[b]The [i]ruthless corporate-take-all [/i]Bushies have cooked America's[i] Economic Books[/i][/b], according to an eminent economics professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. Professor Austan Goolsbee cites that " [i]Jobs-wise, we had a deep [recession]. ... the [Bush] government has cooked the books. It has been a more subtle manipulation than the one during the Reagan administration, when people serving in the military were reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed" in order to reduce the unemployment rate [/i]..." [b]More Squalid Bush Lies ... [/b]
We've been sordidly scammed, misled and lied to regarding the [i]state of the economy [/i]in the United States of America, by the rapacious Bush robber-barons and war-profiteers. By focusing on a single indicator, Gross National Product (GDP), that has provided some limited growth (around 8.2%), as some consumers are spending money ([i]on credit[/i]?) ... and that [i]greedy corporate executives[/i] and the [i]richest-of-the-rich [/i]are reaping massive profits from the gains in productivity ([i]although working people are facing higher local/state taxes, rising costs, lower wages & economic rape[/i])-- the neo-fascist Bushies are playing a mean game of [i]smoke-and-mirrors [/i]of diverting our attention away from their real crimes here at home and abroad in their insane bloody guerrilla quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq! ... However, economics experts agree that Bush's ruthless [i]Tax Cuts for the Rich[/i] are dangerously reckless and foolish, and will severely damage the economy in the future-- having eliminated the surpluses Bush inherited from Clinton, and placing us in a deficit/debt position that is the highest in our nation's history: [b]with nothing to show for it:-- instead of investing in our nation's people and infrastructure, Bush's wild record-level spending is on behalf of the corporate robber-barons, richest 5% of the plutocrats and wealthy campaign contributors; to whom he has funneled hundreds of billions of swindled, plundered & looted taxpayer dollars[/b]!
The insane neo-con, war-mongering Bush regime is also ignoring the vital issues critical to the health of our nation and the well-being of our citizens including:
* Skyrocketing [i]poverty rates [/i]with over 35 million citizens living below the 1960's poverty line ... it's much, much worse;
* Highest [i]unemployment [/i]since the Great Depression with over 9 million (other studies show over 15 million) people out of work, and Bush has destroyed over 3 million jobs, the highest job loss in over 70 years;
* Over 3.5 million Americans are [i]homeless[/i];
* No [i]health care coverage [/i]for over 45-85 million citizens; and, the Bushies' insane [i]corporate-take-all [/i]Medicare Bill is destined to undo coverage for our elderly and most vulnerable citizens.
The callous and corrupt Bush regime also has the [i]worst environmental track-record [/i]in over 40 years ... The UnGreening of America: Connect The Dots on the Bushies' destruction of our natural world on http://www.motherjones.com/ne... , is well-worth reading.
[b]"We the People" should demand that Congress investigate into the Crimes Against Humanity, and the corporate profiteering by the ruthless swindlers and thieves in the Bush Regime. Please contact Congress on http://www.congress.org .[/b]
"The government's announcement on Tuesday that the economy grew even faster than expected makes the current "jobless recovery" even more puzzling. To give some perspective, unemployment normally falls significantly in such economic boom times. [i]The last time growth was this good, in 1983, unemployment fell 2.5 percentage points and another full percentage point the next year. That's what happens in a typical recovery. So why not this time?[/i] Because we have more to recover from than we've been told.
The reality is that we didn't have a mild recession. [b]Jobs-wise, we had a deep one. [/b]
The government reported that annual unemployment during this recession peaked at only around 6 percent, compared with more than 7 percent in 1992 and more than 9 percent in 1982. [i]But the unemployment rate has been low only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and reclassifying them as "not in the labor force."[/i]
In other words, [b]the [Bush] government has cooked the books[/b]. It has been a more subtle manipulation than the one during the Reagan administration, when people serving in the military were reclassified from "not in the labor force" to "employed" in order to reduce the unemployment rate. Nonetheless, the impact has been the same.
Research by the economists David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Mark Duggan at the University of Maryland shows that once Congress began loosening the standards to qualify for disability payments in the late 1980's and early 1990's, people who would normally be counted as unemployed started moving in record numbers into the disability system — a kind of invisible unemployment. Almost all of the increase came from hard-to-verify disabilities like back pain and mental disorders. As the rolls swelled, the meaning of the official unemployment rate changed as millions of people were left out.
By the end of the 1990's boom, this invisible unemployment seemed to have stabilized. With the arrival of this recession, it has exploded. From 1999 to 2003, applications for disability payments rose more than 50 percent and the number of people enrolled has grown by one million. Therefore, if you correctly accounted for all of these people, the peak unemployment rate in this recession would have probably pushed 8 percent.
The point is not whether every person on disability deserves payments. The point is that in previous recessions these people would have been called unemployed. They would have filed for unemployment insurance. They would have shown up in the statistics. They would have helped create a more accurate picture of national unemployment, a crucial barometer we use to measure the performance of the economy, the likelihood of inflation and the state of the job market.
Unfortunately, underreporting unemployment has served the interests of both political parties. Democrats were able to claim unemployment fell in the 1990's to the lowest level in 40 years, happy to ignore the invisible unemployed. Republicans have eagerly embraced the view that the recession of 2001 was the mildest on record.
The situation has grown so dire, though, that we can't even tell whether the job market is recovering. The time has come to correct the official unemployment statistics to account for those left out. The government agencies that can give us a more detailed and accurate picture of the nation's employment situation — the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis — need additional funds and resources from Congress to do their jobs.
Otherwise, announcements about a rebounding economy will continue to show only half the picture. Take the revised numbers released by the Commerce Department on Tuesday.[i] They showed that output in the third quarter grew at a rate of 8.2 percent, an extraordinary pace, and productivity grew even faster. [b]Almost no one noted, though, that Social Security also announced the latest data on disability applications. Almost 200,000 people applied in October — up 20 percent from the previous month — tying the highest level ever.[/b] Despite the blistering growth of the economy, the invisible unemployment problem continues[/i].
We didn't have a mild recession and a jobless recovery. [b]We covered up a deep recession and will need a sizable bit of recovery just to get us back to the point the unemployment rate suggested we already were[/b]. As the Red Queen said to Alice in "Through the Looking Glass": "Here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
"85 MILLION AMERICANS HAD NO HEALTH INSURANCE AT SOME POINT DURING FOUR YEARS - Unstable Coverage Doubles the Number of People that Appear in Annual Counts of the Uninsured" on http://www.cmwf.org/media/rel...
The Bush Regime's motto is NOT "[i]The Buck Stops Here[/i]" ... It is more akin to "[b]The Buck Stops Way, Way Over There ... On Whatever [i]'Scapegoat' [/i]We Can Pin It To, That Dumb Americans Will Buy[/b]" ... Apparently, some neo-con buffoons, attack-dogs & court-jesters [i]buy-up [/i]the Bush's [i]flim flam, con-games [/i]and [i]scams[/i]. Frankly [i]neo-con swamp land, [/i]whether in Jeb's [i]rigged [/i]Florida, or the congential idiot brother's (the Mad King George) [i]corrupt neo-fascist police state[/i]:-- neither's mendacious neo-orwellian propaganda, is a good buy, folks!
The [i]panic-stricken desperado[/i] and [i]arrogant buffoon[/i], [b]Rummy Rumsfeld[/b], is on another insane imbecilic[b] rampage & war-path [/b]-- back on the [i]enraged blind-man's [/i]attack of "[i]Old Europe[/i]" to divert the[i] brain-dead sheeps' [/i]attention from his own ruthless corruption and bungling failures and fiascos, resulting in the horrendous massacre, slaughter, carnage, wounded and maimed:-- over 10,000 U.S. Soldiers and 21,000-55,000 dead Iraqis-- in their [i]corporate-take-all[/i] bloody guerrilla quagmire in Iraq.
[b]"We the People" should contact our Congress men & women on http://www.congress.org or via a petition on MoveOn.org on http://www.moveon.org -- to make it clear that it is time for the corrupt & incompetent Rummy Rumsfeld and his ghoulish war-monger & side-kick Wolfy Wolfowitz, to step down ... They've outlasted their usefulness: [i]We need competent administrators with integrity, able to build bridges with others ... Having turned our allies into "[i]enemies[/i]" because they didn't follow like "[i]dumb sheep[/i]", the anti-christian, illegal & immoral [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]perpetrated by the Bushies, have not been to our benefit! Frankly, the corrupt Bushies' childish, petty and corrosive behaviour is not only recklessly dangerous ... It is just plain stupid![/i][/b]
"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is acting up again, and the president's advisers are scrambling to do damage control. This week, Rumsfeld emphasized the division between "new" and "old" Europe, saying that the latter, which includes France and Germany, might not support the U.S., but so what? Grant Aldonas, the under secretary for international trade, quickly sought to distance Bush from Rummy's divisive views. "Frankly," Aldonas told the Washington Times, "that is not the way I look at the world and it certainly is not the way the president looks at the world." He added: "There is no 'new' Europe or 'old' Europe; there is just Europe."
Whatever. Rummy's take on the world continues apace. Yesterday he was welcoming the freedom of press in Iraq as a sign of real progress, noting that the occupuation plan "called to enable a free press to be established, and today some 170 newspapers are being published." But last week Fox reported him as backing the occupation's decision to shut down two popular Arab channels because, as Rumsfeld put it, they were "violently anti-coalition." To combat this unfortunate situation, the defense secretary promised to set up the occupation's own satellite TV system. When reporters pressed for more info on the Arab stations that had been closed, Rummy shot back that he had no opinion because he hadn't seen the details.
The occupation authorities shut down the Arab stations after they were suspected of distributing a videotape of a man firing a surface-to-air missile at a DHL cargo plane. The tape appears to demonstrate a guerrilla operation. Rumsfeld said he had been told of the tape, but didn't know enough to say anything more than this: "It doesn't take a genius to fire off a shoulder-fired missile at an airplane."
On another subject, Rummy aimlessly ruminated last week on possible reunification of the democratic South Korea and communist North Korea. "If and when it happens, I suppose one could look at the fall of the Berlin Wall and the situation in East and West Germany," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It is complicated. The two halves are so different in nature that it is not an easy thing to bring them together. But I think it can happen and I hope and pray it does happen one day.""
Bush made a [i]surprise[/i] 2 hour [i]stunt[/i] "visit" to Baghdad on [b]Thanksgiving Day[/b]. What good did it do for anyone other than his neo-con [i]handlers, attack-dogs & court-jesters[/i], lusting for [i]cynical, "teary-eyed" sentimental [/i]photo-ops to persuade the "[i]not-too-bright[/i]" [b]American citizens [/b]to support a "[i]not-too-bright[/i]" [b]American "useful idiot" Bush [/b]in the upcoming 2004 presidential campaign?
[b]The[/b][b] facts [/b]speak for themselves ... as the corrupt Bush regime has squandered over $87 Billion on their bloody guerrilla quagmire to enrich their corporate cronies (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Chevron, et al.), campaign contributors, war-profiteers, and the richest-of-the-rich. Another obscene $87 Billion was awarded to this squalid fiasco of carnage, mayhem & chaos, resulting in over $166 Billion in war-mongering, war profiteering; and the largest debts in our nation's history, of over $560 Billion in 2004 alone (Bush's insane deficits amount to over $1.9 Trillion on his [i]borrow-and-spend [/i]for his hyper-wealthy neo-fascist regime) ... with massive tax cuts, boondoggles & tax loopholes awarded to the wealthiest top 5% of the greedy plutocrats, and gluttonous corporations who avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Meanwhile, within hours of Bush's [b]obscene bombastic circus act [/b]stunt yesterday, [b]an additional 2 U.S. Soldiers have been killed [/b]... all for nothing ([i]ooopppsss ... for OIL[/i]) ... resulting in Bush's Death Toll rising to 346 U.S. Soldiers, 77 Coalition Troops & 21,000-55,000 Iraqis ... a massacre on an enormous scale, with tens of thousands, injured, wounded & maimed for life ... and, Bush has the arrogance and callousness to abuse our U.S. Soldiers and our nation, for his own sordid ambitions for neo-fascist power and vast riches.
[b]"We the People" should refuse to "[i]play-along[/i]" with this outrage and declare our anger and disgust with the cynical manipulation of our U.S. Military by the corrupt Bush regime. Declare your opposition to Bush's [i][b]Crimes Against Humanity [/b][/i]to your Congress men and women today on [/b]http://www.congress.org . [www.congress.org]
[b]Source[/b]:
"U.S. soldiers killed as rebels hit U.S. base in Iraq" by Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press, Nov. 28, 2003 08:35 AM:
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - An American soldier died when guerrillas shelled a military base in the northern city of Mosul on Friday, a day after President Bush's surprise visit to U.S. troops at a heavily fortified military compound at Baghdad's main airport.
Iraqis expressed differing opinions about the significance of the brief visit, which was organized in such secrecy that even members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council invited to attend Thanksgiving celebrations at the airport were not told about it.
"We cannot consider Bush's arrival at Baghdad International Airport yesterday as a visit to Iraq," said Mahmoud Othman, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. "He did not meet with ordinary Iraqis. Bush was only trying to boost the morale of his troops."
Bush's 2 1/2-hour visit came just ahead of Friday's arrival in Baghdad of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
The former first lady and Reed, both Democrats, have been critical of the Bush administration's handling of postwar operations in both countries.
In Baghdad, an explosion slightly damaged a highway overpass, and the military said that two U.S. soldiers died in separate incidents in central and northern Iraq.
One soldier died on Thanksgiving from a gunshot wound inside the heavily fortified base in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Baghdad. It was not immediately clear how the shooting occurred, a military statement said.
Another soldier died Friday when four mortar shells slammed a 101st Airborne Division base in Mosul. Attacks by Iraqi insurgents on U.S. troops in Mosul have increased in recent weeks.
The military said it had captured one of Saddam Hussein's bodyguards, identified as Brig. Gen. Khalid Arak Hatimy. The statement claimed Hatimy had been inciting the uprising west of Baghdad and providing money and weapons to the guerrillas.
More than 60 U.S. troops were killed in hostile action in November, more than any other month since the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1.
Since operations began, nearly 300 U.S. service members have died from hostile action. Another 136 have died from accidents and other causes. A total of 75 soldiers from allied nations also have died, bringing total coalition deaths to more than 500. Several civilians working for the U.S. military have also been killed.
In Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis demonstrated against terrorism and condemned Saddam Hussein at a rally on a downtown square. The protest occurred in Firdos Square, where a large bronze statue of Saddam was toppled by Iraqis and U.S. Marines on April 9 after the fall of Baghdad in the U.S.-led invasion.
"Yes to Iraq," protesters shouted. "No to terrorism."
The demonstration was organized by a handful of Iraqi political parties, none of which are members of the U.S.-appointed governing council.
Bush, who flew into Baghdad Thursday evening to spend the Thanksgiving holiday with U.S. troops, also reserved a word for Iraqis.
"You have an opportunity to seize the moment and rebuild your great country, based on human dignity and freedom," Bush said. "We will stay until the job is done."
Bush also met with four members of the 25-seat Iraqi Governing Council.
Mouwafik al-Rubei'e, one of those attending, said they were simply invited to Thanksgiving dinner with Iraq's American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, and had no forewarning that they would meet Bush.
"It was a fruitful meeting," al-Rubei'e said. "The U.S. president reaffirmed his country's commitment to build a new, democratic and prosperous Iraq."
Ordinary Iraqis said it was difficult to judge the importance of the event.
"It meant little to the Iraqi people. Some are welcoming it, but most are dismissing its importance," said Kamal Mehdi, a cashier in Baghdad."
[i][b]Craving more juicy reasons to offer up profound gratitude this Thanksgiving-day? [/b][/i]
[i]Try a few of these[/i]:
[b]This Thanksgiving[/b], as you sip the wine and hug the family and toast the friends and hoard the stuffing and curse the airport security, remember to give thanks you are not G.W. Bush. Hey, it's important.
[b]1[/b]) Be thankful that you do not have to suffer Dubya's massive crushing karmic burden, as wrought by inflicting heaps of environmental disaster and vicious unnecessary war and a stunning string of lies lies lies like a firehose of giblet gravy splattered all over the planet.
For it really is all too plain: G.W. Bush is one of the most reviled and openly disrespected major world leaders in modern history. America has never been so embarrassed and reluctant to send a president abroad. We cringe when the man takes the stage. We offer humiliated apologies to our former allies, and to the 200,000 Bush/war protesters in London, just last week.
In Bush's defense, it cannot be easy to be so undeservedly powerful, yet so bumbling and inarticulate and globally loathed for your abhorrent policies and hollow corporate agenda and baffled doofus manner. This Thanksgiving, be grateful you are not him.
[b]2[/b]) Thanks, you might want to give, that you are not Iraqi. Be grateful you did not go from brutal scowling despot who at least kept the damn lights on to brutish occupying army no one asked for that is right now laying waste to whatever remains of your once semi-proud oil-rich nation.
Give thanks, furthermore, that you are not one of the estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians killed to date by U.S. forces, not to mention one of the untold tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were hammered by our million pounds of billion-dollar ordnance in the first few days of the massacre. Be grateful you are not dead in the name of American political and petrochemical profiteering.
[b]3[/b]) Give thanks you are not a member of the much-abused U.S. military. Sad but true. Be grateful you are not right now suffering that sickening sinking feeling that you are not, in fact, protecting America from any sort of marauding terrorists, or defending our honor, or our way of life, or guarding innocents from swarthy evildoers and nonexistent WMDs.
But that you are, instead, a wholly disposable henchman for the BushCo corporate regime, with the odds increasing every minute that you will soon join the more than 9,000 U.S. wounded or more than 430 "necessary" dead U.S. soldiers Rumsfeld mentions when he shrugs off the latest round of guerrilla bombings that killed another batch of your friends. Support our troops. Bring them home right now.
[b]4[/b]) Be grateful BushCo's ratings are slipping lower than an SUV's mpg rating, and there is only one year left until he joins his father as one of those embarrassing historical footnotes, a jagged scar on the heart of a wary America that other countries point to in years to come and say wow that's a nasty scar where'd you get that, and we reply, George W. Bush, and they go, oh my God, that's right. So sorry.
[b]5[/b]) Be grateful you are not right now in any way related to, or serve as a spokesperson for, or are employed as one of the apparently very deranged or heavily drugged plastic surgeons who worked on Michael Jackson. This is a gimme.
[b]6[/b]) While you're at it, give thanks you're not Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole Smith, Bennifer, Britney, Liza Minnelli, Joan Rivers, Howard Stern, Ann Coulter, Ashton Kutcher, Bill O'Reilly, Anna Kournikova, Madonna or Mary Hart. These are lives you probably do not want to lead. Give thanks your soul is not all withery and Botoxed and that it still manages to radiate cool colors like one of those funky cheesy fiber-optic lamps from the '70s.
[b]7[/b]) Be thankful they have yet to figure out a way to blot out the sun. Or, for that matter, the moon.
[b]8[/b]) Offer immense gratitude that despite a massive ongoing Herculean effort on the part of numerous world governments to rape and pillage and pretty much slap down most all tender offerings of the planet, Earth still manages to produce for us an astonishing array of flora and fauna and oxygen and edible delicacies and awe-inspiring trees and relentless merciless beauty.
[b]9[/b]) Be thankful the planet rather effortlessly continues to baffle scientists and confound astronomers and completely entrance biologists and philosophers and poets. We still, for example, have no idea why whales sing, or how long they live, or where blue whales, the largest and most magnificent creatures on the planet, go to mate. Be grateful for the Mystery.
[b]10[/b]) Kneel down, right now, for free speech. Oh yes. We must. Because it is under severe duress. To exercise it now, to speak out against BushCo and war and global corporate profiteering, is a true sign that you are a traitor and an al Qaeda operative and a personal friend of Barbra Streisand. This is what they sneer at you.
Give it up, instead, for free unfettered alt-news sources like truthout.org. And commondreams.org. And alternet.org and counterpunch.com and buzzflash.com and smirkingchimp.com and even Slate and the BBC and The Onion. Cheney scowls, Rove oozes, Ashcroft would love nothing more than to shut down the entire impious godforsaken Internet. Be grateful they can only quiver and hiss and rattle their chains. So far.
[b]11[/b]) Molly Ivins. Gore Vidal. Michiko Kakutani. David Foster Wallace. Don DeLillo. Maureen Dowd. Caroline Myss. W.G. Sebald. Tom Robbins. Starhawk. William Rivers Pitt. Rob Brezny. David Attenborough. Dave Eggers. Joseph Campbell. Lewis Lapham. Haruki Murakami. Katha Pollitt. Et al. Thank you. [Don't forget Noam Chomsky ... Thank you, too.]
[b]12[/b]) For baskets of locally grown organic small-farm produce delivered to your door. For handmade whiskey-filled chocolate truffles smeared over a lover's tailbone. For Bernese mountain dogs. For the return of Opus. For Rufus Wainwright and Beth Orton and the Mini Cooper. L'Occitane honey incense and the Apple iPod and "Six Feet Under." For Cate Blanchett, The Sun magazine, The New Yorker, Peet's coffee and "Spirited Away."
[b]13[/b]) Here is the big cliché. Here is the final praise. It cannot be overstated: Despite an impressive assault on civil liberties, despite savage BushCo attacks on everything from national forests to air quality to rivers and oceans and water quality and health care, despite attempts to numb the national consciousness overall, we must give enormous, unfettered thanks for this incredible and kaleidoscopic America.
Ours remains the most breathtakingly beautiful, diverse, epic, multifaceted, multiorgasmic landscape on the planet today. It's true.
We tend to forget. We take for granted. We presume it must be like this everywhere. But one quick trip abroad will only serve to remind you and reinforce your devout appreciation for what this country can offer, the free expression and the religious autonomy and the clean water and the good dentistry and the fresh produce and the space to explore.
We are deeply flawed. We are massively arrogant. We are bratty and insolent and abusive and sloppy and violent. But we balance it with astounding acts of love and beauty and art, nature preserves and activism and organic awareness and sex positivism and community awareness and quiet personal spiritual questing and lots and lots of great bookstores.
[b]14[/b]) Here is where you make you own list. Here is where you set aside the cynicism and the sighing and the bitterness, just for a moment, and get quiet, look around, look inside, check the karmic inventory and offer up heaping pies of gratefulness for what you find.
Sure it seems clichéd. Of course you don't need some holiday to be deeply thankful for the radiance in your life. But, hey, an opportunity is an opportunity. Just remember, big meaty drumsticks of general gratitude are absolutely fine. But the divine, personal gravy is where the real flavor is.
- [i]Mark Martford, SF Gate Columnist[/i]
Two New Books About America By Two Great American Intellectuals
It is a common mistake to assume that great intellectuals are only to be found in Europe ([i]particularly France or any Eastern European country[/i]), Russia, Asia or South America. Americans are frequently dismissed as "practical-not-intellectu al" amongst [i]great thinkers[/i], and some "cough-and-choke-and-whee ze" at using the terms, [i]American & Intellectual [/i]together in association in the same phrase or sentence. -- It is almost as though the rest of the world enjoys their persistent fantasy in romanticizing while simultaneously ([i]and secretly ... sometimes not so secretly[/i]) ridiculing Americans as being impetuous, naive, and driven to "cowboy" shenanigans without great thought and reflection. (One can be forgiven for comprehending and sympathizing with those who criticize the current Prez Bush, using those very same pejorative appellations-- but then no one uses [i]"Bush" & "Intellectual"[/i] in the same sentence ... unless it's a joke!)
"We the People" fortunately possess ([i]at least[/i]) two great American intellectuals, indeed, national treasures, who are highly respected and revered overseas, and here at home, amongst those who love history, truth and honest discourse about our nation's past, present and future:
[b]Gore Vidal [/b]and [b]Noam Chomsky [/b]both have a great and prestigious body of work behind them ... Gore Vidal's essays are a "must-read" for anyone who wants an [i]unorthodox and eagle-eyed[/i] perspective on current events (Collected Essays in [i]United States[/i]) and his historical novels bring our historical icons and events to life ([i]Lincoln[/i] and [i]Burr [/i]are outstanding favorites amongst many avid readers) ... Noam Chomsky's [i]Manufacturing Consent [/i]is a classic for anyone who is interested in the [i]ways-and-means[/i] that the media and press become witting and unwitting puppets of the rich and powerful interests. Noam Chomsky's [i]powerful mind [/i][i]and clear-headed [/i]assessments of the actual actions taken by our leaders versus their often mendacious rhetoric is sometimes chilling, but vital if we as citizens are to responsibly participate in our civic duties.
[b]Gore Vidal's "[i]Inventing a Nation[/i]" [/b]
Gore Vidal finds factoids that most historians leave out of their works: One is from [b]Benjamin Franklin[/b], a luminous man freely contemplating darkness. The [i]government set up by the Constitution[/i], he warned, "[i]is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other[/i]."
Richard Eder in the [i]New York Times [/i]on http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1... , observes in a comprehensive review: - [i]Excerpt[/i] -
"Mr. Vidal covers roughly the period from the making of the Constitution through Washington's two presidencies and Adams's single fretful one, to Jefferson's first great presidential move: the fire-sale acquisition in 1803 of a huge expanse of western territory — the Louisiana Purchase — from Napoleon, who was too busy in Europe to think seriously of an American empire.
He portrays a time when American statesmen — the three of the title, but also Franklin, Madison and others — were grappling with their visions, conflicting or converging, of what kind of republic we were to become. They ranged from Hamilton's centralizing economic oligarchy, to Adams's waverings between authority and equality, to Jefferson's fuzzy, sometimes hugely contradictory but nonetheless steady impulse toward popular democracy. Though at the time "democracy" was a term to be wary of, even for Jefferson."
[b]Noam Chomksy's "[i]Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance[/i]"[/b]
"It is important to understand that the super-aggressive U.S. imperialism now transforming the planet is not only a frightening, “bad” development, but also a shift in elite strategies that will create new opportunities for resistance at the base. Anarchists should focus on the contradictory nature of current circumstances by both denouncing the new terrors and articulating the new possibilities disclosed by recent changes in world affairs. The barbarism of the U.S. government's foreign policy is well documented in several new books. Noam Chomsky's[i] Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance [/i]dissects America's quest for global supremacy by tracking the U.S. government's pursuit of policies intended to achieve “full spectrum dominance” at any cost. He shows how policies such as the militarization of space, the ballistic-missile defense program, unilateralism, the dismantling of international agreements, and the response to the Iraqi crisis cohere in a drive for hegemony that ultimately threatens to turn the world into a wasteland."
[b]Charlie Rose [/b]recently interviewed both [i]Gore Vidal [/i](20 minutes) and[i] Noam Chomsky [/i](1 hour) ... and you can order the transcripts or video-tape on http://www.charlierose.com .
"[b]Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it[/b]." - [i]George Santayana (1863-1952)[/i]
[b]What happens, however, when history is changed before your very eyes, by a corrupt totalitarian government? ... We are witnessing that crime committed by the current neo-fascist Bush regime:[/b]
[b]IT IS [/b]old news and no secret that the corrupt neo-orwellian Bush regime wire-brushes ([i]edits & changes[/i]) it's transcripts in order to "correct" the record ... This dishonest act of changing what the bumbling, bungling, buffoon Bush says and does should be a crime ([i]perhaps it is ... the Bushies commit so many crimes that go un-reported, un-tried & un-remembered! ... Sigh ...[/i]).
Our government's transcripts and recordings are supposed to provide "We the People" and historians with an accurate picture of events, speeches, press conferences, and, interviews-- as they happened. For the first time, we're faced with a mendacious gang of thugs & goons in the Bush regime, who both despise and are ignorant of history; treat our people and our rights & freedoms with contempt; and, tread and trample on our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
[b]So, why are we permitting and indulging the mendacious and corrupt Bush regime in perpetrating their heinous crimes against our nation and the world?[/b]
"Want to spend an entertaining hour? Go and read, or watch, or listen to the 10-month old State of the Union speech -- take your pick, all three options are available here at the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/new... . We've all been numbed by the debates over whether the intelligence was real, false, good, bad, massaged, misused; but sitting through an hour of the President making his most solemn case is like a splash of ice water on the face.
As you watch or listen, pay special attention around the 49-minute mark. There the President says, "It would take one [awkward pause] vial [pronounced incorrectly and wussily as "wial"], one canister, one crate, slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
It's far from the lamest moment in that oddly grab-bagistic speech. Apparently, in fact, the Republicans think it's the best moment in the speech: they use that "one [uh] wial" moment in a new fear-mongering attack commercial: http://www.thenation.com/edcu... .
Only it turns out [ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1... ] that, via the magic of digital enhancement, Bush in the ad actually delivers the line smoothly -- without the pause, and with correct pronunciation. The Republican National Committee insists that there's nothing wrong with secretly editing the President's delivery in a historic State of the Union speech so as to make him sound less clueless and more coherent. It's tempting to scold them for saying this -- but I'm too thrilled with the formal admission that the Republican National Committee had to secretly edit the President so as to make him sound less clueless."
Our[i] political system has been over-taken [/i]by a [i]minority of [/i][i]plutocrats[/i] who have[i] plundered our nation's treasury, as well as corporate assets, pension plans and employees' jobs[/i]. Moreover, these [i]Greed-is-Good[/i] thieves and swindlers have an appalling and obscene track-record of avoid paying their fair share of taxes, on a massive scale, harming America, in the process:--
The goal of the [i]Global Corporate Empire [/i]is to swindle the American people (and other nations):-- ... as these corporate robber-barons avoid paying their fair share in taxes ... they undermine the rights of workers to safe working conditions and fair pay (e.g. these ugly corporate thugs & goons are attempting to eliminate minimum wage, overtime, social security, etc.) [[i]Without [b]labour[/b], investment doesn't reap any gains and cannot succeed ... and therefore, labour deserves a proper & decent share in the wealth they produce, along with investors.[/i]] ... they are unravelling any protections & regulations that safeguard consumers ... and, they bribe government leaders to re-distribute ([i]plunder and loot[/i]) taxpayer dollars into their slimy hands. [b]High unemployment and poverty are advantageous to the corporate top-dogs & fat-cats, because they can coerce desperate people into [i]accepting (sic) [/i]anything ... absolutely any measly scraps-and-bones including slave labour wages-- as the poor souls are grateful just to put food on their family's table ... Meanwhile, these neo-con slave-owners live in lavish palaces, gluttonously gorge on rich foods while swilling gallons of fine wines-- like the most corrupt of the imperial Roman Emperors. Indeed, they have become our own corrupt neo-imperial rulers[/b].
There isn't a favor or request demanded by the [i]corporate-take-all [/i]rapists, that the whorish puppets and "useful idiots" in the Bush regime haven't granted to their corporate pimps. Moreover, the Bush/Cheney Inc.'s [i]junta[/i] has awarded immoral and anti-christian tax cuts, boondoggles and tax loopholes to the rapacious corporations, war-profiteers, and their hyper-rich campaign contributors-- a wholesale rape of America on a massive scale, unseen since Herbert Hoover [i]opened-up [/i]the doors of the treasury to his corporate cronies, and created the Great Depression.
[b]Do "We the People" really want to be turned into a struggling slave population serving callous neo-feudal lords-- with no protections ... no services ... no civilization ... a brutal barbaric state, right out of the Dark Ages? Surely not[/b].
A few facts cited by the [b]Corporate Power Facts & Stats [/b]web-site on http://www.globalissues.org/T... , demonstrates the undeniable rise of the insidious corporate power over the few last decades:
* Of the[i] 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations[/i]; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).
* The [i]Top 200 corporations' sales are growing at a faster rate than overall global economic activity[/i]. Between 1983 and 1999, their combined sales grew from the equivalent of 25.0 percent to 27.5 percent of World GDP. [In other words, the wealth is going into the pockets of the corporate top-dogs & fat-cats ... and not in employment and our nation isn't reaping benefits.]
* The [i]Top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 10[/i].
* The [i]Top 200s' combined sales are 18 times the size of the combined annual income of the 1.2 billion people (24 percent of the total world population) living in "severe" poverty[/i].
* While [i]the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce[/i].
* Between 1983 and 1999, [i]the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent[/i].
* A full [i]5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is employed by Wal-Mart, a company notorious for union-busting and widespread use of part-time workers to avoid paying benefits. The discount retail giant is the top private employer in the world, with 1,140,000 workers, more than twice as many as No. 2, DaimlerChrysler, which employs 466,938[/i].
* [i]U.S. corporations dominate the Top 200, with 82 slots (41 percent of the total). [/i]Japanese firms are second, with only 41 slots.
* Of the [i]U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate [/i]during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation - General Motors.
* Between 1983 and 1999, [i]the share of total sales of the Top 200 made up by service sector corporations increased from 33.8 percent to 46.7 percent[/i]. Gains were particularly evident in financial services and telecommunications sectors, in which most countries have pursued deregulation.
"Research Institute Releases Study on Corporate Power on 1st Anniversary of Seattle Protests - Study Reinforces Public Distrust of Corporations" on http://www.ips-dc.org/reports...
