The Back Room

Welcome to The Back Room! Step in, read, write and link with other sites that focus on the Bush Administration, their lies and our demand for the truth. The Back Room was created over many dinners, glasses of wine and "pints" of frustration over where our country is headed. We need more voices, your voices,to help us uncover and reclaim our democracy.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Wisconsin, United States

the best pretty good okay pretty bad the worst

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Babes Booked for Anti-War Rally



Washington D.C., look out! We are all set to go to the anti-war, impeach Bush rally being held on September 24th, outside the front steps of the White House. Look! Even Bushy Boy is excited!!

Anyone that is interested in joining us and needs more info., check out www.impeachbush.org

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Bush's School Of War



American kids wind up their summer vacations and head back to school this week.

What do Iraqi children have to look forward to, President Bush?

Instead of reading, writing and arithmetic, I see car bombs, shootings and civil war in their future. Will America learn or keep studying under Bush's school of war?????

Monday, August 29, 2005

Katrina: Not The Only Storm To Hit U.S.

As we watch hurricane Katrinia hit New Orleans, another storm brews in Iraq. Sunni's have rejected the constitution and tensions are rising. Bush and Co. seemingly have failed to strong arm a formation of a democratic government in Iraq. The Sunni's, out numbered and not accepting the short end of Bush's stick, are going to dig in and fight...

Read the following article by ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Thousands of Sunni demonstrators rallied in
Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit on Monday to denounce Iraq's new constitution a day after negotiators finished the new charter without the endorsement of Sunni Arabs.

Sunni leaders have urged their community to defeat the charter in a nationwide referendum on Oct. 15, saying it had been rammed through the drafting committee by the dominant Shiite Arab and Kurdish alliance.

The absence of Sunni endorsement, after more than two months of intensive negotiations, raised fears of more violence and set the stage for a bitter political fight ahead of the referendum. A political battle threatened to sharpen communal divisions at a time when relations among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds appear to be worsening.

To encourage Sunnis to vote in the referendum, election authorities Monday postponed the deadline for voters to register by one week in the western province of Anbar, a rebellious Sunni stronghold where turnout in the January election was minimal.

In Tikrit, at least 2,000 protesters assembled near the office of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni clerical group opposed to the U.S. occupation carrying Iraqi flags and portraits of the former dictator.

"We sacrifice our souls and blood for you, Saddam," chanted the demonstrators. They carried pictures of Shiite clerics Muqtada al-Sadr and Jawad al-Khalisi who have joined the Sunnis in opposing the constitutional draft.

Sheik Yahya Ibrahim al-Batawi, an organizer of the protest, read a statement denouncing the "Jewish constitution," saying its goal was to divide Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Sunni negotiators delivered their rejection in a joint statement Sunday shortly after the draft was submitted to parliament. They branded the final version as "illegitimate" and asked the Arab League and the
United Nations to intervene.

"We don't want to wage a war against anybody, but we say this draft has written in away that will divide and tear apart Iraq," Saleh al-Mutlaq, a top Sunni negotiator said Monday. "This constitution was written in a hurry and also passed in a hurry."

Al-Mutlaq said the Sunnis will try to bring down the constitution either through legal means or via the referendum.

"If the constitution is not changed, then we will try to bring it down either before the referendum through the law by filing a suit in international or local courts, if we can, challenging the legitimacy of this constitution and the National Assembly," al-Mutlaq told Al-Jazeera television.

In Baghdad, the secretary-general of the country's largest Sunni party told reporters the draft "does not represent our hopes and aspirations" and does not fulfill "our legitimate national principles."

"The draft has been submitted in the absence of the principle of compromise," said Tariq al-Hashimi of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which had representatives on the Sunni negotiating team.

The party said it would continue trying to amend the charter before it is presented to voters in October.

President Bush expressed disappointment the Sunnis did not sign on but pinned his hopes on the referendum.

But the depth of disillusionment over the charter in the Sunni establishment extended beyond the 15 negotiators, who were appointed to the constitutional committee in June under U.S. pressure.

The country's Sunni vice president, Ghazi al-Yawer, did not show up at a Sunday ceremony marking the completion of the document. When President Jalal Talabani said that al-Yawer was ill, senior government officials howled with laughter.

Major deal-breaker issues included federalism, Iraq's identity in the Arab world and references to Saddam's Sunni-dominated Baath Party.

Sunnis fear federalism would lead to the breakup of the country into a Kurdish north and Shiite south, deprive Sunnis of Iraq's vast oil wealth concentrated at the opposite ends of the country, and open the door to Iranian influence in the Shiite south. Sunnis also wanted no reference to Saddam's party, fearing that would lead to widespread purges of Sunnis from government jobs.

