111 nations agree to ban cluster bombs -- U.S. not one of them

Yes, American corporate media is busying squealing like pigs in poop over the latest opportunity to take a political candidate's minor and irrelevant gaffe and blow it into a a major news event. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is trying to save the lives of innocent civilians. But would our media carry this story? Will Keith Olbermann do a "Special Comment" on this story?

From the Washington Post:

LONDON, May 28 -- More than 100 countries reached agreement Wednesday to ban cluster bombs, controversial weapons that human rights groups deplore but that the United States, which did not join the ban, calls an integral, legitimate part of its arsenal.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose personal intervention Wednesday led to final agreement among representatives of 111 countries gathered in Dublin, called the ban a "big step forward to make the world a safer place."

In addition to the United States, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan -- all of them major producers or users of the weapons -- did not sign the agreement or participate in the talks.

So what's the big deal, you say? "'Cluster' bombs can't be too bad -- we're not talking about anything nuclear, are we?" Well, yeah, actually they're unbelievably nasty:

The weapons consist of canisters packed with small bombs, or "bomblets," that spread over a large area when a canister is dropped from a plane or fired from the ground. While the bomblets are designed to explode on impact, they frequently do not. Civilians, particularly children, are often maimed or killed when they pick up unexploded bombs, sometimes years later.

And so you might add, well fine. Let these 111 countries do what they want. But oh no -- the Bush Administration can't leave it at that:

American officials are not attending the treaty talks but have lobbied hard in world capitals to undermine the treaty. Diplomats in Dublin say US Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice and even President George W. Bush have been telephoning their counterparts around the world to promote US positions.

“In the end, the Americans had very little support in Dublin,” said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. “It’s a big defeat for the Bush administration. This conference is going to produce a strong treaty banning cluster munitions, and there’s nothing the White House can do to stop it.”

photo from No More Landmines

"Reading First": Another $6 billion wasted by the Bush Administration

From today's NYT:

Reading Program Is Called Ineffective

President Bush’s $1 billion a year initiative to teach reading to low-income children has not helped improve their reading comprehension, according to a Department of Education report released on Thursday.

The program, known as Reading First, drew on some of Mr. Bush’s educational experiences as Texas governor, and at his insistence, Congress included it in the federal No Child Left Behind law that passed by bipartisan majorities in 2001. It has been a subject of dispute almost ever since, however, with the Bush Administration and some state officials characterizing the program as beneficial for young students, even after federal investigators found extensive conflicts of interest among its top advisers.

I happen to know a little bit about teaching reading. Before I left teaching middle school I had met all the requirements to be certified as a "Reading Specialist," I just never applied for the certification before I decided to switch to teaching adults. And in the 6 short years that I taught kids, I can't even begin to tell you how many "new" reading programs were thrust upon us. And you know what never ceased to amaze me? There's nothing new about teaching reading. All these programs simply do is take a little of this and a little of that, call it something catchy, and put it in a shiny box. Oh yeah, and lobby the right people, the ones who run the budgets. Shall we count the programs?

• Recipe for Reading
• Wilson Reading
• Orton-Gillingam
• Success for All

Oh that's just a few. My reading teacher friends can fill in all the rest. In fact, one of my friends and I always said we should put together a "new" reading program so we could retire. Because in fact, there are elements of teaching reading that we have used as humans since the first symbols were scratched on the cave walls thousands of years ago. And the most useful element to teaching reading is the same as it always has been: access. Access to reading materials, access to teachers, access to time. So instead of spending $6 billion on a reading "program," as a one-size-fits-all way of teaching our kids, why not spend it on hiring more teachers? Building more schools? Buying more books for school libraries? Hiring more school librarians?

Why not? Because teachers and librarians are not Bush Administrations cronies, that's why. (Laura's brief career notwithstanding.) From Common Dreams, almost exactly one year ago:

A scathing report issued today documents “substantial financial ties” between key advisors of Reading First, a controversial federal reading grant program, and publishers who benefited from the program.

The report, issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, called the findings “troublesome because they diminish the integrity of the Reading First program.”