The Bushies are smirking, smiling and bubbling with joy ... as the [i]Rich are Getting Richer, and Everyone Else is Getting Poorer[/i] ... but the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] doesn't give a damn, since they've "[i]got theirs'[/i]". In the [b]Doctrine According to Emperor Bush: "[i]Only the 'Little People' Pay Taxes & Bear Burdens[/i]" [/b]... [b][You might want to study the history of Progressive Taxation.][/b]
Take a little drive and visit ([i]you can't because of armed guards and a fortress of attack-dogs[/i]) Bush's Crawford, Texas Palace ... and then take a little drive and visit those who live in abject poverty in Brownsville, Texas ([i]no running water, no indoor plumbing, no electricity[/i]) ... Texas has the worst record of any state of the union: with the highest child poverty rates ... no health care for the poor and vulnerable ... poor education with crumbling schools in poor areas ... and the worst environmental track-record of pollution in the U.S.A.-- so after depriving poor & vulnerable citizens, of the basic needs and services [i][b]to live a decent life[/b][/i] ([i]not at all a lavish one[/i]), the callous Bushies have no [i]second-thoughts [/i]about poisoning the earth, air and water in the vicinity of under-privileged people without riches and power. [i]And, the Bushies have the unmitigated gall to condemn Saddam Hussein for his mistreatment of his own people? Come on, folks, anyone having a problem seeing the Bush/Cheney Inc. hypocrisy here?[/i]
[b]"We the People"[/b] are now saddled with the [b]horrific nightmare [/b]of:
* Bush's [i]highest deficits and debts in our nation's history[/i], at nearly $560 Billion in 2003, and $1.9 Trillion for his insane reign from 2000-2004;
* Bush's [i]skyrocketing poverty rates [/i]of over 35 million citizens living in abject and dire need, below the poverty line (poverty line established in the 1960s)-- it's much, much worse;
* Bush's [i]highest job losses since the Great Depression[/i], having wiped-out over 3 million jobs-- now 9-15 million citizens are unemployed;
* Bush's [i]callous disregard for over 45-85 million Americans without the ability to obtain health care[/i];
* Bush's [i]worst environmental record [/i]in over 40 years ...
And, the list goes on ... Don't forget the corrupt Bush regime's neo-fascist [i]immoral and illegal anti-christian war-mongering in Iraq, resulting in the massacre of over 433 U.S. Soldiers, 77 Coalition Troops & between 21,000-55,000 Iraqis[/i]-- in a neo-con, neo-nazi act of aggression based upon lies, deceptions and falsehoods ... all to enrich his corrupt war-profiteers and corporate cronies: Halliburton, Bechtel, Chevron, Carlyle Group, etc. etc. etc.
Isn't it time to say NO to this neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime whose purpose in life is to enrich and empower themselves, and enslave the rest of us and our natural world? Methinks it is indeed time to say NO MORE insane corruption, war-mongering and re-distribution of our hard-earned production and wealth to the greedy & corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.'s criminal cronies.
[b]Five Biggest Defense Budgets[/b]: ([i]USA Spends More than all other nations combined on weapons instead of on our people! Defense contractors' recipients of "corporate-take-all" rape of America ... and this obscenely excessive expenditure on boondoggles enriching top-dogs & fat-cats doesn't make us any safer[/i].)
The corrupt Bush regime cynically and ruthlessly exploited the 9/11 tragedy ([i]along with phony WMDs posing an imminent threat to our national security[/i]) in order to wage an immoral & illegal incursion into Iraq (turned[i] bloody guerilla quagmire & "long hard slog"[/i]), costing enormously in precious lives and hard-earned treasure-- but, instead of asking all citizens to sacrifice: Under the Doctrine According to Bush: "[i]Only the Little People Pay Taxes & Bear Burdens[/i]". Thus far, the Bushies have squandered the lives of 433 U.S. Soldiers, 77 Coalition Troops & 21,000-55,000 Iraqis. Additionally, the Bushies have squandered over $86.6 Billion (and obtained an obscene additional $87 Billion) rendering the costs through September 2004 in excess of $166 Billion-- and, the highest deficits & debts in our nation's history: to enrich their corporate cronies & war-profiteers, and hyper-rich campaign contributors. [ http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/... , http://www.theage.com.au/arti... , http://www.costofwar.com ]
[b]As the Democratic race to choose a candidate for the Presidential Election in 2004, is underway, others have speculated as to the lengths that the "crazies" in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove) and the Pentagon (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton) will go, in order to retain power[/b].
[b]In a recent interview, a frightening glimpse into the neo-con, neo-fascist thought processes of [i]America's worst regime in history[/i] is revealed[/b]:
Gen. Tommy Franks says that [i]if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the [b]Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government[/b][/i].
Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.
Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, [i]“... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is [b]freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy[/b][/i].”
Franks then offered “[i]in a practical sense[/i]” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be [i]in the United States of America – that causes [b]our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.[/b] Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important[/i].”
Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.
[b][i]Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent[/i][/b].
But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the [b][i]first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.[/i][/b]
The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.
Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a “soldier’s general,” Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.’s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.
Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.
[b]Why would it be assumed that the form of government that generations of Americans, past and present, have fought and died for, would be [i]scrapped[/i] ... unless those who hold the reigns of power refuse to comply with our system of government, and instead plan to hijack it?
Instead of planning on how to uphold our precious freedoms and rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, in perilous times, the corrupt Bush regime seems to be planning for a military coup d'etat!
[i]Is this not our worst nightmare[/i]?[/b]
The Corrupt Bush Regime's Neo-Cons Are Undermining the "War on Terrorism"
The corrupt Bush regime's blood-thirsty neo-con operators are undermining the "[i]war on terrorism[/i]". Their motives for war-mongering & war-profiteering have more to do with their insane, neo-fascist doctrine according to the "[i]Project For the New American Century[/i]" ([i][b]PNAC[/b][/i]) -- designed to turn-over the entire world's human and natural resources to the Global Corporate Empire's rulers, who will ruthlessly enslave and exploit them in order to swindle, loot and embezzle untold power and riches.
The "crazies" in the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove) and the Pentagon (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton) [i]LUST FOR WAR [/i]... In fact, they don't really want peace, because the war has enabled them to provide an "open-door" for their corrupt corporate cronies to wantonly rape Americans and Iraqis. Moreover, by nurturing a climate of terror and fear, here at home, the Bushies are able to play their ugly "[i]bait-and-switch[/i]" neo-con-games intended to undermine and destroy any safeguards or programs that enable the middle-class, low-income workers, and the poor to partake in the bounty of this nation's wealth. Indeed, the [i]Greed-is-Good [/i]"corporate-take-all" Bush regime has reigned over the largest re-distribution of wealth from the middle-and-lower income people to the wealthy plutocrats in the top 5% income bracket, in this nation's history.
[b]"We the People" are being drawn into an insane blood-thirsty neo-orwellian "[i]perpetual war for perpetual peace[/i]" ... and it's a neo-fascist crime in which we should refuse to collaborate.[/b]
[b]Current Affairs[/b]
In "Intel Sources Tell [i]Newsweek [/i]that Neocons are Undermining War on Terror" on http://www.antiwar.com/blog/c... : - [i]Excerpt[/i] -
The latest issue of [i]Newsweek[/i] warns that al-Qaeda is building toward a "spectacular" attack.
Intelligence sources tell [i]Newsweek [/i]that "[b]the neocons in the Pentagon have been undermining that relationship by accusing (without much proof) the Syrians of encouraging jihadists to cross into Iraq and of hiding Saddam’s WMD inside Syria[/b]."
The report goes on to reveal the longtime dream of "[i]many in the Bush administration, especially the neoconservatives in the Pentagon centered on Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, that a democratized Iraq will be both a beacon and a base in the fight against radical Islam[/i]." [i]Newsweek[/i] warns that "some senior of-ficials worry, though usually not out loud, [b]that the war could backfire[/b]. A leaked memo from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointedly asked whether Islamic religious schools, fueled by anti-Western rage, are creating terrorists faster than American soldiers can kill or capture them."
[i]Newsweek[/i] concludes that the [b]war in Iraq has "almost certainly diverted resources" from the war on terror[/b]. "Meanwhile, in Washington, transcripts of electronic intercepts of possible terrorist conversations pile up, unread and untranslated for weeks. Similarly, many Special Operations soldiers who had been chasing through the mountains of Afghanistan looking for bin Laden and his followers were shifted over to Iraq to spend months fruitlessly searching for weapons of mass destruction."
Meanwhile, officials tell [i]Newsweek[/i] that they have no idea who is behind the most recent deadly bombings in Iraq. They have evidence of many different sources, but it is beginning to look more like "Murder on the Orient Express," where literally everyone is guilty.
[b]Long before September 11[/b], [b]before the first inspections in Iraq had started, a small group of influential officials and experts in Washington were calling for regime change in Iraq[/b]. Some never wanted to end the 1991 war. Many are now administration officials. Their organization, dedication and brilliance offer much to admire, even for those who disagree with the policies they advocate.
We have assembled on our web site links to the key documents produced since 1992 by this group, usually known as neo-conservatives, and analysis of their efforts. They offer a textbook case of how a small, organized group can determine policy in a large nation, even when the majority of officials and experts originally scorned their views.
[i]In the Beginning[/i]
[i]In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "[b]access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil[/b]" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.[/i]
[i]The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.[/i]
[b]So, where are all those WMDs? ... Sorry, It's The OIL, Stupid![/b]
"[b]Dissent is the highest form of patriotism[/b]" - [i]Thomas Jefferson[/i]
Emperor Bush has a squalid and sordid track-record of SAYING one [i]cliche-ridden [/i]thing, but instead DOING another [i]completely opposite [/i]and[i] harmful [/i]thing. Recently, during his obscenely extravagant and highly unpopular visit to the U.K., the mendacious buffoon, Bush said that "[i]Freedom is Beautiful[/i]" ... Hmmm ... What about his actions?
[b]The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of U.S. citizens the "free exercize of ... "freedom of speech" and the right of the people "peaceably to assemble"[/b]" ... but then the neo-fascist Bushies tread on the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, as well as, international law and treaties.
[b]JUST another [/b]one of many of Bush's hypocritical neo-con screeds, as the[b] corrupt [/b][b]Bush regime has ordered [/b]their [b]F.B.I. attack-dogs to "scrutinize" (i.e. [i]intimidate[/i]) anti-war protestors[/b]:
"It is depressing to learn that what you have may have long suspected is unapologetically true. A confidential FBI bureau memorandum leaked to the New York Times shows the bureau has collected information on demonstrators and has advised local officials to report suspicious activity to counterterrorism squads. "[i]The F.B.I. memorandum ... appears to offer the first corroboration of a coordinated, nationwide effort to collect intelligence regarding demonstrations[/i].""
[b]"We the People" are being intimidated, neo-nazi style into becoming "useful idiots" and "willing collaborators" in the Bush regime's [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i][/b].
[b]Find out how much you know about Bush by trying the following quiz:[/b]
[b]Q1[/b]. [i]Who holds the record for the largest number of executions when the governor of a state[/i]?
A George W Bush B Jeb Bush C Arnold Schwarzenegger
[b]Answer[/b]: A. (George just pipped brother Jeb by ordering the executions of 152 people while governor of Texas).
[b]Q2[/b]. [i]Who is alleged to have been an investor in George W Bush's first oil company Arbusto[/i]?
A Osama bin Laden. B Osama's big brother, Salem. C Saddam Hussein.
[b]Answer[/b]: B.
[b]Q3[/b]. [i]Which Saudi family was allowed to fly out of the US in the aftermath of September 11, despite the ban on flights[/i]?
A The bin Ladens. B The Abu ben Adams. C The Fahds.
[b]Answer[/b]: A.
[b]Q4[/b]. [i]As former governor of Texas, Bush reneged on the US's environmental commitments set out in the Kyoto Treaty. Which state is the most polluted in the USA[/i]?
A Texas. B Missouri. C Michigan.
[b]Answer[/b]: A.
[b]Q5[/b]. [i]When giving an interview on foreign policy in 2000, Bush couldn't name?[/i]:
A The Prime Minister of India? B The President of Chechnya? C The President of Pakistan?
[b]Answer[/b]: All of the above.
[b]Q6[/b]. [i]In his state of the union address, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had tried to get uranium from Africa to make a nuclear bomb. But what had the CIA already told him[/i]?
A That was true. B They didn't know. C There was no evidence of Saddam trying to get uranium from Africa.
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q7[/b]. [i]Who is the only US president to come to office with a criminal record[/i]?
A Abraham Lincolm B Bill Clinton C George Bush
[b]Answer[/b]: C (he has a conviction for drink driving in Maine).
[b]Q8[/b]. [i]At the height of the Vietnam War George W Bush[/i]:
A Enlisted to fight on the frontline. B Stayed at home with the National Guard. C Joined the Quakers.
[b]Answer[/b]: B.
[b]Q9[/b]. [i]Bush's most successful business venture was when he ran[/i]:
A Texas Rangers, lawmen. B Glasgow Rangers Football Club. C Texas Rangers Baseball club.
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q10[/b].[i] In 2000, George W Bush needed to win the vote in Florida to overtake Democrat candidate Al Gore and claim the election. By how many votes was he declared the winner in Florida[/i]?
A 53,700 B 5370 C 537 [Of course, in independent analysis Bush lost Florida because of rigged U.S. Military absentee ballots rejected for Gore but accepted for Bush, and rejected votes of Floridians for Gore.]
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q11[/b]. [i]How many black voters almost all Democrat supporters were left off the Florida electoral roll[/i]?
A 173 B 1730 C 173,000
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q12[/b]. [i]Who declared the result[/i]?
A Jeb Bush, Florida Governor and brother of George W. B Katherine Harris, Florida secretary of state and co-chairman of the Bush for President Campaign. C Mickey Mouse.
[b]Answer[/b]: B.
[b]Q13[/b]. [i]Which oil industry figure donated large sums to George W Bush's presidential campaign[/i]?
A Kenneth Lay, disgraced chairman of Enron, the energy firm which crashed after committing the biggest corporate accounting fraud in history.
B William S Farish, the president of WS Farish & Co, who became ambassador to Britain after Bush was elected and whose friendship with the Queen paved the way for this week's state visit.
C Both of them.
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q14[/b]. [i]What item did Bush auction for $150 during a record-breaking $33 million fundraising dinner in Washington last year[/i]?
A A picture of the New York Yankees baseball team.
B A picture of the Texas Rangers baseball team.
C A picture of himself taken on September 11, 2001, as he flew to safety onboard Air Force One.
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q15[/b]. [i]Which member of the Bush family was convicted of underage drinking twice in the space of three months[/i]?
A Reformed heavy drinker George W?
B Wife Laura?
C Daughter Jenna?
[b]Answer[/b]: C (Jenna dubbed "Jenna and tonic'' in the US press was given community service in May 2001 and again in July 2001.)
[b]Q16[/b].[i] In the 1980s, George W Bush was on the board of a film company set up by some of his old college pals. Which gory horror film did the company produce[/i]?
A The Hitcher. B Halloween. C Friday the Thirteenth.
[b]Answer[/b]: A.
[b]Q17[/b]. [i]George W Bush has been criticised for the number of days off he takes. According to the Washington Post, how many days vacation had he spent at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, up to this August[/i]?
A 42. B 98. C 166.
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q18[/b]. [i]The struggling US jobs market and ongoing problems in Iraq will give George W Bush a real headache in next year's presidential elections. How much is he planning to spend on his campaign[/i]?
A $100 million. B $150 million. C $200 million.
[b]Answer[/b]: C.
[b]Q19[/b]. [i]Who is the former boss of oil and construction giant Halliburton, the company given the biggest contract to rebuild Iraq[/i]?
A Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
B Vice President Dick Cheney.
C Secretary of State Colin Powell.
[b]Answer[/b]: B.
[b]Q20[/b]. [i]In which unspoiled wilderness has President Bush allowed oil exploration to go ahead[/i]?
"We the People" are in danger. Our freedoms and way of life, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights , are being systematically undermined at this time, by the corrupt Bush regime.
Only an immediate and large outcry by you and other citizens can halt this neo-con, neo-fascist sabotage of our [i]Republic for Which It Stands ... with Liberty and Justice for All[/i]. The Bush White House is pressuring Congress to push through legislation that will EXPAND the already intrusive and corrupt PATRIOT ACT.
I urge you to [b]Contact Congress [i]NOW[/i][/b], on http://www.congress.org , and [i]please ask your friends and neighbors to do the same[/i]:--
[b]STOP Bush Push for PATRIOT ACT Expansion[/b]:
[b]Demand that the expansion of the Patriot Act be REJECTED and that the existing Patriot Act be OVER-TURNED and REPEALED[/b].
"WASHINGTON -- Congress is poised to approve new legislation that amounts to the first substantive expansion of the controversial USA Patriot Act since it was approved just after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon.
Acting at the Bush administration's behest, a joint House-Senate conference committee has approved a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Authorization bill that will permit the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to demand records from a number of businesses--without the approval of a judge or grand jury--if it deems them relevant to a counter-terrorism investigation.
The measure would extend the FBI's power to seize records from banks and credit unions to securities dealers, currency exchanges, travel agencies, car dealers, post offices, casinos, pawnbrokers and any other business that, according to the government, has a "high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." Such seizures could be carried out with the approval of the judicial branch of government.
Until now only banks, credit unions, and similar financial institutions were obliged to turn over such records on the FBI's demand.
Shortly after the conference agreement was reached, the House of Representatives approved the underlying authorization bill by a margin of 263 to 163. The measure is expected to pass the Senate shortly.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said it was "disappointed" with the House's approval, but also expressed satisfaction that a number of lawmakers on both left and right decided to oppose the bill because they oppose the records provision, whose inclusion in the bill was discovered by staff aides only last week.
Particularly notable in Thursday's House vote was the defection by several conservative Republicans from the administration's fold.
"This PATRIOT Act expansion was the only controversial part of this legislation, and it prompted more than a third of the House, including 15 conservative Republicans, to change what is normally a cakewalk vote into something truly contested," said Timothy Edgar, ACLU Legislative Counsel.
"One need look no further than this vote to get an effective gauge of the PATRIOT Act's lack of popularity on Capitol Hill and among the American people," he said.
The USA PATRIOT Act--which gives unprecedented powers to the FBI and the federal government as a whole and was rammed through Congress at the administration's behest just six weeks after the 9/11 attacks--has evoked great controversy.
An unusual coalition of liberal, left, and right-wing groups is convinced that the law's expansion of the government's surveillance and investigatory powers threatens individual freedoms and privacy rights.
More than 200 local governments, including some of the country's largest cities, have approved resolutions upholding the full enjoyment of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and urging a narrowing of the USA PATRIOT Act, while the Senate Judiciary Committee has been holding a series of critical hearings over the past month about the Act's impact.
Members of the Judiciary Committee, including Republican Larry Craig of Idaho and five Democratic senators, sent a letter to the conference committee earlier this week urging it strip the new provision from the intelligence bill so that it could be taken up by their Committee in public hearings. The provision has never been publicly debated.
"I'm concerned about this," Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin, who tried unsuccessfully to limit the life of the new provision, told the New York Times. "The idea of expanding the powers of government gives everyone pause except the Republican leadership."
The government wants these powers in order to more effectively prosecute the "war on terrorism," although critics warn that, once given these powers, the FBI may use them in cases that are not relevant to terrorism in order to gather evidence against other targets of investigation.
Indeed, recent Senate hearings have covered incidents in which information about individuals was obtained by the FBI through the use of its counter-terrorism powers even though the such investigations were directed against what the ACLU called "garden-variety criminals."
The provision not only permits the FBI to seize records from more kinds of businesses; it also forbids businesses from informing their clients about the seizures.
In that respect, it is comparable to a particularly controversial section of the PATRIOT Act permitting the FBI to seek an order for library records for an "investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" and imposing a gag order on librarians, who are prohibited from telling anyone that the FBI demanded the records. Librarians and civil-liberties groups have sued the government to have that section declared unconstitutional.
"The more checks and balances against government abuse are eroded, the greater that abuse," said the ACLU's Edgar. "We're going to regret these initiatives down the road.""
[b]See also[/b]: [u]Bill of Rights Defense Committee[/u] Web-site on http://www.bordc.org/
Neo-Con Campaign Waged To Deceive & Defraud The American People
"We the People" are being defrauded with a bombardment of lies, deceptions and outright falsehoods by the neo-con, neo-fascist right-wing [i]so-called [/i]"[i]think tanks (sic)[/i]" such as the [i]American Enterprise Institute & Heritage Foundation, amongst others [/i](pretty names for nefarious groups) and, their attack-dogs & court-jesters working for ultra-conservative propaganda machines such as [i]Fox News, World Net Daily, Weekly Standard, etc. [/i](neo-nazi propaganda outlets funded by corporate interests, wealthy plutocrats & the richest-of-the-rich campaign contributors funneling hundreds of millions to the Bushies, in return for ...) -- ALL mouth-pieces of the insane PNAC ([i]Project for the New American Century[/i]) groupies & thugs in the corrupt Bush regime.
This corrupt neo-con cabal is a "win-at-all-cost" gang of mendacious operators who are waging a propaganda war (very similar to Joseph Goebbles' [i]Tell Big Lies [/i]campaign) to defraud the American people and the rest of the world. It is not working in the European Union (EU), where the people are more skeptical of government rhetoric and certainly recognize a crook like Bush when they see one. It is working in America, because our people have become, fat, dumb and lazy. Moreover, since people have no respect for the facts or the truth in the [i]United States of Amnesia[/i]-- they are even willing to LIE to WIN.
You will hear their dishonest campaign to slander and discredit leaders such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who led us out of the Great Depression (1929-1941), which he inherited from Herbert Hoover. The corrupt neo-cons want you to believe that FDR's New Deal (i.e. social programs putting people to work, social security, and any collective populist project that enables those who aren't filthy rich to also enjoy services such as policemen, firemen, clean water, sewage systems, education, health care, etc. ...) are BAD, BAD, BAD. They [i]stupidly[/i] cry: Government Evil ... Private Sector Good ... for all things ... an imbecilic notion recognized as such by anyone with an iota of understanding of government, civil institutions, society, economics, corporate interests, and culture.
In reality, FDR inherited a disastrous situation with unemployment at 25% (worse than in Germany which led to the rise of the Fascist Dictator Adolf Hitler) from the corrupt corporate-puppet Herbert Hoover, and through his New Deal initiatives brought unemployment back down to below 10% by 1941. For those who are stupid, spoiled and care nothing about their fellow citizens who live in dire poverty and are without jobs:-- the ignorant or corrupt choose to ignore the lessons of this age of despair (or to outright lie about it, in order to propagandize their neo-con agenda). However, for those who were able to obtain jobs and provide for their families, FDR was a hero. Of course, the capitalists of the FDR era, including corporate robber-barons, wealthy plutocrats, and the richest-of-the-rich called [b]FDR "A Traitor to His Class" [/b]... Yes, these obscenely rich and greedy rapists would have absolutely adored Bush.
[i][b]Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose[/b][/i]
Fast forward, to the neo-feudal age of the corrupt Bushies -- who now are maneuvering to turn us into a neo-slave state ... with the largest deficits & debts in our nation's history -- skyrocketing poverty rates (35 Million), citizens without health care (45-85 Million), and, the highest unemployment (9 Million) & job losses since the Great Depression. The middle-class, low-income workers and poor are facing ever greater hardships, while the rich are becoming fabulously richer from obscene and immoral tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles awarded by the anti-christian Bush & Cheney Inc.
The Bush & Cheney Inc. neo-con strategy is to pretend that these dire problems and hardships do not exist, with the willing collusion of a compliant neo-con "corporate-owned" media. The callous and ruthless Bush regime are ignoring the misery they've caused, and instead order their "useful idiot" attack-dogs & court-jesters to propagate LIES:--
* Pretend that the economy is great (which it is, if you're one of the richest 5% or a corporate rapist), when instead, the high costs of paying-off Bush's record-level deficits & debts, slashed services, rising local/state taxes & increasing energy costs, etc., is a disaster for the rest of us ...
* Pretend that policies which will ruthlessly rape & swindle the middle-class, low-income workers & poor are good, when instead, their designs to eliminate overtime pay for hourly workers, eliminate social security for the elderly, privatize education & destroy medicare, etc., are squalid, harmful and dangerous ...
* Pretend that corporate-mandated energy policies that rape & plunder consumers and endanger the health of our environment and the planet are sound, when instead, they place our health & well-being, and that of future generations, in peril ...
* Pretend that all is rosy in Iraq, when instead, we are embroiled in a bloody guerrilla quagmire, and the death toll, carnage, and casualties rise daily ... while Bush's corporate cronies (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) rape & loot Americans & Iraqis, and,
* Pretend that their insane isolationist "pre-emptive" foreign policies of aggression will make us safer, when instead, we are more hated than ever before and we are witnessing an increase of terrorism around the world-- [b]
All of the Bush regime's policies have placed us in greater danger, here at home and abroad[/b].
"At the end of October, The [i]Washington Post [/i]published a ground-breaking 3,200-word front-page story about Iraq's prewar nuclear weapons program. [i]Post[/i] reporter Bart Gellman's reporting provided painstaking detail and overwhelming evidence to reveal what David Kay's inspectors have concluded (that Iraq had no WMD programs) but have been afraid to admit.
After the [i]Post[/i] published Kay's cagey rebuttal of the piece's findings, without reply, given the[i] Post's [/i]policy of not responding to letters about its stories, some readers concluded that the paper was acknowledging that Kay's assertions letter were correct.
But, Gellman and the[i] Post's [/i]editors say they stand by the story 100 percent, as Gellman's convincing rebuttal to Kay--which was sent to "Iraq News," a listserv run by neocon pundit Laurie Mylroie--strongly shows. Gellman's letter, which we've reprinted below, should be widely circulated to counter a campaign underway--led by rightwing newspapers like the Rupert Murdoch-owned [i]New York Post[/i], internet columnists like Matt Drudge, and think tanks like the [i]American Enterprise Institute[/i]--to discredit Gellman's invaluable reporting and obscure the way the Bush Administration willfully deceived the American public"
[b]THIS is one for the record books (as well as the history books) ...[/b]
The Bushies' surprising admission of guilt in violating international law, underlines what many legal experts have been saying all along ... So with one [i]sweep of the hand[/i], the corrupt, neo-con Bush regime has chosen to eradicate & simply ignore the principles enshrined in the Magna Carta, U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, the United Nations Charter, and International Treaties & Conventions. The Bush regime show utter contempt for the rule of law and are unfit to hold office.
The rule of law is the only basis under which civilization can be maintained. For a neo-fascist dictatorial tyrant to say [i]I am powerful ... the rules don't apply to me ... I will trample upon & destroy anyone in my path, at a whim ... To hell with the law, if I don't like the law ... I'm strong & powerful and can tread on anyone weak & vulnerable ... You're either with me or against me [/i]... is disastrous and is eerily similar to the ugly rhetoric and barbaric behaviour of Adolf Hitler. To conduct an aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation, based upon lies, deceit & falsehoods & in violation of the law,[b] is an act of treason.[/b]
[b]"We the People" should be outraged and call for Congress to commence impeachment hearings into the [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]committed by the criminals in the Bush regime. Contact Congress on http://www.congress.org .[/b]
"[b]War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion [of Iraq] was illegal[/b]" by Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington, on http://www.guardian.co.uk/Ira...,2763,1089158,00.html :
"[b]International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal[/b].
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "[b]I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing[/b]." [i][b][Ergo, it's okay to break the law? ... might makes right? ... brute force supercedes our rights under the law? ... The arrogant brutish Bush regime doesn't even care, as they know they can commit any crime with impunity. It's disgraceful!][/b][/i]
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".
Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war.
"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it."
Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.
Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".
The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".
Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad.
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat.
Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.
Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire.
"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal.
"And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along."
The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board.
Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay.
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC. "
More evidence is coming to the forefront to demonstrate that the neo-cons are desperate, very, very desperate to recover from their discredited reputations as liars & thugs, lusting to aggressively invade sovereign nations in order to achieve immoral & illegal objectives, based upon nefarious motives [[i]not WMDs posing an imminent threat ... but instead, for their terrifying, ghoulish neo-fascist scheme entitled the [b]Project For The New American Century [/b]([b]PNAC[/b]) to enrich the Global Corporate Empire[/i]].
In their desperation, the question that must be asked is whether or not, in order to achieve their immoral & illegal aims, these neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons, are willing to betray (or, are in the process of betraying) the U.S. National Security?
"We the People" should demand an open-door investigation into the actions underway by the neo-con cabal in the corrupt Bush regime-- it may well be that these [b]neo-con "crazies"[/b] end-up the direct cause of a horrible attack on the U.S., killing and harming more innocent citizens, due to their zeal to leak classified information, in order to attempt to "save their sorry skins". (Although the neo-con liars attempt to abuse & twist outdated, irrelevant 10 year old information is outrageous, the CIA analysts still confirm it is not valid intelligence!) Contact Congress on http://www.congress.org .
"This week's blockbuster leak of a secret memorandum from a senior Pentagon official to the Senate Intelligence Committee has spurred speculation that neo-conservative hawks in the Bush administration are on the defensive and growing more desperate.
Both the committee and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation of the leak, which took the form of an article published Monday by the influential[i] neo-conservative [/i]journal,[i] The Weekly Standard[/i].
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts characterized the leak as "egregious," noting that it might have compromised "highly classified information" on intelligence sources and methods of collecting information, as well as ongoing investigations. He also said he did not believe the leak came from his committee or its staff.
The Pentagon issued an unusual press statement declaring that the leak was "deplorable and may be illegal."
The article, "Case Closed," [ http://www.weeklystandard.com... ] is a summary of a lengthy memo sent to the committee Oct. 27 by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
He had been asked by the senators to provide support for his assertion in a closed hearing last July that US intelligence agencies had established a long-standing operational link between the al-Qaeda terrorist group and Baghdad.
That, and similar assertions by senior Bush officials before the war, have long been considered questionable, more so after the war when the administration – as with its prewar contentions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – failed to come up with evidence to back its case.
Investigative reporters and Iraq war critics have accused Feith's office of having manipulated or "cherry-picked" the intelligence on Iraq's purported ties to al-Qaeda and WMD programs before the war to persuade Bush and the public that Saddam posed a serious threat to the United States.
The leaked memo consists mainly of 50 excerpts culled from raw intelligence reports by four US intelligence agencies about alleged al-Qaeda-Iraqi contacts from 1990 to 2003.
Some of the reports include brief analysis, but most cite accounts by unnamed sources, such as "a contact with good access," "a well placed source," "a former senior Iraqi intelligence officer," a "regular and reliable source," "sensitive CIA reporting," and "a foreign government service."
Although the article's author, [i]Weekly Standard [/i]correspondent Stephen Hayes, concludes that much of the evidence is "detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources," the only example of real corroboration is with respect to several reports regarding contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraqi agents in Afghanistan in 1999.
Most of the excerpts deal instead with alleged meetings or less direct contacts in which sources claim that al-Qaeda agents are requesting certain kinds of assistance, such as a safe haven, training or, in one case, WMD.
While supporters of the war in Iraq, such as the [i]New York Times' [/i]William Safire, have jumped on the Hayes' article as proof of what the administration had alleged, retired intelligence officers have criticized it, both because of the security breach of the leak itself and because its contents are anything but "conclusive" of an operational relationship.
W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the [i]Washington Post [/i]the article [ http://www.washingtonpost.com... ] amounted to a "listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship."
At the same time, he added, it raises the question: "If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"
Other retired officers stressed that, to the extent that virtually all of the excerpts consist of raw intelligence unvetted by professional analysts, the article appeared to prove precisely what critics had been saying: Feith's office simply picked those items in raw intelligence that tended to confirm their preexisting views that a relationship must have existed, without subjecting the evidence to the kind of rigorous analysis that intelligence agencies would apply.
"This is made to dazzle the eyes of the not terribly educated," Greg Thielmann, a veteran of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) who retired in 2002, told IPS.
"It begs the question, 'Is this the best they can do'? If you're going to expose this stuff, you'd better have something more than this," he said, adding, "My inclination is to interpret this as probably a very good example of cherry-picking and the selective use of intelligence that was so obvious in the lead-up to the war."
Melvin Goodman, a former top CIA analyst, said the leak is a sign of desperation. "To me, they had to leak something like this, because the neo-conservatives (in the administration) have nothing to stand on."
"They're trying to get the idea out there that, 'Hey, there was a case for war', and they have 'useful idiots' like Safire who say they're right."
The notion that the leak was "friendly" or "authorized" by hawks in the Pentagon or their allies in Vice President Dick Cheney's office – as opposed to an unauthorized leak designed to embarrass the author – is widely accepted here.
[b]The [i]Standard,[/i] particularly Hayes and executive editor William Kristol, have acted as a mouthpiece for administration hawks like Feith, his immediate boss, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and their friends in Cheney's office, particularly his powerful chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, since even before the administration's "war on terror," declared after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001[/b].
