[b]It is [i]not [/i]too early for "We the People" to come to terms with the horrendous costs in lives and treasure that have taken a heavy toll on the United States of America and Iraq ... [/b]The corrupt Bush administration has betrayed us with their insane neo-con pre-emptive power-grab resulting from their treasonous neo-fascist lusts for imperial power and infinite riches ...
The Bush Administration, in a stealthy move designed to minimize anticipated insurgent attacks, yesterday handed "sovereignty" to Iraq's interim government two days before it had been scheduled to do so on June 30th.
The premature hand-off--or what might be called a sovereignty scam--means that the Bush Team's PR offensive is certain to kick into high gear in the coming weeks. (When Bush http://www.thenation.com/dire... learned that Paul Bremer had formally relinquished his authority to the Iraqi government, he added an Orwellian touch to a hand-written note that his national security advisor Condi Rice had just sent him. His note said: "Let Freedom Reign!")
Now more than at any time since Bush http://www.thenation.com/dire... invaded Iraq, journalists need to give Americans a clear assessment of the [u]mounting costs[/u] http://costofwar.com/ of this war. This is a great opportunity for the media to redeem itself for malpractice in the run-up to war when, as [i]Washington Post[/i] ombudsperson Michael Getler wrote this month http://www.washingtonpost.com... in a tough rebuke to his own paper---and the larger media world, "...the press, as a whole, did not do a very good job in challenging administration claims...Too many public events in which alternative views were expressed...were either missed, underreported or poorly displayed."
The costs are now detailed in a [u]devastating report[/u] http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/co... just released by the Institute for Policy Studies http://www.ips-dc.org/ (IPS) and Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/ (FPIF). It is an extraordinary compilation of the mounting human, economic, environmental, security and other costs of this war of choice.
In human terms, seven hundred US servicemen and women have died since Bush declared "the end of major combat" in his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech in May 2003, while more than 5,000 soldiers have been wounded since the war began. Many of them, as Michael Moore documents in his provocative new film[i] Fahrenheit 911[/i], have lost arms and legs.The cost to the Iraqi people http://www.iraqbodycount.net/... has also been tragic. Up to 11,317 Iraqi civilians have died [some studies cite over 16,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed thus far] in the conflict so far--many of them children whose only crime was to be caught living in the middle of a war zone.
In financial terms, the costs to the American taxpayer are massive. The US has already spent $126 billion on the war, costing every American family approximately $3,400 each. As the Campaign for America's Future http://www.ourfuture.org/ recently pointed out, this Administration has socked it to hard-working families on two fronts: Bush passed his massive tax cuts that gave a huge tax break to the wealthiest individuals and corporations, and then when he went to war, he asked the same working-and middle-class families who bore the brunt of the tax cuts to pay for the conflict. Meanwhile, companies like Halliburton are making a mint in Iraq after receiving no-bid contracts from the federal government.
A [u]new report[/u] http://www.christian-aid.org.... by Christian Aid--a non-profit group that seeks solutions to poverty--makes clear who has been the real beneficiaries of the invasion and occupation. It shows that "a majority of Iraq's reconstruction projects have been awarded to US companies, which charge up to ten times more than Iraqi firms." (Also check out Naomi Klein's recent[i] Nation [/i]column http://www.thenation.com/doc.... detailing how during the run-up to this "handover" the US occupation powers have been "unabashed in their efforts to steal money that is supposed to aid a war-ravaged people.")
By the end of 2004, according to the [u]IPS/FPIP report[/u], http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/co... Bush will have spent approximately $151 billion to wage his crusade in Iraq. That money could have paid for 23 million housing vouchers for poor and working-class Americans, and given America's elementary school children three million new teachers. It could have provided healthcare for 27 million uninsured Americans and allowed 20 million more children to enter the Head Start program.
Floridians alone will have to shell out almost $8 billion to pay for W's war in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Bush Team is providing Florida only half that amount for initiatives in such vital areas as education, environmental protection and community block grants in a state where nineteen percent of the children currently live below the poverty line.
If there is any good news, it is that Americans are at long last recognizing that this President is untrustworthy and dishonest. Today, the latest[i] New York Times/CBS [/i]poll was released showing that Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, while the most recent [i]Washington Post/ABC News[/i] poll http://abcnews.go.com/section... shows that by a margin of 52 percent to 39 percent, Kerry is seen as more honest and trustworthy. And just last week a[i] CNN/USA Today/Gallup [/i]poll http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO... found that a majority of Americans for the first time believe that invading Iraq was a mistake.
More and more Americans are understanding that the country is paying a very high price for this war and occupation and that this "war" president hoodwinked both Congress and the people.
[b]"We the People" should be taking account of the [i]dog-fights[/i] over[i] 'Fahrenheit 9/11' (F9/11)[/i] because they say something about the nature of [i]debate[/i] today in our society ...[/b]
Rage is all the rage in the [i]F9/11 [/i]era. Christopher Hitchens started the shouting match with his much-forwarded, widely-blogged attack on Michael Moore http://slate.msn.com/id/21027... . That one got Michael Taibbi downright[i] ticked.[/i] In his [i]New York Press [/i]response, http://www.nypress.com/print.... Taibbi raises the volume a notch, not just taking Hitchens to task but also the entire field of journalism.
He writes:
... [i]"[u]All[/u] journalists are cowards. Hitchens knows it, I know it, everybody in this business knows it. If there were any justice at all, every last goddamn one of us would be lowered, head-first, into a wood-chipper. Over Arizona. Shoot a nice red mist over the whole state, make it arable for a year or two. A year's worth of fava beans and endive for the children of Bangladesh: I dare anyone in our business to say that that wouldn't represent a better use of our rotting bodies than the actual fruits of our labor." [/i]...
Point being, journalists (himself and Hitchens included) don't have the guts to make media what media ought to be. And Moore is filling that gap; serving that essential role, exposing the hidden/buried truths. He continues:
... "[i]I'm enraged by the numerous attempts at verbose, pseudoliterary, "nuanced" criticism of Moore this week by the learned priests of our business. (And no, I'm not overlooking this newspaper.) Michael Moore may be an ass, and impossible to like as a public figure, and a little loose with the facts, and greedy, and a shameless panderer. But he wouldn't be necessary if even one percent of the rest of us had any balls at all[/i]." ...
Polemics upon polemics upon polemics. The blood boils, no matter who you agree with in this case. One point many can agree on -- Taibbi's hunger for nuanced crticism. And for that, we turn to the ever conscientious voice of Chicago Reader's [i]Jonathan Rosenbaum[/i], who says http://www.chireader.com/movi... all this anger is to be expected. In fact, it's what makes[i] F9/11 [/i]so darn good. - http://www.alternet.org/media...
[b]The[i] New York Times [/i]is reporting that the new Iraqi government will put Saddam Hussein on trial "in the next few months." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... In other words, before Election Day. Obviously, the president and his aides have been looking at the same poll numbers Kevin Drum has.[/b]
What makes this such a good manuever is that it is perfectly plausible on its own terms—why not put Saddam on trial as soon as the new government gets on its feet? And having the former dictator in a courtroom, subject to justice, militates against earlier images of President Bush as a cowboy bent on getting his man [i]dead or alive[/i] (Whatever happened to Osama bin '[i]Forgotten[/i]'-- the one who attacked us on 9/11?). Expect the trial to make frequent appearances in Bush's stump speech this fall and likely at the Republican convention, as the incumbent proclaims that he has made the world safer from terrorism by bringing down Saddam and forcing him to face justice at the hands of the formerly ruled.
Shouldn't Poppy Bush, Cheney and Rummy Rumsfeld be [i]put in the dock along-side [/i]their good-buddy Saddam without whom he [Saddam] wouldn't have had the [i]ways-and-means-and-sup port to commit the crimes [/i]against his own people that he is being charged with? "We the People" should be asking the corrupt Bush regime this question! ...
[b]What do "We the People" [i]really[/i] know about Dick[i] 'Fuck-Yourself' [/i]Cheney??? ... [/b]Bush [i]isn't[/i] the "brightest guy in the world" (... even his supporters won't claim [i]that[/i] ...) ... Cheney is the [i]power behind the throne[/i], and does not like being asked questions and/or being held accountable http://www.tblog.com/template... ... Is this really the type of regime that we [i]need[/i] for our nation??? ... Take a look around at all of the[i] many, many [/i]heinous crimes committed by this gang of neo-con thugs & neo-fascist goons [i]here at home and abroad [/i]... "We the People" [i]can and must [/i]do better than [i]this [/i]...
We are all up in arms right now, it seems, about Vice President Dick Cheney, and the fact that Cheney told one of the more irenic of Democratic senators to "f--k off" in a brief exchange on the Senate floor last Tuesday because the senator in question, Pat Leahy (Democrat of Vermont) had earlier had the temerity to raise questions about lucrative no-bid Iraqi contracts secured by his former employer Halliburton.
Certainly, Cheney and his partisans deserve the knuckle-rapping they're now getting. And it's entertaining to watch avatars of dignity, good order and responsibility like Bill Frist http://www.newsday.com/news/p...,0,2505742.story?coll=sns-ap-politic s-headlines and the folks over at the White House http://www.team4news.com/Glob... call Cheney's antics good clean fun and politics as usual.
But for those who have few good things to say about the vice-president, I think, the correct response is less outrage than the sort of grim (or perhaps not so grim) satisfaction one feels when a malign character unwittingly reveals himself to a larger audience. Because even if Cheney "felt better" http://www.washingtonpost.com... after his outburst, this wasn't a show of strength but one of desperation or, perhaps, impatient impotence.
I think Joe Klein has it right in the title of his new column in[i] Time [/i]-- ("[i]Plenty More to Swear About: Bush's security team faces a barrage of criticism as the facts about Iraq come to light[/i]" http://www.time.com/time/colu...,9565,658285,00.html ). As Klein writes, last week's "assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency."
Consider for a moment. Who is Dick Cheney, [i]really[/i]? What do we know of him? None of us like being questioned or critized. But in him the disinclination runs particularly deep. He prefers to act in secrecy and is a man to whom government transparency has all the allure that a shaft of sunlight has to a vampire. When challenged, violence seems always to be his preferred method of response, that of first resort --- often a literal sort on the world stage, but with bureaucratic (viz. Plame) and what we might call verbal violence at home. By verbal violence I mean specifically tough talk and threats meant to frighten people away from challenging him further, to knock them on their heels. Even this new case -- saying Leahy et al. had it coming http://seattletimes.nwsource.... -- is but another example. When that doesn't work, he gets sloppy.
Cheney et al. can see all sorts of bad business coming down the pike in the next few months -- much of it already on the public radar screen, some of it still clogged up no doubt in back channels, newsrooms and new rounds of dirty-tricksterism. It seems clearly to be getting to them.
[b]The [i]CBS Evening News [/i]reports tonight ([i]Monday, 06/28/04[/i]) that American detainees at Guantanamo Bay will be seeking legal counsel in order to fight their cases in the U.S. Courts ... The Supreme Court[i] seems [/i]to have handed down a decision today that does not permit the [i]out-of-control [/i]Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] Executive http://www.commondreams.org/h... to simply detain U.S. Citizens indefinitely, denying them their rights to legal counsel and seeking justice through the U.S. Courts ... [/b]
"We the People" should [i]watch the developments very carefully[/i] however, because the corrupt Bush regime is out to destroy our rights under the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ...
[u][b][i]Hamdi[/i] and [i]Padilla[/i] Appear to be a Huge Loss for the Government [/b][/u]
This is based upon a very cursory first read, but it appears to me that[i] Hamdi [/i]and[i] Padilla [/i]in conjunction are a huge loss for the Government. (Lyle Denniston will be providing further analysis shortly.) The Government, recall, acknowledged that detention of these persons was necessary and proper principally for purposes of interrogating them for intelligence reasons. (Hence the denial of counsel, etc.; see the Jacoby Declaration in Padilla.)
In [i]Padilla[/i], it appears that only four Justices reach (or even discuss) the question of the lawfulness of the detention. Justice Stevens writes that "the Non-Detention Act, 18 U. S. C. §4001(a), prohibits -- and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution, 115 Stat. 224, adopted on September 18, 2001, does not authorize -- the protracted, incommunicado detention of American citizens arrested in the United States." He continues:
"[i]At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber. Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process. Executive detention of subversive citizens, like detention of enemy soldiers to keep them off the battlefield, may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction. It may not, however, be justified by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure. Whether the information so procured is more or less reliable than that acquired by more extreme forms of torture is of no consequence. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny[/i]."
In[i] Hamdi[/i], four Justices, including Justice Scalia, conclude that Hamdi's detention itself is unlawful -- a result that Hamdi himself barely argued for (his briefs being more focused on the opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant status). Four other Justices -- Justice O'Connor, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy and Breyer -- conclude that Congress's 9/18/01 authorization of military force (AUMF) authorizes detention of a "narrow" category of persons: those who are "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" in Afghanistan and who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States there." They read the AUMF to authorize detention of such persons "for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured" (because, says the plurality, such detention "is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the 'necessary and appropriate force' Congress has authorized the President to use").
The plurality goes on to emphasize, however, that the detention must be "to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield," which the plurality views as "a fundamental incident of waging war." This means that Hamdi can be held, the plurality concludes, not until the end of the "war on terror," which the plurality acknowledges may not come in Hamdi's lifetime, but only until the end of the "active combat operations in Afghanistan." And here's the key sentence: "Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized."
This should mean that Padilla's detention -- which the Government acknowledges is principally for the purpose of interrogation -- likewise is not authorized. Even if Justice O'Connor's opinion might not conclusively dictate that result, there are (at least) five votes for it: the four dissenters in Hamdi, as well as Justice Breyer, who joins the Stevens dissent in Padilla.
[i][Saddam Hussein] had an established relationship with al Qaeda[/i]. – Vice President Dick Cheney, 6/25/04
[i]"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda[/i]." – Washington Post, 6/17/04
[b]Why [i]exactly[/i] did Bush illegally & immorally invade Iraq, creating death, misery, mayhem and chaos left in the wake of their [i]"quicky" escape [/i]on a jet plane today??? [/b][i]Supposedly[/i] to disarm Saddam Hussein of massive stockpiles of WMDs [i]supposedly[/i] posing an so-called "imminent threat" to our national security ... It was a pack of traitorous lies perpetrated upon the American people and the entire world community by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]who then desperately tried to imply that phony "links" existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when instead Saddam Hussein and Osama bin ([i]Forgotten[/i]) Laden were [i]actually [/i]enemies ...
"We the People" and the People of Iraq have been ruthlessly swindled out of precious lives and raped of our treasures by the corrupt neo-con Bushies and their neo-fascist corporate-take-all cronies, all of whom should be sent to the International Court at the Hague to be tried for [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
[b]In a move highlighting the severe threat the insurgency poses to security in Iraq, chief U.S. administrator Paul Bremer formally transferred sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government two days early.[/b] The "near secret" ceremony was attended by just "a half dozen Iraqi and coalition officials held in the heavily guarded Green Zone." The acceleration of the transfer date was "an apparent bid to surprise insurgents and prevent them from trying to sabotage the step toward self-rule." President Bush – in Turkey for a NATO summit – "marked the transfer with a whispered comment and a handshake with British Prime Minister Tony Blair." After handing a few legal document to Iraqi chief justice Mahdi al-Mahmood, Bremer immediately "left Iraq on a U.S. Air Force C-130." But the early handover does not change the reality on the ground – Iraq's newly-sovereign government is beset by a growing insurgency, faced with enormous political challenges, and tasked with taking over the management of a tumultuous transition. Today, American Progress released a new plan http://www.americanprogress.o... outlining clear steps the Bush administration should take to promote peace and stability after the transition.
[b]BREMER IMPOSES HIS WILL:[/b] Before flying off into the sunset, Bremer "issued a raft of edicts http://www.washingtonpost.com... revising Iraq's legal code." The new rules – which will be difficult, if not impossible, to overturn – will "restrict the power of the interim government, and impose U.S.-crafted rules for the country's democratic transition." Controversially, Bremer empowered an appointed electoral commission to "eliminate political parties or candidates." Another last minute edict gave "U.S. and other Western civilian contractors immunity from Iraqi law while performing their jobs in Iraq" – a provision that outraged many Iraqis because it "allows foreigners to act with impunity even after the occupation." Bremer also capped the tax rate at 15 percent, amended an industrial-design law to protect microchip designs, and stipulated the use of car horns be permitted in "emergency conditions only."
[b]NATO ASSISTANCE STILL UNDEFINED:[/b] In a positive development, NATO leaders "tentatively" agreed to help provide training for Iraqi security forces. But the [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]reports that details of the agreement remain elusive, "threatening to undermine the impact of a diplomatic victory for President Bush." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) – in Istanbul with the president – conceded that no one knows the extent of the NATO commitment. There is still concern within NATO – which already has forces in Afghanistan – "about NATO's ability to sustain several operations at once." On [i]Meet the Press [/i]yesterday, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5... American Progress CEO John Podesta discussed how the Bush administration's move towards internationalism is long overdue.
[b]$20B IN OIL REVENUES NOT ACCOUNTED FOR:[/b] A new report by Christian Aid – a non-profit that seeks solutions to poverty – reveals that Bremer left Iraq "without having properly accounted for what it has done with some $20 billion of Iraq's own money," http://www.christian-aid.org.... accumulated from oil sales. The actions of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) appear to violate U.N. resolution 1483, which mandated that "Iraq's oil revenues should be paid into the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), that this money should be spent in the interests of the Iraqi people, and [that it] be independently audited." Bremer did not even appoint an auditor until April 2004, and the report is not expected until mid-July – long after the CPA has been dissolved. In the meantime, the CPA has refused to provide even basic information about how the money is being spent. Christian Aid also notes that a "majority of Iraq's reconstruction projects have been awarded to U.S. companies, which charge up to 10 times more than Iraqi firms."
[b]IRAQ OPERATIONS STOKE RAGE:[/b] Bush touted the war in Iraq as an effort not just to oust Saddam Hussein, "but to begin transforming the Middle East." But U.S. and foreign officials say the way the administration has handled the invasion and occupation of Iraq has "led to rage at the United States across the Islamic world and beyond." As a result, "Al-Qaeda's recruitment has been stoked and would-be reformers drowned out." A new report by Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of Diplomacy http://cfdev.georgetown.edu/s... concludes that the United States "is now vulnerable to strategic reversal in the region."
[b]"We the People" should be grateful for our good fortune to have such an eminent national treasure in our midst: the historian, polemicist and essayist, screen-writer and novelist, [i]Gore Vidal [/i]...[/b]
[b]America at Last? — [i]Gore Vidal[/i][/b]
It is very easy to discuss what has gone wrong with us. It is not so easy to discuss what should be done to correct what has gone wrong. It is absolutely impossible in our public discourse to discuss why so much has gone wrong and, indeed, has been wrong with us since the very beginning of the country, and even before that when our white tribes were living elsewhere. There are two subjects that we are not permitted to discuss with any seriousness — race and religion, and how our attitudes toward the first are rooted in the second. Since these two subjects are taboo, we are never able to get to the root of our problems. We are like people born in a cage and so unable to visualise beyond our familiar bars of prejudice and superstition. That Opinion which the Few create in order to control the Many has seen to it that we are kept in permanent ignorance of our actual estate. Now things fall apart.
I am a radical reformer. The word ‘radical’ derives from the Latin word for root. Therefore, if you want to get to the root of anything you must be radical. It is no accident that the word has now been totally demonised by our masters, and no one in politics dares even to use the word favourably, much less track any problem to its root. But then a ruling class that was able to demonise the word ‘liberal’ in the last ten years is a master of controlling — indeed stifling — any criticism of itself. Liberal comes from the Latin liberalis which means ‘pertaining to a free man’. In politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon. In this, as in so much else, J. Edgar Hoover was ahead of his time — he never ceased to denounce pseudo-liberals.
Meanwhile, the word ‘isolationist’ has been revived to describe those who would like to put an end to the national security state that replaced our republic a half-century ago while extending the American military empire far beyond our capacity to pay for it. The word ‘isolationist’ also has very sinister overtones. In the late ‘30s and early ‘40s, many Americans — and I was one — were isolationist. We thought that, as we had gained nothing from the First World War — except an erosion of our civil liberties and the prohibition of alcohol — why should we again help England and France against Germany? There is now a myth that the isolationists were pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic. This is nonsense. Practically every socialist in the country, starting with Norman Thomas, was an isolationist, while agrarian populists, like Senators Wheeler and Nye, tended to be wary of foreign wars and entanglements. Also, the only foreign power that we were hostile to — and feared — was Hitler’s enemy, the Soviet Union, the exporter of godless and atheistic communism. America Firsters ranged from the historian Charles Beard to the young Kingman Brewster, not to mention a brilliant young football coach at Yale, Gerald R. Ford. The pro-German anti-Semites were at home in the German-American Bund, not in the America First Committee. Hitler’s infamous final solution was not known as of 1940 and did not figure into the debate. As it turned out, no American majority ever favoured American intervention in the European war. Had the Japanese not been inspired — or, perhaps, incited — to attack us, we might never have gone to war at all.
In retrospect, I suspect that we should have supported the Allies with everything except troops. But I tend to be, consistently, a non-interventionist though hardly an isolationist in the new sense.
To call someone an isolationist today is to imply that he is probably an anti-Semite and certainly a simpleton who believes in retreating behind the walls of fortress America. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to isolate ourselves from our creditors. But the word has now been trotted out this year to describe the likes of Pat Buchanan who is — or was — causing great distress to the managers of our National Security State when he says that America must abandon the empire if we are ever to repair the mess at home. Also, as a neo-isolationist, Buchanan must be made to seem an anti-Semite.
[b][i]Gore Vidal [/i]is one of the best-known living literary writers. For a quarter-century he has served as the literary and political critic of the [i]New York Review of Books[/i]. This passage has been taken from his annual Lowell Lecture in 1992, called, “[i]America First? America Last? America at Last[/i]?”[/b] - http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/...
Vice President Cheney Unhinged on Senate Floor ... But Why???
[i]“Go F___ Yourself'' [/i]- Dick Cheney to US Senator Patrick Leahy, 6/23/04
[b]THEN:[/b]
"[i]Governor Bush and I are also absolutely determined that [we] will restore a tone of civility and decency to the debate in Washington[/i]." - Dick Cheney, 8/4/00
"[i]I look forward to working with you, Governor, to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation[/i]." - Dick Cheney, 7/25/00
"[i]My administration pledged to bring civility and high standards to Washington[/i]." - George W. Bush, 8/3/01
[b]"We the People" should look a little more closely at[i] 'the-story-behind-the-sto ry' [/i]of Veep Cheney's obscenity directed against Senator Leahy ... [/b][i]Why[/i] did Cheney become [i]unhinged[/i] and behave like some mafia Tony Soprano [i]thug[/i]??? ... We deserve some [i]answers to the very valid questions [/i]posed by Senator Leahy!!! ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Mounting criticisms of war profiteering by Halliburton have apparently struck a chord with Vice President Cheney. At an otherwise congenial photo session earlier this week, the vice president lashed out at Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) for his pursuit of the matter, in addition to discussions about judicial nominees, bluntly telling Leahy, [i]"F--- yourself," [/i]according to aides who witnessed the exchange. Leahy and others are investigating charges that Halliburton overcharged the U.S. government millions of dollars for Iraq services and may have received improper assistance in winning contracts. Cheney's office confirmed the vice president's coarse phrasing but offered no apologies or explanation for his untoward behavior.
[b]1. Rather than cursing out lawmakers, Cheney should explain to Congress his involvement with no-bid contracts for Halliburton.[/b] We now know the vice president's chief of staff received a Pentagon briefing in October 2002, one month prior to directing Halliburton to develop a secret plan for restoring and operating Iraq's oil infrastructure. The vice president's office was also made aware of a second sole-source contract worth up to $7 billion awarded to Halliburton four months later for implementing this plan.
[b]2. The administration must come clean about any remaining contacts or involvement with Halliburton.[/b] The repeated assertion by Cheney that he was not informed about the Halliburton contracts is disingenuous. The full extent of the vice president's contacts and arrangements with the Pentagon on any matters dealing with Halliburton contracts should be fully disclosed.
[b]3. Cheney should apologize to Americans for sullying the U.S. Senate. [/b] During the 2000 campaign, Cheney said he wanted "to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation," and that he was "absolutely determined [to] restore a tone of civility and decency to the debate in Washington." The vice president should live up to these promises and restrain himself in public discourse.
[b]What a week ... [/b]The Bush regime supposedly releases [i]"all" (not)[/i] torture-related documents and we come to find that they[i] only [/i]released [i]partial and selected [/i]documents prior to April 2003 ([i]before[/i] the torture at Abu Ghraib took place) http://www.tblog.com/template... ... Clinton's book[i] 'My Life' [/i]is released and the right-wing[i] launch firestorms [/i]of hysterical [i]ad hominen [/i]attacks against[i] him [/i]and [i]every liberal they can name [/i]... Michael Moore's film [i]'Fahrenheit 9/11'[/i] opens and the neo-cons[i] go mad [/i]calling Moore everything from a "fat boy" to a "communist" to a "traitor" ... Next we'll be told that Clinton and/or Moore were "dealing" with Saddam Hussein and/or Al Qaeda ([i]Are "We the People" simply waiting for Dick Cheney & Karl Rove to [u]decide[/u] in order to tell Bush which one(s) to claim [/i]...) ...
There are too many interesting things going on this week according to[i] AlterNet [/i] http://www.alternet.org to simply focus on one. So here's a smattering of stories about the [i]Frightened[/i], the [i]Clueless[/i], and the "[i]F-word[/i]":
I'll spare you the jokes about how the controversy over "F-9/11" is "heating up" but the particulars are worth a mention. The Federal Elections Commission, http://www.thehill.com/news/0... in addition to its own internal recommendation that it prevent "F-9/11" ads after July 30 from mentioning Bush (or using his image), is considering a complaint, filed by a Republican group, alleging that the film amounts to a glorified campaign ad and as such violates campaign finance laws. Yeah, I'm sure that's what McCain-Feingold had in mind...
DailyKos reports that Ralph Nader is getting some much needed help in building a strong and lasting progressive movement -- from conservative groups in Oregon. From a "Citizens for a sound Economy" phone banking script: http://dailykos.com/story/200... "Ralph Nader needs 1,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot and we need to ensure he gets them...Ralph Nader is undoubtedly going to pull some very crucial votes from John Kerry, and that could mean the difference in a razor-thin Presidential election."
Finally, the latest Gallup poll brings good tidings to Kerry and anyone interested in removing the Bush. In a space of three weeks, Americans went from believing that it was[i] not [/i]a mistake to send troops to Iraq by a margin of 58-41, to believing that it was, 54-44. Even more devastating for Bush is the fact that these numbers precede the devastating events http://www.tblog.com/template... of the past couple of days. The number of registered voters who believe the war has made us safer has gone from 56% in December to 37% now.
But the bottom line is how the states line up. According to poll-expert [i]Ruy Teixeira[/i]: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... "Bush (is) ahead by 8 points in the solid red states (won by Bush by 5 points or more in 2000), but Kerry (is) ahead by 14 in the solid blue states (won by Gore by more than 5 points) and ahead by 9 in the purple states (decided by less than 5 points in 2000). And Kerry is carrying independents nationwide by 10 points and moderates by 24 points."
So what's it all add up to? Bush gets all snippety with an Irish journalist who, unlike too many of his American counterparts, has the gall to seek an actual answer to his question while Cheney opts to keep it simple telling Sen. Patrick Leahy to "[i]F--- yourself[/i]" http://www.washingtonpost.com... .
[b]What are "We the People" [i]to think [/i]about Bush and Cheney [i]by now[/i]??? ...[/b]
The Bush Regime is Not Being Candid on Torture Documents ...