The Kennedy report centers on four directors of the Reading First Technical Assistance Centers, who, the report says, were highly influential in advising states on which reading programs to adopt in order to qualify for federal funds.

According to the report, the directors had “extensive ties with education publishers” at the same time they were responsible for evaluating other publishers’ programs. The report concluded that such ties may have “improperly influenced actions.”

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., has called for a criminal investigation of Reading First by the Justice Department. According to Miller, the conflicts of interest uncovered “raises questions about criminal activity and criminal intent about what a number of these players were doing.”

"No Child Left Behind" and all of the ridiculous scams associated with it need to be eliminated. End of story.

You're the enemy, so we can do whatever we want to you

The reasons why we must elect a Democrat to the White House next fall are almost too many to list here. But here's one of the biggest, and also a big reason why I think the Democrat best suited to take this on is Hillary Clinton. From ABC News:

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

And who are these "Principals," you ask?

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

Critics at home and abroad have harshly criticized the interrogation program, which pushed the limits of international law and, they say, condoned torture. Bush and his top aides have consistently defended the program. They say it is legal and did not constitute torture.

We cannot allow this era of torture to stand in the history books without a strong and definitive action by the Democratic party. And the only way that will happen is if we have a strong Democratic president who will stand up to the thugs who have run our country into the ground for the past 8 years. I just don't have confidence that a President Obama would be able or interested in taking on this task. I do think Hillary Clinton would be forceful enough and would also understand the importance on a global scale of making a public investigation and rebuking of these tactics that were undertaken in our name as Americans.

America. We torture our enemies. Are you o.k. with that? I mean, even Tom Ridge, former secretary of the Homeland Security Department knows its wrong:

"One of America's greatest strengths is the soft power of our value system and how we treat prisoners of war, and we don't torture. And I believe, unlike others in the administration, that waterboarding was, is — and will always be — torture. That's a simple statement."

The American economy: Who's steering this thing, anyway?

With our economy in a downward spiral, you might think our Harvard MBA president would be the one to take charge and turn this thing around. (Oh, did you forget he has a Harvard MBA? If I went to Harvard, I would be asking for my money back right about now.) But instead of dealing with our economic crisis at home, President Bush is busying himself with issues such as fighting for Ukraine to gain membership into NATO. Uh, 'k.

Meanwhile, Fed Chairman Bernanke is left to sell the Administration's "plan" and defend the decision to assist a large brokerage firm while telling homeowners in similar crisis that they are on their own. To be fair, he did try to help homeowners by telling them again about the government hotline number. But, -- just like in December -- he gave out the wrong number. So maybe it's best if he just stays out of this whole thing.

Hello? Harvard University Admissions Office?

It is truly unfortunate that we have such an imbecile in office, when we are crying out for a leader. Many people are losing their homes due to no fault of their own, for example single women homeowners have been hit hard, and even renters are losing their homes. But we also are a nation of people who think we can have it all. Last night I did a doubletake when I saw a story on ABC News about a couple that successfully fought the bank's foreclosure on their home. Now I don't know all the details about this family or about the housing market in New York. But I do know that they made a combined income of $30,000 and they bought a $335,000 house.

You do the math.

The mortgage company did things that were illegal. They told the couple they could get a fixed loan, and then at signing changed the terms into a balloon rate. What bank thinks a family making $30,000 a year will be able to pay off a $335,000 house at 14% interest rate? That's a house payment of almost $4,000 a month! That is more than this couple makes a month! It's despicable that the bank did this.

But what was this couple, and all the rest just like them, thinking? I'm sure they loved the house, and the neighborhood. I'm sure it was hard to find something they could afford. But what has happened to us when we buy things that we just simply cannot afford? The Baltimore Sun ran a story last month entitled Affluent are also losing their homes. Am I the only one who thinks: "Then maybe they're not so affluent?" This is where we need leadership from the top, someone to look at the balance of the nation's economy and the welfare of the people. Someone who can honestly say to the housing industry: You know what? You need to start building houses that people can afford.

But our leader is in Romania, fighting a lost battle to get Ukraine into NATO. Where's a Harvard MBA when you need one? Oh, here he is:

Bringing home the troops: If Congress won't do it, it's up to the states

The Vermont State Legislature is currently examining the legality of President Bush's order to maintain National Guard troops to Iraq. From In These Times:

On Jan. 30, state House members, soon followed by state senators, introduced legislation that called on Vermont’s Republican Gov. Jim Douglas to take “all necessary steps” to bring home, as quickly as possible, all members of the Vermont National Guard serving in Iraq.

Rather than arguing whether launching the war was legal or even just, supporters of the bill tacitly concede that Congress’ 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq based on two—and only two—criteria: “(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.”

But today, Saddam Hussein and the specter of weapons of mass destruction are both dead; there is no national security threat; and the U.N. resolutions are no longer relevant, the bill’s supporters say.

“That very specific mission does not exist today,” says state Rep. Michael Fisher (D-Lincoln), who introduced the House bill. And when the mission expired, so too did any legal or constitutional basis for the war or the involvement of the Vermont National Guard, the bill states.

“The president no longer has the authorization to command our Vermont National Guard units,” says Fisher.

Because our congressional leaders are clearly not up to the task of standing up to the Bush Administration and its continued illegal war in Iraq, it may well be up to the states to take action.

Already, legislators in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin are exploring ways to stoke the flame.

While both sides talk mainly about lives and national security, money circles the Vermont debate. State Rep. Patricia O’Donnell (R-Vernon) points out that if Vermont withdrew the Guards, Washington might withdraw the $3 million it contributes to maintaining Vermont’s units.

Democrats counter that states are already bearing much of the burden of budgets cuts necessitated by the pricey occupation. At a January press conference, House Speaker Gaye Symington (D-Jericho) said the war in Iraq has had a heavy impact on Vermont and has led to financial cuts in Medicaid and other areas.

The cost also comes in blood. Vermont has one of the highest per capita death rates in Iraq.

FISA in 30 seconds or less

Russ Feingold explains it all:

Yes America, you should be afraid ... of the Republicans

Prepare to be frightened tonight when President Bush gives his state of the union address. He will try to frighten you by saying "9/11, 9/11, 9/11." But even more frightening is the bill he wants Congress to pass, which extends the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). From ThinkProgress:

This afternoon, “the Senate will vote on whether to cut off debate about reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV) is working against the motion, and it is expected that Republicans will not have the 60 votes needed to end the discussion.”

Democratic support of the bill is contentious due to the inclusion of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is pushing for a temporary extension of the expiring legislation in order to reach a compromise. But President Bush is threatening to veto it.

Big man on campus is thumping his chest, posturing before he gives his speech tonight. And now he has his lackeys lined up in the Senate. I nearly drove off the road this morning when I heard this on NPR this morning:

Speaking to NPR today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell bellowed that “the American people should be frightened”:

It’s not about frightening the American people. The American people should be frightened and remember full well what happened on 9/11. They also remember with gratitude that this has not happened again for six years.

And no matter what your opinion of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, give them both credit for returning to Washington today to vote on this important issue. (That's right -- they both have day jobs, don't they?)

While we talked politics, they died

20-year-old Army Specialist Zachary McBride was among six soldiers killed Wednesday in Iraq

This week, America's attention was consumed with the New Hampshire debates. I was right there with everyone else, glued to the t.v. After the results were in, we all became obsessed with parsing the numbers and arguing in sometimes heated debates among ourselves over what it all means for the upcoming presidential election.

While we were debating politics this past week, 10 American soldiers died in Iraq. Three names have not yet been released by the Department of Defense, pending notification of their next of kin. The others are listed below.

While the pundits and politicians squabble and vie for your attention, please take a moment to honor the memory of these men who died carrying out the policies of the politicians. Please click on their names to learn more about their lives and the families they leave behind.

Pionk, Matthew
Dozier, Jonathan Kilian
McBride, Zack
Hart, David J.
Merlo, Ivan E.
Pannier, Phillip J.
Hanson, Timothy R.

