Today’s Talk

President Bush has made many mistakes over the last years both in the social issues of this country that he has neglected and in his foreign policy.  He has had the opportunity to do the right thing with two former U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean who were arrested and jailed for shooting a drug dealer. 

If you are not familiar with the issue at hand here it is in brief: 

A drug dealer tried to escape with 700 pounds of drugs worth a million dollars. The drug dealer flees from law enforcement who to try to stop him. There was  a scuffle, shots are fired and exchanged. The border agents don’t know whether they shot the offender or not because he escapes back to Mexico. And the next thing they know the U.S. federal government now gets involved. The federal government is on the side of the drug dealer whom they give immunity too. In court he testifies against the two border agents. And today, they’re going to prison.

So the people who are sent out to protect our borders are now in prison because this administration would rather give a drug dealer immunity rather than to protect our citizens and borders.   Republics and Democrats alike have called on the President to give the two border agents a presidential pardon, but the president has ignored the congressmen and 250,000 Americans who signed a petition.  It is also worth pointing out as Rep Tom Tancredo (R), Colorado said “that over the Christmas break, the president of the United States pardoned 18 felons. Five of those people were drug dealers. Five drug dealers pardoned at Christmas, but we cannot even get a response to the letters we have sent asking him to pardon the Border Patrol agents. What greater example of where this president’s priorities are than that?”   

Our president would rather give 18 felons a U.S. pardoned rather than pardon two honorable and brave agents who wanted to protect and uphold U.S. laws.  Where is the mind of our President?  He has certainly turned his back on the middle class and he is turning his back against his employees who uphold his laws. 

To support border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, contact the White House at: comments@whitehouse.gov or call 202-456-1111. You can also send an e-mail to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: askdoj@usdoj.gov or call 202-514-2001

Continuing with the Iraq war, a debate on the legitimacy of the war would not be complete without discussing the “Downing Street” memo which was leaked and published in Britain on May 1, 2005. The memo is actually the minutes of a meeting that took place in the U.K. This meeting was attended by senior ministers of the U.K. government including Tony Blair.

Some key points of the “Downing Street” memo are as followed:

1. The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
2. C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
3. The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
4. The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

So what can we conclude from this official document. Well, we can conclude that both U.K. and the U.S. governments knew that the intelligence was being “fixed” to support Bush’s reason for going to war. We also know from this memo that the Bush administration did little planning in terms of the aftermath of the war which is way we have the growing violence in Iraq now. We also can conclude that the U.K. government knew “Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

Other Documents:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw Memo — Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary) to Tony Blair in preparation for Blair’s visit to Bush’s Crawford ranch, covering Iraq-al Qaida linkage, legality of invasion, weapons inspectors and post-war considerations.

Carne Ross, Britain’s key negotiator at the UN comes clean
This memo should be read by every American. Comments, thoughts??
 

If you had the opportunity to watch “Iraq for Sale” you will understand how cost plus contracts have cost the American tax payers million of dollars. But, before I talk about cost plus contracts, I will say the following. I am all for companies making profit. However, when companies routinely and knowing try to skim on the work they were contract for which in the case of Halliburton, puts American troops at risk then we have issues of potential criminal actions that should be considered.

For those who are not aware of what cost plus contracts are here are the basic.

Halliburton earns money from the government primarily through its “cost-plus” contracts. Under a cost-plus contract, a government contractor like Halliburton purchases all the necessary items to complete a job order and is subsequently reimbursed all those costs from the government — and then paid a percentage of those costs (the plus) as a fee. A typical contractor earns a base fee of 1 percent of the estimated contract cost and an “incentive fee” of up to 9 percent of the cost estimate based on the contractor’s performance in a number of areas, including cost control. The upshot: The contractor will never spend $1 million to do a job when it can spend $10 million and thereby earn a higher fee.

OK, I won’t get to technical on the above explanation of a cost plus contact but specific and numerous examples were giving during the film. One example was the simple task of doing laundry. The soldiers are required to send their dirty clothes to Halliburton for cleaning. One bag of laundry which can be done for $3-$4 here in the U.S., will be turned into a $100 bag of laundry by using cost plus pricing.

One of Halliburton’s cost plus contract is officially called Logistics Civil Augmentation Program “LOGCAP.” Under this contract, Halliburton/KBR is contracted to feed, house and transport troops in the Middle East and Iraq.

Another frightening example is found here.

