Flashbacks: March 11-26, 2010
Flashbacks - 11 thru 26 March 2010
Are we really going to let ourselves
be duped into this solar panel rip-off?
Plans for the grid feed-in tariff suggest we live in southern California. And at £8.6bn, this is a pricey conceit with little benefit
by George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 March 2010 20.00 GMT, Article history
Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.
On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.
The people who sell solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and micro wind turbines in the UK insist they represent a good investment. The arguments I have had with them have been long and bitter. But the debate has now been brought to an end with the publication of the government's table of tariffs: the rewards people will receive for installing different kinds of generators. The government wants everyone to get the same rate of return. So while the electricity you might generate from large wind turbines and hydro plants will earn you 4.5p per kilowatt hour, mini wind turbines get 34p, and solar panels 41p. In other words, the government acknowledges that micro wind and solar PV in the UK are between seven and nine times less cost-effective than the alternatives.
It expects this scheme to save 7m tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020. Assuming – generously – that the rate of installation keeps accelerating, this suggests a saving of about 20m tonnes of CO2 by 2030. The estimated price by then is £8.6bn. This means it will cost about £430 to save one tonne of CO2.
Last year the consultancy company McKinsey published a table of cost comparisons. It found that you could save a tonne of CO2 for £3 by investing in geothermal energy, or for £8 by building a nuclear power plant. Insulating commercial buildings costs nothing; in fact it saves £60 for every tonne of CO2 you reduce; replacing incandescent lightbulbs with LEDs saves £80 per tonne. The government predicts that the tradeable value of the carbon saved by its £8.6bn scheme will be £420m. That's some return on investment.
The reason for these astonishing costs is that the government expects most people who use this scheme to install solar panels. Solar PV is a great technology – if you live in southern California. But the further from the equator you travel, the less sense it makes. It's not just that the amount of power PV panels produce at this latitude is risible, they also produce it at the wrong time. In hot countries, where air conditioning guzzles electricity, peak demand coincides with peak solar radiation. In the UK, peak demand takes place between 5pm and 7pm on winter evenings. Do I need to spell out the implications?
We have plenty of ambient energy, but it's not to be found on people's roofs. The only renewables policy that makes sense is to build big installations where the energy is – which means high ground, estuaries or the open sea – and deliver it by wire to where people live. But the government's scheme sloshes money into places where resources are poor and economies of scale impossible.
We don't need to guess the results: the German government made the same mistake 10 years ago. By 2006 its generous feed-in tariffs had stimulated 230,000 solar roofs, at a cost of ¤1.2bn. Their total contribution to the country's electricity supply was 0.4%. Their total contribution to carbon savings, as a paper in the journal Energy Policy points out, is zero. This is because Germany, like the UK, belongs to the European emissions trading scheme. Any savings made by feed-in tariffs permit other industries to raise their emissions. Either the trading scheme works, in which case the tariffs are pointless, or it doesn't, in which case it needs to be overhauled. The government can't have it both ways.
A week ago the German government decided to reduce sharply the tariff it pays for solar PV, on the grounds that it is a waste of money. Just as the Germans have begun to abandon their monumental mistake, we are about to repeat it.
Buying a solar panel is now the best investment a householder can make. The tariffs will deliver a return of between 5% and 8% a year, which is both index linked (making a nominal return of between 7% and 10%) and tax-free. The payback is guaranteed for 25 years. If you own a house and can afford the investment, you'd be crazy not to cash in. If you don't and can't, you must sit and watch your money being used to pay for someone else's fashion accessory.
Had this money been spent instead on insulation or double glazing, it could have helped relieve fuel poverty at the same time as cutting emissions. But the feed-in tax is both wasteful and regressive. The government has now decided not to oblige people to improve the efficiency of their homes before they can claim a tariff: you'll be paid to put a solar panel on your roof even if the roof contains no insulation.
Though there's a system to ensure functioning devices are installed, it can't be long before thousands of petty criminals discover the perfect carousel fraud, bypassing their solar panels by connecting the incoming wire to the outgoing wire. By buying electricity for 7p and selling it for 44p (if you sell power to the grid rather than using it yourself, you get an extra 3p), they'll make a 600% profit. Amazingly the government has decided not to measure how much electricity people are selling, but "to pay export tariffs on the basis of estimated (deemed) exports". Elsewhere in its report it boasts of "encouraging a risk-based approach to audit and assurance". Come on in, you crims, the door is wide open.
So who is opposing this lunacy? Good question. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have lined up to denounce the government for not being generous enough. The only body to have called this right so far is the loathsome TaxPayers' Alliance, but nobody listened because it has cried wolf too often.
There appears to be a cross-party agreement to squander the public's money. Why? It's partly because many Tory and Lib Dem voters hate big, efficient windfarms, and this scheme appears to offer an alternative. But it's mostly because solar panels accord with the aspirations of the middle classes. The solar panel is the ideal modern status symbol, which signifies both wealth and moral superiority, even if it's perfectly useless.
If people want to waste their money, let them. But you and I shouldn't be paying for it. Seldom has there been a bigger public rip-off; seldom has less fuss been made about it. Will we try to stop this scheme, or are we a nation of dupes?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff
Did ABC/Disney Rape & Torture
Mickey Mouse for 50+ Years?
by Dahbud Mensch
I certify that I am, at least 18 years, or older, in order to view vile, disgusting, proof.
Click here for Google related articles or Bing related articles, and we assume everybody remembers Corporate, Beware of Babies in Incubators, Media and how they wrote lies for a War Criminal - Bush administration to promote an illegal Iraq war.