They died in Diyala Province, Ba'qubah, Samarra, Balad, and Salman Pak. They died far away from their families and friends, while George Bush wines and dines his way across the Mid East, his only agenda the rescuing of his failed legacy as President.

Fiddling while Rome (and Pakistan) burns

At least 23 people have been killed and 58 injured in Lahore, Pakistan, after a suicide bomber detonated his explosive near where civilians were gathering for a rally. From CNN:

The exact number of casualties varied, but state-run news agency the Associated Press of Pakistan said 22 police officers and one passerby were killed.

Reports of another explosion triggered a dash toward a supposed second blast site, but those reports proved unfounded, said Aftab Cheema, senior superintendent of Lahore police.

The suicide blast occurred in the city's commercial district, moments before lawyers were set to begin a rally outside the high court in the eastern Pakistani city to protest the rule of President Pervez Musharraf.

No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack.

The Bush Administration has apparently moved on from any interest in Pakistan and believes it can now create some kind of "legacy" in the Mid East. Not to say that this Administration was ever really interested in helping strengthen the democracy in Pakistan. Last fall when thousands of Pakistani lawyers -- yes lawyers -- were holding peaceful protests, Bush did nothing to support them. From the New York Times:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 5 — Angry protests by thousands of lawyers in Lahore and other cities on Monday demonstrated the first organized resistance to the emergency rule imposed by the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. But the abrupt arrests of many of them threatened to weaken their challenge.

The Musharraf government’s resolve to silence its fiercest opponents was evident in the strength of the crackdown by baton-wielding police officers who pummeled lawyers and then hauled them by the legs and arms into police wagons in Lahore.

Frantic for public displays of diplomacy, the Bush Administration could not negotiate its way out of a paper bag. It's all about fluff, photo ops, for them. Expect no substance and no progress from thier latest dog and pony show.

Benazir Bhutto deserved better from the United States

With the assassination this week of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, a crucial link between Islam and the west has been destroyed. Although no saint, Bhutto was the greatest hope for a moderate leader in a country which has struggled to find its way since it gained independence in 1947.  Since then, the country has endured extreme corruption and violence, and many years of military rule. Although it is a Muslim majority population, secular factions have always had a strong voice in Pakistani politics.

Does this all sound a little too familiar? Will the Bush Administration learn anything from the Pakistan experience in its dealings with Iraq? Doubtful. Our Secretary of State, Condaleeza Rice, is an expert -- at Cold War Soviet relations. In other words, she is obsolete. She has been ineffective at transferring her in-depth knowledge of Eastern Europe to the Mid East. Diplomacy in Iraq seems non-existent: her only efforts appear to be the photo opportunities she takes on her "surprise visits" inside the green zone.

Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistani people deserved more from the U.S. As a Harvard and Oxford educated Muslim woman who had the support of a large percentage of the population (though certainly not every Pakistani admired her), she was the best hope for a bridge between Islam and democracy. Yet the Bush Administration sat idly by while President/ Dictator Pervez Musharraf stripped the country of its most basic civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. It was only after outcry from around the world (not led by the U.S.), that Bhutto was allowed into the country to run for office.

With elections scheduled for next month, Bhutto was campaigning throughout Pakistan. Having received many death threats, she requested protection from the Pakistan government, and was given none. The aftermath of Bhutto's assassination consists of riots and turmoil in Pakistan. Will Musharraf go ahead with the elections, or will this be a convenient excuse for him to again call for emergency powers and remain in office?

From Bloomberg: An American friend of Bhutto's, Washington lawyer Mark Siegel, told CNN that Bhutto e-mailed him on Oct. 26, one week after the attack on her in Karachi, to complain that Musharraf's government wasn't protecting her adequately.

Bhutto said she had requested the government provide her with jamming devices to thwart electronically triggered roadside bombs, special vehicles with tinted windows and four police cars to surround her at all times in her travels, Siegel told CNN. Bhutto said all the requests were denied.

``She became increasingly concerned that her security was not getting better, it was getting worse as she toured the country in preparation for the January 8th election,'' Siegel told the network.

The Bush Administration has stood by Pervez Musharraf for many years because he is our supposed ally in the "war on terror." Yet he has allowed the greatest hope for democracy in the region to be killed -- on his watch. More proof that when it comes to foreign policy, the Bush Administration has either (a) no clue, or (b) no interest in peace.

Health insurance: Some are more equal than others

A nurses union put this eye-popping ad in about 10 different Iowa newspapers last week. The ad includes a newspaper article on Cheney's last hospitalization for heart treatment with these true words: "If he were anyone else, he'd probably be dead by now."

In response to the Cheney office's claim that the ad is "outrageous," Charles Idelson, spokesman for the California Nurses Association and the National Nurses Organizing Committee, said, "What's outrageous is we have an administration that sits on its hands while we have 47 million people who are uninsured...This administration has ignored this health care crisis. They're indifferent to pain and suffering."

Abuse of women in Iraq: "democracy" means doing whatever you want to them

There is an alarming story in the Guardian this morning about the current state of women in Iraq. Despite George Bush's claims that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has brought "new rights and new hopes to women," women in Iraq live a life of brutality and death.

[S]ince the 2003 invasion, advances that took 50 years to establish are crumbling away. In much of the country, women can only now move around with a male escort. Rape is committed habitually by all the main armed groups, including those linked to the government. Women are being murdered throughout Iraq in unprecedented numbers.

So-called "honor killings" have risen dramatically. Because there is no state government to regulate the safety of women, cultural and religious factions have taken it upon them selves to enforce rules as they see fit:

In October the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (Unami) expressed serious concern over the rising incidence of so-called honour crimes in Iraqi Kurdistan, confirming that 255 women had been killed in just the first six months of 2007, three-quarters of them by burning. An earlier Unami report cited 366 burns cases in Dohuk in 2006, up from 289 the year before, although most were not fatal. In Irbil, the emergency management centre had reported 576 burns cases since 2003, resulting in 358 deaths.

The Iraqi penal code prescribes leniency for those who commit such crimes for "honourable motives", enabling some of the men involved to get off with no more than a fine.

[A] man from Kirkuk ... accused his sister of adultery. "When we asked him why he wanted to kill his sister, he said, 'Because it is now a democracy in Iraq'. He thought that democracy meant he could do whatever he wanted." But the man's stupidity hid an important point: under the new system of government developing in Iraq, family disputes are increasingly settled not in state courts but by local tribal or religious authorities.

We keep hearing from this administration that violence is down in Iraq. Just a week ago, General Petraeus seemed guardedly optimistic about the situation in Iraq, saying that there is improvement, although there is still a great deal of danger still. The drumbeat from the White House, however, is still "stay the course" (although I haven't heard that phrase in a while, have you? In fact, I think the trend has been: "Mission accomplished," Stay the course," and now "Guarded optimism.").

So while those in office and those running for office would tell us that things are improving Iraq, I remind them of the words of Abigail Adams: Remember the ladies.

UPDATE: From Human Rights Watch, more background on the deterioration of women's lives in Iraq since U.S. involvement there:

Historically, Iraqi women and girls have enjoyed relatively more rights than many of their counterparts in the Middle East. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property. Yet, since the 1991 Gulf War, the position of women within Iraqi society has deteriorated rapidly. Women and girls were disproportionately affected by the economic consequences of the U.N. sanctions, and lacked access to food, health care, and education. These effects were compounded by changes in the law that restricted women's mobility and access to the formal sector in an effort to ensure jobs to men and appease conservative religious and tribal groups.

And from the Washington Post recently:

Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was known for its mixed population and night life. Now, in some areas, red graffiti threatens any woman who wears makeup and appears with her hair uncovered: "Your makeup and your decision to forgo the headscarf will bring you death."

Khalaf said bodies have been found in garbage dumps with bullet holes, decapitated or otherwise mutilated with a sheet of paper nearby saying, "she was killed for adultery," or "she was killed for violating Islamic teachings." In September, the headless bodies of a woman and her 6-year-old son were among those found, he said. A total of 40 deaths were reported this year.

"The least we can do is stop our days and pay honor to the people making the ultimate sacrifice"

John Cusack stars in a new movie due for release in February 2008, Grace is Gone. In the movie, he plays a husband and father who learns that his wife is killed in Iraq. His inspiration for the movie: the Bush Administration "cowardly political act" of banning photographs of military caskets returning from Iraq. In an interview with PBS' Tavis Smiley, Cusack said:

"I thought that was one of the most cowardly political acts I'd seen in my lifetime, in some ways" the actor said. "So I thought, we have to tell the story of one of those coffins coming home, right? It seemed clear that would be a really smart thing to do."

"I just think that, if this war is going to be fought and if it is as important as he says it is, I think the least we can do is stop our days and pay honor to the people making the ultimate sacrifice for this," he added. "I mean, they were trying to say...we'll tell you when we can grieve and get our photo ops when we go to the bases and visit the families and we're going to control this along with everything else."

I couldn't agree more with Cusack. As regular readers know, I have begun posting the stories of some of the 3,886 people who have died following George W. Bush's failed Iraq policies. About a year ago, I remember some of the mainstream media newscasts closing with images of some of these soldiers, but I guess that wasn't helping the ratings much, because no one seems to do that anymore. So, no more images staring out at us from the televisions set, just some abstract number: 3,886.

No matter what you think about the Iraq war, I'm sure you agree with Cusack that we should "stop our days and pay honor to the people making the ultimate sacrifice for this."

Sub-prime mortgage crisis' got nothin' on us!

If you took out one of those adjustable rate mortgages, or if you're swimming in credit card debt, it could be a lot worse. Actually, it already is: the national debt is growing at a rate of about $1 million per minute. So in the time it took you to come to this blog and read this paragraph, the national debt has probably gone up another million. And each day, it adds up another $1.4 billion. Yes, billion, with a "b."

And you thought your financial problems were bad!

According to the Associated Press,

the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.

And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt — now at relatively low interest rates — rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.

So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.

The national debt — the total accumulation of annual budget deficits — is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.

That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.

As depressing as this is, it gets worse. You see, just like those credit card companies that keep sending me offers for more cards so I can pay off my other credit cards, there are lenders out here ready to help the U.S. with its irresponsible spending:

Foreign governments and investors now hold some $2.23 trillion — or about 44 percent — of all publicly held U.S. debt. That's up 9.5 percent from a year earlier.

Japan is first with $586 billion, followed by China ($400 billion) and Britain ($244 billion). Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries account for $123 billion, according to the Treasury.

"Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that control our debt do not control our future," said Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican budget hawk.

In the words of the Talking Heads, "you may ask yourself-Well ... How did I get here?"

Good question. It wasn't like this when George W. Bush took office:

Not long ago, it actually looked like the national debt could be paid off — in full. In the late 1990s, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of a $5.6 trillion over ten years — and calculated the debt would be paid off as early as 2006.

Is Cheney's latest heart ailment a fraud -- and a set-up?

I have now read this in several places, and an idea which seemed at worst paranoid and at the very least cynical — now sounds quite plausible. Consider this:

Is Dick Cheney's recent heart ailment a fabrication by the White House in an effort to smooth the way for a Cheney resignation? And, would Cheney's replacement then run for President in 2008 with the strength that incumbency has historically proven to hold?

Yikes!

From BuzzFlash:

Before you dismiss this as speculation from a conspiracy nut whose tin-foil hat is on too tight, consider the fact that the Bush team created an elaborate and entirely false pretext for taking the country to war that snookered the corporate media and a majority of the public. Faking news of a heart ailment in order to quietly shuffle Cheney off the stage is child’s play by comparison.

Almost everyone in Pakistan who believes in George Bush's vision of democracy is in prison today

In an interview last night with Charlie Gibson of ABC News, President Bush stated that the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

This is more worrisome than ever, that Bush thinks it's within "the line" to declare emergency rule, fire members of the Supreme Court and arrest journalists, lawyers and human rights activists.

From the Washington Post:

Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said that "it's hard to imagine how the administration will be able to achieve anything in Pakistan if the president is so disconnected from reality."