[b]But at the same time it raises serious questions about the judgment of those responsible for the leak. Not only does the intelligence contained in the article fall embarrassingly short of "closing the case" on Iraq-al-Qaeda links, the leak itself of such highly classified material might fuel the impression that the neo-conservatives, if they were indeed the source, are willing to sacrifice the country's secrets to retain power[/b].
"[i]It shows a cavalier and almost contemptuous regard for the national security rationale for keeping information classified[/i]," according to Thielmann. "[i]The objective of silencing the critics is so overwhelming that you have to throw national security secrets to the wind[/i]."
Both he and Goodman noted striking similarities between this latest case and the leak last July of the identity of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer.
Wilson had just embarrassed the administration by disclosing his trip on behalf of the CIA to Niger to check out a report that Iraq had bought uranium "yellowcake." He charged that Bush's assertion about the yellowcake in his 2003 State of the Union address was false and that the White House knew it or should have known it at the time.
The evident purpose of the leak to columnist Robert Novak was to discredit Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Niger was suggested by his wife.
In fact, the leak provoked enormous anger in the intelligence community as a major security breach that effectively ended Plame's career as a covert officer, and potentially endangered her life and those of people who had worked with her abroad.
[b]The FBI is currently running a criminal investigation on the matter[/b].
"[i]It's obvious that if you cared about the real national security interests of this country, you wouldn't reveal an asset[/i]," said Goodman. "[i]That shows this is a venal and desperate group who are not considering the real national-security interests of this country[/i].""
... "You could not create such a world as you have just described. It is a dream. It is impossible." - [i]Winston[/i] ... "Why?" - [i]O'Brien[/i] ... "It is impossible to found a civilization on fear and hatred and cruelty. It would never endure." - [i]Winston[/i] ... "Why not?" - [i]O'Brien[/i] ... "It would have no vitality. It would disintegrate. It would commit suicide." - [i]Winston[/i] ... "Nonsense. You are under the impression that hatred is more exhausting than love. Why should it be? And if it were, what difference would that make? ..." - [i]O'Brien[/i]
- [i]Conversation between Winston Smith and O'Brien ... George Orwell's [b]1984[/b][/i]
Men and women of conscience scratch their heads in disbelief at the outright lies ... 180 degree changes in positions ... bold-faced contradictory statements with other statements -- untrue statements opposed by the facts -- perpetrated by the Bush regime, on a vast array of issues ranging from their illegal & immoral guerrilla quagmire in Iraq; abuse & exploitation of the environment & the natural world; crumbling & strained international relations with other nations; and, dire economic problems including the skyrocketing poverty rates (35 million); lack of health care (45-85 million); unemployment (9 million), and, basic services slashed across our country, as local/state taxes rise, and the middle-class & low-income workers must pay-off the largest debts in history to pay-for tax-cuts that Bush & Cheney Inc. awarded to corporations and the rich.
Is this phenomena of [i]Bush-speak [/i]a neo-con, neo-fascist insurgence of "[i]the bizarro effect[/i]" or is it simply that we've now entered the age of George Orwell's[b][i] 1984 [/i][/b]world? The Bush regime's ugly orwellian rhetoric is corrupt and frightening ... but it can be dissembled, analyzed, understood, and exposed, as it represents insane rantings. The Bush & Cheney Inc.'s handlers understand perfectly well that should the Bushies[i] tell the truth[/i], their insane & illegal, neo-hitlerian foreign aggressions, and their blood-thirsty, rapacious & ruthless domestic rape of America and other nations-- would be loudly condemned by an outraged and angry public throughout the entire world.
As it stands, the public can comfortably pretend that all is well ... Why? Because, Bushy-boy says so ... Hitler said the same thing to the Germans in the aftermath of his early "victories of aggression" in 1940 ... and it is "nice-and-comfy" to follow-the-leader ... it requires no leg-work, no effort, no struggle, and no risk. It's safe & easy to follow ... it takes courage to think for oneself & "take the road less traveled."
Of course, for those people of conscience who are truly patriotic and truly care deeply for this nation and it's future: ... "We the People" refuse to suspend our cognitive processes and blindly follow the corrupt neo-con Bush regime's neo-fascist, brain-washing machinations ... and moreover, we recognize and are appalled at the horrific discrepancies between their dishonest propaganda from one-day-to-the-next; and the extreme disparities between their mendacious rhetoric and actions.
Today, Justin Raimondo, keenly observes the arrogant Bush-machine's outrageous despotic squalor, in his article entitled "[b]The Bizarro Effect[/b]" on http://www.antiwar.com/justin... :
"[b]Did 9/11 rip a hole in the space-time continuum? The evidence grows….[/b]
"Something quite sinister is happening. But you knew that. As we know all too well, since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, everything changed: the earth somersaulted on its axis, and reality became …inverted. I first broached, somewhat tentatively, the idea that 9/11 ripped a hole in the space-time continuum and delivered us into a nightmare universe – a [i][b]Bizarro World [/b][/i]where up is down, right is wrong, and conservatives have morphed into Jacobins – in a column written last year. I see that Maureen Dowd has picked up on this, recently, and the meme is spreading, as evidence for my thesis picks up steadily, in small ways and large:
The President declares that [i]we're in Iraq for the long haul [/i]– [b]even as the drawdown of American forces accelerates[/b].
The President declares that [i]we're going to stay the course[/i] – [b]even as he gets ready to fob the problem off on the Europeans[/b].
The President declares that we won't "[i]cut and run[/i]" in Iraq – [b]even as he cuts and runs at the prospect of facing Britain's Parliament[/b].
But it's the little things, too, that tend to support the [i][b]Bizarro World [/b][/i]thesis. Like this blog entry, taken from an Iraqi blog entitled "[b]Healing Iraq[/b]":
"Unless there are some extreme measures and punishments against those responsible it is going to get any better. I'm going to repeat it again and everyday:
[i]public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public trials, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions, public executions[/i],
"Those militants don't understand any language except the language of force. Fuck human rights. Those aren't humans anyway. We desperately NEED to see some heads rolling. Believe it or not. Theres [sic] going to have to be some bloodshed for this to work. Bomb the hell out of Tikrit and Al-Awja. Massacre every last person of Saddam's tribe. Rape his women. Yeah."
That's how they "heal" in Iraq.
What got blogger "Zeyad," who claims to be a 24-year-old dentist residing in Baghdad, in such a murderous mood? A suicide bombing? An attack on Iraqi police by the insurgents? Another ambush of American troops? None of the above: it seems the lights went out in Baghdad, again – but, as it turns out, it probably wasn't due to sabotage.
Zeyad is living proof that Western style liberal democracy will never take root in Iraq, not in 10,000 years.
The inversion of everything has, for the most part, aided the War Party: evil became good, after all. Lately, however, the [i]Bizarro World [/i]effect shows some signs of backfiring on them. Because it also means that America's allies are going to act like … enemies. This explains why the Queen is adamantly refusing to take elementary measures to protect the President during his stay at Buckingham Palace. The Age quotes an anonymous courtier:
"They wanted blast and bullet-proofed windows and curtains and some strengthening to the walls of the President's suite and other rooms at the Palace where he would be spending time. The President's security men seem obsessed with the idea of an airborne attack on the Palace."
Change the curtains? Heaven forfend!
On the other hand, this may not be an example of the [i]Bizarro effect [/i]at work: it's about what you might expect from the Brits, come to think of it. Yet the effect, in this case, could be more subtle. Why is this courtier surprised that the President's security is "obsessed" with the possibility of an airborne attack? Isn't that what got the Pentagon and 3,000 people in and around the World Trade Center? My thesis stands.
The[i] Bizarro Effect [/i]took hold instantly, in the moments after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, and has been intensifying ever since. As time goes on, things will only get worse – or better, if you're Richard Perle.
The horror unleashed by 9/11 has yet to fully play itself out. But what we don't know about that day could fill volumes. The 9/11 Commission that was constituted only at the insistence of the families of the victims is still being stonewalled by the White House: the Commission had to threaten to subpoena key documents to get even a modicum of cooperation. More such threats will certainly be in order.
Penetrating the mysteries of 9/11 will require more than subpoena power, however, and before we get to the heart of it no doubt many volumes of research and analysis will be written and published. My own modest addition to the genre has just been published. The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection is now available from iUniverse."
[b]Other Sources[/b]:
"How the Orwellian White House Continues to Keep the Saddam-9/11 Connection Alive, Even After Bush Debunked the Lie. They Are the Masters of "1984" Double Speak" on http://www.buzzflash.com/anal...
"In the line of fire - The policing of mass demonstrations is becoming increasingly repressive and politicised" on http://politics.guardian.co.u...,9115,1088201,00.html
"It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: 'And this, too, shall pass away.' How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!" - [i]Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Address Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin" (September 30, 1859), pp. 481-482.[/i]
[b]"We the People" are witness to a terrible time in our nation's history [/b]... Could the proverbial Ancient Chinese Curse be upon us? ([b]Ancient Chinese Curse[/b]:[i] [b]May you live in interesting times[/b][/i]. [ http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/mean... ])
Instead of a great and noble vision for the 21st century, a neo-con cabal of greedy and corrupt thugs have hijacked our government to create a neo-fascist, neo-feudal slave state, and we're tragically reaping the "[i]rewards (sic)[/i]" of Bush & Cheney Inc.'s highest debts & deficits in our nation's history-- thousands of innocents killed in unnecessary wars (Afghanistan & Iraq)-- skyrocketing poverty, unemployment, citizens without health care-- U.S. ranks 37th in the world in the quality & standard of health care provided to our citizens-- education crumbling, and the American infrastructure deteriorating with no plan for recovery. Instead, badly needed services are being slashed while local & state taxes, and prices of goods, services & fuel rises, hitting hardest the middle-class, low-income & the poor-- This insane policy is barbaric and not worthy of the richest nation on the planet.
We live in a time and place, in which the[i] Greed-is-Good [/i]gang is ruthlessly grabbing & stealing all for themselves (off the backs of the working people), and demonizing those in need, the poor and the vulnerable-- The Bush regime's sordid meanness has taken on a new and vicious mask that barks, snaps & smirks a neo-orwellian chant of hypocritical preaching and roaring about "christianity", while their neo-con's acts and actions betray instead an "anti-christian" mean-spiritedness, rapacious and ruthless swindle and embezzlement of our citizenry. The corrupt Bush regime and their neo-con attack-dogs & court-jesters, are responsible for awarding massive, immoral (& possibly illegal) boondoggles, tax loopholes & tax cuts to the corporations, wealthy plutocrats & rich campaign contributors ... re-distributing our nation's wealth into the hands of a small number of crooks-- while our nation is in trouble and our people are increasingly impoverished and suffering.
In an insightful and imaginative extrapolation,[i] David Donnelly, the political director of the Public Campaign Action Fund[/i], wonders what Abraham Lincoln would say if he were alive today, on http://www.alternet.org/story... :
[b]What Would Lincoln Say?[/b]
On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the [i]Gettysburg Address[/i]. The words "[b]government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth[/b]," are now immortalized in school textbooks across this great undivided nation.
Fast forward seven score years from that day. President George W. Bush has just eclipsed his own fundraising record of $101 million over the weekend, and is well on his way to a jaw-dropping $200 million or more.
Imagine what our nation's first [b]Republican President, Abraham Lincoln[/b], would say to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:
It was a dark and stormy night. For some reason, President Bush, who was normally early to bed and a sound sleeper, found himself tossing and turning. He decided to wander the deserted halls of the White House residence in the early morning hours, and soon found himself in the Lincoln Bedroom. To his surprise, a candle was burning on the desk, and a tall man with a dark beard called him to sit down.
"[b]George[/b]," the man began, not mincing any words.
"[b]I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed[/b]." ([i]Letter to Col. William F. Elkins, November 21, 1864[/i].)
"Abe? Honest Abe? Is that you?" President Bush answered, startled and shaking his head. "Well, it's good to see you. Are you talking about Iraq and Halliburton? You don't understand – that was Dick's deal, not mine, see.
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people." ([i]Speech aboard USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003, under the "Mission Accomplished" banner[/i].)
"[b]There you go again, George[/b]," Lincoln responded. "[b]Stealing my words. It was bad enough you made that speech on my namesake. A little free advice: Maybe next time you should try a more humble approach[/b].
"[b]And[/b]," Lincoln continued, "[b]I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence[/b]." ([i]Address in Independence Hall, February 22, 1861[/i].)
Hearing the word, "politically," Bush, without thinking, knew exactly how to reply:
"The political season will come in its own time. I've got a job to do." ([i]Oft-quoted remark from every fundraising speech[/i].)
Refreshed from a chance to speak with Lincoln, President Bush then promptly left to wish Vice President Cheney well as he caught Air Force Two. It was taking Cheney to upstate New York, where he was expected to raise millions from donors giving $1,000 or $2,000 a piece at three consecutive meals in three different cities.
In the silence of the building he knew so well, Lincoln sat with his head in his hands. After a minute he got up and looked out the window at the helicopter taking off.
"[b]All men and women are created equal[/b]," he muttered to himself. "[b]But it seems that now some are more equal than others. The living certainly have unfinished work to do[/b]."
[i]David Donnelly is the political director of the Public Campaign Action Fund[/i], which has issued the http://www.lincolncall.pcacti... [b]Lincoln Call for a Presidency Of, By and For the People.[/b]
How Far We've Fallen: JFK Had Style & Substance ... Bush Has No Style & No Substance
Next Saturday, 22nd November 2003, will be the 40th anniversary of the assassination of [b]President John F. Kennedy (JFK)[/b], a pivotal point in American and World history. Never again, would a great populist leader who truly cares about the welfare of the people, be allowed to rise to power, in the richest nation on earth. JFK called for people to ask [i]What Can I Do To Help?[/i] instead of the immoral and insane Bush mantra of [i]What Can I Grab For Me, Me Me?[/i]
For those who were young when JFK was President, they remember a time when people were truly inspired to give of themselves ... JFK asked people, all people ([i]rich and poor, young and old, black and white ... [/i]) to be the best people, the best human beings, they could be ... to strive to work together for a better world. This wasn't just rhetoric: JFK set-up the Peace Corps, a program that actively involved young people in projects, giving them an opportunity to make substantive contributions-- learn about the world around them, and also build positive, productive ties to other peoples throughout the planet. The Peace Corps built bridges of understanding, knowledge and good relationships between America and the rest of the world.
JFK fostered hope:-- hope for a better world. JFK fostered strong international ties ... Throughout the world people came to observe that war was indeed, avoidable-- so important during the Cold War, when the threat of a nuclear holocaust was a real danger ... JFK fostered a belief that we could overcome our greedy, selfish & egotistical natures, and create a Great Society, in which all people, irrespective of race, religion and gender could partake in the fruits and bounty of our collective efforts. JFK said "[b]A rising tide lifts all boats[/b]" meaning that prosperity should be shared by all, and it is our collective responsibility to eradicate poverty and care for the weak and the vulnerable among us.
JFK also had grace and style:-- he came under severe attack in his press conferences ... JFK held a lot of press conferences ... he loved them because he was smart and knowledgeable ... he defended his positions with passion and with humor. JFK was well-read, witty and inspirational.[b] In a famous interview, the indomitable Helen Thomas asked JFK [/b]"[b][i]What are you doing for women[/i]?", to which he quipped "[i]Well, I don't know Ms. Thomas, but I'm sure whatever it is, it isn't enough[/i][/b]!"
JFK was a man:-- He followed the advice of the CIA & Military-men into the Bay of Pigs ... a disaster about which he noted "... [b]victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan[/b] ..." ... but, he learned from that mistake, and when the Cuban Missile Crisis threatened a major confrontation between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. (and a potential nuclear war), JFK didn't play the macho-man-- he didn't make the same mistake twice and follow immoral & bad advice from the Pentagon who wanted him to nuke Soviet aircraft carriers-- JFK negotiated a peaceful agreement with Nikita Kruschev and the U.S.S.R. pulled their nuclear missiles out of Cuba, and thus, averted war.
Much is made of JFK's sex life ... he was a womanizer ... and it took a heavy and sad toll on his marriage ... JFK had to take medication for his life-long back trouble and medical problems. JFK was no saint ... We have no saints as leaders, and personally, while JFK's behaviour may have hurt his relationship with his wife-- it isn't our business, in my opinion ... Better a President who isn't "perfect" ... than a hypocritical "bible-thumping" imbecilic fool (who may not sleep around) but, instead whose flaws are much more insidious, damaging and dangerous to the rest of us.
JFK was a confident and a smart man:-- he didn't need warfare to bolster popularity ratings, or to play macho-man out of some deep-seated insecurity, or to enrich corrupt corporate cronies. JFK was wiser than that and had a greater vision for what America could become. He set a goal to put the 1st man on the moon, saying "[b]We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too[/b]."
JFK loved history and knew history well:-- he would often quote historical antedotes and quotations from history and literature. He didn't try to "play dumb", "act dumb" or simply "be dumb", in order to attract the corrupt, the lazy and the stupid. JFK wisely observed that "[b]If more politicians knew poetry, and more poets knew politics, I am convinced the world would be a little better place in which to live.[/b]"
We will not see his type of populist leadership again in our life-time. Tragically, JFK was assassinated on the 22nd November 1963. We'll probably never really know the entire truth behind the assassination: Was it Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone? Did the Texan Oil Men, who hated Kennedy, have him killed? Did the CIA collude in his death because he was unwilling to collaborate in plots to invade Cuba, following the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did the Corporate Empire's imperial interests have him killed because he refused to place the U.S. Dollar under the control of the Federal Reserve (private bank) and allow America to be ruthlessly swindled? ... We'll probably never know.
However, we have a historical record that does demonstrate how the nation can overcome difficulties, if we select great leaders with a vision for a better life for all citizens. When JFK said "[b]Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country[/b]" he didn't mean that the greedy corporate rapists & the richest-of-the-rich should [i]take-the-money-and-run [/i]-- he meant that together all citizens should contribute their full measure of talents and resources to make this country a better place for all people. JFK understood Benjamin Franklin's principle that [i]Much is Demanded of Those To Whom Much is Given[/i] ... The wealthy have an obligation to give back to the society that enabled them to prosper.
Sadly, we've fallen far, far into a terrible abyss, in the aftermath of the loss of JFK ... instead of demanding leadership that calls for the best in our leaders and of all citizens ... and inspires this wealthiest nation on earth, to ensure that all citizens have a share in our great wealth-- we've "fallen" for corrupt, greedy and mean-spirited "Greed-is-Good" "corporate-take-all" puppets and "useful idiots":--
Today, we're saddled with Bush, who has no style and no substance ... a hollow, stupid man, who takes pride in being ignorant ... is too lazy to read and study issues ... walks around in a dazed fog & hasn't the mind to speak extemporaneously ... represents the corporations & wealthy oligarchy & rich campaign contributors ... war-mongers to enrich war-profiteers, based upon lies, deceit & fabrications ... unravels our freedoms using insane "Patriot (sic)" Acts ... places our nation in peril & is hated around the world ... ignores real needs in our nation ... and has offered no substantive programs to help solve the dire problems of skyrocketing poverty, unemployment, health care and education. Bush has held the fewest press conferences of any president in modern times, because he is a disgraceful embarrassment, who doesn't have a clue how to answer questions ... without his handlers there to tell their "[b]boy in the plastic bubble[/b]" what to think, and what to say. But then, JFK would have never stupidly smirked Bush's imbecilic bark "[b]Bring 'em on[/b]!"
JFK wisely observed: "[b]We can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."[/b]
"We the People" and many around the world remember his wisdom, his inspiration and his wit. We remember JFK's call to service. Some of us weep, weep for our nation at how far we've fallen-- and we will continue fight for a better tomorrow. And, although the "Camelot" ideal of the JFK era is mythical-- there is a spark of truth ... We must study history to avoid repeating the appalling mistakes of the past ... "Let it not be forgotten, that once there lived" such a man as JFK ...
The Bush regime is working very, very methodically to take us back to the future: to the calamitous 14th century feudal days, brought forward, to create a barbaric, neo-feudal time in the present day. To install a [i]neo-feudal state [/i]in which the [i]wealthy plutocrats rule and the rest of us are turned into helpless, hapless slaves[/i], the Bushies are repealing any and every program that safeguards the interests of the working people, the poor & vulnerable in our society, as fast as they can push their immoral, anti-christian, neo-fascist agenda through their rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
Bush's extremist judicial nominees would also return us to the bad ole' feudal days, when those who saw the [i]devil, hell-and-damnation, and the chance to lynch those who didn't pay proper homage to the rich and powerful-- around every corner[/i], ruled by whim, prejudice and intolerance, and [i]"rights" were bestowed as a "gift" instead of enshrined in law[/i]:-- Bush's neo-fascist judicial nominees would impose a bizarre, tyrannical form of neo-nazi, neo-fascist control over every aspect of our private lives and strip us of our rights. The rights of the corporations, wealthy plutocracy and the robber-barons, would rule ... and the rest of us would be forced to live under tyranny and fear.
[b]"We the People" must say no to such extreme neo-con, neo-fascists, who stand against the principles that our Founding Fathers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights[/b].
[b]Claude A. Allen – Hearing held, pending in Committee[/b]
Allen is nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Currently the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, Allen has spent his tenure attempting to advance the interests of the religious right, particularly in the areas of reproductive freedom, abstinence-only sex education and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender rights. On October 28, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its hearing on his nomination. Committee members particularly questioned this nomination, as Allen is a Virginian who has been nominated to fill a vacancy typically held by a Maryland resident. Maryland Sens. Paul Sarbannes and Barbara Mikulski are leading the opposition because they believe that the vacancy should be filled by a Maryland nominee. The Committee has not yet voted on whether to send Allen to the floor.
According to an Alliance for Justice news release (Oct. 28, 2003) "Allen was the first African American aide to Senator Jesse Helms, and has been noted for his statement, during Helms' 1984 re-election campaign, that Helms' opponent was vulnerable for his links 'with the queers.'"
[b]Terrence Boyle – Pending in committee[/b]
Nominated to the United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Terrence Boyle has a questionable history with privacy rights and racial minorities. He is currently serving as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
[b]Janice Rogers Brown – Full Senate vote pending, filibuster expected[/b]
Brown is nominated to fill a vacancy in the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, and is currently serving as a California Supreme Court Justice. At her hearing on Wednesday, October 22, Brown claimed to understand the importance of separating her personal views from her professional life, but her record belies this statement. Her court decisions reflect her desire to limit abortion rights and corporate liability and display her outright opposition to affirmative action. According to the National Women's Law Center, Brown, as a California Supreme Court Justice, has taken positions that would undermine legal protections against harassment, including sexual harassment, in the workplace. She would have struck down an injunction against the continued use of obscenities and ethnic slurs like "wetback" against Latino employees, and she even raised doubts about whether women subjected to offensive verbal conduct of a sexual nature can challenge it as sexual harassment under Title VII, despite well-established, longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedents finding that such conduct is illegal. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A car Systems, Inc.)
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-9 along party lines to send her name to the floor.
[b]D. Michael Fisher – Full Senate vote pending[/b]
Nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Fisher currently serves as the Attorney General for Pennsylvania. His conservative record displays his strong opposition to reproductive freedom and gay rights and a vigorous support for the death penalty. On October 15, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Fisher's nomination. This move was particularly troubling because he is currently involved in post-trial motions to a lawsuit where he was ordered to pay damages to two former employees for retaliating at them in response to earlier lawsuits they had filed. The bench to which he has been nominated is the same court that would decide his own case on appeal. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-0 on November 6 to send Fisher's name to the floor; Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) voted in favor of Fisher, and the other Democrats voted present because of the open judgment against Fisher.
According to an Alliance for Justice report, as recently as June of 2003, Fisher stated at a National Right to Life Convention that "All of us are hoping and praying that the day will come under the leadership of George W. Bush that we'll have a Supreme Court in the future with justices who will leave it to the states to decide the legality of the issue by overturning Roe v. Wade."
During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Fisher stated,"…abortion is becoming no more than just a form of family planning by those people who are seeking it," and that "the more accessible abortions are – there's no question in my mind – the stronger the likelihood there is that a mother will seek that alternative first before looking at other alternatives."
During the same campaign, the nominee stated, "I would not support a bill that would recognize gay marriages. I would not do anything to provide funding that would promote that, whether it would be for the expansion of benefits for state employees or for the provision of money to benefit homosexual partners."
[b]James Leon Holmes – Full Senate vote pending[/b]
Holmes is nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. An ultra-conservative partner in an Arkansas law firm, Holmes has a disturbing record on women's rights. He has zealously spoken out against abortion and has made extreme statements regarding the separation of church and state, gay rights, and gender equality. His nomination passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1 in a 10-9 vote.
According to Forward.com (July 11, 2003), Holmes argued in a 1997 article co-written with his wife for a Catholic publication "the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband." In another article, he incorrectly claimed "concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami."
Holmes also wrote, in a response to a 1987 article, abortion-rights activists were pushing the country to abandon "what little morality our society recognizes. This was attempted by one highly sophisticated, historically Christian nation in our century - Nazi Germany."
[b]Brett M. Kavanaugh – Pending in committee[/b]
Kavanaugh has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He has spent much of his legal career working for ultra-conservative legal causes, including working with Kenneth Starr on President Clinton's impeachment investigation. He is currently serving as Assistant White House Counsel to George W. Bush and has championed some of his most controversial judicial nominees. Kavanaugh has no judicial experience.
[b]Carolyn Kuhl – Full Senate vote pending, filibuster expected[/b]
Carolyn Kuhl is nominated to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kuhl, who is currently a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, has a long history of hostility toward the rights of women and minorities. She has urged a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade and has advocated for parental notification for young women in need of reproductive services. In a 1986 article, Kuhl wrote that programs such as affirmative action are "divisive societal manipulations." At her Committee hearing, Kuhl refused to answer inquiries about her views on reproductive rights and affirmative action. Despite her clear record on these decisive issues, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on straight party lines (10-9) to send the nomination to the full Senate on May 8.
In an amicus brief Kuhl co-authored for the case, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, she wrote: "The textual history and doctrinal basis of [Roe] is so far flawed…that this Court should overrule it and return the law to the condition in which it was before that was decided."
[b]David W. McKeague – Pending in committee[/b]
McKeague is nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. McKeague is a right-wing Michigan District Court judge with a record of a bias against plaintiffs and a history of judgments favoring civil defendants. His temperament has been described as "rude" and "abrupt and discourteous" by lawyers who have argued before him. The Alliance for Justice concluded that McKeague's record "can be best characterized as evincing an eagerness to resolve cases on summary judgment, thereby baring access to trial for broad categories of litigants. McKeague's actions in a Michigan prisoners' rights case brought by the U.S. Justice Department, "suggest a predisposition against one of the most marginalized and powerless populations in our society." McKeague is a long-time member of the Federalist society.
[b]Priscilla Owen - Filibustered[/b]
Owen is nominated to the United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit. She is currently an Associate Justice on the Texas Supreme Court who has been criticized for being the "far right wing" of an already conservative court. Her overall conservative agenda and history of animosity toward women's issues is apparent. She has worked to limit reproductive rights, including narrowing buffer zones around abortion clinics and calling for parental notification for young women's health services. Owen frequently sides with big corporations and has accepted thousands of dollars from Enron. On July 28, the Senators rejected a third effort to end the filibuster on Owen's nomination.
An Alliance for Justice report on Owen documented numerous instances of her hard line against granting minor's rights to privacy in reproductive matters. In the case In re Jane Doe 3, where the minor seeking a judicial bypass testified, among other things, that her father, who is an alcoholic, would fly into a rage and physically abuse her mother when she (the minor) did things that upset him, Owen dissented suggesting that Doe should produce more details regarding the abuse. She also asserted that "a parent must have wide latitude to exert influence over and to discipline a child," implying that such "latitude" might include subjecting the daughter to the emotional distress of witnessing the father's abuse of the mother."
[b]William H. Pryor - Filibustered[/b]
Pryor has been nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Pryor has used his office s Attorney General for Alabama to promote his religious agenda, arguing that Christianity and the government should work hand in hand. A member of the Federalist society, he holds extremist conservative views toward women's rights and civil rights. Pryor advocates for the outright reversal of Roe v. Wade and has worked to limit claims of discrimination based on age, race, and ethnicity. His record reflects his tendency to side with large corporations at the expense of the environment. On November 6, the Senate again rejected (51-43) an effort to end the filibuster of Pryor's nomination.
Pryor has said Roe v. Wade is "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history." Speaking at a 1997 rally, Prior said "I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children." (Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1997).
[b]Charles Pickering - Filibustered[/b]
Pickering was re-nominated by President Bush on January 7 -- just hours after Republicans took control of the Senate -- for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. His record on women's issues and civil rights has raised significant cause for concern. A long-standing opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, Pickering has aligned himself with committees and organizations that speak out against abortion and has voted against state funding for family planning. He uses his judicial power to push his partisan and personal agenda, especially his religious beliefs, through his decisions. In their review of Pickering's record, the Mississippi NAACP referred to Pickering's attitude toward civil rights plaintiffs as "hostile." His nomination was sent to the floor on October 30, and the Senate successfully rejected his cloture in a 54-43 vote.
In several race discrimination cases (Seeley v. City of Hattiesburg and Johnson v. South Mississippi Home Health), Pickering wrote: "The fact that a black employee is terminated does not automatically indicate discrimination. The Civil Rights Act was not passed to guarantee job security to employees who do not do their job adequately. The courts are not super personnel managers charged with second guessing every employment decision made regarding minorities…This has all the hallmarks of a case that is filed simply because an adverse employment decision was made in regard to a protected minority." In Seeley, he added: " the federal courts must never become safe havens for employees who are in a class protected from discrimination, but who are in fact employees who are derelict on their duties."
[b]John G. Roberts - Confirmed[/b]
Roberts was confirmed to United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, on May 8. His ultra-conservative agenda is reflected in his experience and advocacy. A member of the Republican National Lawyers Association, Roberts worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. As a Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts wrote a brief for the Supreme Court, arguing that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided – a position that was unnecessary to win the case. In 1992, Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools could include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs. A member of the Federalist Society, his record on the whole denies injured workers' rights. He has also has offered dissenting opinions against women's sexual harassment claims.
[b]Henry Saad – Pending in committee[/b]
Saad is nominated to the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Saad, who is currently a Michigan Court of Appeals Judge, has shown a tendency to distort the law and manipulate facts to justify his decisions. In numerous opinions, he has advocated a position that would deny rights to injured workers and rejected the claims of concerned consumers. Saad is a long-standing member of the Republican party with significant ties to key players; he's also a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society. On July 30, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing for Saad, and they have yet to vote on whether they will send his nomination to the floor.
[b]Victor J. Wolski - Confirmed[/b]
Wolski was confirmed to United States Court of Federal Claims on July 9. A self-proclaimed ideologue, Wolski's decisions reflect a troubling record on civil rights and environmental measures. He has devoted most of his brief legal career to work at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a group that routinely challenges fundamental protections for the environment, workers, and victims of discrimination. He also has demonstrated a negative view toward affirmative action. A brief signed by Wolski in 1993 argued that affirmative action measures could, if left unchallenged, threaten to return the country to the pre-Brown days of Jim Crow.
An unabashed advocate of private property rights over public interest, Wolski wrote a brief in Cargill v.United States where he challenged the government's ability to restrict pollution of waters on a property owner's land. He argued that regulation of small ponds was "far beyond" Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, an argument that would have severe implications for the Clean Water Act.
[b]Victory! Estrada Withdrawal [/b]
One clear victory was the withdrawal on September 4 of Miguel Estrada, an ideological extremist who is active in the Federalist Society, a right-wing legal activism group. Estrada, currently in private practice was nominated to the critically important U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and was widely rumored to be a stealth Supreme Court nominee. Known for his personal conservative beliefs and compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Estrada refused to supply the Senate Judiciary Committee with records of his work at the Justice Department where he was Assistant to the Solicitor General. Estrada also served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. What was known of his record indicated that he would have little concern for equal access to justice for all, civil rights protections, worker and consumer safety, and the environment. Most Democratic senators presented a united front against Estrada by sustaining a filibuster for several months until it became clear that efforts to force confirmation were futile.
[b]Proposed Legislation Would Abolish Filibuster[/b]
Rep. Zell Miller, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who usually votes to support Bush's right-wing nominees, introduced on October 22 a resolution (S. Res. 249) that would abolish the filibuster by amending Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, relating to cloture. Cloture is achieved when 60 votes to end the filibuster are reached. Few believe that this resolution will be adopted, given that filibusters advantage the party out of power and future elections could again result in a change in majority party. The Senate Republican leadership has offered its own legislation to limit objections to their nominees. S. Res. 138, introduced May 9, would amend Senate rules by restricting cloture motions, including requiring only a simple majority (51 votes) to end a filibuster. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have been doing their best to demonize the use of the filibuster against their (ultra-conservative) nominees.
