Wednesday, November 16, 2005

A Killer Goes Free

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

Source: Guardian Unlimited

Another day, another Palestinian child's killer goes unpunished. This is nothing new. It has happened over and over for years.
The manner of Iman's [the young girl] killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

An innocent girl whose cold-blooded murder will never receive the attention due the barbaric and needless act. Her only crime was to walk within a security zone on her way to school. A warning would have been appropriate. None was given.
A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.

On the tape, Capt R then "clarifies" to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."

At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.

Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face."

The Washington Post reports on the case in a very interesting manner, completely understating the callousness of the action. As a matter of fact, the tone of the entire article is very low-key compared to the Guardian article.

The article states the Israeli officer was acquited by a military court because "she [the girl] was already dead when he shot her". The defendant claimed "he did not identify the figure on the ground as a child" and "I'm happy and satisfied that the truth has come to light, I hope the army will understand its failure, the failure was not on my part."

Alright, so there are a few items making the readers feel he might very well be innocent, but let's see how the Post presents the position of the child:
Soldiers shot 13-year-old Iyman Hams as she approached a military observation post near the Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza on Oct. 5, 2004. The soldiers said they thought she was planting a bomb. The girl's family said she was on her way to school.

Then, according to an army indictment, the officer approached the girl's body and fired two more shots _ an illegal practice called "verifying the kill." Palestinian doctors said that at least 15 bullets hit the girl.

Where's the stuff about the child getting up and trying to walk away before being gunned down? How about the bag being shot and not exploding thus proving there was no bomb in the bag? How about the part where witnesses saw the officer turn around and empty his magazine into the child's body after having shot her twice in the head?

I wonder why it is the Post article leaves out quite a bit of the damning evidence lending credibility to the case against the Israeli officer. Why are the facts not more prominently presented? Does the Post not want to foster anti-Israeli sentiment? Well, chew on that for a while, but now, back to this poor girl.

She was no match for young men with rifles and a life's worth of anti-Palestinian programming. Young Israelis are taught Palestinians lives are meaningless. Actions taken against Palestinians will not be punished.

It is sad to see how ethnic and religious differences are used to instill hate, to view others of different groups or beliefs as less than human. When children grow up in environments where this type of brainwashing is promulgated as "normal" behavior, the result is an inhuman being with no empathy toward others. Even though they may function "normally" within their society, they are truly abnormal within humanity.

Comments from an alternative news site:
The girl was clearly no threat. She had been identified by the Israelis as a scared, little girl. The article suggests that the only danger for the Israelis was if she had been sent out to lure them into a trap, which means the way for the Israelis to remain out of danger would have been to stay put. Instead, they go out, are not fired upon, which shows that it was not a trap, and then the accused empties his weapon into her body. However, this hypothesis implies that the Palestinians are such savages that they would risk the life of a small child in such a ploy. Such are the unstated assumptions in much mainstream news reporting on the conflict.

Source: Signs of the Times



Technorati Categories: ,
,
, , , ,,
,

Friday, November 11, 2005

Veterans Day Speech a Disgrace

On this Veteran's Day, where America honors those who have gone to war in her name, President George W. Bush finds a way to disgrace the meaning of the day by making political statements in defense of the incompetence of his administration. The politicizing of the day detracts from the significance of the sacrifices made by America's men and women of the military.
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."

"They believe that America can be made to run again [like in Vietnam], only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences."

"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity."

"We must recognize the Iraq war as our central front against the terrorist."

President George W. Bush
11/11/2005 Veterans Day Speech
Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania

So the facts are irrelevant! What?! No need to re-write history to more accurately reflect the truth!

Perhaps the times have changed, perhaps not, but when I was growing up, I was taught to always tell the truth. No matter how painful. Withholding the truth, or creating a lie to cover the truth, could prove more costly in the long run.

Now, here is OUR president saying it is "irresponsible" to update the history to accurately report what happened. You see, the problem is that it does not look good for the whole crew who pushed for the war. Not only that, thousands have died as a result of the rush to war, and we have a bunch of boys stuck in Iraq, for who knows how long, witnessing and being asked to do things which they will never forget.

I guess it matters not that facts have been found which point out the deception used to lead the nation to war.
In January and February 2003, President Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made dramatic assertions that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and argued for military action to prevent Baghdad from providing its suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Powell repeated the claim before the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

No such stockpiles turned up after the U.S.-led invasion, and the independent commission investigating al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities.

