.
Page 1: daybydaywithVOA_7-01Sep2003.html .
|
.
Usually 2 or more calendar days worth of
news bulletins are packaged together and will appear on this web page depending
upon the amount and character of the news. Each page which packages several
days of news bulletins has a unique designation in its name, "VOA_n", and a
date "01Feb2003". The "n" is a number between 1 and 10, or a bit larger. You
can expect the number "1" to contain the first few days of news bulletins for a
given month. Then the next number "2" will contain the next few days and so on.
Neither the number or the date indicate the exact date of the news bulletins.
However the date "01Feb2003" indicates the month of the news bulletins. The
entire month of news bulletins is stored under a directory on the server having
the date name "01Feb2003". Typically the population of this web page with news
bulletins is 1 day later than the report date.
Note: Each
news article is set out in 3 colored areas. The yellow area provides the
headline. The blue area contains location context, HFY article summary,
HFY comment, time and credits, and email/printer and streaming audio Urls.
The brown area contains the unaltered news item as originally published
by our sources such as VOA, BBC, DOD, and others. Some variation to this format
may occur.
. |
.
(Click here for the news -
directly below this commentary and promotional section):
COMMENTARY -- WAR --
The completed
article.
COMMENTARY -- NEWS REPORTING
-- The
completed article.
COMMENTARY -- US and Israel's
'common cause'
COM_002-01Mar2003.html Wednesday,
19-Mar-2003 -- The completed
article.
Jesus Christ is the answer. He is both an example of what we must
be like as humans and he is the facilitator/mediator/interface whereby we can
all know and experience the love/caring of God.
If you have any comments, questions, or concerns you can email
this ministry at thilts@help-for-you.com
Click
here for "Bruce Atchison Reports", World news bulletins on Christian
persecution.
Visit the...
Overcomer on line Study Bible
OOLSB articles
are now being added - Click on::
http://www.help-for-you.com/doc/OOLSB_freestanding.html
.
Also check out:
Introduction to the Book
of Revelation
Revelation.html
.
Page 1
x.
.
xxx.
.
.
VOA news bulletins at a
glance
. |
.......
.
VOA -- Logged 26 to
28-Sep-2003
Key and Feature
world news articles ( published below the URLs
for the VOA scripts ) are those that describe world events that
significantly change or establish cultural and social frameworks. Also reported
below are news events that characterize the cultural and social frameworks
including health, technology and science articles. Sometimes comment sections
are added after the event was published and therefore provide the most recent
information on that event. In that case the most recent news item is not
published unless it adds extensive new knowledge.
| Often, much of the news
is essentially a repeat under another caption, or a progress report, or reports
concerning accusations, coming events, and other verbalizations that will never
get into the history books. These kinds of reports are not published below as
key or feature articles. Often when the news is full of this sort of thing you
will find lists of URLs - usually coming from the VOA home page. |
|
VOA scripts for Fri-26, Sat-27,
& Sun-28-Sep-2003
Click on the following URLs below
this blue box for the script news
bulletins.
Click here to skip the scripts and go to the feature
news
articles.
x.
xx |
.
End of article 1
|
.
The following news
bulletins on this web page cover major world events reflecting significant
political and social changes for the period:
Friday 26-Sep-2003 to
Sunday 28-Sep-2003 .
. |
|
.
.
Bush Administration Stands By
Iraq War Intelligence
. |
..
Physical
Context: Americas - USA - Washington -
Re: MIddle East -
Iraq : Intelligence Gathered Prior to the Iraq
Ware.
Summary (HFY): The Bush
administration is defending U.S. intelligence gathered prior to the war in Iraq
and refuting criticism that information concerning weapons of mass destruction
was outdated. Top administration officials, National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing on Sunday
television talk shows, were responding to congressional criticism of the
quality of U.S. intelligence the administration relied on in deciding to go to
war.
Comment (HFY): Meanwhile, U.S. weapons inspector
David Kay is preparing an interim report on efforts to locate evidence of
banned weapons in Iraq. National Security Adviser Rice says it is unlikely the
report will contain major revelations about weapons of mass destruction, but
emphasized that the report is preliminary. She said its conclusions will be
made public.
