Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
Contact Congress
Casualties in Iraq
National Debt Clock
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Radical Changes Underway To Undermine Our U.S. Constitution |
| 02.29.04 (2:38 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" live in extremely dangerous times ... [/b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] rigged the 2000 election with the help of their traitorous [i]criminals-in-arms[/i], Jeb Bush & Co. in Florida and the Supreme Fascist Scalia ...
Having hijacked our government, the radical neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons wage[i] illegal and immoral warfare [/i]to enrich themselves & their war-profiteering cronies ... The vile Bushies have [i]handed-over[/i] the foreign and domestic policy-making of our nation to their corporate pimps, corporate robber-barons, and hyper-rich plutocratic buddies ... The criminal Bush regime is [i]transforming[/i] the United States of America into a 3rd world banana republic with the neo-imperial oligarchs raping, exploiting and swindling us in order to enrich themselves beyond the wildest fantasies of Emperor Caligula, while the rest of us are relegated to the miserable roles of neo-serfs who will bear the back-breaking burdens of their gluttonous, lavish life-styles and ungodly deficits & debts ...
"We the People" should be[i] alarmed [/i]that radical changes to our U.S. Constitution are being proposed that are not being reviewed, debated and discussed publicly ... Nor are we analyzing, assessing and weighing the consequences that may ensue from such radical reforms that hand-over the power of Kings & Emperors to the criminal, rapacious and lawless Bushies ...
Consider [i][b]"[New] Cornyn bill rearranges presidential succession[/b][/i]" by [i]Michael Hedges[/i], Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau, on http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... :
WASHINGTON --Legislation introduced this month by Senate Republicans, including Texan John Cornyn, would dramatically change the way presidential succession works.
Should the president become incapacitated along with the vice president, members of Congress would be ineligible for the top leadership position in favor of Cabinet members.
"We really didn't have a workable plan if the terrorist attacks of 9/11 had been successful and the heroic passengers had not stopped that plane in Pennsylvania (that the FBI has said was aimed at Washington)," Cornyn said. "We began looking at exactly what would happen, and the more we scratched away, the more problems we saw."
At this time, if a president and vice president were killed, the speaker of the House would become president. Next in line would be the president pro tem of the Senate, a senior member of the majority party.
Cornyn and other lawmakers, along with a number of scholars and researchers, think the law is outdated and may be unconstitutional.
The bill he introduced with Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi would remove members of Congress from the line of succession. Instead, Cabinet members, beginning with the secretary of state and followed by the treasury secretary, defense secretary, attorney general and the homeland security director, would form the line behind the president and vice president.
Part of the argument against the current law is that the country could be left with a president who holds views far different from those of the person elected by the American people. For example, the Reagan-Bush administration would have been replaced by liberal Democratic House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, and the Clinton-Gore team by conservative Republican Newt Gingrich.
But some scholars challenge the idea of taking Congress out of the line of succession.
"Cutting all elected officials out of the loop (if the president and vice president were dead or incapacitated) is somewhat disturbing," said Paul Brace, a political scientist at Rice University. "The leaders in Congress are sensitized to the demands of running a democracy. With Cabinet members, you have had people of wildly varying capabilities over the years."
Other scholars say the language in the Constitution should keep the powers of the branches of government separate -- keeping Congress out of the loop.
The bill would clear up the constitutional questions, said John Fortier, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.
"Having congressional leaders in the line of succession poses a lot of problems," Fortier said. "Is it a good idea to have the kind of radical policy shift you could have had during some periods if the speaker from one party replaced the leader of the rival party?"
The Lott-Cornyn bill has had a low profile on Capitol Hill so far. The leading Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, has not taken a formal position on the bill.
The line of succession was last altered by Congress in 1947 during President Truman's administration. In the 19th century, Congress first placed members of Congress in the line, then took them out.
Under the bill, the Cabinet member who becomes president would hold the job until the next scheduled election or until a disabled president or vice president recovers. If a Cabinet member becomes president temporarily while a president recovers from an incapacitating condition, the Cabinet member would not have to resign the Cabinet post, as present law requires.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has not taken a position on the legislation.
Fortier is part of a private commission that, soon after 9/11, began looking at how power might be passed in orderly fashion in case of a Washington cataclysm. The panel is headed by Lloyd Cutler, a former counsel to Democratic presidents Carter and Clinton, and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Two former House speakers, Democrat Tom Foley and Republican Newt Gingrich, served on the commission and support its findings.
In the early 1980s, Reagan officials set up an elaborate plan that would have established continuity of government in case of disaster. People such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then a business executive, and Vice President Dick Cheney, then a congressman, were listed among dozens of experienced leaders who would disperse to secret locations outside Washington to ride out catastrophe.
After Sept. 11, 2001, it became even clearer that some of the issues of who would govern after a deadly attack, and how power would be transferred, needed to be addressed in legislation, Fortier said.
Last fall, Cornyn introduced another bill that followed recommendations of the Cutler-Simpson commission on how Congress could be reconstituted in case of an attack on the Capitol building that killed scores of lawmakers.
Under that bill, states could choose a method to fill the seats. Those temporary lawmakers would hold office until elections could be held within 120 days.
[b]Contact Congress http://www.congress.org now to oppose this bill:-- This represents outrageous tyranny in order to hand-over excessive power to the corrupt Bush regime.[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Former Cabinet Member Questions Legality of Iraq War |
| 02.29.04 (1:01 pm) [edit] |
"All wars are fought for money." – Socrates
[b]Americans should be clamouring for Bush's i[i]mpeachment[/i], as many Brits are demanding that Blair [i]step-down [/i]...[/b]
"We the People" were ruthlessly and recklessly misled into an insane, illegal & immoral neo-con, neo-fascist war-turned-bloody guerrilla quagmire by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who criminally told myraid [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i], while the [i]real[/i] reasons for their vile, horrendous war-mongerings were to enrich themselves & their vile, horrific war-profiteers-- and ergo, the lawless, tyrannical Bush regime are thereby [i]unfit to serve [/i]under the terms of the U.S. Constitution ...
[b]Clare Short: [i]Was Attorney General leant on to sanction war[/i]?[/b]
[b]In her own words, the former cabinet minister questions the legality of conflict[/b]:
This week the charges against Katharine Gun, a former employee of GCHQ, were dropped in a way that posed once again big questions about the legitimacy of the rush to war in Iraq. She was accused of passing a document to The Observer which showed the US asking the UK for help to spy on non-permanent members of the Security Council: the purpose was to strengthen the ability of the US and UK to "persuade" them to vote for war.
Her lawyers made clear that her defence would rest on the argument that her action was justified because the war was illegal. They therefore intended to call for evidence on how the Attorney General came to the conclusion that there was legal authority for war. The lawyers concluded that the case was dropped because he did not want his advice to be subject to scrutiny.
I was asked to comment by the Today programme. I made two points. The first was that if it was illegitimate to contemplate bugging the offices of fellow members of the Security Council, then our security services should stop distributing transcripts of Kofi Annan's private telephone calls. My second comment was that the claims of Ms Gun's lawyers should be considered alongside the claim that one of the reasons for the exaggeration of the threat from WMD in Iraq was to manufacture legal authority for war.
The response of the establishment has been extraordinary. They are faced with two allegations: one that the Attorney General's legal advice authorising war in Iraq was manipulated in dubious ways, the other that Britain is intruding on the privacy of Mr Annan's phone calls.
There were howls of outrage that the British people should be informed that the powers of their state were being misused to dishonour the secretary general of the United Nations. There was very limited comment on the claim that the Attorney General may have misused his powers to authorise a war that has led to the death of 20,000 people and to an increase in bitterness and instability in the Middle East and to a strengthening of al-Qa'ida.
The Prime Minister says that I am being deeply irresponsible and endangering the British security services. Journalists ask if I should be ejected from the Labour Party and/or the Privy Council. And some - who are not in a position to know - suggest that there are no transcripts of Mr Annan's phone calls. I'm afraid that there is no question that such transcripts were regularly circulated.
It is likely that the Prime Minister was unaware of this. He's not a man for detail but he is in a position to stop the practice. But the suggestion that there is any threat to our national security or intelligence services from the exposure of the fact that such transcripts are circulated is laughable.
The suggestion, however, that the Attorney General's opinion may have been manipulated is very serious. There is no doubt that the way in which a truncated opinion authorising war appeared at the very last minute was very odd. Foreign Office lawyers disagreed on the legality of war. Senior officials in Whitehall worried that they were being asked to prepare for illegal action. I was informed that the military would not move without the Attorney General's authorisation. Then on the day Robin Cook resigned, the Attorney General came to the Cabinet, sat in Robin's seat and circulated two sides of A4 which said that successive UN resolutions provided legal authority for war. I tried to ask why he was so late and if there was any doubt but was told in no uncertain terms there was to be no discussion. No other advice was made available across Whitehall.
As I go over and over events leading up to the rush to war, I cannot help but conclude that the way in which the Attorney General's opinion was produced and handled was very strange. It is hard not to suspect that he had doubts and was leant upon.
And, for the record, I am not at all bitter. I am not even angry. I am still astonished and sad and disappointed. I believe that our country and my party have been deeply dishonoured, large numbers of people have lost their lives and the world made more bitterly divided and dangerous. I committed myself to the Labour Party very many years ago because I believed it to be an instrument of moral advance and justice at home and abroad.
I believe the best way to correct the mistakes is to persuade Tony Blair to stand down. I have made no secret of this view. I have not enjoyed reaching these conclusions but they are my serious opinions. I do not support my party right or wrong. I want to preserve my party as an instrument of justice. I also think we should stop invading the privacy of the secretary general of the United Nations.
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]Clare Short[/i], Independent UK, http://argument.independent.c...
|
|
|
| |
| 'Stop the War' Coalition Will Sue Bush and Blair Over Iraq ... |
| 02.29.04 (11:04 am) [edit] |
"We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace." - Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
[b]'Stop the War' coalition will sue Bush and Blair over Iraq[/b] - It is time that [i]someone[/i] did ... It is shameful that the American public has [i]not[/i]:-- [i]impeached[/i] the corrupt Bush regime ... -- sent Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld & the rest of their neo-con thugs & goons off to the International Court at the Hague to be tried for[i] Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... -- and, [i]confiscated [/i]their assets & all of the assets of their war-profiteers to help [i]pay-down [/i]their scandalous record-level deficits & debts caused by their immoral & illegal war-mongerings and tax cuts for corporations and their filthy rich cronies ...
"We the People" must[i] put a stop [/i]to the neo-fascist Bush regime's tyrannical rule over our nation and their neo-imperial stomping on the rest of the world ...
Consider "[b]'Stop the War' [i]coalition will sue Bush and Blair over Iraq[/i][/b]" by [i]AFP[/i] on http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/... :
[b]LONDON[/b]: A coalition of groups opposed to the US-led invasion of Iraq said on Saturday it intended to take legal action for “mass murder” against British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
“What has happened is the mass murder of 20,000 or so Iraqis,” said Chris Coverdale, a spokesman for the Stop the War coalition, told [i]Sky News[/i].
“We have to ensure that Bush and Blair and all the others associated with that decision to attack and kill Iraqis are held to account for it.” Some 600 supporters of the coalition, which was formed in September 2001, met in London to prepare for a mass demonstration in the capital on March 20, the anniversary of the invasion of oil-rich Iraq.
The anti-war movement brought an estimated one million people to demonstrate against the war in London a year ago and up to 200,000 braved massive security to protest at a visit by Bush to London in November 2003. Coverdale said the coalition had asked police, the prosecution service and the nation’s top legal official, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, to investigate the accusations.
He said that under the statute establishing the international criminal court, if such requests at the national level were refused, the movement was then “entitled to approach the prosecutor in The Hague to ensure and ask him to initiate an investigation and a criminal prosecution of the offenders”.
The coalition’s decision coincided with mounting pressure on Blair to explain the basis on which the country went to war. “The war with Iraq was illegal but, furthermore, crimes were committed,” Coverdale said. “Therefore you want to ensure that people who have committed the crimes answer for them in court.” He said Stop the War was basing its position on articles in the United Nations charter forbidding war. —
|
|
|
| |
| 'Halliburton deals are good for Cheney, bad for the U.S.' ... |
| 02.29.04 (8:11 am) [edit] |
[b]"Clearly, what's good for Halliburton is good for Dick Cheney. But what about the [i]rest of us[/i]?" ... [/b]Halliburton has represented a severe moral and economic[i] drain [/i]on the[i] rest of us [/i]...
The corrupt Bush regime's callous and raw greed is not new to American history. "Witness the Credit Mobilier scandal, Teapot Dome or Vice President Agnew. But the Halliburton scandal of the early 21st century will probably bring disgrace upon the image of the United States for decades to come." ...
As of now, the [i]liar-cum-thief-n-crimi nal [/i]Cheney will probably be on the ticket for 2004 - and cashing in on the Iraq war, along with the rest of the neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies ... But, [i]jeez [/i]...
Isn't it time for "We the People" to oust these neo-con con-artists in the Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i]??? ...
Refer to "'[i][b]Halliburton deals are good for Cheney, bad for the U.S.[/b][/i]'" by [i]Mike Pope[/i], Tallahassee Democrat, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
Now that the Democrats are in the midst of speculation about a vice presidential choice, the president seems to have once again fallen in love with Dick Cheney. After rumors surfaced that the vice president had become a liability with Middle America soccer moms, the buzz emitted from the Beltway was that Cheney must go.
A list of names was enumerated; a Republican dream team was fantasized; bumper stickers were imagined. But then the president shushed all the rumors, announcing that Cheney had once again been put in charge of the vice presidential selection team and that he had once again recommended himself.
The Bush/Cheney 2004 bumper stickers that have already been slapped on those oil-guzzling SUVs are now safe from potential obscurity. Cheney, health permitting, will be on the ticket.
[b]For the [i]Full Story [/i]click onto [/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Tells US: 9/11 is None of Your Business!!! ... |
| 02.29.04 (6:44 am) [edit] |
[b]The arrogant Bush regime is acting like a tyrannical dictatorship ... [/b]We are told by the White House attack-dogs & court-jesters that the Mad King George, Veep-[i]N[/i]-Creep Cheney & Queen Condi "[i]don't feel[/i]" like testifying regarding [i]what they knew[/i], and [i]when they knew about [/i]the heinous attacks upon the USA in the days leading up to 9/11 ...
Are "We the People" simply supposed to [i]roll-over-and-play-dea d, and deaf-dumb-and-blindly accept [/i]the neo-con, neo-fascist treason committed by the corrupt tyrants who have hijacked our nation??? ... After all, 9/11 [i]IS OUR[/i] business ...
Consider "[i][b]Sorry, Right Number[/b][/i]" by [i]Maureen Dowd[/i], NY Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, George Tenet was asked why the C.I.A. never picked up the trail of Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot who crashed Flight 175 into the south tower on 9/11.
Thirty months earlier, German intelligence had passed on a hot tip to the C.I.A. — the Al Qaeda terrorist's first name and phone number.
"The Germans gave us a name, Marwan — that's it — and a phone number," the director of central intelligence replied, adding: "They didn't give us a first and a last name until after 9/11, with then additional data."
For crying out loud. As one guy I know put it: "I've tracked down women across the country with a lot less information than that."
Mr. Tenet is not in any trouble for that sorry answer, of course, just as he hasn't had to pay any penalty for building up the phantom arsenal that Saddam only dreamed he had.
The catchphrase du jour is Donald Trump's snappy, "You're fired." But no one has lost a job over the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 or the war that was trumped up and velcroed to 9/11. In fact, the only people the president and vice president are trying to put out of business are the members of the commission charged with figuring out how 9/11 happened and how to prevent another one.
The White House seems more worried about the public's finding out how much it knew and how little it did before 9/11 than it does about identifying and fixing security weaknesses.
After trying to kill the commission and then trying to put Dr. Strangelove-Kissinger in charge, President Bush and Dick Cheney have done their best to hamper the panel that's the best hope of the 9/11 widows, widowers and orphans to get justice.
"This is not no-fault government," said Lorie Van Auken, a 9/11 widow. "You don't just let people go on doing what they're doing wrong."
It is a triumph of chutzpah for Mr. Bush to thwart the investigation into 9/11 at the same time he seeks re-election by promoting his handling of 9/11 and scaring us with the specter of more terrorism. He's even using 9/11 memorials as the backdrop for his convention in New York.
Last week, the president played it sly, acting as though he was willing to extend the commission's deadline to finish the work that was taking longer because the administration was stonewalling. But the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, was clearly helping out the White House, answering the "who will rid me of this meddlesome panel?" call.
Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, who helped create the commission, played hardball, threatening highway funds and federal jobs if the commission didn't get two extra months. Mr. Hastert caved.
Mr. McCain said he's expecting the same administration "obfuscation and delay" when he sits on Mr. Bush's hand-picked intelligence review board. "That's why I made sure I got subpoena power," he said. "No bureaucracy will willingly give you information that may be embarrassing to them."
Especially not such a secretive, paranoid and high-handed administration. Bush officials act as though they own 9/11, even while refusing to own up to any 9/11 mistakes.
Because of 9/11, they think they can suspend the Constitution, blow off investigators, attack nations pre-emptively, and keep Americans afraid by waging a war against terrorism that can never be won.
As Bob Kerrey, a frustrated member of the 9/11 commission, told Chris Matthews, the U.S. should have declared war on Osama as soon as it became apparent that he had an army with a "tremendous, sophisticated capability" and an ideology that dictated killing Americans.
"To declare war on terrorism, it seems to me to have the target wrong," he said. "It would be like after the 7th of December, 1941, declaring war on Japanese planes. We declared war on Japan. We didn't declare war on their tactic. . . . Terrorism is a tactic."
A Bush 41 official agreed: "You can't fight terrorism conventionally like a war. Any 16-year-old kid can strap on dynamite and take down any building. It must be fought clandestinely, dealing with the underlying causes and taking security measures in our own country."
Here's a hot tip: If you think the White House should be more cooperative with the 9/11 commission, call George at (202) 456-1111.
I'm sure everyone outside the C.I.A. can take it from there.
|
|
|
| |
| Has Osama bin Laden Already Been Captured??? ... So What!!! ... |
| 02.28.04 (4:44 pm) [edit] |
[b]Rumors are rife (... and have been for many months [i]now[/i] ...) that Osama bin Laden has [i]already[/i] been captured by the corrupt Bush regime who are waiting for the [i]"right political moment" [/i] to [u]capitalize[/u] on the American people's ability to be suckered, scammed and neo-con conned (...[i] Karl Rove Inc. has been bragging about an October surprise ... but won't be able to keep this "gem" a secret for that long[/i] ...) ...[/b]
Are we being played for [i]suckers, dupes & fools[/i] yet [i]again[/i] by the cynical Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who [i]mis[/i]lead us [i]around by the nose [/i](... [i]they must laugh at how it is easier than taking candy from a baby [/i]...)??? ...
Perhaps it is time for "We the People" to [i]remain calm [/i] and refuse to be [u]manipulated[/u] like[i] brain-dead sheep[/i], when the capture of Osama bin Laden[i] finally [/i]does occur and simply respond by shouting back at the neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies & Cheneys, and sordid, squalid Rices & Roves:--
[b]So [i]What[/i]!!! ... It's the [i]Economy[/i], Stupid!!! ...[/b]
[b]Wouldn't [i]that [/i]be something!?! ...[/b]
Refer to "[i][b]Iranian Radio Reports Bin Laden Captured[/b][/i]" by [i]Ali Akbar Dareini [/i]on http://www.independent-media....%20Reported :
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's state radio, quoting an unnamed source, said Saturday that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) was captured in Pakistan "a long time ago." U.S. and Pakistani officials denied the report.
The report said that U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's visit to the region this week was in connection with the arrest. In Washington, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, denied early Saturday that bin Laden was captured.
The report was carried by Iran radio's external Pushtun service. The director of Iran radio's Pushtun service, Asheq Hossein, said he had two sources for the report that bin Laden had been captured.
A Pakistani military operation has been under way in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan (news - web sites), and a Pakistani official said previously that members of al-Qaida are being sought there, although bin laden was not a specific target.
Pakistani Army spokesman Gen. Shaukat Sultan also told The Associated Press that the report was not true. "That information is wrong," he said.
Speaking to the AP in Tehran, Hossein identified one of the sources as "Shamim Shahed, editor" of the English-language Pakistani newspaper The Nation in Peshawar. Hossein said Shahed told him Friday night that bin Laden was arrested "a long time ago."
But Shahed, who is The Nation's Peshawar bureau chief and not its editor, denied telling the Iranian radio station that bin Laden had been captured.
"I never said this," Shahed said in a telephone interview with the AP's Islamabad bureau. "But I have for the last year been saying that he is not far away. He is within their (the Americans') reach, and they can declare him arrested any time."
Shahed gave no evidence to back up that claim.
Hossein said he had a second source for his report that bin Laden had been captured, but he declined to identify him except to say he was "a man with close links to intelligence services and Afghan tribal leaders."
Iranian state radio quoted its reporter as saying the arrest happened a long time ago.
"Osama bin Laden has been arrested a long time ago, but Bush is intending to use it for propaganda maneuvering in the presidential election," he said.
Homayoun Jarir, son-in-law of Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, said he could not confirm the report.
|
|
|
| |
| Who's A Terrorist? |
| 02.28.04 (12:15 pm) [edit] |
[b]"Who's A Terrorist?" ...[/b]
This key question should [i]alarm[/i] us because the corrupt neo-fascist Bush regime who have heralded the [i]Age of Fascism in the 21st Century [/i]are using these pernicious terms "terrorist", "enemy combattant", "anarchist", etc. etc. etc. in order to[i] punish [/i]those who disagree with them ... The ugly and traitorous Bushies have betrayed our nation founded on Thomas Jefferson's great principle that "Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism" ...
"We the People" must fight against the neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] ... Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org [i]today[/i] and demand that the insane Patriot Acts be [i]repealed now [/i]... Dubya's neo-stalinist Patriot Acts are repugnant to our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ...
[b]You are urged to visit "[u]Criminalizing Dissent[/u]?" on the [i]NOW with Bill Moyers [/i]web-site [/b]on http://www.pbs.org/now/politi... ...
Consider also "[i][b]Who's A Terrorist?[/b][/i]" by [i]John Feffer[/i], TomPaine, on http://www.tompaine.com/featu... :
People in the business of conflict resolution routinely intervene in bloody, horrific wars and, by talking to all sides involved, try to guide the actors toward a more peaceful conclusion. Sounds like noble work, right? Not always, according to the USA PATRIOT Act. It all depends on whether the peace professionals are talking with terrorists, and "terrorism" is very much in the eye of the (U.S.) beholder.
The PATRIOT Act—a sweeping assault on civil liberties approved just after September 11 by every U.S. Senator except Russ Feingold, D-Wis.—includes a provision that criminalizes "expert advice and assistance" provided to terrorist organizations. As a result, anyone who provides advice on how to exit violent conflict to any of the 36 organizations on the State Department’s terrorism list could be liable for criminal prosecution. So, for instance, the World Tamil Coordinating Committee of Jamaica, New York, is potentially breaking the law by trying to help negotiate a permanent peace agreement between the Sri Lankan government and the opposition Tamil Tigers.
The provision applies beyond conflict resolution. The Federation of Tamil Sangams of North American (FETNA) wants to develop Tamil-language school curricula in areas of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers. The Humanitarian Law Project in California has provided training in international human rights law for members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or PKK. Since the PKK and the Tamil Tigers have been on the State Department’s terrorism list since 1997, these efforts might well lead to a 15-year jail sentence.
[b]The PATRIOT Act Takes A Hit [/b]
Rather than wait to be prosecuted, the above organizations brought suit against the Justice Department. On January 23, the California District Court partially upheld their challenge in Humanitarian Law Project v. John Ashcroft. By declaring the “expert advice and assistance” clause overly broad and infringing on First Amendment rights of free speech, the court struck the first successful legal blow against the PATRIOT Act. "We are harmed as a society when people refrain from exercising their First Amendment rights out of fear of being prosecuted and convicted under vague laws like the PATRIOT Act provision under challenge in the Humanitarian Law Project suit," says Nancy Chang, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) who was co-counsel in the case. Jeanne Herrick-Stare, a senior analyst on civil liberties at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, points out that it is difficult to know how many groups have cut back on their activities for fear of prosecution.
Humanitarian organizations often don’t care what agency, on paper, they’re dealing with, she notes, because “humanitarian organizations care about the hungry, the people who need the aid.”
For the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), it’s legal déjà vu. The Center mounted a legal challenge to the PATRIOT Act’s precursor, the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. A Clinton administration law, it criminalized “material support” of terrorist organizations even if that support was for the peaceful activities of the organization. In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while the U.S. government could sue those providing cash and humanitarian aid to the designated terrorist groups, the provision of “personnel” and “training” was protected by the First Amendment. According to the CCR’s useful summary of court rulings on terrorism and civil liberties, the material support provision has been used in three jury convictions and several cases decided in plea bargaining. But until 2001, conflict resolution professionals could go about their business without fear of reprisal. The PATRIOT Act, which amended the “material support” provision to include “expert advice and assistance,” appeared to re-criminalize the negotiating, legal and medical services that some U.S.-based organizations are offering “terrorist” organizations.
[b]In The Eye Of The Beholder [/b]
The term “terrorist” is controversial, as is the list of terrorist organizations that the State Department updates regularly. The ANC in South Africa, Likud in Israel, Sinn Fein in Ireland: these groups have all grown out of movements that were and sometimes still are called terrorist. The U.S. government has in the past supported groups that could easily be labeled terrorist, from the Contras in Nicaragua to RENAMO in Mozambique. Today, the State Department’s terrorism list is highly politicized. The East Turkestan Islamic Movement is included, largely as a thank-you to China for its support in the war on terrorism. The Kosovo Liberation Army never made it on the list because it was fighting against Serbia. Despite attacks against civilians, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan has not been considered terrorist in Washington because it was useful in the fight against the Taliban just as Osama bin Laden and the mujahedin had been in the fight against the Soviets.
The PATRIOT Act not only reinforces this politicized designation but also discourages efforts to bring such groups into the political realm. The State Department’s labeling of two Philippine rebel groups as terrorist, for example, has led to an impasse in peace talks in that country’s 35-year-old civil war. The Cheney faction in the Bush administration believes that “evil” must be defeated, not negotiated with. But negotiating with those you disagree with is otherwise known as diplomacy. And encouraging negotiations between implacable foes, regardless of the names they throw at each other, goes by the name of conflict resolution.
“We make a deliberate decision to work with both sides, regardless of whether they are called ‘terrorist’ or something else,” says Richard Rubenstein, professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University. “If you’re not willing to work with ‘terrorists’ you’re not going to do conflict resolution.”
Conflict resolution professionals often act as neutral mediators, but sometimes they provide assistance and advice to groups to prepare them for negotiations. Ron Kraybill, who teaches in the conflict transformation program at Eastern Mennonite University, notes that “terrorists” don’t abruptly make a decision to engage in a negotiating framework: “they don’t walk in the door all by themselves; it’s a process.”
Portions of the PATRIOT Act are up for review by Congress, but the “expert advice and assistance” provision is not subject to the sunset clause. The Bush administration has meanwhile promised to veto legislation designed to scale back the worst excesses of the Act. So the courts, for better or worse, are where the action is. If the Justice Department successfully challenges the California District Court decision, conflict resolution as well as medical aid and legal advice may once again become treasonous. In the meantime, the January 23 ruling remains a slender victory not only for civil libertarians but for all those who hope to bring peace to war-torn regions.
[b]By John Feffer [/b][i]is the author most recently of North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| No Skunks Allowed!!! ... |
| 02.28.04 (10:17 am) [edit] |
[b]Punished for Honest Intelligence ...[/b]
[b]For the leaders of a government to punish those who tell them the truth[/b], ... bypass the normal channels of government, ... create [i]rogue [/i]departments staffed with slavish lackeys & neo-fascist ideologues ([i]with no integrity[/i]) to[i] come-up [/i]with ([i]fabricate[/i]) whatever proto-"[i]facts[/i] [[i]sic[/i]]" they [i]want [/i]to hear ... This is[i] more [/i]than dangerous-- [b]This is treasonous [/b]...
Yet, this is precisely the [i]crime[/i] that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] committed in fabricating a phony WMDs so-called "[i]case[/i]" against Iraq-- the neo-cons' mendacious [i]casus belli [/i]for[i] WAR [/i]that has proved to be a disastrous [i]LIE [/i]... Meanwhile, over 550 US Soldiers and over 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians have been massacred in order to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc. ...
Isn't it time for "We the People" to[i] reclaim [/i]our constitutional heritage and [i]demand[/i] that Congress http://www.congress.org impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-con, neo-fascist cabal of liars, traitors and criminals??? ...
Consider "[i][b]No Skunks Allowed[/b][/i]" by [i]Ray McGovern[/i], on http://www.counterpunch.com/m... :
It was a quite a show at the Senate Intelligence Committee's worldwide threat assessment briefing on Tuesday, Feb. 24. Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., outdid himself as damage control officer for fallout from failed intelligence.
Sen. Roberts captured the spirit when he told reporters that, although "everybody would have some second thoughts" about the reasons for the war, he believes that Saddam Hussein posed a threat "in some ways more dangerous [than weapons of mass destruction]," because his leadership had deteriorated (sic). Small wonder that Roberts took pains to ensure there would be none who might snicker at the formal briefing.
The casting was a dead giveaway. For the first time since annual threat assessment briefings by the heads of key intelligence agencies began a decade ago, the director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was disinvited.
Roberts and his Republican colleagues decided to preclude the possibility that some recalcitrant senator might ask why INR was able to get it right on Iraq when everyone else was wrong. Recall that the CIA and other intelligence agencies signed on to the worst National Intelligence Estimate in 40 years--the one issued in October 2002 with the loaded title "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction." (The only near rival in infamy is the NIE of September 1962, which said that the Soviet Union would not risk trying to put missiles in Cuba. The missiles were already en route.)
[b]Punished For Honesty[/b]
INR has been forced to sit with its face to the wall ever since it resisted White House pressure to cook intelligence to the recipe of high policy. CIA Director George Tenet and other malleable intelligence managers acquiesced in that pressure and became accomplices in the Bush administration's successful effort in the fall of 2002 to deceive Congress into forfeiting to the president its constitutional prerogative to declare war.
INR was the skunk at that picnic. It dissented loudly from some of the most important key judgments of the NIE of October 2002. For example, the canard about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger--impossible on its face and based on a forgery--found its way into the estimate, but INR's footnote dismissed the story as "highly dubious."
This was no small matter. As Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., noted in an irate letter to the president on March 17, 2002, the Iraq/Niger canard had been "a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq" --a key piece of "evidence" used to sway Congress to give its approval for war.
INR analysts also debunked the fable about aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment for Iraq. Although the tubes had been advertised by National Security Adviser Condolleeza Rice as useful only in a nuclear application, State Department intelligence analysts joined counterparts in the Department of Energy and U.N. specialists in pointing out, correctly, that the tubes were for conventional artillery.
Most obstreperous of all, on the highly neuralgic nuclear issue, INR was unwilling to predict when Iraq's "nuclear weapons program" was likely to yield a nuclear device. Why? It saw no compelling evidence that Vice President Dick Cheney was correct in claiming that the previous nuclear weapons program had been "reconstituted."
And if that were not enough, State Department intelligence committed several sins not directly connected with the NIE. INR's most experienced Middle East specialists prepared a study exposing as a chimera the notion that democracy could be brought to the area at the point of a gun. INR also provided invaluable support to the interagency team that worked so hard to prepare sensibly for post-war Iraq. Its analysis and recommendations were trashed by Pentagon neophytes who knew the invasion would be a "cakewalk"--and by Vice President Dick Cheney, who knew that our troops would be seen as liberators.
[b]Who Needs Context?[/b]
A bad lot, those State Department intelligence types! Always trying to "put things in context;" unable to see the overriding need to "get with the program."
Last year, INR's director, Carl Ford, harped on the need for putting the country's best analysts to work providing policymakers with the context in which threats arise. Ford has retired, but the current acting director, Thomas Fingar, is cut of the same cloth--the kind of straight shooter likely to say things that would embarrass the CIA, the administration and maybe even the committee itself.
Who needs context? Better to let them talk about how many terrorists they can kill than the conditions that breed terrorism. Let them continue to use the paradigm of combating malaria: Surely it's easier to try to shoot down the mosquitoes as they leave the swamp than to drain the swamp.
And tell Tenet, too, to lay off this context business. The administration is still smarting from that memorandum he sent up two years ago warning that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." That CIA report cited a Gallup poll of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased."
Rubbish! They just hate our democracy.
When senators ask--as they undoubtedly will--if the United States is safer now than after the 9/11 attacks, we want to have folks who know the correct answer. Tenet, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lowell Jacoby know it has to be "yes." As for the State Department, although Secretary Colin Powell has now been brought into line, you can never be sure his intelligence specialists will see the light and "get with the program."
[i][b]Better to keep them away[/b][/i].
[i][b]- Ray McGovern [/b]is a 27-year veteran CIA analyst whose duties included chairing National Intelligence Estimates. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an outreach ministry in the inner city of Washington, DC. He can be reached at: rmcgovern@slschool.org [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| War-by-Fraud Strategy ... |
| 02.27.04 (7:52 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime is in [i]big[/i] trouble ... [/b]This week one of their criminal liars-[i]cum[/i]-swindler s, Richard Perle http://www.tblog.com/template... resigned from the Defense Policy Board, and experts predict that more resignations of vile neo-con liars, thieves and traitors are forthcoming ...
"We the People" must demand our rightful justice of Congress http://www.congress.org -- to impeach those responsible for misleading the public with their myriad[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] including Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, and the rest of their lawless cabal, that led to the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]illegal & immoral war into Iraq ...
Review "[i][b]Cheney's Whole War-by-Fraud Strategy Is Now Exposed[/b][/i]" by [i]Jeffrey Steinberg [/i]on Executive Intelligence Review ([b]EIR[/b]) on http://www.larouchepub.com/pr... :
The lid has blown on the outright criminal disinformation campaign, run by Vice President Dick Cheney, to get his dirty little war in Iraq. This promises to be the biggest scandal yet, in the whole sordid "Cheneygate" affair. Over 500 American GIs are dead, another 3,000 are wounded, many with life-altering injuries. At minimum, officially, 15,000 Iraqis are dead, along with scores of Italian, Polish, British, Spanish and other nationalities among the occupation troops. And the whole war was willfully built on a pile of disinformation.
At the same time, the financial crisis will determine the future—the very near future, and candidate LaRouche is warning the population to wake up now. In a brief campaign statement that will be published soon, LaRouche warns voters against choosing candidates the way they "cheer for a sports figure in the arena." We are on the edge of a collapse of the present world monetary-financial system, one more dangerous than what FDR faced in March 1933," says LaRouche. He tells voters, "You are in the arena of a world economic crisis. Don't be a sidewalk superintendent. Act in this election as if your personal future depended upon it. It does."
[b]Dirty Story Has Come Together[/b]
Here are the essentials of the story of Cheney's imperial crimes, and how the pieces came together over the past 24 hours. On Friday, the[i] London Daily Telegraph [/i]and the [i]Washington Times [/i]published the identical article, quoting Ahmed Chalabi, admitting, in effect, that his Iraqi National Congress had funneled disinformation to the United States, to induce an American invasion and ouster of Saddam Hussein. The article began with the blunt statement: "An Iraqi leader accused of feeding faulty prewar intelligence to Washington said his information about Saddam Hussein's weapons—even if discredited—achieved the aim of persuading the United States to topple the dictator." Chalabi, himself, was quoted, gloating, "We are heroes in error. As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." Chalabi went one step further, taunting, "The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if [President Bush] wants."
The [i]Telegraph/Times [/i]article reviewed several examples of INC-provided disinformation, including the most famous case of the alleged Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs, which turned out to be mobile units producing hydrogen for weather balloons. The source of the later-discredited claims was a major in the Iraqi intelligence service, who had been made available by the INC. "U.S. officials at first found the information credible, and the defector passed a lie-detector test," the story noted. "But in later interviews it became apparent that he was stretching the truth and had been 'coached by the INC.' He failed a second polygraph test and in May 2002, intelligence agencies were warned that the information was unreliable. But analysts missed the warning, and the mobile laboratory story remained firmly established in the catalogue of alleged Iraqi violations until months after the overthrow of Saddam."
The reality is, as Chalabi hinted in his[i] Telegraph/Times [/i]comments, offering to "fall on the sword" for Cheney/Bush: The disinformation campaign was "[i]Made in Washington[/i]," not in Baghdad, nor in Chalabi's upscale London headquarters. And this can now be proven.
In a discussion with [b]EIR[/b] last week, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who served for ten months in the Near East South Asia (NESA) policy shop at the Pentagon, which housed the Office of Special Plans, described how OSP personnel, including Col. William Brunner—a former military aide to then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich—had regularly arranged debriefings of Iraqi defectors—set up through Chalabi and the INC. While CIA and DIA personnel participated in the debriefings, and sent the information to analysts, for cross-checking and evaluation, the OSP unit, led by former Cheney Vice Presidential staffer William Luti, funneled the undigested and unverified information right to Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby—as if it were fully vetted intelligence. Cheney and Rumsfeld used this fake intelligence to bludgeon President Bush, Secretary of State Powell and others into going to war.
Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski provided her own eyewitness accounts of NESA staff meetings, where Luti boasted that he was taking his marching orders directly from "Scooter," an unprecedented violation of the usually harshly-enforced Pentagon chain of command. Cheney's office was tasking Luti and OSP to go out and dig up whatever disinformation could be found, to sell the war—to the President, the Congress and a duped American public.
Further tightening the noose around Cheney, in June 2002, a Washington representative of the INC sent a letter to the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee, identifying Luti and Cheney's deputy chief of staff John Hannah, as two people who directly received the intelligence generated by the INC, under the Information Collection Program. The [i]Information Collection Program [/i]established under the[i] Iraq Liberation Act of 1998[/i], funneled millions of dollars to Chalabi and the INC, to provide defectors and other sources of intelligence to the U.S. government on goings-on inside Saddam's Iraq.
[b]INC Probe Will Bring Cheney Down[/b]
So, it was U.S. taxpayers' money that bankrolled the disinformation scheme. In fact, the latest Pentagon budget still includes between $3 million and $4 million dollars to the INC for the Intelligence Collection Program, according to a [i]Knight-Ridder [/i]story by Jonathan Landay, Feb. 21, 2004. Landay wrote, "The Department of Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced some of the exaggerated and fabricated intelligence President Bush used to argue his case for war."
Late Friday, Feb. 20, a high-level Washington intelligence source further filled out the picture, confirming that the INC-linked defectors had been prepped to provide specific pieces of tailored disinformation, often in the form of bogus "eyewitness" accounts, purporting to identify locations where they had seen cannisters of chemical weapons, and other components of Saddam's phantom WMD programs. These precise pieces of eyewitness information not only gave Luti the "sexed up" intelligence to feed to Cheney, et al., to argue for war. They gummed up the "official" intelligence process with bogus information that had to be chased down, and which became part of the database from which analysts made judgments about Saddam's weapons. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) reported, over the weekend, that he had recently learned from the CIA that, when UN weapons inspectors, under Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, went to the sites where U.S. intelligence said Saddam had stockpiled WMD, they found nothing. How much of that bogus information came from the Cheney-Chalabi defectors' scam?
There is good reason to believe that some of the Congressional investigators are aware of at least a portion of this story. When, last month, Senate intelligence panel leaders Pat Roberts (R-Kans.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), reached an agreement to expand the official probe of prewar intelligence, three areas that were added to the investigation were: intelligence provided by the INC; the role of the OSP and a second Pentagon neocon propaganda shop, the Counterterror Evaluations Group (made up, at one time, of David Wurmser and Michael Maloof); and the uses/abuses of intelligence by senior Bush Administration policymakers.
One document that Senate investigators will certainly wish to review is a September 2003 DIA "internal assessment" which, according to [i]New York Times [/i]reporter Douglas Jehl, "has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors who were made available by the Iraqi National Congress was of little or no value, according to federal officials briefed on the arrangement." Writing in the Sept. 29, 2003 [i]New York Times[/i], Jehl revealed, "In addition, several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said... One Defense Department official said that some of the people were not who they said they were and that the money for the program could have been better spent."
[b]A serious probe into this nexus of INC-tutored defectors, the [i]OSP[/i], and the Office of Vice President Cheney, will bring Dick Cheney down. Expect all Hell to break loose over this new "Cheneygate" flank. These bastards will not go quietly, but the evidentiary noose is definitely getting tighter.[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Senate Panel Presses Bush on War's Plan ... |
| 02.27.04 (2:52 pm) [edit] |
[b]Public pressure brought to bear upon Congress http://www.congress.org forces them to[i] take action to do their duty[/i], that they would otherwise[i] avoid [/i]... [/b]
The White House has been [i]stone-walling [/i]investigative committees (... [i]9/11, Iraq, etc[/i]. ...) and has refused to[i] hand-over [/i]relevant documents and to fully [i]testify[/i] under oath ... The corrupt Bush regime are [i]covering-up [/i]their [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
"We the People" should pay close attention to the following developments ...
Refer to "[i][b]Senate Panel Presses Bush on War's Plan[/b][/i]" by [i]Douglas Jehl[/i], NY Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 — Faced with a refusal by the Bush administration to provide certain documents related to prewar intelligence on Iraq, the Senate intelligence committee voted in a closed session on Thursday to move toward a possible subpoena, according to senior Congressional officials.
The bipartisan vote on the Republican-led panel sets a three-week deadline for a voluntary handover by the administration, after which the committee would employ unspecified "further action," which could only mean a subpoena, the officials said.
In a brief telephone interview, the top Democrat on the panel said that "there's no other interpretation" of the committee's action if the White House fails to turn over the documents by late March.
"We need these things, we want them, and if we don't get them, we will resort to other means," said the Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, who declined to discuss the committee's deliberations in detail.
The plan approved by the panel calls for Senator Rockefeller and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the top Republican, to issue an explicit warning in a letter to President Bush if the documents are not received, Congressional officials said.
The panel requested the information as part of its inquiry into the administration's prewar intelligence about Iraq, including the disputed intelligence about Iraq's illicit weapons and ties to terrorism, the officials said.
The White House has said publicly that it is complying with the panel's requests. But Congressional officials say the administration is continuing to withhold important information, including copies of the president's detailed daily written intelligence digest.
After the independent commission looking into the Sept. 11 attacks issued its own subpoena threat, the White House and the commission agreed earlier this year on a plan that is to allow representatives of that panel to review some copies of the presidential briefings, which are highly classified. But in discussions with the Senate committee, the White House has so far insisted that the documents be kept away from Congress, on the ground that they are covered by executive privilege.
In a letter in October to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, the committee demanded that the White House lift its objections to releasing the documents.
Earlier this month, the committee staff completed a draft report on the first phase of its investigation, covering the quantity and quality of prewar intelligence on Iraq. But Congressional officials say that to complete their work, they still need access to documents and interviews that have not been provided.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Makes Jokes & Laughs About Iraq War ... Jeez ... |
| 02.27.04 (1:39 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should hang our collective heads in shame ... [/b]How dare we [i]put-up [/i]with a despicable [i]ne'er-do-well-cum-AWOL -deserter-cum-drunkard[/i ] who panders to a crowd of [i]repugnant traitors [/i]while making jokes about his bungled neo-con, neo-fascist war-turned-bloody-guerril la-quagmire in Iraq ... Meanwhile, over 550 US Soldiers & over 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians have been ruthlessly slaughtered in order to enrich the corrupt Bush regime's corporate cronies: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc. ...
