Bombs In Afghanistan and Terrorist Results

   War is hell especially if you live in the mid-east. just ask the folks in Afghanistan.

AP

KABUL, Afghanistan - A roadside bomb in western Afghanistan left three civilians dead and 48 wounded, including 10 children, officials said Thursday.

                                  

Mother Jones

...In fact, as Rumsfeld knew well, there are plenty of publicly available figures on the incidence and gravity of jihadist attacks. But until now, no one has done a serious statistical analysis of whether an “Iraq effect” does exist. We have undertaken such a study, drawing on data in the mipt-rand Terrorism database (terrorismknowledgebase .org), widely considered the best unclassified database on terrorism incidents.

Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan—the other current jihadist hot spot—there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities.

    You should go and read the rest of the results as they are interesting!

 

Technorati tags: Afghanistan, Rumsfeld, Iraq Effect

Democrats Respond To White House Veto Threat

    Here is the Democrats response to the threat of the White house vetoing the 9/11 bill because of a clause for airport workers wanting to unionize.

                              

The Gavel

Chairman Miller Statement on President’s Veto Threat on Employee Free Choice Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, issued the following statement today in response to a White House announcement that President George W. Bush would veto the legislation:

“President Bush has used his veto power sparingly since taking office, but given the radical agenda he has pursued over the last several years it should come as no surprise to anyone that he would threaten to veto much-needed legislation to help workers bargain for a better life. I would strongly urge the President to reconsider his position on the Employee Free Choice Act, because its enactment is critical to ensuring that the American economy benefits everyone.

“Beyond that, it is incredible – even by the standards of this administration – how many misleading claims, half-truths, and inaccuracies are contained in the President’s Statement of Administration Policy on the Employee Free Choice Act. The Employee Free Choice Act does not eliminate workers’ ability to seek a National Labor Relations Board election if they so choose. The administration’s statement ignores the fact that penalties for unions that break the law are already far more effective than penalties for employers who break the law. The administration statement says that workers would ‘lose substantial control over their employment situation,’ when, in fact, the opposite is obviously true: by enabling workers to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions, the legislation would them much greater control over their employment situation.

“Finally, the administration’s statement ignores the fact that it is employers, not unions, who routinely harass, intimidate, fire, and reassign workers who try to form a union. In a study of a more than 60-year period, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases that they claimed involved union deception or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. Careful examination of those cases, however, reveals that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, more than 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities.

“It is beyond me why the President and Republican leaders in Congress refuse to trust American workers to make these choices for themselves. They should rethink their opposition to the legislation. And at the very least, they should conduct this debate honestly.”

For more information on the Employee Free Choice Act – including endorsing organizations, bill summaries, and worker testimonials – click here.

 

Technorati tags: White House, Bush, 9/11 Bill, Democrats, Union