Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
My Links
Contact Congress
Casualties in Iraq
National Debt Clock
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Beware of Smoking Guns ... |
| 02.29.04 (3:42 pm) [edit] |
[b]"While the legal basis for war with Iraq remains a secret, Tony Blair is one leak away from resignation" ...[/b]
If conscientious whistle-blowers were to come forward, it could spell the end of the corrupt Bush and Blair regimes, and America and Great Britain could both take back their respective nations from the dirty, soiled hands of the neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons who are responsible for transforming us into neo-imperial militaristic 3rd world-style [i]juntas[/i] ...
Consider "[i][b]Beware smoking Guns[/b][/i]" by [i]Nick Cohen[/i], The Observer UK, on http://observer.guardian.co.u...,6903,1158635,00.html :
Serious journalists like to pretend that we give the public all the news they need to know. The beneficial effects of competition ensure that broadsheets and up-market broadcasters are constantly bringing new products to the news market. What one organisation misses another provides to the fact-bloated consumer. The prosaic reality often falls short of this exalted ideal. Most of the time rivalry between journalists is more apparent than real. Everyone does what everyone else is doing; we cover the same stories and follow up each others' real or bogus exclusives. All that falls outside the loop formed by the media dog chasing its tail is ignored.
But there are occasions when rivalry is taken too seriously. Because, say, the [i]Sunday Times [/i]doesn't want to give credit to [i]The Observer[/i], or [i]vice versa[/i], genuine exclusives appear only for... nothing to happen.
Such was the fate of the front-page lead of [i]The Observer [/i]of 2 March 2003. We had a sensational document from the US National Security Agency. Its spies were preparing to bug the delegations of countries on the United Nations' Security Council in the run up to the war against Iraq. Calls and emails to and from diplomats' homes and offices were to be intercepted so that the Bush administration would have the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'. The Americans were asking for help from a friendly intelligence agency, which turned out to be the GCHQ eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham. It's one thing to know in theory that governments always spy on each other, quite another to see set out in a memo the detail of how the spying will be done. (Just as it's one thing to know in theory that MI5 has a mole in every newspaper and another to find out that it's your good friend Bloggs sitting on the other side of the desk.)
The story went round the world, causing particular outrage in Chile and Mexico, which were among Washington's targets. News of the intensive Anglo-American spying operation strengthened the waverers determination to vote against the war. No one in British media was interested. Hacks preferred to ignore a corroborated and indeed true accusation against the British Government and chase after an uncorroborated accusation from the BBC which pandered to the deep need of the Government's more credulous opponents to believe the worst about Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell. The indifference lasted until last week when the prosecution of Katharine Gun, the GCHQ officer who leaked the American request for a joint bugging operation, collapsed.
When it deals with political trials, the law can be just as capricious as the press. Most lawyers hate hearing Official Secrets Act cases described as 'political trials'. Political trials were what happened in Saddam's Iraq: there's no place for them in dear, old Blighty. But when a defendant is allowed to tell a jury 'yes, I leaked secrets, but I was right to do so', the argument is a political argument and the decision to acquit or convict a political decision.
After Gun was sacked by GCHQ, the consensus at The Observer and among her lawyers at the civil-rights group, Liberty, was that the Government would never dare take her to court. A concession wrung from the Law Lords by David Shayler, the renegade MI5 officer who was punished for revealing the shambolic state of Britain's intelligence services, made her case explosive.
In most Official Secrets Act trials the judges do all they can to stop public servants arguing that they had a moral duty to expose the Government. If they've let out classified information, they're guilty and can't be allowed to divert the jury with the spurious defence that they were acting in the public interest. But the Law Lords made a small change to the blanket ban. They ruled that if defendants could show they were acting out of necessity or under duress the jury had the right to hear them out. The necessity defence would be allowed when the Government was plotting to put lives at risk by behaving illegally. The concession wasn't any use to poor Shayler, who went to prison. It was only very late in the day - last week, in fact - that the Government realised it was heading towards disaster, and that the defence of necessity was precisely the defence that Katharine Gun could and would run when she was put in the dock.
The reason why many think that Tony Blair remains one leak away from resignation lies in what is known and supposed about the legal advice he received just before the war. Gun's lawyers were determined to get their hands on it. They were going to argue that when she saw a copy of the American memo at GCHQ she made it public because publicity would make the attempt to get a second resolution specifically authorising war harder when Chile, Mexico and the other swing states on the UN Security Council realised what the Americans and British were up to. She believed that without a second resolution the war would be illegal.
The war went ahead without a second resolution because Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, told the Government that it was legal in any event. But was it? We know that the deputy head of the Foreign Office's legal team, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, profoundly disagreed with Goldsmith and resigned. Gun's defence team wanted to see copies of all the statements on the war from the Foreign Office's legal adviser, and guessed in advance that they would express serious doubts about the legality of the war. Perhaps Gun's lawyer's might have subpoenaed Elizabeth Wilmshurst, and persuaded her to speak in public, which she has so far refused to do.
Then there was the Attorney General's own advice. As you can see from the news pages, the story of what happened before he declared that war was legal on 17 March last year is still being pieced together. Its outline is already clear. Goldsmith's initial advice on the legality of war was equivocal, far too equivocal for Lord Boyce, the chief of the defence staff at the time. By 17 March, Goldsmith's advice had been firmed up. It was now strong enough to satisfy the generals and persuade dubious Labour MPs to support the Government. What changed his mind? If there is a document in Whitehall which says that he came under political pressure or was somehow manipulated it would be explosive. Gun's lawyers would almost certainly have demanded that all the different legal opinions Goldsmith offered in the run-up to war be disclosed. At the very least, there might have been a huge argument with lawyers, academics and commentators pouring over Goldsmith's reasoning and announcing whether or not they thought war was legal. Blair's attempts to move the country on from the ferocious debates of March 2003 would be foiled. Political life would remain stuck in a time-warp. At worst from the Government's point of view, Blair would be in far greater trouble than during the Hutton inquiry.
You can perhaps see why the Crown Prosecution Service and Goldsmith decided to drop the prosecution. The official reason was that they didn't think they could beat a defence of necessity, and Goldsmith hinted that the law may be returned to its previous draconian state.
I can't see how they could have ever imagined that they were going to get Gun convicted even if the judge ruled out her defence. When the document detailing the spying at the UN arrived at The Observer we didn't have the faintest idea who Katharine Gun was. We didn't know the memo came from GCHQ. We hadn't a clue whether it was genuine or a forgery, and my colleagues Martin Bright and Ed Vulliamy spent the best part of a month establishing its authenticity.
The next thing we heard was that a worker at GCHQ had turned herself in. The rumour went round that she was a Muslim. Oh no, we thought, and not for racist reasons. If a jury is going to acquit a defendant out of sympathy, the character of the defendant is crucial. David Shayler's best friends wouldn't deny that he's a bit of a slob and shouts a lot. His appearance allowed him to be traduced by those who wanted to drown out his revelations that the intelligence agencies failed to understand the dangers of radical Islamic terrorists before 11 September.
Suppose our source was going to appear in court in a headscarf and use the witness box to denounce Britain in a foreign accent, what would the jury make of her? As it turned out, Gun was a defence barrister's dream: well-spoken, well-dressed and manifestly well-intentioned. Jurors might realise that her well-intentioned arguments were morally ambiguous; that stopping the war meant saving Saddam and the death squads, ethnic cleansers, torturers and grave-diggers of a fascist state of the type well-intentioned people opposed long ago in the twentieth century.
But whatever they thought about the war, they couldn't deny that she was a nice young woman that any parent would be proud to call their own. I doubt if the Government could have found a jury in Britain which would have risked allowing the judge to lock her up. The jury would have acquitted her, and its decision wouldn't have been capricious.
|
|
|
| |
| National Republicans Against Bush Meetup Day In 18 Days ... |
| 02.29.04 (12:06 pm) [edit] |
[b]National Republicans Against Bush Meetup Day is in 18 Days on the 18th March ...[/b]
[[i]The 20th March is the heinous anniversary of the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's illegal and immoral incursion into Iraq[/i]!]
Meetup with other local Republicans who are against President Bush. Discuss the negative impact that President Bush has had on the US, the Republican Party, and what we can possibly do about it.
[b]Check-out details for the [i]location nearest you [/i]on [/b] http://repagainstbush.meetup....
[b]Also visit the[i] Republicans Against Bush [/i]web-site on [/b] http://world.std.com/~3Diff/rab.html
|
|
|
| |
| US Angers Allies With New Middle East Plan |
| 02.29.04 (11:54 am) [edit] |
[b]In accordance with their callous, neo-imperial [i]modus operandi[/i], the corrupt Bushies have not consulted any of our allies, and instead have unilaterally imposed their neo-con, neo-fascist plan for their insane, illegal & immoral Global Corporate Empire (... [i]who lusts to enslave & impoverish us all, in order for their greedy corporate top-dogs & filthy rich fat-cats to reap gluttonous profits-cum-riches [/i]...) upon the rest of the world ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]US Angers Allies with New Middle East Plan[/b][/i]" by [i]Rupert Cornwell[/i], Independent UK, on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
An American plan for the West to promote greater democracy and economic and cultural reform in the Middle East has created new strains between Washington and traditional allies in Europe and the Arab world.
A US working paper for June's G8 summit of the leading industrial powers in Georgia sets out President Bush's "Greater Middle East (GME) Initiative", which sees the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a springboard for launching change throughout the region. It is being seen in some European and Arab capitals, however, as another attempt by the US to impose its will on the Middle East.
The document, published by an Arabic-language paper in London, calls on the G8 countries - the US, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada, the UK and Russia - to "forge a long-term partnership with reform leaders in the GME . . . to promote political, economic and social reform in the region".
The scheme has, however, been floated without consultation with Arab leaders. It provides no extra financial help beyond the meager $120m (£64m) already provided in the existing Middle East Partnership Initiative.
Above all, it threatens to reopen old wounds over Iraq between the US and its allies that both sides have been trying to heal, as exemplified by yesterday's White House meeting between Mr Bush and Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor and a unrelenting opponent of the Iraq war.
"This has to be handled extremely carefully," one G8 diplomat said. "The US mustn't upset the Europeans, and the plan can't be seen as something imposed by the US, or as a case of the West patronizing the Arab world."
But, judging by the reaction in the Middle East, that is exactly the view being taken. The Bush administration was behaving "as if the region and its states do not exist, as if they had no sovereignty over their land", President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, one of Washington's Arab allies, said this week.
The US blueprint aims to address the three "deficits" identified in the now celebrated 2002 and 2003 Arab Human Development reports issued by the United Nations: of freedom, knowledge, and economic development. If these are not tackled "we will witness an increase in extremism, terrorism and international crime", the US paper says.
It proposes stronger backing for non-government groups working for freer elections, and for education initiatives targeted at women. It also urges freedom of the press and an end to restrictions and harassment of those working to promote human rights and civil society.
|
|
|
| |
| Blockbuster Grand-Pre Expose Of 9/11!!! ... |
| 02.29.04 (9:35 am) [edit] |
[b]Believe It Or Not ...[/b]
Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.) says:
"[i]The trigger for the 911 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse which can only be prevented temporarily by a major war, perhaps to become known as World War III. To bring it off one more time, martial law will probably be imposed in the United States[/i]."
Many of us would not[i] 'put it past' [/i]the corrupt Bush regime to [i]declare martial law, [/i]and we can only hope that Americans would demonstrate outrage, rise-up and revolt with their full measure of courage, tenacity and strength ...
[b]For the entire interview with Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.) on the [i]Alex Jones Radio Show [/i]click onto [/b] http://www.warfolly.com/block...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Is WEAK On National Defense ... |
| 02.29.04 (8:32 am) [edit] |
[b]Pouring lots of money, vast sums of taxpayer dollars into over-bloated corporate boondoggles (... [i]producing ill-conceived 'lemons' & 'white elephants' that don't even work, but instead funnels 'pots of gold' into the bulging pockets of gluttonous corporate top-dogs & obese fat-cats who 'own' the Bushies' & their gang of thieves[/i] ...) that panders to the Military Industrial Complex does [i]not[/i] make us any safer ... [/b]Indeed, just the [i]opposite[/i]:-- it drains our resources and gives us the[i] illusion [/i]of some bizarre sort of security (...[i] like the "crazy" loon down the street who squanders his income on filling his garage full of guns & ammo and fails to feed his own family [/i]...), instead of rational investment in [i]intelligent ways-and-means [/i]of securing our borders and defending our nation ...
Moreover, the insane neo-con doctrine of running around the world waging illegal & immoral pre-emptive warfare (... [i]to enrich the corrupt Bush regime's neo-fascist corporate cronies [/i]...) on sovereign nations that[i] pose no threat [/i]to our national security-- fostering hatred, enmity, and increased terrorism-- [i]ain't [/i]exactly a Nobel Prize Winning strategy for making us more secure [i]or[/i] prosperous ...
Consider "[i][b]Kerry Says President Is Weak on Defense[/b][/i]" by[i] Maria L. La Ganga[/i], The Los Angeles Times, on http://www.truthout.com/docs_... :
[b]Kerry accuses Bush of overextending forces and having an 'ad hoc strategy' on terrorism[/b].
Democrat John F. Kerry charged Friday that President Bush sent troops to war unprepared and pursued policies that have undermined the U.S. military and the nation's safety — one of his harshest attacks yet on Bush's national security credentials.
In an address at UCLA days before the California primary, the front-runner for his party's presidential nomination derided what he termed the administration's "armchair hawks." And he said, "George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world. And I know and members of the military know … that George Bush has in fact weakened that military by overextending it."
By questioning the president's leadership in Iraq and in the battle against terrorism, Kerry aimed to weaken one of Bush's central arguments for reelection: that America is at war and the president is the only man who can be trusted to lead the nation to safety.
Kerry's speech, presented before a crowd of several hundred students and faculty in the Freud Playhouse, also highlighted his strengths in the contest for the Democratic nomination. Heading into critical Super Tuesday — when 10 states, including California, will weigh in on the race — Kerry positioned himself as an experienced player in national security matters, an area where rival John Edwards has less experience.
Kerry criticized Bush's handling of unrest in the Middle East, calling the peace process "paralyzed," and he accused the president of shortchanging U.S. troops in Iraq.
"Far too often, troops have been going into harm's way without the weapons and the equipment they depend on…." Kerry said. "Families across America have had to collect funds from their neighbors to buy body armor that is state-of-the-art for their loved ones in uniform, because George Bush has failed to provide it."
Kerry charged that American forces had Osama bin Laden in their grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora, but that "George Bush held U.S. forces back, and instead called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job."
The Massachusetts senator said that "it will be a great step forward" when Bin Laden is captured, but that it would not be the end of the war on terrorism.
He also sought to counter recent criticism by the Republican Party that he is soft on defense.
"I don't fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror," Kerry said. "I believe he has done too little…. George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the war on terror — only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am commander in chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it."
The Bush campaign was quick to fight back Friday against Kerry's allegations in a conference call with reporters and in e-mails before and after the address. Bush representatives questioned Kerry's dedication to a strong military and called the talk a "political speech filled with defeatist rhetoric and factual inaccuracies."
"Today, John Kerry ignored the real progress being made on all fronts of the war on terror," Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said in a written statement, "and he ignored his own long voting record that would undermine America's ability to win the war on terror."
Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot has argued recently that Kerry has repeatedly voted to reduce defense spending and cancel dozens of weapons systems during his 19-year Senate career.
In addition, GOP officials have circulated comments that the Democrat made in 1970 to the Harvard University student newspaper, saying that American forces abroad should be under the supervision of the United Nations.
Kerry struck back, arguing that, as president, he would work with America's allies to make the nation and the world safer, but he would not be hampered by them or beholden to them.
"Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no president would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done," Kerry said.
"As president, I pledge to you, I'll never wait for a green light from abroad, from any other institution, if our safety and security are legitimately at stake."
Kerry has struggled to succinctly explain his vote last year authorizing Bush to take America to war in Iraq and his subsequent protests of the administration's action. In recent weeks he has honed that justification, and on Friday he gave his clearest explanation of how he would take the country to war if he were commander in chief.
That rationale for war also served as a repudiation of how Bush initiated combat in Iraq. The administration justified the war by telling the nation that there was distinct evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No such weapons have been found, the intelligence effort that formed the basis for combat is under investigation, and the administration is being questioned about how upfront it was with the public.
"I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people and our vital interests. And I will be prepared to use it in the great tradition of presidents through all of our history," Kerry said, "when we have exhausted the remedies available, when the threat is discernible and clear and when we have shared it legitimately in truth to the American people."
Opponents of the war in Iraq argue that the Bush administration went to war without exhausting all other remedies and did so without the support of the international community. As a result, they say, the country has been forced to bear the costs of the war and its aftermath.
Those are mistakes, Kerry said, that he would never make and that he would remedy rapidly after being inaugurated as president.
"I will never push away those who can and should share the burden," he said, "and I will exhaust the remedies available to us in an effort to do that so we give meaning to the words, 'going to war as a last resort.' "
In an interview after his address, Kerry said he would be "potentially" more aggressive than past Democratic presidents when it came to deploying military force abroad. He would send troops to another country, he said, "only under the right circumstances, only within a framework that I've described, where it's last resort, you need to do it, you haven't been able to get cooperation or you're threatened in a way that you've got to respond to it."
He also said he was convinced of his "capacity to leverage a more effective multilateral effort" on behalf of the country.
"I want to get results," he said. "I think we can do a far better job of mobilizing legitimate responses to very legitimate challenges to us, which we're just not doing today at all."
Kerry said in his address Friday that, since America is in Iraq, the nation must finish its work there. He called for adding 40,000 active-duty Army troops temporarily and for reforming the U.S. intelligence system.
He said the United States should create and train an Iraqi security force to safeguard its own people. And he emphasized the need for stronger international cooperation and to bolster homeland security efforts to fight terrorism in this country and abroad.
"President Bush says we can't afford to fund homeland security," Kerry said. Bush "says we can afford to give people who earn more than $200,000 a tax cut. I say we can't afford to do that; we can't afford not to fund homeland security."
|
|
|
| |
| Naked Bush:-- And It Ain't A Pretty Sight!!! ... |
| 02.29.04 (6:58 am) [edit] |
[b]Bush is the worst president in U.S. history ... [/b]The dim-witted[i] ne'er-do-well [/i]and cowardly AWOL deserter-[i]cum[/i]-drunk ard has waged[i] illegal & immoral warfare [/i]based upon myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]... Dubya isn't even smart enough to ask his minions the right questions and instead[i] they tell him [/i]what to think, say & do ... and, the corporate puppet-[i]cum[/i]-prez has overseen the worst [i]economic train-wreck [/i]to impoverish working Americans since the Great Depression ...
Bush Naked??? ... It sure as hell[i] ain't [/i]a pretty sight!!! ...
Refer to "[i][b]Bush Uncovered[/b][/i]" by[i] Alan Taylor[/i], Sunday Herald on http://www.sundayherald.com/4... :
[b]Review of:[i] The Price Of Loyalty: George W Bush, The White House And The Education Of Paul O’Neill [/i]by Ron Suskind[/b]
WHEN George Bush junior scraped into the White House in the winter of 2000 following his ropey victory over Al Gore, one of the first and most important appointments he made was that of Paul O’Neill as treasury secretary. It was a controversial and risky choice. O’Neill had not been part of Bush’s campaign team and had not been instrumental in drawing up any policies. Moreover, he was approaching retirement, having for many years run Alcoa, the world’s largest aluminium producer. He was extremely wealthy, highly successful and famously outspoken. Among CEOs, he had a well-deserved and carefully nurtured reputation as a maverick. His wife of 45 years told him to turn down Bush’s offer. But who can say “no” to the President?
Not Paul O’Neill. However, he lasted just two years, the phone call firing him coming from his old chum, Dick Cheney, the vice-president. By then, though, O’Neill was near the end of his tether. He’d seen at first-hand how the Bush White House operated and was not impressed. He was told to say he wanted to return to private life. He said, in effect, “get stuffed”. [i]The Price Of Loyalty [/i]is O’Neill’s story of his life with Dubya, told in dramatic style by Ron Suskind, a Pulitzer Prize winner and a former reporter with the Wall Street Journal.
Like O’Neill, Suskind knows how to crunch numbers and a lot of the book will be beyond readers who don’t venture into business sections. But it’s well worth persisting with as it gives the first unvarnished account of what kind of a pres-ident Bush is and what kind of a White House he’s in charge of. The answer is neither edifying nor reassuring.
O’Neill got little indication of what Bush thought because he rarely spoke, even in their hour-long one-to-one meetings. His expression never changed and O’Neill found him almost impossible to read, which may be an asset in a poker player but not so encouraging in the leader of the world’s only super power. O’Neill says he never heard the president “analyse a complex issue, parse opposing positions, and settle on a judicious path”.
Consequently, senior staff had to operate on little more than hunches on what the president might be thinking. Someone should have hired an astrologer. From O’Neill’s perspective, Cheney was the puppeteer while Dubya was learning on the job and, worryingly, “starting from scratch on most issues”. He soon reneged on the US’s commitment made in Kyoto to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and within months of being confirmed in office was already targeting Saddam and Iraq. Moderate voices in the Cabinet, such as O’Neill, Christine Whitman – who was in charge of the environment – and Colin Powell were marginalised.
Though the evidence was slim and unconvincing, Bush was convinced Saddam had WMD. Shown a grainy photograph of an Iraqi factory, which the CIA believed to be a plant producing WMD, O’Neill said he’d seen a lot of similar factories around the world like it. What made them think this one was a potential time bomb? He never got a satisfactory answer. Later, he remarked: “The president is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection.”
War was inevitable, no matter how unconvincing or unsubstantiated the evidence. September 11 simply gave Bush emotional legitimacy. The alarming thing from a British point of view is that nowhere in this compelling and revelatory book is there any mention of America’s so-called allies and Tony Blair who, we are led to believe, has such a special, ameliorating relationship with this most unfathomable of presidents. [b]That really is [i]scary[/i][/b].
|
|
|
| |
| Thomas Jefferson: 'Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism' ... |
| 02.28.04 (2:58 pm) [edit] |
[b]Protesting against tyranny is our nation's heritage ... [/b]The neo-con, neo-fascist propagandists are [i]out in force[/i] to persuade the brain-dead [i]who don't comprehend our country's history[/i], that protest against the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is [i]stupid, dumb, idiotic [/i]... More neo-orwellian[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]perpetrated by the Bushies' mad dogs and court-jesters ...
Nothing could be [i]further[/i] from the truth ...
Indeed, [i]NOT[/i] to protest against the traitorous Bush regime [i]IS [/i]stupid, dumb, idiotic ... as well as shirking our duty to protect our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights against the neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons who have hijacked our nation on behalf of their gluttonous Global Corporate Empire ...
Please visit "[i][b]Criminalizing Dissent?[/b][/i]" on [i]NOW with Bill Moyers [/i]on http://www.pbs.org/now/politi...
Also, refer to "[b]Who's A Terrorist?[/b]" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| 'DISHONEST' Would Be An Understatement ... |
| 02.28.04 (9:17 am) [edit] |
[b]When lying [i]works[/i], the liar simply continues to perpetuate more [i]lies[/i] layered upon ever more [i]lies [/i]... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime [i]'got-away' [/i]with lying to the American public and the entire world community regarding phony WMDs misleading us into their bloody neo-con guerrilla quagmire in Iraq (... [i]tragically, Bush, Cheney & the neo-cons should be in the dock at the International Court at the Hague to be tried for Crimes Against Humanity -- instead these neo-fascist thugs & goons are still in power, for which they are unfit [/i]...) ...
Now they are trying to persuade the [i]not-terribly-bright [/i]American people that the economy is recovering-- when instead, the neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]has callously and irresponsibly created a[i] financial nightmare of a train-wreck[/i], having awarded immoral [i]tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles [/i]to their corporate pimps, the wealthiest oligarchs and filthy rich plutocrats-- Meanwhile, the Middle-Class and Working People are being slowly but surely bankrupted and their taxes are increasing in order to pay for the sordid life styles of the hyper-rich and corporate robber-barons ... poverty and homelessness are skyrocketing ... and, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling and services needed in order to avoid becoming a [i]3rd world banana republic [/i]are being slashed before our very eyes ...
Refer to the[i] Center for American Progress' [/i]ECONOMY REPORT on http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040227.HTM#2 :
[i][b]'Dishonest' Would Be An Understatement[/b][/i]
Almost six months ago to the day, President Bush made a Labor Day visit to Ohio, a state which has "lost more than a quarter-million jobs," including 166,000 manufacturing jobs, since 2001. During a speech to workers there, he said he would "appoint an assistant secretary [of Commerce] to focus on the needs of manufacturers, to make sure our manufacturing job base is strong and vibrant…We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move." Yet, six months later, the country has lost another quarter million manufacturing jobs (and Ohio alone has lost another 9,000 manufacturing jobs) and the Administration has not only failed to offer a policy prescription, it has not even appointed the Commerce department specialist. And yesterday, the situation hit a boiling point: [i]the Bureau of Labor Statistics [/i]released its monthly Mass Layoff report which showed "there were more mass layoffs in January 2004 than in any previous January for the nine-years that such records have been kept" – a report that prompted outrage from Sens. Schumer, Corzine and Stabenow. The promise to address the manufacturing situation with new policies and a new manufacturing czar – and then failure to follow through – is only the latest economic contradiction from the Bush Administration. What follows is a list of the most brazen and calculated economic distortions:
[u][b]MYTH 1 – WE CARE ABOUT JOB LOSS[/b][/u]: President Bush, echoing an oft-repeated sentiment from the Administration, said recently that "we care about our fellow citizens - we want to make sure somebody who's hurting has a chance to succeed in life by working." Yet, just a few weeks ago, the President personally signed a report wholeheartedly endorsing U.S. job loss to overseas outsourcing, claiming that it was a "good thing" and just an unpreventable side-effect of free trade. But as Paul Krugman notes, free trade is "viable only if it's backed by effective job creation measures and a strong domestic social safety net" – both areas the Administration has repeatedly slashed. For the last three years, the Administration has tried to cut more than $1 billion out of job training programs, while underfunding its own education bill by $27 billion – in essence robbing workers of the education/training tools they need to compete. At the same time, the Administration has cut funding for a plethora of health care and safety net programs. See more on the Administration's policies that are discouraging job and wage growth.
[u][b]MYTH 2 – WE CARE ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS[/b][/u]: The Administration has claimed it wants to "help the middle class." Yet, just this week, the President refused to distance himself from Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's proposal to severely reduce Social Security benefits for ordinary people in order to protect the Administration's massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Greenspan said cutting Social Security – as opposed to reducing the tax cuts – was necessary to deal with growing deficits, "effectively embracing the lunatic notion that cutting taxes will generate more government revenue" and that protecting the rich should come before protecting the middle class. In 1966 Greenspan said "deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." Now, it is Greenspan and the White House using the "scheme" of deficits to justify Social Security cuts – and confiscate wealth from the middle class to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. See more background on the current state of Social Security.
[u][b]MYTH 3 – WE ARE CUTTING TAXES FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE[/b][/u]: As a presidential candidate in 2000, then-Governor Bush said "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." It was an oft-repeated sentiment for the next three years, with the Administration saying that its tax bills would be "an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class." Yet, the data now clearly shows the Administration's tax cuts were overwhelmingly skewed towards the wealthy: By 2010, the top 1% - who make an average of $1 million - will have received more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks, and will have received over half of all the Bush tax cuts ever passed (this might explain why four in five Americans say they have felt no tax relief). To combat this embarrassing truth, the Administration resorted to disingenuous rhetoric, citing deceptive averages to claim that its most recent tax proposal would give "91 million taxpayers an average tax cut of $1,126." Yet, these averages were artificially inflated because they included huge tax breaks to millionaires. In reality, the middle fifth of all households received just $217, with 83% of Americans getting less than the "average" – all while the Administration is effectively raising taxes on the middle class. Most shockingly, the President himself admitted that he knew he was misleading Americans by claiming the tax cuts helped average people. As he asked his economic team when they were pondering even more tax cuts, "Haven't we already given money to rich people? Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?"
[u][b]MYTH 4 – TAX CUTS WILL NOT CAUSE DEFICITS[/b][/u]: Facing questions about the massive size of his tax cuts, President Bush assured the nation that "we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." When the tax cuts passed, the surplus evaporated and record deficits hit. Instead of fessing up to its distortion, the Administration blamed the recession for the deficit. Then, realizing that it couldn't take that track because it had said there would be no deficits "even if the economy softens," the President said "this nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war" – claiming the deficit was caused by increases in defense/homeland security spending needed after 9/11 . Yet, hard data and the Administration's own budget documents show that tax cuts – not defense/homeland security spending - were the single largest factor in creating the deficit. Desperate for some explanation, the President said, "I remember campaigning in Chicago, and one of the reporters said, would you ever deficit spend? I said only -- only in times of war, in times of economic insecurity as a result of a recession, or in times of national emergency." Yet even this explanation was not true – as Tim Russert noted, "we have checked everywhere and we've even called the White House as to when the president said this, and it didn't happen."
[u][b]MYTH 5 – WE CARE ABOUT THE UNEMPLOYED[/b][/u]: President Bush has said, "I'm worried about those who are unemployed." Yet, with 760,000 scheduled to lose their unemployment benefits this month, his Administration refuses to demand that its allies on Capitol Hill stop blocking a House-passed bill that would extend unemployment benefits. Adding insult to injury, the Administration's key economic officials visited parts of the country hardest hit by unemployment, yet refused to actually meet with any unemployed workers.
[b]Refer to the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]for sources and links [/b]on http://www.americanprogress.o...%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040227.HTM#2
|
|
|
| |
| What Would YOU Do??? ... |
| 02.28.04 (8:31 am) [edit] |
[b]In the aftermath of the most powerful nation on earth launching a pre-emptive neo-con incursion into a sovereign country that posed no threat to the US, its neighbors or allies (... [i]based upon vicious lies, deceptions & falsehoods, regarding phony WMDs, spewed in order to mislead the US, the world community and the U.N. [/i]...) slaughtering hundreds of US Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi Civilians, and destabilizing the entire Middle East region:-- ... [/b]
[i]Add[/i] to these facts, that the "crazy" neo-con ideologues who have hijacked the US have been promoting perpetual warfare for years in order to achieve an insane global hegemony, rape the local populations of their natural resources (e.g. oil), and enslave the conquered peoples as their neo-serfs in order to do the bidding of powerful corporations including Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc.:-- ...
If [i]YOU [/i]Were A U.N. Security Council Member, What Would [i]YOU [/i]Do??? ... ([i]After You Had Pulled Yourself Off The Floor Following A Fit Of Hysterical Laughter [/i]...)
Refer to "[i][b]US Pushes UN to Endorse Preemptive Action Against Suspected WMDs[/b][/i]" by [i]Haider Rizvi [/i]on http://antiwar.com/ips/rizvi.... :
The United States is pressing the U.N. Security Council to endorse a draft resolution that would allow the use of force against "entities and individuals" suspected of trying to develop, possess or transfer weapons of mass destruction (WMD), diplomats and observers here say.
Though they say they are equally concerned about proliferation of the weapons, many Security Council members fear the resolution would give Washington a free hand to unilaterally deal with the as yet undefined "entities and individuals".
The draft resolution states that some countries "may require assistance within their territories, and invite states in a position to" prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, rockets and vehicles capable of delivering such weapons, a phrase that makes many suspicious of U.S. intentions.
The proposal "should not be a context to whip the countries", says an Asian diplomat who did not want to be named. "How can we talk about faceless actors when there's no agreed definition of terrorists? You know, whom you called a terrorist yesterday could be a president today".
According to the draft, Washington wants the Security Council to ask all member nations to help prevent and "if necessary, interdict shipment of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, their means of delivery and related material in accordance with the international and national laws".
"This is a dangerous concept," says an Asian diplomat who also requested anonymity. "This can be misused by adversaries in the name of interdiction".
The US resolution stems from the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a plan announced by President George W. Bush in May last year as a step towards creating new legal agreements authorizing the search of planes and ships carrying suspect cargo.
The PSI has been endorsed by nine European nations, including Britain, Germany and France, as well as Australia. Washington and its allies claim the proposal is legal under the UN Charter and the Security Council Presidential Statement of 1992.
But legal experts say neither of those regulations gives nations the authority to interdict shipments on the high seas.
Diplomats say negotiations have stalled on the question of the definition of "interdiction" because two of five permanent Council members, China and Russia, have refused to go along with the current draft resolution.
"The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a serious issue," Russia's UN Ambassador Sergey Lavrov told reporters recently. "But we need to develop a language which is clear".
"It's a sensitive issue," said Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya, who is also president of the Security Council for February. "It can be best solved by the judgments of the International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA), the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, he added.
Recent IAEA investigations into Iran's nuclear program led to the arrest of Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, who publicly confessed his involvement in transferring his country's nuclear technology to other nations.
Diplomats say so far that case is the only example that could be used to define the "entities and individuals" in the draft US resolution.
But Pakistan, a non-permanent Security Council member, sees the case in a different light. "Dr. Khan was an aberration," a Pakistani diplomat told IPS. "He has been taken care of."
A US diplomat had a different interpretation. "This resolution is trouble for (Pakistan)," he said.
Negotiations on the resolution have so far been confined to the five permanent members of the Security Council, which frustrates some non-permanent but elected members.
"Why is it up to the P-5 (permanent five) to determine the agenda of non-proliferation?" asked a diplomat from a non-permanent member nation. "On the one hand, they are the preachers. On the other hand, they are the sinners".
All permanent members – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China – continue to posses thousands of nuclear weapons in their arsenals. Washington is no longer making it a secret that it is producing a new generation of those weapons.
Experts on international law say they share the concerns of the elected members of the Security Council – that Washington might use force against some nations under the pretext of implementing a UN Security Council resolution.
"They are right," says John Burroughs, executive director of the [i]Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy[/i], http://www.lcnp.org/ a U.S.-based non-profit disarmament advocacy group.
"They think if you get this resolution on paper, the US may use military force like it did in Iraq, even though the UN did not approve it."
Washington is seeking Security Council approval under chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which binds states to implement Council decisions. But Burroughs says he and his colleagues, who have been working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction for more than two decades, doubt if the move to adopt the WMD resolution is legitimate.
"There is nothing in the UN Charter that gives the Security Council the authority to adopt global legislation," he says. "This resolution deals with complex situations" and involves individuals not acting on behalf of states.
Burroughs suggests that any effective implementation of such a proposal would require the involvement of the UN secretary-general and the body's department of disarmament, in addition to negotiations on multilateral agreements such as the Biological Weapons Convention.
Diplomats say non-permanent Security Council members want to address the issue of proliferation by enhancing the agenda on disarmament. But Washington and other permanent members prefer to deal with it separately, they add.
"This is the basic problem with the US and others," says Burroughs. "They think the terrorism threat can be solved with nonproliferation efforts. That's not right. It's going to require eliminating weapons of mass destruction everywhere. It requires political will to do so."
|
|
|
| |
| British MP Calls for Inquiry into Blair/Bush Lies, Deceptions & Falsehoods ... |
| 02.27.04 (6:06 pm) [edit] |
[b]A British Member of Parliament from Blair's own Labour Party is calling for an inquiry, a full public investigation into Blair/Bush's [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i], leading to their illegal, immoral and bloody neo-con guerrilla quagmire in Iraq ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]Duplicity, evasions - but no answers[/b][/i]" by [i]Peter Kilfoyle, Labour MP [/i]on http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...,3604,1157359,00.html :
[i]It is time for an full, independent public inquiry into the case for war [/i]
The revelations of Katharine Gun should not have come as too big a surprise. After all, we have come to expect the worst of our security services when they are guided by men and women of little principle. Yet when we bug our allies to undermine them at the UN, we are plumbing new depths.
When the powerful feel threatened, there is little they will not do to protect their power. Thus, the downfall of Richard Nixon began with his burglars sifting through Democrat files at Watergate. Was the request by Frank Koza of the [i]United States National Security Agency [/i]to GCHQ for illegal help qualitatively any different? When Peter Wright's book [i]Spycatcher [/i]suggested an intelligence plot to oust Harold Wilson, many of us were not surprised either.
Why should we feel any better towards our security agencies today, when they appear to be more motivated by politics than by security? They begin by being selective and they degenerate into being subversive. It should be of no surprise that the prime minister reacted to the dropping of the case against Katharine Gun - and Clare Short's allegations - by attacking them.
Answering a question that he was not actually asked in his press conference yesterday, he said those who "attack the work they [the intelligence services] are doing, undermine the security of the country". This is a a breathtaking sidestep from the real issue of whether we spied on our allies and on the UN. Have we been acting illegally yet again? The prime minister's charge that Ms Gun and Ms Short are "irresponsible" will not wash.
The public wants a full account of what our intelligence services have been up to. The national interest demands a full account too, not further evasions and duplicity. There are two Congressional inquiries into the rationale for the Iraq warunder way in Washington. They will unearth more in a week than a dozen Butler commissions will manage in a lifetime. Unlike our system, US inquiries are designed to illuminate rather than obfuscate. It is perhaps why the [i]Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [/i]- in its report, WMD in Iraq - drew upon official [i]National Intelligence Estimates[/i], which had been declassified up to July 2003, for its conclusions and recommendations.
From the earliest days, it was dissidents within the US intelligence community who were conducting a debate with the administration on the pro-war strategy. Can we imagine the British intelligence community dropping its supine posture towards the political establishment in such a frank way?
The recent revelations concern attempts to subvert the decision-making of the UN's security council. At such a critical time the UK was party to illegal spying at the behest of the US. Such a role for our country would be consistent with our peculiar notion of a special relationship, our reward for which is access to American intelligence. The existing cosy intelligence relationship has been complemented by a close alliance between Bush and Blair. The president, failing to get unqualified CIA support for his wilder claims on Iraq, relied on Donald Rumsfeld's [i]Office of Special Plans [/i]for other intelligence.
Blair had a more compliant joint intelligence committee and a tame parliamentary intelligence select committee. Under pressure, he still had to accede to an inquiry of sorts into intelligence on WMD. This takes the form of the Butler Commission - chaired by former cabinet secretary and packed with dependable establishment figures. Its terms of reference would make a Mississippi gambler blush, so stacked is its deck. Few will be satisfied by its conclusions - whatever they might be.
The aborted case against Katharine Gun, and Clare Short's allegations, simply underline the inadequacy of the Butler Commission. Let us recall the calamitous interaction between the intelligence services and the British government on Iraq. There was Scott Ritter's account of M16's [i]Operation Mass Appeal [/i]in the 1990s, designed to "shake up public opinion" against Iraq, using dubious intelligence material. There were the dodgy dossiers, using a plagiarised 10-year-old thesis, and forged evidence on alleged uranium purchases. There was the alleged failure to tell the prime minister that the doubtful 45 minutes claim related only to battlefield munitions, and the subsequent failure to find the allegedly ubiquitous WMD.
What a catalogue of failure. Blair's response to this situation, and to the evidence of Gun and Short, is wholly unsatisfactory. His imputations against the two women's integrity is woefully inadequate. Until we have a full, public and independent inquiry into the case for going to war against Iraq, there will remain a dark cloud over the prime minister. When that cloud breaks, the umbrella of the intelligence service will be of no protection to him.
· [i]Peter Kilfoyle is Labour MP for Liverpool Walton and a former defence minister [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| John F. Kerry on Homeland Security ... |
| 02.27.04 (5:21 pm) [edit] |
[b]John F. Kerry on Homeland Security ... [/b]Unlike Bush (... [i]a cowardly ne'er-do-well, AWOL deserter who was in a drunken stupor when it was his duty to serve and instead he ran away[/i] ...) John F. Kerry served in Vietnam, actually defended our nation, and is strong on defense ... The mendacious neo-con right-wingers have their [i]neo-orwellian propaganda machine out to smear [/i]Kerry because he has opposed some of their immoral and rapacious corporate boondoggles (... [i]that enrich corporate top-dogs & fat-cats, but don't do a thing to protect America [/i]...) enabling Halliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed-Martin and the Military Industrial Complex, etc.-- to [i]rape[/i] the US taxpayers blind ...
John F. Kerry is a[i] smart man[/i], unlike Dubya who is an imbecilic [i]corporate puppet [/i]who is not defending our nation, but instead wantonly wastes time (... [i]while our nation is at war and in a financial crisis [/i]...) watching football, attending NASCAR races and watching old movies with Condi Rice ... while his neo-con mad dogs & neo-fascist henchmen wage illegal and immoral warfare abroad, imperilling our nation ...
We need a [i]smart man [/i]like Kerry in office rather that the corrupt [i]corporate-take-all [/i]cabal of neo-fascist thugs & goons who tell the half-wit Dubya what to [i]think, say and do [/i]...
Consider[b] John Kerry for President's [/b]"[i][b]Defending The American Homeland[/b][/i]" on http://www.johnkerry.com/issu... :
The most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense. The Bush Administration has provided too little support, too little leadership, and too little vision for the common defense of our homeland. John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security.
John Kerry believes we shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in Brooklyn. Our first defenders should never come in last in the budget. Firefighters are first up the stairs and John Kerry believes they deserve to be first in line when we decide our spending priorities.
America needs a new strategy for homeland security that asks Americans to do more and takes steps as big as the threats we face. We need to put our faith and trust in the people on the frontlines – and back it up with real resources. We need to make sure first defenders have the gear and support they need, and the benefits and protections they've earned. John Kerry has a six-point plan to ensure that we are safer, stronger and more secure on our own soil.
[b]Read [i]John F. Kerry's [/i] full plan [/b]on http://www.johnkerry.com/issu...
|
|
|
| |
| Alan GreenSPAM Has Got To GO!!! |
| 02.27.04 (4:04 pm) [edit] |
[b]Alan Green[i]SPAM[/i] has got to[i] GO[/i]!!! ... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime's traitorous Federal Reserve [i]puppet[/i] has fallen in[i] lust [/i]with [i]power and wealth [/i]and doesn't give a damn about our nation ... Green[i]SPAM[/i]'s vile diatribes are [i]irresponsible, reckless and destructive SPAM [/i] like the disgusting pornographic [i]SPAM [/i]spewed all over the internet ... Only in this case, Green[i]SPAM'[/i]s neo-fascist rhetoric will impoverish America's working class ...
For more, refer to "[i][b]Alan Greenspan Has Got to Go[/b][/i]" by [i]Matthew Rothschild[/i], The Progressive on http://www.progressive.org/we... :
[b]Alan Greenspan's got a lot of nerve[/b].
Instead of excoriating Bush for running up a $521 billion deficit, instead of demanding an end to the tax giveaways to the rich, which will bloat the deficit for years to come, Greenspan says slash Social Security and Medicare, and make the poor and the middle class suffer.
The class bias of the Fed chief could not be more clear.
Social programs are always the favorite whipping boy of the right.
On Medicare, Greenspan at least recognizes a real problem with costs skyrocketing, but his paymaster Bush refuses to let anybody do anything to lower costs. In fact, Bush's Medicare "reform" plan prohibits the federal government from bargaining with the drug companies to lower costs, and it prohibits people or states from importing drugs from Canada. If Greenspan were truly concerned about Medicare's costs, he would have opposed this inflationary gift to the drug companies.
By contrast, on Social Security, Greenspan continues to hype a threat that is almost nonexistent. Like many economists, journalists, and pundits ([i]Tim Russert high among them[/i]), Greenspan claims that the baby boom generation is going to bankrupt Social Security.
Not true.
The Social Security Trust Fund's own report says it will be able to meet all its obligations through the year 2042, as Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the [i]Center for Economic and Policy Research [/i]has noted. "Most of the baby boomers will be dead by then," he says.