Although Sunnis account for only 20 percent of Iraq's estimated 27 million people, they still can derail the constitution in the referendum due to a concession made to the Kurds in the 2004 interim constitution. If two-thirds of voters in any three provinces reject the charter, the constitution will be defeated. Sunnis have the majority in at least four provinces.

Defeat of the constitution would force new elections for a parliament that would begin the drafting process from scratch. If the constitution is approved, elections for a fully constitutional parliament will be in December.

Communal tensions have risen since the Shiite-dominated government was announced April 28. Both Shiites and Sunnis accuse the other of assassinating members of the rival sect. Shiites and Kurds dominate the government security services, while most insurgents are believed to be Sunnis.

In other developments on Monday:

Two rockets slammed into the parking lot of the Oil Ministry building wounding an employee and damaging several vehicles, police said. Only one missile exploded; the other failed to detonate.

Unidentified gunmen shot and killed Brig. Gen. Numan Salman Faris, director of the district rapid response force in Baghdad's Azamiyah district.

The Iraqi Islamic Party accused the government's Shiite-led security forces of being behind the recent killing of 36 Sunnis.

An Italian armored vehicle was hit by U.S. fire on the road to Baghdad airport last week, but nobody was injured, the Foreign Ministry said. The shooting occurred on the same road where an Italian secret service agent was killed by U.S. fire in March.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Meet Cindy!! Meet us??


We are seriously considering meeting with Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war protesters on Sept. 24th in Washington D.C. For more information, go to www.impeachbush.org and check www.expedia.com for hotel and flight deals.

Not sure who Cindy is? Go to:
http://www.familiesforpeace.com

Fall in America: More Bush Lemonade?

Fall is coming slowly and everything outside my window looks like a lemonade commerical. This is the life, as they say. As the end of August approaches, however, the view wavers a bit. September is different for me and most Americans now and has been since 2001. The saddness and fear that we try and hide for most of the year, comes seeping in and we can't stop it. Nor should we.

This year, our view has been shifted towards Iraq, towards promises of democracy in the Middle East, short stories on soliders who have died and the neverending optimism that comes from the Bush Administration. This becomes harder to swollow in September and with the way Iraq is going at the moment, you know that there are a lot of republicians putting extra sugar in their lemonade.

Bloodshed is easier when overseas, over "there". As horrible as all the car bombs and shootings are in Iraq, we are numb to it now. There was a slight uneasiness in American life in July as we watched the subway and bus bombings in London but that too past. August has been a slow news month, Bush is taking another vacation and Geico can save you a bunch of money on your car insurance. What's there to worry about?

But September will come and the hand wringing will begin. We will worry about our venerablity on our borders and airport security. There will be terrorist experts on the networks, stating all the awful things that could happen, that will happen on some given day, maybe today. Bush will say one liners to calm us, tell greiving mothers that we are fighting the good fight in Iraq and we can sleep well in America.

The images hang on though, from that fall of the past. The distractions of Iraq can't stop the knowledge of what really happened to us on 9/11. That memory will wake up a sleepy America...at least for September.

The Plame Game: White House Exposed


Fantastic and informative article on the link below. Dives into the "guts" of the Bush administration's lies leading up to the war and the Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson explosion:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-leak25aug25,1,2643475.story?page=1&track=mostemailedlink

Friday, August 26, 2005

Through the Eyes of Bush


Have you ever thought over the past five years that the America you live in was unrelated to the one that exists for the media and the White House? Have you spent time talking with friends and neighbors wondering why they think we need to fear everyone and that the best course of action is an offensive or pre-emptive one? Do you shudder when you hear others say how great G.W. is and that he is one of the greatest presidents this country has ever seen?
Well, you are not alone. These people function in a state of mind that Maureen Dowd, columnist for the New York Times, has dubbed Bushworld.
In the opening pages of her recent book by the same name, we get a descriptive view of this universe parallel to the reality that we live in. Especially that of our commander and thief. The truth of our reality is out there my friends and we no longer need question our sanity.
Here is a taste of what Bushworld is like:

In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.

In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.

In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for reelection as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.

In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.

In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better intelligence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.

In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.

In Bushworld, you don't bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.

In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.

Now ask yourself whose sanity should be called into question.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Bush "Hangin' Loose"





Loved the following article by Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist:


W. vacationed so hard in Texas he got bushed. He needed a vacation from his vacation. The most rested president in American history headed West on Tuesday to get away from his Western getaway -- and the mushrooming Crawford Woodstock -- and spend a couple of days at the Tamarack Resort in the rural Idaho mountains.

``I'm kind of hangin' loose, as they say,'' he told reporters.

As the Financial Times noted, Bush is acting positively French in his love of le loafing, with 339 days at his ranch since he took office -- nearly a year out of his five. Most Americans, on the other hand, take fewer vacations than anyone else in the developed world (even the Japanese), averaging only 13 to 16 days off a year.

Gas is guzzling toward $3 a gallon. U.S. troop casualties in Iraq are at their highest levels since the invasion. As Donald Rumsfeld conceded Tuesday, ``The lethality, however, is up.'' Afghanistan's getting more dangerous, too. The defense secretary says he's raising troop levels in both places for coming elections.

So our overextended troops must prepare for more forced rotations, while the president hangs loose.

I mean, I like to exercise, but W. is psychopathic about it. He interviewed one potential Supreme Court nominee, Harvie Wilkinson III, by asking him how much he exercised. Last winter, Bush was obsessed with his love handles, telling people he was determined to get rid of seven pounds.
Shouldn't the president worry more about body armor than body fat?

The rest of us may be fixated on the depressing tableau in Iraq, where the United States seems to be delivering a fundamentalist Islamic state into the dirty hands of men like Ahmed Chalabi, who conned the neocons into pushing for war, and his ally Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric who started two armed uprisings against U.S. troops. It was his militiamen who ambushed Casey Sheehan's convoy in Sadr City.

America has caved on Iraqi women's rights. In fact, the women's rights activists supported by George and Laura Bush may have to leave Iraq.

As a former CIA Middle East specialist, Reuel Marc Gerecht, said on ``Meet the Press,'' U.S. democracy in 1900 didn't let women vote. If Iraqi democracy resembled that, ``we'd all be thrilled,'' he said. ``I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.''

Tuesday, the president hailed the constitution establishing an Islamic republic as ``an amazing process,'' and said it ``honors women's rights, the rights of minorities.'' Could he really think that? Or is he following the Vietnam model -- declaring victory so we can leave?

The main point of writing a constitution was to move Sunnis into the mainstream and make them invested in the process, thereby removing the basis of the insurgency. But the Shiites and Kurds have frozen out the Sunnis, enhancing their resentment. So the insurgency is more likely to be inflamed than extinguished.

For political reasons, the president has a history of silence on America's war dead. But he finally mentioned them Monday because it became politically useful to use them as a rationale for war -- now that all the other rationales have gone up in smoke.

``We owe them something,'' he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion). ``We will finish the task that they gave their lives for.''

What twisted logic: With no WMD, no link to Sept. 11 and no democracy, now we have to keep killing people and have our kids killed because so many of our kids have been killed already? Talk about a vicious circle: The killing keeps justifying itself.

Just because the final reason the president came up with for invading Iraq -- to create a democracy with freedom of religion and minority rights -- has been dashed, why stop relaxing? W. is determined to stay the course on bike trails all over the West.

This president has never had to pull all-nighters or work very hard, because Daddy's friends always gave him a boost when he flamed out. When was the last time Bush saw the clock strike midnight? At these prices, though, I guess he can't afford to burn the midnight oil.

Time Table for Our Troops: Feingold Leading the Way!!!


If you missed Senator Russ Feingold on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday, (check out www.msnbc.com for the complete transcript), the following press release from Feingold's website tells of his wish for a time table to pull our troops out of Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to even consider this option, seeing it as a sign of failure. With the Iraqi Constitution falling apart and more of our soliders dying everyday, the cracks are beginning to show. Do we send more troops as most republicians (and even some prominent democrats suggest) or do we insist that our policy in Iraqi isn't working? When should our troops come home?


Marquette, WI -- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today, at a local Listening Session in Marquette, Wisconsin, proposed a target timeframe for the completion of the military mission in Iraq and suggested December 31, 2006 as the target date for the completion of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

In June, Feingold introduced a resolution calling for the President to clarify the military mission in Iraq, lay out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission, and publicly articulate a plan for subsequent troop withdrawal. Because of the Administration's recent flurry of conflicting signals about the duration of U.S. troop deployments, Feingold said he feels obligated to help jump start that process by proposing a specific goal for bringing U.S. forces home from Iraq.

The former chief of Australia's armed forces, General Peter Cosgrove, recently argued that the foreign troop presence was fueling terrorist activity in Iraq, and called for foreign troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. "Those remarks were constructive, and we need to be having this discussion here at home. I am putting a vision of when this ends on the table in the hope that we can get the focus back on our top priority and that is keeping America and the American people safe," Feingold said.

