Lying about the attacked, dumping the indicted

Lying about the Attacked, Dumping the Indicted

 

 

Here is graf 5 of Joseph Wilson’s “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” published July 6, 2003:

 

“In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake – a form of lightly processed ore – by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”

 

Last Sunday, October 30, PNAC signatory and commentator Charles Krauthammer said on Inside Washington that Wilson had claimed that Dick Cheney sent him to Africa: “The person who lied here was Wilson.” On Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer the next half-hour, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) also suggested that Wilson claimed to be sent on his Niger trip by Cheney.

 

Thus was launched one of two main arguments from the pro-war faction, regarding the indictment of Irve Lewis Libby, Jr., chief of staff to Vice President Cheney: Dick Cheney, minding his own vice presidential business, heard that someone named Joe Wilson whom he had never met was going around saying that Cheney had sent him to Africa. Thus Cheney, asking as anyone would Who is this guy and Why is he saying things about me, made inquiries about Wilson – and found that actually the spectacular boondoggle of a Niger junket had been arranged by Wilson’s wife. The vice president’s office then got in touch with major media outlets to set the record straight. Discussing this nepotism with reporters, they revealed that Wilson’s wife was in the CIA. Presumably they couldn’t let it be supposed that she was in, for example, the Near East division of the State Department, working with Elizabeth Cheney.

 

The other main argument was rolled out by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), also last Sunday: the indictment is limited to “a single individual” and thus indicates no conspiracy and no crime. William Safire on Meet the Press with Tim Russert went farther, saying that the prosecutor “found” that the “law was not broken”: “This is a cover-up of a non-crime.” (N.b.: Bradblog points out that Rush Limbaugh went farther yet, claiming that the prosecutor said there had been no crime.)

 

As a citizen, I hope that these arguments get what they deserve, and it will be mildly interesting to see whether anyone maintains them on this week’s talk shows.

 

As a human being, I think Mr. Libby’s friends and relatives are on firmer ground arguing that he was basically overwhelmed.

 

Take the key month of January, 2002. In the press, front-page stories around the nation featured the spectacular collapse of Enron with its links to the White House and to Cheney’s office, including numerous mentions of Libby individually. Articles with titles like “Some Bush officials sold Enron stock before bankruptcy” and “Some Bush officials got out in time” pointed out accurately that the law forcing Rove and Libby to sell their Enron stock also saved them from losing everything they had put into it.

 

With the Enron flap ongoing, Osama bin Laden seemed to have eluded the December attacks on Tora Bora, Afghanistan. Enron and bin Laden eased up only when displaced by Iraq. In these weeks the yellowcake item was being floated around the administration, and Newsweek reported on January 20 that the administration had reached “general consensus” for “regime change.”

 

Along with sitting in on Iraq strategy, Libby spent part of January going over drafts of the State of the Union speech (January 29) with its “Axis of Evil,” according to Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack. Libby wanted to include North Korea and Syria rather than singling out Iraq. As high officials haggled over which nations to Axis-ize, meanwhile, on January 23, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl vanished from Pakistan, which had not made the cut.

 

Along with everything else, Mr. Libby’s father, Irve Lewis Libby, Sr., a retired businessman in a condo in Boca Raton, Florida, died on January 20.

 

That someone involved in some of the highest-level, sensitive strategy discussions for invading Iraq should be working as a Bush speech writer may be a historical oddity. But that too much landed on his plate was historically inevitable. As Woodward’s book pointed out, Libby’s “three formal titles” – chief of staff to Cheney; national security adviser to Cheney; and an assistant to Bush – comprised “a trifecta of positions probably never before held by a single person.”

 

Next up: the young George W. Bush and Laura Welch in Houston, or, how the religious right has been fooled.