[b]"We the People" surely cannot accept the partial and selective release of documents that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are ([i]ab[/i])using to manipulate ignorant and/or ill-informed people in America into believing that they have been candid regarding their sordid & squalid attempt to break the law and trample on international treaties (meant to protect our own prisoners when captured [i]too[/i]) ... The traitorous Bushies do not want to be implicated in the horrific murder, torture, rape and abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq (including Abu Ghraib) carried out at their direction, but they must be held accountable for their heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... [/b]Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org to demand that the Bush regime be required to hand-over [i]ALL[/i] documents, memos and internal material related to their position on the treatment of all prisoners held under US jurisdiction on foreign and domestic soil.
Earlier this week, the White House released a selection of documents that it claims shows the administration's commitment to the humane treatment of detainees in the global war on terrorism. The documents, however, confirm the administration's elaborate legalistic parsing on the meaning of torture and show its tacit approval of illegal and immoral interrogation techniques.
[b]1. The Bush administration paid lip service to the humane treatment of prisoners under U.S. custody.[/b] The administration's February 2002 memo limits humane treatment of detainees "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity." Yet, the "military necessity" exception is so broad and vague it effectively allows the Geneva conventions to be ignored at will. The memo also says the United States should extend these values even to "those who are not legally entitled to such treatment." But as the [i]New York Times [/i]reports, the White House was unwilling or unable to say "what part of American law denies humane treatment to anyone."
[b]2. The administration must release all documents related to its decisions and authorization of treatment of detainees.[/b] As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) noted after the release of the documents, the White House provided "only 3 of the 23 documents that Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested and tried to subpoena last week, and of those 3 documents, 2 were already available worldwide on the Internet."
[b]3. President Bush must prove to the world through his words and actions that the United States does not condone torture of anyone, anywhere, at anytime, for any reason.[/b] The moral authority of the United States has been severely compromised over the past few months. The president must now do everything in his power to provide full transparency and accountability – even for those at the highest levels of the military and government – for the deplorable actions perpetrated in our name.
"[i]As members of university faculties in law, international relations, diplomacy, and public policy, we write to register our objection to the systematic violation of human rights practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq during recent months: we request Congressional action to ensure accountability for such violations and to safeguard against such egregious abuses in the future. Current circumstances require that all transcend partisan politics or considerations. Action by Congress is necessary to promote a rule of law produced and enforced through a democratic process and to protect the physical and psychological integrity of all people consistent with the traditions of our nation[/i]." - http://www.iraq-letter.com/
[b]If [i]only[/i] "We the People" were as conscientious at demanding that the rule of law supercede the insane power grab and unconscionable corruptions perpetrated by the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta, [/i]as US Diplomats http://www.pww.org/article/ar... , Constitutional Scholars and Legal Experts http://www.iraq-letter.com/ ...[/b] Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and attach this letter demanding that Bush & Cheney be [i]impeached[/i] and that Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and the neo-cons be[i] fired [/i]-- and that they all be put on trial for treason and then be sent to the Hague to be tried for their heinous Crimes Against Humanity ...
[b]Consider ...[/b]
[b]Talk about consensus:[/b] it's no small feat to get over [i][b]500 academics [/b][/i]to agree on anything, let alone sign their names to it. But that's exactly what's happened. Led by professors from Harvard Law School, more than 500 scholars in law, international relations and public policy have signed a letter calling for Congress to assess the executive branch's accountability—and, if appropriate, proceed with [i][b]removal or impeachment [/b][/i]of top officials. "We write to register our objection to the[i][b] systematic violation of human rights [/b][/i]practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq during recent months," the letter reads. The signatories represent 110 institutions in 40 different states.
[b]"We the People" should be extremely alarmed and outraged at the wrong-headed and disappointing decision handed-down today by the corrupt Supreme Court http://www.commondreams.org/h... siding with Cheney in keeping secret his meetings with his Corporate Energy Cronies including Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay ... [/b]Corporations are[i] not [/i]permitted to illegally profit from influencing governmental policy and harming consumers ... Moreover, governmental policy-making is not proper[i] without [/i]oversight and accountability into the decision-making process; and yet, that is just what has happened by allowing Cheney to keep secret meetings intended to establish Energy Policy for the United States of America ...
Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org expressing your concern about the horrific direction that our nation is headed, because without [i]"transparency in government"[/i] we are destined to be transformed by the corrupt Bush/Cheney regime into a neo-fascist 3rd world military [i]junta[/i] ...
[b]Consider ...[/b]
[b][i]Statement of John D. Podesta[/i]
Regarding the Supreme Court decision in Cheney v. United States District Court
June 24, 2004[/b]
While today's decision may have vindicated the Vice President's litigation strategy, allowing him to continue to conceal information regarding his secret energy task force, it will only add to the growing perception — heightened by the reluctant and selective release of secret White House torture memos over the past few days — that this is an administration that operates behind closed doors, accountable to no one.
The Center for American Progress submitted a brief in the case, together with the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the Center for American Progress, Common Cause, the National Security Archive, People for the American Way, the Society of American Archivists, and the Special Libraries Association.
[b]What is more important that the health, prosperity and well-being of a nation's citizenry??? ... [/b]For the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], it is brutish corporate profiteering: resulting in heinous neo-con war(s) for war-profiteering-- and neo-fascist corporate rape of employees, shareholders and "We the People" ...
For a stark example, refer to:
[b]On Food Safety, the Bush Administration is Out to Lunch[/b]
This coming Fourth of July, families across the country will gather to barbeque hot dogs and hamburgers. Parents trust that this food is safe for their children. The U.S. Department of Agriculture gives its seal of approval to all meat products.
Unfortunately, our food-inspection system has significant holes. Every year, contaminated food sickens 76 million people, resulting in 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Stronger safeguards and tougher enforcement could significantly reduce this risk. However, food manufacturers have steadfastly resisted increased oversight, and the Bush administration has declined to take them on. On the contrary, food manufacturers have been allowed to call the shots.
Consider the administration's response to mad cow disease. At first, the administration virtually ignored the threat of mad cow – which has killed at least 137 people, mostly in Great Britain – and then declined to significantly increase testing when, in December 2003, an infected cow was discovered in Washington state. At the same time, the administration has failed to take decisive action to prevent the spreading of the disease among cows and ensure that central nervous tissue – where the disease is found – does not make it into the food supply.
Moreover, it was recently disclosed that the USDA violated its own ban on importing ground beef from Canada, where an earlier case of mad cow had been discovered. At the urging of large American meatpackers with plants across the border, the agency permitted 33 million pounds of Canadian processed beef to be sold in the United States, according to the Washington Post.
Other examples raise similar concern as to whether the administration is putting food manufacturers ahead of American consumers. In one case, USDA cracked down on John Munsell, http://www.whistleblower.org/...%20the%20Giant%20Final%20 PDF.pdf hen owner of the family business Montana Quality Foods, Inc., after he alerted the agency that meatpacking giant ConAgra had shipped him beef contaminated with dangerous E. coli bacteria. Instead of taking action against the politically connected ConAgra, USDA blamed Munsell and placed Montana Quality Foods under tighter surveillance than any other plant in the beef industry, eventually forcing Munsell to sell his business. Later, lab tests confirmed Munsell's claims, and a full six months after he alerted USDA, ConAgra was forced to recall 19 million pounds of ground beef; CDC linked contaminated meat from ConAgra with at least one death and 35 illnesses during the first month after the recall.
Unfortunately, this does not appear to be an isolated example. In 2001, USDA routinely allowed negligent companies to sell meat and poultry to American consumers after violations were detected, according to a report by the General Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov/new.items/... .
Nonetheless, in spite of this record, USDA has boasted about its recent performance. In late 2003, the agency claimed it had achieved a one-year 12 percent reduction in Salmonella and a 25 percent decline in Listeria. "These data validate our scientific approach to protecting public health through safer food," said Elsa Murano, USDA's undersecretary for food safety, in a press release just before Thanksgiving.
However, on closer inspection, these numbers turned out to be highly misleading. Barbara Kowalcyk, a biostatistician at the University of Wisconsin whose son died of E. coli poisoning, discovered that USDA was doctoring the data to pump up its performance. "[USDA is] going around using sound science as their selling point, yet they're really not using it," Kowalcyk told Food Chemical News. "The fact is that they misled the American public and Congress by issuing these press releases, and it's irresponsible."
The Bush administration has similarly undermined science on other threats to our food supply. For instance, the administration imposed a gag order on EPA scientists and regulators from publicly discussing perchlorate – which is found in rocket fuel – after two independent studies from the spring of 2003 strongly suggested that the chemical is contaminating the nation's lettuce supply.
This has been the pattern during the Bush administration across a range of areas – from auto safety to consumer protection to worker health to the environment. As documented in a report released last month by our organizations – prepared on behalf of a coalition called Citizens for Sensible Safeguards (see the report at www.sensiblesafeguards.org - http://www.sensiblesafeguards... ) – the administration has repeatedly undermined crucial public safeguards at the behest of special interests, and then suppressed information and scientific findings that would call its decisions into question.
This agenda puts the public at significant risk while undermining our democratic ideals. We need to get back to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The health and safety of our children is too important to sacrifice to special interests.
[b]LABOR vs. CAPITAL... [/b]Here's another interesting graph (from Brad DeLong http://www.j-bradford-delong.... ) comparing the total share of national income going to corporate profits vs. the share going to labor compensation. The share going to labor plummeted abruptly in 2001 and is now at its lowest point in 40 years.
=http://img27.photobucket.com/...
This behavior is quite a bit different than that in the previous recession of 1990-91, which showed a much more gradual decline. Is the difference due to Bush's capital-friendly tax cuts in mid-2001 and 2003?
I don't know, but whatever the reason it's probably why the economy seems worse than the headline growth and unemployment numbers indicate. The economy is growing, but the vast majority of workers aren't seeing any benefit. As the other chart in Brad's post shows, employment levels are still very low, and as this chart shows, the people who are employed are either treading water or losing ground. That's not a combination that makes for a happy electorate.
Slave labor wages in order that the fat-cats & top-dogs can live like Emperors Caligula and Nero, while the skyrocketing gap between the[i] hyper-rich-haves [/i]and the[i] rest of us being impoverished into have-nots [/i]is at the highest level in over 75 years. CEO pay has risen by over 300%-500% over the last decade (If minimum wage had risen at the same rate, it would be between $15-$36/hour [i]today[/i].) Such an unfair, unjust and corrupt distribution of profits to enrich the gluttonous plutocrats and place undue burdens upon working people is dangerously harmful to the health of our nation and the prosperity that "We the People" all have a right and responsibility to use to maintain a civilized society ...
[b]"We the People" should all be required to [i]look-up [/i]the definition of "sovereignty" again in the dictionary ... [/b]Of course, the corrupt Bush regime will still occupy Iraq on 1st July with over 138,000 US troops http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/art... even though 98% of the Iraqi people want us out of their country -- and the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is still in control of Iraqi[i] Oil [/i]-- and these neo-con neo-fascists still [i]tell (i.e. order) [/i] the Iraqi ministers what to do ...
By the way the dictionary [i]definition[/i] of "sovereignty" is: "[b]government free from external control[/b]" ...[i] [b]Hmmm[/b] [/i]...
[b][u]Iraq ministers told only US can impose martial law[/u][/b]
The US-led occupation authority in Baghdad has warned Iraq's interim government not to carry out its threat of declaring martial law, insisting that only the US-led coalition has the right to adopt emergency powers after the June 30 handover of sovereignty.
Senior American officials say Iraq's authorities are bound by human rights clauses in the interim constitution, known as the Transitional Administrative Law, prohibiting administrative detention.
But they say the recent United Nations Security Council resolution 1546 sanctions the use by foreign forces in Iraq of "all necessary measures" to provide security.
A senior coalition official in Baghdad said: "Under the UN resolution, the multinational force will have the power to take all actions traditionally associated with martial law." He said they had raised their legal objections with Iyad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister.
Mr Allawi on Tuesday appeared to back away from remarks made on Sunday that the government would assume emergency powers after the handover.
"No, I didn't specifically say martial law meaning martial law," he said, adding that the government was developing a "public safety law" which would allow it to implement curfews, searches, and "apprehend the enemies of Iraq".
The coalition's warning highlights growing tension between the US-led multinational force and Iraq's appointed government over how to handle counter-insurgency after the handover.
US advisers are concerned about the security powers sought by Mr Allawi, a one-time Baath party member, and are struggling to check the ambitions of his ministers to rebuild and re-arm Iraq's forces.
"Iraq will have a lightly-armed standing army and no heavy field artillery," says Jacinta Caroll, director of defence policy for the Coalition Provisional Authority. If tanks and attack aircraft were needed, Iraq would have to rely on US-led forces, she said.
Frustrated Iraqi officials say reliance on US-led forces will undermine public confidence in the restoration of sovereignty and re-ignite claims that they are lackeys of the occupying forces.
To curb Iraq's access to heavy weapons, observers say the occupation authorities have signed a $259m contract with US company Anham Joint Venture to be sole supplier of arms to Iraq's armed forces for the next two years.
Alarmed that the deal could leave Iraq's forces outgunned by an enemy with mortars and rockets, Mr Allawi this week vowed to refurbish the old Iraq army's arsenal, and appealed to neighbouring states to provide military hardware.
All but 20 per cent of the defence ministry's 2004 $1.5bn budget stems from US funds, say coalition officials, and Iraq's share is earmarked for the payment of salaries, not equipment. In addition, the coalition has impounded Iraq's remaining heavy weapons and is hampering the issue of end-user certificates for fresh supplies, say western security experts.
An American defence adviser in Baghdad this week said that Iraq also remained under "a partial UN weapons embargo". - http://news.ft.com/servlet/Co...
[b]"We the People" are confronted with the ugly reality that the corrupt Bush regime is responsible for the heinous murder, torture, rape and abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq (including but not limited to Abu Ghraib) ... [/b]It is time to contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that Bush & Cheney be [i]impeached[/i] and Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neo-con cabal of war criminals be [i]fired[/i] and[i] tried for treason[/i]-- and that this entire vile gang of traitors be[i] sent [/i]to the Hague to be[i] tried [/i]for their atrocious Crimes Against Humanity ...
White House officials released a flurry http://wireservice.wired.com/... of documents today in the hopes of changing the impression that Bush and company condoned, implicity or explicitly, the torture of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba. Nothing was said about Amnesty International's call for an independent investigation into the abuse.
And on the civilian front, human rights groups took the unusual step http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... of filing a racketeering lawsuit this month against U.S. civilian contractors who worked at Abu Ghraib prison. The suit alleges contractors conspired to execute, rape and torture prisoners during interrogations to boost profits from military payments.
[b]More than a year after Congress authorized the president to invade Iraq, Americans are wondering why we went to war in the first place, thanks to fact-finding http://www.tompaine.com/artic... by the 9/11 commission and others.[/b] Whether or not they supported the war initially, everyone but the most ardent Bush loyalists agree the invasion failed. Yet, President Bush continues to make rosy public statements about developments in Iraq. [i]TomPaine.com [/i]columnist Corn wonders if these are motivated by politics or ignorance. "We the People" should be wondering[i] too [/i]...
[b]David Corn writes the Loyal Opposition twice a month for [i]TomPaine.com[/i]. Corn is also the Washington editor of[i] The Nation [/i]and is the author of [i]The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception [/i](Crown Publishers).[/b]
Ronald Reagan is in the ground , and, soon (though not soon enough) Clintonmania will pass. Then Iraq will likely take center stage and be, once again, the operational fulcrum of the presidential campaign. Bush’s springtime freefall in the polls was interrupted by Reagan’s death, the selection of a new government in Iraq, the D-Day memorials and an uneventful G8 summit. But the reality on the ground in Iraq—the likely cause of Bush’s slide in public opinion surveys—has not been altered. There is a new government, and the handoff of sovereignty (partial, full, or whatever) is still on track for June 30. But the core conflicts remain, and Bush has not shown the ability to handle them any better now than he did a month ago. The only strategic shift under consideration in the White House appears to be a limited disengagement, with the Bush administration increasingly declaring, “Hey, it’s not our problem, go ask the new Iraqi government,” even as it maintains 138,000 troops in Iraq and haphazardly pours billions of dollars into the country.
In the meantime, Bush keeps doling out the happy talk about Iraq. When he appeared before U.S soldiers at Fort Lewis, Wash., last week, he made it seem as if everything in Iraq was going according to plan. “The future of a free Iraq is now coming into view,” he proclaimed. The Iraqi people, he said, “are making steady progress.” Political parties have been formed, electric power is being restored and newspapers started. (Baghdad residents are still only receiving nine hours of power a day. And wasn’t it anti-American articles in Muqtada Sadr’s newspaper that led to the U.S. battle with this insurgent cleric?). “At one Iraqi university,” Bush remarked, “a team is translating the great works of democracy into Arabic.” He also declared, “There are now 200,000 Iraqis on duty or in training in various branches of the Iraqi security operations.”
Now I don’t expect Bush to shout woe-is-me—or, more importantly, woe-is-Iraq—in front of television cameras during an election season. But, as others and I have noted before, he really needs to read the newspapers. Yet, as [i]Washington Times [/i]reporter Bill Sammon writes in his book, [i]Misunderestimated[/i] , “Bush thinks that immersing himself in voluminous, mostly liberal-leaning news coverage might cloud his thinking." Cloud his thinking? Bush’s “thinking” could use more than a few buckets of rain.
If Bush bothered to look at the occasional news story, he might pick up some useful information. For example, while there may be, as Bush said, 200,000 Iraqis “on duty or in training” for the nation’s security forces, this number is misleading and the actual figures, as reported in the papers, are less heartening. The Iraqi army has about 3000 troops. The problematic Civil Defense Corps, which is slated to become part of the military, has 37,500 troops. Altogether there may be about 60,000 troops—many of questionable status—which can be deployed against the insurgency. This is not a large force, especially given the viciousness of the enemy. For over a year, the Bush administration has overstated the size and capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. The tradition continues.
But if I could tie the president up and force him to read one article—and please, do not alert the Secret Service—I would place in front of him a[i] Washington Post [/i]front-page story written by Rajiv Chandrasekaran that chronicles the failures of the Coalition Provisional Authority. To anyone who has paid attention to media coverage of the occupation, there is little in the piece that would come as a surprise. But the gathering of these facts in a single account was eye-popping. Here is a sampling:
[b]1.[/b] The United States promised to use $18.6 billion in aid to employ at least a quarter of a million Iraqis by now in reconstruction projects. About 15,000 Iraqis have been hired for these projects.
[b]2.[/b] According to a recent poll conducted by the United States, 85 percent of Iraqis had no confidence in the CPA. Chandrasekaran writes, “The criticism is echoed by some Americans working in the occupation. They fault CPA staffers who were fervent backers of the invasion and of the Bush administration, but who lacked reconstruction skills and Middle East experience. Only a handful spoke Arabic.”
[b]3.[/b] In an interview, L. Paul Bremer, the CPA chief, said that among his biggest accomplishments in Iraq was lowering tax rates. Critics within the CPA, Chandrasekaran writes, “faulted Bremer for working to advance a conservative economic agenda of tax cuts and free trade instead focusing on the delivery of basic services.” In other words, ideology trumped common sense.
[b]4.[/b] The Bush administration hired hacks instead of experts for CPA posts. “A few development specialists,” according to the Post, “were recruited from the State Department and nongovernmental organizations. But most CPA hiring was done by the White House and Pentagon personnel offices, with jobs going to people with connections to the Bush administration or the Republican Party. The job of reorganizing Baghdad's stock exchange, which has not reopened, was given in September to a 24-year-old who had sought a job at the White House.” Dick Grasso wasn’t available?
[b]5. [/b]Occupation officials have isolated themselves from Iraqis. "We don't know the outside," a senior adviser to Bremer told the newspaper. “How many of us have gone out to buy a bottle of milk or a pair of socks?" CPA officials shop in a special bazaar in the Green Zone; they do not visit local markets. Chandrasekaran writes, “Limited contact with Iraqis outside the Green Zone has made CPA officials reliant on the views of those chosen by Bremer to serve on the Governing Council. When [Lakhdar] Brahimi, the UN envoy, asked the CPA for details about several Iraqis he was considering for positions in the interim government, he told associates he was ‘shocked to find how little information they really had,’ according to an official who was present.”
In a companion piece, Chandrasekaran interviewed John Agresto, a longtime educator and neocon culture warrior hired by the Bush administration to oversee and revive Iraq’s higher education system. Upon his arrival in Iraq, Agresto, the former president of St. John’s College in New Mexico, inspected the schools, found them in a devastating state of disrepair, and concluded that the universities needed $1.2 billion to be viable. The Bush administration requested $35 million—less than 3 percent of what was needed. Worse, the Republican-controlled Congress appropriated a measly $8 million—or two-thirds of 1 percent of the amount needed to do the job right. And what does Bush say publicly about universities in Iraq? He proudly points out that scholars at one college are translating “the great works of democracy into Arabic.”
It’s a bad joke. Bush cites this one exercise as progress. Agresto requested 130,000 desks from the U.S. Agency for International Development; he received 8,000. And when Iraq is in such a state that American journalists and occupation officials cannot venture beyond the (relative) safety of the Green Zone, Bremer boasts of lowering Iraq’s tax rates.
I crib so much from Chandrasekaran to make a point. It only takes one or two in-depth newspaper articles to puncture the upbeat assessment Bush tosses out. As Chandrasekaran reported, “Within the marble-walled palace of the CPA's headquarters inside Baghdad's protected Green Zone, there is an aching sense of a mission unaccomplished. ‘Did we really do what we needed to do? What we promised to do?’ a senior CPA official said. ‘Nobody here believes that.'"
The coming transfer of sovereignty is change, not necessarily progress. There is no indication that the new government will be able to sort things out more than the failed CPA. The insurgency seems to be intensifying. (Is that only because the handoff is coming, as Bush officials have suggested? Or is something else afoot?) The political infighting among the Iraqis is high. (Look at the Kurds threatening to secede and moving to occupy Arab-held territory they claim as ancestral property outside the designated Kurdish areas.) And if the United States maintains 138,000 troops in Iraq, all this will continue to be Bush’s problem, whether or not he has an interim government to point a finger at. Let’s hope that Bush’s public statements about developments in Iraq are motivated by politics not ignorance. If it is the latter, that may be good news for Democrats—for it means he is incapable of effectively dealing with the tough issues of Iraq. But it also is bad news, for it indicates the guy in charge of such a difficult and combustible situation is misinformed—and, as Sammon suggests, on purpose. After all, you can bring a president a newspaper, but you can’t make him read it.
[b]The corrupt Bush regime is well-known for using ugly coercion, threats and intimidation tactics to achieve its' sordid and squalid [i]neo-con aims [/i]... [/b]The Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] will lie, cheat, steal and murder if they deem it necessary as the [i]insane means [/i]to their deadly, traitorous and destructive [i]neo-fascist ends [/i]... It is time for "We the People" to stand-up [i]enmasse[/i] and [i]push-back [/i]by demanding that Congress http://www.congress.org insist upon enforcing the rule of law as per the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights by establishing an independent commission to investigate the War Crimes committed by Bush and Cheney relating to their criminal lies, fraud and treason: (1) phony claims of WMDs in Iraq used to take our nation to war, (2) non-existent links between Al Qaida & Iraq (who had nothing to do with 9/11) used to instill fear into our citizens, and (3) the murder, torture, rape and abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq (including Abu Ghraib) ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b]Will The Commissioners Cave?[/b]
Will the Sept. 11 Commission follow the example set by Congress and the Intelligence Community and let itself be intimidated by Vice President Dick Cheney?
Now that the commission’s staff report has pulled the rug out from under the notion so successfully fostered by the administration that Iraq played a role in the attacks of 9/11, no one should be surprised if the commissioners pull the rug out from under the staff.
[u]There are disquieting signs that this has already begun to happen[/u].
The stakes could not be higher for the president and vice president. Arguably, the commission is in position to play in 2004 a role analogous to that played by the Supreme Court in 2000 in ensuring the election of George W. Bush and Cheney. This, I believe, accounts for the dyspeptic reaction of the two to the staff report and the press play accorded it last week.
[i]New York Times [/i]pundit William Safire is also outraged. In his column today he lashes out at the commission chairman, Republican Tom Kean, and the vice chairman, Democrat Lee Hamilton, for letting themselves be “jerked around by a manipulative staff.” Safire drives home the point that the staff conclusion concerning Iraq and 9/11 was “not a judgment of the panel of commissioners,” but rather “an interim report of the commission’s runaway staff.”
[b]Republican Commissioners Fall Into Line [/b]
Appearing Sunday on ABC’s [i]This Week[/i], Sept. 11 commission chairman Kean fell in line, saying repeatedly that the staff report is only an “interim report.” Not only did he note it is “not finished,” the commissioners themselves have not been involved in it so far and the final report will include whatever “new information” becomes available.
It is not hard to see what is coming. On Thursday Cheney told the press that he “probably” had more intelligence information than had been made available to the commission. Commissioner John Lehman, another Republican stalwart, told [i]Meet the Press [/i]Sunday “the vice president was right when he said that he may have things that we don’t have. And we are now in the process of getting the latest intelligence.”
Flash back, if you dare, to other “intelligence” promoted by Cheney: the aluminum tubes that turned out not to be suitable for fashioning nuclear materials after all; the mobile “biological warfare labs” that produced nothing more lethal than hydrogen for weather balloons; the infamous report, based on forged documents, alleging that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.
[b]The Perils Of Partisanship [/b]
What is clear is that Washington is in for a month of partisan wrangling among the commissioners and staff before the July 26 deadline for the report—partisanship of the kind demonstrated at the grilling of former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clark. This time it will all take place behind closed doors. Lehman conceded on [i]Meet the Press[/i], “We’re under tremendous political pressure…in this election year.”
Indeed, the commission was highly politicized from the get-go, with its work carefully choreographed. Subpoena power, for example, requires a majority vote among the five Republican and five Democrat commissioners. And, as the public hearings have already shown, the White House can count on seasoned protection from heavy hitters like Fred Fielding, legal counsel to Presidents Nixon and Reagan, as well as from Lehman and the other Republican commissioners.
Once again, “intelligence” will be front and center, with Cheney in the background as super-analyst. CIA Director George Tenet is packing his bags for his July 11 departure, and there is zero chance his well-mannered deputy, John McLaughlin, will depart from what has become customary practice—at the CIA and elsewhere— and stand up to the vice president.
[b]The Neuralgic Point [/b]
When [i]Meet the Press’ [/i]Tim Russert quoted [i]The New York Times’ [/i]contention that the commission staff report “directly contradicts public statements by Bush and Cheney regarding Iraq and 9/11,” Lehman, borrowing from Cheney’s lexicon, branded the [i]Times[/i] report “outrageously irresponsible journalism.” Echoing Kean’s remarks, Lehman added parenthetically, “And, again, this is a staff statement; the commissioners have not yet addressed this issue.”
Democrat Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste had just told Russert, “There was no Iraqi involvement in 9/11. That’s what our commission found. That’s what our staff, which included former high-ranking CIA officials, who know what to look for (found).”
Interesting. Ben-Veniste saying it is what the commission found; Kean and Lehman saying the commissioners have not yet addressed the issue. A harbinger of the wrangling to come.
[b]That Troublesome Constitution Again [/b]
Most observers are familiar with the rhetorical landscape with which Bush and Cheney persuaded a large majority of Americans that Iraq played a role in the attacks of 9/11, and many shrug this off as familiar spin by politicians inclined to take liberties with the facts. So far little attention has been given to the fact that a constitutional issue is involved.
On March 19, 2003, the day the war began, President Bush sent a letter to Congress in which he said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” If the staff’s finding that there is “no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States” is allowed to stand, the Bush administration will be shown to have gone afoul of the Constitution yet again.