Nice People Take Drugs
[Grass and hash - no hard drugs. But the point is that I do what I feel like doing. - Arnold Schwarzenegger]
The controversial Nice People Take Drugs campaign from the UK charity Release has upped the ante in its second phase. Its online 'deck of cards' quotes politicians with a zero-tolerance stance on drugs discussing or admitting to having taken drugs themselves. Release has invited the public to submit its own 'hypocrites'. Here are some of the best so far:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2009/jun/26/drugs-deck-of-cards
For The Record
Most of Us Here Are Ex-Navy, With Honorable Discharges, During Vietnam
Just so you know why I am angry: My "Crow" had 3 lightning bolts with an arrow through them!
by Dahbud Mensch
Joe Biden Says, "Israel Is Our Best Friend"
Joe Biden Supports Terrorists
Who Maim & Murder U.S. Military
Joe Biden offers Israel full US support
In talks with Binyamin Netanyahu, US vice-president stresses need to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons
by Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 March 2010 12.01 GMT, Article history
The US vice-president, Joe Biden, promised the Israeli government today that it had the strong support of Washington and said the US was committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
"There is no space between the US and Israel when it comes to Israel's security," Biden said, after meeting the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in Jerusalem. Their talks appeared to focus on Iran and its nuclear ambitions, rather than on the new round of low-key, indirect peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians that was agreed yesterday.
Republicans and Democrats are Lying Hypocrites
Who Support Selective Terrorism Against U.S. Military
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/libmemorial.gif
Remember the U.S.S. Liberty
34 U.S. Military Dead, 171 Wounded
The Assault on the USS Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years
By James M. Ennes Jr.
Washington Report On Middle East Affairs
June 1993, Page 19
Twenty-six years have passed since that clear day on June 8, 1967 when Israel attacked the USS Liberty with aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 young men and wounding 171. The attack in international waters followed over nine hours of close surveillance. Israeli pilots circled the ship at low level 13 times on eight different occasions before attacking. Radio operators in Spain, Lebanon, Germany and aboard the ship itself all heard the pilots reporting to their headquarters that this was an American ship. They attacked anyway. And when the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime.
USS Liberty (AGTR-5)
Attack by Israeli forces, 8 June 1967
Israeli attack on USS Liberty (AGTR-5) and its immediate aftermath:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-l/agtr5-k.htm
Views of immediate aftermath of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty:
USS Liberty -- Attack by Israeli forces, 8 June 1967 (Part II).
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel. The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that this was an American ship and lied about it. Survivors have been forbidden for 40 years to tell their story under oath to the American public. The USS Liberty Memorial web site tells their story and is dedicated to the memory of the 34 brave men who died. [Continue Reading]
THE LAVON AFFAIR
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.
Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by "anti-Semites". But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing. Eventually, Israeli's Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal, although it appears that he was himself the victim of a frame-up by the real authors of the bombing project, code named "Operation Susannah."
It is therefore a fact that Israel has a prior history of setting off bombs with the intent to blame Arabs for them. [Continue Reading]
The Betrayal of American Veterans
Americans who volunteer for military service effectively write a blank check, payable to the United States of America for an amount "up to and including my life." The United States, in turn, promises to spend these checks responsibly. That bargain implicitly includes a promise by the United States to protect them and to seek retribution against anyone who harms them. In the case of USS Liberty, the United States has failed to keep its end of the bargain. [Continue Reading]
Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon 1982:
Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there [9/11 ?], I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal… What you lot don’t understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. [Continue Reading]
3 October 2001 - Israel Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon:
[A Few Weeks After the 9/11 Mass Murders]
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." [Continue Reading]
Biden, who is the most senior US official to visit Israel since Barack Obama was elected last year, said addressing Iran's nuclear programme was a priority. "We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," he said.
In private he is also believed to have cautioned the Israeli government against any unilateral military strike on Iran, and to have tried to win Israeli support for the US administration's policy, which is moving towards sanctions against Iran.
Earlier, before a meeting with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, Biden said Iran had become more isolated since the Obama administration came to power.
Netanyahu made clear today the Israeli government hoped for a tougher sanctions regime against Iran. "The stronger those sanctions are, the more likely it will be that the Iranian regime will have to chose between advancing its nuclear programme and advancing the future of its own permanence," he said.
Netanyahu frequently cites the need to address Iran's nuclear ambitions as his priority in government and Israeli leaders have pointedly not ruled out a military option.
Biden, who was later due to meet the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, repeated the US goal for a two-state peace agreement that would see the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Yesterday, the US special envoy, George Mitchell, announced that Israel and the Palestinians had agreed to new, indirect talks, although discussion on the "structure and the scope" was only beginning.
The peace process has been under way for nearly two decades, but there have been no direct negotiations between the two since Israel's war in Gaza a year ago. Few on either side hold out much hope for the new "proximity talks".
Just before the announcement, the Israeli defence ministry said it had authorised the construction of 112 apartments in the Jewish settlement of Beitar Illit, on the occupied West Bank. That came despite a temporary, partial curb on settlement building announced by Netanyahu last November.
Zionism - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Anti-Zionism
The Palestinians have insisted there would be no return to direct talks unless there was a full halt to Israeli settlement construction, in line with the obligations of the US road map. All settlements on occupied territory are illegal under international law.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/joe-biden-middle-east-talks
What and when MI5 knew about torture
Steve Bell - What the former MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller and her colleagues knew
Is Daylight Saving Time An 'Al-Congress' Terrorist Plot?
Did you know a switch to Daylight Saving Time is filled with hidden dangers and in some cases worse than 'water boarding' torture?
Did you know there is an increase in suicide during the first few weeks of Daylight Saving Time?
Did you know automobile accidents increase by three percent (3%) during the first few weeks of Daylight Saving Time?
Did you know grave heart attacks increase by four percent (4%) during the first few weeks of Daylight Saving Time?
Did you know Daylight Saving Time increases energy usage one percent (1%) and COSTS YOU MONEY?
The facts are on the Internet.
Daylight Saving Time appears to be a plot by America's latest terrorist group, 'Al-Congress,' to wear down an already tired and broke American public; with, of course, exception to Bank and Wall Street executives who love to party in Aruba, with your cash. - Source #5
Abolish Al-Congress's Daylight Saving Time Now!
"Wait. Wait. I think I can explain this whole thing. Marklar [? Al-Congress ?], these Marklars want to change your Marklar. They don't want Marklar or any of these Marklars to live here because it's bad for their Marklar. They use Marklar to try and force Marklars to believe they're Marklar. If you let them stay here, they will build Marklars and Marklars. They will take all your Marklars and replace them with Marklar. These Marklar have no good Marklar to live on Marklar, so they must come here to Marklar. Please, let these Marklars stay where they can grow and prosper without any Marklars, Marklars, or Marklars." - Kyle
Credit, When Credit Is Due
Something Not Often Seen On the Internet
by Dahbud Mensch
I have been extremely hard on politicians for many reasons and primarily because of what happened to the USS Liberty. Here is a sample, "Republicans and Democrats are Lying Hypocrites Who Support Selective Terrorism Against U.S. Military."
This morning, I noticed some truth was finally appearing within U.S. government and am willing to give credit, when credit is due; even though it may be one of many small steps towards Peace.
White House Advisor: Israel Undermining Mid East Peace
A top White House official says Israel's plan to build more homes in disputed East Jerusalem appears to be a calculated effort to undermine the Middle East peace process.
U.S. presidential advisor David Axelrod said Sunday Israel's plan was an "insult," and said it was distressing to everyone promoting the ideas of peace and security. [continue reading]
Science Weekly podcast: New ways to find aliens
Astrophysicist Paul Davies explains the eerie silence from outer space; anthropologist Rick Potts tells us about his new exhibition on the origins of humans; plus, we go backstage to look at why sound is so important at the theatre
Presented by Alok Jha and produced by Andy Duckworth, guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 March 2010 00.12 GMT
MP3 Podcast - New ways to find aliens
Astrophysicist Paul Davies discusses new approaches to finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The Seti scientist's new book is called Eerie Silence and is on a lecture tour of the UK.
You can hear an extended version of this interview in our latest Science Weekly Extra podcast.
Anthropologist Rick Potts is opening a new exhibition at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. It's called What does it mean to be human?
In the newsjam we discuss the new body set up to investigate an IPCC climate change report, sequencing the genomes of an entire family, and the new energy record about to be smashed at the LHC.
When it comes to theatre, sound is just as important as vision. It's the subject of a lecture this week in London organised by the Wellcome Trust. Neuroscientist Prof Sophie Scott of University College London and theatre director Jonathan Holmes go on stage at London's Bloomsbury Theatre to demonstrate. You'll hear some drama from actor Seth Sinclair.
The Observer's science editor Robin McKie and Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample join the pod.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/audio/2010/mar/15/science-weekly-podcast-eerie-silence
On March 16, 2003 Israel Murdered
A Beautiful Woman
In Memoriam - Rachel Corrie - 1979 - 2003
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
Uh... It was Love One Another
NOT Murder One Another
by Dahbud Mensch
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State. - Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels
March 19, 2003 - Shock'n'Awe
War Criminals Launch Premeditated, Brutal Attack,
On Wrong Country; Murdering Women & Children
Coerced Into Silence:
News, Corporate Media Refused to Cover
Republicans - Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle
Supplied Iraq With Chemical, Biological, and
Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
Between 1983 and 1992--the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle era--the U.S. gave Iraq innumerable weapons, and issued about $2 billion in loans, most of which were used to buy even more weapons; the U.S. never expected full repayment. In addition, U.S. corporations provided Iraq with the means to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. The "point man" the Reagan administration sent to solidify U.S.-Iraqi relations--and who had personal knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran, and who helped remove the "terrorist" label against Iraq--was . . . POS Donald Rumsfeld. - Permmalink Source
Steve Bell
Libby lied, troops died
The Scooter Libby verdict is inextricably linked to Iraq: his lies were an attempt to cover up the disingenuous case for war.
Sidney Blumenthal, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 March 2007 22.00 GMT, Article history
The conviction of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on criminal charges of obstruction of justice and perjury brings only a partial conclusion to the sordid political tragedy that is the Bush presidency. Yet the judgment on this matter goes to the heart of the administration. The means and the ends of Bush's White House have received a verdict from the bar of justice.
Foreign policy was and is the principal way of consolidating unchecked executive power. In the run-up to the Iraq war, professional standards, even within the military and intelligence agencies, were subordinated to political goals. Only information that fit the preconceived case was permitted. Those who advanced facts or raised skeptical questions about sketchy information were seen as deliberate enemies causing damage from within. From the beginning, the White House indulged in unrestrained attacks on such professionals. Revealing the facts, especially about the politically-driven method of skewing policy, was treated as a crime against the state.