Passing along rumors re Cheney

[Item below posted purely as speculation and rumor, from Buzzflash: ]

below, some extremely sensitive information about the impending conclusion of the valerie plame investigations. the sources include two senior members of senate and key staffers; counsel for individuals that have been called before the grand jury; and two journalists taking a lead position in investigating the case. the following represents a composite of the information from those sources.

plamegate coming to conclusion. the investigation has focused mostly closely on vice president cheney and his staff, as well as us ambassador to the un (and former undersecretary of state for arms control) john bolton and his staff. we are told that eight indictments have already prepared, with the possibility of another ten. these indictments include senior white house staff, most notably vice president cheney’s chief of staff scooter libby, fred flights (special assistant to john bolton), and–very surprisingly–national security adviser steve hadley. apparently, libby and hadley have both been told by their lawyers to expect indictments. the indictment of senior bush political advisor karl rove seems highly probable.

most critically, a plea bargain process has evidently been opened with vice president cheney’s lawyer. that does not mean that an indictment is coming. but i’ve some critical background around the issue.

in the past several days, former secretary of state colin powell had a meeting with senator john mccain (R-AZ), primarily about the mccain-sponsored amendment on inserting a rider prohibiting torture onto the us defense budget (a bill which powell has himself been lobbying heavily for, against objections of president bush).

during the meeting, powell recounted to the senator that he had traveled on air force one with bush and cheney, and brought to their attention a classified memorandum about the issue of whether there was indeed a transaction inolving niger and yellow cake uranium. the document included ambassador joe wilson’s involvement and identified his wife, valerie plame, as a covert agent. the memorandum further stated that this information was secret. powell told mccain that he showed that memo only to two people–president and vice president. according to powell, cheney fixated on the wilson/plame connection, and plame’s status.

powell testified about this exchange in great length to the grand jury investigating the plame case. according to sources close to the case, powell appeared convinced that the vice president played a focal role in disclosing plame’s undercover status.

in his conversation with mccain, powell felt that–at a minimum–there would be a serious shakeup at national security council as a consequence. in particular, vice president cheney would no longer hold a pivotal role in us national security affairs. powell apparently did not discuss the potential of a cheney resignation.

lead prosecutor patrick fitzgerald has apparently been looking at the precedent of formerly indicted nixon vice president spiro agnew. this shows the likely path, because addressing executive immunity and privilege questions would necessarily begin start with a plea-bargain deal that would entail a resignation.
this is all likely to occur within the next week. 28 october (next friday) is the last day of the grand jury, and no requests have been made to extend their session. the investigator is expecting to wrap up by then.

there are enormous implication for what would be the biggest white house shakeup since the iran-contra scandal in the reagan era. president bush’s approval rating at 39% has already led to a significant decrease in policy efficacy with key legislators in congress (which i’ve already discussed at length elsewhere). i’ll spin out the broader policy implications when i have some time to write at greater length, but i wanted to get this out immediately.

one interesting point though–it is worth noting that a parade of senior republican senators have evidently been privately pushing mccain to lobby to be cheney’s replacement. senator lindsey graham (R-SC) has also been mentioned. meanwhile, the white house has already been developing countermeasures–notably including senior white house officials privately voicing president bush’s disappointment in karl rove’s involvement in the case, calling it ‘misconduct.’ an urgent search for a rove replacement is already underway.”

Transparent Means Desperate

[This column ran in the PG Sentinel this week:]

 

Well, the man in the White House is nothing if not transparent. His two picks for Supreme Court justices have solely one, solid, take-it-to-the-bank recommendation, that they are both joined at the hip to George W. Bush. The ties may be euphemized as “loyalty,” but they are more tangible than intangible, business and professional more than “ideological,” and more direct than those of any previous president in a century, so far as I know, to his Supreme Court justices. After all the hullabaloo about what a “conservative” pick might do to the highest court in the land, Bush’s brazenly self-serving choices corroborate what a guy I knew in Texas said: “I think what George W. Bush stands for is mainly George W. Bush.”

