Unbelievable. Yet then again, not really.

“People do lose jobs as a result of globalization and it’s painful for those who lose jobs,” Mr. Bush said at meeting with young entrepreneurs at Hyderabad’s Indian School of Business, one of the premier schools of its kind in India. Nonetheless, the president said, “globalization provides great opportunities.”

Yeah. Great opportunities for you and your international corporate business syndicate friends who make up .5% of the American (and world’s) population. The ‘haves’ and the ‘have mores’, as you have so aptly described your ‘base’, Mr. Bush. Great opportunities to continue your work at creating a “New World Order” of global corporate feudalism.

And this article here discusses his plan to give India American nuclear technology in exchange for fruit. So much for non-proliferation. The dangers inherent in this are astounding and the long-term ramifications and irresponsibility of this act are indeed horrifying.

The only positive sign of all of this is the intense reaction of opposition Bush has received from the people of India (and elsewhere) during his visits. Amazing that American military and police have taken over whole swaths of areas that Bush goes to. Can you imagine the outrage here if, say, the British army assumed jurisdiction over your hometown police if the Queen was coming? If you had to follow the orders of foreign armies and were forced to succumb to martial law imposed by those foreigners in light of that ‘visit’? The American empire has gone over the top, and historical karmic blowback is on its way. Fasten your seat belts, fellow citizens. Its not going to be pretty.

This is disturbing. How long can the data continue to accumulate before this finally gets beyond ridiculous partisan politics and the attention it deserves (in fact, essentially requires)?

Researchers analyzed tree rings, ice cores, fossils and other “proxy climate records” and found that the present warming phase has lasted longer, and affected a broader area, than any other such period in the last 1,200 years.

Read The Report Here

The Post is not, by any reckoning, a progressive or liberal paper, and is normally not inclined to criticize the administration. But I guess the commercial control of US ports by a middle eastern country with financial ties to Al Qaeda was too much even for them to stomach. When will we have the Boxer Rebellion, part two?

Do the feds really want to place the ports of New York and New Jersey in the hands of a Middle East country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers? As The Post reported on Sunday, that’s what’s about to happen, now that Dubai Ports World has won control - for $6.8 billion - of British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system - considered the commercial center of the Arab world - provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.

Read it and weep. More here, too.

This is not unexpected by any means, just astoundingly stark.

Newly released video footage shows how, in dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security Chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers. Bush did not ask a single question during this final briefing before Katrina struck.

The footage - along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press - show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.

Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared.”

Just like they are fully prepared to handle the overall needs of the nation’s security, economic well-being and political survival. Don’t you feel confident and secure as an American with the ever-vigilant and oh-so-competent Bush administration in charge?

Bush declared four days after the storm, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees” that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans.

Yeah. Just like no one could have anticipated someone would fly airplanes into buildings, despite the YEARS of repeated warnings by security professionals informing you of just that very fact.

Liars. Filthy, murdering, pathological liars.

Read the AP report and watch the video for yourself Here

Top Ten Mistakes of Bush in Reacting to al-Qaeda
By Juan Cole
Informed Comment
January 24th, 2006

On September 11, 2001, the question was whether we had underestimated al-Qaeda. It appeared to be a Muslim version of the radical seventies groups like the Baader Meinhoff gang or the Japanese Red Army. It was small, only a few hundred really committed members who had sworn fealty to Bin Laden and would actually kill themselves in suicide attacks. There were a few thousand close sympathizers, who had passed through the Afghanistan training camps or otherwise been inducted into the world view. But could a small terrorist group commit mayhem on that scale? Might there be something more to it? Was this the beginning of a new political force in the Middle East that could hope to roll in and take over, the way the Taliban had taken over Afghanistan in the 1990s? People asked such questions.

Over four years later, there is no doubt. Al-Qaeda is a small terrorist network that has spawned a few copy-cats and wannabes. Its breakthrough was to recruit some high-powered engineers in Hamburg, which it immediately used up. Most al-Qaeda recruits are marginal people, people like Zacarias Moussawi and Richard Reid, who would be mere cranks if they hadn’t been manipulated into trying something dangerous. Muhammad al-Amir (a.k.a Atta) and Ziad Jarrah were highly competent scientists, who could figure the kinetic energy of a jet plane loaded with fuel. There don’t seem to be significant numbers of such people in the organization. They are left mostly with cranks, petty thieves, drug smugglers, bored bank tellers, shopkeepers, and so forth, persons who could pull off a bombing of trains in Madrid or London, but who could not for the life of them do a really big operation.

The Bush administration and the American Right generally has refused to acknowledge what we now know. Al-Qaeda is dangerous. All small terrorist groups can do damage. But it is not an epochal threat to the United States or its allies of the sort the Soviet Union was (and that threat was consistently exaggerated, as well).

