. In other words, fewer storms but stronger in intensity.

British forecasting group Tropical Storm Risk predicted up to four "intense" hurricanes during the 2007 season.

Hurricane Katrina killed about 1,500 people along the Gulf Coast in 2005, displaced tens of thousands more and caused billions of dollars in damage.

The issue that could strike every American, as well as the rest of the world, is that if the U.S. Gulf Coast is hit again by severe storms, they could once again disrupt oil and natural gas operations along the Gulf, driving up energy prices for consumers.

U.S. gasoline prices reached a record high of $3.057 per gallon after Katrina.

Aside from the Gulf Coast, AccuWeather also predicted that the U.S. Northeast would likely be a target for strong storms for the next 10 years.

With several months left before the start of this year's hurricane season, it's about time the Bush Administration listens to the warnings and gets to work preparing for the coming hurricanes.

The aftermath of (as well as the preparation for) Hurricane Katrina showed the inefficiency of the Bush Administration and FEMA to deal with impending natural disasters.

Truth of the matter is, the American people are at a greater risk from the forces of nature than from anything terrorists can throw at the United States.

New Orleans and other affected places are still in shatters, the population still spread around the States, with little incentive from the Government to return home and start their lives over. If any of Hurricane Katrina's relatives decide to visit New Orleans this summer, and the Bush Administration hasn't learnt it's lessons, heads will roll. And it won't only be some pencil pushers at FEMA this time, but rather in the White House. Time will tell...

I'll leave you with a quote from Joe Bastardi, chief hurricane forecaster for AccuWeather.com:
"We are living in a time of climatic hardship. We're in a cycle where weather extremes are more the norm and not the exception."

Sources:
Strong hurricanes to hit U.S. Gulf in 07: AccuWeather - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/ts_nm/usa_weather_forecast_accuweather_dc

The Saints Are Coming

You've probably seen this video before, but I just have to post it. U2 and Green Day really hit the spot with this (anti-war) music video. Any responsible government should ALWAYS first take care of its own before anything else. Lessons to be learned here for the Bush Administration... The President should ask himself this one question: who matters more, the Iraqi people or the Americans in New Orleans. Hurricane season comes every year. Last year was a quiet one, let's see this coming summer if the White House has learned anything...

4 Years In Iraq And Going Weak

Today, Tuesday 20th March marks the 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War. All over the world, people have been celebrating the anniversary, albeit with very little festive mood. Surprisingly enough, there weren't any balloons, confetti or even cake... (I apologize for the sarcastic tone...)

In the United States, thousands marched to the Pentagon over the weekend, some calling for withdrawal from Iraq, some for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, some even for closing down the Pentagon. In Los Angeles, some 6,000 people rallied with flag-draped coffins through the streets of Hollywood. Bush warned the American people of "dire consequences" in Iraq were the U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq prematurely. With his approval rating nearing his personal low, Bush called for patience, more time for 30,000 extra troops for his plan on Iraq, mainly to stabilize Baghdad. Several counter demonstrations in support of the war also took place in the States.

"It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating." Bush remarked in his speech. Nevermind the fact that having a substantial slice of the American infantry tied down in a relentless battlefield has decreased America's rapid deployment readiness to bare bones. There's only so much that the Navy and the Air Force can do in the instance of a crisis breaking out somewhere in the world right now (think Iran, North Korea, etc...).

The latest polls are showing that only 32% of the American public think the war in Iraq is going well, while 63% oppose the war. (Wait, what? 32% of Americans think things are fine and dandy in Iraq? Have these people been living under a rock for the last 4 years?) Another poll showed that four out of five Iraqis have little or no trust in U.S. led forces. So why are the troops still there, "protecting" people who don't even trust them?

How did the Iraqis celebrate the anniversary? By hanging Saddam Hussein's former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan for crimes against humanity and with a few more car bombs and clashes with insurgents.

And let's not forget the rest of the world. In Spain, an estimated 100,000 people took to the streets, denouncing Bush for war crimes. Demonstrations took place in Madrid, Seville, Cadiz and Granada. In Istanbul, Turkey, more than 3,000 took part in protests, carrying placards saying "Bush Go Home" (?) and "We Are All Iraqis". Demonstrations also place, among other places, in Athens, Copenhagen, Rome, Helsinki, Sydney and Melbourne.