[b]Watch For New “Intelligence”[/b]
So expect new “intelligence” (and hope against hope that there is time to give it the smell test). Lehman’s assurance that the commission report will be updated with new intelligence “right up until we go to press” is by no means reassuring. If it is the truth that is sought, there should by now be widespread awareness of the pitfalls of cherry-picking unevaluated, uncorroborated, “this-just-in” pieces of intelligence.
Also watch for administration attempts to change the final draft report, if the Republican commissioners do not succeed in neutralizing offending passages.
Tim Russert called attention Sunday to reports that the White House had been allowed to review the staff reports just made public, and asked if that was appropriate. Ben-Veniste indicated that the purpose of reviewing the reports is supposed to be to find and eliminate any classified information. He also said, though, that the White House “went somewhat beyond that and took issue with some of what the staff had concluded.”
Indeed, an early draft of one draft report was changed, according to[i] Newsweek[/i]. A passage expressing skepticism about the account of Cheney getting Bush’s approval for the shoot-down order was reportedly removed after the White House objected.
Ben-Veniste told Russert that the White House will review the final report before it is made public. Thus, there will be considerable opportunity for the manufacture of “insurmountable” classification problems, for delay and for other mischief—given the potential political explosiveness of the commission’s final report.
It will not be surprising if the final report is not made public until well after the target date of July 26 (the same day the Democratic Convention opens in Boston). If the report does meet that target, it is likely that it will appear in significantly truncated form.
. [b]Ray McGovern (RRMcGovern@aol.com), a CIA analyst for 27 years, is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity[/b].
[b]Express your outrage regarding the criminal VP Dick Cheney's lies, treason and intimidation tactics used to cover-up the mendacious Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] heinous Crimes Against Humanity to Congress on http://www.congress.org ...[/b]
Democracy and the Cult of the 'Free Market' Don't Work ...
[b]"We the People" must commence to [i]re-think [/i]our system of government, because we have been hijacked by corrupt corporate-owned toadies & rapacious puppets who represent corporations and wealthy plutocrats-- And the United States of America is being transformed into a heinous Global Corporate Empire that does[i] not [/i]represent working people and the values of the majority of Americans and/or those who are ruthlessly exploited around the world to enrich the few hyper-rich oligarchs (the neo-slave owners who are sucking the blood out of the Middle Class, Working & Poor People, their neo-feudal serfs) ...
Democracy isn't working ...
It is the west's calling card, but its global applicability is now in doubt [/b]
However implausibly, President Bush continues to reiterate his commitment to the early introduction of democracy in Iraq. Indeed, the idea of democratic reform in the Arab world has been central to the Anglo-American position on Iraq. There should be nothing surprising in that. Democracy has become the universal calling card of the west, the mantra that is chanted at every country that falls short (when politically convenient, of course), the ubiquitous solution to the problems of countries that are not democratic.
The boast about democracy is largely a product of the last half-century, following the defeat of fascism. Before that, a large slice of Europe remained mired in dictatorship, often of an extremely brutal and distasteful kind. The idea of democracy as a western virtue was blooded during the cold-war struggle against communism, though its use remained highly selective: those many dictatorships that sided with the west were happily awarded membership of the "free world"; "freedom" took precedence over democracy, regimes as inimical to democracy as apartheid South Africa, Diem's South Vietnam and Franco's Spain were welcomed into the fold. Following the collapse of communism, however, "free markets and democracy" became for the first time - at least in principle - the universal prescription for each and every country.
Democracy is viewed by the west in a strangely ahistorical way. It is seen as eternal and unchanging, neither historically nor culturally specific, but a kind of universal truth. But, of course, nothing is eternal. The western model of democracy, like everything else, is a distinct phase in history, which depends upon certain conditions for its existence. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it should not be assumed that it is of universal application, nor that it will always exist.
Russia is a classic test of the western shibboleth. For the west, the simple answer to Russia's ills after the collapse of communism was a combination of the free market and democracy. The free market never happened; worse, the attempt to engineer it under Yeltsin produced, with western blessing, the theft of Russia's most valuable natural resources by its leader's cronies. The country is paying a terrible price for following western advice. Meanwhile, democracy has been shaped and constrained by the personal power of Putin, a reminder of the country's long, despotic past. The lessons? History and culture leave an indelible imprint on the nature of any democracy; the market similarly.
The west, in its enthusiasm for democracy, suffers from historical amnesia. Britain has only enjoyed universal suffrage for about 80 years, by which time it was already highly industrialised. For many west European countries it was even later. The great majority of countries that have experienced economic takeoff, including Britain, have done so under forms of authoritarian rule. The most successful recent examples of takeoff, those in east Asia, were similarly achieved under authoritarianism: the legitimacy of these regimes has depended on economic growth rather than the ballot box.
Democracy, historical experience suggests, is not that well-suited to achieving the conditions necessary for economic takeoff. Given that democracy is now the universal western prescription for developing countries, this is rather ironic. It does not mean, of course, that authoritarian rule is necessarily good at achieving takeoff: the Latin American model has proved extremely poor, the East Asian very effective. Nor does it mean that democracy can't deliver economic takeoff: India is a case in point. Clearly, though, democracy is not a universal formula for economic success, irrespective of a society's state of development.
The west is the traditional home of democracy. The fact that western countries share various, usually unspoken characteristics, however, is often ignored. They were the first to industrialise. They colonised a majority of the world, invariably denying their colonies democracy. They were overwhelmingly ethnically homogeneous. Developing countries, for the most part, have faced the opposite circumstances: takeoff in the context of an economically dominant west; the absence, in the context of colonial rule, of indigenous democratic soil; and far greater ethnic diversity.
The west remains oblivious to the profound difficulties presented by ethnic diversity. As Amy Chua points out in World on Fire, democracy is far from a sufficient condition for benign governance in the kind of multiracial societies that are common in Africa and Asia. Democracy, the politics of the majority, allows the majority ethnic group to govern, potentially without constraint. Multi-ethnic societies, like Malaysia or Nigeria, require, for their stability, a racial consensus: democracy, resting on majorities and minorities, is deaf to this problem.
Moreover, democracy works very differently in different cultures. In Japan, the Liberal Democrats have formed every government, apart from a brief interruption, since democracy was introduced more than 50 years ago. The political arguments that count take place between unelected factions of the governing party rather than between elected parties. The Japanese model of democracy - or the Korean or Taiwanese - may have the same trappings as western democracy, but there the similarities largely end.
If it is mistaken to regard western democracy as a universal abstraction that is equally applicable across the world, it is also wrong to see it as frozen and unchanging. Indeed, there are grounds for believing that western democracy, as we have known it, is in decline. The symptoms have been well-rehearsed: the decline of parties, the fall in turnout, a growing disregard for politicians, the displacement of politics from the centre-stage of society. These trends have beenobservable more or less everywhere for at least 15 years.
The underlying reasons are even more disturbing than the symptoms. The emergence of mass suffrage and modern party politics coincided with the rise of the labour movement, which drove the extension of the vote and obliged political parties to engage in popular mobilisation. The rise of the modern labour movement, moreover, provided societies with real choices: instead of the logic of the market, it offered a different philosophy and a different kind of society. The decline of traditional social-democratic parties, as illustrated by New Labour, has meant the erosion of choice, at least in any profound sense of the term. The result is that voting has often become less meaningful. Politics has moved on to singular ground: that of the market.
The influence of the market is manifest in multiple ways. The funding of parties now moves solely to its rhythm: big business and the rich are as important to New Labour as they are to the Conservatives. The same interests fund, and therefore influence, the parties. Big money calls the tune. Nowhere is this truer than in American politics, which has become a plutocracy mediated by democracy, rather than the reverse. As the media has displaced traditional forms of discourse and mobilisation, ownership of the media has become increasingly important in the determination of political choices and electoral results. The most dangerous example is in Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi's ownership of the bulk of the private media has enabled him to transform Italian democracy into something verging on a mediaocracy, leaving politics and the state besieged by his immense personal power and wealth.
Perhaps these developments point to a deeper problem incipient in western democracies. Far from the free market and democracy enjoying the kind of harmonious relationship beloved of western propaganda, democracy grew in fact as a constraint on the market, holding it at bay and enabling a pluralism of values and imperatives. What happens when this healthy tension becomes a dangerous imbalance, in which the market is dominant and consumerism is established as the overriding ethos of society, permeating politics just as it has invaded every other nook and cranny of society? Democracy comes under siege. In Italy it is already gasping for breath. In the US it is deeply and increasingly flawed. Democracy is neither a platitude nor an eternal verity - either for the world or for the west.
•: [b]Martin Jacques is a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre [/b]- http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...,3604,1244327,00.html
[b]"We the People" must contemplate upon how we can continue to conduct a civil debate in this neo-orwellian environment with a president and his neo-con cabal of neo-fascists who continue to perpetrate heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods upon us ...
How civil should debate be if the president of the United States is not telling the truth about life-and-death issues?[/b]
Why is it so difficult to hold a president accountable for not telling the truth? Over a year after President George W. Bush took the country to war by falsely claiming that intelligence "leaves no doubt" that Saddam Hussein possessed significant weapons of mass destruction, Bush continues to enjoy better poll numbers on integrity than John Kerry. Moreover, as the Senate Intelligence Committee prepares to release a report that will blast the CIA for committing serious errors while preparing the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMDs -- that is, for overstating the case -- Bush's defenders are ready to make outgoing CIA director George Tenet the fall guy, even though Bush's before-the-war assertions about Hussein's unconventional weapons went much beyond what the CIA errantly reported. It's indisputable: Bush routinely exaggerated the CIA's exaggerations. Yet the nation -- or the lot of political commentators -- still argues over what should be a proven point: Bush showed little regard for the truth in his campaign for war. And a highly charged question continues to be debated: Is Bush a liar?
Most recently, this argument heated up when the independent, bipartisan 9/11 committee declared it had found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. In reply, Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney continued to insist there had been. In brief remarks to reporters, Bush declared, "We did say [before the war] there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda; for example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in Sudan." Those contacts, Bush did not say, had occurred in 1994, and the 9/11 commission had reported nothing came of them. Before the war, Bush had gone much further and had said of Hussein, "He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." Note the verb tense. To justify the coming invasion, Bush proclaimed that Hussein was currently in league with al Qaeda. But in response to the 9/11 commission, he referred to decade-old contacts. Wasn't this strong evidence that Bush had spoken dishonestly before the war?
Bush's advocates have done a good job of countering the general accusation that the president is a liar. I know, because I have been on the receiving end of their spin and obfuscation. In September 2003, a spate of books critical of Bush were published and landed on the best-seller list. Three had the word "lies" in the title, including my own, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. At the time, left-of-center advocacy groups -- most notably MoveOn.org -- initiated public campaigns questioning Bush's truthfulness. Bush's defenders fought back, dismissing these books as irrational expressions of a phenomenon they belittled as Bush hatred. On CNN's Crossfire, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson described the anti-Bush books as written to cater "to the paranoid and craziness of the far left" and "selling because the Democratic Party has gone completely insane with Bush hatred." Conservative columnist David Brooks opined, "The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves."
Even non-ideological writers bemoaned the anti-Bush books as the latest indication that the nation's embittered and deteriorating political culture was degenerating further. Time magazine pointed to my book as more evidence of "the rise of the anger industry." New York Times Magazine's James Traub observed, "Hatred is delicious. But the sudden rash of jeremiads and their stunning popularity raises a question: Why are so many liberals, including sane and sober ones, granting themselves permission to hate the president?.... Buying a book that has 'Bush' and 'lie' in the title...is a deeply cathartic, ideology-affirming experience. It's satisfying; but I don't see how it can be a good thing, either for public debate or ultimately for the electoral prospects of the Democrats, to have liberals descend to the level of rabid conservatives." Another New York Times Magazine writer, Matt Bai, took the same line: "A new strand of vitriol has consumed the Bush-hating left.... The new leftist screeds seem to solidify a rising political culture of incivility and overstatement.... The various expressions of liberal fury are a direct imitation of what the right has been doing for more than a decade.... Hate isn't much of a message."
But these critics have overlooked the main point: the case against Bush. The essential issue is not whether Bush detractors hate the man or are angry with him. What matters is whether their indictments are persuasive and well-founded. After all, if Bush has indeed misled the public about his far-ranging tax cuts, global warming, homeland security, stem cells research, the reasons for war and other serious topics, isn't anger an appropriate response? But often commentators (mainly of the right-wing variant) have preferred to focus on what they perceive to be the emotions of Bush's antagonists. It has been an easy way to dismiss the bill of particulars. They self-servingly decry the decline of civil debate and avoid the question: How civil should debate be if the president of the United States is not telling the truth about life-and-death issues? (One exception is columnist George Will, who has at least urged Bush to acknowledge his untrue prewar assertions about the weapons of mass destruction.)
Other Bush-backers have tried to diminish the case against Bush by adopting an everybody-does-it stance. In the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, Andrew Ferguson observed, "If presidents have been liars from George Washington to Chester A. Arthur to Bill Clinton....this in turn raises the fatal suspicion that maybe George W. Bush isn't so bad." Such reasoning is a weak defense of Bush. The more sophisticated attack comes from Bush-critic critics who claim that Bush's "lies" are not really lies, that they are fudge-able policy statements common to politicians. And more than one conservative radio talk-show host has said to me that if Bush believes his spin then it cannot be considered a lie. After all, didn't it seem as if Bush truly thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
This defense of Bush does not take into account that a president has the responsibility to ascertain the truth and do his best to guarantee that the information he shares with the public is as accurate as can be. Too often, Bush has embraced and put forward misinformation to support and advance his policy desires. Did he know the information was false? That is not an excuse. In the case of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Bush, according to the White House, did not even bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Produced in October 2002, this 90-page report summarized the intelligence community's information on Iraq. Had Bush perused it, he would have seen that the evidence regarding Iraq's WMDs was often inconclusive and disputed by various US intelligence analysts and that the overall picture of Hussein's WMD capabilities was unclear. And Bush would have had good reason to question his own melodramatic, black-and-white statements about Iraq's WMDs.
If a president recklessly abandons his obligation to determine whether he is in possession of good, solid information, and then accepts incorrect or misleading material and presents it to the public because doing so serves his own ends, he is engaged in a deceptive practice that can be considered the functional equivalent of lying. Bush has yet to face any consequences for promoting deceptions crucial to his agenda, and he has not assumed responsibility for actively misleading the American public and the world. So the debate over his truth-defying ways will continue until Election Day.
[b]Source:[/b]
David Corn, Washington editor of [i]The Nation[/i], is author of the best-selling [i]'The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception[/i].' This article is excerpted from the new and expanded paperback edition of the book.
[b]"We the People" will probably not succeed in [i]impeaching[/i] the corrupt Bush regime ([i]due to a corporate-owned-and-paid- for GOP Congress who have betrayed our nation[/i]), although they deserve it for their illegal and immoral fiasco in Iraq including death, massacre, mayhem, chaos, misery, torture, rape, abuse and other crimes including the embezzlement of Iraq's natural resources (oil) ... Bush and Cheney should both be shipped-off to the International Court at the Hague to be tried for Crimes Against Humanity ... [/b]
The American people have been terrorized into betraying our great heritage and allowing the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]to commence their destruction of our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Once and for all, [i]at minimum[/i], Bush & Cheney should be[i] ousted [/i]in the November presidential election for[i] sheer-and-utter incompetence [/i]...
As the June 30 handover looms large, a review of the 15-month U.S. occupation reveals the extent of the CPA's unmitigated failure in Iraq. This must-read [i]Washington Post [/i]article http://www.washingtonpost.com... documents how the Bush administration took a situation that had some potential for success and turned it into an unmitigated disaster, by prioritizing loyalty over experience and ideology over reality.
According to the [i]Post[/i]:
... "[i]Several current and former CPA officials contended that key decisions by Bremer favored a grandiose vision over Iraqi realities and reflected the perceived prerogatives of a military victor. Critics within the CPA also faulted Bremer for working to advance a conservative economic agenda of tax cuts and free trade instead of focusing on the delivery of basic services[/i]." ...
The measures of the CPA's failure are many and damning: The Iraqi army is one-third the expected size; only15,000 Iraqis have been hired to work on U.S.-funded projects compared to the 250,000 jobs promised; electricity generation remains stuck at around 4,000 megawatts, resulting in less than nine hours of power a day; attacks on U.S. forces and foreign civilians now average more than 40 a day, three times higher than the rate in January.
No wonder more than 80 percent of Iraqis see the CPA as a symbol of betrayed promises and bad faith.
[b]"We the People" should be asking the United Nations to oversee the 2004 November presidential election in the United States of America in order to avoid the [i]disastrous debacle that occurred in 2000[/i], leaving us saddled with a corrupt, incompetent and lawless Bush regime who has instigated horrendous death, misery and chaos [i]here at home and abroad [/i]...[/b]
Our Republic depends upon our citizenry[i] voting [/i]and that the[i] votes are counted [/i]correctly ... The traitorous Bush Crime Family are working diligently to rig the upcoming election in November (Jeb is taking potentially illegal actions in Florida by putting valid voters likely to vote Democrat on lists so that they will be unable to vote) ... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that paper ballot voting be implemented and that UN oversight is requested in order to avoid another horrendous fiasco like the banana republican coup d'etat of 2000 that undermined our democratic system of government ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.
This year, it could get worse.
These ugly racial statistics are hidden away in the mathematical thickets of the appendices to official reports coming out of the investigation of ballot-box monkey business in Florida from the last go-'round.
How do you spoil 2 million ballots? Not by leaving them out of the fridge too long. A stray mark, a jammed machine, a punch card punched twice will do it. It's easy to lose your vote, especially when some politicians want your vote lost.
While investigating the 2000 ballot count in Florida for BBC Television, I saw firsthand how the spoilage game was played -- with black voters the predetermined losers.
Florida's Gadsden County has the highest percentage of black voters in the state -- and the highest spoilage rate. One in 8 votes cast there in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark."
By contrast, in neighboring Tallahassee, the capital, vote spoilage was nearly zip; every vote counted. The difference? In Tallahassee's white- majority county, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners. If they added a stray mark, they received another ballot with instructions to correct it.
In other words, in the white county, make a mistake and get another ballot; in the black county, make a mistake, your ballot is tossed.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission looked into the smelly pile of spoiled ballots and concluded that, of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters. In Florida, a black citizen was 10 times as likely to have a vote rejected as a white voter.
But let's not get smug about Florida's Jim Crow spoilage rate. Civil Rights Commissioner Christopher Edley, recently appointed dean of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, took the Florida study nationwide. His team discovered the uncomfortable fact that Florida is typical of the nation.
Philip Klinkner, the statistician working on the Edley investigations, concluded, "It appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the U.S.A. --
about 1 million votes -- were cast by nonwhite voters."
This "no count," as the Civil Rights Commission calls it, is no accident. In Florida, for example, I discovered that technicians had warned Gov. Jeb Bush's office well in advance of November 2000 of the racial bend in the vote- count procedures.
Herein lies the problem. An apartheid vote-counting system is far from politically neutral. Given that more than 90 percent of the black electorate votes Democratic, had all the "spoiled" votes been tallied, Gore would have taken Florida in a walk, not to mention fattening his popular vote total nationwide. It's not surprising that the First Brother's team, informed of impending rejection of black ballots, looked away and whistled.
The ballot-box blackout is not the monopoly of one party. Cook County, Ill., has one of the nation's worst spoilage rates. That's not surprising. Boss Daley's Democratic machine, now his son's, survives by systematic disenfranchisement of Chicago's black vote.
How can we fix it? First, let's shed the convenient excuses for vote spoilage, such as a lack of voter education. One television network stated as fact that Florida's black voters, newly registered and lacking education, had difficulty with their ballots. In other words, blacks are too dumb to vote.
This convenient racist excuse is dead wrong. After that disaster in Gadsden, Fla., public outcry forced the government to change that black county's procedures to match that of white counties. The result: near zero spoilage in the 2002 election. Ballot design, machines and procedure, says statistician Klinkner, control spoilage.
In other words, the vote counters, not the voters, are to blame. Politicians who choose the type of ballot and the method of counting have long fine-tuned the spoilage rate to their liking.
It is about to get worse. The ill-named "Help America Vote Act," signed by President Bush in 2002, is pushing computerization of the ballot box.
California decertified some of Diebold Corp.'s digital ballot boxes in response to fears that hackers could pick our next president. But the known danger of black-box voting is that computers, even with their software secure, are vulnerable to low-tech spoilage games: polls opening late, locked-in votes, votes lost in the ether.
And once again, the history of computer-voting glitches has a decidedly racial bias. Florida's Broward County grandly shifted to touch-screen voting in 2002. In white precincts, all seemed to go well. In black precincts, hundreds of African Americans showed up at polls with machines down and votes that simply disappeared.
Going digital won't fix the problem. Canada and Sweden vote on paper ballots with little spoilage and without suspicious counts.
In America, a simple fix based on paper balloting is resisted because, unfortunately, too many politicians who understand the racial bias in the vote- spoilage game are its beneficiaries, with little incentive to find those missing 1 million black voters' ballots.
[b]Greg Palast is the author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy - the New Expanded Election Edition," from which this article is taken.[/b] - http://www.zmag.org/content/s...
[b]"We the People" have been ruthlessly betrayed by the insane Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who have traitorously lied to our nation in order to pursue their sinful aims of warmongering for war-profiteering ... [/b]Ponder and reflect deeply upon what our nation will become and what it will mean for our soul, our reputation and our standing in the world, if we accept their criminal actions, their acts of treason, and their heinous atrocities representing Crimes Against Humanity ... Instead, please call upon Congress http://www.congress.org to [i]impeach[/i] the corrupt, incompetent and dangerously arrogant Bush and Cheney and their neo-con cabal of neo-fascists who have destroyed tens of thousands of innocent lives and committed unconscionable war crimes ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b]When laws get in the way of torture ... The paper trail ...[/b]
People like to quote Karl Marx's comment on the two successive Napoleonic empires, that of Bonaparte himself, and, after 1848, the second empire of his nephew, Napoleon III. Marx said that it was a tragedy repeated as a farce. . The United States has reversed the sequence, so that a few years ago the nation, or at least Congress and the media, was obsessed by President Bill Clinton's disputed definition of what does or does not amount to sexual congress with a White House intern. . The tragedy that has followed the farce is torture as an instrument of American national policy in the cause of spreading democracy. . Documents recently obtained by the press reveal White House anxiety about how to protect President George W. Bush and members of his cabinet from going to prison for ordering, authorizing or deliberately permitting systematic torture of persons in their control, but technically outside formal American legal jurisdiction. The question put to lawyers was how the president and the others could commit war crimes and get away with it. . Thus, according to these reports, the president last year obtained from his lawyers an opinion that he is not bound by U.S. laws or by international engagements prohibiting torture and that Americans committing torture under his authority cannot be prosecuted by the Justice Department. . This opinion rests on the argument that national security considerations override both U.S. law and international treaties. As one of the military lawyers who took part in these discussions has said, it was an assertion of "presidential power at its absolute apex." . It deliberately overrode the norms the military had previously been trained to regard as mandated by the Geneva Conventions. The world now knows how overriding the norms at the top overrides them all down the line. . The Bush administration's civilians had been complaining about how law, international treaties and conventions, and military norms and inhibitions, were interfering with their determination to seize and hold anyone they pleased in secret prisons, declare them without legal rights even when they were American citizens, torture them whenever they wanted and keep them forever, if they liked (a totalitarian ambition, obviously). They wanted these obstructions removed. . Their complaints sounded like the complaints of Adolf Eichmann, when he described during his trial in Israel the irksome bureaucratic and legal obstacles he ran into in wartime Germany in carrying out his genocidal responsibilities. . High U.S. administration figures reportedly lingered - with delectation? - over what exactly was to be done to the unfortunate prisoners - for how long, in what position, with what pain inflicted. . (There was also - whoops! - the problem of what to do when things went wrong, and the torturers had a dead man, or woman, on their hands.) . And when all this began to come out, what did the administration have to say? The president said on May 24 that "a few American troops ... disregarded our values." Civilians in the Pentagon, speaking informally to the press, blamed the Abu Ghraib scandals on "a few hillbillies." . The American operation in Iraq, and apparently in Afghanistan before, has been haphazard, planned and run by people mostly without serious knowledge of these countries and their societies. The administration has gone in for wholesale arrests and interrogations, sweeping people up virtually at random, because it doesn't know what else to do. . This has been futile and irrational, as well as evil. The nearly universal uselessness of torture is well-known in intelligence and special warfare circles. Even if you have a key figure who does possess useful information, and you eventually get him (or her) to tell you what you want, what actual good is it? . Is it really true? Is it merely what the torturer has inadvertently conveyed to the victim that he wants to hear? Even if true, is it any longer useful? Every resistance or underground organization works with a system of cut-outs that limits what any one individual knows, and signals everyone else to scatter when a prisoner is taken. . A network doesn't have to be organized to do that. Any band of armed insurgents in Iraq knows that when one of them is taken the rest don't wait around. . The vast majority of those in Iraqi prisons have turned out to be people who were at the wrong place at the wrong time, or had a name resembling someone else's name, or were related to someone whose name was on a U.S. list. They were tortured because that had become the practice. They might know something. When higher commanders complained that they weren't getting enough intelligence, the same prisoners were tortured again. . All of this is a ghastly scandal, one of the worst in American history. It is evident cause for impeachment of this president, if Congress has the courage to do it, and for prosecution of cabinet figures and certain commanders. However in view of the partisan alignment in Congress, quite possibly nothing will happen before the November election. . What then? It also is quite possible that George W. Bush will be elected to a second term. In that case, the American electorate will have made these practices its own. Now that is something for our children to think about. - http://www.iht.com/articles/5...
A Declaration Calling for the Resignation or Removal of John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the USA
[b]"We the People" should be alarmed that such a corrupt and incompetent criminal is the Attorney General of the United States of America ... [/b]Please sign the following petition demanding the removal from office of John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States of America, who is unfit for office.
=http://img27.photobucket.com/...
[i][b]A Declaration Calling for the Resignation or Removal of John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States[/b][/i]
[b]Presented by the[i] Center for American Progress [/i]and opened for signature on June 18, 2004, for submission to the President of the United States and leaders of the Congress.[/b]
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to call to account and seek the removal of those who govern them, a decent respect to the opinions of humanity requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such action.
The history of law enforcement by the present Attorney General is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States, to the detriment of both our liberty and our security. He has forfeited, through his disdain for the Constitution and the Rule of Law which he has sworn to uphold, any legitimate claim to exercise power over his fellow citizens. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
[b]"We the People" must eventually confront the unpleasant (horrific) reality that we have been saddled with a corrupt, incompetent and dangerously stupid president and his criminal cabal of arrogant neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons ... [/b]
The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has created a nightmare of horrors, deaths, chaos, mayhem and destruction in the Middle East and it is truly time to call for their[i] impeachment and firings[/i], as they are unfit for office ... Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that [i]impeachment hearings [/i]commence against Bush and Cheney [i]immediately[/i] ... We can still show the entire world that Americans are[i] not [/i]Nazis and that we were hijacked by neo-cons and neo-fascists whose Nazi-style tactics, atrocities and crazed ideologies are an anathema to America's values.
For more information regarding the unprecedented outcry against the traitorous Bush regime by US Diplomats and International Experts who recognize that horrendous damage has been inflicted upon the U.S.A.'s reputation now sullied abroad, refer to:
The teflon that has enveloped George W. Bush is chipping off. Arriving in office with the promise of a "humble" foreign policy, Bush was sitting pretty at the beginning of his term. But George’s honeymoon has turned sour.
From the first day of his presidency, the neocons in Bush’s cabal determined to "stabilize" Iraq for U.S. corporate investment. Bush had his own motives to "git" Saddam for his would-be hit on George I. The tragedy of September 11 gave them just the opportunity they’d been waiting for.
Cloaking themselves in the "War on Terror," Bush and his minions methodically wove an intricate web of deception to convince the American people that Saddam was about to launch the "mushroom cloud," ending civilization as we know it.
