Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Oh, before you call me a liar. I did respond to the flat tax,

Posted By: Democrat on 2005-08-11
In Reply to: I'm not castigating her. She said she would be happy not to come back here. - Democrat

but I brought my responses back here.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

    The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
    To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


    Other related messages found in our database

    You have a lot of room to call someone else a liar...
    I saved the conversations, so I know the truth and that is what is important. You have lied so long under so many monikers to so many people you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you.

    I did not lie about the bashing thing. I am not bashing you and I never said you email stalked me or threatened me, that was another poster. However, I WAS emailed in nasty, nasty terms when I was silly enough to give someone from this board my email address. It could have been you under still another moniker. I don't know that to be a fact.

    Geezzz...talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You lied about being Taiga and Teddy until you slipped up yourself, and I have those conversations saved. I don't know if they are in the archives or not, as many posts were deleted, but I have them...I know you, Taiga/Teddy, in all your chameleon monikers and personalities...and you KNOW I do.

    As you said...WHATEVER. lol.
    Truth hurts, don't it? Hey, whenever attacked, call someone a liar.
    Sez a lot about you. 
    Trying to lump the 2 wars into one and call Obama a liar is S-P-I-N
    Unless you are really ignorant and do not realize that Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 separate countries. (The middle east......Obama was going to bring our troops home! Now he's sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan! He lied!) You try to incite "war" against Obama based on your inability to comprehend what you read and what you don't remember..........sounds like BS to me.
    Liar, liar - Sen. Dodd Admits Adding Bonus Provision to Stimulus Package


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/100days/


    Liar liar pants on fire.

    Liar Liar Pants On Fire

    Alleged link between 9/11 and Iraq


    Examination of pre-war intelligence claims by Bush administration





    MSNBC



    Updated: 6:51 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005























    David Shuster

    MSNBC Correspondent










    Just days after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Cheney, on “Meet The Press,” said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror organization not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


    When asked if any evidence connected the Iraqis to the operation, Cheney said, no.


    But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq and during cabinet meetings Cheney, expressed deep concern about Saddam and wouldn't rule out going after Iraq at some point.


    That point started to come 11 months later, just before the first anniversary of 9/11. 







    The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad.  So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration's rhetoric about Saddam changed.


    On September 8, 2002, not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front page exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, five administration officials also went on the Sunday television shows that day to repeat the charge.


    He is, in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, Cheney told Tim Russert on “Meet The Press.


    But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.


    The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror, said Bush on September 25, 2002.


    We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases, said Bush a few days later on October 7.  He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda.


    In pushing the Saddam-Iraq-9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims.  First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in the Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.


    After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, Iraq apparently never responded.


    The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April 2001.


    Cheney stated, It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.


    Confirmed or unconfirmed by Vice President Cheney the 9/11 Commission said, We do not believe such a meeting occurred.  Why?  Because cell phone records from the time show Atta in the United States.


    None the less, the White House strategy worked.  In March of 2003, one poll found 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.


    On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, aided the 9/11 attacks.


    Yet the Bush administration continues to say it never claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11.


    I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim, White House Press Secretary McClellan repeated on Sept. 17, 2003.


    The brutal irony is that while implications, innuendo, or false claims if you will about a 9/11 connection helped take us into Iraq.  The Iraqi war itself has created a real al-Qaeda/Iraq link that may keep us from getting out.


    You're a liar. GT didn't curse. You're a filthy liar, but you are a gift from God.
    God sent you here to as a constant reminder of the kind of person I DON'T want to be and if I ever have a bad day when I feel temporarily stupid, all I have to do is read your posts, and I realize there are those out there who are much worse off than I am and for them it's not temporary.
    Yes, liar. You post 20 to my 1. Liar. nm

    Flat Tax

    AW  -"I think 10% represents different things to different people and that 10% to someone earning $10,000 a year might be more of an encumbrance than it would to someone earning $10,000,000 a year."


    I personally think the flat tax is a good idea because if a person makes 10,000 dollars a year they pay 1000 dollars, but if a person makes 10,000,000 dollars they pay 1 million. That's fair game to me.  If you were able to benefit 10,000,000 dollars from American entrepreneurship then I think you should pay your 10% in taxes, give back.  9,000,000 after taxes is not too shabby and a lot more than what they would have under the current system.  The more you make the more you should pay anyway.


    I couldn't really grip the fair tax concept.  Maybe you can explain it to me more???? (to American Woman).


    And that would be a flat out lie....(sm)

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31094044


    Care to try again?


     


    Some people also believe the world is flat.

    Saying it is so or isn't so doesn't make it the truth.


    Yes, Saddam was a face of terror, one of many in the world...and not just in the middle east.  Try Africa. 