Oh, and as a final note, a study has found that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the globe seven-fold...

So, anyone for four more years of the same? I didn't think so...

Sources:
BBC NEWS Americas Protesters march against Iraq war
Saddam VP hanged on 4th anniversary of invasion - Yahoo! News
Iraq 101: The Iraq Effect - The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism

Impeaching President Bush and Co.

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The movement to impeach President George W. Bush has been around for a while now, but this is the beginning of the end, as prominent lawmakers and politicians are taking an interest in the issue.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, before a Washington state Senate panel, called on Congress to restore the country's moral standing and commitment to democracy by ousting President Bush. Anderson spoke on the issue by saying "never before has there been such a compelling case for impeachment and removal from office of the President of the United States."Anderson was one of four people invited to testify for an impeachment resolution sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Eric Oemig. The nestse calls for Congress to investigate whether Bush and Vice President Dick Agendy should be removed from office. Democrats in Congress have said they are not interested in pursuing impeachment. U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) commented on the issue by saying "I have two words for anyone who want to impeach the President: Dick Cheney."

According to a new report in Esquire Magazine, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has suggested that Congress may consider the impeachment of President Bush before his term ends. Hagel stated that the President is "not accountable anymore". Hagel is not the first Senator to call for or suggest Bush's impeachment, but this is coming from a conservative Republican from a safe Senate seat in a reddish state.
In his speech, Rocky Anderson listed some of Bush's alleged crimes, such as lying about the nuclear threat posed by Iraq; misleading Americans into believing Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa; falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein bought aluminum tubes to gain weapons-grade uranium; launching an illegal was against Iraq; violating human rights, committing was crimes and undercutting U.S. Moral standing by condoning torture, kidnapping and incarceration without charges; authorizing unconditional warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

It has thoroughly been noted that the single biggest disadvantage of impeaching Bush is his successor, Vice President Dick Cheney. Thus, it would make sense to impeach both of the for the same crimes, possibly throwing in a few other prominent White House officials, notably Karl Rove. One must keep in mind that Dick Cheney might actually be the biggest evil of all the White House officials. If Bush were to be impeached before his term is over, the Order of Presidential Succession decrees that The Vice President (Dick Cheney) is next in line, followed by The Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi),
The President pro tempore of the Senate (Robert Byrd),
The Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice),
The Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Paulson),
The Secretary of Defence (Robert Gates),
The Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales).
This scenario would bring the United States to an unprecedented situation where the United States would see it's first female Head of State, even before the possibility of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic frontrunner in the 2008 Presidential Elections: Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, a Democrat.

ImpeachForPeace.org lists a comprehensive list of President George W. Bush's crimes and abuses of the law.

ILLEGAL WAR

Bush intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the was against Iraq in violation of title 18 United States Code, Section 371 [EVIDENCE]

ILLEGAL SPYING

Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805. [EVIDENCE]

GENEVA CONVENTION VIOLATIONS

Bush comprised to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the supreme Law of the Land.Bush also comprised to deny due process to prisoners of war, indiscriminantly bomb cities, transfer prisoners of war from an occupied territory, and planned, prepared, initiated and waged a war of aggression in violation of U.S. military Code Section 2441, Geneva Convention (I Article 3, II Article 18, Article 19, III Article 13, Article 17, Article 33, Article 34, Article 49, VI Article 3), and the 1945 Nuremberg Principles Articles 6(a) and (b). [EVIDENCE]

ILLEGAL DETENTION

Bush acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Presiden of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law. [EVIDENCE]

ILLEGAL RELEASE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Bush authorized the leaking of classified national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U.S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter. [EVIDENCE]

ILLEGAL FREEZING OF ACCOUNTS AND RESTRICTION TO FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

Bush ordered the freezing of financial accounts without limit to how groups were chosen to be on such a list, and also ordered himself the power to create blacklists of any indivi he felt was associated with the aforementioned groups. Thereby creating a system of "guilt by association." [EVIDENCE]