[i][b]Read on ...[/b][/i]
Consider "[i][b]'When the punch line is [u]war[/u]'[/b][/i]" by [i]Charles Cutter[/i], Magic City Morning Star, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
If you take George W. Bush at his word - a dubious and risky prospect, at best - in the space of twenty-four hours he made it clear he has more respect for the sanctity of marriage than for the sanctity of human life.
Anyone watching television news in the past week couldn't help but see Mr. Bush wringing his hands over the dilemma of same-sex marriage. On Tuesday, he made his pronouncement: "Our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage." Mr. Bush made this declaration as though he were talking about al Queda, wearing his most solemn face, using a slow and measured cadence.
The night before, in contrast, he was getting big laughs from his Republican friends as he made jokes about the war in Iraq.
On Monday evening Mr. Bush addressed the Republican Governors Association to highlight the themes of his re-election campaign. He referenced his "war on terror" at least four times; September 11, at least five. Another solemn occasion, one would think. But to the man who dodged Viet Nam, the world of war does not inspire solemnity - at least not when he's performing for campaign money.
Speaking presumably about the Democrats, but more likely about anyone who disagrees with his administration, Mr. Bush said, "[i]They now agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power; they just didn't support removing Saddam from power[/i]. ([b]Laughter[/b].)" The parenthetical reference to "laughter" is copied from the White House web site; it's not as if they're ashamed of this levity. Mr. Bush followed up with, "[i]Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election[/i]. ([b]Laughter and applause[/b])"
The fact is, the cost of deposing Saddam Hussein has been staggering. There have been, as of this writing, 549 U.S. military deaths, as well as another 100 among other coalition forces. The death toll among Iraqi civilians - and nobody is bothering to keep a very accurate count - is estimated at between 8,000 - 10,000 people. Those who argued against this war, who protested that the cost in human lives would be too great, deserve more respect than to be the punch line at a Republican fund-raiser.
It's vital for us to realize that this president does not understand, and never has understood, the necessity of dissent as an essential aspect of American freedom. There is no room in this administration for honest disagreement (dishonest agreement has yielded much more profitable results). A person may indeed feel the world is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power; but the flip-side of that argument, which Mr. Bush conveniently avoids, is "However, I didn't support wasting American lives - and vast American resources - in a rush to war, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction, adorned with fairy tales about being greeted as liberators and withdrawing our troops in thirty days." By forcing a choice between two simplistic extremes, Mr. Bush flatly ignores the voices of anyone who refuses to unthinkingly embrace his radical policies. This position is not only dishonest, it is simply anti-American.
And the fact remains that the cost of Bush's Iraqi war goes far beyond the lives lost. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being transferred from the pockets of American taxpayers into an already corrupt and chaotic "rebuilding" of that country. Let's not miss the significance of this fact: While we continue to fund an open-ended commitment in Iraq, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank is telling the citizens of this country that they will have to work longer and/or accept reduced benefits in Social Security and Medicare in order to reduce America's catastrophic deficit. (Mr. Greenspan still believes, however, that the tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans should be made permanent; in other words, that the deficit should be paid for by those least able to afford it.) If an electoral majority of the American public continues to support this president and these priorities, they deserve the increasingly diminished quality of life that will be the inevitable result of that choice.
Mr. Bush went on to draw a further distinction between himself and his opponents: "They seem to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority and more choices and more control over their own lives." In a rapid display of hypocrisy, the next day he insisted that the very framework of American democracy be altered, empowering the federal government - and not the individual citizen - to define that most personal of institutions - marriage.
Bush & Co. have been haunted by math problems recently - their numbers never seem to add up - so they abandoned that strategy this week, jumping into a hornet's nest of word problems instead. Their words have been offensive, divisive, glaringly inconsistent and - considering the Secretary of Education calling the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" - downright bizarre. Perhaps they should simply base their re-election campaign on photo-ops of Mr. Bush wrapped in an American flag. If nothing else, it would be interesting to see how they screw that up.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Job Creation Plan ... |
| 02.27.04 (11:44 am) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_21793 1140.gif[/image]
"[b]We the People" know that Bush doesn't care about America's Working People ... [/b]Bush is [i]in the 'bulging' pockets [/i]of neo-fascist corporations, gluttonous wealthy oligarchs & greedy filthy rich plutocrats who are betraying our nation ...
[b]Refer to [/b][i]The Center for American Progress' [/i][b]Labour Market [/b]reports on http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| The Class Warrior ... |
| 02.27.04 (9:20 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should[i] rise-up enmasse & revolt [/i]against the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's insane [i]tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles [/i]for corporations [i]and[/i] the wealthiest oligarchs [i]and [/i]filthy rich plutocrats, who are betraying our nation ... [/b]
Write to your representatives in Congress http://www.congress.org [i]today[/i] and demand that the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] rapacious, irresponsible and destructive[i] tax giveaways [/i]for corporate robber-barons and the wealthiest be repealed[i] now [/i]...
"[b]The Class Warrior[/b]" by the[i] Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040226.HTM#2 :
[b]After supporting tax cuts for the [i]wealthy[/i] [/b]which have already blown a gaping hole in the federal budget, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told lawmakers that Congress should extend the cuts indefinitely – at a cost of $1.5 trillion over the next ten years – and pay for it by slashing Social Security. Greenspan's comments were particularly surprising because our current budget problems are completely unrelated to Social Security. A recent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study reveals that, in the last three years, the nation's long-term budget projection has gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $4.3 trillion deficit and tax cuts were the single largest factor behind that decline. The large role of tax cuts in the deficit has been confirmed by the President's own budget analysis. Social Security, meanwhile, continues to run a surplus. Greenspan's recommendation amounts to a huge transfer of wealth from future retirees to the very rich. The President, for his part, dodged a direct question yesterday about whether he believes, as Greenspan does, we should scale back Social Security to deal with the rising budget deficit, saying he needed to "see exactly what [Greenspan] said."
[u][b]GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – WE NEED TAX CUTS TO REDUCE REVENUE[/b][/u]: Yesterday, Greenspan argued that the tax cuts should be extended because allowing them to rise to their previous levels would "pose significant risks to...the revenue base." But when he argued in favor of Bush's first tax cut in January 2001, he made the opposite argument – that lowering tax rates was necessary to reduce revenue. Greenspan was worried that the government would quickly pay off the entire deficit and be awash in so much money it wouldn't have anywhere productive to spend it. The WP reported on 1/27/01 that Greenspan "justified his support of tax cuts by focusing on a problem that may not even emerge until the end of a possible second Bush term – the government being forced to buy private assets because it had paid off all the national debt and still had buckets of cash left over." Given the dramatic turnaround in the nation's fiscal health – a $9.3 trillion turnaround in just three years – Greenspan's prediction was horribly wrong.
[u][b]GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – WE CAN AFFORD TAX CUTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY[/b][/u]: When he was aggressively pushing the President's massive tax cut in 2001, Greenspan was directly questioned about its effect on Social Security. On 03/02/01, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) asked Greenspan, "Do I want tax cuts?...this is my problem: there's such a considerable measure of uncertainty in the projections over the course of the baby boomers' retirement that how are we going to prepare for this?" Greenspan responded that there was no reason for concern because "despite the fact that there is a very dramatic rise" in the retiring population from the Baby Boom, "the effect of [the] acceleration in productivity" will mean that revenues will be "more than adequate to meet that big surge through a goodly part of the decade subsequent to 2010."
[u][b]GREENSPAN FLASHBACK – NOT EVERYONE WAS FOOLED[/b][/u]: While Greenspan claims that his recommendations are in response to recent budget deficits, cutting Social Security was on his agenda long before deficits emerged. The WSJ has complied a litany of such comments dating back to November 1997. In 2001, when Greenspan became a champion of the President's tax cuts for the wealthy, Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-CA) predicted Greenspan's desired outcome. On 1/27/01, Matsui told the WP: "What [Greenspan's] done is created a situation where we'll have benefit cuts in Social Security. That's inevitable if you have a $2 trillion tax cut. And maybe that was his ultimate goal."
[u][b]GREENSPAN TODAY – WHITEWASHING JOB LOSS[/b][/u]: Yesterday, Greenspan tried to whitewash the Administration's job crisis, saying "progress creating jobs has been limited." But since the Administration has taken office, the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs and, at the current pace of job creation, it would be May 2007 before the first net new private-sector job was created. Meanwhile, the WP reports, "More than 2,400 employers across the country reported laying off 50 or more workers in January, the third-highest number of so-called mass layoffs since the government began tracking them a decade ago." The Administration attempted to eliminate the statistic in 2002, until stopped by Congress.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Service Record Takes A Comic Twist ... |
| 02.27.04 (7:58 am) [edit] |
[b]Thankfully, "We the People" have some politically irreverent and clever people amongst us, willing to "[i]take-up arms[/i]" against the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]... [/b]
Refer to "[i][b]Bush's service record takes comic twist[/b][/i]" on http://smh.com.au/articles/20... :
The political and frequently irreverent Doonesbury comic strip is offering $US10,000 ($13,000) to anyone who can show US President George Bush served in the Air National Guard in Alabama.
"That's right - we're offering $10,000 cash to anyone who can prove George W. Bush fulfilled his guard duty in Alabama," Wednesday's strip said. "So if you served with Mr Bush - even if only in the officers' club - we want to hear from you right now!"
Readers are referred to the website http://www.doonesbury.com, where a Witness Registration Form asks for online testimony. The creator of Doonesbury, Garry Trudeau, is underwriting the prize money, the site says. "Thanks to Bush's massive tax cuts for people who don't need them, GBT [Trudeau] is flush."
The hitch is the winner will not actually receive the reward. Instead the site says the cash will be be donated in the winner's name to the United Service Organisation, which entertains US troops.
The strip first offered the reward on Monday and already there were hundreds of responses, said David Stanford, duty officer at the online Doonesbury Town Hall.
"We're only in day three and have already received witness forms from over 600 contestants, with more streaming in every hour," Mr Stanford said.
"We'll be carefully processing all of them, but what's immediately striking is that so many who've plunged into the depths of their 1972 memories have surfaced with accounts that involve automobiles, alcohol, aliens, secret ops and Elvis."
The White House had no comment on the contest. But Christine Iverson, of the Republican National Committee, said: "It sounds like a stunt worthy of a comic strip."
Documents released earlier this month offered no new evidence to show that Mr Bush was present for National Guard duty in Alabama during the latter part of 1972, a period when the Democratic National Committee chairman, Terry McAuliffe, has accused him of being absent without leave.
[b]([i]Reuters[/i])[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Generalissimo el Busho - Closing the Credibility Gap??? ... |
| 02.26.04 (5:21 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_85558 7284.gif[/image]
[b]"We the People" are seeking the[i] real [/i]president!!! ... Let's go look in [i]Veep Cheney's office [/i]...[/b]
Refer to "[i][b]Cheney's unprecedented power[/b][/i]" by Robert Kuttner on http://www.boston.com/news/gl...
|
|
|
| |
| Like Poppy, Bush Just Doesn't Get It ... |
| 02.26.04 (1:50 pm) [edit] |
[b]Like his callous and privileged Poppy, Bush just doesn't get it ... [/b]
"We the People" are living a nightmare with a corrupt Bush regime who is callous to the deaths of over 550 US Soldiers (... [i]as well as over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians [/i]...) killed in Iraq based upon myriad neo-con lies, deceptions & falsehoods ... and their economic ravaging of our US Treasury in order to enrich themselves and their neo-fascist corporations, corporate pimps, wealthy oligarchs & hyper-rich plutocrats ...
Refer to "[i][b]Like his father, Bush doesn't get it[/b][/i]" by[i] Marie Cocco, [/i]Newsday, on http://www.newsday.com/news/c...,0,4034524.column?coll=ny-news-colum nists :
He hasn't gone on a shop-hop to J.C. Penney. [i]Yet[/i].
President George W. Bush tries so hard not to be a chip off the old block. His father's answer to the country's agitation over losing middle-class comfort to recession was to stop and pick up sweatsocks, thereby demonstrating the virtue of consumer spending to consumers who were too strapped to spend. Message: [i]He didn't get it[/i].
The son won't be caught at the counter. The medium has changed. But the message hasn't. [i]He doesn't get it either[/i].
This is the message engraved in the Rosetta stone of the current Bush administration's economic policy: the Economic Report of the President, released earlier this month to generally poor reviews.
There is, to start with, the matter of the missing jobs. With the economy having lost some 2.4 million jobs since a now-ended recession officially began in March 2001, the president predicted that 2.6 million would be created this (election) year alone. The estimate is so irrationally exuberant that the White House disavowed it days after releasing it.
And about that recession. The White House often explains a shaken economy by three factors mostly beyond Bush's control: The terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001; the fallout from corporate scandals; and the need to wage war. One problem: The president's own economic report claims the recession began in the fall of 2000 - on Bill Clinton's watch. If that's true, then the doldrums couldn't have been brought on by terrorists who hadn't yet struck, scandals that hadn't burst and wars that hadn't begun.
However, there need be no public outrage about out-sourcing, the president's chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, says. The shipping of U.S. jobs overseas is just a "new way of doing international trade." And if yours is the job that's traded to Bangladesh? The White House promises training, but doesn't plan to fund it.
If you can't get a good job or training, then perhaps there's something at the local McFactory. These are the fast-food outlets the White House says may really be generating those missing manufacturing jobs - they just aren't counted as factory jobs because the definition of manufacturing is too murky. After all, a mere frozen patty is transformed on the fast-food line into an edible delight. It's just like molding steel into fenders, but without the overtime, the health insurance and the pension.
Did someone mention retirement? The president espouses dramatic benefit cuts for future Social Security recipients, but Bush doesn't call them that. His economic report suggests that the old-age benefit could be pegged to prices, which grow more slowly than wages, and not to wage growth - the traditional yardstick. So, if you work hard to move up from burger-flipper to franchise manager, your benefit wouldn't necessarily reflect it. And if the economy suddenly started producing a bumper crop of even higher-paying jobs, the government pension system would ignore this, too. But you could put some payroll taxes into a private account, and try to self-finance a retirement income to make up for the cuts.
As for health care, it would be much more efficient, the president says, if insurers just tailored policies to "different types of consumers" and have them "priced accordingly." That is, the industry could offer one policy at a certain price to a family with a cancer-stricken child. And another to triatheletes.
So if you're worried about jobs, they're just around the corner - or the next corner or the next. Health care? Trust the insurance industry to heal it. Retirement? There's nothing wrong with Social Security that a few benefit cuts can't fix.
This is more shocking than buying socks as a substitute for economic leadership. But our current Bush doesn't lay out his agenda for the cameras.
He'd much rather talk about gay people. And really, who can blame him?
[i]Marie Cocco is a nationally syndicated columnist and member of Newsday's editorial board[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| One Criminal Down ... And ... The Rest Of The Neo-Con Gang To Go ... |
| 02.26.04 (1:22 pm) [edit] |
[b]Only one criminal in the corrupt Bush regime has resigned thus far,[i] unfortunately [/i](... [i]The entire Bush/Cheney Inc. junta should be charged with treason, impeached and tried for fabricating lies, deceptions & falsehoods regarding phony Iraqi WMDs posing an imminent threat to our national security, along with Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...) ... [/b]
Richard Perle is one of the core extremists belonging to the vile cabal of neo-con, neo-fascist [i]arm-chair chicken-hawks [/i]in the cowardly and criminal Bush regime, who lusts for perpetual war-mongerings on behalf of themselves & their sordid & squalid war-profiteers including Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc. http://www.tblog.com/template...
Richard Perle has resigned from the Defense Policy Board-- one of the scary Pentagon war-mongering neo-orwellian propaganda machines run by the neo-con, neo-fascists Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
One Criminal [i]Down [/i]... [i]And[/i] ... The Rest Of The Neo-Con Gang [i]To Go [/i]...
"We the People" should be demanding[i] now [/i]that the entire criminal gang of corrupt neo-con, neo-fascists in the traitorous Bush regime be impeached by Congress http://www.congress.org .
Consider "[i][b]Perle Resigns[/b][/i]" by ABC NEWS on http://abcnews.go.com/section... :
[i][b]Controversial Figure Quits Advisory Panel Post[/b][/i]
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25— A controversial associate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has resigned from his seat on a key Pentagon advisory panel, [i]ABCNEWS[/i] has learned.
Richard Perle, a lightning rod for critics of the Bush administration's national security policies, informed Rumsfeld more than two weeks ago he was quitting the Defense Policy Board. He confirmed the decision in a letter to the defense chief last Wednesday.
"We are now approaching a long presidential election campaign, in the course of which issues on which I have strong views will be widely discussed and debated," Perle wrote. "I would not wish those views to be attributed to you or the President at any time, and especially not during a presidential campaign."
[b]An Outspoken Figure[/b]
Perle is a leading figure of the "neo-conservative" ideological school, and outlines his strong views on wielding U.S. military power against Islamic radicals in his new book, [i]An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror[/i]. http://www.tblog.com/template...
He was a major advocate of the war in Iraq and has advocated a stronger U.S. hand in the entire Middle East region. More recently, he has called for the resignation of CIA Director George Tenet and Defense Intelligence Agency head Adm. Lowell Jacoby.
Senior Pentagon officials said that, despite the controversial statements and writings, Rumsfeld did not ask for Perle's resignation.
Last March, Perle stepped down as chairman of the same board. The move followed published news reports questioning whether his work with a company seeking favor with the Pentagon was a conflict of interest for such a senior adviser. Perle has consistently insisted he did nothing wrong.
And his attorney, Samuel Abeday, told [i]ABCNEWS[/i] today Perle is quitting the board altogether so he can sue the news organizations that "falsely accused him of conflicts of interest."
Abeday also said the Defense Department's inspector general conducted a thorough investigation that "exonerated Perle 100 percent."
The Defense Policy Board has no actual authority but advises Pentagon leaders on defense policy matters.
[b]For more about Richard Perle[/b], [i]refer also [/i]to "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Regime: Encouraging Job Flight & Benefit Reductions ... |
| 02.26.04 (12:39 pm) [edit] |
[b]The neo-fascist Bush regime has the worst record on job losses since the Great Depression ... [/b]Contrast Clinton's economic policies that encouraged the creation of over 22 million jobs with Bush whose insane [i]take-all, rape-all [/i]by corporations and the richest-of-the-rich has resulted in over 3.3 million jobs lost in 3 years ... Moreover, the corrupt and callous Bushies have undermined unemployment benefits leaving millions of citizens in dire misery, poverty and desperation ...
"We the People" must stand-up and fight against the rapacious [i]corporate-take-all [/i]Bush regime and their destructive economic policies that are undermining our nation's prosperity for all of our citizens ...
Consider "[i][b]Encouraging Job Flight & Benefit Reductions[/b][/i]" by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
With millions out of work and U.S. wages stagnating, the Bush Administration has pushed economic policies that are making the situation worse. From touting offshore outsourcing, to encouraging companies to moving jobs to China, the White House has systematically put the interests of working families behind the interests of its largest corporate benefactors.
[u][b]WHITE HOUSE REPORT CELEBRATES LOSS OF U.S. JOBS TO OUTSOURCING[/b][/u]: Under the headline "Bush Supports Shift of U.S. Jobs Overseas" the LA Times reported that the Bush Administration "embraced foreign outsourcing, an accelerating trend that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years." The Administration made the announcement even as analysts predict "as many as 2 million U.S. white-collar jobs" will be exported at a time when millions are already out of work. When asked whether the White House's top economic advisor who touted outsourcing should resign, the Administration said the mere suggestion was "laughable."[[b]Source[/b]: LA Times, 2/10/04; Reuters, 12/30/03; Hastert release, 2/11/04; CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight, 2/11/04]
[u][b]ADMINISTRATION SPONSORS CONFERENCES TO HELP COMPANIES MOVE JOBS TO CHINA[/b][/u]: The Bush Commerce Department actively "sponsors" and "participates in conferences and workshops that encourage American companies to put operations and jobs in China." For one event at the luxurious Waldorf Astoria in New York, the "Commerce Department was described by the Chinese as a co-sponsor." [[b]Source[/b]: NY Times, 12/11/03]
[u][b]ADMINISTRATION SUPPORTS NEW TAX BREAKS FOR COMPANIES MOVING OFFSHORE[/b][/u]: After the WTO prohibited a U.S. provision "shielding companies' overseas sales from taxes," the Administration's allies wrote a bill to "make up for the lost tax break by creating others." One of the new tax breaks would have "allowed $70 million in tax breaks for off-shore construction contracts" – a specific incentive to move jobs offshore. [[b]Source[/b]: SF Chronicle, 10/31/03; New York Sun, 10/29/03]
[u][b]ADMINISTRATION ALLOWS COMPANIES TO MOVE OFFSHORE TO AVOID TAXES[/b][/u]: While "President Bush says the Bermuda loophole" that allows companies to move their offices offshore to avoid U.S. taxes "should be closed, he has yet to support any of the bills that would do so." Meanwhile, when Congress passed a bill barring federal contracts from going to such companies, the White House did not support it and the bill died. Because of the loopholes, in 1998, "$155 billion in corporate income literally disappeared." The top Fortune 500 corporations (which include Halliburton) who benefit from the loophole have given Bush and his allies more than $5.2 million since 2000. [[b]Sources[/b]: ABC, 7/12/02; AP, 7/31/02; Chrs. Sci Monitor, 5/22/02; Citizen Works; Center for Responsive Politics]
[b]For links to sources[/b], [i]please click onto [/i] http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| G.W. Bush: Truth, Lies & Consequences ... |
| 02.25.04 (5:56 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush is a Liar ... A Liar on [i]EVERY[/i] issue facing "We the People" ...[/b]
[i][b]Truth & Consequences[/b][/i]
In two separate speeches to governors, President Bush attempted to recast his record after a month that has seen his public support drop precipitously. But to echo the recent cover of[i] Time Magazine[/i], the disconnect between the President's rhetoric yesterday and the reality in America is now highlighting a very serious question: [b]"[i]Does President Bush Have a Credibility Gap[/i]?"[/b] If yesterday's two speeches are any indication, the answer is a resounding [i][b]yes[/b][/i]. As a new [i]American Progress [/i]backgrounder shows, http://www.americanprogress.o... on everything from homeland security to taxes, from jobs to the economy, the President's words appear almost completely divorced from his record and from well-reported facts. Here are some of the highlights:
[u][b]CLAIM VS. FACT – ECONOMY[/b][/u]: In his first speech, President Bush made his most shocking comment of the day, saying "5.6% unemployment is a good national number." But as the [i]LA Times [/i]notes, on top of "the 8.7 million unemployed" there "are 4.9 million part-time workers who say they would rather be working full time — the highest number in a decade." There are "also 1.5 million people who want a job but didn't look for one" because the economy had become so bleak. "Add these three groups together and the jobless total for the U.S. hits 9.7%." Even recent drops in the official unemployment rate to which the President was referring did not come about because of job creation. As [i]Knight-Ridder [/i]reported, last month's modest decline "was because more people gave up looking for work." All told, the recent drop "was wholly due to a contraction in the labor force, which declined by 309,000." As the[i] New York Times [/i]noted, "compared with previous economic recoveries, job growth remains well below par." And of course, this says nothing of the stagnating wages and Bush tax increases that are hitting middle-class Americans hard.
[u][b]CLAIM VS. FACT – JOB CREATION[/b][/u]: With the Administration poised to become the first since Herbert Hoover to have a net job loss at the end of its term, the President said in his second speech that "we have a positive vision for the years ahead [including] creating jobs and opportunity here at home." He then proceeded to lay out a "job creation" program that consisted of nothing more than making his tax cuts permanent. The Administration made the same job creation promises to pass the first two tax plans. But as the [i]Economic Policy Institute [/i]notes, the Administration has fallen 1.8 million jobs short of its promises. The [i]WP[/i] notes, "over three years, the Administration has repeatedly and significantly overstated the government's fiscal health and the number of jobs the economy would create." As an [i]American Progress [/i]backgrounder shows, http://www.americanprogress.o... the Administration has pursued a radically conservative economic agenda that, in many cases, has exacerbated the negative effects of the sluggish economy for millions.
[u][b]CLAIM VS. FACT – SMALL BUSINESSES[/b][/u]: The President said, "The tax relief we passed…helps small businesses," claiming the top income tax rate was cut not to enrich the wealthy, but to help small businesses. Of course, the implication is that many small businesses actually pay this tax – but according to the WP, just "3.8% of the 18.2 million business tax returns filed that year reported taxable income of $200,000 or more." With the top tax bracket at $311,950, it means only a tiny fraction of small businesses actually benefited from the tax bill. As an analysis by the [i]Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [/i]found, small business owners "would be far more likely to receive no tax reduction whatsoever from the Administration's 2001 tax package than to benefit" in any way. In terms of the 2003 tax cut, "52% of people with small business returns would get $500 or less" and the bill included provisions that actually hurt small business.
[u][b]CLAIM VS. FACT – FISCAL DISCIPLINE[/b][/u]: In one breath, the President said, "to keep this economy growing, we will have fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. To keep this economy going, the tax cuts must be permanent" – as if the current record deficits will not be affected by the $1 trillion needed to fund the permanent tax cut plan. While the President claims that the deficits were created by the war, the [i]Congressional Budget Office[/i] reports that the tax cuts are the single largest factor creating the deficit. Those deficits are now at record-high levels.
[u][b]CLAIM VS. FACT – IRAQ, LEAKS & WMD[/b][/u]: The President said his Administration "stands for a culture of responsibility in America. We're changing the culture of America from one that said, 'if it feels good, do it,' and 'if you've got a problem, blame someone else,' to a culture in which each of us understands we're responsible for the decisions we make." Yet, the President has refused to take any responsibility for ignoring intelligence warnings and overhyping the WMD case against Iraq as a justification for war. Instead of answering questions about why the Administration received warnings and then ignored them, the White House has tried to attack and blame intelligence community. Similarly, the President has refused to take responsibility for his Administration's leak of a CIA operative's name.
[u][b]CLAIM VS. FACT – THE MILITARY[/b][/u]: President Bush simultaneously praised the work of the military in Afghanistan and Iraq, but then claimed that "when Dick Cheney and I came to Washington, we found a military that was under-funded and under-appreciated." Yet, this logic contradicts Vice President Cheney, who noted in 2000 that current military successes are rightly credited to the preceding Administration which was responsible for preparation. As he said, "when [the Gulf] war ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan." Comedian Al Franken took Cheney at his word, and asked Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz "the Clinton military did a great job in Iraq, didn't it?" Wolfowitz responded, "[i]F**k you[/i]."
[b]Sources & Links[/b]:
The [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040224.HTM#1
|
|
|
| |
| Instead of Admitting Economic Truth, Bush Resorts to Statistical Manipulation |
| 02.25.04 (3:34 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime ruthlessly lied about phony WMDs, their neo-con neo-orwellian [i]casus belli [/i]for their illegal and immoral aggression into Iraq [/b]that has deteriorated into a bloody guerrilla quagmire resulting in over 1 American killed [i]unnecessarily [/i]every day [i]for nothing [/i](... [i]Death Toll is Over 550 US Soldiers & Over 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians [/i]...) as well as squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars funnelled into the bulging pockets of traitorous war-profiteers and corporate pimps including Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc.
The neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] also shamelessly propagandizes their myriad[i] lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]regarding the putrid state of our economy that they have plundered, swindled & looted on behalf of corporations, wealthy oligarchs and the filthy rich plutocrats ...
"We the People" must keep focused on these most important issues and not allow the insanely brutish Bushies to hijack the political discourse in order to divert our attention away from their [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i].
Consider "[b]Instead of Admitting Economic Truth, Bush Resorts to Statistical Manipulation[/b]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
President Bush, attempting to obscure his record as the worst economic steward since Herbert Hoover, has become so desperate that he is exploring ways to manipulate statistics.1 Just days after Bush reneged on his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs2 and said with a straight face that "5.6% unemployment is a good national number,"3 the New York Times uncovered a White House report showing that the president is considering re-classifying low-paid fast food jobs as "manufacturing jobs"4 as a way to hide the massive manufacturing job losses that have occurred during his term.
As[i] CBS News [/i]reports, "Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs."5 But if the president enacts the statistical change he is considering, this number would be purposely obscured because lower-paying fast food jobs would be added to make the real manufacturing losses look smaller. Of course, fast food jobs typically pay much less and have fewer benefits than real manufacturing jobs, meaning the statistical change would also obscure the fact that, under Bush, "in 48 of the 50 states, jobs in higher-paying industries have given way to jobs in lower-paying industries."6 All told, jobs in growing industries like lower-paid service sector/fast food jobs are paying 21% less than contracting industries like real manufacturing.
The president's efforts to manipulate statistics and mislead Americans are also getting a boost from his allies on Capitol Hill. Earlier this month, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles (R-OK) pointed to an optimistic "household" jobs survey as proof that "we're at an all-time high in employment" and that "the employment situation has improved rather substantially."7 The problem is that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said definitively that "payroll data" - not the household survey - "is the series which you have to follow" in order to be accurate. The payroll data shows "a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001."
[b]Sources[/b]:
1. "George Walker Hoover?", Slate, 04/30/2003.
2. "Bush Backs Off Forecast of 2.6M New Jobs", ABC News, 02/18/2004.
3. Remarks by the President to the National Governors Association, 02/23/2004.
4. "In the New Economics: Fast-Food Factories?", New York Times, 02/20/2004.
5. "Building Blue-Collar…Burgers?", CBS News, 02/20/2004.
6. Economic Snapshots, 01/21/2004.
7. "Two Tales of American Jobs", New York Times, 02/22/2004.
|
|
|
| |
| Trying Another Lie On For Size!!! ... |
| 02.23.04 (4:57 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime is on the [i]rampage[/i] to see how [i]stupid[/i] we really are ... They are trying more [i]lies on for size [/i]...[/b]
[i][b]Consider ...[/b][/i]
[b]Run it by the boss first?[/b]
This morning we noted http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... that [b]Bush campaign [/b]chairman Marc Racicot [b]tried to float the demonstrably false line that President Bush had volunteered for service in Vietnam, but hadn't been 'selected'[/b]. [Jeez ... What lies, deceptions & falsehoods[i] won't [/i]the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]try on, in order to defraud us?]
Now, our first thought was that Mr. Racicot might be angling to be the next winner of the 'Heather Wilson [b]"[i]I think the American people are a bunch of god-forsaken idiots"[/i] Award'[/b]. http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
But this isn't just a blatant mistatement of the facts that Racicot apparently believes the press will be too timid to call him on. He's even contradicting what the president himself said only two weeks ago.
Let's go to the tape ...
"[i]He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn’t selected to go, but nonetheless served his country very well[/i]."
- [i]Marc Racicot, NPR Interview[/i], http://www.npr.org/features/f... February 23rd, 2004
Now, here's what the president himself said [i]just two weeks ago [/i]...
[b]RUSSERT[/b]: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
[b]BUSH[/b]: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.
[b]RUSSERT[/b]: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.
[b]BUSH[/b]: No, I didn't. You're right.
- [i]Meet The Press[/i], February 8th, 2004
And here's an even more [i]candid version [/i]of events from the president from fourteen years ago ...
"[i]I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes[/i]." [Young men and boys from poor families didn't have that chance!!!]
- [i]George W. Bush[/i], 1990, as quoted in [i]The Houston Chronicle[/i], May 8th, 1994.
No doubt there are other examples in which the president has conceded the undeniable truth that he didn't volunteer for service in Vietnam. And if folks want to send them in to me, I'd be obliged.
But let's just consider what Racicot is doing here.
This wasn't a slip of the tongue. This was deliberate. Now that the topic has been moved a bit to the back burner, they're trying to get back on the offensive by floating a deliberate and undeniable deception in the hopes that no one will notice. If no one does then the new false story will become the accepted version in the coming campaign debate.
[b]You really can't [i]let your eyes off them [/i]for a second.[/b]
Is anyone going to ask the campaign or the White House whether their[i] new line [/i]is that the president volunteered to go to Vietnam but just never got picked?
[b]"We the People" are not only going to [i]ask[/i], but we are going to [i]check[/i] and [i]verify[/i]!!![/b]
[b]Source[/b]:
Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Is THIS What We Really WANT??? ... |
| 02.23.04 (3:23 pm) [edit] |
[b]Saddam Hussein committed the heinous acts of massacring the Kurds and Shias of Iraq, during the Reagan & Poppy Bush presidencies, aided and abetted by Poppy Bush and the very same neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons who have hijacked our nation ... [/b]Cheney sold Saddam Hussein his WMDs and Rumsfeld bartered the WMDs deals ... Without Poppy Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's encouragement to the Kurds & Shias to [i]rise-up and overthrow[/i] Saddam Hussein a few years later (... [i]when he invaded Kuwait[/i] ...), promising that the U.S. would stand behind their uprising (... [i]but then Poppy Bush stood by and let Saddam Hussein do his dirty deed [/i]...) then those atrocities that the hypocritical Bush regime self-righteously condemns, would [i]never [/i]have happened ... Ergo, the corrupt Bush regime should be impeached and Poppy Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be handed over to the International Court at the Hague to be tried for [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i] ...
"We the People" are currently being swindled, plundered and looted out of the precious lives of our U.S. Soldiers (... [i]as well as the precious lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians slaughtered based upon Bush's myriad lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]...) and out of hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars (... [i]from the working class, as the rich got off with huge tax cuts [/i]...) in order to[i] pay-off [/i]the vile Bush regime's traitorous war-profiteers including Halliburton, etc. (... [i]and of course, the squalid Bush & Cheney families pocket hundreds of millions for themselves [/i]...) ... But also, to [i]pay-off [/i]the [i]neo-Saddam-Hussein-sty le [/i]Ahmed Chalabi (... [i]convicted embezzler, liar, thief, murderer, etc. ... whom the Iraqi people can't stand [/i]...) and his barbaric, criminal family ...
Is [i]THIS[/i] the type of irresponsible, incompetent and ruthlessly criminal regime we [i]WANT[/i] in the White House??? ...
Refer to[i] Joshua Micah Marshall's [/i]expose' in TalkingPointsMemo on http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... :
"[i]As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important[/i]." ... [... SO WHAT IF I[i] LIED[/i]!!! ...]
Those were the [ugly weasel] words http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...;$sessionid$5RM3YWKKUZDFX QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/ news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/ 19/ixworld.html last week of Ahmed Chalabi, head of the INC, member of the IGC, and central player in a scandal the scope of which Americans are only now beginning to grasp.
The "what was said before" that Chalabi is referring to, of course, are the numerous bogus claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction he peddled into American governmental channels over the last half dozen years and more.
After these words he was kind enough to say that "the Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."
Now, I can't say that I was particularly surprised by this, though I didn't expect him to be quite so public about it. For months, when asked about what happened with all their crackerjack intel and defectors, those in Chalabi's entourage have responded with a blase version of 'the ends justify the means'. The general idea they communicate is: Okay, so there weren't any weapons. But we wanted Saddam gone. And he's gone. Our conscience is clean.
Not quite an admission, but also quite a ways from a denial. In other words, more or less what Chalabi told the [i]Telegraph[/i]: "[i]What was said before is not important[/i]." [... IT'S OKAY TO LIE ... [i]THIS[/i] CHALABI IS BUSH'S BUDDY-BOY & PUPPET TO [i]HEAD[/i] IRAQ? ... HOW MARVELOUS [[i]sic[/i]] FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!! ...]
Now, to me Chalabi's motives are extremely suspect. But there are many, many Iraqi nationalists who were willing to do or sacrifice anything to rid their country of this brutal dictator. And from that perspective I can understand how their consciences would be clear. They're not Americans. They're not bound up in the ins-and-outs of truth-telling in the context of American domestic politics. Their primary interest is not the vital interests of the United States. What they're trying to do is overthrow a tyrant in their country. And if that means hoodwinking the great power to come in and do the job or perhaps just telling the leaders of the great power what they want to hear, then so be it.
There's no point belaboring this hypothetical. I don't think it really applies to the people in question here. I am only trying to sketch out a potential way to see the rights and wrongs of all this from a very different perspective.
However that may be, Chalabi seems to be at the point of all but calling us suckers to our faces. If we were scammed, you'd think we'd be a bit angry about it -- right? -- even if we helped bring it on ourselves and even if some of our leaders were complicit in the scam.
Yet, we really don't seem to be angry at all. We [i]funded [/i]Chalabi's pre-war intelligence operation in Iraq -- thus placing ourselves in the pathbreaking position of bankrolling a disinformation campaign against ourselves. (Much of his other money came from Iran. But we can get into that later.) And amazingly, we're [i]still [/i]funding it.
According to this [i]KnightRidder[/i] article http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... from late last week the Pentagon has set aside between [b]$3 and $4 million to fund Chalabi's Information Collection Program through 2004[/b]. [b]So we want to keep buying Chalabi's prized intel for at least the next ten months?[/b]
We're far past the point where there's any question that basically all the intel we got from Chalabi was bogus. We're not far from the point of concluding that it was knowingly bogus or at least passed on with a willful indifference to its validity. [b]And we're still going to pay his 'intelligence' operation $4 million more this year?[/b]
[b]Isn't the $400 million worth of contracts http://www.newsday.com/news/n...,0,735950.story to companies tied to his family enough to keep him happy?[/b] [... OUR U.S. TAXPAYER DOLLARS ...]
|
|
|
| |
| McFactory Jobs??? ... |
| 02.23.04 (2:13 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_11686 66701.gif[/image]
[b]"We the People" are being relegated to playing the subservient roles of neo-slaves and neo-serfs in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] neo-fascist, neo-imperial slave state ...[/b]
[b]ECONOMY
McFactory Jobs???[/b]
[b]A new poll shows that 90% of Americans say "jobs and foreign competition will be important issues" this year[/b], http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... and 55% disapprove of how the Bush Administration is handling those issues. In the face of those numbers, stagnating wages, and lackluster job creation, the Bush Administration has responded not with a new economic policy, but with an effort to simply change the way statistics are counted. Specifically, the NYT reports President Bush's economic report to Congress "questions whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of the service sector or should be reclassified as manufacturers." Under this scenario, the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs might be blurred because some of those jobs have been replaced by lower-paying fast food jobs. The tactic, which provoked outrage from members of Congress, was the second affront to working people in as many weeks, as it followed the Administration's public announcement of support for outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas.
[u][b]DISTORTING STATS, PART II[/b][/u]: The effort to rewrite statistics comes at the same time conservatives are trying to substitute discredited jobs numbers for real ones in an effort to claim that jobs are booming. The government's "payroll" survey shows a loss of more than two million jobs since 2001; the more limited "household" survey shows an increase in jobs. And while Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said definitively that "payroll data are the series which you have to follow," that has not stopped conservatives from making rosy pronouncements in the face of a jobless recovery. Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) actually said, "We're at an all-time high in employment...the employment situation has improved rather substantially.''
[u][b]TAX CUTS MAKING MATTERS WORSE[/b][/u]: Making matters worse, instead of acknowledging that its tax cuts have not created the jobs it promised, the Administration continues to insist that spending $1 trillion to make these failed tax cuts permanent will fix the economy, even resorting to grossly exaggerating the effects of those tax cuts for average Americans. See more about the Administration's anti-worker record in this [i]American Progress [/i]backgrounder http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[u][b]GETTING TO THE ROOTS OF OUTSOURCING FEARS[/b][/u]: [i]Time Magazine's [/i]cover story this week points out, "What puts teeth into the buzz word [of 'outsourcing'] is the sense that getting outsourced could happen to almost anyone." Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the [i]Economic Policy Institute[/i], says the frustration of white-collar workers is what gives the debate over outsourcing such intensity: "There is no safety net for $80,000-a-year programmers." Bernstein says that after the factory closings of the 1980s and the emergence of the "knowledge economy," many liberals and conservatives alike had reached a consensus that manufacturing jobs could not be saved but the "lab coat" jobs would always stay here. "Now that vision is under siege," Bernstein says. And the white-collar middle class is feeling the sting of insecurity that manufacturing workers know so well. As Bob Herbert writes, "few people are looking out for the interests of the American worker" and "the very concept of the traditional high-paid American job, with its generous health and pension benefits and paid vacations, is at risk."
[u][b]THE WORST CASE SCENARIO[/b][/u]: At the same time CEOs are reaping tens of millions of dollars while cutting benefits for their workers, the country is experiencing what [i]Business Week [/i]calls the "Wal-Martization of America": An economy dependent on "hiring temps and part-timers [with no benefits], dismantling internal career ladders, and outsourcing to lower-paying contractors at home and abroad." Even now, "more than a quarter of the labor force, about 34 million workers, are trapped in low-wage, often dead-end jobs." And as a new study http://edworkforce.house.gov/... by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) shows, that kind of economic shift could be devastating. Wal-Mart's "rock- bottom wages and benefits cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year in basic housing, medical, childcare and energy needs that the retailer fails to provide" in its wages/benefits. The report estimates that a typical Wal-Mart store employing 200 people would require $420,750 in taxpayer funds to pick up medical insurance and housing assistance for employees who can't afford them because of their low wages and benefits – all while workers are being mistreated in the workplace and further squeezed for lower wages and less benefits.
[u][b]SOLUTION – IMPROVE EDUCATION FUNDING[/b][/u]: In the long-term, most agree that the best solution to the outsourcing phenomenon is to give U.S. workers better tools to compete in the global economy. And as Greenspan said Friday, that means "upgrading educational opportunities for low-skilled workers." Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has refused to take even the most basic steps to seriously improve the nation's education and job training systems. For instance, the Administration has left a $27 billion gap in funding its own No Child Left Behind bill. Similarly, the Administration has flat-funded the Pell Grant program, and proposed rule changes to cut off 84,000 students from receiving such aid – despite college tuitions rising. And while the President has called for additional money this year for job training, the Administration has spent the last three years pushing for more than $1 billion in cuts to these programs.
[u][b]SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS[/b][/u]: [b]Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich[/b] told[i] Time Magazine[/i], "we have to get serious about job retraining, lifetime learning, extended unemployment insurance and wage insurance. We may also want to not permit companies to deduct the expense of outsourcing from their income taxes, and use the savings to help workers who lost jobs." On wage insurance, "most proposals would pay about half of the difference between the old job and the lower-paying new one" –important help, considering the [i]Economic Policy Institute's [/i]recent study http://www.epinet.org/webfeat... showing the vast difference in wages between jobs that are being lost and jobs that are being created. Experts estimate that a wage insurance program at the current levels of unemployment would cost about $5 billion a year. As the [i]Brookings Institution's [/i]Robert Litan notes, the Bush administration's tax cuts would average over $100 billion a year for 10 years: "For a fraction of that, we could have a program that addresses the anxiety that grips both parties and much of the country."
[u][b]ONE SOLUTION THAT KEEPS GETTING STOPPED[/b][/u]:[i] CongressDaily [/i]reports that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is expected to offer a minimum wage increase amendment soon but Senate Republicans are expected to try to kill the measure or water it down with tax breaks. These Republicans want to "take the sting out of" the minimum wage increase – forgetting about the "sting" of stagnating wages that is hitting families every day. The refusal to pass Kennedy's legislation would leave the minimum wage at an abysmal $5.15 – a near-poverty level income – and would follow other conservative efforts to limit overtime pay and shaft average workers out of the wages/benefits they deserve.
