Has MSF been able to reestablish in Afghanistan?

Oh that MSF

---

me@rescam.org

Has MSF been able to reestablish in Afghanistan?

Oh that MSF

That's the problem with TLAs: You've only got 17576, and all the good ones are already duplicates...

---

Has MSF been able to reestablish in Afghanistan?

Oh that MSF

That's the problem with TLAs: You've only got 17576, and all the good ones are already duplicates...

I'm just worried about my FLAB

---

me@rescam.org

You meant to say "the incessant propaganda spewed liberally by the media", right?

Look: For the last four years all I've heard has been the same hawk and dove rhetoric from everywhere. Not just in the States but from everywhere (With the exceptions of S. Korea, Iran, Cuba, and any country that blocks internet-based radio).

What I have yet to hear is a progress report. Is the ICRC back in Iraq? Has MSF been able to reestablish in Afghanistan? Is the UN instilling goodwill and civic responsibility?

Bush's and Chirac's days are numbered. Merkel, too. Wars drag on. And what nobody seems to be able to do is answer "Now what?".

$0.02

The three organizations you mention are irrelevant at this point. There is no need for the Red Cross (or Crecent), or Doctors Witout Borders in a country whose hospitals are operating, even though there have been insurgent attacks on public facilities and infrastructure. Such agencies would only give the insurgents more targets to kidnap. And as for the UN, this is an organization that did not support this action, so now that Iraq has written and adopted a constitution and held elections for home grown leaders, what is it that the UN is supposed to do there?

P.S. Is that really you NA?

'And that is the truth that Americans SHOULD know'


Is this the HONEST truth or is this the truth we SHOULD know?

While you seem convinced, I'm still not buying it! ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

'And that is the truth that Americans SHOULD know'


Is this the HONEST truth or is this the truth we SHOULD know?

While you seem convinced, I'm still not buying it! ;)

Then do a little research, rather than simply swallowing whole what you are told. In fact, that's a good rule of thumb in all disciplines. Work out issues for yourself, test the so-called facts you are told, discuss with others of diverse views with an open mind--these things may lead you to a better understanding of . . . everything.

'Then do a little research, rather than simply swallowing whole what you are told.'


Now if I was simply swallowing the truth i was told, then I would be believing the lies...

And as a result, my life might start getting easier but my conscience would surely suffer...;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Below is the text of the authorization that Bush claims he was given to launch the Iraq war.... for those who need the research, read Section 3, paragraph B, which clearly requires proof that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11.

Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, ....and in case you haven't been following along, ........ both claims have been proven to be nothing more than political expediant fantasy specifically created to give the appearance of the justification of the use of force to invade Iraq.



HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions takenpursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

---

TRAILER CASH

If FEMA could distribute the fortune spent on trailers directly to those
in need of housing, the recipients might find a much nicer place to live, and
even have money left over for home repairs. But there's a catch: That's illegal.

Saturday, January 21, 2006
By James Varney, Staff writer: The Picayune Times, New Orleans

Those displaced by Hurricane Katrina and seeking a temporary trailer don't get to kick the tires or discuss financing plans, but a look at the ultimate sticker price might make them wish they could: $59,800.

That's the cost to taxpayers for the trailer's 18-month "life cycle," according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If FEMA offered the cash instead to hurricane victims, they might be able to spend the $3,322 per month in New Orleans on some housing more enticing than a box on wheels.

For example, quite a bit less would command the first floor of a building on Prytania Street in Uptown with two bedrooms and two-and-a-half baths, or a four-bedroom house in Kenner. A smidgen more would land them a sprawling, five-bedroom ranch in the tranquil woods of Madisonville, according to current listings.

The seeker would do even better if he could cash in what FEMA will pay for the life cycle of the larger mobile homes being used for housing in some areas. That pricier option comes in at $76,800 for the same 18-month period.

The cost includes the purchase, transportation, installation, maintenance, cleaning and disposal of the trailers, FEMA spokesman James McIntyre said.

Of course, if FEMA were to make $60,000 available to households that otherwise would occupy a trailer, homeowners might not opt to spend the money on rent. For example, the family could buy its own trailer and still have considerable cash on hand to contribute to rebuilding their wrecked home. Generally, the types of trailers FEMA buys retail for between $16,000 and $20,000, recreational vehicle dealers said.

FEMA officials also acknowledge that if they made direct cash payments of nearly $60,000 during 18 months to individuals or households instead of installing trailers, such an approach would have no effect on the agency's bottom line.

It would, however, be illegal -- current rules prohibit FEMA from writing such checks. The amount of money FEMA can grant directly to an individual or household is capped at $26,200. Trailer costs do not count against the total individual assistance, officials said.

An extrapolation of the numbers provided by FEMA provides an estimate of how expensive the trailers will prove as a temporary housing solution. In Orleans Parish, officials have estimated that they need at least 30,000 trailers to ease the housing crunch. That would translate to a final price tag of roughly $1.8 billion, and doesn't include the costs of tens of thousands more trailers needed throughout the metro area.

While the figures are surprising, they are considerably lower than those being bandied about the city these days. City Councilman Eddie Sapir said a developer and some others had whispered fantastic per-trailer FEMA sums to him.

"By the time the contractor is paid, the mileage to haul it here is paid, the gas is paid, everything, it's around $120,000," Sapir said.

In fact, Sapir made that charge at the City Council meeting Thursday, suggesting that the federal government was paying outrageous amounts for trailers when handing over the cash would be a better use of taxpayer dollars -- not to mention, a more efficient use.

"I'm just a country boy, but what I don't understand is why they don't just give the people $121,000 and let them start rebuilding their homes," Sapir said.

On Friday, he declined to say who provided him with the figures but insisted he wanted only to spark discussion, not point fingers.

"What I really want is for things like this to be checked out, and if I'm all wrong, great," he said Friday. "But if the house only costs $75,000 to rebuild, we could be saving money."

Even though Sapir's math doesn't match FEMA's numbers, the real numbers stunned some local housing experts.

"My God, that's unbelievable," said Jo Ann Centanni, an agent with Coldwell Banker, when told the trailer bill comes out to about $3,300 a month. "You can rent a four-bedroom house for less than that."

Centanni's own experience is a case in point. The Lakeview home she shared with her husband was obliterated in the post-Katrina floodwaters. But they managed to land a townhouse in Metairie for $1,700 a month, a fraction of the FEMA trailer cost.

Other professionals echoed her opinion. Asked if she could set a client up in style for $3,300 a month, Theresa DeJarnette at Prudential Gardner Realtors purred, "Oh, yeah." Just recently, DeJarnette said, she handled a lease in the 4600 block of Prytania Street, which she described as, "a big, old, charming, classic New Orleans house." The cost: $2,600 a month. At the moment, she has a unit available in the 7400 block of Freret Street for $3,000 a month.

The statistics associated with the trailers also seem dramatic compared with other FEMA payouts. For instance, the trailer costs dwarf the agency's rental reimbursement payments, a program that has begun to produce considerable grumbling from New Orleanians who lost their houses. For those lucky enough to find apartments, FEMA's first three-month allocation was $2,358, or $786 a month, but many residents say they are finding it difficult to receive a second allocation.
. . . . . . .

James Varney can be reached at jvarney@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3386.

Below is the text of the authorization that Bush claims he was given to launch the Iraq war.... for those who need the research, read Section 3, paragraph B, which clearly requires proof that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11.

Read it again. It doesn't say that at all. It says:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Pauly-poo, you said this section "clearly requires proof that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11." Did you think I wouldn't read it?

It says, that this resolution is consistent with taking actions against terrorists, including those behind 9/11. It does not require proof that Iraq had WMD or that Iraq was behind 9/11. What are you trying to pull? You just think that people won't look at what you cite to see if it says what you say? Not everyone has your difficulty with the English language.

Oh, and look at the "whereas" section: that talks about how the Congress agreed that Iraq was in violation of their Kuwait War cease-fire obligations, and shows that the Congress also believed that Iraq had WMD.

PZ-
What's your problem Paul?
Are you STILL pissed off cause GWB is finally showing everybody that he was RIGHT!
Cant you see that the US is kicking butt-
The war in Iraq- pissant backwater, forgedeaboutit.
Democractizing the Middle East is the goal
Dont you forget it.
The US National Guard and Army Reserve still have people
Who haven't been deployed yet.
And soon highschool dropouts will be joining up in enmass for the $30,000 bonus.
Wake up PZ!
The current war is probably the best thing for Iraq right now.
George still has enough time left to give Iran some shock & awe too.
Get with the program Zim
The US is straightening out the world
It's about time....cc

<OT>

@Tom: If that's Zimm, then I'm me. !-)

</OT>

---

---

Account frozen...