 

This president has chosen two individuals who can be counted on, when the chips are down, to help broker an out for him in an impeachment. In fact, it looks as though he is successfully installing two individuals who would willingly smooth and help him arrange a super-flight, for the Bush team and assorted relatives, etc., to Saudi Arabia, “to spare the nation the agony of a long impeachment process.”

 

Obviously the credentials of John Roberts outweigh those of Harriet Miers, although Roberts’ credentials do not include actual courtroom experience as a barrister. But the factor of judicial independence is no more present in his background than it is in Miers’. A man who seems to have been grooming himself for the high court since the beginning of his government legal career, he also has the distinction of having ruled in favor of the administration while being interviewed for the top job. The case, furthermore, concerned Iraq, the administration’s discredited imperialism. Roberts ruled pro-Iraq-imperialism, in effect, while his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, is partner in a firm touting its ability to boost business in Iraq. (Go to www.pillsburylaw.com; click on “Iraq reconstruction.” Ms. Roberts’ particular areas of expertise include satellite technology and outsourcing.) By the way, the firm also touts its contacts in government.

 

There is something awfully predictable about all this. But in any case, apparently we have a judge who can be counted on not to recuse himself.

 

I fortunately ignored all the predictions about whom Bush would name to the court. But when one of the television networks provided a short list of names and photos just before Bush’s announcement, something about Roberts’ slightly smiling face caused me to say, “That’s the one.”

 

Again ignoring the predictions and commentary following Rehnquist’s death, I knew that Bush would name someone who would work primarily for him rather than for the nation. That has been his pattern with every appointment from press secretaries to heads of agencies. That he was so blatant as to name someone who has never even been a judge, though, did surprise me somewhat. Arguably the nomination of an individual who was in effect Bush’s own lawyer – given the way this White House operates – goes even farther than the nomination of an individual with a direct stake in Iraq business. (Roberts’ financial investments include his wife’s firm.)

 

Undoubtedly Bush, Roberts and Miers differ as individuals. Aside from differences in age, gender or level of education, two of them are much harder-working than the man who nominated them.

 

Such attributes as these three individuals do share, though, are uniformly scary. Whatever their actual religious practices or belief systems, they are apparently comfortable with both relentless self-aggrandizement and relentless domination of other people, domestically and abroad. None of them has demonstrated an ability or willingness to check abuses of entrenched power. And none of them has been held to any standard of taste or judgment, as the weird White House penchant for staged nomination announcements demonstrates again.

 

Most destructive of all for the immediate future of this country, however, is that all three seem to share a vested interest in the inordinate expansion of one branch of one government.

 

There is one comforting thought, such as it is, in all this. Even neo-cons and White House shills like William Kristol, George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer, the chief media supporters of administration imperialism, are now throwing his nominee overboard. Splash. They may not defeat her, but they have been impelled to distance themselves. That Bush could risk consequences like these means that his key pattern is getting too transparent to ignore. And transparent means desperate.

 

This column from day before yesterday

[This is the column that appeared in my local paper, the Prince George’s Sentinel, on Thursday (Sept. 22). The day following, a bus carrying elderly people from an assisted living facility – the one my mother stays in — was thrust into the Texas highways with hundreds of thousands of other vehicles fleeing Houston at the same time. The bus exploded and burned up, killing 24 of the elderly and injuring several others. ]

 

A CITY CANNOT EVACUATE OVERNIGHT

 

There’s no such thing as an evacuation plan

 

Last week, a new version of an old joke was making the rounds: “Q. What is George W. Bush’s position on Roe vs. Wade?  A. He really doesn’t care how people get out of New Orleans.”

 

Now we’re hearing in the media and elsewhere that an “evacuation plan” is needed.

 

Is anyone using the words “evacuation plan” really thinking about them?

