| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2006 06:21:57 PM |
| Object: |
Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
........................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
(How a private university comes to be supported by public taxpayer
dollars and the US Army Corps of Engineers is another peculiarity of
Bush aid.)
Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan and president
of Kabul University, complained, "You cannot support private education
and ignore public education."
But typically, having set up a government in Afghanistan, the US
stiffs it, preferring to channel aid money to private American
contractors.
Increasingly privatized, US aid becomes just one more mechanism for
transferring taxpayer dollars to the coffers of select US companies
and the pockets of the already rich.
_______________________________________________________________
I'm sure you'll find the rest of the article interesting
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Zizek!" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
29 Aug 2006 07:05:50 PM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
(How a private university comes to be supported by public taxpayer
dollars and the US Army Corps of Engineers is another peculiarity of
Bush aid.)
Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan and president
of Kabul University, complained, "You cannot support private education
and ignore public education."
But typically, having set up a government in Afghanistan, the US
stiffs it, preferring to channel aid money to private American
contractors.
Increasingly privatized, US aid becomes just one more mechanism for
transferring taxpayer dollars to the coffers of select US companies
and the pockets of the already rich.
_______________________________________________________________
I'm sure you'll find the rest of the article interesting
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Harry
Bush and his wife are traitors and should be treated that way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
29 Aug 2006 09:21:06 PM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she claimed.
Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it was for public
education, is beyound me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Political Pagan" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 12:06:26 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05:
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she
claimed. Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it
was for public education, is beyound me.
How many children do you know attend a University?
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 03:58:50 AM |
|
|
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns982F45DCFCC4pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05:
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she
claimed. Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it
was for public education, is beyound me.
How many children do you know attend a University?
Who said anything about children?
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that
power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 09:51:58 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jrcJg.4181$y61.259@fed1read05...
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns982F45DCFCC4pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05:
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she
claimed. Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it
was for public education, is beyound me.
How many children do you know attend a University?
Who said anything about children?
As usual, the republican idiot will go to amazing lengths to keep up his
'stupid' act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 11:11:05 AM |
|
|
"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ed48mf$71j$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jrcJg.4181$y61.259@fed1read05...
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns982F45DCFCC4pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05:
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she
claimed. Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it
was for public education, is beyound me.
How many children do you know attend a University?
Who said anything about children?
As usual, the republican idiot will go to amazing lengths to keep up his
'stupid' act.
As usual the dumb ***** liberal reads words that are not there, then blames a
republican for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Political Pagan" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 05:43:04 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:xMiJg.4190$y61.1499@fed1read05:
Who said anything about children?
As usual, the republican idiot will go to amazing lengths to keep up
his
'stupid' act.
As usual the dumb ***** liberal reads words that are not there, then
blames a republican for it.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
31 Aug 2006 10:23:53 AM |
|
|
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns982FDD173757Fpookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in news:s9pJg.4260$y61.286@fed1read05:
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Why would you believe the New York Times?
Tell you what, here it is as said by Laura Bush herself, straight from the
government...
http://www.un.int/usa/02_030.htm
What part do you think is not the truth?
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that
power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Political Pagan" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 05:42:50 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in news:jrcJg.4181$y61.259@fed1read05:
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns982F45DCFCC4pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05:
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she
claimed. Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it
was for public education, is beyound me.
How many children do you know attend a University?
Who said anything about children?
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
31 Aug 2006 10:24:18 AM |
|
|
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns982FDD0F06146pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:5apJg.4261$y61.2250@fed1read05:
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns982FB77831FD1pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:jrcJg.4181$y61.259@fed1read05:
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in
message news:Xns982F45DCFCC4pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05:
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she
claimed. Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she
said it was for public education, is beyound me.
How many children do you know attend a University?
Who said anything about children?
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her
mission was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States
to education for women and children".
You believed the new York slimes. HAAAAAHAAAA
Tell you what, here it is as said by Laura Bush herself, straight from the
government...
http://www.un.int/usa/02_030.htm
What part do you think is not the truth?
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that
power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Political Pagan" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
31 Aug 2006 12:02:26 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:DaDJg.4300$y61.1603@fed1read05:
You believed the new York slimes. HAAAAAHAAAA
Tell you what, here it is as said by Laura Bush herself, straight
from the government...
http://www.un.int/usa/02_030.htm
What part do you think is not the truth?
Billy, you claim to be intelligent, why not show it instead of trying to
dance around in a circle? Laura Bush said the money was for the women and
children. How does a University help with the education of the children?
That was the entire question, but you dance around it with comments like
"you believe the times" and "What part do you think is not the truth?" It
takes a man to admit he is wrong, so why don't you just admit it.
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court’s duty to ensure that power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
31 Aug 2006 12:48:54 PM |
|
|
"Political Pagan" <pookinpnub@allthewrongplaces.biz> wrote in message
news:Xns98307DDCD1319pookinpnuballthewron@69.28.186.121...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
news:DaDJg.4300$y61.1603@fed1read05:
You believed the new York slimes. HAAAAAHAAAA
Tell you what, here it is as said by Laura Bush herself, straight
from the government...
http://www.un.int/usa/02_030.htm
What part do you think is not the truth?
Billy, you claim to be intelligent, why not show it instead of trying to
dance around in a circle? Laura Bush said the money was for the women and
children.
No, she didn't, not according to the link you provided, anyway. She said "
In two weeks, Afghan boys and girls start school -- many for the first time.
The world will be watching on the first day of school, as teachers take
their long-vacant places and students open their books for their first
lessons.
And
For primary schools, the Academy for Educational Development just sent
40,000 backpacks filled with slates, chalk, school supplies, and toys for
refugee children. This is the backpack - hand-made in Pakistan.
Children who receive these backpacks may have never owned or even seen books
and toys. This great effort deserves our support.
When you give children books and an education, you give them the ability to
imagine a future of opportunity, equality and justice. Education is the
single most important long-term investment we can make in the future.
At a girls' school in Northern Afghanistan, the principal, a man named
Diwana Qol said, "These girls are part of our future. We will need all of
our children, boys and girls, to be well educated if we are to rebuild our
country from all this war."
That was the entire question, but you dance around it with comments like
"you believe the times" and "What part do you think is not the truth?" It
takes a man to admit he is wrong, so why don't you just admit it.
So be a man and admit you are wrong. Or at least show in your link where
she said what Hairless Hopeless claims she said, (but was really the New
York Times)
--
"The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and
balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that
power
is never condense[d] into a single branch of government." - Judge Anna
Diggs Taylor
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zizek!" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
29 Aug 2006 09:47:01 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she claimed.
Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it was for
public education, is beyound me.
Let me guess, you are brain damaged.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 09:50:48 AM |
|
|
"Zizek!" <throwshit@bush.net> wrote in message
news:F_6Jg.21687$gY6.7763@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she claimed.
Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it was for
public education, is beyound me.
Let me guess, you are brain damaged.
Naah, he's a liar who thinks expensive paid-for education is support.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 04:00:07 AM |
|
|
"Zizek!" <throwshit@bush.net> wrote in message
news:F_6Jg.21687$gY6.7763@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she claimed.
Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it was for
public education, is beyound me.
Let me guess, you are brain damaged.
Keep guessing
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 09:52:29 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she claimed.
Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it was for
public education, is beyound me.
lol Playing stupid, the #1 hobby of republicans everywhere!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
30 Aug 2006 11:12:19 AM |
|
|
"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ed48nd$71k$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rC6Jg.4170$y61.1853@fed1read05...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
As it happens, it is to support education in afghanistan, as she claimed.
Why a lying dumb ***** like you, would try to claim she said it was for
public education, is beyound me.
lol Playing stupid, the #1 hobby of republicans everywhere!
Being stupid the #1 profession of liberals everywhere!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
29 Aug 2006 06:52:55 PM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Often?
I cannot remember a time when they (he) actually told the truth!
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
(How a private university comes to be supported by public taxpayer
dollars and the US Army Corps of Engineers is another peculiarity of
Bush aid.)
George must be using "The Ugly American" as a guide book. Of cocurse,
someone has to read it to him!
Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan and president
of Kabul University, complained, "You cannot support private education
and ignore public education."
George can ........ he has God on speed dial!
But typically, having set up a government in Afghanistan, the US
stiffs it, preferring to channel aid money to private American
contractors.
Increasingly privatized, US aid becomes just one more mechanism for
transferring taxpayer dollars to the coffers of select US companies
and the pockets of the already rich.
My money is on thoie contractors being, for the most part, conservative
republican supporters of Bush and company!
_______________________________________________________________
I'm sure you'll find the rest of the article interesting
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Harry
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
Remember when peaceful, democratic, reconstructed Afghanistan was advertised
as the exemplar for the extreme makeover of Iraq? In August 2002, US
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was already proclaiming the new
Afghanistan "a breathtaking accomplishment" and "a successful model of what
could happen to Iraq". As everybody now knows, the model isn't working in
Iraq. So we shouldn't be surprised to learn that it's not working in
Afghanistan either.
The story of success in Afghanistan was always more fairy tale
********Much like Bush's elections........*****************
than fact - one scam used to sell another. Now, as the administration of US
President George W Bush hands off "peacekeeping" to NATO forces, Afghanistan
is the scene of the largest military operation in the history of that
organization. Personal e-mail brings word from an American surgeon in Kabul
that her emergency medical team can't handle half the wounded civilians
brought in from embattled provinces to the south and east. American, British
and Canadian troops find themselves at war with Taliban fighters - which is
to say "Afghans" - while stunned North Atlantic Treaty Organization
commanders, who hadn't bargained for significant combat, are already asking
what went wrong.
********George Herbert Walker Bush!***********
The answer is a threefold failure: no peace, no democracy, and no
reconstruction.
Doing things backward
Critics of US Afghan policy agree that the Bush administration, in its haste
to take out Saddam Hussein's Iraq, did things backward. After bombing the
Taliban into the boondocks in 2001, it set up a government without first
making peace - a scenario later to be repeated in Iraq.
Instead of pressing for peace negotiations among rival Afghan parties, the
victorious Americans handed power to Islamists and militia commanders who
had served as America's stand-in soldiers in its Afghan proxy war against
the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Then the Bush administration staged elections
for these candidates and touted the result as democracy. It also confined an
International Security Assistance Force, made up largely of European troops,
to the capital, creating an island of safety for the government, while
dispatching warlords of its choice to hunt for Osama bin Laden in the
countryside.
In the east and south - that is, about half the country - the Taliban never
stopped fighting. Now, augmented by imported al-Qaeda fighters
("Arab-Afghans") and new tactics learned from the insurgency in Iraq
(roadside bombs, suicide bombing), Taliban forces are stronger than at any
time since the United States "conquered" them in 2001.
*******Gee ...... just a little while ago, didn't some progressive thinking
person mention that Iraq was a good training ground for future
terrorists!?!?!?! Thanks George!************
According to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, most Afghans
have long favored a process of amnesty and reconciliation; and President
Hamid Karzai recently called on the Bush administration to change course and
stop killing Afghans. But US administration policy, recently reaffirmed in
Kabul by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calls for a fight to the last
Talib.
************George Bush is always willing to send others to "fight to the
last man".
Predictably, Afghan public opinion has been turning steadily against the
largely powerless central government, guarded in the capital by foreign
forces. The insecurity endured by most Afghans - the absence of peace - is
enough to make them give up hope in President Karzai, often jeeringly
referred to as the "mayor of Kabul" or "assistant to the American
ambassador".
********** They seem to be one hell of a lot quicker in understanding that
Bush and his policies are completely corrupt failures. I wish today's
conservative republicans would be as smart! ************
Historically Afghans have selected and followed strong leaders; they expect
a leader to deliver security, jobs, special favors - something, anyway. The
Karzai government, confined to a self-serving US agenda that is often at
odds with Afghan interests, has delivered nothing at all to the average
Afghan,
*****(what did you expect? He gave tax breaks to the rich, here, while
proudly claiming that a woman who had to work three jobs to survive was
"America".)
still living in abysmal poverty. In 2004, Afghans dutifully voted for Karzai
as the instrument of US promises. By 2005, when parliamentary elections were
held, voters indicated that they were fed up with the same old candidates -
all those militia commanders and Islamist extremists - and the same old
hollow promises.