For questioning the undermanned battle plan for the invasion of Iraq, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was publicly humiliated by neoconservative Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and then cashiered. For disclosing negligence on terrorism before the Setempber 11 attacks, counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke was accused by then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice of acting purely out of motives of personal greed to promote his recently published memoir. For exposing the absence of rational policymaking in economics as well as foreign policy, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill was threatened with an investigation for allegedly abusing classified material. Once he was intimidated into silence, the probe was dropped.
In the aftermath of former ambassador Joseph Wilson's revelation that the most explosive reason given for war against Iraq - that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger to fuel nuclear weapons - had no apparent basis in fact, the Bush White House revved into high gear against the critic. Wilson, however, was even more dangerous than the others because he was a witness to the false rationale for the war.
As Libby's defense counsel insisted, Scooter was merely one of many in the White House assailing Wilson's integrity. Others, including Bush's political strategist Karl Rove, were involved. To a degree, the smear campaign was for a time successful, fueled by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee and elements of the Washington press corps. But the trial exhibits - documents entered by the special prosecutor - knocked down every single one of their falsehoods.
Libby's defenders argued that there was no underlying crime. He was not charged with revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as a covert CIA agent, which was a charge raised by the White House gang in an effort to prove she sent Wilson on his Niger mission - another of the lies spread about him.
But Libby committed his crimes to cover-up the role of his boss and to protect his own position in the attack on Wilson. At base, then, the reasons for war were the scandal.
Libby was no mere factotum. He was a central member of the neoconservative cast of characters, who began as a protégé of Wolfowitz and was elevated to the role of Cheney's indispensable man.
Libby's conviction not only indelibly stains neoconservatism. It is a damning condemnation of the Bush White House belief that the ends justify the means and its aggrandizement of absolute power. Ultimately, this is a verdict that can never be erased from the history of the Bush presidency.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/06/scooterlibby1
The Picture
By David Glenn Cox via prez, usa-exile
March 01, 2010 "Salon" -- Feb. 25, 2010 -- I want you to look very closely at this picture and try and keep it in your minds eye.
This was a perfectly healthy twenty two-year-old young man who in the service of his country got half of his head blown off. I think that’s important, I think that’s newsworthy. Let me tell you how newsworthy I think it is. I think that it’s more important than chocolate cake recipes and far more important than comic book reviews. It is more important than who fell and whose swell at the winter Olympic games.
It is far more important than any self-serving load of crap banged out by Pseudo doctor Amy. It is more important than American Idol or Lost or any other mindless goat droppings the public chooses to chew on. This is some American mother’s son, her little boy, he may be gay or straight or transgender but his life is fucked forever.
How did this come to happen to this poor mother’s son? It came to happen because the people in the media who are supposed to foster a public debate on such public issues as war instead used their franchise to promote articles about chocolate cake and comic book reviews. They see their free press as free to choose not to look when bad thinks happen. They feel no need to explain to his parents or to anyone that the war that blew off half of this poor boys head was based on out and out lies.
It was a war perpetrated by people who hoped to gain from it be it in oil or pipelines or service contracts and like the media they don’t care that this mother’s son is mangled and mutilated. Do you care? I’ve been married twice for a combined twenty-five years and in that time I doubt my wives ever baked a chocolate cake. I don’t read comic books or watch goat crap TV but you see I’ve got a son about this boy’s age. My heart aches and my mind fills with rage because the people that have the power and authority to show this picture would rather talk about American Idol and from where I sit that makes them an accomplice to a war crime.
Because not content to ignore the current victims they support more crimes and call for more wars. Several years ago in Iraq parents waited for their children at a bus stop. An errant coalition missile struck the bus stop and blew the elementary school age children to pieces. Needless to say this wasn’t widely reported but the parents in a frenzy began fighting over the body parts of their children. Little arms and legs, little headless torsos identifiable only by the shirt or dress they were wearing. Imagine the horror, imagine the type of people who could do such a thing. How do they live with themselves? How do they sleep at night?
They do it by watching Lost and American Idol and by eating chocolate cake. They read comic books and watch sports. It makes life easy because the media will not intrude on their fantasy world but instead will promote the fantasy. Oh, but who won the gold metal in curling and who was eliminated on American Idol.
Iraq war Coalition Deaths 4,696
Injured 30,000
Iraqi civilian deaths and injured, 1,366,650
Afghanistan coalition Deaths 1,659
American taxpayers bill as of today $964,044,305,874
© 2010 Salon Media Group, Inc.
Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24891.htm
Rove's Secret
Hi, I'm Scotty "Pants on Fire" McClellan,
Welcome to: We've Got A Secret
Panelists, please put on your blindfolds
and Let's Bring Out Our First Guests
Will You Sign In Please
My Name Is Karl Rove
...and I've Got A Secret!
Liberal Americans choke on their pretzels
as Karl Rove rewrites history
It has been fun watching the man known as 'Bush's brain' squirm on the TV talkshows as he tries to sell his self-serving memoir [of murdering and maiming innocent Iraqi children?]
Paul Harris in New York, The Observer, Sunday 14 March 2010, Article history
[Article photograph - President George W Bush announces the resignation of Karl Rove in August 2007. Photograph: AUDE GUERRUCCI - POOL/EPA]
For Karl Rove's legions of liberal detractors – who did not manage to lay a hand on him while he was in power – it has been a case of too little, too late.
But watching the man dubbed "Bush's brain" take to the media circuit to flog his self-serving memoir Courage and Consequence has at last provided a tiny bit of satisfying blood sport at Rove's expense. It has not been a pretty sight and is one that Rove, no doubt, will blame on the natural liberal tendencies of America's media classes. Yet it has been fun watching a man whose name became a byword for brutal, dirty politics go cap in hand around the talk shows and get a thorough roasting.
Leading the charge was normally genial daytime TV host Matt Lauer, who laid into Rove over everything from the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to Hurricane Katrina to his role in the leak of the identity of CIA spy Valerie Plame. "Some are saying this is 500 pages of you rewriting history," Lauer said. He was wrong. It's 608 pages.
The book stands accused of being a towering monument to self-denial of what are now seen as self-evident truths. Despite millions of words of newsprint, endless government probes in numerous countries and hours upon hours of TV reports proving the opposite, Rove stands by the idea that President George W Bush invaded Iraq reluctantly. He also denies Bush condoned torture. "He did just the opposite," Rove wrote.
He even makes the case that Bush moved swiftly and aggressively on climate change and says administration officials never tried to foster the belief that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terror attacks. Ah yes, and the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese and I've got a reliable secondhand car I'd like to sell you.
No one tore into Rove better than Dana Milbank, the Washington Post's frequently scathing political sketch writer. "What he divulges nearly made me choke on a pretzel," he said. Even former colleagues stuck the knife in. "I think what you're seeing is that Karl is continuing to live in his own world here," Scott McClellan, Bush's former press spokesman, told MSNBC.
According to Rove, Bush will be remembered by history as the man who "laid the foundation for victory in the global war on terrorism and the expansion of democracy abroad".
As Milbank said: "Rove's work should have been called Ten Thousand Miles From Self-Aware."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/14/karl-rove-american-liberals-choke ++ Rove's Secret
President justifies war to parents of dead
by Ron Hutcheson - www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7902641.htm
WASHINGTON - President Bush defended the war in Iraq on the most personal level Saturday, telling grieving parents of U.S. soldiers who died there that their loss is the cost of keeping America safe.
''It's essential that I explain this properly to the parents of those who lost their lives,'' Bush said in a rare television interview. ``Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I'm not just going to leave him in power and trust a madman.''
In excerpts from an hour long interview taped for NBC's Meet the Press for broadcast this morning, Bush also voiced support for CIA Director George Tenet, whose agency is under fire for prewar intelligence reports that seemed to overstate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
PANEL QUESTIONED
Bush took issue with suggestions that the commission he appointed Friday to investigate intelligence failures was structured to limit any political damage to him. The nine-member panel, which Bush created by executive order, will not issue its report until next March -- well after the November election.
The reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried. This is a strategic look, kind of a big-picture look about the intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States of America,'' he said. "There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made good calls, whether I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power.''
Bush's decision to sit down for the question-and-answer session underscored the unease at the White House over the potential political fallout from the war, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and record federal budget deficits. For the first time since he took office, the president's approval rating slipped below 50 percent last week, and several polls show that if the election were held today, Bush would lose to Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? . . . It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush, 3/18/2003
Polls indicate that Americans have become increasingly skeptical about the administration's case for war. David Kay recently resigned as the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq after concluding that Hussein did not have any stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and had not actively been seeking nuclear weapons. ''It turns out that we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment," Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Although Kay remains convinced that the war was justified, his finding on weapons of mass destruction undermined a key element of Bush's rationale for the invasion.
STILL DANGEROUS
''For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said in many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought,'' Bush said in the interview. "We are in a war against these terrorists who could bring great harm to America, and I've asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.''
Bush, who said Tenet's job at the CIA is ''not at all'' in jeopardy, pledged full cooperation with the commission that is looking into intelligence failures. [continue]
Steve Bell
Ignoring Hypocrisy?
Christians are to no longer execute sinners, so they should not wage carnal war, but spiritual warfare (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:1-6; Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 6:11-14; 2 Timothy 2:3-5; 4:6-8)
Christians must be peacemakers forgiving those who do them harm treating their enemies with love and not seeking revenge (Matthew 5:9, Romans 14:19), (Ephesians 4:29-32; Colossians 3:12-14; Matthew 6:9-15; Mark 11:25-26), (Luke 6:27-36) (Romans 12:17-21; 1 Peter 3:8-12)
Hatred which is the same as murder is unforgiving, vengeful and hostile towards one's enemies (1 John 3:15)
I Am Confused?
by Dahbud Mensch
On October 3, 2000 George W. Bush, before he was appointed to office by the Supreme Court, said, If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.
For the record Bush also said, 'Anyone who harms children is a terrorist.'
This is the same person who, on 9/11, read a children's book for 18 minutes while the United States was under attack, pulled troops out of Afghanistan before getting Osama; but then again the Bush and bin Laden families are friends that worked together. They started, what most people consider, an illegal Iraq War that destroyed United States economy. They did not supply troops with simple basics, which got our military unnecessarily maimed and murdered; a crime in itself. He played guitar while U.S. citizens were abused and killed during Katrina, and for his personal reward gets to publish a book, probably filled with lies, and promoted by a Corporate Media, that sold out American citizens and U.S. Military to encourage an illegal war. Shame on them!
We are left to assume his words include Everybody and on March 19, 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court & Congress were responsible for the Murder & Maiming of Innocent Children, Women, and civilians.... Plus, It Will Probably Be A 100 Years Before Anybody Finds Out What THEY Did to U.S. Military During Either Illegal, Iraq War, Vietnam, etc.!
