From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU
Act now! Senate leaders will soon move to approve the flag amendment
With several Senators absent due to presidential campaigns, sickness or the aftermath of Hurricane Frances, the Republican Senate leadership is planning to slip in a vote on the flag desecration amendment –- a measure that would not otherwise pass. But due to these absences, this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- which has already passed in the House -- has a real chance of passing in the Senate. We need your help to stop it!
The flag desecration amendment would alter the First Amendment for the first time. Civil libertarians, coalitions of veterans, religious leaders and other Americans have been vocally opposing this un-American initiative for many years, but its supporters have been waiting for a moment like this to slip it through.
Take Action! The Senate vote will be extremely close and we need you to tell your Senators to oppose this dangerous amendment.
Click here to get more information and to take action:
Many of us are outraged that President Bush hides his own irresponsible behavior during the Vietnam era while he and his discredited henchmen attack the heroic military record of John Kerry. Bush avoided combat by using his father's privileged connections to take refuge in the National Guard. And apparently, even that service was too much for him as many of those who did serve have no memory of him. Bush was a no-show. And Associated Press reports that many of his records are mysteriously missing as well.
That's why Texans for Truth has produced a :30 second television advertisement, "AWOL." The ad features Robert Mintz, one of many who served in Alabama's 187th Air National Guard -- when Bush claims to have been there -- who have no memory of Bush on the base. In other words, Bush failed to fulfill his military duty while others were dying in Vietnam.
It is urgent that we place this ad this week in key swing states.
You can view the ad here: http://www.texansfortruth.org/index.html
In the ad, the soft-spoken Robert Mintz, still a pilot, says clearly and powerfully that “I heard George Bush get up and say ‘I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery Alabama.’ Really? That was my unit. And I don’t remember seeing you there. So I called friends. ‘Did you know that George served in our unit?’ ‘Naw. I never saw him there.’ It would be impossible to be unseen in a unit of that size.”
Bush is posing as a courageous leader who will "protect" the nation from the threat of terrorism. Bush was, at least, able to protect himself from danger by dodging the draft and ducking his duty to the National Guard. But that is not courage or leadership. At the very least, Bush must be made to answer the serious questions that surround his spotty military records.
America wants and needs strong leadership. But the young Bush let his concern for his own personal safety take precedence over duty and honor. Bush demonstrates contempt for America by hiding behind a curtain of lies, missing records, and hypocritical, unfounded attacks on the demonstrated courage of John Kerry. It is the same contempt Bush shows for those who serve today -- on Bush's orders -- in Iraq.
The Bush spin machine is trying to hide the truth. Unless we act now, Americans might be kept in the dark. Help Texans for Truth shine the light on a president who hides in the dark while asking others to fight his fights.
Go to Texans For Truth.org to see the ad and investigative stories relating to Bush's flight from Vietnam, the only military-related "mission" he seems to have accomplished.
Glenn Smith, DriveDemocracy.org
Verifiable List of Flip Flaps by Bush
Ken <Ken> wrote:
From: "Ken Ahonen"
Subject: Presidential Credibilty
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 15:15:09 -0400
George W. Bush is right about one thing, the credibility of the president is a very important issue.
On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations."
Let's examine how credible Bush is on the issues....
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.
"We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01
…less than one year later…
BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.
The NY Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE.
"Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995." [Salon, 2/7/01]
…about 5 years later…
CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE.
"We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President." [Candidate Bush, during a debate with Vice President Gore 10/17/00]
…less than 4 years later…
PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE.
"To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Medical Records
Bush says medical records must remain private.
"I believe that we must protect…the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]
…3 years later….
Bush Administration says patients' histories are not confidential.
The Justice Department asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]
4. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELANDSECURITY.
"So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
…less than 3 months later…
BUSH SUPPORTS CREATING A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
"So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
5. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH DECLARES WE FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, WE FOUND THEM." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
…8 months later…
BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
"David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
6. Saddam / al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS YOU CAN’T DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM.
"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
…one year later…
BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT.
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
7. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE.
"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
…6 months later…
BUSH SAYS HE IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT OSAMA.
"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him. I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
8. Timelines For Dictators
Bush sets timeline for Saddam.
"If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]
…less than 2 years later…
Bush says he's against timelines.
"I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]
9. WMD Commission and the Intelligence Failure of the CIA
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE.
"The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
…8 days later…
BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE.
"Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
10. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION.
"President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
…4 months later…
BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION. "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
11. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION.
"President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
…2 weeks later…
BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION.
"The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
12. Bush’s 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR.
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
…2 weeks later…
BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY.
"The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
13. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'.
"Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
…just 3 weeks later…
BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY.
"Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
14. Nation Building
CANDIDATE BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING.
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
…3 years later as president…
BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING.
"We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
15. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004.
"We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for 04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
…3 months later…
BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004.
"I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush’s Statement, 5/5/04]
16. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A U.N. VOTE NO MATTER WHAT.
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
…only 12 days later…
BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR U.N. VOTE.
"At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
17. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM.
"We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
…a year and a half later…
BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM.
"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
CANDIDATE BUSH WANTS TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES.
"What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...and the President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [Governor Bush, 1/26/00]
…4 years later as president…
PRESIDENT BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS.
With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
19. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS.
"Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
…about a year later…
BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS.
"If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
20. Gay Marriage
CANDIDATE BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE.
"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
…4 years later as president…
BUSH SUPPORTS A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE.
"Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
CANDIDATE BUSH ADVOCATES FOR STANDARDS BASED ON SCIENCE.
"I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
…4 years later as president…
BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE.
"60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policy making. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
22. The Environment
CANDIDATE BUSH SUPPORTS REDUCING CARBON DIOXIDE.
"[If elected], Governor Bush will work to establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
…2 ? years later as president…
BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE.
"I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
23. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM.
"They've got the quota system in place, the allotment system, and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
…one month later…
BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS.
"The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
CITIZEN BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
"Bush said he favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
…more than 20 years later…
CANDIDATE BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
"I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
25. Campaign Finance
CANDIDATE BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD.
"George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
…2 years later as president…
BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW.
"[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
BUSH OPPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON 527s."I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]
…2 years later…
BUSH SAYS 527s ARE BAD FOR THE SYSTEM.
"I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it…I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]
27. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE.
"I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
…a year and a half later…
BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE.
"In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his re-election.” (sic) [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
28. The Great Lakes
Bush wants to divert great lakes.
"Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent,' Bush said he wants ‘to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.” [AP, 7/19/01]
…3 years later…
Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes.
"We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]
29. Winning The War On Terror
Bush claims he can win the war on terror.
"One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]
…just 4 months later…
Bush says war on terror is unwinnable.
"I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]
…the very next day…
Bush says he will win the war on terror.
"Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]
Is that a Flip, a Flop, or a Flip-Flop?
Don’t worry, there are two more months before the election, which gives Bush a chance to change his mind again!
Unglaubliche Frechheit seitens unserer Behörden
AW: 040906 - R - Mobilfunk – Newsletter
den Leserbrief "Krebsfälle häufen sich in der Nähe von Mobilfunkmasten" aus obigen Newsletter nahm ich heute zum Anlass, mal wieder mit der Leiterin vom Gesundheitsamt Neustadt/Aisch E-Mail Kontakt aufzunehmen.
Ich hatte im Juni 2004 nach endlosen, vergeblichen und entwürdigenden Versuchen beim stmuvg oder beim bfs und bmu entsprechende Ansprechpartner und Hilfe zu finden, einen letzten Versuch beim Landratsamt gestartet und auch tatsächlich mit der Leiterin, Fr. Dr. Buer-Weber sprechen können, die von entsprechenden Stellen vorinformiert wurde. Es war ersichtlich, dass sie nicht das geringste Verständnis für die Beschwerden in unserer Familie empfand. Genau wie beim stmuvg wurde ich beim Gespräch verhöhnt. Wörtlich sagte sie: "Wir würden uns ja lächerlich machen, wenn wir was unternehmen würden". (der Brief vom stmugv ist übrigens auch zeitungsreif!).
Da ich nicht locker ließ, verabschiedete sie sich von mir mit dem Versprechen, Augen und Ohren offen zu halten, falls ihr noch anderweitig solche Probleme angetragen werden.
Jetzt kommt das Unglaubliche: Meine heutige Mail, in die ich lediglich den Leserbrief reinkopiert hatte, wurde vom SPAM-Filter des Landratsamtes herausgefiltert und gelöscht:
****** Message from InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT ******
Sent >>> .