**********See the stories about corrupt financial dealings and empty
promises in our OWN New Orleans!!! *****
The sad part of the story is this. Despite the Bush administration's sham
"peace" and fake "democracy", it might have made - might still make - a
success of Afghanistan if only it delivered on that third big promise: to
rebuild the bombed-out country. Most Afghans, after the dispersal of the
Taliban, were full of hope and ready to work. The tangible benefits of
reconstruction - jobs, housing, schools, health-care facilities - could have
rallied them to support the government and turn that illusory "democracy"
into something like the real thing. But reconstruction didn't happen. When
NATO-led forces moved into the southern provinces this summer to keep the
peace and continue "development", Lieutenant-General David Richards, British
commander of the operation, seemed astonished to find that little or no
development had so far taken place.
*********He should visit New Orleans! **********
For that failure the US is to blame.
*****NOT THE U.S. - George Herbert Walker Bush - and his fanatical
conservative republicans. **********
Until this year, the US-led coalition assumed sole charge of "security"
operations outside Kabul, but it never put enough troops on the ground to do
the job. (Sound familiar?) As a result, aid workers (both international and
Afghan) lost their lives, and non-governmental aid organizations (NGOs)
withdrew to Kabul or, like Medecins Sans Frontieres, left the country
altogether. Private contractors who remained in the field found themselves
regularly diverting project funds to "security", so that, as in Iraq, aid
money poured into operations that belonged in the military budget.
A recent audit by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
found the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) using
"an accounting shell game" to hide mammoth cost overruns on projects - as
high as 418% - resulting partly from such security problems. There's every
reason to believe that an audit of Afghanistan reconstruction by many of the
same firms under contract to USAID would reveal similar accounting practices
used for the same reason. Without peace there can be no security, and
without security no development.
The reconstruction shell game
But there's more to the story than that. To understand the failure - and
fraud - of such reconstruction, you have to take a look at the peculiar
system of US aid for international development. During the past five years,
the US and many other donor nations pledged billions of dollars to
Afghanistan, yet Afghans keep asking: "Where did the money go?" American
taxpayers should be asking the same question. The official answer is that
donor funds are lost to Afghan corruption. But shady Afghans, accustomed to
two-bit bribes, are learning how big-bucks corruption really works from the
masters of the world.
A fact-packed report issued in June 2005 by Action Aid, a widely respected
NGO headquartered in Johannesburg, makes sense of the workings of that
world. The report studied development aid given by all countries globally
and discovered that only a small part of it - maybe 40% - is real. The rest
is "phantom" aid; that is, the money never actually shows up in recipient
countries at all.
Some of it doesn't even exist except as an accounting item, as when
countries count debt relief or the construction costs for a fancy new
embassy in the aid column. A lot of it never leaves home. Paychecks for
American "experts" under contract to USAID, for example, go directly from
the agency to their US banks without ever passing through the
to-be-reconstructed country. Much aid money, the report concludes, is thrown
away on "overpriced and ineffective technical assistance", such as those
very hot-shot American experts. And a big chunk of it is carefully "tied" to
the donor nation, which means that the recipient is obliged to use the
donated money to buy products from the donor country, even when - especially
when - the same goods are available cheaper at home.
The US easily outstrips other nations at most of these scams, making it
second only to France as the world's biggest purveyor of phantom aid. Fully
47% of US development aid is lavished on overpriced technical assistance. By
comparison, only 4% of Sweden's aid budget and only 2% of Luxembourg's and
Ireland's goes to such assistance. As for tying aid to the purchase of
donor-made products, Sweden and Norway don't do it all; neither do Ireland
and the United Kingdom. But 70% of US aid is contingent upon the recipient
spending it on American stuff, especially US-made armaments. Considering all
these practices, Action Aid calculates that 86 cents of every dollar of US
aid is phantom aid.
According to targets set years ago by the United Nations and agreed to by
almost every country in the world, a rich country should give 0.7% of its
national income in annual aid to poor ones. So far, only the Scandinavian
countries, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (with real aid at 0.65% of
national income) even come close. At the other end of the scale, the US
spends a paltry 0.02% of national income on real aid, which works out to an
annual contribution of US$8 from every citizen of "the wealthiest nation in
the world". (By comparison, Swedes kick in $193 per person, Norwegians $304,
and the citizens of Luxembourg $357.) President Bush boasts of sending
billions in aid to Afghanistan, but in fact we could do better by passing a
hat.
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid program for
domestic consumption. Last year, for example, when the president sent his
wife to Kabul for a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that
her mission was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children". Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged
that the United States would give an additional $17.7 million to support
education in Afghanistan. As it happened, that grant had previously been
announced - and it was not for Afghan public education (or women and
children) at all, but to establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American
University of Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
(How a private university comes to be supported by public taxpayer dollars
and the US Army Corps of Engineers is another peculiarity of Bush aid.)
Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan and president of
Kabul University, complained, "You cannot support private education and
ignore public education." But typically, having set up a government in
Afghanistan, the US stiffs it, preferring to channel aid money to private
American contractors. Increasingly privatized, US aid becomes just one more
mechanism for transferring taxpayer dollars to the coffers of select US
companies and the pockets of the already rich.
In 2001, Andrew Natsios, then head of USAID, cited foreign aid as "a key
foreign-policy instrument" designed to help other countries "become better
markets for US exports". To guarantee that mission, the State Department
recently took over the formerly semi-autonomous aid agency. And since the
aim of American aid is to make the world safe for American business, USAID
now cuts in business from the start. It sends out requests for proposals to
a short list of the usual suspects and awards contracts to those bidders
currently in favor. (Election-time kickbacks influence the list of
favorites.)
Sometimes it invites only one contractor to apply, the same efficient
procedure that made Halliburton so notorious and profitable in Iraq. In many
fields it "pre-selects vendors" by accepting bids every five years or so on
an IQC - that's an "Indefinite Quantities Contract". Contractors submit
indefinite information about what they might be prepared to do in
unspecified areas, should some more definite contract materialize; the
winners become designated contractors who are invited to apply when the real
thing comes along. USAID generates the real thing in the form of an RFP, a
Request for Proposals, issued to the "pre-selected vendors" who then compete
(or collaborate) to do - in yet another country - work dreamed up in
Washington by theoreticians unencumbered by first-hand knowledge of the
hapless "target".
The road to Taliban Land
The criteria by which contractors are selected have little or nothing to do
with conditions in the recipient country, and they are not exactly what you
would call transparent. Take the case of the Kabul-Kandahar Highway,
featured on the USAID website as a proud accomplishment. In five years, it's
also the only accomplishment in highway building - which makes it one better
than the Bush administration record in building power stations, water
systems, sewer systems or dams.
The highway was featured in the Kabul Weekly newspaper in March 2005 under
the headline "Millions wasted on second-rate roads". Afghan journalist
Mirwais Harooni reported that even though other international companies had
been ready to rebuild the highway for $250,000 per kilometer, the US-based
Louis Berger Group got the job at $700,000 per kilometer - of which there
are 389. Why? The standard American answer is that Americans do better
work - though not Berger, which at the time was already years behind on
another $665 million contract to build Afghan schools. Berger subcontracted
to Turkish and Indian companies to build the narrow, two-lane, shoulderless
highway at a final cost of about $620,000 per kilometer; and anyone who
travels it today can see that it is already falling apart.
Former Minister of Planning Ramazan Bashardost complained that when it came
to building roads, the Taliban had done a better job; and he too asked,
"Where did the money go?" Now, in a move certain to tank President Karzai's
approval ratings and further endanger US and NATO troops in the area, the
Bush administration has pressured his government to turn this "gift of the
people of the United States" into a toll road, charging each driver $20 for
a road-use permit valid for one month. In this way, according to American
experts providing highly paid technical assistance, Afghanistan can collect
$30 million annually from its impoverished citizens and thereby decrease the
foreign-aid "burden" on the United States.
