New Developments II

[Sonic Youth]

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>2,255</span>

Wednesday February 8, 3:54 AM
Nine Iraqis, four US marines killed in attacks
AFP


At least nine Iraqis died in rebel attacks amid a tight security clampdown ahead of the major Shiite Muslim ceremony of Ashura, a favourite target of Sunni insurgents.

Additionally, the US military said four marines were killed in two roadside bomb attacks in the restive western province of Al-Anbar on Sunday and Monday and an Al-Qaeda-linked militant group released footage of a man it said was an Iraqi special forces officer it had executed.

The latest fatalities bring the total US military death toll in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 2,255, according to Pentagon figures as of Monday.

[Sonic Youth]

I guess criddic has his computer again. I don't know whether to say "Welcome back!" or "Uh-oh..."

Speaking of campaigning. Isn't it interesting that in 2004 Bush proposed a $2.3 trillion budget and vowed to cut the deficit in half by '09?

And this year, Bush proposes a $2.9 trillion budget and... um, vows to cut the deficit in half by 2009?

What do you think Bush will propose in 2008, criddic? A $3.5 trillion budget and cutting the deficit in half by... the following year?

[Sonic Youth]

I do understand what you're saying. And I'm sorry if I seemed to be on edge. I honestly DO hope it will get better. But we could be more further along in the process, and I do blame Bush's stagnant involvement. You are right about Arafat and Barak.

But one has to accept the idea that intervention and negotiation on the part of the U.S. has no real effect in order to accept your proposition. But I can't. Clinton wasn't entirely successful, but some might say things would be even worse had he not involved himself. At first, Bush couldn't even be bothered. Then he buckled under pressure by the U.N. and by other nations and got minimally involved. By taking most of Clinton's work, renaming it "the road map for peace", and claiming credit. Then he ignored the situation, except to speak up when the opportunity presented itself, often disproportionately siding with Israel.

(And, oh yeah. He also campaigned. How could I forget?)

Clinton presided over the Oslo Accords and the treaty signing, which laid the foundation for Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian self-government; there was the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which led to the Hebron Agreement and the Wye River Memorandum; he helped broker peace between Israel and Jordan. It was that summit in 2000 where Clinton blundered big-time. But aside from that, he acheived a lot and much of the progress in that region is the result of the groundwork he helped lay.

So yeah, I think a concerted effort has a positive effect and neglect has a negative effect, which is why I'm coming down on Bush's case. I do think things can get better in the region, but we need a positive commitment from the U.S. in order to move it along in that direction, and Bush doesn't seem to want to commit very much at all.

[Sonic Youth]

Here we go again.

Quick, what former pop star is the headline cheekily referencing?

Election officials fear '06 season of the glitch
This fall, millions to use unfamiliar voting machines
By Jim Drinkard
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Millions of Americans will be looking at new and unfamiliar voting machines when they cast their ballots this year, perhaps the most rapid changeover of voting equipment in history. With that change comes an increased risk of errors and confusion, election officials say.

“When you look at disaster stories, it is usually that first time using a new piece of equipment that something is going to fall apart,” says Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, which maintains data on voting systems across the country.

Brace's latest update, to be released today, shows that at least 647 of the nation's 3,114 counties will be using new voting machines this year, more than at any time since records began in 1980 and probably ever, he said. Those jurisdictions are home to 30.6 million registered voters, or almost a fifth of the national total.

Voters used to manual machines with levers or punch-card devices could instead be seeing touch screens or optical scanners.

“Election administrators have never been through (this) amount of change,” says Doug Lewis, director of the Election Center, which helps train election officials. “It would be an absolute miracle if we don't have hiccups.”

The rapid change is propelled by the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which mandated upgrades in voting equipment and processes. About one-third of states missed deadlines for upgrading equipment or making it fully accessible to the disabled, says Doug Chapin, president of Electionline.org, a non-profit group that studies voting.