 

In all the legitimate fault-finding about Katrina, criticisms of Mayor Nagin and others for failing to evacuate New Orleans are ill founded. There is no way to evacuate a big city overnight. Unless you’re talking about beaming up a few million people as in early Star Trek, there is no such thing as an emergency “evacuation plan.”

 

Let’s leave out the fact that, until a day before the storm hit, nobody knew exactly where it would hit. Leave out the fact that individuals trapped in the city did not know, once the storm swung eastward, that the levees were going to break. Bending over backward, let’s even leave out the fact that state and local governments have been starved and overloaded by the Bush team for years.

 

The fact remains that even a few days’ definite foreknowledge, of the sort never available, would still not suffice to evacuate every person in a metropolitan area of a million or more. To get everyone out of a big city, any big city, would require using literally every form of transportation – not just the family car, but every subway, bus, train, plane and boat. Such use of all transportation would require interrupting regular activity and commerce, at least three or four days ahead of time. And that effort, unprecedented in this country, would require the effective commandeering of all transportation by some centralized authority.

 

Okay, let’s try it. Let’s say you’re the president, or the governor, or the mayor. It’s three or more days before a major storm is predicted to make landfall, with all the usual meteorological caveats about how any deviation may change the course of the storm. In spite of all the caveats, you decide to evacuate every living person from a big city.

 

How? Well, you would have to start by ignoring all voices of opposition from everyone who stands to lose business for several days, with losses totaling billions. You would have to ignore all the laments from thousands of people worried about their property with the owner absent, and from hundreds worried about caring for the frail or ill.

 

First, you would have to get the word out, believably, to everyone in every condition, including those without communications equipment.

 

You would then have to figure out modes of transportation. If you recommend that everyone with a car or other vehicle get in it and leave – well, so much for the roads and highways out of town. So presumably even citizens provided with their own vehicles would have to be placed under some sort of staggered evacuation order – one sector waiting, while another clears out first, etc. That’s armored-guards time.

 

Let’s say you really want to speed things up, meaning that you must make use of mass transit. Will the railroad companies actually place all their passenger trains at your instant disposal, and hold all railroads vacant so that the loaded passenger trains can leave the city?

 

Buses would be a reasonable conveyance – assuming that you could commandeer all buses without regard to usual activity, and could get the largest possible number of citizens onto buses. People with cars would be advised to take their own vehicles – so, with the roads clogged, how do you get the buses out? Do you order all smaller vehicles to wait until the loaded buses have left? That’s martial law.

 

Similar questions abound with regard to planes and jets. Do you commandeer all airborne vehicles locally or nationally, load them up with (for example) the sick and the disabled, commandeer the airports they will need to land in, and override existing air traffic routes to do so?

 

Questions like these could develop almost infinitely; use your own imagination. But even this scenario is made artificially easy by the fictional hypothesis of several days’ warning, as in a hurricane with an unusually steady course. In an actual emergency (from “emerging” or “emergent”), there would be little or no advance warning. In a chemical explosion, spewing toxins into the air, water and ground for miles around, there would be none.

Amputations and Iraq

Amputations in Iraq

 

 

Most recent word about Walter Reed Hospital’s former trauma nurses is a mixed bag. The good news is that at least some of them have been sent home from Iraq, physically intact. The stress of their work there has taken such a toll that even the Pentagon has seen the light re not keeping nurses working at peak pace for too many months at a time and has placed limits on the calendar time they’re forced to serve in a single stint in Iraq. The other way of operating, namely forcing lengthier stays in some of the worst conditions for medical work, was resulting in too many breakdowns and too few individuals re-upping when the time came that they could get out.

 

That’s the bad news. One relative of a nurse who just got back from Baghdad recounts that she won’t talk much about her experiences there to most of her family members, particularly not the younger ones. Even the nurse’s limited accounts of what occurred, however, suffice to hint that the reporting Americans are getting via their government and major media outlets is, shall we say, less than full and forthcoming. The crop of incoming patients kept coming around the clock, seven days a week, without let-up. To their credit, they also work sometimes on injured Iraqis.