[b]Sources[/b]:
The Center for American Progress on http://www.americanprogress.o...
"An index of American decline" by [i]Patrick J. Buchanan [/i]on http://www.wnd.com/news/artic...
|
|
|
| |
| NEO-ORWELLIAN BUSH CAMPAIGN MACHINE COMMENCES ITS ONSLAUGHT ... |
| 02.22.04 (7:59 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_11033 4785.gif[/image]
[b]"We the People" are [i]soon[/i] to be [i]attacked and under seige [/i]by the corrupt Neo-Orwellian Bush Campaign Machine as it commences its vile onslaught of mendacious [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]... and, an ugly [i]smear [/i]against those who challenge their insane neo-con foreign policies and neo-fascist domestic rape of America ...[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| George Washington Warned Us About Politicos Like Bush ... |
| 02.22.04 (3:44 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" have fallen so[i] very, very, very far [/i]from the days when courageous men and women fought for a vision of a Republic that promoted the General Welfare for All of the People ... [/b]American people were intended to rule over their government, who would be held accountable to the citizenry, under a well-designed system of[i] checks-and-balances [/i]... No Emperors dictating our every thought, philosophy, religious preference, or idea ... No Wealthy Robber-barons ruling over & exploiting us in the gluttonous Feudal Systems in the days of yore ... American people would be encouraged to be [i]free[/i] to seek their own destinies as individual citizens with right and proper responsibilities to the Republic ... Our Founding Fathers saw[i] too much [/i]exploitation, intolerance and corruption in the imperialistic governments of Europe-- They envisioned a nation in which people would work together for the commonly shared aims of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ...
How [i]very, very, very far [/i]we have fallen ... We should[i] hang our heads in shame [/i]to have allowed ourselves to be ruthlessly hijacked by the disgraceful, tyrannical Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], who have [i]no respect [/i]for our heritage, [i]no respect [/i]for our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, and [i]no respect [/i]for "We the People" ...
Consider "[i][b]Leader of a Nation, Not a Party[/b][/i]" by [i]Ron Chernow[/i], New York Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
[b]As[/b] the Democratic primaries reach a critical stage, partisan spirit is running high, and the presidential campaign is already verging on blood sport. George Washington's birthday today serves as a reminder of how presidents can transcend politics and embody the national spirit.
From the time he was recruited as commander in chief in 1775, Washington personified the often tenuous hope of unity among the 13 fractious colonies. With most of the early patriot blood spilled in Massachusetts, the second Continental Congress wanted a Southern general who could lend a national imprint to the struggle. Washington shed his Virginia identity and forged a Continental Army that tutored its green recruits into thinking of themselves as Americans.
It is impossible to assess Washington's career without stumbling over the words "unity" and "unanimity" at every turn. He was unanimously chosen as president of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where he presided with customary tact. Since it was assumed that Washington would be the first president, his taciturn but resolute presence reconciled many skittish delegates to the vast powers invested in the executive branch. Twice in a row, in 1789 and 1792, the Electoral College elected him president by a unanimous vote, confirming his status as a political deity who seemed to hover above the petty feuds of lesser mortals.
Nevertheless, Americans today tend to take George Washington for granted. He seems less soulful than Lincoln, less robust than Theodore Roosevelt, less charismatic than Franklin Roosevelt. His bloodless image as a remote, Mount Rushmore of a man — partly a byproduct of the craggy face recreated endlessly by Gilbert Stuart — has worked to obscure the magnitude of his achievement. Too often Washington seems a dull, phlegmatic figure, wooden if worthy, whose self-command stemmed from an essential lack of inner fire.
In fact, Washington was a strong-willed, hot-blooded personality. "I wish I could say that he governs his temper," a rich Virginian told Washington's mother when George was 16 years old. "He is subject to attacks of anger and provocation, sometimes without just cause." The young man mastered his wayward emotions by reading history, studying deportment, and learning how to dance and dress smartly. Like other founders, Washington was an ambitious, insecure provincial, committed to a strenuous regimen of self-improvement.
Over time, Washington would retreat behind an iron mask of self-control. Alexander Hamilton, his chief aide for four years during the Revolution, glimpsed the well-concealed inner man and found him unbearably moody and irritable. As with many passionate but guarded personalities, Washington sometimes burst out unexpectedly in anger.
By early 1781, despite immense respect for the general, Hamilton could no longer tolerate his short temper and abrupt manner. He exploited a brief clash to resign his staff position, then grumbled to a fellow aide of Washington, "He shall, for once at least, repent his ill humor." Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, echoed this appraisal of Washington's nature: "His temper was naturally irritable and high-toned, but reflection and resolution had obtained a firm and habitual ascendancy over it. If ever, however, it broke its bonds, he was most tremendous in his wrath."
The prodigious self-restraint enabled Washington to rise above the sectional strife that threatened to tear the 13 states apart. He adopted a detached, even cryptic facade to resist association with any particular faction or interest. In a noisy world of blustering politicos, he possessed the "gift of silence," as John Adams phrased it. Washington articulated his secret succinctly: "With me it has always been a maxim rather to let my designs appear from my works than by my expressions."
The founding generation flirted with the utopian fantasy that America would be spared parties — or "factions," as they were styled — which they dismissed as obsolete remnants of monarchical government. Washington didn't foresee the savage ideological divisions that would split his administration and the country at large. His original "cabinet" consisted of just three men — Thomas Jefferson at State, Henry Knox at War and Hamilton at Treasury. There was no Justice Department, but Attorney General Edmund Randolph served as part-time legal adviser to the president.
Washington presided over his cabinet of prima donnas in a civil, high-minded fashion, soliciting their opinions, usually in writing, then weighing their merits. As Hamilton summarized his executive style: "He consulted much, pondered much, resolved slowly, resolved surely."
Washington didn't try to impose unity on his department heads or color their views or stifle dissent. He was strong enough to give free rein to vigorous internal debate. At the same time, he endorsed the bold package of programs drafted by his Treasury secretary to restore American credit and establish a monetary system.
These controversial initiatives brought about the advent of parties. The mostly Northern Federalists, led by Hamilton, favored a strong central government and a flexible interpretation of the Constitution, while the mostly Southern Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison, upheld states' rights and strict construction.
This ideological clash — first a fissure, then a chasm — ushered in a vitriolic style of partisan politics. This wasn't just a case of the party in power being pummeled by a vocal opposition. The ferocious warfare flared up, nay issued, from Washington's own cabinet. Jefferson and Hamilton sniped at each other with relentless gusto, each trying to oust the other from the administration. Jefferson schemed to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for Hamilton's dismissal, while Hamilton blasted Jefferson in print behind the shield of various Roman pseudonyms.
In most policy disputes, Washington had sided with Hamilton simply because his policies had worked, as Washington once reminded Jefferson pointedly. Another president might have conducted a purge to foster greater cohesion among his colleagues. But Washington clung to his idealistic vision of tolerance and became the binding agent of a divided country. He pleaded with Jefferson and Hamilton to cease their assaults.
Jefferson replied loftily that he refused to be slandered by Hamilton, "whose history, from the moment at which history can stoop to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the liberty of the country." Hamilton wasn't about to retire the heavy artillery, either. "I find myself placed in a situation not to be able to recede for the present," he told Washington.
It is hard to resist the impression that Washington's tenure in office was often painfully solitary. To defend national unity and curb partisan bickering, he had to keep his principal advisers at arm's length. Nevertheless, critics tagged him as a Federalist, even a doddering old man who had become mere putty in Hamilton's nimble hands. At first, Washington's sacred status as leader of the revolutionary army rendered him immune to direct press criticism, with most hostility deflected to Hamilton.
By the end of Washington's first term, however, Republican scandalmongers had declared open season on him, accusing him, along with Hamilton, of being a closet royalist. The president's pent-up passion and sensitivity finally boiled over.
Jefferson recorded Washington's memorable explosion at a cabinet meeting in 1793: "The president was much inflamed; got into one of those passions when he cannot command himself; ran on much on the personal abuse which has been bestowed on him; defied any man on earth to produce one single act of his since he had been in the government which was not done on the purest motives . . . that by God he had rather be in his grave than in his present situation; that he had rather be on his farm than to be made emperor of the world; and yet they were charging him with wanting to be a king."
There ensued a pause as Washington tried to regain his composure. Even though Jefferson had helped to orchestrate many salvos against Washington, he acknowledged the president's acute sensitivity, noting that he was "extremely affected by the attacks made and kept on him in the public papers." He added, "I think he feels those things more than any person I ever yet met with."
In his farewell address in 1796, Washington warned against "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party." By this point, however, it was abundantly clear that the two-party system was here to stay. During his single-term presidency, John Adams, a nominal Federalist, tried in vain to perpetuate the notion of a president above party labels. When his successor, Thomas Jefferson, was inaugurated, he intoned famously, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists" — a neat rhetorical flourish that thinly disguised his status as the first president to head a political party.
Ever since, the occupants of the White House have experienced an uneasy tension between their role as party leader and as president of all of the people. George Washington never doubted which role should come first.
[i]Ron Chernow is the author of the forthcoming "Alexander Hamilton[/i]."
|
|
|
| |
| NO EXIT: The Culture Wars ... |
| 02.22.04 (2:21 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_73064 4362.gif[/image]
[b]"We the People" are in the midst of raging [i]Culture Wars[/i] [/b]being fought [i]inside of our nation's borders [/i]every day [i]now[/i]:-- ... by corrupt politicos like the neo-con Bush regime who want to divert our attention away from their ruthless mismangement of our economy on behalf of their corporate paymasters, and their reckless, illegal & immoral guerrilla quagmire in Iraq ... by media pundits who propagandize issues ranging from gay marriage, abortion, and christian zionism drowning out any healthy debate on vital concerns such as jobs, health care, education, the environment, our skyrocketing national debts & deficits spiralling[i] out of control [/i]... and, by special interests ranging from corporations to religious zealouts out to[i] buy our souls [/i]so long as we [i]abandon[/i] our[i] lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness [/i]in [i]this[/i] life ...
Let us [i]stop and take stock[/i], and reject these vicious attempts to steal our lives away from us ... Let us reclaim our nation ... Let us reject the insane neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime and their [i]corporate-take-all [/i]Congressional cohorts and instead elect a government that truly represents "We the People" ...
An interesting article entitled "[i][b]Fighting the Culture Wars[/b][/i]" by[i] Arianna Huffington[/i], may be read on http://www.alternet.org/story...
|
|
|
| |
| A Harpie In Action: 'I Read, I Smoke, I Spin' ... |
| 02.22.04 (9:13 am) [edit] |
[b]Laura Bush is starting to sound like a Stepford Wife Harpie ... [/b]She claims to be "[i]Shocked! Shocked! Shocked[/i]!" by the concept of Gay people committing to each other in a Civil Union or Marriage ... Apparently she isn't terribly "[i]Shocked! Shocked! Shocked[/i]!" by Divorce which truly undermines the sanctity of marriage and harms children: but then she married into a sordid & traitorous family of hypocritical drunkards, cowards, adulterers, deserters, liars & thieves-- and, is clearly showing that she [i]belongs[/i] in their nest of mendacious propagandists, corporate robber-barons and criminals ...
Like Cheney and [i]his[/i] gruesome spouse, and her [i]dim-witted ne'er-do-well [/i]hubby, Laura Bush puts on a phony, tinny thin-lipped smile and murmurs softly-- oh, but the words, the [i]ugly rhetoric [/i]that is spewed from the Bushies & the Cheneys mouths are mean-spirited, callous and ignorant, devised to [i]mislead us [/i]and[i] lull us [/i]into a sense of complacency, while they pull their neo-fascist [i]'bait-and-switch' [/i]scam upon us and [i]swindle, plunder & loot us[/i], on behalf of their squalid families and their corporate paymasters ...
"We the People" had better wake-up and recognize that these neo-con con-artists don't grow mustaches and shout in gutteral tones with right-arms raised in salute (... [i]akin to fascist Nazi Germany [/i]...)-- They are clever and use newly devised propaganda techniques that appeal to those [i]who don't pay close attention[/i], but they are [i]deadly, very, very, very deadly[/i], just the same ...
For a good read, refer to "[i][b]I Read, I Smoke, I Spin[/b][/i]" by [i]Maureen Dowd[/i], NY Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
Laura Bush does not want that Chanel-wearing, shawl-draping, senator-marrying Teresa Heinz Kerry to get her house.
It's a swell house, with doting servants, fresh flowers and grand paintings.
And she does not want her Bushie to be tarred for lacking character, after he ascended by promising to restore character to an Oval Office still redolent of thongs and pizza.
So the reserved librarian who married the rollicking oilman on the condition that she would never have to make a political speech has suddenly transformed herself into a sharp-edged, tart-tongued, defensive protectrix of her husband's record.
Many White House reporters, including ones the first lady has been testy and sarcastic with, say they are thrilled with the new Laura. They found the old Laura "plastic" and "unreal," limited to treacly concerns about children, reading and being George's rock. The new Laura, they say, has "juice."
But I kind of miss the old Laura, the one who long ago shocked W.'s paternal grandmother by describing her interests in a way that sounded, heaven forfend, French: "[i]I read, I smoke and I admire[/i]." The new Laura reads polls, fumes and admonishes. A cool Marian the Librarian morphed into a hot Mary Matalin, running around the country spinning reporters, slicing and dicing Democrats, and raking in dough at fund-raisers.
I always had a cozy image of Laura Bush curled up in a window seat in the White House solarium, reading Dostoyevsky and petting a cat dozing beside her. She seemed beyond politics, an estimably private, utterly classy presence unsullied by the nasty edge that Bush family politics takes on when a Bush pol gets in trouble, not the sort to needle political rivals and the press or rigorously catalog injustices the way Barbara Bush did.
Not that Laura was bland. I liked the confidence with which this champion of literacy blew off the poets she'd invited to the White House last year, once she realized they planned to do to her husband what Eartha Kitt did to Lyndon Johnson — turn a cultural event into an antiwar protest. It was her party, and she could cry foul if she wanted.
During the 2000 campaign, she was content to be the serene counterpoint to her husband's boyish bouncing off the walls. She rejected Hillary's two-for-the-price-of-one mantra and told [i]The Times's [/i]Frank Bruni, "I'm not that knowledgeable about most issues. . . . And just to put in my two cents to put in my two cents — I don't think it's really necessary."
Bush advisers liked her detachment from the messy arena. They thought she made her husband seem grounded, moderate and down to earth, a contrast with the obsessive, egoistic ambition of the Clintons and Al Gore.
But this time around, it is Mr. Bush who is getting attacked on credibility and do-whatever-it-takes ambition. His strategists, panicked about chaotic Iraq, confused economic policy, cascading deficits and incoherent National Guard records, needed to draw, if you'll pardon the expression, the most unimpeachable person in the White House into the fray. They pitched her as Mr. Bush's secret weapon. Maybe, after the David Kay debacle, the White House just needed to unearth a weapon — any weapon.
The woman known for telling her husband to tone it down is now telling his critics to get lost. In an interview with [i]The Associated Press [/i]on Thursday, she said of the National Guard flap: "I think it's a political, you know, witch hunt, actually, on the part of Democrats."
Speaking to[i] The Times's [/i]Elisabeth Bumiller, a prickly Mrs. Bush defended her husband on Iraq and shared the chip on his shoulder about the East Coast elite, apparently resentful that they might consider her a 50's throwback, doing women's work.
Talking to [i]ABC's [/i]Terry Moran, Mrs. Bush harshly responded to Terry McAuliffe's AWOL charge: "I don't think it's fair to really lie about allegations about someone." She stated flatly that W. was pulling Guard duty in Alabama. When Mr. Moran asked how she knew, she replied, "Well, because he told me he was."
The last time a powerful man from Texas got into trouble and sent his wife out to defend him, it was W. contributor Kenny Boy Lay.
The president can't skirt the issues by hiding behind Laura's skirts forever. One way of showing character is to come out from behind all her protestations about his character.
|
|
|
| |
| What's Their 'Game'? ... |
| 02.22.04 (8:15 am) [edit] |
[b]What's Their '[i]Game[/i]'? ... [/b]Is Osama bin Laden about to be captured? http://www.manoramaonline.com... ... Reports are [i]rife[/i] in the media that the U.S. has Osama bin Laden [i]boxed-in [/i]and that they are awaiting orders from Dubya in order [i]to go in and get him[/i]! ... If so, why hasn't Dubya already ordered the capture of Osama bin Laden? ... Rumors are circulating that the White House wants to wait for the right 'moment', the best 'timing' to benefit Bush/Cheney [i]politically[/i] in a cynical [i]gotcha[/i] scheme devised to enflame their sordid popularity (...[i] like their Top-Gun 'Mission Accomplished' buffoonery aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln last May .[/i]..)! ... My goodness, if true, Dubya's delay is a traitorous act of treason, as every day that Osama bin Laden remains [i]free[/i], he is able to enflame the passions of his followers, increase his recruitment to attract more terrorists to his Al Qaida network, and [i]carry-out [/i]planning-and-communic ations for more terrorist attacks ...
"We the People" should demand that Congress http://www.congress.org go to Dubya and insist that he finally[i] come clean [/i]with the American people regarding the status of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida network ... We deserve a progress report [i]now[/i] ...
Consider "[i][b]A Secret Hunt Unravels in Afghanistan[/b][/i]" by Steve Coll, Washington Post, on http://www.washingtonpost.com... :
[i][b]Mission to Capture or Kill al Qaeda Leader Frustrated by Near Misses, Political Disputes [/b][/i]
The seeds of the CIA's first formal plan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden were contained in another urgent manhunt -- for Mir Aimal Kasi, the Pakistani migrant who murdered two CIA employees while spraying rounds from an assault rifle at cars idling before the entrance to the CIA's Langley headquarters in 1993.
For several years after the shooting, Kasi remained a fugitive in the border areas straddling Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. From its Langley offices, the CIA's Counterterrorist Center asked the Islamabad station for help recruiting agents who might be able to track Kasi down. Case officers signed up a group of Afghan tribal fighters who had worked for the CIA during the 1980s guerrilla war against Soviet occupying forces in Afghanistan.
The family-based team of paid agents, given the cryptonym FD/TRODPINT, set up residences around the city of Kandahar. They were rugged, bearded fighters -- often in teams of a dozen or so -- who rolled around southern Afghanistan in four-wheel-drive vehicles, blending comfortably into the region's militarized tribal society.
In the years before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the CIA carried out a secret but ultimately unsuccessful manhunt for bin Laden. It was based at first on the band of Afghan tribal agents, and later expanded to include other agents and allies, especially the legendary guerrilla leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. But the search became mired in mutual frustrations, near misses and increasingly bitter policy disputes in Washington between the Clinton White House and the CIA.
An ambitious plan for the TRODPINT team to kidnap bin Laden from his bed and hold him in an Afghan cave telegraphed the CIA's audacity, despite what operatives saw as a restrictive mandate from the president. At the same time, the CIA's inability to pinpoint bin Laden's location or capture him drew pointed questions from the White House about the agency's effectiveness.
This account, a detailed history of the pursuit of bin Laden before the terrorist attacks of 2001, describes for the first time aborted CIA plans to seize bin Laden at his Kandahar farm, another attempt to rain Katyusha rockets on him, and the final struggle to work with Massoud, all in vain. It is based on several dozen interviews with participants and officials in the United States, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as well as documents, private records and memoirs about the CIA covert action program in Afghanistan, which was designed in the 1980s to expel occupying Soviet forces and later to capture bin Laden or disrupt his activities.
When the TRODPINT team set out to find Kasi, one or two senior family members handled the face-to-face contacts with the CIA. Case officers working from the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad supplied them with cash, assault rifles, land mines, motorcycles, trucks, listening devices and secure communications equipment.
Together they concocted a bold plan to capture Kasi and fly him to the United States for trial. If the Afghan agents found Kasi, they would detain him until U.S. Special Forces secretly flew into Afghanistan to bundle the fugitive away. With the TRODPINT team acting as spotters, the CIA identified a desert landing strip near Kandahar that could be used for this clandestine American extraction flight. The White House approved the plan, and President Bill Clinton secretly dispatched a Special Forces team to southern Afghanistan to confirm the coordinates and suitability of the makeshift airstrip.
In the end, Kasi was found elsewhere. In late May 1997, an ethnic Baluch man walked into the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, and told a clerk he had information about Kasi. He was taken to a young CIA officer who was chief of base in the city. The informant handed her an application for a Pakistani driver's license recently filled out by Kasi under an alias. It contained a photo and a thumbprint that confirmed Kasi's identity.
Three weeks later, a team of CIA officers, Pakistani intelligence officers and FBI agents arrested Kasi at a Pakistani hotel, flew him to the United States and jailed him for trial. (He was convicted of murder in 1997, sentenced to death in 1998 and executed in Virginia on Nov. 14, 2002.)
In the weeks that followed Kasi's arrest, a new question was raised inside the CIA's Counterterrorist Center: What would become of their elaborately equipped and financed TRODPINT assets? The agents had filed numerous reports about where Kasi might be, but none of these had panned out. Ultimately, the team played no direct role in Kasi's arrest. Despite this questionable record, it seemed a shame to just cut them loose, some Langley officers believed.
[b]The Hunt Begins [/b]
At CIA headquarters, the unit set up to track Kasi was located in the Counterterrorist Center. A few partitions away was another small cluster of analysts and operators who made up what the CIA officially called the "bin Laden issue unit."
The unit had been created early in 1996 to watch bin Laden, who was then living in Sudan. By that point, the United States had decided for security reasons to close the embassy and CIA station in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, where officers had previously been collecting intelligence about bin Laden's financial support for Islamic radicals in North Africa and elsewhere. In the spring of 1996, Sudan yielded to international pressure to expel bin Laden. The Saudi found sanctuary in Afghanistan in May.
The CIA had no station or base in Afghanistan, however, and it had no paid agents in the country at the time, other than those hunting for Kasi near Kandahar and a few loose contacts working on drug trafficking and recovering Stinger shoulder-fired missiles, according to Tom Simons, then U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, whose account is supported by several other U.S. officials familiar with the CIA's Afghan agent roster.
Back at Langley, the bin Laden unit, using classified channels, regularly transmitted reports to policymakers about threats issued by bin Laden against American targets -- via faxed leaflets, television interviews and underground pamphlets. The CIA's analysts described bin Laden at this time as an active, dangerous financier of Islamic extremism, but they saw him as more a money source than a terrorist operator.
To senior career officers in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, the TRODPINT tribal team now beckoned as a way to watch bin Laden in Afghanistan. The paid Afghan agents could monitor or harass the Saudi up close, under CIA control -- and perhaps capture him for trial, if the White House approved such an operation. Operators and analysts in the bin Laden unit argued passionately for more active measures against him. Jeff O'Connell, then director of the Counterterrorist Center, and his deputy, Paul Pillar, agreed in the summer of 1997 to hand them control of the TRODPINT agent team, complete with its weapons and spy gear.
As bin Laden's bloodcurdling televised threats against Americans increased in number and menace during 1997, the CIA -- with approval from Clinton's White House -- turned from just watching bin Laden toward making plans to capture him.
Working with lawyers at Langley in late 1997 and early 1998, the TRODPINT agents' CIA controllers modified the original Kasi capture plan -- with its secret airstrip for extraction flights -- so it could be used to seize bin Laden and prosecute him, or kill him if he violently resisted arrest.
A long and frustrating hunt for bin Laden had formally begun.
During the three years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the hunt would eventually involve several dozen local paid CIA agents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a secret commando team drawn from Uzbek special forces, another drawn from retired Pakistani special forces and a deepening intelligence alliance with Massoud, the northern Afghan guerrilla leader. Despite these varied efforts, bin Laden continually eluded their grasp.
Years later, those involved in the secret campaign against bin Laden still disagree about why it failed -- and who is to blame.
On the front lines in Pakistan and Central Asia, working-level CIA officers felt they had a rare, urgent sense of the menace bin Laden posed before Sept. 11. Yet a number of controversial proposals to attack bin Laden were turned down by superiors at Langley or the White House, who feared the plans were poorly developed, wouldn't work or would embroil the United States in Afghanistan's then-obscure civil war. At other times, plans to track or attack bin Laden were delayed or watered down after stalemated debates inside Clinton's national security cabinet.
At Langley, CIA officers sometimes saw the Clinton cabinet as overly cautious, obsessed with legalities and unwilling to take political risks in Afghanistan by arming bin Laden's Afghan enemies and directly confronting the radical Taliban Islamic militia. But at the Clinton White House, senior policymakers and counterterrorism analysts sometimes saw the CIA's efforts in Afghanistan as timid, naïve, self-protecting and ineffective.
Some of the agency's efforts involved collecting intelligence about bin Laden's whereabouts; others grew into covert actions designed to capture or kill leaders of bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Both tracks were carried out in deep secrecy mainly by career clandestine service officers in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and the Near East Division of the agency's Directorate of Operations.
[b]Audacious Plans Take Root [/b]
As the TRODPINT team began its work on bin Laden early in 1998, a federal grand jury in New York opened a secret investigation into the Saudi's terrorist-financing activity. The probe had been prompted by a defector from bin Laden's inner circle, financial evidence from terrorist attacks in Egypt and elsewhere, and old files from earlier terrorist cases in New York. No one outside the Justice Department was supposed to know about the grand jury's work, but it began to leak to officials involved with the CIA's planning.
CIA officers working from Islamabad, led by station chief Gary Schroen, assumed in early 1998 that if their agents captured bin Laden in southern Afghanistan, a U.S. grand jury would quickly indict him. If not, the CIA or the Clinton White House would ask Egypt or Saudi Arabia to take custody of bin Laden for trial. Schroen kept asking the Counterterrorist Center at Langley, "Do we have an indictment?" The answers, according to several officials involved, were cryptic: Bin Laden was "indictable," the Islamabad station was told.
The TRODPINT team developed a detailed plan to hold bin Laden in a cave in southern Afghanistan for 30 days before U.S. Special Forces flew in secretly to take him away. The agents located a cave where they could hide out comfortably. They assured their CIA handlers that they had stored enough food and water in the cave to keep bin Laden healthy while he was there.
By imprisoning bin Laden in the cave, the agents hoped to ease his extraction. If enough time passed after bin Laden's initial capture, al Qaeda's agitated lieutenants would be less alert when the Americans flew in to bundle bin Laden off. Also, the detention would allow time to persuade either a U.S. attorney or a foreign government to hand down criminal charges.
If CIA offiers and their paid agents detained bin Laden for an eventual trial in the United States, they would be operating under the authority of Executive Order 12333, which allowed the CIA to aid the pursuit of international fugitives. The measure was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and renewed by successive presidents. A thick archive of Justice Department memorandums and court opinions upheld the right of American agents to abduct fugitives overseas and return them to U.S. courts in many instances.
At the same time, Executive Order 12333 banned assassination by the CIA or its agents. [See article at top of Page A17.] CIA officers met with their TRODPINT agents in Pakistan to emphasize that their plan to capture bin Laden and hold him in the Afghan cave could not turn into an assassination. "I want to reinforce this with you," one officer told the Afghans, as he later described the meeting in cables to Langley and Washington. "You are to capture him alive."
[b]Physical and Political Risks [/b]
As they refined their kidnapping plans in the spring of 1998, the bin Laden unit at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center looked with rising interest at Tarnak Farm. This was a compound of perhaps 100 acres that lay isolated on a stretch of desert about three miles from the Kandahar airport. On some nights, bin Laden slept at Tarnak with one of his wives. He chatted on his satellite phone in this period and lived fairly openly, protected by bodyguards. The question arose: Could the CIA's tribal agents be equipped to raid bin Laden's house and take him from his bed?
Tarnak's main compound was encircled by a mud-brick wall about 10 feet high. Inside were about 80 modest one-story and two-story structures. Flat plains of sand and sagebrush extended for miles. Kandahar's crowded bazaars lay a half-hour drive away.
CIA officers based in Islamabad spent long hours with the TRODPINT team's leaders to devise a plan to attack Tarnak in the middle of the night. The Afghans had scouted and mapped Tarnak up close; the CIA had photographed it from satellites.
The agents organized an attack party of about 30 fighters. They identified a staging point where they would assemble all of their vehicles. They would drive to a secondary rallying point a few miles from Tarnak.
The main raiding party would walk across the desert at about 2 a.m. They had scouted a path that avoided minefields and had deep gullies to mask their approach. They would breach the outer wall by crawling through a drainage ditch on the airport side.
A second group planned to roll quietly toward the front gate in two vehicles. They would carry silenced pistols to take out two guards at the entrance. Meanwhile the other attackers would have burst into the several small huts where bin Laden's wives slept. When they found the tall, bearded Saudi, they would cuff him, drag him toward the gate, and load him into a Land Cruiser. Other vehicles back at the rally point would approach in sequence and they would all drive together to the provisioned cave about 30 miles away.
Satellite photography and reports from the ground indicated that there were dozens of women and children living at Tarnak. Langley asked for detailed explanations from members of the tribal team about how they planned to minimize harm to bystanders during their assault.
The CIA officers involved thought their agents were serious, semiprofessional fighters who were trying to cooperate as best they could. Yet "if you understood the Afghan mind-set and the context," recalled an officer involved, it was clear that in any raid the Afghans would probably fire indiscriminately at some point.
In Washington, Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator, drove out to Langley late in the spring of 1998 to meet with his CIA counterpart, O'Connell, who briefed him on the details of the Tarnak attack plan and how much it would cost. O'Connell also outlined the political risks, including the potential problem of civilian casualties.
Members of the White House counterterrorism team reacted skeptically. Their sense was that the TRODPINT agents were old anti-Soviet mujaheddin who had long since passed their peak fighting years and were probably milking the CIA for money while minimizing the risks they took on the ground. If they did go through with a Tarnak raid, some White House officials feared, women and children would die and bin Laden would probably escape. Such a massacre would undermine U.S. interests in the Muslim world and elsewhere.
The CIA's top leaders reviewed the proposed raid in June 1998. The discussion revealed similar doubts among senior officers in the Directorate of Operations. In the end, as CIA Director George J. Tenet described it to colleagues years later, the CIA's relevant chain of command -- Jack Downing, then chief of the Directorate of Operations, his deputy James Pavitt, O'Connell and Pillar -- all recommended against going forward with the Tarnak raid.
By then there was no enthusiasm for the plan in the Clinton White House, either. "Am I missing something? Aren't these people going to be mowed down on their way to the wall?" Clarke asked his White House and CIA colleagues sarcastically, one official recalled.
Tenet never formally presented the raid plan for Clinton's approval, according to several officials involved.
The decision was cabled to Islamabad. The tribal team's plans should be set aside, perhaps to be revived later. Meanwhile, the agents were encouraged to continue to look for opportunities to catch bin Laden away from Tarnak, where, among other things, an ambush attempt would carry relatively little risk of civilian deaths.
Some of the working-level CIA officers involved in the planning reacted bitterly to the decision. They believed the kidnapping plan could succeed.
Less than two months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, two teams of al Qaeda suicide bombers launched synchronized attacks against two U.S. embassies in Africa. In Nairobi, Kenya, 213 people died and 4,000 were injured. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the toll was 11 dead and 85 wounded. Within months, the New York federal grand jury previously investigating bin Laden delivered an indictment of the Saudi for directing the strikes, among other alleged crimes.
At Langley's Counterterrorist Center, some CIA analysts and officers were devastated and angry as they watched the televised images of death and rescue in Africa. One of the bin Laden unit's analysts confronted Tenet. "You are responsible for those deaths," she said, "because you didn't act on the information we had, when we could have gotten him" through the Tarnak raid, one official involved recalled her saying. The woman was "crying and sobbing, and it was a very rough scene," the official said.
Tenet stood there and took it. He was a boisterous, emotional man, and he did not shrink from honest confrontation, some of his CIA colleagues felt. After the Africa attacks, Tenet redoubled his pressure on the bin Laden unit's covert campaign to find their target.
By then, however, bin Laden had dramatically increased his security. He discarded his traceable satellite phone and moved much more stealthily around Afghanistan.
For those who had worked on the Tarnak raid plan, the questions lingered. Why had the CIA's leaders turned the idea down?
Down in the trenches of a bureaucracy enveloped in secrecy, the resentments festered, amplified by rumors, office grievances and the intensity of the daily grind.
On Aug. 20, acting on intelligence reports of a scheduled meeting of bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, Clinton ordered 75 cruise missiles launched from a submarine in the Arabian Sea against a network of jihadist training camps in eastern Afghanistan. The attack killed at least 21 Pakistani volunteers but missed bin Laden.
[b]'Weekend Warriors' [/b]
By mid-1999, the sense both at the White House and in Tenet's seventh-floor suite at CIA headquarters in Langley was that the Counterterrorist Center had grown too dependent on the TRODPINT tribal agents. One of Tenet's aides referred to them derisively as "weekend warriors," middle-aged and now prosperous Afghan fighters with a few Kalashnikovs in their closets.
At the White House, among the few national security officials who knew of the agents' existence, the attitude evolved from "hopeful skepticism to outright mockery," as one official recalled it.
At one point the agents moved north to Kabul's outskirts and rented a farm as a base. They moved in and out of the Afghan capital to scout homes where bin Laden occasionally stayed. They developed a new set of plans in which they would strike a Kabul house where bin Laden slept, snatch the Saudi from his bed and retreat from the city in light trucks. The CIA supplied explosives to the agents because their plan called for them to blow up small bridges as they made their escape.
The agents never acted. Their rented farm was a working vineyard. William B. Milam, then U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, who was briefed on the operation, asked his CIA colleagues sarcastically, "So what are they waiting for -- the wine to ferment?"
To shake up the hunt, Tenet appointed a fast-track executive assistant from the seventh floor, known to his colleagues as Rich, to take charge of the bin Laden unit. Tenet also named Cofer Black, a longtime case officer in Africa who had tracked bin Laden in Sudan, as the Counterterrorist Center's new director. The bin Laden unit and its chief reported directly to Black; during the next two years they would work closely together.
When Black took over, the bin Laden unit had about 25 professionals. Most of them were women, and two-thirds had backgrounds as analysts. They called themselves "the Manson Family," after the crazed convicted murderer Charles Manson, because they had acquired a reputation within the CIA for wild alarmism about the rising al Qaeda threat.
Their reports described over and over bin Laden's specific, open threats to inflict mass casualties against Americans. They could not understand why no one else seemed to take the threat as seriously as they did. They pleaded with colleagues that bin Laden was not like the old leftist, theatrical terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s who wanted, in terrorism expert Brian Jenkins's famous maxim, "a lot of people watching but not a lot of people dead." Bin Laden wanted many American civilians to die, they warned. They could be dismissive of colleagues who did not share their sense of urgency.
"The rest of the CIA and the intelligence community looked on our efforts as eccentric and at times fanatic," recalled a former chief of the bin Laden unit. "It was a cult," agreed a U.S. official who dealt with them. "Jonestown," said another person involved, asked to sum up the unit's atmosphere. "I outlawed Kool-Aid."
Working with the Islamabad station, the bin Laden unit pushed for the recruitment of agents who could operate or travel in Afghanistan.
Some of those were informal sources, helping the CIA because of their political opposition to the Taliban. Others were recruited onto the CIA's payroll. Case officers working the Afghan borderlands began to recruit a few Taliban military leaders, including a brigade-level commander in eastern Afghanistan. One young case officer operating from Islamabad recruited six or seven Taliban commanders operating in the eastern region. Yet none of the recruited agents was close to bin Laden. The CIA could not recruit a single agent inside the core al Qaeda terrorist leadership.
Black knew that the CIA was in trouble "without penetrations" of bin Laden's organization, as a classified Counterterrorist Center briefing to Clinton's national security aides put it late in 1999. "While we need to disrupt [terrorist] operations . . . we need also to recruit sources," even though "recruiting terrorist sources is difficult."
The CIA had the best agent coverage around Kandahar. Even so, its classified tracking reports from multiple sources always seemed a day or two behind bin Laden's movements. The lack of a source in al Qaeda's inner circle made forecasting the Saudi's hour-to-hour itinerary impossible. Moreover, Kandahar was the Taliban's military stronghold. The Taliban had provided safe haven to bin Laden in Afghanistan in exchange for money and al Qaeda's troops. Even if the CIA pinpointed bin Laden downtown, there was no easy way to organize a capture operation; the attacking force would face strong opposition from Taliban units.
In the summer of 1999, a truck bomb detonated outside the Kandahar house of Taliban leader Mohammad Omar. Afterward, bin Laden used his wealth to build new compounds for the Taliban leader. In Omar's home province of Uruzgan, bin Laden built a new training complex for foreign al Qaeda volunteers.
The CIA ordered satellite imagery and agent reports to document this camp. Officers hoped bin Laden might wander in for an inspection. At one point a team of four or five Afghan agents from the original TRODPINT group approached the camp at night. Al Qaeda guards opened fire and wounded one of them, they reported.
Kabul was a relatively easy place to spy. The Afghan capital was a sprawling and ethnically diverse city, a place of strangers and travelers. At one point the CIA believed bin Laden had two wives in Kabul. He would visit their houses periodically. The Islamabad station recruited an Afghan who worked as a security guard at one of the Kabul houses bin Laden used. But the agent was so far down the al Qaeda information chain that he never knew when bin Laden was going to turn up. He was summoned to duty just as the Saudi's vehicles rolled in.
[b]Traveling 'the Circuit' [/b]
Bin Laden's travels within Afghanistan followed a somewhat predictable path. He would often ride west on the Ring Road from Kandahar, then loop north and east through Ghowr province. The CIA mapped guesthouses in obscure Ghowr, one of Afghanistan's most isolated and impoverished regions. From there the Saudi usually moved east to Kabul and then sometimes on to Jalalabad before turning south again toward Kandahar.
Americans who studied this track called it "the circuit." At the White House, counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke tried to develop logarithmic formulas that attempted to predict where bin Laden was likely to move next when he was at any given point.
The CIA's bin Laden unit sought to trap bin Laden out of "KKJ," an insider's abbreviation for the densely populated cities of Kabul, Kandahar and Jalalabad. They hoped to catch him in lightly populated rural areas. Yet they struggled to find a convincing plan.
They knew that on the ground in Afghanistan by the summer of 1999, there was only one experienced, proven guerrilla leader waging war and collecting intelligence day in and day out against the Taliban, bin Laden and their radical Islamic allies. This was the legendary Tajik guerrilla leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, a man with a long and mutually frustrating history with the CIA.
From 1997 onward, Massoud's Northern Alliance militia forces waged a brutal, existential war against the Taliban north of Kabul, often battling directly against bin Laden's Arab, Chechen and Pakistani volunteers. They knew bin Laden not only as a preacher, financier and terrorist planner, but sometimes as a military field commander who wandered near their battle lines.
There were serious doubts inside Clinton's cabinet about the history of drug trafficking and human rights violations among Massoud's Northern Alliance forces. But at the CIA, in the Counterterrorist Center, analysts and officers in the bin Laden unit knew one thing for certain: Massoud was the enemy of their enemy.
A deeper, more active, more lethal alliance with Massoud, these CIA officers argued, offered by far the best chance to capture or kill bin Laden before he struck again.
[i]Staff writer Griff Witte contributed to this report[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Advice for a Dictator And for Those Who Want to Become One ... |
| 02.21.04 (8:22 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_84033 2818.jpg[/image]
- George W. Bush, http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT...
[b]"We the People" need to become informed of all of the [i]tricks-of-the-trade [/i]in the propaganda neo-con con-game-- [/b]because we will be bombarded with a massive media onslaught of mendacious [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]perpetrated by the corrupt Bush regime henceforth ... Why should they change their insane [i]modus operandi[/i] now? ... After all, their fraudulent right-wing neo-orwellian propaganda has "[i]worked[/i]" thus far: ... Well, they're getting ready to attack us,[i] yet again [/i]in their "[i]win-at-all-cost[/i]" campaign to retain power ...
Bush's [i]Minister for Propaganda[/i]: Karl Rove, seems to be desperately trying to adhere to Joseph Goebbles' playbook, but of course, Rove is trying to[i] pass-off [/i]the imbecilic[i] ne'er-do-well [/i]Dubya as a so-called "leader [[i]sic[/i]]", for goodness sake ...
[b]Advice for a Dictator And for Those Who Want to Become One[/b]
[b]By [i]Joseph Goebbels[/i], Minister for Propaganda, Nazi Germany [/b]
1. A dictatorship requires three things: a man, an idea and a following ready to live for the man and the idea, and if necessary to die for them. If the man is lacking it is hopeless; if the idea is lacking, it is impossible; if the following is missing, than the dictatorship is only a bad joke.
2. A dictatorship can rule against a parliament when necessary, but never against the people.
3. Sitting on bayonets is uncomfortable.
4. A dictator's first task is to make what he wants popular, bringing the will of the nation in tune with his own will. Only thus will the broad masses support him in the long run and join his ranks.
5. A dictator's highest duty is social justice. If people sense that the dictator only represents a thin upper class that has nothing to do with them, they will see the dictator as a hateful enemy and quickly overthrown him.
6. Dictatorships will rescue a nation when they know better ways than the previous governmental forms that they are fighting, and when their power is so anchored in the people that they do not depend on weapons, rather on their followers.
7. A dictator does not need to follow the will of the majority. He must however have the ability to use the will of the people.
8. To lead parties and masses is the same as governing a nation. He who ruins a party will lead a nation into the abyss. Political ability is not demonstrated by using treacherous methods to rise to a ministerial chair on the labor of others.
9. Dictatorships must be able to survive on their own spiritual reserves. It will not work if what is good in their ideas comes from their opponents, and what does not come from their opponents is bad.
10. The ability to speak is no shame. It is shameful only when actions do not follow words. To speak well is good. To act bravely is even better. The typical reactionary can neither speak nor act. He has somehow gained power, but has no idea what to do with it.
11. Nothing is more foreign to dictatorial thinking than the bourgeois concept of objectivity. A dictatorship is by its very nature subjective. It takes sides by its nature. Since it is for one thing, it must be against another. If it does not do the latter, it runs the risk of having people doubt its honesty about the first.
12. A dictatorship speaks openly about what it is and what it wants. Nothing is farther from it than to hide behind a facade. It has the courage to act, but also the courage to affirm.
13. Dictatorships that hide behind the law to give themselves an appearance of legality even if their actions disagree, are short-lived. They will collapse of their own incompetence, leaving behind chaos and confusion.
14. Only those who lack the courage to join a party value being above party. When worlds collapse, when foundations shake, when revolutionary fevers spread through peoples and nations, one must join a party, one must be for or against. He who stands between will be torn apart by the contradictions, a victim of his own indecisiveness.
15. It may sound grotesque, but it is true: The nature of a dictator must be clear from his name. One can rule with a name like Müller or Meier. And the claim to a title must be fought for. It can not be gained by swindle.
16. A true dictator depends on himself. His false counterpart hides behind the rules and depends on legal paragraphs to justify his actions.
17. Everything great is simple and everything simple is great. The little man likes to conceal his insignificance through complexity.
18. The army exists to defend the country against external threats, not to suppress the people in the interests of a thin layer of usurpers. A dictatorship that cannot defend itself with its own supporters deserves to be displaced.
19. Primo de Rivera fell because his power rested on guns, but he earned only hatred and scorn from the people.
20. Mussolini's work is unshakable, for he is his people's idol. He gave back to Italy what has always been the surest and best foundation of a state: Confidence.
