Die ehemalige US-Außenministerin Madeleine Albright hat heftige Vorwürfe gegen Präsident George W. Bush erhoben. Außenpolitisch habe er auf ganzer Linie versagt. Das Ansehen Amerikas in der Welt sei ruiniert.
Madeleine Albright: Die frühere US-Außenministerin kritisiert Bush
Washington - Mit den persönlichen Attacken gegen George W. Bush beginnt ein Spendenaufruf von Bill Clintons Ex-Außenministerin. Madeleine Albright wirbt in dem Schreiben für den designierten demokratischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten John Kerry.
"Der jetzige Präsident hat unsere Verbündeten gespalten, das Wohlwollen unserer Freunde verspielt, unsere Glaubwürdigkeit untergraben, unsere Streitkräfte überfordert", schreibt Albright. Sie fährt fort: "Und er hat darin versagt, einen gezielten und effektiven Kampf gegen die Terroristen zu führen, die Amerika angegriffen haben und damit drohen, es wieder zu tun."
Dagegen lobt Albright John Kerry als Mann mit großer Führungsqualität. "Er wird eine Alternative bieten zu der extremen und spaltenden Politik der vergangenen drei Jahre", schreibt die Ex-Ministerin. Kerry werde im Wahlkampf Vorschläge machen, wie "Amerikas Interessen verteidigt und sein Ansehen in der Welt wieder hergestellt werden" können. Über konkrete Inhalte von Kerrys zukünftiger Politik ließ sie sich nicht aus.
Bereits im vergangenen Jahr kritisierte Albright den amerikanischen Präsidenten in einem Interview mit dem französischen Radiosender "Europe 1", als sie sagte, Bushs Außenpolitik sei "nicht gut für die Welt".
Die promovierte Politologin wurde 1996 die erste weibliche Außenministerin der Vereinigten Staaten, nachdem sie zuvor ihr Land als Botschafterin bei den Vereinten Nationen vertreten hatte. Im Jahr ihrer Ernennung zur Außenministerin machte sie zum Irak eine Bemerkung, die ihren Ruf als "Iron Lady" endgültig zementierte. Damals wurde sie in einem Fernsehinterview in der amerikanischen "CBS"-Sendung "60 Minutes" auf die US-Sanktionen gegen den Irak angesprochen. Die Frage lautete: "Wir haben gehört, eine halbe Million Kinder sind gestorben. Das sind mehr als Menschen in Hiroshima gestorben sind. Ist das nicht ein zu hoher Preis?" Albrights Antwort war: "Ich denke, es ist eine sehr schwere Wahl, aber - wir denken, der Preis ist nicht zu hoch."
(UPDATED!) In November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of the independent 9-11 Commission, President Bush declared, "we must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."At that time, Bush also said that the "investigation should carefully examine all the evidence and follow all the facts, wherever they may lead."
The Bush administration has stonewalled both the joint Congressional committee and the 9-11 Commission to the point that the Commission's Republican chairman has been forced to issue subpoenas.
With respect to the Presidential Daily Briefings sought by the Commission, the administration will only permit them to be viewed by a small portion of the Commission and reserves the right to edit them beforehand.Vietnam war hero and former Senator Max Cleeland condemned the restrictions as unconscionable.Commission member Timothy Roemer complained, "our members may see only two or three paragraphs out of a nine-page report."The administration has limited the number of commission.
Among other things, the administration has (i) withheld intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11, (ii) refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings-including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"-were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them; (iii) claimed that Bush's awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information-an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets; and (iv) withheld FAA documents relating to tracking of the hijacked airliners on 9-11.
Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials.(7)
After the attacks, Ari Fleischer stated that the President had no warnings of an attack and President Bush explained "[n]ever [in] anybody's thought processes . . . did we ever think that the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets . . . never."
Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." which mentioned bin Laden's desire to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes.The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that "will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests."
The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6th briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.
Also that summer intelligence reports indicated that (i) Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols which stand out"; (ii) there was a threat to assassinate Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit using an airplane stuffed with explosives; (iii) al-Qaeda was planning an attack using multiple airplane hijackings; and (iv) that bin Laden was in advanced stages of executing a significant operation within the US.
In February 2001, the Hart-Rudman report warned that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern" and that the US was woefully unprepared for a "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attack.
Intelligence reports from 1998 indicated that Bin Laden had a plot involving explosive laden aircraft in the New York and D.C. areas while a 2000 report mentioned that possible Bin Laden targets included the Statue of Liberty, skyscrapers and nuclear power plants.(1)
Similarly, in 1994 Algerians hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention to fly it into the Eiffel Tower; in 1995 Philippine authorities uncovered an al Qaeda plot to fly a plane into CIA headquarters; and there were al Qaeda plots in 1996 and 1997 to fly a plane from outside the US into the White House and World Trade Center.(4)
The National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise in which a small corporate jet would crash into an office tower following equipment failure for the morning of September 11th.(6)
After CBS broke the story about the August 6th memo, Condoleezza Rice contended that the "overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas."
The August 6th memo refers to bin Laden's desire to strike in the US. (1)
Bush repeatedly has claimed to have watched the first airplane striking the WorldTradeCenter on TV just before entering a classroom at a Florida elementary school and thought "'there's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off there - I didn't have much time to think about it.And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, `A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack"
This is impossible since there was no live coverage of the first plane crash and no video emerged until the following day.(3)
After September 11th, Condoleezza Rice denied attending a transition briefing in which Clinton NSC Advisor Sandy Berger warned that "the Bush administration would spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." Rice's spokesperson said she recalled no briefing where Berger was present.
Rice spoke with a New York Times reporter after the briefing who then reported that "Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning.According to both of them, he said that the war on terrorism - and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it - would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined."
The Bush administration ignored this warning, focusing on Star Wars and restructuring the military instead.In fact, Rumsfeld threatened a veto when Congress proposed to shift $0.6 billion from Star Wars to counter-terror programs. (5)
Under pressure from the White House, the Environmental Protection Agency assured the public that the New York City air was safe to breathe a week after 9-11.
"I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breath[e] and their water is safe to drink."Christie Todd Whitman in EPA Press Release9/18/01.
The EPA omitted warnings about potential health effects from airborne dust containing asbestos, lead, glass fibers and concrete.For example Air particulates in Manhattan one month after the attack were at higher levels than the Kuwaiti oil fires.In addition, the EPA claim that the air was safe to breathe was done without any monitoring data to support it.
The White House edited a draft EPA release (9/13) that EPA was "testing terrorized sites for environmental hazards" to EPA "reassures public about environmental hazards."Another press release (9/16) was edited from "[r]ecent samples of dust . . . on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos" to "[n]ew samples confirm . . . ambient air quality meets OSHA standards."
The White House refused to talk with the EPA Inspector General investigating these claims.(2)
Sources: (1) The Left Coaster 07.14.03, Waterman - UPI 07.23.03, Priest - Washington Post 07.25.03, Dean - Findlaw.com 07.29.03, Ridgeway - Village Voice 07.31.03, Franken - Lies And The Liars Who Tell Them; (2) DemocracyNow.org 08.12.03, Heilprin - Washington Post 08.23.03, Noah - Slate 09.05.03, Meyers - NBCNews 09.03.03; (3) Schorrow - Boston Herald 10.22.02; (4) Plotz - Slate 09.10.03; (5) Franken - Lies and The Liars Who Tell Them, (6) Lumpkin - Associated Press 10.28.03; (7) The Daily Mis-Lead 10.27.03, Corn - BushLies.com, The Daily Mis-Lead 11.17.03.
THE BIG LIE: BUSH'S TAX GIVEAWAY
THE BIG 10
LIES:
FACTS:
#1 In 2000 and 2001 Bush promised that Social Security Funds would remain in a lockbox and that "we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens" since his budget projections are "cautious and conservative".
This is a classic case of The Big Lie and fuzzy math.The simple truth is that, due to Bush's $1.35 trillion giveaway, a $236 billion budget surplus has been wasted and we face a projected record deficit of $307 billion in 2004.Bush's 2004 budget will increase the national debt by $2-3 trillion and require that the government use the entire Social Security surplus to fund its deficits.(1)
#2 President Bush claimed that he requested his 2001 tax cuts because of the recession.
Bush's 2001 tax cuts are virtually identical to the tax package he campaigned on for more than a year during the end of the Clinton boom.(11)
#3 As the budget deficit emerged, Bush assured us that the deficits would be "small and temporary" while repeatedly claiming that during the 2000 campaign he said he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency, but never imagined he would have a "trifecta".When asked to identify when this occurred, the Bush administration claims it was during a 2000 Chicago campaign stop.
Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign.In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore.(2)
Bush's attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.(2)
#4 Faced with growing deficits, President Bush and Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, now claim that deficits do not matter and have no impact on interest rates.
As recent as 2002 the President said, "I'm mindful of what overspending can mean to interest rates or expectations of interest rates."As for Hubbard, the 2002 edition of his textbook "Money, the Financial System and the Economy" not only states that higher deficits increase interest rates but also provides a formula to calculate the increase in interest rates per dollar increase in spending or tax cuts.
In fact, in July 2003 interest rates on 10-year U.S. Treasuries jumped from 3.1% to almost 4%.Leading Treasury Secretary Snow to call the deficit "worrisome" and express concern that federal borrowing would crowd out private investment.
The International Monetary Fund concluded that Bush's fiscal policies "will make it more difficult to cope with the aging of the baby boom generation and will eventually crowd out investment and erode US productivity growth"; and called for the US to put in place a "credible fiscal framework" with the objective of balancing the budget.(3)
#5 In 2003, Bush offers a "stimulus package" that calls for $670 billion in additional tax cuts.Vice President Cheney argues the tax cuts are necessary to prevent a double dip recession.
Even the Bush friendly Economist rejects the notion that the $670 billion Bush plan is a "stimulus package.""Even by the Bush team's own numbers, this is not an efficient short-term stimulus package: it pumps only around $100 billion of the tax cuts into the economy over the next year.And most of the money goes to richer Americans, whom economists reckon are less likely to spend the additional cash than poorer ones."(4)
(UPDATED!) #6 Both Bush and Ari Fleischer proclaimed that a report by Blue-Chip economist concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if the President's tax proposals were adopted.
Bush also claimed that the tax cuts would create 344,000 new jobs per month and that it would result in increased incomes and living standards "for American workers".
No such report exists. (5)
As of September 30, 2003, there has only been a net gain of 57,000 jobs since the 2003 tax cuts became effective, while the economy lost a net of 2.75 million jobs since passage of the 2001 tax cuts.In addition, real wages have declined 1.2% on Bush's watch.(10)
#7 Bush and the Republicans claim that the 2003 tax cut proposal benefits all Americans and that ninety-two million Americans will receive an average of almost $1,100.
(UPDATED!) #8 The 2003 tax cuts will help reduce the deficit because the resulting economic growth will offset tax losses.
When the deficit for FYE 2003 was reported below projections at $374 billion, White House aides claimed that the deficit was on a "downward path."
Nearly one-third (31%) of all taxpayers, would receive nothing and 64 million taxpayers (nearly half [48%]) would get less than $100.The average taxpayer (i.e., taxpayers in the middle fifth 20%) would only get $289 under this proposal.In contrast, the top 1% of taxpayers would get $30,127 while those earning more than $1 million would get according nearly $90,200.(6)
The Congressional Budget Office (headed by a former Bush White House supply-sider) found that even under the more favorable "dynamic scoring" methodology the tax cuts would result in more than $1 trillion in deficits over the next five years alone and that the economic stimulus claims asserted by the White House were "not obvious."
The Comptroller General found the administration's claim that the tax cuts would help reduce the federal deficit to be "flat false."In order to balance the budget by 2013, the government would have to either (i) raise income taxes by 27 percent and cutting social security spending by 60 percent and defense spending by 73 percent or (ii) cutting all programs except for defense, homeland security, social security and Medicare by 40 percent.
The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation found that the tax cuts would have minimal effects initially and then the positive effects "are eventually likely to be outweighed by a reduction in national savings due to increasing federal deficits." The Committee also predicted job growth of between 230,000 to 90,000 jobs during the first five years, with no growth or job losses in the next five years. (7)
The $374 billion deficit does not include $87 billion for Iraq, $400 million for Medicare, $500 billion for increased defense spending and $1.8 trillion to make the "temporary" tax cuts permanent.(9)
#9 The Bush administration repeatedly low-balled budget projections in order to persuade Congress to pass its tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.The Bush administration's projection for FYE 2003 have been as follows:
In July 2003, the Bush administration announced that the deficit will reach $455 billion for FYE 2003.Without the Bush tax cuts, however, the deficit would be $278 billion.By 2011, these tax cuts will have cost $3.7 trillion.
The $455 billion estimate is deceptive, however, since (i) it does not even include the costs of U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which exceed $4 billion per month; but (ii) it does include the Social Security surplus.Without the Social Security surplus, the deficit would total $614 billion plus the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.(8)
#10 On April 24, 2003, Bush campaigned to make permanent all aspects of his 2001 tax plan stating that while Congress adopted his plan "the problem is they responded with a phased-in program.They said tax relief was important and tax relief should be robust, but they phased it in over a number of years - three years in some cases, five years in others and seven years.Listen, all I'm asking Congress to do is to take the tax relief package they've already passed, accelerate it to this year so that we can get this economy started and people can find work."
President Bush requested that the tax cuts be phased in over five year, both when he first offered the plan in 1999 and when he submitted it to Congress in February 2001, in order to minimize the total costs of the tax cuts.In essence, Bush sold a discounted version of his plan for political reasons, but now wants Americans to pay full price.(11)
Sources:(1) New York Times 02.04.03, McKenna - Globe and Mail 02.04.03, Conrad & Spratt - Washington Post 02.04.03; (2) New Republic 07.01.02, Washington Post 07.02.02, Alter - Newsweek 07.28.03; (3) New Republic 01.13.03, 01.20.03, Editors - Los Angeles Times 07.17.03, Harding - Financial Times 08.07.03; (4) L.A. Times 11.11.03, Economist 11.11.03, (5) Toedtman - Newsday 02.23.03, (6) Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.cjt.org), The New Republic - 02.10.03, (7) New York Times 04.06.03, Washington Post 05.14.03, The Bush Economic Record: Will Short-Term Gain Lead to Long-Term Prosperity or Long-Term Pain; (8) Weisman - Washington Post 07.16.03, Editors - Washington Post 07.16.03,Editors - New York Times 07.17.03; Krugman - New York Times 07.18.03, Los Angeles Times 10.07.03 (9) Minneapolis Star Tribune 10.23.03;(10)The Daily Mis-Lead 10.03.03, The Daily Mis-Lead11.05.03; (11) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, War Tax Cuts and the Deficit 07.08.03.
Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap
In addition, in February 2003 Congressional Democrats began to press this case, launching a campaign on the Bush "credibility gap" on budget matters.
LIE:In May 2003, President Bush signed into law tax cut legislation which excluded low and moderate income families from the expanded child tax credit.The White House promised to address this omission. FACT:It has been over six months since the White House's promise and no action has been taken to date.(Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee)
See Running Clock On Failure to Address Child Tax Credit:http://www.dscc.org/welcome/
LIE:During the campaign, Bush claimed that the "vast majority" of the tax cuts go the "those at the bottom end of the economic ladder
FACT:The bottom sixty percentile received only 12.6 percent of the proposed tax cut, while the top one percent would receive almost half.(Franken - Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Corn - The Nation 10.13.03)
LIE:The Bush administration reported a $158 billion deficit for 2002 by reporting expenses when paid not when incurred.
FACT:Had the Bush administration used accrual method of accounting as recommended by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, the 2002 deficit would increase by 230% to $365 billion.
LIE:The Bush administration promised in late 2002 to repeal the loophole that allows US companies who incorporate off-shore in order to avoid taxes to receive contracts from the Homeland Security Department.
FACT:Bush has not taken any action on this issue.(Ackerman - Newsweek 07.28.03)
LIE:In light of his promise to keep Social Security in a lock box, the Bush administration promised to preserve surpluses "at least the size of the Social Security surplus" as a "threshold condition of public finance."
FACT:Bush's 2004 budget requires the government to use the entire Social Security surplus to fund deficits over the next ten years. (Conrad & Spratt - Washington Post 02.04.03)
LIE:The "tax relief I propose will give 23 million small-business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 this year."
FACT:Most small businesses will get a tax break of less than $500 and nearly 25% will get nothing."The average is more than $2,000 only because a small number of very wealthy businessmen will get huge cuts."(Krugman - New York Times 01.21.03)
LIE: "To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax."
FACT:The American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.Only the richest two percent pay estate taxes.(New York Times 04.08.01)
webradio
(deutsch)
michael moore 
Mondlandungs Lüge
Tages-Anzeiger online
the world according to marcosolo
Motorrad-trips in Nord Thailand