    The posting you don't believe has facts as stated by multiple investigations sponsored by the U.S. as well as countless Middle East and terror experts.  They appear to be the truth.  That Saddam was able to keep the lid on violence in his country is backed up by the history of Iraq under his reign.  Very easy to check on.


    thanks for the link...yep, she flat out lied
    Lying seems to be the whole premise of the McCain campaign and she jumped right on board!!!
    We would gladly pay a 10% flat tax, which is quite fair to everyone
    and should be instituted. Still see no one has an answer as to why we should be penalized, and not the standard answer of just stop whining and pay your fair share. We do, and more. The taxes that O wants to raise will hurt small business owners also. Are you willing to have your taxes raised?
    Like I posted above, this is flat out false
    He knows there is no way in heck he can do this. Like I said above, a state representative told me they don't even get those plans like the Senators do and other high officials in the white house and you won't be getting the choice of one either. He said the cost to us would be trillions of dollars to pay for it, those with insurance they are now paying for won't even be allowed to get on board, which he said Obama knows means those on the welfare roll will be the ones he will be trying to get the better healthcare plan for. Well, Obama must be in lah lah land because how are they going to pay for this plan on welfare? They won't.....you and I will but WE won't be getting that plan.


    Attack story a flat-out lie. sm

    http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html


     


     


    With the flat tax, people who make under 40,000 per year will not have to
    pay taxes the way it reads now. They estimate that people making over 40,000 will be able to produce more tax income than the current income tax w/o including people who make under 40,000.

    Q and A about the Flat Tax.
    http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7146/flattax.html
    NEWS FLASH - Michelle wears flat shoes a lot!!
    What in the world can we read into this?
    Iraq reconstruction plans in 2003: A flat tax and a no smoking campaign. ((( s/m

    Correction to This Article
    A Sept. 17 article incorrectly said that one person who helped manage Iraq's budget had no background in accounting. The woman, described as the daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator, has a background in accounting but lacked experience managing the finances of a large organization.
    Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
    Early U.S. Missteps in the Green Zone

    By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, September 17, 2006; A01


    Adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006


    After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.


    To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.


    O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .


    Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.


    The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.


    The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.


    Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.


    "We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."


    Endowed with $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds and a comparatively quiescent environment in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, the CPA was the U.S. government's first and best hope to resuscitate Iraq -- to establish order, promote rebuilding and assemble a viable government, all of which, experts believe, would have constricted the insurgency and mitigated the chances of civil war. Many of the basic tasks Americans struggle to accomplish today in Iraq -- training the army, vetting the police, increasing electricity generation -- could have been performed far more effectively in 2003 by the CPA.


    But many CPA staff members were more interested in other things: in instituting a flat tax, in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.


    By the time Bremer departed in June 2004, Iraq was in a precarious state. The Iraqi army, which had been dissolved and refashioned by the CPA, was one-third the size he had pledged it would be. Seventy percent of police officers had not been screened or trained. Electricity generation was far below what Bremer had promised to achieve. And Iraq's interim government had been selected not by elections but by Americans. Divisive issues were to be resolved later on, increasing the chances that tension over those matters would fuel civil strife.


    To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.


    Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.


    O'Beirne, a former Army officer who is married to prominent conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne, did not respond to requests for comment.


    He and his staff used an obscure provision in federal law to hire many CPA staffers as temporary political appointees, which exempted the interviewers from employment regulations that prohibit questions about personal political beliefs.


    There were a few Democrats who wound up getting jobs with the CPA, but almost all of them were active-duty soldiers or State Department Foreign Service officers. Because they were career government employees, not temporary hires, O'Beirne's office could not query them directly about their political leanings.


    One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors."


    As more and more of O'Beirne's hires arrived in the Green Zone, the CPA's headquarters in Hussein's marble-walled former Republican Palace felt like a campaign war room. Bumper stickers and mouse pads praising President Bush were standard desk decorations. In addition to military uniforms and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" garb, "Bush-Cheney 2004" T-shirts were among the most common pieces of clothing.


    "I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."


    When Gordon Robison, who worked in the Strategic Communications office, opened a care package from his mother to find a book by Paul Krugman, a liberal New York Times columnist, people around him stared. "It was like I had just unwrapped a radioactive brick," he recalled.

    Finance Background Not Required

    Twenty-four-year-old Jay Hallen was restless. He had graduated from Yale two years earlier, and he didn't much like his job at a commercial real-estate firm. His passion was the Middle East, and although he had never been there, he was intrigued enough to take Arabic classes and read histories of the region in his spare time.


    He had mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, but he viewed the American occupation as a ripe opportunity. In the summer of 2003, he sent an e-mail to Reuben Jeffrey III, whom he had met when applying for a White House job a year earlier. Hallen had a simple query for Jeffrey, who was working as an adviser to Bremer: Might there be any job openings in Baghdad?


    "Be careful what you wish for," Jeffrey wrote in response. Then he forwarded Hallen's resume to O'Beirne's office.