"Almost everyone in Pakistan who believes in George Bush's vision of democracy is in prison today," Malinowski said. "Calling the man who put them in prison a great democrat will only discredit America among moderate Pakistanis and give Musharraf confidence that he can continue to defy the United States because Bush will forgive anything he does."

Musharraf enforces American-style democracy, has hand-picked Supreme Court legitimize his presidency

Here's a fun game: let's compare headlines from today with ones from 2000, shall we? (you do remember the elections of 2000, don't you? If not, take a glance at the image to the right from the protests back then.)

Today:
Pakistan Court Clears Musharraf for New Term

2000:
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Bush's Favor

Today:
Pakistan court tosses election challenge

2000:
Election 2000: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Federal Questions of Lawsuit

Yes, we are truly spreading American democracy throughout the world.

George W. Bush will bankrupt this country

President Bush today vetoed a bipartisan education and health bill, at the same time approving an increase in the Pentagon's budget.

Thanks to Bush's greed for oil and vengeance for a supposed assassination attempt on his father by Saddam Hussein, (you didn't forget about that in all the rhetoric, did you?), our health care, education, and yes, security systems are a shambles. We lag behind all other Western nations in these areas, yet today Bush continues to lead this country down a path of destruction.

From the AP:

Since winning re-election, Bush has sought to cut the labor, health and education measure below the prior year level. But lawmakers have rejected the cuts. The budget that Bush presented in February sought almost $4 billion in cuts to this year's bill.

Huge procurement costs are driving the Pentagon budget ever upward. Once war costs are added in, the total defense budget will be significantly higher than during the typical Cold War year, even after adjusting for inflation.

Meanwhile, today's Washington Post reports that the real cost to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is more than $20,000:

President Bush's six-year invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq will end up costing Americans about $1.5 trillion, or nearly twice as much as the White House has actually spent to fight its wars, because of unseen costs like inflation, rising oil prices and expensive care for wounded veterans.

This will be the legacy of the Bush Administration when he is finished playing at being president. A nation that has lost the respect of the rest of the world, that is broke, uneducated, and unhealthy. And we'll still be paying $4 per gallon of gas, while Bush, Cheney, and all the rest of the oil mongerers sit on their ranches and count their money.

Shame on anyone who voted him into office.

Support the Troops: Will we back up the bumper stickers?

The Nobel Peace Prize winning group Physicians for Social Responsibility has recently released a study estimating that healthcare for Iraq veterans could top $650 billion.

The study, entitled “Shock and Awe Hits Home,” estimates that the long-term financial burden to care for a new generation of veterans will far outstrip the amount of money spent on combat operations in Iraq.

From the Boston Globe:

"Providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans will cost far more than is generally being acknowledged," according to the study, overseen by Dr. Evan Kanter, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist at the University of Washington and a staff physician for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

"As physicians and healthcare professionals, we are acutely aware of the actual price we are paying in human terms, and we are compelled to bring this to the attention of the Congress and the American people," the report added.

The estimate was derived by analyzing the current costs of treating debilitating health problems of troops in Iraq, including blast injuries to arms and legs from improvised explosive devices; the historically high instances of traumatic brain injuries; and post-traumatic stress disorder, which the VA believes affects at least one-third of soldiers serving there.

Situation in Pakistan will get worse before it gets better

In 2006, The Washington Post ran this quote from President Bush about Gen. Pervez Musharraf:

“In the long run, he understands that extremists can be defeated by freedom and democracy and prosperity and better education,” Bush said of Musharraf in a joint news conference at the presidential palace.

Today, President Bush watches, powerless, as Musharraf steals every freedom from the citizens of Pakistan. No freedom of speech. No freedom of press. His police are now beating up supporters of his main opponent in the scheduled elections (which will be miraculous if they are indeed held in January as scheduled.) This is what pretending that Musharraf ever truly believed in democracy has gotten us. (He is president only because he seized power in 1999 — and has never given up his position as army chief.)

Our last hope for stability in a very unstable region is now a powderkeg.