Received <<< 550 5.1.0 Der Spamfilter des LRANEA hat auf Grund des Inhaltes Ihre Mail gelöscht - Sollte die Zustellung dienstlich notwendig sein, kann der Empfänger die Zustellung beantragen. [sam]
Could not deliver mail to this user. Erna.Hertlein@landkreis-nea.de
***************** End of message ***************
Ich habe nur den Artikel selbst, in reiner Textform reinkopiert. Auch ein weiterer Versuch schlug fehl.
Da der Text aber frei von sexistischen und anderen gefährdenden Äußerungen ist, fällt einem doch nur noch ein, dass auch das Landratsamt NEA mittlerweile wohl Angst vor "Mobilfunkmasten", "Sendemasten", "Krebserkrankungen" oder "Schlaganfällen" haben muss. Oder wie soll man das sonst deuten?
Haben wir da etwa einen Mitstreiter gewonnen?
Am 23. und 26.7. kamen jedenfalls meine Mails bezüglich Nailaer Studie noch an.
PS.: bitte um Wahrung meiner Anonymität
'Nuclear Terrorism': Counting Down to the New Armageddon
by JAMES HOGE
September 5, 2004
The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.
By Graham Allison.
263 pp. Times Books/ Henry Holt & Company. $24.
TERRORISTS are striving to acquire and then use nuclear weapons against the United States. Success, as defined by Osama bin Laden, would be four million dead Americans. Mounting evidence makes this much abundantly clear. Documents discovered in Afghanistan seem to reveal Al Qaeda's detailed knowledge of nuclear weaponry, while intelligence confirms the terrorists' attempts to acquire nuclear material on the black market.
In reaction, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry are giving pride of place to catastrophic terrorism in their foreign policy platforms. Both proclaim it the nation's No. 1 security challenge. Meanwhile, policy analysts have urgently recommended preventive measures in a flurry of reports, books, journal articles and Congressional testimony.
Now the Harvard scholar Graham Allison is sounding his own warning in ''Nuclear Terrorism'' -- a well-written report for general readers on the threat and what it will take to reduce it. He addresses all the big questions: who could be planning an attack; how they might acquire and deliver the weapons; when they might launch the first assault. Allison touches on chemical and biological dangers, but he separates out the far more lethal nuclear threat for special attention. Nonnuclear radioactive (''dirty'') bombs and chemical or biological devices would kill in the thousands. A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb, delivered to Times Square by truck and then detonated, could kill up to one million New Yorkers.
Some experts think a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons is already unstoppable. Allison disagrees -- up to a point. He argues that prevention is still possible, and he gives the Bush administration some credit for several post-9/11 initiatives meant to tighten the security of nuclear weapons and material. However, he calls for far bolder measures, more money and forceful American leadership to improve what is at present rather lax international cooperation. His bottom line is blunt: anything less will make nuclear terrorism inevitable.
Allison blames both the White House and the Congress for falling short of meeting the challenge. To take one example, since 9/11 the rate of funding has hardly changed for the Nunn-Lugar program, which was established to destroy or secure Russia's enormous stockpile of fissile material and nuclear weapons. Much remains to be done. Of special concern is Russia's large supply of suitcase-size nuclear bombs, which terrorists could smuggle into the United States in cargo containers or as airline baggage. The safeguards on these weapons are loose at best. (In 1997, Russia acknowledged that 84 of some 132 such weapons were missing.)
At present, it will take 13 years, in Allison's estimation, to secure Russia's fissile material. Allison's position, adopted by the Kerry campaign, is to spend whatever dollars are necessary to complete the job in four years, though achieving this objective would also require elimination of Congressionally imposed impediments to Nunn-Lugar and overcoming Russian resistance to intrusion into their facilities.
We face many vulnerabilities -- limited intelligence of the terrorists' plans; poorly protected ports, borders and nuclear power plants. But the most urgent danger is that terrorists could acquire the fissile material with which to construct a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. Russia presents the greatest problem; 90 percent of all existing fissile material outside the United States is stored within the former Soviet Union. Still, it's not the only region we need to focus on. At least 32 countries possess weapons-grade fissile material.
Allison would round up all fissile material and ban the creation of any more. This is a daunting task. Allison himself observes that there are some 200 locations around the world where nuclear weapons or fissile material could be acquired, and he pinpoints the most dangerous -- Russia because of its huge supplies, shaky safeguards and extensive corruption; Pakistan because of its indiscriminate spreading of nuclear know-how and equipment; North Korea because of its history of selling missile systems and its apparent nuclear development program; and lastly, the research reactors (some 20-odd) with significant quantities of bomb-grade uranium located in developing countries.