It was our mission, Bush preached, to save the Iraqis from Saddam-the-torturer. But a telling phrase in Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union Address should have prepared us for the emergence of Bush-the-torturer.
"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate," Bush said. "Let's put it this way," he clarified, "they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies."
This was an implicit admission by Bush that he had sanctioned the summary execution of the "many others."
Gradually, it became clear there were no weapons of mass destruction. This week, the 911 Commission reported there is no credible evidence Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda cooperated in the 911 attacks. Yet, this same week, Dick Cheney intoned that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." More disinformation.
Americans soon began to tire of Operation "Iraqi Freedom." Most feel there was no good reason to suffer the deaths of nearly 1000 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis, no need to spend billions of precious taxpayer dollars on the Iraqi quagmire.
In the face of waning support for the war and the impending U.S. election, the Bushies devised a strategy to hand-over "sovereignty" to the Iraqi people on June 30. Notwithstanding the titular end of the occupation, 138,000 American troops will remain on the ground in Iraq. Although the violence in Iraq has intensified, with Iraqis fighting both the occupiers and other Iraqis, the June 30 date stands firm.
Meanwhile, the photographs began to emerge. The world was treated to images of pyramids of naked Iraqis, forced masturbation, unmuzzled dogs snarling at prisoners a few inches away, bleeding and dead Iraqis.
Major General Antonio Taguba’s report was released. It documented sodomy with a chemical light and electric wires attached to the penis of a nude hooded prisoner.
As fingers began to point up the chain-of-command, prisoners were released and commanders reassigned. The cover-up got underway.
Donald Rumsfeld called it "abuse," not "technically" torture. A few bad apples. Nothing too serious.
Seven low-ranking soldiers were quickly charged with crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice - the fall guys and gals.
And then "the leaks" began. The photographs and testimonials of torture had empowered those on the inside to contact the media with the bombshells. We learned that Bush’s hired guns had secretly penned two tomes, one for the Defense Department and the other for the Justice Department. Both documents purport to justify the use of torture under the President’s war-making power, notwithstanding the Constitution’s clear mandate that only Congress can make the laws.
The Congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution: "Congress shall have the power - to define and punish - offenses against the law of nations; to declare war - and make rules concerning captures on land and water; - [and] to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
As commander-in-chief, however, the President has a "constitutionally superior position" to Congress, according to the memo written for the Defense Department. It seems the president’s men have now taken on the tripartite Separation of Powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution.
Their constitutional apostasy flies in the face of the landmark ruling in the Korean War case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the Supreme Court held, "In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker." For, as the Court noted, "The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times."
Try as they might, the lawyers commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld and presidential counsel Alberto R. Gonzales were unable to find a loophole in the Torture Convention’s absolute proscription on torture. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture," according to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Torture Convention, ratified by the United States, is part of the supreme law of the land under the Constitution. Congress implemented our obligations under this treaty by enacting the Torture Statute, which provides 20 years, life in prison, or even the death penalty if death results from torture committed by a U.S. citizen abroad. The USA PATRIOT Act added the crime of conspiracy to commit torture to the Torture Statute.
Bush’s lawyers used tortured reasoning to opine that the Torture Statute cannot be utilized to prosecute Americans in Guantanamo because it lies within the "territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is within the United States."
The Bush administration has hypocritically taken the opposite position in denying the Guantanamo prisoners access to U.S. courts to challenge their indefinite detention.
The Torture Convention prohibits the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering on a person to (a) obtain a confession, (b) punish him, or (c) intimidate or coerce him based on discrimination of any kind. To violate this treaty, the pain or suffering must be inflicted "by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Ashcroft’s legal eagles redefined torture, narrowing it to require the infliction of physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For mental pain or suffering, they would require "significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years."
The Istanbul Protocol of 9 August 1999 is the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It sets forth international guidelines for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Included in the Protocol’s list of torture methods are rape, blunt trauma, forced positioning, asphyxiation, crush injuries, humiliations, death threats, forced engagement in practices violative of religion, and threat of attacks by dogs. The photographs and reports from prisoners in Abu Ghraib include all of these techniques.
Moreover, the Defense Department analysis maintained that a torturer could get off if he acted in "good faith," not thinking his actions would result in severe mental harm. If the torturer based his conduct on the advice in these memos, he would, according to this argument, have acted in good faith.
Who authored the "whorific" rationalizations for the Justice and Defense Departments? A Washington Post editorial called it "a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture." William J. Haynes II, Bush’s nominee for a lifetime seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, oversaw the preparation of the report for the Department of Defense. And another Bush nominee for a federal judgeship, former Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, now a permanent judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, drafted the document for the Department of Justice. How cozy.
Not only has Bush received legal [sic] advice on how to get around our obligations under the Torture Convention and the Torture Statute. His lawyer Alberto Gonzales, opining on whether to apply the Geneva Conventions to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, told Bush the "new paradigm" of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
Evidently the Bush administration thinks prohibitions on torture, and Congress’ lawmaking authority in our own Constitution, are quaint.
Gonzales, who is often mentioned as a prospective Bush nominee for the Supreme Court, went on to assure his boss that "your determination [to bypass the Geneva Conventions] would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 [the War Crimes Statute] does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution." So Bush’s own decision to bypass Geneva gives him a defense to violating Geneva.
One year ago, Bush repudiated torture in a statement on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture: "Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere," he assured us disingenuously.
Trying to calm the mushrooming public relations disaster occasioned by the leaking of the legal opinions, Bush said flippantly, "The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you." But last week, when Bush was asked whether he had seen the Justice Department memo, he answered, "I don’t remember."
Rumsfeld, who, according to a Defense Department spokesman, approved 24 of 35 interrogation techniques in a classified directive, refuses to state publicly what he sanctioned. Ashcroft defied Congressional requests to release the legal policy memo prepared at his instigation.
"There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," according to former New York Bar Association chairman Scott Horton, who is advising dissenters at the Pentagon. He maintains, "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."
If Bush knew or should have known about the torture, and failed to stop or prevent it, he could be liable for "command responsibility" if prosecuted under the War Crimes Act or the Torture Statute. A federal court in Miami in July 2002 held two retired Salvadoran generals liable for torture, even though neither had perpetrated or ordered it.
On January 21, 2004, a prisoner gave a sworn statement to the Washington Post about his experience in Abu Ghraib. He reported being beaten on his kidneys and ear until he lost consciousness, being tied to the window with his hands behind his back until he lost consciousness, and being sodomized with a stick about 2 centimeters into his anus.
Sgt. Greg Ford, a California National Guardsman, said he repeatedly revived prisoners who had passed out after being choked in an Iraqi police station. Ford saw a soldier stand on the back of a handcuffed detainee’s neck and pull his arms until they popped out of their sockets. "Twice I had to pull burning cigarettes out of detainee’s ears," according to Ford.
Another former National Guardsman was choked and beaten to the point of brain damage, while acting as a detainee being beaten by fellow military policeman during training at Guantanamo.
These accounts do not describe conduct befitting a civilized country.
George W. Bush came into the White House - albeit through the back door - pledging to restore honor to the White House. Instead, he has dishonored America by leading us into an illegal war under false pretenses.
In light of the Defense and Justice Department documents, there is probable cause to believe that the commander-in-chief condoned the methodology of torture to secure information from prisoners.
The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a war crime. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered war crimes under The War Crimes Act of 1996. Even if Bush’s lawyers could successfully parse the meaning of torture, they cannot deny that the atrocities we’ve seen constitute inhuman treatment.
Bush impliedly admitted sanctioning willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment in his 2003 State of the Union Address. He would be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes committed in Iraq as well. The captain goes down with his ship. It is time to call for the [b][u]Impeachment of George W. Bush[/u][/b].
[b] Marjorie Cohn, is a contributing editor to[i] t r u t h o u t[/i], a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists[/b]. - http://www.truthout.org/docs_...
[b]The corrupt, traitorous and mendacious Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] insane foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster ... [/b]With the advent of the mentally unstable Bush's http://www.unknownnews.net/in... illegal and immoral incursion into Iraq that has devolved into a nightmarish bloody-guerrilla-quagmire with [i]no end in sight[/i] http://news.ft.com/servlet/Co... to the endless massacre of U.S. Soldiers & Innocent Iraqi Civilians, we continue to witness horrendous attacks against Americans http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5... in the Middle East, where previously our citizens were for the most part welcome(d) ...
It is unprecedented in our nation's history for a large, bi-partisan group of U.S. diplomats http://www.tblog.com/template... to call for regime change [i]here at home [/i]... "We the People" should seriously heed the warnings of this conscientious group of concerned professional international experts http://www.tblog.com/template... who are appalled at the corruption, bungling, ineptitude and incompetence of the traitorous Bush regime resulting in more bloodshed [i]day by day [/i]...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
"If we were on active duty," said Charles W. Freeman Jr., ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Bush's father and a signer of the document, "this would be the equivalent of a mass resignation." Freeman, who also heads the Middle East Policy Council, is just one of 27 members of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, the latest establishment revolt against President Bush’s neocon-inspired foreign policy. Earlier this week they held a press conference at the[i] National Press Club [/i]in Washington to announce the creation of the bipartisan group. Explicitly political, they want Bush out. Here’s the [i]Los Angeles Times [/i]account http://fairuse.1accesshost.co... :
... "The call for President Bush's defeat in a statement released Wednesday by a group of former diplomats and military officials highlighted the stark divide that has opened among foreign policy experts over the administration's national security strategy.
Although some of the 27 members of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change are identified most closely with Democratic administrations, almost all served presidents of both parties — either as ambassadors, executive branch officials or military officers.
In that way, the group's formation symbolizes how Bush's search for new approaches to safeguard America has triggered a backlash among the centrist foreign policy establishment.
It also indicates that the debate over Bush's direction could provoke the sharpest realignment of loyalties on foreign affairs since the emergence of neoconservative thinkers roughly 30 years ago.
A central critique by the group is that Bush abandoned alliance-based strategies that had provided the foundation of U.S. security since World War II.
"Today, we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it," said Phyllis Oakley, a former State Department official in the Reagan and Clinton administrations and a group member.
Those signing the sharply worded statement included Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to the Soviet Union for President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock, who assumed that post toward the end of Reagan's second term and held it under President George H.W. Bush. Others were William Harrop, the elder Bush's ambassador to Israel; retired Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the Persian Gulf War; retired Adm. William J. Crowe, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman under Reagan; and Donald McHenry, the U.N. ambassador under President Carter." ...
This is on top of strong opposition to Bush’s Iraq misadventure from top military and intelligence officials such as General William Odom, former chief of the National Security Agency; Gen. Anthony Zinni, ex-commander of CENTCOM; and many others.
[b]"We the People" will be forced to assess the horrific impact that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has upon our nation because we will be paying a heavy price for generations to come ... [/b]Our credibility is [i]shot [/i]around the world in the aftermath of the illegal & immoral neo-con war waged by the traitorous Bush regime based upon horrendous neo-orwellian lies, deceptions and falsehoods ... Moreover, the tragic murder, torture, rape and abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, elsewhere in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other "secret US prisons" http://www.abc.net.au/news/ne... is a blight upon our culture and represents the most barbaric, brutish and uncivilized atrocities committed in our names ... It is time to rid ourselves of these tyrannical fascists in the insane Bush Dictatorship who are destroying the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights in their sordid and squalid lust for infinite (un-democratic) power and boundless (stolen) riches ... [b] Read on ...[/b]
Today a group of former senior diplomatic officials and retired military commanders--several of whom are the kind who "have never spoken out before" on such matters--issued a [i]bracing statement [/i] http://diplomatsforchange .com... arguing that George W. Bush has damaged the country's national security and calling on Americans to defeat him in November. It's too early to tell if the statement will have an impact on this fall's campaign. But Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, as the group is called, reveals (again) how dangerously isolated the Bush Administration is not just around the world but even from America's own bipartisan foreign policy and military establishments.
This latest missive, as the [i]LA Times [/i] http://www.latimes.com/la-na-...,1,6235854.story and the [i]Washington Post [/i] http://www.washingtonpost.com... reported last Sunday, is being sent by Democratic and Republican officials who refuse to stay silent in the face of Bush's extremist and ideological foreign policy which, they say, is squandering America's moral standing. These signatories aren't exactly a Who's Who of the American left.
Jack Matlock, who served as Reagan and Bush 41's ambassador to the Soviet Union, has signed the statement, as has Ret. Adm. William Crowe, who served as Reagan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar has added his name to the list, and he commanded US forces in the Middle East under Bush Sr. Phyllis Oakley, who served as a State Department spokesperson under Reagan, is another signatory. The vast majority of the signatories are, in fact, either conservative Republicans who served under Reagan and Bush 41 or they are bipartisan, consensus-driven ex-diplomats who served their country from Africa to Asia because they believed in America's leadership role around the world.
Now they feel so enraged by Bush's extremist foreign policies that they can no longer stand by as this Administration makes America less secure by upending alliances and alienating much of the world. Against the metastasizing scandal of Abu Ghraib; the botched postwar occupation of Iraq; and the Administration's lies about WMDs in Iraq in the run-up to the war, these old hands are now taking an uncompromising, intelligent stand against what they see as the most arrogant, unilateral and incompetent foreign policy in their adult lifetimes.
Today's signatories join a large and growing chorus of former senior officials who, as I first noted in a July 2003 weblog, http://www.thenation.com/edcu... were so enraged by Bush's conduct of the Iraq war that sitting on the sidelines simply wasn't an option for them. John Brady Kiesling, now a retired diplomat, led the charge in February 2003 when he courageously quit his foreign-service job with the American Embassy in Athens, and wrote a stinging rebuke http://www.nytimes.com/2003/0... to Bush's headlong rush to wage a war in Iraq. Then another career diplomat Gregory Thielmann went public, http://www.pbs.org/now/transc... telling Bill Moyers that Iraq didn't pose an "imminent security threat" to America. Thielmann attacked Bush for hyping intelligence reports and for misleading the American people about the need to go to war in the Middle East. The Administration, he said, "has had a faith-based intelligence attitude.We know the answers--give us the intelligence to support those answers'."
Around the same time, retired military commanders were growing aghast at Bush's utterly inept lack of planning for the occupation of Iraq. That's why, for example, the former Centcom commander Gen. Anthony Zinni ultimately went on [i]60 Minutes [/i]last month and argued that if Bush stayed on the current course in Iraq, America was "headed over Niagara Falls." Hoar, the retired Marine general, has publicly declared that the United States is "absolutely on the brink of failure" in Iraq.
Meanwhile, other former ambassadors and career foreign-service officers began speaking up, each in their own way and on their own timetables. GOP strategists with ties to the White House were quick and shameless in denigrating those who've spent their life serving the national interest.
Ronald Spiers, the former Ambassador to Turkey and Pakistan and well versed in the politics of the Middle East, argued that W.'s policies have unraveled our most important alliances around the globe. Spiers faulted Bush for causing us to lose "a lot of our international partnerships. We've lost a lot of lives. We've lost a lot of money for something that wasn't justified."
William Harrop, a former ambassador to Kenya and Israel, spoke for many in the diplomatic corps, and I suspect for even some former Bush I officials like Brent Scowcroft, when he said: "I really am essentially a Republican. I voted for George Bush's father, and I voted for George Bush. But what we got was not the George Bush we voted for." And former ambassador Joseph Wilson http://www.thenation.com/doc.... has reminded Americans of just how many lies http://www.commondreams.org/h... the Administration was willing to make in its quest to convince people that Iraq posed a nuclear threat to the United States.
Then, of course, there are the high-level NSC officials who, after getting a ringside seat for Bush's bungling national security strategies, decided that enough was enough, and that now was the season to speak up and take a stand. Rand Beers http://www.washingtonpost.com... left W.'s White House after serving under Reagan and Bush I, and he is now running foreign policy operations for John Kerry's presidential campaign. Richard Clarke, is one of the most experienced counterterrorism officials America has produced in the last three decades; he, too, could no longer stand idly by as the Administration pursued a fool's errand by starting a war against Iraq.
Just last month, as I noted in another weblog, http://thenation.com/edcut/in... a separate group of fifty-three ex-diplomats and other high-level national security officials wrote a letter http://www.abc.net.au/news/ne... to Bush in which they excoriated the President for sacrificing America's credibility in the Arab world and squandering America's status as honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
The statement issued today marks the high-water point of dissent among diplomats and military commanders who cannot stomach Bush any longer, but there is still time, and a need, for more high-level officials to come forward and voice their opposition to policies that are undermining our security.
The anger towards W., and the antipathy towards his extremely dangerous policies has now, at long last, reached a critical mass. Today's statement reveals just how extremist the Administration's approach has been, and the staggering stupidity of their radical ideologies. This letter is a profound wake-up call to all Americans: George W. Bush must be defeated http://www.nationinstitute.or... .
[b]Bush and Cheney are traitorous liars ... [/b]Bush and Cheney are heinous liars [i]on issues that affect our nation far more dramatically [/i]than the lie told by Clinton regarding a sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky ... For Bush and Cheney's myriad neo-con, neo-fascist lies, deceptions and falsehoods have resulted in warfare for war-profiteering that has cost us the precious lives of over 800 US Soldiers & over 16,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians, and in treasure of over $165 Billion ([i]with no end in sight to the squandering of US Taxpayer dollars[/i])-- while vital needs in our country go unattended, ignored and neglected ...
It is time for "We the People" to call upon Congress http://www.congress.org for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, for they are unfit, unworthy and unlawful crooks who do not deserve to hold high office ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
The 9/11 Commission issued two staff reports yesterday which found no "collaborative relationship" http://www.washingtonpost.com... between Iraq and al Qaeda. The commission's findings shoot yet another hole in the Bush administration's sketchy justifications for invading Iraq. [i]The New York Times [/i]sums up the rest: "Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy." See yesterday's Progress Report for more on the anatomy behind the myth of an al Qaeda/Saddam link http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[b]SADDAM DISSED OSAMA:[/b] According to the Commission report, Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq." He even asked for help setting up training camps and buying weapons. However, it was a no go – Saddam ignored him, as "Iraq apparently never responded" to the request for help. Although there were reports of later contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, the Commission states that "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
[b]QUASHING THE ATTA THEORY:[/b] The Commission report quashes the theory that Iraq helped train the 9/11 hijackers, a theory pushed by Vice President Cheney. In a September[i] Meet the Press [/i]appearance, Cheney stated, "With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack." Not so. The 9/11 commission flatly dismissed this report, saying, ''We do not believe that such a meeting occurred.''
[b]DODGING RESPONSIBILITY:[/b] Administration officials are trying to neutralize the fallout from the report by claiming that just because they previously said al Qaeda and Saddam were linked, they didn't mean it was a link to 9/11. Colin Powell claimed, "'I think we have said, and it is clear, that there is a connection, and we have seen these connections between al-Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein, and we stick with that… We have not said it was related to 9/11.'' This isn't true. As [i]USA Today [/i]reports, "Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.'"
[b]CHENEY HELPED CREATE MISCONCEPTION:[/b] Cheney was aware the public was connecting administration claims of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda with the 9/11 attacks. Studies by the nonpartisan Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found "the most striking misperception" http://www.pipa.org/OnlineRep... about the war in Iraq "is the belief that, not only were there links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, but that actual evidence has been found." Indeed, the studies showed a majority of Americans erroneously believed that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including one fifth who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. "Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." In September, Cheney acknowledged, ''I think it's not surprising that people make that connection'' between Saddam and 9/11.
[b]OFFICE OF SPECIAL ERRORS:[/b] Another report poised to be released by the Senate Intelligence Committee criticizes the administration's means of gathering the "information" they used to claim a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Officials say the report specifically "criticizes the Pentagon's creation of an independent intelligence 'cell' called the Office of Special Plans to review raw intelligence about Baghdad's alleged ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and to funnel its analysis to the White House without going through normal channels."
[b]HELL NO, CONSERVATIVES WON'T ADMIT THEY'RE WRONG:[/b] Earlier this week, Cheney went on record again perpetrating the myth that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Will he recant? "Hell no!" said an administration official. He's not the only conservative determined to stick to his deceptive claims. Even when confronted with the facts, some House conservatives are unwilling to admit they were wrong. "When pressed on the specifics of the report," writes [i]The Hill[/i], conservative lawmakers "glossed over the lack" of evidence of a tie, instead relying on the weak argument that "al Qaeda and Iraq share the same goal of killing Americans."
[b]Our health, well-being and prosperity as a nation are at dire risk from the [i]corporate-owned [/i]Bush regime who are indebted to large corporations, special interests and the hyper-rich plutocrats who are funding the purchase of the White House and the (re-)installation of their neo-con, neo-fascists ...[/b]
"We the People" must reject the corrupt, traitorous and tyrannical Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], for they have absolutely no interest in [i]our[/i] welfare ... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org to demand that government regulations be upheld to protect Americans from being exploited, raped and swindled by the telecommunications industry ...
[b]An example ...[/b]
As president, George W. Bush is charged with protecting consumers from being bilked. But yesterday, the president decided to side with four major campaign contributors against 50 million American consumers in a court case that could force serious increases in phone bills all over the country.
As the[i] New York Times [/i]reports, the president sided with four large telecommunications companies in a federal court case about consumer protections. Instead of defending government regulations that prevent price gouging on phone bills, the White House and its Solicitor General, Ted Olson, opted to drop out of the case. The decision by the president "substantially reduces the chances that the Supreme Court will accept the appeal" and rule in consumers' favor.1 The decision could affect 50 million customers nationwide.
The president and the Solicitor General have a substantial interest in helping the four companies who benefit from their decision. The four companies have given the Bush-Cheney campaign more than $173,000 since 2000: Verizon has contributed more than $85,000 to the Bush campaign,2 BellSouth more than $44,000,3 U.S. West/Qwest more than $34,000,4 and SBC Communications more than $10,000.5 Meanwhile, Olson was previously a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher6 - a law firm that represents telecommunications companies.7
1. "In Pivotal Case, Bush Backs Off Rule That Eased Phone Line Fees", The New York Times, 6/10/04. 2. Opensecrets.org. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. U.S. Department of Justice. 7. Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher.
[b]"We the People" surely [i]cannot, must not and/or will not [/i]believe ([i]be duped again[/i]) the insane neo-cons in the corrupt, traitorous and tyrannical Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], who have no intention http://www.tblog.com/template... of handing true sovereignty over to the Iraqi people ... [/b]Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that the illegal and immoral US Occupation be stopped immediately and our troops brought home ...
With the legitimacy of the US occupation of Iraq falling further in doubt, the Bush Administration has turned to the UN for help. However, Tuesday's Security Council resolution approving a new interim government does nothing to alter the fact that Iraq is still an occupied country. Indeed, the US government announced today that it is increasing http://www.military.com/NewsC...,13319,FL_marines_061004, 00.html the number of US soldiers stationed in Iraq from 140, 000 to 145, 000, despite earlier projections of a troop reduction.
As long as Iraq remains under occupation the violence will not end. With neither of this year's major-party presidential candidates offering a clear plan for the prompt return of US troops from Iraq, [i]United for Peace and Justice [/i] http://www.unitedforpeace.org... has issued an urgent appeal to get our troops home. It aims to get tens of thousands of signatures on two letters, one to President Bush, the other to John Kerry, calling for an end to the occupation of Iraq. The campaign will culminate in a weekend of nationwide protests on June 26 and 27, jointly organized with [i]Win Without War[/i] http://www.winwithoutwarus.or... .
[b]"We the People" cannot afford more disastrous fiascos from the bungling, incompetent and corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]... [/b]The traitorous, mendacious and inept Bush regime's [i]total lack [/i]of diplomatic skills, ability, intelligence and knowledge of history, culture, economics, government and law, etc., as well as their [i]total lack [/i]of ability in negotiating with other nations, is making the world a far, far more dangerous place ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Could America ’s clumsy diplomacy get any worse? Is it any wonder European leaders want Kerry? The G-8 meeting is one gigantic screw-up, from the refusal of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attend it to the administration’s refusal to invite Qatar —our most important Gulf ally—because it hosts[i] Al Jazeera [/i]. And then there is the NATO issue.
Bush isn’t going to be getting NATO support for Iraq’s government anytime soon, probably never, though the president tried to put the best face on things. Apparently the Europeans (the “old” ones, not the “new” ones like Poland ) decided that they would give Bush the UN resolution he wanted, with modifications, so Bush could have a face-saving victory in New York. But at the G-8 meeting, Bush got bupkis. AFP is reporting that the German leader dismisses the UN resolution as basically useless in the mess called Iraq:
... "[i]German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed doubts http://www.spacewar.com/2004/... Thursday over whether a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq 's sovereignty would bring stability to the war-torn country.
"The resolution is a political basis, is an attempt, to improve the chances of stabilising" Iraq, Schroeder said on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in the U.S. state of Georgia.
"Whether that attempt can succeed is an open question. I am not optimistic about this," he said[/i]." ...
Optimism is in short supply, of course, in regard to Iraq, where civil war still looms, violence makes even simple trips unsafe and resistance forces of all kinds are proliferating. French President Chirac, rather than attack Bush directly, decided to praise the food at the G-8 summit, no doubt straining the French leader’s diplomatic skills to the utmost. But he made it clear that Bush ain’t getting help from NATO. Bush said “the Iraqi people need help,” imploring NATO’s aid, but:
... "[i]Bush's comments were made after a private meeting with a skeptical French President Jacques Chirac. They came as the annual Group of Eight summit of big industrial powers wound down without Bush winning additional commitments from summit partners for help on Iraq.
Chirac has objected to Bush's suggestion that NATO take a greater role in Iraq. Those differences clearly extended into Chirac's meeting with Bush.
Bush said he and Chirac discussed "whether or not there is a continued role for NATO" in Iraq.
"We understand the Iraqi people need help to defend themselves, to rebuild their country and, most importantly, to hold elections," Bush said.
When his turn came to speak, Chirac did not mention the dispute over Iraq but spoke instead of how much he had enjoyed the G-8 summit, particularly the food.
"Over the last few days, this cuisine here in America was certainly on a par with French cuisine," he said[/i]." ... http://www.omaha.com/index.ph...
[b]"We the People"[i] aren't [/i]being totally fooled, all of the time, by the neo-orwellian propaganda campaign being waged against us by the corrupt & mendacious Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]Neo-con, Neo-fascist Electioneering-Machine ...[/b]
An[i] LA Times [/i]poll http://www.latimes.com/news/c...,1,1874410.story?coll=la-home-headli nes released today brings happy tidings to the Kerry camp. Though the label "flip-flopper" does appear to be sticking, its new name may be: "the lesser evil."
The reason: Bush's "stay the course" rhetoric is beginning to look, to voters, more like good old fashioned bad policy as "the course" is increasingly littered with the corpses of American GIs. Not to mention that, contrary to earlier reports, incidents of terrorism are on the rise under Bush's watch. The [i]LA Times [/i]article notes: "By a resounding 58% to 16%, poll respondents said the phrase 'too ideological and stubborn' applied more to Bush than to Kerry."
The poll also showed that in the battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin, Kerry and Bush are in a virtual tie, with Bush holding a lead in Missouri — numbers veer toward Bush when Nader's included. On that account, DailyKos http://www.dailykos.com/ comments on another poll http://www.americanresearchgr... showing nearly 8 in 10 New Hampshirites disapprove of Nader: "Dude needs to take a hint." - http://www.alternet.org/elect...
"There is a tide in the affairs of men ..." - William Shakespeare
[b]"We the People" may be slow to change our minds, but when the tide of circumstances begins to change, we will be prepared to cast aside a corrupt and disastrous tyrant and start again afresh ... [/b]The corrupt, traitorous & incompetent Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] has betrayed the United States of America ... It is becoming increasingly evident that Americans no longer trust the mendacious neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
There's a stealth issue in this presidential campaign that could go far in determining the election results. I'm talking about the rising gas, phone, electricity, milk and cable prices that are damaging millions of hard-working families struggling to live in George W. Bush's America. In addition to paying $2-plus per gallon prices at the pump, consumers are getting squeezed at the supermarket--shelling out as much as $4 per gallon for milk.
Other staples are going through the roof. Since 1996, cable rates have risen 56 percent, besting inflation by nearly a factor of three. Sen. John McCain recently pointed out that consumers are getting bilked: "When it comes to purchasing cable channels, consumers have all the choice of a Soviet election ballot. One option: Take it or leave it."
According to an exhaustive study by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Enron and other electricity giants manipulated California energy markets to boost wholesale electricity and natural gas prices to make a financial killing. In 2001, electricity prices soared in the western United States, as blackouts became routine and millions of consumers got gouged. Looking ahead and perhaps no farther than next week, phone rates may well rise now that a federal appellate court has scuttled regulations that had saved consumers $11 billion annually on their phone bills. Bush has refused to appeal the phone rate court ruling, a decision that will virtually guarantee higher phone bills for nearly 50 million customers.
This Administration has sided with its corporate cronies on these and other issues. Under Bush many families have had to face tuition hikes, state service cuts and sky-high health care costs. Bush's tax giveaways have boosted the corporate bottom line and helped the wealthiest individuals. Hard-working families have received little to nothing in return.
This White House is addicted to deregulation. It has flung open the doors to its corporate contributors. Cronies like Enron's Ken Lay called the shots in the corridors (and commissions). The FCC's Michael Powell led the fight to raise the media ownership caps, generating momentum for corporate consolidation, stifling diversity and undercutting localism in communities nationwide. Despite valiant efforts by Democratic members of the FCC, the Commission has refused to take action on rising consumer cable rates.
Whether it's mad cow disease or dairy prices, the Administration stands pat while consumers take the hit.
The bitter fruits of deregulation are caught on the recently released Enron traders' tapes. Gloating about how they successfully cheated "poor grandmothers" out of their life savings, these traders show a cynical contempt for people. When one trader gets wind of a transmission line fire that caused a power failure, "Burn baby, burn" is his response.
But, so far, most politicians have failed to become the champion of consumers who are being hit hard in their pocketbooks where it hurts. One Washington communications lawyer told the [i]LA Times[/i]: "If you tell this story as part of a larger discussion about the rising price of milk and gas, then suddenly three things make a pattern and you have a campaign issue."
Look at what happened in Florida--not an inconsequential state this November. When state regulators--at industry's urging--proposed a $350 million hike in phone rates, Floridians flooded those regulators with more than 7,000 letters decrying their decision. The regulators responded--they changed the decision.
According to some analysts, the issue of rising phone bills has the potential to sway the presidential race in four closely contested states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
In Fort Worth, Texas, the cable manager received numerous complaints that the local provider Charter Communications was forcing large cable packages down people's throats, making consumers pay for channels they never even watched.
John Kerry ought to step up and confront the Baby Bells, cable companies and energy conglomerates. His recent statement against media consolidation suggests Kerry understands this is an issue that resonates with voters across the political spectrum. He could side with consumers who are under siege by an Administration that never met a regulation it didn't want to destroy.
But politicians, including Kerry, are lagging behind and failing to seize the opportunity to protect people's pocketbooks. In the meantime, we may see corporate greed and Administration-sanctioned gouging rousing consumers to take action. To paraphrase that great Paddy Chayevsky film[i] Network[/i], we may be at a moment when the American people are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
[b]Isn't it hilarious [[i]sic[/i]] ([i]hmmm ... tragic, really[/i]) how this corrupt, incompetent and mendacious Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]has mastered the fine art of scapegoating others, punishing whistle-blowers, stonewalling and distancing itself from all of its own crimes??? ...
[/b]The traitorous Bushies are the "[i]The Buck Never Stops Here[/i]" gang of neo-con thugs & neo-fascist goons who are a disgrace to our nation and should be summarily ousted by "We the People" [i]as soon as possible [/i]... It's[i] impeachment [/i]time, folks!!! ... Contact Congress http://www.congress.org ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
President Bush is not the only neocon with amnesia about Ahmed Chalabi, the lying spy who (still) would love to be Iraq’s chieftain, but who now has to overcome that little matter of giving U.S. secrets to Iran’s mullahs. No, Bush isn’t the only one, but he is the funniest. Consider these two items.
First, last week the president said he could only remember meeting Chalabi in a “rope line” at the State of the Union address. Reported The[i] New York Times [/i]on June 2:
... [i]At the White House on Tuesday, President Bush sought to play down the role of Mr. Chalabi and his group as a source of information in his administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. ''My meetings with him were very brief,'' Mr. Bush said, saying that he might have met with Mr. Chalabi at the State of the Union address as part of a ''rope line'' greeting. ''I haven't had any extensive conversations with him[/i].'' ...
I guess Bush forgot what he told Tim Russert in his February 8 [i]Meet the Press [/i]sit-down interview, where he noted that Chalabi and the “Shia fellow” had plopped their butts down right in the Oval Office:
[u]MR. RUSSERT[/u]: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
[u]PRES. BUSH[/u]: They're not going to develop that. The reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion. I remember speaking to Mr. al-Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you'd be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he—I said, you know, "I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision?" And he said, "It's going to be a free society where you can worship freely." This is a Shia fellow.
Well, the climate in Iraq may not yet be quite right for Methodists to start building churches. Anyway, also denying thrice that he knows Chalabi well is Dougie Feith, who was Chalabi’s longtime neocon dance partner.
In the [i]Los Angeles Times [/i], Feith denies having been intimate with Ahmed:
... [i]Feith, the No. 3 Pentagon official, has been struggling to put to rest what he regards as unfair charges that he was trying to create a separate intelligence network in the Pentagon to guide administration decisions, and that he was an "intimate" of Chalabi. Feith met with Chalabi fewer than 10 times, said a spokesman[/i]. ...
Ten times? That seems like more often than Bill Clinton, the author, met with Monica, and we know they were intimate.
Which brings us to the May 29 [i]New York Times [/i]story, about how the neocons outside of government were besieging the White House to plead Chalabi’s case, while those inside are basically shutting up:
... [i]Influential outside advisers to the Bush administration who support the Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi are pressing the White House to stop what one has called a ''smear campaign'' against Mr. Chalabi, whose Baghdad home and offices were ransacked last week in an American-supported raid.
Last Saturday, several of these Chalabi supporters said, a small delegation of them marched into the West Wing office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to complain about the administration's abrupt change of heart about Mr. Chalabi and to register their concerns about the course of the war in Iraq. The group included Richard N. Perle, the former chairman of a Pentagon advisory group, and R. James Woolsey, director of central intelligence under President Bill Clinton.
Members of the group, who had requested the meeting, told Ms. Rice that they were incensed at what they view as the vilification of Mr. Chalabi, a favorite of conservatives who is now central to an F.B.I. investigation into who in the American government might have given him highly classified information that he is suspected of turning over to Iran.
"There is a smear campaign under way, and it is being perpetrated by the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. and a gaggle of former intelligence officers who have succeeded in planting these stories, which are accepted with hardly any scrutiny," Mr. Perle, a leading conservative, said in an interview.[/i] ...
Yet, the [i]Times [/i]continued, there is deafening silence from inside the administration, all of whose officials seem to have met Chalabi only on rope lines:
... [i]Although Mr. Chalabi's supporters outside the administration have been caustic in their comments about his treatment, there has been relative silence so far from Mr. Chalabi's supporters within the administration. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who favored going to war in Iraq and was a patron of Mr. Chalabi, did not respond to numerous requests this week for an interview.
Mr. Wolfowitz's spokesman, Charley Cooper, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Wolfowitz believed that Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress ''have provided valuable operational intelligence to our military forces in Iraq, which has helped save American lives.'' Mr. Cooper added in the message that ''Secretary Wolfowitz hopes that the events of the last few weeks haven't undermined that.''
The current views of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, are not known. Both strongly supported Mr. Chalabi before and during the war in Iraq.
Last Saturday, participants in the meeting with Ms. Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, said Ms. Rice told them she appreciated that they had made their views known. But she gave no hint of her own opinion, participants said, and made no concessions to their point of view[/i]. ...
Although Rice decline to give a “hint of her own opinion,” somehow I doubt that Perle and Co. would like to hear it if she did. Of course one never really knows for sure with Rice, as she will do whatever she is told by Cheney and Rove ... - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
Kerry Boosts Lead Over 'W' ... But Bush is Rigging 2004 Election!!!
[b]Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry widened his lead over President Bush - 49% to 43% - in the past two weeks, a Gallup Organization poll found.[/b]
Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator, leads Bush, 57, among registered voters who say they are likely to cast ballots in the November election, in Gallup's poll conducted June 3-6. Independent candidate Ralph Nader drew support from 5%.
Kerry extended his margin from a May 21-23 poll in which he had 47% to Bush's 46% in a three-way race.
"The fact that Bush is behind now certainly underscores his vulnerability as an incumbent," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said. The Presidents who won reelection since 1956 "never once after January in their election year were behind their opponents," he said. - http://www.nydailynews.com/ne...
"We the People" have good reason to be very, very concerned about wrong-doings/election rigging by Bush, and should contact Congress http://www.congress.org to conduct investigations into the irregularities and manipulations by the corrupt Bush regime with collusion by the embezzler-[i]n[/i]-brothe r Gov. Jeb Bush who is taking potentially illegal steps to rig the election in Florida by keeping citizens from voting who might indeed be eligible to do so, and also with Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Electronic Voting Machines, a diehard Republican "committed to getting Bush" back in power ...
The head of Florida's elections division resigned Monday amid reports he was feeling political heat over a push to purge thousands of suspected felons from the state's voter rolls. "Kast has told a handful of associates that he was uncomfortable with growing pressure to trim felons from voter rolls in time for the fall election, friends say." - http://www.sun-sentinel.com/n...,0,2424064.story?coll=sfla-news-flor ida
So voters are being purged/eliminated and Walden O'Dell, head of Diebold Electronic Voting Systems has pledged to get Bush re-elected http://www.commondreams.org/h... ... Diebold's Electronic Election Systems are easily rigged:-- these poorly designed systems are without paper trails & receipts; and are also without audit trails & reconciliation procedures to ensure that firewalls will keep out dishonest hackers & neo-fascist politicos who want to stage another [i]banana republican coup d'etat[/i] as we saw in 2000.
It is time for "We the People" to take the election back into our own hands and insist that the United Nations oversee the 2004 November Presidential Election, in order to avoid a repeat of the fiasco of 2000 ...
[b]"We the People" are [i]successfully building a grass-roots movement [/i]across the fruited plains, high deserts and all around America, to [i]oust[/i] the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]from office ... [/b]
[b]Read on ...[/b]
The loss of a core constituency in Florida, where only a little over 500 votes won him the presidency in 2000, could spell doom for Bush. Since the last election, the state's gained a million new residents, nearly half of them Hispanic. While non-Cuban Hispanics tend to be Democrats, Cubans are, by a margin of 4 to 1, one of the most reliable GOP blocs on the block. In fact, that community very neatly cancels out the Democrats' lead among all Hispanics, with Gore and Bush virtually splitting that vote in 2000.
But here's the surprise: Polls show http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... a split in the Cuban-American community. And the even bigger surprise is that neither half of the split bodes well for Bush. The younger generation doesn't seem to be as anti-Castro as their parents -- and is less likely to vote Republican. The older generations doesn't feel that Bush's Castro policy is quite hardline enough.
One pollster summarized the feelings of many Cuban-Americans from his focus group: "The question they keep asking is if President Bush invaded Iraq to bring democracy, why won't he do the same for Cuba? How many people from Iraq voted for him?"
There are disbelievers. Jeb Bush, Florida Governor, brother of the current president Bush, son of former president Bush, and now, apparently, a philosopher, doubts that Cuban-Americans will abandon the GOP: "This is like birds migrate in the winter South and they go back North -- and I've heard this over and over again." - http://www.alternet.org/story...
JUSTICE: Tell Ashcroft to Stop Stonewalling Congress ...
"[b]We the People" should write to the President of the United States of America, Attorney General Ashcroft and to Congress in order to[i] demand that the full truth [/i]regarding the U.S. government's heinous murders, tortures, rapes and abuses that have taken place in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq be made public and that those responsible for authorising, approving and/or ordering such atrocities by charged with [i]War Crimes [/i]and held accountable for their [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]... [/b]Please appeal to Congress http://www.congress.org today to take all of the legal and lawful actions necessary in order to compel Ashcroft to tell the truth to the American people ... We must not lose our Republic to an arrogant & corrupt gang of neo-con neo-fascists in the tyrannical Bush regime who have no respect for the rule of law ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Testifying yesterday before Congress, Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to disclose or discuss http://www.washingtonpost.com... an unclassified 2002 Justice Department memorandum to the White House that, according to news reports, describes legal justifications for torture. Ashcroft acknowledged that the memo was not confidential advice to the president and was "widely distributed throughout the executive branch." http://www.washingtonpost.com... Ashcroft has decided to thwart the constitutional authority of Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch because he believes it is "not good policy" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... to release the memo. Ashcroft had no such compunctions when he declassified a 1995 memo http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... in a cynical attempt to distort the facts and discredit 9/11 commission member Jamie Gorelick. Email John Ashcroft at askdoj@usdoj.gov and tell him to stop stonewalling Congress. - http://www.americanprogress.o...
[b]Of course, it is not really worthwhile to waste time, breathe and effort in [i]attempting to reason [/i]with mad-dog neo-con ideologues who will support the corrupt neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] irrespective of what[i] laws [/i]that they wantonly break; [i]rights[/i] that they ruthlessly trample upon; and [i]freedoms[/i] that they recklessly wipe-out ...[/b]
"We the People" must hope to find open-minded, patriotic and conscientious citizens with intelligence and integrity who are willing to put the well-being and best interest of our nation over partisan politics ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
The pioneering genius of political advertising, Tony Schwartz, used to preach that the most effective ads don't seek to convey information but to reach into the target audiences' mind to pluck the "responsive chords" already there. And Bill Schneider, the shrewd public opinion analyst, has said, "What the American people want most in a President is what they didn't have in the last one."
So perhaps one way of plucking the "responsive chords" of those four-in-ten Republicans who now say they would reconsider their support for Bush in November is to ask them such "responsive chord" questions as the offhand sampling below.
Would you rather have a President:
. Who can change his mind when his vision of reality turns out to be mistaken? Or one who dares not change for fear of appearing weak?
. Who believes that evidence necessary to justify a war has to be carefully weighed? Or one who is satisfied when his CIA director tells him the evidence is a slam-dunk?
. Who fires advisors who have misled him? Or one who fears to reveal that he knows they have misled him?
. Who asks a variety of wise men and women to advise him as well as God? Or one who thinks that it is enough that he hears and recognizes God's voice?
. Who goes back to the Constitution for guidance on liberty and values? Or one who goes instead to religious fundamentalists?
. Who, when considering healthcare policy, gives first priority to the health of children and parents? Or one who gives first priority to the interests of the drug and insurance corporations?
. Who either confides in and trusts his Secretary of State or else replaces him? Or one who does not give his Secretary of State information that he discloses to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?
. Who, when on 9/11 he hears that Washington and New York are under deadly attack, takes charge immediately? Or one who, not knowing what to do, goes on reading to a third-grade class he is visiting?
. Who can remember his mistakes, hence moves to remedy them? Or one who says he cannot remember any, hence cannot do any remedying?
. Who claims victory when it is won? Or one who claims it before it is won?
. Who gives a high priority to humane programs like keeping veterans off welfare? Or one whose priorities run instead toward insuring that corporate contributors like Halliburton receive profitable contracts?
. Who faces the media frequently and accepts the obligation to inform press and public? Or one who fears the press and relies on one-liners to divert it?
. Who reads some of the newspapers that oppose--or support--him. Or one who does not read any paper?
. Who seeks advice from a wide array of energy experts and experienced people? Or one who draws heavily on the oil industry?
. Who tries to understand the variety of Americans and the variety of their problems and needs? Or one who thinks his circle of friends is representative of America?
. Who appoints a diverse committee to investigate how 9/11 could have happened? Or one who stacks the committee with allies and cronies?
Hopefully some of these questions will spark some "responsive chords." I also welcome readers' suggestions for questions. Click here http://www.thenation.com/cont... to send them to me (one per reader!) and I'll post a sampling in the coming weeks.
(I also want to thank [i]Nation[/i] Editorial Board member Michael Pertschuk, the former Chair of the FTC, co-founder of the invaluable Advocacy Institute and resident of a battleground state, for his suggestion that we try this project.) - http://www.thenation.com/edcu...
The Last Noble Defender of the American Republic ...
[b]"We the People" are lucky to have a national treasure like Gore Vidal ...
Gore Vidal is a national icon.[/b] He is the author of more than 20 novels and five plays. He is one of the best-known chroniclers of American history and politics and his works have been translated into dozens of languages across the globe. He once told a magazine interviewer, "There is not one human problem that could not be solved... if people would simply do as I advise." And for more than a half a century, he has done just that.
He published his first novel, [i]Williwawa[/i], in 1946 at the age of 21. He began writing poems and stories as a young teenager and began his first novel while he was still in high school. His grandfather was a senator and his father worked for the Roosevelt administration. But rather than pursuing a family career of politics and privilege, Gore Vidal dedicated himself to writing and critiquing the injustices of American society. Following the publication of the first two of his latest trilogy of books examining the American empire, Vidal was described as the last "noble defender" of the American republic, America's last "small-r" republican. The recently published[i] Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia [/i]is the third and final book of the trilogy.
[b]Editor's Note: [/b][i]This is excerpted from the transcript of a June 4 interview of Gore Vidal by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez[/i].
Amy Goodman: In his latest book, Gore Vidal writes that "not since the 1846 attack on Mexico in order to seize California has an American government been so nakedly predatory." He describes the current president as being like a man in one of those dreams who knows he's safe in bed and so can commit any crime he likes in his voluptuous dream. No one can stop him. Gore Vidal joins us now in our Firehouse Studio here in Chinatown, Downtown Community Television. Welcome to [i]Democracy Now[/i]!.
Gore Vidal: Thank you. This is probably my first encounter in the United States with democracy. And I've lived a long time. Here we are in Chinatown, in the firehouse, and I feel free. But we're supposed to in a democracy.
Amy Goodman: Well, we welcome you.
Gore Vidal: Thank you.
Amy Goodman: Why use the word, "imperial," in your title, Imperial America?
Gore Vidal: Because everyone hates it so much. I remember years ago, Time magazine, in one of its numerous attacks on me, on my first book of essays, which was heaven knows when, 30, 40 years ago, I refer to the American empire and things that we were doing that were not very good across the world, and I referred to the empire. And Time magazine dismissed me. It was an awful review. I pointed out that we had troops and so on in over 1,000 other places around the world. That seems imperial to me, but there we are. Ever since then, I have loved the word, because it just drives them crazy.
But we are a world empire, hated by all, and not to mention the least, our own people, since we don't have any money left for anything. So, you started to go somewhere and I had written about Bush that he's like a kind of crazy kid in a dream, and he thinks he's invulnerable, and he's marching along through a dry forest, and he's lighting matches, dropping them, watching the fires, dropping another one. I had always assumed, like all good Americans, that he was a hypocrite, particularly on religious matters. Suddenly, it began to hit me, he may be another Reagan. He may really believe these are the end of times. What difference does it make? The world's going to end anyway. Why save the environment? Save it for what, you know? We're all going to be upstairs as sunbeams for Jesus. If he's one of those – well, those of us who can afford it will emigrate, and the others will be with Jesus in a higher sphere.
Juan Gonzalez: You talk about President Bush throwing matches or lighting matches in the forest. Your book, I thought, some of the most powerful parts were when you go into all of the outright lies of the Bush administration, and you spend quite a bit of time on his Healthy Forest Initiative and his response to wildfires. Can you expound a little bit on this?
Gore Vidal: Well, part of imperial America is just sort of a list of the lies that he has told us, and there's a special law against people who lie to the American people, whether they're in the Legislative Branch of the government, Judiciary or the Executive, like the president. He has now told so many lies that he knew to be lies, and that we know to be lies about everything that he can be on, I think it's 12 counts – he can be impeached immediately, without much fuss, if you had a majority of people who wanted to impeach him in the House of Representatives. Then we go on trial in the senate as poor Bill Clinton found when he lied about sex, which in my day that is what gentlemen were supposed to do.
Amy Goodman: Let's hear President Bush, just in the last few days, giving the graduation address at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
... "[i]President George W. Bush: In 1944, General Eisenhower sat down at his headquarters in the English countryside and wrote out a message to the troops who would soon invade Normandy. "Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force," he wrote, "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you." Each of you receiving a commission today in the United States military will also carry the hopes of free people everywhere. As your generation assumes its own duties during a global conflict that will define your careers, you will be called upon to take brave action and serve with honor. In some ways, this struggle we're in is unique. In other ways it resembles the great clashes of the last century between those who put their trust in tyrants, and those who put their trust in liberty. Our goal, the goal of this generation, is the same. We will secure our nation and defend the peace through the forward march of freedom[/i]." ...
Amy Goodman: President Bush speaking at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. President Bush comparing the conflict in Iraq to World War II. Today he's headed to Normandy. He just met with the Pope this morning on the anniversary of D-day. Your response, Gore Vidal?
Gore Vidal: Well, I'd like to be a fly on that wall where he meets the Pope, who highly disapproves of our imperial mission around the world. The Pope, although he's generally interested in sex only, (that is part of the Roman Catholic doctrine of power over the individual) the Pope is a good guy on matters of war and peace. He doesn't like war, and he doesn't like Bush. He doesn't like the United States at this moment. So, I would think that was a very chilling meeting between the two of them. It was chilly when Ronald Reagan went to see him, but Reagan went to sleep, and it was a wonderful meeting, you know. The pope said a few prayers, and there was Ron, snoring softly, and everybody was saying in a very - "it's been a very long trip, you know, from America here." And there's Reagan, sound asleep in front of all of the cameras. But to compare the preemptive wars of Mr. Bush, which are totally illegal, which offend – if I may paraphrase Thomas Jefferson – the decent opinion of mankind. The entire world is horrified by what we do. He goes into an innocent country called Afghanistan, knocks it down. One of his cabinet members knocks it down. Then he gives contracts to rebuild it to his vice president with Halliburton. Then he knocks down another country which has done nothing to us.
Juan Gonzalez: One of the big sections in your book is a privatizing of the American elections. Many people have almost forgotten Florida already, but we're now in a new year, a new election year, and already as we reported earlier on the show, CNN has sued the state of Florida to try to get the list of the newest list of felons about to be purged from the rolls in Florida. You have a lot to say about what will – what could possibly happen with these elections, and what we, the nation, still have not dealt with about the last election?
Gore Vidal: Well, the sinister thing – or certainly a sinister thing has been the privatizing of the elections, outsourcing, to use the latest catch phrase, is that for some time now people have been dissatisfied with the dangling chads and so on. There's a special act of Congress calling for a lot of money to be spent in order to bring up to date the voting machinery. It's touch screen stuff. It's supposed to be very popular with the voters. Well, it's the most easily corrupted of all, because you touch the screen, and you vote for Kerry, and then your vote suddenly is transformed almost immediately, and there's no track of it ever registering anywhere but in the hearts of heaven.
I go into great detail in the course of Imperial America into how three companies have absolutely got hold of the voting machinery, and Diebold, is the number one, and in the state of California where I am living, at least the California legislature backed them up and said in Orange County, which is one of the largest counties in L.A. during the recall election, recently something like 7,000 votes – nobody can track them. There is no record that you voted. They call it a paper trail.
The head of Diebold, which is the number one manufacturer of these machines, is on record as saying he's a working Republican, and he's already written a fundraising letter to the voters of Ohio, which is a swing state, saying, well, I'll do everything I can to make sure that Ohio votes for President Bush. Well, noble partisanship and we're a free country. You can work for anybody who you want to, but don't make the machines, and don't make them unaccountable.
Absolutely it's difficult to find what goes on in these machines. So, in California, the legislature has already asked them to re-examine, and perhaps get rid of them, but you see, I mean, November is almost here. They're all over Georgia. They're all over Maryland. You could well lose the election if you had friends in high places with the three companies that produced these machines. You can change the election. Everybody could vote for Kerry, and suddenly, there is Bush once again, an unelected President, but serving his time and quacking away. You know, as though he were the real thing. Wartime President. I'm a wartime President.
Why, if we had any media in the country that was honest, and we don't, somebody would have pointed out this is not wartime. You cannot have a war without a declaration. Article two of the Constitution of the United States declaring war, and that should be the House of Representatives. That is the law of the land. He said, "I'm a wartime President." well, good for him, but he isn't. There's no war except what he has declared. That's on Afghanistan and what he has declared on Iraq. There is no war, and why they don't stop him right there. I'd switch him right off the air. I would have the voice going, President Bush is under a misapprehension that we are at war. We are not at war. He is at war.
I spent three years in World War II. I never heard President Roosevelt say – "I'm going to send troops to China. And I will then send them to Southeast Asia." President Roosevelt never said "I." We. We are the United States. We will do this. All together with our allies. We will do this. So, it's "I." I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that. How a fool like this can be tolerated in a country whose median I.Q. cannot be much lower than that of Inner Slovenia, that they allow him to say ridiculous things and get away with it. I have never felt the country is so naked as it is now. There is no official voice. There is no representative government. Congress doesn't represent anybody. And the Supreme Court, I must say, why some of them are not in jail, I don't know. But be that as it may, to strike a happy note -
Amy Goodman: What can people do now? You have described grave problems. Elections being stolen. A war not declared, but engaged in.
Gore Vidal: I should think if there were a great and eloquent voice opposite to that of Bush – in other words, if Kerry could only take off and start to say the things that I have been saying somewhat light heartedly, if he could say them a bit more heavy heartedly, then would you have an opposition and then would you have a big turnout. You might have a real vote going on. It wasn't until I watched, to my amazement, my cousin Albert Gore give that wonderful speech up at N.Y.U. was it? He sounded – you know, the Gore blood. I'm making no pun, but the Gore blood was at last rippling.
Suddenly, there he is up there at N.Y.U. And he sounds like a President we didn't get. I mean, he was elected President, and I think this bothers George W. Bush every day, if somebody told you about it. I have a funny feeling that he doesn't know that he lost the election. Because he sounds so confident. I think he thought he was elected by a landslide, you know. Anything he wants to do, he can do. Because I'm a wartime President.
Amy Goodman: The 9/11 commission report?
Gore Vidal: Well, the 9/11, I haven't heard any final – there's no final report yet.
Amy Goodman: No, no. There isn't. But in terms of the kind of investigation that we have seen.
Gore Vidal: I'm astonished that they allowed anything, and then I was not in the least surprised that urgent questions were not really asked or answered. I mean, it's better than nothing. I mean, you know, we only get a tiny bone of democracy. I can say that on this program, which is dedicated to democracy. Incidentally, for your listeners, viewers, the word "democracy" is not only never mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, but democracy was something that the founding fathers hated. This is not generally known because it shouldn't be known, but it is. I wrote a little book about it called, "Inventing A Nation," that Yale published last year. Our founders feared two things. One was the rule of the people, which they thought would just be a mess. And they feared tyranny, which we had gone through King George III, and so they wanted a republic, a safe place for men – white men of property to do business in. This is not ideal, but it's better than what we have.
So, here we are bringing democracy to the poor Afghans, but only real democracy, of course, is in the prisons, which we have specialized in everywhere. One interesting thing that came out of all of that mess was now the world knows how we treat Americans in American prisons. All of that behavior, the humiliation and violence and so on, that is typical of not so much – of federal prisons somewhat, but state prisons, municipal prisons, detention centers. This is the nation of torture, and those who disagree with me, you can write an angry letter at this very moment, if you can write at all. Sit down and write an angry letter to the Commander In Chief. Have him examine the prisons.
Amy Goodman: Well, on that note, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Gore Vidal.