ARREST WARRANT FOR GEORGE W. BUSH
Dear Mr. Bush,
In the name of justice, I arrest you. There is no Department of Justice anymore, thanks to you. In its place, I arrest you.
In the name of more than 3,000 dead U.S. soldiers, who died in a war that only you wanted, pursuing a cause only you understood even to this day, I arrest you.
These soldiers died in a war fraudulently justified by your misrepresentations to Congress to obtain a Congressional War Powers Resolution, a war of aggression prohibited under international law and by our Constitution.
Tell us what this war is about. Don't say freedom, you've destroyed that. Don't say Democracy, you've ruined that, too. Don't say peace, you've smashed that to smithereens. And don't say for oil, we don't need to bleed for oil. In the name of truth, I arrest you.
In the name of the victims of thousands of tons of Depleted Uranium weaponry, many of these victims not yet born, I arrest you.
In the name of honesty about Global Warming and Nuclear Power, I arrest you, and Al Gore, too, who claims to be "from Tennessee and immune to radiation." The rest of us are NOT immune to it (nor is he, he just professes not to know it).
Iran's PEOPLE (and her leaders) desperately want nuclear weapons because of you. North Korea's leadership does, too -- who knows what their people want (perhaps they are aware of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but I doubt it). The double-standard for nuclear haves and have-nots isn't working; the only standard that WILL ever work is abolition.
You deny the deaths you cause -- perhaps A MILLION IRAQI PEOPLE ALREADY. And don't say it's much less than that, and don't say you just don't know, but at least they have freedom. They don't have freedom, and nobody's free in a coffin. You can't apologize to a dead person.
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TRUMP POLITICS
Just type the number "655,000" into "the Google" (as you call it) and see what comes up, Mr. President -- a peer-reviewed epidemiological study conducted by Johns Hopkins University public health scientists, published in the United Kingdom's leading medical journal, Lancet, and sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies. And, the death RATE has probably increased DRAMATICALLY since that study was published last year (if only due to the "sectarian violence" you caused to flare up). So, Mr. President, you've probably caused close to a million deaths in Iraq, maybe more, not counting soldiers. And the dying is getting more frequent, not less. Over 500 bodies were recovered in Baghdad this month (May 2007) alone, many with clear signs of torture or mutilation. Our soldiers saved 42 today, but that's a drop in the bucket. But give those soldiers some medals anyway -- they deserve them.
I arrest you for starting a bloodbath. I arrest you for destabilizing Iraq despite being carefully and accurately warned what sorts of things would happen, and THEN, to make matters worse, you let our soldiers -- bad seeds under worse command -- violate rules against torture, be callous about civilian deaths, and use overkill as a tool of war, conveniently renamed "shock and awe," to destroy the minds and hearts of a people. You even let some forms of torture be institutionalized unilaterally by our forces. Under whose authority did you do this? Alberto Gonzales's? He's no authority! He's the one that should be arresting you RIGHT NOW! But he's your friend, so he won't do his sworn duty. Perhaps he thinks he serves a higher authority than his own word of honor. God only knows what that might be, but it seems to be you.
Before your father's war, the Iraqi people had no quarrel with, and many even loved, the American people. Somehow, even through the sanction years, we kept many friends there. But good luck finding Iraqis who love us now, and would dare to admit it. I arrest you for making "loving America" an object of ridicule around the world. The shining star on the hill turned out to be the scattered light of gamma rays, x-rays, alpha-particles, and beta particles.
Let's talk about the future. I can't arrest you for what you will do in the future, but I can arrest you for those who MUST die in the future because of what you've ALREADY DONE.
Let's see the notes from Dick Cheney's vile energy plan. It's vile because it's a secretly-arranged bailout for the nuclear industry. It's the source of the nuclear industry's self-proclaimed "Nuclear Renaissance" and sets the stage for future MELTDOWNS which will kill thousands, perhaps even MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, and continue a grave mistake.
Many of the dead will be children -- perhaps your own, Mr. President, and those of the reporters who fawn over you. I arrest you for killing the media in America. Corporate conglomerates ate them for lunch.
I arrest you for not educating yourself about the evil you create. I arrest you for not understanding that science trumps not only politics, but economics, too. The dying and the sick will drown the heathy in sorrow, in hard work caring for the ill and suffering, and in debts unpayable, for the cost of medical care IS prohibitive. I arrest you for that, too, for you have made even basic health care a service for the elite.
The poor are relegated to clinics operating with pennies on the dollar compared to what they need, as you declare "faith-based" community service sufficient. As our nation's President, YOU have to help the poorest of the poor, and the most abused prisoner (whether a political prisoner of conscience, or a convicted criminal). Sir, YOUR job is NOT to tell the churches to do YOUR JOB! That's abdicating responsibility in the first degree. Blatant and immoral. I arrest you for that.
The buck, and the blame, stops with you. I arrest you, Mr. Bush, for failure to do your duty, for damaging this nation's pride and reputation, for lying, cheating, and stealing. For Haditha and for the rest of the wanton destruction of the cradle of civilization.
And for singing and dancing and having a good time while you should have been Googling the Internet and learning the truth about yourself, for yourself. I call you Nero and arrest you for that, too. I also call you a Luddite and hereby serve you papers (electronically) on that, as well.
Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA
White House Reply:
Note that the author received the following email from the White House after sending it in with another arrest warrant from Jack Dresser ( below).
