$ whois 209.43.147.138 [...] ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.verio.net:4321/ [...] Comment: ******************************************** Comment: Reassignment information for this block is Comment: available at rwhois.verio.net port 4321 Comment: ********************************************Well, how do you proceed for further info with that?
$ whois -h rwhois.verio.net -p 4321 209.43.147.138That resulted in the answer I was looking for.
Check this out:
100 Facts and 1 Opinion
The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
by Judd Legum
The article contains 100 facts on Bush and his administration, including links to credible news sources. Here are a some of them:
IRAQ:
3. The Bush Administration ignored estimates from Gen. Eric Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq.
Source: PBS
5. During the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, more than 1,000 US troops have lost their lives and more than 7,000 have been injured.
Source: globalsecurity.org
6. In May 2003, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit, stood under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and triumphantly announced that major combat operations were over in Iraq. Asked if he had any regrets about the stunt, Bush said he would do it all over again.
Source: Yahoo News
10. According to the Administration's handpicked weapon's inspector, Charles Duelfer, there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intent to do so." After the release of the report, Bush continued to insist, "There was a risk — a real risk — that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks."
Sources: New York Times, White House news release
TERRORISM
12. After receiving a memo from the CIA in August 2001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack America," President Bush continued his monthlong vacation.
Source: CNN.com
20. Even though an Al Qaeda training manual suggests terrorists come to the United States and buy assault weapons, the Bush Administration did nothing to prevent the expiration of the ban.
Source: sfgate.com
NATIONAL SECURITY
26. During the Bush Administration, North Korea quadrupled its suspected nuclear arsenal from two to eight weapons.
Source: New York Times
CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION
30. The Bush Administration awarded a multibillion-dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton — a company that still pays Vice President Cheney hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation each year (Cheney also has Halliburton stock options). The company then repeatedly overcharged the military for services, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and served troops dirty food.
Sources: The Washington Post, The Tapei Times, BBC News
ENVIRONMENT
74. President Bush broke his promise to place limits on carbon dioxide emissions, an essential step in combating global warming.
Source: Washington Post
RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
81. Since 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained 5,000 foreign nationals in antiterrorism sweeps; none have been convicted of a terrorist crime.
Source: hrwatch.org
Australia's Spy Chief Says Al-Qaeda Benefited From Iraq War
2004-10-26 20:55 (New York)
By Gemma Daley Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) — The war in Iraq gave the al-Qaeda terrorist network recruitment opportunities and may have inspired new followers in Australia of its leader Osama bin Laden, Australia's intelligence chief Dennis Richardson said.
"Iraq has provided al-Qaeda with propaganda and recruitment opportunities," Richardson, director general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, said yesterday in Sydney, according to a faxed transcript. "It is possible that some new followers in Australia have been motivated primarily by Iraq."
Australia sent 2,200 troops to Iraq and some 850 of them are still there. Prime Minister John Howard won an election Oct. 9 with a pledge to keep the troops there "until the job is done." Opposition Labor Party leader Mark Latham vowed to pull the troops out by Christmas if the party won power.
Australia was not a "priority target" before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, Richardson said. Australians have been targeted since then in terrorist attacks including the October 2002 Bali bombings that killed at least 202 people, 88 of them Australian nationals.
"Before Sept. 11 2001, any attack within Australia would most likely be directed against the United States and/or Israeli interests," Richardson said, according to the transcript. "So far, Iraq has not had a significant impact on the security environment here in Australia."
Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda, has been blamed for the Bali attack and two bombings in Indonesia's capital, Jakarta. A bombing outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta Sept. 9 killed nine people.
"Terrorist attacks outside Iraq during and since the war would have occurred with or without the war," Richardson said. "To the extent Iraq might have been a motivator, when you strip it down, it would have been an add-on, not the central driver."
On local TV news tonight, I heard Bush warning of the threat of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and claiming that Americans are safe because we are fighting Zarqawi's group abroad so we don't have to fight them at home.
Common sense tells me that Bush's decision to invade Iraq actually GAVE RISE to Zarqawi's group (and many other similar militant groups). And every new day there in Iraq, more of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis are getting killed.