Is it any wonder that foreign aid seems to ordinary Afghans to be something
only foreigners enjoy? At one end of the infamous highway, in Kabul, Afghans
complain about the fancy restaurants where those experts, technicians and
other foreigners gather, men and women together, to drink alcohol, carry on,
and plunge half-naked into swimming pools. They object to the brothels - 80
of them by 2005 - that house women trafficked in to serve the "needs" of
foreign men. They complain that half the capital city still lies in ruins,
that many people still live in tents, that thousands can't find jobs, that
children go hungry, that schools and hospitals are overcrowded, that women
in tattered burqas still beg in the streets and turn to prostitution, that
children are kidnapped and sold into slavery or murdered for their kidneys
or eyes. They wonder where the promised aid money went and what the puppet
government can possibly do to make things better.
At the other end of the highway, in Kandahar city - President Karzai's home
town - and in the southern provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, Zabul and
Uruzgan, Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah is reported to have more than
12,000 men under arms and squads of suicide bombers at the ready. They
ambush newly arrived NATO troops. The embattled British commander,
Lieutenant-General Richards, recently issued a warning: "We need to realize
that we could actually fail here."
The US attacks the Taliban, as it did in 2001, with air power. (The Times of
London reports that in May alone, US planes flew an "astonishing" 750
bombing raids.) Every day brings new reports of NATO and Taliban combat
casualties, and of "suspected" Taliban as well as civilians killed,
long-range, by US bombs.
In the meantime, the Taliban take control of villages; they murder teachers
and blow up schools. US-led drug-eradication teams take control of villages
and destroy the poppy crops of poor farmers. Caught as usual in the middle
of warring factions, Afghans of the south and east long ago ceased to wonder
where the money went. Instead they wonder who the government is. And what
ever happened to "peace".
Journalist and photographer Ann Jones spent much of the past four years in
Afghanistan working as a human-rights researcher and women's advocate with
international humanitarian agencies and teaching English to Kabul
high-school English teachers. Her new book is Kabul in Winter: Life Without
Peace in Afghanistan (Metropolitan Books, 2006).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JustLooking" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
29 Aug 2006 06:47:42 PM |
|
|
What the fk ... is this US of A one of those third world countries we always
talk with a kind of disgust about ???
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
(How a private university comes to be supported by public taxpayer
dollars and the US Army Corps of Engineers is another peculiarity of
Bush aid.)
Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan and president
of Kabul University, complained, "You cannot support private education
and ignore public education."
But typically, having set up a government in Afghanistan, the US
stiffs it, preferring to channel aid money to private American
contractors.
Increasingly privatized, US aid becomes just one more mechanism for
transferring taxpayer dollars to the coffers of select US companies
and the pockets of the already rich.
_______________________________________________________________
I'm sure you'll find the rest of the article interesting
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "dk" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Laura Bush lie or was she an innocent dupe? |
31 Aug 2006 12:36:04 PM |
|
|
Welcome to "Banana Republica U.S. of A." 2000!
JustLooking wrote:
What the fk ... is this US of A one of those third world countries we always
talk with a kind of disgust about ???
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9j9f2hj2aofmnnuabqmma21kiclkppl1t@4ax.com...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Aug 30, 2006
Why it's not working in Afghanistan
By Ann Jones
.......................................................................................................
The Bush administration often deliberately misrepresents its aid
program for domestic consumption.
Last year, for example, when the president sent his wife to Kabul for
a few hours of photo-ops, the New York Times reported that her mission
was "to promise long-term commitment from the United States to
education for women and children".
Speaking in Kabul, Laura Bush pledged that the United States would
give an additional $17.7 million to support education in Afghanistan.
As it happened, that grant had previously been announced - and it was
not for Afghan public education (or women and children) at all, but to
establish a brand-new, private, for-profit American University of
Afghanistan catering to the Afghan and international elite.
(How a private university comes to be supported by public taxpayer
dollars and the US Army Corps of Engineers is another peculiarity of
Bush aid.)
Ashraf Ghani, the former finance minister of Afghanistan and president
of Kabul University, complained, "You cannot support private education
and ignore public education."
But typically, having set up a government in Afghanistan, the US
stiffs it, preferring to channel aid money to private American
contractors.
Increasingly privatized, US aid becomes just one more mechanism for
transferring taxpayer dollars to the coffers of select US companies
and the pockets of the already rich.
_______________________________________________________________
I'm sure you'll find the rest of the article interesting
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HH30Df02.html
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