What's more, these figures are based on the economy growing at only a 2 percent annual rate, Weisbrot wrote in an op-ed in January. If it grows faster than that, the trust fund will have more money to shell out.
And even if it doesn't, the Social Security system will still be able to meet most of its obligations after that. To make up for whatever gap occurs then, the government could lift the ceiling on the payroll tax, which today is at $87,900.
That means that if you make $87,900, you pay the same amount into the Social Security Trust Fund as Bill Gates.
Why not lift that ceiling today?
Two reasons: [i]Bush and Greenspan[/i].
Their life's life work is to protect and enlarge the assets of the upper class.
[b]Dennis Kucinich is right. [i]Alan Greenspan should be fired[/i].[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Compassionate??? ... The Mad King George ... |
| 02.27.04 (2:15 pm) [edit] |
[b]As more and more Americans continue to [i]lose their jobs [/i]in order that corporate fascists-[i]cum[/i]-thiev es can [i]reap massive profits [/i]from paying immoral[i] slave labour wages abroad[/i], the Mad King George is [i]slashing any help that would relieve the suffering and poverty [/i]afflicting families and those struggling in miserable circumstances and dire need ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]Compassionate George[/b][/i]" by [i]Matt Bivens[/i], the Daily Outrage of THE NATION, on http://www.thenation.com/outr... :
When the economy sours, we traditionally gin up some extra aid for the unemployed. That's just smart economics: It keeps people who want to work but can't afloat, just long enough to find work when the economy revives. (Otherwise they sink beyond help, and end up being far more costly to society.)
But this year, the Bushies have decided to turn off that federal aid spigot even before the jobs picture improves. Hell, it might eat into some of the money set aside for more deserving people! http://www.thenation.com/outr...
So what do we have? According to the [i]Center on Budget and Policy Priorities[/i], http://www.cbpp.org/2-25-04ui... , some 760,000 jobless workers so far this year have exhausted all unemployment benefits. In fact, data from Bush's own Labor Department shows that 350,000 individuals exhausted all benefits in January -- the largest amount to do so in a single month ever since records started being kept 33 years ago.
All of which has economists and sensible people arguing for reinstatement of temporary unemployment aid, if only to help the children of three-quarters of a million American families.
The Bush Administration response?
A [i]bold[/i] new stance on gay marriages.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Regime Is Playing Games With The 9/11 Commission To Cover-Up Crimes ... |
| 02.27.04 (11:24 am) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime is undertaking to heinously & traitorously [i]cover-up:-- [/i][i][u]what[/i] they knew[/u] and[i] [u]when [/i]they knew it[/u], regarding the 9/11 attacks upon America ...[/b]
Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and express your outrage at the White House's[i] stone-walling [/i]by [i]covering-up [/i]their daily intelligence reports regarding 9/11 ... Insist that the vile Mad King George, Veep-[i]N[/i]-Creep Cheney, Queen Condi and the other criminals in the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] be [i]subpoenaed to testify [/i]in open-door hearings without restrictions ... 9/11 was[i] too serious [/i]to permit these neo-con thugs & goons to continue to perpetrate criminal treason against the U.S.A. ...
Consider "[i][b]White House's limits upset 9/11 panel[/b][/i]" on http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin... :
[b]Washington[/b] -- 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, 2001, attacks, saying they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, panel members said Wednesday.
The commission, which has 10 members and is bipartisan, said it also had been informed by the White House that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had rejected its request that she testify in public about the intelligence reports she received before the attacks.
Democratic members of the panel said the administration's moves raised new questions about its willingness to cooperate with the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement blunders in the months and years before the attacks. The White House initially opposed creating the panel.
Republican congressional leaders have criticized the investigation's pace. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Wednesday that he would block legislation that extended the commission's May 27 deadline, the [i]Los Angeles Times [/i]reported.
"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have agreed to meet privately with the chair and vice chair but prefer not to meet with all members," the statement said, referring to the chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican, and the vice chairman, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind. "We hope the president and the vice president will reconsider."
The panel said it was disappointed by Rice's decision not to testify at a public hearing, adding, "We believe the nation would be well served by the contribution she can make to public understanding of the intelligence and policy issues being examined by the commission."
Rice has submitted to several hours of questioning at a private session. Her spokesman, Sean McCormack, said the decision against public testimony was made at the recommendation of administration lawyers who warned of separation- of-powers issues.
"Based on law and practice, White House staff members have not testified before legislative bodies," McCormack said, "and this is considered a legislative body."
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, would not offer details of the administration's reasoning in trying to limit the meeting to Kean and Hamilton. Healy said she was unaware that the White House had wanted to limit the president's interview to one hour.
|
|
|
| |
| Free Trade Versus Protectionism ... |
| 02.27.04 (8:59 am) [edit] |
[b]The great debate in the 2004 presidential election most probably will[i] not [/i]be over the cultural wars ([i]e.g. gay marriage, abortion, etc[/i].), but instead over the costs and benefits of Free Trade Versus Protectionism ...[/b]
Free trade is not a[i] bad [/i]thing [i]per se [/i]... providing that there are basic laws, regulations and safety-nets in place to ensure that [i]ethics, standards and principles[/i] are adhered to, to keep rapacious, greedy and criminal corporations from enslaving, exploiting, impoverishing, and/or raping other peoples ([i]i.e. real human beings ...[/i]) in the world community and their natural resources ([i]e.g. oil, mineral rights, water rights, etc[/i]. ...) ...
Moreover, to be[i] civilized[/i], a society must ensure that its people have productive, safe and decent paying jobs, and that taxation is fairly applied (... [i]corporations and the rich must be obliged to contribute towards the general welfare of all-- instead of immorally avoiding their responsibilities, as they are doing today, under the insanely brutish neo-fascist Bush regime [/i]...) in order that all citizens have basic services including clean water & sewage systems, roads, bridges, buildings & infrastructure, education, police, firemen, health care, dignity in old age, and all of those things that create an [i]enlightened, caring and just civilization [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]The Trade Tightrope[/b][/i]" by[i] Dr. Paul Krugman[/i], NY Times, on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
You can't blame the Democrats for making the most of the Bush administration's message malfunction on trade and jobs. When the president's top economist suggests, even hypothetically, considering hamburger-flipping a form of manufacturing, it's a golden opportunity to accuse the White House of being out of touch with the concerns of working Americans. ("Will special sauce now be counted as a durable good?" Representative John Dingell asks.) And the accusation sticks, because it's true.
But the Democratic presidential candidates have to walk a tightrope. To exploit the administration's vulnerability, they must offer relief to threatened workers. But they also have to avoid falling into destructive protectionism.
Let me spare you the usual economist's sermon on the virtues of free trade, except to say this: although old fallacies about international trade have been making a comeback lately (yes, Senator Charles Schumer, that means you), it is as true as ever that the U.S. economy would be poorer and less productive if we turned our back on world markets. Furthermore, if the United States were to turn protectionist, other countries would follow. The result would be a less hopeful, more dangerous world.
Yet it's bad economics to pretend that free trade is good for everyone, all the time. "Trade often produces losers as well as winners," declares the best-selling textbook in international economics (by Maurice Obstfeld and yours truly). The accelerated pace of globalization means more losers as well as more winners; workers' fears that they will lose their jobs to Chinese factories and Indian call centers aren't irrational.
Addressing those fears isn't protectionist. On the contrary, it's an essential part of any realistic political strategy in support of world trade. That's why the Nelson Report, a strongly free-trade newsletter on international affairs, recently had kind words for John Kerry. It suggested that he is basically a free trader who understands that "without some kind of political safety valve, Congress may yet be stampeded into protectionism, which benefits no one."
Mr. Kerry's Wednesday speech on trade seemed consistent with that interpretation. He decried the loss of jobs to imports, but was careful not to promise too much. You might say that he proposed speed bumps, rather than outright barriers to outsourcing: rules requiring notice to employees and government agencies before jobs are shifted overseas, steps to close tax loopholes that encourage offshore operations, more aggressive enforcement of existing trade agreements, and a review of those agreements with an eye toward seeking tougher labor and environmental standards.
I don't see anything there that threatens to unravel the world trading system. If anything, the question is whether it provides enough of a "political safety valve."
The answer, I think, is yes — but only if those modest measures on the trade front are combined with much bigger changes in domestic policy.
First and foremost, we need more jobs. U.S. employment is at least four million short of where it should be. Imports and outsourcing didn't cause that shortfall, but if the job gap doesn't start closing soon, protectionist pressures will become irresistible.
Beyond that, we need to do much more to help workers who lose their jobs. It didn't help the cause of free trade when Republican leaders in Congress recently allowed extended unemployment benefits to expire, even though employment is lower and long-term unemployment higher than when those benefits were introduced.
And in the longer run, we need universal health insurance. Social justice aside, it would be a lot easier to make the case for free trade and free markets in general if, like every other major advanced country, we had a system in which workers kept their health coverage even when they happened to lose their jobs.
The point is that free trade is politically viable only if it's backed by effective job creation measures and a strong domestic social safety net. And that suggests that free traders should be more worried by the prospect that the policies of the current administration will continue than by the possibility of a Democratic replacement.
[b][u]Put it this way[/u]: there's a reason why the two U.S. presidents who did the most to promote growth in world trade were Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, while the two most protectionist presidents of the last 70 years have been Ronald Reagan and, yes, George W. Bush. [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Senate Plans Secret Session on Iraq: Cover-Up of Bush Crimes ... |
| 02.27.04 (7:49 am) [edit] |
[b]Will the truth regarding the many, many, many [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]perpetrated by the corrupt Bush regime [i]ever[/i] be formally acknowledged and those responsible be brought to justice??? ...[/b]The Bushies are accountable to the people and should be impeached for their [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
Not if the corporate-[i]bought-and-p aid-for [/i]immoral Republicans have anything to do with it ... They have hijacked our nation and are tearing us asunder for the sake of their own lust for power and their insane greed ...
Consider "[i][b]Senate plans secret session on Iraq[/b][/i]" by [i]Kristina Herrndobler, [/i]Washington Bureau, Chicago Tribune, on http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... :
The last time the Senate met in a closed-door session--excluding press and visitors, shutting out most staffers and imposing a television blackout--was during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999.
The Senate is again gearing up for a rare secret session, this time to scrutinize flaws in America's prewar intelligence about Iraqi weapons. And like last time, political charges and countercharges are swirling about the motivation and agenda for the session.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) agreed on the closed session, which will be held in coming weeks, after Democrats threatened to force the issue.
Any two senators can force a closed session, and Republican leaders decided to go along despite criticism from some in their ranks that the closed session is a political stunt designed to turn up the heat on President Bush.
Democrats insist the session is a legitimate, even important, way for lawmakers to explore how the intelligence community could have been as mistaken as it apparently was in saying that Iraq (news - web sites) was concealing significant stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
That is of particular concern to senators who relied on such assertions when they voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq, Democratic leaders said.
[b]`A very rare occasion'[/b]
"The senators who voted for the Iraq resolution want to see how the intelligence they based that vote on could be that wrong," said a senior Democratic aide. "This is a very rare occasion, and any time a closed session would be called, it would be about the most important type of debates."
Joe Shoemaker, spokesman for Intelligence Committee member Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), agreed.
"This has become too big of a topic for the Senate not to address it as a whole," he said.
But some Republicans questioned their opponents' motives, noting that the Intelligence Committee and an independent commission already are investigating flaws in the prewar intelligence.
"This is nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or intelligence," Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.) told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. "Everybody wants to get to the bottom of what is going on there, and the bottom line is they want to play politics with the issue."
Although no date has been set, Democrats are pressing to hold the session soon, while the GOP leadership wants to wait.
Daschle is calling for administration officials, including CIA chief George Tenet and Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to attend the session to answer questions. But Republicans object.
"Sending our troops to war is the most critical decision a lawmaker can make, so it makes sense to have people like that there to be able to comment and answer questions," said one Democratic aide.
Since David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, asserted last month that Saddam Hussein likely had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, Bush has faced pressure to explain how the U.S. could go to war for a seemingly faulty reason.
Bush named an independent commission, headed by former Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.) and retired federal Judge Laurence Silberman, to examine the nation's intelligence agencies.
It remains unclear how the closed session will proceed or what it will encompass. It is even uncertain how much of it will remain secret, given the participation of 100 senators. But the session is likely to add heat to a debate already fueled by the presidential campaign.
Frist's press secretary confirmed that the majority leader has agreed to a closed session, but he would not offer an estimate on when it would take place. "I wouldn't say it will be within a couple of weeks, because they just haven't gotten that far in discussions yet," Bob Stevenson said.
The Constitution does not require the Senate to meet in open session. In fact, said associate Senate historian Donald Ritchie, senators did not regularly open their debates to the public until 1929.
[b]Precedent for secrecy [/b]
Susan Tolchin, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, said national security and intelligence are topics that have traditionally prompted the Senate to close its doors.
"Intelligence Committees have never been open," Tolchin said. "In many cases, national security has been used for frivolous reason. But in this case with Iraq, I think our policy of secrecy is sound."
Randall Strahan, a political science professor at Emory University, said it is important that the Senate strike a balance between transparency and security. "This is a case that most citizens might find understandable to hold in closed session," Strahan said.
Still, Strahan said there are obvious reasons Republicans would want to delay the issue.
"I can see why the Republicans would want to resist it," Strahan said. "The best-case scenario would be that they have this session and everyone is satisfied. But the worse case would be that something harmful to the administration comes out."
Strahan also said it is conceivable that the closed session could strengthen the administration's case for war, by informing senators of previously unknown intelligence.
While it might seem unlikely that any meeting of 100 publicity-friendly politicians would remain secret, any senator or staffer who violates the session's confidentiality would be taking a serious risk.
Ilona Nickels, a scholar at the Center on Congress at Indiana University, said the rules for closed sessions are strict and that there are severe ramifications, including dismissal from the Senate, if someone leaks information.
However rare a closed session is for the Senate, it is even more unlikely that the 435 members of the House of Representatives would hold such a secret meeting.
"I would not expect this to happen in the House," Strahan said. "The traditional role of the Senate is being the more important body in foreign policy matters."
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Misleading on Social Security Begins ... |
| 02.26.04 (4:49 pm) [edit] |
[b]The neo-fascist Bush regime has instigated barbaric foreign (... [i]corporate rape and looting abroad [/i]...) and domestic (... [i]military junta protecting the wealthy who are enslaving & impoverishing working people [/i]...) policies that are taking us back to the [i]bad old days [/i]of the Great Depression, in which the gluttonous hyper-rich robber-barons live akin to Emperor Caligula [i]eating the flesh [/i]and [i]sucking the blood [/i]out of impoverished neo-serfs living in miserable conditions in order to serve their neo-feudal masters ...[/b]
Refer to "[i][b]Bush Misleading on Social Security Begins[/b][/i]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
Yesterday, President Bush implicitly acknowledged for the first time that his Administration could attempt to reduce Social Security benefits for workers - a reversal from one of his core campaign pledges in 2000. Specifically, the president was asked his opinion on Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's assertion that, in order to balance the budget, Social Security benefits should be cut1. Bush responded, "My position on Social Security benefits is this: those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement."2 However, the president specifically refused to say he opposed cutting future guaranteed benefits for younger and middle-aged workers.
The president's refusal to discuss younger workers was a departure from his very clear position in 2000 in which he said he did not support cuts in future Social Security benefits for anyone - young or old. Less than two months before the 2000 election, then-Governor Bush said in Florida that people were saying, "'You know, if George W. becomes the president, he's going to take away your Social Security check.'" To which Bush added, "Don't believe it. Here's my pledge to the people of Florida: A promise made by our government will be a promise kept when I become the president of the United States."3.
Certainly, President Bush has talked about his plan to privatize Social Security. However, he has obscured the fact that the plan could result in cuts to guaranteed benefits for younger workers. He has also declined to openly discuss the fact that, at a time of record deficits, his "own economic team estimates that a move to private accounts would add an additional $4.7 trillion to the debt"4. And, most importantly, Bush refused to fully disassociate himself with Greenspan's call to reduce benefits.
[b]Sources[/b]:
1. "Greenspan urges Social Security cuts", Salon, 02/25/2004.
2. President Bush Welcomes Georgian President Saakashvili to White House, 02/25/2004.
3. Bush speech, 9/11/2000.
4. CBS News, 2/25/2004.
|
|
|
| |
| Spy Case Casts Fresh Doubt on War Legality ... |
| 02.26.04 (1:30 pm) [edit] |
[b]International law was ruthlessly [i]violated[/i] by the corrupt Bush regime who waged an immoral and illegal war turned bloody guerrilla quagmire in Iraq, based upon myriad[i] lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]... [/b]The neo-con Bushies reckless & rapacious aggression into Iraq constitutes a [i]neo-hitlerian-style invasion [/i]without just cause ...
However, there is[i] even further evidence [/i]to bolster the case against the insane neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who should be tried for[i] Crimes Against Humanity[/i] ...
Consider "[i][b]Spy Case Casts Fresh Doubt on War Legality[/b][/i]" by [i]Richard Norton-Taylor and Ewen MacAskill[/i] on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
Dramatic new evidence pointing to serious doubts in the government about the legality of the war in Iraq was passed to government lawyers shortly before they abandoned the prosecution of the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun.
The prosecution offered no evidence yesterday against Ms Gun, a former GCHQ employee, despite her admitting that she leaked information about an American spying operation at the UN in the run-up to the war.
She said she acted to try to prevent Britain illegally invading Iraq. But the prosecution at the Old Bailey said there was no "realistic prospect" of convicting her. She was arrested nearly a year ago and charged eight months later under the Official Secrets Act.
The leading prosecutor, Mark Ellison, said it would not be "appropriate" to go into the reasons for dropping the case.
But the Guardian has learned that a key plank of the defense presented to the prosecutors shortly before they decided to abandon the case was new evidence that the legality of the war had been questioned by the Foreign Office.
It is contained in a document seen by the Guardian. Sensitive passages are blacked out, but one passage says: "The defense believes that the advice given by the Foreign Office Legal Adviser expressed serious doubts about the legality (in international law) of committing British troops in the absence of a second [UN] resolution."
It is understood that the FO legal team was particularly concerned about the lack of a second UN resolution authorizing the use of force and pre-emptive military action.
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a former deputy head of the legal team at the FO, has confirmed publicly for the first time that she resigned last year because she was unhappy with the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith's legal advice to the government on the legality of the Iraq war.
He argued that the series of consecutive UN resolutions provided a legal basis for the military action. But Ms Wilmshurst told the Guardian: "Some agreed with the legal advice of the attorney general. I did not." She refused to discuss the details of the advice.
She left on the eve of the war after 30 years on the FO's legal team, and deputy legal adviser since 1997. She is now at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, specializing in the legality of military intervention.
Yesterday James Welch, a solicitor for the civil rights group Liberty and Ms Gun's lawyer, said the final decision to abandon the case was taken after they had warned the prosecution that they would demand the disclosure of the attorney general's advice on the legality of the war.
"Our case was that any advice the government received on the legality of war was relevant to Katharine's case and we were prepared to go before a judge and argue for it to be disclosed," he said.
Ms Gun, 29, said after her brief appearance at the Old Bailey: "I have no regrets and I would do it again."
In an interview with the Guardian she described her reaction when she first saw the US National Security Agency email asking for GCHQ's help in bugging the offices and homes of UN diplomats.
"I thought, 'Good God, that's pretty outrageous'."
She felt she had no choice but to do what she did. The UN was being undermined. She thought about the destruction of people's lives in Iraq.
"I didn't feel at all guilty about what I did, so I couldn't plead guilty, even though I would get a more lenient sentence," she said.
She remembered her husband telling her: "Do nothing and die, or fight and die."
But the prospect of a criminal trial, "of having the whole government machine after you", was scary, she said.
Asked at a press conference what her advice would be to anyone responding to the recently announced recruitment to the intelligence services, she said: "The intelligence services do important and necessary work, but listen to your conscience is what I would advise."
[b]She continued: "[i]I know it's very difficult and people don't want to jeopardize their careers or lives, but if there are things out there that should really come out, hey, why not[/i]." [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Alan GreenSPAM:-- Monkey SEE ... Monkey DO ... the Mad King George's Court Jester ... |
| 02.26.04 (1:17 pm) [edit] |
[b]Alan Green[i]SPAM [/i]is a traitorous and reckless Federal Reserve Court Jester (... [i]Federal Reserve is a consortium of privately owned banks out to rape America senseless [/i]...) who has betrayed America in order to play the Monkey [i]SEE[/i] ... Monkey [i]DO[/i] ... [/b]Court-Buffoon on behalf of his corrupt paymasters the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]...
Alan Green[i]SPAM[/i] is known to[i] love, oh he doth love [/i]the power (...[i] power corrupts absolutely [/i]...) of his office, and is spamming us with neo-fascist economic policies devised to widen further the already insane gap between the Hyper-Rich-Haves and the Impoverished-Raped-Have-N ots ... Green[i]SPAM[/i] is [i]drunk, drunk, drunk [/i]on power and wealth amassed to pay him off for parrotting whatever he is told to [i]say[/i], by whatever administration (...[i] in this case, the sluttish Bush regime who pay homage to their corporate pimps[/i] ...) happens to be [i]screwing-us-over [/i]at the moment ...
The neo-orwellian propaganda tactic that the insane Bushies are using is an [i]age old ploy[/i]-- Get your Court Jester to tell the [i]bad news [/i]about what you intend to do (... [i]but don't want to admit publicly because the people won't stand for it [/i]...) and then get the Big Honcho (... [i]in this case, the Mad King George[/i] ...) to [i]LIE, LIE, LIE[/i] and smirk that he doesn't really support it, when in fact, he [i]really[/i] does ... The Mad King George wants to [i]swindle, plunder & loot [/i]us out of our measley retirement safety-net ...
The traitorous Bush regime gives massive illegal & immoral[i] tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles [/i]to the gluttonous corporations, wealthiest oligarchs and filthy rich plutocrats-- and then decides to "[i]balance the budget[/i]" by raping the rest of us out of basic benefits like Social Security ... These ugly neo-fascist thugs & goons should be impeached and tried for treason ... Moreover, the assets of these ruthless and irresponsible neo-con thieves, embezzlers & swindlers in the rapacious Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]should be confiscated to[i] pay-off [/i]the record-level deficits and debts they have so wantonly racked-up!
Consider "[i][b]Administration Apologies[/b][/i]" by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
It's difficult to read Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s economic recommendations this week as anything other than apologies for the Bush administration’s reckless goal of permanently reducing tax burdens on the wealthy while forcing widespread cuts in critical public programs like Social Security and Medicare. Like Bush, Greenspan uses feats of logic to defend ideological economic positions. In 2001, tax cuts were necessary to reduce government revenue; now permanent tax cuts for the rich are necessary to increase government revenue. In 2001, we could afford large tax cuts and maintain Social Security; now we can only afford permanent tax cuts and must cut Social Security. With President Bush and Chairman Greenspan at the helm, the nation should prepare for a huge transfer of wealth from future retirees to the very rich.
[b]1. Tax cuts for the wealthy – not spending – are primarily responsible for the nation's deteriorating financial situation[/b]. Both the president and Chairman Greenspan refuse to acknowledge economic reality. Non-security discretionary spending has remained basically flat over the past three years with necessary increases in national security spending to fight the war on terrorism. At the same time, the administration’s three rounds of tax cuts aimed at the top 2 percent of earners have significantly reduced government revenues and will continue to do so far into the future. The declining revenue from the administration’s tax cuts – not spending on domestic needs – is forcing large, sustained budget deficits.
[b]2. Tax cuts for the wealthy created the deficit, but Social Security cuts will pay it off[/b]. Expressing concern about mounting budget deficits, Greenspan's solution is to cut future Social Security benefits for retirees. But Social Security is an entirely separate and unrelated program that is currently running a surplus. In effect, Greenspan wants to raid Social Security to pay off wealthy families. This may suit the Bush administration and its benefactors just fine, but it spells disaster for America’s future retirees – many on fixed incomes – who will have to pay the price of massive tax refunds to the wealthiest Americans.
[b]3. The Bush administration needs to come clean on Social Security[/b]. The Bush administration punted on Greenspan's recommendations, recognizing the danger of touching the third rail in American politics. But the administration knows full well that the only way to pay off its permanent tax cuts for the wealthy is to cut spending dramatically and siphon funds from Social Security. The public deserves to know exactly how the administration plans to solve these financial conflicts.
|
|
|
| |
| CNN Economist Lou Dobb Afflicting the Comfortable & the Rich ... |
| 02.26.04 (1:12 pm) [edit] |
[b]Lou Dobbs is afflicting the comfortable, the rich and the gluttonous corporations and corporate robber-barons ...[/b]
[b]CNN anchor [/b]Lou Dobbs' persistent on-air campaign against the exportation of American jobs has his former buddies in big business steaming, reports the [i]WSJ[/i] http://online.wsj.com/article...,,SB107775285791239451-IB jf4Nklal3nZ2oanqIcauHm4,0 0.html : "[i]The ferocity of Mr. Dobbs's attack has surprised and even angered some observers used to associating the well-known Republican financial journalist with spirited defenses of capitalism and cozy interviews with America's top chief executives[/i]." [i][b]More[/b][/i] » http://www.alternet.org/media...
|
|
|
| |
| Already 34 Senators Oppose Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage |
| 02.26.04 (10:12 am) [edit] |
[b]Only days after the hate-filled [i]Liar-N-Thief [/i]Bush came out (... [i]at Karl Rove's request [/i]...) http://www.tblog.com/template... to demand a bizarre and [i]politically-timed [/i](... [i]to take our minds off of the corrupt Bush regime's insane, illegal & immoral foreign war-mongerings-cum-bloody -guerrilla-quagmires and their disastrous & traitorous economic rape of America[/i] ...) constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, already 34 Senators are on record indicating that they oppose Dubya's buffoonery ...[/b]
[b]This is gratifying[/b].
According to this post on the [i]Democratic Underground [/i]website, there are already at least[i] 34 senators on record opposing [/i]a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
And if that's true, then it's game, set, match, since the amendment would require supermajorities in[i] both [/i]houses of Congress unless the president wants to have the states call for a constitutional convention on banning gay marriage.
Now, I haven't fact-checked each name on the list. But I did a quick spot-check of a few names that I was surprised ([i]and gratified[/i]) to see on the list, and they all checked out.
What most caught my eye is that, according to the list, there are eight Republicans who have already come out against: Alexander, Chafee, Collins, Hagel, Lugar, McCain, and Snowe. John Breaux (D-LA) -- one name that I confirmed -- is down as opposing as well.
Late Update: My own research seems to show that at least one of the Republicans noted, McCain, has left some room for possibly supporting an amendment, but appears to be signalling opposition.
Here's what the [i]Arizona Republic [/i]said today about McCain's stance ...
"[i]Marriage should be limited to a man and a woman[/i]," Sen. John McCain said after President Bush's announcement Tuesday that he backs such an amendment.
But McCain, a Republican, said, "[i]My preference is for the states to resolve the issue[/i]," and "[i]I will reserve judgment on a constitutional amendment until I am able to carefully review the language[/i]."
Sounds like he's against. But we'll see.
On the other hand, even Senator George Allen (R-VA), who's generally considered to be allied with the religious right, seems to be expressing some skepticism. "[i]I am going to listen to all the analyses of why the statute we have on the books will not hold up[/i]," he tells the [i]Times[/i] in Thursday's paper.
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]Joshua Micah Marshall[/i], TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Mad King George & Queen Condi Grant Knighthood to Court-Jester Hastert ... |
| 02.25.04 (5:35 pm) [edit] |
[b]The Mad King George and his lap-dog Queen Condi Rice [/b]are granting an imperial [i]knighthood[/i] among other royal [i]awards, favors and goodies [/i]to their neo-con Court-Jester Denny Hastert, in return for [i]covering-up [/i]their treasonous crimes committed against the U.S.A.
What did the Mad King George, Queen Condi and their corrupt cabal of neo-con thugs & goons[i] know [/i]in the days leading-up to the 9/11 attack upon America??? ... They knew [i]a hell of a lot more [/i]than they are willing to divulge ... On September 10th 2001, the Bush regime was in [i]big[/i] trouble politically-- 9/11 happens: Ne'er-do-well Bush hits the trifecta and is then able to (1) wage an illegal and immoral war upon Iraq (... [i]who had nothing to do with 9/11 - no WMDs - no links with Al Qaida[/i] ...), (2) rape Americans senseless with their/his immoral and irresponsible tax cuts for corporations & the rich, and, (3) let gluttonous corporations and the filthy rich plutocrats hijack & betray our nation and overtake the definition our foreign & domestic policies-- leading to a neo-feudal slave state and the end of our Republic.
Consider "[b]Hastert to block 9/11 commission extension[/b]" by http://cnn.usnews.printthis.c...+-+9%2F11+Panel%3A+Rice+w on%27t+appear+at+public+h earing+-+Feb.+25%2C+2004&expire=-1&url ID=9409673&fb=Y&url=http% 3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FUS%2F02%2F25 %2F911.commission%2F&partnerID=2 004 :
[b]WASHINGTON ([i]CNN[/i]) [/b]--Congress appears unlikely to grant a two-month extension requested by the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to finish its report.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert told President Bush on Wednesday he would not bring up any legislation to authorize the 60-day extension proposed by the commission and endorsed by the White House, according to Hastert spokesman John Feehery.
Feehery said the speaker, a Republican from Illinois, had two reasons.
"One, if there are recommendations that need action, we need them sooner than later," Feehery said. "Two, he does not want this to be delayed any further and become a political football in the middle of the campaign."
"What we wanted to do is get the commission report out as quickly as possible so if there are problems, we can solve those problems," Hastert later told reporters at the Capitol.
The 9/11 commission -- formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States -- is investigating all aspects of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.
Created by Congress in November 2002, the 10-member bipartisan panel, now with a staff of nearly 70 and a $14 million budget, has until May 27 to wrap up its work and report its findings.
Various proposals to extend the deadline -- even to January 2005, after the presidential election -- are pending in the House and Senate. The Senate was expected to take action on the 60-day extension this week.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said earlier this month that Bush would support an extension until July 26.
White House chief of staff Andy Card spoke to Hastert on Monday to reiterate Bush's support for the extension, but Hastert had made up his mind some time ago and "isn't going to budge," Feehery said.
Hastert told rank-and-file Republican lawmakers of his decision at a meeting Wednesday morning and no one publicly challenged the decision, according to Feehery and another Republican aide.
Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for the commission, said he believes the panel needs more time but that it would abide by the law.
Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste was more critical of Hastert's decision.
"I can't understand the logic of denying this short but necessary extension of time to complete our work, given the fact that the bipartisan members of the commission unanimously supported the extension, and the White House has publicly indicated it would support it," he said.
Commissioners have frequently complained that the White House and other agencies have impeded access to documents, information and officials.
"Our recommendations need to be informed by a complete factual record," said Ben-Veniste, who was a federal prosecutor in the 1970s Watergate case and Democratic counsel of the Senate Whitewater Committee in the 1990s.
"We simply must have more time to do the kind of job the American public expect of us."
[b]Rice declines to testify[/b]
Earlier Wednesday, the commission said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had declined its request to testify at a public hearing next month.
"We are disappointed by this decision," commission members said in a statement. "We believe the nation would be well served by the contribution she can make to public understanding of the intelligence and policy issues being examined by the commission."
Rice met privately with the panel February 7.
The statement also asked Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to reconsider their decision to be questioned only by the commission's chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean, a Republican, and its vice chairman, former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat. (Full story)
The statement said Bush and Cheney "prefer not to meet with all members of the commission."
Former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have agreed to meet privately with all members of the commission, the statement said.
"I suspect that will happen in the next few weeks," Felzenberg said.
Clinton, Gore, Bush and Cheney would be interviewed separately.
"We've already conducted more than a thousand interviews, and these are among the most important, so we are doing them last," Felzenberg said.
Rice's predecessor in the Clinton administration, Sandy Berger, has expressed a willingness to testify, according to Felzenberg.
Secretary of State Colin Powell and his predecessor, Madeleine Albright, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his predecessor, William Cohen, all have agreed to appear at the public hearing, Felzenberg said.
|
|
|
| |
| Machiavelli Lives: Topsy-Turvy Neo-Orwellian World ... |
| 02.25.04 (4:47 pm) [edit] |
[b]In today's topsy-turvy neo-orwellian world [i]gone mad [/i]... [/b]peacemakers are imprisoned, intimidated or are bombarded with death threats ... while war-mongering war-criminals who massacre tens of thousands of innocent civilians are nominated for the [i]Nobel Peace Prize[/i]??? ...
You [i]figure[/i] ...
[b]Machiavelli Lives[/b] by [i]Felicity Arbuthnot [/i]on http://www.guerrillanews.com/... :
"[i]Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring[/i]" -- Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
Two days before Whitewash Wednesday (also known as the Hutton Report) three times Nobel Peace prize nominee, Kathy Kelly, founder of Chicago based Voices in the Wilderness, in a little noted trial, was sentenced to three months in prison, for silent, and as always, non-violent, informed protest outside the notorious School of the Americas, at Fort Benning, Georgia. Ironies abound. The peacemaker jailed, those at Fort Benning which has trained some of the world's most ruthless dictators, military thugs and torturers free to continue to sponsor reigns of terror.
Kelly, a theology graduate is a serial offender for peace. She spent a year in a U.S. prison for planting corn seeds at a missile silo. She has born peaceful witness and drawn attention to the world's worst trouble spots, She has a quiet, towering courage. She witnessed the worst American backed Contras could subject the populations of Central America to in the 1980's. In Nicaragua , in San Juan de Limay, where the Contras had slaughtered and kidnapped twenty five from the small community, she stayed in solidarity and later, fasted with the Foreign Minister, Miguel D'Escoto, himself a Maryknoll Priest, who was urging non violence in the face of U.S. sponsored violence. They were joined by thousands of the same persuasion. 'Diplomacy would have worked', says Kelly. It was not, of course, to be.
In 1990, she joined hundreds from numerous countries, who camped on the border between Iraq and Saudia Arabia in a desperate bid to halt war. When the carpet bombing started, she remembers the terrified howling of the dogs, their incessant, helpless,spine chilling terror, eclipsing her own fear. (An abiding memory of another camp member is both of the dogs and that at daylight, it was her turn to go and get the day's water supply from a tap outside the nearby Iraq army base. As she was filling the large containers, a soldier came running towards her, clutching a Kalashnikov ; 'This is it', she recalls thinking, our countries bomb, we take the consequences.' 'Madam, please, let me carry them, they are far too heavy for you', he said.
The Iraqi authorities arrived with buses and drove the camp members to the Jordan border and safety, risking their lives twice, to and from, on a nearly seven hundred kilometer road on flat, moonscape terrain where there is literally no place to hide. Kelly promptly made medical and transport contacts in Jordan and spent the forty two day war driving up and down the Amman-Baghdad highway, with the bombs dropping, delivering medical aid.
Just after Baghdad's Ameriyah shelter was bombed, incinerating all but eight inside, the indomitable Kelly stood outside the building crying. The area had become, in a night, a valley of widowers, since the men stayed outside to rescue survivors of bombings and to leave the maximum room for women and the young. Suddenly a small child appeared and put her hand in Kelly's. Her mother was standing nearby. 'I am American and I am sorry', was all she could muster. 'La, La,' (No, no) said the woman: "It is not you, you are not your government." Thus the idea for Voices was formed.
Three days before the Shelter bombing, Dick Cheney, now Vice President and Colin Powell (designated 'dove' in a hawks' nest Administration) now Secretary of State, visited the U.S. air base at Khamis Mushat (slogan: 'bombs are us' and 'we live so others may die') After a pep talk to troops, they both signed two thousand pound bombs: 'To Saddam with fond regards', wrote Cheney.
After the bombing, frantic calls were made from the Pentagon to confirm the bombs dropped were not those inscribed. Cheney's was allegedly dropped by a Major Wes Wyrich in northern Iraq. The whereabouts of Powell's is not recorded. ('The General's War' - General Bernard Traynor and Michael Gordon, Little Brown 1995, p 324.) When this writer asked a U.S. General whether it was coincidental that Ameriyah was bombed on the anniversary of the fire bombing of Dresden, the great Muslim Feast of Eid Al Fitr and only hours before St. Valentine's Day, he responded: 'Kinda neat, eh?'
From 1996, when Iraqi beaurocracy finally unbent, convinced of Voices sincerity, Kelly has led or initiated fifty delegations to Iraq, taken in numerous consignments of medicines, toys, sweets - and members who entertained sick and dying children and sick at heart themselves seeing the results of their government's actions in being instrumental imposing the most draconian embargo the United Nations has ever administered - somehow had the strength to bring brief laughter and normality. 'A pitiless siege' is how Kelly described sanctions. A generation grew knowing only terrors of ongoing, illegal U.S. and U.K. bombings and the grinding misery of embargoed life. 'I would rather die of bombing, than sanctions', remarked nine year old Fatima on one visit. A four year old asked: "Are they going to kill me?" But she had a worse worry: "Will they kill my little sister?'"
Voices have been threatened with ten years in jail, a million dollar fine and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for each breach of the travel ban imposed on Americans before the invasion and for taking medicines, toys, 'tootsie pops' and for making children laugh. They have already had a ten thousand dollar fine imposed on them.
In the searing summer of 1999, Kelly and a group spent three months living in homes in the beautiful, relentlessly bombed southern city of Basra: "to share embargoed life, - the power cuts, the hunger". They demonstrated the other America to an increasingly isolated young, who know only the suffering America brought, heralding almost inevitable enmity and further conflict in maturity. One of the group stayed in what had become known as 'Missile Street' where just a year earlier, U.S. or U.K. bombs had destroyed or damaged thirty four homes, killed six (including three little girls under seven, from one family) and injuring sixty four. Having charged there were tanks and military hardware hidden in this poorest of poor quarters, the U.S. military grudgingly admitted it was: 'a mistake.'
In another hot summer, in New York, in August 2001 Kelly with others, including three priests, was arrested for fasting outside the United Nations and inviting those in the UN Mission to share their one daily (evening) meal with them, having brought water from the East River: to ' ..remind ourselves of how vulnerable Iraqi civilians are to water borne diseases.'
During last year's attack and invasion Kelly stayed in Baghdad : "All of us learned to adopt a poker face, hoping not to frighten the children, whenever there were ear-splitting blasts and gut wrenching thuds. During every day and night of the bombing, I would hold little Miladhah and Zainab in my arms. That's how I learned of their fear: they were grinding their teeth, morning, noon and night. But they were far more fortunate than the children who were survivors of direct hits, children whose brothers and sisters and parents were maimed and killed."
When Baghdad fell, a new kind of desperation set in, "cataclysmic collapse of electricity, medical services, water and sewage systems, of the food distribution on which seventy percent of the population were entirely dependent. Cholera, typhoid and encephalitis rampant in Basra and the military apparently helpless to repair." Kelly went to the U.S. Military's Civil Military Operation Center to outline the extent of the catastrophe and explained there were people in UNDP and the Red Cross, plus numerous talented Iraqi experts who had been cobbling together Iraq's crumbling systems for thirteen years and could have all at a tolerable, if not perfect, level within weeks. She was told never to attempt to speak to a Member of the CMOC again and never to attempt to return to the Palestine Hotel. For all the ongoing official assurances, services are now nearly a year more collapsed.
Kelly now awaits the Bureau of prisons summons to tell her which prison to 'self report' to. Former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Coordinator in Iraq and himself a Nobel nominee is appalled. He commented:
"To learn that Kathy Kelly has been sentenced to three months imprisonment for her stand against the criminal training provided by the School of the Americas is an outrage. Such aggressive action in respect of U.S. citizens who care, who are truly patriotic - demonstrates that so called American values and what passes for U.S. democracy adds up to little more that fascism. For a citizen, and Noble Peace Prize nominee to be hogtied, abused and then jailed is astounding, but not surprising under the current rightist regime in Washington. Kathy is the most courageous person I know - Kathy, along with millions I salute you. "
Kelly concluded in her statement to the Judge on sentencing:
"... In Iraq, during the US bombing in March and April of 2003, I saw how children suffer when nations decide to put their resources into weapons and warfare rather than meeting human needs. Judge Faircloth, we have experienced and seen the deadly effect of US military policy on mothers and children, on families. We have held the children and tried to comfort them under bombs.
"Sometimes I think we face a wilderness of compassion in this country. But when I think of the many voices that have tried, in this court, to clamor for the works of mercy rather than the works of war, I feel at home, I feel grateful, and I feel a deep urge to be silent and listen to the cries of those most afflicted, -- their cries are often hard to hear -- but when we hear them, we're called, all of us, to be like voices in the wilderness, raising their laments and finding ourselves motivated to build a better world."
Meanwhile, two countries lie in ruins, Iraqis are being shot, disappeared, their homes demolished by a U.S. military, unaccountable - and uncounting: 'We don't do Iraqi body counts.' Others are trying and some estimate as high a thousand children a month injured. Six hundred and sixty people are "disappeared" in Gulag Guantanamo. But the peacemaker is jailed - and President George Bush and Prime Minister Blair have been nominated for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. [b]The [i]ghost of Machiavelli [/i]is walking tall by the Potomac.[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Bush So Full of Hate That He Wants To Destroy Our U.S. Constitution ... |
| 02.25.04 (2:51 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush is so full of hate ...[i] so full of hate for human beings unlike himself [/i]...[/b] So the election year political [i]high-jinks[/i] will be the [i]"Gay" Card [/i]... Target the "Gays" ... Hate the "Gays" ... Bash the "Gays" ... The Hate-Frenzy Directed At the "Gays" will take our minds [i]off [/i]of the sordid Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] miserable track-record of failures, criminal activities and treasons committed against our nation ...
The [i]"Gay" Card [/i]decoy will be used by the neo-orwellian Bush propaganda machine in order divert many citizens' attention away from the corrupt Bush regime's [i]shameful[/i] war-mongering record in Iraq (... [i]for which they should be impeached & tried for Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...) and their [i]disgraceful [/i]economic rape record here at home (... [i]for which they should be impeached & tried for malfeasance, embezzlement, and fraud[/i] ...) ... Indeed, the Bushies should be tried for treason against this nation ...
Now, Dubya proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that discriminates against approximately 10% of our law-abiding population by prohibiting [i]Gay Marriage [/i]... Next Dubya will be proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to [i]burn-at-the-stake[/i] anyone who doesn't share in his hypocritical religious neo-con bigotry and neo-fascist zealotry ...
Gay marriage should be an issue resolved state by state, and not a federally mandated regulation ... In fact, it is ludicrous to witness these hypocritical religious right-wingers condemn two gay people who wish to marry, while committing serial divorce & remarriage, adulteries, and other crimes against the so-called [i]'sanctity of marriage' [/i]...
But for the squalid Bushies, who are miserable failures, who have wrecked our standing in the world and have created an economic train-wreck headed for catastrophe-- the [i]"Gay" Card [/i]is good political propaganda ...
Consider "[i][b]Putting Bias in the Constitution[/b][/i]" on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations.
If Mr. Bush had been acting as a president yesterday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the nation on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across the nation, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with "kindness and good will and decency," the president's speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans.
President Bush's studied unwillingness to talk about the rights gay people do have is particularly significant given the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment now pending in Congress. It calls for denying same-sex couples not only marriage, but also its "legal incidents." It could well be used to deny gay couples even economic benefits, which are now widely recognized by cities, states and corporations. Such an amendment could radically roll back the rights of millions of Americans.
In his remarks yesterday, President Bush tried to create a sense of crisis. He talked of the highest Massachusetts court's recognition of gay marriage, San Francisco officials' decision to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and a New Mexico county's doing the same thing. He did not say the New Mexico attorney general found that gay marriages violate state law, the California attorney general is asking the California Supreme Court to review San Francisco's actions, and Massachusetts is considering amending its State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The president, who believes so strongly in states' rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. President Bush's amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain.
|
|
|
| |
| CIA Chief Predicts War With No End ... |
| 02.25.04 (2:22 pm) [edit] |
"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." – John F. Kennedy
[b]The neo-con arm-chair chicken-hawks lust for perpetual warfare [/b]to perpetually enrich their rapacious war-profiteers: corporate paymasters including Halliburton, Bechtel, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc.
Peace takes [i]brains [/i]... War takes [i]brute force [/i]... The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc[i]. junta [/i]is comprised of brutish thugs & goons: ... [i]lacking[/i] the brain-power to negotiate peace-- [i]lacking[/i] the wisdom to see the value of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness-- and, [i]lacking[/i] in the integrity to uphold the promise underwritten in the U.S. Constitution to promote the General Welfare for All ...
Today it is Al Qaida (... [i]whom the Bushies haven't really focused upon, [as it would have required international co-operation, something they can't do because 'bully-boy' tactics don't really work]-- instead they went after Saddam Hussein in order to rape Iraq of its oil [/i]...) ... Tomorrow it will be another boogie-man, or boogie terrorist organization who will be drummed-up in order to divert our attention away from their [i]corporate-take-all rape [/i]of America ... Indeed, the insane Bush regime is already planning to invade Syria, Iran, N. Korea, etc. etc. etc.
Refer to "[i][b]CIA chief predicts war with no end[/b][/i]" by David Rennie in Washington on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...;$sessionid$5FSRUPNXFBNDZ QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/ news/2004/02/25/wtenet25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/ 25/ixworld.html :
America's assault on al-Qa'eda has scattered its terrorist expertise across the globe, meaning that the United States will be menaced by Islamic extremism "for the foreseeable future", the CIA director, George Tenet, said yesterday.
He offered the Senate intelligence committee a bleak vision of a war on terrorism without end, in which even the destruction of al-Qa'eda would not make America safe.
The CIA chief, a Clinton appointee, has become a target of Washington's hawks, who have blamed his agency for flawed pre-war intelligence on Iraq and called for his resignation.
Mr Tenet said American operations had created "disarray in al-Qa'eda's central leadership" and destroyed safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
But Osama bin Laden's destructive expertise had been broadly disseminated throughout the extremist branches of Sunni Islam.
He added that intelligence had uncovered "chilling" plots involving ships, aircraft and "special weapons".
|
|
|
| |
| Thanks, Bush! Now I Realize I Served, TOO!!! ... |
| 02.23.04 (6:04 pm) [edit] |
[b]Hey, guess what folks!!! ...[/b]
[b]If you don't remember what you were doing because you were [i]fumbling, bumbling and stumbling [/i]over in an endless stream of drunken stupors [/b](... [i]and when Poppy got you 'off-the-hook' from doing your duty ... but you didn't even show-up for your specially arranged 'champagne brigade unit' lark [/i]...)-- you can now [i]equate[/i] yourself to those who were sent into battle and actually fought: and were either maimed & injured for life or killed ...
[i]Ain't it great [/i]to have a president like Dubya who is such a sluttish cowardly bum, that whatever crimes any of us commit, we can all say: "Hey I'm just like [i]him[/i]!!!" ...
Refer to "[i][b]Thanks, Bush! Now I realize I served, too[/b][/i]" by [i]JACK GRIFFIN[/i], Eagle Bridge, on http://www.timesunion.com/Asp... :
I didn't serve my country in the military, so of course I couldn't consider myself a veteran. But George Bush has made me realize that maybe I did serve, and have simply forgotten the names of my service buddies, the dates, and the number of months I served in any given location. I may be a veteran after all, an absent-minded one who happened to serve under absent-minded commanders.
If you're a vet, think back to your own time in service. Isn't it impossible to remember where you served, or who you served with? Of course it is. So you can sympathize with someone's confusion on the matter.
It's sad, really: All those great old buddies, all those shared experiences, all that bonding, and I can't remember even one name. How cruel memory can be. And apparently none of them has any memory of me, judging from the lack of Christmas cards.
Of course, I didn't go on to become famous; if I had, you can bet I'd hear from them, right? Hey, if I was rich and powerful they'd be tripping over themselves to step up and vouch for my presence in the military. Wouldn't they?
I hope you believe me. I'm increasingly certain I served with great distinction, in the same branch Bush did, in fact. The one that doesn't keep records. There are lots of branches like that. Honest.
|
|
|
| |
| Give Me Nader, Or Give Me Bush??? ... |
| 02.23.04 (3:47 pm) [edit] |
[b]Much ado about[i] nothing[/i]??? ... Methinks it is much ado about [i]something[/i] very important happening in our country!!! ...[/b]
Many of us are deeply concerned about Nader's bid for the presidency ... [i]Why?[/i] ... Because amongst those of us, including myself, who have tremendous admiration and respect for Ralph Nader, with a[i] life time of service [/i]to working people, consumers and citizens of the United States of America, that has enabled us to catch corporate crooks who lust to exploit us, harm/poison/kill us (... [i]if that increases their profits[/i] ...), and swindle us-- many of us[i] want real change [/i]in Washington D.C., but fully recognize that Nader doesn't have a "[i]snowball's chance in hell[/i]" to [i]WIN[/i]. Methinks Nader himself knows he doesn't have a chance of [i]WINNING[/i] the upcoming presidential election in November ...
[i]Consider this however[/i]: Since the Reagan-era, a cynical group of [i]turn-coats [/i]has hijacked the Democratic establishment ... Until the Reagan-era brought about a horrific change whereby [i]corporations bought-up the White House, the Supreme Court and Congress[/i]-- we had a two-party system in America. Republicans represent corporate and special interests and the very, very, very wealthiest class ... Traditionally, Democrats represented working people, the under-privileged, the vulnerable and the poor, as well as protecting our environment from callous & reckless[i] rape for profit[/i]-- and kept the powerful and wealthy from stomping on the rest of us, as per the U.S. Constitution's promise of Government promoting the General Welfare of All Citizens ... unlike 3rd world military [i]juntas[/i] and banana republics where the powerful & wealthy ruthlessly enslave their citizens, trample upon them, and are not subject to the rule of law ...
The corrupt Bush regime is transforming our nation into the [i]3rd world-style military junta [/i]and [i]banana republic[/i]-- with corporate robber-barons, wealthy oligarchs and filthy rich plutocrats trampling upon our laws, and ruthlessly exploiting and impoverishing the rest of us ... (...[i] and killing us in their illegal and immoral wars for profits ... ugly war profits [/i]...)
However, until the Democratic Party reclaims its great heritage, we need a voice to remind us that our 1-Party-2-Party fraudulent system whereby many Democrats are acting on behalf of corporations and the filthy rich-- leaves the rest of us [i]out in the cold [/i]... and it is getting much, much [i]colder [/i]for millions of our citizens without jobs, health care, crumbling education ... as well as skyrocketing poverty and homelessness ...
Whilst conscientious citizens who follow the[i] reality of life [/i]under the rapacious & lawless Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] [i]do not want [/i]to see another 4 years of this insane cabal of neo-con, neo-fascist thugs, goons & criminals continue their destructive and vicious foreign and domestic policy [i]sell-out [/i]to their corporate pimps ... [i]We also don't need Bush-lite in the form of Democrats who don't address real issues either [/i]...
Perhaps if Ralph Nader does "[i]spoil[/i]" the race and Bush gets a 2nd term (... [i]perish the thought!!! [/i]...), things will get [i]so bad, [/i]that Americans will demand 3rd parties who [i]truly[/i] start representing 'We the People' [i]again [/i]... And/or, perhaps the Democratic Party will [i]wake-up [/i]again ...
[b]For more debate on this issue[/b],[i][b][b] Guerrilla News Network [/b][/b][/i]is sponsoring an[i] on-line discussion forum[/i] on http://www.guerrillanews.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| SUPERPOWER SYNDROME: Is Bush Insane??? ... Ask the Nobel-Prize Winning Doctor ... |
| 02.23.04 (3:44 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush [i]IS [/i]Insane, of course ... [/b]Every American president in the [i]Nuclear Age [/i]has [i]recoiled[/i] from the very idea of deploying nukes and has sought alternatives to reduce or eliminate completely a nuclear arms race that could threaten our very existence ...
Not [i]Bushy-boy[/i]! The imbecilic [i]ne'er-do-well [/i]and bully-boy[i] arm-chair chicken-hawk [/i]whose only discomforts over the course of his [i]sordid life [/i]have been anal cysts and/or hemorrhoids (...[i] having been a drunkardly AWOL deserter during Vietnam, when it was his turn to do his duty to our nation, but he turned and ran [/i]...) has ordered a [i]build-up of U.S. nuclear weaponry[/i], and his neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons, like Cheney, Rice & Rumsfeld, said they're "[i]prepared to use[/i]" nukes ...
Who would have thought that we would have entered the 21st Century with neo-hitlerian tyrants and neo-stalinist dictators with retrograde and barbaric lusts for power and wealth-- all too willing to [i]massacre, impoverish and wantonly exploit [/i]the world in their insane nightmarish vision of Global Domination... Just think of how different the world might have been had our U.S. leaders been men and women of a greater vision to promote the General Welfare of All of our Citizens and participate as enlightened members of the world community ... [i]Sigh[/i] ...
Consider "[i][b]Is there a cure for 'superpower syndrome'?[/b][/i]" by [i]Christopher Dreher[/i], on http://www.theglobeandmail.co... :
[b]CAMBRIDGE, MASS[/b]. -- Dr. Robert Jay Lifton has never been a favourite read of military officials. Over the past four decades, his staunch opposition to nuclear weapons and his disturbing finds regarding war and extremist mentalities have often cut too close for comfort.
His new book on foreign policy, [i]Superpower Syndrome: America's Apocalyptic Confrontation with the World[/i], isn't going to win him any friends in the Pentagon, either.
Written during six inspired months in early 2003, the 77-year-old psychiatrist and author's dense yet accessible work offers a unique psychological framework for understanding events in what he sees as a dangerous time in world history -- the large letters that dominate the book's dark cover might be equally appropriate to a warning sign near the edge of a cliff.
"I'm trying to get underneath the behaviour and look at the motivations and impulses behind it," Dr. Lifton said at his home in Cambridge, Mass., a short distance from Harvard, where he is currently a visiting professor. "Both the Islamists' and our own radicalism."
Dr. Lifton's road to such questions actually began decades ago in the military, through two years of treating traumatized pilots during the Korea War and later in Japan. The harrowed men were a dramatic representation of the incalculable danger groups and individuals posed to each other. Then just out of medical school, the native Brooklynite became fascinated by the problem of extremism and its potential for cataclysmic violence.
"The military saved me from conventional life," he said. "But I don't think I've ever showed them the proper gratitude."
What's really going to get Dr. Lifton booted off the Defence Department's holiday-card list is the way he scrutinizes the current administration. In essence, he puts George W. Bush and his hawkish advisers on the psychiatrist's couch, and diagnoses a unique blend of Christian and military fundamentalism that Dr. Lifton considers a threat to peace.
The administration's reaction to the terrorists' challenge is the crux of what Dr. Lifton calls "superpower syndrome," a psychological treadmill spurned on by vulnerability and perpetuated through violence that has left the United States destabilized and terrorism poorly countered. "I'm creating a structure with a medical metaphor to explain overall and consistent behaviour," he explained.
Dr. Lifton has serious credentials to back up his observations. He has spent his entire career examining humanity's darkest corners, using his psychological training to analyze past catastrophes and genocidal acts. His work differs from other psycho-historical studies by focusing on groups instead of individuals and also by extensive interviewing of the people involved.
One of his first books was [i]Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima[/i], the first broad, systematic study of the psychological and social impact of nuclear destruction, which was awarded the [i]National Book Award in 1969[/i]. In 1986, he published a breakthrough study about the perpetrators of atrocities, a field almost non-existent at the time. [i]The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide [/i]examined the appeal of nazism to educated professionals, and the psychological motivations of doctors who oversaw the systematic killing and experimentation at concentration camps.
After writing about Hiroshima, [b]Dr. Lifton [/b]became a lifelong anti-nuclear crusader, both as a scholar and an activist. He later became one of the founding members of the [b][i]International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War[/i], [/b]which was [b]awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986[/b].
In the 1990s, Dr. Lifton became increasingly concerned about the danger of religious zealots and cults such as Japan's Aum Shinrikyo, the group that released sarin gas into the Tokyo subways in 1995, killing 11 commuters and injuring hundreds of others. His 1999 book, [i]Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorist[/i], now seems regrettably prescient.
"After 9/11, I immediately thought of the work I'd done that had a connection," Dr. Lifton said. "What I'd learned from the Nazis to the threat of nuclear weapons, and certainly what I'd learned in Japan. In my mind, it all had an immediate relevance and I was concerned with sorting it out."
He describes the World Trade Center attack as a symptom of an "apocalyptic imagination" evident not only in al-Qaeda but in much of the 20th century's "epidemic of violence aimed at the massive destruction in the service of various visions of purification and renewal."
Dr. Lifton posits the Islamists' belief in God-sponsored killing in the historical context of other extremists with apocalyptic ideas of world purification, a notion found even within the Nazis' secular racial cleansing.
While Dr. Lifton certainly does not equate the U.S. administration's fervour with the terrorists' morally dubious fundamentalism, he does contend that it has its own apocalyptic symptoms -- for example, a simplistic good/evil worldview, and a strong sense of righteousness and mission. While terrorists are convinced of the religious necessity of destroying infidels to redeem the world, the current administration is equally convinced of its ability to change the world to its own ideal.
"[This administration] is special in its radical approach to the world," he said, "a dimension that is exaggerated and very extreme."
To be clinical, Dr. Lifton traces superpower syndrome to America's abrupt and public injury on Sept. 11, 2001, a devastating attack on the sense of power and potency that is essential to its conception of itself. During the following months, the administration formed reactionary, poorly designed responses that would paradoxically make the world more unsafe and the danger of terrorism even greater.
For example, he said, instead of planning a unified battle against a world problem, the Bush government ignored the concerns of other countries and the United Nations and squandered the goodwill that the United States had acquired after the attacks, polarizing the issue with its unyielding sense of mission.
"There had to be some response, but a restrained and international response," said Dr. Lifton, who supported the Afghanistan war but opposed the administration's attack on Iraq. "Instead, the administration immediately polarized the work with our own apocalyptic orientation. They created an 'Us versus Them' dynamic, instead of identifying 9/11 as terrorism by a small group of determined zealots."
And by defining their campaign as a "War on Terrorism," the administration added it to a list of past "wars" (on poverty or drugs) that were categorically unable to be won.
The attack was also a catalyst that gave the administration the courage -- what it might consider a mandate -- to attempt to reshape the Middle East to its own political and economic ideals, the most obvious example being the invasion of Iraq. This cosmic sense of entitlement, according to Dr. Lifton, could hem the United States into an endless cycle of military intervention and violence.
Worst of all, considering that the core of the United States's power lies with its nuclear arsenal (about 10,000 warheads), the struggle has made terrorist groups and weaker countries even more determined to arm themselves in kind.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush is one of the only nuclear-age presidents who has not instinctively recoiled from the prospect of using these weapons. He and his advisers have pushed for scientists to develop lower-yield nuclear weapons that could be used in modern conflicts. With both sides committed to violence in order to purify the world, Dr. Lifton said, the responses are likely to become more and more destructive as time goes on.
Yet Superpower is not just a dour diagnosis: In the final chapter, "Stepping out of the Syndrome," Dr. Lifton asserts: "We can do better. America is capable of wiser, more measured approaches, more humane applications of our considerable power and influence in the world." He hopes that his diagnosis might make people more aware of the problem, and he also hopes it would be a foundation upon which other foreign policy or political writers can base their observations.
"Right after 9/11, it was hard to get across the message of American extremism," he said. "This year, the message is much more listened to."
But is there a risk of nihilism in psychologizing complex social and political questions -- of translating heinous moral flaws into mere constructs of emotion and chemistry? Dr. Lifton emphasized that he is not offering absolution.
"It's not designed to replace politics or ethics," he said, "but to look at the kinds of historical and social situations that result in destructive behaviour. It's looking at the causes while at the same time taking a stand against them."
[i]Christopher Dreher has written about books and culture for Salon, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| ... 'A WAR PRESIDENT' ... |
| 02.22.04 (6:53 pm) [edit] |
[b]America stands for [i]equality[/i] of opportunity and responsibility ... [/b]Of course, there is no such thing as[i] true [/i]equality, because some people [i]come from [/i]powerful & wealthy circumstances, while many others[i] come from [/i]the ranks of the vulnerable, poor, and lacking in "connections" ... But until Vietnam, American citizens from all "classes" went to war ... During Vietnam, a new phenomena occurred:-- many of the rich, spoiled & privileged[i] ne'er-do-wells[/i] (... [i]everyone in the corrupt Bush regime, their neo-con attack-dogs & neo-fascist court-jesters [/i]...) avoided doing their duty in a traitorous and cowardly act of using their corrupt "connections" (...[i] to be distinguished from courageous conscientous objectors who protested and were demonized, imprisoned or otherwise punished [/i]...) ... and rushed into "champagne brigade units" or used anal cysts ([i]e.g. Rush Limbaugh[/i]) or minor physical ailments (...[i] that didn't excuse young men from poor families[/i] ...) to avoid their responsibility to our country in a time of war ...
While[i] true [/i]equality does not exist, our Founding Fathers differentiated us from the European model with a royalty, an aristocracy, a bourgeoisie, and a serf, servant or slave class-- and fought for a society in which merit (... [i]or lack thereof [/i]...) would determine the fortune of individuals ... It is tragic that families like the squalid Bushies, who are[i] not bright, not wise, not honest, not honorable, not patriotic, not brave[/i]-- but very willing to [i]betray our nation [/i]in order to further their own sordid lusts for power and wealth ... are not publicly exposed, condemned and kept from hijacking public office for which they are [i]unfit[/i] ...
Refer to "[i][b]'The privilege of a 'war president'[/b][/i]" by [i]Daniel Schorr[/i], the Christian Science Monitor, on http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... :
WASHINGTON – The issue is not how many of his assigned duties George Bush actually performed in the Air National Guard. Nor is the issue why Bush refused his periodic physical examination and stopped flying in 1972 shortly after drug testing was introduced - a coincidence, the White House says.
The real issue, painful in a society that prides itself on being egalitarian, is privilege - who got to serve in the Guard's "[i]champagne unit[/i]" as his unit was called, and who went to Vietnam, perhaps to die.
It was all inside and cozy back in Texas then. Lloyd Bentsen III, son of a future senator, got a coveted slot in the Houston-based guard unit. John Connally III, son of the former governor, got another. And in 1968, George Bush, son of Houston's congressman, made it after Ben Barnes, Speaker of the Texas House, talked to the head of the National Guard on the young man's behalf. Bush's first solo flight made headlines in the Houston papers.
No one expresses himself more passionately about this kind of favoritism than Colin Powell, who came up from the streets of the Bronx and is now President Bush's secretary of State. In his 1995 memoir, "[i]My American Journey[/i]," General Powell wrote: "I[i] particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for that war [The Vietnam War]. The policies determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live, were an anti-democratic disgrace.... I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country[/i]."
Powell couldn't have realized in 1995, as Joint Chiefs chairman, that he'd be talking about, among others, his future commander in chief, who was one of the privileged and well-placed.
There is some irony in the fact that the Bush National Guard controversy has come bubbling to the surface just as the president announces that he is "[i][b]a war president[/b][/i]."
• [i]Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Rumsfeld Has Really Done An About-Face??? ... |
| 02.22.04 (4:17 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime is so outlandishly arrogant and shameless in its gluttonous[i] swindle of America [/i]on behalf of its ghoulish corporate paymasters[/b], that it feels as though one is [i]David fighting against Goliath [/i]to even point out the Bushies' daily criminal activities, embezzlement schemes, and neo-con con-games ... because the vile Bushies use neo-fascist [i]intimidation[/i] tactics, ugly [i]smear [/i]campaigns, and shameful [i]lies, deceptions & falsehoods[/i], in order to divert attention[i] away [/i]from their treason ...
To ask the question [i]why[/i] ... [i]why[/i] would the Bushies' many attack-dogs in their [i]corporate-take-all government [/i]& court-jesters in their [i]corporate-owned [/i]media ruthlessly betray our nation ... one only needs to refer to the lessons of history:-- for so many disgraceful political & corporate whores will easily [i]sell their own souls [/i]out to imperial pimps, if it means grabbing great [i]power[/i] and fabulous[i] riches [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]Has Rumsfeld done an about-face?[/b][/i]" by [i]James M. Carter[/i], Houston Chronicle, on http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... :
The Halliburton Corp. has come under a good deal of fire lately for its role in rebuilding postwar Iraq. It and its subsidiary company, Kellogg, Brown & Root, have been awarded contracts worth many billions for the reconstruction of that nation's infrastructure, much of which was torn up during the invasion and subsequent war. Those "no bid" contracts have seemed to some, such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., part and parcel of the kind of cozy relationships between officials in the Bush administration and private corporations. It seems that a few corporate fat cats are benefiting greatly from these relationships at taxpayer expense, and no one within the government is willing to speak on behalf of millions of Americans who are increasingly concerned that something here may be awry.
But, hold on. Someone in the current administration did speak out, years ago. This person was highly critical of the same kind of sweetheart deals being handed out now, and he demanded a full-scale investigation of the whole affair.
The year was 1966 and the place in the process of being rebuilt was Vietnam. The person was none other than Illinois Rep. Donald H. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld sharply criticized the way in which the [Lyndon B.] Johnson administration awarded the multimillion-dollar construction contract to a private consortium, the RMK-BRJ, to turn Vietnam into a modern nation. Others in Congress also criticized the administration's handling of the war in Vietnam. Rumsfeld, however, went perhaps further than most when he charged the administration with letting contracts which are "illegal by statute." He urged investigation into the relationship between the private consortium and the Johnson administration, in particular the infamous "President's Club," to which Brown & Root, one of the principle Vietnam contractors, had given tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions.
Rumsfeld argued on behalf of serious inquiry into the whole affair saying, "under one contract, between the U.S. government and this combine [RMK-BRJ] it is officially estimated that obligations will reach at least $900 million by November 1967 ... Why this huge contract has not been and is not now being adequately audited is beyond me. The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial."
So, surely Rumsfeld is now well positioned as the head of the Defense Department to know the details of the awarding of contracts in Iraq today. They are the same "cost-plus-award-fee" type that he found so repugnant back then. Yet, he seems strangely quiet on the subject, except to say that everything is on the up and up. What is the difference? Has the No. 1 man at the Pentagon, who has in the past led the call for investigation and full public disclosure into these very matters, suddenly done an about-face? The American people should want and deserve to know.
[i]Carter is a history instructor at Houston Community College[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. Still Paying Millions to Group that Provided False Iraqi Intelligence ... |
| 02.22.04 (1:31 pm) [edit] |
"[i][b]U.S. still paying millions to group that provided false Iraqi intelligence[/b][/i]" is the [i]lede[/i] of an article across the [i]Knight Ridder [/i]newspapers ... We already know that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]collaborated with criminals, embezzlers, thieves and liars like Ahmed Chalabi (... [i]who now smirks: "So What If I Lied"! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...;$sessionid$5RM3YWKKUZDFX QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/ news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/ 19/ixworld.html [/i]...) in order to fabricate their treasonous [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i], to mislead us into their neo-con bloody guerrilla quagmire in Iraq ...
Are the traitorous Bushies now using U.S. taxpayer dollars in [i]pay-offs [/i]as [i]hush money [/i]to bribe their [i]would-be [/i]neo-"[i]Saddam-Hussei n"-style [/i]dictators, tyrants & thugs in Iraq to keep quiet, in order that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest of their despicable gang of neo-fascist criminals are not formally implicated in what are obvious criminal activities justifying their [i]impeachment and jail terms[/i]?
Consider "[i][b]U.S. still paying millions to group that provided false Iraqi intelligence[/b][/i]" by[i] Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott, Knight Ridder Newspapers[/i], on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
WASHINGTON - The Department of Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced some of the exaggerated and fabricated intelligence President Bush used to argue his case for war.
The Pentagon has set aside between $3 million and $4 million this year for the Information Collection Program of the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, led by Ahmed Chalabi, said two senior U.S. officials and a U.S. defense official.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because intelligence programs are classified.
The continuing support for the INC comes amid seven separate investigations into pre-war intelligence that Iraq was hiding illicit weapons and had links to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. A probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee is now examining the INC's role.
The decision not to shut off funding for the INC's information gathering effort could become another liability for Bush as the presidential campaign heats up and, furthermore suggests that some within the administration are intent on securing a key role for Chalabi in Iraq's political future.
[b]For the rest of the story, [i]click onto [/i][/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| LET'S WATCH DUBYA SQUIRM ... |
| 02.22.04 (1:13 pm) [edit] |
[b]It is finally time for us to get a chance to watch Dubya [i]squirm [/i]for a change ... [/b]After all, he's the imbecilic [i]ne'er-do-well-cum-croo k [/i]who has ruthlessly & recklessly lied to our nation, ... embroiled us in a horrific bloody neo-con guerrilla quagmire in Iraq costing the lives of over 548 US Soldiers & over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, ... and has wrecked our economy in the biggest, most heinous neo-fascist tax swindle for corporations & the rich in the history of the U.S.A.-- that would [i]put Herbert Hoover to shame [/i]...
[b]Here are some [i]questions [/i][/b]that might be very [i]worthwhile[/i] to pose to Scott McClellan tomorrow morning.
* The president has instructed members of the White House staff ([i]everyone in the Executive Office of the President[/i]) to cooperate fully with the Plame investigation. Does that order to cooperate amount to a bar on White House employees taking the fifth with investigators?
* Does the president find it acceptable for members of his staff to invoke their fifth amendment rights in a criminal investigation and still remain on the payroll?
* Does the president know whether members of his staff have invoked their right against self-incrimination in the Plame investigation?
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]Joshua Micah Marshall[/i], TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| For 'Gutter Politics,' Look to the Bush Camp ... |
| 02.22.04 (7:35 am) [edit] |
[b]We are about to be bombarded by a massive neo-orwellian propaganda onslaught from the corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]... [/b]As the neo-fascist Bushies start to spend their $150-$250 million War ([i]Corporate-N-Special Interest Bribes[/i]) Chest, we must prepare ourselves for their many, many, many ugly [i]lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]... and their mind-numbing, endless deluge of repetitive [i]slanders, libels and smear campaigns [/i]waged against Democratic candidates and others who oppose the traitorous Bush regime's criminal activities ...
Refer to "[b]For [i]'gutter politics[/i],' look to the Bush camp[/b]" by[i] Jim Boyd, Star Tribune [/i]on http://www.startribune.com/st... :
Readers can decide for themselves whether the Democrats are engaging in "gutter politics" by pushing hard on President Bush's Vietnam-era service, or lack thereof, in the National Guard. The story about Bush peeves me a little; I enlisted in the Army and did my time in Vietnam, not carrying an M-16 but not safely in Saigon either. Almost four years of my life were devoted to service, and Bush apparently couldn't be bothered to show up for some of the weekends he promised to serve.
But what really gets my goat is political operatives in Bush's White House making the "gutter" charge. Whether or not you think the accusation is true, it takes a lot of gall for this group to make it.
Take what they did to Max Cleland, for example. Cleland is a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran, former head of the Department of Veterans Affairs and for one term a U.S. senator from Georgia. Then the Republicans decided to do a number on him. In a hard-fought campaign for re-election, Cleland got everything the Republicans could throw at him, including the kitchen sink. His challenger was Saxby Chambliss, picked and managed by the White House's Karl Rove and Georgia GOP Chairman Ralph Reed. The absolute low point was a television ad which showed Cleland's photo together with those of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, equating the three. Cleland, the ad said, had shown his true colors by voting against homeland security. He was, the ad implied, unpatriotic.
Of course he wasn't. Through the long process of creating the Department of Homeland Security, Cleland had supported an alternative plan pushed by Democrats. It differed with the Republican version chiefly in the way it treated federal employees who are members of unions. The new department, after all, was a Democratic initiative, for months strongly opposed by Bush. But the false claim that the moderate Cleland had been soft on terrorism was enough to get him removed by Georgia voters -- in an election animated by the issue of whether the Confederate flag should have been removed from the Georgia statehouse.
Now fast forward to 2004. Cleland has been hitting the campaign trail hard for Sen. John Kerry. Whereas Kerry has been circumspect about Bush's military service, Cleland hasn't. He has repeatedly challenged Bush to prove he met his Guard obligations.
Whereupon the Republicans unleashed their blond guided missile, Ann Coulter. Here's what she had to say this week: "Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix." Coulter's version is akin to saying that John F. Kennedy was injured in World War II while taking a boat ride.
Here's what really happened: In March 1968, the Tet offensive staged by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong was winding down -- except at Khe Sanh, a Marine outpost famous for the siege it endured. An Army-Marine team was put together to relieve the Khe Sanh garrison and Cleland, an Army captain, volunteered. The combat his unit saw was heavy. At one point Cleland, the battalion signals officer, was told to set up a radio site on a hill near Khe Sanh. As he was helicoptered in with a couple of young soldiers (presumably because it was too dangerous to walk or drive), he told the pilot he was going to stay awhile because he knew some of the guys on the hill. Maybe have a beer with them, he said. As the soldiers left the helicopter, Cleland noticed a grenade on the ground. He thought he'd dropped it and leaned down to pick it up. It exploded, shredding one arm and both legs. It took a heroic effort by medics and doctors to keep him alive.
It is sick that Coulter can take that story and make it sound as if Cleland was safely ensconced at some rear area, ambling toward the officer's club for a few brews. She also fails to mention that Cleland won a Silver Star a week before he lost his limbs -- he was honored for braving enemy fire to tend wounded troops.
There's more: The new Republican story about Kerry himself is that his Vietnam experience is sort of exaggerated. Heck, he was only there two months, the Republican shills for this line say. Well, actually, he was there for closer to four months. And the reason he was rotated home? Because he'd been wounded three times -- not to mention winning Bronze and Silver stars along with three Purple Hearts.
Finally, there's the granddaddy of them all: Bush's gutter job on Sen. John McCain in the South Carolina primary of 2000. Bush lost to McCain in New Hampshire and wasn't going to allow it to happen again. So the Bush team resorted to what are called "push polls." They're designed to plant seeds of doubt about candidates. In South Carolina, callers asked those they were polling questions like: Would you be more or less likely to vote for McCain if you knew he'd fathered a black child out of wedlock? Some had him fathering the child with a prostitute. Others inquired whether voters knew that McCain's wife was a drug addict. And did they know he had abandoned his crippled first wife? It was nasty, nasty stuff, and it caused McCain to lose his composure in public, which didn't help his cause at all.
McCain's wife indeed became addicted to painkillers at one time, in much the same way that radio mouth Rush Limbaugh did. Moreover, McCain and his wife had adopted a little girl from an orphanage in Bangladesh, so the "black child" story seemed confirmed to some.
Democrats are capable of some of this, too. But for sheer effrontery, no one can hold a candle to Bush, his father and those who work for them, beginning with the late Lee Atwater and continuing through Rove. When it comes to truly gutter politics, they wrote the book -- or at least the modern version.
|
|
|
| |
| CBS Caves To GOP Pressure, AGAIN ... |
| 02.22.04 (7:25 am) [edit] |
[b]Apparently [i]CBS[/i] has sold itself out as the sluttish mouthpiece and neo-orwellian propaganda channel [/b]representing the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime ... As we enter the [i]Age of Corporate Fascism[/i], the tyrannical Bushies decide [i]Joseph-Goebbles-style [/i]what[i] is [/i]to be aired and what [i]is not [/i]to be aired ... No longer do we have [i]Our[/i] Republic for Which It Stands because It No Longer Stands for Democracy and Freedom of the Press representing [i]We the People [/i]...
Refer to "[b]CBS caves to GOP pressure, [i]again[/i][/b]" on http://www.alternet.org/media... :
Having nixed the [i]MoveOn[/i] ad as too political, [i]CBS[/i] has decided to resume airing http://www.latimes.com/servic... a controversial ad touting the virtues of the new Medicare drug prescription law. Democrats have described the $9.8 million campaign, paid for by taxpayers, as a thinly disguised reelection pitch for Bush. [i]CBS[/i] drew the wrath of the GOP for its initial decision to pull the ads until they passed muster with congressional investigators. But now they're back on air even though the review has not yet been completed. [i]Ah, the liberal [sic] media[/i]!!!
|
|
|
| |
| 'A Mackerel in the Moonlight that Both Shines and Stinks' ... |
| 02.21.04 (7:46 pm) [edit] |
[i][b]Go Max Go![/b][/i]
[b]Said Max Cleland today[/b]: "[i]For Saxby Chambliss, who got out of going to Vietnam because of a trick knee, to attack John Kerry as weak on the defense of our nation is like [b]a mackerel in the moonlight that both shines and stinks[/b][/i]."
Yes, that's the Saxby Chambliss http://chambliss.senate.gov/ who went [i]down and dirty [/i] http://www.gainesvilletimes.c... against Cleland back in 2002. And now the Bush campaign is [i]sending him out [/i] http://start.earthlink.net/ne... against John Kerry.
What else is there to say? [i]Bring it on[/i]. This time we're ready to fight back.
Of course, the Bushies will do anything including sending out mad-dog mafia-style hit-men, thugs & goons to fabricate mendacious lies and conduct ugly smear campaigns ... That's the Bushies criminal [i]modus operandi[/i] ...
[i][b]Go Max Go![/b][/i]
[b]Source[/b]:
Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Holes In His "Defence" ... |
| 02.21.04 (2:41 pm) [edit] |
[b]Cheney is a liar, a crook and a traitor ... [/b]Cheney has a putrid track-record for fabricating many[i] lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]in order to wage illegal & immoral blood-thirsty wars to enrich his corporate pimp: Halliburton amongst others (...[i][i] the cowardly & greedy arm-chair chicken-hawk refused to do his duty, as he had "other priorities" during Vietnam ... an arrogant creep- doesn't everyone have "other priorities"? [/i][/i]...) -- Cheney has also committed a felony by outing an under-cover CIA operative's secret identity: treason -- vile sales of weapons to Saddam Hussein during Poppy Bush's regime -- and, a host of briberies, coercions and other despicable [i]despotic acts of vile betrayal [/i]against our nation ...
Veep-[i]N[/i]-Creep Cheney should be impeached ... So should the imbecilic[i] ne'er-do-well [/i] and crooked liar Dubya along with his sordid gang of murderous neo-con thugs and squalid goons ...
Consider "[i][b]Holes in his defence[/b][/i]" by [i]Marian Wilkinson [/i]on http://smh.com.au/articles/20... :
[b]The Vice-President of the United States is floundering in bloodied water, and the sharks are circling [/b]...
Any Nigerian Government investigation into a bribery scandal would usually be dismissed in Washington with guffaws, especially if a potential witness was reported to be the second most powerful man in America, the Vice-President, Dick Cheney. But not today.
When the [i]Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission[/i] announced two weeks ago that it was joining the Paris public prosecutor's office in examining $US180 million ($227 million) in alleged secret payments to Nigerian officials, Cheney's political enemies took note.
The controversial US defence contractor Halliburton owns one of four foreign companies accused in the scandal. The company, M W Kellogg, was bought in 1998 when Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer.
The Nigerian investigation is just the latest controversy swirling about Cheney and Halliburton. "We've had the Halliburton scandal of the week for a good five weeks and this is the next big one. If you look over the horizon, this is the one that's coming," says Pete Singer, who investigated Halliburton for his new book, Corporate Warriors, which delves into the grey world of private military contractors. "It's political campaign season and blood is in the water, so you're going to hear about it."
Cheney and Halliburton, the company he led from 1995 until he stood for vice-president in 2000, are now the target of so many accusations that some political analysts are asking whether Cheney has become a liability for George Bush.
A French investigating magistrate, Judge Renaud Van Ruymbeke, has been examining the payments behind closed doors since October. His inquiry grew out of the huge corruption scandal surrounding the French oil companies in Africa. But the bribery allegations involving Halliburton surfaced only recently when a French executive turned state's evidence.
After the French newspaper [i]Le Figaro [/i]published the Halliburton connection, the company was forced to disclose the investigation in a document filed with the [i]US Securities and Exchange Commission [/i](SEC) in New York on February 6.
"A joint venture in which a Halliburton unit participates is under investigation as a result of payments made in connection with a liquefied gas project in Nigeria," the company statement reads. "The Paris prosecutor's office is probing whether the payments were illegal. The US Department of Justice and the SEC have asked Halliburton for co-operation and access to information in reviewing these matters and are reviewing the allegations in light of the [i]US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act[/i]."
Cheney's office has referred all questions on the Nigerian case to Halliburton. So far there is no evidence he knew anything about the payments that were apparently washed through tax shelters in Portugal and Gibraltar. The scheme was first set up several years before Halliburton owned the company involved. But French and US reports indicate the payments did not stop after the takeover when Cheney was CEO.
The investigation is another blow to Halliburton just when the company is reeling under attacks by the Democrats over corruption, kickbacks and favouritism in its Iraq contracts handed out by the Bush Administration.
But every attack on Halliburton by the Democrats is also aimed at Cheney. A Washington political analyst, Amy Walter, says the Democrats have been working to tie the scandals surrounding Halliburton with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to question Cheney and Bush's credibility.
The Democrats' aim, says Walter, "is to weave a narrative that says to US voters, Republicans have a credibility problem". And a devastating series of revelations about Halliburton in the past month has given the Democrats a lot of ammunition.
In November, Halliburton was basking in the glory of feeding US troops their Thanksgiving dinner in Baghdad when Bush dropped in. Last week, it had to announce it would temporarily halt billing for all meals fed to troops in Iraq and Kuwait after admitting it had overcharged the Pentagon $US34.5 million for catering. The company was also forced to repay $US6.3 million after it was caught overcharging for fuel imports into Iraq. The Pentagon's Inspector General is conducting a probe into the fuel contract.
As each new scandal unfolds, the Democrats are calling for an urgent investigation into Halliburton. The Republicans are resisting but are watching nervously as Cheney's poll numbers fall. Just before the Iraq war his approval rating was more than 60 per cent. Now it's just 45 per cent.
Cheney repeatedly beats back any attempt to link him with the Halliburton scandals by saying he severed all his ties before the 2000 election. But Halliburton's lucrative contracts with the Bush Administration in Iraq have become symbolic of the "special interests" in Washington that are increasingly raising the hackles of many voters.
When the US Army Corps of Engineers admitted that on the eve of the Iraq war it had awarded a no-bid $US7 billion contract to Halliburton to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure, Cheney's former ties with the company became an easy target. "I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of, in any way, shape or form, contracts let by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government," he said when questioned about Halliburton.
While this may be true, he was the architect of ties between the Pentagon and Halliburton. A report by the [i]Centre for Public Integrity [/i]in Washington says that when he was defence secretary in 1992 he moved aggressively to outsource military logistics in conflict zones. The company chosen to draw up those plans was Halliburton, which won the first major contracts under the plan - in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and Rwanda. In 1995, after Cheney gave up his bid to seek the presidency, he was hired by Halliburton to be its CEO.
"Anyone who says these jobs being given to ex-government people isn't about connections is just lying," Pete Singer said. Cheney got the job "because of who he knows and the doors that he was able to open".
By the time he left Halliburton to stand as Bush's vice-president in 2000 he had earned $US35.1 million from the company. He still gets a deferred salary from Halliburton and owns $US18 million in stock options, but he has pledged these funds to charity.
Politically Cheney is vulnerable on two fronts. His old company is one of the chief financial beneficiaries from the Iraq war. And he was also the Administration's most strident advocate for the war, often exaggerating the evidence for Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Until recently, Cheney maintained a cool detachment from the attacks on him, his office and Halliburton. Even now he remains surprisingly unaffected by the storm clouds gathering.
Shortly after Christmas he stunned his adversaries when he took his friend, the conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, on a private duck hunting trip to Louisiana. Just three weeks earlier, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear an appeal by Cheney's office which has been trying to block the release of sensitive documents. The documents concern Cheney's energy taskforce, a group of wealthy corporate executives, including the former head of Enron, who helped craft US energy policy.
The environmental group the Sierra Club and a legal watchdog, [i]Judicial Watch[/i], had successfully sued Cheney in the lower courts so the Government had appealed. The Supreme Court is supposed to hear the case in April. But neither Cheney nor Scalia saw any problem with a private get-together before the case. "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned," Scalia told the [i]Los Angeles Times[/i].
But despite these controversies and his slipping ratings, Cheney gives no indication that he is planning to retire. The survivor of four heart attacks, he says he is in "excellent" health. He also knows his exit from the White House would only fuel the attacks on Bush's credibility and energise the Democrats.
For now he brushes off questions about his public image. "Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole?" he asked jokingly in a recent interview with [i]USA Today[/i]. "It's a nice way to operate, actually."
|
|
|
| |
| Dubya's Grand Illusions ... |
| 02.21.04 (10:30 am) [edit] |
[b]The neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's illusions, fantasies, and bizarre nightmarish visions of [i]Global Hegemony, Infinite Power & Vast Wealth [/i]are fantastically dangerous, atrocious and destructive to our nation and the entire planet ... [/b]Thus far, over 547 US Soldiers and over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been ruthlessly slaughtered by the corrupt Bush regime who are[i] so [/i]callous, [i]so[/i] power-hungry, [i]so[/i] lustful for vast riches, that they don't give a damn about what[i] laws they recklessly trample upon[/i], and [i]which human beings they wantonly destroy [/i]... in their insane, immoral & illegal pursuits ... and our nation's tragedy ...
Refer to "[i][b]Mr. Bush's Grand Illusions[/b][/i]" by [i]Andrew J. Bacevich, LA Times[/i], on http://fairuse.1accesshost.co... :
In "[i]Present at the Creation[/i]," his classic account of American statecraft, Dean Acheson reflects on the gap between [i]illusion [/i]and policy. On the one hand, there are the grand expectations of the visionary: eternal peace, universal freedom, a world respecting basic human rights. On the other, there are the complexities of history, the stubborn imperfections of mankind and the hard facts of power and its limits.
The Bush administration — and like it or not the United States as a whole — is suspended somewhere between these two poles.
In Iraq, the administration grapples with the perplexing, prosaic aftermath of an ostensibly historic victory that has produced not peace but more war. Adding the unfinished business of Afghanistan to the mix, the price tag comes to a reported $5 billion per month. American casualties continue to mount, and U.S. forces are stretched to the breaking point.
Signs of progress — such as the welcome capture of Saddam Hussein — are offset by almost daily reminders that the occupiers are unable to meet even their most basic obligation, namely, to protect the Iraqi people from a campaign of terror brought on by U.S. actions. As never before, the world views the United States with suspicion and mistrust.
Having gotten itself into a mess, the Bush administration has responded pragmatically. It has lowered expectations, accelerated its timetable for restoring Iraqi sovereignty and backed away from the strident our-way-or-the-highway attitude that prevailed through the first half of 2003. Militarily, it has sought to reduce the exposure of U.S. forces, wherever possible putting an Iraqi face on the occupation. With its newly unveiled initiative for nurturing liberal tendencies in the Middle East, it has seemingly abandoned the notion that the most efficacious instrument for promoting political change is the point of a bayonet. It has sought to mend diplomatic fences.
This is all to the good and suggests that the[i] myths [/i]conjured up a year ago to jolly Americans into endorsing a preventive war — chief among those[i] myths [/i]the cakewalk theory and its corollary, the self-funding occupation — are at last giving way to an approach grounded in realism. Such realism may yet enable President Bush to extract some semblance of lemonade from the lemon that one year ago he was so eager to acquire.
But as the Bush administration finally gets around to forging a policy, it is essential to drive a stake through the preposterous illusions that got us here in the first place.
[b]First[/b], the [i]illusion[/i] that the "end of history" is at hand, needing only a gentle nudge from the United States to bring humankind to its prescribed destination, to wit, a world that adheres to the norms of American-style democratic capitalism. Events in Iraq provide daily reminders that history still has mysteries and surprises to spare. The expectations of our own ideologues notwithstanding, the world is not eager to remake itself in America's own image. Nor should it be.
[b]Second[/b], the [i]illusion[/i] that wherever the U.S. leads, others will be quick to follow. The Iraq misadventure demolished that notion and left the U.S. not only isolated but viewed in some quarters as a bigger problem than Saddam Hussein's Iraq ever was. No doubt, in some sense, the world needs the U.S. to exercise global leadership, but in an equally real sense, to lead effectively the U.S. needs the active support of allies.
[b]Third[/b], the[i] illusion [/i]that in an information age, military power, at least as employed by Washington, has become something of an all-purpose problem solver. Iraq has amply demonstrated the limits of "shock and awe."
[b]Fourth[/b], the [i]illusion[/i] that the world's sole superpower has reserves of power to spare. It doesn't, not militarily, not financially and not morally. Iraq has shown how narrow the margin is between global hegemony and imperial overstretch. Notably, the cause of Iraqi liberation has not evoked any discernible American enthusiasm for coughing up more tax dollars or more recruits. We want to win. But don't expect us to sacrifice.
It is too much to expect Bush to openly renounce these [i]illusions[/i]. But he would do well to let Americans know, even if indirectly, that he has learned his lessons. Otherwise Americans might do well to choose as president someone who will not oblige the rest of us to foot the bill for his continuing education.
[i]Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, is currently a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Scam: Flip-Flop the Statistician ... |
| 02.21.04 (8:52 am) [edit] |
[b]Bush is a [i]con-artist [/i]and a[i] traitor [/i] who [i]flips-flops[/i] in a vain attempt to fool us all ... Upon facing any [u]criticism[/u] of their insane, immoral & destructive policies, the criminal Bushies simply [i]LIE [/i]... [/b]When the Bush regime's neo-con, neo-fascist [i]attack-dogs & court-jesters[/i] in the corporate-owned media then squash the [u]criticism[/u]-- then Bush's LIE to cover-up the [u]criticism[/u] is quietly exposed by those who seek the truth (regarding phony WMD, reckless tax cuts given to the rich, job loss, etc. etc. etc.)-- (... [i]and the furor dies down [/i]...), and the [i]truth[/i] (... [i]explosing Bush's myriad lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]...) is whispered on the [i]back pages [/i]of a few moderate media outlets (... [i]leaving the wrong impression, a dishonest impression in America's sleepy-head[/i] ...) ... What a [i]clever[/i] means of[i] fooling, duping and scamming [/i]us all ...
But not [i]all[/i] of us are fooled, even [i]some[/i] of the time [i]anymore[/i] ...
Consider "[i][b]Bush the Statistician[/b][/i]" by [i]Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive[/i], on http://www.progressive.org/we... :
The Bush Administration is [i]floundering[/i] over the issue of jobs.
It was bad enough when the head of the [i]President's Council of Economic Advisers[/i] blurted out that outsourcing was a good thing.
But then the Administration sent to Congress its [i]'Economic Report of the President'[/i] (signed by President Bush), which contained some wildly optimistic numbers about how many jobs it would create in 2004. It predicted that jobs would increase by an average of 300,000 a month from November 2003 to the end of this year. ("[i]Just three months into that prediction, job creation has fallen 689,000 jobs short," notes the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute[/i].)
Well, the ink was hardly dry on the [i]President's Economic Report to Congress[/i] when Bush's economic team point men, led by Treasury Secretary John Snow Job, began to back away from their own numbers.
Said Snow, "I think we are going to create a lot of jobs; how many I don't know. "He went on to say that the macroeconomic models that economists use are "not without a range of error."
Bush's press secretary, Scott McLellan, covered his boss's behind by saying, "The President is not a statistician."
Few would have confused him with one, but Mr. Fuzzy Math cannot keep going back on his job growth promises.
People in this country are hurting. With Bush's wobbly hand on the wheel, the economy has lost 2.3 million jobs.
And his effort to stimulate the economy through tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the wealthy has not yielded anywhere near the number of jobs his Administration has predicted.
So the Bushies play this little game. They put out grandiose numbers, and then they shrug them off.
Meanwhile, more than eight million (actually between 9-15 million) people are looking for work.
|
|
|
| |
| Oooooppppsss, They Did It Again!!! ... |
| 02.20.04 (4:08 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt neo-con Bush regime is[i] flipping-n-flopping [/i]all over the place these days as they desperately try to come-up with new "excuses [[i]sic[/i]]" in order to [i]cover-up[/i] their bungled crimes and malfeasance ... And [i]why[/i]? ... [/b]Because the [i]corporate-take-all [/i] neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]are[i] coming home to roost [/i]and they are unable to effectively [i]cover-up [/i][u]all[/u] of their immoral and illegal activities committed abroad and also here at home ... Blaming 9/11 and/or Clinton in their[i] never-ending, mind-numbing repetitive mantra devised in order to fool us all, [/i]simply doesn't [i]hold water [/i]anymore ...
Consider "[b]Economy: [i]Oops, They Did It Again[/i][/b]" by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521- 5D6FF2E06E03}/040219.htm#2 :
Just one week after the White House released its annual economic report to great fanfare, nearly all top Administration officials – including the President himself – are trying to get as far away from the report's findings as possible. Specifically, the report promised that the President's economic policies would create 2.6 million jobs over the next year - a number that would conveniently "erase all of the job losses incurred during his first term." The retreat came one day after Treasury Secretary John Snow and Commerce Secretary Don Evans refused to support the predictions.
[u][b]ACTUALLY, HE SOUNDS LIKE A NUMBER CRUNCHER[/b][/u]: White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about why President Bush would personally sign the report that promised to create 2.6 million new jobs, and then refute that same report. He said "this President is focused on what we are doing to create as robust an environment as possible for job creation – not in crunching numbers." This evasive reply belies the President's own past statements touting specific numbers. For instance, in demanding that Congress pass his 2003 tax cut for the wealthy, the President said "It is important for our fellow Americans to understand, the tax relief I have proposed and will push for until enacted will create 1.4 million new jobs" for a total of 2.1 million new jobs in the first seven months after the tax cut was passed. But as the Economic Policy Institute notes, "only 296,000 jobs were created over that period for a cumulative shortfall of 1,846,000 jobs." See American Progress's Fables of Economic Strength http://www.americanprogress.o... for more on this.
[u][b]OOPS, THEY DID IT AGAIN[/b][/u]: This is not the first time the White House has tried to back away from findings in its own reports. In May 2002, the White House "approved a climate report that contained far more dire projections of harm from global warming than Mr. Bush had publicly accepted. The president quickly distanced himself from the report" and "new copies of the report were then changed to emphasize scientific uncertainty about the effects of global warming." Similarly, the President has repeatedly claimed that the deficit was created by the war, despite his own budget documents showing that his tax/spending proposals are the primary cause. The White House is also trying to back away from is the assertion that outsourcing of American jobs is a good thing for the U.S. economy (FYI – just this week Bank of America announced plans to move another 1,000 jobs to India in the same week it laid off 250 workers in Louisville and has been undergoing domestic layoffs). See American Progress's new cartoon on this subject.
[u][b]PACIFIC NORTHWEST TOUR UPDATE[/b][/u]: Snow, Evans, and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao continued their tour of the Pacific Northwest, hitting Oregon – a state whose "unemployment rate has been among the three highest in the nation since late 2001." On their tour, the Cabinet Secretaries are refusing to meet with those citizens hit the hardest, telling reporters that "meeting with unemployed workers was not part of the agenda." They made this declaration despite "an estimated 30,000 Oregonians receiving their last unemployment check this week because their benefits expired." Despite bipartisan legislation passing the House that would have extended those benefits, the Administration is blocking the bill from final passage.
[u][b]BUDGET DOESN'T HELP JOB EFFORTS[/b][/u]: A new report by the Center for Law and Social Policy shows http://www.clasp.org/DMS/Docu... that even as the White House says it wants to help people find work, it is slashing funding for child care programs that help families get off welfare and into jobs. The report found that the President's 2005 budget would "cause 447,000 children receiving child care assistance to lose this assistance by 2009." Single mothers with young children who receive child care assistance are 40% more likely to still be employed after two years than those who do not receive such assistance. Similarly, 82% of welfare recipients are more likely to be employed after two years than those who do not receive such assistance.
[u][b]NEW TAX CUT FIGHT HEATS UP[/b][/u]: The Hill reports "several Senate centrist Republicans are trying to blunt President Bush's tax-cutting plans. These are the same moderates "who used their clout in the Senate to cut Bush's 2003 tax-cut proposal in half." The Senate ripples are part of a broader movement in conservative circles against the Administration's record deficits and fiscal mismanagement. The WSJ reports, for instance, that even Reagan supply side guru Bruce Bartlett "is beginning to sound the alarm that Bush's tax-less, spend-more budgets are unsustainable and will force the president to raise taxes." As he says, "These tax increases, when they come, are the result of conscious deliberate decisions this Administration made." His bet for next year or the year after: "A tax increase of more than $100 billion a year."
[u][b]WHEN THINGS GO WRONG, JUST BLAME CLINTON[/b][/u]: Despite President Bush firmly stating that the buck stops with him, the last month has seen the White House try to blame the previous Administration for the most pressing problems the nation now faces. Bloomberg News on 2/7/04: "Previewing a possible campaign strategy, members of President George W. Bush's economic team blamed the loss of 2.3 million U.S. jobs since his inauguration on a recession inherited from Bill Clinton." But as Business Week notes, The White House is "unilaterally changing the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid. Instead of using the accepted start date of March, 2001" from the private, non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research, the White House simply "announced that the recession really started in the fourth quarter of 2000." Similarly, last week, the Administration's allies on Capitol Hill "tried to direct blame to the Clinton Administration" for the failure to find WMD in Iraq. But as an American Progress backgrounder shows, http://www.americanprogress.o... that case is misguided.
[b]Source[/b]:
The [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521- 5D6FF2E06E03}/040219.htm#2
|
|
|
| |
| Vile Liar Ann Coulter: "Omission Accomplished"!!! ... |
| 02.20.04 (12:28 pm) [edit] |
[b]Ann Coulter is a discredited liar and vile creep that even respectable conservatives are distancing themselves from [i]as fast as possible [/i]... [/b]And it is no wonder:-- as this [i]mad-dog right-wing neo-fascist court-jester[/i] calls anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of the corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] of corporate rapists:--[i] traitors, commies and worse [/i]... Apparently Coulter doesn't know history or doesn't care, as Thomas Jefferson cried out that "[i]Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism[/i]" ...
However Coulter's recent attack on a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, while Dubya was slutting around in a drinking binge, a shallow and cowardly AWOL deserter whose Poppy got his [i]spoiled ne'er-do-well & infantile son [/i]into a Champagne Brigade unit, bumped head of 500 others already in line ... has left Coulter the [i]laughing stock, bore and cheap-thrills buffoon [/i]that many of us had recognized her for years ago ...
Refer to "[i][b]Omission Accomplished[/b][/i]" by[i] Matt Bivens, THE NATION[/i], on http://www.thenation.com/outr... :
Never one to let the facts get in the way of a good story, Ann Coulter is standing by her bizarre assault http://www.thenation.com/outr... on Max Cleland, the former Democratic Senator. Coulter still insists http://www.anncoulter.com/col... he's not a Vietnam war hero.
True, Cleland lost both legs and an arm -- but Coulter has done us the important service of noting that those three limbs were [i]not shot off[/i], one by one, with an AK-47 wielded by an actual screaming Viet Cong. Ergo, they aren't combat injuries.
Our political discourse is vastly improved for Ann Coulter's important contribution. This incisive distinction of hers ought to go down in history with such classic formulations as "I smoked marijuana but I didn't inhale."
Coulter also cleverly seizes upon remarks by Cleland and others expressing frustration at the random meaningless of his wounds: In essence he hopped out of a helicopter straight into an exploding grenade dropped accidentally by another American. Cleland has the humility and subtlety to say there was nothing heroic in that, it was just fate, bad luck; Coulter slyly twists such remarks into a blanket statement that Cleland is no hero, he's just a shmuck who blew himself up.
But wait. Once again, here is the US Army's own description http://www.gainesvilletimes.c... of how, four days before he lost his limbs, Captain Max Cleland "distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968 ... during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.
"[i]When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment, which had been damaged by enemy fire[/i]."
So in building her extremely worthy and important case that Cleland's no hero, how does Coulter finesse this?
By omitting it.
Entirely.
She titles her latest ramble "File Under: 'Omission Accomplished'."
No kidding!
The Army says that Captain Max Cleland, disregarding his own safety during one of the heaviest rocket and mortar attacks of the entire Vietnam war, ran out to save injured comrades, moved them back to cover, and then rallied his men to keep doing their job.
Just four days later, with his tour of duty in Vietnam near an end, Captain Cleland accepted one last mission. Here http://www.buzzflash.com/cont... is how Cleland's commanding officer describes that mission:
"[i]Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone ... Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harm's way.
"As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of 'ownership' went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not[/i]."
Cleland's former C.O. adds: "[i]This Ann Coulter has written real slime[/i]."
Coulter says she is responding to "insinuations that I 'lied' about Senator Max Cleland." Insinuations? For my part I'm not insinuating anything: Ann Coulter lied.
"It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam," Coulter writes -- a brilliantly trenchant and valuable observation, and undeniably true. She goes on to lie, "He was not in combat," and also to lie, "he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others [including, apparently, the US Army] have implied."
"He picked up an American grenade on a routine non-combat mission," she lies, "and the grenade exploded." Well, the officer who sent him on that mission calls it a combat mission at Khe Sanh; but Coulter long ago learned to cherry-pick what suits her off of Lexis-Nexis, so she knows it was a routine day of beer-drinking.
* * *
Coulter has become the thing she claims to hate -- a caricature of a 1970s hippy spitting at men in uniform -- because she wants us all to stop talking about George W. Bush's frivolous relationship http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... to his National Guard service.
But Bush himself told [i]The Houston Chronicle [/i] http://www.webocrats.com/arch... in 1994 he joined the Guard because "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." That's pretty straightforward: He joined the Guard to stay out of Vietnam, a war he supported. (All the more ironic, then, that he now orders the Guard into harsh Iraq duty, and then sanctimoniously parries questions about [i]his[/i] Guard days by noting how, thanks to his policies, service in the Guard is now quite dangerous .)
Coulter, for her part, takes Max Cleland's loss of his legs in Vietnam and turns it into a story of ... George Bush's heroism: "... the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity -- including in the National Guard."
Oh, it brings a tear to my eye! The commitment and bravery of our President pulling strings to join a Vietnam-era States-side "champagne" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... unit -- especially after he had the poignantly cautionary example of Max Cleland's injuries!
|
|
|
| |
| Political Misfires, Mistakes & Buffoonery Worries Bush Supporters ... |
| 02.20.04 (11:35 am) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime is a vile gang of traitors who have committed heinous atrocities against this nation and around the world [/b]([i]e.g. in Iraq:-- where they illegally & immorally invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us based upon massive lies, deceptions & falsehoods [/i]...) ... The Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is pushing America into an economic fiasco that will hit hard working people, fixed-income retirees, the poor and vulnerable in our nation. Meanwhile, the insane, neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies and their [i]corporate-take-all [/i]cronies, [i]filthy rich [/i]oligarchs & [i]gluttonous[/i] plutocrats, are living the[i] high life of Roman Emperors [/i]while betraying us and raping our economy ...
It remains however, somewhat [i]humorous [/i]to read "[i][b]Political misfires worry Bush supporters[/b][/i]" on http://www.dawn.com/2004/02/2... :
[b]WASHINGTON, Feb 19[/b]: Since the beginning of 2004, President George W. Bush has suffered one political misfire after another, prompting some Republicans to wonder anxiously when the White House political machine will get in gear.
"This may have been the worst six weeks of Bush's political career," said Rick Davis, who managed the 2000 presidential bid by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain which lost to Bush.
In the latest embarrassment to hit the White House, the administration on Wednesday distanced itself from its own buoyant employment forecast that had predicted 2.6 million new jobs this year.
That followed red faces over a statement by Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, who described the process by which hundreds of thousands of US jobs are migrating overseas as both natural and good.
With many Americans extremely anxious over their job security, that statement seemed particularly callous and politically ill-judged. "For whatever reason, the White House has hit a rough patch and can't seem to get its political machinery in motion," said Keith Appell, a Republican political consultant.
"They seemed to be caught by surprise by the force of the negative rhetoric that emerged from the Democratic presidential campaign and now they need to start scrambling to get their own message out," he said.
Republicans say the US media have focused on the contest among Democrats to find an opponent for Bush in the November election and have been dominated by the candidates' fierce criticism of Bush over Iraq, the economy and other issues.
A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll issued on Thursday showed the two top Democratic contenders with big leads over Bush. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner, led Bush 55 to 43 percent among likely voters and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was ahead 54 percent to 44 percent.
Appell and other strategists say early year jitters may mean little for the election outcome. Many believe Bush, with a big advantage in campaign funds - he has raised almost $150 million - still has the upper hand going into the battle. Still, for a White House renowned for its political skills, the past six weeks have been sobering. The list of misfires is lengthy.
[b]STRING OF PROBLEMS[/b]: Bush's State of the Union Address was not well received and neither was his budget. Major policy initiatives on sending humans to Mars and reforming immigration law had a mixed reception at best. An interview with NBC's Tim Russert, a rare such appearance for Bush, failed to quieten the criticism.
The White House allowed a controversy over Bush's service in the National Guard to grab headlines for two weeks. And the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush's main justification for last year's war, promises to be a continuing embarrassment.
"It seems to me that Bush's people were so busy raising their incredible war chest that they didn't focus on reaching back to their political base and to the people," said K.B. Forbes, a former spokesman for Republican presidential candidates Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan.
Bay Buchanan, who ran her brother Pat Buchanan's maverick 1996 and 2000 presidential bids, said: "They do not have their campaign legs yet. There has been a bit of fumbling. It's not critical but it cannot go on or it will become critical. Bush is not in game form and he needs to get into form quickly."
Some commentators believe the White House became complacent late last year when they assumed Bush would be facing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whom they regarded as an ultra-liberal out of step with the country, in the election. -[i]Reuters[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Arrogant Colin Powell Snaps ... Angry Because He Is A Laughing Stock!!! ... |
| 02.20.04 (11:19 am) [edit] |
[b]The arrogant, "good-soldier [[i]sic[/i]]" Colin Powell is [i]out-of-control [/i]these days, perhaps because he is angry at the world for exposing him as a liar, a puppet and the laughing stock of the corrupt Bush regime ...[/b]
What a [i]bully-boy buffoon[/i] ... Colin Powell can't even [i]control his temper [/i]when faced with questions ... The Bushies and their neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons forget that they are accountable to the people of the United States of America ...
Consider "[i][b]Powell scolds Hill staffer during congressional hearing[/b][/i]" by [i]GLENN KESSLER, Washington Post [/i]on http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/n...,1406,KNS_350_2648401,00.html :
WASHINGTON - The general chewed out the buck private Wednesday.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star general known for his even temperament, paused Wednesday during a congressional hearing to berate a Hill staffer for shaking his head as Powell offered a defense of his prewar statements on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
The public scolding came after Powell had already endured a number of attacks by Democrats on the administration's Iraq policy during an appearance before the House International Relations Committee. He had just snapped at a member of Congress who had casually declared President Bush "AWOL" from the Vietnam War.
Powell was recalling for the panel his review of the prewar intelligence. "I went and lived at the CIA for about four days to make sure that nothing was," he began, then he paused and glared at a staffer seated behind the members of Congress.
"Are you shaking your head for something, young man, back there?" Powell asked. "Are you part of these proceedings?"
Powell's unusual remarks threatened to derail the hearing. Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a 12-year veteran of the House, objected, "Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a witness reprimand a staff person in the middle of a question."
Powell shot back, "I seldom come to a meeting where I am talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you giving editorial comment by head shakes."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., defended Powell and brought an angry reaction from Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., who had earlier been cut off by Rohrabacher when he ran over his assigned time.
Powell, however, became testy when Brown said, in a reference to questions about whether Bush completed his National Guard service: "You are one of the very few people in this administration that understands war. We have a president who may have been AWOL" from duty.
"First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president because you don't know what you are talking about," Powell snapped.
"I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary," Brown replied.
"You made reference to the president," Powell said.
"I say he may have been AWOL," Brown repeated.
"Mr. Brown, let's not go there," Powell retorted. "Let's not go there in this hearing.
"If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine. But let's not go there."
- Someone should remind Colin Powell that he is supposed to [i]answer[/i] questions-- He lives in America and[i] ain't [/i]allowed to be a fascist general there to give orders to others (... [i]even if he wants to play the role of dictatorial military thug[/i]...)!!!
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Provides 2.6 Million Examples of Misleading ... Or Lying!!! ... |
| 02.20.04 (11:06 am) [edit] |
[b]Bush is a corrupt and spoiled[i] privileged ne'er-do-well [/i]who has been supported by Poppy his entire vile life, so although he was a failed businessman, he never suffered from unemployment or other deprivations [/b](... [i]Poppy bailed him out of one fiasco after another [/i]...) and he never really had to[i] earn his daily bread[/i] (... [i]based upon merit or anything else since he's had everything handed to him on a 'silver platter'[/i]... ) ... Tragically, he also lacks the integrity, wisdom, compassion and intellectual capacity to image (... [i]imagination is something Dubya ain't known for [/i]...) what it must be like for the impoverished, the jobless, the homeless and others who are vulnerable and in need ...
Consider "[i][b]Bush Provides 2.6 Million Examples of Misleading[/b][/i]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
On February 9th, President Bush endorsed and personally signed his name to a White House economic report1 that promised he would create 2.6 million jobs by the end of 20042. The report was released to great fanfare, yet, less than two weeks later, the president and his top Cabinet officials are now refusing to stand by those predictions.
Specifically, the Associated Press reports that the president "distanced himself"3 from his own predictions, refused to directly answer a question about it4, and deployed White House spokesman Scott McClellan to deflect more questions. When McClellan was asked about the president's personal promise to create 2.6 million new jobs, McClellan said the president is not interested "in crunching numbers."5
The retreat by the president might have something to do with his past jobs promises not coming true. As the Economic Policy Institute notes, "the administration projected that a total of 2,142,000 jobs would be created in the first seven months after [its 2003] tax cuts took effect. In fact, only 296,000 jobs were created over that period for a cumulative shortfall of 1,846,000 jobs."6
The president's retreat from his personal pledge came as Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao are touting the president's economic plans in the Pacific Northwest7 - a region struggling with high unemployment. Snow and Evans both refused to endorse the president's 2.6 million job promise.8 And as the Cabinet officials spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on their public relations trip, they "said meeting with unemployed workers was not part of their agenda"9 and indicated the Administration refuses to back an extension of unemployment benefits10.
[b]Sources[/b]:
1. "Parties clash over job migration", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 02/13/04.
2. "Bush says U.S. will add 2.6 million jobs in 2004", The Olympian, 02/10/04.
3. "Bush Backs Off Forecast of 2.6M New Jobs", ABC News, 02/18/04.
4. President Bush Discusses War on Terrorism with Tunisian President , 02/18/04.
5. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, 02/18/04.
6. Job Watch.
7. "Cabinet caravan touts successes in Northwest swing ", The Oregonian, 02/18/04.
8. "Bush backs off estimate of 2.6 million jobs", Sun Hearld, 02/18/04.
9. "Better times near, Bush officials tell state areas hurting for jobs", Seattle Times, 02/18/04.
10. "Accounts of job losses clash", The Oregonian, 02/19/04.
|
|
|
| |
| Time for the Buck to Stop!!! ... |
| 02.19.04 (2:46 pm) [edit] |
[b]Veep-[i]N[/i]-Creep Cheney is a war-profiteer, a traitor and a war-monger, who "[i]had other priorities[/i]" [[i]his arrogant, callous and ugly words[/i]] when it was [i]his turn [/i]and [i]he shirked [/i]from doing his duty to our nation ...[/b]
Isn't it [i]preposterous as well as criminal, [/i]that cowardly deserters, liars, drunkards, swindlers and bums like Dubya, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, Powell, and all of the other neo-con, neo-fascist [i]arm-chair chicken-hawks [/i]lust for war and gleefully send others to do, what they [i]didn't have the integrity, courage or willingness[/i] to do themselves? ... Moreover, in their insane, illegal & immoral war-mongering to enrich their sordid & squalid war-profiteers, they committed [i]treasonous lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]in order to invade Iraq ... on behalf of themselves and their corporate pimps ([i]Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, the Military Industrial Complex, etc[/i].)
Consider "[i][b]Time for the Buck to Stop[/b][/i]" by [i]Sheila Samples[/i], Axis of Logic, on http://www.democraticundergro... :
[i][b]Bullhorn politics.
Flaming world, smoke spewing souls.
Spies and lies. Oh, My![/b][/i]
Dick Cheney knows it's just a matter of time until the buck stops.
His penchant for secrecy borders on the schizophrenic. People who surround him are so terrified of leaks, they don't even talk to each other. It's easy to imagine them scurrying through the White House halls, hugging the shadows - wide eyed with fear - looking for new hidey-holes to stuff incriminating papers, files, memos, and tapes that comprise the burgeoning and ever-so-uncontrollable paper trail.
They can hear his furtive shuffling, his enraged snarls, coming from the bowels of the shadowy bunker where he prowls - world dominion within his sight and almost within his grasp. He is struggling to maintain order, to plug the holes in the political dike and to drag everything back into the murky darkness. But with just nine months to go before the 2004 presidential election, things are going horribly wrong. And time is running out.
This administration embarked on a course of disaster from the day Cheney selected himself as vice president. Its various factions are incompatible in almost every way - most of them bound together only by a lust for war and power, and a total disregard for human suffering.
The New World Order guys rightly think Cheney is one of them. He is a charter member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and possesses the same maniacial obsession to gain control of the world and all its resources.
The rabid, far-right, Bible thumping Armageddonists, led by the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, went into throes of rapture at the coronation of George W. Bush, their little born-again puppet who couldn't find his ass with a road map in one hand and a compass in the other. But that doesn't matter. With Cheney giving Bush "gravitas," and God as Bush's co-pilot, the opportunity to nudge Biblical prophesy back on track and headed in the final direction has been dumped in their laps.
True Republican "believers," although not warmongers, are eager to pay the price - in the blood of their own citizens - for a chance to get their hands on the US Constitution, to rework it into a national chastity belt, and to protect America's children from conception to birth. After that, in our new American world order, it's every kid for himself.
This amazing rag-tag gang of zealots clutch their kalideoscopic agendae and place their entire trust in Cheney. Cheney advocates their own Straussian belief - "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior." Cheney is one of us, they whisper among themselves. It must be so because, unfettered by any sense of morality and wearing the mantle of executive privilege, Cheney rules in secret, not just above - but outside - Constitutional law.
Unfortunately for Cheney, millions of Americans do not see themselves as "inferior." They have a tendency to get really cranky when a bunch of unelected bozos they kicked out of power years ago sneak back in and try to rule them. Millions more are beginning to realize that both Bush and Cheney and those with whom they so lavishly divide the nation's spoils are brutishly unconcerned about humanity. Right or wrong means nothing to them - only black and white.
Americans care about the thousands of souls that have gone up in smoke; they care about the daily maiming and slaughtering of both Iraqi and US citizens. Americans are beginning to realize that the slain, as well as countless others who will surely die in Bush and Cheney's expanding war on terror, are nothing more than flesh-and-blood entries on a Halliburton profit-and-loss spreadsheet.
What is the first word to pop into your mind upon hearing "Halliburton"? Yeah. Me too. From deep within the shadows and in treasonous secrecy, Cheney rules two empires - the US Government, acquired in a hostile takeover, and Halliburton. Long ago, in a more pastoral world, Cheney began laying plans for pillaging the world's treasures. As Secretary of Defense during the first Bush administration, he allowed Halliburton to draw up a plan for how a private company (not Halliburton, of course) might provide military support to US troops anywhere in the world.
This plan, written by Halliburton for Halliburton and its subsidiaries such as Kellog Brown & Root, resulted in no-bid contracts for Halliburton, "cost-plus," (open-ended) contracts for Halliburton and little or no regulation or oversight for Halliburton. It also resulted in Halliburton getting itself a brand new president and chief executive officer - Dick Cheney - who slid effortlessly from the Pentagon into the high-level corporate shadows.
Time is running out. Although most of the US media recoil from using the "H" word and Cheney in the same sentence, British, Australian and French media have no such qualms. These media are reporting that Cheney is the "target of a criminal investigation" for his role in establishing an "occult system of commissions (bribery) during Halliburton's construction of a natural gas complex in Nigeria."
And, a recent segment on CBS' 60 Minutes revealed that while Cheney was Halliburton's CEO, he established "Halliburton Products and Systems" in the Caymon Islands to get around the pesky little law barring US companies from doing business with Iran - a state sponsor of terrorism. An investigation turned up no office and no employees - merely a "mail drop" that forwarded the faux company's mail to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. Seems that Cheney found a loophole in the law that allowed him to provide millions of dollars of oil-field work for Iran by setting up a foreign subsidiary - and by using this offshore mailbox, he helped Halliburton to avoid paying additional millions of US tax dollars.
When is enough, enough? In addition to its billions of dollars of open-ended Iraqi contracts, Halliburton got its hands slapped last week during a Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting for serving 14,000 meals and charging US taxpayers for 42,000 meals. Halliburton also recently admitted to overcharging the Pentagon (that would be you and me) $61 million for gas imported into Iraq from Kuwait, and two of the corporation's employees were sacked for taking $6 million in kickbacks. Pocket change. As Bush would say with a smirk and a shrug, "So - what's the difference?"
Americans capable of taking a dot in each hand and putting them together without smashing them into their foreheads know that Cheney orchestrated the lies that dragged this nation into war, and they know he did it for corporate profit. Cheney and those around him who are engaged in an Iraqi corporate feeding frenzy are in no way "superior." They are greedy, corporate thugs who are doing irreparable damage, not only to the United States and its citizens, but to the whole world.
Americans have a right to know if Halliburton wrote the playbook for the bloody mess we're in - a right to know if Enron wrote the playbook for this nation's energy policy. They have a right to know if the 9/11 attacks, the war with Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and whoever else is on Bush's "to do" terror list, is outlined in Cheney's secret energy meeting notes that he refuses to relinquish, even under court order.
But, most of all, Americans have a right to know the truth about the lies Bush and Cheney are still out there telling about grave and dangerous threats, mushroom clouds and WMD, the lies that are draining the lifeblood from our democracy and sending our uniformed men and women into the violent, horrible maw of war. Delivering democracy and freedom Hiroshima-style may be profitable for Halliburton and Cheney - but it doesn't seem to be working for the rest of us.
War profiteering is treason. That's why Cheney is in too deep to back out now. He's in a race for time. When he looks back, he'll find to his horror that time has run out, and the buck is gaining on him.
I aim to be there when it stops.
[i]Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma freelance writer, a former US Army Public Information Officer and Axis of Logic contributing editor[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Regime's Phony "War on Terror" Encourages Extremism ... |
| 02.19.04 (1:06 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime has staged their phony "[i]War on Terror[/i]" as an excuse for their insane, illegal and immoral [i]perpetual wars [/i]that in reality are waged for global hegemony, control of the world's human & natural resources, and primarily to enrich themselves and their corporate paymasters ...[/b]
Many studies and reports have concluded that if the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] were truly interested in fighting terrorism, there were [i]far better ways-and-means [/i]to go about it ... Also, illegally and immorally invading sovereign nations (... [i]like Iraq, where Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, etc. have grabbed Iraqi oil and swindled the US Treasury [/i]...) are ineffective and totally useless in combatting terrorist groups like Al Qaida ... Indeed, the Al Qaida network has [i]grown and gained in popularity and recruitment [/i]efforts because of the neo-hitlerian incursions by the Big Bully, Bushy-boy ... who invaded Iraq based upon myriad[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]... Iraq posed no threat to us, had no WMDs, and wasn't involved with terrorist organizations who threatened the USA or our allies ...
Indeed, the biggest terrorist threat on the planet is the corrupt Bush regime ...
Consider "[i][b]War on terror encouraging extremism[/b][/i]" by [i]Terry Waite [/i]on http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/... :
BEIRUT: The West’s war on terrorism has pushed Arabs toward extremism, former Beirut hostage Terry Waite said late on Tuesday.
Speaking at a press conference in the city where he was kidnapped and held hostage for nearly five years, Waite accused the West of tending to see Arabs and Muslim as stereotypes and of undermining the United Nations.
“I am not happy with the way in which we, or the West, is attempting to deal with so-called terrorism,” Waite said. “Because of the chronic failure to deal with fundamental problems such as the Israeli-Arab dispute, we are making further problems across the Arab world, pushing more people into extreme positions which then, because they have no hope, simply means that we foster terrorists.”
Waite, a Briton, returned to the Lebanese capital this week for the first time since kidnappers released him in 1991. As an envoy of the archbishop of Canterbury, Waite was one of dozens of foreigners kidnapped in Lebanon in the 1980s by pro-Iranian militants. He was seized while trying to negotiate the release of other hostages.
The hostages included Terry Anderson, then chief Middle East correspondent for The Associated Press, who was freed in 1991 after nearly seven years in captivity.
Waite was taken hostage in January 1987 and released in September 1991 after 1,760 days in captivity. On Tuesday, he toured the so-called Green Line which separated the Muslim and western side of Beirut from the Christian and eastern half of the city during the 1975-90 civil war.
Pointing to bullet-riddled buildings in central Beirut along the former front line, Waite told reporters: “See that pothole in that building. That’s what it was like when I was captured in those buildings. They were shooting at them.”
At the press conference, he corrected the impression made by his Tuesday remark, when he was taken to mean he was held in the Green Line buildings. “No, I did not mean those (buildings) in specific,” Waite said Wednesday. “I meant that that is what a lot of Beirut looked like at the time.”
“I don’t know where I was held. I was blindfolded for five years,” he told AP. Waite is believed to have been kept either in Beirut’s southern suburbs or in eastern Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, which were both strongholds of the militant Hezbollah group to which the kidnappers were allegedly linked.
Waite said Wednesday he was not sure of the identity of his former captors and was not particularly interested. “What I am interested in is saying that the past is the past. Let us build a new relationship. There is certainly no way that I am going to bother chasing anybody,” he said. Asked whether his forgiveness might encourage terrorism, Waite said: “War, civil war in particular, causes people to behave in unusual and exceptional ways ... Let us not hark back to that. Let us look forward.” —([i]AP[/i])
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq: Anybody Got A Plan??? ... |
| 02.19.04 (11:41 am) [edit] |
[b]Why doesn't anyone have the courage and/or the intellectual capacity to criticize Condi Rice??? ... [/b]Last October, the Liar-[i]N[/i]-Buffoon NSA Condi Rice was appointed to head the [i]Iraqi Stabilization Group [/i](ISG) ... Over four months later, their bloody guerrilla quagmire is a horrible mess as Iraq is [i]spinning out of control [/i]and headed for a horrendous civil war ... You might want to remember that Saddam Hussein's crimes against his own people ([i]his massacres of Kurds & Shias[/i]) were committed in order to suppress their revolt and keep Iraq together as one country, in their own civil war ... aided and abetted by Poppy Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ([i]who should be in the dock along side Saddam Hussein[/i])!!!
Is the incompetent and corrupt Bush regime going to commit even worse atrocities and massacre many, many, many more innocent Iraqi Civilians ([i]they have already slaughtered over 10,000 Iraqi civilians[/i]) ... than were perpetrated by Saddam Hussein???
So what has Condi Rice been [i]doing[/i] for the past 4 months??? ... Why is she let [i]off the hook[/i]??? ... Why hasn't she been [i]fired[/i]??? ... [i]Answer[/i]: Because the traitorous liar and slut Condi Rice is Dubya's puppet who [i]doesn't give a damn about our nation [/i]... So Dubya rewards incompetents and liars and traitors and thieves, [i]so long as they pay homage to [u]himself[/u] [/i]...
Consider "[i][b]Iraq: Anybody Got a Plan[/b][/i]?" by [i]Tony Karon[/i], TIME, on http://www.time.com/time/worl...,8599,591704,00.html :
[b]Bremer's caucus plan appears to be dead. Planning Iraq's political future may be back in the UN's hands [/b]
If it can't yet point to a happy ending in Iraq, the Bush administration at least needs to show Americans that it has a[i] plan [/i]for winning the peace. It was that need that brought Washington's point man in Iraq, Ambassador J. Paul Bremer, rushing home last November for unscheduled consultations at the White House. Back then, the U.S. casualty total was climbing steadily and there was no sign of an end to the insurgency; Capitol Hill was reeling from sticker shock over the administration's $87 billion budget request; the Iraqi Governing Council handpicked by Bremer had failed to achieve legitimacy and was making no progress towards drawing up a new constitution. All of that made Bremer's three-year plan for nurturing Iraqi democracy a luxury the Bush administration could no longer afford. So, not for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration changed its plan for Iraq.
Bremer returned to Baghdad with a new deal: The U.S. would transfer sovereign political authority in Baghdad to an Iraqi provision government by July 1, 2004, by which time it also hoped to have transferred much of the responsibility for maintaining day-to-day order in Iraq to new Iraqi security forces. Recognizing the IGC's legitimacy problem, Bremer proposed that a new government be chosen at regional caucuses convened all across Iraq by bodies picked by the occupation authority.
Bremer's plan aimed to reassure Iraqis, their neighbors and the American electorate that the occupation of Iraq was nearing an end. Three months later, however, Bremer's plan is in serious trouble, and it's far from clear how and by whom a new one will be authored.
Bremer's political headache began when he lost a standoff with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiite majority, who insisted that a new Iraqi government must be directly elected rather than selected at caucuses under U.S. control. By demonstrating the overwhelming support for his position on the streets, Sistani won over a majority of the Governing Council and forced Bremer to bring in the United Nations to rule on the viability of elections — and in the process, the Shiite leader appears to have succeeded in giving the writ of the UN greater weight than the Bush administration in determining Iraq's political future. That may be a practical necessity, since Sistani refuses even to meet with U.S. officials.
The result of last week's visit to Iraq by UN representative Lakhdar Brahimi has been to reinforce the demand for elections, although he also appears to have confirmed Bremer's view that a valid poll can't be held before year's end. More importantly, Brahimi also indicated that most Iraqis share Washington's concern to restore their sovereign authority by July 1. Asked about how he plans to resolve the conundrum of to whom the keys should be handed on June 30, Bremer indicated last weekend that he was waiting for the UN's recommendations.
Widespread opposition to Bremer's caucuses plan — even the IGC has now reneged on its support for the procedure — has left it dead in the water. Discussion is currently under way over an alternative, possibly expanding the IGC to include political actors with significant support that are currently outside of it, such as the firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The IGC is reportedly also considering the option of a new provisional government being appointed by a national gathering of stakeholders, convened not under the auspices of the U.S. or the IGC, but rather by the UN or the Arab League. Washington's tutelage of Iraq's political transition appears to be drawing quickly to a close, with uncertain political implications. This week, for example, Bremer vowed to veto a move by the current President of the IGC, the Islamist Abdul Hamid, to make Islamic Shariah law the principal source of law in an Iraqi interim constitution. But Bremer's veto, as things stand, expires on June 30.
Handing over power to even a modified version of the IGC is a high-risk strategy, unless it has Sistani's blessing. The caucus plan was adopted precisely because of the IGC's lack of legitimacy, and its internal paralysis that resulted partly from the clash of competing political-ethnic interests. Expanding the IGC could exacerbate such tensions, as each of the ethnic communities currently represented on the Council is already demanding a greater voice.
Upon his departure from Iraq, Brahimi warned of an imminent danger of civil war — an assessment reportedly shared by the CIA station in Baghdad. The Kurds are pushing for recognition of their de facto independence in the north against the nationalist instincts of the Arab majority; but among the Arabs the minority Sunni who have traditionally ruled Iraq appear unwilling to submit to the domination of the Shiite majority that direct democracy would bring. The CPA has used the capture of a document allegedly written by an al-Qaeda associate, Musab al-Zarqawi, to paint the danger of civil war as arising primarily from a diabolical al-Qaeda strategy, but Brahimi warned that the Iraqis were quite capable of getting there by themselves. "Civil wars do not happen because a person makes a decision, 'Today, I'm going to start a civil war' ," he told a media conference. Instead, he said, civil wars evolve "because people are reckless, people are selfish, because people think more of themselves than they do of their country'."
The question of Iraq's security and stability should increasingly, according to last November's plan, be the concern of the newly minted Iraqi security forces. U.S. troops are remain in the country, of course, under a "status of forces" agreement reached with the new Iraqi government, which would have the legal authority to ask them to leave. Uncertainty over the makeup of such a government puts a question mark over the terms on which U.S. forces would remain in Iraq. More immediately, however, the toll of U.S. and Iraqi casualties continues to escalate sharply. January had the second-highest casualty total since the fall of Baghdad last year, and February's death toll reached 237 last weekend. The brazen daylight raid by insurgents on a police station and two other facilities in Fallujah last Saturday graphically underscored doubts over the ability of the Iraqi security forces to take over most of the garrison duties currently being performed by U.S. forces.
IGC officials rushed to blame the Fallujah attack, which killed some 22 Iraqi policemen and wounded scores more, on foreign jihadis, but U.S. military officials debunked that story and revealed that all of the insurgents captured or killed had been Iraqis. The tightly choreographed attacks mark an escalation from simple hit-and-run ambushes to frontal assault, suggesting that the Iraqi security forces may struggle to match the firepower, organization and perhaps also the commitment of the insurgents. Fallujah, of course, had been something of a model for the plan to turn over security responsibility to Iraqis, with U.S. forces having withdrawn from the center of town. By shattering the morale and confidence of the Iraqi forces and highlighting their vulnerability, the insurgents hope to keep U.S. forces engaged in densely populated urban areas where they make easier targets and where counterinsurgency actions always risk alienating the local population.
While moves to loosen the U.S. grip over Iraq's immediate political future remain on track, just how the vacuum left by the planned termination of Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority on June 30 is filled — and how and by whom the security arrangements to guarantee eventual elections and keep a lid on the increasingly worrying centrifugal tendencies — are increasingly open questions. Right now, the old plan ([i]three months old, to be precise[/i]) appears to be redundant, but there is no sign yet of any new one. Nor is it clear, yet, what the respective roles of the Bush administration, the United Nations, the Iraqi Governing Council and Ayatollah Sistani might be in formulating a new one.
|
|
|
| |
| BELIEVE IT OR NOT ... INSANITY RULES ... NEO-ORWELLIAN AGE OF FASCISM ... |
| 02.19.04 (10:04 am) [edit] |
[b]After having done a [i]double-take [/i]... and after having [i]re-read it [/i]over three times ... the following is indeed reported ...[/b][b]But, can it [i]really[/i] be true??? ...[/b]
BELIEVE IT OR NOT ...
INSANITY RULES ...
WE HAVE ENTERED THE NEO-ORWELLIAN AGE OF FASCISM ...
Is the[i] War Criminal & War-Monger [/i]Dubya[i] really [/i]being nominated ([i]By Whom[/i]?) for the Nobel Peace Prize??? HO HO HO!!!
* Why not nominate posthumously Adolf Hitler for the "Righteous Among the Nations" honor given by Yad Vashem???
* Why not nominate Kenny-boy ([i]Enron[/i]) Lay for the Samaritan Center's Ethics in Business Award???
* Why not nominate Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and Perle and the other neo-con liars, thugs & goons for the Judicial Watch's 'Truth in Government Awards'???
[i]Jeez, Jeez, Jeez [/i]... Dubya doesn't deserve[i] any [/i]honors ... Dubya is [i]responsible for the massacre [/i]of over 545 US Soldiers & over 10,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians to [i]enrich[/i] his criminal corporate pimps: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, etc. etc. etc. ... Instead, Dubya deserves to be tried at the International Court at the Hague for [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i]!!!
Refer to "[i][b]'Kicking around a Peace Prize'[/b][/i]" by [i]Walter Brasch [/i]on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... :
The wire services distributed it.
The news media published it.
Even Netscape put it on its front page.
George W. Bush was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, [i]that [/i]George W. Bush.
The same one who, with a gaggle of senior advisors, rammed the USA Patriot Act into our stomachs and claimed it protected our civil liberties and national security, although it violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.
The president who not only destroyed a fragile truce between the United States and North Korea, but alienated Canada, France, Germany, and half the world as well.
The commander-in-chief who sent more than 200,000 Americans into harm's way to destroy both non-existent weapons of mass destruction and a nation that was at the birthplace of civilization. The commander-in-chief who donned a flight suit and landed on an aircraft carrier to proclaim "Mission Accomplished." The commander-in-chief under whose command more than 500 Americans and several thousand Iraqis, most of them civilian, have died; and more than 2,500 Americans and several thousand more Iraqis have been wounded, some with permanent and debilitating injuries. The commander-in-chief who proudly proclaims himself to be a war-time president, whose own vice-president told the Washington Post that warfare under Bush "may never end."
[i]That[/i] George W. Bush.
The requirements to win a Nobel Peace Prize include that the recipient "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize can come from thousands of individuals, including any member of a nation's legislature, past Nobel laureates, and university professors. This year, 129 individuals and 44 organizations were nominated. The Nobel committee doesn't announce names for 50 years, but those who nominate individuals or the individuals themselves often let the news media know. Jan Simonsen, a right-wing member of the Norwegian parliament, nominated Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair "for having dared to take the necessary decision to launch a war on Iraq without having the support of the UN." That statement alone should disqualify Bush from any consideration.
Fortunately, the Norwegian parliament, which selects the five members of the committee, has strongly opposed American war policies. Stein Toennesson, director of the International Peace Research Institute, said that when the Nobel committee rightly awarded a Peace Prize to former president Jimmy Carter, it was "a kick in the legs" to Bush's war policies. Geir Lundestad, the Committee's secretary, says he has received thousands of e-mails and letters opposing Bush's nomination.
In her acceptance speech in December, upon winning last year's Nobel Peace Prize, Shirin Ebadi, a judge who had been imprisoned by Iran for her vigorous defense of children's and women's rights, boldly stated, "In the past two years, some states have violated the universal principles and laws of human rights by using the events of 11 September and the war on international terrorism as a pretext." Elaborating, but not specifically identifying Bush, she vigorously noted that "Regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms . . . have been justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism."
To American presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter; to statesmen and diplomats Ralph Bunche, Elihu Root, and Cordell Hull; to social workers Jane Addams and Emily Balch; to Martin Luther King Jr., Elie Wiesel, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandella, Mother Teresa, and Red Cross founder Jean Henry Dunant, who earned the honor, this nomination is an insult. But, it is certainly in line with the nomination in 2001 that the sport of soccer be given a Nobel Peace Prize.
[i]Walter Brasch's latest book is Sex and the Single Beer Can, a witty and incisive look at American media and culture. You may contact Dr. Brasch through www.walterbrasch.com or at brasch@bloomu.edu[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| President's "Disgraceful" Treatment of Our Troops/Veterans ... |
| 02.19.04 (7:42 am) [edit] |
[b]Dubya is one of those pathetically [i]dim-witted ne'er-do-wells [/i]whose Poppy has picked up the pieces of his life-long mistakes, screwed-up bunglings and failures ... [/b]While better men were sent to Vietnam and fought ... and many tens of thousands died ... and many tens of thousands returned home maimed, injured and traumatized for life-- Dubya was AWOL, a deserter who spent his so-called "[i]duty[/i]", playing childish games in a drunken stupor slutting around ... No wonder he doesn't "remember" where he was during Vietnam:-- Following a mindless drinking binge, most drunken bums don't "remember" anything at all!
Now, Dubya relishes playing the [i]bully-boy, macho-man, top-gun buffoon[/i]-- because in reality, he is a [i]cowardly traitor[/i] who [i]did[/i] never, [i]could[/i] never, and[i] would [/i]never [i]serve,[/i] himself-- but like his [i]neo-con, neo-fascist arm-chair chicken-hawks "in-arms"[/i], are all quite prepared to send [i]others[/i] off to die, abuse them and commit crimes against them ... But you would [i]never, never [/i]witness the drunkardly coward Dubya in any[i] real [/i]danger ...
Consider "[i][b]President's "Disgraceful" Treatment of Troops/Vets[/b][/i]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
Yesterday at Ft. Polk, Louisiana, President Bush thanked American soldiers for their service, saying, "In the war, America depends on our military to meet the dangers abroad and to keep our country safe. The American people appreciate this sacrifice."1 And while this tribute is heartwarming, it has not been matched with the kind of resources that show appreciation. On the contrary, President Bush has refused to adequately fund some of the most important priorities to soldiers, veterans and their families.
Last year, while troops were at war, the president proposed slashing $1.5 billion from military family housing and tried to "roll back recent modest increases"2 in bonuses paid to soldiers serving in combat zones. Meanwhile, the president refused to extend the child tax credit to one million children living in military and veteran families.
And this year the misleading is only getting worse. While the president rambles on about how much he appreciates troops and veterans, Congressional Quarterly reported on February 4th that Bush's own Secretary for Veterans Affairs told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the president rejected a desperate request for $1.2 billion in funding needed for veterans' health care. Many lawmakers said the president's decision "only proved the administration's disinterest in supporting veterans' programs." The Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement after receiving the White House's budget, calling it "disgraceful" and saying it was a "disgrace and a sham."3
[b]Sources[/b]:
1. Presidential Remarks, 02/17/2004.
2. Bush FY 2004 Budget.
3. "Nothing but lip service", Army Times, 06/30/2003.
4. Children's Defense Fund, 6/6/03.
5. VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans; VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 02/02/2004.
|
|
|
| |
| Veep (Halliburton) Cheney's Future Is In Doubt ... |
| 02.19.04 (7:19 am) [edit] |
[b]Veep ([i]Halliburton[/i]) Cheney's future is in doubt ... [/b]Recently reports have surfaced that GOP leaders have asked Dubya to dump Cheney on the 2004 presidential ticket because he is a [i]liability [/i]... Cheney's unsavory connections with Halliburton who paid him massive over-bloated monies ([i]bribes[/i]?) and who then received billions in [i]no-bid, no-audit and no-accountability government contracts at the U.S. Taxpayer's expense[/i] is a national disgrace ... Moreover, Cheney is involved in numerous probes ([i]including bribery as CEO of Halliburton-- illegal wrong-doings in lying about phony WMDs in Iraq-- the felony of outing an undercover CIA operative, etc. etc. etc[/i].) ...
Veep-[i]N[/i]-Creep Cheney is indeed a [i]liability[/i] for the United States of America ... Dubya is the [i]biggest liability [/i]in the history of the United States of America ... Yesterday, it was announced that for the first time, we have been immorally [i]saddled [/i]with a record-level $7 Trillion National Debt-- irresponsibly [i]run-up [/i]by Dubya & Cheney to [i]pay-off [/i]their corporate pimps ... [i]Who[/i] do you think will [i]bear the burden [/i]of the Bush regime's reckless [i]spending spree [/i]on behalf of their corporate cronies? ... Not greedy corporations [i]and/or [/i]not the filthy rich:-- they've already been awarded hundreds of billions of dollars per year in welfare tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles ... [b]It's the rest of us who will see our [i]standard of living [/i]DROP ... and DROP HARD! It's the rest of us who will be bear the back-breaking debt burden while the corrupt Bushies & their sordid corporate robber-barons live like Emperor Caligulas![/b]
Consider "[i][b]Cheney's future is Washington's current topic[/b][/i]" by [i]Brian Knowlton, IHT[/i], on http://www.iht.com/articles/1... :
[b]WASHINGTON[/b] Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who has cultivated an unblinking image of stern secretiveness and unshakeable discretion, is expected to become far more visible as a campaigner in this presidential election year. Assuming, that is, that he remains on the presidential ticket. "The campaign season is under way," Cheney said recently, "and President Bush and I will be proud to present our vision to voters in every part of this great land."
.
The White House has said that American voters will see more of the low-profile Cheney this year, and not less.
.
But while it would fly in the face of history, and what is known of President George W. Bush, to drop a vice president after one term, Cheney has found himself mired in controversy on a variety of fronts. That has made speculation about his political future a suddenly hot topic in this speculation-loving city. Political scientists and observers here say they fully expect Bush, who vaunts loyalty as one of the highest virtues, to stick with Cheney. Their caveat is that Cheney's well-known heart problems could change things, though the health of the vice president, who is 63, is said to be sound at present. "He's got the respect of the president," said Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University in Washington. A change now could raise damaging speculation about problems in the White House, he said. And in sum, Wayne added, "He's not a drag on the ticket."
.
Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, generally agreed. "My assumption now is that Cheney will remain on the ticket," he said. Cheney, after all, remains a man of deep experience in Washington: as a congressman, defense secretary to the first President Bush and chief of staff to President Gerald Ford. He has been deeply involved in White House policy-making, so much so that in the early days of the administration there were waggish cracks about his being a "shadow president."
.
But some Republicans are said now to be questioning quietly whether Cheney has become more ballast than lift in a presidential contest that might end up being more competitive than had seemed likely only months ago. Cheney's persona - unemotional, stonily restrained, and without the down-home amiability of his boss - might not provide a needed campaign-trail boost. And as Bush has seen his own poll ratings decline in recent months, Cheney's have dropped more drastically, largely because of his close involvement in some of the controversies that have hurt the president most. Cheney has been challenged on several fronts. Some critics said he had pushed the CIA to provide the most damaging possible assessment of a threat from Iraq. After the war, and even after the weapons inspector David Kay said that he expected no banned weapons to be found in Iraq, Cheney has insisted that such weapons will be found.
.
Even after Bush stated that no link had been found between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, Cheney said there was "overwhelming evidence" of such a tie. Cheney's ties to corporate America and the energy industry have been the source of further criticism, particularly after stories that Halliburton, the huge oil-services company he once headed, had won no-bid contracts for work in Iraq, and overcharged for some services there. The Justice Department is investigating, moreover, whether a Halliburton subsidiary made improper payments to gain work in Nigeria during Cheney's time as the company's chief. Cheney has been unable to shake questions about a secretive task force he convened early in the administration to help develop its energy policy. The White House resisted calls for the details of the panel's workings, including even the names of its members, drawn primarily from energy company executives. And with the dispute coming before the Supreme Court, Cheney has been criticized for taking a high court justice, Antonin Scalia, on a duck-hunting trip in Louisiana aboard Air Force Two. Scalia said there was nothing irregular about that sort of socializing, since Cheney was not involved in the case as a private individual. Further, Cheney's office has been a focus of an investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame. The leak was seen as a way of punishing her husband, who had criticized administration arguments for war with Iraq. Cheney, however, remains popular among the conservatives whom Bush views as crucial to his re-election. "Cheney is well-respected by conservatives," said Wayne of Georgetown. "The president thinks he made the right decision in Dick Cheney, and there's no reason to drop him."
.
What could change that thinking, of course, is if Cheney encountered new health problems. He has suffered four heart attacks. A Cheney spokesman has insisted that the vice president's health is fine. And Bush has insisted that he will stand by his vice president much as his father did in 1992, despite widespread criticism that Dan Quayle had proved a drag on the ticket. "I don't think that Bush loyalty gene will permit him" to drop Cheney, said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "But the one way it reasonably could happen is if Cheney himself recognized he was a lead weight around the Republican ticket this year, which you could make a good argument for."
.
Should pressure grow for Cheney to step aside, analysts note, the health issue could provide useful cover for a graceful withdrawal. That, of course, has given rise to the latest chapter of a favorite Washington game: speculating on who might come next. There is no clear-cut best pick as a theoretical Cheney successor, though among the names most bruited about are those of: Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, a tough-minded and respected medical doctor, but not particularly well-known around the country;
.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, who gained widespread respect for his handling of the crisis in his city in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, but whose positions on some social issues are more liberal than those of the president; Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security director, a former Pennsylvania governor who was considered for the No. 2 spot in 2000 but faced right-wing opposition for supporting abortion rights;
.
And Condoleezza Rice, his trusted national security adviser and a woman considered a bright star among Republicans, though perhaps less so after the highly contentious debate over the Iraq war. She is also, however, considered a favorite choice if Secretary of State Colin Powell steps down at the end of this term, as has been widely rumored.
|
|
|
| |
| MORE & MORE MUMBO-JUMBO ... |
| 02.18.04 (4:09 pm) [edit] |
[b]The [i]flip-flops and mumbo-jumbo [/i]coming out of the Bush[i] circus [/i]are so frequent now that one gets [i]whip-flash [/i]jumping backwards and coming forwards in order to reconcile all of the different[i] lies, deceptions & falsehoods[/i] perpetrated upon us ...[/b]
[b]Some mumbo-jumbo [/b]just turns out to be ... well, too mumbo. This from [i]CNN[/i] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO... ...
[i]The White House backed away Wednesday from its own prediction that the economy will add 2.6 million new jobs before the end of this year, saying the forecast was the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician[/i].
I think we'd all agree to that last point. But can he hire one?
Embarrassing. The bloom is really coming off this rose.
The credibility account is close to overdrawn.
[i]Drip, drip, drip[/i].
[b]Source[/b]:
Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Bush: Special Interest Protector-In-Chief ... |
| 02.18.04 (3:58 pm) [edit] |
[b]The hypocritical[i] Liar-N-Thief [/i]Dubya has received more 'campaign contributions' ([i]Bribes-for-Bush to handover the nation to corporate robber-barons[/i]) from special interests and corporations in [i]one year [/i]than Kerry did in the [i]past 15 years[/i]![/b] ... And [i]now, oh most laughably,[/i] their ugly and mendacious neo-orwellian GOP propaganda machine is out to smear Kerry on issues (e.g.[i] Military Service ... Special Interest Campaign Contributions ... etc. etc. etc[/i].) wherein the corrupt & cowardly Bush has a despicable, sordid & squalid track-record!?!?!?
Bush is the [i]drunkardly town slut [/i]who decides to lecture everybody else on [i]abstinence[/i]. Ha ha ha!!!
Consider "[b]Bush: [i]Special Interest Protector-In-Chief[/i][/b ]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
Coming under increasing fire for his failure to clarify his National Guard record, fix the economy, bring down the cost of health care, and secure post-war Iraq, President Bush has resorted to attacking his political opponents as "beholden to special interests and out of touch with regular Americans."1 But a look at the more than $320 million that Bush has raised since 2000 shows that he is the man with the most special interest connections in American history - and that he has rewarded those special interests in kind.2
Specifically, while the president attacks Senator John Kerry (D-MA) for accepting money from lobbyists, a new study shows "the president accepted more in direct contributions from lobbyists in one year than Kerry did in the past 15 years."3 All told, Bush collected at least $6.5 million in "bundled" contributions from lobbyists last year alone.
But that has not stopped Bush from his ad hominem attacks on opponents for "special interest" connections. Yesterday, for instance, Bush attacked the US Senate for being beholden to "special interests" for holding up an insurance industry-backed bill to restrict medical patients from seeking legal redress in the event of malpractice. Yet, it was Bush who accepted more than $3 million from the insurance industry before he wrote the bill.4
On the campaign trail last year, Bush said, "We can't let the special interests of Washington prevent us from doing what is necessary to protect the biggest interest we have, which is the American people."5 Yet it was Bush who did the bidding of his friends in the meat processing/meat packing industries by refusing to protect the American people from Mad Cow disease. Specifically, Bush refused to enact stringent meat inspection regulations6 and delayed country-of-origin labeling laws7 at the urging of the agribusiness industry which has given him $5.5 million8. To make extra sure that the agribusiness special interests were protected, Bush also packed the U.S. Department of Agriculture with agribusiness executives.9
Even on issues of war and peace, Bush has put special interests before almost anything else. As the Center for Public Integrity reported, the more than 70 companies and individuals that Bush awarded up to $8 billion in Iraq/Afghanistan contracts have "donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush - a little over $500,000 - than to any other politician over the last dozen years."10
[b]Sources[/b]:
1. "How the Bush team will try to paint Kerry", USA Today, 02/17/2004.
2. Open Secrets.Org, 2004.
3. "Bush’s Hypocrisy: President Condemns Influence of Special Interests But Accepted at Least $6.5 Million
Bundled by Lobbyists in 2003", Public Citizen, 02/13/2004.
4. Open Secrets.Org.
5. Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome, 11/03/2002.
6. CPR Raps USDA’s Veneman for Mad Cow Regs, Center for Progressive Regulation, 01/14/2004.
7. "Texas Eagle, state projects win big in Senate's spending bill", Star-Telegram, 01/23/2004.
8. Open Secrets.Org.
9. "Critics: Agency too cozy with those it regulates", Philadelphia Inquirer, 05/08/2003.
10. Center for Public Integrity.
|
|
|
| |
| ROPE A DOPE ... |
| 02.18.04 (3:12 pm) [edit] |
[b]It is hard for anyone with even [i]an iota of brain matter [/i]to fail to recognize that we've been[i] had [/i]by the corrupt Bush regime ... Some die-hard neo-fascist propagandists are desperately trying to [i]hold on with their fingernails [/i]to the fantasy that Bush isn't a liar and a crook ... [/b]However, it is interesting that[i] slowly but surely[/i], Americans are realizing that we've been [i]ruthlessly neo-con conned [/i]and [i]shamelessly neo-orwellianly duped [/i]by Dubya ...
But perhaps not anymore, as some are [i]"roping the dope"[/i]:
Consider "[i][b]Facts elude Bush & vice versa[/b][/i]" by [i]Richard Cohen [/i]on http://www.nydailynews.com/ne... :
By his own description, President Bush does not [i]do[/i] nuance. [[b]Apparently, Dubya does not [i]do[/i] smart either[/b]!] Neither does his administration. Especially after 9/11, the one thing it had was certainty. It knew what it knew, and because of that, on everything from tax cuts to going to war, Congress followed. The uncertain will follow the certain. It's a rule of life.
But a rereading of the "Meet The Press" transcript suggests that Bush's most critical quality - certainty - has oozed from him like helium from a balloon. Here was a man who was continually trying to pump himself up. He used the word "dangerous" over and over again, applying it to Saddam Hussein without every quite saying why. He repeatedly called the former dictator a madman, which is to say that he was capable of anything. In fact, though, he was capable of very little and in recent years had attempted almost nothing.
After Bush's "Meet the Press" performance, countless commentators tried to figure out why he had done so poorly. Many of them focused on performance - the part of politics that looks so easy until, as Wesley Clark did, you try it for yourself. Yes, Bush did not perform well. But even a brilliant actor needs material.
Others lamented Bush's verbal klutziness. If only he could talk like Tony Blair, one of them sighed. But the reason he cannot talk like Blair is because he doesn't think like Blair. The British prime minister can acknowledge an awkward fact, even a mistake, and keep on going. Bush can only insist that he is right. It doesn't matter that the facts have changed.
This had little to do with speech and a lot to do with thought. Once certainty is snatched from him, he seems in a state of vertigo where he grasps at certain words to steady himself. Dangerous. Madman. But if a madman doesn't have the weapons you said he did, then he is not dangerous, and if he didn't have the weapons, then maybe he was not as mad as we thought he was.
There is much to ponder here. But Bush will ponder not - not on Iraq, not on taxes. He believes in minimal taxes no matter the economic or fiscal conditions - boom, bust, surplus, deficit. There's no notion that in economics one size cannot fit all. "I believe the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money," he told Tim Russert. It is that simple.
There is something childlike about the "Meet The Press" transcript. "Saddam was a danger to America," Bush said repeatedly. But how? He had no missiles that could reach our shores. He had no nuclear weapons program. He did not play ball with terrorist outfits or, for that matter, they with him. "The man was a threat," Bush said. How? "He had a weapon," the President insisted. But he didn't, remember? That was the point of David Kay's report. Oh, but Saddam was a madman.
Bush's inability or refusal to come to grips with the facts is not the product of a poor performance or an errant tongue, but of a troubling insistence that his beliefs cannot be wrong. That makes him look like a [i]dope[/i].
[[b]That's because Dubya is a [i]dope[/i][/b].]
|
|
|
| |
| Al Qaeda WANTS George W. Bush Re-(s)elected!!! ... |
| 02.18.04 (10:21 am) [edit] |
[b]Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations around the world [i]WANT [/i]Dubya back in office, because they recognize that his neo-con, neo-fascist aggressions in the Middle East will enflame more hatred and rage ... and aide their recruitment efforts ... [/b]
The neo-con "crazies" in the corrupt Bush regime are already planning their illegal & immoral perpetual wars in Syria, Iran, etc., in order to fulfill their ghoulish nightmarish plans for corporate global domination, rape of oil, and to enrich themselves and their corporate paymasters: Halliburton, Bechtel, Unocal, Carlyle Group, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc. Refer to "[b]No End to War: -- [i]The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict[/i][/b]." by [i]Patrick J. Buchanan [/i]on http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_0... .
Consider "[i][b]What the terrorists want[/b][/i]" by [i]Gwynne Dyer [/i]on http://www.jordantimes.com/Tu... :
I HAVE always admired Edward Luttwak, one of the clearest American thinkers in the strategy/security game, and I have nothing but contempt for the US Homeland Security Department ([i]Heimatsicherheitsabte ilung, in the original German[/i]) and its ridiculous colour-coded threat levels. So I started reading a recent article by the former on the latter with genuine pleasure, anticipating that Luttwak was going to condemn Homeland Security for its habit of running up the levels from puce to magenta and back down to mauve, shredding Americans' nerves with warnings nobody can respond to in a useful way, for no better reason than to cover its own bureaucratic behind.
That's just what he did, and the article was rollicking along with me cheering Luttwak on every line of the way — when his whole argument suddenly veered off into the ditch, rolled three times, and lay there bleeding. What he said was: “The successive warnings of ill-defined threats that frighten many Americans are achieving the very aim of the terrorists. Terrorism cannot materially weaken the United States, so their entire purpose is precisely to terrorise, to make Americans unhappy, in the hope that this will induce them to accept terrorist demands.”
If one of the cleverest security analysts in the country has got no further than this in his thinking about what the terrorists want, then it's no surprise that sixty or seventy per cent of Luttwak's fellow-countrymen believe that Saddam Hussein sent the terrorists. He thinks that the terrorists are trying to make Americans unhappy in order to “induce them to accept terrorist demands”? What demands could the Islamist terrorists of Al Qaeda possibly make that the United States could conceivably grant? Fly them all to Havana? Convert to Islam? Put the money in unmarked notes in a brown paper bag and leave it behind the radiator?
The whole notion that this is some sort of a giant extortion operation is as naive (or as wilfully ignorant) as the Bush administration's pet explanation that the terrorists attack the US because “they hate our freedoms”. Unfortunately, the post-Sept. 11 intellectual climate in the United States has prevented any serious discussion of the terrorists' goals and their strategies for achieving them.
In the post-Sept. 11 chill, even conceding that the terrorist leaders are intelligent people with rational goals seemed somehow disloyal to America's dead. Instead, it was assumed that their fanaticism made them too blind or stupid for purposeful action at the strategic level. Even terrorist groups as marginal and self-deluded as the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the Weathermen had a more or less coherent analysis, political goals and some notion of how their attacks moved them towards those goals, but the public debate in the US grants none of that to Al Qaeda.
Yet, the Islamist radicals have always been completely open about their goals. They want to take power in the Muslim countries (phase one of the project), and then unite the entire Muslim world in a final struggle to overthrow the power of the West (phase two). They are still stuck in phase one, with little to show for it despite thirty years of trying, so in the early 1990s Osama Ben Laden and his colleagues switched from head-on assaults on the regimes in Muslim countries to direct attacks on Western targets. Yet, their first-phase goal remains seizing power in the Muslim world, not some fantasy about “bringing the West to its knees”.
Terrorists generally rant about their goals but stay silent about their strategies, so now we have to do a little work for ourselves. If the real goal is still revolutions that bring Islamist radicals to power, then how does attacking the West help? Well, the US in particular may be goaded into retaliating by bombing or even invading various Muslim countries — and in doing so, may drive enough aggrieved Muslims into the arms of the Islamist radicals that their long-stalled revolutions against local regimes finally get off the ground.
Most analysts outside the United States concluded long ago that that was the principal motive for the Sept. 11 attack. They would add that by giving the Bush administration a reason to attack Afghanistan, and at least a flimsy pretext for invading Iraq, Al Qaeda's attacks have paid off handsomely. US troops are now the unwelcome military rulers of over 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people there and elsewhere are turning to the Islamist radicals as the only force in the Muslim world that is willing and able to defy American power.
It is astonishing how little this is understood in the United States. I know of no American analyst who has even made the obvious point that Al Qaeda wants George W. Bush to win next November's presidential election and continue his interventionist policies in the Middle East for another four years, and will act to save Bush from defeat if necessary.
It probably would not do so unless Bush's number were slipping badly, for any terrorist attack on US soil carries the risk of stimulating resentment against the current administration for failing to prevent it. Certainly another attack on the scale of Sept. 11 would risk producing that result, even if Al Qaeda had the resources for it. But a simple truck bomb in some US city centre a few months before the election, killing just a couple of dozen Americans, could drive voters back into Bush's arms and turn a tight election around. Al Qaeda is clever enough for that.
[i]The writer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Bringing the War Home ... |
| 02.18.04 (6:59 am) [edit] |
[b]Oh how comfortable, soft & easy to be a neo-con [i]arm-chair chicken-hawk[/i], far, far, oh so far away from any [i]danger[/i] ... [/b]None of the neo-fascist war criminals in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i], who lust for war and arrogantly send others off to fight, suffer and perhaps die-- in insane, illegal & immoral wars devised for global empire & to enrich corporate robber-barons ([i]e.g. Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, Lockheed-Martin, etc. etc. etc[/i].)-- [i]None of these cowardly neo-con thugs & goons in the putrid Bush regime ever served themselves[/i] ...
[b]Bringing the war home ...[/b]
A must read from Sunday's[i] New York Times [/i]magazine http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... . "[i]The Permanent Scars of Iraq[/i]" documents the anguish of soldiers like Robert Shrode, Brent Bricklin, Jeremy Gilbert, Jenni McKinley, who have little more than a cocktail of medications and a lone support group to help them survive the physical and psychic wounds of war. [i][b]More [/b][/i]» http://www.alternet.org/waron...
[b]Source[/b]:
AlterNet.org on http://www.alternet.org
|
|
|
| |
| Dubya's Attack Machine Gears Up: How The Bush Team Will Try to Paint Kerry ... |
| 02.17.04 (2:51 pm) [edit] |
[b]The neo-orwellian GOP propaganda machine is [i]gearing-up to full speed ahead [/i]... [/b]They have already begun an ugly and mendacious smear campaign waged against the democratic front-runner John Kerry.
Consider "[i][b]The attack machine gears up: How the Bush team will try to paint Kerry[/b][/i]" by [i]Judy Keen[/i], USA Today, on http://www.smirkingchimp.com :
WASHINGTON — President Bush's campaign strategists believe "Massachusetts liberal" is a potent political epithet. But they don't think it's enough to defeat Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
So the Bush team, which believes Kerry has the nomination wrapped up, is preparing a broad attack on his record over 19 years in the Senate and what they call his opportunistic reversals on key issues.
The faceoff between Bush and Kerry has begun extraordinarily early in volleys of press releases and Web videos. It will continue for eight months and signals a long, nasty campaign. Decisions being made now will define the territory on which the campaign is fought and establish competing portraits of the two men.
Already, Republicans are depicting Kerry as a product of Washington, beholden to special interests and out of touch with regular Americans. The "Massachusetts liberal" tag that worked so well when the elder George Bush used it to defeat Gov. Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential race is just part of the case this Bush will try to make, aides say.
[b]For the full story[i] click on [/i][/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| Weapons 'Capacity' of Iraq Challenged |
| 02.17.04 (1:00 pm) [edit] |
"[i]Several specialists on weapons of mass destruction who have studied Kay's findings said Bush's insistence that Iraq had the "capacity" to make such a weapon -- not just the goal of eventually building one -- is accurate only in the loosest sense of the word[/i]."
[b]Not only did Saddam Hussein lack the WMDs posing an imminent threat to the U.S.A:-- [/b]Dubya's insane and mendacious [i]casus belli [/i]for his immoral & illegal war turned bloody guerrilla quagmire in Iraq ... [i][b]Now[/b][/i] we learn also that questions arise as to whether Saddam Hussein even had the "[i]capacity[/i]" to manufacture stockpiles of WMDs ...
Dubya and his corrupt cabal of neo-con, neo-fascist thugs & goons waged their catastrophic criminal war for global hegemony, control of the Middle East oil, and to enrich their corporate pimps: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Lockheed Martin, etc. etc. etc. Every day that passes brings new findings that confirm this fact. Ergo, the criminal traitors in the putrid Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]should be impeached from office.
Consider "[i][b]Weapons 'Capacity' of Iraq Challenged[/b][/i]" by [i]Charlie Savage [/i]on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
WASHINGTON -- Prewar Iraq was highly unlikely to produce a device that could easily inflict mass casualties -- despite President Bush's current assertion that Saddam Hussein had the "capacity" to make a weapon of mass destruction, former weapons inspectors and former national security officials say.
Bush's assertion about Iraq's capabilities, which he made repeatedly during his interview last week on the NBC television program "Meet the Press," is a central prong of his administration's defense that the war was justified despite the failure to find stockpiles of unconventional weapons. It is a theme to which Bush is likely to return often in this election year. And it marks Bush's first characterization of the Iraq threat since the testimony of his former chief weapons inspector, David Kay.
"David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons," Bush said. "Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons."
But Kay did not describe Iraq's production capacity so clearly in either his interim public report last fall or in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 28. In an interview last week, he told the Globe that although Iraq had pesticide equipment that could be switched to produce fine-grain anthrax in a lab, it would have remained a challenge to deliver it in a way that would inflict mass casualties.
"I think it's fair to say they had the capacity [to switch over to anthrax production], but you're always going to get into the issue of not just producing an agent, but in a usable way," Kay said. "The real trick is delivery in a way that gets to you in a way that is inhaled -- aerosolized. That is much more difficult."
Moreover, although Hussein employed scientists who had once been working on military programs, Kay found that almost all of Iraq's infrastructure for nuclear and chemical weapons production was destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War and by United Nations inspectors.
He cited the pesticide lab equipment as among his most potentially worrisome findings, but Kay testified last month that he considered the possibility that an Iraqi scientist might sell the know-how on the black market "a bigger risk than the restart of [Hussein's] programs being successful."
Many specialists described even weapons-grade anthrax as more of a weapon of mass "disruption" because it is difficult to keep it in the air and it is not contagious, limiting its ability to inflict wide damage.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of the CIA's counterterrorism unit and a former director of intelligence for the National Security Council, noted that Bush has been accused of exaggerating intelligence before the war by taking shards of analysis that included conditions and hedged suspicions about what Iraq might be harboring -- then representing it as a certainty.
Cannistraro said Bush's description of Kay's postwar findings is also a questionably aggressive interpretation of the evidence.
"It's not as flatly wrong, but it is misleading," Cannistraro said. "To translate knowledge . . . to capability, that's inaccurate because knowledge can be, `Yeah, I know how to do this.' But having the capability of doing this requires the acquisition of a lot of component parts you don't have."
Sean McCormack, a National Security Council spokesman, said Bush's assertion was based on portions of Kay's interim report in which the inspector said he had found evidence of "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."
"One question is, `How close [to making a weapon] do you want them to be able to be?' " McCormack said.
"Clearly, the president and policy makers have to make judgments about threat and risk. And they had to make judgments about Saddam Hussein, who had shown that he would use weapons of mass destruction and that he was intent on building and acquiring them. This regime was sitting in the middle of one of the most unstable regions in the world."
Nonetheless, several specialists on weapons of mass destruction who have studied Kay's findings said Bush's insistence that Iraq had the "capacity" to make such a weapon -- not just the goal of eventually building one -- is accurate only in the loosest sense of the word.
"There are easily ways in which that would be a true statement and easily ways in which it could be a stretch," said Gerald Epstein, a former assistant director for national security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "It all depends on the squishy word `capacity.' Almost everything is dual-use technology -- there is biotech all over the world that is not much different than what you'd need to produce a weapon. But does that mean having everything ready to go for a military attack using that weapon? No, that's very different."
Asked to respond to Bush's characterization of his findings, Kay agreed that one could say Iraq had the "capacity," but he also described this as a "really mushy" question and added a series of significant qualifiers that Bush did not mention.
"Did they have the capacity to make a small number of chemicial or biological weapons using existing civilian infrastructure? Sure," Kay said. "Look, if some nut can make enough anthrax to terrorize us in very small amounts, Iraq could have made some. That's different than saying it could have made large amounts of weaponized anthrax that would have been useful in a militarized conflict."
Kay also reported that on at least two occasions, Hussein or his sons asked scientists how long it would take to produce mustard or VX nerve gas. The scientists answered that they could make mustard gas in several months but that VX would take several years. But Kay also reported that many of the dictator's scientists had been lying to him while collecting funding.
Kay said that because the order was never given, "we can't be sure" whether they could make a useful chemcial weapon.
He also said his investigation had looked into whether Iraq possessed the chemical ingredients needed to make mustard or VX gas, with varying results.
"They probably had adequate precursors for mustard gas," he said. "For VX, they faced certain problems, and they were working on how they could find solutions in their own indigenous production."
The pesticide laboratory Kay found was working with Bt, a substance that closely mirrored the properties of anthrax.
He said the Bt equipment could have been converted into producing fine-grain anthrax powder -- if Iraqi scientists were able to find a virulent strain to seed a batch.
But even if the Bt equipment were retrofitted to mill anthrax spores, analysts said, it would have been extremely difficult to deliver the agent in a way that would yield mass casualties rather than several deaths -- such as the anthrax mailing attacks in 2001 that killed five people.
And Kay said delivery problems are multiplied for chemical weapons because a much greater volume is needed.
Before the war, the Bush administration said Iraq was working on unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with sprayers that could have been part of an airborne delivery system. But Kay's investigation found that the vehicles were designed for surveillance only.
Kay's report conceded Iraq had restarted a longer-range missile program, and in the interview he noted that Iraq's history of having produced unconventional weapons in the past would have made it easier to make them again.
But Jonathan Tucker, a former Iraq inspector for the UN, said an enormous distance remains between that evidence and the implication that Hussein would have been able to produce new weapons of mass destruction.
"It would be inaccurate to say they had a rapid breakout capability," he said.
"It would be accurate to say they were continuing some research and development in some areas related to WMD with the long-range intention of having the capacity to rebuild their programs when sanctions were lifted.
"With chemical and nuclear, it would take them years to rebuild production capacity. In biological, they had the production infrastructure because of dual-use technology, but they didn't necessarily have the capacity for weaponization."
|
|
|
| |
| DUBYA OF OZ ... |
| 02.17.04 (12:47 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya of Oz ... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime's neo-orwellian propaganda machine is[i] out in force [/i]...
[u][b]Fiction[/b][/u]: "[i]Then close your eyes and tap your heels together three times. And think to yourself, 'There's no place like home. There's no place like home[/i].'"
[u]Source[/u]: The[i] Wizard of Oz[/i].
[u][b]Reality[/b][/u]: "The artificial windows revealed an inviting blue sky. Bush portrayed a similarly sunny outlook with remarks that used "[i]optimistic[/i]" or "[i]optimism[/i]" [i]seven[/i] times in [i]49[/i] minutes. He repeatedly stressed the power of positive thinking as an engine of job creation." ... Jeez, what shameless propaganda ...
[u]Source[/u]: "Bush Upbeat on Economy in Campaign Preview in Fla.", Mike Allen, [i]Washington Post[/i], Feb. 17th, 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[b]Source:[/b]
[i]Joshua Michal Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo[/i], http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Evidence on Bush Adds Up to AWOL ... |
| 02.17.04 (7:33 am) [edit] |
[b]Bush is a cowardly deserter who [i]didn't want [/i]to serve in Vietnam (... [i][u]Who[/u] really "wanted" to serve? ... It is called doing your "duty"![/i] ...) and instead got his Poppy Bush to abuse his power and place the spoiled[i] ne'er-do-well [/i]brat Dubya ahead of over 500 others on a waiting list for the Champagne Brigade ... [/b]The tragic story of the imbecilic and corrupt Dubya is that the drunkardly slut [i]didn't even show-up [/i]for his [i]arm-chair [/i]so-called '[i]service[/i]' ... While better men were sent to fight and die, the cowardly neo-con thugs and goons who have hijacked our nation "had other priorities" and didn't [i]want[/i] to go (smirked [i]by Veep-N-Creep Cheney[/i]) ... So poor folks and working people are required to give their lives, while these pathetic neo-fascist [i]arm-chair chicken-hawks [/i]arrogantly laugh and smirk because they avoid(ed) doing their duty, and instead[b] they gleefully send [i]others[/i] off to die ... Do we really want despicable cowards and criminals running our country who ask others to do, what they[i] won't [/i]do themselves? [/b]...
Consider "[i][b]Evidence on Bush adds up to AWOL[/b][/i]" by [i]Bill Press[/i], TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES on http://www.tallahassee.com/ml... :
The deluge of letters and e-mail prompted by a recent column demands another look: Did George Bush go AWOL?
Reacting to my recital of evidence that Lt. Bush didn't show up for a big chunk of his National Guard duty in Alabama and Texas, from May 1972 to May 1973, outraged readers pounced.
He received an honorable discharge, they argued. Plus, Alabama's Gen. William Turnipseed backed off his claim of never having seen Bush on base. And the White House finally released records that prove he served his time. Would I make a retraction? The answer is: No, no and no.
The honorable discharge proves nothing. Radio talk show host Don Imus told listeners about getting in trouble, including punching a sergeant, while in the Marines. His superiors told him they'd give him an honorable discharge on one condition - that he promise not to re-enlist. Sometimes, Imus points out, honorable discharges are given just to get rid of people.
In fact, according to Separation and Retirement Procedures for today's Air National Guard, those eligible for honorable discharge include people who fail to comply with requirements for a medical examination; who abuse drugs; who have unsatisfactory participation; or whom the service is unable to locate. Nobody knows under what rubric Lt. Bush was discharged.
Yes, Gen. Turnipseed, commander of the Alabama Air National Guard when Bush was assigned there - who originally said he never saw Bush report for duty - now adds that he was traveling and not around much at the time. But that doesn't mean anything. One man's absence doesn't prove another's presence.
Remember: To date, despite the offer of a reward, not one guardsman has come forward to say he served with George Bush in Alabama. And the White House can't name one, either. Perhaps because there aren't any.
On "Meet the Press," President Bush promised to release his entire military files. Last week, the White House reneged. Instead, they released only selected pay stubs and the record of a dental exam which, they say, prove Bush served his time in Alabama. Not on your life. Far from resolving the issue, they just add to the confusion.
Here's what the White House documents show. First, that Bush was not paid at all between April 1972 till October 1972. Which means even the White House admits he did not report for duty in Alabama, as required, for at least six months. Second, that Bush was paid for nine appearances, a total of 25 days, between October 1972 and April 1973, but they don't say where. Third, that Bush received a dental exam at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery on Jan. 6, 1973.
That's it. The sole piece of evidence that Bush ever showed up at a National Guard base in Alabama: He went to the dentist. Once. Whoop-de-do!
Documents released by the White House still shed no light on why Bush did not take his annual physical, as required, in August 1972. But they also raise a more serious question.
Pay stubs show Bush on duty the weekend of May 1-3, 1973, at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Yet that very same weekend, on May 2, his two superior officers at Ellington signed a report saying they could not complete his annual evaluation because "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report."
[i]Who's lying[/i]?
George Bush himself left no doubt why he joined the National Guard: to get out of Vietnam. In May 1984, he told the Houston Chronicle: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
So Bush, a son of privilege, used his congressman father's connections to get into the Guard. After learning to fly, he used his father's political connections to get assigned to a Republican Senate campaign in Alabama. Then he used his father's connections to get out of the Guard five months early, so he could attend Harvard Business School.
And now President Bush has the audacity to suggest that anyone who questions his military record is denigrating the National Guard. No, Mr. President, the person denigrating the National Guard is not the one asking the questions. It's the one who says he did his duty, but didn't.
|
|
|
| |
| Greenspan Testimony Points to Deepening US Fiscal Crisis |
| 02.17.04 (7:23 am) [edit] |
[b]Greenspan is a "[i]sell-out[/i]" who represents the [i]Council on Foreign Relations[/i] for whom he [i]pimps[/i] in order to promote the interests of corporations and the wealthy robber-barons who have hijacked our nation ... [/b]Tragically Greenspan uses the incredible '[i]excuse[/i]' that he doesn't really want to publically contradict a sitting president ... That [i]'jug' simply doesn't
hold water'[/i] ... If Greenspan was at all loyal to our great nation, he would have called upon Congress to repeal all of Dubya's insane, immoral and rapacious [i]tax cuts, tax loopholes and boondoggles [/i]for corporporations, the richest oligarchs and the top 1-5% plutocrats, all traitors and greedy pirates who are economically raping and destroying our nation ...
Consider "[b]Greenspan testimony points to deepening US fiscal crisis[/b]" by [i]Nick Beams [/i]on http://www.wsws.org/articles/... :
In his semi-annual testimony to Congress last week, Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan gave his now almost customary upbeat assessment of the prospects facing the US economy.
He began by noting that in the period since his previous testimony last July, when convincing signs of accelerated activity were not in evidence, the picture had now “brightened” with gross domestic product expanding “vigorously” and productivity surging. “Looking forward,” he continued, “the prospects are good for the sustained expansion of the US economy.”
At the same time, he promised that, while interest rates would eventually have to rise as the economy expanded, the Federal Reserve could be “patient in removing its current policy accommodation” which has seen rates at a 40-year low. These upbeat remarks—characterised rather acidly by a[i] Financial Times [/i]editorial as “Mr Greenspan as the eternal optimist: everything is for the best in the best of all possible economies”—were the basis of major news reports that the American economy had turned the corner and helped fuel a sharp rise on Wall Street.
But looking behind the headlines there are indications, even in the Greenspan speech itself, that all is far from well in the US economy.
So far as the increase in US economic growth is concerned—a “transition from an extended period of subpar economic performance to one of more vigorous expansion”—Greenspan noted that household spending was once again the “mainstay” with real personal consumption spending increasing nearly 4 percent and outlays on residential structures rising by about 10 percent.
Rising consumption spending is generally taken to indicate a healthy economy. This is because it is normally the result of increased wages and employment levels, which in turn reflect increased investment and productive activity. Not in this case however.
As Greenspan acknowledged, the biggest factor in rising consumer spending was the low interest rates engineered by the Fed. These prompted automakers to offer incentive deals, thereby boosting sales, while “the lowest home mortgage rates in decades were a major contributor to record sales of existing residences, engendering a large extraction of cash from home equity.” That cash was used to support personal consumption spending, home improvement, and the repayment of higher cost debt. In other words, far from indicating a healthy economy, the increase in consumption spending was largely the result of the housing bubble created by the Fed’s low-interest rate regime.
Even as he put the best possible gloss on the state of the US economy, Greenspan was forced to recognise that the sharp increase in the budget deficit contained dangers both in the short and long term. The deficit, he noted, had risen to $375 billion in the 2003 fiscal year and “appears to be widening considerably in the current fiscal year” with current projections indicating that “very sizable deficits are in prospect in the years to come.”
The imbalance in the federal budgetary situation would soon pose “serious longer-term fiscal difficulties” especially due to the retirement of the “baby-boom generation” in the next few years. “Without corrective action, this development will put substantial pressure on our ability in coming years to provide even minimal government services while maintaining entitlement benefits at their current level, without debilitating increase in tax rates. The longer we wait before addressing these imbalances, the more wrenching the fiscal adjustment will ultimately be.”
The problems are not confined to the longer-term. If the prospects for increasing federal budget deficits are factored in by money markets, this could lead to a rise in long-term interest rates, leading in turn to cuts in investment and other interest-rate sensitive spending thereby undermining “the private capital formation that is a key element” in the economy’s growth prospects.
Rising concerns over the worsening fiscal position have been reflected in recent press commentary. For example, in a comment published last Friday by [i]BusinessWeek[/i] described the government’s finances as a “fiasco of mammoth proportions”. It cited a recent article by Niall Ferguson, history professor at New York University, and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, professor of economics at Boston University, which “drew ominous parallels between fiscal overstretch in imperial Bourbon France and contemporary America.”
[i]BusinessWeek[/i] noted that projected deficits over the next decade run to around $2.4 trillion but that if Bush succeeds in his campaign to make the temporary tax cuts permanent, then “the red ink would exceed $5.2 trillion.” In other words, if the tax cuts are made permanent, the deficit will be 100 percent worse than at present.
Given such warnings, one might have expected that, in his report to Congress, Greenspan would have come down firmly against the Bush tax cuts which have provided a major boost for high-income earners.
However, when questioned about his position in the Senate last week, Greenspan was adamant that the tax cuts should remain in force.
“I am in favour, as I have indicated in the past, for continuing the tax cuts that are in dispute at this particular stage,” he said. “It is crucially important that we try to find, wherever we can, reductions in outlays, before adverting to the question of revenues to fill the gap.” The gap, he insisted, “should be taken out on the expenditure side.”
As many economic commentators have pointed out, “taking it out in the expenditure side” means destroying what remains of the system of social security set in place in the programs of the 1930s and the 1960s.
Greenspan’s vigorous defence of the Bush tax cuts recalls editorial comments made by the [i]Financial Times [/i]on the tax cut plan last May. It said that the “lunatics were now in charge of the asylum” with “more extreme Republicans” set on creating a fiscal disaster as way of destroying social welfare programs. “Proposing to slash federal spending,” the editorial noted, “particularly on social programs, is a tricky electoral proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the tantalising prospect of forcing such cuts through the back door.”
Linking the tax measures to the war on Iraq, the editorial said that for the extremists “undermining the multilateral international order is not enough; long-held views on income distribution also require radical revision.”
These themes were voiced in an article by well-known economic commentator and author William Greider, published in the[i] Nation [/i]last May. According to Greider, the Bush presidency has been anchored in a “hard-driving” right-wing movement whose aim is to roll back the twentieth century so that “the primacy of private property rights” is re-established over government regulation and “above all, private wealth—both enterprises and individuals with higher incomes—are permanently insulated from the progressive claims of the graduated income tax.”
As chairman of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan has to at least give the impression of political neutrality, claiming to base himself on the findings of economic analysis. But, as his history shows, he is flesh of one with some of the most aggressive defenders of the “free market” and private property and wealth within the American ruling class.
These views were clearly set out in an article published in 1966 defending the gold standard as the real basis of all finance, and subsequently reprinted in the book [i]Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal [/i]by extreme right-wing philosopher Ayn Rand. According to Greenspan, “chronic deficit spending” was the hallmark of the welfare state, while the welfare state itself was “nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.”
Asked in 1993 if he still agreed with the conclusions of his article, Greenspan replied: “Absolutely.” That basic agreement seems to have been underlined once again by his insistence that the answer to the growing fiscal crisis in the US is to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing domestic government spending.
[b]See Also[/b]:
Bush budget freezes social spending to pay for military buildup, [[i]14 February 2004[/i]], http://www.wsws.org/articles/...
US budget deficit to hit half a trillion dollars, [[i]4 February 2004[/i]], http://www.wsws.org/articles/...
Whither the US dollar?, [[i]25 November 2003[/i]], http://www.wsws.org/articles/...
|
|
|
| |
| The Butt of Jokes ... |
| 02.16.04 (4:19 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya is increasingly becoming our nation's [i] laughing stock [/i]i.e. the [i]butt of jokes [/i]all over myriad internet sites, the media, in political circles and around the world ... [/b][i]Why?[/i] ...
[b]Read on [/b]
I came home this afternoon and saw this headline on the front page of the[i] CNN [/i]website: "Bush says Democrats would threaten fiscal health."
The article's [i]lede[/i] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO... said Bush told a crowd in Florida that "Democrats would endanger America's fiscal health by raising taxes."
This is one of many reasons why President Bush is in trouble. On fiscal policy, he has not simply lost all credibility. With claims like these, he is right on his way to becoming the butt of jokes. And laughter and derision are in many ways the deadliest bogies in politics.
When the president came into office the budget surplus was over $200 billion. Now the[i] deficit [/i]is over $500 billion.
Even my frail grasp of mathematics tells me that's a deterioration in the nation's fiscal health of roughly three-quarters of a [i]trillion[/i] dollars in the three years he's been in office. And for almost all of that time the president's party controlled both houses of congress.
And he says the Democrats are a danger to the nation's fiscal health?
This is the arsonist in your house telling you that stranger outside with the hose can't be trusted.
[b]Source[/b]:
[i]Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo[/i], http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Have the Neo-Cons Killed A Presidency??? ... |
| 02.16.04 (4:04 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush [i]isn't [/i]the smartest guy in the world ... Dubya[i] isn't [/i]even close ...:--[i] that's part[/i] of the problem![/b]
If America was a tiny island hidden off in the South Pacific somewhere, it would not be such a[i] catastrophe that a corrupt buffoon had assumed "control of the helm" [/i]... But tragically a cowardly, imbecilic [i]ne'er-do-well [/i]with the mind of a mediocre failure and the maturity of a 13 year old pre-pubescent teenager has hijacked our nation.
The United States of America with a population of over 292,000,000 folks ( http://www.census.gov/main/ww... ) is the most powerful country on this planet. We must find an intelligent leader with a knowledge of history and a character endowed with wisdom ... Dubya has none of these characteristics and is unfit to serve in office ...
Consider "[i][b]Have the Neocons Killed a Presidency[/b][/i]?" by [i]Patrick J. Buchanan [/i]on http://antiwar.com/pat/?artic... :
George W. Bush "betrayed us," howled Al Gore.
"He played on our fear. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9-11 ever happened."
Hearing it, Gore's rant seemed slanderous and demagogic. For though U.S. policy since Clinton had called for regime change in Iraq, there is no evidence, none, that Bush planned to invade prior to 9-11.
Yet, the president has a grave problem, and it is this: Burrowed inside his foreign policy team are men guilty of exactly what Gore accuses Bush of, men who did exploit our fears to stampede us into a war they had plotted for years. Consider:
– In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel's Bibi Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power" as an "Israeli strategic objective." Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush's foreign policy team on 9-11.
– In 1998, eight members of Bush's future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote Clinton urging upon him a strategy that "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein."
– On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks "to broaden the (Middle East) conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal."
"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.
On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.
On Sept. 15, according to author Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz spoke up in the War Cabinet to urge that Afghanistan be put on a back burner and an attack be mounted at once on Iraq, though Iraq had had nothing to do with 9-11. Why Iraq? Said Wolfowitz, because it is "doable."
On Sept. 20, 40 neoconservatives in an open letter demanded that Bush remove Saddam from power, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (9-11) attack." Failure to do so, they warned the president, "would constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
While Bush had taken office as a traditional conservative skeptical of "nation-building" and calling for a more "humble" foreign policy, after 9-11, he was captured by the neocons and converted to an agenda they had worked up years before. Suddenly, he sounded just like them, threatening wars on "axis-of-evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9-11.
And here is where Bush's present crisis was created.
Though he had internalized the neoconservative agenda for war, he had no rationale, no justification, no casus belli. Iraq had not threatened or attacked us.
Enter the WMD. Neoconservatives pressed on Bush the idea that Iraq must still have weapons of mass destruction and must be working on nuclear weapons. And as Saddam was a figure of such irrationality – i.e., a madman – he would readily give an atom bomb to Al Qaeda. An American city could be incinerated.
Therefore, Saddam had to be destroyed. Bush bought it.
The problem, however, was this: While there is much evidence Saddam is evil, there is no evidence he was insane. He had not used his WMD in 1991, when he had them. For he was not a fool. He knew that would mean his end. Why would he then build a horror weapon now, give it to a terrorist and risk the annihilation of his regime, family, legacy and himself, a fate he had narrowly escaped in 1991?
Made no sense – and there was no hard evidence on the WMD.
Thus, when the CIA was unable to come up with hard evidence that Saddam still had WMD, or was building nuclear weapons, neocon insiders sifted the intelligence, cherry-picked it, presented tidbits to the media as unvarnished truth, and persuaded Powell and the president to rely on it to make the case to Congress, the country and the world. Powell and the president did.
Now the WMD case has fallen apart. Powell has egg on his face. And the president must persuade Tim Russert and the nation that Iraq was a "war of necessity" because we "had no choice when we looked at the intelligence I looked at."
But, sir, the intelligence you "looked at" was flawed. Who gave it to you?
To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.
But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him?
[[b]What is the old proverb about [i]The Road To Hell Being Paved With 'Good Intentions' [/i][/b]...]
|
|
|
| |
| Why Did David Kay ‘Blow the Whistle’ on WMDs??? |
| 02.15.04 (2:31 pm) [edit] |
[b]David Kay is a Bush puppet, lackey and toadie ... So when he [i]'blew the whistle' [/i]on NO WMDs in Iraq, one could be forgiven for asking the following question: [i]Why?[/i][/b]
It is obvious to the [i]dumbest of the dumb [/i]that the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime are comprised of ruthless liars and reckless thieves ... It is also obvious to anyone with an[i] iota of brain matter [/i]that Dubya & Co. lied about phony WMDs in Iraq ... Lying to the American people to wage war is a crime under the law and an impeachable offense under the U.S. Constitution ...
So, by [i]stating the obvious[/i], by [i]stating what we could see with our own two eyes[/i], Kay gave Dubya the "excuse" to cynically pretend that he was going to "do something about it" ... Dubya & Co. [i]did something alright[/i]: They have appointed a handpicked neo-con pro-war commission that isn't permitted to seek information regarding the White House or the Pentagon's malfeasance, fabrications and treason ... Nor are they able to report any findings prior to the November elections ... Hmmm ...
Consider "[i][b]Why Did David Kay ‘Blow the Whistle’ on WMD[/b][/i]?" by [i]Michael Saba [/i]on http://www.arabnews.com/?page...§ion=0&article=39479&d=14 &m=2&y=2004 :
WASHINGTON, 14 February 2004 — Whatever you do David Kay, please don’t say that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq probably did not exist at the start of the war last March. It might cause terrible embarrassment to both your President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair. Bush and Blair might even have to appoint special commissions to look into intelligence failures in their own official information and intelligence gathering government organizations. And all because you blew the whistle, David Kay!
However, before we jump to the conclusion that David Kay is a real patriot and calls a spade a spade, let’s look into his background a little closer and ask some further questions about his possible motivation for “blowing the whistle”. In his current official biography Key is listed as a Senior Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies with a concentration on country terrorism and homeland security issues.
Key previously worked at the Pentagon under President Reagan and served as section chief for the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Administration of the UN) from 1983-1991.
After the first Iraq war in 1991, the Bush 1 administration looked for greater validation for their activities leading to the 1992 election. Kay was made chief nuclear inspector for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq. Kay discovered all kinds of “evidence” that Iraq was a hotbed of WMD weaponry, with much of the information coming from “defectors”, many of whom were later discredited. Kay was eventually removed from his UNSCOM position for alleged “unethical behavior”. Though Bush 1 was defeated, the “information” that Key had gathered laid the stage for Gulf War II.
Kay, the Senior Fellow at Potomac and the “former UN Chief Weapons Inspector”, however, had a very interesting interim work period between those more neutral years. He was vice president of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company with extremely close ties to the Pentagon and to the current Bush administration.
SAIC has had very good luck with the Pentagon. In March 2002 the Bush administration awarded SAIC a massive defense contract potentially worth at least $1 billion. SAIC also has a “revolving door” relationship with many of its associates coming in and out of the Pentagon. One of SAIC’s associates was Khidir Hamza, the Iraq defector who has consistently testified about WMD in his country. He was also consistently discredited. A senior SAIC associate was, of course, David Kay.
In October 2002, Kay left the SAIC to join the Potomac Institute where he was well positioned to become a more “objective” expert on nuclear weapons for the Bush administration. Kay was then engaged to find the WMD in Iraq after Gulf War II. He stated at the beginning of that mission that he was confident of finding them. Now he says they don’t exist.
So David Kay, long an employee of a major defense contractor friendly to the Pentagon says, “we were almost all wrong” about Iraq’s WMD stockpile and alleged reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program. He goes on to endorse the idea of creating a commission to examine the causes of the intelligence failures but says that the inquiry should be on the intelligence agencies (read CIA) and not on the administration and the offices that were
Created by the Pentagon to allegedly bypass the normal intelligence assessment process.
It has been reported by various sources including former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil that many in the Bush administration were looking for an excuse to attack Iraq and eliminate Saddam Hussein from the beginning of his term.
After 9/11 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence unit called the Office of Special Plans (OSP) run by Douglas Feith, third in command at the Pentagon. This organization, which appears to have been reabsorbed and renamed in the Pentagon, seems to have served a very good purpose for administration advocates calling for war with Iraq. According to many sources including Seymour Hersh writing in the New Yorker magazine, the OSP “stovepiped” or sent their own intelligence information directly to the President, often disregarding intelligence information from their traditional intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Additionally, Vice President Cheney and other Iraq war advocates allegedly traveled to CIA headquarters repeatedly to pressure the CIA for better results for advocating war with Iraq.
The US government already has investigations on 9/11 being conducted by both the Republican-controlled House and Senate Intelligence Committees. It also has a separate 9/11 commission investigating the background of the incident led by the former Republican governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean. However, the president took the advice of David Kay and established yet another commission to look into the American intelligence apparatus and its search for weapons of mass destruction. On Feb. 6, 2004, President Bush issued an executive order creating the “Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction” or CICUSRWMD or, better yet, Seek Us Our WMD.
President Bush named Republican neoconservative Judge Laurence Silberman and Former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb as cochairmen of the new commission. Silberman allegedly played a key role in the Reagan era in establishing secret contacts between the Reagan campaign in 1980 and the Islamic government in Tehran. This later became known as the “October Surprise” scenario. Robb is a conservative Democrat who has strong ties to the Democratic Leadership Council and has strong links with neoconservatives through that organization. Vice President Cheney reportedly had a hand in selecting the commission members. Of the commission’s seven members, five have already been named.
President Bush appeared to limit the mandate of the commission to studying only mistakes made by the intelligence communities in assessing the alleged Iraq weapons of mass destruction program. Bush did not ask the panel to take an unencumbered look at how his administration had presented the intelligence in making the case for the war. There is also no call to examine the role played by the Pentagon Office of Special Plans nor the office of the vice president. And the results are not to be presented until March 31, 2005 with the presidential elections to be held this November.
[b]Editor’s Note[/b]: [i]President Bush yesterday named Charles Vest, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1990, and Henry Rowen, a public policy and management professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, as the final members of the commission investigating failures in intelligence used to justify the Iraq war. Dr. Michael Saba is the author of “The Armageddon Network” and is an international relations consultant[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Service Records: The Score Card. |
| 02.15.04 (10:44 am) [edit] |
[b]Questions arising from Dubya's humiliating, despicable and pathetic service records are still outstanding ... [/b]The White House's [i]panic-stricken dump [/i]of hundreds, thousands of pages of [i]garbage[/i] on the media, as a desperate diversionary tactic simply has proved to be a [i]laughing stock [/i]... Refer to "IT'S NOT THE SIZE THAT COUNTS ..." on http://www.tblog.com/template... .
Consider "[b]Bush's service records: [i]The score card[/i][/b]" by [i]Eric Boehlert [/i]on http://www.salon.com/news/fea... :
[i][b]Did the president walk out on the Texas Air National Guard 30 years ago? A guide through the morass of new evidence.[/b][/i]
[b]Feb. 13, 2004 [/b]| Forty-five months after allegations first surfaced that President Bush failed to honor his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard, the story has returned with a [i]vengeance[/i] http://www.salon.com/news/fea... . As aides release a trickle of selected documents in the White House's effort to persuade the public that Bush fulfilled his obligation, the story continues to fester and questions remain unanswered.
Some key facts have been established. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968 and began pilot training. From 1970 to 1972 he flew F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. In the spring of 1972 he left for Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of former postmaster general Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. But Bush never got proper authorization to train with an Alabama unit. That did not come until the fall of 1972 when he was assigned to Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Ala. After the 1972 election, Bush returned to Texas and reportedly served with the Houston unit, before his discharge proceeding began in the fall of 1973. But as the Boston Globe first reported in 2000, there was no proof in Bush's discharge papers that he had ever served in Alabama, or that he served from the spring of 1972 to the spring of 1973. During the summer of 1972 Bush also failed to take his required physical and was stripped of his flying status.
In the 2000 campaign, Bush's spokesman told the Associated Press that after a thorough search he could not find any documents in his military record to prove Bush ever showed up in Alabama. But this week, after Bush declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would "absolutely" release all of his records, and as the press and political scrutiny intensified, that all changed.
Here are some of the key elements and players in the complicated, still unfolding mystery and how they reflect on Bush's claims.
[u][b]Jan. 6, 1973, dental record[/b][/u]
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] Released Wednesday night, the signed document shows Bush was present at the Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Ala., on Jan. 6, 1973. It's the first definitive piece of evidence Bush showed up on the Alabama National Guard base. More important, if Bush was still in Alabama in January 1973, it helps explain why his commanders in Houston, when filling out his annual evaluation covering May 1972 to April 1973, wrote that "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Records indicate Bush served only two days in Houston during that time.
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] The dental record, which places Bush in Alabama in early 1973, completely contradicts statements from Bush's aides, particularly during the 2000 campaign, that immediately following the completion of the Blount campaign in November 1972, Bush returned to Houston. Moreover, the dental exam still does not prove Bush ever performed any paid duties while in Alabama, only that he went in for free dental care on one day.
[u][b]Released payroll documents[/b][/u]
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] They indicate Bush attended Guard duty while in Alabama and did not take a whole unbroken year off between May 1972 and May 1973. The records show Bush was credited with serving the Guard on 14 days during that crucial stretch.
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] The records suggest that during a five-month period of that year Bush failed to show for any Guard duty. Worse, there are no corroborating records generated in Alabama to confirm the payroll documents. If Bush was in Alabama and getting paid, as the records indicate, a paper trail originating with his unit in Montgomery should confirm the dates highlighted in those documents. No such records have come to light.
[u][b]Released retirement-point summaries[/b][/u]
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] Like the payroll records, they lay out dates in 1972-73 when Bush was credited with Guard service, including dates he says he served in Alabama.
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] The documents are not signed by Bush's commanders or anyone else, but are simply a computer-generated overview of points earned. Once again, there's no paperwork from Alabama corresponding to the dates listed.
[u][b]Band of brothers[/b][/u]
Have former Texas or Alabama National Guardsmen who served with Bush stepped forward to vouch for his service between 1972 and 1973?
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] [i]None, because nobody has done so[/i].
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] [i]None have done so[/i]. In 2000, when the story first broke, a group of Alabama veterans offered a $3,500 reward to any guardsmen who could help confirm Bush's whereabouts. Nobody came to collect the money. This week, the conservative Washington Times published a letter from a member of Bush's Texas National Guard unit who insisted he served alongside Bush. Bad news: He served with Bush in 1970 and 1971. Nobody questions Bush's duty during those years. It's 1972 and 1973 that stand at the center of the controversy.
[u][b]Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed[/b][/u]
Turnipseed was the commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron, the National Guard unit in Montgomery that Bush was ordered to report to in the fall of 1972. In 2000, the retired officer told the Boston Globe he was "dead certain" Bush never showed up for duty.
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] Turnipseed's story has been changing in recent weeks, and with each subsequent media interview he seems to cut Bush more slack, even suggesting he doesn't remember whether he himself was at the base during the time in question. This week Turnipseed told the Birmingham News that Bush was under no obligation to serve in Montgomery as long as he made up the time later. "I'm fed up," he added. "People want me to give them something to bash Bush."
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] Turnipseed has identified himself as a Republican and says he intends to vote for Bush in 2004, which may raise suspicions about his motivations for changing his story. Further, Turnipseed still cannot identify Bush as being present. And he's not the only officer who can't remember seeing Bush. Back in 2000, the Boston Globe reported that Turnipseed's administrative officer at the time, Kenneth Lott, also did not recall Bush showing up for duty. To date, Lott's recollection has not changed. Even if Bush did show up for duty in Montgomery in October 1972, as the documents suggest, there is still no explanation for his five-month absence from April to October 1972.
[u][b]Albert Lloyd Jr.[/b][/u]
Lloyd is the retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel director from 1969 to 1995. In 2000 he helped the Bush campaign locate and interpret relevant military documents.
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] Lloyd issued a statement that was released in conjunction with the payroll document on Monday declaring that Bush had "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] In 2000, Lloyd told the Boston Globe he admired Bush and believed he [i]''honestly served his country and fulfilled his commitment[/i].'' But this week Lloyd told the Washington Post he wasn't sure if he'd vote for Bush. ""[i]I'm not happy with him[/i]," he said.
[u][b]Bush's suspension from flying[/b][/u] http://users.cis.net/coldfeet...
In July of 1972 Bush, a fully trained pilot, failed to take his required annual physical and was subsequently suspended from flying.
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] [i]None[/i]. White House chief of communications Dan Bartlett says Bush didn't have to take a physical because, since he was temporarily transferring to Alabama to work on the Blount campaign, he was no longer flying.
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] As a rule, military pilots don't take it upon themselves to decide when they're going to stop flying, or whether they want to take a required annual physical. "[i]There is no excuse for that[/i]," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver Jr. told the Boston Globe. He's the former director of the Air National Guard. "[i]Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals[/i]." By failing to take a physical and thereby losing his flying status, Bush should have been subject to a disciplinary review, copies of which would be contained in Bush's military file. But those sorts of documents are considered private under provisions of the Privacy Act, and Bush would have to authorize their release. To date, the White House has refused to do so. Aside from the lone Alabama dental record, the White House has also refused to release Bush's military medical records.
[u][b]Statement of Intent, signed when Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard[/b][/u] http://users.cis.net/coldfeet...
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] [i]None[/i].
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] In 1968 he pledged, "[i]I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit[/i]." Instead, 22 months after the government spent nearly $1 million training him to be a pilot, Bush simply walked away from his aviating career, never flying after April 1972.
[b][u]Future release of documents[/u][/b]
[b]Good news for Bush:[/b] [i]He promised to release all materials, but his White House is stonewalling and refusing to allow more than a handful out. So far, nothing damaging has been released[/i].
[b]Bad news for Bush:[/b] [i]Undoubtedly there are more documents[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq in Chaos ... The Iraqi Mess is Getting Messier ... |
| 02.15.04 (8:45 am) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime are comprised of [i]incompetent [/i]buffoons ... [i]arrogant [/i]buffoons ...[i] criminal [/i]buffoons ... [/b]
* We were told that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of [i]WMDs posing an imminent threat [/i]to our national security ... BUSH LIE
* We were told that the neo-con's war in Iraq would [i]cost zip, zero, nada[/i] because Iraqi oil would pay for it all and also the entire world would chip-in ... BUSH LIE
* We were told by the neo-fascists in the Bush regime that the Iraqi people would [i]embrace us with open-arms[/i], [i]celebrate [/i]the US occupation, and that [i]everything would be rosy [/i]... BUSH LIE
Is it that the Bush regime is characterized by [i]utter corruption [/i]or is it [i]sheer incompetence[/i]? ... [i]Does it matter?[/i] ... Either way, the Bushies have got to go in 2004!
Consider "[i][b]The Iraqi mess is getting messier[/b][/i]" by [i]The Daily Times [/i]on http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/... :
Iraq continues to burn. Prewar assessments by US experts and planners advocating an attack on Iraq that Iraqis would garland the US troops for ousting Saddam Hussain have proved highly erroneous. The reality has turned out to be complex and increasingly violent. Only yesterday, insurgents mounted another daring attack, which left more than 20 people dead. Earlier two attacks in as many days claimed nearly hundred lives and left more than that number injured. The message is clear: the US is not welcome and anyone seen cooperating with the US will be targeted. The United Nations, the only hope, is reluctant to come in at this stage given previous attacks on its headquarters as well as the deadly attack against the ICRC. To top it, plans to hold elections might run aground. L. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, insists that Iraqis choose their new government through a complex system of caucuses while Shi’ite leader Ali al-Sistani, wants direct elections to a national assembly before Iraq regains sovereignty on July 1. Ayatollah Sistani’s supporters have threatened to rise in revolt if the demand is not met.
Clearly, the United States cannot keep operating on the basis of initial assessments. Reports indicate the US troops are not looking for winning hearts and minds anymore; they are trying to put down an insurgency that seems to be getting out of hands and claiming lives every day. So the question of putting in place a political system is intricately linked to the military situation on the ground. Some experts believe that elections per se are not an answer to problems of governance. In theory they are right. But attempts to prepare Iraq and its society for democratic good governance mean a long haul. Also, such a course presupposes that the military situation can be stabilised and slowly improved and that Iraqis actually want the Americans to walk them through the intricacies of a mature democratic system. That doesn’t seem plausible.
The long and brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussain had managed to stitch together many fissures in modern Iraq. With Saddam gone, old ethnic and linguistic wounds have opened up. This was naturally to result in a bid for resources and power among Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds. Ayatollah Sistani’s demand for direct elections needs to be seen in that context. He knows, as do his supporters, that such elections would result in giving the Shi’ite majority its rightful share of power, long denied them by the Tikriti Sunni minority. So while the Sunnis are fighting the Americans because the US army changed the internal configuration to their disadvantage, the Shi’ites are threatening to pick up arms because they fear the Americans might deprive them of an historical chance to get what is theirs.
The political process also requires the drafting of a Transitional Administrative Law. This draft was to be put in place by the end of this month. Iraqi leaders have only now started debating it. It is important to focus on constitutional arrangements but such a mechanism itself is not going to improve the situation. The assumption is that to make Iraq a workable democracy, the various groups need to understand the inclusive spirit of any such arrangement. This will-o’-the-wisp has not been managed in most developing countries even without the chaos that currently attends Iraq. Also, any notion that the US can, even if belatedly, get the UN’s expertise on the issue of constitutional guarantees eschews the fact that the UN is averse to going in now that the US fingers are burning.
Moreover, the United States is now part of the problem. It is difficult to see how it can, on its own, become a part of the solution. Whatever route it might want to take, one thing is clear: it needs to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. If that requires handing over authority to the Iraqis quickly, so be it. Once a government is in place, the world should allow the Iraqis to sort out their mess. *
[b]P.S. Condi Rice needs to resign ... [/b]She was assigned as Head of the Iraqi Stabilization Group (ISG) last October to bring stability to Iraq ... Clearly she is an incompetent (... [i]as well as a liar & a traitor [/i]...) and while she loves watching football games with Dubya:-- their callous disregard for the loss of life in Iraq is unacceptable ...
|
|
|
| |
| IT'S NOT THE SIZE THAT COUNTS ... |
| 02.14.04 (8:26 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime is operating in a[i] panic-stricken modus operandi [/i]-- [/b]They erroneously & stupidly think that if they shovel hundreds, maybe thousands of pages of[i] garbage [/i]upon the media, that their myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]will simply disappear ...
They could not be more[i] wrong [/i]...
Consider "[b]It's not the size of the report[/b]..." on http://www.alternet.org/elect... :
Perhaps the Bush administration did learn something from the Iraq episode after all. Providing a smokescreen thick enough for lazier or more sympathetic listeners and reporters to fumble through, team Bush '[i]released[/i]' a 'two-inch-thick' stack of mostly irrelevant or previously released papers (tonsils out at 5, hemorrhoid at 21). Wasn't that the line on Saddam's WMD report? In any case, these latest documents have yet to clear him of charges that he did not report for several months of National Guard duty. The Bush administration has a much savvier, if less entertaining, PR team to help chaperone his deceptions through however. [i]More on [/i]» http://www.alternet.org/elect...
|
|
|
| |
| Classified U.S. Study Done 3 Months Before Invasion Told of No WMDs In Iraq! |
| 02.14.04 (8:18 pm) [edit] |
[b]The corrupt Bush regime knew 3 months in advance of their illegal and immoral invasion into Iraq (...[i] that has resulted in the deaths of over 540 US Soldiers & over 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians [/i]...) that there was a [i]strong possibility [/i]of no WMDs in existence in Iraq ...[/b]
At the time, the neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies were telling myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]in order to scare, frighten and intimidate us into supporting their blood-thirsty war adventures devised in order to enrich their criminal war-profiteers ... Congress http://www.congress.org should be called upon to impeach Bush, Cheney and their cabal of liars, traitors and criminals ...
Consider "[b]Iraq arms hunt in doubt in '02[/b]" by[i] John Diamond[/i], USA TODAY, on http://usatoday.printthis.cli...+-+Iraq+arms+hunt+in+doub t+in+%2702&expire=&urlID= 9280127&fb=Y&url=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2 F2004-02-12-wmd-hunt_x.htm&partnerID=1660 :
WASHINGTON — A classified U.S. intelligence study done three months before the war in Iraq predicted a problem now confronting the Bush administration: the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might never be found.
The study by a team of U.S. intelligence analysts, military officers and civilian Pentagon officials warned that U.S. military tactics, guerrilla warfare, looting and lying by Iraqi officials would undermine the search for banned Iraqi weapons. Portions of the study were made available to USA TODAY. Three high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials described its purpose and conclusions.
"Locating a program that ... has been driven by denial and deception imperatives is no small task," the December 2002 report said. "Prolonged insecurity with factional violence and guerrilla forces still at large would be the worst outcome for finding Saddam's WMD arsenal."
The report went to the National Security Council but was not specifically shown to President Bush, the officials said. [We don't know that for certain ... but Condi Rice should be fired and tried for treason.]
The study findings diverge from statements by U.S. officials that caches of banned weapons would be found.
In February 2003, two months after completion of the study, CIA Director George Tenet told lawmakers, "I think we will find caches of weapons of mass destruction, absolutely." Tenet was aware of the internal study, said a CIA official who advises him. But Tenet, who declined to comment, viewed its warnings as just one possible scenario among many.
Tenet's view has changed. "Finding things in Iraq is always very tough," he said last week at Georgetown University.
The study, which is still classified, and comments by David Kay, the former chief of the U.S. arms search in Iraq, call into question the president's remark Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press that "we'll find out" what happened to Iraq's weapons. Kay told lawmakers last month, "There will always be unresolved ambiguity" about the fate of the Iraqi arsenal.
Kay said he now believes that Iraq did not have banned weapons before the war and had probably destroyed them more than a decade ago.
The study looked at scenarios including Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons and the possibility that no weapons would be found. The study considered but rejected the possibility that Iraq had no banned weapons.
The study said arms searchers would be "trying to find multiple needles in a haystack ... against the background of not knowing how many needles have been hidden."
Some of the obstacles outlined by the study included the expected rapid movement of U.S. ground forces over wide areas, leaving critical sites vulnerable to looting. Guerrilla warfare, the report predicted, also would make the weapons search difficult.
|
|
|
| |
| Cowardly Drunkard Bush a No-Show at Alabama Base, Says Memphian |
| 02.14.04 (8:14 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush was a cowardly drunkard and[i] ne'er-do-well party-boy [/i]who is a traitorous deserter and was AWOL during Vietnam ... [/b]Poppy Bush shoved his spoiled brat to the[i] top of the queue [/i]ahead of over 500 others, to get his [i]whoremongering little boy [/i]into a Champagne Brigade Unit -- and Dubya didn't even[i] show-up [/i]for [u][i]that[/i][/u] phony comfortable so-called "[i]service[/i]" for privileged frat-boys ...
Consider "[b] Bush a No-Show at Alabama Base, Says Memphian[/b]" by [i]Jackson Baker [/i]on http://www.commondreams.org/h... :
MEMPHIS – Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain.
The question of Bush’s presence in 1972 at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Alabama – or the lack of it – has become an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign.
Recalls Memphian Mintz, now 62: “I remember that I heard someone was coming to drill with us from Texas. And it was implied that it was somebody with political influence. I was a young bachelor then. I was looking for somebody to prowl around with.” But, says Mintz, that “somebody” -- better known to the world now as the president of the United States -- never showed up at Dannelly in 1972. Nor in 1973, nor at any time that Mintz, a FedEx pilot now and an Eastern Airlines pilot then, when he was a reserve first lieutenant at Dannelly, can remember.
“And I was looking for him,” repeated Mintz, who said that he assumed that Bush “changed his mind and went somewhere else” to do his substitute drill. It was not “somewhere else,” however, but the 187th Air National Guard Tactical squadron at Dannelly to which the young Texas flyer had requested transfer from his regular Texas unit – the reason being Bush’s wish to work in Alabama on the ultimately unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of family friend Winton "Red" Blount.
It is the 187th, Mintz’s unit, which was cited, during the 2000 presidential campaign, as the place where Bush completed his military obligation. And it is the 187th that the White House continues to contend that Bush belonged to – as recently as this week, when presidential spokesman Scott McClellan released payroll records and, later, evidence suggesting that Bush’s dental records might be on file at Dannelly.
“There’s no way we wouldn’t have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him,” insists Mintz, who has pored over documents relating to the matter now making their way around the Internet. One of these is a piece of correspondence addressed to the 187th’s commanding officer, then Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, concerning Bush’s redeployment.
Mintz remembers a good deal of base scuttlebutt at the time about the letter, which clearly identifies Bush as the transferring party. “It couldn’t be anybody else. No one ever did that again, as far as I know.” In any case, he is certain that nobody else in that time frame, 1972-73, requested such a transfer into Dannelly.
Mintz, who at one time was a registered Republican and in recent years has cast votes in presidential elections for independent Ross Perot and Democrat Al Gore, confesses to “a negative reaction” to what he sees as out-and-out dissembling on President Bush’s part. “You don’t do that as an officer, you don’t do that as a pilot, you don’t do it as an important person, and you don’t do it as a citizen. This guy’s got a lot of nerve.”
Though some accounts reckon the total personnel component of the 187th as consisting of several hundred, the actual flying squadron – that to which Bush was reassigned – numbered only “25 to 30 pilots,” Mintz said. “There’s no doubt. I would have heard of him, seen him, whatever.” Even if Bush, who was trained on a slightly different aircraft than the F4 Phantom jets flown by the squadron, opted not to fly with the unit, he would have had to encounter the rest of the flying personnel at some point, in non-flying formations or drills. “And if he did any flying at all, on whatever kind of craft, that would have involved a great number of supportive personnel. It takes a lot of people to get a plane into the air. But nobody I can think of remembers him.
“I talked to one of my buddies the other day and asked if he could remember Bush at drill at any time, and he said, ‘Naw, ol’ George wasn’t there. And he wasn’t at the Pit, either.’”
The “Pit” was The Snake Pit, a nearby bistro where the squadron’s pilots would gather for frequent after-hours revelry. And the buddy was Bishop, then a lieutenant at Dannelly and now a pilot for Kalitta, a charter airline that in recent months has been flying war materiel into the Iraq Theater of Operations.
“I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush,” confirms Bishop, who now lives in Goldsboro, N.C., is a veteran of Gulf War I and, as a Kalitta pilot, has himself flown frequent supply missions into military facilities at Kuwait. "In fact," he quips, mindful of the current political frame of reference, "I saw more of Al Sharpton at the base than I did of George W. Bush."
Bishop voted for Bush in 2000 and believes that the Iraq war has served some useful purposes – citing, as the White House does, disarmament actions since pursued by Libyan president Moammar Khadaffi – but he is disgruntled both about aspects of the war and about what he sees as Bush’s lack of truthfulness about his military record.
“I think a commander-in-chief who sends his men off to war ought to be a veteran who has seen the sting of battle,” Bishop says. “In Iraq: we have a bunch of great soldiers, but they are not policemen. I don’t think he [the president] was well advised; right now it’s costing us an American life a day. I’m not a peacenik, but what really bothers me is that of the 500 or so that we’ve lost almost 80 of them were reservists. We’ve got an over-extended Guard and reserve.”
Part of the problem, Bishop thinks, is a disconnect resulting from the president’s own inexperience with combat operations. And he is well beyond annoyed at the White House’s persistent claims that Bush did indeed serve time at Dannelly. Bishop didn’t pay much attention to the claim when candidate Bush first offered it in 2000. But he did after the second Iraq war started and the issue came front and center.
“It bothered me that he wouldn’t ‘fess up and say, Okay, guys, I cut out when the rest of you did your time. He shouldn’t have tried to dance around the subject. I take great exception to that. I spent 39 years defending my country.”
Like his old comrade Mintz, Bishop, now 65, was a pilot for Eastern Airlines during their reserve service in 1972 at Dannelly. Mintz then lived in Montgomery; Bishop commuted from Atlanta, a two-hour drive away. Mintz and Bishop retired from the Guard with the ranks of lieutenant colonel and colonel, respectively.
Bishop, especially, is bitter about the fate of Eastern, which went bankrupt during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the current incumbent’s father. “I watched my company dissolve under his policies.” Both Bushes were “children of privilege,” unlike himself and Mintz.
“Our fathers were poor dirt farmers. We would not have been given the same considerations he and his father were,” says Bishop, who maintains that, just as the junior Bush used family and political influence to jump himself ahead of 500 other flight training applicants, the senior Bush "apparently" did, too, when he became a naval aviator during World War Two. “I applaud him for volunteering, but he should have waited his turn like everybody else.”
But, says Bishop, “At least I can give him credit for serving his country.” That is more, he suggested, than can be granted the younger Bush.
Would he consider voting for the president’s reelection? “Naw, this goes to an integrity issue. I like either [John] Kerry or [John] Edwards better.” And who would Mintz be voting for? “Not for any Texas politicians,” was the Memphian’s sardonic answer.
|
|
|
| |
| Dubya's Doctrine: 'Only The Little People Pay Taxes' ... |
| 02.14.04 (2:50 pm) [edit] |
[b]In the Doctrine According to the Mad King George: "[i]Only the Little People Pay Taxes[/i]" ... [/b]Dubya's immoral tax cuts, tax loopholes and boondoggles for corporations and the richest-of-the-rich cost the American taxpayers a minimum of $350 Billion per year (... [i]benefitting the already gluttonous hyper-rich corporate robber-barons, greedy oligarchs & corrupt plutocrats [/i]...).
Meanwhile, Bush is running-up record level deficits & debts, the highest in our nation's history that are already posing unbearable hardships on working people, the poor, those without health care and/or jobs, and the vulnerable, etc.. We are witnessing the Middle Class (...[i] America's backbone[/i] ...) shrink as the [i]gap[/i] between the[i] hyper-rich-haves[/i] and the [i]impoverished-slavish-h ave-nots [/i]grows greater than at any time in over 75 years ... And the dire needs of our nation and our citizens are callously ignored and miserably neglected ...
What about these [i]hyper-rich corporations[/i], for example?
Consider "[i][b]Corporate Tax Cheats[/b][/i]" by [i]Katrina vanden Heuvel [/i]of [b]The Nation [/b]on http://www.thenation.com/edcu... :
We all know that Halliburton http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... is gouging taxpayers--according to the Pentagon, Vice President Cheney's http://www.thenation.com/dire... old company overcharged the US government by as much as $61 million for fuel in Iraq. But now we learn that more than 27,000 military contractors, or about one in nine, are evading taxes and still continuing to win new government business.
According to the [i]General Accounting Office[/i], http://www.gao.gov/ these tax cheats owed an estimated $3 billion at the end of 2002, mainly in Social Security and other payroll taxes, including Medicare, that were diverted for business or personal use instead of being sent to the government. (Lesser amounts were owed in income taxes).
In one 2002 case, the [i]New York Times [/i]reports, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... a company providing dining, security and custodial services to military bases received $3.5 million in payments from the Defense Department despite owing almost $10 million to the government. (Shockingly, the [i]GAO[/i] http://www.gao.gov/ estimated that the Defense Department could have collected $100 million in 2002 by offsetting payments to delinquent companies still on its payroll.)
The [i]Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations [/i] http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=%20Subcomm ittees.Home&SubcommitteeID=11&In itials=PSI has scheduled a hearing this Thursday to look into what committee chair Norm Coleman http://coleman.senate.gov/ calls "[b]an outrageous situation[/b]." At present, federal law does not bar contractors with unpaid federal taxes from obtaining new government contracts. (The [i]GAO[/i] has recommended policy options for barring contracts to those who abuse the federal tax system.)
At a time when $200 million would purchase enough ceramic body armor--the kind that usually works, the kind the Pentagon wouldn't splurge for--to protect almost 150,000 GIs in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats should demand that these tax cheats pay up.
[b]Another Source[/b]:
"Bush's Tax Cuts" on http://www.counterpunch.org/f...
|
|
|
| |
| American Families Feel the Brunt of Bush's Irresponsible Tax Cuts ... |
| 02.14.04 (9:14 am) [edit] |
[b]While the corrupt Bush regime is desperately trying to divert our attention onto other ([i]... post Saddam Hussein & the bloody fiasco they've botched-up badly in Iraq ...[/i]) [i]boogey-men, monsters and terrors [/i]around the world ([i]N. Korea, Syria, Iran, etc[/i].) with the intention of taking our minds off of their myriad felonies, embezzlement schemes and [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i][/b]-- American families are being hit hard and are suffering the effects of Bush's irresponsible, immoral and reckless tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles for corporations and the richest-of-the-rich:
Consider "[i][b]America’s Families Feel the Brunt of Irresponsible Tax Cuts[/b][/i]" by the [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Once again to combat the lackluster labor market, the administration has proposed guess what - tax cuts. Strong growth at the end of 2003 gave hope that more jobs, higher wages and better benefits are just around the corner. That did not happen, employment growth in December and January was disappointing, to say the least. The irony of the administration’s insistence that more tax cuts will do the trick is that the past tax cuts are partially to blame for the weak labor market recovery. Moreover, the long-term deficits created by the tax cuts put the already weak recovery in jeopardy. And finally, to add insult to injury, the president’s 2005 budget inadequately funds or even cuts may of the programs that families, who were hurt by the lackluster labor market, have to rely on. Instead of a being the promised solution, past and proposed future tax cuts are hurting America’s families in the middle of the "job loss" recovery.
The first "job loss" recovery since World War II is taking a toll on American families. The economy has a nearly 9 million job deficit from where it should be at this point in a recovery. The lack of employment growth has had a measurable impact on wage growth, which has been flat. To top it all off, prices for important consumer items, especially education, housing and health care, are outpacing prices for other items. Since the start of the recession in March 2001, consumer prices rose by 5.1 percent. In comparison, medical care grew by 12.5 percent and education increased by 19.2 percent during the same period. These price increases are occurring at a time when employers are reducing their benefits. And to pay for these costs, households have borrowed record amounts of debt.
What was needed in 2001 was an effective temporary fiscal stimulus. The administration opted for tax cuts for the wealthy instead. The tax cuts were inefficient in creating more and better jobs because they were back loaded and top heavy. The largest effects of the tax cuts were scheduled to occur in later years, when the economy was hopefully recovered and no longer needed a stimulus. Also, much of the tax cuts were biased towards high income earners. High income families are less likely than low income families to spend the additional money. It would have been more effective to have temporary targeted tax cuts for the middle and working classes or targeted spending increases to jump start the economy. This could have boosted growth and job creation.
Not only were the tax cuts inefficient in avoiding or at least moderating the job loss recovery, they also blew a large hole in our fiscal deficit. The costs of the tax cuts are staggering. In the outer years the tax cuts alone are expected to cost more than $600 billion per year, including interest. Our deficit is projected to grow to approximately $5 trillion in 10 years. (Don’t look for this figure in the president’s budget, though. The budget conveniently leaves out the costs of making the tax cuts permanent.) Large deficits can have serious repercussions for long-term growth and stability. The perception of a fiscally unsustainable future can decrease confidence in economic management and increase the perceived risk of investing in the United States. The costs of borrowing in the United States could rise, ultimately reducing growth and living standards. Hence, the large tax cuts cast a dark shadow of doubt on the promise of a stronger, sustained labor market recovery.
The administration will have us believe that cutting back on many domestic programs will address the fiscal crisis. This is a blatant attempt at diverting attention from the real problems with serious consequences for working families. The non-security spending of the budget has remained stagnant, which makes it an unlikely contributor to skyrocketing deficits. Never mind the evidence to the contrary, the president’s 2005 budget identifies non-security spending as the prime target for cuts. Many of the programs that could help to ease the burden of the "job loss" recovery for working families are being cut. This includes support for workforce training, education, child care, and health care- all of which are necessary tools for people to re-enter the labor market when the jobs become available. Additionally, as the weak labor market has adversely impacted families’ income, they are more in need of public assistance for big-ticket items, such as housing and childcare. Housing assistance has been cut, despite home prices outpacing wage and other prices, as has been childcare assistance. And instead of offering real help, the administration pushes proposals for health and pension benefits that will likely benefit the healthy and wealthy the most.
Working families have lived through the worst labor market recovery in any recovery since WWII. Rather than focusing on tax cuts for the rich and cutting programs for working families, the administration would be better off easing the burden of working families by creating good job opportunities, providing public support for middle class families, and making a serious attempt to rein in the deficit by taking back the tax cuts for the rich.
For more information about the "job loss" recovery and the middle class squeeze, visit our Data Digest http://www.americanprogress.o... . If you want to know more about how the budget effects working families, click here http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[i]Sonal Shah is the associate director for International and Economic Policy and Christian Weller is a senior economist at the Center for American Progress[/i].
[b]Source[/b]:
The [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Tries Document Dump of Hundreds of Irrelevant Documents!!! |
| 02.14.04 (8:43 am) [edit] |
[b]Dubya is [i]at it again [/i]... [/b]You can't get a [i]straight answer [/i]out of this corrupt regime of neo-con, neo-fascist thugs and goons ...
Yesterday the[i] lede [/i]across many news media outlets read something akin to: [i]White House releases Bush's Military records [/i]...
Of course, what they didn't know at the time (... [i]and have since started to discover upon review [/i]...), was that many of the records have been scrubbed, trashed ([i]or falsified[/i]?) ... [i]gaps exist and questions continue to go unanswered [/i]...
The insane, arrogant and criminal Bushies think that by dumping hundreds of irrelevant [i]pieces of garbage [/i]onto the press, that their myriad [i]lies, deceptions and falsehood[/i]s will simply disappear ... [i]Not this time, folks [/i]...
The truth is that Bush is an imbecilic and corrupt [i]ne'er-do-well [/i]who never did an honest day's work in his entire [i]sordid and squalid life [/i]-- who is a drunken deserter, AWOL from Vietnam, on a drinking binge slutting around, while better men were sent to fight and die ...[i] Let's see if Poppy can bail him out of this mess ... again [/i]...
Refer to "[b]Many Gaps In Bush's Guard Records[/b]" by [i]Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, Washington Post[/i], on http://www.washingtonpost.com... :
Files released by the White House last night from President Bush's Vietnam War-era service in the National Guard show that the future president was an exemplary pilot whose military record contains numerous gaps in the last two years of his six-year commitment.
The White House, seeking to quell a revived controversy over Bush's Guard service, released hundreds of pages of records that were previously withheld. The documents include what the White House describes as all the non-medical elements of Bush's military personnel file, including performance evaluations, documentation of his honorable discharge, and a thick bureaucratic paper trail of applications, promotions and transfers.
The records show Bush was an eager fighter pilot who said he wanted to spend a lifetime in aviation. But they provide no evidence that he did any military service in Alabama, to which he had requested a transfer in May 1972 to work on a Senate campaign that ended in November 1972.
And the records show officials from Bush's home base in Texas declining to provide details of his activities between May 1972 to April 1973, even though such documentation was requested by National Guard headquarters.
The records, while offering nothing further to prove Bush's participation with the Guard in Alabama, provide a number of extraneous personal details about Bush. His tonsils were taken out at age 5 and he had appendicitis at 10. A fatty cyst was removed from his chest in 1960, and he had a hemorrhoid while in the Guard.
Bush had a $212-a-month stint as a sporting-goods salesman at Sears in 1966, and was a messenger for the white-shoe law firm of Baker Botts. He listed the "Houston Club" as a credit and character reference on one form. The "personal history" he filled out in 1968, when he was 21, listed his only foreign travel as Scotland, in August and September 1959, for "pleasure -- vacation."
Bush, in applying for pilot training in 1968, signed a statement saying he has "applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit." He participated in a Guard exercise in Canada, and his superiors uniformly praised his performance.
A 1971 evaluation described Bush as "an exceptionally fine young officer" with "sound judgment" who "is mature beyond his age and experience level." Bush "is a natural leader but he is also a good follower of military discipline," it said. A 1970 letter recommending him for a promotion from second to first lieutenant called him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." Bush, it said, "is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot."
But the tone of Bush's military file changed abruptly, and with no documented explanation, in May 1972, when Bush sought to transfer to Alabama. That began a period of months in which, the documents suggest, Bush did not actively pursue Guard service and the Guard did not actively pursue him.
For Bush's fifth year in the Guard, May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a total of 41 "points" for his service and was granted another 15 "gratuitous" points by his superiors, bringing him above the 50-point minimum requirement for the year. There are no records showing he participated in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972.
On May 24, 1972, Bush sought to transfer from his Houston Guard unit to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron for an unpaid assignment. Two days later, the unit's commander accepted him but added: "The continuation of this type unit is uncertain at this time and we may last 3 months, 6 months, a year or who knows! With this in mind, if you are willing to accept assignment under these circumstances, welcome! We're glad to have you."
There is no evidence Bush reported to the reserve unit. Retired Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, the commander who wrote Bush's acceptance, told the Birmingham News that Bush never showed up. "He was looking for a place to hang his hat, but he never came by," Bricken said.
On July 31, 1972, the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center overruled Bricken and returned Bush's application, calling him "ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
The next move from Bush apparently came in a letter on Sept. 5, in which he requested permission to perform "equivalent duty" with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala.
The request was immediately approved, and on Sept. 15 the Alabama Guard approved Bush and directed him to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed. Turnipseed has said he has never met Bush, and the only documentation that Bush was at a Guard facility in Alabama was a one-page dental exam from January 1973 that was previously released by the White House.
Back in Houston, the Guard, in a Sept. 5, 1972, memo, announced Bush's "suspension from flying status" as of Aug. 1 because of a "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
On May 2, 1973, Bush's evaluation form stated: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
But the evaluation was returned from National Guard headquarters to the Texas Guard in June 1973, with a "suspense date" of Aug. 6. "An AF Fm 77a should be requested from the training unit so that this officer can be rated in the position he held," it said. "The officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he no longer is training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment."
The form requested, the 77a, was sent by the Texas Air National Guard personnel office on Nov. 12, 1973, and said simply: "Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."
Records show sporadic Guard activity at unspecified locations between late October and May 1973, when Bush appeared to resume active participation back in Houston. On Sept. 5, Bush filed an "Application for Discharge" effective Oct. 1, seven months before his six years were up. "I am moving to Boston, Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School as a full time student," he wrote. "I have enjoyed my association with the 111th Ftr Intcp Sq and the 147th Ftr Intcp Gp." The discharge was granted.
One of the latest documents was another request from Bush, while at Harvard. "I would like to discharge from standby reserve," he wrote in an undated letter.
White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the files were released to try to dispel "this wrong impression that there was something to hide."
Bartlett pledged that he had put out "absolutely everything" he had of Bush's non-medical military records.
The White House did not release 44 pages of medical records that Bush's aides received this week, but it allowed a small pool of reporters to peruse them for 20 minutes. Bartlett said that was to maintain a zone of privacy.
A "Medical Recommendation for Flight Duty" that was his last physical as a pilot put his flying category as "unconditional," or unrestricted. The form was dated May 15, 1971, and said he had recorded 625 hours in the cockpit. The qualification expired July 6, 1972, and was never renewed.
One of the most prominent mysteries about Bush's military record has been why he did not take another flight physical, resulting in the suspension from flying status. Bartlett said, as he has in the past, Bush made that choice "because he was no longer flying," since he was reporting to the Alabama Air National Guard, which did not have the plane he was trained to fly, an F-102 fighter.
"It was a practical thing," Bartlett said. "There was no reason to take a flight exam when he wasn't flying and wasn't going to fly."
Bartlett said the pay and duty records show Bush fulfilled his obligation. "Anyone who says otherwise is more interested in partisan conspiracy theories than getting to the truth," he said. Bartlett said he does not expect Democrats to be satisfied because "their interest was never to find the facts."
- [i]By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen. Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks, Lois Romano and Josh White; researcher Lucy Shackelford; and research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Responsible for the Massacre of Over 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Men, Women & Children ... |
| 02.13.04 (7:53 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya is responsible for the massacre of over 10,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children ... [/b]The corrupt Bush regime should be tried for[i] Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
[u]FROM[/u] "[b]Crimes in Iraq:-- [i]Never Forgive or Forget[/i][/b]" by [i]Peter Smernos [/i]on http://islamonline.net/englis... :
History has recorded the attack on Iraq as an “illegal war.” The UN Security Council has named the US, Britain and Australia as “the belligerents” and the attack as a “war of aggression.” In many countries, parliaments have passed resolutions deploring the US-led attack on Iraq.
Sadly, US atrocities continue in Iraq. One Iraqi hospital reported that over 400 civilians have been killed by US troops in the past month. In total, over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, 20,000 have been seriously injured, 10,000 imprisoned, and the population of over 20 million has been devastated as a consequence of this illegal war.
But anti-US sentiment may be much higher than that. The US has either directly or indirectly killed more than 1 million people in the region over the last 30 years: 300,000 Iranians in the early eighties, 200,000 Iraqis in the first Gulf war, 500,000 children because of US/UN sanctions - not to mention the most recent attack in which the toll continues to rise. [i]Read on [/i] http://islamonline.net/englis...
|
|
|
| |
| GAY MARRIAGE METRICS!!! |
| 02.13.04 (7:46 pm) [edit] |
[b]Obviously Dubya doesn't get enough [/b](... [i]rumors are that Bush contracted veneral disease & can't get it up anymore [/i]...) and has it in for anyone who does get enough [i]of a good thing[/i]!!!
Refer to "[i][b]Marriage Metrics[/b][/i]" by [i]John Sonego[/i], Director of Programs and Communications for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). on http://tompaine.com/feature2.... :
[b]For days[/b], George W. Bush has been rumored to be on the verge of endorsing a constitutional amendment to constrain the rights of same-sex couples by way of the Musgrave Amendment, one of at least three federal marriage amendments floating around the Washington offices of various professional homophobes. The modus operandi is classic Karl Rove: float the idea, gauge the response and then use the intelligence to counter critics. Remember how fast they dropped Mars from the State of the Union address?
The moment Bush formally endorses a constitutional amendment, he will make the debate over lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights a centerpiece of Election 2004. Bush will align his $170 million dollar campaign war chest with the $217 million combined income of the 13 largest anti-LGBT organizations. You do not have to be a public relations professional to know almost half a billion dollars buys a lot of media play.
You are in for one hell of a show.
If you're a cable news junkie, expect to become an expert in the constitutional process. You will come to understand the differences between the federal and state battles over the issue of civil marriage equality for same-sex couples. You will learn more than you ever wanted to know about polling methodologies. Evan Wolfson will become a household name. ([i]Remember impeachment managers and hanging chads[/i]?)
Prepare yourself for new heights of absurdist rhetoric from Bush's far right proxies. Since Jerry Falwell has already labeled LGBT people as cultural terrorists, what new attributes can he ascribe to demonize us further? How about culture killers? The marriage marauders? Heck, he may even refer to us as the true axis of evil.
The White House and its allies will undoubtedly attempt to keep the discussion to the abstract. The only way the president and his right-wing cronies can get the first constitutional amendment specifically designed to discriminate against a specific group of Americans ratified is to discourage all of us from seeing the actual people who can be harmed by this amendment.
Will journalists succeed in getting Bush to actually say the word "gay" for the first time as president? Watch the inevitable dissonance this will create for a man who is reputedly personally warm and friendly to everyone—a man who, when meeting a former Yale classmate that had made the transition from man to woman, said, "Now you've come back as yourself." If this president has a heart (and we hear from some quarters he does), he cannot fail to be struck by the pain his endorsement will cause.
And, watch for the other side to tell stories that actually humanize this struggle. When the hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples across the country who are raising children realize their families are threatened, they will not hesitate to stand up. Know this, Mr. President. We are no Willie Horton.
Fighting a half billion dollar anti-gay campaign is daunting, but the work to be done is essentially the same work the LGBT movement has done for decades. We have lawyered up, found straight allies, gained some media savvy, invested a little bit of money and cultivated a toughness that comes from taking punishment for a long time. But know this—we have tasted freedom and we will not let it be taken away from us again.
The LGBT movement may surprise you in its ability to wrap itself in the flag. Watch for stories of retired LGBT military people coming out in increasing numbers—these are, after all, people who have risked their lives to defend the Constitution.
Definitely expect much of corporate America to stand by our side. Wal-Mart and many other Fortune 500 companies—including GE and its NBC subsidiaries, who are making a lot of money from "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"—know that LGBT equality is good for business. So watch for members of the corporate wing of the Republican Party to leak their non-support of the amendment to Bob Novak.
Media were quick to cover Bush's support for faith-based initiatives, including his billion-dollar abstinence program and his healthy marriage initiative, so that, in his words, "people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again." Will media now report that LGBT taxpayers will be required to fund their own discrimination?
If there is anything sacred in the Constitution, it is the fundamental principle of equality for all. Once we turn to the Constitution to codify the sacred, it creates an evangelical papacy out of the presidency.
Journalists have already connected Bush's deep ties to the theocracy lobby and their undue influence on policy. The biggest risk for Rove/Bush now lies in how the endorsement of anti-gay discrimination will reinforce the growing perception that Bush's fundamentalist beliefs have already indelibly eroded the separation of church and state and the separation of powers written into our Constitution.
Even conservative intellectuals will become uneasy when "Defender of the Faith" is added to "Commander in Chief" in the job description of the president. It is not such a far leap from anti-gay discrimination to making glossolalia our second national language (that's speaking in tongues, for the uninitiated) or to provoking the Second Coming as a foreign policy objective.
If they get away with it, Rove will be remembered as a dark genius. Otherwise, [b]history may cite the Musgrave Amendment as evidence of the madness of King George—the 43rd. [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Credibility Gap Grows ... |
| 02.13.04 (7:20 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush's credibility gap grows ...[/b]
Bombarded by bad news on the Iraq front and a brewing scandal about his National Guard duty at home, Bush's numbers are continuing to plummet. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that now [i]54 percent [/i]of Americans believe that he lied or made exaggerated claims about Iraq's WMD programs. Also, less than half of those surveyed ([i]48 percent[/i]) think that the war was worth fighting for, and that figure is down [i]8 points [/i]from just last month. [i]More on [/i]» http://www.alternet.org/waron...
|
|
|
| |
| Good Morning Vietnam ... Gaps Still Exist in Bush's Military Fraud ... |
| 02.13.04 (5:42 pm) [edit] |
[b]CBS Evening News (02/13/04) reports that [u]unexplained gaps[/u] still exist[/b] in Bush's so-called "[i]military[/i]" service that was a[i] fraudulent desertion [/i]by an AWOL [i]party boy & pampered ne'er-do-well [/i]who spent Vietnam in a drunken stupor slutting around, while better men fought and died ...
Consider also "[i][b]Good Morning Vietnam[/b][/i]" by [i]Rupert Cornwell [/i]on http://news.independent.co.uk... :
The election of 2004 is a campaign dominated by a war. But the conflict in question is not Iraq with its horrendous car bombings, the row over the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons and the steady drip of American casualties. Three decades on, America is again wrestling with the ghosts of Vietnam.
To peruse the coverage of the battle for the White House by the US media is like leafing through an old family photo book. There in faded colours is a picture of a youthful, ungrizzled, but nonetheless unmistakable John Kerry, grinning with his colleagues on a navy gunboat, against the green tropical backdrop of the Mekong Delta, circa 1967.
A few days later, another image is all over the television screens of the future junior senator from Massachusetts and present favourite to win the Democratic presidential nomination. The year is probably 1971, by which time Kerry, the decorated hero of the battlefield, has become a vociferous and high-profile opponent of the war. In this photo, you need a highlight to pick him out, sitting several rows back at an anti-war rally. Front and centre of the picture is Jane Fonda, the actress and activist soon to be derided as "Hanoi Jane" by detractors who branded her a traitor for her visit to North Vietnam in 1972.
But the Bush family album is equally in evidence. There is a picture of young George from much the same time as Kerry and Fonda were captured together, protesting against the Vietnam War, in which the young man, complete with military buzz-cut, is standing by a plane. A second photo depicts him in a pilot's suit, under the proud gaze of his smiling father, the then Texas Congressman George HW Bush, later to become the 41st President.
But contrary to appearances, Bush the son was not a "Top Gun" ace, fighting in the skies of South-east Asia. Instead he was performing his Vietnam-era military duties as a pilot in the Texas National Guard, spending his time in the much friendlier heavens over the southern United States, learning how to protect the great city of Houston from possible foreign attack.
More than 30 years ago, Messrs Bush and Kerry confronted an unpopular war in different ways. Today, the courses they chose have become a central theme of the presidential campaign, entangled in a many-layered debate over patriotism, judgement and sense of duty. At one level, America may finally be getting the Vietnam war out of its system. At another, Vietnam is re-entering America's system, as an inescapable metaphor for America's present war in Iraq.
"Three or four things are playing into this," says Joe Sternburg, who served in Vietnam as a US Marine in 1967 and 1968, and heads the Vietnam Veterans for America association. "Vietnam was not a popular war, and Iraq is turning into an increasingly unpopular war. You have the contrast between Kerry's record and the fact that Bush's military background is questionable. Finally, the military is popular again." In reality, many years have passed since Vietnam veterans were actually disliked, as participants in a war now recognised to have been a mistake. But other doubts lingered. The Gulf war in 1991, with its swift and decisive eviction of Saddam's armies from Kuwait, was supposed to have banished the so-called "Vietnam syndrome", proving America now knew better than to get sucked into a quagmire.
Today, the "Q-word" is everywhere, apropos of the 2003 Iraq war, as the US flounders in search of an exit strategy from a country embroiled in guerrilla war. Yet the military itself is hugely admired. And Vietnam veterans too are basking in reflected glory. As the public mood over Iraq now demonstrates, Americans believe their solders are brave and good men, however dubious the justification of the war in which they are fighting. And for many vets, the experience is cathartic.
"I like it," says Mr Sternburg when you ask him about those Kerry rallies, when the very word Vietnam elicits applause, and the senator's old comrades in arms, "the band of brothers", are cheered to the rafters. You can almost hear him grinning down the phone line.
The most powerful moment of the Kerry campaign - perhaps of the entire campaign thus far - came two days before the Iowa caucuses, when the candidate was tearfully reunited with a former Green Beret, Jim Rassman, whom Mr Kerry, already wounded, rescued from a river under intense Vietnamese sniper fire. "I guess I owe this man my life," Mr Rassman told an electrified audience.
As the astonishing comeback that started in Iowa has continued, the veterans have become his most precious stage props. "We're a little older and a little greyer," runs Mr Kerry's standard line, "but we still know how to fight for our country."
But it was not always thus. From the outset, the senator built his campaign around his service in Vietnam, calculating it would inoculate him against Mr Bush's record as a "war president", and Republican attempts to cast the Democrats as spineless and unpatriotic. But for most of 2003, the Vietnam lines played to yawns; the candidate seemed to be reading from a script three decades out of date. But then the issue caught fire. The reason may be summed up in a single word: Iraq.
Throughout last year, Mr Kerry struggled to explain why he now criticised a war for which he voted in the now notorious Congressional resolution of October 2002. Questioned on the issue, his answers were nuanced to the point of incomprehensible. Howard Dean thrived, with his broadsides against both Mr Bush and the gutless, hypocritical Democrats in Washington who first supported the war and then, like Mr Kerry, turned against it when the going got rough.
But as matters have deteriorated in Iraq, an old war has been superimposed on a new one, and Mr Kerry's position suddenly makes perfect sense. He, after all, is like so many people in America (not to mention Britain) who, after the apocalyptic warnings from their leaders about the supposedly lethal threat posed by Saddam, felt they had no choice but to support the war. Like them, he is enraged by the apparent fraud on which the invasion was launched, and the shambles that has followed it.
And after all, Mr Kerry has been down this path before. Did he not support the Vietnam war to the extent of risking his life there, only to become a leader of the opposition to it? "Bring it on," is the mantra of Kerry the military hero as he challenges the Bush crowd to depict him as a foreign policy ingénue.
But consider those other words Mr Kerry famously uttered in 1971 to a Congressional committee investigating the growing mess in Vietnam: "How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" The same haunting question can now increasingly be applied to Iraq. As Mr Sternburg puts it: "Kerry comes across as someone who understands. The Iraq war is coming to look a lot like Vietnam." For George Bush, the Vietnam/Iraq connection works in an opposite sense.
The gaps in his National Guard service played little role in the 2000 campaign. He was, after all, making an attempt to succeed a president who had also wriggled out of the draft. His opponent, Al Gore, had been in Vietnam, but as a reporter with the US Army, not as a frontline soldier. America, moreover, was at peace. But now the country is at war, and the attention paid to the 43rd President's military service has grown in direct proportion to the post-war chaos in Iraq.
By the standards of the time, Mr Bush's behaviour was not especially dishonourable. In a war, two years is an eternity. When Mr Kerry signed up in 1966, Vietnam was still a more or less popular war. By 1968, when Mr Bush left Yale, opposition to the conflict had forced President Lyndon Johnson to step down, and the horrors of battle were being replayed nightly, in colour, on television screens.
A few of his generation and from his background gritted their teeth and went to Vietnam. Others found some medical reason not to go, others went to Canada. But the preferred way was to find a slot in the National Guard. Not surprisingly there were waiting lists for vacancies. So it helped if, like this President, you had the right family connections. Mr Bush strenuously denies it, but the suspicion is strong that he used his family connections to the hilt to enrol as a trainee fighter pilot.
Nor by the standards of the time, was there anything particularly unusual about his patchy duty in 1972 with Guard units in Alabama, where he was working on a political campaign, or about the way he was permitted to leave the Guard six months early to go to Harvard Business School. US involvement by then was winding down in a war almost universally recognised as an undertaking America should never have embarked on.
But Iraq has cast events of the past in a new and harsher light. The pre-war intelligence fiasco and the false claims that American troops would be welcomed with garlands have eroded the credibility that was Mr Bush's most precious asset. Barely six months ago, his made-for-campaign-ads landing in a US Navy plane aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as it returned from duty off Iraq seemed to have locked up his re-election there and then.
Today the "Mission Accomplished" stunt looks a massive act of hubris, and which becomes more massive still when seen through the prism of Vietnam. The pilot who chose not to fight a mistaken war when he could have, has been caught play-acting in a war which he ordered and which increasingly seems a mistake.
Mr Kerry is left with the more potent line, that "I know something about landing on aircraft carriers for real". Thus Vietnam and Iraq have subtly merged. Bush supporters reject the notion that only those who are war heroes are qualified to wage war: where would that have left Franklin Roosevelt? But the converse is also true, that those without real war service cannot claim to have a monopoly of wisdom.
Events on the ground in Iraq in 2004, rather any embarrassing new discovery about Mr Bush's Guard service between 1968 and 1973, will decide how much the controversy will damage him politically. If, miraculously, Iraq does become a success then the whole thing will not much matter. But the more Iraq grows to resemble Vietnam, the argument over what Mr Bush did or did not do in Texas and Alabama 30 years ago will - like the dispute over Saddam's WMD - be a malign and constant companion along a very hard road back to the White House.
|
|
|
| |
| Did Robert Novak Ignore Warnings & Place Valerie Plame's Life In Danger? |
| 02.13.04 (5:37 pm) [edit] |
[b]Robert Novak is a[i] right-wing political hack[/i], who is good buddies with Karl [i]'Joseph Goebbles' [/i]Rove ...[/b]
Did Robert Novak willfully disregard warnings that his column would endanger Valerie Plame? The [i]American Prospect's [/i]sources say "yes."
Consider "[b]Plame Gate[/b]" by [i]Murray S. Wass [/i]on http://www.prospect.org/print... :
Two government officials have told the FBI that conservative columnist Robert Novak was asked specifically not to publish the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in his now-famous July 14 newspaper column. The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources.
These new accounts, provided by a current and former administration official close to the situation, directly contradict public statements made by Novak. He has downplayed his own knowledge about the potential harm to Plame and ongoing intelligence operations by making that disclosure. He has also claimed in various public statements that intelligence officials falsely led him to believe that Plame was only an analyst, and the only potential consequences of her exposure as a CIA officer would be that she might be inconvenienced in her foreign travels.
The two administration officials questioned by the FBI characterized Novak's statements as untrue and misleading, according to a government official and an attorney official familiar with the FBI interviews.
One of the sources also asserted that the credibility of the administration officials who spoke to the FBI is enhanced by the fact that the officials made their statement to the federal law enforcement authorities. If the officials were found to be lying to the FBI, they could be potentially prosecuted for making false statements to federal investigators the sources pointed out.
Novak declined to be interviewed for this article.
The two officials say Novak was told, as one source put it, that Plame's work for the CIA "went much further than her being an analyst," and that publishing her name would be "hurtful" and could stymie ongoing intelligence operations and jeopardize her overseas sources.
"When [Novak] says that he was not told that he was 'endangering' someone, that statement might be technically true," this source says. "Nobody directly told him that she was going to be physically hurt. But that was implicit in that he was told what she did for a living."
"At best, he is parsing words," said the other official. "At worst, he is lying to his readers and the public. Journalists should not lie, I would think." These new accounts, provided by two sources familiar to the investigation, contradict Novak's attempts to downplay his own knowledge about the potential harm to Plame.
Moreover, one of the government officials who has told federal investigators that Novak's account is false has also turned over to investigators contemporaneous notes he made of at least one conversation with Novak. Those notes, according to sources, appear to corroborate the official's version of events.
That the FBI interviewed the officials who warned Novak not to publish Plame's name could not be independently corroborated through federal law-enforcement authorities. That's not surprising — the investigation has been shrouded in secrecy.
Over the past several months, the FBI has interviewed more than 30 Bush administration officials and has reviewed phone logs, personal calendars, and e-mail records, according to government sources. But Attorney General John Ashcroft tightly controlled information gathered during the probe, requiring FBI agents to sign unprecedented nondisclosure agreements that say they could face immediate termination if they speak to the press. As a result, scant information about the leak investigation has appeared in the media, making it all but disappear as a political issue for the Bush administration until the disclosure last week that a federal grand jury had been convened to hear evidence in the matter.
On December 30, Ashcroft recused himself from the case so a special counsel, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, could take over. And on January 21, a federal grand jury in Washington began hearing evidence, re-interviewing witnesses, and notifying others that they will be called. At least four Bush administration officials have testified so far before the grand jury.
Deputy Attorney General James Comey said the secrecy surrounding the investigation would continue -- partly because "we don't want to smear somebody who might be innocent and might not be charged."
Shortly after his column appeared, Novak seemed to suggest that the information about Plame was planted as part of a White House campaign. In an interview with Newsday reporters Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, he said, "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name and I used it."
Then Novak started to backtrack, giving the impression that the leak was more the result of his own initiative than from a White House source. He also claimed the Newsday reporters quoted him out of context, an accusation both reporters deny. (Full disclosure: Royce is my longtime friend.)
Novak made another statement about his column during a September 29 broadcast of CNN's Crossfire. "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," he said. "In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing.
"When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis ... they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing?"
In his July 14 column, Novak claimed that Plame had played a role in the selection of her husband for a mission to Niger to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein was buying enriched uranium. Yet White House and CIA officials have since said that Wilson, a former national-security senior director for African affairs, was chosen only because of his expertise, and that his wife had no role in his selection.
A government official also questions Novak's claims that the columnist "called the CIA" and "they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in her husband's mission." Rather, this person says, the CIA at first declined to comment. Still later, the same official contends that Novak was categorically told that Plame had played no role in the selection of her husband for the Niger mission.
"He was told it just wasn't true -- period," said the government official. "But he just went with the story anyway. He just didn't seemed to care very much whether the information was true or not."
Apparently the leak to Novak was made as senior Bush administration officials were reportedly attempting to discredit Wilson, who had been saying that the administration had relied on faulty intelligence information to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq.(President Bush had cited the Niger evidence in his 2003 State of the Union address.)
Congressional Democrats and some members of the Bush administration say the purpose of the leak was not only to discredit Wilson but also to intimidate other government officials from coming forward to question the administration's rationale for war.
Steve Huntley, the editorial-page editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, which is the flagship newspaper for Novak's syndicated column, says he "implicitly and completely trusts Bob Novak's reporting."
Fred Hiatt, the editorial-page editor of The Washington Post, which also ran Novak's column, declined to comment. Previously, though, he told his newspaper's ombudsman, Michael Getler, "In retrospect, I wish I had asked more questions, and I wish Bob had informed us and his readers that he had considered, and rejected, a CIA request to withhold her name."
(After Novak's column appeared, an anonymous administration official said the CIA warned Novak of "security concerns" that would arise if he were to publish Plame's name. Novak has disputed that account as well.)
In an online column, "Take Three Steps to Avoid Future Novaks," Aly Colón of the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit, educational organization for journalists, writes, "There's an old adage that claims journalists are only as good as the sources that feed them. Here's a new one: Journalists are only as credible as the ethics that guide them. By disclosing the identity of a CIA operative, Novak provoked a Justice Department investigation of his sources and raised serious questions about his ethical conduct."
What if Novak indeed purposely mislead readers of his column-- as the two administration officials have asserted to the FBI?
In an interview, Colón, while saying he could not speak to the specifics of this particular story said: "Any time a journalist purposely deceives his readers, he undermines the newsperson's or [his or her own] news organization's credibility" and "threatens the trust between the reader and reporter."
[i]Murray Waas is a Washington journalist (read more at http://www.waasinfo.com). Research assistance for this article was provided by Thomas Lang[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Most Members of Bush's Alabama Unit Don't Remember Him ... |
| 02.13.04 (5:35 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush's vain attempt to rehabilitate his phony record of so-called "service" in the military is another neo-orwellian propaganda scam[/b], when it is obvious that Dubya was a [i]drunken party-boy & ne'er-do-well [/i]who was on a drinking binge AWOL (...[i] in a Champagne Brigade Unit that Poppy Bush got his spoiled brat into, by bumping him ahead of 500 others who were on the waiting list ahead of Dubya [/i]...) ... slutting around during Vietnam while better men were sent, fought and died for our country ...
[b]This guy [/b] http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO... says he remembers Bush at drills in Alabama.
These two http://www.memphisflyer.com/c... say they never saw him and think they would have if he were there.
Yesterday the [i]AP[/i] contacted more than a dozen former members of Bush's unit and none remembered seeing him http://www.newsday.com/news/n...,0,2950391.story?coll=ny-nationalnew s-headlines .
"I don't remember seeing him. That does not mean he was not there," said Wayne Rambo, a first lieutenant with the 187th Supply Squadron at the time in question.
[b]Source[/b]:
- [i]Joshua Micah Marshall, TalkingPointsMemo[/i], http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
|
|
|
| |
| Greenspan Contradicts Corrupt Bush Regime: DEFICITS WILL BITE US |
| 02.13.04 (4:19 pm) [edit] |
[b]Greenspan warns Congress that the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's insane reckless record-level deficits WILL BITE US ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]Mr. Greenspan Weighs In[/b][/i]" in the [i]New York Times [/i]on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
Alan Greenspan has cleared up any questions about whether a half-trillion-dollar deficit is a danger to the American economy, and whether the huge Bush tax cuts are part of the problem. Testifying before Congress yesterday in that polite, jargon-riddled way of his, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board [b]contradicted the Bush administration and its allies[/b], who have been dismissing the significance of deficits. [b]Mr. Greenspan also complained about "[i]diminished restraint[/i]" on discretionary spending — perhaps an indication that he has lost some faith in the conservative credo that cutting revenue is the best way to control spending[/b].
Mr. Greenspan's warning that the "[i][b]outsized federal demands on national saving[/b][/i]" will appreciably raise long-term interest rates is the stuff of Econ 101 orthodoxy: if the government gobbles up too much credit, it drives up the cost of capital for the rest of us. But apologists for the Bush administration's reckless fiscal policies like to write off such thinking.
Mr. Greenspan's overall outlook on the economy is quite bullish, but the most striking thing about his testimony was that he did not confine his warnings about federal deficits to the long term. He said they threatened his short-term rosy scenario.
Listening to Mr. Greenspan testify is more interesting in the context of what we now know about the early Bush administration. According to a recent account by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Mr. Greenspan backed the tax cuts because of a mistaken belief that he and Mr. O'Neill would be powerful enough to convince the White House and Congress that the reductions should be temporary. The notion was to include a trigger mechanism that would revoke the cuts in the event of budgetary conditions like the ones the nation is now facing. We know now, and presumably [b]Mr. Greenspan understands as well, that this is an administration whose commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthy is not subject to any respect for sound financial management[/b].
Given the relatively meager slice of federal spending that can be substantially cut and the alarmingly meager federal receipts, as a percentage of the economy, there is only one responsible way for Congress to heed [b]Mr. Greenspan's warnings about those spiraling deficits. Instead of debating whether some of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, it's time to consider rolling some of them back.[/b]
|
|
|
| |
| Will Bush Respond To Military Investigations By Playing Dirty? |
| 02.13.04 (1:27 pm) [edit] |
[b]How will Bush respond to investigations of his so-called "[i]military[/i]" records? ... By playing dirty? ... [/b]Dirty tricks are certainly the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] [i]modus operandi [/i]of despicable [i]personal and public destructions, slanders, lies, libels and character assassinations [/i]of others in order to [i]"win"[/i] ... [i]"win at all costs", [/i]irrespective of whom they decide to destroy in their insane grab for infinite power and vast wealth & riches ...
Consider "[i][b]Truth And Consequences[/b][/i]" by [i]Richard Blow [/i]on http://tompaine.com/feature2.... :
[b]On Tuesday, Feb. 10, the White House did[/b], by the standards of this information-hostile administration, a remarkable thing: In an attempt to show that President Bush had completed his required National Guard duty, the administration released the president's military pay records. But for a White House that has been masterful at manipulating the press, this was a badly botched job.
The records didn't prove what the White House suggested they did, and only fuel the perception that the president has something to hide.
The controversy surrounding Bush's military service is a rare bird—a campaign issue that surfaces in one election, fails to catch on, and then resurfaces with greater impact four years later. It began in 2000 when The [i]Boston Globe [/i]ran a series of articles investigating Bush's time in the National Guard. The [i]Globe[/i] strongly suggested that Bush had skipped a year's worth of service, from May 1972 through April 1973, while in Alabama. (He'd asked to be transferred there from Texas to work for a Republican senate campaign.) But Al Gore wouldn't pursue the issue, and it died.
It returned this year because of a political odd couple, Michael Moore and Wesley Clark. Moore, a Clark backer, repeatedly introduced the general at rallies by saying he'd like see a debate between Clark and Bush—"the general and the deserter."
But even that dramatic line would have faded into obscurity if Peter Jennings hadn't introduced it into broader discourse at a New Hampshire Democratic debate in late January. Jennings asked Clark about Moore's accusation, saying, "Now, that's a reckless charge, not supported by the facts, and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him."
Jennings was wrong. It was a hyperbolic charge, because "deserter" has a specific legal definition in the military. But it wasn't reckless. And with the political environment different than it was in 2000—when the president has led the country into a dubious war, his own record suddenly seems fairer game—Democrats realized that maybe the accusation was smart politics. Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe publicly and pointedly declared that Bush had been "AWOL." The press began to pick up on the issue, with Salon, The New Republic and Slate publishing smart pieces arguing that the issue was worth revisiting.
Finally Tim Russert asked Bush about the controversy on his "Meet the Press" interview last Sunday, and Bush gave a thoroughly unconvincing non-denial denial. Next came the unsuccessful record release.
In Iraq, Bush has scored points by framing the debate as a matter of proving a negative: Prove that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs. But on this issue, Bush has to prove an affirmative—that he did show up for National Guard duty from May 1972 through April 1973. If John Kerry or his surrogates want to keep this issue alive, they should put the burden of proof on the president with lines like, "I call on President Bush to prove that he did not shirk his National Guard duty." If Bush could, he would have done so by now.
In his "Meet the Press" interview, Bush tried to fend off the attacks on his record by suggesting that they were really attacks on the National Guard. May I suggest a response? "The president says criticisms of his year-long absence from duty are a criticism of the National Guard. But the president skipped a year of service. And after that he dropped out eight months early to go to Harvard. So who's really insulting the National Guard?"
There may be only one thing the White House can do to nip this problem in the bud, and that's change the subject—dramatically. On Thursday morning, Feb. 12, the Drudge Report bannered a high-profile accusation that news organizations were investigating a rumor that John Kerry had had an affair with, apparently, a campaign intern. (Drudge's wording was ambiguous.)
A friend who used to work in Democratic politics e-mailed me that "this has Chris Lehane's fingerprints all over it," referring to the Democratic hatchet man who worked for Kerry, then Wes Clark. Since Clark just ended his campaign, I'm not so sure. I wonder if the White House didn't just change the subject.
- [i]Richard Blow is the former executive editor of George Magazine. He is author of American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr., and is writing a book about Harvard University[/i].
|
|
|
| |
| Dubya Is A Proven LIAR ... Now Dubya Is Also A Proven HYPOCRITE ... |
| 02.13.04 (11:31 am) [edit] |
[b]We all know that Dubya is a proven LIAR ... Jeez [/b]... Do we[i] really [/i]need to [i]run-thru [/i]again his long, long, long litany of[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]regarding both his insane neo-con war-mongers for war-profiteers (... [i]where are those WMDs? [/i]...) as well as his [i]train-wreck [/i]of an economy that is enriching the Bushies' corrupt corporate cronies and filthy rich campaign contributors (... [i]irresponsible, immoral & possibly illegal tax cuts, tax loopholes & boondoggles for the wealthiest and the most powerful, while poverty, homelessness and joblessness are skyrocketing [/i]...) ...
[b]NOW we know that Dubya is [i]also[/i] a proven HYPOCRITE [/b]... the buffoon bully-boy with the mentality of a pre-pubescent 13 year old teenager with raging hormones and no control over his mental faculties ... Dubya's imbecilic message to the rest of the world:[b] Do As I Say, Not As I Do[/b] ... as these neo-con, neo-fascist traitors in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] order the rest of the world to disarm of nukes, while they starve our own nation in order to build-up their dangerously bizarre over-bloated and obscene Military Industrial Complex ([i]spending more than the entire world combined[/i]) ... Dubya has already ordered that alot more nukes, nukes ([i]listen[/i]: nukes! [i]for goodness sake[/i]!) be built!!!
You figure it'll makes us safer? ...[i] Yeah, right [/i]... You figure the rest of the world will [i]'roll-over-and-play-de ad'[/i]? ... [i]Uh-huh [/i]... Watch and see ...
Consider "[i][b]Regarding President Bush’s Speech on WMDs[/b][/i]" by [i]Bob Boorstin[/i] on http://www.americanprogress.o... :
President Bush’s proposals on curbing the spread of weapons of mass destruction are welcome and well-intentioned [[b]The road to hell is paved with 'good intentions' by imbeciles[/b].] . But the president’s credibility on this issue is as strong as the rusting chain-link fences that guard nuclear and chemical facilities throughout the world.
The big question is clear: why has it taken the administration three years to wake up and smell the plutonium?
It is gratifying that the president has finally taken up the suggestions of leaders across the political spectrum but his speech today is vintage Bush administration in three ways.
First, the president failed to back up his pledge with real dollars. While he said nice things about Senator Lugar and the Nunn-Lugar program the administration’s current budget would cut the program by almost 10 percent – when we and others have suggested a five-fold increase.
Second, the president’s proposal is the kind of ad hoc, coalition-of-the-willing approach that we have come to expect from the Pentagon. The U.S. badly needs a comprehensive strategy based on the need for global allies to help control the most deadly weapons we face.
[b]Finally, the president sets two standards: one for us and one for everyone else[/b]. Missing from his speech was one word about the administration’s ongoing development of new nuclear weapons like "bunker busters." The message to the rest of the world: "[b]Give up your ambitions to get these weapons. Meanwhile, we’ll make better ones[/b]."
[i]Bob Boorstin is the senior vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress[/i].
[b]Source[/b]:
The [i]Center for American Progress [/i]on http://www.americanprogress.o...
|
|
|
| |
| DUBYA: The Most Dishonest President in U.S. History! |
| 02.13.04 (11:02 am) [edit] |
[b]Dubya is the most dishonest president in the history of the U.S.A.! [/b]
Anyone familiar with the [i]sordid & squalid track-record [/i]of the many, many, many [i]lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]told by Dubya & Co. to wage their corporate-take-all war in Iraq devised to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc., will not be surprised that his corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist regime is also [i]swindling, plundering and looting [/i]America's Middle and Working classes, as they turn us into their neo-feudal slave state.
Consider "[i][b]The Real Man[/b][/i]" by [i]Dr. Paul Krugman [/i]on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
[b]To understand why questions [/b]about George Bush's time in the National Guard are legitimate, all you have to do is look at the federal budget published last week. No, not the lies, damned lies and statistics — the pictures.
By my count, this year's budget contains 27 glossy photos of Mr. Bush. We see the president in front of a giant American flag, in front of the Washington Monument, comforting an elderly woman in a wheelchair, helping a small child with his reading assignment, building a trail through the wilderness and, of course, eating turkey with the troops in Iraq. Somehow the art director neglected to include a photo of the president swimming across the Yangtze River.
It was not ever thus. Bill Clinton's budgets were illustrated with tables and charts, not with worshipful photos of the president being presidential.
The issue here goes beyond using the Government Printing Office to publish campaign brochures. In this budget, as in almost everything it does, the Bush administration tries to blur the line between reverence for the office of president and reverence for the person who currently holds that office.
Operation Flight Suit was only slightly more over the top than other Bush photo-ops, like the carefully staged picture that placed Mr. Bush's head in line with the stone faces on Mount Rushmore. The goal is to suggest that it's unpatriotic to criticize the president, and to use his heroic image to block any substantive discussion of his policies.
In fact, those 27 photos grace one of the four most dishonest budgets in the nation's history — the other three are the budgets released in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Just to give you a taste: remember how last year's budget contained no money for postwar Iraq — and how administration officials waited until after the tax cut had been passed to mention the small matter of $87 billion in extra costs? Well, they've done it again: earlier this week the Army's chief of staff testified that the Iraq funds in the budget would cover expenses only through September.
But when administration officials are challenged about the blatant deceptions in their budgets — or, for that matter, about the use of prewar intelligence — their response, almost always, is to fall back on the president's character. How dare you question Mr. Bush's honesty, they ask, when he is a man of such unimpeachable integrity? And that leaves critics with no choice: they must point out that the man inside the flight suit bears little resemblance to the official image.
There is, as far as I can tell, no positive evidence that Mr. Bush is a man of exceptional uprightness. When has he even accepted responsibility for something that went wrong? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that he is willing to cut corners when it's to his personal advantage. His business career was full of questionable deals, and whatever the full truth about his National Guard service, it was certainly not glorious.
Old history, you may say, and irrelevant to the present. And perhaps that would be true if Mr. Bush was prepared to come clean about his past. Instead, he remains evasive. On "Meet the Press" he promised to release all his records — and promptly broke that promise.
I don't know what he's hiding. But I do think he has forfeited any right to cite his character to turn away charges that his administration is lying about its policies. And that is the point: Mr. Bush may not be a particularly bad man, but he isn't the paragon his handlers portray.
Some of his critics hope that the AWOL issue will demolish the Bush myth, all at once. They're probably too optimistic — if it were that easy, the tale of Harken Energy would have already done the trick. The sad truth is that people who have been taken in by a cult of personality — a group that in this case includes a good fraction of the American people, and a considerably higher fraction of the punditocracy — are very reluctant to give up their illusions. If nothing else, that would mean admitting that they had been played for fools.
Still, we may be on our way to an election in which Mr. Bush is judged on his record, not his legend. And that, of course, is what the White House fears.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Aides Accused of Destroying Military Documents ... |
| 02.13.04 (10:48 am) [edit] |
[b]Did they[i] really [/i]do this?
If so, shouldn't we[i] loudly [/i]demand that criminal indictments be doled out and that the perpetrators be brought to justice?[/b]
Refer to "[b]Bush Aides Accused of Destroying Military Documents[/b]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail... :
Just four days after pledging to open up his entire military file1, President Bush has reneged on the pledge, with "[i]Administration officials declining yesterday to commit to releasing further records[/i]"2 on top of the inconclusive ones they have already released. Additionally, new charges have surfaced that Bush actually deployed his Texas gubernatorial staff to destroy incriminating records.
As first reported by the [i]Dallas Morning News[/i], retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett said that, in 1997, Joe Allbaugh (chief of staff for then-Governor Bush ... and now Bush toadie & war-profiteer with embezzlement scheme in Iraq called 'New Bridges Strategies' ...) told the National Guard chief to get the Bush file and make certain "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor." Burkett said that a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, he "saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can."3
While the White House has claimed the attack is baseless, Burkett's credibility was bolstered today after the New York Times reported that he made his complaint known right after the incident. In 1998, he sent a letter to a member of the Texas State Senate saying Bush and his aides improperly reviewed the file to "make sure nothing will embarrass the governor during his re-election campaign." Burkett repeated in interviews this week that Bush and his aides "ordered Guard officials to remove damaging information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files."4
Yesterday, the commander of the Alabama unit Bush claimed he served in during his year-long absence said "[Bush] never did come to my squad. He was never at my unit."5 Additionally, in a signed report, commanding officers in Houston said Bush "has not been observed."6 In order to clear up the controversy, the president would have to follow through on his Sunday pledge to release all of his records rather than continue stonewalling.
[b]Sources[/b]:
1. Meet the Press, 02/08/2004.
2. "1973 Document Puts Bush on Guard Base", Washington Post, 02/12/2004.
3. "Aides say records prove Bush served", Dall Morning News, 02/10/2004.
4. "Move to Screen Bush File in 90's Is Reported", New York Times, 02/12/2004.
5. "Bush met military obligation, aide says", The Birmingham News, 02/11/2004.
6. "Guard Records On President Are Released", Washington Post, 02/11/2004.
|
|
|
| |
| AWOL-Gate: Were Portions of Bush's Military Record Scrubbed in 1997? |
| 02.13.04 (10:45 am) [edit] |
[b]Neither Dubya, nor the White House has adequately responded to questions regarding Bush's [i]so-called [/i]"military record" ... [/b]Dubya's [i]disastrous track-record [/i]of a neo-con foreign policy [i]run amok [/i]creating disasters, bloody warfare and an arms-race around the world, as well as his[i] treasonous track-record [/i]of a neo-fascist domestic policy run wild with [i]reckless, irresponsible spending [/i]for corporations and the rich while impoverishing the rest of us, are most certainly [b]sufficient reasons to impeach [/b]the[i] buffoon bully-boy [/i]who pretends to play "[i]Mr. Tough Guy[/i]" while hiding behind Poppy, his arm-guards, and the U.S. Military ...
But [i]really [/i] these outstanding questions strike at the heart of Dubya's[i] lack [/i]of character ...
Consider "[b]AWOL-Gate:[i] Were Portions of Bush's Military Record Scrubbed in 1997[/i]?[/b]" by [i]James Moore [/i]on http://www.democracynow.org/a... :
[i][b]As scrutiny increases over President Bush's National Guard record, we talk with longtime Texan journalist James Moore, author of the forthcoming "Bush's War For Re-election". The book reports that a Lt. Col. Bill Burkett overheard Bush aides ask the head of the Texan National Guard to throw out portions of his military record.[/b][/i]
The controversy over President Bush's military service is heating up.
Bush joined the National Guard in 1968, and spent most of his service time based near Houston. But in May 1972 he requested and received a temporary assignment with the Alabama National Guard. Bush says he recalls showing up for drills in Alabama, but critics are demanding proof and the press is beginning to track down and question former guardsmen.
The [i]Memphis Flyer [/i]reports that Alabama guardsmen knew a prominent Texan had requested a transfer to their unit and were eager to meet him, but he never showed.
Yesterday, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard came forward and claimed that portions of Bush's military record were thrown away in 1997 after a top Bush aide asked the head of the Texas National Guard to remove embarrassing items from his file.
Also yesterday, the White House released Bush's dental records that first provided evidence that Bush spent time at an Alabama base. It doesn't clarify if Bush fulfilled his full term.
[i]USA Today [/i]reports that the portions of Bush's recently released military records pertaining to past arrests and convictions are blacked out.
[i]USA Today [/i]also reports that a Lt. Col. Bill Burkett overheard Bush aides ask the head of the Texan National Guard to throw out portions of his military record.
[i]James Moore, Emmy Award winning TV news correspondent in Texas. He is the author of the forthcoming book "Bush's War for Re-Election" and the co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush President."[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's "Mission Accomplished": Over 10,000 Dead Iraqis & Over 539 Dead U.S. Soldiers! |
| 02.13.04 (7:39 am) [edit] |
[b]Bush's [i]so-called [/i]"Mission Accomplished" in his [i]souped-up, sexed-up, [i]so-called [/i][/i]"War on Terror" scam-game seems to comprise nothing more than the Death Toll of over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and over 539 of U.S. soldiers! Ah, but let us not forget that Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, and the Military Industrial Complex, among others, including the corrupt Bushies are making out like Emperor Caligula![/b]
Consider also "[b]White House seeks credit for cracking secret weapons ring[/b]" on http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa...,12271,1147246,00.html :
[i][b]Bush boasts about uncovering arms network but observers wonder why it took so long [/b][/i]
The International Atomic Energy Agency responded to White House attempts to curb the black market in nuclear technology yesterday by arguing, in effect, that George Bush's proposals did not go far enough.
Its director, Mohammed ELBaradei, said: "I have the same concern and sense of urgency to shore up [international security]." He called for nuclear racketeers to be treated as criminals, a prospect not on the cards for the confessed and pardoned godfather of the rackets, Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan.
But, unlike Mr Bush, he also argued that control of nuclear technology exports should not be left in the hands of the west-dominated Nuclear Suppliers Group: binding regulation should be introduced through a new international treaty.
In an article in the New York Times he omitted to mention Mr Bush's call for a new IAEA committee on nuclear security.
IAEA sources say the proposal is highly problematic and would not gain international agreement, and they criticise Washington for its lack of "bridgebuilding" diplomacy. "ElBaradei is not exactly the most popular guy in Washington," one said.
One of the most contentious issues between Washington and the IAEA is intel ligence, and the increasingly public attempt by the US to take all the credit for unmasking the Khan network.
The network, which IAEA investigators and western intelligence services are seeking to trace, extends from Malaysia to South Africa, northern Europe and the Middle East. The key beneficiaries of the black market are or have been North Korea, Iran and Libya. The racket has been running for at least 15 years.
It is a dense and highly complex web and its partial unravelling has undoubtedly been due to painstaking undercover work by the CIA and MI6 as well as European intelligence agencies and IAEA investigators.
The unanswered questions are how much was known and when; and why has it taken so long to act.
In his speech on Wednesday President Bush claimed credit, along with Britain, for an intelligence triumph in cracking the Khan racket. "We've uncovered their secrets. This work involved high risk, and all Americans can be grateful for the hard work and the dedication of our fine intelligence professionals," he trumpeted, going into surprising detail.
"This picture of the Khan network was pieced together over several years by American and British intelligence officers. Our intelligence services gradually uncovered this network's reach, and identified its key experts and agents and money men. Operatives followed its transactions, mapped the extent of its operations. They monitored the travel of A Q Khan and senior associates. They shadowed members of the network around the world, they recorded their conversations, they penetrated their operations."
His claim echoed a declaration last week by the CIA chief, George Tenet. But Washington's version of events failed to impress observers yesterday. "It's absurd," commented William Potter, a leading US expert in nuclear proliferation. "It's nonsense," said a senior source familiar with the IAEA investigation into the network.
David Kay, the official commissioned by Mr Bush to locate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, told a Senate committee a fortnight ago that Iran had been pursuing a secret nuclear enrichment programme for 18 years, unknown to western intelligence, and that Libya was now known to have been far more advanced in its clandestine nuclear effort than suspected by the spies.
"We didn't discover it," he said. "There's a long record here of being wrong."
Critics suspect that the White House is claiming a intelligence victory to counter the alleged intelligence debacles and politicisation of the information in Iraq.
Two recent developments brought matters to a head in the case of Mr Khan.
First, Libyan information to MI6 and the CIA on the middlemen, the companies, and the Pakistani sources of the uranium enrichment equipment and nuclear bomb blueprint it bought. Second, a lengthy dossier on the Iranian nuclear effort supplied to the IAEA by Tehran at the end of October, which named at least five businessmen in Europe and the Middle East as being involved in the black market.
Armed with such specific information, the Americans were able to demand action by the Pakistani authorities against Khan and the IAEA investigators were able to trace the network.
US pressure brought the results in Islamabad leading to Mr Khan's confession: the Americans gave President Pervez Musharraf an ultimatum similar to to the choice it gave him after the September 11 attacks. Then it was: "Help us get Osama bin Laden or face the consequences." This time it was was stop Mr Khan's activities or lose US backing.
Despite the suspicion that the White House and the CIA are seeking to make political capital of it, there are many experts and diplomats who credit western intelligence with exposing the Khan network.
"The US had very extensive intelligence on Khan, highly convincing, compelling and detailed," a diplomat who has been tracking events and has seen much of the intelligence said.
"They have known about Khan for a long time. But a political decision was taken to act now. You couldn't describe this as an intelligence failure."
He and others say the breakthrough came from the material supplied by Libya.
IAEA sources argue that they are not being credited with uncovering the incriminating evidence they obtained from Iran. They also suspect that "Bush's boosterism" is premature, and that the networks may be much more extensive than so far revealed.
Jon Wolfsthal, a former US government official and nuclear analyst at the Carnegie Endowment, agreed that US intelligence on Mr Khan was the key factor.
"That's not a recent development. The question was whether and when to act on it. But you can't see this as an intelligence failure."
David Albright, a leading US analyst of the US nuclear intelligence operation, said: "They missed this stuff for a very long time. It was operating under their nose. There's a lot more going on. They [the White House] have given us something to quiet us down. The IAEA is right to feel wronged."
|
|
|
| |
| Pundits on the Right: Some Doubts About Dubya ... |
| 02.12.04 (5:35 pm) [edit] |
[b]Anyone with an[i] iota of brain [/i]matter has grave doubts about Dubya ... [/b]Jeez, you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner to ask some fairly elemental questions on the reasons behind the lies, deceptions & falsehoods that have been thrust upon us regarding: -- [i]why[/i] we are embroiled in [i]neo-con wars [/i]abroad killing our U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent civilians ... -- [i]why[/i] our economy is [i]down the toilet [/i]with the loss of over 3.3 million jobs, skyrocketing poverty, homelessness, lack of health care, and many other hardships for millions of Americans ... -- [i]why[/i] our idiot president [i]lusts for wars [/i]& talks like a buffoon bully-boy yet was a cowardly and drunken deserter during Vietnam, when it was his turn to serve our nation but he did not, and better men were sent, fought and died ...
There are conscientious conservatives unwilling to flush their own reputations [i]down the toilet [/i]or hoist themselves on their own swords, on behalf of this corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]... Too few, [i]but some [/i]...
Refer to "[i][b]Pundits on the Right: Some Doubts About Bush[/b][/i]" by[i] Dave Astor [/i]on http://www.editorandpublisher... :
[b]NEW YORK [/b]There are three things one can usually depend on: death, taxes, and conservative columnists strongly supporting President Bush. Well, maybe two things.
During the past couple of weeks, some scribes on the right have expressed misgivings about Bush because of his Feb. 8 "[i]Meet the Press[/i]" performance, his minimal military experience when compared with John Kerry's, the burgeoning budget deficit, and the fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction the president claimed were in Iraq.
[i]E&P[/i] read 27 columns by conservatives who mentioned Bush during the past 13 days. Nine of the columns had at least some questions about the president and his policies.
For instance, George Will of the [i]Washington Post Writers Group[/i] wrote that Bush's "accumulating errors are undermining the premise of his reelection campaign, which is: Wartime demands hard choices and sacrifices, and a president who is steady, measured, and believable. ... Once begun, leakage of public confidence is difficult to stanch."
Another conservative[i] WPWG[/i] columnist, Charles Krauthammer, said voters may choose John Kerry over Bush because of the Democrat's stronger military experience. "Sept. 11 reminded us that the '90s were an anomaly," Krauthammer wrote. "And upon returning to a world of mortal conflict with people who really want you destroyed, you instinctively want someone not new to the idea of war."
Robert Novak of the [i]Chicago Sun-Times [/i](Click for QuikCap http://www.editorandpublisher... ) and [i]Creators Syndicate [/i]added: "Most worrisome to Republicans is Kerry's war-hero image while, in the words of one prominent Bush supporter, 'our guy was drinking beer in Alabama.'"
[i]Wall Street Journal [/i]contributing columnist Peggy Noonan wrote of Bush's "[i]Meet the Press[/i]" appearance: "The president seemed tired, unsure, and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive... . He did not seem prepared."
Debra Saunders of the [i]San Francisco Chronicle [/i]and [i]Creators[/i] wrote that the Bush administration's "first-term spending spree isn't sitting well with those who have to bankroll it. ... Simply put, Bush broke the covenant Republican officeholders are supposed to share with voters: that they'll be tight with other people's money."
William Murchison of [i]Creators [/i]asked: "Why no Bush vetoes of inappropriate appropriations?"
Pat Buchanan of[i] Creators [/i]wrote that the Bush administration "invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
Another [i]Creators[/i] columnist, [i]Fox News Channel [/i]host Bill O'Reilly, was quoted by [i]Reuters[/i] as saying he's "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since weapons inspector David Kay expressed doubt about Iraq having WMDs.
Some of the above conservatives had occasionally criticized Bush prior to the past two weeks. But the amount of negative commentary seems to have increased, as noted in a Tuesday [i]New York Times [/i]article.
Still, criticism from conservatives is sporadic and relatively muted -- with the majority of columnists on the right remaining solidly behind Bush.
For instance, Cal Thomas of [i]Tribune Media Services [/i]wrote about the president's Iraq policy: "Bush acted on the best intelligence available at the time, stopping a madman who has been responsible for the deaths of perhaps millions... . Was that not worth doing?" And David Limbaugh of [i]Creators[/i] wrote: "I still think Bush is an odds-on favorite for reelection."
[b]Too bad Cal Thomas [i]ain't[/i] interested in stopping the madman who has hijacked the White House![/b]
|
|
|
| |
| The Blame Game: Bush and the MIA WMDs ... |
| 02.12.04 (4:14 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya & Co. think that they can simply [i]get away [/i][/b]with fabricating a [i]never-ending [/i]series of[i] new-fangled [/i]so-called "explanations", "justifications", or "rationalizations" (... [i]call them what you will [/i]...) to get them "[i]off-the-hook[/i]" for having lied so ruthlessly to us about their mendacious [i]casus belli [/i]to invade a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, our allies or its neighbors ... But not everyone is [i]hood-winked [/i]by this corrupt cabal of neo-con thugs and goons, and neo-fascists liars and thieves in the traitorous Bush regime ...
Consider "[b]The Blame Game: [i]Bush and the MIA WMDs[/i][/b]" by [i]David Corn [/i]of "The Nation" on http://www.thenation.com/doc.... :
"[b]We were all wrong[/b]." ...
David Kay, the recently resigned chief WMD hunter who has declared that it is unlikely Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction in the years before the war, uttered these words while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 28. They were meant to explain the tremendous gap between the prewar claims that Iraq was loaded with weapons of mass destruction and the reality that Kay says he found: no actual weapons and "no indication of a production process that would have produced [WMD] stockpiles." Embarrassed by Kay's disclosures, defenders of the invasion of Iraq have wrapped themselves in his we-were-all-wrong pronouncement. President Bush has said, "We all thought [WMDs] were there." White House press secretary Scott McClellan--who as of this writing has not been able to say the word "wrong"--has repeatedly maintained that "our intelligence was based on views shared by intelligence agencies around the world and the United Nations." It's a variant of Kay's we-all-blew-it explanation. The intent is clear: If everyone was wrong about the WMDs, then no one--especially not Bush--is to blame now.
But Kay was incorrect. Not everybody was mistaken on the question of Iraq's WMDs. Not UN inspectors, including Hans Blix, who worried about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities but questioned whether discrepancies in Iraq's accounting meant stockpiles existed. Not US intelligence analysts who argued that critical pieces of evidence were not solid. And there were many nongovernment experts who disputed the Bush Administration's WMD allegations. It was Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and other aides who missed the mark. Bush, in response to mounting pressure, has created a commission to study the prewar intelligence, but there is already a record supporting the serious charge that he and his colleagues made assertions before the invasion that were not supported by the intelligence they possessed.
Administration officials and other war backers have pointed to an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to justify their prewar statements about Iraq's unconventional weapons. An NIE is supposed to be the summation of the intelligence community's best information on a subject, and this one did say, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons." This assessment, it seems at the moment, was a historic failure, and it remains to be determined if it was the result of good-faith errors or political pressure and manipulation. But even this NIE--which included qualifiers and acknowledged serious disagreements within the intelligence community--did not contain evidence to support the more dramatic allegations that Bush put forward. A review of the declassified "key judgments" of the NIE and other pieces of intelligence--including a speech Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet gave at Georgetown University on February 5 to defend his agency--clearly shows that Bush and his national security team overstated what now appears to have been overstated intelligence.
In an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush said Iraq had a "massive stockpile of biological weapons." The NIE said no such thing. It did report--apparently errantly--that Iraq had an extensive bioweapons program. But the available intelligence did not confirm the existence of a stockpile. As Tenet noted, "We said we had no specific information on the types or quantities of [biological] weapons, agent, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal." So how could Bush have said Iraq had stockpiled biological weapons? Bush suggested his claim was based on the previous findings of UN inspectors. But the UN inspections team, which left Iraq in 1998, had not concluded that a stockpile remained. In fact, Rolf Ekeus, who headed the UN inspections effort, had deduced the opposite. In a 2000 interview, he said, "There are no large quantities of weapons [in Iraq]. I don't think Iraq is especially eager in the biological and chemical area to produce such weapons for storage.... Rather, Iraq has been aiming to keep the capability to start up production immediately should it need to."
Tenet's speech also contradicted Cheney, who has echoed his boss and hyped evidence. Last May Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." He was referring to two tractor-trailers discovered in northern Iraq during the war that the CIA initially maintained were mobile bioweapons labs. But Bush spoke too soon. Engineering experts at the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts outside government concluded that these trailers had been manufactured for other purposes, perhaps the production of hydrogen. Ignoring the well-known controversy over the trailers, Cheney in mid-January declared they were "conclusive evidence" that Saddam had programs for producing WMDs. Yet at Georgetown, Tenet said, "There is no consensus within our intelligence community over whether the trailers were for that use or if they were used for the production of hydrogen."
Regarding chemical weapons, Powell said in his February 2003 UN speech the Administration's "conservative estimate" was that Saddam possessed 100 to 500 tons of "chemical weapons agent." The flawed NIE had not been as definitive. It noted that "we have little specific information on Iraq's CW stockpile," but it added that Saddam "probably" had 100 tons and "possibly" 500 tons. Tenet told his Georgetown audience that "initially the community was skeptical about whether Iraq had started chemical weapons agent production." But, he added, once analysts saw satellite photos of shipments from ammunition sites, they concluded that Iraq was cooking up chemical weapons. That view was not unanimous. In September 2002 the Defense Intelligence Agency reported, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." And when Powell displayed satellite photos at the UN to back up his chemical weapons claims, independent analysts did not find them persuasive. Jonathan Tucker, a former weapons inspector who specialized in chemical weapons, said they probably indicated Saddam had some chemical weapons but "not huge amounts." Kelly Motz, another weapons specialist, said, "The evidence is still circumstantial and open to interpretation."
Bush and Cheney were particularly brazen when they declared that Saddam was revving up efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. In August 2002 Cheney said, "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.... Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." The next month Bush claimed a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had said Iraq was six months away from producing a bomb. (No such report existed, and the IAEA in 1998 had said its inspectors destroyed the known components of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.) In December 2002 Bush said, "We don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon"--a remark that suggested he might have one. But no sane intelligence analyst believed Saddam possessed such weapons. "We said Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon," Tenet recalled. And the NIE did not depict his program as an immediate threat. It noted that Iraq would probably only be able to produce a bomb by 2007 to 2009 "if left unchecked."
In public, Bush Administration officials pointed to Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes and its supposed interest in buying uranium in Africa as signs of a renewed program. Neither of these infamous claims has held up. But before the war, intelligence analysts at the Energy and State departments dissented from the view that the aluminum tubes were destined for a nuclear weapons program, and the State Department analysts called the uranium-from-Niger charge "highly dubious." They also concluded, according to the NIE, that there was no "compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing...an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." These analysts were not the only ones who accurately assessed the situation. On March 7, 2003, IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei reported that his agency's renewed inspections had found "no indication of resumed nuclear activities...nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites."
There were other areas where intelligence analysts were more on target than melodramatic Bush officials. In his Cincinnati speech, Bush said, "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas." He raised the prospect of Iraq attacking the United States with these drones. But the NIE concluded only that Iraq had a "development program"--not a "growing fleet"--of UAVs. And the intelligence analysts with the most expertise in the UAV area--those at the Air Force--believed that the UAVs under development were intended for reconnaissance, not WMD attacks. "The jury is still out," Tenet said, "on whether Iraq intended to use its newer, smaller [UAVs] to deliver biological weapons."
Much of the current controversy over the prewar intelligence has fixated on WMDs. But Bush's primary case for war was based on the suppositions that Saddam had horrible weapons, had an operational alliance with Al Qaeda and would be willing to share his WMDs with the murderers of 9/11. In November 2002 Bush said Saddam was "dealing with" Al Qaeda. At the UN Powell said there was a "sinister nexus" between the Iraqi dictator and Al Qaeda. Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, Bush called Saddam an "ally" of Al Qaeda.
But the NIE's "key judgments" did not conclude that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden, and the estimate reported that intelligence analysts believed Saddam would consider slipping chemical or biological weapons to a terrorist outfit only as an "extreme step" if he were "already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States." Prior to the invasion, war opponents and some terrorism experts challenged the Administration's efforts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. After Powell's presentation at the UN, Judith Yaphe, a senior fellow at the National Defense University who'd worked for twenty years as a CIA analyst, said that Powell's description of the purported connection between the two "appeared to have been carefully drawn to imply more than it actually said." And intelligence officials quoted anonymously in the New York Times and the Washington Post revealed there was no solid confirmation of such a link. To date, no strong proof of an operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam has emerged. In fact, captured Al Qaeda leaders have told interrogators there was no partnership between bin Laden and Saddam. Their word, of course, is suspect. But is Powell's? In mid-January, he conceded, "I have not seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the [Saddam-Al Qaeda] connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did." Prudent to consider the possibility? That's not how Bush put it before the war.
Tenet did not address the missing link to Al Qaeda in his Georgetown speech, but in defending his analysts he said they had never concluded Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Instead, he said, they portrayed Saddam as a "brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests." Might, he said. Bush turned might into had. While Bush seemingly never publicly used the word "imminent," he did say before the war that Iraq was able to launch a biological or chemical weapons attack within forty-five minutes and to hand WMDs to terrorists "on any given day." He warned that "Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country," and the White House asserted that there was a "high risk" Iraq would use WMDs "to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so." What was the basis for such declarations? Not the intelligence in hand.
Before the war, many people in the United States and elsewhere--policy experts, past and present military officials, legislators and citizens--challenged Bush's depiction of Iraq as an immediate threat. It looks as if they, too, were right, as well as those who called for further and tougher inspections instead of war. Kay has acknowledged that the UN inspections process succeeded in "holding the [Iraqi WMD] program down and keeping it from breakout."
Kay's judgments are hardly final, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has argued. (He can hope.) And the WMD search continues in Iraq--albeit with fewer resources. But the early returns are not good for Bush. As his new intelligence commission reviews the prewar intelligence, its members should not ask, Why did everyone get it wrong? Instead, they should wonder, Why did some get it wrong, but not others? Kay has said the intelligence community owes the President an explanation. But Bush owes the public one. The rap cannot be pinned entirely on the intelligence crowd. Bush has to answer for the way he used the intelligence. Kay, for one, has urged the commission--which will not release its findings until months after Bush stands for re-election--to examine whether there was "an abuse of the [intelligence] by politicians." That is a polite way of asking if Bush and his aides turned misinformation into disinformation. The overall assessment assembled by the intelligence community was, it currently appears, seriously wrong. The notion that the CIA messed up has become widely accepted, and Bush and his allies may attempt to hide behind the cloak of the spies. But Bush & Co. took the dubious work produced by the intelligence agencies and made it even more wrong.[b] Can they--will they--get away with it? [/b]
|
|
|
| |
| The Bush Administration: Secrecy as Policy |
| 02.12.04 (3:03 pm) [edit] |
[b]The[i] irony of ironies [/i]occurs when listening to the corrupt Bush regime laughably (... [i]and hypocritically [/i]...) condemn other nations for[i] secrecy [/i]... [/b]They even have the audacity to claim that "secret governments" cannot be trusted as they are run by dangerous madmen ... [i]Ha ha ha ha ha [/i]... The Bushies aren't smart enough to have a[i] sense of the ironic [/i]... Or maybe, it is just that they think we're too stupid to catch the hilarious [i]irony [/i]of their neo-orwellian rhetoric ourselves ...
Refer to "[b]The Bush Administration: [i]Secrecy as Policy[/i][/b]" by [i]Charles Lewis[/i] on http://www.guerrillanews.com/... :
[b]George W. Bush’s presidency has been characterized by a [i]zeal for secrecy[/i], an unrelenting push to stem the free flow of information[/b].
One particularly notable example has been the Administration’s effort to undermine the [i]Freedom of Information Act[/i], the 1966 law that grants citizens access—although with some exceptions—to federal agency records. By statute, government FOIA officers may withhold records dealing with classified national security information, trade secrets, personnel or medical issues, and a handful of other matters—decisions that in each case are left to an official’s own discretion (although those denied the requested information may appeal). In October 1993, to better standardize the process and create more openness in government, Attorney General Janet Reno dispatched a memorandum revamping the way the Act would be administered; from now on, the memo directed, FOIA officers should “apply a presumption of disclosure.” To drive home the point, Reno decreed that, in the event of FOIA-related litigation, the Justice Department would no longer defend an agency’s withholding of information merely because there was a “substantial legal basis” for doing so. “Where an item of information might technically or arguably fall within an exemption,” she added, “it ought not to be withheld from a FOIA requester unless it need be.”
But eight years later, in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Reno’s successor renounced that presumption of disclosure. In a memo to the heads of federal departments and agencies, Attorney General John Ashcroft decreed that a well-informed citizenry may be vital to government oversight, but not at the expense of undermining national security. “Any discretionary decision by your agency to disclose information protected under the FOIA should be made only after full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests that could be implicated by disclosure of the information,” he wrote. And unlike Reno, whose policies engendered more government in the sunshine, Ashcroft promised legal cover for agencies coming down on the side of non-disclosure. “When you carefully consider FOIA requests and decide to withhold records, in whole or in part, you can be assured that the Department of Justice will defend your decisions unless they lack a sound legal basis or present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records,” his memo added. In other words, Justice would bow out of litigation only if its participation might subsequently imperil the government’s ability to withhold other information.
While 9/11 was the presumed catalyst for the revamped FOIA guidelines, the policy change was actually in keeping with Bush’s historical aversion to the release of government papers. In 1997, for example, Bush successfully championed legislation that allowed the governor of Texas to designate an in-state university or alternate institution, in lieu of the Texas State Library and Archives, as the repository for his or her papers. And he later exploited the law by ordering that his own gubernatorial papers be deposited in the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, at Texas A & M University, which is home to his father’s executive records.
At the time, the shipment of Bush’s documents received scant attention. But the relocation effort later generated consternation among reporters, historians, researchers, and others seeking access to the eighteen hundred boxes of not-yet-cataloged papers. The reason: because records at the presidential library are under the jurisdiction of the National Archives and Records Administration, which is a federal agency, there was confusion whether release of the younger Bush’s papers was bound by the federal [i]Freedom of Information Act [/i]or the[i] Texas Public Information Act[/i], which mandates a much speedier response time for requested records.
Bush’s attorney denied that the move reflected a desire to restrict public access to the papers. And in an interview with the Center, Chris LaPlante, the state archivist, also dismissed the conspiratorial claims of open-government activists: he and his colleagues, he said, knew that the governor’s papers were destined for an alternate repository, and they assumed that the Bush library staff were equipped to deal with the documents. But Bush’s action nonetheless imposed weeks-long, even months-long delays on the release of documents. And it left consumer advocacy organizations such as [i]Public Citizen [/i]grumbling that the departed Texas governor lacked the legal authority to give away state records or place them beyond the reach of the state’s open-records law. In May 2002, following protracted legal wrangling, Texas Attorney General John Cornyn agreed. He ruled that the disputed papers were indeed state property, and therefore subject to the Texas open-records law.
Meantime, the public at large was being saddled with a variety of new impediments to an open federal government. To wit:
On November 1, 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, not-so-aptly titled “[i]Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act[/i].” In truth, the executive order actually overrides the 1978 Presidential Records Act, the Watergate-inspired edict which stipulated that the papers of presidents and vice-presidents would be made available to the public twelve years after their leaving office. Under Bush’s plan, however, former presidents or their heirs may veto the release of their presidential papers, as may the sitting president—a decision that vested George W. Bush with the authority to block release of his father’s papers, for example, or even those of Bill Clinton. Bush’s order drew fervent bipartisan condemnation on Capitol Hill (although not enough to force reinstatement of the ’78 Act), and it particularly rankled librarians and historians. The comments of Steven Hensen, president of the [i]Society of American Archivists[/i], were typical. Writing in the [i]Washington Post[/i], he asked: “How can a democratic people have confidence in elected officials who hide the records of their actions from public view?”
Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Bush Administration encouraged federal agencies to purge a wide array of potentially sensitive data from their Web sites—a decree that, for a time, removed the entire online presence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and which ultimately resulted in hundreds of thousands of pages being deleted from sites maintained by the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Archives and Records Administration, and other federal entities. “It is no longer possible for families and communities to get data critical to protecting themselves—information such as pipeline maps (that show where they are and whether they have been inspected), airport safety data, environmental data, and even documents that are widely available on private sites today were removed from government sites and have not reappeared,” OMB Watch, which for two decades has been chronicling the activities of the Office of Management and Budget, noted in a paper released in October 2002.
On March 25, 2003, President Bush signed an order that postponed, by three years, the release of millions of twenty-five-year-old documents slated for automatic declassification the following month. What’s more, Executive Order 13292, which amended a Clinton Administration order, granted FOIA officers wider latitude to reclassify information that had already been declassified, and further eliminated a provision that instructed them not to classify information if there was “significant doubt” about the need to do so. While President Bush maintained that the order balanced national security with open government, some were not convinced. For example, the[i] Washington Post [/i]quoted Thomas Blanton, executive director of the nonprofit National Security Archive, as saying that the order sends “one more signal from on high to the bureaucracy to slow down, stall, withhold, stonewall.”
When the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press surveyed the post-September 11th landscape, the First Amendment watchdog concluded that the government had embarked on “an unprecedented path of secrecy” that stifled the press’ and the public’s right to know. Among the reporters ensnared by the government’s flight from the traditional culture of openness is John Solomon, deputy bureau chief of the Associated Press. Solomon, who works out of the Washington, D.C. bureau, was twice victimized. In one incident, a package sent by Federal Express to Solomon from another AP bureau was intercepted by the U.S. Customs Service and forwarded to the FBI, where its contents—an eight-year-old, unclassified Bureau lab report previously made public in a court case—were seized and withheld for seven months.
In a previous incident, the Justice Department subpoenaed Solomon’s home phone records in an attempt to unearth his confidential source for a wire service story. Solomon, who only learned about the subpoena months later, told the Center it’s his understanding that the traditional practice of subpoenaing reporters as an absolute last resort in a “leaks” investigation is no longer the department’s modus operandi. “I’m not quite sure it’s gotten the public attention it deserves,” Solomon told the Center. “I don’t think the profession has realized the importance of the change of standards that has occurred as a result of my case.”
[i]* Read what the Bush administration would prefer you not know [/i]in “[i]The Buying of the President 2004[/i]” by Charles Lewis and the[i] Center for Public Integrity[/i]. Watch Lewis speak about the buying of our democracy and the secrets of our government-for-sale at : http://www.connectlive.com/ev...
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's War Fraud: Too Easily Persuaded Into Unnecessary War ... |
| 02.12.04 (2:37 pm) [edit] |
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other." – [i]James Madison [/i]
"I learned nothing from war. War is not an activity for human beings; war is for criminals—rape, robbery and murder." – [i]Roman Podabedov (Russian anti-tank gunner)[/i]
"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government." – [i]Thomas Jefferson [/i]
[b]Our nation should not have invaded a sovereign country based upon a false pretext [/b](... [i]we were ruthlessly lied to: WMDs posing an imminent threat to our nation's security, turned out to be a hoax [/i]...) perpetrated by the treasonous Bush regime, who should be impeached ... Warfare should only be waged under dire circumstances that are clearly and honestly comprehended by the populace who are asked to give their lives ... Instead, the[i] ne'er-do-well [/i]and [i]cowardly drunkard [/i]Dubya and his[i] corrupt [/i]corporate cronies invaded Iraq in order to [i]swindle, plunder and loot [/i]the US Treasury and the Iraqi Oil reserves ...
The Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]deserves to be impeached for their [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]against over 539 U.S. Soldiers and 10,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians slaughtered mercilessly in order to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Lockheed Martin, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc. etc. etc.
Consider "[i][b]Too easily persuaded into an unnecessary war[/b][/i]" by [i]Bruce Ramsey [/i]on http://seattletimes.nwsource.... :
Why did we invade Iraq? One scene from "[i]The Price of Loyalty[/i]," Ron Suskind's look through the eyes of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, helps answer that. The book is, of course, from the point of view of a man who was fired. But he was a man with a reputation for telling unpleasant truths. Furthermore, the president he describes does look like the president we see on television.
O'Neill describes a meeting of the National Security Council, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and others. It was Jan. 30, 2001. Bush had been in office 10 days, and 9-11 was more than eight months off.
CIA Director George Tenet rolled out a photograph onto the big table. It was an aerial photo, enlarged and grainy, of a factory in Iraq. He said it might be making chemical or biological weapons.
"Here are the railroad tracks coming in," he said, pointing with a stick, "and here are the trucks lined up over here. They're bringing it in here and bringing it out there."
"You have to take a look at this," said Cheney, and they crowded around.
To O'Neill, who had recently retired as CEO of Alcoa Aluminum, it looked like just another industrial building. What was so suspicious about it? Trucks were coming in night and day, Tenet said.
That meant nothing. But Bush was already sold. "Actual plans were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it in an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war," the book says.
On my way to work, I sometimes see people with a banner, "BUSH LIED." There is not a hint of that in Suskind's book. Looking at the man, I think: No, he believes this.
Maybe I am being kind because I voted for him.
Apologists now say Bush was "misled" by bad intelligence. He says in his defense that others in the U.S. and British governments saw the same intelligence, and reached the same conclusions. The French and Germans didn't. The intelligence people, including Tenet, now say they never asserted such certainty.
A national commission will dig into the intelligence — and report after the election. Meanwhile, a thought from O'Neill: A president with a probing, restless mind, like Richard Nixon, would not have been so easily persuaded.
O'Neill worked for Nixon. Bush, he says, does not have that sharp and demanding an intellect. That is the conclusion of the book, and the best explanation, I think, of why America started an unnecessary war.
Bush had run as a candidate opposed to hegemonic war and the follow-on "nation-building." But he made the mistake of recruiting his father's men, who thought differently. By all appearances, he was sold on the war by the people around him.
In turn, he sold the Congress by asserting that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Its soldiers did not. We know that for a fact. For months, it has been suggested Saddam Hussein hid his best weapons, which is a very odd thing to do before the great battle of one's life. We have spent months looking, and have found Saddam in his spider hole, but not the "weapons of mass destruction."
It has been nearly a year. It's time for Bush's supporters to admit that there weren't any such weapons. Essentially, the president did this in the "Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert this past weekend.
That is a serious admission. It means America was led to war under false pretenses. It means that in the first instance of the new American doctrine of preemptive war, we preempted something that wasn't real.
From the Bush camp comes much blowing of smoke over this. Bush says Saddam could have developed a nuclear weapon and given it to a private group to set off in the United States. A lot of things can be imagined, but the world's mightiest power cannot go to war over an imagination. The justification for killing people has to be stronger than that. There need to be facts — facts that stand in your path, shout in your face and block all paths other than that of mechanized violence.
The president didn't have the facts. Some people said in his defense that he probably knew more than he was saying. They overestimated him.
[i]Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com [/i]
|
|
|
| |
| Politically More Like Herbert Hoover, Personally More Like Kenny-Boy (Enron) Lay? |
| 02.12.04 (12:58 pm) [edit] |
[b]Disastrous Dubya, the Deserter-[i]N-Liar-N[/i]- Thief [/b]is rightly compared to the [i]'head-in-the-sand' [/i]Herbert Hoover who let his corporate robber-barons rape America and thus created the unemployment crisis that resulted in the Great Depression from which Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved our nation (... [i]much to the disdain of the corporate rapists who were enjoying the high-life off the misery of most Americans [/i]...) ... But, personally the [i]slut[/i] Dubya is more like his good buddy, the liar & thief, Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay (... [i]except that Dubya doesn't have Kenny-boy's smarts [/i]...) who swindles, plunders and loots our nation for his own interests and that of his corporate [i]pimps[/i] ...
Also bear in mind that Dubya is a miserable failure who has spent his entire shabby life hiding behind Poppy Bush who has[i] cleaned-up [/i]all of his squalid messes ... Now, foolish Dubya bombastically plays the buffoon bully-boy while hiding behind armed-guards and the U.S. Military:--
Consider "[b]Dubya in 'Bama - 'God's [i]Gift to Women'[/i][/b]" by[i] James Ridgeway [/i]on http://www.villagevoice.com/i... :
[b]WASHINGTON, D.C.[/b] — In Alabama, where George W. Bush supposedly was slaving away on Winton "Red" Blount's 1972 U.S. Senate campaign in lieu of National Guard duty, he is remembered by a Blount son as a smartass "cuntsman" from Texas.
Bush Junior, as he was then called, used to come into Blount's campaign office in Montgomery, prop his feet up on a desk, and blab on about how much he'd drunk the night before, according to a detailed article by New Orleans freelance journalist Glynn Wilson on his Progressive Southerner blog (southerner.net/blog/awolbush.html).
Blount's Belles, a group of young Republican women and Montgomery debutantes who were helping out on the campaign, would fall into a swoon at the sight of young George. "We thought he was to die for," said one. But the Blue Haired Platoon, a group of older women campaigning for Blount, referred to Junior as "the Texas soufflé" because he was "all puffed up and full of hot air."
Blount was a Bush family friend, a successful contractor who had served as Nixon's postmaster general (best remembered for firing 33,000 employees), and a Nixon emissary to George Wallace. Wallace was shot in 1972 and subsequently dropped his independent campaign for the presidency, which must have taken a load off Nixon's mind. Watergate happened that year, and the GOP's takeover of the South—the party's "Southern strategy" featured a coded emphasis on race and an appeal to young white men—was just beginning. Old man Bush, Nixon's UN ambassador in 1972 and chair of the Republican National Committee in 1973, and Postmaster Blount used to go over to the White House to play tennis.
Junior, though, was no such heavy hitter. "He was an attractive person, kind of a 'frat boy,' " Blount's son Tom, an architect, recalled, according to Wilson's article, "George W. Bush's Lost Year in 1972 Alabama." "I didn't like him."
According to Wilson, Tom Blount "remembers thinking to himself" the following: "This guy thinks he is such a cuntsman, God's gift to women. He was all duded up in his cowboy boots. It was sort of annoying seeing all these people who thought they were hot shit just because they were from Texas."
When it came to political trickery, Bush Junior got in on the ground floor, receiving tutelage from the masters of the art, which reached its zenith in the person of Lee Atwater. As campaign coordinator, Bush Junior talked to the outlying county offices and doled out campaign materials, including smears against John Sparkman, the sitting Democratic senator, claiming that Sparkman was soft on race. The Blount people, according to Wilson, disseminated a doctored radio tape claiming that Sparkman wanted to send black and white kids around town so as to "mix" the schools. Blount billboards across the state proclaimed: "A vote for Red Blount is a vote against forced busing . . . against coddling criminals . . . against welfare freeloaders."
|
|
|
| |
| Greenspan Warns Congress Bush Deficit WILL BITE US NOW! |
| 02.12.04 (12:22 pm) [edit] |
[b]Greenspan warns Congress that the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's insane reckless record-level deficits WILL BITE US ...[/b]
Consider "[i][b]Mr. Greenspan Weighs In[/b | |