    Three weeks later, Hallen got a call from the Pentagon. The CPA wanted him in Baghdad. Pronto. Could he be ready in three to four weeks?


    The day he arrived in Baghdad, he met with Thomas C. Foley, the CPA official in charge of privatizing state-owned enterprises. (Foley, a major Republican Party donor, went to Harvard Business School with President Bush.) Hallen was shocked to learn that Foley wanted him to take charge of reopening the stock exchange.


    "Are you sure?" Hallen said to Foley. "I don't have a finance background."


    It's fine, Foley replied. He told Hallen that he was to be the project manager. He would rely on other people to get things done. He would be "the main point of contact."


    Before the war, Baghdad's stock exchange looked nothing like its counterparts elsewhere in the world. There were no computers, electronic displays or men in colorful coats scurrying around on the trading floor. Trades were scrawled on pieces of paper and noted on large blackboards. If you wanted to buy or sell, you came to the exchange yourself and shouted your order to one of the traders. There was no air-conditioning. It was loud and boisterous. But it worked. Private firms raised hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling stock, and ordinary people learned about free enterprise.


    The exchange was gutted by looters after the war. The first wave of American economic reconstruction specialists from the Treasury Department ignored it. They had bigger issues to worry about: paying salaries, reopening the banks, stabilizing the currency. But the brokers wanted to get back to work and investors wanted their money, so the CPA made the reopening a priority.


    Quickly absorbing the CPA's ambition during the optimistic days before the insurgency flared, Hallen decided that he didn't just want to reopen the exchange, he wanted to make it the best, most modern stock market in the Arab world. He wanted to promulgate a new securities law that would make the exchange independent of the Finance Ministry, with its own bylaws and board of directors. He wanted to set up a securities and exchange commission to oversee the market. He wanted brokers to be licensed and listed companies to provide financial disclosures. He wanted to install a computerized trading and settlement system.


    Iraqis cringed at Hallen's plan. Their top priority was reopening the exchange, not setting up computers or enacting a new securities law. "People are broke and bewildered," broker Talib Tabatabai told Hallen. "Why do you want to create enemies? Let us open the way we were."


    Tabatabai, who held a doctorate in political science from Florida State University, believed Hallen's plan was unrealistic. "It was something so fancy, so great, that it couldn't be accomplished," he said.


    But Hallen was convinced that major changes had to be enacted. "Their laws and regulations were completely out of step with the modern world," he said. "There was just no transparency in anything. It was more of a place for Saddam and his friends to buy up private companies that they otherwise didn't have a stake in."


    Opening the stock exchange without legal and structural changes, Hallen maintained, "would have been irresponsible and short-sighted."


    To help rewrite the securities law, train brokers and purchase the necessary computers, Hallen recruited a team of American volunteers. In the spring of 2004, Bremer approved the new law and simultaneously appointed the nine Iraqis selected by Hallen to become the exchange's board of governors.


    The exchange's board selected Tabatabai as its chairman. The new securities law that Hallen had nursed into life gave the board control over the exchange's operations, but it didn't say a thing about the role of the CPA adviser. Hallen assumed that he'd have a part in decision-making until the handover of sovereignty. Tabatabai and the board, however, saw themselves in charge.


    Tabatabai and the other governors decided to open the market as soon as possible. They didn't want to wait several more months for the computerized trading system to be up and running. They ordered dozens of dry-erase boards to be installed on the trading floor. They used such boards to keep track of buying and selling prices before the war, and that's how they'd do it again.


    The exchange opened two days after Hallen's tour in Iraq ended. Brokers barked orders to floor traders, who used their trusty white boards. Transactions were recorded not with computers but with small chits written in ink. CPA staffers stayed away, afraid that their presence would make the stock market a target for insurgents.


    When Tabatabai was asked what would have happened if Hallen hadn't been assigned to reopen the exchange, he smiled. "We would have opened months earlier. He had grand ideas, but those ideas did not materialize," Tabatabai said of Hallen. "Those CPA people reminded me of Lawrence of Arabia."

    'Loyalist' Replaces Public Health Expert

    The hiring of Bremer's most senior advisers was settled upon at the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon. Some, like Foley, were personally recruited by Bush. Others got their jobs because an influential Republican made a call on behalf of a friend or trusted colleague.


    That's what happened with James K. Haveman Jr., who was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system.


    Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections. He had been the community health director for the former Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, who recommended him to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense.


    Haveman was well-traveled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Before his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions.


    Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war.


    He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government."


    But a week after Baghdad's liberation, Burkle was informed he was being replaced. A senior official at USAID sent Burkle an e-mail saying the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the president.