Getting to the point, Professor Cole goes on to note…

Because they exaggerate the scale of the conflict, and because they use it cynically, Bush and Cheney have grossly mismanaged the struggle against al-Qaeda and Muslim radicalism after September 11. Here are their chief errors:

Read full article…
http://www.juancole.com/2006/01/top-ten-mistakes-of-bush.html

Good analysis by Professor Juan Cole on the Palestinian elections putting Hamas in the seat of power. Bush’s devotion to ‘democracy’ (Bush’s democracy is much like Soviet era Stolichnaya vodka - a top shelf product for export only. God forbid he actually promote it. There has also been an informative piece published by Salon on the Hamas electoral victory worth a look as well.

Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has sown the seeds for militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their nationalist credentials.

In a mystifying self-contradiction, Bush trumpeted that “the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy.” If elections were really the same as democracy, and if Bush was so happy about the process, then we might expect him to pledge to work with the results, which by his lights would be intrinsically good. But then he suddenly swerved away from this line of thought, reverting to boilerplate and saying, “On the other hand, I don’t see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can’t be a partner in peace if you have a - if your party has got an armed wing.”

So Bush is saying that even though elections are democracy and democracy is good and powerful, it has produced unacceptable results in this case, and so the resulting Hamas government will lack the legitimacy necessary to allow the United States to deal with it or go forward in any peace process. Bush’s double standard is clear in his diction, since he was perfectly happy to deal with Israel’s Likud Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of the budding Palestinian state, and which used the Israeli military and security services for its party platform in destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority throughout the early years of this century. As Orwell reminded us in “Animal Farm,” some are more equal than others.

Bush has boxed himself into an impossible situation. He promoted elections that have produced results opposite of the ones he wanted. For all his constant rhetoric about his determination to hunt down and kill terrorists, in Palestine he has in effect helped install into power a group he calls “terrorists.” His confusion over whether this is democracy, which should be legitimate, or is an unacceptable outcome - and his unwillingness to address the underlying issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - suggest that a fatal paralysis will continue to afflict the region.

Read Juan Cole’s full piece Here

My friend Daniel sent this link around to an article by Michael Kinsley of Slate. And as another friend reminded me of, when Daniel sends something out, you have to sit up and take notice…

Read the article here, which attempts to strike a blow for what is left of the Age of Reason.

Power Crews Diverted
Restoring pipeline came first
Hattiesburg American
By Nikki Davis Maute

September 11th, 2005

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina roared through South Mississippi knocking out electricity and communication systems, the White House ordered power restored to a pipeline that sends fuel to the Northeast.

That order - to restart two power substations in Collins that serve Colonial Pipeline Co. - delayed efforts by at least 24 hours to restore power to two rural hospitals and a number of water systems in the Pine Belt.

At the time, gasoline was in short supply across the country because of Katrina. Prices increased dramatically and lines formed at pumps across the South.

“I considered it a presidential directive to get those pipelines operating,” said Jim Compton, general manager of the South Mississippi Electric Power Association - which distributes power that rural electric cooperatives sell to consumers and businesses.

“I reluctantly agreed to pull half our transmission line crews off other projects and made getting the transmission lines to the Collins substations a priority,” Compton said. “Our people were told to work until it was done.

“They did it in 16 hours, and I consider the effort unprecedented.”

Katrina slammed into South Mississippi and Southeast Louisiana on Aug. 29, causing widespread devastation and plunging most of the area - including regional medical centers and rural hospitals - into darkness.

The storm also knocked out two power substations in Collins, just north of Hattiesburg. The substations were crucial to Atlanta-based Colonial Pipeline, which moves gasoline and diesel fuel from Texas, through Louisiana and Mississippi and up to the Northeast.

“We were led to believe a national emergency was created when the pipelines were shut down,” Compton said.

Read the full article here…
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/NEWS05/509110304

Barbara Bush Comments On Survivors Spark Outrage
Sydney Morning Herald
September 7th, 2005

“They’re underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them” … former first lady Barbara Bush and former president George Bush visit hurricane evacuees in Houston on Monday.

Comments about Hurricane Katrina victims by the mother of President George Bush have fueled the ire of some Americans, who see the Bush family as out-of-touch patricians.
The refugees in Houston, Texas, were “underprivileged anyway” and life in the Astrodome sports arena is “working very well for them,” former first lady Barbara Bush said in a radio interview.

“Almost everyone I’ve talked to says: ‘We’re going to move to Houston,’ ” Mrs Bush said late on Monday after visiting evacuees at the Astrodome with her husband, former president George Bush.

“What I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality,” she said.

“And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this - this is working very well for them.”

Her comments were aired on Marketplace, an American Public Radio show broadcast nationwide.

They triggered a flood of negative messages on the Huffington Post, a popular left-leaning blog.

“Cold hearted witch,” read one of the more polite comments, signed by IowaDem.

“No wonder her son remained on vacation, playing guitar and eating cake instead of seeing that aid and rescue operations were well-managed.”

Another writer found the comments hard to believe. “Did she really say that?” wrote ‘Stephen.’ “My God! What or who have we become?”

Meanwhile, “Katrinagate” fury has spread to US media.

“For God’s sake, are you blind?” a woman shouted at Michael Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). “You’re patting each other on the back, while people here are dying.”

The woman was not a victim of Hurricane Katrina. She was a reporter with US television network MSNBC who was so affected by the misery she had witnessed she could hold back no longer.

“Katrinagate” is the term being used by the media to describe the biggest challenge facing the political establishment in the US since the Watergate affair in the 1970s toppled Richard Nixon.

Not for decades has there been such merciless questioning of the President and his Administration by the US media.

Even now, as the rescue operation gets under way in earnest and the flood waters in New Orleans are starting to subside, the Federal Government’s inadequate reaction - in the run-up to the hurricane and directly afterwards - is still being criticised by the media in reports that are anything but detached.

Never before, say some observers, have US reporters been so emotionally involved in a story to the point of being enraged. They are not just telling a story, they have become part of it.

“Has Katrina saved the US media?” asked BBC reporter Matt Wells, who sees the shift in tone as a potentially historic development.

A number of US journalists who cover federal politics, especially television presenters, had become part of the political establishment, said Wells.

“They live in the same suburbs, go to the same parties. Their television companies are owned by large conglomerates who contribute to election campaigns.”

It’s a “perfect recipe” for fearful, self-censoring reportage, he said, but added: “Since last week, that’s all over.”

But if the Bush Administration’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina was slow, so too was the media’s.

On Friday, reporters at the scene were still having difficulties establishing the scale of the disaster and the number of dead.

Used to reporting on comparatively harmless storms, heroically riding out the storms with windblown hairdos, they were then confronted with the “Big One”.

The television reporters, particularly, were left scrambling in the first few hours of coverage as they tried to comprehend the scale of the disaster.

Then came the emotion. A CNN reporter broke down as she described the cries of help of people stuck on rooftops in Louisiana. Other journalists also related what they saw in broken voices.

Then the federal officials rolled into town and the press conferences started, with politicians thanking one another for their tireless efforts.

Next came anger. “This isn’t Iraq, this isn’t Somalia, this is our home,” one NBC television reporter shouted.

The usually stoic ABC television presenter Ted Koeppel lashed out at the FEMA head in a interview, when he could not give any details on the number of refugees waiting to be rescued from the Convention Centre.

“Don’t you people ever look at television?” the veteran presenter raged. “Don’t you ever hear the radio? We’ve been reporting on the crisis at the Convention Centre for a lot longer than just today.”

A CNN journalist also attacked Brown. “How it is possible that we have better information than you? Why aren’t supplies being dropped in [by plane]? In Banda Aceh, in Indonesia, they did it two days after the tsunami.”

Another CNN reporter interrupted Senator Mary Landrieu during an interview in which she was praising Congress for passing an emergency aid package.

“Excuse me Senator, I’m sorry for interrupting. I haven’t heard anything about that, because I was busy these past four days seeing dead people on the street. And when I hear how one politician congratulating the others … Yesterday there was a corpse on the street which had been eaten by rats because it had been there for 48 hours.”

If the alarm bells are not already going off in the Oval Office, they should be, because the previously staunchly pro-Bush Fox News is also starting to show signs of disaffection.

As one of their reporters was being directed to another area because of the danger caused by looting, he spoke quickly into his microphone, saying: “These people are desperate. Why shouldn’t they try to steal water and food from us?”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Accountability - Little To Be Seen On Katrina
The Minneapolis Star Tribune
Editorial

September 8th, 2005

If the human misery that followed Hurricane Katrina has been shocking and painful, the federal government’s shifting explanations for its needless severity have been utterly shameful.

That assessment is not part of some political, postdisaster “blame game,” but an insistence that accountability for preparing for and responding to a major U.S. disaster be placed squarely where it belongs: the federal government and its emergency-response program, FEMA.

The Bush administration’s attempts to shift accountability elsewhere — first to the victims stuck in New Orleans for not leaving, later to Louisiana officials and “bureaucrats” — are an appalling use of political tactics in the highly inappropriate realm of human suffering and pain, of lives saved and lives lost.

That realm requires that officials accept responsibility, express true and deep understanding of the dislocation and misery being experienced, and redouble efforts to make up for a sickeningly bungled start.

Read the full article here…
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5602234.html