ILLEGAL USE OF SIGNING STATEMENTS

Bush attached signing statements to more that one hundred bills before signing them, within which he has made over eleven hundre challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress, a figure that exceeds the total number of such challenges by all previous presidents combined, and has used this practice to exempt himself, as President of the United States, from enforcing or from being held accountable to provisions of said laws. By declining to veto even bills, and instead attaching signing statements challenging hundreds of laws passed by Congress, he has sought to exempt the executive branch from accountability to said laws, thereby violating Article I, Section 7 and Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. There articles of the Constitution dictate that the President has the option of signing or vetoing a bill, and upon signing the bill to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." [EVIDENCE]

Which brings up to the million-dollar question: why has America waited this long, and why is Bush still in office? Bill Clinton was impeached by the House (but acquitted by the Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice arising from the Lewinsky scandal; Richard Nixon left office (while still pardonable) after the House Judiciary Committee had reported articles of impeachment to the floor, as a result of the Watergate scandal which would have led to him being impeachment and conviction. Even a casual glance at Bush's and the Administration's growing list of infractions, offences, and other abuses of the law committed since taking office clearly brings to light the massive injustices of the Bush Administration. (I'll get to that soon...) And let's not forget the gross mistakes and bad political decisions, such as the Abu Ghraib, the handling of the aftermath of Katrina, the horrible treatment of injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical, and the purging of U.S. Attorneys who wouldn't play ball, among many many others. (Let's not forget about the federal deficit which stands at 221 trillion, or making life worse for the poor in America by cutting funding for Medicare...)

Compare Nixon, Clinton, and Bush. Which one has done more harm for the United States, better yet, the world? Nixon had his Vietnam, Clinton had Kosovo, and Bush has Afghanistan, Iraq, and the whole War on Terror, which may possibly include Iran and North Korea. Right now, the economy is in a bad state, the average American is witnessing a decline in services and even personal rights, domestic catastrophies such as Katrina are being left behind foreign policy agendas, Bush has brought Iraq to the brink of a civil war (you might as well argue that the situation in Iraq is already a fullblown civil war), and to top it off, think about the American troops who are probably the ones getting the short end of the shrinking stick. They are doing their jobs, to the best of their abilities, yet they are overstretched and underpaid, forced to fight for a political (failing) agenda. Instead of defending a nation or even a principle, there men and women in uniform are sent straight to a place with thousands of insurgents who are only there to do one thing: kill Americans. The Bush Administration has made the U.S. Armed Forces a mere political tool. They aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan to protect America. They're there to manifest Bush's grandiose political plans and pursue an unachievable goal. All this while risking their lifes, not for Bush, but for America. See the conflicting ideals? And how does the Administration and Bush show their appreciation and support for these troops? By sending the injured to roach-infested hospital wards, and deploying the injured back to Iraq.
George W. Bush has repeatedly proved himself to be incapable of leading a nation. His actions have exposed his abuses of power and gross infractions of U.S. and International laws. Bush is unfit to lead

The can only be one conclusion: the American citizens and Congress must exercise their constitutional right to impeach and convict each and every incompetent member of the Bush Administration, while the people still possess some rights.

Sources:
Salt Lake Tribune - Send Bush packing, says Rocky
Think Progress » Hagel Suggests Possibility Of Bush Impeachment: 'He's Not Accountable Anymore'
Impeach Bush for Peace
Impeach Bush
Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Order of Presidential Succession - Infoplease.com
Constitutional Basis For Impeachment
Charges and Evidence regarding the Impeachment

Running Out Of Troops, The Army Is Ordering Injured Troops To Iraq

It's bad enough that American troops returning home injured face neglect and horrid conditions at Walter Reed, now the U.S. Army is ordering injured troops to deploy to Iraq with their unit. Does the Bush Administration really support the troops, or are they merely an expendable resource?

A unit of the Army's 3rd Division stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, is slated to be deployed to Iraq this as we speak, serving their third tour in a steady stream. Of the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade, 75 soldiers have been previously deemed unfit to deploy, yet are now being deployed regardless.

The injuries of the soldiers to be redeployed root from injuries sustained during previous combat tours, training accidents and fatigue. Some have back injuries which makes it impossible for them to carry full gear or move effectively while under fire. Some can't wear protective armor due to its weight, while others have difficulty operating weapons.

