Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
mlsoft,
Interesting that you should mention those other two liberal presidents, LBJ and Nixon.
How do you define "liberal" v. "conservative"?... While one could argue that Bush is "conservative" on social issues, it could also be argued that he is not "conservative" on fiscal issues.
Personally, I think there has to be fiscal responsibility in gov. It's the lack of fiscal responsibility that has gotten us to where we are today. On "social" or personal matters, I don't believe the gov has any business in the bedroooms or doctor's office's of the American people. I don't believe gov has the right to intrude into the lives of law abiding Americans, and to that extent, I fail to see how the issue of homosexuality, abortion or "feminism" are "political" issues, at all... Maybe both parties should stay focused on good gov, or more responsible gov, and take a more "back to basics" approach...
This country was founded on the idea of equality and freedom for all, including freedom from oppressive gov. But somehow I think we've lost that ideal in both social and fiscal issues. We need smaller gov, and we certainly do not need the gov intruding in the lives a law abiding Americans.
An Israel where Arabs are free to live in Israel but Jews can not live in "disputed territories" does not sound like a "peaceful" solution. Not to mention that the intifada militants want nothing to do with a "Palestinian State". They do not was the State of Israel! But it sounds like Sharon capitulated to Washington, and their visions of a "kinder & gentler" Mideast. I expect the outrage and chaos to grow over the "road map" as well...
I don't know, mlsoft. But time will certainly tell on this one... Bush's US poll numbers may be flying high, but Blair's are not. And sentiment in the UK never favored the war. Time will tell...
I think Mazen (sp?) is probably a well intentioned person and Sharon is probably at witts end, but I don't think the situation is right for a "road map" - right now, if ever. And it does look a bit like Sharon is capitulating to terror, or capitulating to pressure from Washington. Terror groups are still very active. I don't think the "road map" will end well, but I hope I am wrong. If Iraq and the "road map" are part of Washington's plan for re-designing the ME, it will fail, imo.
Sharon's Security Beefed Up Over Settler 'Threat'
Wed June 4, 2003 03:07 PM ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli authorities tightened security around Prime Minister Ariel Sharon over possible threats from extremist Jews angered by his backing of a plan for peace with Palestinians, security sources said Wednesday.
They spoke hours after a U.S.-arranged Israeli-Palestinian peace summit in Jordan at which Sharon pledged to immediately begin dismantling settler outposts from land designated for a Palestinian state.
"The Shin Bet (internal security service) is concerned about the safety of the prime minister and has increased the security detail around him," one source said, as some 40,000 settlers launched a round of protest rallies against the peace plan.
Sharon, a right-wing ex-general, has long been the main patron of settlement on land Israel took in a 1967 war.
But he has come under pressure from Israel's guardian ally Washington to curb settlements as prescribed in the U.S.-backed "road map" for the new peace plan.
Security surrounding Israeli prime ministers was noticeably tightened after the 1995 assassination of then left-wing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an ultra-nationalist Jew opposed to his interim peacemaking with the Palestinians.
The security sources also said the Shin Bet had picked up intelligence that a small group of ultra-nationalists among the estimated 200,000 settlers could resort to arms to resist any evacuation from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
"We are concerned that a fringe group of extremist settlers will make good on declarations to fight evacuation with weapons," the security source said.
The road map envisages confidence-building steps by both sides, including an end to Palestinian militant attacks and a freeze on Jewish settlement-building, leading to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza by 2005.
The YESHA Council representing the settler community denounced the Aqaba summit meeting as a "humiliating surrender ...to Palestinian terror," a reference to militants who launched a uprising for statehood in 2000.
Wednesday's demonstration in Jerusalem was the first of a series of mass protests and acts of civil disobedience planned against the road map. But YESHA leaders said they would strive to discourage violence against Israeli authorities.
Maybe Iraq and Saddam Were Totally Made Up! 8}
http://rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060203/content/illustrating.guest.html
OneBgg, I got the boot for posting a link from USNEWS?
This is the NOLIB board, "Fair & Balanced"??...
Later! :)
I got tossed from the NOLIB board too!!
For this one:
"Unsubstantiated assertions"... !!!
Nation & World 6/9/03
Truth and consequences
New questions about U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass terror
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030609/usnews/9intell.htm
NOLIB, "Fair & Balanced"! What a goof!!
And Fox calls themselves "Fair & Balanced"... :)
Mlsoft, Iraq was under sanctions for 12 years. Wouldn't that have made it difficult for Saddam to advance his weapons program? Yet Saddam was a bully and surely would never have admitted same...
Did you see Saddam's military equipment in media footage, his tanks and planes? It looked like old circa Vietnam stuff possibly purchased on eBay or at a old USSR rummage sale. How do you reconcile the lack of military equipment with the WMD capabilities Iraq was said to have? Saddam didn't seem to have much of a military either. He mounted no noticable defense in Iraq or even in Baghdad.
I know you did, and I apologise for not indicating that. On that we agree. Standards in gov have gotten very low.
Where's The Outrage?
In a USA Today/CNN poll, only 31 percent said they believe Bush's WMD information was accurate, and 31 percent said that Bush believed the information he presented was accurate though it was not. That means close to two-thirds believed Bush was peddling (sincerely or not) bad info about a most serious issue: to go to war or not. But that has not affected his overall standing in the polls.
Where's The Outrage?
06/04/2003 @ 12:58am
E-mail this Post
Now I know how Republicans felt in 1998. Back then, the pursuers of Bill Clinton could simply not believe that the public was not rising up in rebellion against a president who had received Oval Office blow jobs from an employee and then lied about it. But the economy was zipping along, and the polls showed that a large majority of Americans approved of the Clinton's (official) performance in the White House. Many conservative and GOP partisans were stunned by this outrage gap, with some even wondering what this said about the morals of the citizenry. Were people willing to ignore degenerate behavior and deceit for the sake of their 401(k)s?
But for those social-con worrywarts, the world righted itself in the 2000 election. Clearly, Bush, with his it's-time-to-restore-honor-and-integrity-to-the-White-House schtick, won the backing of many voters who remained displeased--if not disgusted--by the Monica mess. Clinton did end up paying for his misbehavior. Well, actually, Al Gore did. But for conservatives, that was close enough.
Today the outrage gap is on the other foot. Bush has been misleading the public about critical elements of his presidency, and yet there has been no outcry. Sure, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been screaming about Bush's lies, as have a few other liberal pundits ( moi, included). The Democrats have taken a stab at branding him a deceiver. For awhile, they pushed the mantra, he says one thing, and does another. But that never took off. Bush's approval ratings remain in the mid-60s, not astronomically high, but higher than he deserves.
He has gotten away with much. He sold his original tax cuts package with several whopping lies. He asserted it would effectively stimulate the economy. Yet the White House noted that in the first year it would create 400,000 jobs--and cost about $200 billion. That's $500,000 a job. (Why not just hand out money?) My favorite lie was Bush's claim that 92 million Americans on average would receive $1100 due to his tax cuts. This was a phony number. Most middle-income earners could expect to get a couple hundred dollars from Bush's tax cuts. The average was only higher because wealthy taxpayers would be pocketing large amounts of so-called "tax relief." It was as if Bush had said that if nine unemployed people and one person earning $1,000,000 a year live on the same street, the average household income for the block is $100,000. That "average" would be of little use to the nine individuals out of work.
More recently, after Congress crafted a thoroughly dishonest tax bill--which only fits the budget because of blatant gimmicks--Bush gave it his blessing. What the Republicans pieced together is the most deceptive measure Washington has produced in years. It masquerades as a $350 billion, ten-year tax cut. But many of its central provisions expire within a few years, not ten. Since no one expects a future Congress and president to let these tax cuts expire, the real cost of the bill--which, to start with, is severely tilted toward the wealthy--will top $800 billion and possibly reach $1 trillion. In an era of deficits, tax cuts of that size will place enormous pressure on the federal budget and force either massive borrowing or widespread cuts in programs that tend to help low- and middle-income Americans. (Remember, Bush, when campaigning for president, promised he would not use deficits to fund his tax cuts, and he made the same pledge in 2001 when pushing his first round of supersized, wealthy-favoring tax cuts.)
When Bush signed this fraudulent measure, he declared, "We are helping workers who need more take-home pay." Press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes." Only afterward did the public learn that the package's expanded child credits did not cover millions of low-income taxpayers and that 8 million low- and middle-income taxpayers will receive no tax cut at all under the new law. This tax bill has been one big con.
Can the same be said about the MIA WMDs in Iraq? In his March 17 get-out-of-Dodge speech, Bush declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." No doubt? The administration pushed this no-doubt line for months. Bush, Fleischer, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz--they all said it. The main reason for war was that Saddam Hussein possessed actual, ready-to-go weapons of mass destruction that at any moment could be handed over to anti-American terrorists like al Qaeda. The Bush argument was not that Saddam Hussein had to be stopped before he developed such weaponry. No, the threat was real, and it was real today. That was why the United States could not afford to wait any longer, could not give further inspections a chance.
It has taken two months, but finally the obvious question is being asked: if Saddam Hussein was loaded to the gills with WMDs, why can't the United States and Britain find any? Bush says the US military has uncovered two mobile bioweapons labs. But not a trace of any biological agent has been found on these trailers, and non-government experts question whether these trailers were built to produce pathogens. Maybe an arsenal will turn up. But the Bushies have begun backtracking. Rumsfeld suggested that the Iraqis possibly destroyed their WMDs right before the invasion. If so, why did US and British intelligence not detect that? Presumably the United States is offering would-be snitches millions of dollars in reward money for evidence proving the prewar existence of WMDs. Why hasn't that money produced any slam-bam disclosures yet? Don't market forces work any more?
There is a rising debate over WMDs (and even more so in Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has been pilloried by critics within his own party for exaggerating the WMD threat in Iraq). The poohbahs of the American right--Rush Limbaugh, Will Safire, The National Review and others--have rushed to Bush's defense, scoffing at the desperate lefties who are so upset about Bush's success in Iraq that they are trying to tear him down by falsely accusing him of lying. But the fact remains: Bush oversold the threat. (Peruse my previous columns by clicking on the link below, if you need to be convinced.)
Yet, as of this writing, Bush has paid no price for his Iraq deceptions. Two-thirds of the public, according to polls, approve of how he handled the war. The same amount believes he did not mislead the American public regarding WMD in Iraq; 31 percent says he did. But here's an interesting twist. In a USA Today/CNN poll, only 31 percent said they believe Bush's WMD information was accurate, and 31 percent said that Bush believed the information he presented was accurate though it was not. That means close to two-thirds believed Bush was peddling (sincerely or not) bad info about a most serious issue: to go to war or not. But that has not affected his overall standing in the polls.
Some Democrats have started sniping at Bush on this front, and a few Republicans have muttered the obligatory remarks about the need to resolve "troubling questions." The intelligence and armed services committees of the Senate and the House have announced they will examine the prewar intelligence on WMD and how the Bush administration used it. These inquiries could fizzle; they could become combustive. (Don't bet on the latter, especially with Republicans in control.) What happens will partly depend on how the legislators in charge suss out the public mood. They will be less likely to probe this matter deeply if they believe, rightly or not, that Bush is beloved. Of course, it will be easier for Bush to maintain his beloved status if he is not challenged on his WMD assertions.
In war, is winning all that counts? (What would Vince Lombardi say?) The postwar situation is a mess. It will cost tens of billions of dollars and may require a US military presence in Iraq for years. WMDs have not been found. Nuclear material was plundered and is available for use by dirty-bombmakers. Still, the war is now retroactively supported by 64 percent of the public; only 29 percent don't go along. Perhaps a majority of Americans don't want to see any military victory mussed up with ugly questions.
It is hard to resist reprising the GOP call of yesteryear, Where is the outrage? Just imagine how much shock and complaining there would be if we learned that American Idol had been rigged. But Bush and his comrades can use deceptive means to launch a war and to pass trillion-dollar tax cuts that bust the bank--and then skate away. The ice they are on is a little less smooth and thick than it was a week ago. But much of the public, it seems, is still rooting for Bush. My hunch is that after September 11, many Americans want to see their president--who is now truly their protector--succeed. To conclude that the guy at the helm in these insecure times is not to be trusted can be frightening. Bush is proving--so far--that it is even easier for a president to escape popular outrage when he lies about war and taxes than when he lies about sex.
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=726
From that Link:
"...Real evidence of bin Laden's unique capability arrived only with the synchronized embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998....
...At this point, the Clinton administration acted pretty darn fast, building up retaliation capability against a shadowy enemy ensconced in a no man's land in a politically hyper-sensitive region of the world. From 1998 onward, according to an earlier Post story, Clinton stationed two submarines in the Indian Ocean so as to be able to strike within six hours of reliable intelligence on bin Laden's location. The first 1998 cruise missiles fired into Afghanistan and Sudan reportedly missed bin Laden by just one hour. Looking to score political points at home, Republicans spun these attacks as a political ploy by the president to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal; and the public, having just seen the eerily coincidental Wag the Dog, swallowed the spin....
...If Bush's advisers hadn't been so instinctively dismissive of all things Clinton, they might have had a policy within a month or two of Bush's inauguration, maximum....
...The only Middle East issue that the Bush administration apparently gave a damn about was Saddam Hussein....
...It's no secret why Iraq loomed so large: Saddam's continued existence was a stain on Bush's father's proudest presidential moment, the Gulf War....
...In the final analysis, it appears that whatever his flaws, Clinton responded in kind to the Al Qaeda threat as it existed in his time. Yet Bush -- who presided through the summer of 2001 when U.S. embassies across the world were buzzing with word of an impending attack -- did not. It's all there in the Times and the Post, if you're willing to see it."
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23.html
Politicians LOVE to blame the other side, to blame the predecessor - to blame ANYONE but themselves.
Nothing new there.....
Softer on Terrorism?
Why Bush deserves his share of the 9/11 blame.
Aaron Marr Page
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=917893
But as long as were talking about the Clinton era, remember what Congressional Republican Leaders said when Clinton react to the 1998 attacks???... They said: "WAG THE DOG"!!
No one can say that Reps. were in anyway tough on terror during the Clinton years either.
I heard that too...
Last week Richard Perle was on PBS saying that the *real* reason for the Iraq war was so we could get our troops out of Saui Arabia. Huh?
How did the Admin gain Congressional approval for war without having the "real" reason, all of the "real" reasons disclosed? Is withholding material info from Congress lawful??
It aint gonna work..... Remember what happened to Rabin??
Jewish Settlers, Palestinian Militants Denounce Summit Statements
VOA News
04 Jun 2003, 19:00 UTC
Palestinian militants and Jewish settlers both say they will oppose efforts to implement the "road map" plan for peace in the Middle East.
Officials from the main Jewish settlers' group, the Yesha Council, say they will try to block any attempt by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to dismantle some settler outposts in the West Bank and Gaza.
Mr. Sharon made a pledge to do so at the three-way peace summit Wednesday in Jordan.
In a statement, the group says Mr. Sharon is about to repeat what it called the mistake of the 1993 Oslo Accords. It says Israeli concessions in those accords led to an upsurge in Palestinian terrorism.
At least 10,000 Jewish settlers took part in a protest rally late Wednesday in Jerusalem. The Yesha Council represents about 200,000 Jewish settlers who live in the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel has occupied since 1967.
Meanwhile, Palestinian militant groups say they will continue armed resistance against Israel despite a vow to end the violence from Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.
A Hamas spokesman, Abdel Aziz-Rantisi, says his organization will never lay down its arms until it liberates all of Palestine. Hamas considers Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza to be Palestinian land.
Other militant groups who say they will continue fighting are Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Some information for this report provided by AFP and Reuters
We shall see what happens with this one. But as Americans we should all hope and insist that Constitutional Law is followed and upheld, whatever the outcome... Agreed? :)
Mlsoft, We will have to wait to see what comes out of the various Iraq investigations. But Bush is Commander in Chief. He had a responsibility to provide credible intel info to the international community and Congress when seeking authorization. Obviously, the info provided to Congress, the American people and the international community was not reliable, or does not seem reliable.
If it was a true non-intentional intel failure, our gov certainly has some explaining to do because "Oops" isn't good enough when the stakes are war. The President must have some reasonable duty to provide info that is truthful, and if this is an "info failure" - it appears to be an "info failure" of epic proportion. If the info was embellished to gain authority for war, or the erroneous info was provided, that's another story. And it presents very serious Constitutional issues.
I know spin plan #2 is Saddam moved and/or destroyed the weapons. But that would seem extremely difficult with UN weapon's inspectors all over Iraq, and US troops surrounding.
As for the impeachment thing, if Bush provided false or misleading info, if he "lied", Nixon's crimes will pale in comparison to the crimes of the current Admin...
We shall see... But Team Bush and the Murdoch Media will NOT be able to spin their way out of this. This is an international issue. Look what happened to Blair today. The English and others will investigate, and this time the truth will be known, eventually...
That's the point Bush should have put forth "facts" when making his case for war.
Bush Visits U.S.S Truman for Dramatic Veterans'-Benefits-Cutting Ceremony
http://www.theonion.com/onion3921/bush_visits_uss_truman.html
8~)
LOL! What the heck -- this is the age of electronic media!
Let the "cut & paste" - the original document, of course.
ACLU Defends Nazis' Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters
http://www.theonion.com/onion3211/acludefends.html
Bill of Rights Pared Down to a Manageable Six
http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html
Basic morality! - is the "missing link" in contemporary politics.
I would be nice if it could be returned... :)
What an awesome quote! Timeless & especially relevant today...
Tony Blair "Cooked the Books"?? What an interesting choice of term.....
Criticism of Blair Over Iraq Reaches a Roar
Britons Skeptical of Claims Iraq Hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 4, 2003; 10:32 AM
LONDON, June 4 -- Tony Blair failed today to quiet the roar of criticism over his insistence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, with the opposition leader declaring that "nobody believes a word now that the prime minister is saying."
In a raucous House of Commons session punctuated by both catcalls and cheers, Blair passionately defended his prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had been hiding a dangerous arsenal, calling charges that his Labor government cooked the intelligence books "completely and totally untrue.".....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12476-2003Jun4.html?nav=hptop_ts
Thanks, sara! Maybe they think anything is kosher in the name of patriotism. Or something like that... But I think the Framers and original American patriots would take a much different view - as Roosevelt did. It will be interesting to see how history writes Bush, but I guess it all depends on who does the writing.... And much remains to be seen, still...
He look at Abby!!... She's wrong ALL the time, yet they pay her the big bucks!! :)
Actually that's another of example of gov's big failure! Capitalism may be a great system, perhaps the greatest, but without proper controls, all systems are doomed to fail. What happened on Wallstreet in the late 90's was nothing short of financial anarchy - the greatest heist ever, and much was based on info that was "false & misleading"... And where is the prosecution, ie enforcement??... People stole billions. The big banks certainly did. Yet it looks like only Martha will be redecorating the inside of her prison cell. Her crime??.. Insider trading to the tune of $227,000!! Imagine that - relative "chump change"! But Martha is the diva everyone loves to hate. So, I guess the gov and regulators think they "done good"...
"Unsubstantiated assertions"... !!!
Nation & World 6/9/03
Truth and consequences
New questions about U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass terror
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030609/usnews/9intell.htm
Whether or not anyone chooses to "jump on the liar, liar bandwagon" is irrelevant to what may or may not have occurred. Bush is SWORN to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And he is responsible for the quality and veracity of the information he provides in doing so. Where is your "patriotism"??...
The job of "Weatherman" is the only job I know of where you can be wrong most of the time and get away with it. Bush is Commander in Chief of the mightiest military and weapons arsenal ever known to man. He is no "Weatherman" and he is accountable to Congress, the American people and the international community. He should be held accountable.
Robert C. Byrd, Senate Remarks:
A Responsible Approach to Homeland Security
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_sept2002/rls_sept2002/rls_sept2002_6.html
Liar, Liar?
http://www.motherjones.com/news/warwatch/2003/23/we_428_03.html#two
Doesn't anyone understand the Constitutional issues here? And the fact that our real American Patriots died for the rights and responsibilities the Constitution affords ALL Americans?
edit: But Bush has an obligation to abide by Constitutional and international law. He is not permitted to circumvent either regardless of how noble he believes the "cause" to be. He does not have the power or authority to circumvent Congress, obviously. Our system includes "checks & balances" to assure one Branch of gov does to become too powerful.
He is Commander in Chief of the greatest and only remaining Super Power, with the mightiest arsenal of weapons known to man. We have the ULTIMATE WMD!! There has to be controls. The international community must assure those controls work. Ours is a system of checks & balances. Americans must insist the system works, honestly and properly. We are an integral part of the system and have a responsibility to the system. Bush answers to Congress and the American people. He is responsible for the veracity and accuracy of info he presents. The system is only as good as the info that it is provided.
Why is it that anyone who questions gov or the Bush Admin is automatically deemed a "Bush basher" or worse -- "unpatriotic" or "un-American" ??? If the Bush Admin lied, embellished or was reckless with info provided, they are the ones who have been "unpatriotic" or "un-American".... Can we at least agree on that??
Is it time to build the Ark??... 40 days of RAIN in the Garden State! ??... :)
"Unsubstantiated assertions"... !!!
Nation & World 6/9/03
Truth and consequences
New questions about U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass terror
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030609/usnews/9intell.htm
Terror Persists as Congolese Await U.N. Force
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
UNIA, Congo, June 3 — As they wait for international troops to land, the people of this town keep getting robbed and raped.
Militia men and women range through Bunia with machine guns strapped to their shoulders. They lounge in the shade of avocado trees, showing off the grenades strapped to their belts.
Night visitors are commonplace. One morning earlier this week, a driver with an aid agency showed up to work with three bloody punctures on the back of his skull, one result of an attack on his family's house the night before by a band of looters, all at least partly attired in military fatigues. Another aid agency worker reported having been the victim of a carjacking. At a camp for displaced people, three armed men showed up last night, hunting for loot.
The tribal enmities that fueled the battle between ethnic Hema and Lendu militias for control of Bunia seem to hardly matter anymore. Only the Hema are left in Bunia now, and only their militia is in control of the town. The Lendu have scattered; their militia is somewhere on the outskirts.
All told, the massacre in Bunia last month took at least 430 lives.
Today, Bunia waits for a new batch of foreign soldiers to come and restore law and order. Exactly when they will arrive remains a mystery. The bigger mystery is whether and how the new international force, authorized by a United Nations Security Council resolution last week, will be able to bring some semblance of security to a city bristling with greed and guns, and for how long.
The new force, with 1,400 troops, does not have an explicit mandate to strip the Hema militia of their weapons. The United Nations force will stay until Sept. 1.
Demilitarizing Bunia — to say nothing of the rest of the northeastern province of Ituri — represents the biggest challenge for the international force.
The leader of the Hema militia, Thomas Lubanga, has given his blessing to the United Nations force, all the while insisting that they would not come to disarm his troops. "We accept the force," he told reporters at a news conference held yesterday afternoon at the Okapi Bar, around the corner from the United Nations compound. "We will collaborate with this force."
Mr. Lubanga, chief of the Congolese Patriotic Union, has promised to station most of his forces at least four miles outside the town, but insisted on keeping 700 soldiers inside Bunia as bodyguards for his senior commanders, according to the spokesman for the United Nations mission here.
Even if he sticks to his promise, keeping an eye on what could be thousands of Hema troops just beyond the city limits will undoubtedly be a tall order. To disarm them altogether would be impossible, said the United Nations military commander, Col. Daniel Vollot, with their Lendu enemies hovering nearby. "It's impossible to ask just one faction to disarm," he said.
The prospect of leaving weapons in the hands of the militias brought little solace to aid workers, many of whom have paid a heavy price for working in a city overrun by 10 militia groups since 1998.
"It was a blunder to announce that they would not be demilitarizing militia groups," said Nigel Pearson, medical coordinator with Medair, an aid agency that runs hospitals here. "Militia groups will take advantage of that. They have already taken advantage of that."
In April, several workers for an Italian aid group were kidnapped by Lendu militiamen for nearly a week; they were accused of helping members of the rival tribe. In the latest fighting last month, two Red Cross workers were killed as they picked up bodies scattered around town.
When the international force will actually get to work is anyone's guess. The first group of French soldiers, who are leading the force, is expected to arrive at the end of the week, while the British are to send a small advance reconnaissance team on Wednesday. Among their first tasks will be to fix the airport here, which is so badly pot-holed that it has to be repaired every night.
Some of the townspeople who fled into the forest have come home to find their houses burned, the tin roofs and mattresses pillaged and crops stolen from the fields.
The other day, a development worker with a local church walked across town bearing a list of his neighbors' misfortunes. He had undertaken a rough census of more than 150 families who had returned home. Nearly all had had their houses stripped bare; some had returned to find only ashes. The church worker brought their names to an aid agency, hoping for help.
For now, though, it is too dangerous for aid groups to venture out of two tiny pockets in Bunia, making it impossible to deliver food, blankets or medicines to most of the needy.
Being home in Bunia is hardly reassuring these days, as the wounded driver for the aid agency testified.
One night this week, shortly after 8 p.m., three men barged into his home and demanded $1,000 ransom for each of the six people inside.
When the driver did not produce the money, he was beaten with the sharp metal ends of a militiaman's gun. He was made to kneel and was shot at, twice; both times, the gun misfired, and his attackers accused him of being a sorcerer.
His cousin, a 16-year-old girl, was raped. By the time they were through at 3 a.m., seven hours after the ordeal began, the men had gathered up $300 in cash, two motorcycles, one bicycle, a mattress, clothes, shoes and a pile of plates.
The driver, too terrified to reveal his name or that of his employer, said the men could only have been members of the Hema militia who now control the town.
He shook his head when he heard they would not be disarmed by the international force. "If they don't disarm, they'll do much more outside the town than they've done already," he said.
Reports have trickled in of a new mass killing in a lakeside village 30 miles south of here called Tchomia. The death toll is estimated to be between 150 and 250. The United Nations mission here said it could not confirm what had happened. Its peacekeepers are not allowed to leave Bunia.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Blair to cooperate in WMD probe
British parliament investigates Iraqi data
June 2 -- The question being asked in some circles about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: Where are they? Is this a massive case of intelligence failure? NBC's Andrea Mitchell has details.
MSNBC NEWS SERVICES
LONDON, June 4 — Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that his government will cooperate with a parliamentary investigation into the intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which he used to justify war. News of the investigation comes on the heels of mounting criticism of the United States and Britain for failing to uncover conclusive proof of a WMD program in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/920379.asp?0cv=NB10&cp1=1
It may not matter how the Admin spins this fiasco. Others will get to the truth.....
edit: What about upholding our system of "checks & balances"? Bush needed Congressional approval for war. Obviously, the legal requirement was to provide info that he believe to be truthful and accurate, free of material omissions and false and/or misleading statements, etc. But what about the responsibility to verify the truthfulness or veracity of info provided? Isn't there some standard in that regard?
The next excuse is that WMD were in Iraq but were moved or destroyed before the bombing. But how would that have been possible with UN weapons inspectors through out Iraq & tens of thousands of troops on Iraqs boarders??... Saddam was hated by all of his neighbors.
Mlsoft, the "Chitt Happens" argument doesn't hold water here...
Of course we ALL make mistakes! And sometimes people make really stupid mistakes because we're "only human", after all. But if infact intelligence "mistakes" we're made on the level that many in the US and around the globe are indicating. We've got some serious problems in DC, and with our "war on terror". And you don't send 150,000 troops into combat, risking their lives on a "mistake" of this magnitude. You don't initiate a policy that will kill many people by "mistake". And you certainly don't thumb your nose at (and alienate!) the global community over a "mistake" - like this one, especially when the global community continually questioned the "info" and motives - because they are wrong, or liars, or etc, & We are right.
Chitt happens is a reasonable defense sometimes, but not this time. This time the American people and the global community need to know what really happened. Our gov needs to answer to it's people and to the world. Fair enough??...
No point, ergo. Just stating a fact... :)