Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Money For Wars But None To Heat US Poor Homes
Of course, President Bush has recently vetoed a bill that would have provided medical insurance for 10,000,000 poor American children. And now it's found there is not enough money for an estimated 30,000,000 poor Americans who need help with heating their homes this winter. Mr. Bush has actually cut the program that needs to be greatly expanded or millions of poor Americans will be without heat this winter. At the recent Republican debate most of the candidates wanted to keep expanding military spending but then wanted to privatize Social Security, with several, including Fred Thompson, wanting to cut benefits to needy seniors. I think this rich, snobby party "of, by, and for the selfish millionaires," needs to change their priorities or we should remember this in the next election and boot them out of office. See http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1936306920071019
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Bush’s war czar floats call for military draft
Bush’s war czar floats call for military draft
By Bill Van Auken
15 August 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The senior military officer tapped by President Bush to serve as his “war czar” declared in a radio interview last Friday that Washington should consider the reimposition of a military draft to relieve the extreme pressure that the ongoing wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are inflicting on the US military.
“I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,” Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.”
The general continued: “And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another.”
The interview, the first given by Lute since he was confirmed by the Senate in June, had all the earmarks of a trial balloon aimed at introducing the idea of once again conscripting young people into the armed forces for America’s colonial-style wars, under conditions in which extended back-to-back combat deployments are steadily wearing down the US military.
Lute, an active-duty general, was confirmed by the US Senate last June to a position that amounts to a sort of liaison between the White House, the military and other civilian agencies involved in the Iraq occupation. At least five prominent retired officers had rejected the post, some openly stating that they considered any attempt to rescue the Iraqi intervention as hopeless. Lute had reportedly long been a critic of the administration’s handling of the war from the standpoint of the strains that it has placed on the American military.
The suggestion that military conscription should be reinstated for the first time since President Richard Nixon suspended the draft 34 years ago under conditions of massive opposition to the war in Vietnam clearly is a political bombshell.
Lute hastened to qualify his remarks, acknowledging that the action would represent a “major policy shift.” Reaffirming the line generally given by both the Bush administration and the Pentagon, he declared, “Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well.”
White House and Pentagon spokesmen rushed to deny that Lute’s comments were connected to any plans for reviving the draft.
“The president’s position is that the all-volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. Gen. Lute made that point as well,” said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman chimed in, “I can tell you emphatically that there is absolutely no consideration being given to reinstituting the draft.” He added, “The all-volunteer force has surpassed all expectations of its founders.”
There is undoubtedly extreme reluctance within both the US military and the ruling elite as a whole to bring back the draft under the present political conditions, in which a decisive majority of the American population opposes the continued deployment of US troops in Iraq. Not only is there the general fear that conscription would incite a political explosion, but within the military brass—most of which is drawn from veterans of America’s ill-fated war in Vietnam—there is deep-seated concern that an army of conscripts in Iraq could enter into the same kind of crisis, decomposition and, in some cases, open revolt that was seen among US troops in Southeast Asia 35 years ago.
There exists, however, an inescapable logic to the reemergence of the draft as a serious subject of policy debate in Washington, even as popular hostility to the war has grown to unprecedented levels, seemingly making conscription politically unthinkable.
On the military side, there are increasing warnings from the top uniformed ranks that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are “breaking” the army, steadily eroding its most qualified personnel, bringing in recruits that would have been rejected in earlier years and who are inadequately trained, and leaving too few units to maintain these occupations, much less to conduct interventions elsewhere.
Lute referred to the strains placed on the troops. “There’s both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families,” he said. “And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions.”
The back-to-back deployments and the curtailing of “dwell time,” in which troops are meant to recuperate from combat duty, retrain and reequip, have wreaked havoc on soldiers’ personal lives, with divorce, suicide and alcoholism rates all up sharply.
Meanwhile, one third of those returning from Afghanistan and Iraq to be treated at government facilities have been diagnosed with mental illness. According to the Pentagon’s own mental health taskforce, the protracted deployments of US troops—considerably longer than combat tours served by soldiers in either Vietnam or World War II—have resulted in 38 percent of regular army soldiers, 31 percent of marines and 49 percent of National Guard troops showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder within three months of returning from Iraq.
At the same time, the extreme unpopularity of the war has generated a deepening recruitment crisis for the US military. The army was able to meet its July recruitment goal only by adding a $20,000 sign-up bonus. The incentive, combined with a significant beefing up of the recruiters’ ranks, came after two straight months of enlistment shortfalls, with recruiters missing their target by 15 percent in June.
The military has also been forced to drop its recruitment standards. In 2006, for example, just 73 percent of army recruits were high school graduates, compared to over 90 percent two years earlier. At the same time, it has increased the number of so-called waivers for recruits with criminal convictions that would otherwise keep them out of the army by 65 percent since the beginning of the war and has also raised the maximum enlistment age to 42.
The depth of the crisis confronting the US military—and the inability of these stopgap measures to resolve a systemic crisis—was spelled out late last month in Congressional testimony by Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in charge of manpower from 1981 through 1985 under the Reagan administration.
“The decision to escalate or to ‘surge’ five more brigades and a total of 30,000 more ground troops into Iraq has put additional strain on the ground forces and threatens to leave the United States with a broken force that is unprepared to deal with other threats around the world,” Korb told Congress.
“The simple fact is that the United States currently does not have enough troops who are ready and available for potential contingency missions in places like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or anywhere else,” he said.
He charged that the administration’s order to extend tours in Iraq and Afghanistan from 12 to 15 months—which he pointed out had not been done even during the Vietnam and Korean wars—as well as the reduction in training given to those sent into combat was placing “unreasonable stress” on American forces.
Korb’s experience as the Pentagon official responsible for troop levels lends substantial weight to his remarks—which included his own assertion that a revived draft is required.
He argued that the present deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan represent “a complete misuse of the all-volunteer military.”
This volunteer force, he said, “was designed to act as an initial response force, a force that would be able to repel and counter aggression. If America ever found itself in a protracted ground war, or was forced to act against an existential threat, the all-volunteer force was to act as a bridge to reinstating conscription. This is why we require young men to register when they turn 18.”
Citing the statement made last fall by Gen. John Abizaid, the former head of the US Central Command, that the all-volunteer military was not “built to sustain a long war,” Korb continued: “Therefore, if the United States is going to have a significant component of its ground forces in Iraq over the next five, 10, 15, or 30 years, then the only correct course is for the president and those supporting this open-ended and escalated presence in Iraq to call for reinstating the draft. That would be the responsible path.”
Korb hastened to make clear that he did not support such an option, but instead believed that the US should conduct a “strategic redeployment,” withdrawing US forces from Iraq over the next 10 to 12 months.
While there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the American population supports such a withdrawal, there are increasing indications that no section of the American ruling elite nor the leaderships of the two major political parties is contemplating a withdrawal from Iraq.
What is envisioned is a large-scale military occupation of Iraq for many years to come, precisely the situation that the senior uniformed commanders and military analysts insist requires conscription to adequately sustain.
Whatever their criticisms of the Bush administration’s “mismanagement” of the war in Iraq, the Democratic leadership remains committed to the original goals for which this war was launched—establishing US hegemony over the oil-rich Persian Gulf as a means of securing a strategic advantage over Washington’s economic rivals in Europe and Asia. In this context, the war is not an aberration but part of a global struggle which poses still more such interventions—in Iran, Venezuela or in other areas of the globe—for which still more young Americans will be needed as cannon fodder.
This is the objective context that gave rise to Lute’s remarks, which reflect a far more extensive discussion on military conscription that is unfolding behind the backs of the American people.
