In Thursday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer an article from Damian Cave of the New York Times was repeated titled "Iraq claims progress on several fronts." In this article, he says " There were also hints of progress on two of the White House's most challenging legislative demands: a new national oil law, and a revised de-Baathification policy..." The final draft of this oil law could reach Parliament as early as next week. This hugely important hydrocarbon law only received a couple sentences in this article. Let's dig a little deeper on this national oil law that apparently shows progress in Iraq.

Bush recently said in his speech last week, "To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." How much of these revenues will actually go to Iraqis? Hardly any to be honest. This new provision to the constitution allows Iraq's oil industry to operate through "production-sharing agreements" or PSA's. These PSA's allow countries to keep their legal ownership of their oil, but allows profit sharing to private companies who take care of the operation of the pipelines and refineries. This would be the first major Middle Eastern oil nation to operate this way. The two leading oil exporters, Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as most members of OPEC, retain their oil profits through state-owned companies with minimal foreign collaboration.

Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry, says "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome." He goes on to say that this new policy was put in place with the help of BearingPoint, hired by the US government, working out of the US embassy in Bahgdad, obviously to hook up the big oil investors. This provision allows these investors or oil companies to take up to 75% of the profits until they balance their cost to profit margin. Once evened out, they would collect about 20% of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. Which surprisingly is double the industry standard. After the oil companies pocket three-quarters of the profits, do you honestly think the rest of the money will trickle down to the Iraqi people? Oil is 95% of Iraq's economy. This is all they have and Bush is setting up the biggest heist in history.

So Mr. Damian Cave, you are wrong in your suggestion that Iraq is claiming "progress on several fronts." This hydrocarbon law will benefit already filthy rich oil companies and screw the Iraqi people out of the one national resource they have.

Bush pretty much called for a 5-7 year commitment tonight by demanding to send more troops, more than 20,000 more troops. I thought Howard Dean put it well:

"By choosing to escalate the crisis in Iraq, President Bush continues to ignore the lessons of history, ignore the advice of military experts, ignore the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the will of the American people. The President's plan will not make America more secure. It puts more American troops in the middle of a civil war and a situation reminiscent of Vietnam. Democrats in Congress have made it clear that they fully support our brave troops in combat, but will also hold the President accountable for a new direction in Iraq that turns the country over to the Iraqis and allows for our troops to come home. Our troops have already sacrificed enough for the President's mistakes."

Bush has gone out alone on this one it seems. The generals in charge were either removed from position or chosen to join Bush. The American people don't want more troops to Iraq. Iraqis don't want us there now, let alone more troops in Baghdad. Maliki doesn't want more troops there either. Our biggest ally in this occupation, Tony Blair is not joining this troop increase. Is it only Bush and McCain who do? McCain actually wanted 50,000 more troops. Thank goodness he isn't President and won't ever be now.

The last troop increase didn't work. This one won't either. Only Iraqis can stop their own civil war. Why should Americans die for Shiism or Sunnism? Which side do we choose? Should we choose sides?

These 20,000 new troops mean only one thing, extending the troops already there and recycling troops back to Iraq earlier than scheduled.

Let us review the speech. The opening statement, “Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.” In order to change our “course in Iraq”, we need to know what our course has been. What have we been doing there? Recently we were told that we would stand down as Iraqis stood up and defended their nation. Instead of defending themselves, they are killing each other. Every morning, dead bodies are discovered, many were tortured. The total is between 53,000 and 58,000 so far.

Now back to the speech. “The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” We finally get some truth from Bush, although even an idiot can realize the chaos in Iraq. Notice he doesn’t admit the mistakes were his. Basically he says that although others have made mistakes, he’ll take responsibility. How noble.

“It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.” What a genius our President is. But is this really a change in strategy? Keeping troops there longer, returning them earlier than planned, to me isn’t a change in strategy. But let us look further.

“For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.” How about concern for the safety of Iraqis? They don’t want us there. More troops in Baghdad won’t make my town or yours any safer, but will increase the death in Iraq.

“Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.” Then let’s get out and let them do it! Look at what actually worked in Iraq. Two things, their Constitution and elections went well and occurred on time. What was the secret formula there? We gave them a date and told them this was the way it was going to be. We need to do the same thing here. When the Iraqis have a set date, they won’t drag this out. I am sure they will figure out what is best for them.

“Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.” Of course Bush is referring to the commanders he just recently put in place because the previous ones did not agree that this plan can work.

“Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.” So we will be leaving Iraqi forces behind some time in the future? Or is this another Bush lie? I am thinking lie because of the fact that the many permanant bases built or being built in Iraq, we aren’t going anywhere any time soon. “To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.” Oh, so we will be out by November? We’ll see.

“America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq.” Actually, al Qaeda is resurging in Afghanistan and we allowed that by taking troops from Afghanistan to put them in Iraq. What a disaster.

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” Is this why we just raided an Iranian consulate in Kurdistan? The six Iranians captured will disappear somewhere I am sure.

“Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.” So feel free to put your sons and daughters life in Bush’s hands because he believes this will work. Although he admits more death is around the corner.

“Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms.” Thanks Bush, I appreciate it that you refer to me as honorable. It’s too bad I don’t feel the same about you.

“In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time.” Not true. More and more military members are standing up against this illegal occupation on Iraq. Just go to appealforredress.org and see for yourself, “As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.” If Ehren Watada gets to introduce his point of the war being illegal in his court martial, the number of military members that will stand up against Bush’s policy will only increase.

“Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century.” Well Bush, it appears we are on the wrong road and you are the driver.

“We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours.” He closes with this interesting remark. In place of asking God to bless America like so many Presidents have done in the past, he brings back “the author of liberty” from his second inaugural speech in 2005. Where does this term come from? It is obviously a reference to God or Jesus, but nowhere in the Bible does it name God or Jesus as the author of liberty. The six attributes of God are the spirit of wisdom, spirit of understanding, spirit of counsel, spirit of might, spirit of knowledge and the spirit of the fear of the Lord. I would like to know where this term comes from. Did Bush make it up?

While Bush says that we need to change our strategy in Iraq, I say we need to change our President.

President George W. Bush is a liar. There, I said it. You might be thinking, “Oh here we go, another one of these liberal rants by a Bush-hater. Well, yeah, I hate him, but that is beside the point. I will now prove my opening sentence. Please read on.

I decided to begin with lies about 9/11. Can it get any more important than this? The most important event in our lifetime still has resounding effect on us today. In my opinion, that day and the lead-up to that event was the biggest failure of US intelligence and military reaction ever. The tragic day in Pearl Harbor is a very close second. Negligence and ignorance is scattered all over 9/11.

Bush, “Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people.” March 25, 2004
“There was nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings.” April 13, 2004

Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” which mentioned bin Laden’s desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that “will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests.” Also that spring and summer intelligence reports indicated that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out”. There was an assassination threat against Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit using an airplane stuffed with explosives, al-Qaeda was planning an attack using multiple airplane hijackings, and bin Laden was in advanced stages of executing a significant operation within the US. Included in a report entitled “Bin Laden planning multiple operations,” “Bin Laden’s network’s plan advancing,” and “Bin Laden threats are real” which warned of catastrophic damage. The CIA’s National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following equipment failure for the morning of September 11th. In February 2001, the Hart-Rudman report warned that “mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern” and that the US was woefully unprepared for a “catastrophic” domestic terrorist attack.

President Bush ignored these warnings, and then lied repeatedly about them to you and I.

After the initial invasion in Afghanistan and the flushing out of al-Qaeda, Bush had an interesting idea of invading Iraq. On the road to war, here are the lies that were fed to us:

From the State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003,
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.”
“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Not one of these allegations was true.

From a press conference in July 14, 2003 he said, “We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." This is another lie. Inspectors had been searching from December 2002 to March 2003 when they were forced out by the invading US forces and “Shock and Awe”. Do you remember the trucks that Colin Powell talked about being chemical weapons and decontamination trucks? They were water trucks. The IAEA disproved the authenticity of the “uranium from Africa” proposition in one day. We all know that Iraq used to have these weapons. We sold them to Iraq. But years of inspections had erased all programs of manufacturing these weapons.
But back to Bush. During the Veterans Day speech in Pennsylvania in November 2005, He said,
“They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.” If “the world” agreed with Bush’s intelligence, why was the United Nations resolution withdrawn due to threat of veto from three members of the Security Council?
He also said, “That’s why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.” The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations.
Continuing on about the Iraq war and now occupation, Bush repeatedly referred to his policy as “staying the course”. Check this out:
Bush, “We will stay the course.” August 30, 2006

“We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq.” August 4, 2005

“We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course.” December 15, 2003

“And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course.” April 13, 2004

“And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it.” April 16, 2004

“And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course.” April 5, 2004

October 23, 2006 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of CBS, “James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.” Bush replied with this obvious lie, “Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.”