[b]Source[/b]:
GuerrillaNews, http://www.guerrillanews.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| Over 11 Months & Now 133 Days And Counting??? ... |
| 02.21.04 (3:08 pm) [edit] |
[b]Nearly a year ago ([i]on 20th March 2003[/i] http://www.ipsnews.net/focus/... ) the corrupt Bush regime launched its illegal and immoral incursion into Iraq, that has taken a death toll of over 547 US Soldiers and over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians-- [/b]all massacred in order to enrich the blood-thirsty Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] & their rapacious corporate-take-all paymasters: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc. ...
Their insane neo-con, neo-fascist [i]'pre-emptive' [/i]([i]i.e. neo-hitlerian[/i]) bloody aggression into a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our country or our allies (... [i]waged based upon myriad lies, deceptions & falsehoods regarding phony WMDs and phony non-existent links betten Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida ... when Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein were, in reality, enemies [/i]...) has also cost us over $102 Billion with no end in sight ... while our nation's dire needs, our citizens's miserable sufferings (... [i]e.g. lower standard of living for working people while the rich get richer, joblessness, skyrocketing poverty & homelessness, no health care for tens of millions, etc.[/i] ...), and the general welfare of all of our people continue to be neglected and unattended to ...
"We the People" should take stock of the catastrophic fiasco engineered by our insane, corrupt and incompetent government, and should demand that they be impeached from office ... Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and insist upon impeachment hearings [i]NOW[/i] ...
Refer to the [i]Center for American Progress's [/i]"[b]IRAQ: [i]133 Days And Counting[/i][/b]" on http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040220.HTM#1 :
The U.S. yesterday abandoned its plan for the transition of power in Iraq, having "essentially given up http://www.washingtonpost.com...://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5611 2-2004Feb19.html on the idea" of national caucuses. As Ivo Daalder and Anthony Lake wrote in the[i] Boston Globe [/i]earlier this week, this is the third such change in plans in 11 months http://www.boston.com/news/gl... since the invasion. The [i]WP[/i] reports, the Bush Administration instead now wants to "work with the United Nations and Iraqis to develop yet another plan http://www.washingtonpost.com...://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5611 2-2004Feb19.html for the transfer of political power by June 30." United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan concurred with the U.S. that it's not feasible to hold direct elections in Iraq by June 30, but the U.N. leader "did not...spell out details http://www.usatoday.com/news/... to help solve one of the administration's most pressing concerns in Iraq: how to create an interim government without using a complex caucus system opposed by many Iraqi political leaders, particularly among the country's Shiite Muslim majority." Annan is expected to announce recommendations for a plan next Wednesday, 2/25/04. In the meantime, the Administration is left "in the odd position of insisting on Iraqi self-rule by June 30, http://www.nytimes.com/auth/l...://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/politics/1 9DIPL.html while awaiting a recommendation from the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, on how the interim government should be chosen and the form it should take."
[u][b]HELLO, SQUARE ONE[/b][/u]: With only 133 days until the transfer of power, the White House essentially has no plan to accomplish this incredibly complex task. The U.S. rejected Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's call for open elections; Sistani stymied the U.S. push for caucuses. So now, the [i]WP[/i] writes, "the United States is effectively back at square one http://www.washingtonpost.com...://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5611 2-2004Feb19.html on how to create a provisional government to assume sovereignty. Because Iraqis have rejected other ideas, the challenge for the United States, the United Nations and Iraqi leaders will be to find a formula -- quickly -- that will provide political stability and be regarded as legitimate by the majority of Iraqis." Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer yesterday said, "There are literally dozens of ways in which to carry out this very complicated task." The problem? The U.S. has yet to find even one that could work.
[u][b]PLAYING POLITICS WITH ELECTIONS[/b][/u]: While the U.S. still lacks any plan for the transfer of power, the Administration is clinging to the June 30 transfer date. Yesterday, Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer told reporters, "Changes are possible but the date holds." The [i]NYT[/i] writes, "diplomats and even some in the Administration have begun to worry that the date reflects http://www.nytimes.com/auth/l...://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/politics/1 9DIPL.html more concern for American politics than Iraqi democracy. Their fear is that an untested government taking power on June 30 may not be strong enough to withstand the pressures bearing down on it." Today's [i]NYT[/i] editorial: "The problem is that while the June 30 date is not inherently significant to Iraqis, it matters greatly to the Bush administration, which has clung to it despite criticism that the time line is designed to fit the American electoral clock http://www.nytimes.com/auth/l...://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/opinion/20 FELD.html , not the Iraqi one."
[u][b]NO SECURITY[/b][/u]: One reason elections couldn't be held by June 30: the continuing violence in Iraq. "The problem is not only logistics, but also security: no one can guarantee the safety http://www.nytimes.com/auth/l...://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/opinion/20 FELD.html of the thousands of polling places that would be necessary for millions of Iraqi voters."
[u][b]NO CONSTITUTION[/b][/u]: One issue still to be sorted out is the interim constitution. It was previously scheduled to be finished by 2/28/04, but "has snagged on issues of religion and federalism." Religious hardliners in Iraq have been clamoring for the new Constitution to obey Islamic law. The current president of the Iraqi Governing Council Mohsen Abdel-Hamid has proposed making Islamic law the "principal basis" of legislation. Bremer, however, said the basic law "must be based on secular, democratic principles and not draw on Islam as the sole source for legislation http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/... ." Asked "what would happen if Iraqi leaders wrote into the interim charter that Islamic sharia law is the principal basis of legislation, Bremer replied, 'Our position is clear...It can't be law until I sign it.'" This stance is championed by Iraqi women's groups, who fear Islamic law "could cost them the rights they hold under Iraq's longtime secular system, especially in such areas as divorce, child support and inheritance."
[u][b]BEWARE THE GOVERNING COUNCIL[/b][/u]: One plan of action could be to expand the 25-member Governing Council, transferring power to this group as an interim government until the country is ready for elections. The Governing Council, appointed by Bremer, is reasonably representative of Iraq's various groups. The U.S. needs to be wary of its flaws, though. [i]The Economist[/i] writes, Iraqis don't trust http://www.economist.com/worl... the motives of the Council in calling for elections as soon as possible, as many "see the councilors' haste as a complex ruse to stymie any alternative to their own continuation in office." Also, the group has "a growing allergy to criticism. Its members say they believe in a free press but have shut down, albeit temporarily, the Iraqi operations of two of the Arab world's most popular satellite channels. They have formed a committee to investigate complaints of corruption, but have yet to name its head, its location or the sanctions at its disposal." There are also charges of rampant nepotism and glimmers of a return to authoritarian tactics.
|
|
|
| |
| NEW CLUES ... |
| 02.21.04 (10:01 am) [edit] |
"Petroleum is a more likely cause of international conflict than wheat." - Simone Weil
[b]The corrupt Bush regime's mendacious puppet, Ahmed Chalabi[/b] (... [i]a convicted embezzler, thief, liar & criminal[/i] ...) has publicly declared that it "doesn't matter" that he [i]lied, deceived and falsified [/i]information in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein ... Uh-huh, because he wants to rule Iraq and become the new dictator enriching himself & his sordid family ... The neo-con, neo-fascists including Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. (... [i]Dubya's too stupid to know what is going in Iraq and idiotically just "hopes for the best" [/i]...) all want Chalabi to be their new "Saddam Hussein" since he's willing to commit crimes in accordance with the Bushies' lust for global hegemony, oil and riches ...
A real problem remains however, that the well-educated Iraqi people [i]can't stand [/i]the goon & thug Chalabi who they know [i]is no better [/i]than Saddam Hussein ... Instead, the Bush regime's insane, immoral and illegal U.S. Occupation of Iraq and Chalabi ([i]the Bushies & Chalabi are swindling, plundering & looting Iraq & the American taxpayer in the biggest swindle in our nation's history[/i]) are tyrannical imperialists and dictatorial criminals who are raping, massacring and brutalizing the Iraqi people ... Over 10,000 Iraqis have been slaughtered by the corrupt Bush regime, in order to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc.
To extricate ourselves from these neo-con criminals who have hijacked our nation and imperilled our country, please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand the impeachment of Bush, Cheney and their entire gang of traitorous thugs and criminal goons ... "We the People" must reclaim our heritage and stand against tyranny ...
Consider "[i][b]Chalabi, Garner Provide New Clues to War[/b][/i]" by Jim Lobe on http://antiwar.com/lobe/?arti... :
For those still puzzling over the whys and wherefores of Washington's invasion of Iraq 11 months ago, major new, but curiously unnoticed, clues were offered this week by two central players in the events leading up to the war.
Both clues tend to confirm growing suspicions that the Bush administration's drive to war in Iraq had very little, if anything, to do with the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or his alleged ties to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda – the two main reasons the U.S. Congress and public were given for the invasion.
Separate statements by Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), and US retired Gen. Jay Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering postwar reconstruction from January through May 2002, suggest that other, less public motives were behind the war, none of which concerned self-defense, preemptive or otherwise.
The statement by Chalabi, on whom the neo-conservative and right-wing hawks in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office are still resting their hopes for a transition that will protect Washington's many interests in Iraq, will certainly interest congressional committees investigating why the intelligence on WMD before the war was so far off the mark.
In a remarkably frank interview with the [i]London Daily Telegraph[/i], Chalabi said he was willing to take full responsibility for the INC's role in providing misleading intelligence and defectors to President George W. Bush, Congress and the US public to persuade them that Hussein posed a serious threat to the United States that had to be dealt with urgently.
[i]The Telegraph [/i]reported that Chalabi merely shrugged off accusations his group had deliberately misled the administration. "[i]We are heroes in error[/i]," he said.
"[i]As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful," he told the newspaper[/i]. "That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."
It was an amazing admission, and certain to fuel growing suspicions on Capitol Hill that Chalabi, whose INC received millions of dollars in taxpayer money over the past decade, effectively conspired with his supporters in and around the administration to take the United States to war on pretenses they knew, or had reason to know, were false.
Indeed, it now appears increasingly that defectors handled by the INC were sources for the most spectacular and detailed – if completely unfounded – information about Hussein's alleged WMD programs, not only to US intelligence agencies, but also to US mainstream media, especially the [i]New York Times[/i], according to a recent report in the[i] New York Review of Books[/i].
Within the administration, Chalabi worked most closely with those who had championed his cause for a decade, particularly neo-conservatives around Cheney and Rumsfeld – Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby.
Feith's office was home to the office of special plans (OSP) whose two staff members and dozens of consultants were tasked with reviewing raw intelligence to develop the strongest possible case that Hussein represented a compelling threat to the United States.
OSP also worked with the defense policy board (DPB), a hand-picked group of mostly neo-conservative hawks chaired until just before the war by Richard Perle, a longtime Chalabi friend.
DPB members, particularly Perle, former CIA director James Woolsey and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, played prominent roles in publicizing through the media reports by INC defectors and other alleged evidence developed by OSP that made Hussein appear as scary as possible.
Chalabi even participated in a secret DPB meeting just a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon in which the main topic of discussion, according to the Wall Street Journal, was how 9/11 could be used as a pretext for attacking Iraq.
The OSP and a parallel group under Feith, the[i] Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group[/i], have become central targets of congressional investigators, according to aides on Capitol Hill, while unconfirmed rumors circulated here this week that members of the DPB are also under investigation.
The question, of course, is whether the individuals involved were themselves taken in by what Chalabi and the INC told them or whether they were willing collaborators in distorting the intelligence in order to move the country to war for their own reasons..
It appears that Chalabi, whose family, it was reported this week, has extensive interests in a company that has already been awarded more than 400 million dollars in reconstruction contracts, is signaling his willingness to take all of the blame, or credit, for the faulty intelligence.
But one of the reasons for going to war was suggested quite directly by Garner – who also worked closely with Chalabi and the same cohort of US hawks in the run-up to the war and during the first few weeks of occupation – in an interview with [i]The National Journal[/i].
Asked how long US troops might remain in Iraq, Garner replied, "[i]I hope they're there a long time[/i]," and then compared US goals in Iraq to US military bases in the Philippines between 1898 and 1992.
"[i]One of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights with (the Iraqi authorities)," he said. "And I think we'll have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south ... we'd want to keep at least a brigade[/i]."
"[i]Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East[/i]," Garner added.
While US military strategists have hinted for some time that a major goal of war was to establish several bases in Iraq, particularly given the ongoing military withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, Garner is the first to state it so baldly.
Until now, US military chiefs have suggested they need to retain a military presence just to ensure stability for several years, during which they expect to draw down their forces.
If indeed Garner's understanding represents the thinking of his former bosses, then the ongoing struggle between Cheney and the Pentagon on the one hand and the State Department on the other over how much control Washington is willing to give the United Nations over the transition to Iraqi rule becomes more comprehensible.
Ceding too much control, particularly before a base agreement can be reached with whatever Iraqi authority will take over Jun. 30, will make permanent US bases much less likely.
[i]Jim Lobe, works as Inter Press Service's correspondent in the Washington, D.C., bureau. He has followed the ups and downs of neo-conservatives since well before their rise in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| The Bush Tax Increase ... |
| 02.21.04 (8:24 am) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime has perpetrated a heinous fraud upon this nation ... [/b]Dubya is a known liar and thief who has awarded massive[i] tax cuts, tax loopholes and boondoggles [/i]to rapacious corporations, gluttonous corporate robber-barons, hyper-rich oligarchs and the wealthiest plutocrats ... As Bush and his neo-con, neo-fascist gang of criminals carry-out the largest embezzlement scam in our nation's history, perpetrated upon average and working class Americans, our nation's wealthy is being callously, recklessly and wantonly re-distributed into the bulging pockets of the Bush gang and their immoral supporters ...
Meanwhile, the rest of us must bear the [i]back-breaking [/i]and [i]heart-breaking burden [/i]of paying for the lavish and obscene life-styles of these brutish Bush gluttons, swindlers and rapists ... while our own standard of living diminishes and the miserable hardships and unconscionable suffering of tens of millions of our fellow countrymen continue to be cruelly neglected ...
"We the People" must reclaim our nation from the traitorous Bushies who have betrayed the promise of promoting the General Welfare as [i]set out [/i]in the U.S. Constitution ...
Consider "[i][b]The Bush Tax Increase[/b][/i]" by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.
[u][b]DIRECT TAX INCREASES PROPOSED IN THE BUSH BUDGET[/b][/u]: President Bush's 2004 budget proposed an increase of $5.9 billion in fees on taxpayers from just one year ago. In 2005, the Bush budget assumes the "government will take in 13% more in taxes and fees next year than in fiscal 2004." [[b]Source[/b]: [i]WP, 2/19/03, Boston Globe, 2/3/04[/i]]
[u][b]STATE TAX INCREASES, BROUGHT ON BY BUSH BUDGET[/b][/u]: The latest Bush tax bill/budget proposes a 3% decrease to federal grants to states, a $16 billion decrease in state tax revenues - all while proposing between $23-$82 billion in unfunded mandates. Because of this "millions of American individuals and businesses face tax hikes this year... wiping out the savings that some taxpayers would otherwise see on their federal 1040." Since President Bush took office, states have raised taxes by a total of $14.5 billion, after 7 consecutive years of cutting taxes. The total 2003 net tax increase was $6.9 billion for the 42 reporting states – following a 2002 net tax increase of $9.1 billion. Seventeen states raised taxes by more than 1% with four states raising taxes by at least 5%. USA Today reports "squeezed by tight budgets, Republicans in at least a dozen state legislatures across the country are feuding over the party's bedrock principles of holding down spending and not raising taxes." Similarly, the Wall Street Journal noted, Republicans in states all over the country "are undercutting the election-year message: They are for raising taxes...Worried about declines in schools and basic services, many Republican leaders in the states say they have little choice." [[b]Source[/b]: [i]CBPP, 10/17/03 http://www.cbpp.org/10-17-03s... , 6/3/03 http://www.cbpp.org/6-3-03sfp... & 2/3/04 http://www.cbpp.org/6-3-03sfp... ; Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; NCSL, 2003 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/... ; USA Today, 2/9/04 http://www.usatoday.com/news/... ; WSJ, 2/20/04 http://users2.wsj.com/WebInte...%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2CSB 107724124060934820%2C00.html%3Fmod%3Dpolitics_pri mary_hs [/i]]
[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES[/b][/u]: Since President Bush took office, state colleges and universities across the nation imposed their "steepest tuition and fee increases in a decade" – some as high as 40%. Tuitions rose at public institutions in all of the 37 states responding to a recent nationwide study, almost all due to federal/state budget cuts in the state budgets. In the 2003-04 academic year, college tuition and fees increased an average of $579 at public universities, $1,114 at private institutions, and $231 at two-year public colleges. Meanwhile, the Administration proposed a rule change that would deny Pell Grants to 84,000 students, while freeze funding the program. Bush's latest budget also proposes to "prohibit agencies from waiving a 1% Stafford Loan fee and forces students to collectively pay $1 million in interest each year." [[b]Source[/b]: [i]Washington Post, 7/22/03; U-Wire, 2/6/04[/i]]
[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON VETERANS[/b][/u]: "Two years after tripling the co-payment that veterans pay for prescription drugs the Department of Veterans Affairs wants to raise it again." Specifically, President Bush's 2005 budget would increase prescription "drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans." In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7." Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) said the proposal raises questions about the impact on "near-poor" veterans whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new premium. Meanwhile, the American Legion called it "utterly ridiculous." [[b]Sources[/b]: [i]Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/7/04; WP, 2/19/03[/i]]
[u][b]PROPERTY TAX INCREASES[/b][/u]: The Administration has left a $9 billion hole in funding its own education bill. That unfunded mandate, along with "cuts in federal taxes and programs have shoved some of the tax burden down to states and municipalities" forcing them to "hike property taxes to pay for schools and other services." As one expert noted "county and city governments have been raising taxes" with "property tax collections rising more than 10%" last year alone. [[b]Source[/b]: [i]Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; PPI, 2003[/i] http://www.ndol.org/blueprint... ]
[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON LOW-INCOME FAMILIES & KIDS[/b][/u]: According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, 32 states have effectively increased taxes on low-income families by raising their Medicaid co-payments. Additionally, "50 states reduced or froze payments to Medicaid providers, 34 states have reduced or restricted Medicaid eligibility, 35 states have reduced Medicaid benefits." In Florida, for instance, deficits caused by tax cuts have left more than 80,000 kids on waiting lists for health care. Overall, because of these tax Medicaid fee increases and deficits, 1.7 million people could lose minimum health coverage. [[b]Source[/b]: [i]National Association of State Budget Officers, 12/2003 http://www.nasbo.org/Publicat... ; CBPP, 3/20/03[/i] http://www.cbpp.org/3-20-03sf... ]
[u][b]CEMENTING TAX INCREASE ON USERS OF PUBLIC PARKS[/b][/u]: The Bush Administration proposed to make "entrance fees at some national forests and parks permanent, opening the door to new charges at some locations." [[b]Source[/b]: [i]WP, 19/03[/i]]
[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON SMALL BUSINESSES[/b][/u]: The Bush Budget proposes to eliminate funding for the Small Business Administration's "flagship 7(a) loan program" – a program "which backs 40% of all long-term lending to the country's small businesses" – and instead fund it by a massive fee increase on borrowers. Because of the cut, "hundreds of small businesses have been caught in a vise." According to Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-NY), ranking minority member on the Small Business Committee, the move "leaves small businesses shouldering yet another tax" at the same time President Bush's supposed "small business tax cuts" leave roughly 96% of small business with almost nothing. [[b]Source[/b]: [i]States News Service, 2/2/04; Chicago Tribune, 2/2/04; CBPP, 5/3/01[/i] http://www.cbpp.org/5-3-01tax... ]
[u][b]DEFICITS MEANS TAX INCREASES TO COME[/b][/u]: Reagan supply side guru Bruce Bartlett "is beginning to sound the alarm that Bush's [b]tax-less, spend-more budgets are unsustainable and will force the president to raise taxes[/b]." As he says, "These tax increases, when they come, are the result of conscious deliberate decisions this Administration made." His bet for next year or the year after: "A tax increase of more than $100 billion a year." [[b]Source[/b]: [i]Wall Street Journal, 2/19/04 [/i] http://users1.wsj.com/WebInte...%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2CSB 107714710806633229%2C00.html%3Fmod%3Dpolitics_sec ondary_stories_hs ]
|
|
|
| |
| Emperor Bush Places Cronies on the Bench & Bypasses Congress ... |
| 02.20.04 (4:55 pm) [edit] |
[b]Emperor Bush has placed another of his corrupt cronies on the bench, and has bypassed Congress to do so ... Clearly the corrupt Bush regime has [i]no respect [/i]for the rule of law, [i]no respect [/i]for the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, and [i]no respect [/i]for "We the People" ...[/b]
What is astounding is that there is no loud and wide-spread [i]hue-and-cry [/i]arising from an angry American populace and from an outraged Congress that insists upon reversing the imperial neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] appalling systematic dismantlement and under-mining of our democratic institutions ...
So if Dubya[i] ain't [/i]able to build consensus (... [i]something the Liar-N-Thief claimed he was good at, but is crap at [/i]...)-- he simply behaves like a despicable tyrannical dictator ... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and express your outrage at this usurping of our system of[i] checks-and-balances [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]Bush Installs Judge, Bypassing Senate[/b][/i]" by [i]Jeffrey McMurray, Associated Press[/i], on http://www.guardian.co.uk/usl...,1282,-3771470,00.html :
WASHINGTON (AP) - Bypassing angry Senate Democrats, President Bush installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as a U.S. appeals court judge on Friday in his second ``recess appointment'' of a controversial nominee in five weeks.
Pryor's federal appointment has been vigorously opposed by Democratic senators who have objected to his past comments and writings on abortion and homosexuality.
Bush praised Pryor as a ``leading American lawyer'' and said he had been pushed past the Senate's normal confirmation process because of ``unprecedented obstructionist tactics'' against Pryor and five other nominees.
The president said of the Democratic blockers: ``Their tactics are inconsistent with the Senate's constitutional responsibility and are hurting our judicial system.''
Pryor was immediately sworn in in Alabama by another 11th Circuit judge.
The Constitution gives the president authority to install nominees in office when Congress is not in session. Both houses were out this week for the Presidents Day holiday. But the appointments are good only until the end of the next session of Congress, in this case the end of 2005.
Last month, Bush used a similar appointment to promote Mississippi federal judge Charles Pickering to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bush said Pryor's ``impressive record demonstrates his devotion to the rule of law and to treating all people equally under the law.''
However, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said none of Bush's nominees is more controversial than Pryor.
``Actions like this show the American people that this White House will stop at nothing to try to turn the independent federal judiciary into an arm of the Republican Party,'' Leahy said.
Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Pryor ``has a long record of vigorous efforts to deny Americans' basic rights under our laws.''
``This is one more example of why we need a new president,'' said Edwards, D-N.C., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the appointment was ``a constitutional response to an unconstitutional filibuster.''
``I've always heard that when you have nothing else to say, you call people names,'' Cornyn said. ``That's apparently what Democrats are now resorting to, just name calling. Bill Pryor is a very qualified, highly professional nominee who has a proven track record of enforcing the law, rather than his own personal agenda.''
Bush picked Pryor last April for a seat on the 11th Circuit that covers Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Abortion rights advocates immediately mounted a campaign against the nominee, citing his criticism of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that said women had a constitutional right to terminate pregnancy.
Pryor also came under fire for filing a Supreme Court brief in a Texas sodomy case comparing homosexual acts to ``prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia.''
Republicans have been unsuccessful in five attempts, the last one in November, at breaking through the parliamentary blockade that Democrats erected against Pryor's nomination.
Pryor, 41, is a founder of the Republican Attorneys General Association, which raises money for GOP attorneys general.
Besides Pickering and Pryor, Democrats also have used filibusters to block Bush's appeals court nominations of Judge Priscilla Owen, Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada and judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown. Estrada withdrew his nomination in September.
While Pryor didn't speak to reporters Friday, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a close friend and Pryor's predecessor as Alabama's attorney general, said he had talked to him on the phone and found him to be ``very comfortable with the situation.''
Many Alabama Republicans remain angry at Pryor for leading the charge to oust the state's chief justice, Roy Moore, for refusing to abide by federal court orders requiring him to move a Ten Commandments monument from his courthouse.
Supporters hope almost two years on the federal appeals court will prove to Democrats that Pryor, as they say he showed in the Ten Commandments case, is willing to look at more than one side of an issue.
|
|
|
| |
| Running Scared: GOP Wake-Up To Possibility That Bush May Lose!!! |
| 02.20.04 (1:29 pm) [edit] |
[b]The GOP is starting to panic and therefore we can expect a[i] massive & vile onslaught [/i]of putrid neo-orwellian [i]lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]coming our way in the [i]not-too-distant [/i]future ... [/b]Already GOP leaders have gone to Bush and asked him to dump one of his many liabilities, the Veep-[i]N[/i]-Creep Cheney ... And with current poll numbers http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO... showing the Democratic Candidates in a double-digit lead over Bush, they are starting to become [i]really, really [/i]scared ...
"We the People" must be ever vigilent in order to topple the corrupt neo-fascist Bush regime, as they have amassed so much money (... [i]from rapacious corporations & corporate robber-barons, greedy oligarchs & obscene plutocrats [/i]...) and an enormous propaganda machine [i]rearing-up[/i] to spread malicious [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]regarding [i]Democratic candidates[/i]-- regarding [i]their own squalid failures[/i]-- and, regarding[i] their own future lusts for everlasting warfare, sordid swindles and immoral [i](& possibly illegal[/i]) embezzlement scams of this great nation [/i]...
Remember that this lawless "[i]win-at-all-cost[/i]" neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] will do [i]anything[/i], absolutely [i]anything to "win"-- [/i]even if it means[i] lying, breaking the law[/i], and/or [i]destroying our country [/i]...
Consider "[b]Running scared: [i]GOP faithful wake up to the possibility that Bush could lose[/i][/b]" by [i]Wayne Washington, Boston Globe[/i], on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
[b]WASHINGTON [/b]-- Republicans are increasingly worried about President Bush's reelection prospects as he struggles to combat questions about his credibility and as some polls released this week indicate that he is trailing his Democratic rivals by significant margins.
Members of the president's party said he must better control the information coming out of the administration -- which in the last two weeks has been forced to backtrack on an assertion that "outsourcing" jobs overseas is good for the economy and on an overly rosy jobs forecast. They also want him to control surging government spending that has opened him up to charges of fiscal irresponsibility.
A poll released yesterday by the nonpartisan [i]Pew Research Center [/i]indicated sharp increases in the numbers of voters concerned about the rising deficit and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That poll indicated Bush was tied with Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts in a prospective matchup, but others indicated Kerry was far ahead -- 12 percentage points in a [i]CNN poll [/i]by the [i]Gallup[/i] organization.
"I would describe the mood among conservatives right now as frightened," said Stephen Moore, president of the [i]Club for Growth[/i], a conservative advocacy group that supports Republican policies.
[b]For the entire story,[i] click onto [/i][/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| "'The President is Not a Statistician'" ... Uh-huh ... |
| 02.20.04 (1:12 pm) [edit] |
"[i]'The President is Not a Statistician'[/i]" - White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's hilariously ludicrous defense of Bush's [i]Flip-Flop [/i]on jobs
[b]Of course, Bush is not "a statistician" ... However, Bush is not [i]many [/i]things: [/b]Bush is not "a thinker" ... Bush is not "honest" ... Bush is not "compassionate" ... Bush is not "terribly bright" ... Bush is not "knowledgeable of history" ... Bush is not "brave" ... Bush is not "knowledgeable of economics" ... Bush is not "honorable" ... Bush is not "wise" ... etc. etc. etc. ... Oh, and apparently Bush [i]doesn't even know (or remember?) [/i]what he approves and/or signs: as he signed the job creation plan which he now is blaming on others (... [i]e.g. like blaming the WMDs fiasco on others [/i]...) ...
The[i] bottom-line [/i]is that "We the People" have been [i]saddled[/i] with a[i] shallow, mean-spirited, imbecilic ne'er-do-well, crook and liar [/i]for president, who is beholden to corporations, special interests and the hyper-rich oligarchs & plutocrats who put him in office ... It's time for a change!
Consider "[i][b]'The President is Not a Statistician'[/b][/i]" by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
In what could be the understatement of the year, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan disavowed the administration’s economic plan for the second time in less than one week, backtracking on its projection of 2.6 million new jobs for 2004 after sidestepping claims that sending jobs overseas is good for the nation. But it doesn’t take a background in econometrics to recognize the president’s massive, supply-side tax cuts for the rich have done almost nothing for struggling middle class families looking for good work and solid pay. The president promised substantial employment growth from his three rounds of tax cuts yet has delivered only net job losses – 2.3 million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in 2001, the worst employment record since the Great Depression.
[b]1. The Bush administration has consistently misled the public with overly optimistic job growth projections that don’t hold up to basic scrutiny[/b]. As the Economic Policy Institute and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report, the White House last year projected average employment would increase by 1.7 million new jobs above 2002 levels, when in reality it declined by 400,000 jobs. The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) now estimates 5.6 million fewer jobs for 2004 than was projected in its 2002 report. And yesterday the chairman of the CEA, N. Gregory Mankiw, refused to endorse any employment figure simply stating, "We expect a robust job market in 2004."
[b]2. The economy would have to generate 450,000 jobs per month in order to meet the president's misleading job promises – four times higher than the average rate in January 2004[/b]. The president doesn’t want to muck up the rosy economic picture he’s painting in an election year, and has quietly told his own Treasury and Commerce secretaries to back off the administration’s phony job numbers. But the evidence speaks louder than any White House spin – the president’s economic plans simply don’t work.
[b]3. Massive tax cuts for the rich have failed to create adequate job opportunities or address the needs of struggling families trying to deal with rising costs and debt[/b]. The White House’s refusal to endorse its own economic projections sends a strong signal to working families – if the administration can't stand by its own economic numbers, why should the American public believe its larger claim that tax cuts create jobs and relieve economic burdens?
|
|
|
| |
| What Ever Happened to Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay??? ... |
| 02.19.04 (3:18 pm) [edit] |
[b]What ever happened to Dubya's good buddy, Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay??? [/b]"Kenny-boy" [[i]Bush's nickname for his long-time crony[/i]] was involved in Cheney's corrupt Energy '[i]Swindle[/i]' meetings held prior to 9/11, and whereby Big Oil & Energy Corporations defined their Energy Policy Embezzlement Scheme that [i]screwed-over and scammed American workers and the rest of us poor dupes [/i]... and subsequently led to the vile swindle and plunder of US taxpayers in a phony staged energy shortage devised to loot and steal many billions of dollars from us ... Of course, now Cheney has immorally [i](& possibly illegally[/i]) [i]wined-and-dined[/i] the vile [i]'Quack-Quack' [/i]Scalia ([i]who refuses to recuse himself[/i]) and who is supposed to decide upon[i] whether or not [/i]some information from these Energy '[i]Swindle[/i]' meetings will be made public ... Aren't we supposed to live in a transparent democracy accountable to the American people-- instead of the[i] neo-fascist military junta [/i]put in place by the putrid Bush regime?
"We the People" are witnessing the corrupt Bush regime's abuse of power, as they have protected their [i]criminal-in-arms[/i], Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay-- who should have been tried, found guilty and put in jail ([i]and have his ill-gotten gains confiscated[/i]) [i]by now [/i]for raping Enron employees, pension plans, consumers and investors ...
Currently, one of Kenny-boy's [i]minions[/i] is desperately trying to escape justice ... but why haven't the Feds gone after Kenny-boy? Would Dubya's good buddy, Kenny-boy have [i]too much to tell the world [/i]that would implicate the despicable Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] in his sordid & squalid crimes?
Refer to "[i][b]Ex-Enron CEO indicted[/b][/i]" by [i]The Associated Press[/i], on http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... :
[i][b]Former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in handcuffs, arrives at the federal courthouse Thursday. Skilling turned himself in at FBI headquarters in Houston earlier Thursday morning[/b][/i].
HOUSTON - Jeffrey Skilling, the former Enron chief executive who resigned months before the company shattered in scandal, surrendered Thursday and pleaded innocent to more than three dozen federal charges in the company’s collapse.
The indictment unsealed Thursday accused Skilling and Richard Causey, Enron Corp.’s former chief accounting officer, of participating in widespread schemes to mislead government regulators and investors about the company’s earnings. Causey was indicted a month ago and is free on $500,000 bond.
“I plead not guilty to all counts,” Skilling told U.S. Magistrate Judge Frances Stacy, who set his bond at $5 million.
Skilling posted the bond with a cashier’s check and emerged from the courthouse at midmorning.
Prosecutors said he could face up to 325 years in prison and over $80 million in fines if convicted of all 40 counts that name him. Another court appearance for Skilling was set for March 11.
Defense attorney Dan Petrocelli said prosecutors “were making a grave mistake” and that Skilling had cooperated fully with investigators and government panels looking into Enron’s collapse.
“Jeff Skilling has nothing to hide,” Petrocelli said. “He did not steal. He did not lie. He did not take anyone’s money, and in the 60 pages of charges filed by the United States government, they don’t even accuse him of these things, and it’s not from lack of trying.”
Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who heads the Justice Department’s corporate fraud task force, said in a statement from Washington that Skilling and other Enron executives were responsible for a “massive, complex scheme to give shareholders and the investing public the false appearance of financial strength and security at a time when Enron was, in fact, failing.”
“The indictment of Enron’s CEO shows that we will follow the evidence wherever it leads — even to the top of the corporate ladder,” Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray said.
[b]For the rest of the article & the time-line of Enron's rise & fall, click on [/b] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
[b]Also refer to [/b]"Ken Lay: Bush Pioneer" on http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/k... and "Despite President's Denials, Enron & Lay Were Early Backers of Bush" on http://www.tpj.org/press_rele...
|
|
|
| |
| Neo-Con CONservatives ... |
| 02.19.04 (1:25 pm) [edit] |
[image]WinstonSmith_54408 4593.gif[/image]
"[i]The number-crunchers will do their job. ...The president has said he is not a statistician. He is most concerned about whether people are hurting and able to find jobs[/i]." - Scott McClellan, as the White House [i]backed off [/i]its own prediction that the economy would gain 2.6 million jobs by year's end. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...
[b]Dubya[/b] indeed [i]ain't [/i]a statistician-- [i]that's obvious [/i]... Apparently he also[i] ain't [/i]careful about what he [i]signs or agrees to [/i]-- as Dubya signed his White House team's report that[i] lied [/i]about job creation ...
"We the People" [i]ain't[/i] all fooled by Dubya's neo-con CONservative games ...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Regime Lies About Everything, Including Science!!! |
| 02.19.04 (12:17 pm) [edit] |
[b]Apparently there isn't any domaine of political, social or economic life that the Bush regime doesn't lie about ... [/b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]led us into an insane, illegal & immoral war in Iraq based upon myriad,[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]... They have led us into a reckless economic train-wreck[i] racking-up the largest national debt of over $7 Trillion in our nation's history [/i]as working people are headed for untold hardships, misery and suffering to bizarrely pay-off the lavish, obese and obscene life-styles of the rich & famous ... and, they [i]also even lie [/i]about their hypocritical faith and so-called "morality" while[i] their ruthless & irresponsible actions betray themselves as highly immoral, lawless and unchristian [/i]neo-con, neo-fascist criminals, thugs & goons ...
"We the People" should loudly complain to Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that the corrupt Bush regime be impeached from office for the betrayal of our nation and their [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... We know that the corrupt Bush regime has [i]no respect [/i]for the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Now we can observe that they don't even have any [i]respect for reality or science[/i] ...
Consider also "[i][b]Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts[/b][/i]" by[i] JAMES GLANZ[/i], NY TIMES, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
[b]More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had [i]systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals [/i]on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad[/b].
The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations.
The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.
"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systemically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."
Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke during the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried, who is also chairman of the board of directors at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the administration had a "cavalier attitude towards science" that could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.
Dr. John H. Marburger III, science adviser to President Bush and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, said it was important to listen to "the distinguished scientific leadership in this country." But he said the report consisted of a largely disconnected list of events that did not make the case for a suppression of good scientific advice by the administration.
"I think there are incidents where people have got their feathers ruffled," Dr. Marburger said. "But I don't think they add up to a big pattern of disrespect."
"In most cases," he added, "these are not profound actions that were taken as the result of a policy. They are individual actions that are part of the normal processes within the agencies."
The science adviser to Mr. Bush's father, Dr. D. Allan Bromley, went further. "You know perfectly well that it is very clearly a politically motivated statement," said Dr. Bromley, a physicist at Yale. "The statements that are there are broad sweeping generalizations for which there is very little detailed backup."
The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape. The report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare, much longer than originally planned, and was released as soon as it was ready.
"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who spoke during the call and served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue."
The letter was signed by luminaries from an array of disciplines. Among the Nobel winners are David Baltimore and Harold Varmus, both biomedical researchers, and Leon M. Lederman, Norman F. Ramsey and Steven Weinberg, who are physicists. The full list of signatories and the union's report can be found at www.ucsusa.org.
Aside from some new interviews with current and former government scientists, some identified in the report and others quoted anonymously, most of the information in the documents had been reported previously by a variety of major newspapers, magazines, scientific journals and nongovernmental organizations.
According to the report, the Bush administration has misrepresented scientific consensus on global warming, censored at least one report on climate change, manipulated scientific findings on the emissions of mercury from power plants and suppressed information on condom use.
The report asserts that the administration also allowed industries with conflicts of interest to influence technical advisory committees, disbanded for political reasons one panel on arms control and subjected other prospective members of scientific panels to political litmus tests.
Dr. Marburger said he was unconvinced by the report's description of those incidents. "I don't think it makes the case for the sweeping accusations that it makes," he said.
But Dr. Sidney Drell, an emeritus professor of physics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who was not a signatory to the statement, said the overall findings rang true to him.
"I am concerned that the scientific advice coming into this administration seems to me very narrow," said Dr. Drell, who has advised the government on issues of national security for some 40 years and has served in Democratic and Republican administrations, including those of Presidents Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson. "The input from individuals whose views are not in the main line of their policy don't seem to be sought or welcomed," he said.
|
|
|
| |
| Funny Right-Wingers Smear The Left With SEX RUMORS, While Hiding Their OWN ... |
| 02.19.04 (8:17 am) [edit] |
[b]Karl ([i]Bush's Brain & America's Joseph Goebbles[/i]) Rove must be very, very, very busy these days ... [/b]what [i]with all [/i]of the neo-con, neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda fabricated by the Bush gang [i]in order to cover-up[/i] their many, many, many [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] regarding their phony WMDs fantasies and their botched-up bloody guerrilla quagmire in Iraq ... [i]in order to cover-up [/i]their [i]felony[/i] in outing an undercover CIA operative in a petty & illegal act of revenge against her husband for telling the truth ... [i]in order to cover-up [/i]their criminal mismanagement and malfeasance in [i]swindling, plundering and looting [/i]the American people out of hundreds of billions, even trillions of taxpayer dollars all funnelled into the bulging pockets of their corporate cronies and hyper-rich campaign contributors ... [i]in order to cover-up [/i]an economy that Dubya has [i]raped and has gone horribly sour [/i]for working people while the Bushies & their rich cronies live like gluttonous neo-emperors ... etc. etc. etc.
Yes, it is no wonder that their current clumsy and idiotic [i]smear campaign [/i]full of more[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]waged against John Kerry and other Democrats is the [i]laughing stock [/i]of Washington DC and the entire world! [[i]For example, Kerry's fabricated "affair" has turned out to be another LIE[/i], http://www.salon.com/opinion/... ]
"We the People" must be[i] very, very, very wary [/i]of any and all of the mendacious garbage, smears, insults and character assassinations that the putrid neo-con right-wingers disseminate, in their desperate and corrupt "[i]win at all cost[/i]" ([i]even if they have to break the law & destroy our nation to do so[/i] ...) presidential campaign ... for the insane Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] have [i]no respect [/i]for the Rule of Law,[i] no respect [/i]for the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, and[i] no respect [/i]for "We the People".
Consider [i]Joe Conason's [/i]assessment:
[b]Why was it OK to write about George H.W. Bush's alleged affairs in 1992, while bashing Drudge's scandal-mongering today? Because the right still uses sex rumors to smear Democrats while protecting its own adulterers[/b].
With the so-called Kerry intern story dead, http://www.salon.com/opinion/... now that the woman with whom the Massachusetts senator supposedly had an affair has convincingly denied it, all that remains of this evanescent "scandal" is the old debate over when, if ever, the press should delve into the private lives of political candidates. In an election year, that is always a pertinent and complicated question. But a few eager promoters of the Kerry story, no doubt disappointed by now, are deflecting their frustration onto those who wondered publicly whether Kerry's personal affairs merit such scrutiny.
On Sunday, as his scoop began to disintegrate, Matt Drudge sniped at his critics. He noted archly that while certain "main press players" had criticized him for "revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman," those same journalists had once "peppered" the first President Bush with "questions surrounding an infidelity rumor." Drudge included me in that list -- along with Helen Thomas, Jonathan Alter and several television correspondents. And at first glance, he had a point.
In my column last week examining the Kerry flurry, I urged reporters to consider whether "the rumor of a private peccadillo deserves their attention and resources in the 2004 campaign." Yet 12 years ago, during the 1992 presidential campaign, I wrote a cover story for Spy magazine about rumors and allegations swirling around the first President Bush's personal affairs.
Drudge perceived a contradiction -- and now an Internet blogger and a newspaper gossip have arraigned me for hypocrisy.
Flattering as it is to be insulted by the likes of Mickey Kaus, I believe readers deserve a better account of that episode than he offered. He actually didn't bother to read the Spy article, which I would have faxed to him if he had only asked. (Neither did Drudge, I suspect.) Instead, adhering to his usual rigorous approach, Kaus relied on a brief Nexis clip from USA Today that described my article somewhat inaccurately. Although his continuing obsession with the sexual prowess and physical appearance of politicians he dislikes is worthy of clinical analysis, I'm not going there. (Following this recent column by the incomparable Daily Howler, further comment on Mickey and his style may be forever superfluous anyway.)
Daily News gossip Lloyd Grove, who publicizes the Kaus kvetch today, at least asked me for the Spy article (although it is hard to say how closely he read it). In an e-mail to me, Grove says I ought to have disclosed the old Bush story when I wrote about Drudge and Kerry, and explained the difference. Fair enough, although it didn’t occur to me at the time. I think it’s quite obvious why 2004 is very different from 1992. So does Boston Phoenix media critic Dan Kennedy, who also obtained and read a copy of the Spy article.
For anyone unfamiliar with the late and lamented Spy, it was a glossy, sassy, frequently daring monthly that stalked the unoccupied journalistic territory between satire and investigation. While Spy's usual targets tended to be obnoxious public figures such as Donald Trump and Larry Tisch, it also ran longer, deeply reported stories on nasty K Street lobbyists, crooked officeholders and other political topics. In 1992, its editors asked me to look into the whispers of adultery that had haunted George Herbert Walker Bush since his 1980 presidential campaign -- and why the national press corps had never published a story on the topic.
I spent months chasing down rumors about Bush, most of which I debunked. As I noted in the introduction to the Spy article, most of what the politicians, consultants, businessmen and other sources told me about his affairs amounted to "no more than unconfirmable gossip." I also found one story that my editors Kurt Andersen and Susan Morrison, their counsel and I believed likely to be true.
But so what? Why did we think the Bush story was worth our "attention and resources" in 1992?