Gore Vidal: I just barely started. [laughs]
[b]Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program [i]Democracy Now [/i][/b] http://www.democracynow.org .
Bush is Using Terror Threats to Scare Americans & Influence Elections ...
[b]It was astonishing to hear President Bush in an interview with Tom Brokaw last weekend http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... cynically exploit the fear of terrorism and the threat of terrorist attacks in order to say to the American people that if you don't vote for him, you are voting for the terrorists ... [/b]This is dangerously stupid, un-American and neo-fascist rhetoric and "We the People" should [i]reject[/i] such fear-mongering ...
Former White House counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke on Sunday accused members of the US administration of using terror warnings to manipulate voters ahead of the presidential election in November.
Clarke, who resigned last year, said the conflicting assessments of the risk of terror attacks presented by US Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge and US Attorney General John Ashcroft last week showed how some officials sought to inflate the threat for political gain.
"That was ass-covering, or perhaps, dare I say it, politics in an election year," said Clarke, who was in Berlin on a book tour to promote his unflattering account of US President George W Bush's anti-terrorism policies, entitled [i]The Price of Loyalty[/i].
He had been asked at a panel discussion whether frequent terror warnings by the US administration were "just bureaucratic ass-covering".
Clarke said Ashcroft had offered a far more alarmist view compared with Ridge's remarks "saying 'We're going into the summer and we should have heightened security but we have no new intelligence about it.'"
At the end of May, Ashcroft told reporters: "Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al-Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months.
"This disturbing news shows a particular intention to hit the United States hard."
The Washington Post later reported that Ridge allies within the Bush administration and members of Congress criticized Ashcroft for failing to co-ordinate that threat information with the White House and Homeland Security.
Clarke has been an outspoken critic of Bush's anti-terrorism policies ahead of and after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
He has accused Bush of failing to pay enough attention to the al-Qaeda threat after he took office in January 2001 and undermining the struggle against terrorism with a "counterproductive" war in Iraq.
Media Lost on Iraq: Things Aren't Better in Iraq, But the Media is Silent ...
[b]"We the People" are being sold a[i] load of neo-orwellian rubbish [/i]again by the neo-con neo-fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] while the corporate-owned toadies in the corporate-owned media & press remain ominously silent ...[/b]
Once again, as during the run up to the war in Iraq—when the media served as cheerleader for the war and loyally reported extensively on Iraq’s vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction—the U.S. media is again lost on Iraq. Like a herd of stampeding cattle storming this way and that, they’ve changed course again. A few weeks ago, a casual perusal of the reports in the American press revealed an Iraq in chaos, with a widespread resistance to the occupation, a fractious Iraqi elite, a steady drumbeat of U.S. casualties and predictions by respected analysts like Gen. Anthony Zinni and Bill Odom that America’s mission in Iraq had failed.
Now it's hearts and flowers. What happened?
Almost totally missing from news reports—or buried—is the continuing violence in Iraq. (Today, car bombs and attacks killed dozens more Iraqis and two more U.S. soldiers.) The U.S. casualties are all the more remarkable because the occupation forces have sharply cut back deployments and operations, after having handed Fallujah to the resistance and given Muqtada Sadr’s forces a pass in the Shiite areas of Baghdad and southern Shiite cities.
More important, the press is touting the new Iraqi government, whose ersatz president is about to sit down tomorrow with President Bush at the G-8 meeting. The imposition on Iraq of a quisling government, led by former CIA agents and portly pro-American sheikhs doesn’t mean stability. The greedy Kurds, whose militia are being allowed to stand, are already threatening to pull out of the government http://www.voanews.com/articl... :
[i]The main Kurdish political parties are threatening to pull out of Iraq's interim government unless a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq endorses Kurdish autonomy[/i].
[i]Masoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan made the threat in a publicly released letter to President Bush[/i].
[i]The two Kurdish leaders said Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq should be included in the new U.N. resolution or otherwise recognized as law-binding on the transitional government, both before and after elections[/i].
[i]Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani also expressed what they called their bitter disappointment that no Kurd was chosen to be either interim prime minister or president of Iraq[/i].
Meanwhile, Shiite leaders are blasting the Kurds for resisting Iraq’s central authority. (A key Shiite leader was assassinated today.) In Fallujah, radical (Sunni) Islamists are reportedly taking control of the city, turning it into an operations center for the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies. And in today’s Washington Post a photograph, not analyzed, shows what appears to be tens of thousands of Sadr supporters filling the streets of the Shiite area of Baghdad, “Sadr City.” It goes on. But the tone of U.S. press coverage, thanks to a relentless Bush administration PR effort in support of the patsies now pretending to take over Iraq, has changed dramatically. The new regime in Iraq is portrayed seriously, rather than clownishly, the supposed dismantling of Iraq’s militia groups is given headlines (hint: don’t believe it’s happening), and the UN’s rubber stamp over the U.S. [i]fait accompli [/i]in Iraq is taken as sign that Bush is accommodating the world body, rather than tromping over it. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
Quiz: Just How Bizarre Have Things Become? We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto ...
[b]Often times, [i]what seems to be [/i]small changes occur in incremental steps and so imperceptibly that we [i]don't notice [/i]that a massive transformation in our culture and lives has happened[i] until it is too late [/i]... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime has thrust so many horrendous crimes, warmongerings and corruptions upon our lives in the aftermath of the shock of 9/11, that "We the People" might soon[i] wake-up [/i]and[i] find[/i] that our Republic for Which It Stands is [i]no longer recognizable [/i]... [i]Beware for these neo-con, neo-fascist 'Shock-and-Awe' transformations are not for the better [/i]...
1.) In April, 2003, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration was planning to establish as many as four permanent military bases in Iraq -- a charge that Donald Rumsfeld flatly denied. [USEmbassy.State.Gov] In May, 2004, author Chalmers Johnson stated that the U.S. is planning to:
a) Keep its promise and not build any permanent military bases in Iraq. b) Reward Donald Rumsfeld for being so honest and forthright. c) Build one permanent military base in Baghdad. d) Build and maintain fourteen military bases in Iraq.
2.) According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, since U.S. forces have occupied Iraq, many of Baghdad's professors, scientists and intellectuals have:
a) Felt a great deal of relief that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. b) Enjoyed freedom of speech for the first time. c) Been executed in a series of carefully planned assassinations. d) Learned how to do the Macarena.
3.) The Village Voice recently reported that President Bush "reversed long-standing U.S. policy, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank," just weeks after:
a) Exhaustively studying the history of U.S. policy in the Middle East. b) Checking with "end times" experts. c) Falling off his bike. d) Choking on a pretzel.
4.) According to United Press International, military whistle-blower Army Reserve Lt. Jullian Goodrum was kept in a locked psychiatric ward, even though medical staff believed he should be released. Upon his release:
a) The Army apologized. b) The Army made him immediately return to duty. c) The Army charged him nearly $6,000. d) The Army gave him a month’s supply of Zoloft.
5.) Chronicling a list of inconsistencies in the Nick Berg story, The Sydney Morning Herald pointed out that the May 11 "live beheading" clip was especially odd, given that:
a) May 11 is a Muslim holy day. b) Nick Berg's headless body was discovered on May 8. c) Terrorists already struck on the 11th. d) It was uploaded from a Web site in Hollywood.
6.) A report in the May 18 New Catholic Times cited journalist Wayne Madsen’s observation that "people close to the pope" claim that he has commented on President Bush’s "repeated commitment to Christian beliefs" and "constant references to 'evil doers,' raising the possibility that G.W. Bush may represent":
a) America’s long overdue return to Christian values. b) The first American leader with a Messianic complex. c) The antichrist. d) The defender of all that is good in a world besieged by evil.
7.) According to Reuters, "While George W. Bush and Pope John Paul talked peace in the Vatican on Friday, a military aide held a bulky black attach case containing the codes the U.S. president would need in order to":
a) "Launch a nuclear war." b) "Contact Dick Cheney." c) "Unlock the box that held the Presidential Medal of Freedom." d) "Access White House e-mail."
8.) During a recent press conference, President Bush said, "I think I met with [Ahmed Chalabi] at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line" but did not have "any extensive conversations with him," yet during a televised interview in February, Bush told Tim Russert that Chalabi:
a) Sat "right here in the Oval Office" to discuss Iraq’s constitution. b) "Was given millions of U.S. tax dollars by accident." c) "Sat behind Laura Bush during the State of the Union Address by accident." d) "Had his photo taken in a rope line, while wearing a black beret."
9.) According to a report in Los Angeles Times, since April, 2004, as many as 100 medical specialists, surgeons, and general physicians have been kidnapped in Iraq and, in addition to being beaten tortured and ransomed, have been ordered to:
a) Eat pork. b) Perform abortions. c) Leave the country. d) Watch Jerry Lewis movies.
10.) While being interviewed on "Democracy Now," CIA veteran Ray McGovern said that he is "more frightened now than at any time over the last three and a half years that this administration will:"
a) "Invade Syria." b) "Invade Iran." c) "Fail to find weapons of mass destruction." d) "Resort to extra-legal methods to do something to ensure that there are four more years for George Bush."
11.) In April 2003, Paul Krugman observed that during the lead up to war, "Some strange things certainly happened" and pointed to a headline on MSNBC's Web site ("White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq") which vanished within a matter of hours. [CommonDreams.org] When the Nick Berg story broke, Linda S. Heard pointed out that MSNBC reported that, ‘During his (Berg's) time in Iraq, he struggled with the Arabic language and worked at night on a tower at Abu Ghraib. . . ’ but that MSNBC later:
a) "Removed all references to Nick Berg and Iraq without explaining why." b) "Removed this reference to Abu Ghraib from its article without explaining why." c) "Hinted that Nick Berg was a CIA agent without explaining why." d) "Said that Nick Berg spoke Arabic fluently."
12.) A recent Associated Press report declared that, "While Americans are shelling out record prices for fuel, Iraqis pay only about 5 cents a gallon for gasoline," thanks to:
a) "Iraqis finally being in charge of their own oil." b) "Recovered proceeds from the food for oil program." c) "Millions of dollars of subsidies bankrolled by American tax payers." d) "‘5 cent Fridays’ at Iraq’s gas stations."
13.) According to Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, Dr. Iyad Allawi's Iraqi National Accord is expected to rule Iraq:
a) With an iron fist. b) In total sovereignty. c) As an American puppet. d) Until the Baathists revolt.
14.) A Salon.com article asserts that author Gerald Posner recently made allegations which, if true, make it "hard to dismiss the possibility" that:
a) George Bush put a rolled-up sock in his "Mission Accomplished" flight suit. b) The heads of the Pakistani and Saudi governments knew of (and signed off on) Osama bin Laden’s plot before 9/11. c) Condoleezza Rice has a crush on G.W. Bush. d) George H.W. Bush was briefed about J.F.K’s assassination.
15.) According to a May 28 report, CNN is:
a) Still being called the ‘Clinton News Network’ by misinformed bloggers. b) No longer the most trusted name in news. c) Suing the state of Florida to view a list of voters who might be illegally disenfranchised in 2004. d) Suing James Earl Jones.
16.) According to an article in USA Today, a study of fourteen countries (Belgium, China, Colombia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Spain, Ukraine and the United States) concludes that the USA has the highest rate of:
a) Literacy. b) Divorce. c) Mental illness. d) Carjackings.
17.) During an interview with Larry King, comedian Bill Maher characterized the 2000 election by saying that, "I think everybody last time who thought, ‘Oh, Gore and Bush, you know, Coke and Pepsi,’ realized that a more fitting analogy was:
a) Mutt and Jeff. b) Tweedledum and Tweedledee. c) Coke and Osama’s Kool-Aid. d) Coke and Jesus Juice.
18.) A German documentary contends that "U.S. and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the Sept. 11 attacks to discuss terms for":
a) "A return to diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan, contingent upon equality for Afghanistan’s women." b) "Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden." c) "The most effective way to blur the line between church and state." d) "Making sure that George Bush looked like a strong and decisive leader."
19.) According to a recent BBC report, "Satellite photos of southern Spain reveal features on the ground appearing to match descriptions made by Greek scholar Plato of the fabled utopia [Atlantis]." The BBC report cited Dr. Rainer Kuehne, of the University of Wuppertal in Germany, who drew parallels between "the war between Atlantis and the eastern Mediterranean described in Plato's writings" and "attacks on Egypt, Cyprus and the Levant during the 12th Century BC by mysterious raiders known as:"
a) The Karlrovians. b) The Sea People. c) The Skull and Bonesmen. d) The Reptiles.
20.) According to an article in the Idaho Observer, North America has been subjected to "dangerous aerosol and electromagnetic operations conducted by the U.S. government under the guise of national security." This project is known as:
a) Operation Tin Foil Hat b) Operation Crazy Talk c) Operation Cloverleaf d) There is no such operation
* * *
[b]Answers:[/b]
1.) d -- "If we plan to return Iraq to the Iraqis, why is the U.S. currently building fourteen permanent bases there?" [NationInstitute.org]
2.) c -- "By some counts, as many as 40 of Iraq's leading scientists and university professors have been killed since last April. . . The Iraqi police say 1,000 of the country's intellectuals may have been executed in the past year, but such a high figure seems doubtful, especially as rumors abound." [Christian Science Monitor]
3.) b -- "Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move." [Village Voice]
4.) c -- "The Army kept a soldier whistle-blower in a locked psychiatric ward at its top medical center for nearly two weeks despite concern from some medical staff that he be released, according to medical records. The Army then charged him nearly $6,000 for the stay at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, billing records show." [UPI]
5.) b -- "While this video shows a human body having its head chopped off, it does not necessarily portray an act of murder. Berg's headless body was found dumped on a Baghdad roadside on Saturday, May 8. . . the statement in the video is signed with al-Zarqawi's name, dated May 11." [The Sydney Morning Herald]
6.) c -- "Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations [i.e. the antichrist]." [New Catholic Times]
7.) a -- "While George W. Bush and Pope John Paul talked peace in the Vatican on Friday, a military aide held a bulky black attach case containing the codes the U.S. president would need in order to launch a nuclear war." [Reuters]
8.) a -- President Bush: ". . . right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion." [MSNBC]
9.) c -- "Ransom, it seems, is not the only motivation for the crimes. In many cases, abductors have ordered the physicians to leave Iraq. . . Iraqi officials fear that the abductions and threats are an organized attempt to cripple the country's healthcare network, likening the tactics to terrorist attacks on the country's oil pipelines or electricity plants." [Los Angeles Times]
10.) d -- "So four more years? Why do I say all this? I say all this because I am more frightened now than at any time over the last three and a half years, that this administration will resort to extra-legal methods to do something to ensure that there are four more years for George Bush." [Democracy Now]
11.) b -- "An MSNBC report read: ‘During his (Berg's) time in Iraq, he struggled with the Arabic language and worked at night on a tower at Abu Ghraib, a site of repeated attacks on US convoys and the location of the notorious prison where US soldiers abused Iraqi inmates.’ For some reason, MSNBC later removed this reference to Abu Ghraib from its article without explaining why." [Gulf News]
12.) c -- "While Americans are shelling out record prices for fuel, Iraqis pay only about 5 cents a gallon for gasoline - a benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars subsidies bankrolled by American taxpayers." [Billings Gazette]
13.) c -- "The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing exiled group, Dr. Iyad Allawi's Iraqi National Accord. But never fear, both groups were CIA-supported and both would be expected to govern as an American puppet." [AntiWar.com]
14.) b -- "In his book Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, Gerald Posner makes an explosive allegation: Top figures in the Saudi and Pakistani governments had been directly assisting Osama bin Laden for years and knew al-Qaida was going to strike America on Sept. 11. . . The fact that some of the figures were so highly placed makes it hard to dismiss the possibility, if the allegations are true, that the heads of the Saudi and Pakistani governments signed off on the policy." [Salon.com]
15.) c -- "As Florida county election boards review a list of thousands of potentially ineligible voters -- including some who may be felons -- CNN is suing the state, claiming the public and media should also be able to review the list. . .Florida's 2000 felon purge program resulted in over 50,000 legal voters being disenfranchised." [CNN]
16.) c -- "Mental illnesses including anxiety disorders and depression are common and under-treated in many developed and developing countries, with the highest rate found in the United States, according to a study of 14 countries." [USAToday]
17.) d -- "Maher: ‘We realized [the difference between Gore and Bush] wasn't Coke and Pepsi, it was Coke and Jesus juice.’" [CNN]
18.) b -- "US. and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the Sept. 11 attacks to discuss terms for Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary." [Reuters]
19.) b -- "Dr. Kuehne noticed that the war between Atlantis and the eastern Mediterranean described in Plato's writings closely resembled attacks on Egypt, Cyprus and the Levant during the 12th Century BC by mysterious raiders known as the Sea People." [BBC]
20.) c -- "At least part of the aerosol project has been dubbed Operation Cloverleaf, probably due to its multi-faceted operations, which include: weather modification, military communications, space weapons development, ozone and global warming research plus biological weaponry and detection testing." [Idaho Observer]
[b]Score: [/b]
No matter how many questions you answered correctly, the end result is still the same. [i]We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto[/i].
[b]Who would have thought it could happen??? ... [/b]A [i]conscientious conservative [/i]like Patrick J. Buchanan sitting-down, talking-over and agreeing with a [i]conscientious liberal [/i]like Ralph Nader upon the corruption, recklessness and disastrous impact of the insane neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] upon our Republic ...
"We the People" must [i]rid ourselves [/i]of the dangerously stupid, incompetent and corrupt Bush & Cheney cabal and their neo-con war criminals, traitors, liars, felons and embezzlers (and collaborators in espionage against the United States of America) ...[i] Let us do so before it is too late [/i]...
[b]The long-time progressive makes a pitch for the disenfranchised Right[/b].
[i]Ralph Nader recently accepted Pat Buchanan’s invitation to sit down with us and explain why his third-party presidential bid ought to appeal to conservatives disaffected with George W. Bush. We think readers will be interested in the reflections of a man who has been a major figure in American public life for 40 years—and who now finds himself that rarest of birds, a conviction politician[/i].
Pat Buchanan: Let me start off with foreign policy—Iraq and the Middle East. You have seen the polls indicating widespread contempt for the United States abroad. Why do they hate us?
Ralph Nader: First of all, we have been supporting despots, dictators, and oligarchs in all those states for a variety of purposes. We supported Saddam Hussein. He was our anti-Communist dictator until 1990. It’s also cultural; they see corporate culture as abandoning the restraints on personal behavior dictated by their religion and culture. Our corporate pornography and anything-goes values are profoundly offensive to them.
The other thing is that we are supporting the Israeli military regime with billions of dollars and ignoring both the Israeli peace movement, which is very substantial, and the Palestinian peace movement. They see a nuclear-armed Israel that could wipe out the Middle East in a weekend if it wanted to.
They think that we are on their backs, in their house, undermining their desire to overthrow their own tyrants.
PB: Then you would say it is not only Bush who is at fault, but Clinton and Bush and Reagan, all the way back?
RN: The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. Until ’91, any dictator who was anti-Communist was our ally.
PB: You used the term “congressional puppets.” Did John Kerry show himself to be a congressional puppet when he voted to give the president a blank check to go to war?
RN: They’re almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer comes to Washington, the puppets prance.
PB: Why do both sets of puppets, support the Sharon/Likud policies in the Middle East rather than the peace movement candidates and leaders in Israel?
RN: That is a good question because the peace movement is broad indeed. They just put 120,000 people in a square in Tel Aviv. They are composed of former government ministers, existing and former members of the Knesset, former generals, former combat veterans, former heads of internal security, people from all backgrounds. It is not any fringe movement.
The answer to your question is that instead of focusing on how to bring a peaceful settlement, both parties concede their independent judgment to the pro-Israeli lobbies in this country because they perceive them as determining the margin in some state elections and as sources of funding. They don’t appear to agree with Tom Friedman, who wrote that memorable phrase, “Ariel Sharon has Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office.”
Virtually no member of Congress can say that, and so we come to this paradoxical conclusion that there is far more freedom in Israel to discuss this than there is in the United States, which is providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.
PB: Let me move on to Iraq. You were opposed to the war, and it now appears that it has become sort of a bloody stalemate. You said you would bring troops out of Iraq within six months. What if the country collapses and becomes a haven for terrorists? Would you send American troops back in to clean it up?
RN: Under my proposal there would be an international peacekeeping force, and the withdrawal would be a smart withdrawal during which there are internationally supervised elections. We would have both military and corporate withdrawal because the Iraqi people see the corporations are beginning to take over their economy, including their oil resources. And we would continue humanitarian assistance until the Iraqi people get on their feet. We would bring to the forefront during the election autonomies for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ites. So this would not be like a withdrawal in Vietnam where we just barely got out with the helicopters.
TAC: You often mention corporations. What is the theory behind this or what are the alternatives to corporate economic power? I presume you are not talking about state ownership or socialism, or perhaps you are …
RN: Well, that is what representative government is for, to counteract the excesses of the monied interests, as Thomas Jefferson said. Because big business realizes that the main countervailing force against their excesses and abuses is government, their goal has been to take over the government, and they do this with money and politics. They do it by putting their top officials at the Pentagon, Treasury, and Federal Reserve, and they do it by providing job opportunities to retiring members of Congress. They have law firms that draft legislation and think-tanks that provide ready-made speeches. They also do it by threatening to leave the country. The quickest way to bring a member of Congress to his or her knees is by shifting industries abroad.
Concentrated corporate power violates many principles of capitalism. For example, under capitalism, owners control their property. Under multinational corporations, the shareholders don’t control their corporation. Under capitalism, if you can’t make the market respond, you sink. Under big business, you don’t go bankrupt; you go to Washington for a bailout. Under capitalism, there is supposed to be freedom of contract. When was the last time you negotiated a contract with banks or auto dealers? They are all fine-print contracts. The law of contracts has been wiped out for 99 percent of contracts that ordinary consumers sign on to. Capitalism is supposed to be based on law and order. Corporations get away with corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. And finally, capitalism is premised on a level playing field; the most meritorious is supposed to win. Tell that to a small inventor or a small business up against McDonald’s or a software programmer up against Microsoft.
Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community other than to control them or abandon them. So what we have now is the merger of big business and big government to further subsidize costs or eliminate risks or guarantee profits by our government.
PB: Let’s move to immigration. We stop 1.5 million illegal aliens on our borders each year. One million still get through. There are currently 8-14 million illegal aliens in the United States. The president is mandated under the Constitution to defend the States against foreign invasion, and this certainly seems to constitute that.
RN: As long as our foreign policy supports dictators and oligarchs, you are going to have desperate people moving north over the border.
Part of the problem involves NAFTA. The flood of cheap corn into Mexico has dispossessed over a million Mexican farmers, and, with their families, they either go to the slums or, in their desperation, head north.
In addition, I don’t think the United States should be in the business of brain-draining skilled talent, especially in the Third World, because we are importing in the best engineers, scientists, software people, doctors, entrepreneurs who should be in their countries, building their own countries. We are driving the talent to these shores—
PB: How do we defend these shores?
RN: I don’t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here.
Let’s get down to the manual labor. This is the reason the Wall Street Journal is for an open-borders policy: they want a cheap-wage policy. There are two ways to deal with that. One is to raise the minimum wage to the purchasing-power level of 1968—$8 an hour—and then, in another year, raise it to $10 an hour because the economy since 1968 has doubled in production per capita.
PB: Say we went to $10 an hour minimum wage. It is 50 cents an hour in Mexico. Why wouldn’t that cause not 1.5 million, but 3 million to head straight north where they could be making 20 times what they can make minimum wage in Mexico?
RN: Because 14 million Americans are unemployed or part-time employed who want full employment or have given up looking for jobs. The more the minimum wage goes up, the more they will do so-called work that Americans won’t do. They are not going to do it at $5.15 an hour and have another used car, another insurance policy, another repair bill to get to work, but they are much more likely to do it at $10 an hour.
The second is to enforce the law against employers. It is hard to blame desperately poor people who want to feed their families and are willing to work their heads off. You have to start with Washington and Wall Street.
PB: Should illegal aliens be entitled to social-welfare benefits, even though they are not citizens and broke into the country?
RN: I think they should be given all the fair-labor standards and all the rights and benefits of American workers, and if this country doesn’t like that, maybe they will do something about the immigration laws.
PB: Should they be entitled to get driver’s licenses?
RN: Yes, in order to reduce hazards on the highway. If you have people who are driving illegally, there are going to be more crashes, and more people are going to be killed.
PB: The Democrats have picked up on Bush’s amnesty idea and have proposed an amnesty for illegals who have been in the country for five years and who have shown that they have jobs and can support themselves. Would you support the Democratic proposal?
RN: This is very difficult because you are giving a green light to cross the border illegally. I don’t like the idea of legalization because then the question is how do you prevent the next wave and the next? I like the idea of giving workers and children—they are working, they are having their taxes withheld, they are performing a valuable service, even though they are illegally here—of giving them the same benefits of any other workers. If that produces enough outrage to raise the immigration issue to a high level of visibility for public debate, that would be a good thing.
PB: The U.S. population now—primarily due to immigrants and their children coming in—is estimated to grow to over 400 million by mid-century. Would that have an adverse impact on the environment?
RN: We don’t have the absorptive capacity for that many people. Over 32 million came in, in the ’90s, which is the highest in American history.
PB: What would you do about it?
RN: We have to control our immigration. We have to limit the number of people who come into this country illegally.
PB: What level of legal immigration do you think we should have per year?
RN: First of all, we have to say what is the impact on African-Americans and Hispanic Americans in this country in terms of wages of our present stance on immigration? It is a wage-depressing policy, which is why the Chambers of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, Tyson Foods, and the Wall Street Journal like it. The AFL-CIO has no objection to it because they think they can organize the illegal workers—
PB: They switched.
RN: –because they have been so inept at organizing other workers. There is hardly a more complex issue, except on the outside of the issue, the foreign policy, the NAFTA—
PB: I was going to ask you about NAFTA and the WTO—
RN: Sovereignty shredding, you know. The decisions are now in Geneva, bypassing our courts, our regulatory agencies, our legislatures.
PB: I find it amazing that Congress sits there and they get an order from the WTO, and they capitulate. What happened to bristling conservative defiance, “don’t tread on me” patriotism? I think the problem is that a lot of these guys in Congress—I think some of them are basically good guys. But I went up there and was asking about some issue, and they would say things like, “I don’t even know what it is about. My boss tells me …”
RN: Did you hear about my challenge to Senator Hank Brown?
We put a challenge out before WTO was voted in 1995 because we went all over Capitol Hill and had never found any Member of Congress or a staffer who had ever read the proposal. So I said, “I’ll give $10,000 to the favorite charity of any Member of Congress who will sign an affidavit that he or she has read the WTO agreement and will answer 10 questions in public.”
The deadline passed. Nobody. So I extended it a week. A quarter to 5:00 on Friday, the phone rings in our office. It is Hank Brown, and he said, “I don’t want the $10,000 to charity, but I will take you up on it. How much time do I have?” I said, “Take a month.” So he reserves the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the interrogation.
It gets better. The press is all there, and in the witness chair is Hank Brown. We have 12 questions, and he answers every one. They weren’t all simple either. It was really impressive. And I said, “Thank you very much. That was really commendable,” and we start to get up and he says, “Wait. I have something to say.” He says, “You know, I am a free trader, and I voted for NAFTA, but after reading the WTO agreement, I was so appalled by the anti-democratic provisions that I am going to vote against it and urge everyone else to.”
The next day, almost no press. It shows you the bias against anybody who challenges those multinational systems of autocratic governance that we call “trade agreements.” And he didn’t convince one extra senator.
Once when I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, I had to say some nice things at the beginning, “Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to testify before a committee of Congress that has read this proposed trade agreement,” and the chair looks up and says, “What makes you think we did?”
Let’s put it this way: it is impossible to exaggerate the dereliction of diligence in the Congress.