[hillary clinton]
By Bill Van Auken
15 August 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The senior military officer tapped by President Bush to serve as his “war czar” declared in a radio interview last Friday that Washington should consider the reimposition of a military draft to relieve the extreme pressure that the ongoing wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are inflicting on the US military.
“I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,” Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.”
The general continued: “And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another.”
The interview, the first given by Lute since he was confirmed by the Senate in June, had all the earmarks of a trial balloon aimed at introducing the idea of once again conscripting young people into the armed forces for America’s colonial-style wars, under conditions in which extended back-to-back combat deployments are steadily wearing down the US military.
Lute, an active-duty general, was confirmed by the US Senate last June to a position that amounts to a sort of liaison between the White House, the military and other civilian agencies involved in the Iraq occupation. At least five prominent retired officers had rejected the post, some openly stating that they considered any attempt to rescue the Iraqi intervention as hopeless. Lute had reportedly long been a critic of the administration’s handling of the war from the standpoint of the strains that it has placed on the American military.
The suggestion that military conscription should be reinstated for the first time since President Richard Nixon suspended the draft 34 years ago under conditions of massive opposition to the war in Vietnam clearly is a political bombshell.
Lute hastened to qualify his remarks, acknowledging that the action would represent a “major policy shift.” Reaffirming the line generally given by both the Bush administration and the Pentagon, he declared, “Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well.”
White House and Pentagon spokesmen rushed to deny that Lute’s comments were connected to any plans for reviving the draft.
“The president’s position is that the all-volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. Gen. Lute made that point as well,” said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman chimed in, “I can tell you emphatically that there is absolutely no consideration being given to reinstituting the draft.” He added, “The all-volunteer force has surpassed all expectations of its founders.”
There is undoubtedly extreme reluctance within both the US military and the ruling elite as a whole to bring back the draft under the present political conditions, in which a decisive majority of the American population opposes the continued deployment of US troops in Iraq. Not only is there the general fear that conscription would incite a political explosion, but within the military brass—most of which is drawn from veterans of America’s ill-fated war in Vietnam—there is deep-seated concern that an army of conscripts in Iraq could enter into the same kind of crisis, decomposition and, in some cases, open revolt that was seen among US troops in Southeast Asia 35 years ago.
There exists, however, an inescapable logic to the reemergence of the draft as a serious subject of policy debate in Washington, even as popular hostility to the war has grown to unprecedented levels, seemingly making conscription politically unthinkable.
On the military side, there are increasing warnings from the top uniformed ranks that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are “breaking” the army, steadily eroding its most qualified personnel, bringing in recruits that would have been rejected in earlier years and who are inadequately trained, and leaving too few units to maintain these occupations, much less to conduct interventions elsewhere.
Lute referred to the strains placed on the troops. “There’s both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families,” he said. “And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions.”
The back-to-back deployments and the curtailing of “dwell time,” in which troops are meant to recuperate from combat duty, retrain and reequip, have wreaked havoc on soldiers’ personal lives, with divorce, suicide and alcoholism rates all up sharply.
Meanwhile, one third of those returning from Afghanistan and Iraq to be treated at government facilities have been diagnosed with mental illness. According to the Pentagon’s own mental health taskforce, the protracted deployments of US troops—considerably longer than combat tours served by soldiers in either Vietnam or World War II—have resulted in 38 percent of regular army soldiers, 31 percent of marines and 49 percent of National Guard troops showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder within three months of returning from Iraq.
At the same time, the extreme unpopularity of the war has generated a deepening recruitment crisis for the US military. The army was able to meet its July recruitment goal only by adding a $20,000 sign-up bonus. The incentive, combined with a significant beefing up of the recruiters’ ranks, came after two straight months of enlistment shortfalls, with recruiters missing their target by 15 percent in June.
The military has also been forced to drop its recruitment standards. In 2006, for example, just 73 percent of army recruits were high school graduates, compared to over 90 percent two years earlier. At the same time, it has increased the number of so-called waivers for recruits with criminal convictions that would otherwise keep them out of the army by 65 percent since the beginning of the war and has also raised the maximum enlistment age to 42.
The depth of the crisis confronting the US military—and the inability of these stopgap measures to resolve a systemic crisis—was spelled out late last month in Congressional testimony by Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in charge of manpower from 1981 through 1985 under the Reagan administration.
“The decision to escalate or to ‘surge’ five more brigades and a total of 30,000 more ground troops into Iraq has put additional strain on the ground forces and threatens to leave the United States with a broken force that is unprepared to deal with other threats around the world,” Korb told Congress.
“The simple fact is that the United States currently does not have enough troops who are ready and available for potential contingency missions in places like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or anywhere else,” he said.
He charged that the administration’s order to extend tours in Iraq and Afghanistan from 12 to 15 months—which he pointed out had not been done even during the Vietnam and Korean wars—as well as the reduction in training given to those sent into combat was placing “unreasonable stress” on American forces.
Korb’s experience as the Pentagon official responsible for troop levels lends substantial weight to his remarks—which included his own assertion that a revived draft is required.
He argued that the present deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan represent “a complete misuse of the all-volunteer military.”
This volunteer force, he said, “was designed to act as an initial response force, a force that would be able to repel and counter aggression. If America ever found itself in a protracted ground war, or was forced to act against an existential threat, the all-volunteer force was to act as a bridge to reinstating conscription. This is why we require young men to register when they turn 18.”
Citing the statement made last fall by Gen. John Abizaid, the former head of the US Central Command, that the all-volunteer military was not “built to sustain a long war,” Korb continued: “Therefore, if the United States is going to have a significant component of its ground forces in Iraq over the next five, 10, 15, or 30 years, then the only correct course is for the president and those supporting this open-ended and escalated presence in Iraq to call for reinstating the draft. That would be the responsible path.”
Korb hastened to make clear that he did not support such an option, but instead believed that the US should conduct a “strategic redeployment,” withdrawing US forces from Iraq over the next 10 to 12 months.
While there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the American population supports such a withdrawal, there are increasing indications that no section of the American ruling elite nor the leaderships of the two major political parties is contemplating a withdrawal from Iraq.
What is envisioned is a large-scale military occupation of Iraq for many years to come, precisely the situation that the senior uniformed commanders and military analysts insist requires conscription to adequately sustain.
Whatever their criticisms of the Bush administration’s “mismanagement” of the war in Iraq, the Democratic leadership remains committed to the original goals for which this war was launched—establishing US hegemony over the oil-rich Persian Gulf as a means of securing a strategic advantage over Washington’s economic rivals in Europe and Asia. In this context, the war is not an aberration but part of a global struggle which poses still more such interventions—in Iran, Venezuela or in other areas of the globe—for which still more young Americans will be needed as cannon fodder.
This is the objective context that gave rise to Lute’s remarks, which reflect a far more extensive discussion on military conscription that is unfolding behind the backs of the American people.
[hillary clinton]
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Clarence Avant, Berry Gordy and Quincy Jones to Host Hillary for President Fundraiser
8/13/2007
Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Clarence Avant, Berry Gordy and Quincy Jones to Host Hillary for President Fundraiser
Los Angeles- NBA legend and business entrepreneur Earvin “Magic” Johnson, in collaboration with musical greats Clarence Avant, Berry Gordy, and Quincy Jones, will host a fundraiser in Los Angeles for Senator Hillary Clinton on Friday, September 14.
"Senator Hillary Clinton has a unique understanding of the domestic and international issues and has the experience and knowledge to help lead our country and get us to a better place," said Earvin "Magic" Johnson. "We need a winner as our next President of the United States-someone that can help realistically improve relations in the world, someone that will work to provide affordable and accessible healthcare and someone that is simply a strong leader. I know that's Hillary Clinton."