The answer, of course, was the enduring double standard that pillories Democratic peccadilloes while ignoring or excusing the same misbehavior among Republicans: "What American journalists seem uncomfortable investigating is screwing around -- by a Republican president or candidate, at least -- especially if the investigation might require more than a supercilious glance at a 'supermarket tabloid.' This year, while a parachute press corps has scoured Little Rock for any hint of Democratic scandal, the issue that remains too hot to handle is whether Poppy has been faithful to Bar ... If stories about womanizing could ruin Gary Hart and cripple Clinton," I asked, "then why isn't anybody looking into the stories about George Bush?"
Moreover, the Republicans were clearly preparing to exploit an unfairly tilted playing field: "In public, the president warns his own campaign against delving into 'the sleaze.' In private, his political aides snicker about the so-called independent committees that will do the dirty work, just as they did in 1988 with the Willie Horton ad. In fact, the same operatives behind the notorious Horton spot have already set up a new, pseudo-autonomous Presidential Victory Committee, aiming to spend $10 million for media attacks on Clinton's character."
The other germane aspect of the Bush story was how widely the belief that the president had strayed was held by the reporters who covered him. R.W. Apple, then the chief Washington reporter of the New York Times, openly discussed the issue. He even uttered the name of Jennifer Fitzgerald, a former Bush aide and alleged paramour, at an academic seminar broadcast on C-SPAN. But as numerous top Washington journalists told me, almost nobody had made a serious attempt to learn the truth.
So I examined the rumors and allegations -- and knocked down most of them. Yes, I quoted many anonymous sources on the subject. But I also quoted Washington journalists Jack Germond, Fred Barnes and the great Walter Pincus -- along with the president's son George W. -- denying any substance to such allegations.
In a Chicago Tribune feature about Spy, James Warren, then the daily's media columnist (and now its deputy managing editor), described my Bush story as "an unusually low-key, even caution-ridden effort that dispenses with the magazine's characteristically biting rhetoric and even verges on the mildly pedantic ... But the story is intriguing as it makes a case that the press is tougher on Democrats when it comes to alleged 'character' issues than on a sitting Republican president."
While focusing on the myriad Bush rumors and how they had been handled by the press, I came across a case that was considerably stronger than most of the gossipy tales floating around him. Out of respect for the woman's privacy, the Spy editors and I agreed to refer to her only as "Ms. X." In 1980, after working for a news agency covering the Republican presidential primaries, Ms. X told several friends in New York about her romantic involvement with Bush. The following year, after Bush was elected vice president, she moved to Washington. There she confided in another close friend.
Without knowing or speaking with each other, her Washington and New York friends separately confirmed to me what Ms. X had told them. They unanimously vouched for her credibility. I also managed to speak with Ms. X, who acknowledged knowing Bush but called the affair allegation "absolutely and 100 percent a lie." She also threatened to sue Spy for libel. But when reminded that a story must be untrue to be libelous, she replied, "Maybe libel wouldn't be how we'll pursue ... What you're doing is destroying my privacy."
If I have any qualms about the Bush story, they're the same ones that I felt at the time. The headline -- "He cheats on his wife" -- oversold what we were publishing, as I told Andersen and Morrison. They disagreed. And the Spy style tended to preface allegations with the word "alleged" less diligently than other publications.
Unfortunately, the July/August 1992 edition of Spy isn't available on the Internet so that readers can reach their own judgments. Rereading it now, I think the reporting holds up well. And the conclusion is certainly still pertinent. Indeed, considering the lopsided media coverage of Clinton's sins and those of his adversaries on Capitol Hill, most notably Newt Gingrich, it's almost prophetic:
"Does it matter whether [Bush] had an affair with [his former aide] Jennifer Fitzgerald, or with any of the several other women whose names have been linked to his? ... Perhaps not. If George Bush had entered the White House a virgin and remained pure for the past four years and the next four, he would still suffer by comparison to several presidents who were known philanderers: Jefferson, FDR, even LBJ and Eisenhower ... Certainly it's past time for American politics to grow up and reach a point where stories about our leaders' sex lives are treated as the titillating, perhaps largely irrelevant trivia they usually are. But that maturity will never be achieved as long as the public is permitted to see the messy human truth only about Democrats, while Republicans are displayed inside a bubble of happy, wholesome illusion."
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]Salon Magazine[/i], http://www.salon.com/opinion/...
|
|
|
| |
| White House Denials on Iraq Continue ... |
| 02.18.04 (4:21 pm) [edit] |
[b]The Bush regime is [i]erroneously[/i] persuaded that its neo-orwellian campaign of dis-information comprised of myriad[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]will continue to effectively [i]dupe[/i] "We the People" ...[/b]
The old tactic is[i] Blame Everyone & Then No one Will Be Held Accountable [/i]... Sorry, but the Bushies[i] cannot [/i]fool all of the people[i] all of the time [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]White House Denials on Iraq Continue[/b][/i]" by the[i] Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
At Fort Polk, Louisiana yesterday President Bush continued the administration’s misinformation campaign to justify the war in Iraq. The president’s new line is, "[i]My administration looked at the intelligence information, and we saw a danger. Members of Congress looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a danger. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a danger[/i]," – a blatant deception masking the administration’s distorted presentation of evidence to everyone involved. The historical record now shows that the Bush administration alone – not Congress or the United Nations or President Clinton – is responsible for sending the country to war based on false pretenses and ideological judgments about disputed intelligence information.
[b]1. The Bush administration deliberately misled the American public, Congress, and the entire international community about WMD in Iraq[/b]. Despite the president’s attempts to drag everyone into its spider hole of deception, the administration itself created an atmosphere of impending danger that required the rapid invasion of Iraq last spring.
[b]2. The administration systematically eliminated caveats and dissenting views from its prewar intelligence presentations[/b]. Members of Congress and the U.N. Security Council maintain that the administration’s prewar evidence – particularly Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations – overstated and misrepresented the threat posed by Iraqi WMD.
[b]3. By refusing to accept responsibility for its misrepresentations, the Bush administration risks the nation’s future credibility and capacity to build international support to fight terrorist threats[/b]. In a troubling sign of on-going denial in the White House, President Bush and his allies have decided to tour the country extolling its wisdom and fortitude in facing danger, rather than looking at the facts and finding a way to solve real problems with intelligence gathering. But the president’s "tough-guy" posturing does little to restore American credibility or plan effectively for future terrorist battles.
|
|
|
| |
| Americans Hear About 500 Dead US Soldiers - What About Over 10,000 Dead Iraqis? |
| 02.18.04 (3:32 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime is responsible for the deaths of over 540 US Soldiers massacred thus far in Iraq ... [/b]But what about over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians who have been ruthlessly slaughtered in order to enrich the Bushies and their despicable and gluttonous corporate paymasters: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, Lockheed-Martin, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc.??? ...
"We the People" should be [i]rising-up in protest [/i]against the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] for their insane, illegal & immoral[i] Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... [b]Killing a people is not [i]"freeing"[/i] them, is it?[/b] ...
Consider "[b]Missing in Action in Iraq:[i] Americans Hear About their 500 Dead Soldiers. What About the 10,000 Dead Iraqi Civilians[/i][/b]?" by [i]Naomi Klein [/i]on http://www.commondreams.org/v... :
It was Mary Vargas, a 44-year-old engineer in Renton, Washington, who carried U.S. therapy culture to its new zenith. Explaining why the war in Iraq was no longer her top election issue, she told Salon that, “when they didn't find the weapons of mass destruction, I felt I could also focus on other things. I got validated.”
Yes, that's right: war opposition as self-help. The end goal is not to seek justice for the victims, or punishment for the aggressors, but rather 'validation' for the war's critics. Once validated, it is of course time to reach for the talisman of self-help: 'closure.' In this mindscape, Howard Dean's wild scream was not so much a gaff as the second of the five stages of grieving: anger. The scream was a moment of uncontrolled release, a catharsis, allowing American liberals to externalize their rage and then move on, transferring their affections to more appropriate candidates.
All of the front-runners in the Democratic race borrow the language of pop therapy to discuss the war and the toll it has taken — not on Iraq (a country so absent from their campaigns it may as well be on another planet) but on Americans. To hear John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean tell it, the invasion was less a war of aggression against a sovereign nation than a civil war within the U.S., a traumatic event that severed Americans from their faith in politicians, from their rightful place in the world, and from their tax dollars.
“The price of unilateralism is too high and Americans are paying it — in resources that could be used for health care, education, and our security here at home,“ Kerry said on December 16. “We are paying that price in respect lost around the world. And most importantly, that price is paid in the lives of young Americans forced to shoulder the burden of the mission alone.“
Conspicuously absent from Kerry's tally are the lives of Iraqi civilians lost as a direct result of the invasion. Even Dean, the “anti-war candidate,“ regularly suffers from the same myopic math. “There are now almost 400 people dead who wouldn't be dead if we hadn't gone to war,“ he said in November. On January 22, updated the number of losses to “500 soldiers and 2,200 wounded.“
But on February 8, while Kerry was campaigning in Virginia and Dean was in Maine, the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion reached as high as 10,000. That number is the most authoritative estimate available, since the occupying authorities in Iraq refuse to keep statistics on civilian casualties. It comes from Iraq Body Count, a group of respected British and U.S. academics that bases its figures on cross referenced reports from journalists and human rights groups in the field.
John Sloboda, co-founder of Iraq Body Count told me that while the passing of the grim 10,000 mark made the British papers and the BBC, it received “scandalously little attention in the United States“ — including from the leading Democratic candidates, even as they hammer Bush on his faulty intelligence. “If the war was fought on false pretences,“ Sloboda says, “that means that every death caused by the war is a death on false pretences.“
And if that's the case, the most urgent question is not, “Who knew what when?“ — but “Who owes what to whom?“ In international law, countries that wage wars of aggression must pay reparations as a penalty for their crimes. Yet in Iraq, this logic has been turned on its head. Not only are there no penalties for an illegal war, there are prizes, with the U.S. actively and openly rewarding itself with huge reconstruction contracts. “Our people risked their lives. Coalition, friendly coalition folks risked their lives and therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that,“ Bush said on December 11.
And when the reconstruction spending has attracted scrutiny, it has not been over what is owed to Iraqis for their tremendous losses, but over what is owed to American taxpayers. “This war profiteering is poison to America — poison to Americans' faith in government and poison to our allies' perception of our motives in Iraq,“ John Edwards said in December. True, but he somehow failed to mention that it also poisons Iraqis — not their faith, or their perceptions, but their bodies.
Every dollar wasted on an over-charging, underperforming U.S. contractor is a dinar not spent rebuilding Iraq's bombed out water treatment and electricity plants. And it is Iraqis, not U.S. taxpayers, who are forced to drink typhoid and cholera infested water, and then to seek treatment in hospitals still flooded with raw sewage, where the drug supply is even more depleted than during the sanctions era.
There is currently no plan to compensate Iraqi civilians for deaths caused by the willful destruction of their basic infrastructure, or as a result of combat during the invasion. The occupying forces will only pay compensation for “instances where soldiers have acted negligently or wrongfully.“ According to the latest estimates, U.S. troops have distributed roughly $2-million in compensation for deaths, injuries and property damage. That's less than the price of two of the 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched during the war and a third of what Halliburton admits two of its employees accepted in bribes from a Kuwaiti contractor.
To talk about the price of the Iraq war strictly in terms of U.S. casualties and tax dollars is an obscenity. Yes, Americans were lied to by their politicians. Yes, they are owed answers. But the people of Iraq are owed a great deal more, and that enormous debt belongs at the very center of any civilized debate about the war.
In the U.S., a good start would be for the Democratic candidates to acknowledge some collective responsibility. Bush may have been the war's initiator but in the language of self-help, he had plenty of enablers. They included Kerry and Edwards, among the 27 other Democratic Senators and 81 Democratic Members of the House of Representatives who voted for the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war. They also included Howard Dean who believed and repeated Bush's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Playing its part too was a credulous and cheerleading press, which sold those claims to an overly trusting U.S. public, 76 per cent of whom supported the war, according to a CBS poll released two days after the invasion began.
Why does this ancient history matter? Because so long as Bush's opponents continue to cast themselves as the primary victims of his war, the real victims will remain invisible, unable to make their claims for justice. The focus will be on uncovering Bush's lies — a process geared towards absolving those who believed them, not on compensating those who died because of them. If the war was wrong, then that the U.S., as the main aggressor, must devote itself to making things right.
In the five stages of grieving, there is a step that comes after anger. It's guilt, when the grieving party starts to wonder whether they did enough, if the loss was somehow their fault, how they can make amends. Moving on — the last and final stage — is supposed to come after that reckoning.
[i]Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (Picador) and, most recently, Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (Picador).[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace ... |
| 02.18.04 (11:23 am) [edit] |
[b]The indomitable Gore Vidal coined the phrase "[i]Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace[/i]" as characteristic of the cynical manner in which we are being ruthlessly [i]led[/i] towards a[i] never-ending war culture by this tyrannical & traitorous neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who are [/i]empowering and enriching the corporations and the few greedy plutocratic rulers, instead of investing in our nation's prosperity and that of all of our citizens ...[/b]
"We the People" must reject the corrupt Bush regime's insanity of blood-thirsty war-mongerings devised in order to enrich themselves and their gluttonous war-profiteers ([i]including Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc[/i].) ... Refer to an insightful article published on Monday by conservative [i]Patrick J. Buchanan [/i]entitled "[b]Have the neocons killed a presidency[/b]?" on http://www.wnd.com/news/artic... .
Consider also "[i][b]No End to War[/b][/i]" by[i] Patrick J. Buchanan [/i]on http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_0... :
[i][b]The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict[/b][/i].
On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a [i]Washington Post [/i]depiction of himself as the “intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy.”
The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.
[i]An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror [/i]opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” “What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained” now menaces “our survival as a nation.”
But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?
“[A] radical strain within Islam,” says Perle, “ ... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.”
Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to “overthrow our civilization” and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?
In his own review of [i]An End to Evil[/i], Joshua Micah Marshall picks up this same scent of near-hysteria over the Islamic threat:
[i]The book conveys a general sense that America is at war with Islam itself anywhere and everywhere: the contemporary Muslim world .... is depicted as one great cauldron of hate, murder, obscurantism, and deceit. If our Muslim adversaries are not to destroy Western civilization, we must gird for more battles[/i].
To suggest Frum and Perle are over the top is not to imply we not take seriously the threat of terror attacks on airliners, in malls, from dirty bombs, or, God forbid, a crude atomic device smuggled in by Ryder truck or container ship. Yet even this will never “overthrow our civilization.”
In the worst of terror attacks, we lost 3,000 people. Horrific. But at Antietam Creek, we lost 7,000 in a day’s battle in a nation that was one-ninth as populous. Three thousand men and boys perished every week for 200 weeks of that Civil War. We Americans did not curl up and die. We did not come all this way because we are made of sugar candy.
Germany and Japan suffered 3,000 dead every day in the last two years of World War II, with every city flattened and two blackened by atom bombs. Both came back in a decade. Is al-Qaeda capable of this sort of devastation when they are recruiting such scrub stock as Jose Padilla and the shoe bomber?
In the war we are in, our enemies are weak. That is why they resort to the weapon of the weak—terror. And, as in the Cold War, time is on America’s side. Perseverance and patience are called for, not this panic.
In 25 years, militant Islam has seized three countries: Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan. We toppled the Taliban almost without losing a man. Sudan is a failed state. In Iran, a generation has grown up that knows nothing of Savak or the Great Satan but enough about the mullahs to have rejected them in back-to-back landslides. The Iranian Revolution has reached Thermidor. Wherever Islamism takes power, it fails. Like Marxism, it does not work.
Yet, assume it makes a comeback. So what? Taken together, all 22 Arab nations do not have the GDP of Spain. Without oil, their exports are the size of Finland’s. Not one Arab nation can stand up to Israel, let alone the United States. The Islamic threat is not strategic, but demographic. If death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of death—birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his estate.
Said young Lincoln in his Lyceum address, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
In his first inaugural address, FDR admonished, “[T]he only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
Fear is what Perle and his co-author David Frum are peddling to stampede America into serial wars. Just such fear-mongering got us into Iraq, though, we have since discovered, Iraq had no hand in 9/11, no ties to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, and no plans to attack us. Iraq was never “the clear and present danger” the authors insist she was.
Calling their book a “manual for victory,” they declaim:
[i]For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation’s great cause. We do not believe that Americans are fighting this evil to minimize it or to manage it. We believe they are fighting to win—to end this evil before it kills again and on a genocidal scale. There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust[/i].
But no nation can “end evil.” Evil has existed since Cain rose up against his brother Abel and slew him. A propensity to evil can be found in every human heart. And if God accepts the existence of evil, how do Frum and Perle propose to “end” it? Nor can any nation “win the war on terror.” Terrorism is simply a term for the murder of non-combatants for political ends.
Revolutionary terror has been around for as long as this Republic. It was used by Robespierre’s Committee on Public Safety and by People’s Will in Romanov Russia. Terror has been the chosen weapon of anarchists, the IRA, Irgun, the Stern Gang, Algeria’s FLN, the Mau Mau, MPLA, the PLO, Black September, the Basque ETA, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, SWAPO, ZANU, ZAPU, the Tupamaros, Shining Path, FARC, the ANC, the V.C., the Huks, Chechen rebels, Tamil Tigers, and the FALN that attempted to assassinate Harry Truman and shot up the House floor in 1954, to name only a few.
Accused terrorists have won the Nobel Peace Prize: Begin, Arafat, Mandela. Three lie in mausoleums in the capitals of nations they created: Lenin, Mao, Ho. Others are the fathers of their countries like Ben Bella and Jomo Kenyatta. A terrorist of the Black Hand ignited World War I by assassinating the Archduke Ferdinand. Yet Gavrilo Princep has a bridge named for him in Sarajevo.
The murder of innocents for political ends is evil, but to think we can “end” it is absurd. Cruel and amoral men, avaricious for power and “immortality,” will always resort to it. For, all too often, it succeeds.
[i][b]But what must America do to attain victory in her war on terror?[/b][/i]
Say the authors: “We must hunt down the individual terrorists before they kill our people or [i]others[/i] .... We must deter [i]all regimes [/i]that use terror as a weapon of [i]state against anyone, American or not[/i]” [emphasis added].
Astonishing. The authors say America is responsible for defending everyone, everywhere from terror and deterring any and all regimes that might use terror —against anyone, anywhere on earth.
But there are 192 nations. Scores of regimes from Liberia to Congo to Cuba, from Zimbabwe to Syria to Uzbekistan, and from Iran to Sudan to the Afghan warlords of the Northern Alliance who fought on our side—have used torture and terror to punish enemies. Are we to fight them all?
Well, actually, no. Excepting North Korea, the authors’ list of nations that need to be attacked reads as though it were drawn up in the Israeli Defense Ministry. By the second paragraph, Perle and Frum have given us a short list of priority targets: “The war on terror is not over, it has barely begun. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas still plot murder.”
Now al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. But when did Hamas attack us? And if Israel can co-exist and negotiate with Hezbollah, why is it America’s duty to destroy Hezbollah? Iran and North Korea, the authors warn, “present intolerable threats to American security. We must move boldly against them both and against all other sponsors of terrorism as well: Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. And we don’t have much time.”
“Why have we put up with [Syria] as long as we have?” the authors demand. They call for a cut-off of Syria’s oil and an ultimatum to Assad: Get Syrian troops out of Lebanon, hand over all terrorist suspects, end support for Hezbollah, stop agitating against Israel, and adopt a “Western orientation”—or you, too, get the Saddam treatment.
But what has Syria done to us? And if Assad balks do we bomb Damascus? Invade? Where do we get the troops? What if the Syrians, too, resort to guerrilla war?
Bush’s father made Hafez al-Assad an ally in the Gulf War. Ehud Barak offered Assad 99.5 percent of the Golan Heights. Why, then, must Bashir Assad’s regime be destroyed—by us?
“We don’t have much time,” say Frum and Perle. But what is Assad doing that warrants immediate attack? Is he, too, buying yellowcake from Niger?
Colonel Khaddafi is now paying billions in reparations for Pan Am 103, giving up his weapons of mass destruction, and inviting U.S. inspectors in to verify his disarmament. Why is it imperative we overthrow him?
While the Saudis have been diffident allies in the War on Terror, they are not America’s enemies. They pumped oil to keep prices down in the first Gulf War. They looked the other way as U.S. fighter-bombers flew out of Prince Sultan Air Base in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet the Saudis are directed to provide us “with the utmost cooperation in the war on terror,” or we will invade, detach their oil-rich eastern province, and occupy it.
But why? If the monarchy falls and bin Laden’s acolytes replace it, how would that make us more secure in our own country?
What did Iran do to justify war against her? According to Perle and Frum,
[i]Iran defied the Monroe Doctrine and sponsored murder in our own hemisphere, killing eighty-six people and wounding some three hundred at the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires—and our government did worse than nothing: It opened negotiations with the murderers[/i].
But that atrocity occurred a dozen years ago, long before the reform government of President Mohammad Khatami was elected. And if Iran was behind an attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, why did Argentina and Israel not avenge these deaths? Why is retribution our responsibility? It was not Americans who were the victims, and the attack occurred 5,000 miles from the United States.
The Frum-Perle invocation of the Monroe Doctrine is both cynical and comical. If they were genuinely concerned about violations of the Monroe Doctrine, why did they not include Cuba on their target list, a “state sponsor of terror” 90 miles from our shores that has hosted Soviet missiles and, according to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, is developing chemical and biological weapons? Why did Saudi Arabia make the cut but not Cuba? Might it have something to do with proximity and propinquity?
For Iran, there can be no reprieve. “The regime must go,” say our authors, because Ayatollah Khamenei has
…[i] no more right to control ... Iran than any other criminal has to seize control of the persons and property of others. It’s not always in our power to do something about such criminals, nor is it always in our interest, but when it is in our power and interest, we should toss dictators aside with no more compunction than a police sharpshooter feels when he downs a hostage-taker[/i].
But where in the Constitution is the president empowered to “toss dictators aside”? And if it took 150,000 U.S. soldiers to toss Saddam aside, how many troops do Frum and Perle think it will take to occupy the capital of a nation three times as large and populous and toss the ayatollah aside? How many dead and wounded would our war hawks consider an acceptable price for being rid of the mullahs?
As South Korea favors appeasement, they write, we must take the lead, demand that North Korea surrender all nuclear materials and shut down all missile sites. If Kim Jong Il balks, we should move U.S. troops back to safety beyond artillery and rocket range of the DMZ and launch preemptive strikes on known North Korean nuclear sites and impose a naval and air blockade. As for the South Koreans, they should probably brace themselves. “We have no doubt how such a war would end,” say the authors. They also had no doubt how the Iraqi war would end.
Is the Perle-Frum vision for the suffering people of North Korea a future of freedom and democracy? Not exactly:
[i]It may be that the only way out of the decade-long crisis on the Korean peninsula is the toppling of Kim Jong Il and his replacement by a North Korean communist who is more subservient to China. If so, we should accept that outcome[/i].
Swell. America is to fight a second Korean War that could entail a nuclear strike on our troops, but, when we have won, we should accept a communist North Korea that is a vassal of Beijing. How many dead and wounded are our AEI warlords willing to accept to make Pyongyang a puppet of Beijing?
But the Frum-Perle enemies’ list is not complete. France, if she does not shape up, is to be treated as an enemy.
From every page of this book there oozes a sense of urgency that borders on the desperate for action this day: “We can feel the will to win ebbing in Washington, we sense the reversion to the bad old habits of complacency and denial.”
The neocons are not wrong here. With the cost of war at $200 billion and rising, with deaths mounting, and with the possibility growing that Iraq could collapse in chaos and civil war, President Bush appears to be experiencing buyer’s remorse about the lemon he was sold by Perle and friends.
They promised him a “cakewalk,” that we would be hailed as “liberators,” that democracy would take root in Iraq and flourish in the Middle East, that Palestinians and Israelis would break bread and make peace. With Lord Melbourne, Bush must be muttering, “What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damn fools said would happen has come to pass.”
[i][b]What do Perle and Frum see as our decisive failing in Iraq?[/b][/i]
[i]But of all our mistakes, probably the most serious was our unwillingness to allow the Iraqi National Congress, Iraq’s leading anti-Saddam resistance movement, to form a provisional government after the fall of Baghdad. In 1944, we took care to let French troops enter Paris before U.S. or British forces. We should have shown equal tact in 2003[/i].
Thus, we are in trouble because Ahmad Chalabi was not allowed to play de Gaulle leading his war-weary, battle-hardened Free Iraqis into Baghdad.
Why was Perle’s protégé passed over? Because the “INC terrified the Saudis and therefore terrified those in our government who wished to placate the Saudis.” The damned Arabists at State did it again.
Hastily written, replete with errors, with no index, An [i]End to Evil [/i]is a brief in defense of neoconservatives against their impending indictment on charges they lied us into a war that may prove our greatest disaster since Vietnam. And the charge of deliberate deceit is not without merit.
In mid-December 2001, in a column distributed by Copley News, Perle asserted that Saddam “is busily at work on a nuclear weapon .... it’s simply a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.”
Naming Khidir Hamza, “one of the people who ran the nuclear weapons program for Saddam,” as his source, Perle gave credence to Hamza’s tale of 400 uranium enrichment facilities spread all over Iraq. “Some of them look like farmhouses, some of them look like classrooms, some of them look like warehouses. You’ll never find them.” Only “preemptive action” can save us, said Perle.
By the end of 2001, according to Perle, the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam was imminent:
[i]With each passing day he comes closer to his dream of a nuclear arsenal. We know he has a clandestine program, spread over many hidden sites, to enrich natural uranium to weapons grade .... And intelligence sources know he is in the market, with plenty of money, for both weapons material and components as well as finished nuclear weapons. How close is he? We do not know. Two years, three years, tomorrow even[/i]?
When he wrote this, Perle, as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, had access to secret intelligence. So the question cannot be evaded: did Hamza deliberately deceive Perle, or did Perle deliberately deceive us?
For those unpersuaded that Saddam was a strategic threat, there were his links to the 9/11 massacre. Saddam’s “collaboration with terrorism is well documented,” wrote Perle, “Evidence of a meeting in Prague between a senior Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohamed Atta, the September 11 ringleader, is convincing.”
Thus did the neocons get the war they wanted. And after America fought the war for which they had beaten the drums, how do Perle & Co. explain why it did not turn out as they assured us it would?
Answer: any disaster in Iraq, the authors argue, will be due to the venality and cowardice of the State Department, CIA, FBI, retired generals, and ex-ambassadors bought off by the Saudis. “We have offered concrete recommendations equal to the seriousness of the threat, and the softliners have not, because we have wanted to fight and they have not.”
Which brings us back to the point made at the outset: the neocon moment may be passing, for they appear to be losing their grip on reality as well as their influence on policy. Rather than looking for new wars to involve us more deeply in the Middle East, Bush and Rumsfeld seem to be looking for the next exit ramp out of our Mesopotamian morass. “No war in ‘04” is said to be the watchword of Karl Rove.
Moreover, Americans are coming to appreciate that, all that bombast about “unipolar” moments and “American empire” aside, there are limits to American power, and we are approaching them. U.S. ground forces of 480,000 are stretched thin. There is grumbling in Army, Reserve, and National Guard units about too many tours too far from home. Backing off his “axis-of-evil” rhetoric, Bush said in this year’s State of the Union, “We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire.”
[i][b]The long retreat of American empire has begun[/b][/i].
In Washington, there are rumors of the return of James Baker and the imminent departure of Paul Wolfowitz. As Frederick the Great, weary of the antics and peculations of his house guest Voltaire, said, “One squeezes the orange and throws away the rind.”
Moreover, the radicalism of their schemes for two, three, many wars, seems, given our embroilment in Iraq, not only rash but also rooted in unreality. Before Bush could take us to war with any of these regimes, he would have to convince his country of the necessity of war and persuade Congress to grant him the power to go to war. Yet absent a new atrocity on the magnitude of 9/11, directly traceable to one of the regimes on the Perle-Frum list, the president could not win this authority. Nor does it appear he intends to try. And were the United States to attack Libya, Syria, or Saudi Arabia, we would alienate every ally in the Islamic world and Europe—including Tony Blair’s Britain. To fight these wars and occupy these nations would bleed our armed forces and mandate a return to the draft. But how would any of these wars make us more secure from terrorism here at home?
Indeed, it is because Americans cannot see the correlation between the wars the authors demand and security at home that Frum and Perle must resort to fear-mongering about holocausts, the end of civilization, and our demise as a nation.
If it is America we defend, An [i]End to Evil [/i]makes no sense. The Perle-Frum prescription for permanent war makes sense only if it is the mission of the armed forces of the United States to make the Middle East safe for Sharon—and here we come to the heart of the quarrel between us.
On Sept. 11, al-Qaeda attacked us. Al-Qaeda is our enemy, not Syria, Libya, or Saudi Arabia. And the way to cut off al-Qaeda and kill it is to isolate it from all Arab and Islamic nations and centers of power including Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
None of these nations had a hand in 9/11. All have a vital interest in not being linked to an al-Qaeda for whom an enraged superpower is on the mortal hunt. Thus, no matter the character of these regimes, we have interests in common. And if Bush can use carrots to get Bashir Assad to help us find and finish al-Qaeda—as his father got Assad’s father to help us expel Iraq from Kuwait—let us make Syria an ally rather than another enemy of the United States.
But here is the rub: The neocons do not want to narrow our list of enemies. They do not want to confine America’s war to those who attacked us. They want to expand our list of enemies to include Israel’s enemies. They want to escalate and widen what Chris Matthews calls “the Firemen’s War” into a war for hegemony in the Middle East. They had hoped to exploit 9/11 to erect an empire, and as they see the vision vanish, their desperation knows no bounds.
That great American military mind Col. John Boyd once described strategy as appending to yourself as many centers of power as possible and isolating your enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
This was the strategy used by Bush I in the Gulf War. He persuaded Russia and China to sign on in the Security Council, Germany and Japan to finance his war, Syria and Egypt to send soldiers, Britain and France to help us fight it. By giving everyone a stake in an American victory—call it imperial bribery, if you will—Bush I lined up the world against Iraq. As did George W. Bush, brilliantly, in Afghanistan.
But what Frum and Perle are pressing on him now is an altogether opposite strategy. They want Bush to expand the war, broaden the theater of operations, multiply our enemies, and ignore our allies. If Bush should adopt this strategy, it would be America and Israel against the Arab and Islamic world with Europe neutral and almost all of Asia rooting for our humiliation.
Let it be said: it is vital to victory over al-Qaeda, to the security of our country, the safety of our people, and our broader interests in an Arab and Islamic world of 57 nations that stretches from Morocco to Malaysia that we not let the neocons conflate our war on terror with their war for hegemony.
Neocons believe the Palestinian Authority must be crushed, Arafat eliminated, and the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem held by Israel forever. They want Hezbollah eradicated, Syria denatured, the Saudi monarchy brought down. Let them so believe. But their agenda is not America’s agenda, and their fight is not America’s fight.
There is no vital U.S. interest in whose flag flies over the Golan or East Jerusalem, when Barak was willing to give up both. But if we allow the neoconservatives to morph our war on al-Qaeda into Israel’s war for Palestine, our war will never end. And that is the hidden agenda of the neoconservatives: permanent war for their permanent empowerment. As Frum and Perle concede, this is “our generation’s great cause.”
“Who are those guys?” Butch and Sundance asked. Indeed, who are these men who would plunge our country into serial wars of preemption and retribution across the arc of crisis from Libya to Korea?
Frum is not even an American. He is a Canadian who did not become a citizen until offered a job in the Bush speechwriting shop. He was cashiered after one year when his wife bragged on the Internet that David invented the “axis-of-evil” phrase. Expelled from the White House, Frum ratted out his old colleagues in a “hot” book and got himself hired by [i]National Review[/i], where he produced a cover story about a dirty dozen “Unpatriotic Conservatives” who hate neocons, hate Bush, hate the GOP, hate America, and “wish to see the United States defeated in the War on Terror.”
Frum ordered all 12 purged from the conservative movement. (And we must, in fairness, report that all three editors of this magazine and four regular writers were among the 12 who went to the stake.)
Who is Perle? Unlike Frum, a cipher on foreign policy, Perle has been a serious player since the Nixon era. But throughout those years he has betrayed a passionate attachment to a foreign power. In 1996, Perle co-authored “[i]A Clean Break[/i],” a now-famous paper urging Benjamin Netanyahu to dump the Oslo Accords, seize the West Bank, and confront Syria. The road to Damascus lies through Baghdad, Perle told the receptive Israeli Prime Minister.
Then an adviser to Republican candidate Robert Dole, Perle was thus secretly urging a foreign government to abrogate a peace accord supported by his own government. In 1998, he and other neoconservatives signed a letter to then President Clinton urging the United States to initiate all-out war on Iraq and pledging neoconservative support if Clinton would launch it.
Query: why is Perle permitted to retain his post at the Department of Defense while agitating for wars on four or five countries, including Saudi Arabia, a friend of the United States? Why does President Bush put up with this? His father would never have tolerated it.
The neocons have also begun to injure their reputations and isolate themselves with the nastiness and irrationality of their attacks. French cannon once bore the inscription [i]ultima ratio regum[/i], the last argument of kings. The toxic charge of “Anti-Semite!” has become the last argument of the neocons. But they have wheeled out that cannon too many times. People are less intimidated now. They have seen men look into its muzzle and walk away.
Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Centcom, is a hero of Vietnam. He opposed war with Iraq, arguing that the U.S. military was overstretched and we would unleash forces we could not control. In an interview, Zinni related his astonishment at the vapidity of the Wolfowitz clique with which he had to deal at the Department of Defense:
[i]The more I saw, the more I thought that this [war] was the product of the neocons who didn’t understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had had an idea that worked on the ground .... I don’t know where the neocons came from—that was not the platform [Bush and Cheney] ran on .... Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president[/i].
[i]National Review’s [/i]response was to brand Zinni an anti-Semite. In a separate column, [i]NR [/i]regular Joel Mowbray not only accused the general of having “blamed the Jews,” he insisted that the term neocon, in common usage for 25 years, is now an anti-Semitic code word for Jews:
[i]Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney ... was to blame. It was the Jews. They captured both Bush and Cheney …. Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say ‘Jews.’ He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: ‘neoconservatives[/i].’
Mowbray and[i] National Review [/i]thus slandered a brave and brilliant soldier who has bled for his country. Such slanders do the neocons no good but only add to their isolation and the burgeoning detestation of their tactics.
[i]New York Times [/i]columnist David Brooks has also begun to smear critics of the neocons as anti-Semites. In the word “neocon,” he writes, the “con” stands for conservative and the “neo” stands for Jewish.
But the problem for neocons is not that so many are Jewish, but that so few are conservative. Lawrence Kaplan, a Perle colleague who co-authored a book with William Kristol, after reading [i]An End to Evil[/i], declared: “This is not conservatism. It is liberalism, with very sharp teeth.”
If the neocons purport to see ethnic hatred in everyone else’s motives, is it unfair to explore for an ethnic affinity in their own? Why does every grand strategy neocons advance, from “American empire” to “benevolent global hegemony” to “a [i]Pax Americana[/i]” to “world democratic revolution” have as its centerpiece solidarity with Sharon and a vigorous wielding of American power against all the enemies of Israel?
Why is every peace plan proposed or endorsed by a president to give the Palestinians a home of their own—the Rogers Plan, the Oslo accords, Camp David, the Taba Plan, the Saudi Plan, the Mitchell Plan, the Road Map—a Munich sellout? Why is any American patriot, who demands that Ariel Sharon stop building settlements on Palestinian land and walling off Jerusalem, a State Department Arabist, a pawn of the Texas oil lobby, a Coughlinite, an anti-Semite, or a bought-and-paid-for lickspittle of the Saudis?
The United States remains committed morally and politically to the security and survival of Israel and to providing her with the weaponry to guarantee it. No president is going to back off that commitment. But because Israel is a friend does not mean that the Sharonites have preemptive absolution to settle or seize Arab lands or permanently to deny Arab peoples the rights we preach to the world. In our own national interests, we must say so—in the clear.
This is a time for truth. With a mighty and hostile Soviet Empire no longer militarily present in the Maghreb and Middle East, U.S. and Israeli strategic interests have ceased to coincide. And with nightly pictures of Palestinian suffering on Al Jazeera, they have begun to collide.
Thus between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives a breach has been opened and an irreconcilable conflict has arisen. We of the Old Right only have one country. We believe U.S. foreign policy must be determined by what is best for America. And what is best for America is what our forefathers taught: If you would preserve this Republic, stay out of foreign wars, avoid “permanent alliances,” beware of “passionate attachments” to nations not your own.
In 1778, Washington rejoiced in the alliance with France. But when victory was won, that alliance became an entanglement that could drag the Republic into Europe’s wars. American statesmen who had celebrated the French alliance now sought to sever it, and, under Adams, succeeded.
With the end of the Cold War, an alliance with Israel has ceased to be central to U.S. interests. Indeed, our reputation as armorers and allies of Israel only damages us as Sharon rampages through the West Bank and Gaza walling off Arab land and denying to Palestinians that very right of self-determination we Americans espouse. Sharon is making hypocrites of us, and we are cowards for permitting it.
To the neocons, however, Zionism is second nature. They cannot conceive of a foreign policy that is good for America that does not entail absolute solidarity with Israel. They are dangerously close to imbibing the poisonous brew that drove Jonathan Pollard to treason: If it is good for Israel, it cannot be bad for America.
To evade admission of the transparent truth, neocons have begun to rationalize their passionate attachment, to sublimate it. “The Arab-Israeli quarrel is not a cause of Islamic extremism,” Frum and Perle protest.
But when every returning journalist and diplomat and every opinion survey says it is America’s uncritical support for Israeli repression of the Palestinians that makes us hated in the region, how can honest men write this? Have they blinded themselves to the truth because it is too painful?
We stand by Israel, writes Irving Kristol, because America is an “ideological” nation, “like the Soviet Union of yesteryear.” We and Israel are democracies, the Arab countries are not, and that is all there is to it.
[i]That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary[/i].
But this is nonsense, and Kristol knows it. When Britain and France declared war on Hitler on September 3, 1939, FDR did not “come to the defense of France and Britain.” He delivered a fireside chat that night promising the nation America would stay out. There will be “no blackout of peace” here, FDR promised us.When France fell in May-June of 1940, pleading for planes, FDR sent words of encouragement. Not until 18 months after the fall of France did we declare war on Hitler and not until after Hitler declared war on us. Thus, we did not go to war to defend democracy in Britain or France. We went to war to smash the Japanese Empire that attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Kristol is parroting liberal myths.
In the Cold War the United States welcomed as allies Chiang Kai-shek, Salazar, Franco, Somoza, the Shah, Suharto, Syngman Rhee, Park Chung Hee and the Korean generals, Greek colonels, military regimes in Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey, Marcos, and Pinochet because these autocrats proved far more reliable than democratists like Nehru, Olaf Palme, Willy Brandt, and Pierre Trudeau. When it comes to wars that threaten us, hot or cold, we Americans are at one with Nietzsche, “A state, it is the coldest of all cold monsters.”
India is democratic and 200 times the size of Israel. Yet in India’s wars with Pakistan, we tilted toward Pakistan. Why? Because the Pakistanis were allies, and India sided with Moscow. That India was democratic and Pakistan autocratic made no difference to us.
As for Israel, has America really given her $100 billion and taken her side in every Arab quarrel because she is a democracy?
Tell it to Tony Judt. When this British historian proposed—given the impossibility of separating Arabs from Jews on the West Bank—that Israel annex the West Bank, become a bi-national state, and give Palestinians equal rights, neocons went berserk.
Frum called Judt’s idea “genocidal liberalism” that would leave Jews exposed to slaughter. John Podhoretz declared it “unthinkable” and “the definition of intellectual corruption.” “[H]aughty and ugly,” said the [i]New Republic[/i], which hurled Judt from its masthead.
But if the just solution to the South African problem was to abolish bantustans and create a one-man, one-vote democracy, why is that not even a debatable solution to the Palestinian problem?
In temperament, too, neoconservatives have revealed themselves as the antithesis of conservative. In the depiction of scholar Claes Ryn, they are the “neo-Jacobins” of modernity whose dominant trait is conceit.
[i]Only great conceit could inspire a dream of armed world hegemony. The ideology of benevolent American empire and global democracy dresses up a voracious appetite for power. It signifies the ascent to power of a new kind of American, one profoundly at odds with that older type who aspired to modesty and self-restraint[/i].
The Perle-Frum book is marinated in conceit, which may prove the neocons’ fatal flaw. In the run-up to the invasion, when critics were exposing their plotting for war long before 9/11, the neocons did not bother to deny it. They reveled in it. They boasted about who they were, where they came from, what they believed, how they were different, and how they had become the new elite. With Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush marching to their war drums, one of them bellowed, “We are all neoconservatives now!”
But it is always unwise of courtiers to boast of their influence with the prince. And now the neocons have outed themselves. We all know who they are. We all have the coordinates. We all have them bracketed.
With the heady days of the fall of Baghdad behind us and our country ensnared in a Lebanon of our own, neocons seem fearful that it is they who will be made to take the fall if it all turns out badly in Iraq, as McNamara and his Whiz Kids had to take the fall for Vietnam.
And this one they’ve got right.
|
|
|
| |
| Powell Snaps ... |
| 02.18.04 (9:16 am) [edit] |
[b]As [i]more and more reports surface [/i]that the corrupt Bush regime is in turmoil [/b](... [i]and although they are attempting to put on a united front for the public, behind the scenes, their back-biting and antagonism is rife and their Iraq policies are in disarray [/i]...), http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... and in chaos, these callous neo-con, neo-fascist war criminals cannot agree upon what to do since Iraq is spinning out of control and facing a bloody civil war ...
"We the People" should be wary and demand that Congress http://www.congress.org place constraints upon the traitorous Bush regime, because like a wounded animal: they are at their most dangerous now that their myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]are coming home to roost ...
Refer to "[b]Powell Snaps[/b] -- [i][b]Pressure of Toadying for Bush Gets to the General[/b][/i]" by [i]James Ridgeway [/i]on http://villagevoice.com/issue... :
You can always tell when Bush thinks he might be in trouble, because out comes Colin Powell to calm the white liberals and get the blacks off the president's back—especially now that the Republican right is working hard to fortify its base for the election, and once again, as it does every four years, dreams of recruiting minorities.
These days, however, Powell must struggle not to sound like some scratchy wind-up doll. After suckering people with his UN speech, which turned out to have been inaccurate, the secretary of state opined recently that had he known what he knows now, maybe he would have thought twice about going to war. Golly gee, General, really?
Last week, Powell tried hard to regain the righteous high road with testimony in Congress, but when Ohio congressman Sherrod Brown mentioned Bush's AWOL problems as an aside in one question, Powell sprang into a generalissimo pose, ordering Brown, "Don't go there," as if the congressman were some dumb enlisted peon.
Then, as Powell was ruminating about how hard he tried to understand the pre-war intelligence—"I went to live at the CIA for four days"—he broke off and stared at a committee staff person sitting behind the congresspeople. "Are you shaking your head for something, young man, back there?" Powell intoned. "Are you part of these proceedings?"
Sherrod Brown, who has been in Congress 12 years, jumped to the staffer's defense: "Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a witness reprimand a staff person in the middle of a question."
Powell snapped, "I seldom come to a meeting where I am talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you giving editorial comment by head shakes."