Source: CNN

In a statement, Kerry retorted, "I wish President Bush knew better than to dishonor America's veterans by playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day. Instead of trying to salvage his slumping political fortunes, the commander in chief should honor our men and women in uniform with a clear strategy for success in Iraq."

Kerry charged, "This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. . . . Today they continue the same games hoping Americans forget the mess they made in Iraq that's cost over 2,000 Americans their lives and their failure to find Osama bin Laden."

Source: Washington Post

So to distract the attention from the source of this entire mess, the administration's rush to war was based on lies and should thus be held accountable for their actions, the topics are manipulated to work on peoples' emotions. Bring up Vietnam, 9/11, how the terrosits are waging a "war against humanity", etc.

But, you know, everything is relative, depending on which side of the issue one supports. One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom-fighter. Here's a quote which could very well be the mantra for Iraqis fighting to rid their land of the invading American forces:
"No act of ours invited the rage of killers and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory."

I am so sick of hearing the same old lines used to prey on peoples' emotions. Let emotions overrule the reason one would apply to the arguments and proof of this entire charade. We are all being played under cover of patriotism and religion. God help America. We, as Americans, will get what we deserve if we don't get wise to these ploys.
One final quote with which I whole-heartedly agree:
"Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

Alrighty then, let's start with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Rove.

UPDATE
As of 12:00 EST, CNN poll results:

Created: Friday, November 11, 2005, at 12:08:26 EDT

Do you think the Bush administration manipulated the prewar intelligence on Iraq?

Yes 74% 93691 votes
No 26% 32407 votes

Total: 126098 votes

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , , , , .

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Non-Lethal Weapons Proliferation

In my earlier post, where I expressed my concern about the potential future common uses of "non-lethal" weapons systems against ordinary civilians, I mentioned the relationship between the military and academia. Well, today, I come across a New Scientist article which reveals yet another academic institution with a project related to non-lethal weapons. So, how many are involved in this type of research? Here are a few results from a quick search:

For a compilation of Internet resources, books, documents, and periodicals, go to this page located at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base web site, "Home of Air University and the 42nd Air Base Wing". There are links to all sorts of useful information:

From the amount of work and interest which has existed in the non-lethal weapons technologies, coupled with the fact we are beginning to see news of their use in non-military activities, leads me to believe that not only will the use of these technologies against civilian populations become more prevalent, but, also, that there exist more advanced weaponry which has yet to make it to the public media.

Electromagnetic Pulse weapons are old news:
Earlier this month, the widely respected magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology printed an article stating that "an attack on Iraq is expected to see the first use of high-power microwave weapons..."

The New York Post, citing unnamed U.S. military officials, reported yesterday that a preliminary Iraq battle plan "outlined for President Bush last week calls for the most extensive use of electronic and psychological warfare in history -- including secret new electromagnetic pulse weapons to disable Saddam (Hussein)'s entire command and control structure."

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer


So what IS new???

How about Ethnic-Specific weapons? How about a genetically-engineered version of the Spanish Flu?

Nothing surprises me anymore...

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Sonic Weapons Ward off Pirate Attack


A couple of days ago there was an attack on a cruise ship, the Seabourn Spirit, by a group of "pirates" (I'm surprised they were not labeled terrorists). At first, I thought it interesting a group would be so bold as to attack a ship from such a small boat. Then, the more I thought about it, the more it didn't make sense.

What could the pirates have hoped to accomplished? Force the crew to stop the ship by threat of gunfire, then take control of the entire ship and either rob everyone or hold everyone hostage? Perhaps attempt to gain some publicity by conducting some sort of execution in front of the attracted media to serve some cause? Who knows.

Travelers on the ship reported gunfire and at least one explosion from a grenade fired from a grnade launcher. CNN reports:
The Seabourn Spirit had been bound for Kenya when it was attacked by pirates armed with grenade launchers and machine guns on Saturday about 100 miles (160 km) off Somalia's lawless coast.

Bob Meagher of Sydney, Australia, said he climbed out of bed and went to the door of his cabin shortly before 6 a.m. after hearing a commotion outside.

"I saw a white-hulled boat with men in it waving various things and shooting at the ship -- at that stage it appeared to be rifle fire," he told Australian radio.

"My wife said, 'Look, they're loading a bazooka,' which we later discovered was called an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) launcher."

"There was a flash of flame and then a huge boom -- a terrible boom sound," he said, adding the grenade hit about 10 feet from where they were.

Other than the obvious questions of why the attack was attempted, a more disturbing question came to mind. What is a cruise ship doing with a sonic weapon? Again, from the CNN article:
The crew of a cruise ship attacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia used a sonic weapon to help ward off the attackers, the Miami-based Seabourn Cruise Line said Monday.

The sonic device, known as a Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, is a so-called "non-lethal weapon" developed for the military after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen as a way to keep operators of small boats from approaching U.S. warships.

So, here we have a practical application of a military device, although "non-lethal", which is also very likely in the hands of many other private and public places. Seems like an ideal crowd control device for police as well.

I guess my concern is how non-chalantly this is mentioned in the article as if it were a common item. A toaster it is not!

Perhaps more readers may want to find out what the Pentagon has been developing under the "non-lethal" weapons category. The military has developed microwave "non-lethal" weapons for crowd control.

Non-lethal weapons development is not relegated to the corporations having relationships with military projects, academia has long been used by the military as a source for basic R&D work. For example, there is the Non-lethal Technology Innovation Center, funded by the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD), with the following mission:
The Non-lethal Technology Innovation Center was created by a grant from the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate to effect the next generation of NL capabilities by identifying and promoting the development of innovative concepts, materials and technologies within the academic community.


There even exist ethnic-specific weapons.

None of this is science fiction. It exists today!

The development of these weapons has been underway for quite some time and is now available for agencies outside the military.

What else is labeled as "non-lethal" and coming to a town near you? Keep your eyes open and ears perked for news of how those offering resistance are being treated. These may be the canaries in the coal mine. You will begin to see how non-lethal weapons may become as common-place, and who's use may become as "acceptible", as the stun guns used today.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 04, 2005

Judicial Preference

Average Americans, when going to court, don't get to select their judge.

Average Joe can't.

Celebrities like Martha Stewart, OJ Simpson, and Michael Jackson can't.

Not even corporate executives.

Unless, you're a politician.

In Travis County Texas, we have a perfect example of what it takes to make it happen. A powerful politican which has built a network of relationships based on money and political favors. Now, it's time to leverage those relationships.

As DeLay tries to find the "right" judge for his trial, more and more links between the politicans and judges are being revealed.

The first judge of DeLay's campaign finance trial, District Judge Bob Perkins, was removed Tuesday at DeLay's lawyer's request because of his contributions to Democrats.

The second judge, Senior Judge Pat Priest, was selected by state Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. But, only after Chief Justice Jefferson had been asked to do so after Republican Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub, who was initially named to select a new judge, withdrew his name at the request of District Attorney Ronnie Earle. There was concern over Judge Schraub's political contributions to Republican candidates.

Now there's an issue about Justice Jefferson's links to DeLay which may result in the appointment of yet another judge.
CNN reports:
Jefferson's 2002 campaign treasurer, Bill Ceverha, was treasurer of DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, according to state documents examined by The Associated Press.

The PAC is a co-defendant in DeLay's case and Ceverha was a defendant this spring in a civil trial brought by Democrats who lost state legislative races to Republicans in 2002.

Jefferson also was elected to his seat with the help of a $25,000 donation from the Republican National State Elections Committee, a group at the heart of the money laundering charge against DeLay.

He also received $2,000 from a DeLay-run PAC whose executive director is a co-defendant.

So what's wrong with a judge wanting to make contributions to his favorite policital party or candidate? Nothing, as long as there is no quid-pro-quo for the contribution and no appearance of impropriety.

The tough part is who makes the determination of what, if any, favors are being received as payback for the contributions? One can only make the best judgement with the information at hand. Information withheld is information not considered.

A University of Texas professor summed it up best:
The judicial wrangling is "a great shame," said Charles Silver, a legal ethics professor at the University of Texas Law School.

"It says that the judges who we elect can't be trusted to apply the law neutrally in cases that in some way, shape or form bear on their political beliefs," Silver said. "If that's true, we really need to revamp the whole system."



O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)




Technorati Categories: , , , , .

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Secrecy and National Security

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the CIA has been using secret facilities throughout Eastern Europe and Asia to hide and interrogate captives on the Bush Administration's "War on Terror". Who is being kept and what interrogation techniques are being used? No one seems to know. Answers to questions and requests are readily declined on the grounds of potentially compromising national security.