Feingold has argued that this kind of clarity, combined with an effective reconstruction effort.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

The True Price of Gas

The saga of the U.S.'s love/hate relationship with oil/gasoline has hit an all time low. With our growing fear of the rising cost of gas, it seems as if some of us are willing to do anything to get our hands on it by any means we deem necessary. On Friday, August 19, 2005, a station owner in Alabama was killed while trying to stop the theft of $52 of gasoline. An article published by the Associated Press today (August 24) states that station owner, Husain "Tony" Caddi was killed after "...he grabbed onto the vehicle and the driver dragged him across the parking lot and onto a highway....Caddi fell from the vehicle and was run over by the vehicle's rear wheel."
Not to put any blame onto the victim, but what were the victim and the murderer thinking. It is understandable the Mr. Caddi wanted to stop the theft of something that belonged to him, but you have to wonder if in his last moments if he thought that it was worth it.
Now, as for the murderer, did he/she think that their actions were justifiable? It is obvious that, as a nation, we have been shown by our government that we have no compulsion about using force on others to maintain our access to oil and ergo gasoline. Also, we have seen that there is no hesitation of said government to kill and maim others so that we can continue our ability to drive our SUV's and luxury cars.
The question to ask though is if this person thought this man's life was worth the price of a tank of gas? Which leads to the next question: Did this person think that the price of Mr. Caddi's life (obviously not more than $52) was worth it so that he/she would be able to drive their "...gold ot tan Jeep-style SUV..." to the local shopping mall or the video store? The answer to this is blatantly clear.
Ultimately, it becomes very obvious where this person's values lie. The picture that forms is of some one who would pay much money to buy a gas-guzzling status symbol but is unwilling to pay for the gasoline needed to run it. Rather than down-grade to a less expensive, more fuel efficient vehicle, the decision was made to kill a fellow human being for the love of the SUV.
This is what we have sunk to. This is what we have fought wars over. This is what has turns us against others without a second thought. For some of us, these thoughts have kept us awake at night, wondering what viscious and inhuman course of action will be taken next. What we need to ask ourselves: Is the price really worth it?

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

A Few Questions We All Ask

With gas prices on the rise and no foreseable end in sight, there have been many of us who have been wondering how the gas/oil industry works. So, to educate ourselves a little on this topic, a kindly reporter from Knight Ridder Newspapers put an article together for the masses in a question and answer format that even the least intelligent of us can understand. Remeber these answers when you are at the pump, bemoaning the unfairness of it all.

Why Gas Prices are Soaring

Q. Why are gas prices so high?

A. Global demand for oil has grown quickly in recent years, driven especially by China's and India's fast-growing economies, although the United States remains by far the biggest oil consumer. Global demand for oil is now about 84 million barrels per day. That almost equals the entire supply available; global oil production capacity exceeds demand by only about 1.5 million to 2 million barrels oer day.
In such circumstances, anyone who needs oil soon must pay what the market asks, since there aren't many sellers with excess oil available to seek bargains from. In addition, with the supply demand balance so tight, markets fear that a single terrorist attack, a natural disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake, or even an accident at a major refinery could spark shortages. So buyers are willing to pay higher prices today to ensure that they'll get what they need tomorrow if supplies are short.

Q. Why did oil prices rise so fast?

A. The price of crude oil jumped dramtically in recent weeks in part of heightened fears of shortages. Oil traders are particullary nervous about forecasts of a busier than usual hurricane season. Hurricanes disrupt deliveries by oil tankers and can halt production at offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. They also threaten refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Other factors included temporary shutdowns at some U.S. refineries and U.S. government warnings of possible terrorist attacks in Saudia Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer.

Q. Oil contracts typically are for delivery a month out, so why did gas prices jump along with oil prices instead of a month later?

A. Gasoline retailers say wholesalers are raising costs to gas stations almost immediately as oil prices rise. Dealers pass on that cost to customers as soon as they take delivery from tanker trucks.

Q.Prices in my neighborhood are higher than just a few blocks away. Is this price gouging?

A. No. In a free market, gas stations can charge what the market will bear. Today gas prices are set through "zone pricing." Wholesalers of gasoline have complex software programs that gauge the income and population density of neighborhoods. They set higher prices for retailors in areas with higher income and population density. Essentially, they're charging the most they can get where they can get the most, just as many restaurant chains, shoe stores and grocery stores do. It's just more visible with gasoline.

Q.After rising last week to more than $67 per barrel, oil prices are falling this week to $63.59 on Thursday. Why didn't gas prices drop too?

A. Rockets and feathers. It's an industry expression to say prices rocket up but drop slowly as a feather. Economists have documented this. One dealer said privately that it was simply profit-taking on the way down to make up for the loses when consumers bought less gas because of higher prices.

Q. Aren't oil cartles to blame for the high prices?

A. Today's high prices are driven by demand, not supplier-imposed shortages as in the 197-0's and `80's. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries says its members are pumping oil at almost full throttle and that developed nations should build more refineries. Refineries are working at near capacity and can't keep pace.

Q.So refineries are to blame?

A. Critics allege that refiners avoided addding capacity in order to create a tight market that gives them greater profits. The industry says environmental regulations and local opposition from homeowners make it impossible to site new refineries. Financial experts say low return on investment is the real reason that refineries, which cost billions of dollars, haven't been built for years in the United States.

Q.Is this the peak?

A. Oil analysts have said prices may well exceed $70 a barrel, and a shock event could drive them over $100 a barrel. Gasoline would rise proportinately.

Q.Is relief in sight?

A. Historically, gas prices tend to dip after Labor Day, when the peak summer-driving season ends. But as reifneries shift their mix to produce home heating oil, they'll produce less gasoline, which could keep supplies tight and prices low.

Q. Will prices ever fall significantly?

A. Experts are divided. Award-winning oil historian Daniel Yergin, thinks global production capacity will expand by 2010 to yield another 16 million barrels of oil per day. He suggests there could be an oil glut that causes collapse in prices.
Matthew Simmons, an investment banker who specializes in oil, wrote a contoversial new book, "Twilight in the Desert," suggesting tht Saudi production has peaked and soon will shrink, putting a big dent in world productionn. To Simmons, $3 a gallon sounds cheap compared with what's coming.

Q. Are financial speculators getting rich at the expense of motorists?

A. Speculation clearly plays a part. Oil is sold in contracts for delivery of 500 or 1,000 barrels, so most investors are larger players. Only 5 percent of oil contracts trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange are delivered as oil; the rest are contingency bets, mostly canceled, so there's a lot of paper trading hands.
If you have a company-sponsored retirement plan or invest in a mutual fund, chances are your portfolio is doing well thanks to commodity index funds, energy stock indexes and hedge funds that are active in the oil futures market.

-- Kevin G. Hall, Knight Ridder Newspapers-Thursday, August 18, 2005

Wanker Of The Week!



Wow, he really said it this time! Pat Robertson (a "Christian?") called for the president of Venezuela's assassination. Robertson is a strong Bush supporter and it will be fun to watch the administration try to wiggle away from this crazy bastard. Read the following article from the Associated Press:


CARACAS, Venezuela — Pat Robertson's call for American agents to assassinate President Hugo Chavez is a "terrorist" statement that needs to be investigated by U.S. authorities, Venezuela said Tuesday. The Bush administration quickly distanced itself from the religious broadcaster.
Robertson's suggestion Monday that the United States "take out" Chavez to stop Venezuela from becoming a "launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism" appeared likely to aggravate tensions between the United States and the world's fifth-largest oil exporting country.

Chavez, who was democratically elected, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. The United States is the top buyer of Venezuelan oil, but Chavez has made it clear he wants to decrease the country's dependence on the U.S. market by finding other buyers.

Winding up a visit to Cuba, Chavez said in response to questions from reporters about Roberston's remarks that such comments did not matter to him and that he would prefer to "talk about life."

"I don't even know who that person is," said Chavez, standing next to Cuban leader Fidel Castro at Havana's airport.

In Venezuela, however, Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said the U.S. response to Robertson would be a test of its anti-terrorist policy and that Venezuela was studying its legal options.

"It's a huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those," Rangel said.

Asked about his vice president's statement, Chavez said, "we haven't heard anything." Castro, referring to Robertson's words, said "only God can punish crimes of such magnitude."
Rangel called Robertson "a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country," adding that the comments "reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times."

At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said when asked about Robertson's comments: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law. He's a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called Robertson's remarks "inappropriate."
"This is not the policy of the United States government. We do not share his views," McCormack said.

The United States was believed in the past to have been involved in the 1963 assassination of South Vietnam President Ngo Binh Diem and attempts to assassinate Castro.
Political assassination was put off-limits by former President Gerald R. Ford in an executive order in the mid-1970s.

Rumsfeld said he knew of no consideration ever being given to assassinating Chavez.

Robertson is a founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a supporter of Bush, who was elected twice with the solid backing of Christian conservatives.

The 75-year-old religious broadcaster has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

On Monday, Robertson said on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club": We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

A spokeswoman for Robertson, Angell Watts, declined to elaborate on his statements Tuesday and said Robertson would not be available to comment.

Chavez has irritated U.S. officials with his fiery rhetoric against American "imperialism" and his increasingly close ties to U.S. enemies such as Cuba and Iran. He says he is leading Venezuela toward socialism and, in a visit to Cuba this week, praised Castro's system as a "revolutionary democracy."

Chavez left Cuba Tuesday afternoon for Jamaica to discuss Petrocaribe, a Venezuela initiative to supply petroleum to Caribbean countries under favorable terms.
The Venezuelan president for the first time offered to help impoverished U.S. communities with their fuel needs as well, complaining that middle men have taken advantage of the American poor by pushing up the prices of gasoline and diesel unnecessarily high.

"We could also help some poor communities in the United States, directly selling them gasoline," Chavez said. He did not explain how the direct sales would work.
Although he is disliked in Washington, Venezuelans overwhelmingly supported Chavez in a failed recall effort by the opposition.
Venezuela has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are plotting against Chavez with conspirators in Venezuela.

Chavez, a former army paratrooper, also has accused Washington of backing a short-lived coup against him in 2002, a charge U.S. officials have denied. Chavez is up for re-election next year, and polls suggest he is the favorite.

Bernardo Alverez, the Venezuelan ambassador to Washington, said Tuesday that "it is essential that the U.S. government guarantee his safety when he visits this country in the future. ... We are concerned about the safety of our president."


Monday, August 22, 2005

The Short List


Next time you need to fill up, stay away from these major importers of Saudi oil: SHELL, CHEVRON/TEXACO, EXXON/MOBIL, MARATHON.

The following companies do not import any Saudi oil:CITGO, SUNOCO, CONOCO, SINCLAIR, BPAMOCO.

Detailed information available online www.eia.doe.gov

Solar Power: An Energy Source Long Ignored


Growing up, I remember my father talking to me about solar power. It seemed "back in the day" that this idea of harnessing the sun's energy would take off, especially during the energy crisis in 1973. The oil (and Saudi money) flow got back on track, however, and here we are today, still using the same energy resource that binds us politically but also environmentally. The following article by Kelly Gillis gives some ideas on how to get started with solar:


So you're finally tired of those exorbitant electricity bills,or, you're catching onto a "greener" way of life. Either way, solar power may have many advantages for you and your home. There are many obvious positives to using solar power. One is that solar power produces no waste. We all benefit when there are fewer pollutants in the air. The rays of the sun, which are the source of solar power are free, and, without doubt, the sun will rise each morning. In other words, solar power is an absolutely free and renewable energy source.

Even local governments are jumping on the solar bandwagon. Perhaps you may have noticed in your local area your state highways using solar powered signs warning of roadwork.There are initial high costs involved in outfitting your home for solar power but the savings realized over the years will quickly make up for the start-up costs. The most popular way of harnessing solar power for most homeowners is through the use of solar panels. These solar panels are made up of what are called photovoltaic cells which are able to covert sunlight directly into electricity. These solar panels are placed on the roof of a building. The size of the solar panel is determined by the amount of energy needed.The panels can easily be added onto if needs increase. Some new homes are now being built using these photovoltaic cells as rooftiles. These solar panels are generally easy to install for most DIY'ers. They require virtually no maintenance, and will last for decades.

There are other ways to take advantage of the sun's energy. If you are building a new home and have solar power in mind, talk with your architect. You can have your new home built facing the sun where it can take full advantage of the energy and warmth. Have large windows installed to take in as much light as possible, especially in winter months when the sun is lower in the sky. Plant trees that will shade your home in the hot summer time.

Some states offer their residents solar energy grants that will repay a portion of the costs associated with installation. These grants give home owners incentives for solar water and photovoltaic systems, with some refunding up to $5000. Check with your local energy administration bureau.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Ready to Break the Ties?


Feeling helpless at the pump? Don't want to line the pocket of oil mongers like our President? Check out the new hybrids on the market! Someone we know and love just bought one! More to come on this exciting development....until then, read about the Prius by Toyota:

Efficiency and Reduced Emissions

The Prius mainly relies on two features to optimize efficiency and reduce emissions:

Its engine only runs at an efficient speed and load - In order to reduce emissions, the Prius can accelerate to a speed of about 40 mph (64 kph) before switching on the gasoline engine. The engine only starts once the vehicle has passed a certain speed. And once the engine starts, it operates in a narrow speed band.

It uses a unique power split device - Gasoline engines can be tuned to run most efficiently in certain speed and load ranges. The power split device on the Prius allows the engine to stay in its most efficient load and speed range most of the time.

Toyota designed the 1.5-liter engine in the Prius to run at a maximum speed of only 5,000 rpm, where it makes 76 horsepower. Keeping the maximum speed of the engine low allows for the use of lighter components that improve efficiency.

The electric motor on the Prius is rated at 67 horsepower from 1,040-5,600 rpm. It produces 295 pound-feet of torque from 0 to 400 rpm, which is more than enough to get the car going without the aid of the gasoline engine.

Friday, August 19, 2005

U.S. Government and Black Gold: One Big OILYgarchy



The relationship between the Bush and Saud families only skims the surface of what is a multi-layered dynamic. There are many within the highest echelons of our government and our corporations who have or had personal and financial interests as well. Amy and David Goodman, authors of The Exception to the Rulers, have given these purveyors of greed and destruction a name: OILYgarchy. The definition that they have given for this name is very apt:

"OILYgarchy n a bunch of guys from the oil industry who take over the political leadership
of a nation, then highjack its military to attack and occupy a vast oil-producing region of
the world, lavishly enriching themselves and ensuring perpetual control of global oil. In order
to survive , OILYgarchies typically require the abrogation of civil liberties, depict self-
enrichment as a patriotic duty, and rely on the cooperation of a slavish press."

The aforementioned authors have also given a list of those within the government whose integrity and judgement can be only considered questionable in the least.

OILYgarchy Cast of Characters

George Bush, president: Failed oilman.

Dick Cheney, vice president: Former CEO of Halliburton, the largest oil services company in the world.

Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor (current Secretary of State): Former member of Chevron board of directors for a decade. Had an oil tanker named after her.

Spencer Abraham, secretary of energy: Former top recipient of campaign contributions from the automotive industry while a one-term senator.

Don Evans, secretary of commerce: Ex-CEO and chair of Tom Brown Inc., a billion-dollar oil and gas company.

Gale Norton, secretary of interior: Former lawyer for Delta Petroleum.

Andrew Card, chief of staff: Former chief lobbyist, General Motors.

Under these auspices, it can only lead one to wonder what the true agenda was for invading Iraq. Were we truly lead there to search and destroy the always non-existent WMD's (see reports by United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors as far back as 1998 for further info) or for other nefarious, less altruistic reasons? The profit to be made by these individuals at our, the American people, expense was too good to be true. It is little wonder when certain countries (most especially Germany and France) declined the U.S.'s invitation to enter into an illegal war, our government showed little concern about forging ahead without the support of its long time allies.

Just to get a taste for how lucrative this venture has been for some, take a look at the Betchel Group. Here are some facts about a little engineerig company who could:

--Total contract value in Iraq and Afaganistan, 2002-2003: $1 billion.
--Was one of 24 U.S. companies that supplied Iraq with weapons during the 1990's.
--Reagan-Bush Secretary of State George Shultz is a former Betchel president and a current board
member.
--Reagan-Bush Secretary of Energy W. Kenneth Davis, fomer company vice president.
--Current senior vice president, General Jack Sheehan (USMC,retired) is also a member of the Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board.

Now, some may take this information as a diatribe from a frustrated and angry liberal. They would be right. However, this diatribe stems from an awed disbelief that this makes no one else angry to the point of sitting up and taking notice. When will we be willing to reassert our right to question the reasons and motives of those who hold the power to influence our future? Why are we so afraid to pull our heads out of the sand and wrest back the control that was given to us by the grace of democracy?

"To announce that there must be no criticisim of the President, or that we are to stand
by the President , right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally
treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, The Kansas City Star, May 7,1918
-

Thursday, August 18, 2005

We voted for Kerry!

Monday, August 15, 2005

U.S. Dependent on Saudi Oil



The United States is set to become more reliant on Saudi oil although it will try to diversify its crude imports from the volatile Middle East region, experts said. Saudi Arabia, the world's oil powerhouse, is already the largest crude exporter to the US and growth in such exports could be stifled by a political rift over terror issues and the overthrow of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But in size, the US is expected to import more Saudi oil to meet a steady growth in its domestic crude consumption and face pressure on its dwindling reserves. "The US does not have too many options in this field… Saudi Arabia has been its main oil supplier and will remain so in the long term despite the recent strain in their relations," said Louis Hubeika, a former World Bank expert. "I believe their differences are temporary rather than being fundamental differences in the long run… they can be sorted out and I am sure the US will not allow a further deterioration because it needs Saudi Arabia more than any other oil supplier."

Sitting atop a quarter of the proven global oil wealth, Saudi Arabia supplied the US with around 500 mm barrels of crude last year, a daily average of nearly 1.36 mm barrels. Supplies hit a record 663 mm (1.8 mm bpd) in 1991 when the Gulf Kingdom sharply boosted oil production to make up for a market loss of more than 4 mm bpd because of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of neighbouring Kuwait. Last year's supplies accounted for nearly 15 % of the US's total oil imports and analysts expect the level to widen in the coming years due to a rapid growth in domestic consumption and a gradual decline in the reserves of the US and other suppliers. From around 16.7 mm bpd in 1991, the US oil consumption surged to 19.6 mm bpd in 2001 and demand is projected to have risen to more than 20 mm bpd in 2003, nearly a quarter of the world's total crude consumption.