Powell just doesn't seem to get it. He's not in some army camp. This is the people's house, and any member of Congress can ask whatever he or she pleases.
Who does Powell think he is? Douglas MacArthur?
[[b]Powell, a[i] bird-of-a-feather [/i]with the liars and crooks in the Bush regime, is also dangerously arrogant and traitorous in forgetting that he is [i]accountable[/i] to "We the People[/b]".]
* Consider also "[b]Rifts widen in Bush's foreign policy team[/b]" by [i]Howard LaFranchi [/i]on http://www.csmonitor.com/2004...
|
|
|
| |
| Why Not A "War on Poverty"??? ... |
| 02.18.04 (7:42 am) [edit] |
[b]Tragically our nation has been [i]saddled [/i]with insane neo-con, neo-fascist [i]hoodlums, liars and crooks [/i]who have plotted a disastrous direction for us, resulting in illegal & immoral war-mongerings around the world http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_0... and a reckless & ruthless increase in poverty, homelessness, misery and hardships here at home http://www.americanprogress.o... ...[/b]
"We the People" must [i]fight and fight hard [/i]to take our nation back, as we are bombarded with neo-fascist neo-orwellian propaganda perpetrated by the corrupt neo-con Bush regime who have[i] sold us out lock, stock & barrel[/i] to corporations and their special interest cronies, robber-barons, and embezzlers who now are [i]wantonly and recklessly defining our foreign and domestic policies[/i]-- representing a criminal betrayal of our nation by the traitors who have hijacked the White House and are endangering our nation, our allies and the planet ...
We should be loudly demanding and indeed, insisting upon a "[i]War on Poverty[/i]"!!! ...
Consider "[i][b]Poverty 'is World's Worst Threat'[/b][/i]" by [i]Alex Kirby [/i]on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
The leader of Catholics in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, says the biggest challenge confronting the world is not terrorism but poverty.
He told a conference called by the UK Treasury that poverty was humanity's "greatest scandal and scourge" today.
The cardinal said the world risked getting its definitions and priorities wrong by concentrating on terrorism.
Failed states, he said, were those that could not lift people out of poverty, or share wealth so all could flourish.
The UK Chancellor Gordon Brown earlier told the conference, [i]Making Globalization Work For All[/i], that the developed world was failing in its promises to reduce global poverty and sickness.
[b]Recognizing the peril [/b]
He called on governments to give an extra £50bn ($94bn;74bn euros) in aid per year, and said countries must open their markets to competition more quickly, cut protectionism and write off larger amounts of Third World debt.
The presidents of Brazil and the World Bank and the singer Bono backed his stance.
Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, the archbishop of Westminster, said he did not want to belittle "the terrible scourge of terrorism, or the truth that it is more dangerous today than it has ever been".
He continued: "There is increasing talk of so-called 'failed states' - states within which the kinds of controls and regulations which allow for an orderly and secure environment are not present.
"We point the finger at such states because we fear that it is there that terrorism is allowed to flourish.
"This worries me somewhat, not because it is not true, but because we may be at risk of getting our definitions and our priorities wrong.
"States fail when they are incapable of lifting people out of poverty, or when they pay insufficient heed to the importance of ensuring that wealth is adequately distributed so that the whole of the population can flourish.
"Indeed, they fail when they do not take seriously the obligation to ensure that wealth is not created for the few and at the expense of the many.
[b]Daunting challenge [/b]
"The greatest scandal and scourge of humankind is, in fact, dire poverty and the misery and exploitation that accompanies and exacerbates it. That is the real scandal... there is a genuine recognition that this is the big issue for our times."
The cardinal said the world faced a huge task if it was going to achieve the [i]United Nations Millennium Development Goals[/i], http://www.un.org/millenniumg... which set targets for realizing a better world in several areas including hunger, peace and health, many by 2015.
The [i]World Economic Forum [/i]said a month ago that developed countries were doing scarcely a third of what was needed to achieve the goals.
|
|
|
| |
| Quack!!! ... Quack!!! ... Quack!!! ... |
| 02.17.04 (3:13 pm) [edit] |
"... [i]That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack[/i]." - Justice Scalia: Bush & Cheney's Buddy-boy
[b]"We the People" should be highly [i]alarmed[/i] and be very, very [i]concerned [/i]and be fully[i] prepared to take action [/i]... [/b]Our government was established under the U.S. Constitution with three major institutions in order to ensure & maintain a system of [i]checks-and-balances [/i]accountable to the American people ... Tragically, all three branches of our government's major institutions (Legislative: [i]Congress[/i] ... Executive: [i]White House [/i]... Judicial: [i]Supreme Court[/i]) have been infiltrated by sordid & squalid [i]corporate-take-all [/i]traitors, liars, thieves, crooks and criminals ...
[b]Unacceptable[/b] is the arrogance and utter contempt for the rule of law, morals, principles and ethics demonstrated by the corrupt Bush regime using [i]lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]to perpetrate their many crimes against our country, Iraq and the entire world community-- the GOP swindlers in Congress using [i]strong-arm tactics, bribery & coercion [/i]to push through legislation harmful to our citizens but highly profitable for their corporate paymasters and special interests-- and by crooked members of the Supreme Court who show [i]no loyalty to our nation[/i], but instead to [i] criminal cronyism, unsavory nepotism and corporate patronages[/i]-- THESE UNDEMOCRATIC & CORROSIVE CORRUPTIONS MUST STOP ...
An example of such hideous cronyism and corruption is cited as follows in "'[b]Cheney and Scalia: [i]Old MacDonald had a judge [/i][/b]...'" by [i]Robert Scheer[/i], L.A. Times, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
Quack, quack. So much for the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.
Quack, quack. Say goodbye to judicial integrity. Quack, quack. Forget about holding the nation's vice president accountable for his dealings. Quack, quack. Trash the right of citizens to transparent government. Quack, quack.
Bizarre as it sounds, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia quacked like a duck last week during his defensive denial that a duck-hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney was improper. According to Scalia, the visit of the two men to the private game reserve of a top oil executive was merely a pleasant social engagement.
But Scalia's glib response was disingenuous, coming shortly before the Supremes will rule on a White House appeal in a case involving private meetings of Cheney's energy task force. It's outrageous that he does not intend to recuse himself.
"It did not involve a lawsuit against Dick Cheney as a private individual," Scalia said of the appeal while speaking at Amherst College last Tuesday. "This was a government issue. It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. [i]That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack[/i]." [What disgraceful arrogance Scalia smirks!]
The case in question is not a legalistic quibble, and Scalia seems determined to vote in what may be a hotly contested decision with enormous political effect. His Louisiana outing with Cheney came three weeks after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Cheney's appeal of a lower court order that he turn over records of the closed task force meetings he held with executives of the oil, coal, gas and nuclear companies in 2001. Those meetings became the basis for the president's national energy policy, which is chockablock with tax breaks and subsidies for these same industries.
This all has particular resonance for Californians, who, during the manufactured "energy crisis," saw our state and household budgets go up in flames. Many of the same companies represented at Cheney's meetings, such as Kenneth Lay's Enron, had "gamed," or manipulated, electricity prices using federal loopholes created by previous GOP administrations under the broad banner of "deregulation."
Unfortunately for us, the Constitution has a glaring loophole: If a Supreme Court justice doesn't have the moral fiber or humility to do the right thing in a case like this — federal rules instruct a judge to disqualify himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned" — there is no check or balance whereby that decision can be reviewed or rebuked.
According to an Amherst official, Scalia — with his waterfowl impression — may have been trying to preempt protesters he thought were going to perform their own impromptu noises. Nevertheless, by arrogantly trying to make a joke out of his unethical behavior, Scalia has again made a mockery of the enormous responsibility the Constitution places on our highest court.
After all, it was Scalia who led the Supreme Court with flimsy legal logic to validate the dubious 2000 Florida election results that were the difference in placing the current president in power. This time he may have gone too far in shredding the Supreme Court's vaunted reputation of impartiality.
"I'm surprised he's sticking by his guns. I would hope he does see the light," Georgetown University law professor Paul Rothstein said of Scalia's stubbornness to acknowledge what is simple common sense: If you are a longtime friend of the vice president and are accepting free junket flights from him, you best remove yourself from the fray when it comes time to rule on a decision that may damage his career.
Finally, we should remember what the legal case in question is about: transparency in government, which is one of the taproots of democracy. While Scalia twists and turns to avoid the obvious appearance of a conflict of interest, the case's co-plaintiffs — the liberal Sierra Club and the conservative Judicial Watch — have joined forces to demand accountability in government, so that we might see how corporate interests wield disproportionate power in the halls of government.
The Scalia-Cheney hunting tryst shows that the old-boy network is still scamming the public.
|
|
|
| |
| What The WORLD Is Saying About ... Iraq ... |
| 02.17.04 (1:16 pm) [edit] |
"...the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." - [i]James Madison[/i]
[b]"We the People" have been [i]played for fools, duped [/i]in a horrendous [i]scam[/i] devised by the corrupt Bush regime in order to wage their insane, illegal & immoral war in Iraq ... [/b]Please do not delay to contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that impeachment hearings be called immediately to remove the discredited, dishonest and traitorous Bush [i]criminals-in-arms [/i]from office ...
Refer to an excellent and insightful article that poses questions that [i]we [/i]should be loudly asking of our representatives in government entitled [i][b]"Have the Neocons Killed a Presidency?" [/b][/i]by [i]Patrick J. Buchanan [/i]on http://antiwar.com/pat/?artic... .
Consider also "[i][b]What the World is Saying [/b][/i]..." by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
[i][b] ... About Iraq ...[/b][/i]
With the number of coalition casualties steadily rising, the inability of military forces to prevent attacks on civilians, the delay in providing basic services, and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, support for the war in Iraq is being tested. Given the rush to war, the lack of formal United Nations approval, the opposition of many traditional allies, and the failure to adequately plan for post-conflict occupation, many are skeptical about the future of Iraq. The following is a sample of editorial commentary from around the world.
[u][b]Germany[/b][/u]
"The latest bombing shows that hope for a stabilization of Iraq after Saddam's capture was merely wishful thinking. On the contrary: the attacks that were probably perfidiously and perfectly planned by al-Qaeda and which increasingly turn against civilians...are creating an explosive atmosphere of concern and anti-Americanism which make the next normalization or even democratization steps look totally unrealistic. The propagated civil war has almost become a reality. As it looks right now, Washington fooled the world not only with respect to the war, but it is also making a fool of itself when it comes to peace."
- [i]Ruhr Nachrichten, February 10, 2004[/i]
[b][u]Kenya[/u][/b]
"There was never one clear argument for a war in Iraq but, rather, a collection of arguments that, when stacked up, provided plausible reasons for invasion. The overriding issue, however, was fighting terrorism. Now many of those arguments appear completely false, or at least seriously lacking credibility. The absence of weapons of mass destruction speaks for itself."
- [i]Chander Mehra, Kenya Times, February 11, 2004[/i]
[u][b]Pakistan[/b][/u]
"The point the U.S. fails to appreciate is that colonialism and imperialism are outdated ideologies and no nation will be ready to tolerate alien rule for even the shortest period of time and regardless of the 'humanitarian' nature of occupation... It will be difficult for the U.S. to undo this perception, as its action against Saddam Hussein was not designed to get rid of a tyrant but to acquire the rich natural resources of the state. It was imperialism with a benevolent face."
- [i]The News, February 12, 2004[/i]
[u][b]Ireland[/b][/u]
"There is no let up in the violent resistance to the U.S.-led occupation forces... It is a horrifying spectacle, illustrating the contradictions and complexities of this post-war occupation… There are welcome signs that France, Germany and other European powers are ready to take up a greater military and political role in Iraq. They should insist that this is done through a new United Nations mandate to endorse a more legitimate transition authority and set out a timetable for a full transfer of sovereignty back to Iraqis. The U.S.-led coalition's efforts to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces, police and public administration would stand a greater chance of succeeding if its members accept such a course of action."
- [i]The Irish Times, February 12, 2004[/i]
[u][b]Brazil[/b][/u]
"The two terrorist attacks in less than 24 hours in Iraq indicate an intensification of Iraqi resistance to the U.S. occupation… Chaos means above all the failure of the U.S. plan to transform the nation into a Washington protectorate. It also means that al-Qaeda's radicals may continue to nourish the dream of making Iraq a Sunni Islamic republic, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is unlikely that such groups have the power to impose their will, but one cannot deny that they are capable of upsetting all other plans."
- [i]Folha de San Paulo, February 12, 2004[/i]
[u][b]United Kingdom[/b][/u]
"It was hoped that the capture of Saddam Hussein in December would break the backbone of the resistance. It has not... As the British found after the First World War, Iraq is very difficult to govern... Against this must be set American resolve to maintain that integrity, and the patriotism of Iraqis who do not want their country to be carved up into Iranian and Turkish spheres of influence."
- [i]London Daily Telegraph, February 12, 2004[/i]
[u][b]China[/b][/u]
"There were three reasons behind the two successive bombings in Iraq on February 10 and 11. First, the bombings show the U.S. military that Saddam's arrest doesn't mean the end of anti-U.S. attacks. Second, the two bombings were aimed at organizations cooperating with the U.S. Their target is the U.S. occupation authority and they intend to destroy the general process of Iraqi reconstruction. Third, the militants hope to prevent Iraqis from cooperating with the Coalition through the series of attacks... If the U.S. loses its collaborators in Iraq, the Bush administration could conceivably be unable to step out of the Iraqi 'mire' before the election. At the same time, the U.S. military is worried that these attacks are just 'the tip of the iceberg.' The bombings won't cease anytime in the foreseeable future."
- [i]Huang Peizhao, Beijing Times, February 12, 2004[/i]
[u][b]Philippines[/b][/u]
"Now less than one year (after the Iraq war) Bush's case has crumbled completely. David Kay... told the U.S. Senate's Armed Services Committee that with 85 percent of its work done, his group was not likely to find any such weapons... That mistake has proven to be very costly in more ways than one, not counting the billions the United States blew to destroy Iraq and the billions more it has to spend for its reconstruction... Saddam's defeat has thus not contributed one whit to making the world a safer place. So what was all the carnage about?"
- [i]Philippine Daily Inquirer, February 11, 2004[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Another Flip-Flop: Bush Won't Meet With All 9/11 Panelists ... |
| 02.17.04 (8:12 am) [edit] |
[b]What is Dubya hiding?[/b] It is clear that the White House has something nefarious to[i] hide [/i]... The corrupt Bush regime refuses to allow selected members of the 9/11 investigative committee to read the [i]actual[/i] intelligence briefings provided to Bush in the days[i] leading-up [/i]to the 9/11 attacks ... Bush [i]waffles [/i]when asked by Tim Russert on 'Meet the Press' [i]whether or not [/i]he will agree to testify before the 9/11 committee ... Subsequently, Bush says that he[i] will [/i]testify ... Now he[i] refuses[/i] to do so ... [b]What is going on with this [i]never-ending [/i]flip-flop?[/b]
"We the People" have[i] the right to know [/i]what the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]knew and when they knew it! Obstruction and obfuscation by the White House is unacceptable and Congress http://www.congress.org should be demanding full-blown hearings and investigations into the many, many, many [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]committed by these despicable neo-con, neo-fascist traitors in the Bush regime who have hijacked our nation ...
Consider "[b]Bush Won't Meet With All 9/11 Panelists[/b]" by[i] Dan Eggen [/i]on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The White House said Saturday that President Bush plans to meet with only a limited number of representatives from the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, despite a statement issued Friday that suggested he would meet with the whole panel.
The new details surprised some commission officials and members -- who believed they had secured a promise from Bush for a private meeting with all 10 members -- and could add to the tensions that have strained relations between the two sides.
"While details of the private sessions are still to be determined, the White House does not expect the president to meet with the entire commission," an administration official said yesterday.
The official added that the White House had not decided whether a meeting would include only the panel's chairman, former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), and vice chairman, former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), or other members, as well.
Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat and former Watergate prosecutor, said it "would be important for all the members of the commission to have an opportunity to participate in an interview such as this. . . ."
"There is a significant difference in being present, seeing a witness in person and having an opportunity to ask follow-up questions, and simply reading a transcript or memo," he said.
Kean and Hamilton on Friday sent letters to Bush, Vice President Cheney and their predecessors, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, requesting private meetings with the commission and also welcoming the possibility of public appearances. The commission wants to question them about intelligence relating to al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and whether signs of an impending attack may have been missed.
In a statement later Friday, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said that "9/11 Commission Chair Kean and Vice Chair Hamilton today requested a private meeting with the president to discuss information relevant to the commission's work. The president has agreed to the request. . . ." McClellan added that Bush would not testify publicly.
Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said yesterday that the panel's letter was sent on behalf of the full panel and McClellan's subsequent statement had been taken as agreement to those terms. "The chair and vice chair clearly wrote on behalf of the commission to request a meeting with the whole commission," Felzenberg said.
Cheney, Clinton and Gore have also agreed to offer private testimony to the panel, commission officials said. The parties have not decided on details, however, including whether any of the four men will be asked to testify under oath.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which includes five Republicans and five Democrats, has had a stormy relationship with the White House since its formation, which the administration initially opposed. The panel has twice issued subpoenas for government materials and has threatened twice more to subpoena the White House itself.
One major point of friction has been the administration's insistence on sharply limiting the panel's access to selected presidential intelligence briefings, which were shown only to Kean, Hamilton and two other representatives. A 17-page summary of the briefings, edited by the White House, was given to the full commission last week.
|
|
|
| |
| 'US knew Iraq was WMD free' ... |
| 02.16.04 (4:42 pm) [edit] |
"Iraq was clean from WMD, but Western and Israeli intelligence communities are not prepared to accept that Iraq had actually taken such a step" - [i]Dr Imad Khadduri, former Iraqi senior nuclear scientist[/i]
[b]Did the corrupt Bush regime mislead "We the People"? ... Of course it did ... [/b]One of the many [i]questions [/i]that remain is [i]whether or not [/i]Dubya knew[i] in advance [/i]of leading us into his insane, illegal & immoral bloody war turned guerrilla quagmire:-- that Iraq had no WMDs ...
Refer to "[b]'US knew Iraq was WMD free'[/b]" by [i]Ahmed Janabi [/i]on http://english.aljazeera.net/... :
[b]Iraqi nuclear scientist Dr Imad Khadduri has told Aljazeera.net he does not believe any ''errors'' were made regarding WMD intelligence[/b].
Dr Khadduri http://english.aljazeera.net/... , a former senior Iraqi nuclear scientist who worked for the Iraqi nuclear programme from 1968 to 1998, said there was a deliberate media blackout of evidence proving Iraq did not possess WMD, and that to redress the balance he had written a book in English to have his witness testimony made available to the world.
In 1997 Iraq delivered a report to UN weapons inspectors stating that Iraq's civil and military nuclear programme was brought to a halt. When UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998 there was sufficient evidence that Iraq was free from non-conventional weapons, according to Dr Khadduri.
"I was one of the people involved in writing a detailed report in 1997 about Iraq's civil and military nuclear programme.
"We included in the report every detail needed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that Iraq's nuclear programme was suspended," Khadduri said.
He said Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability and its nuclear weapons programme were destroyed in the 1991 Gulf war.
"Following the defection of Hussein Kamil, the godfather of Iraq's non-conventional weapons programme, to Jordan in 1995, he made it clear to Ralph Ekeus, head of the UN inspection team UNSCOM and US officials, that stockpiles of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons were destroyed on his orders," Khadduri said.
"They never revealed such information, because it did not serve their war agenda."
Khadduri said even the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic) dismissed evidence that clearly indicated Iraq was free from WMD.
"The Iraqi government allowed Iraqi officials and army officials, who were in charge of destroying stockpiles of WMD after the Gulf war in 1991, to give their testimonies to Unmovic, but the UN inspectors simply dismissed their evidence," he said.
Dr Khadduri said Iraq was free from WMD, but that Western and Israeli intelligence communities were not prepared to accept Iraq would have actually taken such a step.
[b]Intelligence errors [/b]
Dr Khadduri believes that the US was very particular in who it listened to regardless of whether or not they enjoyed any credibility.
"The US administration was keen to promote Khidhr Hamza's allegations, nicknamed as the father of Saddam's bomb by Western media... the truth is he was fired from the nuclear programme in 1987, just months after he was assigned to head an Iraqi team devoted to planning a nuclear bomb.
"Hamza retired from the Iraqi Atomic Commission in 1989 and left Iraq for Libya in 1994. He simply knows nothing."
Khadduri said he tried to get his voice heard before the war, to correct many misleading claims alleged by the US administration and its Iraqi backers.
"I worked in the Iraqi nuclear programme for 30 years until I left Iraq in 1998, and there are many honest Iraqi scientists who lived outside Iraq years before the war. They were not approached; no one listened to them," he said.
"It was a deliberate marginalising of reliable sources, of the people involved directly in Iraq's WMD programme."
He said Iraqi ex-opposition figures have been silent about information they provided before the war.
"Where are those Iraqis who bragged of delivering valuable information about Iraq's WMD? Why don't they just lead the US army in Iraq to the place where the alleged WMD are hidden?"
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Breaks the LAW Again ... |
| 02.15.04 (2:49 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime has broken the LAW [i]over and over and over [/i]again ... [/b]
In an important election year, it is vital that "We the People" acquaint ourselves with the crimes committed by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta[/i]:--
The following [i]web-sites [/i]are well worth perusing:
[b]Truth in Politics [/b]on http://www.thetip.org/art_Kla...
[b]and ...[/b]
[b]Mathew Gross [/b]was Director of Internet Communications http://www3.deanforamerica.co... for the Dean campaign. But that title, if anything, belied his importance. He was one of the real wizards behind the Dean Internet phenomenon.
He's now left the campaign and set up his own [i][b]blog[/b][/i] on http://www.mathewgross.com/bl... .
[i]It's one you won't want to miss[/i].
In fact, Joe Trippi has set up a [i][b]blog[/b][/i] too on http://www.changeforamerica.c... ...
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo[/i], http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| "Bad news doesn't get better with age" ... |
| 02.15.04 (11:10 am) [edit] |
[b]Dubya has released a plethora of [i]irrelevant documents [/i]concerning his pathetic performance during the Vietnam era, when he was an AWOL deserter and a known drunkard and party-boy ...[/b]
"We the People" must question the character (... [i]of lack thereof[/i] ...) of a corrupt [i]bully-boy[/i], a[i] liar & hypocrite[/i] and an arrogant[i] ne'er-do-well [/i]who is all too ready to send our U.S. Soldiers to die in his insane, illegal & immoral neo-con, neo-fascist wars devised in order to enrich his corporate paymasters: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. ... but who was a coward and spoiled cheat who ran away and didn't do[i] his [/i]duty ...
Refer also to "W's AWOL Spin Updated" by [i]David Corn [/i]on http://www.thenation.com/capi... .
Consider ""[b]Bad news doesn't get better with age[/b]"" by [i]Eric Boehlert [/i]on http://www.salon.com/news/fea... :
[i][b]The retired officer who saw Bush National Guard files in a trash can talks back as the White House tries to discredit him, and urges the president to finally come clean.[/b][/i]
[b]Feb. 14, 2004 [/b]| Fending off [i]allegations[/i] http://www.salon.com/news/fea... that President Bush failed to honor his Texas Air National Guard service by taking unexplained months off at a time from serving, the White House also has to deal with the accusation from a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard who claims aides to Bush went through his military file in 1997 and removed any embarrassing information, and tossed documents in the trash. They were allegedly the types of documents that might help answer many of the unanswered questions surrounding Bush's Guard service today.
The retired officer, Bill Burkett, went public with his charges in 1998. But with renewed interest in Bush's Guard service, and specifically the contents of his [i]personal military file[/i], http://www.salon.com/news/fea... Burkett's story about tampering has taken on greater urgency and attracted national notice. "I don't like the attention," he said from his home near Abilene, Texas, during an interview with Salon. "If you think 15 minutes of fame is worth it, that's damn sure no motivation for this kind of crap," referring to the constant press inquiries. (Burkett's story is also detailed in the upcoming book by James Moore, "[i]Bush's War for Re-election[/i].")
Burkett says that in the spring of 1997, on the eve of Bush's reelection campaign for governor, and with his spokeswoman Karen Hughes planning to write Bush's biography, a call was placed to Maj. Gen. Daniel James, head of the Texas National Guard. According to the conversation Burkett says he overheard, Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, asked James to assemble Bush's military files, so his aides, including Dan Bartlett, could go over them, and to make sure there was nothing there that would embarrass the governor. Burkett says days later he also saw pages from Bush's military file in a garbage can.
"Activities occurred in order to, in my opinion, inappropriately build a false image of the governor's military service," he said.
All the key players, who remain close allies of Bush, deny Burkett's account, labeling it an outrageous claim. They include Gen. James, whom Bush promoted to director of the Air National Guard for the entire country. They have also described Burkett as a disgruntled former guardsman. "I am an extremely strong supporter and a 28-plus-year member of the Texas National Guard," Burkett insisted.
Burkett says when the incident occurred in 1997 he discussed it several times with his friend and fellow officer George Conn. In 2002, Conn confirmed to USA Today that Burkett talked to him about the conversation he overheard regarding Bush's file, and did so within days of its happening. This week Conn told the New York Times via e-mail, "I know LTC Bill Burkett and served with him several years ago in the Texas Army National Guard. I believe him to be honest and forthright. He calls things like he sees them.'" But in Friday's Boston Globe, Conn, now a civilian government employee working with the U.S. Army in Germany, denied Burkett ever told him about the conversation Burkett overheard concerning Bush's military file.
Burkett dismisses Conn's new version of the story. "The truth hasn't changed," said Burkett. "The only thing that has changed is George Conn's statement."
Burkett has battled the Guard for years since his retirement in 1998. He complained he did not receive adequate medical care when he became seriously ill after returning from a mission to Panama, and that Guard officials retaliated against him because he had conducted a management study critical of the Guard. Burkett told the New York Times he was hospitalized for depression in 1998 after suffering a nervous breakdown.
Although the White House dumped roughly 400 pages of Bush's military files with reporters late Friday -- on the eve of the long Presidents' Day weekend -- they contain no documentation of his time in Alabama and are unlikely to make the issue go away.
[b]Tell me about the incident that occurred in the spring of 1997.[/b]
Here is basically what happened within the second floor of the Texas Air National Guard headquarters at Camp Mabry [in Austin]. It's a long building, north to south in structure. Because I was appointed State Plans Officer, I had access to General James. And at times I would drop by the general's office and would be ushered in or out by the receptionist/secretary. Just outside of his office she had a very small space of roughly 8-by-10 feet just outside of his immediate door. On occasions she was not there and the door was closed, I went on and went somewhere else assuming he was either not there or in sensitive discussion. If the door was open I had been told that if it didn't seem all that important of a discussion that I'd just tap on the door or stick my head in to see if it was anything sensitive.
On this occasion his secretary was not at her desk and the door was cracked approximately 8 to 10 inches. And I stuck my head through the door. And this is the one point where there may be some doubt; I'm not sure General James actually acknowledged me. The rest of it I am sure of. I was under the assumption that he had people in his office because I could hear voices. When I stuck my head through the door slightly I could not see anyone sitting in the wing-backed chairs or the couch that sat in front of his desk where you always sat if you went into the general's office for a conversation. Immediately I recognized he was on a telephone call and I was extremely embarrassed. I felt uncomfortable about that. And I stood there [in the receptionist's area] for a moment. The basic part of what I heard, and the words I'll give you are a paraphrase, they are not direct quotes, the words basically were, "Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett were going to come out to the [Texas National] Guard and they wanted General James to make sure the [Bush] records were assembled and basically, not in some crisis statement or anything, but to make sure there wasn't anything there that would embarrass the governor."
[b]And who said that?[/b]
I recognized those words as those of Joe Allbaugh. And I recognized that Dan Bartlett was also on the phone as well, and Dan had been referred to in the conversation.
On the surface I guess you could read those words, "Make sure there wasn't anything there that would embarrass the governor," and the extremist on one side would say, "Oh my God, a conspiracy." And those on the other side would say, "What's the problem?" But it did bother me sufficiently that I did talk to Mr. Conn that night at dinner. I trusted him ethically and I basically asked him for ethical guidance because it did bother me sufficiently.
The following day I was standing in the break area awaiting a meeting. These things happen in quick passing, moving from one office to the other and with general officers moving rapidly. A couple of individuals not known to me by name, not known to me socially, walked into the corridor, into the coffee area. Those individuals were rapidly referred to by General James, and General James passed along the directive that Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett were going to come out to look through the retained records and other files and that Karen was going to write a book in preparation of the reelection campaign and a possible presidential run. And the comment was added on by [another general], "And make sure there is nothing there to embarrass the governor."
So again, I can tell you this now, I'm sure looking back and analyzing this, I'm sure the thing that flagged was the "Make sure there's nothing there" comment. I again mentioned this to George Conn at dinner that evening. I was very troubled by it. I thought about this for some period of time, but I did not bring it up. I didn't want to overdo it. I was really trying. And it wasn't out of fear for me; I was really trying to help to turn this organization around. That was my job as state plans officer doing a strategic plan for the Texas National Guard. The credibility of my boss and the product and everything we did was on the line and I had some degree of concern.
[b]What happened next?[/b]
So, anyway, time goes on. Mr. Conn was a very trusted individual by me and I think by most people at Camp Mabry. I really trusted the guy. I relied on him. He mothered me once in a while. I'm a workaholic kind of person; 12 hours minimum day. Sixteen hours are more realistic days. And George came to my desk this one day, approximately 10 days after the second occurrence [of hearing the "Make sure there is nothing embarrassing" comment], and he came to my desk and said, "C'mon and get your hat."
We took a walk and ended up at the state museum, which is an old Korean War-era structure. A one-story armory. [Inside a large room] about 35 feet onto the concrete area was a folding table, Formica top type. Standard folding table with a stack of papers you could tell were not neatly stacked or anything; they were obviously some work in progress and there were a couple of chairs there. And at the north end of the table is a trash can that came up to the top of the table. And I always called it a 15-gallon old-style metal wastebasket. George and I entered the building and George and this individual who had previously received a directive from General James to assemble that paperwork. This individual was there, a General Scribner, and they [he and Conn] obviously knew each other. And they acknowledged each other and it was very friendly, very social.
I happened to be standing right next to that trash can. If I had been standing one step away from that trash can what happened would not have happened. Because I would have had to take a step [toward the trash can] and I wouldn't have done it.
On the table there was some work being done. I didn't see any of those files. We talked quickly. George said to General Scribner, and I'm paraphrasing, "General, how's it going. What are you finding?" The general said, "Well, over time a lot of people have gone through this thing and it's not as much as I would have thought. Most of what we have is P.R.-type stuff, like P.R. photos they use in recruiting drives. And it's just not as much as I thought."
Then they gravitated back toward the corner office. And I was standing right next to the garbage can. I looked down in the trash can. The trash can at the bottom I could see was filled with some cardboard packing material, including the kind of nylon-type straps and maybe some bubble packing. On top of that was a page or two of standard white, low-grade packing-type paper. And on top of that is this little, loosely thrown or tossed group of pages, standard 8-1/2-by-11-size pages and I guess what struck, what got my interest, was on the top page at the top of it was a handwritten entry in a standard form with the name "Bush," comma, "George W," comma, "On Lt." That was in pen ink entry. That intrigued me. It concerned me, looking back at it, I knew initially that it bothered me that was in the trash can. It struck me pretty hard initially. The total number of pages I've estimated were between 20 and 40 pages.
[b]Twenty to 40 pages that were in the trash, or that were in the folder?[/b]
That were in the trash. I did thumb through the top six or eight pages of that. And they were all standard forms that were filled out that included performance documents and payroll-type documents. I did not go beyond the top six or eight pages. I was very troubled with my actions and my conscience grabbed hold of me. A jolt hit me very hard.
Then we left there. The total of our time of stay, very informal, very friendly, was minimum five minutes, maximum eight minutes. I know looking at it I was extremely concerned and was really bothered by what I'd seen and I needed to talk. My personal reflection was that activities were ongoing to in some way put a positive image on the governor's files, whether it existed or not.
[b]General James, Karen Hughes, Joe Allbaugh, Dan Bartlett, General Scribner, they've all adamantly denied your account. If someone's coming to this fresh and doesn't have strong feeling either way, why should they believe your account if those four or five people all say it's an outrageous claim?[/b]
One way I think you should look at this is, look at motive on my part. Why would I do this? Why would I manufacture such a story? Why would I then endanger or otherwise destroy a very strong career? Why would I then subject myself to the retaliation that was at hand? Once the retaliation was at hand and the story was false, why would I continue to insist it was true?
[b]George Conn told the Boston Globe this week you never mentioned the overheard conversation to him, and that he did not know Bush's file was being reviewed.[/b]
It's interesting that just two days ago Mr. Conn forwarded an e-mail response to a reporter, which was read to me, and it said, quote, "Lt. Col. Burkett is an honorable man and does not lie," end quote.
[b]So, you did speak to Mr. Conn that night or within a couple days in 1997 expressing your concern and also told him about the conversation you overheard.[/b]
The truth has not changed in this one day.
[b]Was he aware that that was George Bush's file being examined when you two visited the museum?[/b]
I just said that the truth has not changed in this one day.
[b]I know but... [/b]
You're not going to take me into the details and pound this thing, no. The truth has not changed in one day. And I stand on those statements and the truth.
[b]Are you surprised by Conn's comments?[/b]
No.
[b]Even though he's corroborated you for all those years?[/b]
You don't understand the level of pressure he's under. He has a contract position with the Department of Defense.
[b]Have you talked to him recently?[/b]
I had an e-mail sent to him. I told him, George, I know you're underground, I know you're being beat up. You do what you have to do. I'll still respect you. And I respect him. This guy's an honorable man. I love the man. But you can't ask a man to give up his life.
[b]What's your take on what's happening now with the story of Bush's military service?[/b]
I'm very troubled by it all. I think most [presidential] candidates have simply opened the entire package of military files. From Day One this was poorly handled. And Day One to me was the early spring of '97. And I'm still disappointed in how they've handled it. There are really good people in the Bush administration and some supertalented people that I believe initially started out with great intentions to do the right thing. But I think this has been bungled from Day One and they continue to make it worse every day.
[b]Give me some examples.[/b]
Why wouldn't you just release the whole file? Bad news doesn't get better with age.
[b]And when you say release the files, you're referring to documents such as personal medical records, administrative reviews, records that would need Bush's authorization to be released?[/b]
Senator McCain, in my opinion, did it right [when he ran for president in 2000]. He just said, "Hey, whatever is in the archives, we're going to close the loop on this. Whatever is in retirement records, I want it all out there. Whatever is at the Defense Finance Accounting Services, I want it all out there. My W-2 from my military time, I want it all out there."
[b]But from the White House's perspective, if there is bad news there's a chance they'll never have to release it because Bush would have to authorize it. If there was a disciplinary review, for instance, no one can see that unless he authorizes it and if he won't do it, nobody will ever find out about the bad news.[/b]
My disappointment is, instead of releasing the whole file, and instead of sticking to strict standards and letting facts speak for themselves, the most the White House has done this week is give him a D.
And here's the reason for the D. First of all, an incomplete, piece-by-piece, one-at-a-time release of files, so you've got people chasing one piece of paper here, they can't corroborate with a performance certificate. The military is the worst in the world for a paper trail. It's so redundant. And yet somehow, if we know the issue originally surfaced in 1994 [during Bush's first campaign for governor] and there was a hole [in his service record] then and you know you have a hole then, I don't care if you're running for third-grade class president, you go back and correct the files. There is a process for that that every serviceman knows. When you leave the military, if your file is less than complete, and by the way you do a files review before you leave, if your files are less than complete or inaccurate, a process called, in the case of the Air Force, it's called the Air Force Board Correction of military records and it's a one- to two-page form and it may take as much as a year. But certainly no more than a year. Now, if you knew in '94, why did you go through it again in the '98 campaign? Why did you go through it again in 2000? The fact that we don't go to a complete records review today means they're just trying to put out fires rather than trying to solve a problem.
[b]Are you surprised they were able to uncover records that they hadn't been previously able to find?[/b]
I think it's strange when Mr. Dan Bartlett in 2000, right before the election says, "No, Denver [the Air Reserve Personnel Center] didn't have any of those files, and those files didn't exist." And now he comes back and says, "Hey, we've got them and they were right where they were supposed to be in Denver." Now, that's strange to me. That doesn't pass the smell test. And that's the only reason this story has legs.
|
|
|
| |
| GOP Smear Machine are Back in the Democrats' Pants ... |
| 02.15.04 (9:22 am) [edit] |
[b]As the political season has started early this year, the GOP smear machine is already moving into high-gear ... [/b]Attack-dogs and court-jesters like [i]Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, WND, the Weekly Standard [/i]and other mouth-pieces for the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime are already spreading their mendacious neo-orwellian [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]directed at (... [i]first it was Howard Dean who was buried by their neo-hitlerian on-slaught because he refused to be a corporate slut [/i]...) John Kerry (... [i]because he is a decorated war hero as compared with Dubya, who was a drunkardly deserter & spoiled AWOL party-boy [/i]...) ...
"We the People" had better learn fast how to seperate the proverbial [i]wheat-from-the-chaff[/ i], otherwise the big monied GOP machine funded by their criminal corporate interests and their hyper-rich campaign contributors will[i] bury us [/i]with their many, many, many ugly[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]There he goes again![/b][/i]" by [i]Joe Conason [/i]on http://www.salon.com/opinion/... :
[b]Feb. 13, 2004 [/b]| Is American politics suddenly returning to the bad old days, when Washington journalism became frenzied with sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping? That seems to be the default program of the right-wing media machine whenever Republican poll numbers sink http://abcnews.go.com/section... into the red zone.
[b]Late Thursday morning [/b]-- with George W. Bush's credibility damaged on several fronts as reporters demanded answers to questions about his National Guard service that should have been asked years ago -- the Drudge Report defamed his leading Democratic challenger with a "world exclusive" smudge of personal dirt.
Vague and unsourced but hyped to the maximum by Drudge, the brief item sounded disturbingly familiar. The Internet gossip accused John Kerry of "recent alleged infidelity" with "a woman who recently fled the country," adding that a "close friend of the woman recently approached a reporter with fantastic stories." The same item ran an "off the record" comment attributed to retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who was quoted as saying, "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." Major news organizations from ABC News to the Associated Press, warned Drudge, were all over the story.
By evening, however, no major news organization had run with it, though many were chasing it. Perhaps frustrated, Drudge put up an additional item eight hours later, with a few more details about the alleged relationship. "Unlike the Monica Lewinsky drama, which first played out publicly in this space, with audio tapes, cigar and a dress, the Kerry situation has posed a challenge to reporters investigating the claims," his later item explained. Drudge also quoted a "top source" as saying: "There is no lawsuit testimony this time [like Clinton with Paula Jones]. It is hard to prove."
But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation.
Somewhat conveniently, Drudge had earlier posted an item that blamed the sudden smudging on a disgruntled Democratic consultant named Chris Lehane, who had been fired by Kerry before going to work as a communications aide to Clark. That second item was later taken down without explanation. By then, of course, this Drudge-drama was already "rocking" Democrats -- and delighting Republicans -- across the nation, at least according to Drudge.
The template was pure Monica: Intern has affair with married politician, is betrayed by a "close friend," and finally exposed by the pliant Drudge.
So far, however, the mainstream media has yet to touch the Drudge item, despite heavy promotion by Rush Limbaugh http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/h... and the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal Web site http://www.opinionjournal.com... . Whoever lit this match must have been disappointed when the story that smoldered in newsrooms during the afternoon failed to blaze into a firestorm by early evening. The only exception, so far, is a daily newspaper in Scotland http://news.scotsman.com/late... .
(Kerry refuted Drudge on "Imus in the Morning" today, as Don Imus pointed out people were talking about the allegations Drudge was spreading, but no news organizations were actually reporting on them. "Well, there is nothing to report. So there is nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it. The answer is no," Kerry said.)
Over the years, Kerry's private life has generated its share of gossip. He was a divorced, socially active single man for several years before he remarried. No woman has so far stepped forward to embarrass him in any way -- and the only published report even remotely hinting at marital infidelity is a 6-year-old unfounded clipping from the Boston Herald. Sources in the Kerry camp insist that the Drudge story has no foundation, although they have been predicting since Bush's numbers began to drop that the White House would soon dump its opposition research on their candidate. It may also be worth noting that the Massachusetts senator underwent surgery and radiation treatment last year for prostate cancer.
Was the Drudge item a late hit by an angry Democrat seeking revenge, or a plant by desperate Republicans hoping to distract attention from the president's problems? Lacking proof, the most pertinent questions are the standards of forensic inquiry: Cui bono (who benefits)? And who had the motive, method and opportunity?
Drudge's allegations set off a chain of speculation. Certainly some Democrats wondered if the evidence-free item came from Lehane, who declined public comment this afternoon. Lehane has a reputation as an often rough operator, and that may provide a pretext for Drudge to smear him, too. Following Lehane's dismissal from the Kerry campaign some months ago, the tone of his remarks about his former employer occasionally sounded vengeful. If Clark actually uttered the nasty remark as quoted by Drudge, the general might have heard such rumors from his sharp-edged consultant. But then if Clark believed Kerry was about to "implode," he might not have dropped out of the primary race -- or decided to endorse the Massachusetts senator, as he is expected to do on Friday.
A source close to Lehane vehemently denied to me that Lehane had peddled any rumors about Kerry -- and turned attention back toward the White House as Drudge's likely source. "My assessment is that this is not merely a serendipitous event," he said.
The Drudge item blaming Lehane quoted Craig Crawford, a former Democratic operative who now works as a consultant and columnist for MSNBC. Within 10 minutes after Drudge posted the Kerry intern item, Crawford sent a memo to his superiors that said the story was "something Chris Lehane (clark press secy) has shopped around for a long time." According to Crawford, someone at MSNBC promptly leaked his memo to Drudge. But when Lehane called Crawford with a loudly indignant denial, the MSNBC columnist quickly issued a public retraction. He said:
"The comments attributed to me are from a private email to television news associates based on conversations with Democratic campaign operatives. I did not consider any of it confirmed enough to report or publish. I can only verify that Chris Lehane's rivals in other Democratic campaigns made these claims and I have found no independent source to confirm it. Which is why we did not go with the story. But then someone sent my email to others, which is the only reason it got into the public domain." In other words, there is no proof that Lehane circulated the rumor, let alone that the rumor has any basis in reality.
Once again, Drudge has raised questions -- but they may not be the ones he seeks to raise. The first is about journalistic standards. The second is the identity of his anonymous sources.
Journalists must ask themselves why the rumor of a private peccadillo deserves their attention and resources in the 2004 campaign. The press faces a more important issue: learning from its own failure to report the false rationale and abused intelligence that drove the nation to war.
|
|
|
| |
| Democracy and Iraq ... |
| 02.15.04 (8:15 am) [edit] |
"Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world." – [i]Garet Garrett[/i]
[b]The situation in Iraq is a miserable failure:-- the neo-con's fiasco is rapidly[i] spinning out of control [/i]... [/b]Predictions are reported by U.S. intelligence officials that a civil war in Iraq http://www.antiwar.com/orig/a... may break-out and that U.S. plans for elections may be postponed.
What [i]good[/i] did the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i][u]actually[/u] bring to Iraq (... [i]with over 540 US Soldiers Dead & over 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians Dead [/i]...)? ... What [i]good [/i]have the insane neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies [u]actually[/u] [i]done[/i] for anyone (...[i] unless you happen to be among the greedy rich corporate robber-barons or one of the top 1-5% wealthiest oligarchs or plutocrats [/i]...)? ... These are a few of the serious questions that "We the People" should be asking and profoundly reflecting upon ...
Consider "[i][b]Democracy in an Arab State[/b][/i]" by [i]Robert Fisk[/i], U.K Independent, on http://www.zmag.org/content/s... :
For democracy, read fantasy. Iraq is getting so nasty for our great leaders these days that anything - and anyone - is going to be thrown to the dogs to save them. The BBC, the CIA, British intelligence - any journalist that dares to point out the lies that led us to war - get pelted with more lies. The moment we suggest that Iraq never was fertile soil for Western democracy, we get accused of being racists. Do we think the Arabs are incapable of producing democracy, we are asked? Do we think they are subhuman?
This kind of tosh comes from the same family of abuse as that which labels all and every criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. If we even remind the world that the cabal of neo-conservative, pro-Israeli proselytisers - Messers Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, et al - helped to propel President Bush and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld into this war with grotesquely inaccurate prophecies of a new Middle East of democratic, pro-Israeli Arab states, we are told that we are racist even to mention their names. So let's just remember what the neo-cons were advocating back in the golden autumn of 2002 when Tony was squaring up with George to destroy the Hitler of Baghdad.
They were going to re-shape the map of the Middle East and bring democracy to the region. The dictators would fall or come onside - thus the importance of persuading the world now that the preposterous Gaddafi is a "statesman" (thank you, Jack Straw) for giving up his own infantile nuclear ambitions - and democracy would blossom from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Arabs wanted democracy. They would seize it. We would be loved, welcomed, praised, embraced for bringing this much sought-after commodity to the region. Of course, the neo-cons got it wrong.
The latest contribution to the defence of these men came from David Brooks in The New York Times. "In truth," he writes, "the people labelled 'neo-cons'... don't actually have much contact with one another... There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office... All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently."
It's good of the "senior" officials to let us know this - let alone the unconsciously hilarious aside that Mr Bush reaches conclusions on his own. Brooks even tries to erase the word "neo-conservative" from the narrative of the Iraq war with the absurd line that "con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish'". For now, the mere use of the phrase "neo-conservative" can be anti-Semitic: Brooks actually ends his article by announcing that "anti-Semitism is resurgent".
If that's the best critics can be threatened with, then Messers Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest are on the run. They didn't say democracy would work. They didn't influence President Bush. They didn't have the power. They hardly talked to him. Neo-conservatives? Who? But it was the neo-cons who were - along with Israel itself - among the most fervent advocates of an Iraqi invasion.
They had seized upon a devastating and all-too-true fact of life in most of the Middle East: that Arab states are largely squalid, corrupt, brutal dictatorships. No surprise there. We created most of these dictators. We kicked off with kings and princes and - if they didn't exercise sufficient control over the masses - then we supported a wretched bunch of generals and colonels, most of whom wore a variety of British military uniforms with eagles instead of crowns on their hat badges.
Thus King Farouk was supplanted, indirectly, by Colonel Nasser (and by General Sadat and Air Force General Mubarak), King Idris by Colonel Gaddafi - the Foreign Office loved the young Gaddafi - and King Faisal's post-First World War monarchy in Iraq was replaced, eventually, by the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein.
So we never wanted the Arabs to have democracy. When the Egyptians tried this in the 1930s and looked like booting out Farouk, the British clapped the opposition into prison. We Westerners drew the borders of most of the Arab nations, created their states and propped up their obedient leaders - bombing them, of course, if they nationalised the Suez Canal, helped the IRA or invaded Kuwait. But the neo-cons and Mr Bush - and then, inevitably, Mr Blair - wanted them to have democracy.
Now there are a lot of Arabs who would like a bit of this precious substance called democracy. Indeed, when they emigrate to the West and settle down with US or British or French or any other Western passport, they show the same aptitude as ourselves for "democracy". The Iraqis of Dearborn, Michigan, are like any other Americans, and they vote - largely Democrat - and play and work like any other freedom-loving US citizens. So there's nothing genetic about the Arab world's inability to seize democracy.
The problem is not the people. The problem is the environment, the make-up of the patriarchal society and - most important of all - the artificial states which we created for them. They do not and cannot produce democracy. The dictators we paid and armed and stroked ruled by torture and by tribe. Faced with nations which they in many cases did not believe in, the Arab peoples had confidence only in their tribes. The kings were tribal - the Hashemites come from the north-east of what we now call Saudi Arabia - and the dictators were tribal. Saddam, as all the world is told repeatedly, was a Tikriti. And these ruthless men held power through a network of tribal and sectarian alliances.
When we bashed into their country, of course, we told the Iraqis we were going to give them democracy. They would have free elections. I remember the first time I realised how dishonest this promise was. It was when Paul Bremer, America's failed proconsul in Iraq, stopped talking about democracy and started referring to "representative government" - which is not the same thing at all. That was when folk like Daniel Pipes, a right-wing cousin of those neo-cons we can no longer mention, started advocating not "democracy" for Iraq but a "democratically-minded autocrat".
Bremer says there can be no elections before the June "handover" of "sovereignty" - in itself a lie because the "handover" will give the mythical "sovereignty" of Iraq to a group of Iraqis chosen by the Americans and the British. They will - prayers are now called for - later hold the democratic elections we falsely promised the Iraqi people and which the Iraqi Shias are now vociferously demanding. And even if these elections are ever held, most Iraqis will vote according to tribe and religion. That is how their political system has worked for almost a hundred years and that is how the American-selected "interim council" works today.
And so here we go again. No weapons of mass destruction. No links between Saddam and 11 September. No democracy. Blame the press. Blame the BBC. Blame the spooks. But don't blame Messers Bush and Blair. And don't blame the American neo-conservatives who helped to push the US into this disaster. They don't even exist. And if you say they did, you know what you're going to be called.
[b]Other Sources[/b]:
"Iraqis Warn Country Close to Civil War" on http://whttp://www.antiwar.com/orig/atraqchi5.htmlww.antiwar.com/orig/atraqchi5.html
"Chaos and War Leave Iraq's Hospitals in Ruins" on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
"When Credibility Becomes An Issue" on http://www.axisoflogic.com/ar...
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry And War ... |
| 02.14.04 (8:57 pm) [edit] |
[b]The ugly, corrupt Bush machine is [i]out-in-force [/i]to fabricate massive [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]in order to smear and destroy John Kerry ... [/b]The neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]has already proved that they will [u]DO[/u] [i]anything[/i] (... [i]launch illegal & immoral 'pre-emptive' wars to enrich their corporate cronies [/i]...), and [u]SAY[/u] [i]anything[/i] (... [i]lie, deceive & falsify insane neo-orwellian propaganda akin to their phony Iraqi WMDs 'casus belli' for war [/i]...), and [u]EXAGGERATE[/u] [i]anything[/i] (... [i]Dubya's miserable service record during Vietnam, when he was a deserter AWOL & MIA[/i] ...) ... in order to achieve their sordid & squalid aims ...
"We the People" must intimately acquaint ourselves with the[i] truth [/i]in order to avoid being led again on a continual route to[i] chaos, mayhem and misery [/i]that the neo-fascist Bushies have tragically embarked upon ... and will ultimately prove the ruination and downfall of our great nation ...
Kerry is not a perfect man ... Neither is Bush[i] by far [/i]... We will not have the luxury of perfection in our choice for president, so we had better take a cold hard look at these candidates, their positions and the consequences for the future ... For otherwise, we could end up with the greater of the two imperfect choices ... And the corrupt Bush regime represents[i] an unwise and dangerously stupid choice [/i]if we want a bright and positive future for America ...
Consider "[b]Kerry and War[/b]" by[i] Jonathan Schell [/i]on http://www.commondreams.org/v... :
John Kerry has been twice a hero. First, as a soldier in Vietnam, he displayed extraordinary physical courage, winning the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Once, injured and under heavy fire, he turned back his river boat to rescue a wounded comrade, who now credits Kerry with saving his life. Second, displaying civil courage at home equal to his physical courage in battle, he embarked on a campaign of protest against the war in which he had fought, becoming a spokesperson for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In 1971, the VVAW camped out on the Mall in Washington. President Nixon's Justice Department then sought and obtained a court injunction forbidding the groups from using the Mall. Immediately and spontaneously, the veterans, as if re-enacting the American Revolution, assembled in caucuses by state to deliberate and vote--and so created, at the symbolic center of the Republic, a kind of instant, ideal mini-republic of their own. They decided to defy the injunction and appeal their case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court decision and permitted the protest to continue.
Kerry's subsequent words in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, still have the power to startle, in our time of general disorientation and muted speech, with their brave candor. He described the wrong done to the Vietnam veterans but did not fail also to discuss the wrongs they had committed. "I would like," he said, "to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.... They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." He added, "We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation"--invoking Thomas Paine's description of the soldiers at Valley Forge. And he said, referring to the policy that had led to these crimes, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
More than two decades later, Kerry made a decision that in the view of many observers failed to demonstrate the heroism of these earlier actions: On October 11, 2002, he voted, as did every other Democratic legislator with presidential ambitions but one--Representative Dennis Kucinich--to license George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq if he saw fit. Yet soon after the vote it turned out that the temper of the Democratic primary voters was antiwar, even angrily so, and Governor Howard Dean, who had opposed the war from the beginning, began his climb in the polls and became the generally acknowledged front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Kerry, previously considered the front-runner by many in the press, appeared to watch his longstanding presidential ambitions go down the drain. But then, in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, came the remarkable reversal of fortune in which Democratic voters, inspired by an almost palpable resolve to defeat Bush in the fall, switched their allegiance from the fiery Dean to the more phlegmatic and "electable" war hero Kerry, who soon won his long string of primary victories. In a peculiar act of political transplantation, the voters, energized by Dean, seemed by this switch to want to infuse the spirit of Dean into the body of Kerry, who then, Lazarus-like, came to life both as a person and as a candidate.
Left pending in all this maneuvering by ordinary citizens, however, was the question of Kerry's position on the war. Had our warrior-protester, now in pursuit of the presidency, sacrificed principle for ambition by voting for the Iraq war? Had the winter soldier abandoned his post? Had he by his vote asked American soldiers to die for a mistake? Only the Searcher of Hearts can know for sure. Kerry himself asserts that his vote to enable the war was a vote of conscience. What the rest of us can see, however, is that ever since his vote he has trapped himself in a morass--a little quagmire in its own right--of self-contradictory, equivocating, evasive, incomplete, unconvincing explanations of his stand.
Kerry has often said his position has been consistent, and this is true in the sense that he has said the same thing over and over. But it is in part precisely in this rigidity that the problem lies. Kerry voted for the war, he said at the time, because he believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and must be disarmed. He favored "regime change" but did not regard it as a justification for war. He rejected the allegation of Iraqi ties with Al Qaeda as unproven. "Let me be clear," he said in his Senate speech announcing his vote for the war resolution. "The vote I will give the President is for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies." He lengthily detailed the intelligence findings he had seen, concluding, "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." Disturbingly, he did not address the constitutional problem raised by the fact that, as his Massachusetts colleague Ted Kennedy said, "The most solemn responsibility any Congress has is the responsibility given the Congress by the Constitution to declare war." Therefore, "we would violate that responsibility if we delegate that responsibility to the President in advance before the President himself has decided the time has come for war."
The measure was the only substantive one that Kerry or any senator would pass before the war, yet Kerry claimed to believe that his vote was conditioned on fulfillment of "promises" that the Administration had made. The promises were to exhaust all diplomatic possibilities before going to war and thereby to assemble a large international coalition to fight the war and help run Iraq when the war was over. Indeed, so great was his faith in these promises that he would later claim of himself and his fellow Democrats, "Nobody on our side voted for the war." What did they vote for, then? "We needed the legitimate threat of [war] to get our inspectors into Iraq." Kerry voted, it seems, for inspectors, not war. He and all of us got war.
Kerry's entire argument against the Administration therefore is not that it waged a mistaken war but that it waged a necessary war in the wrong way. Several interviewers have pushed him hard to explain his position. In August Tim Russert, on Meet the Press, noted that he was accusing the President of having "misled" the country and commented that this did not sound like someone who supported the war. Kerry disagreed. "Wrong," he said. "I supported the notion that we must as a country hold Saddam Hussein accountable for what he was doing." Only the conduct of the war bothered him. "And so I'm running because I'm angry at the mismanagement of how we worked with our colleagues in the world and how we, in fact, have conducted the war."
Russert proceeded to the key question: "No regret over your vote?" To which Kerry, dodging the question, answered, "My regret is that the President of the United States didn't do what he had said he would do"--namely go to war only when diplomacy was exhausted and allies were on board.
"Were you misled by the intelligence agencies?" Russert asked shortly.
Kerry wavered: "No, we weren't--I don't know whether we were lied to. I don't know whether they had the most colossal intelligence failure in history."
Chris Matthews of Hardball tried again in October. "Were we right to go to Iraq?" he asked.
"Not the way the President did it," answered Kerry.
Matthews pushed: Some other way, then? Would Kerry have gone to war if France--the symbol of the recalcitrant international community--had agreed? Kerry retreated as usual into generalities: "I would do whatever is necessary to protect the security of the United States."
Missing in all these responses and others Kerry has given is the answer to a simple, fair, necessary question--the one Kerry answered so memorably in regard to the Vietnam War: Was the war in Iraq a mistake? Disarming Saddam had been Kerry's only reason for going to war. If Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, then wasn't the war a mistake, and wasn't a vote to authorize it a mistake, and hadn't he made that mistake? And wouldn't American soldiers (now totaling more than 500) as well as Iraqis (in their uncounted thousands) be once again dying for a mistake?
But--I can hear some readers asking--why talk about the past? Why jeopardize the famous "electability" that Kerry (whether intending to or not) acquired by voting for the war and turn the likely Democratic candidate (now ahead of George Bush in certain polls) into an antiwar man, "another McGovern"? Those risks are real, but so is the gain. For one thing, the issue of the war will not disappear even if, as seems likely, Dean fails to win the nomination. On the contrary, it is likely to grow in importance as the absence of weapons of mass destruction sinks in with the public and disorder in Iraq mounts. The essence of democracy is accountability. Kerry knows it. Of the President, he has rightly said, "George Bush needs to take responsibility for his actions and set the record straight. That's the very least that Americans should be able to expect from the President of the United States. Either he believed Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons--or he didn't. Americans need to be able to trust their President--and they deserve the truth."
They deserve accountability and truth from opposition candidates as well. Someone who is ducking responsibility for his own actions is hardly in a strong position to call someone else to account. The Kay report can even be seen as an opportunity for Kerry. Kerry made a terrible error when, credulously trusting the dubious intelligence proffered by an Administration even then obviously hellbent on war, he voted to authorize that war, but his responsibility is nowhere near as great as that of the President. He might even discover a political dividend. If he were to state that had he known in October 2002 what he knows now about Iraq's weapons program he would not have voted for the resolution, he would immediately win the enthusiasm of the antiwar Democrats, whose passion and resolve, thanks in great measure to Howard Dean, has brought a fighting spirit to the Democratic Party. Nor should he entirely shift blame to the Administration for lying to him. He should hold himself accountable for his own mistake. We need the winter soldier, now more than ever, back at his post.
[i]Jonathan Schell, The Nation's peace and disarmament correspondent, is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute and the author, most recently, of the just-published The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Metropolitan). [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| TOP 1% (CARTOON) |
| 02.14.04 (3:37 pm) [edit] |
|
[image]WinstonSmith_52119 8115.gif[/image]
|
|
|
| |
| Who Needs THIS??? ... |
| 02.14.04 (10:06 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" are strong [/b]... We can fight and fight hard, but ... Where is our basic American sense of decency??? ... Where is the outrage for the following ([i]see below[/i]) kind of[i] libelous character assassination [/i]waged against a decorated war hero for speaking out and expressing a dissenting view??? .. Where are the patriots ([i]conservative, liberal or independent[/i]) who will say [i]enough-is-enough[/i]?? ? ...
[i][b]Bench the blonde[/b][/i]
Ever think how much nicer the world would be if Ann Coulter wasn't around? The ultra-conservative smear artist is at it again, taking on former Senator and triple amputee Vietnam veteran Max Cleland. The White House is in full panic mode these days over Bush's National Guard service, the sputtering economy and that whole missing weapons of mass destruction situation in Iraq. But no matter how much trouble the administration is in, it needs to come out and strongly rebuke the comments that came from one in their camp. [i]More on [/i]» http://www.alternet.org/elect...
[b]Read also [/b]"Will Bush Tolerate THIS??? ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| Two Republican Staffers Fired Over Spying ... Worse May Be Yet To Come ... |
| 02.14.04 (9:48 am) [edit] |
[b]A while back, an under-publicized story on the[i] back pages [/i]of the news media, revealed that the Republicans had illegally broken-in and spied upon the computer files of Democratic congressmen ...[/b]
For the background, refer to "NEWSFLASH: GOP Law-Breaking, Crimes & Dirty-Tricks in The Senate!" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
"We the People" are witness to the worst sort of criminal actions being taken by the corrupt Bush regime and their atmosphere of ugly dirty tricks, crimes and illegal activities, that they inspire in the GOP ... [i]We must bring this undemocratic form of tyranny to a halt[/i] ...
Consider "[i][b]2 staffers canned over spying, and worst may be yet to come[/b][/i]" by Jesse J. Holland on http://www.suntimes.com/outpu... :
WASHINGTON -- Republican snooping through Democrats' tactical memos on President Bush's judicial nominees has grown into a Capitol Hill uproar -- complete with comparisons to Watergate.
Already, two staffers implicated in giving newspapers and conservative groups the memos stored on a shared Judiciary Committee computer server have been forced to leave. Some senators are calling for an outside investigation and severe punishment if warranted.
''We know that dirty tricks have long been infecting the nation's politics, but they haven't infected the Senate or our committee until now,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) learned that some of his staff memos had been taken off the shared computer.
Parts of the memos concerned Democrats' strategy for blocking Bush nominees, and some Republicans say the politics of that strategy is what ought to be investigated.
Still, some Senate Republicans are calling for heads to roll.
The letter of the law: There is a federal prohibition against ''having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access.''
However, at least one of the staffers implicated -- Manuel Miranda, a former GOP lawyer for the committee who resigned last week from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's staff because of the inquiry -- has said he thinks he did nothing illegal.
''I knew that in law the duty falls on the other party to protect their documents,'' Miranda said in his resignation letter to Frist.
Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has been investigating ''Memogate'' since November.
''Once the sergeant-at-arms' report is finalized, a day of reckoning will come,'' predicted Sen. Orrin Hatch. [i]AP[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| White House Braced for Outcome of CIA Leak Probe ... |
| 02.13.04 (8:15 pm) [edit] |
[b]The outcome of the investigation of the CIA leak probe will most certainly impact upon the Bush regime's already tarnished credibility ...[/b]
"We the People" should demand the truth from all of the investigations (... [i]9/11 ... WMDs ... CIA probe ... Cheney/Halliburton bribery & malfeasance ... etc.[/i] ...) underway and categorically refuse to allow the White House to [i]bulldoze over the facts [/i]in an illegal and an undemocratic [i]cover-up [/i]more [i]akin[/i] to a 3rd world military banana republican[i] junta [/i]than to the rule of law in our great Republic for Which It Stands ...
The current[i] state-of-sordid-affairs [/i]is described by [i]James Harding [/i]in Washington for the U.K. [i]Financial Times[/i] in "[i][b]White House Braced for Outcome of CIA Leak Probe[/b][/i]" on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
As the White House seeks to fend off attacks on President George W. Bush's service record, Washington is alive with talk that it is readying for another assault on its integrity: indictments from the CIA leak investigation.
For months, the investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA operative to the press seemed to have been buried in White House process and Justice Department discretion. Mr Bush had instructed his staff to co-operate with the investigation, but the questioning was conducted out of sight.
Phone records and e-mails were passed on through the office of the White House general counsel. Interviews were conducted, but not discussed.
Over the last 10 days, however, senior staff to the president and Vice-President Dick Cheney have filed in to give testimony to the grand jury. They include: Scott McClellan, the press secretary, Mary Matalin, Mr Cheney's former press secretary and now adviser to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, Claire Buchan, a deputy press secretary, and Adam Levine, who previously worked in the White House communications site.
There have also been "tip-offs" that indictments are in the offing. The names are circulating of senior staff in Mr Cheney's office.
Investigations into administration leaks to the press are notoriously hard to follow up. Since the name of the CIA agent - Valerie Plame - surfaced in Robert Novak's column last July, many have expected that the culprits would not be found. (Mr Novak said in his column he had spoken to two administration officials.) But the investigation is said to have gathered momentum, particularly since December when John Ashcroft, the attorney general, recused himself from the process and put Patrick Fitzgerald, a US attorney in Chicago, in charge of the inquiry.
If Mr Fitzgerald and his team of prosecutors generate indictments, however, it could add to the pressures on the White House.
Republicans have begun to speculate whether Mr Cheney is a liability. Deborah Pryce, Ohio congresswoman and chair of the House Republican Conference, said on Thursday that she had heard people talking about "his former association with Halliburton . . . guilt by association". But, speaking at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, she added: "I think Dick Cheney can weather that easily."
For Mr Bush, the resurfacing criminal investigation comes as he tries to put an end to the questions of his military record.
Late on Wednesday night, the White House issued a facsimile of the president's dental records, intended to show that he had turned up for duty in Alabama just over 30 years ago, when he was a member of the National Guard.
The question about the president's military record long been whether he was awol in 1972, when he got transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to Alabama.
Payroll records show he did not do a day's service for over six months in 1972, when he was in Alabama. The dental records show that he did, however, show up on January 6 1973 at Dannelly air force base for a dental examination. Wesley Clark, the retired general who quit the Democratic presidential race, is expected today to endorse John Kerry, helping to fortify the front-runner status of the Massachusetts senator, Deborah McGregor writes in Washington.
Mr Clark, who ran a distant third in those races, is to make a formal endorsement of the Massachusetts senator at a campaign stop in Wisconsin, where the next big primary will be held on Tuesday.
|
|
|
| |
| Will Bush's Obfuscations Sink Him??? ... |
| 02.13.04 (7:15 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should be questioning the untrustworthy credibility of the corrupt Bush regime ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]Bush obfuscations may sink him[/b][/i]" by[i] Haroon Siddiqui [/i]on http://www.torontostar.com/NA... :
We have just witnessed a defining moment of this year's American presidential election. Rather than helping George W. Bush, as the pundits have it, his hour-long televised interview last Sunday will haunt him, so laced was it with falsehoods and impregnated with questions.
If you add his other recent pronouncements, and those of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others, it becomes clear that the administration has decided not to come clean on the invasion of Iraq. It is going to tough it out.
That guarantees a continuation of the ever-shifting rationale on why about 16,000 Iraqis and 525 Americans are dead, so far.
As self-defeating as the strategy may be for the Republicans, it will benefit the American body politic. The election can now be about what it should be: Bush's integrity and judgment in waging a unilateral war on false premises, thereby squandering the most precious commodity of an American president abroad — legitimacy.
The justification for the war has come down to intent — Saddam Hussein's, as surmised by Bush.
That, plus a series of suppositions.
Saddam "could have developed a nuclear weapon over time," said Bush, in his Meet The Press interview. The dictator "had the capacity to make a weapon."
In lockstep, George Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, intoned: Iraq had "intended to reconstitute its nuclear program." It had "intended to develop biological weapons." It had "the intent and the capability to convert civilian industry to chemical weapons production."
The obfuscations are a far cry from the pre-war certitude about Iraqi weapons aimed right at America, and represent a retrenchment even from the recent assertions about Saddam's "weapons programs," and his "weapons-related program activities."
On the embarrassing reality that no weapons have been unearthed, the administration is offering two explanations:
Rumsfeld: That weapons have not been found does not mean that they are not there. They could be found in a hole, just as Saddam was.
Bush: That the weapons are not there does not mean they were not there.
"They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered Iraq. They could have been hidden. They could have been transferred to another country."
If the weapons were as lethal as Bush said they were, how could they have been destroyed safely and without leaving a trace?
Bush has also backpedalled, in two subtle ways, on his pre-war charge that Iraq was linked to Osama bin Laden.
He said Sunday Saddam could have let a lethal weapon "fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network." So, it's not Al Qaeda any longer.
Second, Bush twice cited Saddam's "paying for suicide bombers," a reference to his practice of helping the family of Palestinian suicide bombers. But Iraq was not invaded in the name of punishing Saddam for aiding anti-Israeli terrorism but because his alleged terrorist links ostensibly threatened America.
All these are clear markers for Americans to see how far their president has moved from what he told them before the war. Bush has done something even more useful.
Until now, he had tended to blame flawed pre-war intelligence and not discuss his own faulty policy. But on Sunday, he owned up to the latter and expanded on the beliefs that drive his doctrine of pre-emptive wars.
The post-9/11 world is a dangerous place, he said, and he, as "a war president," must whack the bad guys before they whack America.
Saddam was "dangerous with weapons," "dangerous with the ability to make weapons," and was "a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world." Hence the invasion.
That skips over three details: Saddam was not linked to 9/11; he posed little or no danger to the U.S. and the decision to topple him had been made long before that day.
Bush gave two more justifications for the war.
"I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."
That prompted this question by a letter writer to the editor of The New York Times: "Is there a country we couldn't attack with this policy?"
Bush also argued that "containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman. Remember, he had used weapons against his own people."
The same point was made by Rumsfeld to a meeting of NATO ministers last week. "Think about what was going on in Iraq a year ago with people being tortured, rape rooms, mass graves, gross corruption, a country that has used chemical weapons against its own people."
But last year was not when Saddam's cruelties were at their peak, as Human Rights Watch noted last week. It was in the 1980s when he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. That was the time he was America's ally. Rumsfeld himself visited him in Baghdad in 1983 as an envoy of Ronald Reagan and presented the dictator with a pair of golden spurs.
Bush has written the script for the election campaign far better than the Democrats could ever have.
[i]Haroon Siddiqui is editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears Thursdays and Sundays[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Unanswered Questions ... What Tim Forgot ... |
| 02.13.04 (6:49 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should [i]carefully scrutinize [/i]the deceptive and mendacious ramblings, evasions, and rhetorical propaganda perpetrated upon us by the corrupt Bush regime ... [/b]Many, many, many[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] were regurgitated by Bush during his infamous interview with Tim Russert on "[i]Meet the Press[/i]" last Sunday (02/08/04) ...
Questions still arise regarding the[i] lost opportunity [/i]by Tim Russert to pose more probing follow-up questions to Dubya ...
Consider "[i][b]What Tim Forgot[/b][/i]" by[i] Eric Alterman[/i] on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
[i][b]Suggestions for Some Genuinely ‘Probing’ Questions for President Bush the next time he appears on 'Meet the Press'[/b][/i]
[b]Suzy DeFrancis, the White House deputy assistant for communications[/b], has explained that President Bush chose to go on NBC's "[i]Meet the Press[/i]" last Sunday because "[i]the president felt that was a forum in which he could reach a large number of people and that Tim was known to ask probing questions[/i]." True, Russert can be hard on his guests, as any number of Democratic presidential candidates from John Edwards to Howard Dean to Wesley Clark can attest. But another Tim Russert seems to emerge when faced with the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney - who so frequently misled both his host and the country the last time he appeared on the show that the White House itself all-but repudiated his remarks - and most particularly President Bush. At these moments Russert becomes, by his own admission "respectful" of the office, and turns into - [b]let's say it: a pussycat.[/b]
The interview may have been quite a coup for Russert and [i]NBC News[/i]. It resulted in more the double the number of usual viewers; nearly 15 million. But journalistically, [b]the hour proved a missed opportunity and ultimately, disservice to the American people[/b]. As with Cheney, Russert failed to ask the kind of tough questions and follow-ups that might have forced the president give some answers to questions he obviously (and understandably) prefers to avoid. Like Russert, we are limited by space constraints, and so must limit ourselves to just a few of these areas, and can not even cover these topics in the depth they deserve. But we offer the questions below dealing with the decision to go to war, the Kay Report, the commissions of inquiry, and the president's curious inability to document his history in the National Guard, as an indication of just how much information potentially lurked beneath the surface of Sunday's polite exchange:
[b]To:[/b] Tim Russert
[b]Fr:[/b] Eric Alterman and friends.
[b]Re:[/b] [i]What you should have asked the president[/i]:
[b]1) Regarding the Road to War:[/b]
[i]A[/i]) Sir, in July 2003, you claimed speaking of your decision to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein, "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." You have since repeated this claim sir, and frankly, I don't understand it. After all, as we are all aware, Hans Blix and his fellow U.N. inspectors were in Iraq doing their jobs at the time you decided to begin the war. Were you trying to mislead the American people with this twice repeated comment, sir? To confuse them? Were you, yourself confused?
[i]B[/i]) Sir, you've admitted on repeated occasions that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and no convincing evidence has been found to link him to the attacks or to Osama bin Laden in any meaningful way. So what did you mean when you said, You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. Why not? Isn't the job of presidents to make exactly these distinctions? What else can't you distinguish between?
[i]C[/i]) Mr. President, when you asked Congress for permission to go to war against Iraq, you wrote in a letter that you needed to do in order "to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Again, if you have no evidence for any connection between Hussein and 9/11, weren't you seeking your power to go to war on the basis of false pretenses?
[i]D[/i]) What Tim said:
Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."
You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.
[i]President Bush[/i]: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America.
[i]Missed follow-up[/i]: But sir, with all due respect, it is not a "word game" when you promise the American people that you are taking the nation to war on the basis of a threat that turns out not to exist. You repeatedly said you were certain, "there is no doubt" - period. And yet, we now know, there was plenty of doubt, in the CIA, the State Department, and elsewhere. Did you mislead this nation and the entire world? Do you owe us an apology?
[i]E[/i]) Sir, Colin Powell now admits he might not have supported the war if he knew what he knows now. Is this a problem for you? Doesn't the Secretary of State speak for the U.S. government in foreign affairs? Do you worry that Secretary Powell may know something you don't sir?
[b]2) On the Kay Report[/b]:
[i]A[/i]) When asked, in Poland, where are the weapons of mass destruction, you said, "We found them." Vice President Cheney claims that "conclusive evidence" now demonstrates that Saddam Hussein did in fact have weapons of mass destruction. Yet we know from the Kay Report that no such weapons have been found. Were you lying, sir? Was the vice president?
[i]B[/i]) David Kay said that he believed that Saddam's weapons were destroyed in the mid 1990s. Doesn't that mean that the previous administration was successful in eliminating Saddam's weaponry?
[i]C[/i]) When Diane Sawyer pointed out that weapons of mass destruction "are not the same thing as the desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction," you replied, "What's the difference?" Do you really not know, sir? Should you be making decisions to start pre-emptive wars against the express wishes of the U.N. Security Council and most of the world's population if you don't?
[i]D)[/i] But Mr. President, with all due respect...some 530 American families' lives will never be the same. It sounds as if you're saying that these families made the ultimate sacrifice because your administration miscalculated. Is that so? And why haven't you attended a single military funeral? ([i]Thanks to Mike Tomasky[/i])
[b]3) On the WMD commission[/b]:
"Sir, when you say, 'I want the truth to be known. I want there to be a full analysis done so that we can better prepare the homeland, for example, against what might occur.' Can you explain why you designated as co-chairman of the new intelligence commission a federal judge with a long career as a Republican dirty-tricks operative? ([i]Thanks to Charles Pierce[/i])
[b]4) On the 9/11 commission[/b].
You say sir, you "have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton," but in fact the members of the commission have repeatedly said that they have found the White House and the pentagon to be extremely uncooperative and they have repeatedly had to use the threat of subpoena to review the documents they say they need. Are they lying sir?
[b]5) Did Bush "desert" the National Guard?[/b]
Just to refresh your memory, sir, regarding the controversy over your National Guard service in 1972 and 1973, we've found the following: First, there are no records showing attendance at any drills for the five-month period from May to September 1972. Zilch. In September 1972, you were grounded from flying. Next, beginning in October 1972 and continuing through July 1973, we find both pay records and "ARF Retirement Credit Summary" records demonstrating that you did receive credit for attending drills.
Here things get a little confusing. ARF is the Air Reserve Force, and it's not clear that this is the same thing as the Texas Air National Guard. What's more, fitness reports from the Texas Guard indicate you did not show up for drills during this period. For some reason, your records from the Texas Guard end abruptly in May 1972 and the ARF records pick up in October 1972. Based on this admittedly incomplete record sir, I'd like to ask:
[i]A[/i]) Why did you skip your physical and allow yourself to be grounded in 1972?
[i]B[/i]) Were you involved in any kind of disciplinary action while in the Guard? Specifically in 1972?
[i]C[/i]) Were you transferred to the reserves in 1972? If so, why?
[i]D[/i]) Did you drill with your unit (the 111th) in late 1972 and 1973? Or were your drills during that period with the reserves?
[i]E[/i]) What, exactly, were you doing, sir, between May 1972 and October 1972? And if you can't remember, why can't you?
([i]Thanks to Kevin Drum, www.calpundit.com[/i])
[i]F[/i]) And finally, sir, if, as you say, you supported your government in its efforts to win the war, why didn't you enlist to fight alongside your fellow American soldiers in Vietnam? Al Gore did. John Kerry did. Why didn't you? ([i]Mike Tomasky[/i])
An aside, Tim, you might also have considered saying something like: "I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize, publicly, to Gen. Wesley Clark, for insisting that there was something inappropriate about his refusal to upbraid his supporter Michael Moore for raising this issue at a rally. Obviously, the mere fact I am spending valuable time on it today is indicative that it is not something that media should sweep under the rug, as we did during the 2000 election."
[b]6) General: An Era of Responsibility[/b]:
[i]A[/i]) "Sir, can you cite, please, a single instance in which you have taken personal responsibility for any unpleasant or untoward thing that has happened on your watch?" ([i]Thanks again to Charles Pierce[/i]).
[b]Editor's note[/b]: [i]For more information on the president's interview, see our special edition of the Progress Report[/i]: http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040208.HTM .
[i]Eric Alterman is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the co-author of The Book on Bush: How George W (Mis)Leads America[/i]. http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Will Bush Tolerate THIS??? ... |
| 02.13.04 (4:40 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should [i]take stock [/i]of Dubya's reaction to the following:--[/b]
Bush's toleration ([i]or support[/i]?) of such ugly and obscene dirty tricks is another [i]sign, a signal [/i]concerning his character [i]or lack thereof [/i]... If Dubya remains[i] silent [/i]on this issue, then can [i]we [/i]afford to remain [i]silent or tolerate [/i]it ([i]or Dubya[/i]?) ourselves? ...
Consider "[b]VETERANS: Will President Bush Tolerate This?[/b]" by the[i] Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
Facing more questions about the President's National Guard duty, conservative allies of the White House did the only thing they could do: disparage [i]triple amputee Vietnam war hero Max Cleland[/i], a man who only a year and a half ago the White House and its allies [i]likened to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein [/i]in television ads. In a column posted on the conservative Heritage Foundation's Web site http://www.townhall.com/colum... , [i]Fox News [/i]contributor and White House ally Ann Coulter unleashed an attack on Cleland's service to his country, claiming that the triple amputee/decorated war hero displayed "no bravery" in Vietnam. The politically motivated assault came after Cleland appeared at events critical of the Administration, once again showing the conservatives pattern of impugning the patriotism of those who question their policy. It comes just after President Bush himself nominated Cleland to the Export-Import Bank and after Bush called Cleland "a good Democratic senator out of Georgia." The attack highlights a new pattern of behavior from the White House and fellow conservatives: they wrap themselves in the flag, while slashing funding for veterans health care, military families, and soldier pay – all while disparaging the honored service of those who defend America. If you don't like what you are about to read, e-mail the President of the Heritage Foundation ( mailto:staff@heritage.org?subject=To%20Edwin%20 J.%20Feulner,%20Ph.D. ) to tell him to stop publishing Coulter's work, and e-mail Fox News ( mailto:comments@foxnews.com ) to tell them to stop putting Ann Coulter on TV.
[u][b]SAYING AN AMPUTEE VET 'DIDN'T GIVE LIMBS FOR HIS COUNTRY'[/b][/u]: Coulter wrote, "Cleland didn't give his limbs for his country or leave them on the battlefield" because she says he lost his limbs in a "routine, noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with his friends." But as the 8/1/99 [i]Esquire Magazine [/i]notes, Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam when a grenade accidentally detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone.
[u][b]SAYING A SILVER STAR WINNER IS NOT A "WAR HERO"[/b][/u]: Coulter said people "should stop allowing [Cleland to be] portrayed as a war hero" – despite the fact that, in a separate incident four days before he lost three limbs, Cleland won a Silver Star - one of the highest honors for combat courage the U.S. military gives out. The congressional citation which came with the medal specifically said that during a "heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions." The citation concluded, "Cleland's gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."
[u][b]SAYING CLELAND WAS "LUCKY" TO HAVE LIMBS BLOWN OFF[/b][/u]: Coulter said, "Luckily for Cleland…he happened to [lose his limbs] while in Vietnam" and said that had he been injured "at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator." Of course, Cleland probably would not have been dealing with live grenades and enemy fire in the save haven of Ft. Dix. But, then, many top conservatives might not know this because they do not have firsthand knowledge of a combat zone. President Bush did not go to Vietnam because he was in the Texas National Guard. Vice President Dick Cheney did not serve in the military, saying, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." According to the [i]Houston Press [/i]in 1999, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) "tried to blame minorities for his lack of military experience" saying, "so many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks" like him. And Rush Limbaugh avoided service by apparently claiming his "anal cysts" prevented him from defending the nation. See more conservatives who attack veterans while avoiding military service themselves.
[u][b]NOT THE FIRST TIME BUSH & ALLIES DISPARAGED CLELAND[/b][/u]: Just a year and a half ago, President Bush and his allies aired a television ad equating Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad was originally sponsored by Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), a man who told [i]Georgia Public Television[/i] on 8/16/02 that he was kept out of Vietnam because of a "bum knee" and a handful of student deferments yet, by some incredible miracle, still found a way to play baseball in college and even plays in the Congressional Baseball games today. Newspapers and veterans groups were outraged over the ad. But instead of repudiating it, President Bush actually embraced Chambliss and the ads, repeatedly visiting Georgia to support him.
[u][b]THIS SOLDIER CAN TAKE THESE ATTACKS[/b][/u]: The [i]NYT[/i] reports that Cleland is responding to attacks from conservatives in kind. "This is part of an overall slime-and-defend strategy," he said. "They don't want to talk about Vietnam, and they don't want their candidates to talk about veterans' issues because it hurts the president." One Republican running for statewide office in Nevada said he attended a meeting where officials from the Bush re-election campaign urged Republican candidates not to talk about Vietnam. "Basically, they're saying don't bring up veterans' issues and don't bring up Vietnam; our surrogates will take care of it," said the candidate, Ed Gobel.
[u][b]LA TIMES RESPONDS TO THE ATTACKS[/b][/u]: In an editorial, the [i]LA Times [/i]chastised the Heritage Foundation and conservatives for their attacks on Cleland: "The Heritage Foundation posts an Ann Coulter column saying...Vietnam vet and former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, 'did not give his limbs for his country' because the grenade that injured him was not hurled in combat. How absurd and insulting to all veterans." That has not stopped the attack from being republished and trumpeted in conservative journals throughout the country. It now appears on the website of [i]Human Events Magazine [/i] http://www.humaneventsonline.... – the self-described "national conservative weekly." It also appears on the conservative [i]WorldNet Daily [/i]website http://worldnetdaily.com/news... .
[b]Source[/b]:
The [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Economic Pre-Emptive Strike Upon The Middle-Class ... |
| 02.13.04 (4:37 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush's economic fiasco is a [i]pre-emptive strike [/i]upon Middle-Class America [/b]... and represents a [i]reckless and ruthless swindle [/i]and[i] fraudulent embezzlement [/i]of our nation by corporations and the wealthiest oligarchs & plutocrats ...
"We the People" should be alarmed at the direction that the corrupt Bush regime is taking our nation as the dire needs of millions of Americans who are jobless, homeless, impoverished, without health care, etc. are neglected and their misery and suffering is [i]worsening day by day [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]In economic policy too, US ignores the global rules[/b][/i]" by [i]Janadas Devan [/i]on http://straitstimes.asia1.com...,4386,235154,00.html
AMERICAN exceptionalism - the conviction that the United States is so unique, the usual rules don't apply to it - besets not only US foreign policy, but also its economic policy. Consider the following:
* US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Wednesday it was of critical importance that soaring fiscal deficits be brought under control. [i]'Given the already substantial accumulation of dollar-denominated debt, foreign investors, both private and official, may become less willing to absorb ever-growing claims on US residents[/i],' he said.
That actually is not just a possibility, it is a near certainty. With the US current account deficit already at US$550 billion (S$918 billion), continued gargantuan fiscal deficits in excess of US$500 billion every year will, sooner or later, lead investors to demand higher returns to offset the risks of holding dollar assets. But administration officials reject this argument, pointing to current low interest rates and the willingness of foreigners, especially Asians, to hold treasuries as evidence that [i]'deficits don't matter'[/i].
Former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill says in a recent book that those were precisely the words that Vice-President Dick Cheney had used. He also says that President George W. Bush had dismissed his suggestion that tax cuts come with 'triggers' that would automatically revoke the cuts in case of deficits, with the airy [arrogant] remark: [i]'I won't negotiate with myself[/i].'
Given such attitudes, it is not surprising that discretionary spending has increased by a larger percentage under Mr Bush than it did under Lyndon Johnson, the spendthrift [but who created opportunity for millions of Americans and ensured the growth of the Middle Class prosperity that followed] who created the 'Great Society'. And that a fiscal surplus amounting to 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 2000 - under yet another spendthrift Democrat, Mr Bill Clinton - is now a deficit of 4.6 per cent of GDP.
* Mr Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Mr Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, said on Monday that the outsourcing of service jobs overseas was good for the US economy. [Perhaps Mr. Mankiw should be forced into the ranks of the unemployed and see how "good" it is ...]
'When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically,' he said.
There is ample evidence to suggest he is correct. A recent McKinsey study showed that US companies reduced costs by 58 cents for every dollar that they offshored. This saving not only benefited US consumers, but it also made US companies more competitive in the global marketplace. [US consumers with money, but not for those without jobs ... and the consequential costs of increasing crime as a result of unemployed citizens who in desperation commit robbery, etc.]
Jobs have been lost in the process, of course - 473,000 [over 3.3 million in total from 2001-2004] so far, by one estimate - but as a study by International Institute of Economics' Catherine Mann noted recently, these estimates 'frequently use the peak of the US economy and technology boom as the base of their analysis'. When data excluding the peak is examined, we find job losses in manufacturing (2.7 million or 16 per cent since 1999), but not in services, including in those white-collar occupations deemed particularly 'vulnerable to IT-enabled international trade'.
Engineering and architecture job levels stayed stable between 1999 and last year, jobs in computer and mathematical occupations increased by 6 per cent, and those in business and financial occupations by 9 per cent.
The bottom line is plain: Globalisation of software and services, enhanced IT use and the transformation of business activities in the US and elsewhere, and job creation are 'mutually dependent. Breaking the links will put the entire prospect for robust and sustainable US economic performance at risk'.