The Bin Laden Tape: Inconsistencies and Revelations
(From StratFor.com)

The audiotape attributed to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that aired on Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera on Jan. 19 came amid several developments in the U.S. war against the jihadist network. The tape itself has several interesting points which, taken in the context of recent events, casts doubt on the reclusive al Qaeda chief's status.

The Jan. 19 bin Laden tape likely was released as a stopgap measure in an effort to keep up appearances in the aftermath of the Jan. 14 airstrike. It seems to have been edited together from different tapes rather than a single recording from one session. Generally, the latest tape is very shoddy work compared to al Qaeda's other releases and is inconsistent with what one might expect from a statement announcing bin Laden's resurfacing after such a long silence. No matter what his living conditions, bin Laden could be reasonably expected to produce a decent tape on a microcassette recorder. He also could be reasonably expected to use his first statement of any kind since the end of 2004 to make a point of ending the speculation that he is dead, in poor health, fading from the scene or running scared from Predator drones and their Hellfire missiles.

That the tape seems to have been spliced together leaves open the possibility that, for whatever reason, bin Laden is unable to read a script for 10 minutes without taking breaks. Indeed, that this is an audiotape and not a videotape -- which bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri seems to have favored over the past year -- suggests that the jihadist chief is ill and thus cannot be presented on camera. Of course, it also could be that al Qaeda had significant operational concerns about producing a videotape.

It takes al Qaeda approximately two weeks to produce tapes and take them down from the mountains to Al Jazeera's office in Islamabad. Unless it was spliced together in Al Jazeera's studios, the tape would have to have been made before the Jan. 13 airstrike -- probably Jan. 7-9 at the earliest.

In the tape, bin Laden simultaneously calls for a truce with the West while claiming that more attacks in the United States are imminent. Furthermore, when bin Laden offers a "truce" to the West, he does so with the knowledge that the Taliban controls the tempo of violence in Afghanistan, while the maverick al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is in charge in Iraq; bin Laden is not likely in a position to make such offers. Besides, it is the Sunni nationalist insurgents, not the jihadists (who make up a minority of the fighters in Iraq), who say when the fighting starts and stops in Iraq.

The tape, which contains about 10 minutes of material, includes other inconsistencies that lead to questions about bin Laden's status. Although no mention was made of several important events in recent months, such as elections in Iraq in December and in Afghanistan in October, bin Laden does refer to a report that came out in November which claimed that U.S. President George W. Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he would like to bomb Al Jazeera's headquarters. This means bin Laden was alive in November.

However, there is no way to confirm whether bin Laden is actually alive -- or in control of anything more than a microcassette recorder. In any case, the offer of the truce -- along with the usual threats of an impending attack against the United States -- indicate a reactive and defensive posture on the part of the militant Islamist group.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Don't you just love theories! With all the dough we've spent, you'd think that our government could produce some hard facts, but that leads to an oxymoron.

---

Account frozen...

Halliburton employees' report of contaminated water ignored
Senate Democrats to hold hearings

By Larry Margasak
ASSOCIATED PRESS

January 23, 2006

WASHINGTON – Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn't get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails.

"We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated," said a July 15, 2005, memo written by William Granger, the official for Halliburton's KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.

"The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River," Granger wrote in one of several documents. The Associated Press obtained the documents from Senate Democrats who are holding a public inquiry into the allegations today.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who will chair the session, held a number of similar inquiries last year on contracting abuses in Iraq. He said Democrats were acting on their own because they had not been able to persuade Republican committee chairmen to investigate.

The company's former water treatment expert at Camp Junction City said that he discovered the problem last March, a statement confirmed by his e-mail the day after he tested the water.

While bottled water was available for drinking, the contaminated water was used for virtually everything else, including hand-washing, laundry, bathing and making coffee, said water expert Ben Carter of Cedar City, Utah.

Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps – problems he also suffered.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton said its own inspection found neither contaminated water nor medical evidence to substantiate reports of illnesses at the base. The company now operates its own water treatment plant there, spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said.

