And that makes it right? The site indicates that almost every president since LBJ has paid respects to those who lost their lives under their watch. Carter, Reagan and Clinton all did. It's just the honorable thing to do. Politics do not matter here. Paying respect to the kids who died fighting a war you sent them to is just common decency.
The Bushie's impressive record - is revealed to be more and more lies. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031207-101622-3249r Figures show 'hype' of terror war By Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Published 12/8/2003 7:39 AM View printer-friendly version WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 (UPI) -- Of the thousands of people referred by the FBI and other federal investigators to prosecutors in connection with terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, only a handful have been convicted and sentenced to long prison terms, according to an analysis of Justice Department figures published Monday. The FBI challenged the methodology of the analysis, saying it led to "misleading and unfounded conclusions ..." The analysis, carried out by statisticians and long-time law enforcement observers at the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse based at Syracuse University, found that in the two years after the Sept. 11 attacks about 6,400 people were referred to prosecutors in connection with terrorism or terrorist offenses. But of the 2,681 cases that had been wrapped up by the end of September 2003, some 879 were convicted of a crime and less than half of those -- 373 -- were sent to prison. Five received sentences of 20 years or more, which was actually fewer than in the two years before Sept. 11. The figures analyzed have been repeatedly cited by administration officials to justify their contention that the government is winning the war against terror. "Our report raises serious questions," David Burnham of TRAC told United Press International, "When such large numbers of cases are declined, dismissed or acquitted, we have to ask: Is the government pursuing the right strategy (in the war on terror)? Are they targeting the right people?" . . .
Next record - put Bushies in charge of oil producing Middle Eastern country, bring on the worst shortages of petroleum product in modern history. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47474-2003Dec8.html Fueling Anger in Iraq Sabotage Exacerbates Petroleum Shortages By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A01 BAGHDAD, Dec. 8 -- The line of cars waiting to fill up at the Hurreya gas station on Monday snaked down the right lane of a busy thoroughfare, around a traffic circle, across a double-decker bridge spanning the Tigris River and along a potholed side street leading to one of Iraq's three oil refineries. At the end, almost two miles from the station, was Mohammed Adnan, a taxi driver who could not comprehend why he would have to wait seven hours to fuel his mud-spattered Chevrolet Beretta. "This is Iraq," he noted wryly. "Don't we live on a lake of oil?" Despite its vast underground oil reserves -- estimated to be the world's second-largest -- Iraq is a country starved of petroleum products. Not only is gasoline in short supply, but so too are diesel, kerosene and propane. Over the past few weeks, lines for gasoline and other petroleum products have grown to lengths unimaginable even by the standards of the U.S. energy crisis in the 1970s. Some are miles long, forcing drivers to wait all day for a turn at the pump. Many Iraqis have taken to spending the night in their cars. Others have resorted to buying gas on the black market for 20 times the pump price. The difficulty in obtaining a commodity that Iraqis had long taken for granted has fueled a new wave of anger and frustration with the U.S. occupation, particularly among moderate, middle-class city dwellers who find themselves unable to drive to work, drop their children off at school or go shopping in this car-dependent city. The popular discontent appears to match the fury that enveloped Baghdad when electricity service dropped to just a few hours a day over the summer. U.S. officials here contend the gas shortage has numerous causes; they cite the import of 250,000 new cars since the end of the war and slumps in production during Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting. Compounding the problem, they said, are Iraq's antiquated refineries, which have not been able to resume prewar output levels because supplies of two crucial inputs -- crude oil and electricity -- are regularly disrupted. "There's no one thing that's to blame," said an official with the U.S.-led occupation authority who is responsible for oil issues. "It's a combination of a lot of little things." But officials with Iraq's Oil Ministry offered a different view. The new cars have not increased overall demand for gasoline, largely because fewer people are working and traveling these days. The problem, they maintain, is security. Repeated sabotage of pipelines has disrupted the flow of crude oil into refineries and the removal of byproducts. Truckers bringing in fuel to alleviate the shortage from neighboring countries have been attacked on the highways, leading a contingent of Turkish drivers to go on strike last week. And the lack of adequate law enforcement has allowed black marketeers to exacerbate the situation by hoarding fuel. "If we had security, we would have fuel," said Dathar Khashab, the director of the Daura Refinery in southern Baghdad. For Iraqis, the impact of the anti-American insurgency has perhaps been felt most broadly in the gasoline shortage. Although more than 100 Iraqis have been killed in car bombings and more than a score assassinated by insurgents for cooperating with occupation forces, the pipeline explosions and the attacks on truckers have disrupted the lives of Iraqis like nothing else. "Life is worse now than it was during the war," said Mazen Bayar, a retired foreman who works part time as a taxi driver. "I spend all day in the line. There's no time to work." Standing atop a bridge where his car was stuck in line, Bayar looked out at the Daura Refinery as an orange flame shot out of a smokestack. "We have always had enough oil," he said. "Now we have a shortage? Something suspicious is going on." But Bayar and a score of other drivers in line on Monday afternoon did not make a connection between the shortages and the insurgency, blamed largely on loyalists of the former president, Saddam Hussein. Instead, they cast the blame at everyone -- and anyone -- else. CONTINUED . . .
Please modify your list. Question for the forum: Would a military under the control of Howard Dean have captured Saddam?
Yes if thats who they were after. However they'd probably have gone after and caught (or killed) Osama by now. The man who is actually responsible for slaughtering 3000 americans. If they had gone after Sadam they would have done it in a careful (not rushed) thought out way that would have gotten international support and hence more troops, more resources. Which would lead to quicker results with less casualties.
Was looking for a thread to post this in... this seemed as good as any in the first few pages. I find nothing impressive about this administration. Not in this bit of news. I'm sure someone will find an "uplifting" excuse for this, but it's just another of a long list of examples of Bush and Company talking about doing so much for "the people of this country" and doing little for them and one hell of a lot for the interests filling the re-election coffers. You have to give them credit for being shameless... yes, they are that. HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Business Jan. 6, 2004, 8:50AM Government tells employers how to avoid paying OT By LEIGH STROPE Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Labor Department is giving employers tips on how to avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible under new rules expected to be finalized early this year. The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms. Among the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible. The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law. "We're not saying anybody should do any of this," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank. New overtime regulations were proposed in March, after employers complained they were being saddled with costly lawsuits filed by workers who claimed they were being denied overtime unfairly. But the regulations themselves have stirred controversy over how many workers would be stripped of their right to overtime pay. The issue is being seized by Democrats in their attempt to win back Congress and the White House. A final rule, revising the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, is expected to be issued in March. The act defines the types of jobs that qualify workers for time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours a week. Overtime pay for the 1.3 million low-income workers has been a selling tool for the Bush administration in trying to ease concerns in Congress about millions of higher-paid workers becoming ineligible. But the Labor Department, in a summary of its plan published last March, suggests how employers can avoid paying overtime to those newly eligible low-income workers. "Most employers affected by the proposed rule would be expected to choose the most cost-effective compensation adjustment method," the department said. For some companies, the financial impact could be "near zero," it said. Employers' options include: • Adhering to a 40-hour workweek. • Raising workers' salaries to a new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible for overtime pay. If employers raise a worker's salary "it means they're getting a raise — that's not a way around overtime," Frank said. The current threshold is $8,060 per year. • Making a "payroll adjustment" that results "in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in, labor costs," the department said. Workers' annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary. Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay. The department does not view the "payroll adjustment" option as a pay cut. Rather, it allows the employer to "maintain the pay at the current level" with the new overtime requirements, said the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division administrator, Tammy McCutchen, an architect of the plan. Labor unions criticized the employer options. Mark Wilson, a lawyer for the Communications Workers of America who specializes in overtime issues, said the Bush administration was protecting the interests of employers at the expense of workers. "This plan speaks volumes about the real motives of this so-called family-friendly administration," Wilson said. He says cutting workers' pay to avoid overtime is illegal, based on a 1945 Supreme Court ruling and a 1986 memo by the Labor Department under President Reagan. But McCutchen disagreed. If changes were made week to week to avoid overtime, they would be illegal. A one-time change is not, she said. "We had a lot of lawyers look at this rule. We would not have put that in there if we thought it was illegal," she said. "Unless you have a contract, there is no legal rule ... prohibiting an employer from either raising your salary or cutting your salary," she said, adding, "We do not anticipate employers will cut people's pay." The final plan does not require approval from Congress. That hasn't stopped Democrats and some Republicans from trying to block the rule, thus far unsuccessfully, out of fear that millions of workers would become ineligible for overtime. Department officials say about 644,000 higher-paid workers would lose their overtime eligibility. But the proposal says 1.5 million to 2.7 million workers "will be more readily identified as exempt" from overtime requirements. Labor unions claim the figure is about 8 million. The Labor Department is aware of lawmakers' concerns and has read tens of thousands of comments about the proposal, McCutchen said. "We understand what the public concerns are, and we're going to be doing our best to address them," she said. "It's important to allow us to finish that process so we can back up our words with some good-faith action."
