A Look At How Katrina Affected Louisiana

February 26th, 2006

Population: An estimated 189,000 New Orleans residents have returned, compared with around 500,000 residents pre-Katrina.

Deaths: 1,080 in Louisiana.

Missing: Nearly 2,000 listed as missing by the Find Family National Call Center.

Destroyed houses: More than 215,000. Total housing units lost, including apartments, is 1,847,181.

Property and infrastructure losses: $75 to $100 billion.

Debris: Katrina created 60.3 million cubic yards; 32.1 million cubic yards had been removed as of February.

Businesses: Of 81,000 affected businesses, 42,000 have fully reopened; 18,700 were destroyed.

Tax revenue: $549 million lost (including gambling, sales and income taxes.)

Schools: More than 835 schools damaged statewide. Only 20 out of 128 public schools have reopened in New Orleans; 83,821 of 244,608 college students statewide were displaced. Of the displaced college students, only 16,480
have re-enrolled in state.

Jobs: More than 220,000 jobs lost.

Wetlands: More than 100 square miles of wetland destroyed by storm surge.

Hospitals: Katrina closed eight of 16 hospitals in the New Orleans area, reducing the number of hospital beds from 4,083 to 1,760.

Electricity: A total of 189,000 households and businesses received electricity from Entergy New Orleans pre-Katrina, compared with 65,000 to 70,000 today.

Estimated damage to power infrastructure: $275 million in infrastructure repairs in New Orleans.

DoD Staffer’s Notes from 9/11 Obtained Under FOIA

DoD Staffer’s Notes from 9/11 Obtained Under FOIA

On July 23, 2005, I submitted an electronic Freedom
of Information Act request to the Department of Defense
seeking DoD staffer Stephen Cambone’s notes from
meetings with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on
the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Cambone’s notes
were cited heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report’s
reconstruction of the day’s events. On February 10,
2006, I received a response from the DoD which
includes partially-redacted copies of Cambone’s notes.
The documents can be viewed as a photo set on Flickr.

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld’s 2:40
PM instructions to General Myers to find the “[b]est
info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News’ Sept. 4, 2002 report “Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11,” which quoted Rumsfeld’s notes as stating: “Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward’s Plan of Attack, and to my knowledge, have not been independently confirmed by any other source. After the Rathergate fiasco, I wondered if CBS had been fooled into publishing a story that, from a publicity perspective, seemed too good to be true.

Finally, these documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time” line, Cambone’s notes from the conversation read: “Hard to get a good case.”

In addition to being available as a photo set on Flickr, you can download the documents in PDF format below. BitTorrent users can also download a 6.9 MB zip file containing PDFs of all the documents. [Torrent / Prodigem torrent details page]

Notes from 12:05 PM meeting [PDF]
Notes from 12:05 PM meeting (negative) [PDF]
Notes from 2:40 PM meeting [PDF]
Notes from 2:40 PM meeting (negative) [PDF]
Notes from 9:53 PM meeting [PDF]
Notes from 9:53 PM meeting (negative) [PDF]
DoD’s FOIA release letter [PDF]
Raw scan of page 3 of notes [PDF]
Raw scan of page 5 of notes [PDF]
Raw scan of page 6 of notes [PDF]
Raw scan of page 9 of notes [PDF]

http://www.outragedmoderates.org/

The christian right lie

The Religious Right’s prevailing myth that our country was founded as a Christian nation has always been just that a myth, a lie, a fable, a story in the same company as George Washington’s cutting down the cherry tree. So I thought I would share some great quotes from our “founding fathers” that ought to dispell such sillyness. There are many more like the following but these make the point well enough I think.

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” - Thomas Jefferson

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” - James Madison

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.” - James Madison

“What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.” - James Madison

“I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book [the Bible].” - Thomas Paine

“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.” - Thomas Paine

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” - John Adams

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” - John Adams and George Washington

Note: I’ve added a few more quotes from Paine and Madison and expanded the second quote from Jefferson. Also, the last “quote” by Adams and Washington was actually written into the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli (Article 11) during George Washington’s presidency and then later signed by President Adams with the following proviso:

“Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof.”

FISA Court Modified and Denied Wiretap Requests

Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of US-based terror suspects without the court’s approval.

Zogby says thinks look brighter for Dems in year-end poll.