 

They averaged at least four to five amputations a night, and still always heard the planes overhead, bringing in new patients. The worst of the work was just to get patients stabilized sufficiently so that they could be crated over to Germany or the U.S., with inevitably mixed results.

 

Every sign indicates that, while the official tally of deaths mounts steadily though gradually week by week, the official tally of injuries is less than the actual rate of injuries.

 

Where is our Congress? Do we have NO civilian oversight of the military any more, after 30 years worth of pandering to the military by bogus media warriors like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Kristol and the rest?

 

When is our Congress going to remember that it has the constitutional power to find out things even in wartime, including the numbers of the wounded in this war the White House wanted so much that it was willing to lie to achieve it? Where are the congressional hearings inviting medical whistleblowers to come in and testify?

We’re paying in New Orleans, we’re paying in Iraq

[This piece also appearing in this week’s Prince George’s Sentinel: ] 

 

After the scandals of Watergate, with a Fourth Estate somewhat revitalized around the idea of investigative journalism – you don’t get a much better pep pill than having a big-name reporter played by Robert Redford – there was a fairly widespread understanding that the press should check governmental malfeasance, corruption, and excesses.

 

This broad concept came with some congressional attention to problems in the CIA and in the Pentagon, and with the thorough discrediting of the manipulations behind the Vietnam War, even with periodic scandals, public discourse sustained some general concept of governmental accountability through the seventies and even into the eighties.

That concept, muted and beleagered though it already was, is exactly what was attacked by a hideously well-funded right wing. The very notions of government accountability, individual judgment and participatory democracy were attacked root and branch with a savagery sometimes stealthy though often flamboyant, by an increasingly effective propaganda machine calling itself “conservative.”

 

By the time Clinton got into office, every voice for the poor and every fiscally rational policy for preserving a huge middle class were on the defensive. To strengthen the middle class, after all, you have to soak the rich and help the poor – but any candidate saying so would have had his assassination called for, jestingly of course, in mass media. They do but poison in jest.

Meanwhile, in the media and in behind-the-scenes think tanks and spuriously academic conferences, a well-subsidized faction spent ten to twelve years boosting (1) economic policies to erode any security for the vast majority of our population; (2) political tactics to splinter any moral opposition and to silence and intimidate genuine populism; and (3) extreme militarism in foreign policy and in budget priorities.

 

One result is the immoral, illegal and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq. In all the war-boosting over Saddam’s oppression – brought up only to justify invading – there was little mention of progressive and secular facts about Iraq, where oil revenues paid for infrastructure, healthcare and education, without taxes, and where women were comparatively advanced. The first Gulf War destroyed the infrastructure and was followed by sanctions that harmed the Iraqi people rather than Saddam Hussein, further undermining their ability to oust Saddam themselves.

 

More fundamentally, in all the talk about “democracy,” no prominent person in the news media said publicly that one country has no right to remake another country. Nobody said it: there is no such right, absent a threat requiring self-defense.

We know by now that there was no such threat. The claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were false. The accusations that Iraq had been behind 9/11 were false. The claim that Saddam was in league with Islamic fundamentalists was false. The anticipation that Iraqi was behind the anthrax mailings was false. The story that Iraq tried to purchase “yellowcake” uranium was false. The story of the aluminum tubes was ludicrously false. The story of Iraqi “mobile labs” for germ warfare was false.

 

Yet these claims and others were assiduously pushed by well-paid media personalities, while anyone who debunked or questioned them was vilified like Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, or marginalized like me.

We know now that the “war on terror” has been used as a good-times substitute for the Cold War rather than for genuine defense or genuine attention to issues of public health and public safety. Contractors, lobbyists, George W. Bush’s cronies and even some of his relatives have made money off it. Big media outlets have made money off it. But it has not advanced the most sensible and inexpensive measures to preserve and safeguard our major cities, our waterways, and our petrochemicals sector.