[i]Published, 7th November 2003, prior to Republican's unsuccessful "dog-and-pony" chirade last week, to attempt to intimidate Democrats into rubber-stamping Bush's inappropriate and extremist nominees. To-date, 168 out of 172 judicial nominees have been approved. Bush is a petulant, petty thug who punishes anyone who doesn't do whatsoever he wants 100% of the time ... Emperor Bush is not entitled the powers of a dictatorial tyrant, although he behaves like one.[/i]
[b]Additional Information[/b]:
[b]Survey[/b] on http://www.portsmouthnh.com/s... : "Republicans, angry that they have not been able to get all of President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed even though they hold a slim majority in the U.S. Senate, protested this weeks by staging an unusual all-night session. Democrats have succeeded, so far, in blocking four nominees to the federal appeals courts while confirming 28. Do you agree or disagree with the Republican position?
"Thanks Senators for Opposing Extremist Bush Nominees - Urge Your Senators to Reject Bush's Court-Packing Plan" on http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/gene...
"Bush Judicial Nominee's Evasive Testimony and White House Failure to Provide Documents Leads to Democratic Filibuster" on http://www.aflcio.org/issuesp...
"A Distant Mirror - The Calamitous 14th Century" by Barbara W. Tuchman
The Republicans are really making absolute fools of themselves these days ... This must be what comes from operating out of a[b] panic-stricken [i]modus operandi[/i][/b], as the bungling Bush regime's failed domestic policies and disastrous foreign policies-- are coming home to roost, as a "sleepy-headed" American public are just starting to awaken from their slumber to find the world and this nation, a whole lot worse off, with the corrupt & imbecilic Bushies in (ooopppsss ... or rather, [i]out of[/i]) [i]control[/i].
Bush's only "[i]Mission Accomplished[/i]" is the re-distribution of wealth to the top 5% greedy plutocrats and the corporate top-dogs & fat-cats:-- as over 35 million Americans are living in poverty; over 9 million can't find jobs; and, over 45 million are without health care coverage. The Bushies have created the largest deficit and debt in our nation's history-- and want to destroy any protections for the weak and vulnerable in our society.
Afghanistan and Iraq are two major failed fiascos, by the corrupt & incompetent Bush regime, resulting in the Taliban thugs taking over control in the former (Afghanistan), and the daily slaughter and massacre of Americans and innocent Iraqis in the bloody, guerrilla quagmire in the later (Iraq). Bush's Death Toll currently stands at 418 U.S. Soldiers, 77 Coalition Troops, and 21,000-55,000 Iraqi citizens.
Bush's loyalty to the war-profiteers, wealthiest 5% robber-barons, and his corrupt campaign contributors, is [i]"touching" (sic)[/i] ... but for the rest of us:-- it's been a nightmarish disaster. "We the People" must demand an investigation into the Bush regime's Crimes Against Humanity, in order to bring justice to those who have died in vain, and to avoid the damning judgment of history that the American people were collaborators in such horrendous blood-letting and massacre to enrich the Bush & Cheney Inc.'s "corporate-take-all" rapists. Contact Congress on http://www.congress.org .
The Bushies have fabricated (not only LIES about WMDs, about phony, non-existent links between Saddam Hussein & terrorist groups, etc.) "excuses" to avoid investigations into their LIES, DECEIT & FALSEHOODS used to lead us into an immoral and illegal incursion into Iraq, a crime under the U.S. Constitution.
A recent example is a Democratic memo suggesting that the Dems tell the America people how we've been mis-led. The dishonest neo-con cabal that worships at the altar of the corrupt Bush & Cheney Inc., have tried unsuccessfully to create a new phony scandal to malign those who would investigate their crimes;-- These neo-con thugs want desperately to avoid an investigation uncovering the [i]real scandal of the Bushies' crimes[/i].
"The wires were buzzing last week over a memo leaked to Sean Hannity at the Fox News Network. The memo came from the offices of Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, who is serving as the ranking minority member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This is the committee, chaired by Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, that has been tasked to investigate the dazzling lack of mass destruction weapons in Iraq.
The Rockefeller memo outlined a variety of strategies he believed were needed to counteract the partisan defensiveness of Roberts and the majority on the Committee. Roberts has declared that all investigations surrounding the claims made about Iraq's weapons capabilities will be focused only on the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Rockefeller is adamant that the investigation should also include questions aimed at the White House, as well as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's special Defense Department organization called the Office of Special Plans.
Roberts is not allowing this aspect of the investigation to take place, stating that the probe is already "[i]90 to 95[/i]" finished. No questions about the dozens of public statements made by the Bush administration about Iraq's weapons capabilities have been allowed. No questions about the Office of Special Plans, which was created out of whole cloth by Rumsfeld for the specific purpose of re-interpreting CIA and State Department intelligence reports, have been allowed. No questions about repeated visits to CIA headquarters by Dick Cheney, who went there to browbeat intelligence analysts for more aggressive interpretations of the threat posed by Iraq, have been allowed. Roberts has already made it clear that the CIA is to blame for the fact that there are no weapons in Iraq, and is blocking Rockefeller and the Democrats from questioning this dubious premise.
The memo prepared by Rockefeller stated that the Democrats need to try to steer the inquiry towards these matters. Failing that, the memo said, Democrats should try to launch a separate, independent investigation into these matters because the Intelligence Committee chaired by Roberts was being used to defend the White House from taint. "[i]We have an important role to play[/i]," read the memo, "[i]in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral pre-emptive war.[/i]"
When this memo fell into the hands of Sean Hannity and Fox, a concerted attempt was made to turn the existence of the memo into a major scandal. Hannity railed that this memo would cause several Senators to resign, that it was proof the Democrats want to turn the investigation into nothing more than a political witch hunt. Various members of the mainstream press jumped on this rhetorical bandwagon. The Los Angeles Times, in one example, described the revelation of the memo in terms to warm Hannity's heart: "[i]The tone of the memo could be embarrassing to Democrats and provides new ammunition for Republican complaints that Democrats are seeking to use the inquiry for political gain[/i]."
Roberts demanded that Rockefeller denounce the memo, but Rockefeller refused to do so. Roberts used this as an excuse to cancel further Intelligence Committee hearings on the matter, and froze completely the investigation. For all practical purposes, the Congressional investigation into the rhetoric surrounding our rush to war in Iraq is over.
Little attention was given to the fact that Rockefeller is correct, that the White House and Rumsfeld deserve intense scrutiny for their central role in pushing fictional reports of Iraqi weapons capabilities, and that avoiding such questions amounts to nothing more than a purely partisan whitewash. Instead, Rockefeller's memo and legitimate questions from the Democrats were described as "[i]just politics[/i]."
Another memo surfaced recently. The Wednesday 12 November edition of the Boston Globe carried a story titled, "[b]GOP Will Trumpet Preemption Doctrine[/b]." The story centered around a memo recently prepared by Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie which was disbursed widely throughout the party apparatus. In the memo, the newest GOP strategy was outlined, and talking points were provided. The Globe article states:
[b][i]The strategy will involve the dismissal of Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech," Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials [/i][/b]-- [b][i]a move designed to shift attention toward Bush's broader foreign policy objectives rather than the accounts of bloodshed. Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests, arguing that inaction during the Clinton years led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001[/i][/b].
This memo received very little media attention. A Google News search using the words "Gillespie memo" yielded nine articles, many from online-only publications. A search using the words "Rockefeller memo" yielded 207 articles, most of which are highly critical of the "political nature" of the document.
The Rockefeller memo described a strategy to get to the bottom of what happened in the run-up to the war, a strategy that is required because Senator Roberts and his fellow Republicans are using their majority position to protect the White House from embarrassing questions. The Gillespie memo accused the Democrats of using "hate speech," blamed them for the attacks of September 11, and further outlined a political attack strategy that laments the unpatriotic behavior of the Democrats while painting a joyous picture of what is, in reality, a spectacularly failed Bush Administration policy in Iraq.
For the record, no mass destruction weapons of any kind have been found in Iraq, despite months and months of dire promises from the Bush White House and Don Rumsfeld that the stuff was there, and that it would be given to Osama bin Laden for use on the American homeland. The CIA, scapegoated for telling the truth about this for months, has reported that tens of thousands of Iraqis are swarming into the ranks of those who attack and kill American soldiers every day. Paul Bremer, the American proconsul in Iraq, presides over an utterly failed occupation plan that will soon include harsh crackdowns against the Iraqi people, something that will surely fuel the already-seething anger within that populace. A few days ago, American warplanes began bombing Baghdad again.
The nature of these dueling memos exposes several deadly problems that face this nation today. One problem is a White House that lied its populace into an unnecessary war, and used September 11 deliberately to make the American people afraid. Another problem is a partisan Congress, exemplified by Senator Roberts, which shields the Bush administration from being called to account for any of this. Another problem is a mainstream news media whose coverage of these issues is wildly skewed in favor of the GOP.
The worst problem is the Democratic Party, that loyal opposition which is all too quick to be embarrassed by revelations that they actually oppose the Bush administration. Senator Evan Bayh, Democratic Senator from Indiana and member of the now-defunct Intelligence Committee investigations, stated publicly that Rockefeller should admit drafting the memo was a mistake. "[i]I think the tone of the memo was unfortunate[/i]," said Bayh.
How about this, Senator Bayh? "[i]What is unfortunate is the fact that members of this committee who are committed to finding the truth about the development of the Bush administration's argument for war have to go outside the normal process, because the normal process has been corrupted by partisan Republicans who abuse their positions by blocking legitimate areas of inquiry. We have pages and pages of statements by administration officials that have turned out to be wildly false. There is plenty of evidence that the American people have been lied to in a process that has gotten a lot of good people killed. Why is the White House hiding? Why is Senator Roberts whitewashing this investigation? We apologize for nothing, and demand that this inquiry be widened to any and all areas that can bring us answers to these important questions[/i]."
That would be nice to hear. Instead, we hear hangdog apologies from shamefaced Democrats. We have partisan Republicans shutting down vital inquiries for purely political reasons. We have a memo from the chairman of the Republican party calling Democrats unpatriotic and blaming them for September 11, with no notice being given to this vicious political attack whatsoever. We have a fraudulent war that grinds on and on, killing and maiming our soldiers every day. Where is the real scandal here?"
[i]William Rivers Pitt is a teacher from Boston, MA. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available from Context Books. William is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant. He is on the writing staff at http://www.truthout.com where this article was also published at: http://www.truthout.org/docs_... on November 15th. You can E-mail William at: w_pitt@hotmail.com[/i]
[b]Do you think the self-righteous neo-con right-wingers, attack-dogs & court-jesters, will demand that the corrupt Ed Gillespie be asked to resign??? Ha ha ha ha ha ... Don't hold your breath!!![/b]
Bush-y-conomics is an insane and corrupt formula for enriching corporate cronies and the wealthy plutocrats, and bankrupting the middle-class. Bush's immoral (& possibly illegal) boondoggles, tax loopholes & tax cuts for corporations, the richest-of-the-rich, and his greedy campaign contributors, have resulted in:
* Higher poverty rates- over 35 million live in poverty,
* Higher unemployment - over 9 million with no jobs,
* Slashed services - over 45 million without health insurance,
* Increase in state & local taxes - many states have to cut back on services needed for "We the People" to live in a civilized society with dignity.
"We the People" must cease to blindly believe in the dishonest neo-con propaganda we're being [i]spoon-fed [/i]by a corrupt "[i]corporate-bought-and- paid-for[/i]" right-wing media, who pay a sordid homage & genuflect to the squalid, corrupt and incompetent Bush regime.
Bush's highest deficits & debts in history, historically high job losses, and the skyrocketing poverty rates, don't portend glad tidings for Middle-Class America, Fixed-income Retirees, Low-Income Families and the Poor ... It's a Disgrace for the Richest Nation in the World to be Turned into a Neo-Fascist Slave State.
"Washington has responded to the favorable turn in economic news with enthusiasm. When the third-quarter gross domestic product showed an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent and the monthly unemployment rate dropped from 6.1 to 6 percent, euphoria gripped the capital.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the struggles of families, communities and whole states continue unabated. The celebrations and high-fives up and down Pennsylvania Avenue are not to be found beyond the Beltway.
Let me take you on a tour of the country, thanks to my favorite Web site, Stateline.org, a nonpartisan scan of newspapers in all 50 states. This is a sampling, which you could duplicate in any week's news.
Alaska is facing a budget deficit of' hundreds of millions of dollars. Dick Cattanach, executive director of the Associated General Contractors of Alaska, tells the Anchorage Daily News, "We have no hope of balancing the budget the way we are going."
Arizona's Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff reports that "without smoke and mirrors, fund transfers and other gimmicks used to balance the 2004 budget, revenues for fiscal 2005 will be about $961 million less than anticipated spending," reports the Arizona Capitol Times.
In California, the Associated Press reports that "to solve the state's budget problem and help pay for new school construction, voters may face a March ballot featuring more than $30 billion in proposed bonds -- by far the largest amount ever put forward on any statewide ballot." Meanwhile, doctors are suing to stop a 5 percent cut in reimbursements for services to 6.5 million Medicaid patients. The lawsuit says the new cut "is being imposed on a system already in crisis." And the state transportation commission says lower gas tax receipts mean a five-year moratorium on new highway or transit projects to relieve traffic congestion.
In Connecticut, Republican Gov. John Rowland tells the AP, "We don't see the revenues to the state picking up until next year. We're not going to have any easy sailing budget-wise for at least two years."
In Georgia, the health care program for the poor and disabled could run out of money in the spring, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, "because $148 million was cut from the budget as part of an agreement to help balance the state's $16 billion spending plan." Already enacted cuts mean "removing thousands of low-income Georgians from the program and eliminating some benefits and services for others."
In Illinois, a single day's news includes an increase in fares on Chicago Transit Authority trains and buses to erase a $30 million deficit, a 16 percent increase in tuition at the state university and a lawsuit challenging Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich's plan to take $125 million from a state-chartered environmental foundation to help balance the budget. He is also trying to sell the state's Chicago office building to raise cash.
In Indiana, Democratic Gov. Joe Kernan led officials on a tour of prisons housing 23,000 people -- 7,000 over capacity. With the state facing a deficit of at least $810 million, the Indianapolis Star reports, two new prisons capable of holding 2,300 people cannot be opened because there is no money to pay for staff.
In Iowa, the AP says Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack is rescinding a $1.6 million cut in the Department of Public Safety because of his discomfort at learning "there are fewer troopers on the road than there were 30 years ago." Vilsack said he would have to cut elsewhere to make it up, but he could not say where.
In Michigan, the AP says Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is touring the state, seeking ideas about where to cut spending and deal with a $920 million shortfall. She is raising private money to pay her travel expenses.
I am barely halfway through the alphabet -- but out of space. One more example. The Houston Chronicle reports that in President Bush's home state of Texas, 54,000 children have been dropped from the federal-state health insurance program under new regulations from Austin.
[b]This is just a sampling, but it suggests that the celebrations of economic recovery in Washington may be as premature as that "Mission Accomplished" banner hung behind Bush on the USS Abraham Lincoln to hail the end of major combat in Iraq[/b]."
[b]Additional Sources[/b]:
"Deal 'in Principle' for Medicare Plan to Cover Drug Costs" [Bush wants to destroy Medicare, depriving the elderly of health care] on http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
"85 MILLION AMERICANS HAD NO HEALTH INSURANCE AT SOME POINT DURING FOUR YEARS - Unstable Coverage Doubles the Number of People that Appear in Annual Counts of the Uninsured" on http://www.cmwf.org/media/rel...
"Adding insult to injury - The U. S. ranks 37th in overall quality of health care. 45 million citizens who have no health insurance" by Ralph Nader on http://www.sfbg.com/nader/159...
"[Bush Propaganda:] Economy 'robust,' never mind hungry, jobless" on http://www.thedailycamera.com...,1713,BDC_2490_2429750,00 .html
"Big spender [Reckless Bush borrows & creates highest debts in history to spend for the rich] Bush presides over hike in cost of government" on http://www.thedailycamera.com...,1713,BDC_2489_2423333,00 .html
According to a new poll, the Bush gang can only fool approximately 25% (one out of four) of the people, "all of the time"! Karl (Bush's Brain & America's Joseph Goebbles) Rove must be in a [b]panic-stricken [/b]state, trying to figure out how to persuade "[i]enough of the people, enough of the time[/i]" to swallow the Bush regime's BIG LIES in order to grab another 4 years of power!
* Do we really want another four years of lies, falsehoods, fraud, swindling, looting, plundering, cover-ups, felonies (outing CIA agents whose family members tell the truth) ... and other corruptions committed by the insane neo-con Bush regime?
* Hasn't the blood-thirsty Bush regime already taken us backwards in time, to a 14th century-like lawless state of robber-barons creating chaos, misery, and mayhem, resulting in the deaths of 400 US Soldiers, 77 Coalition Troops, and between 21,000-55,000 Iraqi people, to enrich their neo-feudal plutocrats (e.g. Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Bechtel, & neo-crony investors raping America & Iraq)?
* Isn't the squandering of over $85 Billion to-date, down a black-hole of death & destruction, with another $87 Billion rubber-stamped by an intimidated & corporate-run Congress, and the highest deficits in our nation's history, sufficient proof of the disloyalty by the rapacious Bush regime to America's citizens and this nation?
Instead of a great 21st century vision to improve the lives of our citizens and re-invigorate our nation-- all we've had from the miserable failures in the Bush regime, is chaos, death, debt, unemployment, rising misery and hardships here at home & abroad, and a dearth of any substantive programs for "We the People".
The Bushies hilariously claim to want to "democratize" the entire Middle East ... Translation: Rape America to pay for the Rape of the Middle East-- to enrich their corporate top-dogs & fat-cats, and make the richest-of-the-rich, even richer. [By the way, given the bungled fiasco in Iraq, do you really consider the arrogant, idiot Bushies competent to take-on anything else??? The very thought of the stupid Bush cabal negotiating a major international change program, given their [i]panic-stricken modus operandi[/i], is laughable in the extreme!!! The rest of the world accurately perceives that the neo-con Bush cabal, full of hubris, are self-centered, greedy thieves & wooden-headed thugs!!!]
Once the American people wake-up to the fact that following 4 years of Bush-- all we have to show for it are the highest debts in history; re-distribution of wealth of our nation into the hands of the top 5% plutocrats; a 3rd world approach to health care denying over 45 million citizens aide; highest unemployment in 8-10 years; warmongering creating more terrorism & hatred of the US around the world; and, skyrocketing poverty rates at a staggering level-- then Bush will be ousted from office!
Once the Iraqi people wake-up to the fact that their country is being swindled, looted & plundered to enrich the Bush & Cheney Inc. criminal elements, then god help the poor American US Soldiers who will bear the brunt of their wrath.
Once the rest of the world wakes-up to the longer-term consequences of the Bush regime's vision for a neo-feudal slave state, that impoverishes the masses of people & ruthlessly exploits the natural world, so that a few greedy ghouls can live like neo-emperors, god help this nation.
"WASHINGTON - Popular doubts about United States President George W Bush's credibility and his justification for going to war in Iraq are on the rise, according to a new survey conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).
The survey of a random sample of more than 1,000 voters, which echoes the results of other recent national polls, found that 55 percent of respondents believed that the administration went to war on the basis of incorrect assumptions, particularly the notion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US or its allies.
And despite subsequent denials by senior administration officials, an overwhelming 87 percent of the public felt that the administration before the war portrayed Iraq as an imminent threat. While 42 percent believed that the administration did have the evidence to justify such a depiction, a strong majority of 58 percent said that it did not.
This disparity, according to PIPA, which conducted the survey between October 31 and November 10, has translated into major questions about the president's personal veracity and credibility. Only 42 percent of those polled said that they believed that Bush was "honest and frank", while 56 percent said they had doubts about the things he says.
Moreover, 72 percent (up from 63 percent in July) said that when the administration presented evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - one of its two major pre-war reasons for attacking Iraq - it was either presenting evidence it knew was false (21 percent) or "stretching the truth" (51 percent), according to the survey. That represents a sharp rise in public skepticism about the war's justifications from five months ago.
Last June, 39 percent of respondents said they thought the administration was being truthful in its pre-war assertions about the threat posed by Baghdad. That percentage has now fallen to 25 percent. And the 21 percent who now believe the administration was, in effect, lying in its claims about Iraqi WMD is more than double the 10 percent who told pollsters that five months ago.
These changes are particularly significant for Bush's re-election prospects, according to PIPA's director, Stephen Kull, who noted that trust in the credibility of candidates is one of the most reliable indicators of voting behavior in the US, even higher than party affiliation.
Indeed, those who said they believed the president was being truthful about the pre-war situation were 11 times more likely to say they intended to vote for Bush next year than those who expressed doubts.
Kull also told the media that the decline in Bush's credibility might be the single most important factor in a sharp rise in the number of voters who say the president's handling of Iraq has made them less likely to vote for him in the November 2004 presidential elections.
As recently as two months ago, a plurality of 35 percent of respondents said Bush's performance on Iraq would make them more likely to vote for him, as opposed to 31 percent who said it would not affect their vote either way, and 30 percent who said it would make them less likely to back him.
While the same percentage of voters (35 percent) insists his performance in Iraq will still incline them to vote for Bush, 42 percent now say they are less likely to vote for him for that reason. "For the first time, the president's handling of Iraq has shifted from a net positive to a net negative for his electoral prospects," said Kull.
While the increasingly violent resistance to the US occupation in Iraq was a factor, he added, the fact that more people believe the administration lied or was "stretching the truth" about the reasons for going to war was the main reason for the rise in the "less likely" category, he added.
Echoing the findings of most pre-war polls, which, until immediately before the war, showed that majorities of the public favored giving the United Nations arms experts more time and seeking more international support before invading Iraq, the new survey finds that Americans have returned to their pre-war views.
A majority of 61 percent said the administration should have taken more time to find out whether Iraq did indeed have WMD, and 59 percent said they should have taken more time to build international support.
This contrasts strongly with opinions during and in the immediate aftermath of the war.
In one Los Angeles Times poll taken April 2-3, for example, two-thirds of respondents said Bush had devoted enough time to international diplomacy and 73 percent said he had given arms inspectors ample time to search for the weapons.
Significantly, most of the public in the latest survey believed that Bush was determined to go to war regardless of the actual evidence. Sixty-three percent said the president would have attacked even if US intelligence agencies had told him there was no reliable evidence that Iraq possessed or was building WMD or was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda.
Despite all of these findings, only 38 percent of those polled believed that going to war was the wrong thing to do. Forty-two percent said the war was the best thing for the US and an additional 15 percent said they supported the war in order to support the president, though they were not certain that war was the best option.
Supporting these judgments was the belief that, while Iraq might not have posed an imminent threat on the order depicted by the administration, most of the public still believed it had a WMD program (71 percent) and was providing support to al-Qaeda (67 percent), despite no evidence to support these conclusions.
"The majority's views about the decision to go to war are nuanced," said Kull. "It believes there were legitimate concerns that prompted the decision, while at the same time it believes the threat was not imminent and the decision was taken precipitously, without proper international support.""
Is It Boom or Gloom or Doom for the Bush Economy? Why Poverty Matters!
The debate rages on the Bush economy ... After all, even Bush now recognizes it's his economy, and is crowing and crooning about the growth in GDP and the slight drop in unemployment ... After 3 years in office, [b]Bush Admits He Owns It[/b]!
[b]Is it Boom or Gloom or Doom for the Bush Economy?[/b]
The growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the slight drop in unemployment, as statistics, tell only part of the tale ... but they provide an incomplete picture into the health and well-being of the economy. Economists admit that the growth of the GDP of 7.2% in the 3rd quarter of this year is a good sign ... indeed-- they also admit that the creation of nearly 300,000 new jobs in September and October of 2003 is a good sign too ... indeed. But ... "Despite 3rd quarter GDP growth of 7.2 percent, job growth, investment lag" on http://www.thefabricator.com/... .
Bush fails to remind people that over 9 million Americans are still out of work, and that 3 million of those jobs lost-- were lost under his reign. To get back to the unemployment level (simply the status quo) he inherited from Clinton, Bush's economic policies must spur growth to create over 273,000 jobs per month, each and every month until the election of 2004. Most economists aren't that optimistic.
Moreover, the Bush regime is highly critical of other rogue regimes whose plutocrats amasse all of the wealth, leaving their citizens impoverished ... This greed and lack of a social conscience leads to crime and violence, they cite, resulting in the high opportunity costs squandered in hopeless and lost lives who might otherwise be free and productive citizens. Bush and his neo-con cabal have lectured us over-and-over again on the evils of Saddam's regime, and yet, seem ignorant or oblivious to the fact that their own corrupt policies are more akin to that of rouge raiders than of enlightened leaders of democratic nations.
[b]Why does poverty matter?[/b]
The poverty rate of a nation matters greatly. If the wealth of a nation is accumulated by a few greedy plutocrats, and the people become enslaved, struggling to earn their daily bread ... then, tragically those who merit opportunity are denied the chance to make contributions that will improve their own lives and the lives of their fellow citizens-- leaving our society impoverished both economically and socially. Moreover, to treat those who are weak & vulnerable without compassion and assistance, is akin to the most corrupt regimes that we condemn.
Poverty also breeds anger and resentment that results in crimes ... crimes that lead to the exorbitant costs in wrecked & damaged lives of victims and criminals, and furthermore, of the high costs of criminal law enforcement and incarceration. People often turn to crime out of desperation, frustration and lack of opportunity, and it hurts us all.
It is unconscionable for the wealthiest nation in the world, to deny any of its' citizens the basic services needed to live a decent life: education, employment, health care, clean water, shelter, food, sewage systems, police, firemen, etc., as well as honest and competent government institutions that ensure all of the people, including the poorest & most vulnerable among us, may not be abused by the rich and powerful. This is why we pay taxes ... under the Bush Doctrine: "[i]Only the Little People Pay Taxes & Bear Burdens[/i]" ... since he's awarded immoral (& possibly illegal) "welfare-for-the-rich" tax loopholes, boondoggles & tax cuts to the wealthiest among us.
Therefore, the growth of our economy (not yet translated into investment, since most people are wary of the stock-market, and rightly so, since systemic changes have not been made to stop the fraudulent rape by corrupt executives who take corporate assets, pension funds, and shareholder monies & run)-- the growth of our economy is not an accurate measure of progress, unless also weighed against our debts (deficits) and against poverty.
If the growth and increased profits simply mean that the wealth is re-distributed into the hands of the rich plutocrats and ill-gotten riches are stored in their private bank vaults-- and the rest of us are burdened by interest rates on the highest deficits in our nation's history ... and everyone else is getting poorer, then the economy is not doing better overall, it's doing worse: [i]This is exactly what is happening under the "corporate-take-all" economic policies of the corrupt Bush regime[/i].
[b]The Rise in Poverty in the U.S.A.[/b]
Since Bush took over, the poverty rate has risen dramatically. The trends in rising poverty over the last 30 years are not promising ...
"Over the past thirty years, the number of people living below the poverty line has fluctuated from a low of 23 million in 1973 (11 percent of the population) to a high of 39 million in 1993 (15 percent of the population). In 1998, the total was estimated at 34.5 million, or 12.7 percent of the population." Sharp increases occurred during the Reagan & Bush 41 years ... and while the poverty rate was reduced somewhat by Clinton-- it hasn't received the attention it deserves by any of our leaders. [ http://www.sdi.gov/Curtis/Pop... ]
[b]Under Bush, poverty has skyrocketed:--
In 2001, poverty rises sharply[/b]:
"The proportion of Americans living in poverty rose sharply in 2001, according to a report issued by the US Census Bureau on September 24. In percentage terms, the poverty rate increased to 11.7 percent from 11.3 percent in 2000, the first such yearly rise in eight years. The number of poor Americans swelled to 32.9 million, a rise of 1.3 million.
Income inequality also grew. The wealthiest fifth of the population took in half of all household income last year, a 5 percent rise over 1985. The poorest fifth received only 3.5 percent of total household income, down 4 percent from 1985." [ http://www.wsws.org/articles/... ]
[b]In 2002, poverty worsens[/b]:
"Nearly 1.3 million more people fell below the official poverty level in 2002, swelling the number of poor in the US to nearly 35 million, according to a September report from the Census Bureau. The results of the American Community Survey (ACS) indicate that the recession hit the hardest among children and their families.
Nearly half the 1.3 million increase—600,000 people—were children. The total number of people under 18 in US families designated poor has now reached 12.2 million. Poverty among children under age five increased by a full percentage point, from 18.8 percent in 2001 to 19.8 percent in 2002. A total of 7 million US families fell below the official poverty level in 2002, an increase of 300,000 families in just one year." [ http://www.wsws.org/articles/... , http://www.bayarea.com/mld/ob... ]
[b]In 2003, poverty & misery further worsens[/b]:
The poverty rate continues to worsen rapidly and the frustration, desperation and misery of those without work, homeless or living in dire poverty, is a disgrace to the wealthiest nation on the planet, and in the history of the world.
"Millions of workers in the United States are suffering from want and desperation stemming from prolonged unemployment and the longest period of sustained job cuts since the Great Depression.
But for the super-rich who reside in Manhattan penthouses, mansions outside Detroit and gated communities in California, it's a different story.
Forbes magazine's annual list of the 400 richest people in the U.S., released Sept. 18, showed that the economy is improving, at least for them. The total net worth of the super-rich rose 10 percent this year, to $955 billion." [ http://www.workers.org/ww/200... ]
[b]Is it Boom or Gloom or Doom?[/b]
The Bush economy perhaps cannot be characterized as in dire state of "[i]Doom[/i]" (as yet, I guess it depends on whether or not you've got a job, or are living in poverty) ... it certainly cannot honestly be called a "[i]Boom[/i]" unless you are very, very rich ... The least that can be said, in my opinion, is that the prognostic is "[i]Gloom[/i]" ... and will worsen, as long as we have a [i]Greed-is-Good[/i], "corporate-take-all" cabal of neo-con thugs running our nation!
[b]"We the People" must demand better-- rather than squander our hard-earned investments on insane wars and boondoggles for the rich ... How about a "[i]Pre-emptive War on Poverty[/i]" right here at home?[/b]
Charlie Rose Show, PBS, Dr. Robert J. Shiller, Interview with Professor Robert. J. Shiller on 12 November 2003, Yale University Professor and Economist
The Bush Economy is On-the-Way Towards Becoming the Worst Since Herbert Hoover
The Bush economy is well on-the-way towards becoming the worst since Herbert Hoover's corrupt "corporate-take-all" regime that led to the Great Depression. Bush has awarded, what most respected economists (George Akerlof, Robert J. Shiller, Paul Krugman, Robert Rubin, George Soros, Warren Buffet and many others) consider to be immoral and wrong-headed tax cuts and "welfare for the rich" programs designed to gain popular support amongst corporate raiders & rich campaign contributors. Tragically, the [i]heart and back breaking [/i]toll and burden placed upon the rest of us, will lead to more economic instability and social chaos -- It's a bankrupt & fraudulent philosophy that the corrupt and "out-of-touch" neo-con Bush Regime are perpetrating upon the American people.
The Bushies are callous to over 9 million unemployed, of which Bush destroyed over 3 million people's jobs-- the highest job losses since Herbert Hoover. Moreover, Bush's record-level deficits are running at nearly $560 Billion in 2003 alone, the highest since the Great Depression. Refer to "The Myth that the Bush Economy is on the Up-swing is Dangerously Stupid & Erroneous" on http://www.tblog.com/template... .
The following table represents a [b]trend-analysis[/b] of [b]budgets, deficits or surpluses, and unemployment rates from Herbert Hoover onwards [/b]... The statistics representing the U.S. Budget, Deficit or Surplus, and the %age Unemploment are listed for the year the president takes office ([i]which he inherits from his predecessor[/i]) and for his last year of office ([i]which represents the impact of his own policies[/i]).
An interesting trend emerges that Republicans (particularly from Reagan onwards) have tended to spend us into deficits and simultaneously create more poverty and job losses ... Democrats have tended to struggle to recover from Republican-made economic & social problems resulting from a "corporate-take-all" "all-for-the-rich" philosophy, which is immoral and bankrupt.
[[b]Source[/b]: "White House Budget Report" on http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb... :-- [i]Budget, Deficit & Surplus are U.S. Dollars in '000,000[/i]] [image]WinstonSmith_16280 6182.gif[/image]
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to save us from the Great Depression, as well as having assisted in fighting a World War (II), to aide other nations in over-coming tyranny, which occurs when Corporate-Take-All-Fascis t-Regimes come to power ... FDR was considered a "traitor to his class" because he saved America by putting people back to work, creating the New Deal-- and thus, "saved the capitalists from themselves".
The corrupt and incompetent Bush regime are leading us towards a dangerous abyss-- in the direction of another Depression and World War in the Middle-East (this time caused by the Fascist Bushies) ... God help whomsoever must clean-up Bush's chaotic catastrophies here at home and abroad ... and God help "We the People".
[b]Sources:[/b]
(1) "Historical Statistics and Analysis on Unemployment, Poverty, Urbanization, etc., in the United States" on http://www.friesian.com/stats...
(5) "UNEMPLOYED TO PRESIDENT BUSH: “PROVIDE THE RELIEF WE NEED TO CARE FOR OUR FAMILIES AND SUPPORT OUR SEARCH FOR NEW WORK” - More Than 1,300 Sign Open Letter Demanding Bush Administration, Congressional Leaders Address Jobs Crisis as Long-Term Unemployment Remains at 10-Year High" on http://www.nelp.org/news/pres...
(6) "Jobless Rate Rises Again: 15.3 Million Unemployed and Underemployed with 6.4 Percent Officially Out of Work" on http://www.aflcio.org/yourjob...
(11) "Greenspan Warns on Gov't Budget Deficits:- Greenspan Says Soaring Government Budget Deficits Threaten Economy in the Long Term" on http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Bu...
The myth that the Bush economy is on the up-swing is dangerously stupid and erroneous. Bush has spent more on credit, than any other president since the Great Depression, but not to help the American people-- instead, he's given massive "welfare-for-the-rich" gifts to the corporate robber barons & the wealthiest citizens ... depleting our treasury, lumbering us with back-breaking debt, and slashing services, badly needed by the middle-class and the vulnerable in our society.
There is a major risk of a economic instability and a decline in the stock-market, according to [b]Yale professor and economist, Robert J. Shiller[/b] [ http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/ ]. People are reacting positively to the economic news, for the moment-- but there is a major vulnerability relative to earnings that means that stocks are over-priced. In the 1990s, the price-to-earnings ratios hit a record level. The stock-market is hard to predict, and people have lost their "irrational exuberance" and are weary due to the scandals of the corporate thieves who raped share-holders, employees, pension funds & company assets.
Professor Robert J. Shiller penned the term "irrational exuberance" then made famous by Alan Greenspan after having been advised of the potential pitfalls of a "wooden-headed" reliance on the stock-market as a "money-making" machine. The crooks and raiders got rich, having swindled and looted the average and poor investor. It is insane for the average investor to put their life savings into the stock market ... just waiting for the Bushies and their criminal ilk to plunder.
Prof. Shiller warns that the deficit is too high and that the Bush tax cuts for the rich will have to be cut back, as they were far too lavish and unsound-- both for the financial security and fiscal stability of our nation, and also to create equity in our society. Too much wealth concentrated in the hands of a few rich plutocrats, while the majority of people are becoming increasingly impoverished over time, is not a good trend. It's not sound economically or socially.
Bush has exaggerated the positive effects of tax cuts for the rich ... it isn't based upon a comprehension of economics ... Bush's tax cuts for the rich were simply politically popular and promoted by corporate robber-barons. Prof. Shiller indicates that more Americans are becoming poorer and poorer, at the expense of a few very wealthy individuals at the top who amasse obscene fortunes, and are not going to invest more simply because they take more. The rich are able to amplify what they do because they have the money to publicize their interests ... but their relative contributions are miniscule compared to the vast riches they are accumulating off the backs of the middle-class, lower-income and poor.
I urge you to read Prof. Shiller's book "[b]The New Financial Order[/b]", for an informed view of economics ... as opposed to the neo-con's propaganda and dishonest screed that ignores the real economic trends ... the rich-are-getting-richer, while everyone else is being turned into neo-slaves. Bush's unemployment now stands at 9 million citizens-- and Bush destroyed 3 million of those jobs via his "sexed-up" economic policies benefitting the rich-- but harmful to the rest of us.
(Unemployment has skyrocketed under Bush and now stands at around 6% ... Clinton created a 30-year low unemployment rate of less than 4% ... Bush has created the largest deficit in our nation's history of nearly $560 Billion ... Clinton created a budget surplus, despite the legacy of massive deficits left by the Reagan-Bush 41 regimes.)
"We the People" must recognize the cold, hard reality, that for Bush to get us into massive debt and wipe out jobs, both at a record-levels-- and to see the deficit spent on the rich instead of helping the middle-class, lower-income & poor:-- is fool-hardy and obscene ... (You may enjoy your Christmas by purchasing your gifts, food & drink on credit ... but eventually you must face-up to the "hang-over" the next day when the creditors demand payment, with interest.) This is the side of the equation ignored by the corrupt Bush Regime and their neo-con attack-dogs & court-jesters.
For more information on economic trends, the White House Government produces a document entitled "U.S. Government Budget" that provides a historical trend analysis on http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb... : [b]Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 created the worst deficits and unemployment in recent history, resulting in recessions that others have been forced to clean-up.[/b]
[b]Source[/b]: "Historical Statistics and Analysis on Unemployment, Poverty, Urbanization, etc., in the United States" on http://www.friesian.com/stats... .
Fumigate The Neo-Cons' Nest of Rats & Vermin in the White House, Pentagon & NED
"We the People" should demand that Congress "[i]step-up to the plate[/i]" and fumigate the neo-cons' nest of rats and other vermin, in the White House, Pentagon & NED (National Endowment for Democracy) ... Contact Congress on http://www.congress.org , and express your outrage at Bush's Crimes Against Humanity.
[b]Enough is enough [/b]of the insanity, cynical manipulation, lies, deceit & falsehoods, resulting in the horrific nightmare of daily deaths, injured, wounded & maimed for life, in Bush's insane neo-con war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire in Iraq. Bush's Death Toll now stands at over 394 US Soldiers, 72 Coalition Troops, and anywhere between 21,000 and 55,000 Iraqi people, according to new reports. [Sources: http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/... , http://www.theage.com.au/arti... ]. The Bushies lie about the number of our US soldier injured, wounded & maimed for life ... these tragic lives destroyed, number anywhere from the official propaganda number of 2279, upwards towards 7500. [Sources: http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/... , http://www.veteransforcommons... ]
There is no end in sight, to the corrupt Bush regime's war-mongering, and of their bloodshed and misery. Nor is there any end in sight, to the obscene squandering of over $1 Billion Per Week. The Bushies have plundered and looted America of over $84.5 Billion thus far, with a blank-check to funnel a total of $166+ Billion into the greedy, bulging pockets of their "corporate-take-all" whores, Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, et. al. ... and that's only good-thru September 2004, when they'll be demanding billions more, since Bush lacks the brain-matter to obtain assistance from other nations. (Apparently, Bush didn't inherit his daddy's brains ... or maybe he destroyed his brain with alcohol while AWOL in a drunken-stupor during Vietnam.)
Meanwhile, the corrupt Bushies have run-up the largest deficits of over $560 Billion and the largest job losses of over 3 Million people (net 9 Million unemployed), since the [i]Corporate-Take-All [/i]Herbert Hoover era ... making Bush's screed, (he smirks about "sacrifice") all the more laughable, sickening and tinny, since he's awarded the largest & obscene "welfare-for-the-rich" gifts of immoral (& possibly illegal) boondoggles, tax loopholes & tax cuts to his corporate cronies, richest-of-the-rich, and greedy campaign contributors:-- None of whom are asked to make any "sacrifices" ... Just the opposite: [b]The Rich Get Richer ... and the "Little People" Pay Taxes & Make All the Sacrifices[/b].
Another "[i]must-read[/i]" editorial by a [i]conservative-with-a-br ain[/i], is Patrick J. Buchanan's article entitled "[b]George Woodrow Carter[/b]" about Emperor Bush, on http://www.wnd.com/news/artic... :
"Reading President Bush's address to the National Endowment for Democracy, one wonders: Have the neocons captured him totally? For, though he is being hailed as Reagan's true heir, Bush has begun to sound like a clone of Woodrow Wilson or Jimmy Carter.
Foreign policy is, in Walter Lippman's phrase, the "Shield of the Republic." Its purpose: protect our independence and freedom. "We do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy," said John Quincy Adams.
Traditional conservatives believe in the Eisenhower formula of Peace through Strength and the Washington-Jefferson policy of nonintervention in the affairs and wars of nations that do not threaten us.
Wilsonians believe that unless the whole world is democratic, we are not secure. America's first crusade was Wilson's war "to make the world safe for democracy." It succeeded in making the world safe for the British Empire, which added a million square miles, and paved the path to power for Lenin, Stalin and Hitler. Wilsonism was a glorious failure, though his disciples will never concede it.
Bush has now embarked on a new Wilsonian crusade. Monarchs and dictators in the Arab and Islamic world are to give way to democracy in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Morocco?
Have the president and his War Cabinet thought this through? Or is this like the invasion of Iraq, where no one seems to have considered the consequences of smashing the Iraqi state?
Is the president aware of what happened when the kings, shahs and emperors fell the last time in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Ethiopia and Iran? We got Nasser, Saddam, Khadafi, Mengistu and Khomeini.
Before Bush sets off destabilizing regimes, he might recall what Carter reaped after his human-rights hectoring helped topple Somoza and the Shah: Soviet-backed Sandinistas in Managua and the Islamic republic of the ayatollahs in Teheran.
If Hosni Mubarak falls in Egypt, we could get a populist regime that severs ties with Israel and declares solidarity with Hamas. If the Saudi house falls, we could get a regime that welcomes Osama home as a national hero and uses its oil weapon against us. If Gen. Musharraf falls in Pakistan, we could get an Islamist regime with atom bombs that would help restore the Taliban in Kabul.
A global crusade for democracy entails endless interventions in the affairs of foreign nations. Did 9-11 teach us nothing about blowback? The terrorists were over here because we were over there, dominating the Islamic world culturally, politically, militarily.
In his address to NED, the president disparaged the foreign policies of no fewer than 10 predecessors, including his father: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East," said Bush, "did nothing to make us safe."
What is he talking about? Did America not win the Cold War?
U.S. presidents did not pick the Arab leaders who came out of the British and French empires. We had to deal with them in a world war Stalin declared against us. It is presumptuous and arrogant for Bush to assert that his Middle East policy is morally superior to all those dating back to 1945. If it is superior, why is his administration the most detested in the Arab world of any U.S. administration, ever?
Upon what ground does he stand to demean all his predecessors? Unlike Dwight Eisenhower, who forced the Israelis out of Sinai, Bush has proven feckless in his failure to face down Ariel Sharon, whose rampages are making enemies for us all over the Arab world.
What coalition has Bush built to rival his father's in the Gulf War? What triumph has he achieved to match the Camp David peace that Jimmy Carter brokered between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin?
And where in the Constitution is Bush empowered to conscript the wealth and soldiers of his country to conduct foreign crusades. With a $500 billion deficit, how are we going to pay for it? Where do we get the right to tell foreign nations how to arrange their societies and rule themselves? Just who do we think we are?
If the president wants to defend America, he would dissolve all the old Cold War alliances, bring U.S. troops home, defend our borders and fumigate the neocon nest at NED that meddles in the internal affairs of nations in ways that would cause us to go to war, if done to us.
The Bush strategy of moral interventionism in the internal affairs of foreign nations, to rearrange their societies on an American model, is a formula for endless war abroad and Big Government forever at home.
No wonder the liberal media and the neocons are hailing Bush's speech to NED. He is singing their song – Wilson's song."
[b]Of course, Bush's screed wasn't delivered because he cares about democracy ... Emperor Bush doesn't give a damn about democracy in the U.S.A., in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter-- as he tramples on the U.S. Constitution & International Law ... Bush's handlers (Rove, Rice, Cheney) gave their "little boy in the plastic bubble" a neo-con diatribe to divert attention from his disastrous fiasco in Iraq.[/b]
Another Former Intelligence Official Blows the Whistle on Phony 9/11-Iraq Connection
[b]DemocracyNow[/b], today publishes the transcript of an interview conducted yesterday ([i]Veteran's Day[/i]), by award-winning journalist, Amy Goodman with Peter Molan, Department of Defense Middle East analyst for 25 years. It's a "[i]must-read[/i]" for anyone interested in the truth about the phony 9/11-Iraq connection, concocted by the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist loons in the Bush regime.
Peter Molan began his military career with the US Army in the Middle East during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Went on to work at the Department of Defense until August 2001, when he retired. After the 9-11 attacks, he was recalled to duty because he speaks fluent Arabic. He was one of the people working on the bin Laden dossier for the Pentagon.
"We the People" are being swindled and conned by neo-con con-artists, spewing neo-fascist propaganda, on a daily basis. I strongly urge you to write to Congress immediately, and demand an investigation into the crimes committed by the Bush administration on http://www.congress.org . Perhaps you should include the following transcript:
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Veterans' groups are holding a vigil today outside Walter Reed Medical Center. Among them, vets of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and other wars and conflicts. Their protest comes as reports are emerging that several thousand U.S. soldiers have been wounded and are being treated at a single military hospital in Germany.
Peter Molan is on the line with us now. He was a Department of Defense Middle East analyst for 25 years. He began his military career with the U.S. Army in the Middle East during the 1967 Arab/Israeli war. He then left the military, but came back to work at the Pentagon until August, 2001, when he retired. After the 9-11 attacks, he was recalled to duty because he speaks fluent Arabic. He was one of the people working on the Bin Laden case for the Pentagon. But today he stands in front of Walter Reed Medical Center. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Peter Molan.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Thank you very much, Amy. We're very pleased to be here, and I would like to just mention that the fine ladies that you just spoke to -- they are, I believe, all members of military families speak out, and we are in coalition with them, and they will be represented at our rally today. There will also be rallies- similar rallies throughout the country at other veterans' hospitals and facilities, so while we're here in Washington, we are celebrating Veterans Day across the country in protest for two reasons.
We would like to point out that while we do honor and support our troops and that was one of the initial functions of Armistice Day in 1918, but there's another bylaw aspect to Veterans Day. As it was established in 1918, as it became an official U.S. government holiday in 1938, and as its name was changed in 1954 from Armistice Day to Veterans Day to honor veterans of all of our wars, not just the first World War- but in addition to honoring the veterans, there is also in each of the legislation acts that brought about this holiday, a requirement that we rededicate ourself to world peace and justice, and we believe that the Bush Administration is dishonoring both the commitment that is required by today's holiday- legal holiday- to the veterans and to concurrently serving G.I.s, as well as to that notion of international peace and justice.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Why to protest in front of Walter Reed Medical Center? Why, for example, not in front of the White House?
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: We have chosen Walter Reed precisely because it is the medical center, the Army medical center through which all U.S. Army G.I.'s pass on their way to other places here in the United States. You mentioned the 7,000 wounded G.I.'s in Germany, but they will coming through Dover and through Andrews Air Force Base. They'll be coming through Walter Reed, and then going on to their homes and their -- the veterans' facilities that will take care of them there. It will be passing through Walter Reed, and we felt that was a particularly appropriate place to express the views that we're having.
You may know that we did have the opportunity yesterday, Veterans for Peace had a delegation go in and visit with a number of the G.I.'s who are currently recuperating from their wounds there, and we do want to recognize the splendid care they're getting there from the medical staff and the nursing staff in a state-of-the-art facility. But that, too, is part of the thing that we are concerned with and protesting. As you mentioned, the overcrowded conditions in Germany -- the situation at Ft. Stewart as the G.I.'s are coming back is -- the medical facilities here are being overwhelmed. And of course, that is at a time when tremendous cutbacks are being made.
So, all the talk about 'support for the troops' that we hear from the White House is belied by the fact that facilities are being closed, charges are being placed on the veterans. We were hearing about them being charged $8 a day for their food while in the hospitals. This administration is not in support of these troops.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: We're talking to Peter Molon, Pentagon Middle East analyst for 25 years. We'll be outside Walter Reed Medical Center today with other veterans' groups protesting the invasion. You are in a unique position, Peter Molon, working for the Pentagon for more than 25 years. You retired in August, 2001, are recalled after the 9-11 attacks to work on the attacks. You're one of the people working on the Bin Laden case, who worked on the Bin Laden case for the Pentagon. Can you talk about what you know?
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Well, not in technical detail, of course. I'm still bound by commitments to classified information. But what I can tell you is that my involvement, my direct, immediate involvement, day-to-day involvement with Veterans for Peace arises precisely out of the subsequent decision by the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq.
The justifications for that war were completely counter to everything that I had learned in that 20-odd years of government service working on the Middle East, as you say. I was simply outraged by the twisting and turning of intelligence information that I had helped develop to what was clearly, to my mind, a preordained policy decision that I felt to be profoundly wrong.
Not -- nothing about this suggests that Saddam Hussein was anything but a brutal dictator. He was. But that's not why we went to war. Had we gone to the United Nations as Kofi Annan has - the Secretary General, has suggested that the United Nations must reorient its goals from preventing war between states to preventing the sort of things that we see in international terrorism, and the suppression of populations by their own government. The United Nations does have to be reordered towards that goal. Had we done that, I might have been supportive of what the administration is doing. But nothing but poison plants can grow from poison seeds, Amy, and this administration's goals and intentions and policies, which are quite clearly articulated in the Security Strategy Document and in the work of the Project for the New American Century, are completely at odds, radically at odds with America's now more than a century-old tradition of trying to build international institutions.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Peter Molon, your thoughts about the polls that say that most Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: I am -- they take my breath away. They stun me. Even this administration, although it speaks out of both sides of its mouth, the -- just, what, several weeks ago, the President admitted publicly that there was no connection between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein, although he did then turn around the next -- the very next day and suggest that there was. So, there are conflicting stories coming out of the administration, but still, even the administration admits that there was no such connection, and yet more than half of us believe that there is. I can only suggest that Chris Hedges' new book, "War Gives Us Meaning," speaks to the kind of psychological advantages that war gives to us. And that we are able to overcome all information to the contrary, all rational thought, in order to follow a war -- a lust for war.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Peter Molon.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Yes.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Department of Defense Middle East analyst for 25 years. Let me ask you a little bit about Osama Bin Laden, and what the administration knew before 9-11 and what they understood afterwards. You have been there for a quarter of a century in the Pentagon.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Well, of course, we did know that we had supported him in his involvement in the war - the Afghan War against the Soviet Union, that he was hostile to the United States after the first Gulf War in 1991. We had had contact when he was in the Sudan with the Sudanese government. We didn't bother to take up their offer to hand him over to us, for some reason, it's not entirely clear. We knew that he was involved with the embassy bombings in East Africa. We were working, certainly, to -- by 9-11 -- to find out all that we could about him, but he had gone to ground by that time, and was protected by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
We knew that he was quite hostile, but intelligence is a limited tool. We don't have many persons on the ground, as we know. There have been any number of reasons for that, not least of which are cutbacks in intelligence gathering capabilities. We knew he was hostile to us, and that he would try to harm us in any way that he could.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: What about the story of John O'neill, the man who worked in -- on the F.B.I. Counter Terrorism Unit, tried to investigate the "USS Cole," was stopped by the ambassador to -- the U.S. ambassador to Yemen. He tried to investigate links to Saudi Arabia, felt he was prevented from doing so by the Bush administration, and finally gave up, left the F.B.I., and ended up being head of security at the World Trade Center and died on September 11.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Yeah. Well, of course, those things do happen. There are internal turf battles. In the case of Mr. O'Neill in Yemen, the ambassador was trying to maintain her relationships with the Yemeni government, and there's a great deal of conflict within the Middle East states. Again, the United States is not well thought of in the Arab world, because of its general policies towards the Middle East, and consequently, it's very hard to operate there.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Peter Molon, you were brought back after 9-11 to continue investigating because you speak fluent Arabic.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Yes.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: You have been monitoring all the Arab press, Al-Jazeera -- what do you look for specifically when you are inside the Pentagon listening to all of that, watching all of that, and what do you think of the difference between what we see here in the United States and what the rest of the world is seeing?
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Well, what do we think of the Arab view of us? It is hostile for a variety of reasons. Reasons that we are not able to address, I suppose, for political - current domestic political reasons such that we are brought into direct conflict with both governments and popular wills. Now, that's, I suppose, the thing that we have to understand. Both the Arab governments and the Arab streets as it's called, that is popular opinion, is very hostile to us. And we do a very bad job of trying to address those questions.
Charlotte Beers has been hired by the Bush administration, was hired shortly after 9-11 to carry out an increased program of public democracy - public diplomacy, sorry, public diplomacy, trying to get our story out. But our story has been very hard sell in the Middle East. She has been as far as I can tell, absolutely unable to do much of anything.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Charlotte Beers, the P.R. specialist.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: I take it because she hasn't got the funding to do much. We have seen very little of American spokespersons getting out and getting their story into the Arab press.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: You also went into internet chat rooms.
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Yes, I do that, yes.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: What do you do?
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: I talk to people. I listen to them. I listen more than I talk. But I do attempt, by that means, since I'm not in the Middle East at the moment, to make contact with people who are not government officials, but - but to get the kind of the view of the common person. I do not -- I do not do that and we are not able to do that, of course, in the Defense Department, per se. But that's something that I do now, and it's one of the sources that I try to use to get the views of the populous.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: And what do you do? Do you actually pose as someone?
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: No, no. I just -- I say who I am, an American who has been interested professionally for now 40 years. I -- you say 25 years in the military, and that's quite true. I was also an academic for a long time. But no, I don't try to hide my identity. I don't make it -- I don't publicize the fact that I was a -- an intelligence officer, but I say who I am.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Do intelligence officers who are active now -- are they going into these internet chat rooms?
[b]PETER MOLAN[/b]: Well, that is something that I would have to let you ask them. There's the situation that you are talking about with your earlier guests. The military, of course, is ordered not to speak to the press, to allow only public relations officers to speak to the press, and if you -- if you do anything else, you are in breach of orders.
[b]AMY GOODMAN[/b]: Well, Peter Molan, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Peter Molan will be outside of Walter Reed Medical Center with a number of veterans' groups today protesting the invasion of Iraq. The number again that has startled many, at least 7,000 U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq. That does it for today's program. Peter Molan with the Department of Defense for more than a quarter of a century."
Veteran's Day ... Veterans & Families of the Dead Must Endure A President Without Honor
It is [b]Veteran's Day [/b]... and many Americans and citizens throughout the world, hang their heads in shame today, that instead of treating the precious lives of our US Veterans and our American military personnel with honor and dignity, "We the People" must instead, endure a president without honor, and his insane wars. Bush is abusing veterans of past wars and massacring our service men & women, in order to enrich his corporate cronies, in their lust for a Global Corporate Empire. [ Read "Support the Troops" on http://nytimes.com/2003/11/11... ]
Bush is a national disgrace, and as William Rivers Pitt concludes:
[b]"Then again, a just world would have left George W. Bush in the dustbin of history as a thrice-failed oilman who lacked even the courage to complete his stint in the National Guard while better men went off to war in Vietnam to die in his place."[/b]
Very nearly 40 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the month of November began. 33 more were killed in October, and 16 more died in September. The total losses, to date, creep towards 400. Few American citizens are aware of this, because the Bush administration has made it policy to deliberately hide these honored dead from the media. No cameras are allowed inside the Dover, DE facility that receives the ruined bodies of our troops.
No cameras are allowed inside Walter Reed Army Medical Center to film the thousands of soldiers who have been catastrophically wounded in Iraq, nor are cameras allowed inside the facility at Ft. Stewart in Georgia where the wounded await treatment in conditions they have described as inhumane.
No Bush official has been to a single funeral for any of the fallen, because that would bring unwanted publicity onto the ruinous casualties we have suffered. The Pentagon is doing its part as well. The term "body bags" was dispensed with during the 1991 Gulf War for the kinder, gentler euphemism "human remains pouches." The term has been changed again by the Pentagon. Today in Iraq, soldiers killed in the line of duty are placed inside "transfer tubes" for their anonymous, unnoticed trip home.
American soldiers killed in Afghanistan were roundly filmed as they returned home, and the images of their flag-draped caskets were broadcast all across the country with broad and honored fanfare. President Clinton was present to welcome home the coffins of soldiers killed in Kosovo. Pictures of the coffins carrying sailors killed in the bombing of the USS Cole were also widely broadcast. President Bush Sr. was on hand to welcome the caskets of soldiers killed in Lebanon and Panama.
The men and women killed in Iraq are afforded no such honor. They are a dirty little secret, hidden from view lest they cause political discomfort to the administration that got them killed.
The Bush administration has taken to hiding from even the most obvious signs that, once upon a time, this war served their propaganda purposes. When George W. Bush declared an end to combat operations in Iraq aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, his televised image was framed by a massive banner that read "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." At the time, the administration was more than happy to take credit for the banner.
Full and specific credit, at the time, was given to Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer hired by the administration to work for the White House Communication's Director. Mr. Sforza can be credited for those snappy backdrops draped around Bush when he speaks, the ones with the catch-words repeated ad nauseam. Sforza spent several days "embedded" aboard the Abraham Lincoln to organize the event for full media effect, going so far as to hand-pick the Navy personnel to be displayed, and to choose the color of the clothes they would wear.
Once it became clear that the only mission that had been accomplished in Iraq was the looting of the American Treasury, the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of American troops, the unnecessary maiming of thousands more, and the ruination of our reputation around the world, George W. Bush himself went out of his way to disavow any involvement with the braggadocio of the banner. In an October 28 press conference, Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."
And so the military, again, is left holding the bag for Bush, who has fled even from the presence of the memory of the fallen.
Let us remember a few things. George W. Bush and his administration pushed for this war based upon the premise that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and that he would give those weapons to Osama bin Laden for use against us. The public record for this is clear and unequivocal, as is the fact that this administration, day after day, connected the attacks of September 11 to the war on Iraq as a means to frighten the American people into supporting the war.
There is, in fact, a page on the White House's own website (whitehouse.gov) entitled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.' It can be found with a simple search, and contains the administration's central argument for why war was necessary, and necessary now, and necessary even without the support of the international community. Again, the claims on this page are clear and unequivocal.
According to 'Disarm Saddam Hussein,' war with Iraq was necessary because Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, as well as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas. For those of you without your calculators, 500 tons equals 1,000,000 pounds. Along with this, Iraq was in possession of nearly 30,000 munitions capable of delivering these chemicals. Beyond this fearful armament, 'Disarm Saddam Hussein' claims that Iraq and Saddam Hussein enjoyed the company of a variety of al Qaeda terrorists.
Saddam Hussein was little more than the Mayor of Baghdad in the years, months and weeks before the war. He was trapped in his palaces, unable to launch even a single fighter in his own airspace, militarily emasculated by years of sanctions and weekly bombing raids by American forces, with vast regions to the north and south totally beyond his control. It is these northern regions that enjoyed the company of occasional al Qaeda fighters, in places where Saddam Hussein dared not show his face. To say that Hussein was working with these terrorists is the same as saying Bush was working with the September 11 terrorists in the weeks before the attack, simply because they all happened to be in the same country at the same time.
Beyond that, recall that Hussein was a secular dictator who spent 30 years killing every Islamic fundamentalist he could get his hands on. Osama bin Laden hated and despised Saddam Hussein, and called repeatedly for his death. The last of these calls came last February, when bin Laden publicly asked the Iraqi people to rise up and kill their Socialist infidel leader. The idea that Hussein would give any weapons at all to bin Laden is absurd on its face.
It is even more absurd to imagine this transfer when greeted with the reality that the reported 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin, mustard and VX gas, and the 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuff has absolutely, positively failed to appear. Iraq has been invested by the U.S. military, scoured by UNMOVIC weapons inspectors, and scoured again by Bush's hand-picked inspector, Dr. David Kay. Nothing, but nothing, has been found.
Best of all is the fact that right now, as you read this, at this very moment, almost a year after the war began, claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for the development of a nuclear weapons program remains on this White House web page. The Niger uranium claim has been proven to be utterly fraudulent, based upon crudely forged documents so laughable that America stands embarrassed before the world because Bush used them to justify his war. Yet the claim remains seated on his website, even now.
Not only has history proven this war to have been cynically contrived, but history has also proven beyond question that it was not necessary. Weapons inspectors could easily have determined that Iraq was not in possession of any weapons. A favorite talking point these days is that we had to invade because the United Nations was not doing its part. Hogwash. The Bush administration wrote Resolution 1441 from top to bottom, and pointedly included the words "Weapons Inspectors" in the text. The Security Council unanimously approved it.
Many believe the U.S. wrote 1441 fully expecting Iraq to reject it because of those inspections, but Iraq turned that thinking on its head and welcomed the inspectors in. Immediately, the Bush administration began denigrating the very inspections they mandated with 1441, and began denigrating the United Nations for expecting them to live up to the bargain they authored.
It was recently revealed that Saddam Hussein essentially surrendered on the eve of the war, throwing his country open to American forces in whatever capacity the Bush administration felt was necessary to guarantee that Iraq was not a threat. The Bush administration spurned this offer and rolled out the blitzkrieg, beginning a process that has killed hundreds of American soldiers, wounded thousands more, and consigned tens of thousands of civilians to die in the dust.
Veteran's Day is upon us. A just world would see a long parade of veterans wending its way past the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, past the Korean War Memorial, past every statue and plaque commemorating the service, and that full measure of devotion, given to this nation by men and women beyond number. In a just world, the parade would halt on the ground that, someday, will bear the names of the men and women who have died, and will die, in this Iraq war. In a just world, George W. Bush would be required to stand upon this ground and be spat upon by every person in that long, proud parade.
In a just world, Bush would be made to visit the home of every American family who has had a beloved brother, sister, mother, father, husband or wife delivered to them in secret inside a "transfer tube." In a just world, he would be made to explain his lies, and further be made to apologize for using the wretched memory of September 11 against the American people in a process of criminal deception that got an incredible number of people killed.
[b]Then again, a just world would have left George W. Bush in the dustbin of history as a thrice-failed oilman who lacked even the courage to complete his stint in the National Guard while better men went off to war in Vietnam to die in his place."[/b]
Calvin Trillin's Zen & Other Questions For President Bush's Next Press Conference
[b]Calvin Trillin [/b]published this funny article in the November issue of "[b]The New Yorker[/b]" ... entitled "QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT BUSH’S NEXT PRESS CONFERENCE" on http://newyorker.com/shouts/c... :
[i]Friendly question[/i]: “Sir, although your supporters’ predictions that Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers haven’t been borne out, isn’t it possible that, given the problems with the water supply and the infrastructure in general, there is a serious shortage of flowers over there and that Iraqis might be greeting our troops with flowers if Iraqis had any flowers?”
[i]Follow-up question to friendly question[/i]: “Mr. President, in your budget for the reconstruction of Iraq, is there any money specifically earmarked for rebuilding the Iraqi cut-flower industry, and, if so, would any American company be able to bid on that contract, or would they have to go through your friend Joe Allbaugh’s consulting firm?”
[i]Zen question[/i]: “Sir, if the ability of the Star Wars ABMs to hit a nuclear missile is imaginary and the nuclear missiles in Iraq are imaginary, does that mean a Star Wars ABM could hit an Iraqi nuclear missile?”
[i]Follow-up question to Zen question if answer is yes[/i]:“How could that be verified?”
[i]Follow-up question to Zen question if answer is no[/i]:“Would you consider that justification for having gone to war against Iraq?”
[i]Strategic-planning question[/i]: “Sir, now that you’ve acknowledged that there was never any evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11th attacks by Al Qaeda, does it remain your policy that in the event of any future Al Qaeda attack against this country we would still retaliate against Iraq, and, if so, how would you avoid hitting our own troops?”
[i]Follow-up question to strategic-planning question[/i]:“If not, then did you have some other country in mind to retaliate against?”
[i]Coalition question[/i]: “Is Bulgaria still part of the coalition, and, if so, what have they done for us lately?”
[i]Follow-up question depending on answer to coalition question[/i]: “Would you encourage the American people to drink more Bulgarian wine?”
[i]Follow-up question depending on answer to coalition question[/i]: “Would you encourage the American people to boycott Bulgarian wines, and, if so, do you know of any French wines that might make a good substitute?”
[i]Second Zen question[/i]: “If, as you’ve said, Mr. President, the interim report stating that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq justifies our having gone to war to remove weapons of mass destruction, what would a report stating that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq justify, if you know?”
[i]Alternative to friendly question[/i]: “Sir, do you think that the flowers with which your Administration said Iraqis would greet our troops will ever be found?”
[i]Follow-up to alternative to friendly question if answer is yes[/i]: “Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?”
[i]Follow-up to alternative to friendly question if answer is no[/i]:“Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?”
[i]Somewhat off-the-wall question[/i]: “Speaking of Iraq and Al Qaeda, sir, do you think it’s fair that Arabs don’t have to use a ‘u’ after a ‘q’?”
[i]Follow-up to somewhat off-the-wall question if answer is no[/i]:“Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?”
[b]"We the People" ask "[i]What WAS your justification for going to war with Iraq, Mr. Bush?[/i]"[/b]
US Republicans Halt "Iraq Probe" into Pre-War Intelligence ... They Know Bush LIED/LIES
The US Republicans have halted a probe into the collection and usage of pre-war intelligence by the Bush regime, to justify the war in Iraq. Why? They know that Bush and his neo-con, neo-fascist thugs LIED/LIES ... The US Republicans will do anything, absolutely anything, to avoid the inevitable scandal that would result in the mandatory impeachment hearings and removal from office of another Republican criminal in the White House.