Zogby Year-End Poll: Democratic Prospects Brighten Heading Into 2006 - GOP lags

* McCain’s Star Burns Bright; Hillary’s,Too
* More Say They Are Better Off
* War in Iraq Dominates Issues
* Wanted: Candidates Moving to the Middle

A key measurement of partisan advantage in the United States Congress shows Democrats with a substantial lead in public opinion as the nation heads into 2006 and the important mid-term election season, a new Zogby International survey shows.

Asked if they would “definitely� or “probably� vote for the Democrat or Republican in next year’s fall congressional election, 48% said the Democrat would get their support, compared to 40% who said they would vote for the Republican. While 3% said they plan on supporting a third-party candidate, 9% said they were unsure.

The year-end survey by Zogby International included 1013 interviews nationwide, and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

The poll shows weakness for Republicans among demographic groups that are typically supportive. In “red� states that favored George W. Bush in the presidential election last year, generic congressional Republicans hold a 46% to 43% advantage over their generic Democratic counterparts. But in “blue� states won by Democrat John Kerry last year, the Democratic lead is much larger – there the congressional Democrat leads by a 54% to 34% margin.

Republicans hold a narrow 45% to 43% lead over Democrats among married respondents, who typically favor Republicans by much larger margins. Catholics, whose support for Mr. Bush last year was of key importance, now support congressional Democrats by ten percent, 45% to 35%.

The survey shows that, should President Bush campaign for a congressional candidate, 51% of self-identified independents would be less likely to support that candidate, while just 22% would be more likely to support him. Vice President Cheney has a similar effect.

The one Republican with real appeal across the political spectrum is Arizona Sen. John McCain. If he campaigns for a candidate, 55% of Republicans, 53% of Democrats, and 58% of independents would be more likely to support that candidate.

“That’s remarkable,� said Mr. Zogby. “This next year, look for John McCain to be coming to a theater near you.�

Zogby International has conducted public opinion surveys for Mr. McCain in the past.

For Democratic counterpart Hillary Clinton, the news is not as good. Appearing for another congressional candidate, 63% of Democrats would be more inclined to support that candidate, but she would scare away more independents than she would attract, the poll shows.

While it is very early in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, the poll shows Sens. McCain and Clinton ahead in primary match-ups against others. McCain narrowly leads former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice among Republicans, while Clinton laps the Democratic Party field, more than doubling the support of second-place John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina.

In a McCain-Clinton presidential face-off, McCain wins easily, 52% to 37%, with 11% either unsure or favoring another candidate.

More people than not feel their personal financial situation here at the end of the year is now better than it was 12 months ago. While 27% said they were better off, 20% said they were worse off, and 52% said they were about the same as a year ago.

But optimism abounds heading into 2006, as more than twice as many respondents said they expect to be better off than worse off one year from now. Fully one-third (34%) said they expect things to get better in the coming year, while just 14% predicted things will get worse. One in two said things will remain about the same.

The survey showed the war in Iraq is far and away the most important issue to voters. A majority of Democrats (60%) say they “strongly oppose� it, as do 41% of union households and 40% of those households containing a member of the military.

“President Bush wanted his presidency to be all about the war in Iraq, and that’s exactly what it is,� Mr. Zogby said.

Asked if the war was worth it, the nation is badly split. While 78% of Democrats said “no,� 54% of independents said “no,� but just 14% of Republicans said it was not. A plurality (48%) said the U.S. should begin a phased pull-out from Iraq in the next few months, while just 13% said a withdrawal should start immediately because U.S. soldiers are now the target of the insurgency. Another 37% said U.S. troops should stay until Iraqi soldiers are trained to deal with insurgents because to do otherwise would encourage the insurgents and could lead to a terrorist state there.

A majority (54%) said they believe the war in Iraq will be won by the U.S., and the same percentage believe the U.S. will win the war on terror.

Democrats want their leaders to make modest compromises on their principles in order to win over voters from the middle of the political spectrum, while most Republicans want their leaders to stand firm on issues, even if it means losing moderate support, the poll shows. While 61% of Democrats agreed it was better to compromise to win broader support, just 44% of Republicans agreed. Independents, by a 58% majority, agreed that softening some ideological stances to attract moderates was the best strategy.

The survey showed that 93% of Independents, 63% of Republicans, and 79% of Democrats wanted candidates who were independent of party leaders and were willing to compromise to get things done.

(12/14/2005)

From Truthout! Rumsfeld can authorize torture

Rumsfeld Can Authorize Torture under New Directive
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111005Y.shtml
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld can authorize exceptions to a new Defense Department policy on military interrogations that bars torture and calls for “humane” treatment of detainees, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Why Bush’s Case For Iraq Was Different (And False)

from American progress:

To justify the war against Iraq, the Bush administration made a number of exaggerated and misleading claims about the Iraqi threat that went far beyond the public statements issued by the Clinton administration. Going beyond the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration made a unique case on two specific fronts to justify the war: the supposed connections to al Qaeda and the Iraqi nuclear threat. The administration argued that the evidence in these two areas amounted to a “grave and gathering threat” in a “post-September 11th world.” On the eve of the Iraq war, Bush said, “The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.” The imagery was clear: terrorists, such as those that attacked on 9/11, could do far greater damage with nuclear weapons, and the Iraqi regime was helping to make that scenario a reality. In fact, the evidence behind the supposed Iraq/al Qaeda connection and the evidence on the nuclear threat have turned out to be the weakest links in the case for war.

FALSE CLAIM — IRAQ WAS TRAINING AL QAEDA: The New York Times reported this weekend that the Bush administration was warned in February 2002 that its evidence for the claim that Iraq was providing weapons training to al Qaeda was based on the tales of a non-credible witness. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported at the time that the detained al Qaeda terrorist “could not name any Iraqis involved, any chemical or biological material used or where the training occurred. As a result, ‘it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers.’” Yet, despite this knowledge, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used the evidence in his U.N. presentation, and the administration repeated the claim over the next two years. In fact, even after the al Qaeda source recanted his earlier claims of an Iraq/al Qaeda link in January 2004, Vice President Cheney was still repeating it months later.

FALSE CLAIM — BUSH AND CHENEY LINKED IRAQ TO AL QAEDA AND 9/11: In a letter to Congress on March 21, 2003, Bush justified the Iraq war by arguing he was going after al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist network. Bush wrote, “I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with” the need to take action against “persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” Later, Cheney said it was “not surprising” that the American public was making a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

FALSE CLAIM — WHITE HOUSE HAD REASON TO KNOW AL QAEDA LINK WAS FALSE: Every piece of evidence offered by the administration to justify the link has been rejected, as the 9-11 Commission made clear. The claims that bin Laden and Iraq had joined forces at a meeting in Sudan has been debunked. The claim that Zarqawi was evidence of an Iraq/al Qaeda link has been debunked. The 9-11 Commission debunked the claim that 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraq intelligence officials. And a claim that a high-ranking al Qaeda member was an officer in Saddam Hussein’s private militia was also debunked. There is evidence suggesting the White House knew all this prior to the invasion. Former White House counterterrorism director Paul Kurtz “wrote in a memo to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that no ‘compelling case’ existed for Iraq’s involvement in the attacks and that links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s government were weak.” Similarly, another former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, informed the White House that no “compelling case” could be found for an al Qaeda link.

FALSE CLAIM — NUCLEAR THREAT: Bush argued in his 2003 State of the Union that Iraq was close to developing a nuclear weapon. He offered two pieces of evidence: 1) “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” and 2) Iraq “has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” On the first count, it has been well documented that the administration was warned at least three times not to claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The administration was also warned that its reliance on a Niger document was misplaced and that it should not rely on British intelligence. On the second count, Condoleezza Rice claimed the aluminum tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs” despite the fact that she had previously been informed that “the government’s foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.” The day before Bush’s 2003 State of the Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded the tubes “would not be suitable” for a nuclear program. The Department of Energy also published a dissenting view of the use of the aluminum tubes in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

ATROCITY THREATENS TO BECOME OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(Supreme Court)

(McCain Amendment)