 

As New Orleans demonstrates again, anything that makes for huge “defense” contracts and macho posturing gets Bush’s attention. Anything that could genuinely benefit the country at large does not.

 

The current emergency must be addressed for now, with whatever help can be provided by people at all levels.

 

But for the future, a continuing question will have to be addressed: why are the people who brought about this disaster still in their positions? Obviously, most of Bush’s political appointees will keep their jobs rather than be given an impetus to drop the dime on him. Each of his nominees knows the miserable job done by his own agency and the culpable motivations behind his getting the job in the first place.

 

But why are the paid propagandists who boosted this war still appearing on major television networks?

items for possible donation currently up on eBay

Ordinarily I don’t do product placement. But in the interests of saving time and energy, and since I’ve already done some of the scoping out online anyway, I am forwarding the information below to anyone who might be interested in long-distance purchase for delivery or drop-off.

 

You can shorten the process of donating by checking out some of the following item numbers on eBay. Go to www.ebay.com and type or paste the item number given into the search box:

 

FOOD:  4390221628 (raisins in 60-box lots); 4390222414 (72 applesauces per lot); 4390222718 (24 mixed fruit cups per); 4403384224 (72 strawberry applesauce); 4403384689 (24 fruit cups per); 4388782738 (Famous Amos cookies, 36 packs); 4386649704 (cinnamon bars 36 packs); 4398749159 (fat-free cereal bars); 4388783402 (granola bars, 12 boxes of 10); 4388784937 (cracker & peanut butter packs, 120 per); 4388758281 (cheese & crackers, 50 packs per).

 

Note: most of the above can be bought in lots up to 100, for about $25-$30 per lot. These are all “Buy it now” listings rather than auctions – somewhat more money and less time involved than for auctions.

 

BABY:  7710962976 (5 packs of 80 wipes); 7711032419 (20 lots of 25 pacifiers apiece); 8308244954 (wholesale nipples for bottles); 7706328388 (24 jars baby food, 96 lots); 7706493472 (18 baby washcloths); 7702767766 (hooded bath towels); 4403633818 (10 toddler chairs).

 

HEALTH & MEDICAL CARE:  5611133622 (2 first aid kits); 5612659035 (adult diapers, 96 lots of 12); 5612644448 (braces and ankle supports, 20 lots of 10).

 

Et cetera.

Paying is probably easiest through PayPal, but other options are available.

Roberts as Chief Justice? — more firsts

Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the courts as the arbiter of what the written law says, a core principle of U.S. government has been the independence of its judiciary.

 

There is not time enough in a single blog to list all the actual limits on that theoretical independence. In fact, there’s not that much time in the universe. Most administrations have tried to bend the courts to their will; countless members of Congress and other officeholders, federal and state, have attacked courts and judges; many if not most judgeships have been awarded on bases other than, or at least along with, judicial merit.

 

But never before in American history have we had a judgeship so blatantly under the wing of a thoroughly politicized White House that a judicial candidate marched out to podium with a president as though he – the nominee for a judgeship – were the president’s spouse.

 

Details matter, politics matter, and visual details matter, especially in this White House. Generally, the announcement of a president’s nomination for the Supreme Court has been made quietly, in a manner so dignified as almost to seem ex cathedra. With some exceptions (such as Nixon with Rehnquist), presidents historically have not put themselves forward much in the event, have not appeared prominently and markedly in the announcement, much less accompanying the judicial nominee. It may be generally understood that political factors are involved, but those are played down physically at least, in deference to the American system of justice and its core tradition of judicial independence. The scene is set minimally, to convey a proper distance from the man seated on the bench and the political process that put him there.