Bush also said, "you know where I stand... I'm proudly running on my record whereas senator Kerry is running from his."
I don't know how Bush can be proud of his record of wrongly invading Iraq, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. And despite Bush trying to portray Kerry as being wishy-washy, in the presidential debates, Kerry was much clearer and more detailed in presenting his positions. I'm clear on where Kerry stands and understand and agree with why he takes certain positions (on stem-cell research, for instance).
Bush also said, "as long as I hold this office I will not risk the lives of American citizens."
Our soldiers are American citizens too so how can he claim that when so many have been killed and continue to be killed daily as a result of his decision to invade Iraq instead of focusing on battling al-Qaeda?
On top of all this, I note that oil prices are at record highs and this affects not only the US but all nations and practically all industries... everybody. Again, I am sure the situation in Iraq has had a part to play in this.
Bush is entirely responsible for the sorry situation in Iraq and its tremendous ramifications — massive increase in global terrorist and militant activity (bombings, beheadings, kidnappings...), tens of thousands dead (how can you put a price on people's lives... someone's son, father, daughter, brother, mother...?), $200 billion deficit, record-high oil prices (affecting cost of gas, electricity, airline industry, tourism industry...), Osama bin-Laden still on the loose, shameful and inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Folks, we are NOT more safe because of Bush's decisions and policies — exactly the opposite, in fact. Not convinced? Just look at the daily news and not the unsubstantiated claims and scare tactics Bush is dishing out at his speeches. After the war broke out, do you actually feel safer at home and on vacation overseas?
I also note that Bush gave a tax break to the rich and did not support the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming and climatic change caused by greenhouse gases.
Bush was also the one who ditched his duty to fight in the Vietnam war, thanks to his father's special "connections". How fair, honorable, and ethical is that? Kerry fought in the war, was awarded several medals, and then came back and rightfully campaigned against the war and all its atrocities.
Can you think of anything "right" or positive that Bush has done in the last 4 years?
No, we desperately need a new president. Please vote for Kerry.
I agree fully with George Soros (I first read this from the South China Morning Post which published it a few days ago):
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bushby George Soros
Prepared text of speech delivered September 28, 2004
National Press Club
Washington, DC,This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing.
President Bush ran on the platform of a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.
I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society.
When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world.
When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy — a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.
The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.
President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden.
War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists' cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits.
Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating. I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies — and we shall be at war for a long time to come.
I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular. We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration. No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill — generating the vicious circle I am talking about.
President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are — a freedom loving people — not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.
How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 — although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: "Wake up America. Don't you realize that we are being misled?"
President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.
The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.
We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy — as the current chaos demonstrates.
Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis — and the rest of the world — can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country's other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.
The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man — a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed," he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.
The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.
Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.
By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security — particularly the security of our troops.
Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.
There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars — an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won't be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.
It is a quagmire that many predicted. I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy. I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process. The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It's the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.
There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback. I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.GeorgeSoros.com.
If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends.
I would welcome your comments at www.GeorgeSoros.com. I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high.
This was published on the Straits Times Interactive site on Oct 13, 2004:
Experts condemn US foreign policyNEW YORK - More than 650 foreign affairs experts from the United States and abroad have signed an open letter condemning the Bush administration's foreign policy, saying it has harmed the fight against terrorists and calling for a change of course.
The letter from the non-partisan Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy was released on Tuesday and points to what it described as a series of blunders in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
'We judge that the current American policy centred around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamic terrorists,' the letter states.
It adds that 'the results of this policy have been overwhelmingly negative for US interests'.
The man who first thought to write the letter, Dr Stuart J. Kaufman, a professor of political science at the University of Delaware, said the group wanted to influence the public debate, not endorse one presidential candidate over the other.
'The part of it that's news is that the overwhelming consensus among national security experts is that the current policy is not working,' he said. 'And the people who signed this are usually people who don't agree on anything.'