The true scandal here is not the actual deployment of there injured troops, but the fact that there 75 soldiers were ushered into a meeting with an army surgeon on February 15th, and saw their medical profiles systematically downgraded to deem them fit to deploy. Even soldiers with degenerative back problems which root from injuries sustained on the last tour and are at a great risk of reinjury if sent to a war zone were told to pack and prepare to deploy.

(Author's note: I feel for there soldiers because two days ago I was exempted from mandatory military service in Finland due to back problems. I've had this problem for years, yet 2 years ago I entered the service only to reinjure my back and was unable to perform training exercises, nor could I carry gear on my back. I was heavily medicated which impaired my ability to fire a weapon and my ability to operate in the field. I was discharged for 2 years after 45 days of service, and was now deemed unfit to serve in times of peace.)

Sending these troops to a war zone is a great risk to themselves and to those they serve with. The Bush Administration's wars are stretching to U.S. Military to bare bones, putting their lives at unnecessary risk, merely to satisfy a political need. This has gone too far. Soldiers are one most important resources the United States has, and right now they are being treated like dirt. The men and women in uniform have made America the superpower it is today, not the politicians. Instead of spending billions to send more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to fix the Administration's policy catastrophies, how's about spending some money to ensure these soldiers fair treatment and care, as well as the respect they deserve?

Source:
The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq | Salon News
http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/

The Bush Administration Is Beginning To Crumble

The Bush Administration has been rattled by three scandals lately; the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial, ill-treatment of returning wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital, and the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. All three cases have been in the news lately, and continue to be, so I'll just touch upon them ever so slightly, in an effort to side light on what is going on and what it means for the Bush Administration.

Covering Up Lies In The White House: United States vs. Lewis Libby

The Scooter Libby Trial, or Plame Affair as it's also known as, is a long and arduous case. Long story cut short: Members of the Bush Administration leaked the covert identity of a CIA operative, an act which is allegedly a political retribution to the agent's husband's (Joseph Wilson) criticisms of the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Namely, Wilson declared the Administration's evidence, connecting Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction, fraudulent.

Before resigning from office as a result of being indicted, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, assistant to the VP on national security affairs, and an assistant to President Bush between 2001 and 2005.

The crucial issue in the Libby conviction in relation to the Bush Administration is not what he did, but rather why he did it.

Originally, Libby was indicted not only for perjury, obstruction and lying, but also for the act he was covering up.

Libby confirmed the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative to a reporter, Robert Novak, then denied it, proceeding to cover up the leak.

Several months before the start of the Libby trial, Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, admitted to being the source of the leak. He wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't even tried in court.

Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were originally both be indicted and prosecuted for the cover up. Rove managed to avoid the same fate as Libby by changing his grand jury testimony. He walked and is free to continue his job as senior policy advisor to Bush. Karl Rove has also admitted his involvement in the leak, having spread the word about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson being sent by his CIA wife on a mission to Africa. He hasn't been indicted on the matter.

On March 6th, 2007, Libby was convicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction, and one false statement count. He was acquitted on a second false statement count. Libby is the highest-ranking white house official convicted in a government scandal since the Iran-Contra Affair.

The issue continues as Valerie Plame, the CIA operative who's identity was outed, has filed a civil lawsuit against Dick Cheney, stating that he allegedly "illegally conspired to reveal her identity". Also named in the lawsuit are Lewis Libby, Karl Rove and ten yet unnamed administration officials.

When The Support Ends: The Walter Reed Hospital Scandal

As the verdict in the Liaby trial was being read, reports of squalid conditions and ill-treatment of returning soldiers began to emerge from Walter Reed Hospital.

Injured soldiers returning from duty in Afghanistan and Iraq have stated many problems at the hospital. These include: cockroach and rodent infestations, mold-covered walls, neglect of soldiers, bureaucratic delays, stained carpets, cheap mattresses, no heat or water, even reports of drug dealers at the hospital entrance, among other problems. In addition, some injured soldiers tell of been forced to pull guard duty to better the law security present at the hospital. Democratic congressmen have been quick to point the finger directly at the Bush Administration, stating "catastrophic failure of leadership". It has also come out that reports of outpatient neglect have been reported as early as 2004.

The poor treatment of injured soldier is reported to be due to poor training, lack of staff, underfunding, and conflicting policies among the Army, the Veterans Affairs, and the Defence Department.