From a Christian perspective, it may not be
wise to reveal everything one contemplates to everyone, because those of this
world (who live according to the flesh and the lusts of the flesh and know not
God) will take our honest expressions regarding our contemplations and use this
in some way to harm us. Jesus once made a remark, "Don't cast your pearls
before pigs because they will only trample them into the ground." Pigs or hogs
are known for their aggressive "plunge" into the feed trough literally
trampling each other in their rush for food. A herd of pigs can literally
trample to death their feeder unless adequate provisions are taken to prevent
their stampede into the food trough. There are many people who behave in a
similar fashion. In their haste to get ahead in this world (food trough) they
often use the honesty and trust given to them by others against them. In other
words they use the honest and trust of honest people to hurt these same people.
Does that make any real sense? Sometimes it is not intentional they are just so
wrapped up in themselves they fail to honor and respect what others have told
them. This behavior is dominant (not just present, but dominant) in big
business as people clamor for status, power, and a bigger paycheck.
Since the attitudes and motivations prevalent in big business basically
set the attitudes and motivations of the surrounding society, then society also
tends to become this way simply as a matter of course. People become
"politically correct" as opposed to caring and honest. Political correct
behavior and language is non offensive in character and often side tracks
sensitive issues. It lack clear definition and can resemble a kind of "double
talk" where the words mask true intent and behavior. Politicians set the
standard for politically correct dialog. It stands reasonable then that
politicians will also become this way of big business as a matter of survival.
And this then becomes the dilemma of a democratic government that is supposed
to be representing the people and acting in the interests of the people. The
first thing that inevitably goes wrong is that politicians are caught up in
saying one thing and doing another and this transfers back to the electorate as
dishonesty.
The problem lies in the fact (and is fact not opinion) that
if a member of the government or members of the government or even the entire
government administration were to be silent on something or allow the public
media to misrepresent something or they themselves side step and disguise their
motives otherwise the opposition and public would challenge their right to be
in government and the whole issue goes political. Governments try to identify
to themselves the "hot potatoes". A Hot Potato is an issue that could easily
burn up a politicians political advantage with the electorate and maybe result
in resignation or disgrace. It is not possible to hold onto such issues, they
are like taking baked potatoes out of the fire and trying to hold them in your
hands. So what do politicians and governments do when they get a "hot potato"?
They try to evade, side step, avoid, divert, or pass the issue elsewhere. But
what if they cannot do that? Then they they are forced to act on the issue and
somehow prevent the opposition and the public from gaining full knowledge of
the issue. This is because regardless of what action the government takes it
will be viewed as being the wrong action.
And we have this "hot potato"
called Iraq. The issue is characterized by a Russian, French, and German
attempt to monopolize world oil production using Iraq as the means to control
world oil prices and distribution. Iraq not only could but would successfully
influence the League of Arab nations and their oil Cartel to raise oil prices
to the USA while providing the EU and Russia with lower pricing. Since the
price of oil either makes or breaks a nations industrial complex through its
impact on the overall economy of that nation, this action would raise the EU
industrial complex and devastate the USA industrial complex. As the industrial
complex goes so goes jobs, the tax base, the ability to compete in
international trade, and finally the great prize of all, the military machine.
Without a powerful economy the USA could not maintain a powerful and
technologically advanced military and would quickly lose its status and
influence as a Super Power. Therefore, it became apparent that Iraq must
undergo a regime change. Here we have it, a no win decision. If the USA did not
effect a regime change in a prompt fashion they would not be able to do so in
the future. The big business deals were already in place between Russia, Iran,
Iraq, France, and Germany. It would only be a matter of a short time before
Iraq demanded and received freedom from embargoes and was able to manage its
own oil resources.
If the USA government released this kind of
information to the public the public would be skeptical regarding the
credibility of the government. It would not be believed. If the USA government
did not tell the public and it fears were realized (like 9/11) then the public
would be skeptical regarding the credibility of the government. Governments
stand and fall on the basis of credibility, not fact, and certainly not the
truth. Public credibility can be easily manipulated by the opposition, party
rebels, and activist type groups within the society, and even the media.
The government had their bag full of pearls, their hot potato, they
needed to act quickly, and the public and opposition could not be given the
facts because those nations involved would simply make a laughing stock out of
the USA. As a result, the American public would be ashamed of their government
because of the international reaction. Today, Americans have difficulty
standing up for their own government and against international pressures
because the credibility of these governments becomes a constant issue as the
two opposing political philosophies of the Democratic and Republican parties
hammer away at each others credibility. Global government activists in both the
democratic and republican parties and well as outside these parties can create
a fantastic public outcry against the government every time the government
tries to act outside of a UN agreement. Their loyalty is not to America but to
the UN. They know very well that if they can convince the American public to
accept UN domination over the American military then the world will not have
any chance of taking on the fundamentals of the American way of life. They are
therefore anti American while pretending to themselves and others they are
simply lovers of peace.
So given this complex problem the USA Bush
government decided to play the "game" by finding some legitimate basis for
getting rid of the Saddam Hussein regime. This was probably the smartest and
most correct way given all the pressures. And there was no need to lie and the
primary economic issues could be masked by other issues. After all, there are
all kind of "security" issues that are not made public knowledge. It was
either get rid of this regime or see the American economy wiped out. Does
that really leave the American administration any choice? I think not! The Arab
League had already let the USA administration know by experiencing the impact
of moving Arab investment of the Arab money in the American Stock Market. In
other words, the USA was being exposed to a form of Arab black mail. Everyone
wants to rule the world, or so it seems, even the Arab, the Russians, and the
Chinese. And to make it worse, Russia, France, and Germany had heavy financial
interests in this part of the world.
Yes it was possible, a small
nation like Iraq could rise up and in about 10 years have taken actions that
would have devastated the American economy. If this is not a Hot Potato then
there is no such thing. All the democrats needed to do is wait for something to
go wrong. Many things went wrong. France effectively promised Saddam Hussein
that France would veto any military effort to upset the Iraqi Regime under
Saddam Hussein. So this idiot tyrannical dictator set out to play his own game
against the USA believing that the USA would never take unilateral action. It
appears he saw an opportunity to defy the USA internationally over the issues
of concern made by the USA one of which was the WMD issue. This would go a long
ways to convincing Syria and other Arab nations to go along with Iraq's oil
policies aimed against the USA. The USA administration had little choice other
than to take the issue to the UN in order to demonstrate to its own citizens as
well as these activists and the world at large that there was just cause while
not disclosing the real issues of concern to the Bush Administration. All of
these key nations, China, France, Russia, Germany, and Iraq knew what the real
issues were. It became a matter of who was going to blink first. At risk were
the financial interests of Russian, France, and Germany. At risk was the Saddam
Hussein regime. At risk was the American Bush administration. At risk was the
French and German economies and their administrations. At risk was the American
economy. And there were many other risks none of which were disclosed by any of
these countries to their own citizens. It was an international political "game"
of intrigue and scandal and it had come near to the end when one of the players
had to blink and then the game would be redefined.
The undeclared
economic war was already in progress but had escaped the public eye. If the
public were to know just how vulnerable the American economy (or any of the
economies we have mentioned) was to oil they would be incensed with what ever
administration was in power. This was all very serious business and all the
countries involved had played the "game" right down to the end. It would be the
end of that USA administration and the next administration would be elected on
the basis of "Economy Reform" and "Economy Self Sustaining Policies" and
"Critical Resource management" and many other related programs. Neither the
Republicans or the Democrats would welcome this kind of mandate because Big
Business rules America not the government. And it will be the antics of Big
Business that will tend to bring down the American Government.
Big
business overall does not believe in America, in the American Government
Democratic Process, or Americans. They will cut jobs in the blink of and eye
and move to another country to save a penny per product produced. Big Business
is the defining core of American society and the ethics of Big Business have
eroded and warped the inherent goodness of the American Way of Life. Yet
without a flinch of conscience Big Business representatives will stand up and
claim the value of their employees and the dedication of their company to the
American Way of life. But they lie and they lie about their products and their
services. Big Business is committed to the "bottom line" which is profit and to
get that profit they will give as little as possible to get as much as
possible, indeed as much as the market place will bear. And once the American
public realize this the government in power will have another Hot Potato that
they cannot and do no want to handle.
But all these things, oil, big
business, and governments and jobs are all dynamically bound together and the
sooner a responsible public awareness develops around these dynamics the sooner
government can deal in truth rather than half truths that result in distrust.
See previous comment sections that speak to the details regarding the
undeclared economic war.
VOA -- 28 Sep 2003, 20:24
UTC
Michael Bowman
Washington
 
 Listen to
Michael Bowman's Report (RealAudio)
Bowman
Report - Download 371k (RealAudio)
x
x |
.
The
Bush administration is defending U.S. intelligence gathered prior to the war in
Iraq and refuting criticism that information concerning weapons of mass
destruction was outdated.