The Senate amendment to the new Defense Appropriations Act would explicitly prohibit the U.S. government from subjecting those in its custody to cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. It’s pretty straightforward stuff. Yet despite a rousing 90-9 vote for its passage, there are still dark forces at work trying to subvert the intent of this measure, the language of which must survive the conference committee in the House of Representatives. If the morality perverters have their way, there will be a carve-out to exempt the CIA from this prohibition. They are seeking this with the express knowledge that sadists (acting under the color of CIA authority) have been responsible for the horrific abuses which made necessary further action and clarification of existing law. This exemption would in fact turn the measure on its head to AUTHORIZE torture by a particular agency, diametrically contrary to the amendment’s intent. They might as well appoint a “Torture Czar” and make it a cabinet level position. Actually, for all practical purposes we already have a torture czar . . . it’s the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. Yes, it is Cheney himself who is PERSONALLY pressuring the conference committee to rescind the McCain amendment in this way (just as he was pressuring CIA analysts in the cooking of the justification for war with Iraq). It has been Cheney himself who has taken a lead role from the beginning, talking in 2002 about the need to revive the “dark arts.” Since they could no longer keep the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and elsewhere classified, they have prosecuted a couple of selected patsies for these crimes, while their agency handlers right up through the chain of command have continued in their unconscionable ways. This is not to let the president himself off the hook. In the first place there is Bush’s own overreaching lust for absolute dictatorial power. Indeed, his longtime attorney and ally, Alberto Gonzales, put his name on the infamous Jan 25, 2002 memo, referring to the Geneva convention as “quaint.” But what many people do not realize is that the heart of that reprehensible legal pretzel job was drafted by David Addington, the staff attorney closely associated with Dick Cheney. And would anybody like to guess Mr. Addington’s current title in the White House? That’s right. He just replaced the indicted “Scooter” Libby as Cheney’s Chief of Staff. There isn’t a “talking head” out there not drinking their own “talking points Kool-Aid” who believes the Fitzgerald investigation is remotely close to being finished. If anything, the allegations in the Libby indictment, which identify Cheney as the one who specifically advised Libby that Valerie (Plame) Wilson worked under the covert wing of the CIA, suggest that the Vice President is at least one of the big game that the Special Counsel is still pursuing. The tight-lipped Fifth Amendment-type reactions given by Cheney in the aftermath of the indictment to explain his own role in the leak scandal do nothing to dispel the intrigue. Instead the administration is circling the torture-advocate wagons even tighter with the promotion of Addington, while the shadow of Traitorgate continues to darken over their heads. Especially now, with the chickens of treason coming home to roost in the nest of the chicken hawks themselves, this is the last time in history for the authors of torture as official American policy to be allowed to push for largesse for even wider atrocities. We must all immediately contact our senators and members of the House of Representatives who might have influence on the conference committee to demand that the overwhelmingly approved language of the McCain amendment remain intact in the final Defense Appropriations Bill.

ACTION FORM: (McCain Amendment)

We must also recognize that this is profoundly related to the selection of a replacement for Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee. Remember — one of the talking points of the neocons (before they turned on her for not being sufficiently and demonstrably loyal to their causes) was that she would support the president’s policies in the deceptively dubbed “war on terror.” But the universal common denominator of all Bush appointees is their submissive endorsement of the unlimited expansion of the president’s power to do whatever he likes in defiance of Congress and even the people themselves. In his own confirmation hearing Roberts refused to say (among other things) whether the Congress would have the power to stop a war if the president ignored their authority. That case might come before him, he argued, as if he knew something we didn’t. And it most certainly will if Bush is not stopped from making any more such appointments. Roberts and his ilk will not legislate from the bench (as if that were the boogie man to be feared). No, instead they will UN-legislate from the bench, perhaps even to remove the McCain language from American law by court order on the grounds that it would interfere with the power of the president to play God. Remember also that in his first day on the bench of the high court Roberts left the sheep’s clothing in his chambers to ask aggressively why they should not overturn the TWICE-expressed will of the people in the Oregon “Right to Die” case. For all of these reasons we must demand that the next nominee to the Supreme Court be a true moderate and a true nonpartisan. One of the truly beautiful things about Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is that the American people can look at his work and agree that it will be based entirely on the facts and the law. Even opposing attorneys of those he has indicted must concede that he is unwavering in his fairness and his integrity, favoring neither side by any inherent bias. We can demand no less from the next justice to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

ACTION FORM: (Supreme Court)

If we all speak out, we can remove the Vice President from his position as the torture czar. It’s not as if he doesn’t have enough other black hats to wear; he’s already serving in the capacity of treason czar as it is. Sheriff Fitzgerald is working on that last one. The rest is up to we the people. or to get no more simply email to no_more@trotm.com

From Consortium News

Libby & Nuclear Secrets to China
Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s indicted ex-aide, gained insights into how intelligence can be manipulated for political gain as a key adviser to a 1999 investigation into the loss of U.S. nuclear secrets to China. Although the evidence pointed to security breaches during the Reagan-Bush years, the probe focused blame on Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. November 4, 2005

N.Y. Times admits Miller was a Bush shill

Check out this letter they release right before the indictments. I guess this is suppossed to help them save face.(?)