=============
On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Source: [Broken Link] http://mwcnews.net/content/view/14800/26/
He Said It
Add this video to your page
Copy and Paste the following code between <body> and </body> on your main page:
<p align="center">
<object type="video/quicktime" width="400" height="325" data="http://www.flyingsnail.com/images/hesaidit.mov">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.flyingsnail.com/images/hesaidit.mov" />
<param name="autoplay" value="false" />
<param name="controller" value="true" />
</object>
</p>
If the Bush Administration were arrested for their War Crimes and their family fortunes confiscated; along with Halliburton & Blackwater War Profits, it might be a step in the proper direction to help restore the U.S. failing economy Republicans PUT US IN; in fact, everybody could have had free health care with the money squandered during eight years of Republicans in office.
Nobody's Gonna Screw Me Down - Nobody's Gonna Mess Me Around
Highway to Hell, AC/dB
For the Long Attention Span Challenged
In the Course of Human Events, It Is Necessary to Review the Past!
by Dahbud Mensch
Reminders:
1989
Ronald Reagan Republicans & Lincoln Savings and Loan Association
Lincoln Savings and Loan Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lincoln Savings and the Keating Five
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keating Five
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2002
George W. Bush Republicans, Social Security, and the Stock Market
Too clever by half
By Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report
The Republicans have come up with a clever way to use the Social Security issue. Unfortunately for them, it is, as the British used to say, too clever by half.
Of course it's no secret that Democrats have been trying to use Social Security against the Republicans. From coast to coast they have been running ads accusing Republicans of being for "privatization" of Social Security. They use the imprecise word "privatization" to refer to proposals to allow workers to channel part of their Social Security taxes to individual investment accounts.
It's not clear that this is as effective as Democrats think. Despite the drop in the stock market, polls still show solid majorities of voters in favor of allowing individual investment accounts in Social Security. The term "privatization" does less well in polls–which is why the Democrats use it; to describe precisely what they are attacking would cost them votes.
Despite the favorable polls, many Republicans are deathly afraid of being attacked on Social Security. They know that the Social Security issue has worked for the Democrats in the past. They are not confident that individual investment accounts will work for them now, and they are pretty sure that "privatization" will work against them. This is an example of how past political experience can trump present political opportunity. It is also an incidental result of the voters' relative lack of interest in politics and politicians. Follow members of Congress or candidates for Congress around on the campaign trail for a few days, and you will find that they speak almost entirely to captive audiences. Who, after all, is going to get into his car to go listen to a House candidate speak? The captive audiences mostly consist of schoolchildren and senior citizens. The children don't ask about much of anything. The seniors always ask about Social Security. Politicians' schedules thus lead them to overestimate the number of voters who are terrified that they will lose their Social Security benefits and to underestimate the number of under-50 voters who are worried, justifiably, that Social Security will not be a good deal for them.
Some Republicans respond to the issue by making the positive case for individual investment accounts. Others swear they are against "privatization." And now a few, cleverly, are trying to turn the Democrats' words against them.
One such is Rep. John Thune, running against Sen. Tim Johnson in South Dakota. Last week Thune's campaign started running a Social Security spot against Johnson.
Announcer: "It's in the Congressional Record." Text on the screen: "RAIDING SOCIAL SECURITY."
Announcer: "Tim Johnson voted seven times to raid $300 billion dollars from Social Security; five times against a new law to stop politicians from raiding the trust fund." Text on the screen: "Voted 5 times against stopping politicians from raiding the Trust Fund."
Announcer: "Johnson supports a Social Security privatization plan that lets the federal government invest Social Security in the stock market." Text on the screen: "Supports letting the federal government invest Social Security in the stock market."
Announcer: "John Thune opposes letting the federal government invest Social Security in the stock market; He voted five times to stop politicians from raiding the trust fund. John Thune: guaranteeing Social Security; fighting higher taxes."
Johnson immediately cried dirty pool. No way I am for "privatization," he said. But as the ad points out, Johnson did speak out for allowing the federal government to invest Social Security funds in the stock market in the 1990s–a variant of a policy rolled out by the Clinton administration in 1999. Johnson says now that his 1990s statements were "the product of thinking out loud" and that he never wrote or supported a bill for "Social Security privatization." But of course politicians can expect to be held responsible for "thinking out loud," particularly when they have talked favorably about a policy–government investment in the stock market–that doesn't fare as well in the polls as, say, individual investment accounts. And "privatization" is just as precise–or, rather, imprecise–a description of government investment in the stock market as it is of individual investment accounts.
A similar drama is being played out in North Dakota. Republican Rick Clayburgh, running against Rep. Earl Pomeroy, is accusing Pomeroy of supporting "privatization," that is, government investment of Social Security funds in the stock market. Pomeroy, like Johnson, is yelling foul. Yet he did support the proposal, and if "privatization" is a fair description of allowing individual investment accounts in Social Security, why isn't it a fair description of government investment of Social Security funds in the stock market?
Pretty clever, those Republicans.
And they seem likely to use this line elsewhere. These Dakota races are a very high priority for national Republicans. They think South Dakota, a state George W. Bush carried by 60 percent to 38 percent, is one of their two best prospects for picking up a Senate seat. And they think that North Dakota, which Bush carried 61 percent to 33 percent, is one of their better prospects for picking up a House seat; it's "one of the 10 most competitive ... House races in the country," Speaker Dennis Hastert said last week. So you can expect that a lot of Republicans will be attacking Democrats for favoring "privatization" of Social Security. This will nicely muddle the issue, Republican strategists most likely think, and will tend to eliminate the Democrats' advantage.