Figures by the US Department of Energy (DoE) showed the volume of the country's oil imports had already attained a record level and covered 55 % of national consumption compared with around 42 % in 1990. According to DoE, the situation is projected to deteriorate further, with energy demand expected to increase by about 32 % by 2020, representing a far more rapid annual growth rate than the rate of increase in domestic production. This implies that the national energy supply/demand gap will rise by 50 % during 2000-20. Analysts believe a large part of the increase would be met by Saudi Arabia, which controls around 262 bn barrels and can boost capacity to 15 mm bpd. They cited last year's call by a group of US senators for raising oil imports from Saudi Arabia.

"The serious deterioration in relations between Saudi Arabia and the US since the events of September 11, 2001 together with the uncertainties caused by the occupation of Iraq and the upsurge in terrorist activity in the Middle East and elsewhere, constitute new and serious threats to the oil supplies of the US and other consuming countries," said Nicholas Sarkis, Director of the Paris-based Arab Oil Institute. "The call by 31 American senators for President George W. Bush to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to increase its oil exports is another sign of climate of mistrust between the two countries…. the fundamental problem resides in both the political and economic factors holding back the development of the production capacity in Saudi Arabia and many other oil exporting countries."

"It is in the interest of the US to diversify its oil supply sources... this means that it will naturally import more oil from Iraq in the future and this will stifle growth in its oil purchases from Saudi Arabia," Saeed Al Shaikh, Chief Economist at the Saudi National Commercial Bank, said. "But that does not mean the US will limit its oil imports from the Kingdom... I don't think it will be an intended policy by Washington to shift away from Saudi Arabia... don't forget the long-established relationship between the two countries and the large US interests in Saudi Arabia."
Source: Al Nisr Publishing

Saturday, August 13, 2005

The Dry Facts



Saudi Arabia's current royal family's rule began in 1902, when ABD AL-AZIZ bin Abd al-Rahman Al Saud over took Riyadh and over the next 30 years strived to unify the Arabian Peninsula. As the country's Basic Law states, the throne shall be passed on to the sons and grandsons of the original Al Saud.

King and Prime Minister ABDALLAH bin Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud is now in command, surrounded by a cabinet called the Council of Ministers. This cabinet is appointed by the monarch and includes many royal family members. As of 2003, the Council of Ministers announced that it would allow elections for some appointments on the Consultative Council, which acts as the legislative branch. In 2004, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs was also approved nationwide voter registration for partial municipal council elections. The judicial branch of the government is called the Supreme Council of Justice. There are no political leaders, parties, or pressure groups.

The government has strong control of the country's oil-based economy. 25% of the world's petroleum reserves come from Saudi Arabia which has a frontline role in OPEC. Roughly 75% of the country's budget revenues, 45% of GDP, and 90% of it's export income is directly linked to oil. Top export partners are the US 19.3%, Japan 16.4%, South Korea 8.7%, China 5.8, Singapore 4.5% (2004). Source: CIA-The World Factbook

Friday, August 12, 2005

The Saudi Royal and Bush Connection



"We part the veil on our killer sun
Stray from the straight line on this short run
The more we take the less we become
The fortune of one man means less for some."
-Sarah McLachlan

This year, President Bush and the then Crowned Prince Abdallah,
now King, walked hand in hand, symbolizing the strong ties between the Bush and Saud familes. These bonds have been heavily documented in movies such as Fahrenheit 9/11, books such as House of Bush, House of Saud and of course, on the web.

Why does the American public continue to ignore this obvious conflict of interest? Bush's so called "war on terror" has turned a blind eye to the Saudi's. It would seem that the administration wants us to forget the U.B.L. comes from the very family that they stroll the grounds with and invite over for BBQs . Do we not understand that most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia? Maybe most of us have ignored the reports of the outragous contracts and investments (can you say, 1.4 billion?) between the Sauds, the Bush family and their friends. Maybe we blanked out when we heard that Saudi money bailed out George W. when he was on the board of directors of Harken Energy. Were we washing our hair when the reports came out on Bush 41 and James Baker taking numerous trips to Saudi Arabia to get investors for their Carlyle Group company?

A good relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been a goal of the United States. In Feb. 1945, FDR met with King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al Saud. President Kennedy met with the King in Feb., 1962 and President Ronald Reagan revealed his feelings toward U.S. and Saudi relations when he said,

"The friendship and cooperation between our governments and people are precious jewels whose value we should never underestimate. The positive nature of our relations demonstrates that cultural differences, as distinct as our own, need not separate or alienate peoples from one another."

Our country is more oil dependent now than ever. If 9/11 did anything, it showed the world that America was changed. We vowed to rebuild, to fight, to make the enemy pay for our pain. It seems all we've done since that day is given more money and power to those who control and manipulate us.

The Saudi's harbor terrorist while our President gives them contracts and sends our soldiers to fight a war of lies. We need to question our relationships, our need for oil and who is really behind the veil. -Anna