Since the initial reports, three high-level Pentagon officials have been forced to step down over the poor treatment and horrid conditions. All three have at a time overseen Walter Reed Hospital, and must have been aware of the situations within.

Responding to the reports coming from Walter Reed, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson is ordering all 1,400 hospitals and clinics under the supervision of the VA to report on the quality of their facilities in order to determine whether conditions similar to those at Walter Reed exist elsewhere.

Margaret Carlson at Bloomberg (via Huffington Post) summarized the sentiment with the scandal:
"Say a word about bringing them home and you're a traitor who wants to abandon the troop. Send them off without training or armor, and bring them back to poorly staffed, decrepit and vermin-infested Walter Reed Hospital, the brown jewel of the military, and you're a patriot."

The President Doesn't Like You Anymore: The Purging Of U.S. Attorneys

In the past few months, eight U.S. Attorneys have been fired. The roots of the removals extend all the way to the White House.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there have been a mere five instances in the past 25 years in which U.S. Attorneys were fired by the President or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. This figure doesn't include U.S. Attorneys fired by an incoming president, such as in the case of Bill Clinton firing all republican Attorneys upon taking office.

As the firings began in December, it seemed that Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Bush Administration was getting off with simply explaining that it was time for a change. Nevertheless, once the number of fired U.S. Attorneys reached eight, questions had been raised. Possibly feeling pressured, Justice Department officials began to to blame the attorneys, stating poor performance as grounds for dismissal. Never mind that all of the pushed attorneys had previously received very favorable reviews and performance reviews. Fact of the matter is, there attorneys were fired surely for political reasons, because of their unwillingness to go along with the abuse of the judicial system being imposed from the top. Keep in mind that Bush wasn't firing people appointed by someone else as Clinton did. U.S. Attorneys serve for up to 4 years at a time, meaning that each of the fired attorneys were actually appointed by Bush himself.

Karl Rove, upon being asked for the reasons for the firings, stated that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and that there eight were removed for cause, over performance issues. Six of the lawyers told House and Senate committees they were dismissed without explanation.

From Libby to Walter to Attorney, these three cases are a mere continuation of the scandals that have happened, are happening and are itching to happen under the watch of the Bush Administration. Several heads have fallen already, unimportant enough to save the Administration from crumbling by sacrificing their careers. With the exception of Libby, no other White House official has been dragged to the chopping block as of yet, even though evidence is piling up on the crimes of the Bush Administration. There are many people in seats of power, walking free, "immune" to the scandals. Or is this just the beginning of the end for the Bush Administration? Guess we'll find out soon enough... Did someone say "impeachment"?

Sources:
The Blog Margaret Carlson: Libby Is Guilty, Yet Bush's Lies Are Exposed The Huffington Post
Lewis Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plame affair - Wikipedia, the free

Plame v. Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Army surgeon general ousted amid Walter Reed scandal - CNN.com

Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Q&A: Hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys - Yahoo! News

Gonzales: Prosecutors firings mishandled - Yahoo! News

Bush Stresses Quiet Diplomacy in Latin America, Bombs Other Parts Of The World

In Uruguay, the second stop of his five-nation tour of Latin America, George W. Bush ignored the anti-American protests and remarks by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, personal jabs at Bush. Instead, Bush made some interesting remarks himself.

The whole tour of Latin America is characterized by soft, generous and understanding mood by Bush, coming bearing promises of gifts. Bush said that he was conducting "quiet and effective diplomacy". He also remarked that Americans "care about the human condition and that we believe the human condition can be improved in a variety of ways, [such as] investment." "And so the question is, how can we have constructive dialogue with our neighbors as to how to spread the benefits of investment." In addition, Bush said that "I happen to believe a world that trades freely and fairly is a world that is more likely to be able to address poverty."

Sure, these remarks were in the spirit of goodwill towards a region which is experiencing a rise of leftist leaders and anti-American sentiment. Yet, these traits are present in numerous other parts of the world, and instead of goodwill and aid, Bush bombs these countries. There's poverty in a lot of parts of the world, many which the Bush Administration completely avoids. Soft diplomacy is really not Bush's number one method of engaging countries. Are there words merely because the Latin American countries are just south of the United States and are big economic partners? This might be the case, seeing as a large portion of the tour deals with economic relationship and trade. Then why the talk of "the human condition" and poverty which Americans apparently care so much about? The Bush Administration doesn't seem to care so much about the human condition in Iraq.