"I am honored to have such Magical and fabulous support," said Hillary Clinton. "As the campaign continues, I am humbled by the actions taken by supporters willing to do all they can to ensure that my campaign is successful. Magic, Clarence, Berry, and Quincy are a true testament to knowing what it takes to be a success," she concluded.
Last month, Quincy Jones endorsed Senator Clinton in an inspiring video tribute during the African American Men for Hillary luncheon in Washington, D.C. which brought together more than 200 African American men supporters from the business, entertainment, faith, government, and political sectors.
"I am delighted to be a co-chair of this event," said Clarence Avant. "Hillary has been a friend for many years. I have watched her serve our country as First Lady, and now as a Senator from New York. She has done so in a manner that makes us all proud to be Americans. I am confident that with the experience and leadership that she brings to the job, when she returns to the White House,, she will hit the ground running on day one -- working on behalf of the American people," he concluded.
Berry Gordy who has known Senator Clinton for many years added, "Hillary has been a devoted public servant for most of her life. I believe that at this point in our nation's history, she has the strength and focus that is required to lead our country. I am supporting her with the full confidence of knowing, that our country is at a crossroads, and we need her leadership at this time in the White House."
The event will be held at the home of Cookie & Earvin "Magic" Johnson.
Earvin Johnson, Jr. is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Magic Johnson Enterprises (MJE) which owns and/or operates business ventures across 89 cities and 22 states. Through MJE, Mr. Johnson has bolstered the economy by establishing brand name businesses in underserved communities, training and hiring local residents and employing local contractors. As Chairman and Founder of the Magic Johnson Foundation, Mr. Johnson continues to work to improve the educational, health, and social needs of children, young adults and inner-city communities throughout the nation.
Berry Gordy founded and presided over the musical empire known as Motown. Under his tutelage, Motown became a model of black capitalism, pride and self-expression and a repository for some of the greatest talent ever assembled at one company.
Clarence Avant is a music executive widely renowned for his dedication to pioneering opportunities within the recording industry. During his 40 year career, Avant has been honored publicly for his positive contributions to society. In 1993, Avant was named Chairman of Motown Records and four years later he became the first African-American to serve on the International Management Board for Polygram. Today, Avant is president of his own publishing companies, Avant Garde and Interior Music Corp.
Quincy D. Jones Jr. is a composer, conductor and record producer who during five decades in the entertainment industry has earned more than 70 Grammy Award nominations, more than 25 Grammy Awards, and a Grammy Legend Award in 1991. He is best known as the co-producer of two of the top-selling records of all time: the album Thriller by Michael Jackson, which sold 104 million copies worldwide.
[hillary clinton]
Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Clarence Avant, Berry Gordy and Quincy Jones to Host Hillary for President Fundraiser
Los Angeles- NBA legend and business entrepreneur Earvin “Magic” Johnson, in collaboration with musical greats Clarence Avant, Berry Gordy, and Quincy Jones, will host a fundraiser in Los Angeles for Senator Hillary Clinton on Friday, September 14.
"Senator Hillary Clinton has a unique understanding of the domestic and international issues and has the experience and knowledge to help lead our country and get us to a better place," said Earvin "Magic" Johnson. "We need a winner as our next President of the United States-someone that can help realistically improve relations in the world, someone that will work to provide affordable and accessible healthcare and someone that is simply a strong leader. I know that's Hillary Clinton."
"I am honored to have such Magical and fabulous support," said Hillary Clinton. "As the campaign continues, I am humbled by the actions taken by supporters willing to do all they can to ensure that my campaign is successful. Magic, Clarence, Berry, and Quincy are a true testament to knowing what it takes to be a success," she concluded.
Last month, Quincy Jones endorsed Senator Clinton in an inspiring video tribute during the African American Men for Hillary luncheon in Washington, D.C. which brought together more than 200 African American men supporters from the business, entertainment, faith, government, and political sectors.
"I am delighted to be a co-chair of this event," said Clarence Avant. "Hillary has been a friend for many years. I have watched her serve our country as First Lady, and now as a Senator from New York. She has done so in a manner that makes us all proud to be Americans. I am confident that with the experience and leadership that she brings to the job, when she returns to the White House,, she will hit the ground running on day one -- working on behalf of the American people," he concluded.
Berry Gordy who has known Senator Clinton for many years added, "Hillary has been a devoted public servant for most of her life. I believe that at this point in our nation's history, she has the strength and focus that is required to lead our country. I am supporting her with the full confidence of knowing, that our country is at a crossroads, and we need her leadership at this time in the White House."
The event will be held at the home of Cookie & Earvin "Magic" Johnson.
Earvin Johnson, Jr. is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Magic Johnson Enterprises (MJE) which owns and/or operates business ventures across 89 cities and 22 states. Through MJE, Mr. Johnson has bolstered the economy by establishing brand name businesses in underserved communities, training and hiring local residents and employing local contractors. As Chairman and Founder of the Magic Johnson Foundation, Mr. Johnson continues to work to improve the educational, health, and social needs of children, young adults and inner-city communities throughout the nation.
Berry Gordy founded and presided over the musical empire known as Motown. Under his tutelage, Motown became a model of black capitalism, pride and self-expression and a repository for some of the greatest talent ever assembled at one company.
Clarence Avant is a music executive widely renowned for his dedication to pioneering opportunities within the recording industry. During his 40 year career, Avant has been honored publicly for his positive contributions to society. In 1993, Avant was named Chairman of Motown Records and four years later he became the first African-American to serve on the International Management Board for Polygram. Today, Avant is president of his own publishing companies, Avant Garde and Interior Music Corp.
Quincy D. Jones Jr. is a composer, conductor and record producer who during five decades in the entertainment industry has earned more than 70 Grammy Award nominations, more than 25 Grammy Awards, and a Grammy Legend Award in 1991. He is best known as the co-producer of two of the top-selling records of all time: the album Thriller by Michael Jackson, which sold 104 million copies worldwide.
[hillary clinton]
Monday, August 13, 2007
Mob-Connected Giuliani Parading Mafia Impersonations During Campaign Stops for Presidency
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport | April 6, 2007
Crowds appearing at Giuliani's campaign stops are beginning to wonder about his odd penchant for starting speeches with impressions of mafia Godfather Don Corleone-- a seemingly incongruent association with the image of the presidency he seeks.
Giuliani used the voice during a recent California speech. Furthermore, he has been recently noticed "invoking the mob's code of honor to explain why reporters should lay off his wife."
Odder still, given his hyped past-reputation as a tough-on-crime NY District Attorney and his supposed mythical status as a primary 9/11 Hero (a perverted myth at that, given his shameful and betraying treatment of first responders after the 9/11 attacks and his role in destroying steel columns after 9/11-- valuable evidence in the United States' largest crime investigation).
But the celebrated impersonations of mobsters are nothing new, and telling in-step with a rich history of association with mafia crime organizations as well as Tammany-Hall levels of corrupt behavior and association in public office.
Interestingly, Giuliani had a 'Vulnerability Study' prepared for his 1993 Mayor's race. The results were so telling that he had the report destroyed-- sensitive information included reports of his "raucous social life" during his first marriage as well as his relations to members of the mob. Giuliani staff were also concerned about the "weirdness factor"-- perhaps most directly due to his marriage to his first cousin (further reading in Barrett's Rudy! An Investigative Biography).
