George W. Bush Resume

[Anonymous]

George W. Bush Resume


Past work experience:
     
 Ran for congress and lost.
 Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
 
Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly afte I sold all my stock.

 Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the  Chicago White Sox.

 With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments:

Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies
and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America.

Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution
than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.  
(http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
 
Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.


First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace
and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight
down.


Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker
They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for
war-profiteering.)

[Scott D]

But I will vote again for him......most of the shit you put in your post was the outcome of Dick Head Clinton. I also support the military decisions he has made thus far. Other then military power...most of the decisions are made through congress anyhow. I cant imagine what would of happened if Clinton or Gore were president when 9/11 took place, I just thank God they were not! Bush is the first president in my generation that I have seen actually stand up and state his beliefs and not care if he might have a small group not agree. I am sooo sick of politicians and people in general who will say or do what only other people want or want to hear. Many people did not want him as president because he was not as good at public speaking compared to Clinton. I have spoke to people that voted for Clinton because of his ability to "smooz" people in his speaking and they admitted it. Our society is (especially younger generation) is so selfish and blind to worldly things and the future. Most only seem to worry about what is effecting them at this moment in their home and their job and their little social life. I hear people say that they don't even know why we are over in Iraq or why did we really need to get and find Sadam. How are people so blind??? I love to talk to people like my grandfather who served in WWII and hear his thoughts on whats happening today. How many people did ya see in all the various protests against us going to Iraq did ya see that were over the age of 50- 55......I saw none, not one single person that was older then 55......Ironic? I don't think so. I 100% support our president and all of our soilders, God bless them all! Osama, your time is coming....we'll get ya.

[animals all of us]

Damn.  I wonder if everyone realizes that the whoever the next president is will surely have an easier time of getting elected as opposed to Bush's ever getting re elected.
Didn't he or his father have involvement with Straight Incorporated.  Did Bush ever accept any money for his efforts toward the War on Drugs ?  Did he ever take money from Sembler for his campaign ?

[Scott D]

Oh For God Sake....You are fuckin incredible. Are you french? because that would explain a lot.I apologize, I don't mean to throw insults at you........it just blows my mind that the blaming never stops and again it just seems like people only care about themselves. We are all adults now and I refuse to let my Straight experience and some of the bad shit that I went through in there control my life today. I do not and will not use Straight to hide behind anymore when life is dealing me shit. Everything I do is by my choice now and what ever I go through in life is typically only a  result from a choice. If Straight stole something from you like it did me, why still give it more of your time?? Then you are choosing to allow it to steal from you. I say fuck that! There are way to many important things in my life to devote my time to and certainly more imortant things going on in this world and in america to concern myself with.

[Don Smith]

On 2003-12-16 16:02:00, animals all of us wrote:

"Damn.  I wonder if everyone realizes that the whoever the next president is will surely have an easier time of getting elected as opposed to Bush's ever getting re elected.

I think Bush has a better chance of getting re-elected than Kerry or Dean.

Don

[Froderik]

Scott D I know how irritated you are. It would seem that it's paranoid or something, right? I know - fuck it, it's all bullshit. There's a part of me that wants to believe that it's all bullshit about Bush/Reagan...but the evidence is there. I have to face facts. Ifnone of this is making sense, I have an excuse. I've had a few beers. Cheers, buddy. Ginger or somebody will float you some info on this no doubt, and you may or may not want to check it out. Anyhow, life goes on and on and on till you die. Welcome to the board, I know that may be a belated welcome judging by your status. ::cheers::

Now looking back, your response was not in any way commenting on the politics of this thread. Oh, well. I hope you got something out of this anyway...

[kaydeejaded]

I vote for Clinton

At least he is not being charged with alleged prior knowlege (make sure the see the alleged so I :lol:  do not get sued lol) see the have you read it or the open free for all on the main board. Bush and Cheney are being brought to court for having prior information on 9/11.

That you cannot argue with vote for that. I'd laugh if it weren't so fucking sick.

I wish it were I sweeter victory. I never did like him. ie: Bush. Prolly never be convicted but still. Look on the main page on the forum or better yet http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html
there you go his court case your boy Bush indited.

and Cheney. hmmm

I wish that it wasn't true, I hope to God really that it is not because IF IT IS then that means he is a bloody mass murderer the same as Osama Bin Laden .....

**disclamer Alleged disclamer alleged discalmer ***

Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.
--Friedrich Nietzsche

[Froderik]

I never liked his pumpkin-headed ass either, or his dad, same difference. But part of me wants to learn to live with these corrupt mofos. What can I say? Clinton's a bag of shit too, and I'm sure you realize that. But I ain't voting for NOBODY!!!!

[ This Message was edited by: Froderik13 on 2003-12-16 19:36 ]

[kaydeejaded]

argh banging head!!! Just this next election vote non republican Just vote non Bush just this one time and then

never vote again

 :sad:

Understand that legal and illegal are political, and often arbitrary,
categorizations; use and abuse are medical, or clinical, distinctions.

--Abbie Hoffman

[Froderik]

Well, you mean presidential vote I guess? That ain't asking too much. I'll do it!

[kaydeejaded]

::cheers::

The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.


--Thomas Sowell

[ClayL]

IT seems that Bush is going to have a much easier time getting re-elected that you might think. His war seems to be going quite well and the people of Iraq are starting to believe that WE are in it for the long haul. The economy is doing very well and is grow faster than it did under Clinton. All the indicators and predictions are showing that most majors company's will be hiring in the first quarter of next year, something that hasn't happened in a VERY long time. All of Bush's policies are coming to bear a nicely sweet fruit. The thing I would really like to see is the GOP make a real issue of the Democratic cry-babies in the Senate and gain a stronger majority there. Further, I would like to see the use the encumbent protection act to lambast the Dems for not following the rules the Dem pressed and voted for. Also, I'd like to see a cap on damages for pain and suffering, malpractice and so forth. Check out http://www.overlawyered.com and you'll see what I mean.

The thing that I find funny is the only thing the Dems can think of to bitch about is that tired 'ole, "he stole the election." Their ammonition continues to erode.

On the down side I will admit that I dislike the continued drug war stupidity, and the continued erosion of my rights to privacy, which started under that Clinton person. There are a few other things I dislike also, but non of the make me want to vote for those socialists running against him.

To be honest, The Dems don't offer much that I find appealing.

CL

[ClayL]

IT seems that Bush is going to have a much easier time getting re-elected that you might think. His war seems to be going quite well and the people of Iraq are starting to believe that WE are in it for the long haul. The economy is doing very well and is grow faster than it did under Clinton. All the indicators and predictions are showing that most majors company's will be hiring in the first quarter of next year, something that hasn't happened in a VERY long time. All of Bush's policies are coming to bear a nicely sweet fruit. The thing I would really like to see is the GOP make a real issue of the Democratic cry-babies in the Senate and gain a stronger majority there. Further, I would like to see the use the encumbent protection act to lambast the Dems for not following the rules the Dem pressed and voted for. Also, I'd like to see a cap on damages for pain and suffering, malpractice and so forth. Check out http://www.overlawyered.com and you'll see what I mean.

The thing that I find funny is the only thing the Dems can think of to bitch about is that tired 'ole, "he stole the election." Their ammunition continues to erode.

On the down side I will admit that I dislike the continued drug war stupidity, and the continued erosion of my rights to privacy, which started under that Clinton person. There are a few other things I dislike also, but none of them make me want to vote for those socialists running against Bush.

To be honest, The Dems don't offer much that I find appealing.

CL

[ This Message was edited by: ClayL on 2003-12-17 06:13 ]

[Antigen]

I'd like to see a Republican, other than Ron Paul, actually cut, rather than increase, some government spending. Wouldn't that be a nice, refreshing change of pace?

Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic
for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has
happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to
the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail,
there will be anarchy throughout the world.

http://www.marshfield.net/History/webster.htm' target='_new'>Daniel Webster

[Hamiltonf]

Reviewing the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein on the day of his capture by American troops, some media described  yet again the gassing of civilians at Halabja in March 1988:

?It was an atrocity met by a stony silence from the West who at that stage regarded the Iraqi president as a much needed ally in the Middle East.? (December 14, 2003)

In fact the British government?s view of the atrocity was expressed loud and clear in its doubling of export credits to Baghdad, which rose from £175 million in 1987 to £340 million in 1988. A UK Department of Trade and Industry press release of November 1988 described how ?this substantial increase reflects the confidence of the British government in the long term strength of the Iraqi economy and the opportunities for an increased level of trade between our two countries following the ceasefire in the Gulf War?. (Quoted, Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, Vintage, 2003, p.36)

Five months after Halabja, the British govt. noted in a secret report that ?opportunities for sales of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq will be considerable?. In October 1989, British Foreign office minister William Waldegrave wrote of Iraq: ?I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed? and that ?the priority of Iraq in our policy should be very high?. (Ibid, p.37)

In the first year after Halabja, the British government steadfastly REFUSED TO ACCEPT that its ally had used chemical weapons, stating that the evidence ?was compelling but not conclusive?. Human Rights Watch reported recently that the evidence it collected on Halabja at the time was simply ignored by the Foreign Office. The British government, it seems, was ?singularly unreceptive? as was the US. (Ibid)

On August 18, 2002, the New York Times reported how in the 1980s the Reagan administration secretly provided ?critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war?. Walter Lang, a former senior US defence intelligence officer added: ?The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was NOT A MATTER OF DEEP STRATEGIC CONCERN.?

The Times? story was quickly buried and forgotten.

Soon after Halabja, the US approved the export of virus cultures and a $1 billion contract to design and build a petrochemical plant that the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas. Profits were the bottom line. Indeed ?so powerful was the grip of the pro-Baghdad lobby on the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan?, Dilip Hiro notes in the Observer, ?that it got the White House to foil the Senate's attempt to penalise Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons to which it was a signatory?. (Hiro, ?When US turned a blind eye to poison gas?, The Observer, September 1, 2002)

THE US CONTINUED TO SUPPORT IRAQ AFTER THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR BECAUSE OF "OUR DUTY TO SUPPORT US EXPORTS" the State Department declared in early 1990. (Quoted Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, Routledge, 2003, p.111)

Recent reports by the US Senate?s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban affairs, reveal that the US SOLD ANTHRAX, NERVE GAS WEST NILE FEVER GERMS AND BOTULINUM TO IRAQ UP UNTIL MARCH 1992 , even after the 1991 Gulf War, and four years after Halabja.

This is the same ?pragmatic? Western approach being pursued now in support of mass murderers in Russia, Turkey, Colombia (IN THE NAME OF THE "WAR ON DRUGS", Algeria and elsewhere ? leaders who could become the next ?new Hitler? at the drop of a hat were they ever to repeat Saddam?s mistake by crossing the West.

Warning shots were fired earlier this year when the Turkish government refused to allow a US land attack on Iraq from its borders.  85% OF TURKS DEMOCRATICALLY OPPOSED TURKEY BEING USED AS A BASE  BY US. Having consistently ignored atrocities against Turkish Kurds with US weapons, the US media suddenly began writing of ?Turkey?s ghastly record of torturing, killing, and ?disappearing? Turkish Kurds and destroying more than 3,000 of their villages.? (Editorial, Boston Globe, March 6, 2003).  (Nice spin -- White House)

The murderous history of crucial, vigorous US-UK support for Iraqi crimes is rewritten by the media  as the West responding with ?a stony silence? ? disapproving, we might presume, but helpless to intervene.


Very Important And Very Ironic

Why has ?the Left? so abjectly failed to support the people of Iraq by opposing the war to topple their tyrant? So asks Nick Cohen in the Observer:

?Just before the war, Jose Ramos-Horta, one of the leaders of the struggle for independence of East Timor, looked on the anti-war protesters and asked: 'Why did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people?'.? (Cohen, ?By the left... about turn?, The Observer, December 14, 2003)

Cohen?s comments are a good example of exact mainstream truth-reversal. While media commentators had next to nothing to say about the West?s COMPLICITY IN SADDAM'S ATROCITIES - just as they have nothing to say about support for Turkey, Russia and Colombia?s atrocities now - dissidents vigorously opposed Western support for the tyrant. In 1992, Jeff Cohen of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described how the media, shrieking with horrified outrage at Saddam?s crimes now, responded at the time he was actually committing those crimes with U.S. AND BRITISH  support:

"During that whole period when the United States was helping build up the military and economic might of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the issue of his human rights abuses was off the media agenda. There was this classic in the New York Post, a tabloid in New York. After the [Gulf] crisis began, they had a picture of Saddam Hussein patting the British kid on the head and their banner headline was 'Child Abuser'. That was very important to us and very ironic, because Amnesty International and other human rights groups had released studies in 1984 and 1985 which showed that Saddam Hussein's regime REGULARLY TORTURED CHILDREN to get information about their parents' views. (OF COURSE IN THE us TODAY, POLICE USE D.A.R.E. PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS TO GET INFORMATION OF THEIR PARENT'S DRUG HABITS  Hamf's note)That just didn't get the coverage.

?It shows one of the points FAIR has made constantly: that when a foreign government is in favour with the United States, with the White House, its human rights record is basically off the mainstream media agenda, and when they do something that puts them out of favour with the US government, the foreign government's human rights abuses are, all of a sudden, major news." (Jeff Cohen in conversation with David Barsamian - Stenographers To Power, Common Courage Press, 1992, p.142)

Even this level of media subservience was insufficient for US leaders in the 1980s and 1990s. When a delegation led by Majority Leader and future presidential candidate Bob Dole visited Saddam in April 1990, they conveyed President Bush?s greetings and assured Saddam that his problems did not lie with the US government but with ?the haughty and pampered [US] press?. Senator Alan Simpson advised Saddam to ?invite them to come here and see for themselves?. Dole assured Saddam that a commentator who had been critical of Iraq on Voice of America had been removed. (Quoted Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, op., cit, p.112)

On the same news special, ITN?s International Editor Bill Neely added of a possible war crimes trial:

?Awkward things will come out of this trial. Saddam will love saying, ?Who backed me in the 1980s? Who armed me? Who gave me the weapons of mass destruction? Why, the United States!??