PB: Can we move on to taxes? Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent in terms of personal income taxes. Clinton raised it to 39.6. Bush has cut it back to 35 percent. What do you think is the maximum income-tax rate that should be imposed on wage earners?
RN: Zero under $100,000. Now you got to ask me how I am going to make —
PB: What is the rate above $100,000? What is the top rate?
RN: Then you have a graduated rate. Thirty-five percent, in that range, for the top rate. It comes down to the loopholes. When it was 70 percent, did you ever meet anybody who paid 70 percent?
Now, where would I make it up? This is where the creativity comes in. I would move the incidence of taxation, first, from work to wealth. So I would keep the estate tax, number one.
PB: You restore the estate tax to 55 percent?
RN: That is a little extreme.
PB: That is where Bush has it, 55, and he is cutting it down gradually to zero. What do you think it should be?
RN: Again, 35 percent.
PB: Would this be on all estates?
RN: No. Estates above $10 million.
PB: Ralph, you are not going to raise much money with this tax.
RN: There will still be a tax on smaller estates. I think all estates over, say, $500,000 should pay some tax. The estate tax as a whole raises about $32 billion a year, but the thing is the loopholes. Buffett, as an example, won’t pay because all of it is going to his foundation.
I think we should have a very modest wealth tax. I agree with the founder of the Price Club, who thinks it should be 1 percent.
PB: One percent of your wealth each year would be turned over to the federal government?
RN: Right. Then the third shift is why don’t we tax things we like the least? We should tax polluters. We should tax gambling. We should tax the addictive industries that are costing us so much and luring the young into alcoholism and tobacco and drugs. And we should tax, above all, stock and currency speculation.
PB: A short-term capital gains tax?
RN: Like a sales tax. If you go to a store and buy furniture, you pay 6, 7, or whatever percent. You buy 1,000 shares of General Motors, you don’t pay anything. So what we are doing is taxing food and clothing but not the purchase of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and currency speculation. A quarter-of-a-cent tax will produce hundreds of billions of dollars a year because of the volatility. You remember the days when 3 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange was a big day? Now it is 1.5 billion shares.
The point is this: work should be taxed the least. Then you move to wealth, and then you move to things we do not like. And you will have more than enough to replace the taxes of under $100,000 income and to provide for universal health insurance and decent public transit and to repair the public-works infrastructure.
PB: So you have got a $500 billion deficit now, and the early baby-boomer retirements start in 2008, and by 2012, the whole Clinton-and-Bush generation gets Medicare and Medicaid. These are the biggest payers into these so-called trust funds. They are also going to be the biggest drawers out, and 77 million of them retire in 2030. So how do you balance that budget?
RN: You repeal Bush’s two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Then you get out of Iraq, and you cut the waste and the shenanigans out of the military contracting. That would more than take care of the deficit.
PB: You bring the troops home from Europe and Korea and the Balkans?
RN: We are presently defending prosperous nations like Japan, Germany, and England, who are perfectly capable of defending themselves against nonexistent enemies.
PB: Let me move to the social issues. Would you have voted against or in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortion?
RN: I believe in choice. I don’t think government should tell women to have children or not to have children. I am also against feticide. If doctors think it is a fetus, that should be banned. It is a medical decision.
PB: Between the woman and her doctor—
RN: And whoever else, family, clergy.
PB: Should homosexuals have the same right in law to form marriages and receive marriage licenses from the state as men and women?
RN: Yes, and if you had that, you wouldn’t have to use the word “marriage.” The reason “gay marriage” is used is because state laws connect certain benefits with that word. As a lesbian leader was quoted saying in the New York Times a few weeks ago, the issue is not the word “marriage.” The word is “equality.”
PB: Let’s go to politics. If you had not been in the race in 2000, who would have won?
RN: That requires me to be a retrospective clairvoyant. If I wasn’t in a race, would the Democrats have gone all-out to get out the vote in certain states because they were worried about the percentages I was drawing? And if I was not in the race, would Gore have made populist statements day after day—“I am for the people, not the powerful”—which polls showed brought him more votes than if he went to Lieberman’s semantic route?
Having said that, exit polls showed 25 percent of my votes would have gone to Bush, 38 percent would have gone to Gore, and the rest would have stayed home and not voted. A month and a half ago, a poll came from New Hampshire that showed that 8 percent were for me: 9 percent Republicans, 11 percent independents, 4 percent Democrats.
PB: If you hurt Bush more than Gore, why are the Democrats trying to keep you off the ballot?
RN: Because they will forever think that my progressive policies will take more Democrat votes and independent votes than they will take from the other side.
PB: If you got 15 percent of the vote this time, who do you think would be the next president of the United States?
RN: I don’t know how it would break.
PB: Let me ask you about your ballot position because it was around this time that we were wrapping up getting on the ballot in all 50 states. How many ballots are you on right now?
RN: None yet, but we’ll be on more than 43 states, which is the number we had last time. We want to get on them all. The problem is, we haven’t concentrated on the easy states.
TAC: Is there any circumstance in which you can come to an arrangement with Kerry campaign not to run?
RN: The time to drop out is before you drop in. You cannot build a national campaign and get tens of thousands of volunteers working their hearts out and then in October feed the cynicism of American politics by cutting some sort of deal. The answer is no.
PB: What are the reasons a conservative should vote for Ralph Nader?
RN: Well, largely—
PB: Rather than Kerry.
[Laughter.]
RN: I’m not expecting conservatives to change their minds on certain issues that we disagree on, but if we look at the issues where we have common positions, they reach a level of gravity that would lead conservatives to stop being taken for granted by the corporate Republicans and send them a message by voting for my independent candidacy.
Here are the issues. One, conservatives are furious with the Bush regime because of the fantastic deficits as far as the eye can see. That was a betrayal of Bush’s positions, and it was a reversal of what Bush found when he came to Washington.
Conservatives are very upset about their tax dollars going to corporate welfare kings because that undermines market competition and is a wasted use of their taxes.
Conservatives are upset about the sovereignty-shredding WTO and NAFTA. I wish they had helped us more when we tried to stop them in Congress because, with a modest conservative push, we would have defeated NAFTA because it was narrowly passed. If there was no NAFTA, there wouldn’t have been a WTO.
Conservatives are also very upset with a self-styled conservative president who is encouraging the shipment of whole industries and jobs to a despotic Communist regime in China. That is what I mean by the distinction between corporate Republicans and conservative Republicans.
Next, conservatives, contrary to popular belief, believe in law and order against corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, and they are not satisfied that the Bush administration has done enough.
Conservatives are also upset about the Patriot Act, which they view as big government, privacy-invading, snooping, and excessive surveillance. They are not inaccurate in that respect.
And finally, two other things. They don’t like “Leave No Child Behind” because it is a stupidly conceived federal regulation of local school systems through misguided and very fraudulent multiple-choice testing impositions.
And conservatives are aghast that a born-again Christian president has done nothing about rampant corporate pornography and violence directed to children and separating children from their parents and undermining parental authority.
If you add all of those up, you should have a conservative rebellion against the giant corporation in the White House masquerading as a human being named George W. Bush. Just as progressives have been abandoned by the corporate Democrats and told,”You got nowhere to go other than to stay home or vote for the Democrats,” this is the fate of the authentic conservatives in the Republican Party.
I noticed this a long time ago, Pat. I once said to Bill Bennett, “Would you agree that corporatism is on a collision course with conservative values?” and he said yes.
The impact of giant corporations, commercialism, direct marketing to kids, sidestepping parents, selling them junk food, selling them violence, selling them sex and addictions, selling them the suspension of their socialization process—years ago conservatives spoke out on that, but it was never transformed into a political position. It was always an ethical, religious value position. It is time to take it into the political arena.
PB: Well, it’s a pleasure. Thank you very much for coming over, Ralph.
"[i]Right at this point crucial questions arise about the nature of industrial democracy and its future - extremely important questions. The survival of the species is at stake, literally[/i]." - Noam Chomksy
[b]Noam Chomksy is a brilliant scholar, writer and political observer ... [/b]In his article entitled "[i]Doctrines And Visions: Who Is To Run The World, And How[/i]?" on http://www.zmag.org/content/s... , Noam Chomsky assesses the impact of the corrupt Bush regime's insane violence in order to suppress the Iraqi people & dominate/control Iraqi resources, and whether or not it can succeed in the long-term citing that "violence can succeed, but at tremendous cost. It can also provoke greater violence in response, and often does. Inciting terror is not the most ominous current example." ...
"We the People" should seriously consider that the traitorous, inept and criminal Bush regime has left our nation open to the threat of terror, in order to illegally and immorally invade sovereign nations that have posed no threat to our country ... Chomsky cites that "Why, then, should there be any surprise that terror should be downgraded in favor of the invasion of Iraq? Or that Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney and associates were pressuring the intelligence community to come up with some shreds of evidence to justify invasion, Blair and Straw as well: Iraqi links to terror, WMD, anything would do. It is rather striking that as one after another pretext collapses, and the leadership announces a new one, commentary follows dutifully along, always conspicuously avoiding the obvious reason, which is virtually unmentionable. Among Western intellectuals, that is; not in Iraq. US polls in Baghdad found that a large majority assumed that the motive for the invasion was to take control of Iraq's resources and reorganize the Middle East in accord with US interests. It is not unusual for those at the wrong end of the club to have a clearer understanding of the world in which they live." ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
We have just passed the first anniversary of the President's declaration of victory in Iraq. I won't speak about what is happening on the ground. There is more than enough information about that, and we can draw our own conclusions. I will just mention one aspect of it: What has happened to Iraqis? About that, we know little, because it is not investigated. Some surprise has recently been voiced in the British press about this gap in our knowledge. That's a misunderstanding. It is quite general practice. Thus we do not know within millions how many people died in the course of the US wars in Indochina. Information and concern are so slight that in the only careful study I have found, the mean estimate of Vietnamese who died is 100,000, about 5% of the official figure and probably 2-3% of the actual figure. Virtually no one knows that victims of the US chemical warfare that began in 1962 are estimated at about 600,000, still dying, or that it was recently discovered that the use of devastating carcinogens was at twice the announced rate, and at levels incomparably beyond anything tolerated within the industrial societies -- all in South Vietnam; the North was spared this particular atrocity.
As a thought experiment, we might ask how we would react if Germans estimated deaths in the Holocaust at 2-300,000 and had little knowledge or interest about the modalities of the slaughter.
There is one exception to lack of information about casualties in Indochina. There have been very intensive efforts from the start to reveal, or very often simply to invent, atrocities that could be attributed to the Khmer Rouge. Post-KR literature on the topic is substantial, ranging from astonishingly low estimates of KR crimes in the curious 1980 CIA demographic study, when evidence had become available about the peaking of atrocities at the end, to far higher and more credible estimates by serious and extensive scholarship. One can hardly fail to observe that the single exception to the rule involves crimes that are doctrinally useful.
Turning to Iraq, information is as usual slight, but not entirely lacking. A study by the London-based health organization MEDACT last November, scarcely mentioned in the US, gave a rough estimate of between 22,000-55,000 Iraqi dead, and also reported rising maternal mortality rates, near doubling of acute malnutrition, and an increase in water-borne diseases and vaccine-preventable diseases. "The most important thing that comes out of [the study] is that the data are not available," Dr. Victor Sidel commented. He is a noted US health authority, past president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and an adviser to the study. Two months ago, a fact-finding mission by the Belgian NGO Medical Aid for the Third World found that even the devastating effects of the US-UK sanctions have not been overcome, including their veto of medicines, and that infant mortality is apparently increasing and general health declining because of deteriorating living conditions: lack of access to food, potable water, or medical aid and hospitals, and a sharp decline in purchasing power - largely the result of the remarkable failures of what should have been one of the easiest military occupations ever. "It has been one of the most extraordinary failures in history," the veteran British correspondent Patrick Cockburn observed, quite plausibly.
The best explanation I have heard was from a high-ranking official of one of the world's leading humanitarian and relief organizations, who has had extensive experience in some of the most awful places in the world. After several frustrating months in Baghdad, he said he had never seen such a combination of "arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence" -- referring not to the military, but to the civilians who run the Pentagon. In Iraq they have succeeded in achieving pretty much what they did in the international arena: quickly turning the US into the most feared and often hated country in the world. The latest in-depth polls in Iraq - before the recent revelations about torture -- found that among Iraqi Arabs, the US is regarded as an "occupying force" rather than a "liberating force" by 12 to 1, and increasing. If we count also Kurds, who have their own distinct aspirations and hopes, the figures are still overwhelming: 88% of all Iraqis according to one recent poll, also pre-Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz and associates have even succeeded in turning the young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, previously a marginal figure, into the second most popular leader in Iraq, right below Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, with 1/3 of the population "strongly supporting" him and another third "somewhat supporting" him. Other Western polls find support for the occupying forces in single digits, and the same for the Governing Council they appointed.
But I will put Iraq aside, and turn to the "new imperial grand strategy" that was to be set in motion with the conquest of Iraq, and the doctrines and visions that underlie it.
The phrase "new imperial grand strategy" is not mine. It has a much more interesting source: the leading establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. The invasion of Iraq was virtually announced in Sept 2002, along with the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy, which declared the intention to dominate the world for the indefinite future and to destroy any potential challenge to US domination. The UN was informed that it could be "relevant" if it authorized what Washington would do anyway, or else it could become a debating society, as Administration moderate Colin Powell instructed them. The invasion of Iraq was to be the first test of the new doctrine announced in the NSS, "the petri dish in which this experiment in pre-emptive policy grew," the New York Times reported as the experiment was declared a grand success a year ago.
The doctrine and its implementation in Iraq elicited unprecedented protest around the world, including the foreign policy elite at home. In Foreign Affairs, the "new imperial grand strategy" was immediately criticized as a threat to the world and to the US. Elite criticism was remarkably broad, but on narrow grounds: the principle is not wrong, but the style and implementation are dangerous, a threat to US interests. The basic thrust of the criticism was captured by Madeleine Albright, also in Foreign Affairs. She pointed out that every President has a similar doctrine, but keeps it in his back pocket, to be used when necessary. It is a serious error to smash people in face with it, and to implement it in brazen defiance even of allies, let alone rest of world. That is simply foolish, another illustration of the dangerous combination of "arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence."
[b]"We the People" must surely recognize that the wanton destruction of our planet by greedy corporations and gluttonous individuals with no social conscience is disastrously criminal, corrupt and irresponsible ... [/b]Mankind has a responsibility to care for our planet and to be responsible stewards, otherwise we set the stage for permanent destruction of many species of life, the natural world and our own habitat ... Moreover, we also have a responsibility to leave the planet well-tended and for the natural wilderness, refuges & wildlife to remain for future generations to come ... It is not simply responsible caretaking, but[i] it is vital for the survival and health [/i]of our children and grand-children ...
[b]As the Earth Heats Up, Many Questions Remain
- Global warming could dry out farmlands, spark fiercer storms and raise ocean levels. Even skeptics agree it's time to act as studies continue[/b].
Two miles up, above black lava fields and a white blanket of clouds, a tower rising from this U.S. government observatory gulps in some of the clear, crisp air and gets a taste of man's future on Earth.
"As big as the atmosphere is, we're influencing it," said the physicist in charge, John Barnes.
The tale told by the tower, atop a dormant Hawaiian volcano, can be read in the upward curve of a graph:
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which stood at 280 parts per million two centuries ago, has climbed to 379 ppm since industrializing man began burning vast amounts of coal, oil and other fossil fuels.
There has not been, for 450,000 years, this much CO2 enveloping the planet, ice-core samples show.
The news from Mauna Loa and other monitoring stations has increasingly disturbed scientists because carbon dioxide traps heat, as do other "greenhouse gases" generated by humans, and global temperatures have, indeed, been rising — by almost 1 degree Fahrenheit over a recent 18-year period, a relatively rapid increase, NASA experts reported in April.
Warming will disrupt our climate, possibly drying out farmlands, stirring up fiercer storms and raising ocean levels, among other impacts, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-organized network of hundreds of climatologists and other researchers.
But the climate tale is far from simple. Earth's behavior — physics, chemistry, biology — is an infinitely complex web of feedback loops, reactions, recycling among the atmosphere, ocean, land and all their components. Knowns are countered by unknowns, certainty by uncertainty.
It was uncertainties that American oil, utility and other industries pointed to in the 1990s in fighting international efforts to cap fossil-fuel emissions. And President Bush cited the "incomplete state of scientific knowledge" when he renounced the Kyoto Protocol, the first step toward imposing those caps, in March 2001.
Then, just three months later, a National Academy of Sciences report commissioned by the Bush White House supported the U.N. panel's finding, declaring in its opening sentence: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
Last year, two more prestigious organizations — the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union — came to similar conclusions.
In the past, skeptics on climate change often focused on discrepancies between satellite and ground temperature readings, suggesting that recent warming might be minimal. But deeper analysis has largely dispelled those doubts. By the time scientists gathered for a symposium at New York's Columbia University in April, just weeks after Mauna Loa Observatory recorded CO2 topping 379, skeptics seemed to have faded — or at least switched to a better-safe-than-sorry view.
"I'm a skeptic," Harvard University's Michael B. McElroy told fellow scientists. "But I take out fire insurance on my home."
The temperature rise is believed to be the most rapid in at least 10,000 years.
"It's been getting warmer and we can't explain that by natural causes," Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University said at Columbia.
"I couldn't absolutely, positively, 100% say there's no other cause, but it's consistent with carbon dioxide warming."
Climatologists will never dispel the uncertainties 100%, but they're working on it, and the Geophysical Union said computer modeling of carbon, water and other cycles governing climate had improved greatly in the last decade.
At universities and major centers worldwide — such as the U.S. government's National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and Britain's Hadley Centre — specialists peer into the future via supercomputers, setting in motion vast global calculations via thousands of interlocked mathematical formulas.
Weather fronts flicker past on screens in blue and white, as temperatures and rainfall, melting ice and ocean evaporation, cloud cover and myriad other factors play out over days, months, years in "general circulation models," or GCMs.
The leapfrogging of computer speed has boosted scientists' confidence.
"The models used to consist of, say, 50,000 lines of computer code," said an early modeler, V. Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. "Now they have 500,000 lines of code."
But if computer power is meeting the challenge, brainpower — numbers of trained specialists, hands on keyboards to input, minds to analyze — is coming up short, scientists said in a series of interviews.
"Models have become more sophisticated, but still they're missing so many things," Ramanathan said.
"Climate change probably deserves a Manhattan Project-scale effort," said Scripps meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville, referring to the World War II atom-bomb project. "What there is is a few dozen GCM projects, each with a handful of people."
Whatever the resources, no one expects a "eureka moment" from the modeling — ironclad proof that last month's automobile exhausts caused this month's warming. In fact, the added sophistication raises new questions even as it helps answer old ones.
"All these little things now pop up. What about the size of raindrops, what about sea ice, what about forests?" said senior scientist Wallace Broecker of Columbia, who in the 1970s raised early alarms about global warming.
"We're going to have to make a decision on what to do on the basis of insufficient evidence."
The uncertainty compounds the concern. For example, some believe that global warming will shrink "natural carbon sinks" — that is, drought will kill off rainforests, which absorb carbon dioxide. That would raise levels of the gas in the atmosphere, worsening warming in a dangerous circular feedback.
"If we get going now [on emission controls], we essentially buy time for further research" on such questions, said Jorge L. Sarmiento, Princeton University climatologist.
The greatest uncertainties have long focused on clouds — in their variety and small-scale dynamics. Clouds both reflect sunlight, helping cool the planet, and act like a blanket, keeping Earth warm.
"When you have competing effects like that, it's difficult to model," said David Pierce, a veteran Scripps modeler.
But progress is being made, especially by U.S. Energy Department scientists studying clouds in minute detail over tens of thousands of square miles of Oklahoma, Alaska and the western Pacific.
Newer concerns focus on the unknowns of aerosols, or particulates — tiny atmospheric particles of many kinds, from smokestack soot to dust blown off the desert. Some particulates cool by scattering sunlight; some warm. Some help clouds form; some break up clouds.
Atop Mauna Loa, amid the silvery domes of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration observatory, Barnes is researching aerosols in the stratosphere, firing a laser's green beam into the night sky to measure particles as far as 50 miles up.
Leading NASA scientist James Hansen believes that climate models may have missed a major particulate effect, from industrial soot accumulating on northern snow and ice. Instead of reflecting almost all sunlight, the darker landscape must be absorbing more heat, his team theorizes.
An aura of quiet urgency is building around climate research.
The tools deployed can dazzle, from distant space to ocean depths.
A NASA satellite, from 1 million miles away, will view the entire sunlit Earth and measure its heat exchanges. To study ocean-climate interaction, meanwhile, 20 nations are sending 3,000 technology-packed floats as much as a mile deep in seas worldwide to drift with currents for years, taking temperature and other readings, and surfacing regularly to radio home the results via satellite.
Many believe that the most urgently needed data will come from ICESat, a newly launched satellite that for the first time will measure the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, to monitor melting as the world warms.
Although full meltdowns would take centuries, runoffs could raise the seas by dangerous inches in the coming decades.
"We have no idea how the ice sheets will actually respond. Do we really want to roll the dice?" asked Harvard's Daniel Schrag, an expert on Earth's ice ages.
The dice may already be rolling.
Oceanographers report that the North Atlantic is growing less salty because of melt runoff and increased precipitation. This may be ominous: It's the sinking of heavier, saltier water that draws warmer surface waters from the south and keeps the climate, especially northern Europe's, warmer than otherwise. A slowing of that ocean "conveyor" could drive down northern temperatures.
This uncertain threat of a regional "ice age" was featured in an internal Pentagon report in October, subtitled "Imagining the Unthinkable."
Describing a "plausible" though "not most likely" scenario, it said abrupt climate change could stir conflict by prompting mass migrations in search of shelter and food.
The extreme vision disturbed climatologists. "Irresponsible," one said privately. But some hoped that a Pentagon warning might arouse concern in Washington.
"Maybe it's time for science fiction," Schrag said. "The science is not exciting people."
*
[b]Warming effects
A look at apparent "greenhouse gas" effects reported by scientists and other observers[/b]:
[u]Oceans[/u]: Seas rose throughout the 20th century and, over the last decade, at a rate of one-tenth of an inch per year. Levels rise because water expands as it warms and melting ice from continents.
[u]Islands[/u]: Islanders in the Pacific and elsewhere report steady erosion of shorelines from rising seas. Some small islands are gone.
[u]Arctic[/u]: In late summers, Arctic Ocean ice is believed to be only 60% as thick as it was a few decades ago. And it is believed to extend over 10%-15% less area.
[u]Animals[/u]: Seals, polar bears and other northern animals could be severely affected by shrinking Arctic ice. Biologists find polar bears are losing weight because of reduced hunting time on ice.
[u]Tundra[/u]: Spring temperatures in the Alaskan Arctic were as much as 7 degrees warmer in 2000 than in 1971. Permafrost is melting, buckling roads and damaging other infrastructure. Shrubs have moved into treeless areas.
[u]Glaciers[/u]: There was widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions during the 20th century. Only 27 of 150 glaciers remain in Montana's Glacier National Park.
[u]Snow[/u]: Global snow cover is believed to have decreased by 10% since satellite observations began in the 1960s.
[u]Spring[/u]: The season is arriving earlier, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. This lengthens the growing season but also summer, threatening to dry out vegetation. In California, earlier snowmelt runoff will disrupt water supplies.
[u]Drought[/u]: British climatologists conclude that an increase in drought in southern Africa in the last 20 years is probably linked to climate change.
[u]Hurricanes[/u]: The first recorded South Atlantic hurricane struck Brazil in March. Computer models had suggested tropical storms would first appear over those seas with global warming.
*
[b]Fact and Fiction on Climate
[u]Common misconceptions about climate change[/u]:
A scientific debate rages over global warming[/b].
[b]Fact:[/b] There's no question that the Earth has warmed in recent decades. Government and professional climate-science groups say man-made "greenhouse gases" are contributing to the warming — probably causing most of it, according to a U.S. National Academy of Sciences panel and the U.N.-organized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The scientific discussion focuses on how fast and how high temperatures will rise — depending on what's done to counter warming — and on the impact.
[i]Satellites show global cooling, not warming[/i].
[b]Fact:[/b] Satellite readings once seemed to disagree with ground readings about warming. But a longer satellite record and more careful analysis of earlier readings have largely closed that gap.
[i]A planet warmer by 2 degrees Fahrenheit doesn't sound bad[/i].
[b]Fact:[/b] Scientists' 2-degree prediction is a minimum and an average encompassing higher extremes in certain regions, seasons and times of day. Much damage would come indirectly from rising seas, drying out of some areas, heavier rains in others and similar disruptions.
[i]The sun's variability is the biggest cause of climate change[/i].
[b]Fact:[/b] The sun does "flicker," but the U.N. panel says solar variability has made only a small contribution to global warming over the past century.
[i]Recent warming is a natural rebound from the European "Little Ice Age[/i]."
[b]Fact: [/b]The U.N. panel says the unusually swift and lengthy warming of the 20th century "cannot simply be considered as a recovery from the 'Little Ice Age' of the 15th to 19th centuries."
[i]Warming is good because it will save us from a new Ice Age[/i].
[b]Fact:[/b] The artificial gases already in the atmosphere are far more than needed to hold off another ice age.
[i]A melting Arctic ice cap won't raise seas; ice melting in a glass doesn't raise the water level[/i].
[b]Fact:[/b] Oceans are rising because of melt runoff from glaciers, the Greenland ice sheet and other ice on land, not in the sea. The Arctic Ocean's sea ice is already displacing water and so, like ice cubes in a glass, won't raise sea levels as it melts. - http://www.latimes.com/news/n...,1,5592776.story?coll=la-headlines-n ation
[b]"We the People" must learn the valuable lessons from history including the mixed and often disastrous track-record of Ronald Reagan ... [/b]For our leaders are not cartoon characters, but are often[i] flawed [/i]human beings ... Ronald Reagan ushered in an era of greed and irresponsibility that has led to the disastrous neo-con ideology that is bankrupting our nation, leading us into foreign fiascos (e.g. Iraq) and allowing neo-fascists to overtake us and destroy our Republic ... Understanding the [i]neo-[/i]conservative movement that began with Reagan and why it transfixed and hypnotized so many Americans is necessary to understanding where we are today ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Flags are being flown at half mast today, as President Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, died Saturday after a decade-long battle with Alzheimer's disease. His death brought the expected outpouring of editorials and obituaries, running the gamut from Peggy Noonan's reverent "Thanks [i]from a Grateful Country[/i]," http://www.opinionjournal.com... to the more critical piece by Slate's Timothy Noah's "[i]Ronald Reagan, Party Animal: The man who taught Republicans to be irresponsible[/i]" ttp://slate.msn.com/id/2101829 . The prevailing view championed the man's complicated legacy, as seen in three major pieces in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... , LAT http://www.latimes.com/news/s...,1,5521661,print.story?coll=la-home-headli nes and WP http://www.washingtonpost.com... . He was lauded for his role in ending the Cold War and for projecting a never-failing sense of optimism which restored faith in the American presidency in a nation still scarred by Vietnam and Watergate. The papers also noted some of the darker sides of his presidency, like record deficits and unemployment, the scandal of Iran-Contra, his poor record on civil rights and the environment and the debacle in Lebanon. Positive and negative, one overall theme to Reagan's success as a president emerges. While Ronald Reagan had deeply held commitments, he was also able to see when a policy was not working and shift course. America's current leaders would be well served to learn this valuable lesson from the Gipper.
[b]ETERNAL OPTIMIST:[/b] Perhaps Ronald Reagan's greatest legacy may be his never-failing optimism. The LAT writes, "His sunny self-assurance, his insistence that there really were simple answers to difficult problems, his knack for actually making things happen -- all were soothing changes for a country that had endured Vietnam, Watergate, a presidential resignation, an energy crisis, double-digit inflation and the seizing of American hostages in Iran in the course of one tumultuous decade."
[b]ADAPTING ON TAXES:[/b] President Reagan presided over a massive tax cut, on the theory that tax cuts "would unleash such a wave of economic growth" that government income would actually rise. However, when the deficit exploded and money was tight, the "1981 tax cut was followed by Reagan-blessed tax increases in almost every ensuing year of his presidency." http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do...%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2CSB 108656405907530170%2C00.html%3Fmod%3Dhome_whats_n ews_us Contrast this with the current administration: In February, William Gale and Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution wrote, "This year's US budget proves that George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan." http://www.brookings.edu/view... Even in light of skyrocketing deficits, "Bush has steadfastly kept to his tax-cutting agenda and resists any suggestion that the costs of defending the nation against terrorism or fighting the war in Iraq are a reason to raise taxes."
[b]ADAPTING ON THE ENVIRONMENT:[/b] Reagan was not known as an environmental president; he disastrously appointed anti-environmentalist James Watt as Secretary of the Interior. "After Watt was purged, however," writes the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Reagan signed into law bills protecting 1.9 million acres of wilderness http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... in Washington and Oregon. He signed legislation creating the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument."
[b]ADAPTING TO THE COLD WAR:[/b] President Reagan was known for his hard line against communism, calling the Soviet Union the Evil Empire. However, in his second term, Reagan combined diplomatic and military strength to create a relationship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev which ultimately led to nuclear weapon limits and the end of the Cold War. While President Bush adopted similar language by coining the phrase "Axis of Evil," he has failed to adequately address the threats posed by Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
[b]EUROPE THEN AND NOW:[/b] The WP reports, according to commentators and historians, although his lack of foreign policy credentials made much of Europe nervous after he ascended to the presidency, President Reagan was able to win the respect of Europeans http://www.washingtonpost.com... through his "commitment to winning the Cold War and his willingness to work peacefully to bring about the demise of the Soviet Union," ultimately convincing the global community the United States had their best interests at heart. The go-it-alone policy of President George W. Bush has "inspired a similar mixture of fear, concern and, at times, contempt among Europeans."
[b]FUTURE LEGACY OF ACCOUNTABILITY:[/b] Following the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the Iran Contra scandal, President Reagan took responsibility, saying, "this happened on my watch" http://www.goupstate.com/apps... and "If there is to be blame...it properly rests here in this office and with this president. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good." http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/...
[b]"We the People" are confronted with a[i] dangerous trend [/i]that began in the Reagan-era with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine http://www.museum.tv/archives... that ensured a balanced and fair broadcasting system, and has since evolved into an extreme right-wing corporate-owned media and press that is brain-washing our public with neo-orwellian lies, deceptions and falsehoods regarding the neo-con, neo-fascist corruptions perpetrated upon us by the traitorous Bush regime ... Bush & Cheney are transforming our nation into a neo-fascist corporate-dominated slave state whereby our democracy, rights and freedoms are being eroded, destroyed and disbanded by the heinous use of fear-mongering tactics ... [/b]Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org and demand the re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine [i]today[/i] ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Last week, the [i]Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism [/i][PEJ] released a [u]Survey of Journalists[/u] http://www.stateofthenewsmedi... that included some significant findings. Among the most worrisome: The vast majority of journalists believe increased financial pressure is "[i]seriously hurting[/i]" the quality of news coverage. Sixty-six percent of national news people and fifty-seven percent of local journalists see it this way. This percentage, moreover, is rising. In 1995, for example, forty-one percent of national and thirty-three percent of local journalists agreed with the statement. In a related finding, the poll found journalists who fear their stories are "[i]increasingly full of factual and sloppy reporting[/i]" rose from thirty percent in 1995 to forty percent in 1999 to forty-five today."
Interestingly, management is considerably more sanguine about the current state of journalistic affairs. Most executives at national news organizations (fifty-seven percent) feel increased business pressures are "mostly just changing the way news organizations do things" rather than seriously undermining quality. What we have here is a perfect example of how conglomeration interferes with the public's reception of information. Now it is certainly possible the dismissal (in the past x years) of nearly sixty percent of radio news personnel, for instance, has improved that medium's ability to keep its audience informed. But it is far more likely management is shilling for the bosses while the journalists on the ground are in much better touch with the quality of the product they are now providing. And that product has been decimated by round-after-round of consolidation, budget-cuts and the integration of radio, television, and print products that do not naturally combine but really ought to compete.
The study has naturally not received much attention, save for its ideological findings. Among these are nearly sixty percent of journalists surveyed think the media has been far too easy on President Bush and just over a third of journalists identify themselves as "liberal." These two figures have driven the conservatives who control the cable TV and radio debates to distraction. This is surprising. True, thirty-four percent calling themselves "liberal" is a bit more than the national average, but if I'm not mistaken, these same right-wingers have been crowing endlessly that the entire media was controlled by liberals. If the number is only a third — with fifty-four percent calling themselves moderates, then just what's the problem? True, the number of liberals is rising — it was only twenty-two percent nine years ago — and the trend among local journalists is moving the same way — twenty-three percent say they are liberals, up from fourteen percent in 1995 — but this is largely a product of the ability of the far right to move the discourse into its home territory. A decade ago, someone who held the views espoused by George W. Bush would be considered a far right-extremist. Someone who held views to his left — say Senator McCain or perhaps George H.W. Bush — was considered a liberal. Today, top Republican leaders want to kick McCain out of the party and Bush himself refers to his father as "weak" and mocks his desire in 1991 to seek a UN mandate and genuine coalition before going to war. If more journalists are calling themselves "liberal" and fewer "conservative," well that's because the word conservative has been hijacked by radical reactionaries and neocons who are closer in temperament to revolutionaries than to historic conservatives like Edmund Burke or Alexander Hamilton.
Writing in US News, the conservative columnist John Leo http://www.usnews.com/usnews/... mocks the journalists in the survey because while "some 82 percent of the journalists were able to list a news organization that was "[i]especially conservative[/i]" (most named Fox News), an amazing 62 percent could not name any news organization that struck them as "especially liberal." Good grief. Even 60 percent of the Homer Simpson family could probably figure out that the New York Times or National Public Radio qualify as liberal. Leave aside the fact that Homer apart, the Simpsons are pretty damned smart (though it's hard to tell yet about Maggie) Leo picked a bad week to make his point. The New York Times is in uproar over the role played by its correspondent Judith Miller and others in passing along false information — much of it supplied by the neocons and their dangerous plaything, Ahmad Chalabi — to fool the country into going to war in Iraq. If that's "liberal," then the word has lost all meaning. Meanwhile, over at NPR, its own ombudsman has endorsed the findings of a study by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting http://www.fair.org/extra/040... that demonstrates conservative, rather than liberal guests dominate the proceedings. The current issue of The New Yorker has a fine piece by Ken Auletta about the right-wing hijacking of that old conservative bugaboo — PBS. (Trading Bill Moyers for Tucker Carlson and Paul Gigot hardly seems like a winner for the liberal team, much less for American journalism.)
Finally, while journalists are a bit more liberal than the rest of this country on social issues, they are generally more conservative on economic issues, as befits their elite status. You can say the same about just about any group of well-educated urban professionals. So what? Is the news liberal? Combine the sensitivities of those in the executive suites who actually determine what is covered — with the constant pressure of the White House and its many right-wing allies in the foundation world, and journalists' alleged liberalism hardly counts for much when the media rubber hits the road. The fact that Mr. Bush was able to push his phony agenda for war through the New York Times, NPR and the rest — with a considerable assist from the far-right dominated cable talk world — to say nothing of talk radio — implies conservatives are either paranoid or dishonest when they complain about the evils of so-called "liberal media." Either way, it's time they hung it up.
[b]Eric Alterman is a senior fellow of the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]and the author of[i] What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News[/i], just published in paperback with a new chapter on the Iraq war and a study guide for students[/b]. - http://www.americanprogress.o...
[b]"We the People" should be terribly concerned to have a dangerously stupid, inept and corrupt man in the Oval Office ... [/b]Moreover, increasingly reports are arising that Bush is behaving erratically http://www.capitolhillblue.co... and is [i]out-of-control[/i], which is not surprising given his [i]lack of experience in dealing with difficulties (that most people must face) [/i]because the AWOL deserter and failed business jerk was[i] bailed-out of his lifelong failures [/i]by his Poppy ... But even his Poppy can't save him from his disastrous neo-con fiasco in Iraq and his neo-fascist economic train-wreck that is destroying http://www.misleader.org/dail... Middle-Class and Working America ...
The study, published in the May 21 issue of the journal [i]Science[/i] http://www.sciencemag.org/con... , compared the reactions to a gambling game among healthy participants and people who had injuries to the orbitofrontal cortex, a part of the brain that links regions involved in reasoning with other areas involved in emotion. … [W]hen the players were informed of what they would have won or lost had they chosen differently, adding the possibility that they might feel regret, the healthy players minded losing far more than the injured participants did.
The researchers then changed the odds, making bolder bets lose more often. The healthy subjects quickly shifted to a cautious strategy, while those with injuries stuck to their original strategy, even as their losses piled up.
—"[i]Emotions: Winning, Losing, and Regretting[/i]," [i]by John O'Neil in the May 25 New York Times[/i], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
A: I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. … I hope—I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't—you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.
Bush lost consciousness for a brief time in the White House on Sunday evening while eating a pretzel and watching a professional football game on television. He fell from his couch and has a scrape and large bruise on his left cheekbone, plus a bruise on his lower lip, to show for his troubles. His glasses cut the side of his face. … [Air Force physician Richard] Tubb told reporters Bush reported a pretzel "did not go down right" and the doctor said it was possible a pretzel had lodged against a nerve and momentarily caused a decrease in the president's heart rate, causing him to faint.
[b]Are "We the People" [i]again and again and again [/i]being duped, conned, neo-con conned and scammed by the corrupt Bush regime??? ... [i]Hmmm [/i]...[/b]
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Yesterday, President Bush accepted the resignation of CIA Director George Tenet. In [i]Slate[/i], Fred Kaplan asks the central question: "[i]Why now[/i]?" The most prominent theory: "Bush is making Tenet the fall guy for pre-9/11 intelligence failures and for the inability to find Saddam's supposed arsenal." While the White House pushed the story that Tenet's resignation was for personal reasons, allies of the president who "sensed tension between Tenet and the White House believed his resignation was not unwanted." Bush's quick acceptance of Tenet's resignation suggests "some White House officials see political benefit in his departure at a time when there are growing calls for top-level accountability for U.S. failure in Iraq." Stansfield Turner, former CIA director for Jimmy Carter, said, "I think he is being pushed out. The president feels he has to have someone to blame."
[b]THE [i]WMD[/i] FACTOR:[/b] Tenet's departure comes shortly before the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to release "a still-classified report that...[offers] a scathing assessment of the CIA's prewar intelligence on Iraq." At issue: the belief "that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons [which] provided the basis for the Bush administration's case for war." The core criticism of Tenet is that "he acquiesced to a White House that wanted a certain type of evidence in Iraq and was surprisingly less concerned about evidence that North Korea and Iran were making far more progress toward nuclear weapons than Mr. Hussein." In his resignation speech yesterday, Tenet acknowledged that his record during his seven years as director of the CIA was "not without flaws." Nevertheless, at times, Tenet "was a restraining influence on a White House that often seemed inclined to turn tips into facts, and theories into evidence."
[b]THE PENTAGON [i]VS.[/i] THE CIA:[/b] Tenet's resignation comes as the CIA "has engaged in a continuing feud with the Pentagon over Defense officials' efforts to take over important intelligence work." Tensions between the CIA and the Pentagon have flared in recent days "over public accusations that Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, a Pentagon favorite, had learned that the U.S. had broken secret Iranian codes and leaked the sensitive information to Iran." Yesterday Chalabi "accused Mr. Tenet of spreading groundless allegations about him" and "backing failed coup attempts against Saddam Hussein that caused the deaths of hundreds of Iraqis." While publicly striking more measured tones, "Pentagon officials privately suggested officials at the CIA...were using the Chalabi furor to mount a smear campaign against individuals in the Pentagon." Pentagon officials also "denied reports that the FBI was conducting lie-detector tests on Pentagon employees who might have disclosed intelligence to Mr. Chalabi" and "suggested these reports were put out by the CIA." It is possible that Tenet's departure "opens the way for the Pentagon to exercise even greater influence over intelligence work."
[b]LIVING [i]IN[/i] OBLIVION:[/b] As the administration's national security apparatus falls into disarray, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice seems oblivious to the problems. Yesterday Rice insisted Bush "will one day rank alongside such towering pillars of 20th century statecraft as President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill." The comparison to FDR and Churchill – who forged strong international alliances – stands in stark contrast to Bush's "go-it-alone approach to diplomacy that has strained U.S. alliances and divided world opinion rather than uniting it." Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) acknowledged yesterday that, after three-and-a-half years of Bush statecraft, around the world, "Not many people agree with us or like us or, for that matter, are prepared to work with us." - http://www.americanprogress.o...
[b]The pros-and-cons of Empire are argued by the eminent scholar, writer and philosopher George Monbiot in his excellent article "[i]Empire of Denial[/i]" on http://www.zmag.org/content/s... ...[/b]
"We the People" should seriously contemplate the neo-imperial road to chaos that the corrupt, traitorous & incompetent Bush regime is set-upon in their insane neo-con, neo-fascist ideology of global world domination ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
No one could have called ours a raucous household. The passions of our first two years at university were spent, and we were now buried in our books. My work, as usual, was quixotic and contradictory (studying zoology by day, writing a terrible novel by night), Niall's was focussed and unrelenting. He was charming, generous-spirited and easy to live with, but I think it is fair to say that everyone was frightened of him.
It's not just that my housemate knew his subject better than his contemporaries, and knew where he wanted to take it. He also knew how to do it. While the rest of us were fumbling with bunches of odd-shaped keys, trying to jam each of them into the lock in turn, the doors kept swinging open for him. Niall Ferguson is now professor of history at New York University, and rapidly becoming one of the most celebrated intellectuals in the United States.
After university we retained an occasional friendship, during which we never quite engaged with each other's politics. I haven't seen him for three or four years, and I'm not sure what we'd talk about today. Our views, which were never close, have now polarised completely. We find ourselves on opposite sides of what will surely be the big fight of the early 21st century: global democracy versus American empire.
His new book and television series, Colossus, is an attempt to persuade the United States that it must take its imperial role seriously, becoming in the 21st century what Britain was in the 19th. "Many parts of the world", he claims, "would benefit from a period of American rule".(1) The US should stop messing about with "informal empire", and assert "direct rule" over countries which "require the imposition of some kind of external authority". But it is held back by "the absence of a will to power."(2)
Colossus, like all Niall's books, is erudite and intelligent. The quality of his research forces those of us who take a different view to raise our game. He has remembered what so many have chosen to forget: that the United States is and has always been an empire: an "empire in denial". He shows that there was little difference between the westward expansion of the founding states and the growth of "the great land empires of the past". He argues that its control of Central America, the Caribbean, the Pacific and the Middle East has long had an imperial character. He makes the interesting point that the US found, in its attempt to contain the Soviet Union, "the perfect ideology for its own peculiar kind of empire: the imperialism of anti-imperialism".(3)
But he asks us to remember only in order to persuade us to forget. He seeks to exchange an empire in denial for an empire of denial.
He forgets those who are always forgotten by empire: the victims. He remembers, of course, that Saddam Hussein gassed his political opponents in Iraq. He forgets that the British did the same. He talks of the "genuine benefits in the form of free trade"(4) granted by Britain to its colonies, but forgets the devastating famines this policy caused in India (he is aware of Mike Davis's book Late Victorian Holocausts (5), but there is no sign that he has read it). He writes of the "institutions, knowledge and culture" bequeathed to the colonies (6), but forgets that Britain, as Basil Davidson showed (7), deliberately destroyed the institutions, knowledge and culture (including the hospitals and universities established by educated West Africans) of the colonised.
He forgets too that there was a difference between the interests of the British empire and those of its subject peoples. He writes of the massive British investments in "railways and port facilities" and "plantations to produce new cash crops like tea, cotton, indigo and rubber"(8) as if we seized the land, exploited the labour and exported the wealth of the colonies for the benefit of the natives.
Strangely, for one who knows empire so well, Niall also either forgets or fails to understand the current realities of America's informal rule. He dismisses the idea that the US wishes to control Middle Eastern oil reserves, on the grounds that the US is already "oil-rich".(9) It's not just that oil production peaked in the United States in 1970. The US government knows that if you control the diminishing resource on which every other nation depends, you will, as that resource dries up, come to exercise precisely the kind of indirect rule that Ferguson documents elsewhere. While brilliantly exposing America's imperial denial, he takes at face value almost every other story it tells about its role in the world. He accepts, for example, that the US went to war with Iraq because "its patience ran out" when Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the weapons inspectors (10). There's not a word about the way in which the US itself undermined and then destroyed the inspection missions.
When you forget, you must fill the memory gap with a story. And the story that all enthusiasts for empire tell themselves is that independent peoples have no one but themselves to blame for their misfortunes. The problem faced by many African states, Niall insists, "is simply misgovernment: corrupt and lawless dictators whose conduct makes economic development impossible".(11) "Simply" misgovernment?
This is a continent, let us remember, whose economies are largely controlled by the International Monetary Fund. As Joseph Stiglitz has shown (12), it has used its power to run a virtual empire for US capital, forcing poorer nations to remove their defences against financial speculators and corporate theft. This is partly why some of the poorest African nations have the world's most liberal trade regimes. It is precisely because of forced liberalisation of the kind Ferguson recommends that growth in Sub-Saharan Africa fell from 36 per cent between 1960 and 1980 (when countries exercised more control over their economies) to minus 15 per cent between 1980 and 1998 (13). The world's problem, Niall contends, is that the unaccountable government of the poor by the rich, which already has had such disastrous consequences, has not gone far enough.
The timing of all this is, of course, appalling. As the US has sought to impose direct imperial rule in Iraq, it has earned the hatred of much of the developing world. But we should never underestimate the willingness of the powerful to flatter themselves. Unaccountable power requires a justifying myth, and the US government might just be dumb enough to believe the one that Niall has sought to revive. My old friend could get us all into a great deal of trouble.
But even he doesn't really seem to believe it. His book, above all, is a lament for the opportunities the US has lost. It is, he admits, so far from finding the will to recreate the British empire that the world could soon be left "without even one dominant imperial power."(14) What better opportunity could there then be to press for global democracy?
[b]George Monbiot's book[i] The Age of Consent[/i]: [i]A Manifesto for a New World Order [/i]is now published in paperback. www.monbiot.com[/b]
[b]References:[/b]
1. Niall Ferguson, 2004. Colossus: the rise and fall of the American empire. Penguin London. Page 2.
2. Page 29.
3. Page 78.
4. Page 25.
5. Mike Davis, 2001. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino famines and the making of the third world.
6. Page 184.
7. Basil Davidson, 1993. The Black Man's Burden: Africa and the curse of the nation-state. Three Rivers Press, New York.
8. Page 189.
9. Page 108.
10. Page 155.
11. Page 24.
12. Joseph Stiglitz, 2002. Globalization and its Discontents. Penguin, London.
13. Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Robert Naiman and Gila Neta, 11th May 2001. Growth May Be Good for the Poor – But are IMF and World Bank policies good for growth? Center for Economic and Policy Research.
[b]"We the People" better watch out for a [i]horrendous bait-and-switch [/i]that could [i]drown[/i] any chance for us to reclaim our nation ...[/b]
[b]Read on ...[/b]
An e-mail, some polls, and a smattering of battleground states may inspire Bush to drop Cheney and seek [i]political yo-yo [/i]John McCain as his running mate. Rumors have been flying for some time about Kerry's desire to enlist McCain as his VP but animosity between Bush and McCain dating back to Bush's dirty campaigning in 2000 has dampened speculation that McCain was even a possibility for the Republican ticket.
An e-mail http://www.time.com/time/maga...,9171,1101040607-644111,0 0.html seems to indicate, for those who needed an e-mail, that Dick Cheney's relationship with Halliburton hasn't been on the level. That is to say, the no-bid contracts Halliburton received for rebuilding Iraq's oil fields weren't due to their stunning logo or informative website.
Despite Cheney's protestations to Tim Russert that he played no part in Halliburton's business relationship with the federal government, the e-mail clearly states: "We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w/ VP's (Dick Cheney's) office." [i]Time[/i] then comments: "Three days later, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton the contract, without seeking other bids."
[i]The Village Voice [/i] http://villagevoice.com/issue... speculates that Bush would crush Kerry were he to convince McCain to run on his ticket: "McCain is a political gold mine: fiscal conservative, campaign finance reformer, cancer survivor, war hero, beloved by Hollywood, great on TV, loves the environment, hero of many Democrats, and ensconced in one of the most important battleground states of the coming election."
[b]Bush may want to whisk away torture and murder ... Bush may want to gloss over the 800+ U.S. Soldiers and 15,000+ Innocent Iraqi Civilians who have been ruthlessly massacred in order to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. and for other pernicious neo-con motives that betray our nation ... Bush may want to forget about his heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]when he and his cabal of neo-con neo-fascist thugs illegally and immorally invaded Iraq based upon false pretenses, lies, deceptions and traitorous falsehoods ...[/b]
But "We the People" certainly [i]should not forget[/i], [i]should not be diverted with neo-orwellian propaganda [/i]and [i]should not whisk it away [/i]... We must [i]demand accountability [/i]of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and the rest of their traitorous liars, embezzlers, spies and war criminals ... Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that a[i] full-blown investigation of all of the wrong-doings and crimes [/i]committed by the corrupt Bush regime be undertaken immediately ... Furthermore, call for the[i] impeachment [/i]of Bush & Cheney and the[i] summary dismissal/firing [/i]of Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and the neo-con traitors in our midst ...
Consider "[b]Bush Whisks Away Torture and Murder[/b]" by Matthew Rothschild,[i] The Progressive[/i], on http://www.progressive.org/we... :
In his Memorial Day speech, President Bush did not even mention the scandal that is swamping his Administration: the scandal of U.S. soldiers torturing and murdering detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush acted like the scandal didn't even exist.
And he went out of his way to praise "the character of the men and women who wear our country's uniform."
Not a word about those who have disgraced it.
He said, "In places like Kabul and Kandahar, in Mosul and Baghdad, we have seen their decency and their brave spirit."
. But there was no decency in stacking Iraqi detainees into human pyramids at Abu Ghraib.
. There was no decency in forcing Iraqi prisoners to masturbate or simulate oral sex.
. There was no decency in the raping of Iraqi prisoners with light bulbs.
. There was no decency in mock executions.
. There was no decency in the abuse of prisoners at other sites in Iraq and Afghanistan, including beating detainees up and pissing on them.
. There was no decency in the reports of thirty-seven suspicious deaths of detainees in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Now I understand that the vast majority of U.S. soldiers are acting with decency and good character, under great duress.
But for Bush to go on about the decency and character of all of our soldiers at a time when the behavior of some of them has besmirched the nation's reputation is to whisk under the rung a profoundly serious matter and to display an arrogance that is particularly unattractive and inappropriate.
And these were not just a few bad apples but soldiers, in many instances, apparently acting under the direction of military intelligence or the CIA, with lax rules of interrogation coming from high up the chain of command, up to Donald Rumsfeld (whose "great leadership" Bush hailed), and Bush himself.
Bush owned no responsibility as commander in chief. And his failure even to acknowledge the horrifying misconduct of some of the troops was a signal of indifference and an assertion of superiority not lost on the rest of the world.
His message was this: Forget about abuse, torture, and, murder; we're Americans, we're noble, that's all there is to it.
This supreme arrogance is what got Bush--and the United States--into the Iraq mess in the first place.
Bush's Desperate Panic-Stricken Bloody Fiasco in Iraq is Not Going Well ...
[b]"Iraqis Fear New Cabinet Leaves U.S. in Charge"[/b] is the lede of a [i]Reuters News Report [/i] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... on the ground[i] today [/i]in Baghdad ... "Many Iraqis voiced concern on Tuesday that their new interim government was merely a U.S. puppet, while others urged the leaders to spend their short time in power bringing peace and stability to Iraq" [i]and so it goes [/i]...
"We the People" should be fully cognizant that the stupid, corrupt & incompetent Bush regime squandered any opportunity to do some good in Iraq (although the[i] real [/i]motives for their illegal and immoral incursion into Iraq were a vile grab of oil & power in the Mideast-- and their[i] casus belli [/i]was based upon treasonous lies, deceptions & falsehoods perpetrated against the American people and the World community) ...[i] Now[/i], the Iraqi people are rightly suspicious that a puppet government in being[i] forced upon them [/i]that will serve Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] lust to exploit them and their natural resources; and that the neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies' corporate greed will be[i] put before their own [/i]best interests ...
[b]Now that some of the dust has settled, we can see one thing pretty clearly:[/b] the IGC basically hijacked the process. The IGC essentially reconstituted as a caretaker government. The new President, Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar, was the current president of the IGC. Hoshiyar Zebari, who was the foreign minister in the IGC, is now the foreign minister under the interim government. Allawi was a member of and choice of the IGC, etc. And so on down the list. The only key issue is that Chalabi, if not his crew, has been purged. Brahimi agreed to a laying on of hands. But he didn't make the choices. He was sidelined. - http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
[b]For more background, refer also to[/b]:
"Chalabi, Feith and company — a sordid tale" on http://www.aljazeerah.info/Op...%20editorials/2004%20opin ions/June/1%20o/Chalabi,% 20Feith%20and%20company%2 0%20a%20sordid%20tale,%20 James%20J%20Zogby.htm
[b]May better days be ahead for the Iraqi people and for "We the People" of the United States of America [i]too[/i] ... Methinks however, that we will need a [i]regime change [/i]in the U.S.A. in November for things to improve[i] here-at-home and abroad [/i]...[/b]
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief on 20 Vital Foreign & Domestic Policy Issues
[b]"We the People" must surely recognize that the dangerously stupid, corrupt and incompetent George W. Bush has a lousy track-record that has been so very destructive to our nation ...[/b]
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.
[b]1. OPEC[/b]
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES..."What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
[b]2. Iraq Funding[/b]
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004..."We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for [Iraq for] the balance of this year." [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten, 7/29/03]
…BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 “I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.” [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
[b]3. Condoleeza Rice Testimony[/b]
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'...“Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference.” [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
…BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: “Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.” [President Bush, 3/30/04]
[b]4. Science[/b]
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
[b]5. Ahmed Chalabi[/b]
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE"U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
[b]6. Department of Homeland Security[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
[b]7. Weapons of Mass Destruction[/b]
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
[b]8. Free Trade[/b]
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
[b]9. Osama Bin Laden[/b]
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA “I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
[b]10. The Environment[/b]
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
[b]11. WMD Commission[/b]
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
[b]12. Creation of the 9/11 Commission[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
[b]13. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
[b]14. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony[/b]
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
[b]15. Gay Marriage[/b]
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
[b]16. Nation Building[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
[b]17. Saddam/al Qaeda Link[/b]
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
[b]18. U.N. Resolution[/b]
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
[b]19. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
[b]20. Campaign Finance[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]
[b]Now is the time for "We the People" to stand against the corrupt Bush regime ...[/b]
Please register now to join with us in our virtual march on the White House taking place on Sunday 29th August 2004 at 2PM US Central Standard Time, 7PM UK time!
Let the Bush regime know exactly what you think about their policies!
Just click here http://www.livemarch.com/marc... , then click on the "Join this live march" button, then on "sign up now" and enter your details.
You'll receive reminders about the protest.
Shortly before the action begins you'll receive an email with instructions on where to send your messages, along with a suggested messge, please keep this to hand and rally here http://www.livemarch.com/marc... no later than 10 minutes before the start of the virtual march.
When the countdown clock on that page reaches 0:0:0 start sending those faxes and emails, phone the White House and visit the website! - http://geocities.com/tellbush...