JUST A SMALL SAMPLING of his connections to mafia organizations, corrupt deals, appointments of criminal and defamed friends and other scandals follow below. A few hours of research will reveal a great more information-- more than is necessary for this article.:
FATHER AND UNCLE CONVICTED FOR MOB CRIMES
Giuliani's father was a convicted hold-up man who served time in an upstate prison and was later employed as an enforcer for a Mafia loan shark operation. When the book was first released Giuliani denied and later admitted it was true. According to the book, a number of his other relatives were also in the Mafia besides the uncles who were firemen and police officers that he proudly refers to in public speeches.
PRIMARY RESOURCE: Rudy! An Investigative Biography by Wayne Barrett
KERIK SCANDAL & the Curious Upward Mobility of a Mobster
Current scandal with Bernard Kerik-- wherein Giuliani promoted Kerik for Head of Homeland Security in 2004 and other other posts before that despite having already been "briefed" on his mob-ties and other corrupt behavior. He know admits to knowledge of Kerik since at least 2000, though he had previous denied this until the Kerik story became prominent.
Resources: NY Times - Giuliani Says Ties to Kerik May Hurt Him With Voters [registration required]
APPLIED DNA SCIENCES DEAL-- which Giuliani entered into in 2004 with backer Richard Langely, Jr.-- already a convicted felon on conspiracy charges over wire fraud AND commercial bribery in penny stock scams. Hooking up with a convicted criminal is a great business opportunity.
BUT GIULIANI HAS HOOKED UP WITH AND ACCEPTED FEES FROM PENNY STOCK BROKERS BEFORE... including payments by Lighting Science Group before their convenient bankruptcy and CamelBak-- which had the Bernard Kerik on its board-- also run into the ground.
RUSSELL HARDING APPOINTED To Post In The Face of a Complete Lack of Qualifications
Giuliani hooked up the son of a "key political ally", though Harding had neither a college degree or relevant expertise to head the New York City Housing Development. This scandal prompted historian Richard C. Wade to complain, "Tammany Hall had higher standards than this."
Harding used the post to spend approximately half a million on raises, bonuses and lavish expenses on himself and friends. Harding is now serving 5 years on conviction of fraud, as well as downloading child porn. Again, this clear quid-pro-quo mob-style scandal is just what has been clearly exposed and vetted...
LOUIS CARBONETTI, Pleaded Guilty to No-Bid Contract Scandal as Head of Community Assistance Unit under Giuliani; went to work for benefiting firm after post.
[hillary clinton]
Crowds appearing at Giuliani's campaign stops are beginning to wonder about his odd penchant for starting speeches with impressions of mafia Godfather Don Corleone-- a seemingly incongruent association with the image of the presidency he seeks.
Giuliani used the voice during a recent California speech. Furthermore, he has been recently noticed "invoking the mob's code of honor to explain why reporters should lay off his wife."
Odder still, given his hyped past-reputation as a tough-on-crime NY District Attorney and his supposed mythical status as a primary 9/11 Hero (a perverted myth at that, given his shameful and betraying treatment of first responders after the 9/11 attacks and his role in destroying steel columns after 9/11-- valuable evidence in the United States' largest crime investigation).
But the celebrated impersonations of mobsters are nothing new, and telling in-step with a rich history of association with mafia crime organizations as well as Tammany-Hall levels of corrupt behavior and association in public office.
Interestingly, Giuliani had a 'Vulnerability Study' prepared for his 1993 Mayor's race. The results were so telling that he had the report destroyed-- sensitive information included reports of his "raucous social life" during his first marriage as well as his relations to members of the mob. Giuliani staff were also concerned about the "weirdness factor"-- perhaps most directly due to his marriage to his first cousin (further reading in Barrett's Rudy! An Investigative Biography).
JUST A SMALL SAMPLING of his connections to mafia organizations, corrupt deals, appointments of criminal and defamed friends and other scandals follow below. A few hours of research will reveal a great more information-- more than is necessary for this article.:
FATHER AND UNCLE CONVICTED FOR MOB CRIMES
Giuliani's father was a convicted hold-up man who served time in an upstate prison and was later employed as an enforcer for a Mafia loan shark operation. When the book was first released Giuliani denied and later admitted it was true. According to the book, a number of his other relatives were also in the Mafia besides the uncles who were firemen and police officers that he proudly refers to in public speeches.
PRIMARY RESOURCE: Rudy! An Investigative Biography by Wayne Barrett
KERIK SCANDAL & the Curious Upward Mobility of a Mobster
Current scandal with Bernard Kerik-- wherein Giuliani promoted Kerik for Head of Homeland Security in 2004 and other other posts before that despite having already been "briefed" on his mob-ties and other corrupt behavior. He know admits to knowledge of Kerik since at least 2000, though he had previous denied this until the Kerik story became prominent.
Resources: NY Times - Giuliani Says Ties to Kerik May Hurt Him With Voters [registration required]
APPLIED DNA SCIENCES DEAL-- which Giuliani entered into in 2004 with backer Richard Langely, Jr.-- already a convicted felon on conspiracy charges over wire fraud AND commercial bribery in penny stock scams. Hooking up with a convicted criminal is a great business opportunity.
BUT GIULIANI HAS HOOKED UP WITH AND ACCEPTED FEES FROM PENNY STOCK BROKERS BEFORE... including payments by Lighting Science Group before their convenient bankruptcy and CamelBak-- which had the Bernard Kerik on its board-- also run into the ground.
RUSSELL HARDING APPOINTED To Post In The Face of a Complete Lack of Qualifications
Giuliani hooked up the son of a "key political ally", though Harding had neither a college degree or relevant expertise to head the New York City Housing Development. This scandal prompted historian Richard C. Wade to complain, "Tammany Hall had higher standards than this."
Harding used the post to spend approximately half a million on raises, bonuses and lavish expenses on himself and friends. Harding is now serving 5 years on conviction of fraud, as well as downloading child porn. Again, this clear quid-pro-quo mob-style scandal is just what has been clearly exposed and vetted...
LOUIS CARBONETTI, Pleaded Guilty to No-Bid Contract Scandal as Head of Community Assistance Unit under Giuliani; went to work for benefiting firm after post.
[hillary clinton]
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Red Cross Confirms Bush Administration, CIA Used Torture In Interrogation by Patrick Martin
A confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) suggests that Bush administration officials may have committed war crimes in the operation of CIA “secret prisons” overseas, according to a lengthy analysis published on the web site of the New Yorker magazine Sunday.
The Red Cross report concluded that the methods used in the CIA interrogation of alleged 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda prisoners were “tantamount to torture” and that Bush administration officials had likely committed “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions.
The article by Jane Mayer, entitled “The Black Sites,” is the product of a series of interviews with former CIA officers involved in operating the agency’s secret prisons overseas, agents who directly participated in torture sessions and apparently concluded that the methods they were employing were either immoral or counterproductive, or both.
The New Yorker has become one of the principal conduits for dissent within the military/intelligence apparatus directed against the policies of the Bush White House. Mayer’s colleague, Seymour Hersh, wrote the first extensive report on the abuse of prisoners at the US military prison at Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad, as well as a series of exposés about US preparations for a military strike against Iran.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by Pakistani authorities in early 2003, just before the US invasion of Iraq, and held at secret CIA locations for nearly four years before his transfer to Guantánamo Bay. Last March, the Pentagon made public his “confession” to carrying out or planning no less than 31 separate terrorist atrocities, a statement widely hailed in official circles as proof that torture—or, in Washington-speak, “enhanced interrogation techniques”—was an effective and legitimate practice in the “war on terror.”
At the time, the World Socialist Web Site noted the dubious character of Mohammed’s self-incriminating statements, in which he claimed responsibility for an improbable number of spectacular plots, including purported plans to destroy the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building and London’s Big Ben, and to assassinate former US President Jimmy Carter and Pope John Paul II. (See: “Washington exploits Guantánamo ‘confession’ to justify its crimes”)
No politically literate observer doubted that Mohammed had been severely tortured, and many said so, among them journalist Nat Hentoff (“Was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tortured?”) and Professor Anthony D’Amato of Northwestern University School of Law (“True Confessions: The Amazing Tale of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed”), who compared the 26-page “confession” to the self-indictments by prisoners in the Stalinist purge trials of the 1930s. Mayer’s article confirms, in fact, that the CIA actually employed torture techniques first developed by the Soviet KGB and copied by US intelligence agencies during the Cold War.
The International Committee of the Red Cross was given access to Mohammed late last year, after his transfer to Guantánamo Bay. The policy of the ICRC is to discuss its findings only with the government holding prisoners in custody, not with the press, in order to insure its continued access to prisoners. But, according to Mayer, the ICRC report on the 15 detainees held in the CIA’s secret prisons was circulated through the very highest levels of the White House, State Department and National Security Council, and to some congressmen on the House and Senate committees that oversee the intelligence agencies.
Mayer cited “congressional and other Washington sources familiar with the report,” writing that “one of the sources said that the Red Cross described the agency’s detention and interrogation methods as tantamount to torture, and declared that American officials responsible for the abusive treatment could have committed serious crimes. The source said the report warned that these officials may have committed ‘grave breaches’ of the Geneva Conventions, and may have violated the US Torture Act.” Mayer adds, “The conclusions of the Red Cross, which is known for its credibility and caution, could have potentially devastating legal ramifications.”
In other words, those US government officials who authorized and carried out the torture of CIA prisoners could face war crimes charges before either an American or international tribunal, as could those who subsequently became aware of what was taking place in the secret prisons and covered it up.
According to Mayer’s article, the CIA use of torture was not a “rogue” operation, but a massive bureaucratic enterprise involving systematic research and development to find the “best” methods for breaking down prisoners. CIA officials reviewed the techniques employed by the Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War as a model for the “war on terror.” The Phoenix Program involved the systematic assassination of an estimated 20,000 cadres, supporters and sympathizers of the National Liberation Front, as well as the widespread torture of prisoners.
The agency also sought interrogation advice from the secret police of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, all of which practice barbaric methods of torture against political prisoners. And one former military interrogator described the techniques of exerting total control over a prisoner’s environment as “the KGB model,” developed during the purges against political dissidents in the former Soviet Union, and subsequently mimicked by the CIA.
Among the techniques used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were prolonged sensory deprivation, continuous shackling while naked, use of a dog leash and female interrogators, forcible slamming into the walls of his cell, suspension from the ceiling of the interrogation room by his arms, and the now-notorious practice of waterboarding, the simulated drowning technique employed as torture since medieval times (when it became known as the “Chinese water torture.”)
One interrogation expert told Mayer, referring to the victims of the torture sessions: “People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.”
The torture was so severe and systematic that it had a profound psychological effect on some of the torturers themselves, according to Mayer, who interviewed one of those who interrogated Mohammed. This interrogator described a fellow torturer who now “has horrible nightmares ... It really haunts him. You are inflicting something really evil and horrible on somebody.”
CIA officials repeatedly voiced concerns that the orders they were receiving from the White House, and particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, might leave them vulnerable to criminal prosecution, particularly since they were instructed to keep prisoners like Mohammed alive and thereby preserve them as witnesses to their own abuse. As one official told Mayer, in a particularly chilling passage, “It would have been better if we had executed them.”
A former CIA official told Mayer that many agents had taken out liability insurance to help cover the anticipated legal bills when they face prosecution for prisoner abuse. There is a “high level of anxiety about political retribution,” he said, and “several guys expect to be thrown under the bus,” serving as fall guys for the decision-makers at the highest levels, including Bush, Cheney, former CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who, as White House counsel, supervised the process of giving a legal stamp of approval to torture.
Several leading congressional Democrats are well aware of the ICRC report, which was circulated to leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence committees, chaired by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Congressman Sylvestre Reyes of Texas. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were likely “in the loop” as well.
This fact underscores the complicity of the congressional Democratic leadership, who only two days ago pushed through legislation that greatly expanded the domestic spying powers of an administration which they knew had been branded by the International Committee of the Red Cross as a serial perpetrator of war crimes.
Despite the sensational character of Mayer’s revelations, there has been relatively little comment on the subject in the American media. The Washington Post, in an article Sunday previewing the New Yorker account, confirmed the existence of the Red Cross report and its circulation at the highest levels in the US capital.
It cited “sources familiar with the document” as confirming that the detainees interviewed by the ICRC gave similar accounts of their torture even though they were held in isolation from each other and could not coordinate their stories. This reinforces the credibility of their testimony—as does the exporting of these methods from the CIA secret prisons and the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp to the US military prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, where digital photographs made public in 2004 caused worldwide revulsion at US torture methods.
[hillary clinton]
The Red Cross report concluded that the methods used in the CIA interrogation of alleged 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda prisoners were “tantamount to torture” and that Bush administration officials had likely committed “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions.
The article by Jane Mayer, entitled “The Black Sites,” is the product of a series of interviews with former CIA officers involved in operating the agency’s secret prisons overseas, agents who directly participated in torture sessions and apparently concluded that the methods they were employing were either immoral or counterproductive, or both.
The New Yorker has become one of the principal conduits for dissent within the military/intelligence apparatus directed against the policies of the Bush White House. Mayer’s colleague, Seymour Hersh, wrote the first extensive report on the abuse of prisoners at the US military prison at Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad, as well as a series of exposés about US preparations for a military strike against Iran.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by Pakistani authorities in early 2003, just before the US invasion of Iraq, and held at secret CIA locations for nearly four years before his transfer to Guantánamo Bay. Last March, the Pentagon made public his “confession” to carrying out or planning no less than 31 separate terrorist atrocities, a statement widely hailed in official circles as proof that torture—or, in Washington-speak, “enhanced interrogation techniques”—was an effective and legitimate practice in the “war on terror.”
At the time, the World Socialist Web Site noted the dubious character of Mohammed’s self-incriminating statements, in which he claimed responsibility for an improbable number of spectacular plots, including purported plans to destroy the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building and London’s Big Ben, and to assassinate former US President Jimmy Carter and Pope John Paul II. (See: “Washington exploits Guantánamo ‘confession’ to justify its crimes”)
No politically literate observer doubted that Mohammed had been severely tortured, and many said so, among them journalist Nat Hentoff (“Was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tortured?”) and Professor Anthony D’Amato of Northwestern University School of Law (“True Confessions: The Amazing Tale of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed”), who compared the 26-page “confession” to the self-indictments by prisoners in the Stalinist purge trials of the 1930s. Mayer’s article confirms, in fact, that the CIA actually employed torture techniques first developed by the Soviet KGB and copied by US intelligence agencies during the Cold War.
The International Committee of the Red Cross was given access to Mohammed late last year, after his transfer to Guantánamo Bay. The policy of the ICRC is to discuss its findings only with the government holding prisoners in custody, not with the press, in order to insure its continued access to prisoners. But, according to Mayer, the ICRC report on the 15 detainees held in the CIA’s secret prisons was circulated through the very highest levels of the White House, State Department and National Security Council, and to some congressmen on the House and Senate committees that oversee the intelligence agencies.
Mayer cited “congressional and other Washington sources familiar with the report,” writing that “one of the sources said that the Red Cross described the agency’s detention and interrogation methods as tantamount to torture, and declared that American officials responsible for the abusive treatment could have committed serious crimes. The source said the report warned that these officials may have committed ‘grave breaches’ of the Geneva Conventions, and may have violated the US Torture Act.” Mayer adds, “The conclusions of the Red Cross, which is known for its credibility and caution, could have potentially devastating legal ramifications.”
In other words, those US government officials who authorized and carried out the torture of CIA prisoners could face war crimes charges before either an American or international tribunal, as could those who subsequently became aware of what was taking place in the secret prisons and covered it up.
According to Mayer’s article, the CIA use of torture was not a “rogue” operation, but a massive bureaucratic enterprise involving systematic research and development to find the “best” methods for breaking down prisoners. CIA officials reviewed the techniques employed by the Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War as a model for the “war on terror.” The Phoenix Program involved the systematic assassination of an estimated 20,000 cadres, supporters and sympathizers of the National Liberation Front, as well as the widespread torture of prisoners.
The agency also sought interrogation advice from the secret police of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, all of which practice barbaric methods of torture against political prisoners. And one former military interrogator described the techniques of exerting total control over a prisoner’s environment as “the KGB model,” developed during the purges against political dissidents in the former Soviet Union, and subsequently mimicked by the CIA.
Among the techniques used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were prolonged sensory deprivation, continuous shackling while naked, use of a dog leash and female interrogators, forcible slamming into the walls of his cell, suspension from the ceiling of the interrogation room by his arms, and the now-notorious practice of waterboarding, the simulated drowning technique employed as torture since medieval times (when it became known as the “Chinese water torture.”)
One interrogation expert told Mayer, referring to the victims of the torture sessions: “People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.”
The torture was so severe and systematic that it had a profound psychological effect on some of the torturers themselves, according to Mayer, who interviewed one of those who interrogated Mohammed. This interrogator described a fellow torturer who now “has horrible nightmares ... It really haunts him. You are inflicting something really evil and horrible on somebody.”
CIA officials repeatedly voiced concerns that the orders they were receiving from the White House, and particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, might leave them vulnerable to criminal prosecution, particularly since they were instructed to keep prisoners like Mohammed alive and thereby preserve them as witnesses to their own abuse. As one official told Mayer, in a particularly chilling passage, “It would have been better if we had executed them.”
A former CIA official told Mayer that many agents had taken out liability insurance to help cover the anticipated legal bills when they face prosecution for prisoner abuse. There is a “high level of anxiety about political retribution,” he said, and “several guys expect to be thrown under the bus,” serving as fall guys for the decision-makers at the highest levels, including Bush, Cheney, former CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who, as White House counsel, supervised the process of giving a legal stamp of approval to torture.
Several leading congressional Democrats are well aware of the ICRC report, which was circulated to leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence committees, chaired by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Congressman Sylvestre Reyes of Texas. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were likely “in the loop” as well.
This fact underscores the complicity of the congressional Democratic leadership, who only two days ago pushed through legislation that greatly expanded the domestic spying powers of an administration which they knew had been branded by the International Committee of the Red Cross as a serial perpetrator of war crimes.
Despite the sensational character of Mayer’s revelations, there has been relatively little comment on the subject in the American media. The Washington Post, in an article Sunday previewing the New Yorker account, confirmed the existence of the Red Cross report and its circulation at the highest levels in the US capital.
It cited “sources familiar with the document” as confirming that the detainees interviewed by the ICRC gave similar accounts of their torture even though they were held in isolation from each other and could not coordinate their stories. This reinforces the credibility of their testimony—as does the exporting of these methods from the CIA secret prisons and the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp to the US military prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, where digital photographs made public in 2004 caused worldwide revulsion at US torture methods.
[hillary clinton]
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Hillary Clinton Announces Rebuild America Plan
8/8/2007
Hillary Clinton Announces Rebuild America Plan
Rochester, NH-- In response to the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota and the concerns it has raised around the country, Hillary Clinton today announced a series of emergency initiatives to ensure that the bridges, tunnels, and roads Americans rely on are safe. These initiatives are part of a broad plan for rebuilding America. Hillary’s plan will not only assure our safety, but create good jobs, stimulate the economy, enhance our global competitiveness, help the environment, and improve quality of life by reducing congestion.
"Something is very, very wrong when, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, in the richest country on earth, people are actually nervous about driving over bridges for fear that they’ll collapse. Or they’re worried that their levees may burst, or their highways may buckle. And let’s be clear: the degradation of our infrastructure isn’t just a serious threat to our safety - it is also a grave threat to our economy," Clinton said. "We do not need any more warnings. We do not need any more wakeup calls. It is time to stop wringing our hands and start rolling up our sleeves. It is time for us to rebuild America."
The bridge collapse in Minnesota underscores the necessity of a renewed national commitment to repairing and modernizing our infrastructure. The impact of Katrina on New Orleans was also a dramatic demonstration of the economic, environmental, and social consequences of our underinvestment. Hillary believes that we should not have to wait for bridge collapses and other disasters to focus on the state of our infrastructure. America needs a comprehensive infrastructure policy for the 21st Century.
More than a quarter of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Public transit systems are under-funded and insufficiently integrated into local land use policy. Highway expansion has not kept pace with traffic growth. Seaports are too capacity constrained and technologically inefficient for a nation deriving a quarter of its gross domestic product from international trade. Waterway repairs are so long overdue that half of the nation’s locks are now functionally obsolete. Freight rail capacity constraints are slowing down commerce. And inter-city passenger rail is underdeveloped, meaning increased highway congestion and lost opportunities to create new jobs.
Hillary Clinton is announcing her Rebuild America Plan to address these challenges:
Emergency Initiatives Addressing Safety:
Establish a $10 billion "Emergency Repair Fund" to address the backlog of critical infrastructure repairs. There is a significant infrastructure funding gap, and it applies to everything from roads and bridges, to waterways and seaports. The under investment harms our economy and compromises our safety. There is an urgent need to repair and upgrade more than 60,000 bridges the Federal Highway Administration classifies as “structurally deficient.” Hillary will invest $10 billion over 10 years to finance the redesign and reconstruction of these structures. She will end the “repair-only-when-it-fails” policy that defers critical repairs because funding is unavailable.
Provide $250 million in "Emergency Assessment Grants" to the states to conduct immediate safety reviews of their high-priority, high-risk infrastructure assets. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has issued an advisory that urges state transportation departments to inspect bridges similar to the one that collapsed in Minnesota. Hillary Clinton proposes $250 million of “Emergency Assessment Grants” to help states conduct emergency infrastructure reviews of bridges and other critical infrastructure to ensure their immediate safety. These grants should be available with a priority-procurement status so they can be put to use as quickly as possible. If more funding is needed, Hillary will allow states and local governments the flexibility of using existing federal infrastructure funding.
Form a commission to carry out a comprehensive assessment of our engineering review standards so that we better prioritize needed repairs on bridges and roads. Recent events highlight the need to assess the integrity of our infrastructure and of prioritizing repairs to protect the safety of users. These events also suggest that we need to review our safety certification process and standards. The bridge collapse is only the most recent example of safety lapses. Last July, tons of concrete fell from the ceiling of Boston’s new tunnel and crushed a woman in her car. Hillary Clinton will establish a commission, under the auspices of the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to review the safety certification process and standards. The commission will also address the prioritization of needed repairs to roads and bridges, and make recommendations on how best to inspect, monitor, and maintain infrastructure on an ongoing basis.