The dishonest & hypocritical GOP is using a stolen memo that suggests the Democrats planned to collectively publicize their suspicions that the Bushies are liars, who misled Americans into an immoral and illegal war ... a fraudulent war, in which the death toll rises daily, along with the obscene costs-- and no end in sight. The memo is an excuse ... another Republican tactic used to divert attention from the [b]GOP's major threat:[i] The truth about the Bush regime's fabrication of lies, deceit & falsehoods-- a crime under the U.S. Constitution that would warrant the impeachment of Bush.[/i][/b]
"We the People" must demand the truth ... Transparency in government is our only chance for freedom and liberty to endure ... Please [b]Contact Congress [/b]today and demand that the investigation re-commence and that impeachment hearings into the crimes against our U.S. Constitution, committed by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the rest of this despicable neo-con cabal, be initiated immediately, on http://www.congress.org .
"Senator John Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said he was “really disappointed” by the decision to suspend the probe.
But he and other Democrats insisted the Republicans were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. They said the memo had been written by Democratic staffers and had never been given any serious consideration by lawmakers. “I just want to make sure that we have a full 100 percent investigation, WMD in Iraq, pre-war intelligence and was there any use or misuse of that by the executive branch,” Rockefeller told MSNBC television.
[b]The White House and its allies in Congress have been resisting any wide-ranging probe of pre-war intelligence and its use, fearing it could be hurt Bush’s reelection chances next year[/b]."
"The dispute stems from the leak of an internal draft memorandum by a Democratic staff member. The memo suggested that because the committee's inquiry was focusing on the work of intelligence agencies, and not on how the White House used intelligence, Democrats should be ready to disavow the panel's findings and "pull the trigger" to demand an independent investigation.
[b][Senator Levin] He said the administration had issued such "exaggerated" statements about the risk it said Iraq posed to the world that "they took us to war.[/b]""
"THE PRESIDENT RESPECTS Cheney's judgment, say White House aides, and values the veep's long experience in the intelligence community (as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee in the 1980s and as secretary of Defense in the George H.W. Bush administration). As vice president, [b]Cheney is free to roam about the various agencies, quizzing analysts and top spooks about terrorists and their global connections[/b]. "This is a very important area. It's the one the president asked me to work on ... I ask a lot of hard questions," Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert last September. "That's my job."
[b]Of all the president's advisers, Cheney has consistently taken the most dire view of the terrorist threat. On Iraq, Bush was the decision maker. But more than any adviser, Cheney was the one to make the case to the president that war against Iraq was an urgent necessity[/b]. Beginning in the late summer of 2002, he persistently warned that Saddam was stocking up on chemical and biological weapons, and last March, on the eve of the invasion, he declared that "we believe that he [b][Saddam Hussein] has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons." (Cheney later said that he meant "program," not "weapons." He also said, a bit optimistically, "I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.[/b]") After seven months, investigators are still looking for that arsenal of WMD.
Cheney has repeatedly suggested that Baghdad has ties to Al Qaeda. He has pointedly refused to rule out suggestions that Iraq was somehow to blame for the 9/11 attacks and may even have played a role in the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. The CIA and FBI, as well as a congressional investigation into the 9/11 attacks, have dismissed this conspiracy theory. Still, as recently as Sept. 14, Cheney continued to leave the door open to Iraqi complicity. He brought up a report--widely discredited by U.S. intelligence officials--that 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001. And he described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." A few days later, a somewhat [b]sheepish President Bush publicly corrected the vice president[/b]. [b]There was no evidence, Bush admitted, to suggest that the Iraqis were behind 9/11.[/b]
Cheney has long been regarded as a Washington wise man. He has a dry, deliberate manner; a penetrating, if somewhat wintry, wit, and a historian's long-view sensibility. He is far to the right politically, but in no way wild-eyed; in private conversation he seems moderate, thoughtful, cautious. [b]Yet when it comes to terrorist plots, he seems to have given credence to the views of some fairly flaky ideologues and charlatans[/b]. Writing recently in The New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh alleged that [b]Cheney had, in effect, become the dupe of a cabal of neoconservative full-mooners, the Pentagon's mysteriously named Office of Special Plans and the patsy of an alleged bank swindler and would-be ruler of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi[/b].
A Cheney aide took strong exception to the notion that the vice president was at the receiving end of some kind of private pipeline for half-baked or fraudulent intelligence, or that he was somehow carrying water for the neocons or anyone else's self-serving agendas. "That's an urban myth," said this aide, who declined to be identified. Cheney has cited as his "gold standard" the National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus report put out by the entire intelligence community. And, indeed, an examination of the declassified version of the NIE reveals some pretty alarming warnings. "Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," the October 2002 NIE states.
Nonetheless, it appears that [b]Cheney has been susceptible to "cherry-picking," embracing those snippets of intelligence that support his dark prognosis while discarding others that don't[/b]. He is widely regarded in the intelligence community as an outlier, as a man who always goes for the worst-case --scenario and sometimes overlooks less alarming or at least ambiguous signs. Top intelligence officials reject the suggestion that Cheney has somehow bullied lower-level CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency analysts into telling him what he wants to hear. But they do describe the Office of the Vice President, with its large and assertive staff, as a kind of free-floating power base that at times brushes aside the normal policymaking machinery under national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice. [b]On the road to war, Cheney in effect created a parallel government that became the real power center[/b].
Cheney, say those who know him, is in no way cynically manipulative. By all accounts, he is genuinely convinced that the threat is imminent and menacing. Professional intelligence analysts can offer measured, nuanced opinions, but policymakers, Cheney likes to say, have to decide. As he put it last July in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, "How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?" [b]And yet Cheney seems to have rung the warning bell a little too loudly and urgently. If nothing else, his apparently exaggerated alarms over Iraq, WMD and the terror connection may make Americans slow to respond the next time he sees a wolf at the door[/b].
What is it about Cheney’s character and background that makes him such a Cassandra? And did his powerful dirge drown out more-modulated voices in the councils of power in Washington and in effect launch America on the path to war? [b]Cheney declined an interview request from NEWSWEEK, but interviews with his aides and a wide variety of sources in the intelligence and national-security community paint the portrait of a vice president who may be too powerful for his own good[/b].
[b]Cheney, say those who know him, has always had a Hobbesian view of life. The world is a dangerous place; war is the natural state of mankind; enemies lurk[/b]. The national-security state must be strong, vigilant and wary. Cheney believes that America’s military and intelligence establishments were weakened by defeat in Vietnam and the wave of scandals that followed in Watergate in the ’70s and Iran-contra in the ’80s. He did not regard as progress the rise of congressional investigating committees, special prosecutors and an increasingly adversarial, aggressive press. Cheney is a strong believer in the necessity of government secrecy as well as more broadly the need to preserve and protect the power of the executive branch.
He never delivers these views in a rant. Rather, Cheney talks in a low, arid voice, if at all. He usually waits until the end of a meeting to speak up, and then speaks so softly and cryptically, out of one side of his mouth, so that people have to lean forward to hear. (In a babble of attention-seekers, this can be a powerful way of getting heard.) Cheney rarely shows anger or alarm, but on occasion his exasperation emerges.
One such moment came at the end of the first gulf war in 1991. Cheney was secretary of Defense, and arms inspectors visiting defeated Iraq had discovered that Saddam Hussein was much closer to building a nuclear weapon than anyone had realized. Why, Cheney wondered aloud to his aides, had a steady stream of U.S. intelligence experts beaten a path to his door before the war to say that the Iraqis were at least five to 10 years away from building a bomb? Years later, in meetings of the second President Bush’s war cabinet, Cheney would return again and again to the question of how Saddam could create an entire hidden nuclear program without the CIA’s knowing much, if anything, about it.
Cheney’s suspicions—about both the strength of Iraq and the weakness of U.S. intelligence agencies—were fed after he left government. Cheney spent a considerable amount of time with the scholars and backers of the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank that has served as a conservative government-in-waiting. [b]Cheney was on the board of directors and his wife, Lynne, a conservative activist on social issues, still keeps an office there as a resident “fellow.” At various lunches and dinners around Washington, sponsored by AEI and other conservative organizations, Cheney came in contact with other foreign-policy hard-liners or “neoconservatives” like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. It was an article of faith in the AEI crowd that the United States had missed a chance to knock off Saddam in 1991; that Saddam was rebuilding his stockpile of WMD, and that sooner or later the Iraqi strongman would have to go. [/b]When some dissidents in northern Iraq tried to mount an insurrection with CIA backing in the mid-’90s and failed, the conservatives blamed the Clinton administration for showing weakness. Clinton’s national-security adviser, Tony Lake, had, it was alleged, “pulled the plug.”
In the late ’90s, Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of one of the resistance groups, the Iraqi National Congress, began cultivating and lobbying intellectuals, journalists and political leaders in Washington. Chalabi —had a shadowy past; his family, exiled from Iraq in the late ’50s, had set up a banking empire through the Middle East that collapsed in charges of fraud in 1989. (Chalabi, who has always denied wrongdoing, has been convicted and sentenced, in absentia, by a Jordanian military court to 22 years of hard labor.) But operating out of London, the smoothly persuasive Chalabi presented himself as a democratic answer to Saddam Hussein. With a little American backing, he promised, he could rally the Iraqi people to overthrow the Butcher of Baghdad.
Chalabi was hailed in some circles, especially among the neocons at AEI, as the “George Washington of Iraq.” But the professionals at the State Department and at the CIA took a more skeptical view. In 1999, after Congress had passed and President Bill Clinton had signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, providing funds to support Iraqi exile groups, the U.S. government convened a conference with the INC and other opposition groups in London to discuss “regime change.” The American officials proposed bringing INC activists to America for training. Chalabi’s aides objected. Most of the likely candidates were Iraqi refugees living in various European countries. By coming to the United States, they could lose their refugee status. Some Pentagon officials shook their heads in disbelief. “You had to wonder,” said one who attended the conference, “how serious were these people. They kept telling us they wanted to risk their lives for their country. But they were afraid to risk their refugee status in Sweden?”
[b]After the Republicans regained the White House in 2001, many of the neocons took top national-security jobs. Perle, the man closest to Chalabi, chose to stay on the outside (where he kept a lucrative lobbying practice). But Wolfowitz and Feith became, respectively, the No. 2 and No. 3 man at the Defense Department, and a former Wolfowitz aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, became the vice president’s chief of staff[/b]. Once the newcomers took over, the word went out that any disparaging observations about Chalabi or the INC were no longer appreciated. “The view was, ‘If you weren’t a total INC guy, then you’re on the wrong side’,” said a Pentagon official. “It was, ‘We’re not going to trash the INC anymore and Ahmad Chalabi is an Iraqi patriot who risked his life for his country’.”
[b]Some neocons began agitating inside the Bush administration to support some kind of insurrection, led by Chalabi, that would overthrow Saddam. In the summer of 2001, the neocons circulated a plan to support an INC-backed invasion. A senior Pentagon analyst questioned whether Iraqis would rise up to back it. “You’re thinking like the Clinton people,” a Feith aide shot back. “They planned for failure. We plan for success.” [/b]It is important to note that at this early stage, the neocons did not have the enthusiastic backing of Vice President Cheney. Just because Cheney had spent a lot of time around the Get Saddam neocons does not mean that he had become one, says an administration aide. “It’s a mistake to add up two and two and get 18,” he says. Cheney’s cautious side kept him from leaping into any potential Bay of Pigs covert actions.
What changed Cheney was not Chalabi or his friends from AEI, but the 9/11 attacks. For years Cheney had feared—and warned against—a terrorist attack on an American city. The hijacked planes that plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon confirmed his suspicions of American vulnerability—though by no means his worst fears—that the terrorists would use a biological or nuclear weapon. “9/11 changed everything,” Cheney began saying to anyone who would listen. It was no longer enough to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement matter, Cheney believed. The United States had to find ways to act against the terrorists before they struck.
Cheney began collecting intelligence on the threat anywhere he could find it. Along with Libby, his chief of staff, the vice president began showing up at the CIA and DIA for briefings. Cheney would ask probing questions from different analysts in various agencies and then, later with his staff, connect the dots. [b]Such an aggressive national-security role by a vice president was unusual. So was the sheer size of Cheney’s staff—about 60 people, much larger than the size of Al Gore’s[/b]. The threat from germ warfare was a particular concern of Cheney’s. After 9/11, Libby kept calling over to the Defense Department, asking what the military was doing to guard against a bio attack from crop-dusters. In July 2002, Cheney made a surprise, unpublicized visit to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. He wanted to question directly the public-health experts about their efforts to combat bioterrorism. If not for the traffic snarls caused by his motorcade, his visit might have remained a secret.
There was, within the administration, another office parsing through intelligence on the Iraqi and terror threat. [b]The Office of Special Plans was so secretive at first that the director, William Luti, did not even want to mention its existence. “Don’t ever talk about this,” Luti told his staff, according to a source who attended early meetings. “If anybody asks, just say no comment[/b].” (Luti does not recall this, but he does regret choosing such a spooky name for the office.) The Office of Special Plans has sometimes been described as an intelligence cell, along the lines of “Team B,” set up by the Ford administration in the 1970s to second-guess the CIA when conservatives believed that the intelligence community was underestimating the Soviet threat. But OSP is more properly described as a planning group—planning for war in Iraq. Some of the OSP staffers were true believers. Abe Shulsky, a defense intellectual who ran the office under Luti, was a Straussian, a student of a philosopher named Leo Strauss, who believed that ancient texts had hidden meanings that only an elite could divine. Strauss taught that [b]philosophers needed to tell —”noble lies” to the politicians and the people[/b].
The OSP gathered up bits and pieces of intelligence that pointed to Saddam’s WMD programs and his ties to terror groups. The OSP would prepare briefing papers for administration officials to use. The OSP also drew on reports of defectors who alleged that Saddam was hiding bio and chem weapons under hospitals and schools. Some of these defectors were provided to the intelligence community by Chalabi, who also fed them to large news organizations, like The New York Times. Vanity Fair published a few of the more lurid reports, deemed to be bogus by U.S. intelligence agencies (like one alleging that Saddam was running a terrorist-training camp, complete with a plane fuselage in which to practice hijackings). The CIA was skeptical about the motivation and credibility of these defectors, but their stories gained wide circulation.
Cheney’s staffers were in more than occasional contact with the OSP. Luti, an intense and brilliant former naval aviator who flew combat missions in the gulf war, worked in Cheney’s office before he took over OSP, and was well liked by Cheney’s staff. Luti’s office had absorbed a small, secretive intelligence-analysis shop in the Pentagon known as Team B (after the original Team B) whose research linked 9/11 to both Al Qaeda and the Iranian terror group Hizbullah. The team was particularly fascinated by the allegation that 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent. One of Team B’s creators—David Wurmser—now works on Cheney’s staff. Libby went to at least one briefing with Team B staffers at which they discussed Saddam’s terror connections. It would be a mistake, however, to overstate the influence of OSP on Cheney or his staff. Cheney collected information from many sources, but principally from the main intelligence agencies, the CIA and DIA. Likewise, Cheney’s aides say that they talked to Chalabi and his people about “opposition politics”—not about WMD or terrorism. (“The whole idea that we were mainlining dubious INC reports into the intelligence community is simply nonsense,” Paul Wolfowitz told NEWSWEEK.)
There has been much speculation in the press and in the intelligence community about the impact of the conspiracy theories of Laurie Mylroie on the Bush administration. A somewhat eccentric Harvard-trained political scientist, Mylroie argued (from guesswork and sketchy evidence) that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was an Iraqi intelligence operation. When AEI published an updated version of her book “Study of Revenge” two years ago, her acknowledgments cited the help of, among others, Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of State John Bolton and Libby. But Cheney aides say that the vice president has never even discussed Mylroie’s book. (“I take satisfaction in the fact that we went to war with Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein,” said Mylroie. “The rest is details.”)
Cheney is hardly the only intelligence adviser to the president. CIA Director George Tenet briefs the president every morning. But Tenet was often caught up defending his agency. Cheney feels free to criticize, and he does. “Cheney was very distrustful and remains very distrustful of the traditional intelligence establishment,” says a former White House official. “He thinks they are too cautious or too invested in their own policy concerns.” Cheney is not as “passionate” in his dissents as Wolfowitz, the leading intellectual neocon in the administration. But he carries more clout.
[b]Cheney often teams up with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to roll over national-security adviser Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell. “OVP [Cheney’s office] and OSD [Rumsfeld’s office] turned into their own axis of evil,” grouses a former White House official, who added that Cheney and Rumsfeld shared the same strategic vision: pessimistic and dark. Some observers see a basic breakdown in the government[/b]. Rice has chosen to play more of an advisory role to the president and failed to coordinate the often warring agencies like State and Defense. “Cheney was acting as national-security adviser because of Rice’s failure to do so,” says Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
[b]State Department staffers say that Cheney’s office pushed hard to include dubious evidence of Iraq’s terror ties in Powell’s speech to the United Nations last February[/b]. Libby fought for an inclusion of the alleged meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Powell resisted, but Powell’s aides were impressed with Libby’s persistence. In the end, the reference to Atta was dropped, but Powell did include other examples linking Baghdad to Al Qaeda. When the State Department wanted to cut off funds to Chalabi for alleged accounting failures, Cheney backed shifting the money from the State Department to the Defense Department. It is significant, however, that Cheney ultimately did not support setting up Chalabi as a government in exile, a ploy that the State Department and CIA strongly opposed. They feared that Chalabi would proclaim himself ruler-by-fiat after an American invasion. Though Chalabi’s people often talked to Cheney’s staff, the vice president has no particular brief for the INC chief over any other democratically elected leader, says an administration official.
[b]Accused of overstating the Iraqi threat by politicians and pundits, Cheney is publicly and privately unrepentant[/b]. He believes that Al Qaeda is determined to obtain weapons of mass destruction and use them against American civilians in their cities and homes. To ignore those warnings would be “irresponsible in the extreme,” he says in his speeches. His staffers are not unmindful of the risk of crying wolf, however, and acknowledge that if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq, the public will be much less likely to back pre-emptive wars in the future. Cheney still believes the WMD will turn up somewhere in Iraq—if they aren’t first used against us by terrorists."
[b]Conclusion: [i]The anal-retentive Cheney "ain't" a wise man, but instead is a lying fool ... so he sticks by his "story" ... So does O. J. Simpson[/i]![/b]
Bush's Screed:-- Reactions Include "It Would Be Laughable, Were It Not So Pathetic"
Bush's screed, delivered last Thursday, at the National Endowment for Democracy, was a cynical & imbecilic ploy to divert attention away from the miserable failure of his Iraqi debacle, the war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire, taking a continued toll of death on a daily basis, with no end in sight.
"We the People" should be mightily suspicious of the neo-con Bush regime, who are corrupt and incompetent, and having bungled so badly the situation in Iraq-- now a disastrous fiasco:-- [i]Would anyone with an iota of brain-matter and an ounce of conscience, actually trust these idiots and swindlers, to manage the "democratization" of the entire Middle East?[/i] "[i][b]It would be laughable, were it not so pathetic[/b][/i]"!
[b]Talk is cheap, as some observe[/b], in "[b]'It would be laughable, were it not so pathetic' - Reactions to his pro-democracy speech are mixed[/b]" on http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa...,12271,1081365,00.html :
""Addressing the National Endowment for Democracy on Thursday, President George Bush sought to look beyond the current bloody chaos in Iraq. Successfully implanting a democratic government in Iraq, he predicted, would energise a democratic revolution that would sweep away tyrannies from Cuba to North Korea. Specifically, Mr Bush proclaimed a new 'forward strategy' for advancing freedom in the Middle East...
"[i]Unfortunately, his biggest experiment in democracy promotion has been in Iraq, and he has not been going about it in the most promising ways[/i]... To succeed in this vitally important endeavour, the Bush administration will have to learn to put the same kind of energy and resources into the diplomatic and educational sides of foreign policy as it has devoted to unilateral military action."
[b]David von Drehle Washington Post, November 7[/b]
"Mr Bush... explained his approach to the Middle East by drawing a comparison with Ronald Reagan's stance 20 years ago in the cold war... [i]As rhetoric, the speech was Reaganism distilled, the 150-proof stuff... In the age-old foreign-policy struggle between sunny idealism and ice-cold cunning, the idealists are at the controls[/i]."
[b]Jerusalem Post Editorial, November 9[/b]
"On Thursday... Mr Bush gave one of the most important speeches of his presidency. [He] is presiding over the greatest restructuring of American foreign policy since Harry Truman set the foundations of the policy of the containment of the Soviet Union after the second world war...
"The free world, with America in the lead, has too frequently allowed Arab despots a free ride... [i]We hope Mr Bush's words are harbingers of a truly new spirit that will be backed by action[/i]... We look forward to the enthusiastic and consistent application of these words to the Palestinian leadership, and to the Arab regimes most closely associated with the US in the region."
[b]Daily Star Editorial, Lebanon, November 8[/b]
"Mr Bush's speech... is a breath of fresh air - from American quarters more known recently for lobbing threats and bombs at us... [i]Three important factors will need to be monitored if [it] is translated into reality[/i]. The first is the fact of implementation: how seriously words become action. The second is the manner of implementation: how earnestly the people of the region work with friends abroad to foster democratic governance... The third is the scope of implementation: how widely or narrowly across the region democratic values extend."
[b]Gulf News Editorial, United Arab Emirates, November 9[/b]
"[i]The more... Mr Bush gets involved in Middle East issues, the more obvious it becomes how deficient is his knowledge of the region[/i]. His attempt at preaching democracy to the Arab nations would be laughable, were it not so pathetic. That the Arab leaders recognise a need for change in political dialogue is a given. But it cannot happen overnight...
"[i]Where Mr Bush's (or his briefers') ignorance comes in on the Middle East is the blatant lack of knowledge of how a centuries-old system of peoples' representation has worked here[/i]. Such a system has worked well and still does work well. It may not have ballot boxes but it does have a person who can be approached to solve problems immediately. That is more than can be said of many western politicians." "
Bush is a Liar:-- Case For War in Iraq "Confected" According to Top U.S. Officials
Is it any wonder that "We the People" don't know what is going on in this country? ... The neo-con, right-winged extremists have over-taken the media and have become the neo-fascist "useful idiots", attack-dogs & court-jesters:-- dishonest apologists covering-up the [b]Bush regime's Crimes Against Humanity[/b]. The right-winged media is lying to the American people on behalf of the Bush plutocrats in charge of the neo-oligarchy who are raping & plundering America & Iraq.
No longer do we have the [b]Fairness Doctrine[/b] http://www.museum.tv/archives... , requiring equal time for the liberal and conservative viewpoints on the radio ... The Reagan "[i]Greed-is-Good[/i]" regime destroyed the Fairness Doctrine, although the airwaves belong to "We the People" ... Not anymore, they now belong to war-profiteers, "corporate-take-all" robber-barons, and the wealthy interests who have purchased media whores who bombard the airways with mendacious propaganda ... We've been hijacked by a corrupt cabal of thugs & goons who are determined to destroy democracy and install a neo-fascist feudal state in the U.S.A.
No wonder, one must seek the truth in the foreign news media:-- In "[b]Case for war confected, say top US officials[/b]" on http://news.independent.co.uk... :
"[b]An unprecedented array of US intelligence professionals, diplomats and former Pentagon officials have gone on record to lambast the Bush administration for its distortion of the case for war against Iraq[/b]. In their view, the very foundations of intelligence-gathering have been damaged in ways that could take years, even decades, to repair.
A new documentary film beginning to circulate in the United States features one powerful condemnation after another, from the sort of people who usually stay discreetly in the shadows - a former director of the CIA, two former assistant secretaries of defence, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and even the man who served as President Bush's Secretary of the Army until just a few months ago.
Between them, the two dozen interviewees reveal how the pre-war intelligence record on Iraq showed virtually the opposite of the picture the administration painted to Congress, to US voters and to the world. They also reconstruct the way senior White House officials - notably [b]Vice-President Dick Cheney - leaned on the CIA to find evidence that would fit a preordained set of conclusions[/b].
[b]"There was never a clear and present danger. There was never an imminent threat. Iraq - and we have very good intelligence on this - was never part of the picture of terrorism," says Mel Goodman, a veteran CIA analyst who now teaches at the National War College[/b].
The case for accusing Saddam Hussein of concealing weapons of mass destruction was, in the words of the veteran CIA operative Robert Baer, largely achieved through "data mining" - going back over old information and trying to wrest new conclusions from it. The agenda, according to George Bush Senior's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman, was both highly political and profoundly misguided.
"The theory that you can bludgeon political grievances out of existence doesn't have much of a track record," he says, "so essentially we have been neo-conned into applying a school of thought about foreign affairs that has failed everywhere it has been tried."
The hour-long film - entitled [b]Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War [/b]- was put together by Robert Greenwald, a veteran TV producer in the forefront of Hollywood's anti-war movement who never suspected, when he started out, that so many establishment figures would stand up and be counted.
"My attitude was, wow, CIA people, I thought these were the bad guys," Mr Greenwald said. "Not everyone agreed on everything. Not everyone was against the war itself. But there was a universally shared opinion that we had been misled about the reasons for the war."
Although many elements in the film are not necessarily new - the forged document on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq, the aluminium tubes falsely assumed to be parts for nuclear weapons, the satellite images of "mobile biolabs" that turned out to be hydrogen compression facilities, the "decontamination vehicles" that were in fact fire engines - what emerges is a striking sense of professional betrayal in the intelligence community.
As the former CIA analyst Ray McGovern argues with particular force, the traditional role of the CIA has been to act as a scrupulously accurate source of information and analysis for presidents pondering grave international decisions. That role, he said, had now been "prostituted" and the CIA may never be the same. "Where is Bush going to turn to now? Where is his reliable source of information now Iraq is spinning out of control? He's frittered that away," Mr McGovern said. "And the profound indignity is that he probably doesn't even realise it."
The starting point for the tarnishing of the CIA was a speech by Vice-President Cheney on 26 August 2002, in which he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons programme and was thus threatening to inflict "death on a massive scale - in his own region or beyond".
According to numerous sources, [b]Mr Cheney followed up his speech with a series of highly unorthodox visits to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in which he badgered low-level analysts to come up with information to substantiate the extremely alarming - but entirely bogus - contents of his speech[/b].
By early September, intelligence experts in Congress were clamouring for a so-called National Intelligence Estimate, a full rundown of everything known about Iraq's weapons programmes. Usually NIEs take months to produce, but George Tenet, the CIA director, came up with a 100-page document in just three weeks.
The man he picked to write it, the weapons expert Robert Walpole, had a track record of going back over old intelligence assessments and reworking them in accordance with the wishes of a specific political interest group. In 1998, he had come up with an estimate of the missile capabilities of various rogue states that managed to sound considerably more alarming than a previous CIA estimate issued three years earlier. On that occasion, he was acting at the behest of a congressional commission anxious to make the case for a missile defence system; the commission chairman was none other than Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defence and a key architect of the Iraq war.
Mr Walpole's NIE on Iraq threw together all the elements that have now been discredited - Niger, the alumin- ium tubes, and so on. It also gave the misleading impression that intelligence analysts were in broad agreement about the Iraqi threat, relegating most of the doubts and misgivings to footnotes and appendices.
By the time parts of the NIE were made public, even those few qualifications were excised. [b]When President Bush's speechwriters got to work - starting with the address to Congress on 7 October that led to a resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq - the language became even stronger.[/b]
Mr Tenet fact-checked the 7 October speech, and seems to have played a major role in every subsequent policy address, including Colin Powell's powerful presentation to the United Nations Security Council on 5 February. Of that pivotal speech, Mr McGovern says in the film: "It was a masterful performance, but none of it was true.""
[b]Apparently, Bush lacks the brain matter ... the intellectual capacity ... the integrity ... the honor ... the curiousity ... the concern about America; or all of the above, to ask tough questions of his neo-con, neo-fascist lackeys:-- but then, Bush is a corrupt LIAR![/b]
Bush's Economy: The Long, Hard Slog ... For The "Little People"
"We the People" are being swindled so viciously and ruthlessly by the Bush regime, the worst "administration" in our nation's history ... that the public are "numbed-down" as well as "dumbed-down", as to the horrific consequences that face us, in the "not-so-distant" future.
Bush's [b]economic fiasco [/b]is going to be [b]the long, hard slog[/b], that middle-class America will be forced to cope with ... The lower-income, middle-income and fixed-income retirees must bear the entire burden of Bush's insane $560 Billion record-level deficit ... and the looming national debt, rising at the highest rate since the Great Depression. Bush has destroyed over 3.2 million jobs and the unemployment rate is still close to 9 million, despite a minor increase in some jobs (approx. 200,000) in October.
The Bush Regime, their war-profiteers, "corporate-take-all" rapists, and robber-barons-- all of whom serve the corrupt and anti-American plutocrats in charge of the American oligarchy-- are making out like bandits ... they've been awarded the largest "welfare-for-the-rich" boondoggles, tax loopholes & tax cuts, in our nation's history ... Rising prices, escalating fuel costs, and, slashed services won't put a dent in their obscenely lavish life-styles ... The burden will be borne by the "[b]little people[/b]".
[b]In the Doctrine According to the "All for Me, and Me for Me" Bushies: "[i]Only the 'little people' pay taxes & bear burdens'[/i]"![/b]
In "[b]Economy: The Long, Hard Slog[/b]" on the Center for American Progress web-site at [i]centerforamericanprogr ess.org[/i]:
"There was moderately good news this morning on the job front, as the latest employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that after three years of consistent job loss, the month of October saw the growth of 126,000 jobs. But don’t pop that proverbial champagne yet; there’s still a tough road ahead. [i]According to the BLS, the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged, as was the "number of unemployed persons, 8.8 million." And the "hard-hit manufacturing sector" actually lost another 24,000 jobs in October, making it "the 37th consecutive month of declines in that area."[/i] Even if the country continues to add jobs at the rate it did during the month of October, by the end of President Bush's term, the economy still will have lost about a million jobs, making [b]Bush the first president since Herbert Hoover to be at the helm of a country that actually had fewer jobs at the end of a four-year term than at the beginning[/b]. Just to get the country back to pre-Bush Administration levels, the economy would have to create 220,000 jobs per month for the next year.
[b]EVEN THOSE WORKING FEEL THE BITE[/b]: The American employment situation may be tough even if you're one of the lucky employed. Overall, wage income is down. The Economic Policy Institute reports "[i]Real wage and salary income declined by 1.2% between the start of the last recession (March, 2001) and the most recent months of data (August, 2003). That decline is the worst performance at this stage since 1959[/i]." And Lou Dobbs reports that, as workers continue their "[b]long, hard slog back into the workforce," it's not to the same standard of living they remember from before[/b]. "The people who have jobs are simply working more...Since companies began shedding jobs during the recent economic downturn, employees who remained behind are working more in order to avoid being the next victims of a cutback."
[b]THE BIG PICTURE[/b]: The news of 7.2% growth last quarter came with this sobering chaser: [b]The price the country is paying for this growth is astronomical, and the benefits are disproportionately aimed at the wealthy.[/b] Robert Kuttner this week writes there are two main problems with the economy: "[b]First, the benefits of the growth are not trickling down. Second, a high growth rate built on Bush's policies is unsustainable[/b]." Running a big deficit is one way to jumpstart a sluggish economy, and "if this were just a one-year stimulus program with a lot of aid to cities, states and the jobless, that would be about good policy. But [b]Bush's deficit was generated not to stimulate short-run demand or to keep public services flowing during a recession, but to cut taxes - most emphatically for America's wealthiest - and to slash social spending[/b]." (Citizens For Tax Justice reports that [b]over half of the Bush tax cuts will go to the richest 5% of Americans, while the bottom 60% of taxpayers see a paltry 7.8%, averaging less than $100 a year[/b].) Kuttner adds real growth won't result from "the unbalanced fiscal policy of the Bush Administration -[i] big, permanent deficits based on tax cuts for the rich coupled with starvation of public services[/i]."
[b]THE BIG PICTURE, PART DEUX[/b]: Brookings economist Peter Orszag in the New Republic continues the one-two punch on that theme, charging the the tax cuts and spending changes just don't give Americans the bang for their buck. The independent economic research firm economy.com estimates that only 0.9% of the 7.2% growth last quarter could be linked to the 2003 Bush tax cut. [i]Even if this were doubled and accounted for even $30 billion of the increase in annualized GDP, that's a "pretty bad deal," considering economists peg the cost of the tax cuts at close to "$1 trillion over ten years[/i]." Sums up Orszag: "If we wanted $30 billion in additional demand, we should have been able to get it for well under $1 trillion. For example, more state fiscal relief or increases in homeland security investments would have been much more cost effective."
[b]STATES OF CRISIS[/b]: Although there was some economic recovery on the national level, this week saw states are still facing severe fiscal crises, slashing programs and raising taxes in an effort to survive. A memo by Center for American Progress fellow Gene Sperling charges, "state fiscal conditions will be a drag on economic growth," as Goldman-Sachs estimates, “The overall fiscal impulse from the government sector is likely to turn restrictive in the second half of 2004. State and local governments will still be exerting fiscal restraint – probably around $20-$25 billion." Five cash-strapped states - Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Montana and Utah - have been forced "to freeze enrollment in their children's health insurance program (CHIP)" leaving uninsured kids out in the cold. South Carolina forecast Wednesday that it will likely have a gap of $631 million in its budget next year, meaning across-the-board cuts in 15% of programs, which likely means "layoffs for state employees and tax increases." Schools in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota are getting property-tax funds from a recent referendum, state school funding has been frozen and they still face massive cuts in programs."