Now about linking Iraq to 9/11 to justify his war, Bush said in March 2006, “First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said – at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.” But in his letter to Congress in March of 2003, he wrote, “The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Now that I have proved that whatever Bush says about Iraq is at the least questionable, let’s jump to other topics, like Hurricane Katrina. Bush said on September 1, 2005 "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." "They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And, as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded."
Let’s see, did anyone anticipate the breach of the levees? The Homeland Security Department was warned a day before Hurricane Katrina hit that the storm’s surge could breach levees and leave New Orleans flooded for weeks or months. An August 28 report by the department’s National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center concluded that a Category 4 or 5 hurricane would cause severe damage in the city, including power outages and a direct economic hit of up to $10 billion for the first week. In 2004, a year before Katrina, Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency ran an exercise called “Hurricane Pam” that estimated a Category 3 hurricane hitting New Orleans. It found that flood waters would surge over levees, creating “a catastrophic mass casualty/mass evacuation” and leaving drainage pumps crippled for up to six months.
Now here is the proof of negligence. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and Congress eventually provided $5.7 million. Similarly, the Army Corps requested $78 million for this fiscal year for projects that would improve draining and prevent flooding in New Orleans. The Bush administration's budget provided $30 million for the projects, and Congress ultimately approved $36.5 million. Because of this reduction in funds, the Corps delayed seven contracts that included enlarging the levees

Much of the devastation in New Orleans was caused by breaches in the levees, which allowed water from Lake Pontchartrain to cover 80% of the city. Not only did Bush know about the levee issue, his negligence helped the levees fail.

Now on to the illegal wiretapping of US telephones. During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed, “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.” Bush said in an East Room news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, "We do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval," Bush added, "What I've told the American people is we'll protect them against an al-Qaeda attack. And we'll do that within the law. This government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people.”
Okay, I agree with that. It follows the Constitution and the FISA court. But let’s see what really happened. A year later Bush was saying that It could not wait to get a warrant because it needed ”to move quickly to detect" plotting of terrorism between people in the United States and abroad. That cannot be true. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the President to seek a warrant up to 3 days AFTER initiating the wiretap. The President never sought any such authority after the fact for this program. “The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people," Bush said.
NSA whistleblower Russell Tice recently told ABC News "the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions." Sounds limited to me! This warrantless wiretapping is not “within the law” as Bush said. The administration requested the ability to conduct warrantless searches as part of the September 11th resolution, but Congress rejected it.

I will end this with one simple one that Bush at least admitted to lying about. Maybe not admitting to it, but it is obvious he runs from the lie by changing the subject. It refers to the firing of Donald Rumsfeld after the 2006 elections even though he told reporters that Rumsfeld would stay. The reporter asked Bush, “Last week you told us Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now, and how much does it have to do with the election results?”

Bush answers, “You and Hunt and Keil came into the Oval Office and asked me to question one week before the campaign. Basically, are you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the Vice President? The reason why is I did not want to make a major decision in the final days of the campaign. The only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you that answer.” So basically Bush had to lie to get to another question.

How many times has he lied in press conferences and State of the Union Addresses? We may never know all the lies of George W. Bush. I just thought I would remind you of some of them.

Gerald Ford, the 38th President of the United States has died. He was the President when I was born although only for 3 years, from 1974 to 1977. Obviously these were troubled times in American politics. He served as the House Minority Leader from 1965 to 1973 before filling the vacancy at Vice President left by the retirement of Spiro Agnew. Using the 25th Amendment, the Senate and the House overwhelmingly voted him in. After Nixon resigned in August of 1974, he became President.

Some quotes from the beginning of his Presidency:
“I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers.”