Which brings us to the conclusion. Let's see now...

Diplomacy is the way to go when people close to you make bad remarks about you, whilst sending in troops and bombs works better when the people who insult you are far away. The price of human condition depends on where you are, and who your leader is. In one part of the world the US will send you aid, in another they'll send you bombs. And believing in a world that trades freely? Everything Bush has said in Latin America is just words. You can't have a double standard. In one part of the world you act generous and friendly, talking of good things for the world, using so-called soft diplomacy, all the while you threaten and bomb other countries, not really caring about the human condition, the state of which you have directly contributed to.

This is a Public Relations tour. It's a simple case of say one thing, do another. There would be bombs raining on Latin America if the rest of the world cared as little about the region as they do about Iraq.

Source:
In Uruguay Bush ignores Chavez, stresses quiet diplomacy - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070310/wl_afp/uslatambush

US Intelligence Hot On Bin Laden's Trail, Again/Still...

Armed with fresh intelligence, the CIA is moving additional troops and equipment into Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to find Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, playing down doubts that the trail for bin Laden has gone cold.

Wait, haven't they been "hot" on his trail for over 5 years now?

It seems that concerning Bush's War on Terror, a bin Laden, alive and well, taunting the United States from some cave in a far off land is more beneficial to the terror doctrine than a bin Laden rotting in jail or six feet under. It's the classic comic book superhero/archnemesis scenario: On one hand you have the superhero, protecting society from evil; on the other hand you have the supervillain, the superhero's archnemesis, who the superhero persistantly engages in battle, fending off his minions all the time; at times the archnemesis sits back to plan his next move, whilst the superhero spends everyday fighting evil, be it small crooks or other supervillains; the archnemesis strikes at those closest to the superhero, which makes the public beg for the superhero to come and save the day; before the final battle, the public loses love for the superhero for his methods and behavior; the superhero can't attain victory over his archnemesis and the public until the very end of the saga.

Now let's translate that into today's world: Bush is the superhero, Osama is Bush's archnemesis; The War on Terror drags on relentlesly; The United States and Bush battles Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups all the time; Osama has been in hiding for years; The Bush Administration engages in battle everyday against insurgents, terrorists, as well as rogue states and their leaders such as Iran and Ahmadijaned, and North Korea and Kim Il Jon; Osama attacks American soil, American troops around the world as well as American targets, not forgetting Bush's allies; the public rallies behind Bush, sending his approval rating up after the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the ensuing and faltering wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pull Bush's approval rating way down; the hunt for Osama bin Laden continues as time begins to run out before Bush's tenure in office is over.

With Bush's second and final term in the White House drawing to an end, it's time for the superhero to catch his archnemesis. With the known capabilities of the US intelligence agencies and military forces (in addition to the capabilities the public isn't aware of), one would have thought that finding one man wouldn't be too difficult. Maybe it's not time to find him yet. Maybe the Bush Administration has a really good, solid idea of where Osama is at any given moment. Catching Osama right before the 2008 Presidential Elections would be a giant victory for the Republicans, rallying more support and votes, as well as saving Bush's legacy, making him forever the man who caught Osama bin Laden, the devil himself. If Osama is caught by US forces within the next few years, especially around the summer of 2008, the long and arduous hunt for Osama bin Laden will have been a mere political game. Think about it. It makes sense.

By the way, although Osama bin Laden might really be a supervillain, Bush's archnemesis, I am not suggesting George W Bush is a superhero in any sense of the term.

Sources:
CIA Rushing Resources to Bin Laden Hunt - The Blotter
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/cia_rushing_res.html (via Digg)

http://digg.com/world_news/USA_hot_on_Bin_Laden_s_Trail

Bush Announces New Aid To Latin America - What About America?

Just days prior to his five-nation tour of Latin America, US President George W Bush announced that the United States will expand U.S. aid for education, health care and housing in the region. His "message is simple: the United States has not forgotten its neighbours to the south." Bush said that "the working poor of Latin America need change and the United States is committed to that change."

If you've been following the news in the past weeks, these issues have truly been in the news lately. Not concerning Latin America, but in the United States.