[b]Nobel Prize Laureate George Akerlof has said that the Bush regime is the "worst" in our nation's history ... He is right![/b]
Believe It Or Not: Emperor Bush Truly Knows No Limits!
Perusing through [i]Joshua Micah Marshall's [/i]excellent [i]TalkingPointsMemo[/i] on http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... , I was shocked by the following report:
"[b]They truly know no limits[/b].
According to an email sent out Wednesday by director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, the Bush administration will no longer respond to budgeting questions from congressional Democrats. And they imply they may apply this new principle, if you can call it that, to non-budgetary oversight. [Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
(Given the questions that are being asked, I can certainly understand the motivation.)
They've dressed it up a bit. The wording actually says they'll no longer respond to queries not sent by the committee chairmen. But since Republicans are the chairmen that means the GOP chairman will have a veto over every Democratic request for info.
AEI's [[i]American Enterprise Institute - Neo-fascist think-tank that worships at the altar of the neo-con PNAC groupies[/i]] Norm Ornstein, not exactly a shill for the Dems, says "I have not heard of anything like that happening before. This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."
[b]Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely[/b]. And if you're already pretty corrupt when you get the power ... well, then things can really get bad pretty quick, as we're seeing." - [i]7 November 2003, 11:41 AM[/i]
[b]"We the People" are witnessing the gradual demise and corruption of our institutions of government & accountabilities, by this corrupt cabal of thugs & goons in the Bush Regime, with no respect for the rule of law-- no respect for our US Constitution & Bill of Rights-- no respect for Americans or anyone else (unless they're filthy rich & powerful)-- and, no respect for anything but their own selfish, greedy and blood-thirsty interests.[/b]
Middle-East Sees Bush's Rhetoric As An Empty, Hollow Sham ... So Should We, Since It Is!
The reaction from the Middle-East to Bush's bizarre screed about [i]spreading "democracy (sic)" throughout the Middle-East [/i]becoming his own regime's [i]New American Project[/i]-- was entirely predictable. Middle-Easterners see Bush's rhetoric as an empty, hollow sham ... So should we, since it is a cynical propaganda ploy devised as an "attention-getter" to divert our minds from the chaos, carnage, slaughter and mayhem in Iraq.
The Bushies have failed miserably to provide proper security in Iraq, particularly in the "Sunni triangle", where massacres occur on a daily basis. Today, another Black-Hawk helicopter crashed killing another 6 US Soldiers. [Source: "6 Soldiers Die in Helicopter Crash in Iraq - 2 Others Killed in Separate Attacks in Mosul" on http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
The situation in Iraq is out-of-control ... The Bushies are in over-their-heads and are reacting in a [b]panic-stricken modus operandi [/b]with no plan, no exit strategy ... The "long, hard slog" continues unabated costing us heavily in lives and treasure at over $1 billion per week ... and no end in sight!
Now, the Mad King George wants to commit us to some vague "democratization (sic)" of the entire Middle-East??? Of course, this corrupt Bush regime hasn't explained the time-scale and the cost ... they're track-record is to bamboozle, swindle & con us ... and then get us into a mess that we are then unable to back-away from ... like the dirty, filthy neo-con, con-artists that they are and represent ...
The only people thrilled by Bush's imbecilic screed are his war-profiteers, "corporate-take-all" robber-barons, and, richest-of-the-rich campaign contributors, all of whom will continue to be awarded immoral (& possibly illegal) boondoggles, tax loopholes & tax cuts (welfare-for-the-rich) ... These greedy plutocrats & oligarchs make no sacrifice, and have sordid & squalid visions of $$$dollar signs dancing in their sick heads ... they are "arm-chair" chicken-hawks, who deserve to be frog-marched off to jail ... instead of being able to de-fraud and massacre Americans and Iraqis.
[b]Please contact Congress on http://www.congress.org , and demand that this "Middle-East" Project for the New American Century (PNAC) devised in the "bowels" of the cowardly neo-con's nightmares, be halted immediately. Please let them know that Bush does not speak for "We the People"![/b]
"President George Bush's calls for democracy rang hollow in the Middle East, where many said on Friday they were appalled Washington was preaching liberty for Arabs while occupying Iraq.
"Bush's speech is like a boring, broken record that nobody believes,'' said Gulf-based political analyst Moghazy al-Badrawy.
"Mr. Bush has not read history. Who supported and still supports the very governments whose oppressive rules breed extremism and terrorism?'' asked an Arab analyst based in Dubai.
...
Also, refer to "[b]Many Arabs Skeptical of Bush's Speech[/b]" on http://www.guardian.co.uk/wor...,1280,-3360383,00.html : - [i]Excerpt[/i] -
"In calling for more democracy in the Middle East, President Bush echoed what many Arabs have said for years. But with Bush as the messenger, many were skeptical that the United States would push for real change in the region's autocratic rule.
The speech Thursday in Washington, televised throughout the Arab world, also provoked resentment since many Arabs believe his government manufactured reasons to wage war on Iraq and regularly sides unfairly with Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.
In its Friday edition, a signed editorial in the leading Lebanese daily An-Nahar described the speech as ``very attractive words'' but said that ``before they become tangible policies that deal with the real problems, they will continue to be boring, empty rhetoric.''
But in the Syrian capital Damascus, 37-year-old worker Ali Rida said Bush's talk of democracy didn't conceal the true U.S. policy in the region.
``If they want to export democracy through wars, we do not want it,'' he said. ``Let them keep it to themselves.''
The "Leftists" Are Not Anti-Semitic ... Indeed, Many Illustrious & Great "Leftists" Are Jewish!!!
The idea that "leftists" are anti-semitic is ludicrous ... Moreover, many illustrious & great "leftists" throughout history and today are Jewish [ http://www.tikkun.org/communi... ] ... Consider, for example, Leon Trotsky & Rosa Luxemberg, revolutionaries who were both assassinated by fascists: the former by Stalinists and the latter by German fascists, later to become Nazis. The German Socialist Democratic Party (SDP) was hijacked and corrupted by those who assassinated the "leftist", i.e. socially-conscious communists, and with the support of the Capitalists, transformed an oppressed, terrified, desperate and jobless group of people, into the National Socialist Party (NSP) that was Fascist, not Socialist. [ http://www.gnostics.com/nasm6... ]
For an informed response on Karl Marx's famous essay "On the Jewish Question", please refer to the following listing entitled "An exchange of letters on Marx and anti-Semitism" on http://www.wsws.org/articles/... :
[b]1. Letter on Karl Marx Essay:[/b]
"[i]Dear WSWS[/i],
I have been one of your young readers for almost a year now. I would like you to know that I will probably always consider your web site a good source of information; that much is relatively certain. However, in that year’s time I have undertaken to read as much Marxist literature as I can, especially by Trotsky. But I recently got around to looking at Karl Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” and I was quite disturbed by what I saw.
“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world?” Marx asks. “Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.... What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage.... The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” [http://www.vho.org/GB/Journal...]
This source may well be reactionary in nature, of that I am not sure. However, does this not present an immense problem for progressive people? In my opinion, the fact that Marx came from a rabbinical family does not in any way excuse these opinions. And in case one might think that, at least, he were only directing himself against the Jewish religion (and not the people in general), this is later found not to be the case. Also, it is my understanding that he referred to his rival Lassalle as “Jew-nigger.”
I am well aware that, objectively speaking, these things have no bearing on Marx’s economic theories, etc. For Hitler to say the sky is blue does not make the statement incorrect. However, it certainly casts a dark cloud over the entire Marxist movement that their “Grand Old Man” should hold such deeply reactionary convictions.
Furthermore, you use the argument of the “dependence” of theory upon more abstract social opinions when you criticise Martin Heidegger’s membership in the NSDAP [Nazi Party]. I do not claim to be an expert on German philosophy, but how do you at the WSWS address this, and Marx’s aforementioned anti-Semitism?
[i]Sincerely,
IP[/i]"
[b]2. Response to Letter on Karl Marx Essay:[/b]
"[i]Mr. P[/i]:
I will reply as concisely as possible to your letter. The attempt to blackguard Marx as an anti-Semite is hardly new; and usually such efforts cite his very important essay “On the Jewish Question” as prima facie evidence in support of this allegation. Inasmuch as few people actually bother to study the entire essay, let alone familiarize themselves with the historical and political context within which it was written, “On the Jewish Question” is easily misrepresented.
The most important point that must be made is that Marx’s essay is, first and foremost, a call for the complete political emancipation of the Jews. It was written in 1843 as a polemic against Bruno Bauer, who argued against emancipation on two grounds: first, that Jewish emancipation was not possible until all Germans were emancipated from religion entirely; second, that Jews neither can be free nor deserve to be free on account of the dastardly character of their religion.
Marx rejected these arguments on historical, political and socioeconomic grounds. Aside from the progressive and thoroughly democratic character of his argument, the great significance of Marx’s analysis is that he considers the Jewish question within the framework of the socioeconomic development of bourgeois society as a whole. While those passages in Marx’s works that identify Judaism with the more vulgar aspects of commercial life are seized upon by anti-Marxists as proof of his malice toward Jews, the fact is that Marx was addressing himself to a well-known historically determined phenomenon.
Of course, in the universal association of Jews with commerce and huckstering there was a huge element of stereotyping. But underlying this stereotype, which Marx did not invent, was the objective socioeconomic role imposed upon Jews by Christian society under conditions of developing capitalism. At any rate, as Marx was at pains to explain, the forms of economic activity that had in the Middle Ages been associated with Jews had long since become universal with the emergence and maturation of capitalist relations within Christian Europe.
In this sense, the objective, if not theological, basis for the antithesis of Christian and Jew had been dissolved. Thus, the essay concludes that the social liberation of Christians and Jews requires their common liberation from capitalism.
While the metaphorical association of Judaism with capitalism jars modern sensibilities, intellectual integrity demands that Marx’s work be read in context. Those who seize on the essay to peddle their reactionary anti-Marxist and anti-socialist political agendas are entirely lacking in such integrity.
The source from which you obtained your skewed appreciation of Marx’s essay is a case in point. You are citing from an article entitled “Karl Marx: Anti-Semite,” by James B. Whisker. I will not waste my time refuting his lies, because the value of his arguments can be adequately judged simply by noting that Whisker’s article appeared on the web site of the Journal of Historical Review.
In case you have not taken the time to review the contents of this “journal,” permit me to point out that it is a mouthpiece of Hitler admirers and Holocaust deniers. You will find posted on its web site such pieces as “The ‘Holocaust’ Put in Perspective,” by one Austin J. App, who writes: “Those who throw around large numbers, like six million gassed, four million in Auschwitz, two million by mobile units in Russia, let them come up with the proofs—the graves, the bones, the ashes ... It seems up to us Revisionists to show that the figure of six million is a totally unsubstantiated, brazen lie.”
[b]I do not believe that these are people to whom you should turn for an interpretation of Marx’s writings.[/b]
[i]Yours sincerely,
David North
WSWS Editorial Board[/i]"
The Hypocrisy of the Bush Plutocrats in Charge of the American Oligarchy
"We the People" are being scammed & swindled by a cynical and corrupt cabal of [b]neo-fascist plutocrats [/b]... [b]Their goal[/b]: [i]To create a neo-feudal slave state, so they can rule the mob from the giddy heights of their wealthy palaces on-top of their neo-"Mount Olympus", exploiting our misery (to divert our attention from their criminal rape of our nation), as we fight each other (at the bottom of the economic ladder) for the measly scraps & bare bones they deign to throw our way.[/i]
The hypocrisy of the Bush plutocrats who run the American oligarchy, is exposed by their condemnation of other regimes who exploit their people ruthlessly as their rulers swindle & loot their own people to live out their obese, lavish life-styles in opulent palaces. Of course, this is exactly the same rapacious & greedy life-style in opulent neo-palaces ill-gotten via their corrupt [i]modus operandi, [/i] employed by the Bushies, their corrupt cronies, war-profiteers, "corporate-take-all" robber-barons & campaign contributors.
Recently, the wishful thinkers, neo-con attack-dogs & court-jesters, were crowing and crooning about the GDP growth in the 3rd quarter of this year-- conveniently forgetting or omitting the obvious questions regarding jobs, social services, ballooning deficits; and other not-so-subtle questions that don't require nobel-prize winning economists to consider. The quick GDP growth will most probably result in a short-term burst in profits that will bypass the low-income, middle-class & fixed-income retirees, and end-up in the bulging pockets of Bush's thieves and swindlers, like Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay.
Karl (Bush's Brain & America's Joseph Goebbles) Rove may be able to [b]"fool enough of the people, enough of the time"[/b] ... but, for the record, the Bushies [b]"can't fool all of the people, all of the time"!!![/b]
In "[b]Many Questions Remain For Economy[/b]" by Gene Sperling on the centerforamericanprogress .org :
"While all Americans hope that the very strong third quarter GDP growth numbers are a sign of better times for American workers and their families, there’s a long way to go before we know whether this will translate into the type of robust job growth and widespread income gains that benefit typical Americans that we saw in the 1990s.
Some of the reasons we should continue to keep a watchful eye to see whether such reports lead to strong job and income growth are as follows:
[b]Many economic indicators are still at or below recessionary levels:[/b]
• Consumer confidence down 24% from recessionary levels: During the nine months of the recession, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence index averaged 106.6. It currently is at 81.1.
• Excess capacity virtually unchanged: In November 2001, the last month of the recession, industry was utilizing 75.1% of its capacity, down from an average of 82.7% in 2000. Currently, capacity utilization is at 74.8%.
• Business investment still down by 8%. Even after the strong growth in the third quarter, real nonresidential private fixed investment is down 7.9% from the last quarter of 2000.
[b]Experts agree that last quarter’s pace of growth cannot be sustained:[/b]
• Private sector analysts predict slowing growth: “We are looking for the consumer to slow down in Q4 to something close to a 2% annual rate from 7% which even with some add from inventories will probably lead to fourth quarter growth of roughly 3%.” [Merrill Lynch, 10/17/03]
• Executives expect little expansion by their firms: 14% of CEOs expect to increase the pace of hiring in 2004. Half expect no change in capital spending, and 1/3 expect only modest growth. [Business Council survey, cited in the Wall Street Journal, 10/9/03]
• State fiscal conditions will be a drag on economic growth: “The overall fiscal impulse from the government sector is likely to turn restrictive in the second half of 2004. State and local governments will still be exerting fiscal restraint – probably around $20-$25 billion. In addition, the federal fiscal impulse will turn restrictive as the size of the tax cuts diminishes and defense spending levels out after increasing sharply… The net fiscal impulse from the government sector should swing abruptly to about -1.3% of GDP during the second half of 2004.” [Goldman Sachs, 8/22/03]
[b]Income growth not taking place yet:[/b]
• Wage income is down: "Real wage and salary income declined by 1.2% between the start of the last recession (March 2001) and the most recent month of data (August 2003). That decline is the worst performance at this stage since the current series began in 1959. [Economic Policy Institute, 10/29/03]
In terms of policy, the economic growth of the 3rd quarter does not change that the last 3 years have been the worst period of job loss since the Depression and have seen a fiscal policy that Nobel Prize winning economist George Akerlof has called “the worst policy in 200 years”:
[b]Massive job loss under the Bush Administration:[/b]
• 3.2 million private sector jobs lost since President Bush took office: Even the one month of modest gains in September only made up for 2% of the job loss that had taken place. (See graph)
[b]The most fiscally irresponsible Administration in history:[/b]
• A record deterioration in the fiscal situation: Former Republican Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson points out that “in just 2 years there was a $10 trillion swing in the deficit outlook” over ten years. [“Deficits and Dysfunction,” New York Times, June 8, 2003 6/8/03]
• Tax cuts could cost $550 billion in 2013 alone – 12 years after the current downturn. CBO estimates show that making the tax cuts permanent and ensuring the alternative minimum tax does not take away tax cuts from tens of millions of taxpayers would cost $553 billion in 2013, including interest.
[b]Inefficient and inequitable stimulus policy:[/b]
• One of the worst bang-for-the-buck policies ever: According to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates of this year’s tax cuts, only 5%-7% of the 2003-2013 total cost took place in 2003. In contrast, a Senate Democratic plan would have provided $125 billion of stimulus in 2003 and yet only had a long term cost of $187 billion, even without offsets, and a House Democratic plan would have provided $129 billion, or three-quarters of its cost, in the first two years.
• 12 million children left out: Indeed, the Administration has refused to push for making the child credit provision in the 2003 tax cuts refundable, denying the benefit of the full tax cut to the families of 11.9 million children who could have benefited from them the most. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]
[i]Gene Sperling, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as National Economic Advisor and Director of the National Economic Council in the Clinton Administration.[/i]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Also, refer to "[b]Why America's plutocrats gobble up $1,500 hot dogs [/b]- [i]In the final part of a series, Julian Borger examines the inequality of the Bush era[/i]" on http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa...,12271,1077949,00.html :
"The band pumped out brassy dance tunes, many dedicated to the gritty urban realities of New York. A few couples in the black tie and taffeta crowd found a space to dance, but most milled about in the packed ballroom, gravitating towards the stage as they waited for the president.
Republicans used to detest New York as a heaving pit of liberalism, but since September 11 the city has become a patriotic icon. This Republican fundraising gala was in a Washington hotel, but the imagery was a pastiche of New York streetlife, complete with street signs and a mock facade of the Yankees' stadium. The catering followed the same theme.
These politically charged dinners are normally five-course affairs eaten off white linen, but the folksiness of the Bush White House has by now pervaded the Republican party. The menu on this night was hot dogs and peanuts, served from food carts and eaten standing up.
"I think it's great because I thinks folks would rather be eating hot dogs with President Bush than sipping wine and nibbling cheese with Hillary Clinton," declared George Allen, a Virginia senator.
The president, who marched in to an ecstatic welcome, offered rhetoric to match the humble fare. After vowing to persevere in the battle against terrorism, he turned to his domestic ambitions, "to work for a society of prosperity and compassion so that every single citizen has a chance to work and succeed and realise the great promise of this country".
He promised to reach out to those Americans "who seem hopelessly lost, some who hurt, some who are lonely".
This is President Bush's trademark - language that was once the preserve of black Baptist churches and Democratic party rallies.
[b]Populist[/b]
But what is more extraordinary is his capacity to co-opt the populist style of his adversaries at a time when the Republicans are more than ever the party of extraordinary wealth.
The men and women in the ballroom had paid a minimum of $1,500 (£900) for their hot dogs, and almost all of them had contributed much, much more. The single night brought the Republican party a total of $14m. Mr Bush has so far raised $83m for his primary campaign, more than all nine Democratic contenders put together, even though he does not have an opponent inside his party.
This financial superiority flows from the simple fact that the president's backers are far wealthier than those of his rivals. More of them give the maximum contribution to a presidential campaign of $2,000, and more of them are chief executives who vie with each other to become honoured Republican "Rangers" or "Pioneers", by putting together $200,000 and $100,000 "bundles" of contributions from their employees and friends.
"You don't raise that kind of money at barbecues and backyard sales. You raise it from big business," said Charles Lewis, who runs the Washington watchdog the Centre for Public Integrity.
The egalitarianism of the evening also stood in marked contrast to the reality of contemporary America, which in hard economic terms is a more divided and unequal country than at any time since the "gilded age" of the late 19th century.
The richest 1% of Americans now own well over 40% of their nation's wealth. It is a skewed distribution that sets the US apart from other modern industrialised nations. In Britain, widely viewed in America as the embodiment of social stratification, the richest 1% owns a mere 18% of the wealth.
These disparities are, of course, not solely the work of the Bush administration. The economic division of the country has been under way for 20 years. After a long period of levelling incomes and wealth after the second world war, inequality began to rise exponentially from 1980, driven principally by the boom in stock prices and the decline in unions.
Differentials continued to stretch, albeit more slowly, under the Clinton administration, despite its efforts to institute a more progressive tax policy. What sets the Bush era apart is the extent to which policy has reinforced the divide rather than sought to mitigate it.
Nearly half the benefits of Mr Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 went to the richest 1%, while 60% of this year's cuts will go to taxpayers with incomes of more than $100,000, according to the tax policy centre run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Mr Bush also fought hard to repeal an inheritance tax that affected only the wealthiest 2%, as well as cutting capital gains tax and trying to abolish the tax on dividends.
The Bush cabinet also stands out for its big money background. Every member is a millionaire and, the Centre for Public Integrity says, its total net worth is more than 10 times that of the Clinton cabinet.
President Bush may not be the cause of America's unequal society, but the members of his administration arguably personify a new plutocracy.
In the view of Kevin Phillips, an economic historian and the author of a history of America's rich, Wealth and Democracy, you have to go back more than 100 years to find an era when big money and government were in such a tight embrace.
"It's the second plutocracy after the gilded age," Mr Phillips said. "Laissez-faire is a pretence. Government power and preferment have been used by the rich, not shunned. As wealth concentration grows, especially near the crest of a drawn-out boom, so has upper-bracket control of politics and its ability to shape its own preferment."
Yet it would be hard to imagine a country less ripe for social upheaval.
Mr Bush may be politically vulnerable in the approach to elections a year from now, but he remains favourite to win, and his opponents in the Democratic party try to avoid the language of class warfare at all costs. The "liberal" label can still spell death at the polls.
For outsiders, the absence of class-based politics is the enduring mystery of American society. Among US analysts it is a matter of ideological disagreement.
David Brooks, a commentator at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, believes the divide is cultural rather than economic. It is the divide between the urban, cosmopolitan and liberal culture of the coasts where there are "sun-dried tomato concoctions" on restaurant menus - what he calls Blue America - and the conservative, church-going, gun-owning, patriotic and mainly white culture of Red America.
Red America eats meatloaf and votes for George Bush because it identifies with his cultural values. Its people are not envious of the top 1% of the population, Mr Brooks argues, because in Red America they never meet them. Instead, they consider themselves lucky to live in their own modest communities where prices are so low they see little they cannot afford.
"I didn't find many who assessed their own place in society according to their income," he reported. "They don't compare themselves with faraway millionaires who appear on their TV screens. They compare themselves with their neighbours."
[b]Divide[/b]
Paul Krugman, a Princeton economist and Mr Brooks' liberal counterpart on the comment pages of the New York Times, argues that this cultural divide is more manipulated than natural, and serves to mask the society's ingrained inequity.
"There has been a tremendously successful campaign to shift the focus from economic elitism to cultural elitism," Mr Krugman said. "Because the president uses short words and talks tough, he is seen as an ordinary guy."
[b]Certainly, most Americans appear to take Mr Bush at face value - as a plainspoken, homespun Texan, rather than the scion of a wealthy East Coast family. It is hard to imagine his real social background passing so unremarked in a British election campaign.
His party has also toyed with the cultural imagery of class, in one instance arranging for party loyalists to wear street clothes and workmen's hard hats at a rally for the Bush tax cuts.
The memo sent out to would-be demonstrators stressed that "If people want to participate - AND WE DO NEED BODIES - they must be DRESSED DOWN, appear to be REAL WORKER types etc."
In the end, the televised rally involved the president's supporters dressed as the working poor, cheering for more money to go to the rich. It is hard to think of a more fitting tableau for Bush's America. "[/b]
Why Bush Should Be Impeached & Removed-from-Office For Fraud ...
Bush should be impeached and removed from office for fraud ... Bush and his corrupt regime should be ousted for lying about non-existent WMDs posing an imminent threat to our security, the [i]casus belli [/i]for his insane neo-con, war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire in Iraq-- a crime under the U.S. Constitution.
Now, we find that Richard Perle admits that the Iraqi leadership were willing to broker a peace agreement, prior to our immoral & illegal incursion into Iraq-- but instead, he got orders to ignore any offers made by Iraq. Perle was told not to negotiate for any alternative or peace-agreement by the neo-con "crazies" (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz), who lust [boy, do they lust] for WAR: ... an "experience" none of these cowardly "arm-chair" chicken-hawks have ever had the courage to expose their sorry & superficial asses to, as these thugs & goons ran away "when the going got tough (it was their turn to do their duty)"-- They're too corrupt and incompetent to serve this nation ... To have avoided pursuing a peaceful solution and instead, rushed-into-war, is a violation of any sense of decency and international law ... [b]The Bushies are Criminals Against Humanity.[/b]
[b]The Bushies wantonly and ruthlessly rape "We the People" and the vulnerable of the world[/b]. [Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1... ]
However, for further [b]proof of the Bushies' Fraud[/b], read the following "[b]Pro-Fraud Conservatives[/b]" by Matt Bivens on http://www.thenation.com/outr... :
"President George W. Bush finally has the bill he demanded: $87.5 billion, the latest installment in what's sure to be a long line of invoices for destroying Iraq, then rebuilding it, then destroying it, then rebuilding ...
But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The Senate version of this bill included a provision written by three Democrats -- Vermont's Patrick Leahy, California's Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin of Illinois -- that passed with strong support on both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. It would have made it a serious crime to defraud the government and overcharge for goods or services delivered in Iraq. So it would have been the end, for example, of Halliburton's $2.65-per-gallon gasoline scam.
Incredibly, when the House and Senate leaders sat down in a conference committee to hammer out a final bill, House Republicans demanded the anti-war-profiteering provisions be deleted. According to the provision's co-authors, House conservatives offered no substitutes or compromises -- this was non-negotiable. War profiteers for DeLay!
"Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and I joined together to criminalize war profiteering -- price gouging and fraud -- with the same law that was passed during World War II. Yet this amendment was stripped out of the final bill," says Senator Durbin. "I fail to understand how anyone can be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the United States government and the American taxpayers."
If he really doesn't understand that, perhaps Senator Durbin should check out the opening paragraph of a new investigation of the Iraq money pit: "More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush -- a little over $500,000 -- than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found."
Bush Says Saddam Hussein Behind Attacks And Then Says He Isn't!!! ... Huh???
"We the People" must have the biggest "Dolt-in-Office" in the history of our nation's presidency, imaginable. One cringes every-time Bush opens his idiotic mouth ... Karl Rove is reputed to have an entire staff devoted only to wire-brushing transcripts (unprecedented in our nation's history: neo-orwellian re-write of Bush's words & changing post-facto of official transcripts!), and coming-up with clever come-backs and excuses to make-up for Bush's bungling misstatements.
Bush says that Saddam Hussein is behind the attacks in Iraq, and then says he isn't!!! Huh??? Bush can't stop smirking absolute rubbish:
[b]Case in Point[/b]
"Acknowledging for the first time the role of former Iraqi [b]President Saddam Hussein in organizing anti-US resistance[/b], US President George W. Bush vowed Tuesday that the US troops will "get him."
Bush, on a tour of fire-torn southern California, made the remarks when asked about the shooting down of a US helicopter in Iraq Monday that killed 15 soldiers and wounded 20 others in the most fatal attack launched by anti-US Iraqi militants.
"[b]Oh, I'm sure he's trying to stir up trouble[/b]," said Bush when asked if Saddam was behind the attacks against Americans. But he stressed that the former Iraqi leader was "no longer threatening people, he is no longer in power."
Bush went on to say that Saddam loyalists and others were trying to create havoc and conditions that would prompt US troops to leave.
"[b]I can't tell you what he's doing[/b]," Bush said. "[b]All I can tell you is he's not running Iraq[/b]. And all I can tell you, as well, there's a lot of -- some people who are upset by the fact that he's no longer in power."
"We'll get him, we'll find him," Bush vowed.
This is the most unequivocal US acknowledgment that it believes Saddam is still alive and playing some sort of role in the armed opposition.
Six months after declaring an end to major combat, Bush seemed to have changed his assessment of the Iraqi situation. "We are at war," he said.
One more US soldier was killed Tuesday, bringing to 141 the death toll of US soldiers killed in Iraq since May 1, when Bush declared victory of the Iraqi war during a visit to an aircraft carrier returning from the Gulf.
The US government had been reluctant to acknowledge that Saddamis alive until the recent surge of deadly attacks against US troops in Iraq.
US Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week that attacks against Americans were practically inevitable as long as Saddam remained on the loose. "The fact that he's alive is unhelpful," Rumsfeld said.
Bush said he would sign the newly approved 87.5 billion-dollar package he requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that the US-led reconstruction of Iraq "will help change the world in a positive way."
[b]Later Bush admitted he had no evidence that Saddam Hussein is playing a role in the guerrilla war in Iraq.[/b]
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) delivered the following speech yesterday to the Senate, prior to the Republican Senate's cowardly voice-call ... instead of a roll-call vote, awarding the corrupt Bush Regime an additional $87 Billion appropriation (making the total thru September 2004, a staggering $166 Billion, all paid for by low-income, middle-class and fixed-income retirees), to re-distribute more wealth, to the Bush war-mongers: war-profiteers, "corporate-take-all" robber-barons and criminal traitors, in Bush's bloody war-turned-guerrilla-quag mire in Iraq.
Our Congress made no demands to repeal the immoral tax cuts for the richest-of-the-rich, to pay for the Bushies' messes & alleviate the highest deficits in our nation's history incurred by Bush-- Nor was any accountability for "progress reporting" back to the American people demanded of these incompetent and immoral Bushies who behave like the most corrupt, blood-thirsty, and greedy of the worst Roman Emperors-- Nor was any of the anti-Christian war-profiteering, plundering & looting by Bush's corporate cronies put to a stop-- Nor was any burden whatsoever expected to be borne by the wealthy oligarchy.
[b]The Bush Regime's Crimes Against Humanity, are truly a tragedy for the American people and our nation. "We the People" should hang our heads in shame.[/b]
[b]Senator Robert Byrd's Speech to the Senate on the 3rd November 2003:[/b]
"The Iraq supplemental conference report before the Senate today has been widely described as a victory for President Bush. If hardball politics and lock-step partisanship are the stuff of which victory is made, then I suppose the assessments are accurate. But if reasoned discourse, integrity, and accountability are the measures of true victory, then this package falls far short of the mark.
In the end, the President wrung virtually every important concession he sought from the House-Senate conference committee. Key provisions that the Senate had debated extensively, voted on, and included in its version of the bill – such as providing half of the Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of loans instead of grants – were thrown overboard in the conference agreement. Senators who had made compelling arguments on the Senate floor only days earlier to limit American taxpayers' liability by providing some of the Iraq reconstruction aid in the form of loans suddenly reversed their position in conference and bowed to the power of the presidency.
Before us today is a massive $87 billion supplemental appropriations package that commits this nation to a long and costly occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, and yet the collective wisdom of the House and Senate appropriations conference that produced it was little more than a shadow play, choreographed to stifle dissent and rubber stamp the President's request.
Perhaps this take-no-prisoners approach is how the President and his advisers define victory, but I fear they are fixated on the muscle of the politics instead of the wisdom of the policy. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument to failure.
Consider, for example, that before the war, the President's policy advisers assured the American people that Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity.
The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.
The international community, on which the Administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq, has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges, $9 billion, is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still, the President claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how this convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the President is beyond me.
But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the President stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln - - strategically postured beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished" - - and pronounced the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
Since that day, however, more American military personnel have been killed in Iraq than were killed during the major combat phase of the war. According to the Defense Department, 376 American troops have been killed to date in Iraq, and nearly two-thirds of those deaths – 238 – have occurred since May 1. When President Bush uttered the unwise challenge, "Bring 'em on" on July 2, the enemy did indeed "bring them on", and with a vengeance! Since the President made that comment, more than 165 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. And as the death toll mounts, it has become clear that the enemy intends to keep on "bringing 'em on."
The $66 billion in this supplemental, required to continue the U.S. military occupation of Iraq over the next year, and the steadily rising death toll, are testament to the utter hollowness of the President's declaration aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the careless bravado of his challenge to "bring 'em on".
It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them. Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a "support the troops" measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd. I support our troops, I pray for their safety, and I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help – not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering – to American forces in Iraq.
The supplemental package before us does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq and, therefore, it is not -- I say NOT -- a vote "for our troops" in Iraq. We had a chance, in the beginning, to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the Administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq. Under this Administration's Iraq policy – endorsed in the President's so-called victory on this supplemental – it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad and American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq.
The terrible violence in Iraq on Sunday – the deaths of 16 soldiers in the downing of an American helicopter, the killing of another soldier in a bomb attack, and the deaths of two American civilian contractors in a mine explosion – is only the latest evidence that the Administration's lack of post-war planning for Iraq is producing an erratic, chaotic situation on the ground with little hope for a quick turnaround. We appear to be lurching from one assault on our troops to the next while making little if any headway in stabilizing or improving security in the country.
The failure to secure the vast stockpiles of deadly conventional weapons in Iraq – including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles such as the one that may have brought down the U.S. helicopter on Sunday – is one of many mistakes that the Administration made that is coming back to haunt us today. But perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake – following the colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq - - is the Administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy for Iraq.
The President continues to insist that the United States will persevere in its mission in Iraq, that our resolve is unshakable. But it is time – past time – for the President to tell the American people exactly what that mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy is for American troops in Iraq. It is the American people who will ultimately decide how long we will stay in Iraq.