“I have not sought this enormous responsibility, but I will not shirk it. Those who nominated and confirmed me as Vice President were my friends and are my friends. They were of both parties, elected by all the people and acting under the Constitution in their name. It is only fitting then that I should pledge to them and to you that I will be the President of all the people.”
Gerald Ford was a Republican President and did a lot to set up men who have had a hugely significant impact on our current political picture. He selected George H. W. Bush to be the Ambassador to China as well as the Director of the CIA in 1975. Also in 1975, Ford placed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense and in the following year chose Dick Cheney to be his Chief of Staff and his campaign manager for the 1976 election.
Inflation was a huge issue at the time, sitting around 7%. Ford introduced the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 which provided a 10% rebate on the 1974 federal income tax. He also inherited the Vietnam War. On April 23, 1975, Ford said that the war was “finished as far as America is concerned.” A week later, Saigon fell, the South Vietnamese government surrendered and the war was over.

Ford escaped two assassination attempts in September of 1975, both by women and both in California.

In the 1976 Republican Presidential Primaries, Ford narrowly won over Ronald Reagan and chose Bob Dole as his running mate. The 1976 election was a close one with ford losing to Jimmy Carter by a narrow 2 point margin and 57 electoral votes. Ford and Carter remained close but as friends after both attended the funeral of Anwar Al Sadat.
President Clinton awarded Ford with the Medal of Freedom in 1999. Here is the citation:
“Gerald R. Ford assumed the Presidency and led America during a time of unprecedented challenge. Building on bonds of trust forged during 25 years of exemplary public service in the United States Congress, he guided our Nation toward reconciliation and a reestablished confidence in our government. A leader of character, courage, decency, and integrity, he earned the Nation's enduring respect and gratitude. America is forever indebted to Gerald R. Ford -- 38th President of the United States -- for his legacy of healing and restored hope.”

His unique Presidency played an important role in a controversial time in America and had a huge impact, positive as well as negative, on the current picture of American government.

The “el bloqueo” must end. The arrogant and ignorant US-Cuban embargo has gone on for way to long.

The Cold War is over, folks. Cuba no longer has nuclear missiles, hasn’t had them for years. What can this “economic pressure” really do? What has it done since 1962? US companies imported 95% of the total Cuban sugar crop in 1926. In 1958, Cuba was seventh on the US export and import lists. They sent us 67% of their exports and received 70% of their imports from us.

In 2000, President Clinton relaxed the embargo for agricultural goods and medicine for humanitarian reasons. This became extremely important to the Cuban people after Hurricane Michelle in November 2001. To prove the need of the people of Cuba, since the change in the embargo, Cuba has rose from last on the list of 180 importers of US agricultural products to be ranked 33rd in 2003.

The world has repeatedly condemned this act. The UN General Assembly has passed a non-binding resolution against the embargo every year since 1991. Let’s see the vote tallies:
1992: 59-2 (US and of course Israel)
1993: 88-4 (US, Israel, Albania, Paraguay)
1994: 101-2 (US, Israel)
1995: 117-3 (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1996: 138-3 (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1997: 143-3 (US, Israel, Uzbekistan)
1998: 157-2 (US, Israel) Uzbekistan must have received their aid by now
1999: 155-2 (US, Israel)
2000: 167-3 (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2001: 167-3 (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2002: 173-3 (US, Israel, Marshall Islands)
2004: 179-4 (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
2006: 183-4 (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau)
Is this ridiculous or what? In one of the most enduring embargos in modern history with such overwhelming international condemnation, why does it continue? Is it for a few votes in Florida? Should these ex-Cubans and their hate for their former country result in such a negative effect? If they left Cuba because of the terrible conditions there, you would think they would want to make it better for their home country and family members, not worse. These people confuse me.

George W. Bush has threatened to veto any reductions in regulations in traveling to Cuba. Even the Republican controlled Senate in 2003 followed the House trying to lift the travel ban to no avail. The US has even gone as far as in October 2006 creating a task force from several agencies to be more aggressive in pursuing violators of the trade embargo resulting in 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

I don’t want to hear the Communism excuse. Vietnam is a Communist country. George Bush is visiting there today. He wants to strengthen economic and military ties with Vietnam. China has a Communist government and we imported 243.5 Billion dollars worth of commodities from them in 2005.

On May 15, 2002 former President Jimmy Carter spoke in Havana, saying “Our two nations have been trapped in a destructive state of belligerence for 42 years, and it is time for us to change our relationship.” I can not agree more.