|
Banned
|
Now, there are reports that the U.S. and the Iraqi government are failing to distribute the food rations that the U.S. continued the traditional custom of the former Iraqi regime; direct food distribution to the population, in lieu of large grocers, which don't exist in Iraq.
The article mentions that median income in Iraq dropped to $144 annually in 2004. If you divide the $208 billion expended by the U.S. in Iraq in the last two years, by the 25 million esitmated population number of the country, the result is an expenditure that is equivalent to $8360 per Iraqi, all borrowed by the Bushies for Americans to pay back with interest, along with the "worthless IOU's" in the SSI file cabinet at the Bureaus of the Debt, in West Virginia, that Bush comments about in his "town meetings".
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...eadlines-world
June 16, 2005 latimes.com : World
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Food Shortages Gnaw at Iraqis' Stomachs, Morale
# Shrinking subsidized rations are blamed on corruption, security problems or the U.S. One struggling family finds 'hope is small.'
By Louise Roug, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD — After his American employers left, and monthly food rations began to shrink, Hussein Hadi started selling his furniture. His bed was the last thing to go.
Now Hadi, his wife, sister, mother, two brothers, three children and a nephew sleep on his living room floor in Baghdad, their blankets sewn from flour sacks.
Some nights, they fall asleep hungry. "Hope is small," said his wife, Zainab.
Like many Iraqis, the Hadis depend on food rations distributed by the government. Sometimes the sugar they receive has been hardened by rainwater and the rice is crawling with maggots. The soap is so harsh that it causes rashes. On the rare occasions when the Hadis received all the items — sugar, rice, flour, baby milk, tea, vegetable oil and a few other essentials — they considered themselves lucky.
The U.N. World Food Program, which monitors the distribution of rations, recently reported "significant countrywide shortfalls in rice, sugar, milk and infant formula." Families in Baghdad haven't received sugar or baby milk since January. Newspapers have also begun reporting that the tea and flour handouts contain metal filings and that people have fallen ill after consuming food rations.
Officials with the Trade Ministry, which is in charge of distributing the rations, said the media have created the crisis. But they have refused to release results of the tests for contamination they said they are doing.
|
As an add on to my last post, the Bush administration has a new spin on "staying the course" in Iraq. It's the same BS that justified the invasion in the first place.....stripped of the now discredited WMD lies and the "Iraq link to Al Queda".
Here's our own American version of Saddam's "Baghdad Bob", Bush's Scotty McClellan, with his own improbable PMD (propaganda for mass dissemination).
With the following quotes from Bush (Jan 31. 2003) and then a Jan. 12, 2005 exchange with the press where McClellan admits that there are "no WMD" and that none are likely to be found, he nonetheless declares on June 16, 2005 that, "Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. It is critical to our long-term security here at home.". "Failed but promoted" former NSA director Condi Rice was heard to parrot McClellan's "long-term security" nonsense in news reports, the same day.
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050616-5.html
............The President wants to see the troops come home soon. But the best way to honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is to complete the mission.
Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. It is critical to our long-term security here at home. A free Iraq will help transform a dangerous region of the world. A free Iraq will send a signal to the rest of the Middle East, those who -- the people in the Middle East who are standing up for freedom. And so the President will be talking about this.............
|
Washington "Bob" McClellan and Condi had the assignment of trotting out the old "national security" excuse, because it's the least baseless, bankrupt slogan for the continued carnage in Iraq that they are reduced to shouting.
Notice that the DHS terror "color code" warnings fell silent after they were exposed as a politcal distraction for Bush Cheney 2004?
The above BS is neutered when it is played alongside other Bush and McClennan exchanges with the press:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030131-23.html
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.
Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050112-7.html
.............. Q The President accepts that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said back in October that the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer concluded what his predecessor had said, as well, that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there. And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time, and correct any flaws.
Q I just want to make sure, though, because you said something about following up on additional reports and learning more about the regime. You are not trying to hold out to the American people the possibility that there might still be weapons somewhere there, are you?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just said that if there are -- if there are any other reports, obviously, of weapons of mass destruction, then people will follow up on those reports. I'm just stating a fact.
Q And finally, what is the President's assessment of the damage to American credibility that might have been done by his very forceful case that there were weapons and his launching of a war on that basis?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, nothing has changed in terms of the President's view....................
........... Q I'm talking about preemptive military action.
MR. McCLELLAN: Right. And that's the last option that you always want to pursue. But the President is going to continue working closely with our friends and allies to confront the threats that we face --
Q How can he do it again --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we continue to take steps to improve our intelligence. That's what the President is going to do. We have very good relationships with countries across the world because of the President's efforts over the last few years...............
.......... Q Even if the information is wrong?.............
............. Q Secretary Rumsfeld said you go -- infamously, he said, "you go to war with the Army that you have." Well, this administration went to war, when it went to war, based on information that proved to be incorrect. Does the President now regret the timing of this? Does he feel that the war effort and its aftermath and the post-immediate war conflict phase was undermined by that timetable and intelligence that was wrong?
MR. McCLELLAN: Based on what we know today, the President would have taken the same action, because this is about protecting the American people. As I said -- .................
......... Q Two follow-ups. There's been quite a bit of talk that Syria might have hidden some of these weapons of mass destruction. Is the government of Syria cooperating at all in the search for WMD?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have the report from Charles Duelfer. You can go and look at that report in terms of addressing those issues, and I think the President has spoken to the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Obviously, if there are any other reports that come to people's attention, they'll follow up on those reports. ......
Q Scott, are you saying that the President -- it's the President's view that the WMD situation has not hurt United States credibility around the world?....
......... Q So if the information is wrong, is there no consequence?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q If the information about WMDs is wrong, as we all agree now, is there no consequence? ........
............. Q Scott, did the White House intend to, at any point, come out and tell the American people that the search for WMD was over?............
........... Q Scott, you've addressed the intelligence failures. Based on that, would the President send a Secretary of State -- Condoleezza Rice -- to the United Nations to make the same kind of case that Secretary Powell made based on U.S. intelligence?...........
.............. Q Well, to put a finer point on it, does he have enough confidence in the current quality of intelligence to go to the United Nations with it, if need be, or not -- as was mentioned, Korea, Iran, or some other --............
............. Q Has it improved enough, though, for him to act on it?
MR. McCLELLAN: He will -- he will act on intelligence that he receives to protect the American people. When we have actionable intelligence, we will act on it. And this President has acted on it in a number of cases...................
......... Q One question on Iraq. Are you worried that with your report, countries like France will gather more credibility than the U.S. in discussions in the Security Council of the United Nations? ............
|
I wrote the following just last Sept. 28.....less than nine months, 700 American troop deaths, countless Iraqi deaths, and $100 billion dollars ago.
How many more will have to die before Condi and Washington "Bob" stop repeating that, "Iraq is critical to winning the war on terrorism. It is critical to our long-term security here at home." ........and we get our people (at least the ones that are left standing) the Eff out of there?
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ad#post1435028
..........."Our American families have paid a cost so far of 1050 dead, several thousand
more grievously wounded and permanently disabled, and more than
$100 billion dollars.....for what ? I hear the same platitudes that politicians
30 years ago used to explain away the deaths of 58,000 American troops
in a war to defend the Viet Namese people from a brutal dictatorship.
The majority in this country decided 30 years ago that such a noble mission
to protect a foreign people from oppressive dictatorship did not meet the
criteria of meeting the "absolutely necessary" criteria required to order our
troops into harm's way. Bush personally avoided putting himself in harms way
back then, yet he has the gall and the hypocricy to order other's sons and
daughters into harm's way now."........
|
Last edited by host; 06-18-2005 at 12:18 AM..
|
06-18-2005, 12:14 AM
