CounterPunch - May 22, 2007 http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman05222007.html
Drop Dead, New Yorkers Bush, Giuliani, Whitman and the Lethal Fallout from 9/11 By HARVEY WASSERMAN The fallout now taints us all. Amidst the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush and Giuliani saddled up their bullhorns and raced down to the smoldering World Trade Center to shout out a single "patriotic" demand: re-open the stock market! And to hell with the health of the good citizens doing the clean-up. Ditto the rest of us down wind. The public health outcome has now become visible: those brave and caring people who marched onto the site to do what needed to be done are starting to die in droves. The New York Times says less than a third of them were wearing respirators. Giuliani is getting a long overdue bashing for letting this happen. With all his swagger, Rudy imposed a single demand above all: the financial district must re-open. That people would die doing it was known but never mentioned. Giuliani had his priorities. Bush's Environmental Protection Agency knew full well that the airborne fallout from the smoldering the World Trade Center was absolutely lethal. Then headed by the "green" nuclear power advocate Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA knew the cancerous clouds pouring out of the site were a toxic brew of lethal chemicals, the likes of which the world had not seen since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The WTC towers were among the last buildings to be lined with large quantities of asbestos, an infamous agent of lethal lung diseases, including cancer. But they also contained countless computer screens, light fixtures, calculators, telephones, network servers, paging systems, copy machines and much more high-tech office equipment laden with mercury, lead, arsenic and too many other toxic metals to list here. The chlorine-laden plastics, carpeting, concrete, chemical cleaners, furniture, metal struts, window glass---all were pulverized and vaporized into a horrific cloud of murderous dioxins, furans, powdered glass and noxious soot whose killing powers were hideous. Whitman, Giuliani and Bush were told all that---and then waged a conscious campaign to make sure the rest of us didn't find out. Our callous, corrupt, corporate-controlled media of course complied. The upshot was a rapid "clean-up" of this horrific site. The first whirlwind we now reap is an escalating rate of sickness and death among those who did the work. Contrary to law and common sense, most of the clean-up crews were allowed to work without protective garments and breathing devices. Years of investigations must now probe how available (and effective) this equipment really was, not only for those doing the grunt labor amidst the ashes, but also for the tens of thousands of good souls who came downtown to bring them food, coffee and consolation. As the tragedies spread, so will the lawsuits. Whatever millions of private dollars might have been saved by the rapid re-opening of the financial district will be paid for many times over with billions of public dollars to compensate the health costs of official negligence. But there is far far more. For all those who labored amidst the WTC rubble, thousands more proceeded to live their lives in Manhattan and elsewhere downwind with no warning of how dangerous it really was to merely breath the air there. Whitman's EPA knew the particulate fallout that blanketed the region was extremely lethal. Tens of thousands of homes, businesses and public buildings were coated in toxic ash. At very least, all downwind buildings should have been intensely monitored. Many should have been fitted with advanced filtration units. All carpeting, furniture, walls and fixtures should have been repeatedly tested and cleaned. And then cleaned again. And then cleaned yet again. Some buildings might never have reopened. And the stock market might have stayed shut longer. Such things cost money. But who can tell us now how many automobiles, subway cars, public buses, offices, living rooms, bedrooms, public spaces and infants' cradles were saturated with poisonous WTC powders? How many pregnant women breathed in nano-particles that crossed the placenta into the bodies of children now five or six years old? What will become of these innocent victims of the Bush-Giuliani-Whitman decision to not warn the public of what was in our air, water and food? In fact, the sick and dying WTC clean-up crews constitute the mere tip of a public health disaster made unforgivably worse by this willful and malicious official neglect. The diseases and deaths now surfacing from the immediate WTC area are the barest of beginnings. They indicate that far more people will likely die from the toxic 9/11 fallout than perished in the buildings that horrible day. Characteristically, soon after the WTC attacks, Bush attacked the Clean Air Act on behalf of Republican utility investors who would contribute his 2004 war chest. And now Whitman pushes a "renaissance" of nuclear power plants. Reactor fallout is one of the few substances even more lethal than what spewed into New York amidst her criminal silence. Had those 9/11 jets crashed into the Indian Point reactors 45 miles north of the WTC, would she also have hidden the ensuing death toll? Whatever the answer, she now peddles her EPA "credential" to push still more of those infernal, infinitely vulnerable machines, as if 9/11 never happened. And Rudy Giuliani, the super patriot who put re-opening the stock market so far ahead of the health of his fellow Americans, wants to follow Bush into the White House. Perhaps those who find themselves in his presence should don respirators. Better late than never. Bush, Giuliani and Whitman have built careers around their "patriotic" responses to 9/11/2001. But countless New Yorkers---and other downwind Americans---now suffer and die as a direct result of their irresponsible, self-serving negligence. It is a public debt that can never be repaid. [Harvey Wasserman helped co-ordinate media for the Clamshell Alliance, 1976-8. He was arrested at Diablo Canyon in 1984 and at Seabrook in 1989. He is author of "Solartopia: Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030,"] *** http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/washington/25view.html Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start By DALIA SUSSMAN NY Times: May 25, 2007 Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found. Still, the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals. President Bush's approval ratings remain near the lowest of his more than six years in office. Thirty percent approve of the job he is doing over all, while 63 percent disapprove. More Americans - 72 percent - now say that "generally things in the country are seriously off on the wrong track" than at any other time since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question in 1983. The number has slowly risen since January 2004. Then, 53 percent said the country was "seriously off on the wrong track," and by January of this year it was 68 percent. Public support for the war has eroded. In January 2003, 64 percent of Americans said the United States did the right thing in taking military action in Iraq and 28 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The current numbers are nearly reversed, with 35 percent saying the United states did the right thing and 61 percent saying the country should have stayed out. In January of this year, 58 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 38 percent said going in was the right thing. The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Wednesday with 1,125 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points. A majority, 76 percent, including 51 percent of Republicans, say additional troops sent to Iraq this year by Mr. Bush either have had no impact or are making things worse. Twenty percent of all respondents say the increase is improving the situation. Most Americans support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008. While troops are still in Iraq, Americans overwhelmingly support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions. Thirteen percent want Congress to block all money for the war. Sixty-nine percent, including 62 percent of Republicans, say Congress should allow financing, but on the condition that the United States sets benchmarks for progress and the Iraqi government meets those goals. Fifteen percent of all respondents want Congress to allow all financing for the war, no matter what. The poll found Americans are more likely to trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq. Slightly more than half of those polled, 51 percent, said the Democratic Party was more likely than the Republican Party to make the right decisions about the war. More broadly, 53 percent of those polled say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, while 38 percent have a favorable view of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has not had a majority positive rating in Times/CBS News polls since December 2003. As for Mr. Bush, 23 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Iraq, 72 percent disapprove; 25 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, 65 percent disapprove; and 27 percent approve of his handling of immigration issues, while 60 percent disapprove. On the economy, 36 percent approve of his handling of the issue, and 56 percent disapprove. In the campaign against terrorism, 42 percent approve, and 52 percent disapprove. *** Subject: [NYTr] 81% of Dems, and 54% of Repubs want Iraq withdrawl within 6 months Strategic Vision - May 23, 2007 http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_052307.htm Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican cacus goers and 600 likely Democratic cacus goers, aged 18+, and conducted May 18-20, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. 1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, and Tommy Thompson for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated) Mitt Romney 20% Rudy Giuliani 18% John McCain 16% Fred Thompson 10% Tommy Thompson 7% Newt Gingrich 5% Mike Huckabee 3% Sam Brownback 2% Tom Tancredo 2% Ron Paul 2% Duncan Hunter 1% Jim Gilmore 1% Chuck Hagel 1% Undecided 12% 2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only) Yes 5% No 79% Undecided 16% 3. How important is it for the Republican presidential candidate to be a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan, very important, somewhat important, not very important, not important, undecided? (Republicans Only) Very Important 42% Somewhat Important 19% Not Very Important 11% Not Important 12% Undecided 16% 4. Are you satisfied with the current field of announced Republican presidential candidates for 2008? (Republicans only) Yes 29% No 51% Undecided 20% 5. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only) Yes 54% No 37% Undecided 9% 6. If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joeseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats Only; Names Rotated) John Edwards 29% Barack Obama 24% Hillary Clinton 16% Bill Richardson 9% Joseph Biden 3% Chris Dodd 2% Dennis Kucinich 1% Undecided 16% 7. Are you satisfied with the current field of announced Democratic presidential candidates for 2008? (Democrats only) Yes 65% No 19% Undecided 16% 8. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Democrats Only) Yes 81% No 5% Undecided 14% 9. When making your selection for a presidential candidate, what are you looking for most in the candidate, charisma, experience, or ideology? (Democrats Only) Ideology 31% Charisma 25% Experience 24% Undecided 20% --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
