"as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war."The study was conducted by several researchers and will be published today in the Lancet, a medical journal.
"I'm voting for Bush," said a kindly middle-aged woman from Pennsylvania, who said she was "too cowardly" to give her name. "I don't like his corporate policies, but I believe in his family values."
War in Iraq has increased the risk of terrorism against the West, at least for the short term, the International Institute for Strategic Studies has said in its annual report on the world's militaries.
The IISS has added a section on Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network to "The Military Balance," its authoritative yearly defence handbook, which lists the size and capabilities of the world's armed forces.
"Overall, the risk of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003," it concluded.
"With the military invasion and occupation of Iraq, the United States demonstrated its desire to change the political status quo in the Arab world to advance American strategic and political interests," it said in Tuesday's report.
"Accordingly, the Iraq invasion was always likely in the short term to enhance Jihadist recruitment and intensify al Qaeda's motivation to encourage and assist terrorist operations."
The report also says that although we have been able to stop the flow of some money to Al Qaeda, they are able to hit some targets (such as Madrid) with smaller amounts of funds.
Here's a link to the Editor's Forward for the report, which specifically mentions the US and issues regarding Iraq, such as interoperability problems between allies, readiness for asymetrical warfare, and the "manpower intensive" nature of the post-war environment.
Hmmm... wonder what the White House spin on this one will be? Or maybe they'll just ignore it. Who needs thoughfully researched reports when God is on our side?
The report, Homeland Unsecured: The Bush Administration’s Hostility to Regulation and Ties to Industry Leave America Vulnerable, details how the Bush administration has failed to harden our defenses against terrorism and secure the most vulnerable, high-impact targets. The report is based on an analysis of five key areas – chemical plants, nuclear plants, hazardous material transport, ports and water systems. The report is available at www.HomelandUnsecured.org.
“Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush has made protection of the American people from terrorism the rhetorical centerpiece of his presidency,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “Yet this administration has failed to use its executive powers or support legislation to mandate regulatory requirements that should be taken. Bush has abdicated his responsibility to protect America from the risk of terrorist attacks because he is fundamentally hostile to regulation of private industry and is loath to cross his big money campaign contributors.”On the campaign trail, the administration is falling back on their old trick of playing the fear card when their ratings (or polls) are down. However, I think it's Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld who can't "get their minds around" the idea that they are creating new terrorists abroad while failing to adequately protect our homeland.
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
$8.50/hr part-time,
$10.00/hr full-time
Canvassing Neighborhoods in Support of the GOP!
Voter's Outreach of America is hiring door-to-door canvassers asking people to register to vote. Must be at least 18 yrs of age, no felonies, registered to vote and have own transportation. Need good communication skills and professional appearance. Hours are 4pm to 8pm Monday-Friday and 8am to noon Saturday.
Call toll free 702-307-1320 for more information.
Paid for by the Republican National Committee. www.gop.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Source - Reno Gazette Journal - Reno, NV
In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.
"If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."
Wow. So, it's ok to vote for Bush who declared war on a country that wasn't attacking us, which has so resulted in the deaths of over 1100 American soldiers and 13000 Iraqi civilians, but voting for Kerry, who believes that the rights of an unborn child shouldn't trump the rights of a mother, is a sin?
Voting for Bush, who has taken money from the poor and given it to the rich via our tax system is just fine, but voting for Kerry, who wants to be able to use embryonic stem cells to save millions of lives is a sin?
It's not sinful to vote for George W Bush aka "The Texecutioner" who supports corporate welfare but not people on welfare???
Wow. I left the Catholic church years ago because I thought the teachings were overly concerned with regulating sex and not concerned enough about stopping violence. I guess not much has changed. I just hope that there are a lot of good Catholics out there who can see through this Bush**it and realize where the true evil lies.