A great percentage of the American public want change in the American health care system, many wishing for universal health care. Medicare and Medicaid saw their budgets cut for the 2008 fiscal year. Wounded soldiers returning from overseas duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have been ill-treated, poorly compensated for injuries suffered in the line of duty protecting the nation and patriotically following the Bush Administration's agenda in Iraq. The poor received a break from the Democrat-led Congress in the form of higher minimum wage, which sceptics say will possibly lead to more layoffs and unemployment, as small businesses see their profits fall. The American education system needs more funding to educate to future of the United States to the best of their abilities. All this while the United States spends some $100 million every 12 hours in Iraq. (Newsweek) On top of it all, the surge on Baghdad isn't producing results, but rather more American casualties (9 US soldiers killed today in Baghdad).

At the very least the Bush Administration and the republicans are showing a humanitarian side, although one could argue that this is mainly concerning the legacy of the dwindling Administration, as it seems almost certain the next Administration will be led by the Democrats.

One would think that issues at home would be more important in securing America's stance in the world's eyes in the coming years, as the current administration's foreign policies have significantly increased the anti-American sentiment all over the world.

Bush's trip to Latin America comes at a time when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is stirring up more anti-American sentiment in the region. So is Bush's announcement and trip to Latin America merely a PR stunt, trying to keep key allies favourable to the U.S.? Do keep in mind that many of these nations Bush plans to visit are oil-producing nations, as well as hosts to many American corporations and vital economic partners.

PR, legacy, oil, money and such aside, the aid to Latin America, although a relatively noble thing for the world's wealthiest nation (a gesture which should be taken for granted), the announcement comes at a time when there are numerous other problems at home and in other parts of the world where the United States continues to battle. I am not saying the US should shun it's neighbours to the south, but rather also, in addition to extending a helping hand to those less prosperous in other countries, the United States should shift its primary aid focus on its own people, making the lifes of those who the President represents easier and more align with the image of American prosperity. Keep in mind that this is the man who the rest of the world considers America's representative. What he does, people think this is the mood and beliefs of the entire nation. There's still a long time until November 2008...

Source:
VOA News - Bush Announces New Aid for Latin America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-05-voa51.cfm

Congress To-Do List, Courtesity of New York Times

The New York Times published a list of tasks to Congress of things that need to be done to overthrow the damages done by the Bush Administration. The list isn't really exhaustive. The bullet points on the list are:

• Restore Habeas Corpus

• Stop Illegal Spying

• Ban Torture, Really

• Close the C.I.A. Prisons

• Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’

• Ban Extraordinary Rendition

• Tighten the Definition of Combatant

• Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively

• Ban Tainted Evidence

• Ban Secret Evidence

• Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence

• Respect the Right to Counsel

• Close the Guantánamo camp

Read the full text here, with explanations to the points.

Sources:
New York Times Editorial: The Must-Do List (March 4, 2007) [via Digg]

George The Jaguar And His Mean Twin Osama

You might have heard of the sad events at the Denver Zoo in Colorado last week, where a zookeeper was killed by a jaguar at the zoo. But it was an article on Yahoo! News which caught my eye.

The article was titled 'Killer jaguar had mean twin named Osama', which I though was somewhat entertaining that someone would name a jaguar after Osama Bin Laden. Reading on I noticed that the killer jaguar in this case was called Jorge, or George in spanish, and was actually named after President George W Bush.

Here are some quotes about the jaguars from the article:

"...[Jorge] was well-behaved as a young cat but his twin was so mean that his handlers named him Osama..."

"A zoo employee shot and killed Jorge when he approached emergency workers..."

"Jorge — Spanish for George — had been named after President Bush"

"Osama was always the more dominant of the two. He was always rough with Jorge. That was the relationship we saw between them."

"Jorge wasn't bad, really... I don't know what could have happened. Perhaps because he was so well-behaved, the trainer thought she could trust him. But you never know with wild animals."

Can you see the similarities between these jaguars and the human world? Osama is mean-spirited, rough with George and dominant, whilst George is well-behaved, submissive, and the one the zookeeper seemed to trust. With these descriptions in mind, which would you expect to kill someone, George or Osama? And which one did actually kill someone?

Source:
Killer jaguar had mean twin named Osama - Yahoo! News