Modernizing Our Infrastructure:
Public Transit
Increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. Increased public transit usage is arguably the best strategy for ameliorating the energy and environmental costs of transportation. As energy costs rise, more people will rely on public transportation. Today, only 5% of Americans commute by public transit, but doubling that figure could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%. Public transit is also critically important to people who live in urban areas and rely on buses and trains for travel to work and school. Moreover, as the population ages, an increasing number of people will need public transit as their ability to drive diminishes. Hillary will increase federal investment in public transit by $1.5 billion per year to ensure needed capacity expansions and service level improvements.
Link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage. Over the next 25 years, a large percentage of the buildings we live, work, and shop in will be rebuilt or newly built. This presents a significant opportunity for the federal government to encourage sensible residential and commercial development that are linked to, and encourage, public transit usage. Local areas seeking large federal investments in public transit are already required to have land-use plans and policies that make investing in a high-density transit system worthwhile. Today, these requirements are focused mainly on commercial developments and not enough on residential considerations. Hillary will encourage the sort of dense residential concentrations needed to support public transit systems by better linking public transit funding with residential land-use policies. This will help to discourage sprawl and fight congestion.
Intercity Passenger Rail
Invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. In the 21st Century, intercity passenger rail should be a viewed as a critical component of the nation’s transportation system. It is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it relieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it stimulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas. States have been left to pursue intercity rail projects with only modest federal support. Hillary believes that greater federal involvement is needed to maximize the potential of this transportation mode. She will increase federal investment in intercity passenger rail by $1 billion over 5 years in order to help finance capital projects. These investments are in addition to those made in Amtrak.
Seaports
Partner with state and local governments and the private sector to create a national policy to guide the modernization of ports. Given the importance of foreign trade to our economy (26% of GDP), ports should be a priority for the federal government. The movement of freight by sea is expected to triple by 2020. Today, a large number of ports are in substandard condition. Many are cramped; navigation channels are narrow; harbors are too shallow for larger ships; access routes are congested; and investments in waterway managements have been low. Hillary will work with state and local governments and the private sector to devise a coherent and comprehensive national policy to expand our port capacity and our port-to-nation transportation connections. She will also work with industry to improve port productivity through such things as the deployment of new technology and by addressing congestion at the major terminals.
Addressing Congestion and Traffic Growth:
Increase the budget for the Department of Transportation’s congestion reduction programs by approximately 50% to $600 million annually. Federal support for innovative state and local congestion-reduction initiatives flows principally through two programs: Urban Partnerships and the Value Pricing Pilot Program. The combined budget for these two programs is approximately $400 million. Hillary will increase the budgets by 50% to $600 million annually to enable the programs to provide greater support to a larger number of cities and states devising innovative solutions to congestion.
Make "technology solutions" to congestion a priority for the Department of Transportation. Congestion is adding about 37% to the length of the average trip during peak hours, a three-fold increase from 1983. Road construction alone cannot be the solution to congestion because it is costly and environmentally impractical. Also, capacity additions alone will not eliminate congestion problems because traffic disruptions from things like weather, breakdowns, and road work account for one third to one half of all delays. Many traffic disruptions can be addressed by using advanced technologies to collect and relay real-time information on road and travel conditions. Also sophisticated traffic lanes management and more rapid incident clearance are shown to significantly reduce congestion. Electronic toll systems reduce backup at toll booths. In sum, the roadways of the future must integrate smart technology. Hillary will make developing and implementing technology-based congestion-reduction strategies a priority for the Department of Transportation.
Promote telecommuting by encouraging its use at federal agencies, and by committing up to $50 million per year to support state and local initiatives. Work travel imposes a greater service requirement on the transportation system than any other travel purpose. Telecommuting, the use of information technology to replace work-related travel, can ameliorate congestion and air pollution by reducing rush-hour car trips. Telecommuting can also benefit employers by reducing office space needs and increasing worker productivity. Hillary Clinton will promote telecommuting by requiring the federal agencies to set specific telecommuting goals for their workforces, and she will require that each agency task a senior manager with oversight of its telecommuting policies. Hillary will also invest up to $50 million annually in state and local telecommuting initiatives.
Broadband:
Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband. Under the Bush administration, the country that invented the Internet has slipped to 25th in the global rankings for broadband deployment. In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton will provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas. She will also provide financial support for state and local broadband initiatives.
In addition to the policies announced today, as Senator, Hillary has cosponsored the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. The Act establishes a federally-backed independent entity that will evaluate and finance large infrastructure projects that are of regional or national significance. The bank will finance projects through the issuance of bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, direct subsidies, and loan guarantees.
[hillary clinton]
Hillary Clinton Announces Rebuild America Plan
Rochester, NH-- In response to the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota and the concerns it has raised around the country, Hillary Clinton today announced a series of emergency initiatives to ensure that the bridges, tunnels, and roads Americans rely on are safe. These initiatives are part of a broad plan for rebuilding America. Hillary’s plan will not only assure our safety, but create good jobs, stimulate the economy, enhance our global competitiveness, help the environment, and improve quality of life by reducing congestion.
"Something is very, very wrong when, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, in the richest country on earth, people are actually nervous about driving over bridges for fear that they’ll collapse. Or they’re worried that their levees may burst, or their highways may buckle. And let’s be clear: the degradation of our infrastructure isn’t just a serious threat to our safety - it is also a grave threat to our economy," Clinton said. "We do not need any more warnings. We do not need any more wakeup calls. It is time to stop wringing our hands and start rolling up our sleeves. It is time for us to rebuild America."
The bridge collapse in Minnesota underscores the necessity of a renewed national commitment to repairing and modernizing our infrastructure. The impact of Katrina on New Orleans was also a dramatic demonstration of the economic, environmental, and social consequences of our underinvestment. Hillary believes that we should not have to wait for bridge collapses and other disasters to focus on the state of our infrastructure. America needs a comprehensive infrastructure policy for the 21st Century.
More than a quarter of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Public transit systems are under-funded and insufficiently integrated into local land use policy. Highway expansion has not kept pace with traffic growth. Seaports are too capacity constrained and technologically inefficient for a nation deriving a quarter of its gross domestic product from international trade. Waterway repairs are so long overdue that half of the nation’s locks are now functionally obsolete. Freight rail capacity constraints are slowing down commerce. And inter-city passenger rail is underdeveloped, meaning increased highway congestion and lost opportunities to create new jobs.
Hillary Clinton is announcing her Rebuild America Plan to address these challenges:
Emergency Initiatives Addressing Safety:
Establish a $10 billion "Emergency Repair Fund" to address the backlog of critical infrastructure repairs. There is a significant infrastructure funding gap, and it applies to everything from roads and bridges, to waterways and seaports. The under investment harms our economy and compromises our safety. There is an urgent need to repair and upgrade more than 60,000 bridges the Federal Highway Administration classifies as “structurally deficient.” Hillary will invest $10 billion over 10 years to finance the redesign and reconstruction of these structures. She will end the “repair-only-when-it-fails” policy that defers critical repairs because funding is unavailable.
Provide $250 million in "Emergency Assessment Grants" to the states to conduct immediate safety reviews of their high-priority, high-risk infrastructure assets. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has issued an advisory that urges state transportation departments to inspect bridges similar to the one that collapsed in Minnesota. Hillary Clinton proposes $250 million of “Emergency Assessment Grants” to help states conduct emergency infrastructure reviews of bridges and other critical infrastructure to ensure their immediate safety. These grants should be available with a priority-procurement status so they can be put to use as quickly as possible. If more funding is needed, Hillary will allow states and local governments the flexibility of using existing federal infrastructure funding.
Form a commission to carry out a comprehensive assessment of our engineering review standards so that we better prioritize needed repairs on bridges and roads. Recent events highlight the need to assess the integrity of our infrastructure and of prioritizing repairs to protect the safety of users. These events also suggest that we need to review our safety certification process and standards. The bridge collapse is only the most recent example of safety lapses. Last July, tons of concrete fell from the ceiling of Boston’s new tunnel and crushed a woman in her car. Hillary Clinton will establish a commission, under the auspices of the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to review the safety certification process and standards. The commission will also address the prioritization of needed repairs to roads and bridges, and make recommendations on how best to inspect, monitor, and maintain infrastructure on an ongoing basis.
Modernizing Our Infrastructure:
Public Transit
Increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. Increased public transit usage is arguably the best strategy for ameliorating the energy and environmental costs of transportation. As energy costs rise, more people will rely on public transportation. Today, only 5% of Americans commute by public transit, but doubling that figure could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25%. Public transit is also critically important to people who live in urban areas and rely on buses and trains for travel to work and school. Moreover, as the population ages, an increasing number of people will need public transit as their ability to drive diminishes. Hillary will increase federal investment in public transit by $1.5 billion per year to ensure needed capacity expansions and service level improvements.
Link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage. Over the next 25 years, a large percentage of the buildings we live, work, and shop in will be rebuilt or newly built. This presents a significant opportunity for the federal government to encourage sensible residential and commercial development that are linked to, and encourage, public transit usage. Local areas seeking large federal investments in public transit are already required to have land-use plans and policies that make investing in a high-density transit system worthwhile. Today, these requirements are focused mainly on commercial developments and not enough on residential considerations. Hillary will encourage the sort of dense residential concentrations needed to support public transit systems by better linking public transit funding with residential land-use policies. This will help to discourage sprawl and fight congestion.
Intercity Passenger Rail
Invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. In the 21st Century, intercity passenger rail should be a viewed as a critical component of the nation’s transportation system. It is an environmentally efficient alternative to highway driving and short flights; it relieves congestion on roads and airports; reduces the emission of automotive pollutants; and it stimulates economic growth by linking metropolitan areas. States have been left to pursue intercity rail projects with only modest federal support. Hillary believes that greater federal involvement is needed to maximize the potential of this transportation mode. She will increase federal investment in intercity passenger rail by $1 billion over 5 years in order to help finance capital projects. These investments are in addition to those made in Amtrak.
Seaports
Partner with state and local governments and the private sector to create a national policy to guide the modernization of ports. Given the importance of foreign trade to our economy (26% of GDP), ports should be a priority for the federal government. The movement of freight by sea is expected to triple by 2020. Today, a large number of ports are in substandard condition. Many are cramped; navigation channels are narrow; harbors are too shallow for larger ships; access routes are congested; and investments in waterway managements have been low. Hillary will work with state and local governments and the private sector to devise a coherent and comprehensive national policy to expand our port capacity and our port-to-nation transportation connections. She will also work with industry to improve port productivity through such things as the deployment of new technology and by addressing congestion at the major terminals.
Addressing Congestion and Traffic Growth:
Increase the budget for the Department of Transportation’s congestion reduction programs by approximately 50% to $600 million annually. Federal support for innovative state and local congestion-reduction initiatives flows principally through two programs: Urban Partnerships and the Value Pricing Pilot Program. The combined budget for these two programs is approximately $400 million. Hillary will increase the budgets by 50% to $600 million annually to enable the programs to provide greater support to a larger number of cities and states devising innovative solutions to congestion.
Make "technology solutions" to congestion a priority for the Department of Transportation. Congestion is adding about 37% to the length of the average trip during peak hours, a three-fold increase from 1983. Road construction alone cannot be the solution to congestion because it is costly and environmentally impractical. Also, capacity additions alone will not eliminate congestion problems because traffic disruptions from things like weather, breakdowns, and road work account for one third to one half of all delays. Many traffic disruptions can be addressed by using advanced technologies to collect and relay real-time information on road and travel conditions. Also sophisticated traffic lanes management and more rapid incident clearance are shown to significantly reduce congestion. Electronic toll systems reduce backup at toll booths. In sum, the roadways of the future must integrate smart technology. Hillary will make developing and implementing technology-based congestion-reduction strategies a priority for the Department of Transportation.
Promote telecommuting by encouraging its use at federal agencies, and by committing up to $50 million per year to support state and local initiatives. Work travel imposes a greater service requirement on the transportation system than any other travel purpose. Telecommuting, the use of information technology to replace work-related travel, can ameliorate congestion and air pollution by reducing rush-hour car trips. Telecommuting can also benefit employers by reducing office space needs and increasing worker productivity. Hillary Clinton will promote telecommuting by requiring the federal agencies to set specific telecommuting goals for their workforces, and she will require that each agency task a senior manager with oversight of its telecommuting policies. Hillary will also invest up to $50 million annually in state and local telecommuting initiatives.
Broadband:
Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband. Under the Bush administration, the country that invented the Internet has slipped to 25th in the global rankings for broadband deployment. In order to accelerate the deployment of sophisticated networks, Hillary Clinton will provide tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas. She will also provide financial support for state and local broadband initiatives.
In addition to the policies announced today, as Senator, Hillary has cosponsored the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. The Act establishes a federally-backed independent entity that will evaluate and finance large infrastructure projects that are of regional or national significance. The bank will finance projects through the issuance of bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, direct subsidies, and loan guarantees.
[hillary clinton]
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Hillary Clinton For President by Roger Bovee
Why should Hillary Clinton be the next president of the United States? Some think her husband was too moderate and made a lot of blunders. But Hillary could be better than her husband. Hillary Clinton actually could appeal to a broad range of Americans. She could even appeal to a lot of Republicans, because she started out as a Republican. In fact she was the leader of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College. She says that the Republican Party left her, she didn't leave the Republican Party. In other words she was the old fashioned kind of Republican before the party went really crazy in recent years.
The Republican Party back in the days of Dwight Eisenhower was not anti-poor, anti-labor, and pro millionaire. dwight Eisenhower came from a poor background. Ron Paul is still that old fashioned kind of Republican, but there aren't many of them left. Because Hillary and her husband are not the extreme liberal or conservative, although some of the news media have tried to falsely portray them as extreme liberals, they appeal to a broad range of Americans. That kind of broad popularity is needed to win the presidency.
The majority of Americans are also female. I notice of all the candidates running she is the only woman running in either major party. I think the women of this country are going to see this as the opportunity to finally put one of their own in the White House. And maybe it's time for that. Women tend to think differently than men. They aren't as militaristic. They're more concerned with home and family and children and education. And maybe that's what we need right now.
[hillary clinton][hillary clinton for president]
The Republican Party back in the days of Dwight Eisenhower was not anti-poor, anti-labor, and pro millionaire. dwight Eisenhower came from a poor background. Ron Paul is still that old fashioned kind of Republican, but there aren't many of them left. Because Hillary and her husband are not the extreme liberal or conservative, although some of the news media have tried to falsely portray them as extreme liberals, they appeal to a broad range of Americans. That kind of broad popularity is needed to win the presidency.
The majority of Americans are also female. I notice of all the candidates running she is the only woman running in either major party. I think the women of this country are going to see this as the opportunity to finally put one of their own in the White House. And maybe it's time for that. Women tend to think differently than men. They aren't as militaristic. They're more concerned with home and family and children and education. And maybe that's what we need right now.
[hillary clinton][hillary clinton for president]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