A military medical unit that visited Camp Ramadi in mid-April found nothing out of the ordinary in terms of water quality, said Marine Corps Maj. Tim Keefe, a military spokesman. Water-quality testing records from May 23 show the water within normal parameters, he said.

"The allegations appear not to have merit," Keefe said.

Halliburton has contracts to provide a number of services to U.S. forces in Iraq and was responsible for the water quality at the base in Ramadi.

Granger's July 15 memo said the exposure had gone on for "possibly a year" and added, "I am not sure if any attempt to notify the exposed population was ever made."

The first memo on the problem – written by Carter to Halliburton officials on March 24, 2005 – was an "incident report" from tests Carter performed the previous day.

"It is my opinion that the water source is without question contaminated with numerous micro-organisms, including Coliform bacteria," Carter wrote. "There is little doubt that raw sewage is routinely dumped upstream of intake much less than the required 2 mile distance.

"Therefore, it is my conclusion that chlorination of our water tanks while certainly beneficial is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure."

Carter said he resigned in early April after Halliburton officials did not take any action to inform the camp population.

The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. "They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut," he said.

On at least one occasion, Carter said, he spoke to the chief military surgeon at the base, asking him whether he was aware of stomach problems afflicting people. He said the surgeon told him he would look into it.

"They brushed it under the carpet," Carter said. "I told everyone, 'Don't take showers, use bottled water.' "

A July 14, 2005, memo showed that Halliburton's public relations department knew of the problem.

"I don't want to turn it into a big issue right now," staff member Jennifer Dellinger wrote in the memo, "but if we end up getting some media calls I want to make sure we have all the facts so we are ready to respond."

Halliburton's performance in Iraq has been criticized in a number of military audits, and congressional Democrats have contended that the Bush administration has favored the company with noncompetitive contracts.

Taking the war on terror to Pakistan

JIM HOAGLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST

January 23, 2006

Death to America. Oh, wait. Thank you, America. Love you, big guy. No, hold on. Where's that Death to America banner? What have they done for us lately?

Pakistani mobs are back in the streets denouncing American military strikes aimed at terrorists sheltering in Pakistan. The carefully staged fury of those mobs now eclipses the public opinion polls of a few weeks ago reporting significant gratitude from Pakistanis for U.S. military help to overcome a catastrophic earthquake.

Easy come, easy go? Not exactly. The suffering villagers expressing gratitude have not suddenly morphed into the well-fed, bearded zealots marching in Peshawar. But the volatility of public opinion in Pakistan and of the government's reactions to U.S. help – and U.S. hurt – are revealing strategic indicators of the unsteady course of the Bush administration's war on global terrorism.

In its tangled relations with Pakistan, Washington rides something far more dangerous than an opinion roller coaster. President Pervez Musharraf's military regime is the most difficult government in the world to fit into Washington's struggle against Islamic extremist groups.

Pakistan is essential and helpful in fighting the al-Qaeda network – except when it is not. Without Musharraf's help, the United States and its NATO allies cannot put down the rebellion in Afghanistan being waged by Osama bin Laden's fanatics and the Taliban. Without Musharraf's complicity, that rebellion could not continue at its increasingly murderous intensity. We've got Musharraf right where he wants us.

Washington and Islamabad are condemned to such strategic ambivalence. Each is unable to do without the other, while wishing it could. That is the political context for the continuing fallout from the unacknowledged U.S. missile strike aimed at al-Qaeda bigwigs in the Pakistani village of Damadola on Jan. 13 – an incident that looms large in Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's visit to Washington this week.

The Hellfire missiles aimed from a Predator drone at the bin Laden operatives gathering in Damadola also carried a badly needed message for Musharraf and his intelligence chiefs, who helped create both al-Qaeda and Afghanistan's Taliban: The sanctuary those groups have been granted in Pakistan's remote tribal lands on the Afghan frontier now exceeds the limits of strategic ambiguity.

Suicide bombings and attacks with roadside explosive devices directed at U.S. and NATO troops as well as Afghan authorities have spiked upward in recent months. U.S. intelligence reports to the Pakistanis on terrorist locations and movements along the frontier have received no effective response from Pakistani authorities during this damaging terrorist upsurge.

"You can draw the Afghan-Pakistan border on a map by looking at the pattern of signal intercepts," says one U.S. official. "The bad guys chatter away in Pakistan, feeling they are safe. That area lights up like a Christmas tree. Then they go silent when they cross into Afghanistan, where they fear getting hit."