Allison's other remedies -- like imposing intrusive nuclear power plant inspections and sanctioning violators -- may also prove difficult to implement in the real world of suspicious governments and corrupt officials. Because the United States is widely viewed with hostility these days, it may not be able to marshal the international support needed to shut down black markets or block the emergence of new nuclear weapons states. And then there is the question of money. Governments are reluctant to spend lavishly on prospective threats when tax-conscious citizens have not yet experienced any consequences.
As a champion of the idea that nuclear terrorism is preventable, Allison emphasizes the elements of an offense -- improved intelligence, tighter treaties, more transparency and intrusion. But a stronger homeland defense is also needed in case prevention by offense fails. And currently, homeland security is getting short shrift. For the 2005 budget, Congress has allotted $7.6 billion to improve the security of military bases but only $2.6 billion to protect the nation's vital infrastructure. Within the
Department of Defense, $10 billion is spent annually on missile defense, compared with only a few billion on all other counterproliferation programs.
Homeland security becomes an even higher priority if one broadens one's thinking about the potential damage from nonnuclear weapons to include more than simply the number who would die. Allison is less concerned with biological and chemical weapons and so-called dirty bombs because they kill in the thousands, not millions. But these unconventional arms can still cause mass disruption; a few anthrax incidents, after all, virtually shut down the Congress. The release of pathogens in a public space, or a biological attack on the food supply system, or a dirty bomb set off in a seaport could have enormous economic consequences. Large-scale government efforts are needed to minimize the danger of such attacks.
What makes the job of prevention all the more difficult is that the threat of nuclear terrorism is growing at the same time as the need for nuclear-generated electricity. Allison points out that all signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty are permitted to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium to make fuel for peaceful power reactors, provided they declare what they are doing and submit to periodic inspections. In other words, states can come to the brink of nuclear weapons capability without explicitly violating the treaty. Then, without penalty, they can withdraw from the treaty and turn enriched uranium or plutonium into bombs.
This is a loophole that both Iran and North Korea have sought to take advantage of. Allison and other experts argue that the United States should not discard the treaty but take the lead in fixing it. Their preferred solution is to distinguish ''fuel cycle'' states from ''user states.'' Those states where fuel-producing facilities already exist would provide enriched fuel to other states that wish to generate electricity from nuclear reactors. Coupling this with stiffer inspection provisions and penalties for withdrawal from the treaty would return the nonproliferation treaty to an important (if limited) role in countering proliferation.
Nuclear dangers come in several forms, those that might be mounted by states and those from terrorists that cannot be contained by treaties alone, no matter how strict. Allison covers all the potential eventualities but might have been clearer in setting priorities, since resources are limited. Rogue states, capable of launching nuclear-tipped missiles, may ultimately be a threat. But the evidence indicates that the danger currently lies elsewhere. The urgent threat is nuclear terrorism, and funds need to be freed up to fill the considerable holes remaining in our counterterrorism programs.
Allison's comprehensive but accessible treatment of this vital subject is a major contribution to public understanding. In turn, an informed public could spur the government to complete the counterterrorism agenda. Only then, as Allison argues, will nuclear terror against America prove preventable.
James Hoge is the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine.
Informant: FoE Sydney
Iraqi group: Civilian toll now 37,000
by: Iraq Watch - Peace No War Network
September 6, 2004
Peace No War Iraq Watch: http://www.peacenowar.net/#Iraq
July 2003 "Report from Baghdad": http://www.actionla.org/Iraq/IraqReport/intro.html
Latest "Iraq Body Count" on Civilian Causalities in Iraq
Iraqi Wounded: 40,0000
Iraqi soldiers dead during major combat: 4,895-6,370
Iraqi group: Civilian toll now 37,000
by Ahmed Janabi
31 July 2004
An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003.
The People's Kifah, or Struggle Against Hegemony, movement said in a statement that it carried out a detailed survey of Iraqi civilian fatalities during September and October 2003.
Its calculation was based on deaths among the Iraqi civilian population only, and did not count losses sustained by the Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.
The deputy general secretary and spokesperson of the movement told Aljazeera.net he could vouch for the accuracy of the figure.