It is not enough for the President to maintain that the United States will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and pave the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report before us does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay the course in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The President owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq, and it is time for him to deliver.
I have great respect and affection for my fellow Senators and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee. But I have even greater respect and affection for the institution of the Senate and the Constitution by which it was established.
Every Senator, upon taking office, swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is the Constitution – not the President, not a political party, but the Constitution – to which Senators swear an oath of loyalty. And I am here to tell you that neither the Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the President at the expense of congressional checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the President's policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress.
This supplemental spending bill is a case in point. One of the earliest amendments that was defeated on the Senate floor was one that I offered to hold back a portion of the reconstruction money and give the Senate a second vote on whether to release it. Apparently, the President and his supporters did not want to give the Senate an opportunity to review the progress – or lack of progress – in Iraq and have a second chance to debate the wisdom of spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the reconstruction effort.
Time after time, the conference committee was given opportunities to restore or impose accountability on the administration for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental. And time after time, the conference majority beat back those measures. The conferees, for example, defeated, on a party line vote, an amendment I offered which would have required that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq be confirmed by the Senate. Senate confirmation would have ensured that the person who is managing tens of billions of dollars in Iraq for the American taxpayers would be accountable to the public. The current appointee, L. Paul Bremer III, is not. He answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President, not to Congress or the American people.
The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed that this individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. And I am dismayed that the President can refuse to send Congress the results of the inspector general's work. Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell them? Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress would rather blindly follow the President instead of risking reality by opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts?
The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. On the Senate floor, my amendment requiring such audits was adopted 97 to 0. In the House-Senate conference, it was defeated by the Senate conferees on a 15 to 14 straight-line party vote.
Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, provisions euphemistically described as "flexibilities" give the President broad authority to take the money appropriated by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to eliminate or limit these flexibilities – and in a few cases succeeded – but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense. Although the money is appropriated by Congress, these so-called "flexibilities" effectively transfer the power of the purse from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.
The dictionary definition of victory is simple and straightforward: success, conquest, triumph. Within the constraints of that simplistic definition, I suppose one could construe this package to be a victory for the President.
But I believe there is a moral undercurrent to the notion of victory that is not reflected in the dictionary definition. I believe that most Americans equate victory more closely with what is right than with simply winning. It is one thing to win, and the tactics be damned; it is quite another to be victorious. Victory implies doing what is right; doing what is right implies morality; morality implies standards of conduct. I do not include arm-twisting and intimidation in my definition of exemplary standards of conduct.
Moreover, we should not forget that not all victories are created equal. In 280 BC, Pyrrhus, the ruler of Epirus in Northern Greece, took his formidable armies to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea, and again at Asculum in 279 BC, but suffered unbearably heavy losses. "One more such victory and I am lost," he said.
It is to Pyrrhus that we owe the term "pyrrhic victory," to describe a victory so costly as to be ruinous. This supplemental, and the policy which it supports, unfortunately, may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Bush Administration.
The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not good policy for the United States.
Victory is not always about winning. Sometimes, victory is simply about being right. This conference report does not reflect the right policy for Iraq or the right policy for America. I oppose it and I will vote No on final passage."
Is America finally waking up? ... Perhaps so, as public confidence in Bush continues to fall, fall and fall, as the leaves from the autumn trees slowly but surely fall away ... Maybe, Abraham Lincoln is right, and Karl Rove is wrong:-- "[b]you can't fool all of the people, all of the time[/b]".
"We the People" are witnessing a nightmare of blood-shed in the horrific slaughter of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq, on a daily basis, and the plundering & looting of our treasury ... The Bush Regime's blight upon humanity is designed to enrich the despicable Bush & Cheney Inc. consortium of war-profiteers, "corporate-take-all" robber-barons & the wealthy oligarchy:-- all of whom are devoid of conscience and concern about the welfare of others, and the health of our planet.
You may want to peruse the following[b] three articles[/b], related to the demise of public confidence in the corrupt Bush Regime:
The new Washington Post poll http://www.washingtonpost.com... has another boatload of bad news for the Bushies. A matchup of Bush with a generic Democrat gives him only a one point lead (48 percent to 47 percent). And in head-to-head matchups with specific Democrats, his lead has shrunk substantially since mid-September, particularly over John Kerry, where his lead has gone from 15 to just 6 points.
On the approval ratings front, his overall approval rating has gone slightly up, rather than slightly down, as in the recent Gallup and Quinnipiac University polls. However, consistent with other public polls, his approval rating on Iraq has slipped to net negative (47 percent approval/51 percent disapproval) from net positive in mid-September.
But from the standpoint of the Bush administration, the most disturbing approval findings may be these. His approval rating on taxes has slipped to a net rating of -12 points (41 percent approval/53 percent approval) from a 48 percent/48 percent split in mid-September. When you’ve got a net negative rating on your signature domestic issue, that’s very bad news indeed.
And when you look at two other key domestic areas, both of which seem likely to figure in the 2004 campaign, his ratings are beyond the merely bad: 32 percent approval/61 percent disapproval on the federal budget deficit and 28 percent approval/63 percent disapproval on the cost, availability and coverage of health insurance.
Turning to the war, the news here, as in other recent polls, is not good–in fact, terrible–for the Bush administration. At this point, 62 percent say the number of US military casualties in Iraq is unacceptable. That’s up from 28 percent on April 9. And the number opposing the additional $87 billion for Iraq is up to 64 percent, with only 34 percent in favor.
On the economy, the findings are equally daunting for the Rove team. For example, when asked whether most Americans are better off financially than they were in 2001 when Bush became president, just 9 percent (!) say Americans are better off, compared to 49 percent who say they are not as well off and 41 percent who say they are about the same. The comparable figures for Poppa Bush in October of 1991: 7 percent better off, 48 percent not as well off, 41 percent the same. Eerily similar, no?
And when asked how they themselves are doing financially during the Bush presidency, 22 percent say they are better off, 27 percent say not as well off and 50 percent say about the same. Again the analogous figures for Bush pere are almost identical: 20 percent better off, 27 percent not as well off and 53 percent the same.
Finally, DR’s favorite finding from the entire poll: [i]Only 40 percent now say that Bush “understands the problems of people like you[/i]”, compared to 58 percent who think he does not. [b]Sounds like folks think he’s out of touch. [/b]Say, didn’t they think that about some other president not so long ago?"
[b]David Usborne's "[i]Public Confidence in Bush Continues to Fall as More American soldiers Die in Iraq[/i]"[/b] on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
"[b]The failure to control the situation in Iraq and the rising number of American casualties are beginning to cost President George Bush dearly[/b].
For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51 per cent, according to a poll published yesterday, disapprove of Mr Bush's actions in Iraq.
Even before the setback of a military helicopter being shot down yesterday with the loss of 15 American soldiers' lives, the political fortunes of Mr Bush were slipping significantly, one year before the next presidential election. An increasing impatience with the continuing violence in Iraq and growing public discontent with a domestic economy that stubbornly refuses to create new jobs are behind the poll figures.
More than the failure of the United States to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, now it is the mounting death toll that is posing a political threat to Mr Bush. But the poll found that 54 per cent of Americans were still satisfied that it was worth going to war against Saddam Hussein. At the same time, the Washington Post-ABC News pollshowed 87 per cent of voters were concerned that the US would find itself bogged down in Iraq, while 62 per cent said they believed America had already suffered an unacceptable death toll.
It is a rapidly darkening picture for the President that would send shivers of gloom through the Republican White House but for one thing: the apparent failure of any of the nine Democrats vying to run against Mr Bush next year to make any noticeable impact on voters. If the election were to be held today, 48 per cent of would vote to give Mr Bush a second term, while 47 per cent would choose to turf him out. But there are still 12 months before voters go to the polls.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001, he was basking in a 90 per cent approval rate. That has slipped to 56 per cent. While it is a huge drop, it is still historically respectable for this point in a presidency.
There is also a perception that he cannot reverse a trend of growing joblessness, which stands at 6.1 per cent and which is another reason he is taking a battering in opinion polls.
Americans are also rating negatively his handling of the economy by a 2-1 margin. Only 9 per cent of those questioned said they thought most Americans were better off than on the day Mr Bush took office. At the weekend, he conceded that the 7.2 per cent GDP growth registered in the third quarter of the year, the strongest rate of growth in 19 years, was unlikely to be replicated in coming quarters. In some senses, Mr Bush is getting a free pass from his political opponents. The same poll found that most voters could only name one or two of the Democrat contenders."
"Watching the recent storm of car bombs, rockets, and gunfire in central Iraq gave me nasty memories of the January, 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam.
At that time, many soldiers in my U.S. Army unit were departing for Special Forces camps in Vietnam's highlands. We stood in mute horror as TV reported these very camps being overrun by North Vietnamese troops, and their garrisons killed to the last man.
We immediately understood the bloody Tet offensive was a huge political and psychological victory for North Vietnam. Tet blew away for good Washington's claims of a light at the end of the Vietnam tunnel.
Reacting to last week's Ramadan offensive in Iraq, President George Bush actually claimed it proved things were improving, though attacks on U.S. forces have surged from 20 to 30 daily.
He called for more U.S.-run Iraqi militia forces to be deployed - shades of the ill-fated "Vietnamization" strategy of three decades ago.
At times, Bush and his senior aides seem more out of touch with reality than Iraq's former minister of misinformation, "Comical Ali." Consider:
Bush was reported shocked and amazed at his mid-October meetings in Bali when moderate, pro-American Muslim leaders complained Washington considers all Muslims terrorists. They warned Bush that his total identification with Israel's right-wing government was ruining chances for Mideast peace.
Bush was apparently unaware his administration is increasingly viewed abroad as an aggressor and a bitter foe of Islam. [b]We know Bush prides himself in not reading, but being so out of touch staggers the imagination.[/b]
Is Bush really unaware a mainstay of his administration, the Muslim-hunting Attorney General John Ashcroft, claims "In America, there is no king but Jesus"? Or that Lt.-Gen William Boykin, a loudmouth he put in charge of anti-terrorism, recently claimed while in uniform that Muslims were akin to Satan, and that his god was "bigger" than the idols he mistakenly said were worshipped by them?
Or that some of his neo-conservative advisers, who want the U.S. to destroy all Israel's enemies, keep calling for "World War IV" against the Muslim world?
[b]Odious canards[/b]
But Bush was too busy blasting Malaysia's retiring leader, who recently claimed Jews ran the world and the United States, to denounce equally odious canards against Islam by his own administration and its supporters in the media and on the religious far right.
Bush, of course, has never been in touch with reality when it comes to Iraq. Just recall his preposterous claim about Iraqi uranium, "drones of death" and "vans of death," links to al-Qaida, the imminent threat of mass destruction to the U.S., etc., etc.
VP Dick Cheney, who appears to be running Mideast policy, claimed Iraq had deployed nuclear weapons that threatened the U.S. He maintains such absurdities though absolutely nothing was found after a five-month, $300-million search. The rarely-seen Cheney sounds increasingly like Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria.
Poor Colin Powell, now demoted to TV talk show guest, disgraced himself before the world at the UN by his lurid, nonsensical claims about Iraq.
Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq war, went to Baghdad last week where he met the real world for the first time. Iraqi resistance forces rocketed the heavily-guarded al-Rashid Hotel, the imperial cantonment where he and other U.S. VIPs were lodged. One was reminded of the Vietcong attack on the U.S. Embassy in Saigon during Tet.
[i]The attack left Prof. Wolfowitz visibly shaken. Here was the fire-eating warlord, the tough neo-con theoretician who had sent American GIs into combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, trembling in his brand-new chukka boots after the tiniest taste of real war. Neither Bush, Cheney, nor Wolfowitz ever served in their nation's armed forces, though all were of military age during Vietnam - unless you count Bush's sporadic appearances at the Texas Air National Guard.
Wolfowitz, and fellow neo-conservative administration hawks like Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Doug Feith, Michael Ledeen and John Bolton, who variously call for attacks on Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Syria and Sudan - vividly bring to mind the words of American political thinker and poet, Peter Viereck.
In his brilliant book, Metapolitics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind, Viereck detailed how so many of the founders of Germany's National Socialist Party were artists, writers and academics. They were "intellectuals who lusted for brute violence ... a Bohemia in arms," wrote Viereck, who warned of "bloody-minded professors" running amok in politics.
Wolfowitz fits the mould perfectly, not in the sense that he supports Nazism, of course, but rather in his apparent belief in "brute violence" as a way of resolving most any international problem. [/i]
He, Cheney, and his fellow neo-cons duped the deeply uninformed and gravely misinformed president into launching two strategically, politically and financially idiotic foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[i]The isolated, unworldly Bush is only now becoming dimly aware he has stirred up an anti-American hornet's nest overseas[/i].
Equally disturbing, thanks to the crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan, total U.S. military spending next year will likely hit $500 billion. Incredibly, this titanic sum is even more in constant dollars than the U.S. spent in Vietnam in 1968, at the height of that war.
[b]The light that optimistic George Bush sees at the end of the Iraq tunnel is probably an onrushing truck, loaded with explosives.[/b]"
The Danger of Losing Our Vote: Electronic Voting Machine Giant Trying To Suppress Free Speech
"We the People" are facing new challenges in the 21st century ... Instead of advancing forward in a global effort towards achieving enlightened goals for the benefit of all mankind, we've been highjacked by a corrupt cabal of thugs in the Bush Regime, taking us back-to-the-future to the terrible medieval days of the Dark Ages: [i]Warfare instead of diplomacy ... Wealth accumulated in the hands of the wealthy oligarchy ... Poverty skyrocketing in the richest nation in the history of the world ... Corruption, mayhem and chaos.[/i]
One of the great achievements of enlightened minds, is the Rule of Law -- the codification of a written set of laws that enshrine our rights, and ensure that the vulnerable and poor may not be exploited by the powerful with impunity. Under our system, no ruler, no president, no man: is above the rule of law. We've seen this central principle erode, under the tyranny imposed by the Bush Regime who cynically and ruthlessly exploit the law, hold it in contempt, and break it when it suits their corrupt purposes.
"We the People" were given a voice in our government, by the Founding Fathers, enshrined in Our Right to Vote, in the U.S. Constitution. The right to vote and have our votes counted rightly and properly is a sacred right, not to be ignored or taken for granted-- People throughout history died for the right to vote.
As the brilliant, but ruthless dictator & tyrant Joseph Stalin said: "[b]It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes[/b].":-- One could be forgiven for mistaking this as a quotation from Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & Perle. (Ooopppsss ... and Anton Scalia?)
Instead of demonstrating a proper reverence and respect for our vote, the right to vote, and the correct counting of votes-- the Bush Regime will "win-at-all-costs", even if it means suppressing that sacred right-- rigging elections-- and waging a war of dirty tricks and intimidation tactics ... much like Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and the banana republics, these hypocrites pretend to condemn, while instead, emulating them.
The Giant of Electronic Voting Machines, Diebold Election Systems, is attempting to suppress free speech and squash all discussion, investigation and informative debate regarding the dangers of electronic voting. Indeed, there are many serious dangers-- including the ability to manipulate & change our votes without our knowledge by modifying the programs to ensure pre-determined outcomes ... Without a series of (1) redundancy systems to record & count votes registered in diverse ways -- (2) written vote receipts that are automatically printed-out and re-submitted into an entirely different independent system to re-count votes and reconcile that the cumulative totals are accurate-- (3) disaster recovery and backup/restore facilities-- (4) security systems--, and (5) independent testing and audits performed regularly:-- ELECTRONIC VOTING WILL RESULT IN RIGGED ELECTIONS BY THE RICH & POWERFUL.
Contact Congress on http://www.congress.org , to demand an investigation into Electronic Voting, and the adoption of redundant system design features, voting record and reconciliation safeguards, disaster recovery/backup-restore, security, and, testing & auditing standards by independent watch-dog groups. This is vital to ensure that our voice is accurately heard and not manipulated. Our collective voices should count-- and not be twisted by neo-fascist, tyrannical and dictatorial power-brokers & thugs, to suit their corrupt purposes.
"Forbidden files are circulating on the Internet and threats of lawsuits are in the air. Music trading? No, it is the growing controversy over one company’s electronic voting systems, and the issues being raised, some legal scholars say, are as fundamental as the sanctity of elections and the right to free speech.
Diebold Election Systems, which makes voting machines, is waging legal war against grass-roots advocates, including dozens of college students, who are posting on the Internet copies of the company’s internal communications about its electronic voting machines.
The students say that, by trying to spread the word about problems with the company’s software, they are performing a valuable form of electronic civil disobedience, one that has broad implications for American society. They also contend that they are protected by fair use exceptions in copyright law.
Diebold, however, says it is a case of copyright infringement, and has sent cease-and-desist orders to the students and, in many cases, their colleges, demanding that the 15,000 e-mail messages and memorandums be removed from each Web site. “We reserve the right to protect that which we feel is proprietary,” a spokesman for Diebold, David Bear, said.
The files circulating online include thousands of e-mail messages and memorandums dating to March 2003 from January 1999 that include discussions of bugs in Diebold’s software and warnings that its computer network are poorly protected against hackers. Diebold has sold more than 33,000 machines, many of which have been used in elections.
Advocates and journalists have mined the trove of corporate messages to find statements that appear to suggest many continuing security problems with the software that runs the system, and last-minute software changes that, by law, are generally not allowed after election authorities have certified the software for an election.
Some colleges, like Swarthmore, have bowed to the pressure and removed the documents from their networks. But in doing so last month, the dean, Robert Gross, maintained that Swarthmore supported the students in spirit. “We believe their actions express the values of the college, including its commitment to prepare students to be engaged, socially responsible citizens,” he said in a statement. Swarthmore has encouraged the students to keep up the debate and is providing legal advice about how to respond to the Diebold letters, a Swarthmore spokesman, Tom Krattenmaker, said.
Last week the advocates’ efforts to keep the documents online took another step as Freenet, an international anticensorship organization that promotes the anonymous distribution of files, obtained copies of the Diebold documents. The technology that the network uses is a peer-to-peer service, and is similar in many ways to the software behind file-trading companies like Kazaa and the original Napster.
Legal scholars say that the online protest and the use of copyright law by Diebold have broad implications and show that the copyright wars are about more than whether Britney Spears gets royalties from downloaded songs.
“We’re so focused on the microview — whether EMI is going to make a buck next year — but there is so much more at stake in our battle to control the flows of information,” including issues at the core of free speech and democracy itself, said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor in the department of culture and communication at New York University.
Nelson Pavlosky, a sophomore at Swarthmore from Morristown, N.J., who put documents online through the campus organization Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons said the cease-and-desist letters were “a perfect example of how copyright law can be and is abused by corporations like Diebold” to stifle freedom of speech. He said that he and other advocates wished the college had decided to fight instead of take down the files.
“We feel like they wimped out,” Mr. Pavlosky said.
But with each takedown, the publicity grows through online discussion and media coverage, and more and more people join the fray, giving Diebold’s efforts a Sorcerer’s Apprentice feel. The advocates, meanwhile, are finding that civil disobedience carries risks. One student who posted the documents and has received a letter, Zac Elliott of Indiana University, said, “I’m starting to worry about the ramifications for my entire family if I end up in some sort of legal action.”
Copyright law, and specifically the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, are being abused by Diebold, said Wendy Seltzer, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. Copyright is supposed to protect creative expression, Ms. Seltzer said, but in this case the law is being evoked “because they don’t want the facts out there.”
The foundation is advising many students informally and helping them to find legal aid, and it is representing the Online Policy Group, a nonprofit Internet service provider that got a cease-and-desist letter from Diebold after links to the documents were published on a news Web site that the group posts.
Diebold has become a favorite target of advocates who accuse it of partisanship: company executives have made large contributions to the Republican Party and the chief executive, Walden W. O’Dell, said in an invitation to a fund-raiser that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.’’
He has since said that he will keep a lower political profile. Diebold has been trying to stop the dissemination of the files for months with cease and desist letters, but the number of sources for the documents continues to proliferate. Then in July, the first evaluation of the purloined software from recognized authorities in the field — a team involving experts and Johns Hopkins University and Rice University — found several serious holes in the software’s computer security which, if exploited, could allow someone to vote repeatedly, or to change the votes of others. A later review of the software for the State of Maryland agreed that the software flaws did exist, but that in the practice of real elections, other safety nets of security would keep the vulnerabilities in the code from being exploited. Diebold has said it has been working to fix problems.
As Diebold continued to deal with the headache resulting from its leaked code last week, hackers released software from another of the three major high-tech election companies, Sequoia Voting Systems. Reports of that leak first appeared in the online news service of Wired magazine, which suggested that the company’s software also suffered from poor security design.
A spokesman for Sequoia, Alfie Charles, said that the software that had been taken was an older version that had been substantially modified. Possible security flaws in that software, which were discussed in the Wired account do not constitute an actual threat to security, he said.
Mr. Charles also emphasized that his company’s leak was unlike that of Diebold, which had left much of the purloined data unprotected on its own site. The Sequoia software was taken from the servers of a “grossly negligent” contractor to Sequoia, and not from the company itself, he said.
That defense does not sway Prof. Rebecca Mercuri, an specialist in election technology who teaches computer science at Bryn Mawr College. The fact that the software of both companies was not protected raises questions about their security, she said.
“Are these companies staffed by folks completely ignorant of computer security,” she said, “or are they just blatantly flaunting that they can breach every possible rule of protocol and still sell voting machines everywhere with impunity?”
Mr. Bear of Diebold said the election security and the virtual walls around his company’s computer network are different; “You’re looking at apples and oranges,” he said. Of the security breach, he said, “We acknowledge that was unfortunate that that occurred.” But the “security and sanctity of the election process,” he said, has been proved by the Science Applications International Corporation report.
Mr. Bear said that Sequoia planned to submit its software to Aviel D. Rubin, a computer security researcher at Johns Hopkins and the leader of the team that analyzed the Diebold code. Mr. Rubin said he was optimistic that the relationship with Sequoia would be less adversarial.
“It’s very different from the way that Diebold has been doing things.” Mr. Rubin, who has received a cease-and-desist notice from Diebold because of his research, said, “The solution is to stop selling insecure voting machines and not to continue threatening students who are only trying to protect our democracy.”
Voting companies emphasize that their products undergo rigorous testing and independent review required by federal laws for certification.
“Judging from the majority of news coverage, one might think that companies just throw software together and start selling equipment and running elections, when the reality is just the opposite,” Mr. Charles of Sequoia said.
Some observers of the fight say it is having an effect beyond ones and zeroes and virtual forms of hanging chad. Bev Harris, who is writing a book on the electronic voting industry, was among the first people to place the Diebold files online.
She said that when she began her research, young people tended to tell her that voting was irrelevant to their lives. That is changing, she said; “What more important thing can we do so that we can get them involved, and see how important voting is?”"
Neo-Con, Neo-Fascist "Arm-Chair" Chicken-Hawks "Highjack Foreign Policy" in the U.S.A.
The unconscionable highjacking of our foreign policy, by neo-con, neo-fascist, "arm-chair" chicken-hawks, has occurred here in the U.S.A., and Bush is too ignorant and too weak, to put a stop to this crime. We are entering unchartered waters, in a phase of our history, where the 228 year old tradition of democracy is coming to an end, and a frightening new era of tyranny begins ... Bush has created a "Titanic 'Ship of Fools' War-Machine" that is destined to hit even rougher waters, and will result in a tragedy of enormous proportions.
"We the People" must fight this un-democratic coup d'etat and neo-nazi phenomena, before the tragic massacre of innocent human beings on a massive scale (exceeding the 15,000+ already slaughtered by the Bush Regime in Iraq) occurs in the Middle East. A potential Middle East holocaust could very soon take place, in our name, on a scale not seen since WW2.
Bush and his corrupt cabal of thugs lack the moral fortitude and the intellectual capacity to broker a sound Middle East peace agreement. Indeed, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is dictating the U.S. foreign policy, egged-on by the American neo-cons' lust for war, and the results will prove catastrophic for Israel in the longer term, the U.S.A., the Middle East, and the entire planet-- as a new 21st century holocaust will prove a blight on all of humanity.
Contact Congress on http://www.congress.org , and demand an investigation into the Bush Regime's Crimes Against Humanity.
"A former Pentagon officer turned whistleblower says a group of hawks in the Bush Administration, including the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, is running a shadow foreign policy, contravening Washington's official line.
"What these people are doing now makes Iran-Contra [a Reagan administration national security scandal] look like amateur hour. . . it's worse than Iran-Contra, worse than what happened in Vietnam," said Karen Kwiatkowski, a former air force lieutenant-colonel.
"[President] George Bush isn't in control . . . the country's been hijacked," she said, describing how "key [governmental] areas of neoconservative concern were politically staffed".
Ms Kwiatkowski, who retired this year after 20 years service, was a Middle East specialist in the office of the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, headed by Douglas Feith.
She described "a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress", adding that "in order to take that first step - Iraq - lies had to be told to Congress to bring them on board".
Ms Kwiatkowski said the pursuit of national security decisions often bypassed "civil service and active-duty military professionals", and was handled instead by political appointees who shared common ideological ties.
There was speculation earlier this year that such an ideologue group had emerged, and that it was behind the US attack on an Iraqi convoy in Syria in June.
The New York Times quoted Patrick Lang, a former senior Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) official, as saying that many in the Government believed the incursion was an effort by ideologues to disrupt co-operation between the US and Syria.
Ms Kwiatkowski said there was an extra-governmental network operating outside normal structures and practices, "a network of political appointees in key positions who felt they needed to take some action, to make things happen in a foreign affairs, national security way". She said Pentagon personnel and the DIA were pressured to favourably alter assessments and reports.
In a separate interview, Chalmers Johnson, an authority on US policy, said that the Administration's neo-conservatives had in effect seized power from Mr Bush.
Dr Johnson said the neo-conservatives had pursued an agenda outlined in the controversial 1992 Defence Planning Guidance. That document, drawn up at the direction of Mr Cheney when he was defence secretary, said the world's only superpower should not be cautious about asserting its power."
Bush, the Congenital Ne’er-Do-Well, Money-Grub’s Puppet & Our Prez from Hell, Body-and-Soul, He’s Happy to Sell, Private War Profits From US: Pray Do Tell.
Bush Plays Affirmative Action Game, Hence “Skull-and-Bones” Scented Dog’s Fame, Drunken Stupors Then Came & Test Scores, The Same, Frat Cheaters’ Secrets: Hide All Future Blame.
Daddy’s Connections in Vietnam War, Bush AWOL Direction: Head for That Bar, As Buddies-in-War Lose Their Lives Or Don Scar, Party-boys Chug Champagne, Ah the Battle is Far.
Bush Failures Abound Over & Over in Business, Texas Taxpayers Fund Bail Out Scams with Finesse, Sports Stadiums Rise Fast as Poor Left Bereft in Duress, Sell-off of Sports Teams Enrich, and Citizens Left With A Mess.
But, Kenny-boy Lay (Enron) Finances Election, And Mediocrity Bush Suddenly Gubernatorial Selection, Families and Children are Left With Hopeful Fiction, As Executions & Swindlers Skyrocket in Fascist Direction.
Banana Repubs Dance With Visions of Coup d’Etat, And Then Rig the Election by Fixing the Stat, A Brother in Florida, and Rove Tips His Hat, With Anton Scalia, We’ve Got Gore Pinned to the Mat.
Trapped Now in Long, Hard, Slog, Muck & Mire: Blame Clinton Lores, But It’s Halliburton’s Veep Cheney’s Consortium of Whores, For Whom Neo-Con PNAC Groupies Plan S’Mores of Them Wars, As They Conjure Up Nightmares, Turned into Our Chores.
Generations of the Future to Payback Bush’s Debts, Innocents Dying Each Day, in Misguided Bets, That if They Survive It’s A Fight for All Future Gets, But Instead, They’ll Come Home To A Nation of Neo-Con Pets.
Wake-up From This Nightmare, Stop Fiascos & Duns, Before Bush Bankrupts Us All, Takes the Money & Runs, We Deserve Better, If We Would Stop Worshipping Guns, And Demand A Vision For All:-- ... Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness … Will “We the People” Someday See Our Day In The Sun?
Bush's Claim Versus Fact on the State of the Union
While our servicemen and women are dying, injured and maimed, on a daily basis in Iraq-- Bush & Cheney are out campaigning and raising money from a consortium of corrupt war-profiteers, robber-barons, and wealthy rapists; all of whom look forward to more tax money funnelled their way, to greedily gorge upon ... while the rest of us will suffer slashed services, under-funded social programs needed for a civilized society, and, we'll also be forced to pick-up their mind-boggling, heart-rendering & back-breaking burden of debt.
Our National Debt currently stands at over $6.8 Trillion dollars -- Bush has squandered over $1.9 Trillion during his term on office, on immoral (& possibly illegal) boondoggles, tax loopholes & tax cuts, for the wealthy oligarchy & "corporate-take-all" crooks, and for his illegal & immoral wars (Afghanistan & Iraq) designed to further enrich his corporate cronies ... Americans are faced with the highest budget deficit of over $560 Billion in 2003 alone, in our nation's history ... and this "borrow-and-spend" us into bankruptcy is bound to continue-- since those with "short-term" vision are crowing over the 7.2% increase in GDP in the 3rd quarter ... and pushing the debt (to be paid for with interest) off into the future.
If you spend, spend, and spend, on credit -- life may seem "happy-go-lucky" today, but tomorrow the "day-of-reckoning" arrives ... and only through death might you escape the bill collector!
Bush is not creating the basis for a prosperous economy standing firm on a stable, solid foundation-- Bush is spending borrowed money-- and the wealthy, the rich, and the corporations aren't going to pay the bills, my friends. The exorbitant bills are to be paid for by "We the People" ... according to the Bush Doctrine: "[i]Only the Little People Pay Taxes & Bear Burdens[/i]" ... In Bush's convoluted, simple mind: "We the People" = "Little People" ... The Bushies don't give a damn about anyone unable to contribute at least $100,000 to their campaign!
An example:
Bush was fund-raising again last week, and while in Columbus, Ohio, actually had the unmitigated gall to smirk:
[b]CLAIM:[/b] "The tax cut was good for job creation. The two tax cuts were an integral part of creating the conditions for growth."
- President George W. Bush, in Columbus, OH 10/30/03
[b]FACT:[/b] "Columbus has lost 16,000 jobs since President Bush took office – almost 2% of the city’s entire workforce."
- Bureau of Labor Statistics, Metropolitan Report, 10/29/03
The cold, hard reality is that productivity improvements and growth are not important to the health of the nation, unless they also produce jobs and prosperity for all. If corporate pigs make an additional $100 million/year in addition to the $300 million/year (e.g. salaries of executives of Health Care Insurance & HMO Corporate Scams), they swindle from employee pension funds, corporate assets & stockholders-- then the so-called economic improvements are indeed, a boon for the crooks, but not for the majority of "We the People" ...
* Where are the jobs for 9 million Americans unemployed? (3 million jobs were wiped out by Bush)
* Where is the insurance for over 45 million Americans without the ability to obtain health care?
* Where is the substantive improvement for public education, vital to prepare future generations of Americans to be responsible and productive citizens?
* Where are the improvements to our nation's infrastructure (e.g. roads, sewer systems, energy grid, national parks -- all the things make our lives civilized & healthy)?
* Where are the funds to ensure that the next generation of Americans will be able to retire with dignity?
* Where are the funds to ensure we return to fiscal responsibility, with a balanced budget and eliminate deficit spending?
* Where are the funds to pay-down the staggering National Debt?
These are but a few questions that need to be answered before the Bush's court-jesters & attack-dogs, can credibly howl in arrogance, at the "success (sic)" of Bush's corrupt, so-called, economic policies ... Frankly, the applause & celebration of those who haven't answered these questions, demonstrates the panic-stricken desperation of an American people turned spoiled, and sadly, living in a fantasy of wishful thinking.
The wealthy oligarchy, corporations and the richest amongst us are shirking their duty to this nation ... Of course, they are not patriotic-- but instead are a "take-the-money-and-run" unsocially-conscious generation of thugs who don't care about the welfare of our country and all our citizens ... and Bush is their cheer-leader.
The type of society we create:-- our social programs-- the development of our people-- our programs & plans to improve our habitat-- These vital concerns cannot be ignored, simply in order that a minority of selfish "takers" can rake in billions for themselves ... this is worse than Saddam Hussein's Regime ... perhaps not resulting in his photogenic-shocking physical torture ... but instead, under Bush, a slow drip, drip torture that is psychologically, socially & physically debilitating for the vulnerable, low-income, middle-class and fixed-income retirees "left out in the cold". A political class (or person) that is callous to the needs of its' countrymen doesn't deserve, and isn't fit to serve in office.
The jury is still "out" on Bush's "rush-to-judgment" bragging of good news on the economy ... Methinks it is similar to his neo-con cabal's "happy talk" propaganda regarding the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq: Lies, deceptions & more falsehoods-- to fool some of the people, as much of the time, as he can get away with!
The miserable Bush Regime hasn't even begun to solve the challenging problems we face as a nation ... The Bushies are failures who are tragically, part of the problem and not the solution.