    Haveman arrived in Iraq with his own priorities. He liked to talk about the number of hospitals that had reopened since the war and the pay raises that had been given to doctors instead of the still-decrepit conditions inside the hospitals or the fact that many physicians were leaving for safer, better paying jobs outside Iraq. He approached problems the way a health care administrator in America would: He focused on preventive measures to reduce the need for hospital treatment.


    He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort. Several members of Haveman's staff noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers in their daily lives than tobacco. The CPA's limited resources, they argued, would be better used raising awareness about how to prevent childhood diarrhea and other fatal maladies.


    Haveman didn't like the idea that medical care in Iraq was free. He figured Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor. He also decided to allocate almost all of the Health Ministry's $793 million share of U.S. reconstruction funds to renovating maternity hospitals and building new community medical clinics. His intention, he said, was "to shift the mind-set of the Iraqis that you don't get health care unless you go to a hospital."


    But his decision meant there were no reconstruction funds set aside to rehabilitate the emergency rooms and operating theaters at Iraqi hospitals, even though injuries from insurgent attacks were the country's single largest public health challenge.


    Haveman also wanted to apply American medicine to other parts of the Health Ministry. Instead of trying to restructure the dysfunctional state-owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies to hospitals, he decided to try to sell it to a private company.


    To prepare it for a sale, he wanted to attempt something he had done in Michigan. When he was the state's director of community health, he sought to slash the huge amount of money Michigan spent on prescription drugs for the poor by limiting the medications doctors could prescribe for Medicaid patients. Unless they received an exemption, physicians could only prescribe drugs that were on an approved list, known as a formulary.


    Haveman figured the same strategy could bring down the cost of medicine in Iraq. The country had 4,500 items on its drug formulary. Haveman deemed it too large. If private firms were going to bid for the job of supplying drugs to government hospitals, they needed a smaller, more manageable list. A new formulary would also outline new requirements about where approved drugs could be manufactured, forcing Iraq to stop buying medicines from Syria, Iran and Russia, and start buying from the United States.


    He asked the people who had drawn up the formulary in Michigan whether they wanted to come to Baghdad. They declined. So he beseeched the Pentagon for help. His request made its way to the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center in San Antonio.


    A few weeks later, three formulary experts were on their way to Iraq.


    The group was led by Theodore Briski, a balding, middle-aged pharmacist who held the rank of lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy. Haveman's order, as Briski remembered it, was: "Build us a formulary in two weeks and then go home." By his second day in Iraq, Briski came to three conclusions. First, the existing formulary "really wasn't that bad." Second, his mission was really about "redesigning the entire Iraqi pharmaceutical procurement and delivery system, and that was a complete change of scope -- on a grand scale." Third, Haveman and his advisers "really didn't know what they were doing."


    Haveman "viewed Iraq as Michigan after a huge attack," said George Guszcza, an Army captain who worked on the CPA's health team. "Somehow if you went into the ghettos and projects of Michigan and just extended it out for the entire state -- that's what he was coming to save."


    Haveman's critics, including more than a dozen people who worked for him in Baghdad, contend that rewriting the formulary was a distraction. Instead, they said, the CPA should have focused on restructuring, but not privatizing, the drug-delivery system and on ordering more emergency shipments of medicine to address shortages of essential medicines. The first emergency procurement did not occur until early 2004, after the Americans had been in Iraq for more than eight months.


    Haveman insisted that revising the formulary was a crucial first step in improving the distribution of medicines. "It was unwieldy to order 4,500 different drugs, and to test and distribute them," he said.


    When Haveman left Iraq, Baghdad's hospitals were as decrepit as the day the Americans arrived. At Yarmouk Hospital, the city's largest, rooms lacked the most basic equipment to monitor a patient's blood pressure and heart rate, operating theaters were without modern surgical tools and sterile implements, and the pharmacy's shelves were bare.


    Nationwide, the Health Ministry reported that 40 percent of the 900 drugs it deemed essential were out of stock in hospitals. Of the 32 medicines used in public clinics for the management of chronic diseases, 26 were unavailable.


    The new health minister, Aladin Alwan, beseeched the United Nations for help, and he asked neighboring nations to share what they could. He sought to increase production at a state-run manufacturing plant in the city of Samarra. And he put the creation of a new formulary on hold. To him, it was a fool's errand.


    "We didn't need a new formulary. We needed drugs," he said. "But the Americans did not understand that."

    A 9/11 Hero's Public Relations Blitz

    In May 2003, a team of law enforcement experts from the Justice Department concluded that more than 6,600 foreign advisers were needed to help rehabilitate Iraq's police forces.


    The White House dispatched just one: Bernie Kerik.


    Bernard Kerik had more star power than Bremer and everyone else in the CPA combined. Soldiers stopped him in the halls of the Republican Palace to ask for his autograph or, if they had a camera, a picture. Reporters were more interested in interviewing him than they were the viceroy.


    Kerik had been New York City's police commissioner when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. His courage (he shouted evacuation orders from a block away as the south tower collapsed), his stamina (he worked around the clock and catnapped in his office for weeks), and his charisma (he was a master of the television interview) turned him into a national hero. When White House officials were casting about for a prominent individual to take charge of Iraq's Interior Ministry and assume the challenge of rebuilding the Iraqi police, Kerik's name came up. Bush pronounced it an excellent idea.


    Kerik had worked in the Middle East before, as the security director for a government hospital in Saudi Arabia, but he was expelled from the country amid a government investigation into his surveillance of the medical staff. He lacked postwar policing experience, but the White House viewed that as an asset.


    Veteran Middle East hands were regarded as insufficiently committed to the goal of democratizing the region. Post-conflict experts, many of whom worked for the State Department, the United Nations or nongovernmental organizations, were deemed too liberal. Men such as Kerik -- committed Republicans with an accomplished career in business or government -- were ideal. They were loyal, and they shared the Bush administration's goal of rebuilding Iraq in an American image. With Kerik, there were bonuses: The media loved him, and the American public trusted him.


    Robert Gifford, a State Department expert in international law enforcement, was one of the first CPA staff members to meet Kerik when he arrived in Baghdad. Gifford was the senior adviser to the Interior Ministry, which oversaw the police. Kerik was to take over Gifford's job.


    "I understand you are going to be the man, and we are here to support you," Gifford told Kerik.


    "I'm here to bring more media attention to the good work on police because the situation is probably not as bad as people think it is," Kerik replied.


    As they entered the Interior Ministry office in the palace, Gifford offered to brief Kerik. "It was during that period I realized he wasn't with me," Gifford recalled. "He didn't listen to anything. He hadn't read anything except his e-mails. I don't think he read a single one of our proposals."


    Kerik wasn't a details guy. He was content to let Gifford figure out how to train Iraqi officers to work in a democratic society. Kerik would take care of briefing the viceroy and the media. And he'd be going out for a few missions himself.


    Kerik's first order of business, less than a week after he arrived, was to give a slew of interviews saying the situation was improving. He told the Associated Press that security in Baghdad "is not as bad as I thought. Are bad things going on? Yes. But is it out of control? No. Is it getting better? Yes." He went on NBC's "Today" show to pronounce the situation "better than I expected." To Time magazine, he said that "people are starting to feel more confident. They're coming back out. Markets and shops that I saw closed one week ago have opened."


    When it came to his own safety, Kerik took no chances. He hired a team of South African bodyguards, and he packed a 9mm handgun under his safari vest.


    The first months after liberation were a critical period for Iraq's police. Officers needed to be called back to work and screened for Baath Party connections. They'd have to learn about due process, how to interrogate without torture, how to walk the beat. They required new weapons. New chiefs had to be selected. Tens of thousands more officers would have to be hired to put the genie of anarchy back in the bottle.


    Kerik held only two staff meetings while in Iraq, one when he arrived and the other when he was being shadowed by a New York Times reporter, according to Gerald Burke, a former Massachusetts State Police commander who participated in the initial Justice Department assessment mission. Despite his White House connections, Kerik did not secure funding for the desperately needed police advisers. With no help on the way, the task of organizing and training Iraqi officers fell to U.S. military police soldiers, many of whom had no experience in civilian law enforcement.


    "He was the wrong guy at the wrong time," Burke said later. "Bernie didn't have the skills. What we needed was a chief executive-level person. . . . Bernie came in with a street-cop mentality."


    Kerik authorized the formation of a hundred-man Iraqi police paramilitary unit to pursue criminal syndicates that had formed since the war, and he often joined the group on nighttime raids, departing the Green Zone at midnight and returning at dawn, in time to attend Bremer's senior staff meeting, where he would crack a few jokes, describe the night's adventures and read off the latest crime statistics prepared by an aide. The unit did bust a few kidnapping gangs and car-theft rings, generating a stream of positive news stories that Kerik basked in and Bremer applauded. But the all-nighters meant Kerik wasn't around to supervise the Interior Ministry during the day. He was sleeping.


    Several members of the CPA's Interior Ministry team wanted to blow the whistle on Kerik, but they concluded any complaints would be brushed off. "Bremer's staff thought he was the silver bullet," a member of the Justice Department assessment mission said. "Nobody wanted to question the [man who was] police chief during 9/11."


    Kerik contended that he did his best in what was, ultimately, an untenable situation. He said he wasn't given sufficient funding to hire foreign police advisers or establish large-scale training programs.


    Three months after he arrived, Kerik attended a meeting of local police chiefs in Baghdad's Convention Center. When it was his turn to address the group, he stood and bid everyone farewell. Although he had informed Bremer of his decision a few days earlier, Kerik hadn't told most of the people who worked for him. He flew out of Iraq a few hours later.


    "I was in my own world," he said later. "I did my own thing."


    © 2006 The Washington Post Company




    I'm sorry, I just HAVE to respond here...

    This is just bunk.  How arrogant can human beings be?  To think that we can manipulate this planet in such profound ways is ridiculous.  This is a dynamic planet.  These things have always happened, and always will.  The world has reinvented itself at least twice.  It will shake us all off like fleas off a dog, if it chooses to do so.  Not that we shouldn't be good custodians of the planet, but we don't even come CLOSE to having the kind of control that the environmental loons seem to believe.  Reminds me of that movie Armgageddon where Bruce Willis is standing out on that oil rig hitting golf balls at a Greenpeace boat screaming at them asking them how much diesel does that boat you've got there use?


    And lastly, the United States cannot be single handedly blamed for a supposed case of global warming?  That people think that, specifically liberals, shows you just how political the whole thing is, and very little to do with science.  Last time I checked there was a great big huge INHABITED world beyond our shores, and they're also especially good at polluting this planet that we all share.


    cant respond right now
    Im sorry, first thing in my morning reading your post after watching thousands without anything and knowing they are going to DEMAND what they need..Geez, Im sorry, I cant post response right now..Im too upset..Later today, I will however respond, I promise. 
    So why did ya respond?

    If ignorance is bliss, the Obama-land is the happiest place on Earth!  Screw Disneyland!


    Respond away.
    You claimed I was the first to bring it up and I wasn't.
    Dixie Dew: Please respond to this!
    Okay.  Now you're back on the right.... er left.... er CORRECT board!  Please stay here, okay? 
    Wow. I really don't know how to respond to your post. sm

    But you support the troops...right?


    Please do not respond observer
    Please do not respond to my posts *Observer*.  This is the liberal board and my posts are to my fellow democrat/liberals not to a ring winger.  I have nothing in common with you or right wingers, in fact, I cannot stomach right wingers, their ideas, what they have done to this country under their president.  Do youself a favor, go back to the conservative board or just skip over my posts and dont even read them.
    It is immaterial to me if you respond to me or not, LD...
    still a free board, still a free country, still able to state an opinion. You do not have to waste your time or energy reading my responses. With all due respect of course.
    Know you are not going to respond, don't mind....others might want to know...
    any fire department employee is paid for by some branch of government...city, county, etc. They are all in essence government employees. Like any other city or county employee...like law enforcement. Los Angeles County FD, Orange County FD, they were the most heavily involved in fighting the Malibu fire, I believe. Generally volunteer firefighters are used where the municipalities cannot afford to pay firefighters, or for outlying areas that town firefighters do not cover. So I suppose that means firefighting is socialized anywhere the town, city or county government can afford it...not sure that qualifies as socialized firefighting. They are not universal firefighters all controlled from Washington, so really not similar to what socialized medicine would be. Control is at the local city or county level.
    Would like to respond, but need more info....
    I have been a bit out of touch the past week or so (looking for a job) and have not heard about Obama's latest remarks regarding sanctions, coalitions and the like. Could you please cite your sources for this information? It sounds like spin to me, but I like to keep open mind. You are right about much food for thought and I would like to enter this discussion once I know where this is coming from.

    IMO, the sanctions against Iraq have very little to do with "punishing" Sadaam and more to do with serving US interests in destabilizing the region as a whole, thus facilitating US ambitions of securing and maintaining "oil"igarchy in the Middle East. We have been doing that ever since the late 1940s. Examples abound. Don't get me started.

    The Iran sanctions discussion is a moot point. We have imposed sanctions against Iran ever since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Over the years, these have been extended and have become so harsh, there really is nothing left to sanction. This has succeeded in fueling the hatred Islamic extremists hold toward the West and emboldened their leaders, who have been quite resourcesful in bypassing US sanctions by forming alliances with other western and eastern countries.

    With regard to "international coalitions" against Iran, I would be more worried about the Bush Administration covert operations as described recently by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact) than anything Obama may come up with.

    Still, I would be interested in learning more about these remarks you find so troubling.
    911 Widows Respond to Coulter
    Statement of September 11th Advocates
    Response to “Godless”
    For Immediate Release -- June 6, 2006

    We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

    We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

    It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

    We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

    1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

    2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

    3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain underprotected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

    4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

    5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world -- particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

    6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

    7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

    8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

    ###

    September 11th Advocates:
    Kristen Breitweiser
    Patty Casazza
    Monica Gabrielle
    Mindy Kleinberg
    Lorie Van Auken
    Stand down. If you respond, she will repeat herself
    an over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
    Kudo's to you. I was hoping you'd respond
    to the tactics of those who try to silence others who don't agree with them.

    Mom always told me you don't like the channel change it, you don't have to watch something you don't want to. Same with the posters. If they don't like what you have to say, ignore it and move on.

    Life's too short.
    Glad you can laugh....I should know better than to respond to you...nm

    I hesitate to respond to this because I'm an Independent and see good and bad

    in both liberals and conservatives.


    Believe it or not, liberal/independent people can be pro choice, believe in God, love America, would like to see all nations free, and most of all, supports our troops.


    First of all, we love our country so much that we have respect for the Constitution. Being pro choice or pro life is a direct result of your religious/spiritual beliefs. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion for ALL people, even those who don’t subscribe to the same religion as YOU. The concept of when life begins relies 100% on religious beliefs. If I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, then the best way I can honor my God my religion is to not ever have an abortion. What I DON’T believe is that I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on every American in this country via laws. If I do that, I’m infringing on THEIR religious beliefs. The same hold true for stem cell research. If you don’t believe in it, then don’t participate in it. But don’t prevent others who don’t agree with you from reaping the life-saving benefits it may offer. In fact, some of us might think those against this research are anti-life, rather than pro-life, since they don’t seem to care at all about saving the people who are already here. A reasonable person of any faith might ask why in the world God gave us the technology if he/she didn’t want us to use it.


    We further believe in the Constitution’s promise that we have freedom of speech. There is no doubt in my mind that you were surrounded by pro Bush people at a pro Bush rally. Were you actually in the same room with President Bush, though? You may have been. I, on the other hand, would never be allowed to attend one of his "town hall" meetings because he prescreens people and doesn’t let anyone in who doesn’t agree with him or might challenge him. Some of us would definitely think this is a very anti-American practice.


    As far as other moral values are concerned, I personally don’t believe in lying. My personal God doesn’t care for that very much, either. The entire world was lied to by President Bush concerning the war in Iraq. What’s much worse than that is that he used the tragedy of 9/11 to propagate a war against the leader of a country that wasn’t associated with 9/11 in any way. He used the vast support he received during the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11 to achieve the goal he had before he was even elected President: To declare war against Saddam Hussein. He did this on the blood and backs of every victim of the Twin Towers attack. My personal God really has contempt for that kind of behavior.


    As far as getting rid of God "from the publics views," I have yet to hear of one church/synagogue/mosque or other public religious building being shut down by a liberal. Liberals have EQUAL respect for all religions and are against one particular religion receiving favor over another. To bring Jesus’ name into the political arena or an arena paid for by the tax dollars of everyone diminishes other religious beliefs. There are people whose religious beliefs don’t include Jesus, and some liberals see the "My God is better than your God" game to be very dangerous in a country that claims to provide freedom of religion for all.


    Finally, regarding our troops: Nobody has more respect for our troops than I do. It’s the President who seems to have no respect. The difference between me and President Bush is that I place much more value on each of their lives. I would never be so reckless with the lives of our children as to send them into an unplanned war, refuse to provide them with adequate equipment to fight that war and protect themselves, and lie to them about their release dates in order to hold them hostage. For several months in a row now, the military has failed to reach their recruitment quotas, which is no surprise to me. I want our troops to come home, ALIVE AND WELL, and that is a direct result of the respect I have for him all. Their lives should not be sacrificed casually for a false reason. Their lives should only be on the line when we are protecting ourselves from a direct threat. Perhaps if Bush cared enough about this country 30-some years ago and served combat duty in Vietnam, he would have more respect for our troops. But his wealth and privilege came to his rescue, and he was able to wiggle out of it. He never had to know firsthand what it’s like to wake up every morning (if indeed you’re that lucky) to wonder if this day is going to be your last. Perhaps if he did, he’d have more respect for our troops today.


    Everyone supported the President when he sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11. Unfortunately, we can’t leave Iraq right now. Bush "broke it," and now WE are MORALLY obligated to fix it. God only knows when that will happen. It’s not, as he and his cronies promised in the beginning, going to be a quick war, and contrary to what he declared in his well-planned photo op, "Mission Accomplished" by a long shot. The terrorists must figure that the odds are pretty good in their favor if only ONE suicide bomber can kill multiple people, Americans and Iraqis, in a single hit. And they’re not going away. They’re only getting stronger all the time because Bush created a haven for them in Iraq. So much for respecting our troops. And how are we going to "fix" the mess he made in Iraq when we simply run out of troops because young people refuse to enlist because they’ve lost faith in him and don’t trust our government any more? He promised he wouldn’t impose a draft. If/when he ultimately DOES impose it, I think a GREAT photo op for him would be when he accompanies Jenna and Barbara as they enlist. I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for that one.


    Did you know that part of the Iraq war budget includes a comprehensive health care plan for every Iraqi citizen?  I personally think it's very immoral for a President to take care of others in another country when his own Americans are in the midst of such a health care crisis.


    He’s apparently too concerned about "spreading freedom" all over the world to guarantee that same freedom is safe from peril here at home. I recently heard that al Qaeda is now joining drug lords from Central America to cross our carelessly unprotected borders and enter the country. They figured out they can do this successfully because their complexions are similar, and they can easily pass as someone of Latin descent. There is a myriad of other things this President should have done to make this country safer. But he’s too busy obsessing on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into finding Osama bin Laden, we would have captured him by now. If he had put 1/100th of the effort into taking precautions concerning nuclear plants and other entities in this country, we actually WOULD be safer today.


    Just because someone has tolerance and respect for all religious beliefs; perhaps has his or her own style of respect and support for our troops by wanting to keep them alive and using their service carefully, thoughtfully, and judiciously; believes a person already born and living in this country is a citizen and that an embryo isn’t; believes that we should clean up our own country before trying to clone more like it all over the world; and believes that the Constitution should be the written document that is relied upon to form laws and that religious documents should be left to churches and other houses of worship, doesn’t mean he or she doesn’t love this country, doesn’t believe in God, doesn’t have morals, isn’t a good person and doesn’t have values, and, most importantly, doesn’t support our troops.


    The fact that you seem to think it does and would even ask that question, though, makes me wonder somewhat about you.


    Just a hint. Next time respond to a post,

    read it first. 


    This isn't about the ACLU, or an agency LIKE the ACLU.


    I think you would be hard pressed to find a liberal who agrees with NAMBLA or any organization like them that is in favor of sexual exploitation of children.  I don't think prison is even good enough for them.  I think they should get the death penalty.


    Maybe if you would have actually taken the time to READ the post, you would see it has nothing to do with your response.


    You didn't respond to Yepper's post.

    I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t


    I am unable to respond to leaps in "logic" that
    rasberries
    I made a mistake and was trying to respond to the post below by *LOL* when I wrote that.

    in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.


    I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.


    As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell.   I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).


    The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.


    If I offended you, then I truly apologize.  I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article.  I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.


    If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.


    I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead.  Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.


    LOL! Not bright enough to respond intelligently to a wonderfully written

    Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner. LOL....
    GP, I like your sense of humor.
    You call it hysteria, some call it concern for the
    nm
    If you know some good democratic blog sites, please respond to this post with the links. nm
    Thanks.
    You are a liar. SM
    I'm glad to say it and it is true.  As far as Iraq, of course, you twisted that all out of context.  Lurker asked if I would go to Iraq to help rebuild and I said yes, if I could I would, but please don't tell the truth and continue to twist because you are twisted.  Now, that felt good to FINALLY call you a liar.   You have used that word with every conservative poster and we are all pretty darn sick of it.  
    Liar.

    Liar?
    A conservative calling someone a liar?  Pot-kettle-black
    Once a liar, always a liar!!!!
    .
    Liar, liar

    Politicians lie.  Is everyone just figuring that out?  Why get into an argument over who's lying.  Just tell me what you're going to do for me, how I'm supposed to pay my mortgage when you keep sending my job overseas, how I'm supposed to send my kids to college when you keep sending my job overseas, how I'm supposed to pay these ridiculous prices for gas when you keep sending my job overseas. 


    The first guy that can do that without mincing words and blaming everything on the other gets my vote.  I don't care what color you are, whether you screwed around on your wife, who you have in your back pocket, whether your running mate is an old fart or a woman.


    GW is a liar.........
    So I guess that makes him a fake, too. WMDs, he really gave a rat's about Katrina, billions of dollars just "vanished." Harriet Myers for supreme court??? LOLOLOLOLOL - at least Obama isn't a freaking moron!
    What a liar!

    President Obama gave a speech in Illinois saying that if we pass this stimulus bill that the CEO of Caterpillar promised to hire back employees.  After Obama's speech, the CEO of Caterpillar got up and said that he just wanted to clarify that whether or not the stimulus package passes, they will continue to lay off people for some time and this hire back will be further in the future and I'm sure that means if this package actually works.....which it won't.


    I'm sorry people but this stimulus will not work.  Obama promised to look out for the middle  class and the low class.  So far, he is doing nothing but helping the low class and he is going to crush us middle class folk.  The rich will survive but it will be the middle class that suffers.....once again. 


    If a certain poster is a liar...
    (or if anyone is, from the president right on down)...and of course this is fully documented and there is no question about it...and then they ask us to believe a claim of high personal integrity...well, er, that's asking a little too much. One has to wonder, do they believe their own delusions? Do they really think the house of cards is never going to crash down? Or do they just want us to think it?

    Personally I prefer a far less complicated arrangement. You intentionally lie, you are bad and no one should respect you anymore until you learn how to tell the truth.
    I don't appreciate you calling me a liar
    and neocons liars in general (BTW, I'm not a neocon), and I refuse to discuss the gross inaccuracies in the article above with a person who thinks we're all liars. It's blatant waste of time.
    Again with the liar. Sheesh is right. NM