Top
administration officials, appearing on Sunday television talk shows, were
responding to congressional criticism of the quality of U.S. intelligence the
administration relied on in deciding to go to war.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was asked on the program
Fox News Sunday about a letter from ranking members of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. New reports say the letter alleges that information about
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were "fragmentary" and based largely on
past assessments dating to the 1998 departure of international weapons
inspectors.
"I
think the way to put this is that there was enrichment of the intelligence from
1998 over the period leading up the war. And nothing pointed to a reversal of
Saddam Hussein's very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. It
was very clear that this had continued, and that it was a gathering danger,"
she said.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing on CNN's Late
Edition program, pointed out that the former Iraqi government of Saddam
Hussein had a long history of involvement with weapons of mass destruction. Mr.
Powell acknowledged limitations in U.S. intelligence gathering in Iraq prior to
the war, but insisted that U.S. assumptions about Iraq's pursuit of banned
weapons were reasonable.
"In
1991, after the first Gulf War, we found chemical weapons [in Iraq]. We learned
a lot about the program. We put in place an inspection regime to pull it all
out [rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction]. By 1998, Saddam had frustrated
that inspection regime. The inspectors left, and then there was a four-year
period when there was a gap [in intelligence about Iraq). Are we supposed to
believe that he [Saddam] gave up all that capability, that he no longer has the
intent [to produce banned weapons]?" Mr. Powell said.
Speaking on NBC's Meet the Press program, Democratic
Congressman and presidential candidate Dick Gephardt said questions about the
accuracy of U.S. intelligence reports must be investigated. "The American
people have to believe that the information they are getting from their
government is credible and true. And if there was a failure of intelligence,
then we have to have more than intelligence [congressional] committees look at
it. We need a [special] commission, and get to the bottom of it," he
said.
Meanwhile, U.S. weapons inspector David Kay is preparing an interim
report on efforts to locate evidence of banned weapons in Iraq. National
Security Adviser Rice says it is unlikely the report will contain major
revelations about weapons of mass destruction, but emphasized that the report
is preliminary. She said its conclusions will be made public.
.
.
Email this article
to a friend.
Printer Friendly
Version
.
|
End of article 2
.
.
Bush, Putin Urge Iran to Give Up
Nuclear Weapons Ambitions
. |
..
Physical Context:
Americas - USA - @Camp David - Re: Iraq Nuclear
Program
Summary (HFY): President Bush
and Russian President Vladimir Putin met Saturday to discuss a U.S. push for
more international troops and more foreign assistance to help rebuild Iraq. Mr.
Putin says he will wait to see a new U.N. resolution before deciding whether to
send Russian troops to Iraq.
Comment (HFY): No matter how
much President Bush of the USA and Vladimir Putin of Russia like each other and
respect each other, each has their respective country, its economy, people ,
and its stability as key personal and political agendas.
The
Presidential offices significantly differ relative to the amount of power they
have at their disposal and the accountability to their respective parties.
Russia is not a Western type democracy partly because there is no constitution
like the American Constitution which guarantees rights and opportunities to its
citizens. Selecting a president from various candidates by the process of
voting does not in itself characterize a Western democratic institution. Many,
including many in the UN General Assembly call themselves democratic because
they cast a vote. Even Saddam Hussein considered his regime democratically
elected. Eastern Germany called itself the GDR, the German Democratic Republic
but it had one of the most sophisticated spy and civilian integration networks
known in history and the people were all afraid to say or do anything for fear
their very children might report them as enemies of the state. Every single
civilian in the GDR had a file in the Secret Service headquarters. Even Hitler
in Nazi Germany, Magabe in Zimbabwe, and many others gained power in a
democratic (voting) way. The PLA in Palestine declared the terrorist Arafat as
properly elected leader of their region. So what makes for a truly democratic
government, democratic processes and democratic institutions?
The
difference between these states and let's say Canada, the USA, Mexico, Spain,
the UK, France, Germany, and others when compared to Russia, China, Palestine,
and others is in the success or failure of a "Democratic Process motivated by a
human rights charter". It is the strict and legal adherence to this human
rights charter that creates a political atmosphere of opportunity and freedom
to both speak and act outside of government control and often against the
government last elected. There is concern that recently in Russia certain
people running in opposition to Putin died in accidents that were not really
accidents. In a truly democratic society this kind of tyranny is considered
corrupt and is investiaged by criminal police agencies. In Western democracy
the police must follow up on fraud and corruption allegations. In Russia the
police do what they are told and do not have the ability to investigate Putin
or other claims of corruption.