As I have mentioned previously, "national security" is a fairly common and convenient excuse used by various intelligence and governmental groups to deny allegations and access to information, material, or resources. The reasons somethings are kept secret may be completely unrelated to security. It may very well be due to the legal or ethical ramifications.

From the WP article:
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

This appears to be nothing new. The decision to use the secret detention facilities arose from the knee-jerk responses to the September 11th attacks.
"We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy," said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. "Everything was very reactive. That's how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don't say, 'What are we going to do with them afterwards?' "

The article continues:
The idea of holding terrorists outside the U.S. legal system was not under consideration before Sept. 11, 2001, not even for Osama bin Laden, according to former government officials. The plan was to bring bin Laden and his top associates into the U.S. justice system for trial or to send them to foreign countries where they would be tried.

"The issue of detaining and interrogating people was never, ever discussed," said a former senior intelligence officer who worked in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, during that period. "It was against the culture and they believed information was best gleaned by other means."

So, did the president know or not? Back to the article:
The agency set up prisons under its covert action authority. Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a covert action, by signing a document called a presidential finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal advisers.

Six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush signed a sweeping finding that gave the CIA broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including permission to kill, capture and detain members of al Qaeda anywhere in the world.

It could not be determined whether Bush approved a separate finding for the black-sites program, but the consensus among current and former intelligence and other government officials interviewed for this article is that he did not have to.

Rather, they believe that the CIA general counsel's office acted within the parameters of the Sept. 17 finding. The black-site program was approved by a small circle of White House and Justice Department lawyers and officials, according to several former and current U.S. government and intelligence officials.

There appears to be legal wiggle room, as always, for those at the highest levels while the Lewis Libbys of the world take the heat. That's not to say those taking the heat are innocent, most likely they were the implementors of the unwritten, verbal signals from on high.

What are others saying about this latest revelation (which is not really a surprise based on all the documentation of illegal renditions having occurred over the last several years)?

From the Scotsman article "Terror suspects held in secret CIA prisons":
The CIA is already known to use Glasgow and Prestwick airports to stop off en route to other destinations when transporting prisoners who have been snatched under its programme of "extraordinary rendition". The US is understood to use the programme to transport prisoners to countries which are prepared to use unconventional methods, including torture, to extract information.

US planes have landed at a number of UK airports, including Heathrow and Gatwick, but Prestwick - with 75 recorded flights - and Glasgow - with 74 - are among the most popular stopping-off points.


From the ABC News article "EU Probing Report of Secret CIA Prisons":
The governments of the EU's 25 members nations will be questioned informally about the allegations, EU spokesman Friso Roscam Abbing said.

"We have to find out what is exactly happening," Roscam Abbing said. "We have all heard about this."

He said such prisons could violate EU human rights laws and other European human rights conventions. The commission is responsible for ensuring that EU rules are followed.

"As far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned … it is clear that all 25 member states having signed up to European Convention on Human Rights, and to the International Convention Against Torture, are due to respect and fully implement the obligations deriving from those treaties," Roscam Abbing told reporters.

He cautioned, however, that the EU head office could not take action against member states if they violated human rights codes.

From an AFP article "US on the defensive over reported secret CIA prisons":
The White House refused to confirm or deny that the CIA operates secret prisons, known as "black sites," for al-Qaeda captives in eastern Europe and other countries around the world.

"I am not going to discuss any specific intelligence activities," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I would say that the president's most important responsibility is to protect the American people."

The refusal to discuss the matter was echoed by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Central Intelligence Agency.

And these are not actions which occurred in the past. Note the following from the above article, this is still going on!
Czech Interior Minister Frantisek Bublan was quoted by the on-line news outlet Aktualne.cz as saying that the Czech Republic recently turned down a US request to set up a detention center on its territory.

"The negotiations took place around a month ago," he was quoted as saying. The Americans "made an effort to install some of the sort here, but they did not succeed."

It appears as if this is the case. The CIA does have secret detention facilities and continue to actively use them, yet it may prove to be a challenge to get the governments to take any action against the agency to cease the activity, never mind to be held accountable for any humanitarian violations which most likely occurred during the period since September 11th.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , , , , .

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Taxes and Iraq

Recommendations were published yesterday by a presidential commission to "simplify" the federal income tax system. The process, from recommendation to approval to implementation, would normally take quite some time, usually several months to years, to finalize. Although, my instincts tell me the changes are not so much about simplicity or fairness, they are more about funding for the continued presence in the Middle East and other future preemptive military actions, therefore, we will likely see this move along on the fast-track.

There are two proposals: a simplified version of the existing income tax and the beginnings of a consumption-based system. Read the following Business Week article, "The Nuts and Bolts of Tax Reform", for more detail.

In either case, the result will likely be higher taxes for the average Joe, bigger breaks for those with bucks. The New York Times reports in the article "Higher Tax Rates for Most, Breaks for Some":

The biggest new tax breaks in the main proposal would go to stock market investors. They would collect most dividends free of tax, as opposed to the 15 percent tax rate that now applies to most dividends.

In addition, 75 percent of profits from the sale of stocks held for more than a year would be tax-free. The effect would be to nearly halve the rate for the highest-income taxpayers, to 8.25 percent from 15 percent.

The commission emphasized that its rationale for such changes was to get Americans to save more and borrow less. Such policies could prompt a one-time rise in share prices to adjust for the tax benefits.

So, companies get a boost from new investors. Monies which should be going into savings are being used to raise the stock price of companies whose major shareholders will then make profits, while the average Joe bets on the future of his "savings" (now in the stock market) assuming all the risk.
Investors who put their money into assets other than stocks would not fare so well. Gains from the sale of all other assets, including businesses, farmland and paintings, would be taxed at the same rate as wages.

Thus, a taxpayer in the top bracket who sold stocks for a $1 million profit would pay no more than $82,500 in taxes, while someone who made the same profit from selling a business, a farm or a Monet would pay four times as much. Under current law, most investors would pay $150,000.

Scott A. Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit group that seeks lower taxes, called the proposal "an incentive to buy stocks and a disincentive to be an entrepreneur."

And, what about the tax rate implications for Average Joe?
The panel would also raise to 15 percent from 10 percent the tax rate on the first $7,300 of taxable income this year for individuals and $14,600 for married couples. Taxpayers with incomes higher than this would also be affected by this higher rate.

The panel would also raise to 30 percent, from 28 percent, the rate that this year applies to individuals making as little as $70,000 and couples making as much as $178,000.

The 35 percent tax rate, which applies only to the top 1 percent of taxpayers (incomes above $326,450 now), would be cut to 33 percent.

However, for individuals, the 33 percent rate would begin at a much lower level of income, $100,001 instead of $150,150. Therefore, people in this income range would be paying a higher rate on their last dollars of income. In short, there would be higher marginal rates for most people making less than $326,450.

I guess the alternative to raising taxes, which is cutting spending, is not an option.

Today's Washington Post article, "Commission Recommends Overhaul of Federal Income Tax", warns of the impact to the housing market:
Still, the National Association of Realtors said "the value of the nation's residential property could decline 15 percent or more" if the panel's mortgage proposals become law. Gerald M. Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders, criticized the measures as "the biggest tax hike for homeowners ever considered."

Also, a warning of the impact to retirement and pension plans:
Life insurance companies and agents were also upset, fearing that the savings proposals could supplant or compete with their products. A coalition of life insurance associations called the plans "a retreat from America's historic commitment to helping Americans achieve financial and retirement security." The American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries said the plans would be "devastating to the retirement security of millions of American workers."

And, just to entice companies to expand their revenues outside the domestic US:
Both plans would assess companies only on their domestic profits, ending the United States' long-held policy of taxing income wherever it originates.


Onto Iraq...

The Senate went into a closed-door session yesterday as the Democrats pressed the Republican majority for an investigation into the intelligence the White House used to justify going to war with Iraq.

From a CNN report:
Democrats demanded that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

The Democrats appear to be taking advantage of the series of events which have destabilized the White House. Will anything come of it?

Here are some comments from Republican Senator Bill Frist who, along with a whole lot of other politicians, should be nominated for an acting award:
Frist said Democrats had "hijacked" the Senate...

"This is an affront to me personally," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican. "This is an affront to our leadership. It is an affront to the United States of America, and it is wrong."

Let me correct Senator Frist, if I may. Being led into war with Iraq by an administration who knowingly lied to the American people and the world is an affront to the United States of America. What you are doing, Mr Frist, is an affront to the people of the United States and all the things for which the United States of America stand for.

Get out of the way, Mr Frist and fellow deceivers ...

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , , .