Stephen Colbert Roast

2008 © Factinista.org

Factinista Archive

Conyers Report

Bush in 30 sec

OpEdNews.com

On Memorial Day, it seems an appropriate way to commemorate our soldiers who have served and those who have died in service to our country by reminding people how my generation promised to never fight another wrong war in the wrong way - ever again. We swore that soldiers would never again be sent into battle under false pretenses, and certainly not with too few troops, ill-equipment to do the job.

After the US military failure in Vietnam, Colin Powell formulated the modern US military strategy appropriately named The Powell Doctrine, which stated that future US wars would be fought with properly equipped troops and overwhelming, combined military force. This new approach would ensure that the US would not get bogged down in lingering insurgent wars, and would not take heavy casualties in future conflicts. The military would not lie about how wars were going, and would not lie about enemy casualties to make the case that things were going well.

Then came Colin Powell's UN speech. Somehow it seemed like a complete reversal of his earlier stance on when and how the US should engage in military conflict. He was now talking about preemptive action with a relatively small, unilateral force against a country that did not threaten the United States. It made no sense in the context of the Powell Doctrine.

We now know this as “Rumsfeld's Doctrine”; do it small and on the cheap, and try to make up for the lack of troops and equipment on the ground by using high tech gadgets. He ignored the generals and did it his way. The Rumsfeld doctrine states that a small, relatively lightly armed ground force, preceded by large air strikes, could accomplish the task of taking and holding the entire country of Iraq. Don't even bother retaining captured ground by keeping troops there; Rumsfeld's Doctrine states that you can take it, and then head back to the Green Zone or forward fire base, and thus give captured territory back to the enemy. The same mentality that failed in Vietnam.

The attempt to prosecute the war on the cheap backfired, and has now ended up costing almost 2500 troop's lives, over 15,000 troops seriously wounded, and almost $300 billion. It would have been far cheaper in both blood and money to put in twice as many troops on the ground for six months, put the Iraqi army and police under new leadership, have elections, and then turn the country over to the Iraqis so our troops could come home.

Which doctrine was right? Apparently Colin Powell’s was. Secretary Powell has now resigned from the Bush administration and has admitted publicly that his speech at the UN was one of the most regretful things he had ever done in his life. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never spent a single day in the military. They sat out the Vietnam War, while brave draftees were suffering and dying overseas. Some of those troops who survived the Vietnam War are now generals in the US military, but Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld believe they know better despite having never served in the military themselves.

Congressman John Murtha said last week that our troops are so strained and under such constant pressure that some units are cracking under the weight. War crimes like those committed against civilians in Vietnam are starting to occur in Iraq, and the country is now inflamed in a civil war that may not end for years, or even decades. Keeping our troops in this pressure cooker indefinitely will only cause continuing pain and suffering for everyone involved, and will certainly cost more lives on both sides.

What’s the best way to support the troops on this Memorial Day? Work to impeach Bush and Cheney, and put Rumsfeld in jail for war crimes (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, faked intelligence for war, botched war plan, etc.).  Our troops deserve far better civilian commanders, ones who actually know what they are doing, rather than faking it.

Dr John
 

Tens of thousands of US service members who are serving, or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, suffer from stress disorders and depression. When the stress or depression become too severe and soldiers seek help at the infirmary they are often given drugs, including antidepressants, and sent back to the front lines. An alarming number of soldiers who have been prescribed antidepressants have committed suicide.

An article at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America web site claims that this practice is increasing due to pressures to maintain troop strength. According to the report, antidepressants which can have serious side effects are given to troops who are then not monitored for bad reactions. Indeed, the type of antidepressants prescribed, serotonin uptake inhibitors, often have negative side effects for the first few weeks that they are taken. The beneficial effects only show up weeks later. Therefore, prescribing such medications to troops on the front line without monitoring their reactions may be partly responsible for some of the associated suicides.

Throughout the Iraq war the US military has evaluated the success of its mental health programs based on how many troops are retained in or returned to combat. The numbers of troops sent home for mental disorders and depression have dropped significantly since the first year of the war, as medications have become more accessible. We are not doing our over-extended troops any favor by handing out Prozac like candy in a war zone. It is irresponsible in the extreme, and must be stopped. If a soldier has substantial mental health issues, they must be removed from the battlefield.

On a completely different note concerning deranged US drug policies, the results of a large study were released recently showing that moderate to heavy marijuana smoking did not increase lung cancer rates, and in fact may have provided a mild protective effect against lung cancer. The results completely surprised the researchers who expected that heavy marijuana use would be similar to heavy tobacco smoking. Instead, they found that smoking two packs of cigarettes a day was associated with a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer, whereas heavy marijuana smoking was associated with a slight decrease in lung cancer rates.

The list below shows the estimated number of deaths associated with various drugs and activities each year in the United States.

Tobacco - 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity - 365,000
Alcohol - 85,000
Microbial Agents (germs) - 75,000
Toxic Agents - 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes - 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs - 32,000
Suicide - 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms - 29,000
Homicide - 20,308
Sexual Behaviors - 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use (excluding marijuana) - 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (aspirin, etc) - 7,600
Marijuana - 0

Tobacco usage by far tops the list at 435,000 deaths per year, with alcohol a fairly distant third in the list at 85,000 deaths per year. Marijuana usage was at the bottom of the list with zero deaths reported per year. And this is almost certainly not due to a lack of marijuana usage in the United States. According to the numbers, marijuana is far safer than aspirin.

The fact that our government is still attempting to prevent doctors from prescribing marijuana to terminally ill patients in order to allow them to hold their food down during chemotherapy is inexcusable. It is perhaps the most misdirected medical policy in our country. The results are now in that marijuana smoking is not harmful, removing any excuse for prohibiting doctors from prescribing it when no other medications are available.

Dr John

Progressive patients arrive at the doctor's office with a variety of symptoms including disorientation, mental confusion, and political aphasia. These are clear signs of Attention Democrat Disorder (ADD). Currently there is no known cure, so symptomatic treatment with focused Democratic talking points is the only remaining option.

The incidence of ADD has been increasing in recent years, and is now reaching epidemic proportions in the United States. The cause has been well documented; a constant onslaught of conservative talking points from every news outlet, dozens of Republican scandals swept under the rug, unchecked executive powers and a colluding White House press corps. The result is that Democrats are dazed and confused, and constantly distracted from the actual problems facing the country.

Cases in point; 1) the immigration debate - why exactly is immigration such a pressing problem all of a sudden? 2) gay marriage - what does this have to do with anything affecting the country right now? 3) bird flu pandemic scare, is this really the most pressing health issue facing the world today?, 4) Iran nuclear threat - so what? North Korea and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and we’re not going crazy about that, 5) Moussaoui trial - the guy probably didn't even have anything to do with the attacks on 9/11.

What can you do if you think you might be coming down with symptoms of ADD? Simple, focus on these easy to remember topics:

1)      Bush lied us into war in Iraq and people are still dying over three years later

2)      Bush, Libby and Cheney outed a CIA agent for political payback purposes

3)      Jack Abramoff and the Republican bribery scandals

4)      Dismantling of FEMA and the resultant death of over a thousand people in New Orleans due to the Katrina flooding

5)      Bush never found Osama bin Laden, and now we see the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan

6)      Bush and Cheney ordered the torturing of prisoners

7)      $9 billion of your taxes have gone missing in Iraq

8)      Halliburton still getting no-bid contracts in Iraq

9)      Bush and Cheney's energy policies have led to the current price on gas

10)  Republicans control everything and govern like drunken sailors

The Republicans are going into overdrive in their distraction campaign. Don't let them give you a case of ADD. Fight back by focusing on their malfeasance, and ignore their distractions and fear tactics. If they raise the terror alert, laugh it off and think about Scooter Libby going to prison. It works every time.

Dr John

They are not 50 feet tall with a taste for human flesh. But considering the level of media attention and fear mongering from our government, you would think that chickens could be the doom of us all. Is all this bird flu brouhaha just common sense preparedness by the Department of Health and Human Services? Is it a timely Bush administration preemptive attack on the next human pandemic disease?

Not to my way of thinking, and I have been a biologist for almost 30 years. In ancient times there were many human pandemics ranging from bubonic plague to smallpox. In the last century there has only been one worldwide pandemic known as the Spanish flu, which occurred in 1918. Soldiers from World War I were shipped all around the world and carried the flu virus with them infecting millions of people in many countries. Tens of millions of people died in a single year from pneumonia-like symptoms.

Is the current concern over a bird flu pandemic a prescient stroke of genius meant to deal with a deadly virus, or a devious stroke of propaganda meant to distract the news media and public from government malfeasance and exceptionally low popularity levels? I suggest that it is the latter, and others are starting to agree with me.

The best scientific evidence to date suggests that the current bird flu virus is relatively unlikely to mutate in just the correct way that it can easily infect humans, and transfer by air from one human to another. Currently, only poultry workers who are in constant contact with birds, and bird droppings, are getting the so-called bird flu. It is not passing from person to person, and in fact, it seems to be spreading through the wild bird population far more slowly than predicted.

I would rate the chances that this particular virus will be able to mutate in just the right way that it could easily infect human beings at about one-in-a-thousand. That might be a generous overestimate of the danger, but it sounds like it's in the right ballpark. As such, I believe it would be far better for our government to prepare in general terms for any type of disease outbreak rather than concentrating on one unlikely suspect. Disease outbreaks occur with little or no warning and cannot be predicted ahead of time because of the nature of mutation and its relation to viral evolution. You can't prepare for a future unknown pandemic by making vaccine to a known virus, because in the end a completely different virus might be the one that mutates to become deadly to humans. All of the bird flu vaccine would be worthless in such a circumstance.

I believe that the excessive focus on a possible bird flu pandemic has more to do with politics, and an attempt to make it look like the administration is doing something, rather than actually being a serious focus on human health. One good reason for believing this is the excessive public hand-wringing surrounding the issue. Most public health issues are dealt with behind-the-scenes without dramatic press releases pumping up the fear level in the populous. Warning the public for months on end that a virus might mutate and might cause problems in the future seems to be a dubious method of keeping the public abreast of important health issues. It seems more like the terrorist color code alert system, both brought to you by the always comforting Bush administration.

Currently, there is an ongoing human pandemic that is receiving very little attention from the civilized world. Millions of people die every year from malaria, and hundreds of millions suffer from the ravages of this terrible disease. Pharmaceutical companies will not touch malaria research because most of the victims are too poor to pay for expensive drugs. The one person to step forward was the world's richest person, Bill Gates who has donated $400 million to malaria research, by far the largest donation for such research in history. Other human pandemics ranging from AIDS to cholera also get less air time on the news nowadays than the bird flu, despite the fact that they infect millions of humans every year.

I predict that the bird flu scare will evaporate much in the same way that the SARS scare dissipated several years ago. It was difficult to turn on the news or open the newspaper several years ago without hearing about this new deadly human disease that was supposedly going to kill thousands, maybe millions. It did no such thing, and now SARS is just a footnote in medical history.

There may be a terrible human pandemic arising sometime in the next few years, but I'll wager that it has nothing to do with the bird flu. Preparedness is a good thing, but medical preparedness needs to be geared more towards mobilization and response capabilities than towards stockpiling vaccines to specific viruses. Of course it's always more lucrative for pharmaceutical companies to lobby the government to pay for and stockpile huge quantities of vaccines, even if they are vaccines for non-existent diseases. But this is not a sound public health policy; it is just a sound business policy for pharmaceutical companies.

Dr John

Anyone who lived through the Vietnam War era remembers talk of the domino effect. The domino effect was why we were in Vietnam, supposedly, in the first place. Forget about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was the “weapons of mass destruction” ploy used on the American public to sell the war in Vietnam. That had nothing to do with the war in Vietnam, just as “threatening weapons” had nothing to do with the current war in Iraq. Anyone who thinks Iraq was actually a military threat to United States needs to re-examine the evidence.

The domino effect was the name given to the theory that communism would spread like a virus throughout the world. Soon, every Third World country would be communist, and the “free nations” would dwindle to just a handful. Communism was the boogieman coming to get all of us, and if we didn't make a stand, then we would all be doomed as free countries toppled like dominoes. There was never any evidence of this, and certainly the countries that fell prey to the Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s did not go gently into that union. Indeed, after the fall of the Soviet Union many of those countries, ranging from Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia, broke away from the Soviet Union, which we now know again by the name of Russia. The domino effect did not seem operative, it seemed more like a propaganda tool to keep the public in support of a massive military buildup.

It is curious that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, two early proponents of the domino effect theory, have now decided that they can institute a reverse domino effect on the Muslim world. Despite the failure of communism to initiate any domino effect throughout the world, Dick and Don decided that maybe a “reverse domino effect” might work - perhaps forcibly toppling a Middle Eastern country and instituting a puppet democracy could spread democracy throughout the Muslim world. Not exactly what you would call brilliant international policy, more like rehashing old unworkable ideas in a new, perhaps more dangerous context. I suppose what they say about old dogs may be true.

As sectarian violence escalates in Iraq and as the puppet government, sheltered within the heavily fortified Green Zone, tries in vain to settle age old disputes, you have to wonder how long it will be before the administration realizes that the reverse domino effect is a fantasy? Rather than spreading democracy throughout the Middle East like falling dominoes, we instead see Islamic fundamentalism spreading there like wildfire. In countries from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Egypt, anti-Western sentiment is at an all-time high. If the violence in Iraq persists for six more months, or continues to escalate further, will the Bush administration stay the bloody course, or pull the troops out? I expect they will make many more mistakes over the next several months, perhaps more mistakes than normal because this is an election year and they are beginning to panic. But it is hard to believe that they could make any more mistakes than they already have, as this is the most disastrous administration in my lifetime.

Dr John

If you thought the 2000 and 2004 elections were controversial, just wait for the 2006 election. It is shaping up to be one of the most controversial, and possibly corrupt elections in American history.

You will probably never hear about this simmering controversy from CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC, but it is creeping into print news, including the newly conservative New York Times. And you guessed it, it's all about Diebold electronic voting systems, and security issues.

Tests over the last several months have revealed serious security flaws in Diebold's voting systems. Computer scientists have said that the vulnerability could allow knowledgeable persons with access to a voting machine to tamper with the machine's software, and possibly infect them with a virus that could propagate to other parts of the voting system. These vulnerabilities have been discussed at length previously, especially at Blackbox voting.

If you think electronic voting is secure and reliable, check out the articles I've linked to and decide for yourself. A paper backup trail is absolutely essential to make sure the US voting system is accurate, reliable and secure. We need a standardized voting machine system in the United States with paper backup, and the ability to retain data during power outages or computer glitches.

It’s time to end this corrosive cancer on our democracy. Voting in the US in the 21^st century should be a model for the rest of the world, not a laughing stock.

Dr John

If you were president of the world's greatest superpower and your country was attacked by a small loosely knit band of fanatics from various countries around the world, what would your response be? Would you militarily invade a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the original attack on your country? If that would not be your first choice, then ask yourself why it was the Bush administration's first choice.

Everything that our government is doing wrong now is being justified as necessary because of an ongoing “war on terror”. The Bush-Cheney “war on terror” is a political strategy, not a series of implemented policies meant to reduce international terrorism. Indeed, the implemented policies ranging from torturing detainees, to the “collateral damage” deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, to our protracted occupation of Iraq, have all combined to incense the Muslim world and thus increase the level of international terrorism directed against Western countries, their assets, and peoples.

Republicans have ridiculed an international law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism as weak, and ineffective. The purpose of ridiculing international law enforcement is to take that discussion off the table. The only remaining argument then is either to use our military, or to not use our military, and that leaves most people saying to go ahead and use the military. But that is a false choice. International law enforcement is the only way to bring small bands of fanatics to justice. The Israeli method of sending large guided bombs into apartment buildings to kill a single suspected terrorist, thus killing dozens of innocent people in the process, is an example not to be followed by rational persons. A SWAT team would have been just as effective without the innocent death toll.

Putting aside the Bush-Cheney administration's obsession with oil, and the administration's desire to put Moslems that control oil in their place, are there other important reasons that drove this administration to war in Iraq? Follow the money. Is anyone benefiting from the Iraq war? How about Halliburton? How about oil companies? How about defense contractors? Any increased profits there? The $300 billion windfall reaped by these and other companies in Iraq would not have been possible without the war. But the money was not available, and instead was borrowed from European and Chinese banks, adding greatly to our nearly $9 trillion debt. That is one gigantic credit card bill that we will all be paying off for decades to come.

Any time you hear a politician talking about a “war on something”; beware. This is a cheap trick to rouse public support, often for an unworkable policy or agenda. There can be no “war on terror” because you can't have a military war against small bands of people scattered throughout the world. You can have a war against Iraq, if you really think that is going to benefit the people of the United States, but you can't have a war against a violent political tactic used by small bands of people. Instead, you need international law enforcement to track down those groups of people and bring them to justice. That is something that jet aircraft and tanks cannot do. An honest president would cooperate with other government’s national law enforcement agencies to coordinate efforts to disrupt, find, and eliminate terrorist cells around the world. Unfortunately, we do not have an honest president.

Dr John

  When Will Democrats stand up to Bush?
   May 9th, 2006

Yesterday Russ Feingold called for the Democrats stand together in opposition to the Bush administration's excruciatingly disastrous political/social agenda. It doesn't take a brainiac from the nerd patrol, nor a member of the Factinista, to see that we are bogged down in an insurgent war in Iraq because of Bush’s, Cheney’s and Rumsfeld's failed plans, that the CIA is in meltdown mode due to the cluelessness of Bush appointees (cronies), that increased international terrorism has resulted from these failed policies, that our national debt is higher than it's ever been due to criminal fiscal irresponsibility, and that America has lost all credibility among the international community.

The malfeasance list goes on and on, and the result is that Bush is down to about 31% in the polls. You would think that fact alone would be enough to put some spine into the Democrats and get them back up on their soap boxes. Apparently not. Again Russ Feingold seems lost in the woods, calling for Democrats to do something, anything, with no response other than the wind blowing through the trees.

Just the other day Democrats came out with an agenda of their own, meek as it was. They called for a return to fiscal responsibility, full implemen-tation of the 9/11 committee recommendations, and increasing the minimum wage. Hardly a sweeping new agenda to turn the country around. Because the Democrats seem unwilling to take on the challenge of declaring a strong agenda for renewing America, I will do it for them.

Here is a sound workable 12-point agenda for the Democrats:

1) Full public financing of all elections, and campaign finance reform that removes all private money from politics.

2) Full lobbying reform that forbids any contribution of any type to any politician from anyone. The idea that disclosing bribes makes them better is ludicrous.

3) Return of the fairness doctrine, forcing stations to offer opposing views rather than just one side of the story. Failing that, I would accept all pundits to reveal at the beginning of every show where their money comes from, and label their broadcast or print as political opinion rather than news.

4) Strengthened antitrust laws that prevent large corporate mergers, consolidations, and a tendency towards monopolization.

5) Simplification of the tax system with dramatically reduced tax rates at the low end, higher tax rates at the upper end, and very few deductions for anyone.

6) Increase the minimum wage to $7.50 an hour.

7) Strengthening of the FISA court laws and the anti-domestic spying laws.

8) Passage of new laws that specifically forbid any US citizen from breaking accepted international laws including the Geneva conventions, within the United States, or overseas. We need a Humane Treatment of Detainees law, with severe consequences for breaking the law. The law would also forbid secret detention centers overseas, or the “renditioning” of US prisoners to foreign governments.

9) New government accountability laws that permit a congressional minority to initiate investigations of the majority.

10) Pull all troops out of Iraq, and redirect government spending towards the US infrastructure, port security, and rebuilding along the Gulf Coast.

11) Propose and implement an alternative energy plan that cuts our dependency on oil and coal.

12) Perhaps the most important of all, a nationalized voting machine system where all voting machines in the United States are manufactured identically, with open source software, power-loss backup (nonvolatile flash memory?), and a full paper trail. In order for all the votes to be equal, the voting systems must have equivalent error rates and reliability rates.

Unfortunately for the US populace, the Democrats will probably maintain much of the status quo even if they are elected. But then again, at this point anything is better than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Dr John
 

I have been told by the spouse of an NIH administrator that an agency-wide meeting was held where it was revealed to top-level NIH employees that a contingency plan was being prepared for dealing with an anticipated bird flu pandemic.

All this sounds quite reasonable until you hear the details. I have so far been unable to confirm this with other sources, but I was told that NIH administrators were briefed on a plan to shut the NIH campus down for the months of August, September and October of this year. The reason given was that it was thought that the bird flu pandemic would hit America in that timeframe. Personnel would be put on leave without pay for the duration.

Several things struck me immediately. First was the fact that the main thing occurring in that timeframe was the run-up to the next election. Second was the implausibility that the officials involved could predict something as unpredictable as a pandemic. Third was the ludicrousness of the idea that the government would be disbanding the premier medical research organization of the United States just when that medical research organization was needed most; during a pandemic outbreak.

Since news of this meeting came to me (indirectly) from an NIH administrator I have to assume that such a meeting concerning this topic must have occurred. But I'm wondering if it might not be a way for Bush appointees at the NIH to test the political waters among NIH administrators, rather than an actual plan to shut down the NIH. The plan does not sound rational, but rather, it sounds politically timed for the next midterm election.

In any case, if you start to hear stories in July or August about the flu pandemic coming to the United States, just keep in mind that it was all planned well ahead of time, probably not for medical reasons, but for political ones.

Dr John

The Oil Will Flow Like Water
May 3rd 2006

That is what George Bush and Dick Cheney were thinking when they attacked Iraq. That is why they said that the Iraq war would pay for itself through oil revenues. Almost $300 billion later, we're still waiting for the oil to flow at all.

Recent moves in Russia, Argentina, and Bolivia have nationalized their oil and gas infrastructure. In other words, the governments in those oil-rich countries have taken over the oil and gas wells. While this story is getting very little play in the mainstream media, it certainly has experts concerned that other oil-producing countries may soon follow suit.

Why should you care? Maybe because gas is costing you three dollars a gallon now and is sure to go up further. The governments of Russia, Argentina and Bolivia have told foreign oil companies that they have six months to renegotiate their contracts, or forfeit their assets. These moves almost certainly mean that oil supplies will be tightened, profits for larger oil companies reduced, and eventually the price of gas will be forced upwards even further.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. These are all the unintended consequences of the Bush-Cheney war in Iraq, their constant threats about attacking Iran, their inability to protect the oil infrastructure of Iraq, their veiled threats towards Venezuela, Bolivia and Nigeria, and the dramatic worsening of world opinion towards the United States that is the direct result of these poorly thought out foreign policies.

Of course, the Cheney energy plan had a big hand to play in worsening the situation. Cheney's energy bill gave huge tax breaks to oil companies, who have reaped the largest profits in US history in the last year as a result. In part these outrageous profits helped fuel the sentiment in countries such as Argentina and Bolivia that they were not being properly compensated for their natural resources, which were being pilfered by foreign oil companies. By nationalizing their oil and gas infrastructure these countries will now be able to fully control how their natural resources are utilized. That means lower profits for companies like Exxon, Mobil and BP.

So you can thank Bush and Cheney for the prices you're paying at the pumps now, and as the prices continue to rise you can thank them even more. It would be especially helpful in driving up gas prices to all new highs if they would just hurry up and attack Iran, and get it over with. Then they could attack Africa, South America, Russia - oh what the hell - the whole rest of the world. That ought to help.

It's a sad state of affairs we are in now where Americans will not get out to protest against what our government is doing in our name, and yet immigrants in America turn out by the millions to protest about immigration reform. The news media refuse to take on the Bush administration, leaving that function to courageous comedians like Stephen Colbert. America needs a goodly dose of the type of activism that helped get us out of the Vietnam War in the early 1970s. But that seems unlikely, perhaps at least until gas reaches four dollars a gallon.

Dr John