The aerial strike on Damadola, which is four miles inside Pakistan, killed as many as four al-Qaeda chiefs, Pakistani officials concede. Villagers have reported 18 deaths, including some women and children. Musharraf is happy to have Washington bear the entire blame in Pakistani opinion for the reports of collateral damage.

But the story, and the moral burden it involves, seems to be more complicated. The Damadola raid followed by a week a little-noticed assault on the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan, where residents described helicopter-borne foreign troops grabbing suspects and flying them back to Afghanistan.

Two limited, carefully planned border attacks in rapid succession would appear to be something more than accidents of opportunity. The escalation by terrorists in Afghanistan has been met with an escalation, still at a low level, in U.S. attacks on Pakistani soil. Musharraf's failure to curb the terrorist forays into Afghanistan after the incursion at Saidgi conceivably led to the attack on Damadola and the death of innocents there.

The Bush administration is still improvising in its attempts to "enable and encourage" other countries to join its global strategy of counterterrorism. It needs to draw its European and Asian allies that are helping fight the terrorist networks in Afghanistan into a coordinated approach of pressures and incentives for the hugely important, and hugely dangerous, country of Pakistan.

And Washington needs to hold Musharraf's feet to the fire on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, even as it tries to bolster him at home. Whatever else it did or did not accomplish, the Damadola raid surely demonstrated to the Pakistani president that he too has much to lose if the terror festival in Afghanistan continues to be run unhindered from Pakistani soil.

Bush Eliminates Economy

--By Josh Righter

Though the stock market is showing some signs of resurgence after several days of sharp drops, President Bush announced today that he would be taking additional methods to insure that the market does not fall any lower.

"We must preserve our quality of life, as well as our American freedoms," Bush said firmly in front of a crowd of thousands at the New York Stock Exchange. "That is why today, I'm pleased to announce that I will be completely eliminating the US economy, thereby pre-emptively stopping any future stock market drops."

With the economy totally gone, Bush explained, life in America as we know it will be "completely preserved exactly how it is now, forever."

"I did a lot of hard research in coming to this decision," the President said. "I looked at pictures from the stock market crash in the 1920's. I examined confusing graphs that, when decoded correctly, would somehow reveal past, present, and projected future economic trends. But most of all, I saw the pictures of sad-faced investors and brokers on newspapers and news websites across the country. All of this lead me to an inevitable conclusion: our economy is making us sad, and is just a bad thing to have around.

"That is why," Bush continued, "I'm taking away this drain on our freedoms. No longer will we have to worry about the consequences of unscrupulous corporations, or the effect any future terrorist attacks might have on the market. By removing the economy >from the equation, I'm guaranteeing that life as it is now will be frozen solid forever, much like the Ice Age, when dinosaurs and humans were trapped for six billion years under the earth's frosty ocean floor."

The elimination of the economy, Bush said, will also alleviate public concerns that are not necessarily directly related to the stock market.

"I know that many of you have trouble working up the courage to ask a boss for a raise, or a promotion," Bush said with a knowing grin. "I mean, I never experienced that personally, since my daddy pretty much paid for everything for me my whole life. In fact, I'll soon be taking a month-long vacation from office at a time when the economy is uncertain and there are still fears about terrorism, and that's a hell of a lot more vacation time than most people accrue after only one year of employment."

Realizing he was digressing, Bush returned to his point.

"Anyhow, with our new economy-less society, you'll never have to worry about asking for a raise or a promotion again, because you're guaranteed not to get it. Remember, everything is frozen exactly how it is. How's that for job security?"

Admittedly, those who currently do not have jobs will remain unemployed forever, but Bush explained that he "doesn't really care".

"I'm not terribly concerned about those who don't have jobs right now," he said. "Can't you tell by the fact that I never address that issue in any of my speeches?"

Some critics have already attacked the plan as "ludicrous", "absurd", and "idi-fucking-otic", but Bush remains optimistic thus far.

"I never listened to my critics before, and I'm sure as hell not going to start now," the President said stoutly. "And with the economy being taken away, I get to be president forever, since it is my job, after all. So the critics just better get used to it."

Upon hearing this, over 300,000 Americans committed suicide.