The exposure of participation in crimes consistently described as ?genocidal? by the media is merely ?awkward?.

Other media  have made a similarly fleeting gestures in the direction of truth in reviewing Saddam?s life over (one more time) footage from Halabja:

?Saddam Hussein has not always been our enemy. Indeed he was our ally when he committed this atrocity.

?And he was supported by Britain and the US in the catastrophic war against neighbouring Iran, an eight-year titanic struggle which left a million dead and in which Saddam Hussein again used chemical weapons. But for the West he was a useful bulwark against the spread of Ayatollah Khomeini?s branch of radical Islam, and so support of him was maintained.? (Omaar, BBC1, December 14, 2003)

In fact Saddam was an ally of the West long before Iran?s Islamic revolution in 1979 and long before (and after) the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Author Roger Morris observes:

"As its instrument the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the CIA in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein...
 
"According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. USING LISTS OF SUSPECTED COMMUNISTS AND OTHER "LEFTISTS" PROVIDED BY THE C.I.A.  the Baathists SYSTEMATICALLY MURDERED UNTOLD NUMBERS OF IRAQ'S EDUCATED ELITE  - killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated." (Morris, ?A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making,? The New York Times, March 14, 2003)

As we have seen, the ?duty to support US exports? meant that the US continued to support Saddam long after Iran?s capitulation ended the Iran-Iraq war in 1988.

Again, vague comments of how Saddam had been an ?ally? who ?was supported by Britain and the US? was as much as the BBC had to say in its 35-minute report. Vast crimes against humanity, direct and vital US-UK involvement in mass killing ? why bother with details? The emphasis on Saddam as a ?bulwark? against ?radical Islam? is classic media distortion transforming the horrific subordination of human beings to profit and power into a reasoned act of self-defence against the ?mad Mullahs? that the public have been trained to hate and fear.

As ever, while detailing Saddam?s crimes in minute detail, it was impossible for the media to suggest that Western support for the Iraqi tyrant might have been something other than a random blip; that it might have been part of a well-documented and extremely consistent pattern in US and UK foreign policy.

To sample at random, a month after the CIA, with British support, helped install a regime which went on to kill some 200,000 people in Guatemala, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden wrote to the newly-installed puppet:

?Please convey to His Excellency the President the good wishes of Her Majesty?s Government and accept the assurance of my highest consideration.? (Quoted, Mark Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power, Zed Books, 1995, p.154)

The Shah of Iran, also installed by a CIA coup, presided over a boiling bloodbath of torture and killing. As the death toll peaked, President Carter declared:

?Iran under the great leadership of the Shah is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership, and to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you.? (Quoted, James Bill, Foreign Affairs, Winter, 1978-79)

In 1983 Vice President Bush expressed his admiration for Romanian dictator Ceaucescu?s political and economic progress and his ?respect for human rights?. (Quoted, Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, op., cit, p.113)

Current favourites include dictators in Central Asia ? Uzbekistan?s Karimov and Turkmenistan?s Niyazov, for example - serving US interests in resource-rich areas. US assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, William Burns, says Washington has ?much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism?. (Ibid, p.115) This of the generals who have subjected the country to a reign of terror since the country?s first democratic elections were cancelled having produced the wrong result in 1991 - victory for an Islamist party. The list goes on...

Our journalists somehow fail to notice the entire historical record (including state documentation), and find nothing strange in the fact that the West has long supported the likes of Suharto, Pinochet, the Shah, Papa and Baby Doc, Somoza, Galtieri, Trujillo, Diem, Amin, et al.

The US and UK select, arm, install and protect these thugs because an ?iron fist? is required to ensure ?good investment climates? in the Third World.

A good investment climate means low cost access to resources, unimpeded by democratic constraints. Low cost access means poverty wages, no welfare safety system (which would give the poor an option other than working for poverty wages), no trade unions (which might seek to improve the condition of the poor), no community organisations (which might threaten to raise costs by enabling peasants to organise against exploitation). Workers should have minimal rights: no restrictions on hours worked, no safety standards, no restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides and banned Western products generally, all of which would increase costs.

The consistent nature of Western foreign policy suggests that focusing on individual leaders and parties ? finding cause for optimism in Tony Blair?s endearing smile or George Bush?s Christian faith ? is a gross form of self-deception at best. Policy flows from a stable framework of domestic power pursuing similar goals in similar ways over many decades.

This institutional framework is rooted, not just in greed, but in the limitless greed of corporate fundamentalism ? there are no limits, no acceptable costs that have to be tolerated where they can be avoided. People pay the price.


Ask the media why they have so little to say about US and UK complicity in the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. Cut and paste and send them all or part of this Media Alert ? ask the journalists and editors in your area why they have failed to mention these readily available facts.