 

Not with these guys, though. Granted, Bush’s typical on-camera short walk to the presidential podium is probably ridiculous to start with. Television cameras could just as well be set up to show a president already in situ, and probably with more dignity. That tiny, tiny little one-man procession from an extremely nearby entrance to the podium, evidently so beloved by Bush and his crew, adds little or nothing to make an occasion more imposing. It does not augment the gravitas, though they seem convinced to the contrary.

 

But this latest paired stroll, slight a gesture though it might seem, has to be the ultimate twist of what has become an almost dementedly tin ear. Roberts might as well have come out arm-in-arm with GWBush, like two ladies in a Jane Austen novel taking a turn around the room.

Ways to help, besides cash: part 2: Houston

DistributorContacts

 

 

Timely distribution of essentials is key. Thousands of the refugees in Houston are being sheltered at the Astrodome, which does not have refrigeration facilities adequate for the crowd. So any food donations for the Astrodome need to be non-perishable snacks, ready-to-eat or shelf-stable bottled juices. Drop off supplies at Gate 11, between McNee and LaConcha streets, on Kirby.

 

Aside from the Astrodome, here are more Houston destinations for food and other donations:

 

Houston Food Bank-New York Pizzeria partnered with M.E. Taylor Trucking Food Drive September 5th – September 12th: Donation Drop-Off Site: corner of Westheimer & Chimney Rock, Houston 77035

 

ACE Hardware Food Drive: Donations taken at all ACE Hardware locations, through September 10th

 

STAR OF HOPE Mission at 1811 Ruiz, Houston 77002 or 419 Dowling, Houston 77002, and 6897 Ardmore  Houston, TX 77054  (713-748-0700)

 

Urgent needs for Star of Hope Mission include:

  1. for children: diapers and pull-ups, children’s underwear and socks of all sizes; strollers; infant and children’s Tylenol and Pedialyte; baby formula
  2. for women: deodorant and toiletries including soap and hand and body lotions; OTC (non-alcoholic medications); women’s underwear and socks of all sizes; women’s clothes in plus sizes; feminine products; women’s watches; insulated travel mugs with lids
  3. for men: men’s socks and underwear; dress shirts, suits and sport coats in large sizes; duffel bags

Star of Hope Mission also requests Bibles, including large-print Bibles.

 

The following is a listing of local food pantries for the Houston Food Bank that will provide food for individuals affected by hurricane Katrina who are in the Houston area. Contact phone numbers are for business hours:

 

Gulf Coast-North Point Station
123
Northpoint  Houston, TX  77060
Contact: Debra Nichols  (281-272-1555)

 

GulfCoast -J.D. Walker Multi
7613
Wade Road  Baytown, TX  77521
Contact: Sheila Saltibus  (281-426-4757)

 

GulfCoast Pantry

5000 Gulf Freeway Bldg #1  Houston, TX  77023
Contact: Debra Nichols  (713-393-4700)

 

Gulf Coast-Kashmere Multi-Svc
4802 Lockwood 
Houston, TX  77026
Contact:  Sharon Martin  (713-674-1301)

 

Gulf Coast-Magnolia Multi-Svc
7037 Capitol, Ste. 106-C 
Houston, TX  77011
Contact:  Virginia Lanham  (713-921-2960)

 

Gulf Coast-Sunnyside Multi-Svc
4605
Wilmington  Houston, TX  77087
Contact:  Doris Sullivan  (713-734-6553)

 

Gulf Coast-Southwest Station
9888 Bissonett,
Ste. 135  Houston, TX  77036
Contact:  Mary Armelin  (713-393-4700 Ext. 822)

 

Gulf Coast-Acres Home Multi-Svc6719 W. Montgomery Road  Houston, TX  77091
Contact:  Hazel Piggee  (713-692-1046)

 

Gulf Coast-West End Multi-Svc170 Heights Blvd.  Houston, TX  77007
Contact:  Vronda Taylor

 

Go to http://www.sohmission.org/KatrinaHelp.html with links for more locations where donations can be dropped off or delivered.