But is it too clever by half? Once Republicans have attacked one form of "privatization," they may feel bound to oppose all forms of "privatization." Clayburgh, for one, says he will vote against any form of "privatization." So Republican attempts to neutralize the Social Security issue in the short run may in the long run make it difficult or impossible for Bush to persuade Congress to pass–presumably after the 2004 election–an individual investment account plan. Bush campaigned forthrightly and clearly in 2000 for individual investment accounts–it was one of his major issues in the campaign–and won. But if he has trouble winning over the votes of a Republican from a constituency that he carried 61 percent to 33 percent, he is going to be hard put to deliver on his pledge.
To which the likely response of Republican strategists is probably the classic politician's dodge: "You have to win the election first." But Bush in 2000 knew that how you win the election is just as important. He took risks on the Social Security issue because he wanted not just to win but also to change national policy. Now on issue after issue–steel imports, the farm bill–Bush has evidently decided that the close partisan balance in Congress requires him to "win the election first." Should Social Security be added to the list? If so, a re-elected Bush with a Republican Congress may find that his party's strategists have been too clever by half.
Social Security debate (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Republican Bush Administration push for privatized Social Security
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stock market downturn of 2002
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2008
Under the Republican watch most aging middle class citizens lost up to two thirds, or more, of their retirement funds.
The [Stock Market] Crash of 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please try to imagine where you would be if social security had been privatized and shifted into the stock market.
It's the end of the world as we know it...again by Matt Wuerker
A Brief History of Socialist Plots to End the American Way of Life
The Real Cost Of US Support For Israel - $3 Trillion
By Christopher Bollyn, 9-19-3, Rense.com
While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3 billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government, this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3 trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.
"The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion" is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R. Stauffer. Stauffer's summary of the research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes and teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East. Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Stauffer's findings were first presented at an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the University of Maine.
Stauffer's analysis is "an estimate of the total cost to the U.S. alone of instability and conflict in the region - which emanates from the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
"Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion," Stauffer says. "About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs - about $1.7 trillion - arose from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that amount has been incurred since 1973."
"Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts. In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some 275,000 American jobs each year." The trade-aid imbalance alone with Israel of between $6-10 billion costs about 125,000 American jobs every year, Stauffer says.
The largest single element in the costs has been the series of oil-supply crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the construction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. â?To date these have cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion (2002 dollars), excluding the additional costs incurred since 2001,â? Stauffer wrote.
The cost of supporting Israel increased drastically after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war. U.S. support for Israel during that war resulted in additional costs for the American taxpayer of between $750 billion and $1 trillion, Stauffer says.
When Israel was losing the war, President Richard Nixon stepped in to supply the Jewish state with U.S. weapons. Nixon's intervention triggered the Arab oil embargo which Stauffer estimates cost the U.S. as much as $600 billion in lost GDP and another $450 in higher oil import costs.
"The 1973 oil crisis, all in all, cost the U.S. economy no less than $900 billion, and probably as much as $1,200 billion," he says.
As a result of the oil embargo the United States created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to "insulate Israel and the U.S. against the wielding of a future Arab 'oil weapon'." The billion-barrel SPR has cost U.S. taxpayers $134 billion to date. According to an Oil Supply Guarantee, which former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger provided Israel in 1975, Israel gets 'first call' on any oil available to the U.S. if Israel's oil supply is stopped.
Stauffer's $3 trillion figure is conservative as it does not include the increased costs incurred during the year-long buildup to the recent war against Iraq in which Israel played a significant, albeit covert, role. The higher oil prices that occurred as a result of the Anglo-American campaign against Iraq were absorbed by the consumers. The increase in oil prices provided a huge bonus for the leading oil companies such as British Petroleum and Shell, who are major oil producers as well as retailers. The major international oil companies recorded record profits for the first quarter of 2003.
The Washington Report seeks to "provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states." The monthly journal is known for keeping close tabs on the amount of U.S. taxpayer money that goes to Israel and how much pro-Israel money flows back to Members of Congress in the form of campaign aid.
The journal's website, www.wrmea.com, has an up-to-date counter at the top that indicates how much official aid flows to Israel. While the counter currently stands at $88.2 billion, it only reflects the minimum, as it does not include the many hidden costs.
"The distinction is important, because the indirect or consequential losses suffered by the U.S. as a result of its blind support for Israel exceed by many times the substantial amount of direct aid to Israel," Shirl McArthur wrote in the May 2003 issue of Washington Report.
McArthur's article, "A Conservative Tally of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $97.5 Billion - and Counting" tallies the hidden costs, such as interest lost due to the early disbursement of aid to Israel and funds hidden in other accounts. For example, Israel received $5.45 billion in Defense Department funding of Israeli weapons projects through 2002, McArthur says.
Loans made to Israel by the U.S. government, like the recently awarded $9 billion, invariably wind up being paid by the American taxpayer. A recent Congressional Research Service report indicates that Israel has received $42 billion in waived loans. "Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all government loans to Israel the same as grants," McArthur says.
Support for Israel has cost America dearly - well over than $10,000 per American - however the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been extremely costly for the entire world. According to Stauffer, the total bill for supporting Israel is two to four times higher than that for the U.S. alone - costing the global community an estimated $6 to $12 trillion.
Index on Censorship:
Britain’s leading organisation promoting freedom of expression
The winners – Freedom of Expression Awards 2010 25 Mar 2010
The 10th annual Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards honour those who, often at great personal risk, have given voice to issues and stories from around the globe that would otherwise have passed unnoticed. [continue]