My recent post on the issue of Tehran developing its nuclear program and the shocking vote of China agreeing to sanctions against Iran has new developments.  I stated that is often hard to believe that the U.S. would let another country dictate its foreign policy (i.e. Israel.)  Well, in a recent broadcast of VOA, the U.S. is pressuring China to give up its economic ties with Tehran.  China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao said that China has every right to do business with Iran and the U.S. has no right to comment on the two countries dealings.  Furthermore, Mr. Liu stated that “we think that this kind of cooperation and relationship is legitimate, normal relations normal cooperation should not be interfered with.”

With such close ties that China has with Tehran, the recent vote against Tehran is still puzzling.  It is worth pointing out, that the sanctions that were introduced by the UNSC will have no impact in terms of Iran going ahead with its civilian nuclear program.  So even though China voted for sanctions, it will have no impact. 

What are your thoughts?  Was this just a way for China to get the U.S. off its back? 

The president’s voice was heard by about 44% of the American population with a majority of the American population dissatisfied with his new plan.  Like no other, Keith Olbermann put it like no other reporter can, in explaining how the president has lied and has not listen to previous advice giving to him. 

Watch Keith explain the president’s speech here
 

Excerpt:

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America.

Now he says it is vital.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control.

Last night he promised to embed them in Iraqi units.

He told us about WMD.

Mobile labs.

Secret sources.

Aluminum tubes.

Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary:

Because Saddam was a material threat.

Because of 9/11.

Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaida. Terrorism in general.

To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases.

Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

Because — 439 words in to the speech last night — he trotted out 9/11 again.

In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

To get Muqtada Al-Sadr. To get Bin Laden.

Today was a very busy day down on Capital Hill with military and foreign policy leaders of the Bush administration defending and explaining the President’s new strategy on Iraq.  Criticism came from both political parties as Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told Condoleezza Rice that the president’s plan is “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”

The new Defense Secretary Robert Gates was also in the hot seat with the House Armed Services Committee.  He told that committee that America’s “patience is limited, and obviously if the Iraqis fail to maintain their commitments, we’ll have to revisit our strategy.”  Well, I think the majority of the American population is pass being a little impatient with how things are going.  One only needs to take a look at recent polls to show that the American population is not satisfied in addition to looking at the current situation in Iraq.  For example Harris Interactive completed a poll on Iraq in December 4, 2006, in which it found 63% are “not confident” that U.S. policy in Iraq will be successful.  The numbers speak for themselves. 

I found it also a bit amusing for Secretary Rice to go so far out of her way to not call over 22,000 additional troops not a “surge.”  Did they not cover what a surge is during her PhD degree?  Let’s be honest, it’s a surge.

So what are your thoughts on the new strategy in Iraq?  Will it work? 

Over the last couple days, some attention has been placed on the recent climate changes.  The U.S., according to CNN has seen its hottest average temperature and yet companies like Exxon mislead the public by putting unscientific evidence out there for everyone to read.  Part of the fault would actually be on part of everyone who would believe companies like Exxon who state global warming is not happening.  The bias between Exxon and the implementations they would have to put in place as a result of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 would be huge. 

The U.S. is far behind the E.U. with implementing clean air policies.  The U.S. and Australia are the only advance countries not to have sign the multi-lateral agreement.  Combating climate changes that we are seeing today would produce benefits both for society and the environment.  Unfortunately, big business and government officials would rather put money ahead of the only planet we have.  Demands and pressure must be put on big business and the government to adopt technology solutions that promote a cleaner air policy.   

Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” is a look at scientific facts regarding climate changes and the potential impact if our government and business do not act soon.  I encourage everyone to watch it.

Watch it here

After the unanimous resolution for economic sanctions against Iran, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in China this week to foster bi-lateral agreements in key areas.  The two countries have not always had amicable relations.  Recently, China gave ill-will to Israel as it invited the Palestinian foreign minister to attend a conference on China-Arab relations. They should have been invited as they play a key part in stabilizing peace in the Middle East just as much as Israel does. 

In any event, it is 100% certain that Olmert will continue to pressure China on the issue of Iran’s nuclear technology.  Let me make myself clear in that no international organization or country has sound evidence that Iran is trying to pursue nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, as it relates to U.S. politics, the U.S. should not be so quick to jump to conclusions as it did in Iraq that a country has nuclear weapons.  On a side note, former staff and documents (i.e. Downing Street Memo) now make it clear that the U.S. knew Iraq did not pose a threat towards the U.S. in terms of WMD.

So, it will be interesting how Israel and the U.S. will play a key part in shaping a case against Iran in the future.