In Western style democracy it is up to
the candidates and parties to influence the electorate by peaceful and non
fraudulent ways to vote in their favor. It is up to the electorate to be well
informed regarding all issues they want their elected representitives to
advocate in parliament or congress or whatever the institute of debate and
resolution happens to be called. Unfortunately, elected representatives usually
belong to a party like the Liberal and Reform parties in Canada or the Democrat
and Republican party in the USA or the Grits and Tories in the UK and so on. In
Europe there tends to be more parties and a staged election process. So the
election process is defined by the country and legislated into law and
hopefully does create an unrepresentative situation.
In a parliamentary
government like Canada or the UK the Prime Minister is head of government and
is also the head of the majority party. In the USA the President is elected by
a vote and the party the President is associated with may not necessarily be
the majority in Congress or the Senate. This is more democratic than in Canada
or the UK. The elected President of the USA is directly accountable to the
people. In Canada and England the Senators are appointed whereas in the USA the
Senators must be elected by a popular vote. Again this is more democratic than
in Canada or the UK. In Canada and England the members of parliament are
elected as are the members of Congress in the USA. Overall, the USA has a more
democratic government because where ever appointment occurs it bypasses public
approval or disapproval and it allows the appointing government to "stack"
membership in a way that favors a particular party. This is true also of the
appointment of judges in the Supreme Court legal system. Judges in this
capacity should be directly accountable to the public and should be subject to
recall. This is an important issue because leaders of government often turn
over the power of certain decisions to this legal system and we end up with a
few people making decisions affecting an entire nation. This should never be
the case anyway as it is not democratic in character. This is a corrupt aspect
of the Western democratic process because it sets a few individuals in a
position of power over even the legislators - the elected representatives, the
people that should be setting the framework of all Federal laws. Giving this
kind of power to individuals is a direct violation of the responsibility
inherent in the office of an elected representative. Law can be complex but law
should serve the people not become a channel of party politics as it has now
become in most Western nations. See a previous commentary of this
subject.
Party politics are driven by party leaders and often do not
give the individual representatives the freedom to vote according to their
conscience but insist (if these members want to remain members of the party)
that members tow the party line. This sort of thing happens in most Western
democratic nations and tends to be non democratic in character because the
elected representatives are more influenced by the so called party "platform"
which reflects political and social philsophy more than the interests of the
electorate. This can mean that an elected representative can fail to carry
through his or her commitments to their electorate due to party pressures
regarding how they cast their vote on certain issues. Party politics are
probably one of the biggest failings in the Western democratic process. Party
politics do enable the passage of bills and other legislative issues as
directed by the Prime Minister or the President if their party has a majority
position or members from other parties vote with them.
Often there are
independents but their ability to influence government policies dictated by
party politics is negligible. However, the "independent" member is probably the
best example of true democracy where the electorate is put before the party
politics. The advantage the member who belongs to a party has over the
independent member is the financial support of the party and unfortunately it
takes money, lots of money, to win an election. For that reason there are few
"Abraham Lincolns" (1809-65, 16th Preseident of the United States and
assassinated in 1865) today and this is a great shame. The reason for this is
the "money controls" social environment created over the last 50 years by big
business. It is very difficult for the poor to become elected members of either
Parliament or Congress. If Abraham Lincoln was alive today in Canada, or the
USA, or France, or South Korea he would have a very very small chance of
running successfully for any office of government. This suggests that Western
society is damaging in some way the opportunity necessary for citizens to
participate in the government process. This is an extremely serious concern
regarding how our democratic institutions function in the modern day world. We
need the Abraham Lincolns and they are not available for government. For this
reason we often see those called "professionals" , such as doctors, lawyers, or
wealthy business men becoming elected members. Again, this is a serious failure
of the democratic process in the Western world. This also accounts for the
longevity of a fragile and corrupt economic system based on big business
interests and philosophies of doing business.
The election process
itself must operate according to rules of integrity and influences that would
not be considered corrupt (intimidation, vote altering, pay off, altered
counts, ballot destruction, improper registration, etc.). Such corruption is
not legally allowed to occur such as to alter the outcome of the vote. All
these things discussed above together constitute a working democracy.
Unfortunately this kind of a working democracy is in the minority of nations
that claim to be democratic. And there is one other very important factor and
it also must be considered part of the successful democratic process. People
need to be educated to the opportunities, dangers, and experience of living in
a truly democratic society. Casting a vote is minor when compared to the other
aspects. If people are so uneducated regarding the process and the issues as
well as the capabilities and character of those | | |