Progress has been made toward eliminating antiquated voting equipment, Brace's data show. Punch cards, which introduced the term “hanging chad” into the nation's lexicon after Florida's troubles in the 2000 presidential election, are being used by one-fifth as many voters as in 2000. The use of lever machines has been cut in half; most are in New York.

Linda Lamone, administrator of the Maryland Board of Elections and president of the National Association of State Election Directors, says widespread worries about glitches include:

•Is there enough time to educate voters and poll workers, many of them older and not proficient with computers, before Election Day?

•Will there be adequate tech support from voting-machine manufacturers?

•How will the 25 states that require a paper backup for their computerized machines handle that — and which record will be the official one for any recount?

“Election officials are worried,” Brace says. “A lot of them are saying, ‘Why didn't I retire last year?' ”

[Heksagon]

Sonic, I’m starting to get the impression we’re talking about different subjects: You’re saying things could be better, I’m saying things could get better.

But I’m not at all convinced by your attempts to pin this all on Bush. It’s my impression that Fatah lost these elections because of its corruption and failed domestic policy, not so much because of the failed peace process. And furthermore - Didn’t Arafat turn down Barak’s peace offer (whatever its name was at that time) when Clinton was still president? Clinton may have tried, but without much success.

[criddic3]

Bush ignored the region for the first eighteen months or so of his presidency.

Not so. He campaigned on peace between Israel and Palestine, saying he believed (even then) in a separate state for Palestine.

[criddic3]

Former President Carter also opined back in 1990 that we shouldn't get involved in a war against Saddam Hussein.

He's been more political as an ex-President than he was as President. Why is he so strong on such matters now? He failed at these kinds of things during his term and feels a need to make up for it in the twenty-plus years since?

I like Mr. Carter as a person, for his humanitarian work, but the guy is plain wrong when it comes to policy matters. It is not his place to make such judgments. He has every right to his opinion, but he has no authority to judge what is and is not illegal. Most Americans do not want the NSA program to stop. I sure don't. It would be a travesty.

[Penelope]

Ex-President Carter: Eavesdropping Illegal By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago



Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

Carter made the remarks at a union hall near Las Vegas, where his oldest son, Jack Carter, announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

The former president also rebuked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for telling Congress that the spying program is authorized under Article 2 of the Constitution and does not violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed during Carter's administration. Gonzales made the assertions in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which began investigating the eavesdropping program Monday.

"It's a ridiculous argument, not only bad, it's ridiculous. Obviously, the attorney general who said it's all right to torture prisoners and so forth is going to support the person who put him in office. But he's a very partisan attorney general and there's no doubt that he would say that," Carter said. "I hope that eventually the case will go to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt that when it's over, the Supreme Court will rule that Bush has violated the law."

The former president said he would testify before the Judiciary Committee if asked.

"If my voice is important to point of the intent of the law that was passed when I was president, I know all about that because it was one of the most important decisions I had to make."

[Sonic Youth]

Oh, come on, you can’t possibly blame everything on Bush.

Aw, dude! You make it sound as if a terrorist group winning an election in a major flashpoint of the world is a tiny detail. It's not like I'm faulting Bush for the recent Mohammad cartoon crises. This is an area Bush was supposed to be directly involved in. As we can see, his involvement was lacking, to say the least.

It's in the nature of the presidency to get blame and credit for the big events. You don't think Bush would've have taken credit for the election had it been as big a success as it was a failure? You know he would have. He's taken credit for everything good that happened during his terms in office, and blamed the bad stuff on everyone else. Reagan received credit for bringing down the Soviet Union by spending lots of money on the arms race... as if Gorbachev was a mere footnote, not to mention seven decades of corrupt, inefficient economic ledership that came before. But that's the nature of the job.

But put that aside. Fact is, Bush IS responsible for this. Presidents have always been closely involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Again, that's their job. Bush has been hands-off and one-sided for the most part, and unwavering in his policies. And now, things have fallen apart. You think this would have happened under Clinton?

However, peace process is pretty much halted for immediate future anyway.

Yes. And why? I'm sorry for repeating myself, but do you think it would be halted under Clinton? Not... a... chance.

Bush ignored the region for the first eighteen months or so of his presidency. Then things fell apart, so he was forced to come up with a "roadmap"... generally, a restatement of all the plans that came before and were already in progress. You can not honestly tell me he was even 1/10th as involved in the region as Clinton was. Clinton at least TRIED to solve the problems there. At least he didn't leave the situation in such dire straights that a terrorist group won control of Palestine!

For this reason, I believe the opposite of your statement - pessimism at this point will only bring out the worst possible outcome.

No, I'm not saying we should abandon optimism. I'm saying that Bush failed because he neglected the region, and that his policies were monolithic and uninvolved. All he did was hope for the best and let it stand at that. Involvement and action are what's needed. Not hoping for the best. But he's not going to do anything. In fact, since Hamas took over, he'll probably be even more tentative, and the situation could get even worse.

[Heksagon]

Heksagon, you don't think a more competent, skilled and diplomatic president would have avoided letting this situation deteriorate to the point where Democracy in the Middle East is taken over by a terrorist group? Sorry, this would never have happened under Clinton. It certainly doesn't make Bush look good, not after he spent years saying we were fighting terrorism, not empowering it.

Oh, come on, you can’t possibly blame everything on Bush.

I think it is unrealistic to think Hamas will become more responsible simply because they're running things.

I don’t think it is unrealistic to think that this may be a sign of Hamas becoming more responsible, although it definitely is optimistic to feel so.

Quite often, responsibility does follow power, at least if power is gained through democratic means. It is easy to advocate extremism if you cannot be held responsible for your rhetoric; populistic and extremist parties usually moderate their views once they integrate in the democratic process. Once Hamas realizes that it has a genuine chance to improve the standard of living of its people by (tacitly) adopting a more moderate platform - it may be an opportunity too good to miss.

Hamas is already in power in some municipalities, and to my comprehension they have somewhat moderated their views, and have collaborated with Israeli authorites at least at local level.

I assume you are aware that Hamas is not a unified group, and there are splinter factions.

I assume this is the reason why Hamas cannot recognize Israel overnight after winning elections, and why change within Hamas will be slow, and change in rhetoric will be even slower than in actions. However, peace process is pretty much halted for immediate future anyway.

And do you really believe their leaders aren't above taking advantage of their power to continue their ways?

Well, Fatah leadears certainly "continued their ways", in form of a corrupt one-party dictatorship. That’s why they lost power, possibly the party can try reinvent itself now.

It don’t think Hamas contested these elections in order to send more suicide bombers. They want to do something different.

This sort of optimism is sort of like how Bush got to this point in the first place, no?

...But my point is that the moderates in Hamas now have a chance to experiment with parliamentary rule, and if things go well, perhaps, in time, also the more radical factions will begin to see parliamentary process as a genuine alternative for violence. If, however, moderates are frustrated by blocking their ability to effect change through parliamentary process, there is no doubt that Hamas (& other extremists) will, in future, continue to see violence as the only way to advance their goals. For this reason, I believe the opposite of your statement - pessimism at this point will only bring out the worst possible outcome.

[Sonic Youth]

Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Feel Bush Deliberately Misled Country on Iraq WMD

By Editor & Publisher Staff

Published: February 03, 2006 1:40 PM ET

A new Gallup Poll, conducted in late January, reveals that just 39% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling Iraq, with 58% disapproving.

Over half (53%) now say the administration "deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," with 46% disagreeing. Gallup notes that this finding is "essentially reversed" from one year ago.

Further, some 51% say the U.S. "made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq." Yet, despite this, only 17% expect a significant reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq in the next year.

The partisan divide on all these questions is enormous, but with Independents now aligning much more with Democrats. For example, 84% of Republicans feel the president did not mislead the country on WMD, the exact percentage of Democrats who feel the opposite.

One interesting new question asked if respondents would feel the war in Iraq was a "success" if the new government there is composed "mainly of Muslim religious leaders." Almost half said that it could still be called a "success."

The latest poll was taken Jan. 20-22, based on interviews with 1,006 adults.

[OscarGuy]

There's a way to cut the budget deficit and give that $39 billion back to the poor...quit increasing the cost of making war. Start pulling out so we can reduce our costs in Iraq...

[Sonic Youth]

Ready? This is a two-fer, two thematically related stories in a row:

House passes, sends Bush $39B spending cuts
Narrowly passed bill will cut health care spending on programs for the poor and elderly.
February 1, 2006: 7:17 PM EST


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the House of Representatives narrowly won passage on Wednesday of a controversial bill to trim about $39 billion from domestic spending over five years, capping a year-long push to cut health care for the poor and elderly and other programs.

By a partisan vote of 216-214, the House approved the bill, sending it to President George W. Bush for signing into law.

The bill, approved in the Senate in December only after Vice President Dick Cheney cast a rare tie-breaking vote, was approved by the House late last year. But a small change made by the Senate forced another House vote.

The spending cuts are a high priority of conservative Republicans who want to continue cutting taxes amid huge budget deficits, which could top $400 billion this year.

"Today we can begin the process of controlling out-of-control government spending," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a conservative Republican.

Referring to $70 billion in proposed Republican tax cuts, Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said, "You don't have to be much beyond sixth grade to know that's going to add to your deficits" when offset by only $39 billion in spending cuts.

The Senate on Wednesday began debating a $70 billion tax-cut measure that would extend alternative minimum tax relief through 2006, ensuring that millions of middle-class families will not end up paying the tax that originally was intended for the very wealthy. [One good thing.]

Besides the debate over whether the "Deficit Reduction Act" would actually live up to its name, lawmakers argued over how the spending cuts were being carried out.

Republicans said the reductions would begin to rein in "entitlement" programs that will account for a growing part of federal spending as the baby boom generation qualifies for government health benefits.

"These programs need our reform," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican, who said the spending cuts would force improvements.

But Democrats blasted provisions to save about $8 billion over 10 years by cutting federal enforcement of child support payments and saving billions by allowing college student loan costs to rise.

Medicaid cuts

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office this week said cuts to Medicaid spending would affect 13 million poor people, 20 percent of the program's participants. Many of those would be children, the CBO said.

The savings would include higher out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs and other medical care for the poor.

Lonny Lefever, 53, who lives in the small town of Rosewood in western Ohio, is a Medicaid participant who was diagnosed as HIV positive in 1995.

Lefever told Reuters in a telephone interview that higher copayments on the $1,800 in life-saving prescription drugs he takes each month will erode his only source of income, Social Security disability payments.

Asked how he would cope with higher out-of-pocket costs, Lefever said: "I'll be honest with you. My thought would be to get it (money for prescription drugs) any way I could. But I don't want to go to jail." He added: "I would just hope I'd last until we got some other responsible government in position to change these laws. It's scary."


--------------------------------------------



White House to request $120 billion more for wars

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration said Thursday it will ask Congress for $120 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $18 billion more this year for hurricane relief.

If approved by Congress, the war money would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.

Details of the requests are not final, but the 2007 budget proposal that President Bush will submit next week will reflect the totals for planning purposes. The president also will ask Congress to devote an additional $2.3 billion this year for prepare for a bird flu epidemic.

About $70 billion of the new war money will be requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year, bringing total spending on the two campaigns to $120 billion for the current budget year. The other $50 billion in new war money will be set aside in the 2007 budget for the first few months of the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. More money will likely be needed in 2007.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that $320 billion has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, including $50 billion that Congress sent Bush in December. </span>

[filmgabber]

AndI think your condescension was utterly uncalled for.

I believe otherwise. But that's the beauty of this country - at least for now - that we can say what we want. You can side with whoever you wish, the kid means well. Though, I did feel it was an interesting debate on an issue that more Americans should be talking about.

[Sabin]

Thx. Let's move on. Big world out there, lots of new developments.