--- Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
On 9/28/02 3:30 AM, Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not how a great nation should debate
issues of war and peace.
To question people's patriotism for simply raising
questions about how a
war is to be fought and won -- to say that anybody
who doesn't support
the president's particular policy on national
security is against
national security -- is not only insulting, it's
immoral.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/opinion/27GEPH.html?tntemail1
To accuse only the Republicans of politicizing the
war exposes the polarity
of your views on the matter. I have a question for
you. Why should the
interests of a labor union dictate matters of
national security? Is it in
the best interests of the US to have a union dictate
labor rules in the
Dept. of Homeland Defense? Cool thing to read
before replying:
http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/09-25-02-Homeland-Floor-speech.html
Why in the name of homeland security do we want to
take power away from the
President that he possessed on 9/11? Power that
Jimmy Carter had. Power that
Ronald Reagan had. Power that the first President
Bush had and power that
Bill Clinton had. Have we lost our minds?
snip
I finally found time to read these articles.
Disturbing, on many levels and issues, and I am still
personally offended by those in this administration
who equate 'questioning' with 'un-American' (athough
'stupid or blind' is also offensive). That both sides
are 'playing politics' should be no surprise to anyone
- manuvering for advantage and making use of whatever
topics/issues are at hand is an 'honored' and
long-standing tradition.
Have we lost our minds?
No. Our trust, however, is another matter.
The trust of other nations is understandably thin,
when a policy of 'no first strike' is changed to
'strike if we think you might be dangerous.' When a
wealthy nation pressures a poorer one to pay more than
it can afford for something because it benefits a big
corporation - which coincidentally has made $$
contributions to American politicians:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/enron/1218209
The $3 billion power plant, located south of Bombay,
was built as India began to open its heavily state-run
economy and allow foreign firms greater investment
opportunities. The nation's biggest foreign investment
by far, the plant was highly controversial from the
start. It drew opposition from environmentalists,
Indian nationalists and even the World Bank.
The project is not economically viable, Heinz
Vergin, the World Bank's country director for India,
wrote in April 1993, rejecting a request for a bank
loan.
(Both the Clinton and Bush administrations were
involved in the India-Enron deal; possible Taliban
connections are also stated:)
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0202a/enrontimeline.html
June-Oct 2000: Maharashtra government allies demand
scrapping the project because of the cost of the power
it produces.
Early 2001: Vice President Cheney held several secret
meetings with top Enron officials, including its
Chairman Kenneth Lay. These meetings were presumably
part of Cheney's non-public Energy Task Force
sessions. A number of Enron stockholders, including
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Trade
Representative Robert Zoellick, became officials in
the Bush administration. In addition, Thomas White, a
former Vice Chairman of Enron and a multimillionaire
in Enron stock, currently serves as the Secretary of
the Army.
February, 2001: Vice President Cheney's energy task
force changed a draft energy proposal to include a
provision to boost oil and natural gas production in
India. The amendment was so narrow that it apparently
was targeted only to Enron's power plant in India.
March, 2001: Laila Helms, the part- Afghan niece of
the former CIA director and former U.S. ambassador to
Tehran Richard Helms is described as unofficial
Taliban representative in Washington. Ms Helms brought
Sayed Rahmatullah Hashimi, an adviser to Mullah Omar,
to Washington.after the Taliban had destroyed the
ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan. Hashimi met the
directorate of Central Intelligence at the CIA and the
Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State
Department.
April, 2001: An Enron memo, which Lay gave Cheney
during their one-on-one meeting, makes eight
energy-policy recommendations. Seven out of eight
recommendations were adopted in the administration's
final energy plan.
I do not think the above, and the current situation in
Iraq - with its oilfields, are unrelated.
On a more positive note, here are two articles about
the recent elections in Morocco, including how a group
of American women helped coach Moroccan women (King
Mohammed decided more women should hold seats in
Parliament) in running for office:
http://www.komotv.com/stories/20507.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20020929_734.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2046767,00.html
Debbi
Speak Up Maru