But that is precisely what some US politicians are proposing to do. US companies that outsource are 'Benedict Arnolds', Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, regularly intones on the stump. Another senator, Mr Charles Schumer, has announced that high-end jobs migrating overseas 'doesn't fit the free trade model'. Open trade, he says, doesn't make sense in a world of free capital flows, instantaneous communication and an increasingly better-educated global workforce. (It made better sense, presumably, in the age of capital controls, carrier pigeons and universal illiteracy.)
The Bush administration has not uttered such patent nonsense [but it is not nonsense when corporations reap massive profits from paying slave-labor wages to foreign workers while laying-off citizens in the U.S.A.] about trade, but it, too, has made the odd obeisance to protectionism. It has imposed steel tariffs, increased agricultural subsidies massively and reportedly insisted on excluding sugar from the just-concluded US-Australia free trade agreement. Sugar constitutes less than 0.5 per cent of US agriculture, but it happens to be big in Florida, a must-win state for Mr Bush this year as it was in 2000.
Imagine if a developing country had done the same to protect some favoured industry. Imagine if a developed country had amassed huge fiscal and current account deficits, refused to do anything about them, and went on adding to its debts by introducing new welfare benefits, as Mr Bush has done with his US$530 billion prescription drug programme.
There is no doubt what would happen to such countries: Investors would punish them, swiftly and severely. As Asian countries discovered in 1997-1998, there really is such a thing as the 'Washington consensus'. Only, that consensus doesn't apply to the US itself. That is why Washington can get away with policies that would have long sunk Argentina.
But what happens when the party stops, and foreigners, especially Asians, cease aiding and abetting US profligacy, as they sooner or later must, as Mr Greenspan acknowledges? What happens to global trade liberalisation when other countries respond to America's bending of the rules by throwing up road blocks of their own, as India has threatened to do in response to protectionist US legislation on outsourcing?
[b]What happens to the Washington consensus when Washington itself ignores it? [/b]
[b]Consider also [/b]
"'An Economy Suffers When Jobs Disappear'" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
"Bush's Economic Fiasco Is A Disaster For Middle-Class Families ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
"Bush Is Kicking The Middle Class When It's Down ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| 'An Economy Suffers When Jobs Disappear' |
| 02.13.04 (2:00 pm) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" are being swindled, scammed & neo-conned by the ruthless and reckless neo-fascist Bush regime[/b], who are[i] callous [/i]to the needs of over 9-15 million unemployed Americans without jobs ... who are [i]ignoring[/i] the skyrocketing ranks of over 4 million homeless citizens and over 25 million families living below the poverty line ... who have cruelly[i] neglected [/i]the suffering and misery of over 45 million citizens without heath care-- the USA is the only industrialized nation to lack a Universal Health Care System resulting in the deaths of over 18,000 of our fellow citizens each year ... and, the list of Dubya's wanton cruelty, ignorance and neglect of our nation's needs and our citizen's dire problems continues ...
[b]'An Economy Suffers When Jobs Disappear' [/b]by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
"[b]Don’t listen to us[/b]" – Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert uttered these exact words yesterday in response to statements by White House economist Gregory Mankiw’s claim that sending U.S. jobs overseas is beneficial for the nation. With millions out of work and wages stagnating, the Bush administration’s disconnection from economic reality on the ground becomes more apparent daily. This latest claim that "[i]the outsourcing of U.S. service jobs to workers overseas is good for the nation's economy," is just another nail in the coffin for working families[/i].
[b]1. The administration’s policies actively encourage companies to terminate U.S. jobs and send them overseas[/b]. The Bush administration has firmly embraced foreign outsourcing at a time when more and more American jobs are shipped overseas. The Bush Commerce Department actively participates in conferences and workshops that encourage American companies to put operations and jobs in China and the administration’s conservative allies have created $70 million in tax breaks for off-shore construction contracts – specific incentives to move jobs offshore. At the same time, the administration has failed to support any bills that would shut down off-shore tax loopholes for American companies trying to go overseas to avoid U.S. taxes.
[b]2. The administration’s policies reward companies that reduce worker protections and benefits[/b]. The Bush administration has supported efforts to make it easier for companies to weaken traditional pension plans; fight age discrimination lawsuits; deny workers overtime protections; reduce drug coverage for employees without losing tax subsidies; and repeal workplace safety regulations.
[b]3. The 9 million unemployed Americans, 4.7 million who have given up looking for work altogether and the 80,000 unemployed who exhaust their benefits every week need help in America not overseas[/b]. With 2.3 million jobs lost on his watch, stagnant wages, and rising costs for basic needs like health care and education, President Bush’s failure to address domestic labor needs is turning into a harsh situation for working families. More outsourcing and tax cuts for the rich won’t solve the problems of the struggling middle class.
[b]Source[/b]:
The [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Suggestions For 'Next Time' ... |
| 02.13.04 (10:57 am) [edit] |
[b]"We the People" should [i]carefully scrutinize [/i]the deceptive and mendacious ramblings, evasions, and rhetorical propaganda perpetrated upon us by the corrupt Bush regime ... [/b]Many, many, many[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i] were regurgitated by Bush during his infamous interview with Tim Russert on "[i]Meet the Press[/i]" last Sunday (02/08/04) ...
Questions still arise regarding the[i] lost opportunity [/i]by Tim Russert to pose more probing follow-up questions to Dubya ...
Consider "[i][b]What Tim Forgot[/b][/i]" by[i] Eric Alterman[/i] on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
[i][b]Suggestions for Some Genuinely ‘Probing’ Questions for President Bush the next time he appears on 'Meet the Press'[/b][/i]
[b]Suzy DeFrancis, the White House deputy assistant for communications[/b], has explained that President Bush chose to go on NBC's "[i]Meet the Press[/i]" last Sunday because "[i]the president felt that was a forum in which he could reach a large number of people and that Tim was known to ask probing questions[/i]." True, Russert can be hard on his guests, as any number of Democratic presidential candidates from John Edwards to Howard Dean to Wesley Clark can attest. But another Tim Russert seems to emerge when faced with the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney - who so frequently misled both his host and the country the last time he appeared on the show that the White House itself all-but repudiated his remarks - and most particularly President Bush. At these moments Russert becomes, by his own admission "respectful" of the office, and turns into - [b]let's say it: a pussycat.[/b]
The interview may have been quite a coup for Russert and [i]NBC News[/i]. It resulted in more the double the number of usual viewers; nearly 15 million. But journalistically, [b]the hour proved a missed opportunity and ultimately, disservice to the American people[/b]. As with Cheney, Russert failed to ask the kind of tough questions and follow-ups that might have forced the president give some answers to questions he obviously (and understandably) prefers to avoid. Like Russert, we are limited by space constraints, and so must limit ourselves to just a few of these areas, and can not even cover these topics in the depth they deserve. But we offer the questions below dealing with the decision to go to war, the Kay Report, the commissions of inquiry, and the president's curious inability to document his history in the National Guard, as an indication of just how much information potentially lurked beneath the surface of Sunday's polite exchange:
[b]To:[/b] Tim Russert
[b]Fr:[/b] Eric Alterman and friends.
[b]Re:[/b] [i]What you should have asked the president[/i]:
[b]1) Regarding the Road to War:[/b]
[i]A[/i]) Sir, in July 2003, you claimed speaking of your decision to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein, "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." You have since repeated this claim sir, and frankly, I don't understand it. After all, as we are all aware, Hans Blix and his fellow U.N. inspectors were in Iraq doing their jobs at the time you decided to begin the war. Were you trying to mislead the American people with this twice repeated comment, sir? To confuse them? Were you, yourself confused?
[i]B[/i]) Sir, you've admitted on repeated occasions that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and no convincing evidence has been found to link him to the attacks or to Osama bin Laden in any meaningful way. So what did you mean when you said, You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. Why not? Isn't the job of presidents to make exactly these distinctions? What else can't you distinguish between?
[i]C[/i]) Mr. President, when you asked Congress for permission to go to war against Iraq, you wrote in a letter that you needed to do in order "to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Again, if you have no evidence for any connection between Hussein and 9/11, weren't you seeking your power to go to war on the basis of false pretenses?
[i]D[/i]) What Tim said:
Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."
You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.
[i]President Bush[/i]: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America.
[i]Missed follow-up[/i]: But sir, with all due respect, it is not a "word game" when you promise the American people that you are taking the nation to war on the basis of a threat that turns out not to exist. You repeatedly said you were certain, "there is no doubt" - period. And yet, we now know, there was plenty of doubt, in the CIA, the State Department, and elsewhere. Did you mislead this nation and the entire world? Do you owe us an apology?
[i]E[/i]) Sir, Colin Powell now admits he might not have supported the war if he knew what he knows now. Is this a problem for you? Doesn't the Secretary of State speak for the U.S. government in foreign affairs? Do you worry that Secretary Powell may know something you don't sir?
[b]2) On the Kay Report[/b]:
[i]A[/i]) When asked, in Poland, where are the weapons of mass destruction, you said, "We found them." Vice President Cheney claims that "conclusive evidence" now demonstrates that Saddam Hussein did in fact have weapons of mass destruction. Yet we know from the Kay Report that no such weapons have been found. Were you lying, sir? Was the vice president?
[i]B[/i]) David Kay said that he believed that Saddam's weapons were destroyed in the mid 1990s. Doesn't that mean that the previous administration was successful in eliminating Saddam's weaponry?
[i]C[/i]) When Diane Sawyer pointed out that weapons of mass destruction "are not the same thing as the desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction," you replied, "What's the difference?" Do you really not know, sir? Should you be making decisions to start pre-emptive wars against the express wishes of the U.N. Security Council and most of the world's population if you don't?
[i]D)[/i] But Mr. President, with all due respect...some 530 American families' lives will never be the same. It sounds as if you're saying that these families made the ultimate sacrifice because your administration miscalculated. Is that so? And why haven't you attended a single military funeral? ([i]Thanks to Mike Tomasky[/i])
[b]3) On the WMD commission[/b]:
"Sir, when you say, 'I want the truth to be known. I want there to be a full analysis done so that we can better prepare the homeland, for example, against what might occur.' Can you explain why you designated as co-chairman of the new intelligence commission a federal judge with a long career as a Republican dirty-tricks operative? ([i]Thanks to Charles Pierce[/i])
[b]4) On the 9/11 commission[/b].
You say sir, you "have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton," but in fact the members of the commission have repeatedly said that they have found the White House and the pentagon to be extremely uncooperative and they have repeatedly had to use the threat of subpoena to review the documents they say they need. Are they lying sir?
[b]5) Did Bush "desert" the National Guard?[/b]
Just to refresh your memory, sir, regarding the controversy over your National Guard service in 1972 and 1973, we've found the following: First, there are no records showing attendance at any drills for the five-month period from May to September 1972. Zilch. In September 1972, you were grounded from flying. Next, beginning in October 1972 and continuing through July 1973, we find both pay records and "ARF Retirement Credit Summary" records demonstrating that you did receive credit for attending drills.
Here things get a little confusing. ARF is the Air Reserve Force, and it's not clear that this is the same thing as the Texas Air National Guard. What's more, fitness reports from the Texas Guard indicate you did not show up for drills during this period. For some reason, your records from the Texas Guard end abruptly in May 1972 and the ARF records pick up in October 1972. Based on this admittedly incomplete record sir, I'd like to ask:
[i]A[/i]) Why did you skip your physical and allow yourself to be grounded in 1972?
[i]B[/i]) Were you involved in any kind of disciplinary action while in the Guard? Specifically in 1972?
[i]C[/i]) Were you transferred to the reserves in 1972? If so, why?
[i]D[/i]) Did you drill with your unit (the 111th) in late 1972 and 1973? Or were your drills during that period with the reserves?
[i]E[/i]) What, exactly, were you doing, sir, between May 1972 and October 1972? And if you can't remember, why can't you?
([i]Thanks to Kevin Drum, www.calpundit.com[/i])
[i]F[/i]) And finally, sir, if, as you say, you supported your government in its efforts to win the war, why didn't you enlist to fight alongside your fellow American soldiers in Vietnam? Al Gore did. John Kerry did. Why didn't you? ([i]Mike Tomasky[/i])
An aside, Tim, you might also have considered saying something like: "I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize, publicly, to Gen. Wesley Clark, for insisting that there was something inappropriate about his refusal to upbraid his supporter Michael Moore for raising this issue at a rally. Obviously, the mere fact I am spending valuable time on it today is indicative that it is not something that media should sweep under the rug, as we did during the 2000 election."
[b]6) General: An Era of Responsibility[/b]:
[i]A[/i]) "Sir, can you cite, please, a single instance in which you have taken personal responsibility for any unpleasant or untoward thing that has happened on your watch?" ([i]Thanks again to Charles Pierce[/i]).
[b]Editor's note[/b]: [i]For more information on the president's interview, see our special edition of the Progress Report[/i]: http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040208.HTM .
[i]Eric Alterman is a senior fellow of the Center for American Progress and the co-author of The Book on Bush: How George W (Mis)Leads America[/i]. http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Is Attempting To Criminalize Dissent! |
| 02.13.04 (10:40 am) [edit] |
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - [i]Thomas Jefferson[/i]
[b]In the [i]Doctrine According to the Bush/Cheney Inc. junta[/i], dissent is to be squashed ... [/b]Those who pose questions are to be called "[i]traitors[/i]" ... Those opposing economic rape of the working people are to be called "[i]commies[/i]" ... Those who do not agree with the insane pre-emptive doctrine of invading sovereign nations that pose no threat are to be called "[i]harborers of terrorism[/i]" ... The corrupt Bushies are carrying out neo-fascist, illegal seizures, searches and detentions of citizens ... They are pushing through neo-con Patriot Acts that deprive our citizens of our rights under the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ...
"We the People" must stand firm against this new, undemocratic and treasonous form of tyranny:
Consider "[i][b]Criminal Dissent[/b][/i]" by[i] Bill Berkowitz[/i] on http://tompaine.com/feature2.... :
In the early 1970s, Guy Goodwin, a special prosecutor working for U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell—who was soon to become a star player in President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal—convened grand juries across the country to target radicals, anti-war activists, unions and others. Goodwin, characterized by the Center for Constitutional Rights as the "[i]grand inquisitor of the politically motivated grand jury[/i]," was a man on a mission.
Unlike 30 years ago, the convening of grand juries by John Ashcroft's Department of Justice is only one weapon in the administration's anti-dissent arsenal, Michael Avery, president of the National Lawyers Guild, told [i]TomPaine[/i].com in a telephone interview.
"[i]This administration is trying to criminalize dissent, characterize protesters as terrorists and trying to intimidate and marginalize those opposed to its policies[/i]," Avery said. The administration has opened the floodgates for all kinds of investigative activities, and now "[i]police agencies across the country are actively engaged in spying and compiling dossiers on citizens exercising their constitutional rights[/i]."
In early February, a federal judge in Iowa ordered officials at Drake University to turn over records about an anti-war forum held on its Des Moines campus in mid-November. Subpoenas were also served on four activists who attended the forum, and the university's chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. The subpoena, which sought records identifying the officers of the Drake chapter in November 2003; the current location of any local offices; as well as agendas, "[i]has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with intimidating lawful protestors and suppressing First Amendment freedom of expression and association[/i]," Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the Guild, pointed out in a[i] Guild press release [/i]issued Feb. 6.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Longstaff also issued an order prohibiting Drake employees from talking about the university's subpoena. Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, told the[i] Associated Press [/i]that he was not familiar with any other similar situation where a U.S. university's records were subpoenaed. The case, he pointed out, has echoes of the "[i]red squads[/i]" of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters.
Within days of the Iowa grand jury story receiving national headlines, the Justice Department withdrew the subpoenas. Bruce Nestor, a Minneapolis attorney and past president of NLG who worked on the case, told [i]TomPaine[/i].com that it was the "tremendous [i]response from across the political spectrum condemning the use of the grand jury[/i]," that got the subpoenas quashed.
"[i]In the two years since 9/11, we have heard one refrain from the Justice Department every time the executive branch seeks to arrogate more power to itself: 'trust us, we're the government[/i],'" Benjamin Stone, executive director of the Iowa ACLU, pointed out. "[i]But, if it is going to be issuing secretive slapdash subpoenas and then rescinding them to save face, how can we trust that more expansive surveillance and investigative powers will be used properly[/i]?"
"[i]It's really hard to tell what this means in a broader or policy sense for the Department of Justice[/i]," Nestor said. "[i]Clearly the FBI memo reported by The New York Times in October, directed the joint terrorism task forces to compile info about political protesters. The actions of the U.S. attorney's office in Iowa appear to be consistent with the directive in that memo[/i]."
"[i]Whether that means that the Department of Justice intends to expand the use of the grand jury to investigate political protest movements is unclear. In this instance they clearly used the grand jury fore that purpose[/i]."
Maybe the convening of the grand jury was merely a trial balloon sent up by the DOJ. Perhaps it was the actions of an overwhelmed U.S. attorney in Iowa. Whatever the reason for the subpoenas, Nestor sees it as part of "[i]a pattern of events taking place across the country[/i]."
During the past year, police agencies across the country have not only been gathering information, but have used strong-armed tactics against peaceful political demonstrators. In early April, acting on warnings from the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, the Oakland, Calif. police department indiscriminately fired wooden slugs at and injured several of non-violent anti-war protesters—and several non-protesting port workers as well—demonstrating at the Port of Oakland.
"[i]You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that [protest]," [/i]CATIC spokesperson Mike Van Winkle said. "[i]You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act[/i]."
In Atlanta, the city's police department "[i]routinely places under surveillance anti-war protesters and others exercising their free-speech rights to demonstrate[/i]," [i]The Atlanta Journal-Constitution[/i] reported. And in Los Angeles, the police department maintains files on anti-war protesters it deems capable of "[i]a significant disruption of the public order[/i]." In Miami, the sight of the recent police riot during the November demonstrations against the [i]Free Trade Area of the Americas[/i], "[i]police routinely videotape demonstrators and infiltrate rallies with plainclothes office[/i]rs," Detective Joey Giordano of the Miami-Dade Police Department, told [i]The Atlanta Journal-Constitution[/i].
Last year, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Paul Weyrich, widely recognized as one of the "founding fathers" of the Christian right, suggested that either Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge or Congress launch a full-scale investigation behind the funding sources of what he termed the "neo-Communist" groups organizing the anti-war movement.
While no full-blown congressionally sanctioned investigation of the peace movement has been initiated, local police departments in cooperation with regional FBI offices have taken it on their own to establish anti-war investigative units.
"[i]This administration is using all sorts of tactics to marginalize dissenters[/i]," the NLG's Avery pointed out. "[i]They've used pre-emptive strikes, police violence, and have resorted to penning off demonstrators in so-called free speech zones, so that when the president travels around the country people can't get within several blocks of him." As this time, Avery said he wasn't aware of other cases involving the convening of grand juries to go after dissenters.
In what may be a sign of things to come, however, the ACLU pointed out in a press release dated Feb. 10 that "the Justice Department's decision to quash the [Iowa] subpoenas comes on the heels of reports... that U.S. Army Intelligence contacted organizers of a seminar at the University of Texas Law School at Austin on Sexism and Islam[/i]."
Local NLG members were asked by law enforcement to provide a list of conference attendees because persons under investigation had been present. The NLG is concerned that the University of Texas could be next in line for a Justice Department fishing expedition. In light of recent events at Drake, they have every right to be wary.
|
|
|
| |
| Divide-And-Conquer for OIL: Secret Report Warns of Iraq 'Balkanisation' ... |
| 02.13.04 (10:07 am) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime launched their insane neo-con, neo-fascist 'pre-emptive' war upon Iraq for reasons including a grab for Middle East OIL ... [/b]global hegemony on behalf of their Global Corporate Empire ... and, other sordid and squalid reasons having to do with gaining control over the Middle East ...
The neo-con's mad [i]Project for the New American Century (PNAC)[/i] is a neo-hitlerian form of aggression devised in order for their neo-imperial rulers (... [i]corporations, wealthy oligarchs & rich plutocrats [/i]...) to dominate the world, impoverish the rest of us while they relegate working people to the roles of their slaves paid slave-labor wages, dominate other countries, and, to plunder the environment ... in order for a few greedy criminals and robber-barons to amasse wildly obscene fortunes and vile tyrannical power.
"We the People" should be loudly insisting that Congress http://www.congress.org impeach the Bush regime for treason and betrayal of our nation. Our leaders have no right to behave as an imperial dictatorship ordering the world to bow down before corporate interests ... Nor do our leaders have the right to squander our economy on their own illegal and immoral embezzlement scheme, thus impoverishing our citizens ... Nor do our leaders have the right to lie, deceive and falsify information in order to invade sovereign nations, massacring tens of thousands of their people: Dubya's [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i].
More alarming yet is a report just published in the conservative[i] U.K. Financial Times [/i]entitled "[b]Secret report warns of Iraq 'Balkanisation'[/b]" by [i]Nicolas Pelham [/i]in Baghdad, on http://news.ft.com/servlet/Co... :
[b]A [i]confidential report [/i]prepared by the US-led administration in Iraq [/b]says that the attacks by insurgents in the country have escalated sharply, prompting fears of what it terms Iraq's "Balkanisation". The findings emerged after a rocket-propelled grenade attack on the top US general in Iraq, John Abizaid, on Thursday.
"January has the highest rate of violence since September 2003," the report said. "The violence continues despite the expansion of the Iraqi security services and increased arrests by coalition forces in December and January."
The report, which is based on military data and circulated to foreign organisations by the US aid agency USAid, diverges with public statements by US officials who claim that security in the country is improving.
"The security risks are not as bad as they appear on TV," Tom Foley, the coalition official overseeing Iraq's private-sector development, said at the US Commerce Department headquarters in Washington on Wednesday. "Western civilians are not the targets themselves. These are acceptable risks."
According to the report, "January national review of Iraq", strikes against international and non-governmental organisations increased from 19 to 26 in January. It said that high-intensity attacks involving mortars and explosives grew by 103 per cent from 316 in December to 642 in January; non-life threatening attacks, including drive-by shootings and rock-throwing, soared by 186 per cent from 182 in December. It also recorded an average of eight attacks a day in Baghdad alone, up from four a day in September, and a total of 11 attacks on coalition aircraft.
The report emerged as Iraq faced one of its worst weeks of violence in the 10-month occupation of Iraq. According US military officials, General Abizaid escaped unharmed but cancelled a walkabout, after attackers hiding in a mosque fired on his convoy as it entered a military base in the town of Falluja, west of Baghdad. It was not clear if the insurgents knew they were targeting Gen Abizaid and officials said a six-minute gun-battle ensued.
In other attacks, eight mortars were fired at a US base in Iraq, US officials said, and the Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera reported that Japanese forces faced their first attack, when a mortar was fired at their base near the southern town of al-Samawah without causing casualties. ([i]The BBC also reported that a truck bomb exploded after penetrating the perimeter fence of Baghdad's international airport, where thousands of American troops are based[/i].)
The attacks followed the killing of two US soldiers in a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad and a pair of car-bombings on Tuesday and Wednesday which killed 100 Iraqis, most of whom had been volunteering for the Iraqi security forces.
The report makes clear how dependent Iraq's stability is on investment in the country's economy. "A fear of some is the 'Balkanisation' of Iraq if security, economic and infrastructure situations do not improve," it says.
It attributed much of the civilian violence to rising ethnic tensions between Kurds, Shias and Sunnis, noting that several bodies were found in the south "with hands bound and bullet wounds to the head".
But attacks on military targets, which had seen two months of decline, rose even faster than those on civilians, it said, particularly in the "Sunni triangle", north and west of Baghdad. It described the "profuse availability" of roadside bombs, the favoured weapon of the insurgents, as "alarming", saying attacks had surged almost 200 per cent.
The report shed little insight into who was behind the attacks, but said "multiple reports confirm the presence of al-Qaeda in the country".
[b]Divide-and-Conquer for OIL ... [i]is the Bush regime's intention as they leave Iraq shattered in chaos and misery ... Meanwhile, ask Halliburton & Cos. about their plans for Iraq [/i]...
Divide-and-Conquer for RICHES ... [i]is the Bush regime's intention as they swindle, plunder & loot America on behalf of their corporate pimps and wealthy campaign contributors [/i]... [i]Meanwhile, ask Dubya's corporate campaign contributors about their plans for the U.S.A.[/i] ...[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Loss of Flying Status Should Have Spurred Probe ... And His Records Scrubbed??? |
| 02.12.04 (5:00 pm) [edit] |
[b]The Bush regime's track-record of miserable failures abroad [/b](... [i]U.S. foreign policy is a disaster, with an illegal & immoral war turned bloody guerrilla quagmire in Iraq, based upon lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]...) [b]and at home [/b](... [i]U.S. domestic policy handed over to corporations and the richest-of-the-rich who are swindling, plundering and looting our nation, as the dire needs of impoverished and jobless Americans go ignored and neglected[/i] ...) [b]are sufficient reasons to oust this corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist cabal ...[/b]
However, "We the People" should assess the following issues because they are relevant to the questions surrounding Bush's so-called "character":-- [i]despicable, shallow and superficial [/i]at best ...
[b]I. Bush's loss of flying status should have spurred probe[/b]
President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.
Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, last flew in April 1972 -- just before the missed physical and 30 months before his flight commitment ended. He also did not attend National Guard training for several months that year and was permitted to cut short his military commitment a year later in 1973.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, for the second day in a row, refused yesterday to answer questions about Bush's failure to take the physical and appeared to retreat from Bush's promise Sunday to make public all of his military records. Asked at a midday press briefing if all of Bush's records would be released, McClellan said, "We'd have to see if there is any new information in that." [i]By Walter V. Robinson and Francie Latour, Boston Globe[/i], For the full story, click on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
[b]II. Unsolved mystery: Were Bush's National Guard files scrubbed in the 1990s?[/b]
HOUSTON — A retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard complained to a member of the Texas Senate in 1998 that aides to Gov. George W. Bush improperly screened Mr. Bush's National Guard files in a search for information that could embarrass the governor in future elections.
The retired officer, Bill Burkett, said in the letter to Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, a Democrat from Austin, that Dan Bartlett, then a senior aide to Governor Bush and now White House communications director, and Gen. Daniel James, then the head of the Texas National Guard, reviewed the file to "make sure nothing will embarrass the governor during his re-election campaign."
A copy of the letter was provided to The New York Times by a lawyer for Mr. Burkett to support statements he makes in a book to be published this month, which Mr. Burkett repeated in interviews this week, that Mr. Bush's aides ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files. [i]By Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times[/i], For the full story, click on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
[b]III. Other Articles Relating to Dubya's Character ...[/b]
"Bush's Military Records Were "Cleaned-Up" In 1997 ... Embarrassing "Items" Removed ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
"The Content of His Character??? ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
"George T. Put 'the Monkey' On George W.'s Back ... Where It Belongs ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Economic Fiasco Is A Disaster For Middle-Class Families ... |
| 02.12.04 (4:29 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush's economic fiasco is the worst since the Great Depression because it is leading this nation towards the largest deficits and debts in our history-- with nothing to show for his reckless spending on unconscionable [i]welfare giveaways [/i]to corporations and the richest among us, except a massive gluttonous swindle of America by the wealthy amassing mountains of obscene [i]treasure & booty [/i]in their greed-ridden plunder and looting of our people.[/b]
Tragically, the [i]gap[/i] between the [i]Hyper-Rich-Haves [/i]& the increasingly [i]Impoverished-Slavish-H ave-Nots [/i]is skyrocketing at a level not seen in our nation for over 75 years. Instead of investing in our nation's well-being and the welfare of our citizenry, the corrupt Bush regime has awarded massive tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles to their corrupt corporate cronies, and wealthy oligarchs & plutocrats-- Meanwhile, poverty and misery in the U.S.A. is rising sharply with:
* Over 4 million citizens who are homeless;
* Over 9-15 million citizens without jobs in the biggest 'job loss' since Herbert Hoover ([i]Contrast the destruction of 3.3 million jobs under Bush with the creation of over 22 million jobs under Clinton[/i].);
* Over 25 million families living below an out-dated poverty line set back in the 1960s;
* Over 45 million citizens without health care and over 18,000 of whom die each year because we are the only industrialized nation (...[i] for the moment, as Bush is turning us into a 3rd world-style military junta & slave state [/i]...) without a National Health Care System;
* Our systems of education, food-and-drug administration, environmental protections, as well as services that render us a civilized nation, are being disbanded by Bush in favor of a vastly over-bloated Military Industrial Complex that is starving our nation, in order that the insane neo-cons can wage their blood-thirsty war adventures in pursuit of vast power and obese riches ... leaving our citizens bereft of a decent standard of living and suffering as dire needs are neglected ...
"We the People" must demand a return to a sane and rational course, for the disastrous route that the neo-fascist Bush regime has set-upon will lead us to even further tragic chaos, misery and desperation.
Refer to "[b]Kicking the Middle Class When It's Down[/b]" by [i]Elizabeth Warren [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
With consumer debt higher than ever, many thousands of middle class families face financial disaster. Home mortgage foreclosures, car repossessions, and credit card defaults are all at record levels. Last year alone, 9 million families entered credit counseling in an effort to straighten out their finances, and 1.6 million just gave up and filed for bankruptcy. Congress’s response? The House of Representatives decided it was time to try once more to push a bankruptcy bill that credit industry lobbyists have been peddling since 1997, a bill designed to boost profits for consumer lenders by making it tougher for troubled families to get any relief in bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy bill is more than 400 pages of virtually impenetrable text, with literally hundreds of changes to an already-complex statute. A well-financed lobbying effort has reduced it to a tasty sound bite: People should repay their debts if they can. The problem, of course, is that the sound bite deliberately obscures the reality. The biggest problem is not people who can repay, it is people who are desperately trying to repay and who can’t make it — families filing bankruptcy to try to make up mortgage payments and past-due car payments but who don’t have steady enough incomes to make even a minimal repayment plan and keep groceries on the table. But the proposed bankruptcy bill would impose more than a hundred new constraints on all families — whether they are trying to repay or not — increasing costs, decreasing protection, and leaving creditors with more leverage than ever to squeeze a few dollars more out of all these families.
If this bill passed, who would pay the price? First, families with children. Today, people with children at home are nearly three times more likely to file for bankruptcy. Married couples are in trouble, and those trying to raise a child alone are in even more trouble. A single woman raising a child is nearly four times more likely to file for bankruptcy than a single woman alone. Divorced dads are having a hard time too, heading into bankruptcy at much higher rates than their single friends without children.
Among older Americans, the most likely filers are those who cannot pay for prescription drugs or meet other medical costs. Older Americans are also more likely to have been the victims of fraud and unscrupulous lenders who are trying to trick them out of their homes. For a growing number of seniors, bankruptcy is their last hope.
If American families were simply on a spending spree, perhaps the fact that millions are in trouble with debt should be treated as little more than their just desserts. But the data are irrefutable: families are in financial trouble for the most basic reasons. Among those who have filed for bankruptcy, two-thirds have suffered a job loss — that means last year alone 1.1 million families walked into the bankruptcy courts after mom or dad (or both) was laid off, downsized, or otherwise put out of work.
Lack of health insurance is also taking its toll. About 800,000 of the families in bankruptcy have had serious medical problems — a husband who had a heart attack, a wife with breast cancer, an elderly parent who needs long-term care, or a child with leukemia. About 160,000 people filed for bankruptcy after the family broke apart, a condition that fell disproportionately on women trying to raise their children. Altogether, more than 90 percent of the families fell into one or more of these three categories — job loss, medical problems or family break up. The remaining families were beset by a variety of other problems and circumstances — including crime, natural disaster, and a call up to military service. In short, families are heading to bankruptcy when their incomes and debts get badly out of balance following a serious economic disruption.
Real abuses, however, escape attention in this legislation. Despite all the provisions to make personal bankruptcy more difficult, the amendments were carefully tailored to preserve loopholes for corporate executives because they have "business debts" instead of "consumer debts." Similarly, provisions to protect multimillion dollar homes in Texas, Florida, and other states remain virtually intact. Special exemptions for the rich remain because they rarely owe credit card debt, while the bill zeroes in on ordinary, wage-earning families.
This bill treats bankruptcy as something debtors alone create; creditors are treated as innocent victims. Last year, the credit industry mailed five billion credit card solicitations, but the bill imposes not a single new constraint on the credit industry. Instead, the House has embraced a bill that is widely described as “a creditor’s wish list” to help companies increase the odds of collecting from even the most financially troubled families.
What gives this bill renewed momentum at a time when tens of millions of families are out of work and have no health insurance? The financial services industry has pressed a well-funded lobbying effort, giving more money in Washington than almost any other interest group. The Washington Post reports that credit issuers even offered a sweetheart loan deal for an influential Congressman. And the money has paid off. Princeton researchers concluded that voting "strongly reflects campaign contributions" by the coalition of creditors supporting the bill. Executives from credit card giant MBNA were the single largest contributors to George Bush’s presidential campaign, and he too has announced his unwavering support for the bill.
In a brazen abuse of the language, the bill has been named a "reform" act. Its supporters claim that it will help women, support families, and cut abuse. In fact, this bill is designed to do just one thing: Squeeze middle class families a little harder to increase the profits for already-profitable consumer lenders.
[i]Elizabeth Warren is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. She specializes in commercial law and bankruptcy and is the author of several books, studies and articles on the subject. Warren is currently vice president of the American Law Institute[/i].
[b]Source[/b]:
The[i] Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Military Records Were "Cleaned-Up" In 1997 ... Embarrassing "Items" Removed ... |
| 02.12.04 (3:56 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya's war record is a [i]sham[/i] ... He was a deserter and now we come to [i]find out [/i]the following:[/b]
[b]Report: Bush Military Records Cleaned Up in 1997 ...[/b]
A retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard has come forward to claim that portions of President Bush’s military record were[i] thrown away in 1997 [/i]after a top Bush aide asked the head of the Texas National Guard to [i]remove embarrassing items from his file[/i]. Lt. Col. Bill Burkett first made this charge in 1998 in a letter to his Congressman. This week he told reporters that Joe Allbaugh (... [i]and who has a new neo-con con-game embezzlement scheme in Iraq [/i]... http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... ), who ran Bush’s 2000 president campaign, made the request to Lt. Gen. Daniel James who was the adjutant general of the Texas Air National Guard. Both Allbaugh and James have denied the charge. James now serves as the head of the Air National Guard, a position he was appointed to by Bush. Alllbaugh would go on to head FEMA and he is now a top Washington lobbyist. Meanwhile the White House continued Wednesday to release new documents from Bush’s military record in an attempt to prove the president served out his full duty in the National Guard. Reporters received records from a trip to the dentist Bush made while serving in the Alabama National Guard. According to the Washington Post, the document is the first evidence Bush spent time at an Alabama base but it doesn’t clarify if Bush fulfilled his full term. Meanwhile USA Today is reporting that the portions of Bush’s recently released military records pertaining to past arrests and convictions are blacked out from the recently released documents. Bush’s military record also came up during Secretary of State Colin’s Powell’s visit to Capitol Hill.
[b]How can "We the People" believe anything that Dubya [i]smirks[/i]?[/b]
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]DemocracyNow [/i]on http://www.democracynow.org/a...
|
|
|
| |
| Up in Plames ... Up in Flames ... |
| 02.12.04 (3:29 pm) [edit] |
[b]The Bush regime is in trouble ... [/b] Currently, the on-going investigation into the White House's petty, vengeful and illegal act of their[i] felonious [/i]outing of an undercover operative's secret identity is creating real problems for [i]Cheney and Co.[/i] ... Unfortunately, we've got a corrupt and cowardly [i]ne'er-do-well[/i] for president who doesn't have the integrity, honesty or ethics to demand that the criminals in his entourage step forward and resign ... But then, they could probably tell some stories about Dubya that he certainly doesn't want uncovered[i] or revealed [/i]...
[b]Up in plames ... Up in flames ..[/b]
As the grand jury exploring the leak of Valerie Plame's identity edges ever closer to Cheney's office, the voices wondering whether Dick will be out of work come November grow louder. The fact that 3 of the 5 suspects in the case are either past or present employees of the VP isn't helping to boost his flagging popularity in White House polls which, according to the [i]Guardian U.K., [/i] http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa...,12271,1145390,00.html suggest that Cheney as a running mate might make for a losing ticket. Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC, wrote in a not too subtle statement: "we hope that President Bush will keep his word and hold accountable those responsible for the White House leak - no matter how high their post." [i]More on [/i]» http://www.alternet.org/waron...
Refer also to "[b]Cheney's future at stake after leaking of CIA agent's name[/b]" by [i]Julian Borger [/i]on http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa...,12271,1145390,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| The Content of His Character??? ... |
| 02.12.04 (1:28 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush??? The content of his character??? ... [/b]Very shallow, very cowardly (... [i]over-compensating will imbecilic and dangerously idiotic bully-boy speak [/i]...), very reckless, very incompetent, very superficial, very phony, very dishonest, not very bright, not wise at all ... etc. etc. etc. ... In short, not a character deserving of respect ... and, certainly not a character that can be depended upon to [i]successfully[/i] lead our nation ...
"We the People" must reject Dubya, a "[i]tinny cartoon character[/i]" of a disastrous [i]ne'er-do-well [/i]who has led us into an insane neo-con bloody fiasco in Iraq resulting in the unnecessary deaths of over 539 U.S. Soldiers and over 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians ... On the home front, the neo-fascist Dubya has created an economic nightmare that is creating misery, suffering and desperation for millions of our fellow citizens ... ["Bush Is Kicking The Middle Class When It's Down ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template... ]
For a [i]case in point[/i], refer to "[i][b]The Content of His Character[/b][/i]" by [i]Ruth Rosen [/i]on http://www.commondreams.org/v... :
[b]GEORGE W. BUSH[/b], who describes himself as our "war president," actually knows precious little about war, including the one he launched in Iraq.
In last Sunday's interview with NBC News' Tim Russert, the president revealed that, absent a scripted speech on a TelePrompTer, he is unable to defend his decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
His responses only widened his growing credibility gap. He insisted that he tried every diplomatic alternative to war, even though many of us remember how he raced past U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and the U.N. Security Council in his rush to war. Despite former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's revelation that the Bush administration planned the Iraq war before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and chief weapons inspector David Kay's report that no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered, Bush still insisted that one day, somewhere, WMD will be found.
The president seemed to forget that many of us do, in fact, pay attention to the news. His new justification for the war -- that Iraq might have stockpiled WMD someday and therefore could have endangered the United States - - lacked a certain credibility.
Despite his vague answers, Bush has every reason to assume that he can sail smoothly through this storm.
This is a man, after all, who has been rescued repeatedly -- from the military draft, from a failed oil business -- by the power and prestige of his family's ties.
Consider his military record: The media first raised questions about his spotty attendance in the Texas Air National Guard in the 2000 campaign. But after he assumed the presidency, they gave him a three-year pass.
It took loudmouthed filmmaker and author Michael Moore to force the issue by calling Bush a military deserter. That outlandish and crude accusation, however, did remind many people that Bush is a man who neither fought in nor against the Vietnam War, as so many men of his generation did.
The truth is, Bush essentially skipped Vietnam. Unlike Bill Clinton, he did not protest a war he judged to be morally wrong. Unlike Sen. John Kerry, he did not fight in the war and then protest its bankrupt policy when he returned.
Instead, Bush's father used his influence to get junior moved to the top of a long waiting list at the Texas Air National Guard two weeks before his son graduated from Yale in 1968. As the Washington Post has reported, Bush was accepted for pilot training, even though he received the lowest acceptable grade on the aptitude test.
He later asked for a transfer to Alabama, so he could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of one of his father's friends. After taxpayers spent a small fortune training him to be a pilot, he was suspended from flying in August 1972 when he inexplicably failed to complete an annual medical exam.
According to records released by the White House, he apparently skipped service in 1972 from April 16 to Oct. 28. In 2000, William Turnipseed, a retired brigadier general, told the Boston Globe, "Had he reported in I would have had some recall and I do not." Still, Bush received credit for his attendance.
He then returned to Texas where two of his superior officers said they couldn't give him annual evaluations because he hadn't shown up.
So why did he receive an honorable discharge, a fact the president will repeat every day, from now until November?
Grant Lattin, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who once served as judge advocate and is now a Washington military law attorney, explained to Salon.com's Eric Boehlert, "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because, says Lattin, "the National Guard is extremely political. ... If George Bush junior is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."
When Bush ran for president he asked us to judge him by the content of his character, not by whom he knew. He presented himself as a moral alternative to Washington politicians. He wouldn't lie, he said. He stood for truth, religion and family values. When he persuaded the public to support the war in Iraq, he asked us to trust his moral clarity.
Yet now he faces an erosion of trust by a public that feels it may have been deceived -- about his military record, about the need for a pre-emptive war in Iraq and about the man himself.
Only time will tell if, once again, he will be rescued from being held accountable for his actions.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Is Kicking The Middle Class When It's Down ... |
| 02.12.04 (12:29 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush's economic fiasco is the worst since the Great Depression because it is leading this nation towards the largest deficits and debts in our history-- with nothing to show for his reckless spending on unconscionable [i]welfare giveaways [/i]to corporations and the richest among us, except a massive gluttonous swindle of America by the wealthy amassing mountains of obscene [i]treasure & booty [/i]in their greed-ridden plunder and looting of our people.[/b]
Tragically, the [i]gap[/i] between the [i]Hyper-Rich-Haves [/i]& the increasingly [i]Impoverished-Slavish-H ave-Nots [/i]is skyrocketing at a level not seen in our nation for over 75 years. Instead of investing in our nation's well-being and the welfare of our citizenry, the corrupt Bush regime has awarded massive tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles to their corrupt corporate cronies, and wealthy oligarchs & plutocrats-- Meanwhile, poverty and misery in the U.S.A. is rising sharply with:
* Over 4 million citizens who are homeless;
* Over 9-15 million citizens without jobs in the biggest 'job loss' since Herbert Hoover ([i]Contrast the destruction of 3.3 million jobs under Bush with the creation of over 22 million jobs under Clinton[/i].);
* Over 25 million families living below an out-dated poverty line set back in the 1960s;
* Over 45 million citizens without health care and over 18,000 of whom die each year because we are the only industrialized nation (...[i] for the moment, as Bush is turning us into a 3rd world-style military junta & slave state [/i]...) without a National Health Care System;
* Our systems of education, food-and-drug administration, environmental protections, as well as services that render us a civilized nation, are being disbanded by Bush in favor of a vastly over-bloated Military Industrial Complex that is starving our nation, in order that the insane neo-cons can wage their blood-thirsty war adventures in pursuit of vast power and obese riches ... leaving our citizens bereft of a decent standard of living and suffering as dire needs are neglected ...
"We the People" must demand a return to a sane and rational course, for the disastrous route that the neo-fascist Bush regime has set-upon will lead us to even further tragic chaos, misery and desperation.
Refer to "[b]Kicking the Middle Class When It's Down[/b]" by [i]Elizabeth Warren [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
With consumer debt higher than ever, many thousands of middle class families face financial disaster. Home mortgage foreclosures, car repossessions, and credit card defaults are all at record levels. Last year alone, 9 million families entered credit counseling in an effort to straighten out their finances, and 1.6 million just gave up and filed for bankruptcy. Congress’s response? The House of Representatives decided it was time to try once more to push a bankrupt | |