Among other things, the scholars claimed that:
The scholars who signed the letter are mostly academics from universities throughout the US and some allied countries, including Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands and Argentina. They include former staff at the Pentagon and the US State Department. -- AP
- The US did not send enough troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda, and that the focus on Iraq diverted much needed resources from Afghanistan.
- Some of the reasons cited by the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq were later proven wrong, including by government agencies. They include the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
- The administration did not commit enough troops to Iraq, created a security vacuum by disbanding the Iraqi army, and embarked on a poorly planned reconstruction effort.
- American actions in Iraq have increased the popularity of Al-Qaeda in some countries and attracted recruits.
After I watched the first Bush-Kerry debate and went to sleep, I woke up at like 3am and wrote this:
If you are concerned about the safety of you and your family in this "new world" we live in, you should vote for Kerry. Here's why:You only have to look at the daily news to see that the world is a much more dangerous place to live in since 9/11 and the war in Iraq — despite all that Bush has been proclaiming. Bush's decision to misleadingly sell Americans and the world on invading Iraq, failing that, and then going ahead anyway has directly led to more terrorism, more and more powerful global terrorist and militant groups, the killing of thousands of American soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq and Afganistan (and other parts of the world), and hatred of the US by the citizens of most other nations and Muslims around the world. And Bin Laden and "25%" of al-Qaeda (according to Bush) are still on the loose — still effectively spreading fear, terrorism, and hatred. Bush's move to invade Iraq has actually backfired — helping al-Qaeda's cause by motivating more Muslims to take up arms against a "bullying" US.
Bush claims that US and the world are safer because of his "war on terrorism" and invasion of Iraq. Excuse me but after Iraq's invasion, there has been an enormous and unprecedented increase in terrorist activities around the globe — bombings and hostage-takings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Russia, Philippines, Spain, and Egypt. And the numerous hostage beheadings we are seeing today never occurred before either. NO, Bush's war on terrorism has in reality escalated terrorism to an entirely new level. Bush's logic and strategy are incredibly flawed.
Bush and his administration have consistently mislead, deceived and flat-out lied to Americans and the world. They justified the war in Iraq by first claiming that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda. As that proved false, they then tried to justify the war by saying Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" and was a major terrorist threat. Now as even those have proved false, they have said "so what that all our justifications were wrong — war with Iraq was the right thing to do and even knowing what we know now we still would have done the same". Unbelievable — you cannot get much more unethical, insincere, and arrogant than that. Perhaps they really did know all along that they were majorly stretching the truth to convince the world that invading Iraq was necessary. As the war was ending they also claimed that most Iraqis were happy to be free and liberated. I saw the exact opposite on TV and the newspapers — Iraqis seemed very upset and bitter with all the turmoil and death in their country and they wanted the American "invaders" and "occupiers" out. Bush's administration is now saying that they have made lots of progress in Iraq and that Iraq is under control but the reality is that fierce battles and bombings continue every day and each month more US soldiers and Iraqis are getting killed. Reality is often the complete opposite of whatever the Bush administration is saying.
How can you sensibly support someone who has made such a huge mistake in which thousands have died or suffered greatly as a direct result? That major mistake's effect on global terrorism affects the lives of practically everyone in the civilized world. Do Americans, British, or Australians at home or travelling abroad feel any safer now? Do Indonesians or Russians in their own countries feel any safer now? Of course not. If Bush were heading a company after having made such a big error in judgement and misleading people, he'd have been fired and sued!
Setting up military bases in Iraq and investing billions in new military weapons and a missile defense system, as Bush supports, is not the right way to combat terrorism and to make the world a safer place. The terrorists have proven that these types of counter measures are ineffective against them. If they did get a hold of a nuclear bomb, chances are they would not launch it as a missile and even if they did, I have my doubts about the defense system actually working. And how would you effectively counter such a strike?
A better approach is to more aggressively hunt down Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and at the same time build better relations with Muslims around the world and mend relationships with allies to combat terrorism and hatred, reducing the chances of deadly strikes happening, as Kerry is advocating.
Please vote Kerry — we can't afford another 4 years with Bush misleading, both in terms of making wrong decisions and in deceiving.