"We are 100% sure that 37,000 civilian deaths is a correct estimate. Our study is the result of two months of hard work which involved hundreds of Iraqi activists and academics. Of course there may be deaths that were not reported to us, but the toll in any case could not be lower than our finding," said Muhammad al-Ubaidi.
"For the collation of our statistics we visited the most remote villages, spoke and coordinated with grave-diggers across Iraq, obtained information from hospitals, and spoke to thousands of witnesses who saw incidents in which Iraqi civilians were killed by US fire," he said.
Al-Ubaidi, a UK-based physiology professor, provided a detailed breakdown of the 37,000 civilian deaths for each governorate (excluding the Kurdish areas) relating to the period between March and October 2003:
Karbala and Najaf: 2263
Salah al-Din: 1797
The People's Kifah said the process of data gathering stopped after one of the group's workers was arrested by Kurdish militias and handed over to US forces in October 2003. The fate of the worker remains unclear.
"I am taking this opportunity of talking to Aljazeera.net to request that the US occupation authorities reveal the whereabouts of the worker, who was arrested and then went missing. We are afraid he is being tortured the way Abu Ghraib prisoners were tortured," al-Ubaidi said.
"His name is Ramzi Musa Ahmad. He is a 32-year-old Iraqi engineer who was on his way to the Iraqi Kurdish governorate al-Sulaimania last October to fax me the information to Britain, because telephone services had not been restored in Baghdad."
According to al-Ubaidi: "The minibus in which Ahmad was travelling was stopped at a Kurdish checkpoint. He was arrested and handed over to US army."
As of now, there are no reliable estimates of total Iraqi civilian fatalities. The interim Iraqi government has not made available any statistics, while US occupation authorities in Iraq reportedly issued orders to the forensic medicine department not to talk to the media about the number of bodies it receives.
Liqa Makki, a political analyst, said it is widely known in Baghdad that Iraqi officials are prohibited from releasing any information about body count.
"The director of forensic medicine department said publicly some months ago that his department was receiving 70 bodies a day. But he was reprimanded and a statement was published in the Iraqi press prohibiting the announcement of any kind of body count," Makki said.
The only serious independent attempt to collate war statistics is the Iraq Body Count Project, which involves both US and British academics. The project's website currently places Iraq's civilian toll at between 11,000 and 13,000.
The website has been criticised in some quarters for its tardiness in updating its figures. But Iraq Body Count Project says it is not a news portal and puts accuracy ahead of speed.
According to the Arab and western media, between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqi civilians have perished since the launch of the invasion. But some cast doubt on the figures, saying the number of Iraqi civilians who have died at the hands of the US army may never be known.
Iraq's interim government is preparing the first post-Saddam census in Iraq. It hopes that an accurate census will unearth long-buried facts about Iraq's wars.
The Planning Ministry issued instructions to Iraqis not to leave their homes on 12 October when 150,000 workers will be engaged in conducting the census.
The interim government says the census will be the last step before the general election scheduled for January 2005.
According to the last official census - conducted in 1997 - Iraq had a population of 24 million.
IF YOU FLY OUT of Logan Airport and don't want to take off your shoes for the security screeners and get your bags opened up, pay attention. The US government is testing its "Trusted Traveler" program, and Logan is the fourth test airport. Currently, only American Airlines frequent fliers are eligible, but if all goes well the program will be opened up to more people and more airports.
Participants provide their name, address, phone number, and birth date, a set of fingerprints, and a retinal scan. That information is matched against law enforcement and intelligence databases. If the applicant is not on any terrorist watch list and is otherwise an upstanding citizen, he gets a card that allows him access to a special security lane. The lane doesn't bypass the metal detector or X-ray machine for carry-on bags, but it bypasses more intensive secondary screening unless there's an alarm of some kind. Unfortunately, this program won't make us more secure. Some terrorists will be able to get Trusted Traveler cards, and they'll know in advance that they'll be subjected to less stringent security.
Since 9/11, airport security has been subjecting people to special screening -- sometimes randomly and sometimes based on profile criteria as analyzed by computer. For example, people who buy one-way tickets or pay with cash are more likely to be flagged for this extra screening.
Top Stories - September 7th, 2004
Presseerklärung vom 7. September 2004
Pharma-Industrie vertreibt unnütze Nahrungsergänzungsmittel
"BAYER profitiert von gefährlicher Mode-Diät"
Rund 40 Millionen Amerikaner befolgen die sogenannte "Atkins-Diät", die den Verzehr von Fleisch, Käse, Eiern und fetthaltigen Nahrungsmitteln uneingeschränkt erlaubt, die Aufnahme von Kohlenhydraten aus Brot, Reis, Kartoffeln und Nudeln hingegen stark einschränkt. Selbst Obst und Gemüse sollen laut Atkins nur in geringen Mengen gegessen werden. Weil wegen der einseitigen Ernährung Vitamin- und Mineralstoffdefizite drohen, muss die Diät mit der Einnahme von Nährstoffpräparaten begleitet werden.
Ernährungswissenschaftler warnen vor der Atkins-Diät. Professor Klaus Eder aus Halle befürchtet, dass die einseitige Aufnahme von Fett bei längerer Anwendung erhebliche Gefahren birgt - vor allem für Herzkreislauf-Patienten, Schwangere und ältere Menschen. Die eiweißreiche Nahrung belastet die Nieren, und trotz Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln drohen Mangelerscheinungen. Die Aufnahme von Ballaststoffen ist zu niedrig, was zu Verdauungsproblemen führt.
Trotz der einhelligen Kritik von Ernährungswissenschaftlern versucht die Pharma-Industrie, von der "Mode-Diät" zu profitieren. Der Leverkusener BAYER-Konzern brachte im Frühjahr den Vitamin-Cocktail One-A-Day CarbSmart auf den Markt und machte hiermit in den USA bereits 3 Millionen Dollar Umsatz. BAYERs One-A-Day WeightSmart erzielte sogar 32 Mio Dollar in einem Jahr.
Philipp Mimkes von der Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren kritisiert die Unternehmenspolitik: "Natürlich wissen die Verantwortlichen bei BAYER, dass die Atkins-Diät gesundheitsschädlich ist und dass Vitaminpräparate niemals eine ausgewogene Ernährung ersetzen können. Doch der Pharma-Industrie ist die Gesundheit der Betroffenen herzlich egal - solange die Umsätze stimmen." Die Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren fordert eine Verschreibungspflicht sowie strenge Kontrollen aller Nahrungs-Ergänzungsmittel. BAYER hat kürzlich von ROCHE mehrere nicht-verschreibungspflichtige Medikamente übernommen, hierzu gehören auch Vitaminpräparate.
Für Rückfragen: CBGnetwork@aol.com, Tel: 0211 - 333 911
Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren
Tel: 0211-333 911
Fax 040 – 3603 741835
Dr. Sigrid Müller, Pharmakologin, Bremen
Dr. Erika Abczynski, Kinderärztin, Dormagen
Eva Bulling-Schröter, ehem. MdB, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rochlitz, Chemiker, ehem. MdB, Burgwald
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, Historiker, Berlin
Wolfram Esche, Rechtsanwalt, Köln
Dorothee Sölle,Theologin, Hamburg (U 2003)
Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, Baubiologe, Neubeuern
Prof. Jürgen Junginger, Designer, Krefeld
Survey of the Bill of Rights: Article 4
by Ron Beatty
The Libertarian Enterprise
For over 60 years, the United States has been under a state of emergency of one form or another. The combination of this, the 'war on drugs,' the 'war on crime,' and the recently popular 'war on terror' has served as a justification for the denial and/or limitation of our Fourth Amendment rights. Now, with the so-called 'Patriot Act' to serve as a flimsy justification, more and more of our rights under the Fourth Amendment are non-existent or, at best, limited so badly as to be meaningless. This is another right that the Constitution does not grant, it only recognizes that it exists. Included in this right is the right to privacy, since it specifically states that the person is included in the domain safe from unreasonable search and seizure...
Survey of the Bill of Rights: Article Six
by Ron Beatty
The Libertarian Enterprise
Looking over the Sixth Amendment, it is very plain, to anyone except a politician, a bureaucrat, or a fool (is there any difference?), that the Patriot Act is totally unconstitutional, along with many other government actions and laws .... it is quite obvious that the government agents in the so-called justice system, from the prosecutors to the judges, have, by and large, totally forgotten what the Sixth Amendment means, or why it was enacted. Is it a 'speedy and public trial' when you might have to wait months or years to get your case heard? Is it a speedy and public trial when you might be tried for your life on charges of terrorism, by a military tribunal? Is it speedy and public when the Patriot Act authorizes secret trials, for reasons of 'national security?'
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp