President Announces AIDS Medication Breakthrough

No, not the pretend president...the real president, who actually does things to help people

Deal to Give Children HIV / AIDS Treatment

NEW DELHI (AP) -- Former President Clinton announced Thursday that two Indian pharmaceutical companies had agreed to cut the prices of HIV and AIDS treatment for children, making the lifesaving drugs far more accessible worldwide.

The companies will supply drugs for HIV-positive children at prices as low as 16 cents a day, or less than $60 a year, alllowing an additional 100,000 HIV-positive children in 62 countries to receive treatment in 2007, the foundation said.

''This is a great day, but we have a long way to go. We have to make a new commitment that every child and adult would needs treatment should have access'' to the drugs, Clinton said. ''Though the world has made progress in expanding HIV/AIDS treatment to adults, children have been left behind. Only one in 10 children who needs treatment is getting it.''

Clinton announced the deal in a speech at a New Delhi children's hospital at the launch of a new Indian government program to treat HIV-positive children. World AIDS Day is Friday.

Under the drug agreement, the two companies -- Cipla Ltd. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. -- will supply 19 different antiretroviral formulations for prices about 45 percent less than the lowest current rates for these drugs in developing countries.

Countries including France, Brazil, Chile, Norway and Britain will provide $35 million and the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative will contribute $15 million.

The drugs will be supplied to the governments of the countries where the children live, for distribution through public health and HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Judge Blasts Bush for War on Katrina Victims

FEMA Told to Resume Storm Aid

Judge's Ruling May Affect Thousands On the Gulf Coast

By Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post

The Bush administration unconstitutionally denied aid to tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and must resume payments immediately, a federal judge ordered yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon said the Federal Emergency Management Agency created a "Kafkaesque" process that began cutting off rental aid in February to victims of the 2005 storms, did not provide clear reasons for the denials, and hindered applicants' due-process rights to fix errors or appeal government mistakes.

"It is unfortunate, if not incredible, that FEMA and its counsel could not devise a sufficient notice system to spare these beleaguered evacuees the added burden of federal litigation to vindicate their constitutional rights," Leon, a D.C. federal judge, wrote in a 19-page opinion.

"Free these evacuees from the 'Kafkaesque' application process they have had to endure," he wrote.

How Bush Built a Civil War

President Bush sent U.S. soldiers into Afghanistan in October 2001 to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

He failed to send U.S. troops after bin Laden at Tora Bora, allowing Afghan sympathizers to spirit the terrorist to safety in Pakistan, where he has been ensconced for the past five years. Bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of the 2,973 people who died in the September 11 attacks. Bush, in a brilliant stroke of legerdemain, persuaded Americans that capturing Osama, with whom his family had done business for decades, was no longer important. Saddam Hussein, who never attacked the United States, became the new bogeyman.

By whipping up a national frenzy for an unprovoked escapade in Iraq, the president bolstered his poll numbers and greatly helped Dick Cheney's Halliburton with $10 billion worth of contracts. He was not able, however, to bring peace and democracy to Iraq at the point of a gun. It did not help that his first action was to tell thousands of Iraqi men with weapons they were no longer wanted and cut off their income. By disbanding the army he set the stage for the civil war to follow.


If Americans thought the war would be over once U.S. soldiers marched into Baghdad and located those dangerous WMDs, they were sadly mistaken.

Bush's own chief arms inspector, David Kay, completely debunked the WMD myth last January. He reported there were no WMDs in Iraq, and probably hadn't been any for a decade.

Rather than declaring victory and withdrawing U.S. forces, Bush merely changed his rationale for the U.S. invastion and occupation. He said the U.S. would not leave until Iraqis had a constitution. Once that was achieved, warring factions went back to killing each other and U.S. soldiers. Bush changed his reason for keeping U.S. soldiers in Iraq one more time.

Despite growing opposition to the war among U.S. voters and our allies, the president continues to stick to an unattainable benchmark for withdrawing soldiers from Iraq's civil war: stability in a country with three armed sects who love killing each other.

One of Bush's main concerns now seems to be, not the safety of U.S. troops, but the increasing use by the media of the term civil war to describe the fighting in Iraq. Bush may be the last person on the planet who believes the fighting will be less nasty if you don't call it a civil war. He prefers to call it "sectarian violence."

"Anyone who still remains in doubt about whether this is civil war is suffering from the luxury of distance," CNN reporter Michael Ware reported Monday from Baghdad. Months ago, after the February 22 bombing of the holy Shiite mosque at Samarra, former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawai said “If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

RIGA, Latvia (AP) -- President Bush, under pressure to change direction in Iraq, said Tuesday he will not be persuaded by any calls to withdraw American troops before the country is stabilized.

''There's one thing I'm not going to do, I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,'' he said in a speech setting the stage for high-stakes meetings with the Iraqi prime minister later this week. ''We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.''

Iraq War Cost Skyrockets

Those with a good memory may recall that, just prior to launching the unprovoked war in Iraq, Bush officials estimated the conflict would cost approximate $60 billion. Some neocons even suggested that tapping into Iraq's oil revenue would make the war pay for itself. Now comes the hard, cold truth.

Military may ask $127B for wars

Total cost likely to top Vietnam War

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II.

The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year, which began last month, several lawmakers and congressional staff members said. That's on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007.

Since 2001, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on terror, roughly two-thirds for Iraq. The latest request, due to reach the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress next spring, would make the war on terror more expensive than the Vietnam War.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who will chair the Senate Budget Committee next year, said the amount under consideration is “$127 billion and rising.” He said the cost “is going to increasingly become an issue” because it could prevent Congress from addressing domestic priorities, such as expanding Medicare prescription drug coverage.

Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., who put the expected request at $160 billion, said such a sizable increase still “won't solve the problem” in Iraq.

Bill Hoagland, a senior budget adviser to Senate Republicans, said: “At a minimum, they were looking at $130 (billion). If it goes higher than that, I'm not surprised.”

The new request being considered for the war on terror would be about one-fourth what the government spends annually on Social Security — and 10 times what it spends on its space program.

Before the Iraq war began in 2003, the Bush administration estimated its cost at $50 billion to $60 billion, though White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey had suggested in 2002 that it could cost as much as $200 billion.

Growing opposition to the war contributed to Democrats' takeover of the House and Senate in this month's elections. Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, an early critic of the war who lost his bid Thursday to be the House Democratic leader, vowed to use his clout as chairman of the House panel that reviews the Pentagon budget “to get these troops out of Iraq and get back on track and quit spending $8 billion a month.”

Bush Approval Plummets Again

President Bush’s job approval rating has fallen to just 31 percent, according to the latest Newsweek Poll.

Bill Clinton’s lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Bush’s father’s was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan’s was 35 percent. Jimmy Carter’s and Richard Nixon’s lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively.


Bush can only pray that Democrats forgive him for maligning their patrotism and decide not to impeach him for lying to launch an unprovoked war in Iraq.

Most Americans are writing off the rest of Bush’s presidency; two-thirds (66 percent) believe he will be unable to get much done, up from 56 percent in a mid-October poll; only 32 percent believe he can be effective.

Presented with a list of factors that may have contributed to the Democrats’ success, 85 percent of Americans said the “major reason” was disapproval of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, 71 percent said disapproval of Bush’s overall job performance, 67 percent cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit, 63 percent said disapproval of the overall performance of Republicans in Congress, 61 percent said Democrats’ ideas and proposals for changing course in Iraq.

Bush Replaces Rummy with Another Retread

After his spanking at the polls, President Bush announced that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would take the fall for the unprovoked war in Iraq.



He's being replaced by yet another retread from Bush Senior's administration. Robert Gates was Poppy's CIA Director for 14 months. Instead of choosing someone with military and intelligence experience who would have the support of both parties, Bush went to his father's Rolodex and pulled out a partisan mired in scandal and accused by colleagues of doctoring information to suit his former boss.

Gates was caught up in Iran-Contra. The Reagan scheme used money from arms sales to Iran (yes, Iran!) to illegally finance rebels in Nicaragua, in direct violation of a law passed by Congress. A special investigator looking into the scandal in 1987 found that there was insufficient evidence that Gates knew what was going on under then-CIA Director Bill Casey. Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted for their roles in Iran-Contra.

Voters Slap Bush Upside the Head

George Bush finally made good on his pledge to be a uniter, not a divider. Tired of years of lies, hypocrisy, cronyism, bullying and corruption, voters went to the polls Tuesday, united in their determination to toss the rascal Republicans out of office.

In the biggest turnabout since the GOP took control of Congress in 1994 with a Contract On America, voters from red and blue states alike punished Republican incumbents for supporting President Bush's "Stay the Course" policy on the Iraq quagmire.

While the unprovoked war was uppermost on many voters' minds, they probably were also disgusted with tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, which shifted more of the tax burden to middle class and working class wage-earners. Voters may also remember that Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus, one that Bush quickly turned into the largest federal deficit in history.

The fact that Bush, for five years, slashed funds needed to strengthen levies in New Orleans, as part of his lame effort to pay down his tax cut and war deficit, probably didn't help. Nor did the abysmal federal response to Hurricane Katrina, which in large part was a result of Bush appointing incompetents to important posts, using the government as a patronage machine.

Bush Poison for GOP Candidates

Bush Snubbed in Florida

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) -- The closer the election came to the finish line, the more President Bush's aides battled the perception he was doing his party as much harm as good and was unwanted in many races.

On Monday, Bush jetted to a conservative corner of Florida's Panhandle, about as far as he could get from the state's three in-play House districts. To the White House's embarrassment and irritation, Republican Charlie Crist, whom Bush came to help in his bid to succeed the president's brother as governor, decided at the last minute to skip the chance to be by the president's side.

Crist chief of staff George LeMieux said the conservative Pensacola area was so firmly in his camp that it made more sense to campaign elsewhere in the state. Said Crist, "I'm glad he's come to our state, but I've got to get around Florida."

Still, Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, suggested that reporters see whether Crist would be able to hastily assemble anything like the Pensacola event, which drew about 7,000.

Bush ignored the dustup. "I strongly suggest you vote for Charlie Crist to be governor of the state of Florida," he said.

With Crist as a no-show, Bush was joined on stage by a host of Florida Republicans--but not by Republican Rep. Katherine Harris. She has run a much-panned Senate race that has had her Republican elders cringing and both the president and his brother keeping their distance.

Iraq Scoreboard and War Costs

U.S. death toll
2,942

WMDs
Zero


Bush Credibility
Zero

How Much Does the Iraq War Cost?
$2,000,000,000,000

By Linda Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
The Milken Institute Review

Two scholars, one a Nobel Prize winner, revisit their estimate of the true cost of the Iraq war - and find that $2 trillion was too low. They consider not only the current and future budgetary costs, but the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East.

In January, we estimated that the true cost of the Iraq war could reach $2 trillion, a figure that seemed shockingly high. But since that time, the cost of the war - in both blood and money - has risen even faster than our projections anticipated. More than 2,500 American troops have died and close to 20,000 have been wounded since Operation Iraqi Freedom began. And the $2 trillion number - the sum of the current and future budgetary costs along with the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted and oil prices driven higher by political uncertainty in the Middle East - now seems low.

One source of difficulty in getting an accurate picture of the direct cost of prosecuting the war is the way the government does its accounting. With "cash accounting," income and expenses are recorded when payments are actually made - for example, what you pay off on your credit card today - not the amount outstanding. By contrast, with "accrual accounting," income and expenses are recorded when the commitment is made. But, as Representative Jim Cooper, Democrat of Tennessee, notes, "The budget of the United States uses cash accounting, and only the tiniest businesses in America are even allowed to use cash accounting. Why? Because it gives you a very distorted picture."

The distortion is particularly acute in the case of the Iraq war. The cash costs of feeding, housing, transporting and equipping U.S. troops, paying for reconstruction costs, repairs and replacement parts and training Iraqi forces are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Costs incurred, but not yet paid, dwarf what is being spent now - even when future anticipated outlays are converted back into 2006 dollars.

Congress has already appropriated approximately $430 billion for military operations, reconstruction and related programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. And these cash outlays have been rising as the war has progressed. In fiscal year 2003, the average monthly cost of operations was $4.4 billion, while today operations are running about $10 billion a month.

Bush Lies, Endorses Rummy, Shoots GOP in Foot

Many GOP candidates running for re-election to Congress tried to show voters they were not toadies of President Bush by bashing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the failed invasion and occupation of Iraq, and in many cases calling for his ouster.

In the latest example of GOP implosion, Bush dealt those candidates an unexpected blow Thursday. He gave Rumsfeld the same glowing "Heck of a job, Brownie!" endorsement he gave to his now-parted FEMA chief Michael Brown by vowing to keep Rumsfeld through the bitter end of his presidency. "I'm pleased with the progress we're making," the president said.

In an odd turn of events, on the day after the elections Bush admitted he lied about keeping Rumsfeld on - that he had decided beforehand to can the defense secretary. The reason for his lie: to get him past a pesky reporter's question on the subject.

Recently, several top U.S. generals with experience in Iraq called for Rumsfeld's removal. Now the editorial writers of the military's newspapers are doing the same.



Army Times: 'Time for Rumsfeld to go'

(CNN) -- An editorial to be published in an independent military publication Monday calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to be replaced.

The editorial reads: "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large," the editorial states. "His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt."

Not-So-Angelic Evangelical

Key Evangelical Quits Amid Gay Sex Claim

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) -- The leader of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage, resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man in monthly trysts over the past three years.

The Rev. Ted Haggard, a married father of five who has been called one of the most influential evangelical Christians in the nation, denied the allegations. His accuser refused to share voice mails that he said backed up his claim.

Haggard also stepped aside as head of his 14,000-member New Life Church while a church panel investigates, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."

The allegations come as voters in Colorado and seven other states get ready to decide Tuesday on amendments banning gay marriage. Besides the proposed ban on the Colorado ballot, a separate measure would establish the legality of domestic partnerships providing same-sex couples with many of the rights of married couples.

Mike Jones, 49, of Denver said he decided to go public with his allegations because of the political fight. Jones, who said he is gay, said he was upset when he discovered Haggard and the New Life Church had publicly opposed same-sex marriage.

"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," said Jones, who added that he isn't working for any political group.

Jones, whose allegations were first aired on KHOW-AM radio in Denver, claimed Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. Jones also said Haggard snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience.