[b]These are the words of Natalie Sortman -- wife of a U.S. infantryman and registered Republican -- [i]before [/i]seeing [i]Fahrenheit 9/11 [/i]in Fayetteville, North Carolina. [/b]The film played in the military town's one art house theater as nobody believed it'd turn a profit in a military town. But the little theater sold over 1,000 tickets in a weekend -- 75% to soldiers or military families, according to the theater.
Speculation over the film's effectiveness (and accuracy) has occupied the pundits, few of whom are standing outside theaters to talk to America's voters. Fortunately, [i]The Fayetteville Observer[/i] http://www.fayettevillenc.com... spoke to both viewers and the theater's owner who commented: "Almost all the crowds at the Cameo have applauded the film at the end, with some people giving standing ovations... Many have tears in their eyes as they leave the theater."
And Natalie Sortman? [i]After[/i] seeing the movie she commented, "[u]I'm disgusted. Disgusted[/u]." Then, after discussing the oil and corporate interests that lay behind the war and the fair treatment the film gave to U.S. soldiers, she spoke the words that put the fear of God into the Bush campaign: "[u]All this movie did was open my eyes a little more to what's really going on... I think this is definitely going to have an impact on the election. I'm glad I'm a voter[/u]." - [i]AlterNet.org[/i]
[b]A [i]brilliant insight [/i]into the current situation that the corrupt Bush regime has [i]stumbled, bumbled and fumbled [/i]us (and[i] unwillingly dragged [/i]the rest of the world) into ...[/b]
[b][u]Three Steps to Sanity[/u]
by Patrick J. Buchanan [/b]
June 28, the day in 2004 that the Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis and proconsul Paul Bremer hastily departed Baghdad, is a day freighted with historic significance.
On June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and led, five weeks later, to World War I.
On June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War I, and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster.
Thus, it is a good time to attempt to draw up an interim profit-and-loss statement of what President Bush has accomplished in what he calls the "War on Terror." Who is winning this war?
To answer that question, we must first ask and answer antecedent questions. What is the war about? What are we fighting for? Who, exactly, is the enemy in this war? What is he fighting for?
Since 9-11, the president's objectives have been to exact retribution for the massacre, overthrow the Taliban enablers of Osama, run al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan, remove Saddam, disarm Iraq and defend America. He has attained them all. Yet, 54 percent of Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake. The nation understands that something has gone wrong.
The nation is right. For what this war is really about is who shall rule in the Islamic world. Will it be the men who share our views and values? Or will it be True Believers who will purge that world of what they see as our odious and corrupt presence?
What our enemies seek in the great Sunni Triangle from Rabat to Chechnya to Mindanao is what the Iranian Revolution achieved: to be rid of the Americans and of rulers that they view as vile puppets of the United States, to purify their societies and to unite their world against the West.
If this is indeed the ultimate goal of the radical Islamists, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a strategic victory for the enemy.
Consider what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Ba'ath Party is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their allies may one day fill. The Arab world has been radicalized and supports the Iraqi resistance in its drive to defeat and expel the Americans.
The destabilization of the Saudi monarchy through terror has begun. Rulers in Arab countries have been forced to distance themselves from the Americans if they wish to retain the support of their people. Western tourists are staying away from the Middle East, Western investment is on hold, and Western workers have begun to depart Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
"There exists today a hatred of Americans never equaled in the region," Egyptian President Mubarak told Le Monde. "In the beginning, some people thought the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred toward Americans. After what happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it."
This longtime friend added, "American and Israeli interests are not safe, not only in our region but in other parts of the world, in Europe, in America, anywhere in the world."
The war on Iraq into which his neoconservative advisers prodded the president seems to have ignited the very "war of civilizations" between Islam and America that the president said he wanted to avoid.
Raised to believe in the innate goodness of America and the nobility of her purposes, President Bush finds it hard to believe the best recruiting tool al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents have is the presence on Iraqi soil of the U.S. soldiers he sent to "liberate" Iraq.
Of late, the president appears to have begun to understand that our presence is a primary cause of the war of resistance and that, when this phase ends, the real war, the civil war to decide which Iraqis rule in Iraq, begins. Will it be Iraqis who wish to belong to the modern world? Or Iraqis who wish to be part of the anti-American Islamic revolution?
War, Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of Arab peoples.
This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.
We Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are invited, we would be invited more often to come and help. - http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?a...
[b][i]Out[/i] with the Old Boss[es] (Saddam Hussein [i]and/or [/i]Bush-[i]n[/i]-Cheney) and [i]In[/i] with the New Boss[es] (Iyad Allawi [i]and/or [/i]Bush-[i]n[/i]-Cheney) ...[/b]
The “[i]new Iraq[/i]” looks a lot like the “[i]old Iraq[/i],” doesn’t it? Three more American soldiers killed today in Baghdad, and no doubt there are quite a few unused car bombs that had been rigged to disrupt the June 30 handover and that can now be redeployed more leisurely over the next few weeks.
Now the real bloodshed will begin.
Despite Allawi’s offer of amnesty to resistance fighters, it’s likely that the new “prime minister” will launch the kind of bloody crackdown that even U.S. forces could not have initiated. "Prime Minister Allawi, as head of a sovereign government, may decide he has to take tough measures to deal with a brutal cold-blooded killer," said President Bush yesterday, signaling that the new regime in Baghdad will start to look pretty brutal itself. That statement indicates that the White House will wash its hands of the coming bloodbath by Allawi and Co., making sure that the world gets the message that from now on civil war in Iraq is in Iraqi hands, and Iraqis are to blame. Says [i]The Washington Post[/i]:
[i]Allawi has promised to use his new authority to take more aggressive actions against insurgents. He said he would announce new security measures in the coming days. He and some of his cabinet members have suggested that a state of emergency may be declared in violent areas, allowing local authorities to impose curfews, ban public demonstrations, and take other steps to restore order[/i].
Of course, he and his entire government have big bull’s-eyes on their foreheads. Not a single one of them has any credibility with the Iraqi public at large, and certainly not with the resistance. An ad in [i]The New York Times[/i] today by MoveOn.org reminds us that in a recent poll Allawi finished 16 out of 17 potential Iraqi politicians, and that number 17 was the new Iraqi “president,” Ghazi Yawar. Perhaps the fact that Allawi is widely known to be on the CIA payroll has something to do with that.
In its editorial, “A Secretive Transfer in Iraq,” the[i] Times [/i]notes: “Nobody, including Bush administration officials, can seriously believe that Dr. Allawi and his cabinet are in any position to run Iraq and prepare it for democratic elections… He already seems tempted to look for shortcuts—like imposing martial law.” The[i] Times [/i]warns Allawi, vainly, in my opinion, “not to use force to impose a new dictatorial order.”
That dictatorial order, however, will continue to be backed up by 140,000 U.S. soldiers, apparently with more to come. Bush is stuck so deeply in the Iraqi tar baby that he might as well give up struggling to extricate himself before the election in November; he can’t do it. His approval rating, mostly thanks to Iraq, stands at 42 percent, heading down. - [i]TomPaine.com[/i], http://www.tompaine.com
Psst ... Here, take your country (but let's keep it quiet from the people) ... Jeez ...
[b]Dim-witted Bush & Fuck-witted Cheney decided to launch another "[i]gotcha[/i]'" moment (Bushy-boy likes to [i]smirk, smirk, smirk [/i]when he pulls a "[i]fast one[/i]"!) ... However, the Iraqi people were not involved in the sordid & squalid "quickie" ([i]not a blow-job[/i]) that was done in order to try to get the neo-con fascists [i]"off-the-hook"[/i] for their disastrous bloody fiasco that they have created in Iraq resulting in the deaths of over 850 US Soldiers & over 16,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians ... Not a dignified legacy for the ugly thugs in the corrupt Bush regime ...[/b]
The handover of 'sovereignty' to Iraq – a moment touted as "historic" – was marked by secrecy and haste more befitting a backroom deal. The ceremony itself was "hastily convened in secret" in a heavily secured room behind high walls. Within hours, CPA chief Paul Bremer hopped on a military plane, "leaving behind a country stunned by the sudden transfer of authority."
Nor did this event merit the typical White House photo op. There were no turkeys, aircraft carriers, or cheering soldiers. Instead, as [i]New York Times [/i]reports http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... :
... "In Istanbul, Mr. Bush, gathered with NATO heads of state at a table at the summit meeting, marked the transfer with a whispered comment and a handshake with Mr. Blair Looking at his watch to make sure that the transfer had occurred, Mr. Bush put his hand over his mouth to guard his remarks, leaned toward Mr. Blair and then reached out to shake hands." ...
A first step??? If "sovereignty" is [i]really[/i] handed-over ... However all of our US troops are still there (the U.S. still controls the OIL ... Bremer [i]flies out [/i]& Negroponte, the Human Rights Violater[i] flies in [/i]...) ...[i] Hmmm [/i]... But, wouldn't it have been nice if the Iraqi people would have been included in the so-called "[i]ceremony[/i]"??? ... Isn't that what "[i]democracy[/i]" is all about???
You might expect the UN correspondent for [i]The Nation [/i]to pen yet another indictment of George Bush's disastrous foreign policy and its manifold consequences for the world at large. But in his latest book, Ian Williams decided to take on George Bush himself, connecting the dots between the president's National Guard record during Vietnam to his present-day posturing as a man in uniform. [i]Deserter: George W. Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past [/i]draws on extensive research on the President's still mysterious military career to reveal the real man inside the flight suit.
[b]Why look at George Bush's military record now? We all know that the President has been less than forthcoming about his Vietnam-era service in the Texas Guard, but then much the same can be said of pretty much every aspect of his administration.[/b]
Since George W. Bush was a chickenhawk from the get-go, I thought his experiences in the National Guard -- or lack thereof -- would be instructive. This is a president who, after all, invokes sacrifice but never actually made one himself. What's more, there's probably only Fidel and Saddam who have worn military uniforms as often and with as much relish as George W.
And while individual reporters have done wonderful work on different parts of Bush's "Missing in Inaction" saga, on the whole, the media have dropped the ball. Besides, I wanted to put the whole issue in its context. There are national guardsmen who have been sent to brutal war and occupation, and have been charged with desertion for refusing to return. He went AWOL and was sent to Harvard Business School!
[b]You mention psychological motivations for Bush Junior's obsession with all things military in the book -- his desire to emulate his father in form, if not in substance. Could you elaborate on that theory?[/b]
Bush the Elder was a genuine war hero, who actually used his family influence to leave high school and become the Navy's youngest pilot. That was when the old East Coast establishment had a sense of noblesse oblige. With the transplantation of the Bush clan to Texas, any sense of obligation has clearly been replaced by a double sense of entitlement.
Dubya combines the toxic effects of both, the dynastic East Coast sense of entitlement and the Texas notion that you're rich and prosperous because God Loves You -- a Cowboy Capitalist cocktail that seems to dull noblesse oblige. The result is that Bush the Younger wanted to be a pilot like his father, but not to risk his life in the process -- which is why he wangled a place in the Texas Air National Guard and ticked the box saying "no" to overseas service.
[b]As you note in the book, thanks to Bush's posturing, many Americans actually believe that he served in the military. What are his -- or more accurately, Karl Rove's -- political motivations in trying so hard to create that impression?[/b]
The Republican appropriation of the military has a strange and tangled -- but quite recent -- history. The real point is the GOP's appropriation of the prestige of the military in order to target all those in the electorate who think that the military is somewhere there between apple pie and motherhood, and just as sacrosanct.
The reality, of course, is that those in the military are not necessarily Republican themselves. The few studies that exist out there show that while the officer corps tends to the GOP, junior ranks tend to be at least as Democratic as you'd expect from a body that is over 40 percent minority.
[b]You obviously think it is accurate to describe George Bush as deserter, but is what he did any different than say Dan Quayle or those who fled to Canada during Vietnam?[/b]
Those who went to Canada disagreed with the war. Quayle entered the Guard to dodge Vietnam, but served his term. His deal was six years in the Guard at home, against two in the field if drafted. That makes Quayle an evader, as Bush was, and equally hypocritical since they both supported the Vietnam war -- as long as it was not their plutocratic butts on the line.
Even by Quayle standards, Bush went a step further. He went missing in Alabama and defied orders to report for duty. Moreover, he missed his medical which as a pilot ensured that he was grounded. He was no different than those who let a shotgun off next to their ear so they would be deaf and medically unfit to serve.
Others at that time were sent off on active service for failing to attend to their National Guard duties. But they were not in the Texas Air National Guard and their fathers were not Congressmen.
[b]How do you think his faux war hero persona will play out now that he is going up against a real veteran? Do you think John Kerry will be able to expose him for what he is when the campaign gets truly underway?[/b]
The real problem here is the media. Journalists who often think of themselves as liberal feel it would be unbalanced to actually howl the rafters down every time the Bush Administration lets loose one of its shocking lies. It is why the GOP was able to attack paraplegic war veteran Senator Max Cleland for his lack of patriotism, and even Kerry about the degree of his wounds. This president has been given an easy ride -- by most of the media and most of the Democrats.
So yes, Kerry can expose Bush, if he goes at him with the same assiduity that they have gone after him, not least because he is on firmer ground. A lot of people are wondering where the ex-officer's killer instinct has disappeared, and hope it comes out soon! - http://www.alternet.org/stori...
[b]'Fahrenheit 9/11' did exceptionally well at the American Box Offices http://www.commondreams.org/h... on its opening day (Friday, 25.June.04) ... Roger Ebert gave Michael Moore's movie a big '[i]Thumbs-Up[/i]' http://www.suntimes.com/ebert... , citing that Bush "comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner" ... Finally,[i] the truth [/i]is being told to the American people ...[/b]
Today is the nationwide premiere of Michael Moore's new movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" – an analysis of how the president misled the country to war in Iraq and how the Bush-Saudi relationship has compromised America's national security. Even before the movie was public, the White House and its right-wing allies sought to smear both the film and Moore personally. Last month, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the movie "was so outrageously false it's not even worth comment," even though he had not yet seen the film. Meanwhile, the [i]Hollywood Reporter [/i]discovered that "big-time conservative donors" are funding a slew of anti-Moore activities. Following the White House's tactic of attacking critics' patriotism, the right-wing is also apparently bankrolling a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America." But despite conservatives' best efforts to discredit the film, the [i]NY Times [/i]notes, "central assertions of fact in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are supported by the public record." When the movie was aired at the Cannes Film Festival, it won top prize from a panel made up of mostly American and British judges.
[b]ACCURATE – NEW REPORT SAYS SAUDI FLIGHTS OCCURRED ON 9/13:[/b] Critics have accused Moore of wrongly claiming a group of Saudis were allowed to fly out of the United States on September 13, when much of American airspace was still closed. In fact, the movie accurately reports that 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave after September 13 – a fact well documented by the 9/11 Commission http://www.9-11commission.gov... . Additionally, new reports prove that Saudi flights did occur on 9/13, despite three years of Bush administration denials. As the [i]St. Petersburg Times [/i]reports, on September 13,"with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left" for Lexington, KY. The Saudis "then took another flight out of the country." Because the information is so new, it was not in the 9/11 Commission's preliminary report. Subsequently, however, the commission has asked the Tampa airport "for any information about 'a chartered flight with six people, including a Saudi prince, that flew from Tampa, Florida on or about Sept. 13, 2001.'"
[b]ACCURATE – BUSH WAS NOT FOCUSED ON TERRORISM:[/b] In the movie, Moore charges that President Bush did not pay enough attention to pre-9/11 warnings that al Qaeda was about to attack. Instead of focusing on terrorism, charges the movie, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation. That figure "came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by [i]The Washington Post[/i]. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/art... " Read American Progress's report http://www.americanprogress.o... "[i]Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and 9/11[/i]" for a comprehensive history of how the White House underfunded counter-terrorism and downgraded terrorism as a priority before 9/11. See American Progress's new "[i]Complete Saudi Primer[/i]" - http://www.americanprogress.o... a guide to everything you always wanted to know about the Bush-Saudi connection but were afraid to ask.
[b]DISNEY'S EFFORT TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE:[/b] At the direction of CEO Michael Eisner (who is a Bush campaign contributor http://www.opensecrets.org/in...(all+states)&txtZip=&txtE mploy=Disney&txtCand=Bush &txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2 000=Y&Order=N ), the Walt Disney Company prohibited its Miramax division from distributing "Fahrenheit 911." The company enjoys a cozy relationship with President Bush's brother, Jeb. As governor of Florida, Jeb Bush serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That fund owns approximately 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. Eisner told reporters he was refusing to distribute the film because Disney is "such a nonpartisan company, do not look for us to take sides."
[b]RIGHT-WING EFFORTS TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE:[/b] The campaign to silence Moore was taken up by the right-wing group with the ironic name Move America Forward. The group is headed by right-winger Howard Kaloogian, who also spearheaded the partisan campaign to quash a miniseries about Ronald Reagan and led the partisan fight to recall California Gov. Gray Davis. Kaloogian also "credits himself with helping elect President Bush because he was No. 4 of 25 elected officials who signed a letter asking him to run in January 1999." The group, without having seen the film, "launched a preemptive attack against" the movie "by requesting movie theaters across the country not to show the film."
[b]DAVID BOSSIE'S HYPOCRISY:[/b] The conservative front group "Citizens United," which is headed by Clinton attacker David Bossie, is trying to get the Federal Election Commission to intervene and censor advertising for "Fahrenheit 9/11". Just two years ago, however, it was Bossie who led the charge against FEC interventions. On 6/12/02, [i]The Hill [/i]newspaper reported him saying his group feels "FEC rules and regulations are abhorrent…they restrict the American people's ability to have an influence in politics."
[b]RATED R FOR REALITY:[/b] The Motion Picture Association of America saddled the movie with an R rating. Tom Ortenberg, president of the company releasing the film, "argued that 15- and 16-year-olds, who might end up fighting in the war on terrorism," should be able to see the film, which shows the true cost of war - gravely wounded Iraqi citizens and U.S. troops. Much of that cost has been hidden by the Bush administration, which has banned photos of flag-draped coffins coming home (even though the Bush campaign uses flag draped corpses at Ground Zero in its political commercials). President Bush has also refused to attend funerals of the fallen in Iraq. Moore argues that the movie needs to be seen by the widest possible audience to give the public a glimpse of the reality of war. All told, between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and June 16, 2004, 952 coalition forces were killed, including 836 U.S. military. For more on the hidden cost of war, read this summary http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/co... by the Institute for Policy Studies.
[b]Update:[/b] Hot off the press on Sunday afternoon, 27.June.04: "'Fahrenheit 9/11' tops North American box office" http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/n... : [i]"Fahrenheit 9/11," in which Moore takes aim at U.S. President George W. Bush, and the war in Iraq, opened at No. 1 after selling about $21.8 million worth of tickets in the United States and Canada since June 25.[/i]
[b]A [i]must-read [/i]assessment of "The Story Behind The Story":[/b] "Vice President Cheney Unhinged on Senate Floor ... But Why???" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
Federal Spending Under Bush Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years!!! (Graph)
[b]Where is the so-called "conservatism" of balanced budgets, reduction in federal spending and fiscal discipline??? [/b]"Down the[i] toilet[/i]" with reckless [i]corporate-take-all fraud [/i]perpetrated upon us by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] ruthless rape of America ... Instead, skyrocketing federal spending us into record-level deficits and massive debts [i]as far as the eye can see[/i], is underway in order for the sluttish Bush Crime Family and their corporate pimps (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.) to embezzle hard-working Americans and steal our treasury to enrich themselves ... Bush has created an [i]economic train-wreck in the making [/i]which will hit Middle Class, Working People and the Poor and Vulnerable very, very hard as [i]inflation increases [/i]and[i] low-skilled service McJobs replace higher-skilled jobs[/i] in the manufacturing and high technology sectors lost to nations (EU, China, India, etc.) who are investing in their most precious resource: [i][u]their people[/u][/i] ... Bush holds working people, a strong Middle Class, and science ([i]which made the U.S. powerful and properous in the 20th Century[/i]) in contempt as he transforms us into a 3rd world military [i]junta[/i] ...
[b]Federal Spending Under Bush Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years[/b]
Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, over $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the ongoing cost of the Iraq occupation. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...
As predicted by Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs, http://www.independent.org/ti... author of such key books as [i]Crisis and Leviathan [/i] http://www.independent.org/ti... and the new [i]Against Leviathan[/i], http://www.independent.org/ti... this explosion of government power would only have been possible in the aftermath of 9/11. Times of crisis present the easiest opportunities for politicians to take advantage of a frightened American public.
President George W. Bush is now on his way to becoming the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) to not veto a single bill. The result is a congress that has been completely unconstrained in satiating its appetite for pork and corporate welfare. In response, likely Democratic Party challenger John Kerry has maligned alleged spending cuts http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin... and called for even higher taxes [by reducing the tax cuts for the rich and corporate swindlers] and spending. [However, Kerry's proposed spending will help those in need and struggling in America, while Bush's spending "helps" the richest and most powerful Americans. The consequence is that we now have two parties competing to see which can grow government profligacy faster: the GOP's benefits corporations and the rich, and the Democratic Party's struggles to help the working people, the poor and those in need.]
From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending, George W. Bush has demonstrated that “limited government” is not part of his political vocabulary.
Bush's Domestic Lie: Economic Growth Not as Strong as Previously Believed ...
[b]The Commerce Department said the downward revision in the first-quarter GDP stemmed in part from an increase in imports. Because the GDP measures activity within the U.S. borders, the fact that U.S. consumers bought more overseas goods dented the growth rate somewhat, as did a downward revision in the cost of services to consumers.[/b]
U.S. government data cast twin clouds on the big-picture view of the economic recovery Friday, saying economic expansion in the first quarter wasn't as strong as earlier reported, while inflation was actually higher than believed.
The Commerce Department said gross domestic product (GDP) expanded at an annual rate of 3.9 percent during the first three months of the year, down from the 4.4 percent reported last month and down from the 4.1 percent rate of growth recorded in the last quarter of 2003.
The core personal consumption expenditure price index, meanwhile, which measures inflation on the consumer, rose 3.1 percent in the first quarter, up from earlier reports of 3 percent expansion.
[b]News Balanced Out [/b]
But the news was at least balanced out, if not completely countered by other data. The closely watched consumer confidence index from the University of Michigan http://www.umich.edu/ put consumer confidence for June at 95.6, up from 90.2 in May.
Within the report, the forward-looking expectations index was also up, rising to 88.5 in June from 81.6 in May. And sales of existing homes grew more than expected last month, rising 2.6 percent.
At least initially, the good news won out on Wall Street, where markets were higher across the board during the morning, although all indices were trading nearly flat by midday.
[b]Imported Revisions [/b]
The Commerce Department said the downward revision in the first-quarter GDP stemmed in part from an increase in imports.
Because the GDP measures activity within the U.S. borders, the fact that U.S. consumers bought more overseas goods dented the growth rate somewhat, as did a downward revision in the cost of services to consumers.
Commerce Department spokesperson Virginia Mannering told the [i]E-Commerce Times [/i]that the trend remains positive, with consecutive quarters of growth and increased activity across the economic landscape. The revision represents a decrease of about $14 billion worth of economic activity. "It's not enough to take away from the trend," Mannering said.
[b]Still Looking Up [/b]
Economists said the mixed reports should lead to a measured response at next week's greatly anticipated meeting of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee.
Economists are now widely expecting the Fed to raise the overnight rates just a quarter-point off their 46-year low of 1 percent, where it has been for a year.
Economy.com chief economist Mark Zandi said the lowered growth rates reflects the competition U.S. companies are feeling from overseas, with foreign companies taking a substantial slice of the new economic activity.
"The numbers say the economy is strong, but the growth isn't as hot as we thought," Zandi told the [i]E-Commerce Times.[/i]
Zandi also noted that the government's composite data for corporate profits was also higher in the quarter and that the main drivers of the economy -- consumer and government spending and investments by corporations aimed at beefing up inventories -- all remained strong.
The cooler-than-thought economic expansion might also help assuage fears of sharp interest rate hikes, he noted.
While $14 billion seems like a lot of economic activity to lose, the revision "does not change the overall picture of an economy that's growing at a healthy clip," Zandi added.
What must be noted of course, is that Americans are spending by borrowing on credit, driving up consumer debt at a level that other industrialized nations do not permit. Moreover, the new job creation is in low-paying service jobs, while jobs lost in manufacturing and high tech industries are not being replaced representing longer-term problems for the economy. Both factors (consumer debt and job loss in manufacturing and high tech industries) represent problems for the future stability and growth of the US economy.
Bush's Blood-thirsty Carnage in Iraq: Thursday, Bloody Thursday ...
[b]The mad dogs in the corrupt neo-con Bush regime want you to think that all is rosy in Iraq ... [/b]Their neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda, however belies the horrific facts on the ground ...
In the wake of a string of bloody attacks yesterday that left 105 people dead, U.S, troops are battered and weary. In Baqubah, the [i]Washington Post[/i] http://www.washingtonpost.com... reports, "more than 100 armed insurgents overran neighborhoods and occupied downtown buildings, using techniques that U.S. commanders said resembled those once employed by the Iraqi army. Well-equipped and highly coordinated, the insurgents demonstrated a new level of strength and tactical skill that alarmed the soldiers facing them."
[i]The Post [/i]story, however, doesn't mention the number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... in the crossfire, including second-grader Ali Talmasan Qassim who received a gunshot wound, when American soldiers shot at his car. Also injured in the incident were his mother, 6-month-old brother Abdullah and uncle Mohammed Qassim.
Cheney Utters 'F-Word' in Senate (... Bringing Back Dignity??? Ha ha ha!!! ...) ...
[b]Remember when the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]bragged about "bringing back" dignity and integrity to the White House??? ...[i] Ha ha ha[/i]!!![/b] ... Senators should have refused to be intimidated and should have called for Cheney to be removed forceably from the Congressional Chambers ... Come to think of it, "We the People" shouldn't be intimidated by these neo-con thugs & neo-con goons[i] either [/i]..
Cheney [i]isn't fit to serve [/i]in government ... but that's obvious to anyone with even an[i] iota of brain-matter [/i]...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[u][b]Cheney Utters 'F-Word' in Senate - Aides[/b][/u]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney blurted out the "F word" at Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont during a heated exchange on the Senate floor, congressional aides said on Thursday.
The incident occurred on Tuesday in a terse discussion between the two that touched on politics, religion and money, with Cheney finally telling Leahy to "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself," the aides said.
"I think he was just having a bad day," Leahy was quoted as saying on CNN, which first reported the incident. "I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor."
"That doesn't sound like language the vice president would use but there was a frank exchange of views," said Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems.
According to congressional aides, Leahy said hello to Cheney following the taking of the Senate group photo on the floor of the chamber.
Cheney, who is president of the Senate, then ripped into Leahy for the Democratic senator's criticism this week of alleged war profiteering in Iraq by Halliburton, the oil services company that Cheney once ran.
Leahy and other Democrats have called for congressional hearings into whether the vice president helped the firm win lucrative contracts in Iraq after the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein.
During their exchange, Leahy noted that Republicans had accused Democrats of being anti-Catholic because they are opposed to some of President Bush's anti-abortion judges, the aides said.
That's when Cheney unloaded with the "F-bomb," aides said.
According to Senate rules, profanity is not permitted in the chamber. But when the exchange occurred between Leahy and Cheney, the Senate was not in session so there was technically no foul. - http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
DOES THIS SEEM STRANGE TO YOU, TOO??? RESPONSE FROM ROCKY ...
[b]Today another Tblogger http://brogonzo.tblog.com who is pro-Bush wrote a blog accusing WinstonSmith, CheckItOut, SpyMaster, PatriotActs and others of being the same person ... Apparently if your [i]banners are similar [/i]and you are [i]anti-Bush[/i], you [i]must [/i]be the [i]same person [/i]according to this Tblogger's twisted and convoluted logic ...[/b]
I cannot vouch for whether any one person amongst these has multiple Tblog identities ... Moreover, I would pose the following question: [i][b]So What???[/b][/i]
In order to find out [b]Tblog's[/b] position on this issue however, I contacted [b]Rocky[/b] today and received the following information:
[u][b]Message sent by SamAdams to Rocky[/b][/u]:
"Dear Rocky,
Is there a problem from Tblog's standpoint of one person using more than one Tblog name/account? I would like to know this and be able to post your response on my Blog because of questions that have arisen from other Tbloggers.
Thank you.
Take care,
SamAdams :) "
------------last message------------
[u][b]Response from Rocky to SamAdams[/b][/u]:
"This is perfectly fine. A lot of people do it."
[b]... So according to Rocky, "[i]a lot [/i]of people do it" ... However, making [i]false accusations [/i]against others [i]without knowing the facts [/i]is [i]wrong [/i]and these pro-Bush neo-cons who [i]tediously lecture us all [/i]on morality and right-and-wrong, should be careful before attacking others (with bizarre & unsubstantiated innuendos) because they are unable to argue the issues ... They may find themselves[i] red-faced [/i]when they find their best Tblog buddies do the same thing that Rocky said is "[i]perfectly fine[/i]" [i]anyway[/i] ... Ha ha ha!!![/b]
...
[b]P.S. Now it just[i] must be the case [/i]that all Tblog liberals[i] must be the same [/i]person:[/b] WinstonSmith - SamAdams - CarteBlanche - CheckItOut - DamnedYankee - DianneMaire - DrForbush - IconoclasticDeer - Jimmytherighteous - LittleMrMahatma - MusicalHair - PatriotActs - Question - RCarter8766 - SpyMaster - UsefulIdiot - WhyNot - etc. ... [i][b]Am I missing anybody??? [/b][/i]
[i]Being Pro-American Has Become Hazardous to the Political Health of European Leaders[/i][/b]
At the time of his inauguration, few would have suspected that George W. Bush was a president who would reshape the political map of Europe. It was said that he did not possess a valid U.S. passport at the time of his election and his aides were able to identify for the [i]New York Times [/i]only one instance that he had stepped foot on the continent, a so called a "stopover" in Italy. But the politics of Europe appear to be shifting dramatically and the changes are closely linked to the politics and personality of the 43rd president.
The first stirrings of real change began during a German political debate in the late summer of 2002. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was trailing badly in upcoming parliamentary elections and the replacement of his government by a coalition of conservative parties was deemed a near certainty. But Schroeder had a trick up his sleeve that the pundits had not counted on. He used the debate to make a commitment that German soldiers would not be used for the Bush invasion of Iraq. Conservative leader Edmund Stoiber attempted to defend German participation as an option but soon the tide of German public opinion forced him to back off his commitment. Stoiber lost his wide lead and Schroeder retained the chancellorship.
Political operatives in both coalition camps were quite clear when I visited with them following the election that Schroeder's remarkably effective maneuver resonated with voters not just because of misgivings about the U.S. Iraq policy, but because it struck a deep vein of sentiment about America's recent conduct on a whole range of issues from perceived "unilateralism" on global warming to anti-missile defense. "They appear to go out of their way to demonstrate that they do not believe we are not entitled to an opinion on such issues much less an opportunity to negotiate a common allied position," one young Christian Democrat operative told me.
In Spanish elections this spring, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was hit by a political buzz saw even more surprising than the one which reversed the fortunes of Edmund Stoiber. Aznar's "Partido Popular" led in all pre-election polls and was widely expected to retain power. While much attention has been devoted to the spectacular attack on the Madrid transit system two days before the election and the government's handling of that crisis as an explanation for the surprise outcome, it is also clear that the pollsters had underestimated the intensity of opposition to Aznar and his ties to Washington. A remarkable 90 percent of Spanish voters opposed the war in Iraq and the deployment of Spanish troops. Demonstrations against the war were bigger and more intense in Spain than anywhere else in Europe. Periodic attacks on American tourists and students and the anti-war boycott American-brand restaurants was more effective in Spain than in any other country in Europe.
Despite the fact that British Labor Party holds a 163-vote margin in the House of Commons, Tony Blair has been walking on political egg shells for some time. Labor lost a bi-election in one of the strongest Labor districts in England last September. Last Thursday, Labor received only 25 percent of the vote in nationwide local elections - its worst performance in modern history. Blair's party finished not only behind the Tories but also behind Britain's Liberal Democratic Party as well. The Liberals launched a poster campaign in the final days attacking both the Iraq war and Blair's personal relationship with President Bush. Labor's leader in the House of Commons, Peter Hain, said if the local results were "even partially replicated" at the national level they would spell electoral disaster next spring.
Other leaders in Europe are handling their "Bush baggage" by realigning their coalitions and their rhetoric. Polish President Kwasniewski told French reporters this spring, "Naturally I also feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction." A Polish political commentator remarked, "Poland so far lacked a necessary balance before the [European Union] entry. It was too pro-American. Now is the time to have better European co-operation."
Opinion polls also tell the story. The[i] Pew Charitable Trust[/i] did a series of polls across Europe and around the world in early May—a few weeks before the conditions at Abu Ghraib prison became global headlines. These figures can be compared to early Pew polls, for instance the polls taken in 1999 and 2000 before the Bush inauguration. In Germany, voters with a positive view of the United States dropped from 78 percent to 25 percent; in Spain from 50 percent to 14 percent; in France from 62 percent to 31 percent; in Italy from 76 percent to 34 percent; in Turkey from 52 percent to 12 percent. Even in what Secretary Rumsfeld likes to refer to as the New Europe the[i] Pew [/i]polling found serious erosion. A favorable view of the United States among Polish voters dropped from 86 percent to 50 percent.
The unfolding drama in the Persian Gulf has implications well beyond the borders of Iraq and the front line states. Iraq and an array of other administration policies are impacting on elections around the globe and not only bringing new governments into office but changing the policies and strategic alignments of those that remain. American interests in areas not directly connected to Iraq have now been drawn into the net.
One example is at the core of the U.S. relations with the continent, the French attempt to create a European military force outside the NATO framework. Less than 18 months ago, this plan was little more than a French pipe dream. But as the U.S. made final plans for an Iraq invasion and personal relations between Chancellor Schroeder and President Bush continued to deteriorate Germany reversed its prior opposition and agreed to meet with France, Belgium and Luxembourg to discuss creation of such a force. It is clear that the new Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, will view such a force with far less hostility than did his predecessor and that Tony Blair (and his successor) will be far more isolated in arguing the American position within the European community.
The redrawing of the political map of Europe clearly demonstrates that when the cost of our currently policies are totaled the tally sheet will probably need to include events taking place thousand of miles outside of Iraq's borders.
[b]Aside:[/b] Of course, it is getting pretty hard to be a patriotic pro-American[i] here at home [/i]too, if one opposes Bush-- for one is censored, punished, slandered, libelled, maligned and destroyed by the corrupt neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc[i]. junta [/i]and their mendacious attack machine of mad dogs in the corporate-owned right-wing media ...
[b]The opening salvos in the battle to discredit Michael Moore's [i]Fahrenheit 9/11 [/i]range thus far from the tediously predictable to the boring-[i]n[/i]-unsurpris ing.[/b]
Christopher Hitchens's snore-a-thon is the bilious screed you'd expect from a man who grew "bored" with his old "comrades" at the[i] Nation [/i]and decided, clearly without the aid of a 12-step program, to dabble in Right wing politics for a spell. Or maybe from a man fishing for a lawsuit?
Among his laughable criticisms: He refers to Moore's inclusion of the full 7 minutes of Bush's inaction upon being told that a plane rammed into the World Trade Center, with this leap into the ether:
[i]Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work... But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say -- that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup[/i].
The intellectual Hitchens can't manage to conjure a scenario wherein Bush excuses himself from reading to children to take action without spitting and adjusting his crotch. My god, what's the world coming to when a president can neither sit on his hands nor make macho overtures followed by a series of misguided wars?
More interesting, and perhaps more damaging as it may actually be mistaken for journalism, is Michael Isikoff's "investigative" report in the June 28 issue of [i]Newsweek[/i] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5... .
He wrote and has repeated on TV that[i] F-9/11 [/i]falsely claims that several bin Ladens were flown out of the U.S. without being interviewed and while U.S. airspace was still shut down. Writer Craig Unger, who appears in the film as an expert, has already written a detailed but remarkably restrained response http://www.michaelmoore.com/m... to Isikoff's story in which he flatly refutes the reporter's claims: "Unfortunately for Isikoff, I make no such statement in the movie."
Unger goes on to recount the conversation he had with Isikoff -- before he wrote the[i] Newsweek [/i]story -- to illustrate how he deliberately omitted important information which he clearly had access to. For example, Unger stated that interviews were inadequate and not, as Isikoff claims, nonexistent. Then there's the[i] St. Petersburg Times [/i]report that a flight carrying Saudis left Tampa International on Sept. 13 while airspace was still closed: "Isikoff knew all this. I told him. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight and told him how to get in touch with them."
Expect more attacks -- they're as predictable as a Big Mac. But join MoveOn.org's campaign http://www.moveon.org/pac/new... to see the movie to make it popular and lucrative -- which, after all, is how many Americans and news outlets will determine whether the movie is legit or not.
[b]I can [i]hardly wait [/i]to see it ... The hypocritical GOP and crooked Bushies are in such a[i] tizzy [/i]over having their crimes uncovered that it is bound to be very, very refreshing from the neo-con, neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda that the corporate-owned toadies in the media are [i]spoon-feeding us [/i]day-in-and-day-out ...[/b]
[b]Beware America:-- [/b]The cabal currently in control of this country will risk everything to stay in power this coming fall. Put this away in the back of your mind and remember it well should any of the predictions in this article actually occur before the elections.
There is entirely too much money invested right now in these wars and events for the administration to allow it all to end. Make no doubt about it. Here is the problem for the Neocons right now, they didn’t foresee being this far along in the game and actually being behind Kerry. With each passing day, another lie is exposed and the administration is forced to double up their lies and rhetoric to try and assuage the populace and their power base.
Years ago we heard about how badly Bill Clinton parsed the English language with the actual meaning of the word “is”. Now what we see from Bush, is a far more ridiculous parsing, about a far more serious matter. To listen to the White House try to spin the 9-11 commission’s findings as being consistent with their positions of there being a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq is painful at best. The statement from the commission is as follows:
"[i]We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States[/i]," it said. And there appears to have been [u]no[/u] “[i]collaborative relationship[/i]" between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Contrast this with the statements made by this administration over the past three years:
"[i]Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases[/i]." - Bush in October 2002.
"[i]Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda[/i]." - January 2003 State of the Union address.
"[i]Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training[/i]." - Bush in February 2003.
"[i]sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network[/i]." – Powell in his U.N. speech prior to the Iraq War.
"[i]We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda[/i]." – Bush in May 2003.
[i]Stated that the Iraqis were "providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization[/i]." - Cheney in September 2003.
"[i]Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons[/i]." - Cheney in October 2003.
What we have is a clear-cut opposition in statements. All of the statements made by this administration regarding the “connection” are simply unproven. They are in direct opposition to the conclusions reached by the commission. Any clear-thinking individual realizes this. However, after this, we see the following statements:
[i]Cheney said Saddam "had long established ties with Al Qaeda." [/i]- June 14, 2004.
[i]Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." [/i]- June 17, 2004.
What? Then Cheney smirkingly refers to the possibility of him having more information than the commission had, even though he testified before that commission. They then refer to the fact that Bin-Laden did in fact contact Iraq in the 90’s, and refer to that as confirmation to a connection, or a relationship. Never mind that Iraq never even responded to those overtures. If I sent a request to Sandra Bullock to get together and she never responded, I would be hard pressed to call that a relationship, let alone a connection, yet that is how desperate this administration has become.
It is this desperation that we all need to be very scared of. Mark these words, one of two scenarios may very well play out between now and Election Day. One, Osama Bin-Hiding will be caught, and Bush the conquering hero will be championed as justified in all of his actions. Of course, this has been my prediction for years; that Bin Laden has been in fact either cooperating or captured for some time and the Neocons are simply waiting for the right moment before the election to present him to the American people. Never mind that even if he was caught that doesn’t excuse the war profiteering, Valerie Plame, HMO’s being bought off, the environment being gutted, or any of the other problems this administration is directly responsible for. Just keep this article in mind if indeed Bin Laden is caught before the election and ask yourself one credible question. When was he really caught? Once this administration has been caught in so many lies, what is one more?
The second lie to be wary of, is another attack on American soil. I don’t mean to be doomsayer, but you cannot discount how helpful the last one was to the cause of the Neocons. The 9-11 attacks allowed Bush to essentially declare Martial Law, pass the Patriot Act, and move forward with two wars, which have now been proven to have had nothing to do with 9-11. If Bush is losing badly before the election, what better way of rallying the people than with a heinous act that everyone can rally around him over? If this does occur, remember this article well and ask yourself two credible questions. Who benefits from the attack and why did it happen when it did.
We all are afraid when we see these lies being exposed. When we see the truth about the yellowcake in the Niger, the alleged sarin, mustard gas and other weapons that didn’t exist, connections between Saddam and Bin Laden which do not exist, the outing of a CIA agent as retaliation, the gutting of our civil liberties and all of the other horrific lies being spun by this administration we should be afraid. Only one thing scares me more. If this administration does not fear lying to this extent, I am much more afraid of the lies yet to come. - http://www.whatreallyhappened...
"[i]With the Saddam-Al Qaeda link debunked, the administration and its spinmeisters are reduced to playing semantic tricks to justify their bait-and-switch operation[/i]."
[b]Why hasn't Congress commenced[i] impeachment hearings[/i] to oust Bush & Cheney (and called for the firing of Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of that band of neo-con thugs & neo-fascist goons)??? [/b]Quite simply: Because the corrupt GOP-controlled Congress is comprised of traitors who care [i]nothing[/i] about our Republic and are [i]in the pockets [/i]of corporations with a vested interest to retain their Useful Idiot [i]Puppet[/i] Bush & Creep-[i]n[/i]-Henchman Cheney in order to transform the USA into a 3rd world military[i] junta [/i]where the rest of us serve as their neo-slaves (i.e. [i]cannon-fodder [/i]for war & neo-serfs to [i]bear[/i] the [i]back-breaking burden [/i]while these ugly top-dogs & gluttonous fat-cats live obscenely lavish life-styles) ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," reports the staff of the bipartisan 9/11 commission in demolishing one of the Bush administration's main arguments for invading Iraq. Now the administration and its spinmeisters are reduced to playing cheap semantic tricks to justify one of history's great bait-and-switch operations, arguing that they never said explicitly that Iraq was collaborating with Al Qaeda to harm the U.S.
The administration was perfectly happy when more than four out of five Americans polled, as we went to war, said that they believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. We are now to believe that the dozens of prominent references by President Bush and his top officials to "linkages" between Al Qaeda and Iraq were all taken out of context by a confused public.
For example, the administration is now saying that when Bush announced on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln that the defeated Hussein was "an ally of Al Qaeda," he didn't mean they actually helped each other. When Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Al Qaeda was operating inside Iraq, he apparently assumed people knew that he was referring to an affiliate called Ansar al Islam that was operating in the northern "no-fly" zone patrolled by the United States and outside Hussein's control.
And when Vice President Dick Cheney said on "Meet the Press" that by attacking Iraq "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," he was only helpfully pointing out that Iraq is in the Middle East too.
Yeah, right. The reality is that Bush and company have turned the language of lying into a fine art, always leaving themselves a shred of deniability in case the truth catches up. For example, Cheney has repeatedly cited as a smoking gun an always shaky report about 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta possibly meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague only months before the attacks, telling the nation that this sole claim to direct evidence linking Iraq with 9/11 had "been pretty well confirmed."
The 9/11 commission staff, however, begs to differ, saying Atta was in Florida: "We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available -- including investigations by Czech and U.S. authorities, plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred."
The fact is that while the administration has been doing its utmost since 9/11 to convince us that Iraq is "the central front" in the war on terror, our security goals have been terribly compromised by expending our political, military and moral capital on the wrong enemy. As the 9/11 commission interim report makes clear, Osama bin Laden's allies before 9/11 were Afghanistan and the only two countries that recognized its Taliban regime: our "allies" Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In no meaningful sense were the religious fanatics in Afghanistan and the secular dictator of Iraq allies.
Indeed, what the staff report says is, "Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan." Later, in 1994, Bin Laden made overtures to an Iraqi intelligence officer requesting "space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."
"Never responded" does not a relationship make. Yet Bush, not one to let the facts get in the way, said last week, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
It's the Big Lie technique -- never flinch in the face of truth. That's why Bush will never admit that he got it wrong when he told the nation on the eve of going to war: "Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
There's a saying that "A lie can get halfway around the world before truth gets its pants on." Well, thanks to the many brave Americans who pushed so strenuously, against the wishes of this administration, for a legitimate investigation of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the truth has its pants on now and maybe can finally enlighten the 40 percent of Americans who still believe that Iraq played a role in the attacks. - http://www.alternet.org/waron...
[b]Talk about consensus:[/b] it's no small feat to get [i][b]450 academics [/b][/i]to agree on anything, let alone sign their names to it. But that's exactly what's happened. Led by professors from Harvard Law School, more than 450 scholars in law, international relations and public policy have signed a letter calling for Congress to assess the executive branch's accountability—and, if appropriate, proceed with [i][b]removal or impeachment [/b][/i]of top officials. "We write to register our objection to the[i][b] systematic violation of human rights [/b][/i]practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq during recent months," the letter reads. The signatories represent 110 institutions in 40 different states.
[b]When are Americans going to wake-up to the hard, cold and unpleasant [i]reality [/i]that we've been ruthlessly duped, swindled and neo-con conned by the liars, scam-artists & fraudsters: the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] who has embezzled billions in dollars ([i]funnelled into their own bulging pockets and that of their corporate campaign contributors: Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc[/i].) from US taxpayers and the Iraqi people??? ...[/b]
Here is the kind of news that gets buried in the back page of our newspapers: the UN-mandated auditors have sharply criticized the U.S. for its handling of Iraq's oil revenues. This[i] Financial Times [/i]article http://news.ft.com/servlet/Co... details an interim report issued by KPMG, which was set up by the Security Council last May to oversee coalition spending from the development fund which contains oil revenues, Iraq's frozen assets and funds from the UN's oil-for-food program. KPMG auditors claim that the $11.3 billion of the $20.2 billion in funds spent since the U.S. took control have not been accounted for adequately. The bookkeeping is shoddy and "open to fraudulent acts." Moreover, they also claim to have "encountered resistance from CPA staff" in their efforts to conduct the audit.
[b]President Bush is a liar and cannot be trusted ... [/b]Bush told the American people that he invaded Iraq (firstly, to find phony WMDs... and when that didn't work...) because Al Qaeda was "[i]connected[/i] [[i]sic[/i]]" to Iraq ... This is the "Big Lie" because indeed Iraq[i] posed no threat [/i]to the USA and was in no way involved with 9/11, Osama bin Laden and/or their so-called "War on Terror" ... The neo-cons in the corrupt Bush regime should be[i] impeached and fired [/i]and sent to the International Court at the Hague to be tried for Crimes Against Humanity ...
[b]The President wants to link Al Qaeda and Iraq, but the knot keeps slipping[/b]
Almost every week or so, the American predicament that is Iraq seems to expand and, in expanding, to consume our government. It has grown like kudzu out of the methods President Bush used to win congressional and public approval for the invasion of Iraq. The core issue is: Did he mislead the nation into a needless war?
This past week, the White House erupted over some new staff reports from the bipartisan commission that President Bush had grudgingly named to look into the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and into how those bloody events, which took nearly 3,000 lives in New York and Washington, led to the Iraqi war. These latest staff reports said that while there had been contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, these meetings "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." The commission staff said further it had found evidence that the secular Iraqi dictatorship had rebuffed the Islamist terrorists' requests for assistance.
The staff reports are interim documents. The 9-11 Commission's formal conclusions will come in its final report later in the summer. Given the intensity of this controversy, it would not be surprising that to win unanimity from the members, some interim findings will be rephrased and otherwise amended.
These latest interim reports, in contrast to their findings on Iraq, said it may have been Iraq's neighbor and adversary, Iran, that had a collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda. The staff cited "strong but indirect evidence" of possible Iranian collusion in Al Qaeda's 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American servicemen and wounded hundreds of other people. (United Press International reported that the commission chairman, Thomas Kean, a Republican named by President Bush, said there was more evidence of Al Qaeda contacts with Pakistan and Iran than with Iraq.)
Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney reacted with heat, directing most of their vitriol at the press for playing up the disparities between the commission's findings and the administration's much stronger contentions about Iraqi-Al Qaeda links.
The president told reporters, "This administration never said that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda."
Bush added, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Cheney, the administration's leading war hawk, has been the most vociferous promulgator of the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, touting it repeatedly in speeches and interviews on national television. He went on television after the latest 9-11 Commission reports, saying, "There clearly was a relationship. . . . The evidence is overwhelming." He called the press "irresponsible" for suggesting a disparity between the White House position and the commission's findings.
Asked by a TV interviewer if he was privy to information about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda that the 9-11 Commission did not have, Cheney replied, "Probably." This led the heads of the commission to say to Cheney politely, through the press, that it would be nice if the vice president would come forward with any new information he has.
Chairman Kean, a former New Jersey governor, said he was surprised by Cheney's remark and would be "very disappointed" if the White House had held back information about Al Qaeda. His vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman admired for his foreign affairs expertise, said, "It sounds like the White House has evidence that we didn't have. I would like to see the evidence that Mr. Cheney is talking about." As of this writing, there's been no indication that Cheney has sent the commission new information.
This gnawing issue of whether the White House exaggerated and/or lied about intelligence data in order to pursue war against Iraq has clearly become a factor in the November elections, as Bush seeks a second term. At the heart of the debate is whether the president broke faith with the American people and therefore lost claim to their trust. The administration's credibility problems on this and other Iraq war issues could affect not only the election results but the way this presidency will be remembered.
A little history is needed here. The White House drumbeat about Iraq began within two months of the 9-11 tragedy. Cheney was the point man.
In December 2001, Cheney said that prior to the September attacks, a meeting had taken place in Prague between 9-11 terrorist Mohammed Atta and a top Iraqi intelligence officer. The 9-11 Commission said it didn't believe the meeting had happened. The staff reports cited intelligence showing that Atta was in Florida at the time.
Last September, on television, Cheney called Iraq "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11." And the president, only last month, called Iraq "an ally of Al Qaeda." No, technically they never used the specific words that Saddam Hussein had played a "direct role" in the 9-11 attacks, but they managed to con a slew of Americans into believing that he had. Opinion surveys before and after the war showed that more than half of America believed Saddam Hussein "was personally involved." As recently as last month, with White House credibility having been pummeled by a steady stream of damaging revelations, the believers were still at about 40 percent.
Further, when they were rallying support for the war in 2002 and early 2003, the president and his key aides flatly said they had hard intelligence based on original documents that showed Iraq had tried to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from Niger to make nuclear weapons. The documents turned out to be obvious forgeries. The Bush team, offering no apology to the public, simply stopped telling this yarn.
As its strongest justification for going to war, the White House claimed that Hussein had large, hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that threatened the Middle East and, if passed to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, placed the security of the United States and other democracies in jeopardy as well. So far, more than a year into the American occupation, no such stockpiles have been found.
To put it succinctly, very little of what the White House told Congress to persuade it to pass the war resolution has turned out to be true or come to pass. Poor planning by the civilian chiefs at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his two top aides, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, has contributed to needless casualties. Washington didn't have a contingency plan for a serious insurgency after cities were taken and "major combat" was over. U.S. occupation casualties continue to rise even as newly trained Iraqi forces begin taking over security duties. The prisoner torture scandal at the Abu Ghraib jail has also stained the Defense Department and the CIA.
Aside from acknowledging the yellowcake debacle and passing the buck on the mystery WMD by saying it received faulty intelligence from the CIA, the White House has sealed itself tight, admitting to no misstatements or exaggerations in the selling of the war.
In my research about the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda link, I came across a document I'd never seen or heard about before, though someone in the vast news machine must have referred to it prior to this. It's not a closely held document—in fact, it's in the public record—and I would like to offer it as a concluding piece of evidence in the debate.
On March 21, 2003, the day after the war began, President Bush sent a letter to both houses of Congress laying out the legal backing and underpinning for his decision to go to war. In the letter's second paragraph, Bush wrote: "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Read his lips. He keeps swearing he never claimed a direct link, but here it is, as the saying goes, in black and white. It is very difficult to think of any interpretation of the above sentence other than that the president of the United States was declaring that Iraq was one of the "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Still, this debate is too primal to be shut down by the exposure of a single quote. Presidents have lied before. The screaming match will continue. The outcome will be decided only on Election Day in November, when the people will say whether this president's conduct can be tolerated. - http://www.villagevoice.com/i...
Bush's Neo-Con Lunacy:-- Crazy Like A Wolfowitz ...
[b]Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is scheduled to testify this week before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and he should have some tough questions to answer.[/b] With the June 30 transition to the new Iraqi government less than 10 days away, reports suggest the security situation is getting worse. Attacks against Iraqis working with the U.S. occupation authorities "seem increasingly frequent and audacious," and the New York Times argues "without a turnaround in the security situation, significant progress toward a self-governing, let alone democratic, Iraq is unlikely." Nevertheless, the Bush administration still lacks a clear strategy for progress in Iraq. The hearings this week provide Congress with an opportunity to question Wolfowitz on his previous statements and predictions about post-war Iraq, as well as the path forward from here. The following are some of the outstanding questions Wolfowitz should answer. (Click here http://www.americanprogress.o... for the full list of questions we've compiled for Secretary Wolfowitz.)
[b]QUESTION FOR WOLFOWITZ - TROOP LEVELS:[/b] Does Wolfowitz still believe Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki's estimates were "wildly off the mark?" In the march to war, Wolfowitz publicly rebuked Shinseki for his estimate that "several hundred thousand troops" would be necessary to provide security in post-war Iraq. At the time, Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki's estimate as "wildly off the mark" and said "the notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." There are now 138,000 American troops deployed in Iraq, including 20,000 soldiers who have had their tours extended – and many believe this is still not enough. Former Army Secretary Thomas White admitted as early as last summer the Pentagon's civilian leadership had "underestimated the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq," and said, "the facts bear out that [Shinseki] was pretty accurate in his estimate."
[b]QUESTION FOR WOLFOWITZ - IRAQI SECURITY:[/b] Will Wolfowitz specify when Iraqi security forces will be ready to take over? On June 9, Wolfowitz suggested that "over the next few months," coalition forces would "prepare Iraqi security forces to assume greater responsibilities from coalition forces -- allowing Iraqis to take local control of the cities." One day later, the man in charge of armed forces training, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, told reporters, "It hasn't gone well. We've had almost one year of no progress." The Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA) goal of training a 40,000 man Iraqi army has fallen dismally short – as of May 2004, they had trained only 2,808 soldiers. Last week, Wolfowitz admitted "Iraqi security forces are not ready to assume their job" (Click here http://www.americanprogress.o...%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/bremert odo.pdf for a look at other problems CPA Administrator Paul Bremer must deal with in the run-up to the transition).
[b]QUESTION FOR WOLFOWITZ - FALLUJAH:[/b] Does Wolfowitz think it was a mistake to abdicate responsibility for the security in Fallujah to unprepared Iraqi security forces? On April 26, 2004, Wolfowitz told the House Armed Services Committee, "Fallujah is unquestionably the hardest place in the country, there is no Iraqi force that can handle Fallujah today, we know that." The United States turned Fallujah over to the Iraqis just days later, and today "insurgents still operate openly in parts of the city, even enforcing their own harsh brand of Islamic law."
[b]QUESTION FOR WOLFOWITZ - RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS:[/b] Why has Wolfowitz done nothing as the Pentagon awards lucrative contracts to companies under investigation? AP reports, "ten companies with billions of dollars in U.S. contracts for Iraq reconstruction have paid more than $300 million in penalties since 2000 to resolve allegations of bid rigging, fraud, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage." The contracts are only legal because the Bush administration "repealed regulations put in place by the Clinton administration that would have allowed officials to bar new government work for companies convicted or penalized during the previous three years." Play [i]Contractopoly[/i] http://www.americanprogress.o... and see how much money you can win in sweetheart deals from the Bush administration as you rebuild Iraq.
[b]QUESTION FOR WOLFOWITZ - MONEY:[/b] Will Wolfowitz answer how much money will be needed in the FY05 supplemental request? Wolfowitz has made an art out of hiding how much Iraq operations will cost. On the eve of war in 2003, he refused to answer questions from lawmakers about cost estimates, saying "it's necessary to preserve some ambiguity of exactly where the numbers are." And this year, the administration is playing games again. The president failed to include any funding for Iraq in his original FY05 budget request, then asked Congress to approve a $25 billion "contingency fund" for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wolfowitz, who testified before the war that Iraq could "really finance its own reconstruction," told the House Appropriations Committee, "there will be a request for a full year supplemental early next year. It will sure be much larger than $25 billion." Two numbers are now known: the United States is spending $4 billion to $4.6 billion a month in Iraq, and $700 million a month in Afghanistan.
[b]... Please write to Congress http://www.congress.org and attach the questions listed above, which should be posed to Wolfowitz for [i]he should have to answer tough questions[/i]. The corrupt Bush regime are accountable to "We the People" and are not neo-imperial rules ([i]yet[/i])!!! ...[/b]
[b]Bush is a paranoid, sadistic megalomaniac.[/b] Though hardly a revelation, the difference is that now it's not just political -- it's medical.
In his new book, "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President," Dr. Justin Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, analyzed all available childhood records, taped speeches, and the president's writings after "he began to be concerned about Bush's behavior in 2002."
... "[i]The President is an "untreated alcoholic" whose brain function, such as it is, may have been affected by all those years of heavy drinking.
The President suffers from "character pathology," including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and God as interchangeable[/i]." ...
His expert recommendation? [i]Vote[/i]. "Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office...before it is too late."
American Soldiers Followed The Torturer-n-Thief's Orders (Impeach Bush & Cheney War Criminals!)
[b]Right-wing neo-con traitors and neo-fascist nazis are trying to persuade us to let Bush & Cheney become neo-imperial Emperors ... [/b]However, the United States of America is a Republic in which no one (including the president) is above the rule of law as per the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights. America is [i]not[/i] a Monarchy (as yet, but the neo-cons are out to destroy America) and we must not allow our nation to be transformed into a 3rd world military[i] junta [/i]... It is time to call upon Congress http://www.congress.org for the [i]impeachment [/i]of the Torturer-[i]n[/i]-Thief Bush and his Pathological Criminal Cheney, who should be sent to the International Court at the Hague to be tried for Crimes Against Humanity ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Events unfolding in the Abu Ghraib prison trials and investigations into detainees at Guantanamo Bay continue to undermine the Bush administration's denial of responsibility for abuses of power and the harsh treatment of detainees. Three of the seven soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal appeared at pre-trial hearings today, continuing to argue their behavior was sanctioned or encouraged at the highest levels of the U.S. government. According to reports surfacing over the weekend, President Bush's deputy national security advisor Fran Townsend's visit last November to Abu Ghraib intensified pressure on local officers to gather "more and better information from interrogations." In a sworn statement to investigators, Lt. Col. Steve Jordan, the army intelligence officer who supervised interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison, "described instances in which aides to high-ranking Bush administration officials were applying 'additional pressure'" to "'pull the intelligence out' of Iraqi detainees."
[b]SOLDIERS 'FOLLOWING ORDERS' FROM ABOVE:[/b] In maintaining "their clients were simply following orders to treat Iraqi detainees harshly and that the instructions came from the highest levels of the U.S. government," lawyers for the defendants are following the advice of the government memo leaked in draft form to the Wall Street Journal earlier this month. "For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders 'may be inferred to be lawful' and are 'disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.'" A military judge has agreed that the defense team of at least one accused soldier "will be allowed to question leading American generals. He ruled that the head of US-led forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, and other senior officials could be called as witnesses." For background – see our resource page "Abuse at Abu Ghraib" http://www.americanprogress.o... and special report: Abu Ghraib: Implementing Reforms, Taking Responsibility http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[b]LAWYER WANTS TO QUESTION BUSH:[/b] Paul Bergrin, the lawyer for Sgt. Javal S. Davis, "said last week that he would argue for a dismissal of charges because of 'improper command influence' extending to President Bush." Bergrin says he wants to put both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the president on the witness stand "because we know as a matter of fact that President Bush changed the rules of engagement for intelligence acquisition."
[b]OFFICIALS EXAGGERATE INTELLIGENCE:[/b] At the time the abuses at Abu Ghraib took place, "coalition intelligence officers estimated that 70-90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake." Similarly, a New York Times investigation of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay finds "that government and military officials have repeatedly exaggerated both the danger the detainees posed and the intelligence they have provided." Documents prepared by Bush administration lawyers have sought to justify the use of harsh interrogation methods at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib by referring to intelligence gathered there as "vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," but the NYT investigation calls even that spurious justification into question. Officials at the naval base told the NYT no intelligence gathered there "has enabled intelligence or law-enforcement services to foil imminent attacks [and]…the evidence against many of the detainees is still so sparse that investigators have been able to deliver cases for military prosecution against only 15 of the suspects," less than three percent of the total prisoner population.
[b]JUSTICE DEPT. BRACES FOR DEFEAT:[/b] As for Guantanamo's legal underpinnings, including the administration's argument it has the right to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial, Newsweek reports the Justice Department is concerned "the Supreme Court is likely to rule decisively against the Bush administration not just in the Padilla case but in two other pivotal cases in the war on terror: one involving the detention of another 'enemy combatant,' Yaser Hamdi, and another involving the treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." One reason government lawyers are "bracing for defeat": recent disclosures "about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and internal administration memos disavowing compliance with international treaties involving treatment of prisoners has badly hurt the government's arguments before the court."
[b]DECLASSIFIED REPORT MAY HURT ADMINISTRATION'S CASE:[/b] The government's latest tactic to win public support for its case may be backfiring. A newly declassified report on Jose Padilla "in part intended to influence public thinking about his case," may in fact raise "new questions about the accuracy of previous administration statements about Padilla." Specifically, the declassified report http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/0... suggests and administration officials now concede "that the principal claim they have been making about Padilla ever since his detention—that he was dispatched to the United States for the specific purpose of setting off a radiological 'dirty bomb'—has turned out to be wrong and most likely can never be used against him in court."
[b]Ex-president Clinton admits that his sexual liaison with Monica Lewinsky was an indefensible act that he committed for the worst of reasons: "Because I Could Do It" ... Abuse of power ...[/b]
George[i] "'Cause I Can"[/i] Bush has committed a[i] far more heinous crime [/i]than Clinton because he is responsible for the massacre of over 800 US Soldiers & over 16,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians in an illegal and immoral war in Iraq based upon myriad lies, deceptions and falsehoods (in addition to ordering the murder, torture, rape and abuse atrocities at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and Iraq ... We've now got the pictures from Abu Ghraib which are the[i] tip of the iceberg [/i]of Bush's War Crimes) ...
It is time to call upon Congress http://www.congress.org to [i]impeach[/i] the War Criminals Bush and Cheney and their corrupt neo-con cabal of neo-fascists who are perpetrating more treasonous lies, deceptions and falsehoods [i]day in and day out [/i](phony WMDs-- phony links between Iraq & Al Qaida that are non-existent-- economic rape of America to pad the pockets of these sluts' corporate pimps-- etc.) ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b]Because They Could[/b]
In his "60 Minutes" interview, Bill Clinton calls his intern idyll "a terrible moral error," illuminating "the darkest part of his inner life." Not to mention the hardest part on his back since, astonishingly, he says he spent months sleeping on the couch. (Was the Lincoln bedroom always occupied by donors?)
"I did something for the worst possible reason," he told Dan Rather about his march of folly with Monica. "Just because I could. I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."
Just because he could. What a world of meaning is packed into that simple phrase. His "could" reflects a selfish "Who's gonna stop me?" power move, stemming from a droit du seigneur attitude, as opposed to "should," signifying obligation, or "must," indicating compulsion.
The former president engaged in a relationship of choice, not necessity.
As a friend of mine explains: "It's a guy thing. We're not likely to get up off the couch if we don't have to. We might cheat with a chick who just happens to be there if we feel we could get away with it."
In his memoirs, Mr. Clinton complains about Republican droit du seigneur, writing that impeachment was driven neither by "morality" nor "the rule of law" but, as Newt Gingrich said: "Because we can."
The Clinton alpha instinct on Monica, fueled by a heady cocktail of testosterone and opportunism, was the same one that led W. into his march of folly with Iraq. After 9/11, the president, vice president and secretary of defense wanted to go to the Middle East and knock the stuffing out of somebody bad — because it would feel good, because it would put our enemies on notice, and because it would make the president look strong.
The folks at 1600 Pennsylvania didn't have Osama's address. They couldn't go after Iran or North Korea because those countries could defend themselves and retaliate, maybe with nukes. They couldn't invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia because they're our "allies." But the Bush team knew that it wouldn't be hard to get rid of the second-rate dictator and romance novelist who posed no real threat.
They went after Saddam just because they could. Last week, the 9/11 commission debunked the White House attempt to suggest an axis of evil between Saddam and Osama.
Like Mr. Clinton, the president engaged in an enterprise of choice, not necessity. John Kerry's biggest applause line now is: "The United States should never go to war because we want to. We should only go to war because we have to."
Huffing and puffing Dick Cheney comes across as barking mad when he keeps lassoing Saddam and Al Qaeda. Tricky Dick may actually believe in his concocted connection, but he must also realize that the administration can't lose the terrorist-linkage argument for war, having already lost the W.M.D. argument.
If our leaders didn't lead us there, why did 69 percent of Americans, in a Washington Post poll last September, believe that Saddam was involved in the attacks? And a University of Maryland study last October showed that 80 percent of those who mostly watched Fox believed at least one of three misconceptions: that W.M.D. had been found; that Al Qaeda and Iraq were tied; or that the world had approved of U.S. intervention in Iraq.
Osama, suffering from what one C.I.A. shrink termed "a narcissistic explosion," also struck America because he could. It was a jihad of choice, not necessity.
Thursday's 9/11 commission report cited the dissent among Al Qaeda leaders who were worried about Pakistan's reaction or U.S. retaliation. Osama overruled the doubters, arguing that it would reap a bonanza in Al Qaeda fund-raising and recruiting.
So far, partly because of the Bush crowd's solipsistic fixation on Saddam, Osama has gotten away with his heinous power play — and reaped a bonanza in recruiting.
Mr. Clinton, though he was vilified by the right, tittered at by the world and dolled up in pink-and-black suede shoes as a toddler by his mom, is selling a zillion books.
As Republicans keep saying, with fingers crossed, W. has stayed even with John Kerry despite the litany on Iraq, terrorism and domestic affairs that has turned out quite differently than promised.
But one thing you can say for Bill Clinton: His "Who's gonna stop me?" Oval Office power surge produced a much lower body count. - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
Bush and Cheney are Shameless Liars Who Should Be Impeached ...
[b]Bush and Cheney are shameless liars, traitors and thugs who should be impeached and put on trial for heinous Crimes Against Humanity ...[/b]
The utter shamelessness of the Bush administration was in full display yesterday when both Bush and Cheney continued to not just defend but reassert http://www.washingtonpost.com... their [mendacious] claim that Saddam Hussein was closely linked to Al Qaeda. Even though the 9/11 commission has decisively ruled out the existence of any "collaborative relationship" between the two, Bush said:"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Ah, the tautological defense.
Cheney upped the rhetoric in an interview yesterday with CNBC's "Capital Report," ripping into the media for finally doing its job. According to the [i]Washington Post[/i]:
"(Cheney) said 'the press has been irresponsible' in reporting on the commission's findings, sometimes for 'malicious' reasons. Referring to a[i] New York Times [/i]front-page headline, 'Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie,' he said: 'What the[i] New York Times [/i]did today was outrageous.' Cheney added: 'The fact of the matter is, the evidence is overwhelming. The press is, with all due respect, and there are exceptions, oftentimes lazy, oftentimes simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework.'" - http://www.alternet.org/waron...
[i][b]P.S.[/b][/i] How did Mohammed Atta have an "industrial strength" passport that mysteriously survived the 9/11 crash while the black boxes did not??? ... Again, more Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]manipulations ...
Search "Mohammed Atta" on the site, supposing you are not already familiar with the site, and you will find many interesting things; including this, about 1/3 of the way down the search results under the section "A week after Sept 11":
"Mohammed Atta's passport is conveniently found (in perfect shape) near the wreckage of the WTC, despite the four black boxes (designed to survive such impacts) from the planes being allegedly destroyed." - http://www.libertyforum.org/s...
The "Long Established" Link ... Iraq, al-Qaeda and al-Zarqawi ...
[b]Bush is a psychologically depraved lunatic http://www.unknownnews.net/in... , who is mentally unstable and dangerously crazed due to his life-long sadistic tendencies and childish insecurities ... Cheney is a pathological liar and arrogant crook willing to murder, cheat, steal and lie in order to enrich himself calling for [i]others to sacrifice [/i]while he sits on his fat ass (as he has done his entire squalid life) ...[/b]
Both Bush and Cheney are sordid neo-fascist arm-chair chicken-hawks who avoided serving our nation when it was their turn and instead send others to die to fulfill their ugly and pornographic lusts for power and riches. But both these neo-con thugs are willing to "take the rest of us down" (with them) in order to achieve their morally depraved and intellectually deprived crimes ...
Now we are faced with the heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods perpetrated upon us by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]who maliciously deceive us and have no evidence [i]upon which [/i][i]to justify [/i]their treasonous claims [i]upon which [/i][i]they sent [/i]our men and women to die in their illegal & immoral invasion of Iraq-- [i]for which they should be impeached and then charged with treason and put on trial [/i]...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech on June 14th to The James Madison Institute, a conservative Florida-based “think tank.” (That term that usually describes a handful of ideologues positing as “thinkers,” and acquiring, through corporate donations, the kind of respectability that allows the corporate media to cite it as somehow knowledgeable about the topics about which it thinks. These tanks are also useful in that they can invite prestigious speakers to speak in a supportive, protective atmosphere, knowing that their remarks will be widely covered in the press.) In it, Cheney repeated his claim that Saddam Hussein has had longstanding ties to al-Qaeda. “He was a patron of terrorism,” Cheney told the assembled thinkers. “He had long established ties with al-Qaida.” This insistence on Iraq-al Qaeda ties seems to be the centerpiece of the standard speech the vice president gives, but journalists now dutifully note that intelligence officials have rejected that connection, and so whenever he restates it, his own credibility likely suffers.
A memo indicating that his office was directly involved in the decision to award Halliburton (of which he was formerly CEO) no-bid contracts worth seven billion dollars in Iraq reconstruction work prior to the war last year; reports that most likely a member of Cheney’s office vindictively (and criminally) leaked to the press the identity of former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA agent wife; charges that Cheney personally, repeatedly visited CIA headquarters to influence “intelligence” reporting in order to bolster the administration’s case for war with Iraq; and even his role as Bush “transition director” in placing neocons eager for a war with Iraq in key positions in the Defense Department and his own office…all these will likely embarrass him further in the coming months. But maybe, with the arrogance for the masses that typifies neocons, he will plod on disseminating disinformation, in his cool, measured, grandfatherly style, knowing that if challenged on the Iraq al-Qaeda link he will need only say, “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”
If al-Zarqawi did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. The “Jordanian-born” militant (variously described as “Palestinian” or “Bedouin”) is the link posited by the Bush administration between Saddam Hussein, the secularist, and bin Laden, the Islamic fundamentalist. (In his crucial speech to the United Nations before the war, Colin Powell declared that there was a “sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network” and asserted that al-Zarqawi was the key figure in that nexus.) Any other links—such as the 1997 training of al-Qaeda operatives in airline hijacking, which supposedly took place at the Salman Pak training facility outside Baghdad---have been discredited. That leaves us with the al-Zarqawi link. The nice thing about the latter is that al-Zarqawi straddles the pre-invasion and post-invasion periods, and so can be used (by the neocons anyway) to justify not only the invasion but the ongoing occupation. Why’d we invade? Because, Cheney (who can no longer speak of weapons of mass destruction) explains, of those “long established ties with al-Qaeda.” Why are we still there? Because al-Zarqawi (either depicted as “linked to al-Qaeda” or as an al-Qaeda “operative”) is there in Iraq, and if his influence grows, Iraq will become Osama bin-Laden’s base for more attacks on the USA Homeland. His supposed presence, that is, justifies (so long as it may be posited) the presence of U.S. occupying forces. He—another personification of evil, a human face on Terror to add to that of the frustratingly elusive bin Laden---is indeed necessary.
As such, it is best that he remain as vaguely defined as possible. If, for example, you say he had his leg amputated in 2002 in the Baghdad hospital from which (you say) he made a phone call that you intercepted (that call being your key piece of evidence for the “long established” Saddam al-Qaeda ties), and then you, for example, say that the person beheading Nick Berg in Iraq two months ago, who seems to have both legs, is none other than arch-villain al-Zarqawi---then you run into logical problems. Some people (including German intelligence agents) think al-Zarqawi is as much a rival as ally to bin-Laden. The Christian Science Monitor suggests that the two men differ on how to exploit Shiite-Sunni differences in Iraq. (So best not to give to many details about this evil person, other than to make sure all know he is indeed evil, so sneakily so that if logical contradictions appear in media coverage of his activities, he, rather than they, are to blame.) But logical thinking aside, if one can depict al-Zarqawi as the mastermind of ongoing resistance to the occupation of Iraq, then you can divert attention from the general, indigenous, Iraqi rejection of the occupation, while depicting that occupation as an anti-al-Qaeda effort.
It helps to have full cooperation from a puppet government in Iraq. Following the spate of car-bombings in Baghdad recently, newly-appointed Iraqi “President” Iyad al-Allawi attributed them to the Jordanian’s nefarious network in Iraq, and declared that, “Al-Zarqawi and his followers are earnestly working to prevent the success of” the “transfer of power” to the bogus government later this month. It’s significant that longtime CIA operative al-Allawi states al-Zarqawi is behind the attacks. Al-Allawi and his Iraqi National Accord are well known for authenticating in early 2003 the discredited report that the Iraqi military could deploy chemical weapons, threatening Britons, within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so.
Then last December, al-Allawi confirmed the authenticity of a supposed hand-written memo by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, found by U.S. troops in Iraq. It described a three-day “work programme” undertaken by none other than Chief 9-11 Hijacker Mohammed Atta at a Baghdad in 1991, and it mentioned a shipment of something from Niger via Libya to Iraq. Needing an imprimatur for this wonderful text, that seemed to validate several debunked administration allegations, the U.S. leaned on the reliable al-Allawi to stamp his approval on the document.
But refuting al-Allawi is the behavior of the Iraqi people. When attacks (that the puppet president attributes to al-Zarqawi) produce, around the bombing sites, joyous celebrations of Iraqi youth dancing and chanting, “America is the enemy of God,” it gets hard to depict them as the product of “foreign” interference. That very depiction is a form of disinformation, following upon so many, many instances of official deceit---that long established policy of the Bush-Cheney administration.
* * *
June 17. Sure enough, the day after Cheney made his statement, his boss, standing alongside Afghan puppet Hamid Karzai, asked by a reporter whether he supported Cheney’s view, replied in the affirmative, using the Zarqawi argument.
“Zarqawi’s the best evidence of a connection to al-Qaeda affiliates and al-Qaeda,” declared the commander-in-chief. “He’s the person who’s still killing. He’s the person---remember the email exchange between al-Qaeda leadership and he himself about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom? Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organization as well.”
[u][b]Some comments and questions:[/b][/u]
[b]1. The best evidence?[/b] So there’s MORE?
[b]2. “Al-Qaeda affiliates” can mean whatever Bush wants it to mean.[/b] Many believe al-Zarqawi’s organization, al-Tahwid, is quite separate from al-Qaeda. But surely it is closer to it than many other groups Bush simplistically conflates with bin Laden’s organization.
[b]3. “He’s the person still killing.” [/b]Interesting statement. There are a lot of people still killing, including bin Laden. But do I detect an effort to deflect attention away from the Saudi and towards the Jordanian? Bush has actually said, that “Bin Laden’s not important. He’s just one man. He doesn’t concern me.” He’s said, “I’m truly not that concerned about him,” referring to him in March 2002 as “a person who has now been marginalized.” But al-Zarqawi, in the Bush view, is out there front and center.
[b]4. Email exchange?[/b] I’m aware of one rather dubious memo http://www.palestinestrategy.... found (according to one version) by U.S. forces in a raid of an “al-Qaeda safe house” in Baghdad six months ago, and immediately publicized through the New York Times and the websites of the Project for a New American Century and the National Review. I’m not aware of any reply. The memo urges Sunni attacks on Shiites in order to thwart the return of sovereignty to Iraq, which the author seems to feel will truly doom the resistance and constitute an irrevocable U.S. victory. But reportedly al-Qaeda, while rooted in fiercely anti-Shiite “Wahhabist” ideology, has actually counseled cooperation between all factions in the Iraqi resistance, including Sunnis, Shiites, and even Baathists. And I must doubt that anyone deeply involved in that resistance sees the new puppet regime under the widely despised CIA operative Iyad al-Allawi as its death-knell.
[b]5. Progress towards freedom.[/b] The questionable memo didn’t actually mention “freedom,” a concept which is of course differently understood by different people. Bush proclaims both Afghanistan and Iraq “free” at present. He sees progress towards Palestinian freedom infinitely postponable. His point here is that al-Zarqawi is, like all the terrorists, “against our freedoms” and thus appropriate objects of fear and loathing by Americans, whom he assures the world “are a good people” pretty much by definition. Except maybe for that handful of “bad apples” at Abu Ghraib.
[b]6. Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organization as well.[/b] (Perhaps the redundant “as well” is intended to strengthen the assertion.) Bush can safely say that Baghdad had ties to some organizations, viewed by most Iraqis as Palestinian and Lebanese (Hizbollah) patriots, that appear on the State Department’s list of international terrorist organizations. Many find that list highly skewed, but it’s the official reference-point for “counter-terror” statements and actions. What Bush is saying here is, “It doesn’t matter if Saddam had any al-Qaeda ties. He had other terrorist ties, so when my critics get on my case for not proving an al-Qaeda link, well, hey, there’s other links just as bad. I mean, why should anybody get all bothered about the details?”
And here’s a real quote: “I look forward to the debates where people are saying, ‘Oh, gosh, the world would be better off if Saddam were still in power.” Forget all this debate about why I told you folks we needed to invade!
Unfortunately for Bush and Cheney, as the president was spouting this nonsense the Sept. 11 Commission was telling Congress that there is “no credible evidence” for a Saddam link to the attacks, nor indeed any significant operational connection between Baghdad and al-Qaeda, ever. And also, yesterday, with perfect timing, 27 retired diplomats and military officers, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Ronald Reagan, weighed in with a statement accusing Bush of “a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda and the attacks of Sept. 11.” Then came the results of a poll commissioned by the occupation authorities themselves, http://news.independent.co.uk... showing that 55% of Iraqis would feel safer if the occupation forces left immediately, and that 54% believe all Americans behave like the guards at Abu Ghraib. This makes it more difficult to argue that U.S. forces are liberators. But of course, we’ll have to remain in Iraq, however the people feel, if the protection of “our freedoms” requires tracking down arch-villain al-Zarqawi.
These are not good days for the Bushites, but their success to date in their deceit (most strikingly indicated by a poll taken just two months ago showing 57% of Americans still believe in the Iraq-Sept. 11 link) makes celebration of their fall premature. As Jacon Heilbrunn reports in the Los Angeles Times, “Despite charges that his homemade intelligence network at the Pentagon relied on bogus intelligence from Chalabi, [Douglas] Feith remains firmly in place at the Defense Department. David Wurmser, the architect of the pro-Chalabi strategy, is Cheney's Middle East advisor now. Mark Lagon, a neoconservative who worked for Jeane Kirkpatrick, has been promoted at the State Department. A host of younger neocons remains embedded in other agencies.
If Bush loses the election, a bloodbath will ensue; neoconservatives will be cannibalized by traditional conservatives and by their rivals at the State Department and elsewhere. But if Bush wins and the GOP retains its Senate majority, they will continue to rise. Neoconservative pit bull John Bolton, an undersecretary of State, might well head the CIA. Their main targets in a Bush second term: Syria and Iran.”
With some influential neocons insisting that al-Zarqawi is sponsored by Iran (and in their general campaign against the Muslim world finding no logical contradiction in his ties to al-Qaeda, Baathist Iraq, and the mullocracy in Tehran) we can be sure that the Jordanian, Osama II, remains in the news, reinvented from time to time as required.
[b]Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of [i]Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900[/i][/b]. - http://www.counterpunch.com/l...
Fighting the Fat Cats ... The Rich Get Richer & Everyone Else is Impoverished!!!
[b]Under the Mad King George and his criminal cabal of rapacious neo-con thugs, corporate-owned sluts to corporate pimps, and neo-fascist goons, the skyrocketing [i]Gap Between the Hyper Rich Haves and the Impoverished Have-Nots [/i]is wider and more unjust that at any time in over 75 years ... [/b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is transforming the U.S.A. into a neo-feudal slave state where greedy corporate robber-barons and the gluttonous plutocrats exploit the rest of us as their cannon-fodder, neo-slaves and buffoons to serve their insane lusts for power and riches ...
With Richard Grasso's monster salary still making headlines, http://www.reuters.com/newsAr... Lee Drutman argues that New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's attack on the NYSE chairman doesn't attack the heart of the problem. First off, there's nothing illegal about Grasso's pay package. But more importantly, escalating CEO compensation—which rose almost 600 percent in the 1990s—is not a law enforcement issue. Reform that gets at the root causes is needed, and Drutman points the way.
[i]Lee Drutman is the communications director of [b]Citizen Works[/b] http://citizenworks.org/ and the co-author of the forthcoming book: [u]The People’s Business: Controlling Corporations and Restoring Democracy[/u][/i].
When former New York Stock Exchange Chairman and CEO Dick Grasso made headlines last fall for his outrageous $188 million pay package, it seemed the apotheosis of so much that had gone wrong in corporate America.
Grasso’s pay package was clearly outrageous. But was it in itself illegal? Or was it merely a distressing symptom of a broken system of corporate governance in desperate need of reform?
In a lawsuit filed recently, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer contends the former. Spitzer’s lawsuit, filed under New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, which mandates that executive compensation must be “reasonable” and “commensurate with services provided,” argues that Grasso and former NYSE board member Kenneth G. Langone (Grasso’s good friend who was also the former chairman of the compensation committee) duped the rest of the board into supporting Grasso’s salary, which was the equivalent of 99 percent of the Exchange’s net income from 1999 to 2001 (The exchange’s net income comes primarily from member fees, which jumped by $245 million between 2001 and 2003).
Legal experts say that Spitzer’s suit may be on shaky ground, because the NYSE is not a nonprofit in the classic sense. But beyond being a legal gamble, Spitzer’s suit also gives a somewhat misleading impression that executive pay can be addressed as a law enforcement problem.
It can’t. Throughout corporate America, there is plenty that is distasteful about the remarkable rise in executive salaries, which rose almost 600 percent during the 1990s while worker pay barely kept up with inflation. But there is nothing illegal.
The problem, instead, is the system that creates these pay packages, a system of corporate governance bristling with conflicts of interest and a vacuum of responsibility and accountability, where directors sit by idly as managers secure themselves ever-escalating pay packages and grow richer and richer at the expense of workers and shareholders.
Unfortunately, Spitzer’s approach doesn’t dig deeply at this root cause. By only heaping blame on Grasso and Langone, Spitzer is letting off the hook a host of other directors who should have also been responsible, such as Wall Street CEOs James Cayne of Bear Sterns, Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs and David Komansky of Merrill Lynch The suit also leaves off H. Carl McCall, the former New York State Comptroller and State Democratic Party bigwig who, as a member of the exchange’s compensation committee, first claimed he didn’t know how Grasso got paid so much and then defended the salary. Certainly, it is hard to believe that all these very bright individuals were duped by Grasso and Langone and didn’t at least give a tacit wink and nod to Grasso’s compensation.
All this matters because the problem of outrageous executive compensation goes far beyond Grasso (even through Grasso may be the most egregious example) and despite continued public outrage, continues to rise. A recent study by The Corporate Library found that CEO total compensation among S&P 500 companies rose by a median of 27.16 percent in 2003, from $3.6 million to $4.6 million (the leading earner was Colgate-Palmolive CEO Rueben Mark, who earned $140 million, $131 million of which came in the form of stock options).
Another recent study, this one by Pearl Meyer & Partners, found that the average pay package for a CEO at the 50 biggest companies was $10.3 million for last year. (Many of the biggest winners were also from Wall Street: Sanford Weill of Citigroup was given a $44 million paycheck, while Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch earned $28 million James Cayne of Bear Stearns received $27 million. Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs earned $20 million, as did Bill Harrison of J.P. Morgan.) On average, the typical big company CEO earns almost 300 times more than the average worker. Put another way, by mid-morning on January 2, the average CEO has earned what the average worker will earn in an entire year.
Not only are such pay packages unfair, they also represent a disturbing transfer of wealth from stockholders and employees to executives. Such pay disparities further skew the increasingly polarized distribution of wealth in this country, which is now at levels equivalent to the period just preceding the Great Depression (even in the current economic recovery, corporate profits have risen 62 percent since 2001, while workers’ take home pay has actually dropped by 0.6 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute). Most other industrialized countries have a typical CEO-to-worker pay ratios closer to 25-to-1. In 1964, the US ratio was also approximately 25-1; in 1982 it was 42-to-1.
What can be done? A dose of board independence, today’s standard bromide for all that ails corporate America, is obviously needed. Certainly, those responsible for deciding executive compensation should not be in a position where they are also trying to curry favor with management. Meanwhile, the CEO of a company should not also serve as the chairman of the board that sets his or her salary, as 75 percent of CEOs currently do (and as Grasso did at the New York Stock Exchange). More significantly, shareholders need to get more involved. Shareholders should have the right to vote on executive compensation – after all, it is their money.
Today’s epidemic of extravagant executive compensation comes at the expense of economic justice and a sense of shared prosperity. It offends our sense of decency and fairness. But it is not a law enforcement problem. It is a problem of corporate governance and old-fashioned cronyism. And until we can find a way to cut through the conflicts of interest that pervade corporate boardrooms and give shareholders more control, greedy executives will likely continue to have their way.
[b]Apparently evangelical protestant hypocrites in the neo-con right-wing fascist party of the Mad King George figure that[i] they [/i]can commit[i] any [/i]crimes whatsoever including murder, warmongering, lying, treason, etc. ... It is[i] only [/i]Catholics who are supposed to be "moral"??? ...[i] Hmmm [/i]... [/b]
But the Pope was certainly [i]not duped [/i]by the Dope!!!
Lost in the haze of all the other scandals, it's impossible to overstate the importance of Bush's recent visit with the Pope as the election approaches.
The Bush, an evangelical protestant, met with the Pope last week to urge him to punish Kerry, a practicing Catholic, for not adhering to Catholic doctrine with respect to birth control, women's health, and stem cell research.
Josh Marshall's article http://thehill.com/marshall/0... in [i]The Hill [/i]points out that while the line between church and state isn't quite erased, it is nevertheless selectively applied.
Even Rove ally, and conservative Catholic editor of a small publication, Deal W. Hudson, admits that this is a purely political, and hypocritical ploy: "Once you open this door...pretty soon no one would be taking Communion." He's referring, of course, to the fact that nearly every politician who doesn't fall into the birth control, abortion rights, stem cell camp, falls into the pro-death penalty, pro-war camp -- or any number of prohibited behaviors embedded in the Church's strict liturgy.
"So what's the answer," asks Marshall. "Hudson said he believes the denial of Communion should begin, and end, with Kerry. Even better, he said, would be if priests would read letters from the pulpit denouncing the senator from Massachusetts 'whenever and wherever he campaigns as a Catholic.'" - http://thehill.com/marshall/0...
The Mad King George Thinks His Pathological Lies Work ... They Don't Fool All of Us!!!
[b]The [i]pathological liar[/i], the Mad King George and his [i]blood-thirsty side-kick[/i], the embezzler-[i]cum[/i]-croo k Cheney[i], wrongly [/i]think that we all will be fooled by their myriad neo-con, neo-fascist lies, deceptions and falsehoods ... [/b]Instead, many Americans are starting to realize that Bush & Cheney [i]belong in jail[/i] instead of in the White House ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
"[i]You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror[/i]." - President George W. Bush, September 2002
The 9/11 Commission informed us on Wednesday morning "no credible evidence" existed of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda in attacks against the United States http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do...%3A%2F%2Finteractive.wsj.com%2Fdocuments%2F911staf f15.pdf . Many Americans who have not been paying close attention will be surprised to hear this. After all, it comes just two days after Vice President Dick Cheney said Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, an assertion that the [i]Associated Press[/i], http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/So...%20 with a degree of reticence that ended up lending credence to a lie, explained, "has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers."
Let us take a moment, however, and examine the Bush administration campaign to convince Americans of something that was not true and for which they never had any convincing evidence. After all, at the moment we went to war with Iraq, a full 70 percent of Americans questioned told pollsters that Iraq had been responsible, in total or in part, for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Nearly 50 percent had actually invented the belief that a majority of the hijackers had been Iraqis. Both the Bush administration and much of the media—usually accused of being liberal, anti-war and anti-Bush—treat these beliefs as if they sprung out of thin air—as if nothing claimed by the administration or reported by the so-called "liberal media" could possibly have contributed to this widespread misimpression that paved the road for what has turned out to be a catastrophic war. Well, take a look at what the American people were seeing and hearing from their leaders, along with their alleged watchdogs charged by the First Amendment with keeping those leaders accountable.
In the period leading up to the war, President Bush frequently couched his remarks to be deliberately misleading on this topic without actually crossing over the line into what all would recognize as a lie. For instance, in his 2003 State of the Union, Bush claimed, ''Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda,…Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The theme of Saddam's training and funding of "al Qaeda–type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations" was a constant feature of the president's speeches. Following a terrorist attack in Bali that left over 180 people dead, Bush insisted that Saddam planned to employ al-Qaida as his own "forward army" against the West. In a speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, Bush charged, "Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.... And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq." To Americans he used simple scare tactics that had no basis in recent reality. Borrowing a tactic from the late John Lennon, Bush asked, "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein," in his 2003 State of the Union Address. "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "
Though he never came up with any evidence at all, Bush never gave up this particular line of argument. Just before the war began, he cried in similarly misleading terms, "The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on." And in seeking to justify the war in its increasingly unpleasant aftermath before a July 4, 2003, audience of military families at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, Bush fell back on his same rhetorical crutch: "Since that September day," he intoned, again making reference to the al Qaeda attack to justify his war against Iraq, "the United States will not stand by and wait for another attack or trust in the restraint and good intentions of evil men. We will not permit any terrorist group or outlaw regime to threaten us with weapons of mass murder." Per usual, the president offered no evidence nor even discernible logic to defend his position.
Others in the administration naturally followed suit: Cheney, for instance, was perhaps most aggressive. He asked the audience of a Sunday morning talk show to imagine if, on 9/11, al Qaeda had "had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years." Recall that he was doing so in support of a war not against al Qaeda, but Iraq. Condoleezza Rice claimed, "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." Well, then, asks Arianna Huffington quite logically, "Why not document them?"
The 9/11 Commission's report will not be news to anyone but the majority of the American people who believed their president. For it is not accurate to say that the administration was honestly mistaken in these claims. They knew, but they chose to mislead the country in order to justify the war they had decided upon, according to ex-administration sources like Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, long before 9/11. "The al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S.," explains Greg Thielmann, former director for strategic proliferation and military affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things." According to the State Department's annual report on the general subject, titled Patterns of Global Terrorism, Baghdad had no ties to al Qaeda or, for that matter, to any of the "al Qaeda–type organizations" operating in the Middle East and Africa. Although the report finds that Iraq has assisted "numerous terrorist groups," those outfits are all secular and "Marxist" or "socialist" in ideology—in other words, "infidels," the insult used by bin Laden to describe Saddam. That same report, released last year, notes that the "main focus" of Saddam's terror expenditures has been on "dissident Iraqi activity overseas."
[b]Apparently Bush's advisers and speech-writers were told by top GOPites that President Bush better not make his eulogy at Ronald Reagan's funeral another[i] "me me me"[/i] screed, that we're all so tired & bored with ... [/b]So Karl Rove got out their[i] "humble-notebook"[/i] and put a mediocre and simple speech into Bush's hands that the dimwit could read without mispronouncing too many words ... But while Kerry didn't do anything to "make hay" out of Reagan's death, Bushy-boy's neo-orwellian campaign fascists are tring out the [i]"I'm a Gipper Too"[/i] screed ... But even Reaganites [i]aren't [/i]buying that [i]neo-con bullshit [/i]... [i]No WMDs and No Gippers!!! ... Ha ha ha!!! [/i]...
Kerry canceled a week's campaigning to honor Reagan's death while Bush's re-election team sent a note to its supporters to visit a Reagan "living memorial" website. But you may know it in its other capacity as the president's official re-election website http://www.georgewbush.com/ .
Still, despite Bush's shameless efforts to advance his candidacy by comparing himself to Reagan, even many Reaganites remain unconvinced:
Cato Institute senior fellow, Doug Bandow, on their differences: "No. 1 is the fact that Bush really doesn't have a vision...Reagan clearly had a set of ideas that he had thought about very deeply, and believed in very deeply. There is nothing to indicate that George W. Bush does so."
Now combine Reagan's golden legacy with speculation that Clinton's imminent book tour may overshadow Kerry, and the election is shaping up to be the year of the sidekick — just a couple of Robins campaigning in the shadows of some former presidential Batmans. - http://www.alternet.org/elect...
Bush's Neo-Con Scam: The Iraq Occupation Continues ...
[b]Bush is conducting the Big Scam ... The Big Neo-Con Scam ... [/b]The US and British regimes [i]aren't[/i] handing over sovereignty to the Iraqi people ... When will Americans wake-up to the cold, hard and ugly reality that the corrupt and traitorous Bush regime continually tells us heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods??? ... Hopefully, Americans won't let the insane neo-cons in the tyrannical Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]take-over our nation in November and saddle us with another four years of their disastrous neo-fascism and our hell-on-earth ...
According to the US and British governments, on 30 June the occupation of Iraq will end and “full sovereignty” will pass to a new Iraqi Interim Government (IIG). In reality the IIG – a body chosen by the US and its proxies - is headed by a former CIA asset, its ministries are riddled with US ‘advisers’ and appointees and, dependent upon US money and military power for its survival, the IIG will possess no meaningful control over the 138,000 US military personnel that will remain in Iraq after the “handover.”
In what follows we examine these realities in more detail, updating our previous briefing (Why the Occupation of Iraq Isn’t Ending: the bogus 30 June ‘sovereignty transfer in Iraq, 5 May 2004) whilst paying particular attention to the new Interim Government and the 8 June UN resolution endorsing the “transfer.”
[u]MEET THE NEW BOSS …[/u]
Tony Blair hailed the naming of the new Iraqi cabinet as a “historic day for Iraq”, ‘dismissing as “nonsense” suggestions a “puppet” Iraqi government was primed to take over on 30 June’ (BBC, 2 June). In reality the new Interim Government ‘is dominated by [members of the old US-appointed Governing Council] in key political posts’ (Economist, 5 June) and the most important position, that of Prime Minster, went to Ayad Allawi, a ‘long-term protégé of the CIA and MI6 who has spent much of his life in exile’ (Observer, 30 May).
A former Ba’athist, Allawi heads the Iraqi National Accord (INA), an “opposition” group ‘created in December 1990, on the initiative of Saudi Prince Turki ibn Faysal, with the support of the CIA, and Jordanian and British agencies’ and ‘largely made up of Ba‘thists and former military officers’ (Iraq’s major political groupings, www.middleeastreference.org.uk) During the ‘90s the INA conducted a bombing campaign in Iraq which killed as many as 100 civilians (Saddam Hussein: An American Obsession, Patrick and Andrew Cockburn, p. 211 - 215). It was also the CIA’s favoured vehicle for precipitating a military coup inside Iraq and provided the “intelligence” – which it subsequently admitted had been a “crock of shit” – that formed the basis for the British Government’s infamous assertion that Iraq could deploy WMD within ‘45 minutes’ (Guardian, 27 January).
Meanwhile the crucial posts of defence and interior minister went, respectively, to former exiles Hazem Sha’alan and Falah al-Naqib, a ‘former deputy chief of staff under Saddam’ (AP, 1 June) - both of whom had been appointed provincial governors following the invasion (Reuters, 1 June).
Clearly no puppet then.
[u]THE 'POPULAR CANDIDATE'[/u]
The White House was quick to claim that Mr Allawi ‘had emerged as a ‘popular candidate’’ (Observer, 30 May) though the Financial Times notes that he ‘is the least popular of 17 prominent Iraqi political personalities monitored by the Iraqi Centre for Research and Studies’ (31 May), an Iraqi group ‘considered reliable enough for the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority to have submitted questions to [them]’ (FT, 20 May). In fieldwork conducted in late April ‘nearly 40 per cent of Iraqis strongly opposed Mr Allawi’, beating even the despised Ahmed Chalabi (FT, 31 May).
[u]‘THE DICTATOR OF IRAQ’[/u]
So just how did Mr Allawi end up as Prime Minister of the new “fully sovereign” Iraqi Govermment? Back in April the US and Britain were keen to present the UN – in the person of its envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi – as the driving force behind the selection of the Interim Government but as things transpired his choices were ‘overruled in humiliating circumstances’(Guardian , 3 June) with those close to the UN envoy ‘say[ing] the choices, especially that of the prime minister … were essentially negotiated between the United States and the [US-appointed] Iraqi Governing Council’ (NYT, 2 June)
‘After first agreeing to the idea of a technocratic government, [the US] changed their minds. They accepted the complaints of their friends on the governing council that they could not all be shunted aside. The Americans were also afraid that genuine independents might call for a US troop pullout. So Washington dispatched Robert Blackwill, the national security council's Iraq specialist, to Baghdad to work closely with the chief administrator, Paul Bremer, shortly before Mr Brahimi returned’ (Guardian, 3 June). According to Tony Dodge, an Iraq expert at Warwick University, “First Blackwill watered down Brahimi's plan. Then the governing council deliberately sabotaged it. The council undermined Brahimi and the US didn't support him” (Guardian, 3 June).
George Bush later claimed that he had played “no role” in picking the new government (AFP, 2 June) – which, given that he would probably have difficulty locating Iraq on a map, may well be true as a statement about his personal involvement. However ‘in an undiplomatic flash of anger, [Brahami] told reporters: “I'm sure he doesn't mind me saying that [US civilian administrator for Iraq Paul] Bremer is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money. He has the signature. Nothing happens without his agreement in this country”’ (Guardian, 3 June).
[u]A "BIG MISTAKE"[/u]
Having won this overwhelming ‘popular’ mandate from the US Government and 25 US-appointed Iraqis, Allawi lost no time in spelling out his vision for the future, telling the Sunday Telegraph of his plans ‘to recall four divisions of Saddam Hussein’s old army and create a rapid reaction force and anti-terrorism [sic] unit to deal with the country’s security crisis’ (30 May). A few days later he intimated that he would shortly be passing a new law ‘reinstating some former members of the Ba’ath party’ (Reuters, 5 June).
According to Allawi, dissolving Saddam Hussein’s internal security forces had been a “big mistake.” “We have begun to rectify these mistakes,” he explained ominously.
[u]THE 'MULTINATIONAL FORCE': THE MILITARY OCCUPATION CONTINUES[/u]
Allawi also lost no time in calling for foreign troops to remain in Iraq after 30 June. Indeed, during the ceremony unveiling the new government in Baghdad, Allawi ‘went out of his way to stress Iraq’s need for US and foreign troops to protect itself [declaring,] “Iraq will need multinational forces to defeat its enemies … I call on the United States and Europe to protect Iraq.”’(AFP, 2 June).
The new US/UK-drafted UN resolution regarding the 30 June transfer ‘reaffirms the authorisation for the multinational force’ established by UN Resolution 1511 [1] , declaring that this authorisation ‘shall expire’ once a constitutionally elected government is in place or ‘if requested by the Government of Iraq.’ Of course, no such request will be made, for, as ‘top US officials’ explained last December, ‘the new Iraqi government’s sovereignty [sic] … rest[s] on a foundation of US military force and money’
(LA Times, 28 Dec 2003). Here, of course, they were simply echoing the words of British Colonial Secretary Leopold Amery who in 1925 wrote that ‘if the writ of [the British-installed Iraqi monarch] King Faisal runs effectively through his kingdom, it is entirely due to to the British airplanes’ that had by then become the state’s main weapon of coercion (Inventing Iraq, Toby Dodge, Hurst, 2003, p. 131) [2].
‘[u]WHAT SOVEREIGNTY MEANS’[/u]
The new resolution does not grant the IIG veto power over the activities of US/UK forces in Iraq. Instead it merely states that the ‘security structures ’ described in a pair of letters exchanged between the CPA and the Iraqi Interim Government which are appended to the resolution ‘will serve as the fora for the multinational force and Iraqi government to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, and will ensure full partnership between Iraqi forces and the multinational force, through close coordination and consultation.’
Since the new resolution ‘does not stipulate what should happen if they fail to agree’ (Guardian, 9 June) the IIG has no real control over the 138,000 US forces that will continue to occupy Iraq after 30 June - save the option of slitting its own throat by asking them to leave. This should be of particular concern to Tony Blair, who on 25 May had dramatically declared that if there were a ‘political decision as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government. That’s what the transfer of sovereignty means’ (Independent, 26
May) [3]. On 1 July the IIG will have no ‘final control’ - political or otherwise – and therefore no meaningful sovereignty.
[u]POWERFUL LEVERS[/u]
On 7 June British foreign secretary Jack Straw ‘told the House of Commons that the [new UN] resolution would give the interim government … the power to pass laws [and] rescind laws passed by the [US]’ (Guardian, 8 June) – two powers the US had previously been seeking to deny the IIG – though in fact there is nothing in the text of the resolution to this effect [4].
In any event the US has been ‘quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make’ (Wall Street Journal, 13 May). ‘In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, [the US] created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries’ (WSJ, 13 May) and ‘110 to 160 American advisers will be layered through Iraq's ministries, in some cases on contracts signed by the occupation, extending into the period after June 30’ (NYT, 2 June). ‘In many cases, these U.S. and Iraqi proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens’ and according to US officials and others familiar with the plans ‘the new Iraqi government will be … unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval’ (WSJ, 13 May)
The new UN resolution also grants the IIG the authority to ‘conclude and implement’ agreements regarding Saddam’s outstanding $120bn debts – raising the possibility that ‘the unelected transitional government will sign binding agreements with the Paris Club and other creditors forcing the future elected government to repay a large part of Saddam's odious debt and submit to economic conditions from the IMF in return for receiving partial debt “forgiveness”’ (www.jubileeiraq.org, 24 May).
[u]KILLING DEMOCRACY[/u]
Meanwhile the deadline for Iraq’s first elections is not until 31 January 2005. This, of course, falls conveniently after November’s US Presidential election, allowing Mr Bush to claim, in the meantime, that Iraq is en route to democracy, without the potential embarrassment of having to stage-manage Iraq’s elections in front of the world’s media. That these elections – if they ever take place - will be meaningless is now almost certain. Since the invasion the US has consistently stalled on one-person-one-vote elections in Iraq, seeking instead to ‘put democracy on hold until it can be safely managed’ (Salim Lone, director of communications for the UN in Iraq until Autumn 2003, Guardian, 13 April – see www.voices.netuxo.co.uk/library/letter_may2004 .html#enemies for background).
With just weeks to go before the transfer of “sovereignty” the US has passed yet another new law, this time barring, with immediate effect, members of ‘illegal militias’ from “holding political office for up to three years after leaving their illegal organisation” (Guardian, 8 June) – a move plainly aimed at the Sadrist movement, led by Moqtada al-Sadr which draws many of its followers from the desperately poor Shia underclass [5]. Since the US decided to crack-down on the Sadrists in late March, US and British forces have been killing members of its militia in large numbers - along with anyone else who gets in their way - with U.S. military officials estimating that they have killed more than 800 Iraqis in Sadr City alone over the past nine weeks (LA Times, 7 June).
Prior to the recent escalation it had been estimated that the Sadrists would obtain ‘a good third of the seats from the Shi’ite areas’ in free elections (Iraq expert and Professor of History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole, DemocracyNow.org, 14 Jan) and according to a recent poll by the Iraq Center for Research and Studies ‘32 per cent of respondents said they strongly supported [Moqtada] Sadr and another 36 per cent said they somewhat supported him’, making Mr Sadr the second most influential figure in Iraq after Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (FT, 20 May). Now the US appears to have decided that Iraqis won’t now be able to vote for him [6].
[u]FORWARD TO THE PAST[/u].
Following WWI the British Government ‘naturally placed importance on establishing a friendly and co-operative Iraqi government which would be under its control’ (The role of the military in politics: a case study of Iraq to 1941, Mohammed Tarbush, p. 36) [7]. Rhetoric aside this remains the driving imperative today.
The stakes are enormous: the Global Policy Forum recently estimated that US and British oil companies stand to reap profits from Iraqi oil of anywhere between $600bn and $9 trillion over the next 50 years, even if Iraq’s oil industry remains nationalised – so long as Iraq enters into production sharing agreements with the companies on favourable terms (www.globalpolicy.org, 28 Jan).
Social movements in the US and Britain that can raise the social costs of occupation for their respective governments could act as a countervailing force. In their absence the prospects are grim and bloody indeed.
[b]NOTES:[/b]
[1] 1511 actually left open the question of whether the existing occupation forces were part of the new ‘multinational force’ (MNF) it created but for the sake of comprehension, in what follows we shall adopt the US/UK fiction that they are one and the same.
[2] Interestingly, during Britain’s first occupation of Iraq in the 1920s the ‘threat either to withdraw the British presence to Basra or to evacuate the country altogether, if British demands were not complied with’ became ‘a familiar ploy’– though never, of course, one that needed to be followed through (Iraq Under British Occupation and Mandate, Peter Sluglett, p. 77)
[3] Blair did not specify exactly how large a massacre “multinational”
forces had to be contemplating before they sought the approval of the IIG but the point was, in any, case an academic one since he was immediately contradicted by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who explained that, ‘if it comes down to the United States armed forces … in some way accomplishing their mission in a way that might not be in total consonance with what the Iraqi interim government might want to do at a particular moment in time, US forces remain under US command and will do what is necessary to protect [sic] themselves’ (Independent, 26 May). ‘It was left to Downing Street to insist that Mr Blair’s remakes will apply to British forces, though not necessarily US troops’ (Guardian, 26 May). It will be interesting to see if Mr Blair follows through on this commitment.
[4] The Iraqi Interim Constitution – a document drafted under close US-supervision and signed in March 2004 by the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council – states that ‘except as otherwise provided in this Law, the laws in force in Iraq on 30 June 2004 shall remain in effect unless and until rescinded or amended by the Iraqi Transitional Government’ – a body not due to come into existence until Iraq’s first elections. However on 1 June the Governing Council issued an annexe to the Interim Constitution stating that whilst the ‘interim government, will refrain from taking any actions affecti ng Iraq’s destiny beyond the limited interim period’ it ‘may issue orders with the force of law that will remain in effect until rescinded or amended by future Iraqi governments’ (see http://www.cpa-iraq.org/gover...).
[5] The new order was declared on the same day that it was announced that nine political parties and movements had ‘pledged to abide by [a] ban on militias’ (Washington Post, 8 June). However the latter appears to be more nominal than real. Of the 102,000 Iraqis believed to carry arms in armed political groups some 70,000 belong to the two main Kurdish groups – the KDP and the PUK – and a further 15,000 belong to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). However according to US officials the Kurdish parties have ‘a different arrangement’ to the other groups, with ‘thousands’ expected to be ‘incorporated into three specialised military units – mountain troops, counterterrorist [sic] forces and quick reaction battalions – under the command of the Kurdish regional government that controls northern Iraq’ (emphasis added) and SCIRI’s military wing will retain the group’s ‘weapons and fighters … ready [in case] its leaders see a need for them again.’
There is anecdotal evidence that the occupation’s use of Kurdish proxies to fight its counter-insurgency campaign is helping to sow the seeds of a future civil war in Iraq (see eg. http://www.voices.netuxo.co.u...)
[6] Irrespective of whether it is true or false, the US pretext for going after Moqtada al-Sadr – namely his alleged complicity in the killing of a fellow cleric following last year’s invasion – is clearly just that, a pretext. After all, given the orgy of killing that US forces have engaged in over the past two months alone, this professed concern is a bit like Hannibal Lector expressing outrage over parents smacking their children.
[7] It is worth recalling that in the 1920s British-occupied Iraq had all the paraphernalia of elections but ‘democracy had little practical reality’ and ‘Iraqi cabinets were powerless to enforce legislation without the co-operation of the British’ (‘Independent Iraq’, Matthew Eliot, I.B.
Tauris, p. 6 and 8 ). The British-installed monarch, Faisal, was even endorsed in ‘a bogus ‘referendum’ … in which it was claimed that 96 per cent of the population accepted’ him (A history of Iraq, Charles Tripp, p. 48) – just a few percentage points short of the results Saddam himself used to enjoy. The US also has ‘form’ for invading countries and then running bogus elections, see 'Demonstration Elections: US-staged elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador' by Edward Herman and Frank Brodhead for two examples.
***************
[b]Voices in the Wilderness UK [/b]has been campaigning on UK policy towards Iraq, in solidarity with the Iraqi people, since February 1998. For more information, to receive further updates or to join our free mailing list, contact: Voices in the Wilderness UK, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX
0845 458 2564 (local rate call);
voices@voicesuk.org; www.voicesuk.org
Out-of-Control Neo-Cons -- Honoring The Memory: 'Trivializing' Ronald Reagan
[b]The neo-con neo-fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are[i] wildly out-of-control [/i]again ... In Iraq??? ... [i]Well, Yes [/i]-- But on another issue too, from which they can [i]cynically exploit[/i] Reagan's death for destructive political purposes ...[i] It is shameless!!! [/i]... This time, with a bizarre sort of canonization [[i]sic[/i]] of Ronald Reagan which is an attempt to create another[i] 1000 Year Nazi-style Reich [/i]... [i]Jeez [/i]... Contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand a stop to this [i]insanity and folly[/i] ... [i]Next they will be asking us to say prayers morning, mid-day and at night to Saint Ronny!!! ... Jeez [/i]...
Read on ...[/b]
Despite objections from prominent Reagan aides, top conservatives - even Reagan himself – the "Reagan Legacy Project" is moving forward with efforts to rename anything and everything after the 40th President. As Reagan's biographer said, the effort "trivializes" Reagan and negates his legacy.
[b]PENATAGON PROPOSAL[/b]
[u]REAGAN SPEECHWRITER SAYS GIPPER WOULDN'T WANT IT:[/u] When Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) proposed renaming the Pentagon after Reagan, one of the 40th President's top speechwriters said it was a bad idea. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a White House speechwriter and special assistant to Reagan from 1981-88, said he was against the proposal because "I don't think Reagan wanted to have a huge military establishment. That wasn't his goal." [Source: CQ Daily, 6/9/04]
[b]MALL PROPOSAL[/b]
[u]REAGAN WANTED WAITING PERIOD FOR NEW MALL MEMORIALS:[/u] "There's even a proposal to create a Reagan Memorial here on Washington's Mall. The only problem? A 1986 law forbidding any monument on the Mall for someone who hasn't been dead for 25 years. And who signed that law? Ronald Reagan." [Source: NBC News, 5/25/01]
[b]AIRPORT PROPOSAL[/b]
[u]REAGAN BIOGRAPHER SAYS EFFORT 'TRIVIALIZES' REAGAN:[/u] "Reagan biographer Lou Cannon said he believes Reagan "would be very uneasy about [the proposal to rename airports after him].' He added: 'They're doing something that Reagan himself would not have wanted done, and they're doing something that is unnecessary. The conservative movement may be in trouble, but I don't think Reagan's reputation is.' Cannon said the Legacy Project's zealous efforts "trivialize" the two-term president and former California governor." [Source: Washington Post, 6/17/01]
[b]LEGACY PROJECT[/b]
[u]REAGAN AIDE SAYS RENAMING CRUSADE DISHONORS REAGAN:[/u] "Critics of the commemoration crusade include Reagan loyalists like Lyn Nofziger, a former aide who commented, 'It is silly in the extreme. Reagan didn't care about such things. He was a modest man.'" [Source: Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/10/01]
[u]TOP CONSERVATIVES SAY RENAMING CRUSADE DISHONORS REAGAN:[/u] Marshall Wittman, an analyst with the conservative Hudson Institute said the effort to rename everything for Reagan "is all very un-Reagan and it actually trivializes his legacy." Similarly, columnist George Will said the renaming frenzy "is the spirit of Leninism and Saddam Husseinism, and all the other countries in which the maximum leader smears his image all over the place in his name." He those who are pushing the renaming issue "have the mentality that led to the lunatic multiplication of Lenin portraits, busts and statues throughout the 'Evil Empire.'" [Sources: Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/10/01; MSNBC 5/23/01; Augusta Chronicle, 4/29/01]
[b]SINKING TO PARTISAN ATTACKS[/b]
[u]TOP CONSERVATIVES ATTACK JFK TO POLITICIZE ISSUE:[/u] "Democrats refrained from criticizing [Reagan renaming] efforts outright, saying it was not the time to engage in a contentious debate over how to remember the 40th President." Meanwhile, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the second ranking Republican in the Senate, lashed out at efforts to memorialize President John F. Kennedy after he was assassinated. McConnell criticized Democrats after President Kennedy's death for supposedly wanting "everything renamed for him." [Source: CQ Daily, 6/9/04]
[u]HONORING THE MEMORY:[/u] Currency Proposals Negate Reagan's Words Conservatives in Congress continue to push to put President Reagan on the $10 bill, the $20 bill or the dime. The proposals come even though Reagan himself often praised the presidents currently on the currency and despite Nancy Reagan's pleas to stop. They also come even though the proposals could cost taxpayers and consumers tens of millions of dollars – something surely anathema to Reagan's calls for less government spending.
[b]$10 BILL[/b]
[u]REAGAN OFTEN PRAISED ALEXANDER HAMILTON:[/u] Conservatives are pushing to have Reagan replace former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton on the $10. They believe the proposal has "the best chance of clearing Congress because it does not involve displacing a former President." However, it was Reagan who repeatedly praised Alexander Hamilton, and invoked his words in speeches. As California governor, Reagan gave a speech for Barry Goldwater on 8/27/64 saying, "Alexander Hamilton said, 'A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.'" On 2/26/81, Reagan called Hamilton a man "of enormous intellectual capacity and courage." On 9/15/82, Reagan called Hamilton "one of our greatest Founding Fathers" and praised Hamilton's declaration that "a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." Similarly, on 12/10/85, Reagan said, "let us rededicate ourselves to the advancement of human rights throughout the world, recalling the words of Alexander Hamilton that 'natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent creator to the whole human race…and cannot be wrested from any people without the most manifest violation of justice.'" [Source: CQ Daily, 6/9/04; Reagan speech, 8/27/64; Reagan speech, 2/26/81; Reagan speech, 9/15/82; Reagan Speech, 12/10/85]
[b]$20 BILL[/b]
[u]REAGAN TOUTED JACKSON FOR HIS COMMITMENT TO AVERAGE PEOPLE:[/u] Other conservatives are proposing to replace President Andrew Jackson with Reagan on the $20 bill. However, Reagan often praised Jackson for his commitment to the common man. On 3/15/82, Reagan said, ""The first United States President to be born in a log cabin, Jackson spoke for the average citizen and fought the vested interests. And just a short time ago, before coming here, I was proud to lay a wreath on his grave. It was Jackson who reminded us that 'One man with courage makes a majority.' Throughout his stormy life he lived by that motto, defending his honor, our Union, and the inalienable rights of every American citizen, regardless of station." On 9/24/85, Reagan visited Jackson's home and said "Andrew Jackson started here, and he was a President who cared about the average American." [Sources: Reagan speech, 3/15/82; Reagan speech, 9/24/85]
[b]DIME[/b]
[u]DIME – REAGAN'S PERSONAL HERO WAS FDR; NANCY REAGAN CRITICIZES PROPOSAL:[/u] Conservatives continue to push a proposal to replace President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime with Reagan, even after it was criticized by Nancy Reagan. She said, "I do not support this proposal and I am certain Ronnie would not. When our country chooses to honor a great president such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another. It is my hope that the proposed legislation will be withdrawn." According to the St. Petersburg Times, Ronald Reagan himself "frequently referred to Franklin D. Roosevelt [as] the hero of his youth." Time Magazine noted that Reagan had a "penchant for quoting Roosevelt." In 1982, Reagan called FDR "one of history's truly monumental figures…an American giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led our people through perilous times." [Source: CNN, 12/5/03; St. Petersburg Times, 8/28/88; Time Magazine, 2/1/82; Reagan speech, 1/28/82]
[b]ENORMOUS COSTS[/b]
[u]CHANGING CURRENCY INCURS HUGE COSTS:[/u] According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the "last money makeover cost $765,000 plus two million pamphlets and thousands of videos and compact discs" and also "a $53 million publicity contract." Additionally, "it can cost $600 per vending machine to replace outdated currency acceptance units." [Sources: U.S. Banker, 12/03; Columbian, 7/26/00]
[b]Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry widened his lead over President Bush - 49% to 43% - in the past two weeks, a Gallup Organization poll found.[/b]
Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator, leads Bush, 57, among registered voters who say they are likely to cast ballots in the November election, in Gallup's poll conducted June 3-6. Independent candidate Ralph Nader drew support from 5%.
Kerry extended his margin from a May 21-23 poll in which he had 47% to Bush's 46% in a three-way race.
"The fact that Bush is behind now certainly underscores his vulnerability as an incumbent," Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief, said. The Presidents who won reelection since 1956 "never once after January in their election year were behind their opponents," he said. - http://www.nydailynews.com/ne...
"We the People" have good reason to be very, very concerned about wrong-doings/election rigging by Bush, and should contact Congress http://www.congress.org to conduct investigations into the irregularities and manipulations by the corrupt Bush regime with collusion by the embezzler-[i]n[/i]-brothe r Gov. Jeb Bush who is taking potentially illegal steps to rig the election in Florida by keeping citizens from voting who might indeed be eligible to do so, and also with Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Electronic Voting Machines, a diehard Republican "committed to getting Bush" back in power ...
The head of Florida's elections division resigned Monday amid reports he was feeling political heat over a push to purge thousands of suspected felons from the state's voter rolls. "Kast has told a handful of associates that he was uncomfortable with growing pressure to trim felons from voter rolls in time for the fall election, friends say." - http://www.sun-sentinel.com/n...,0,2424064.story?coll=sfla-news-flor ida
So voters are being purged/eliminated and Walden O'Dell, head of Diebold Electronic Voting Systems has pledged to get Bush re-elected http://www.commondreams.org/h... ... Diebold's Electronic Election Systems are easily rigged:-- these poorly designed systems are without paper trails & receipts; and are also without audit trails & reconciliation procedures to ensure that firewalls will keep out dishonest hackers & neo-fascist politicos who want to stage another [i]banana republican coup d'etat[/i] as we saw in 2000.
It is time for "We the People" to take the election back into our own hands and insist that the United Nations oversee the 2004 November Presidential Election, in order to avoid a repeat of the fiasco of 2000 ...
[b]It was astonishing to hear President Bush in an interview with Tom Brokaw last weekend http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... cynically exploit the fear of terrorism and the threat of terrorist attacks in order to say to the American people that if you don't vote for him, you are voting for the terrorists ... [/b]This is dangerously stupid, un-American and neo-fascist rhetoric and "We the People" should [i]reject[/i] such fear-mongering ...
Former White House counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke on Sunday accused members of the US administration of using terror warnings to manipulate voters ahead of the presidential election in November.
Clarke, who resigned last year, said the conflicting assessments of the risk of terror attacks presented by US Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge and US Attorney General John Ashcroft last week showed how some officials sought to inflate the threat for political gain.
"That was ass-covering, or perhaps, dare I say it, politics in an election year," said Clarke, who was in Berlin on a book tour to promote his unflattering account of US President George W Bush's anti-terrorism policies, entitled [i]The Price of Loyalty[/i].
He had been asked at a panel discussion whether frequent terror warnings by the US administration were "just bureaucratic ass-covering".
Clarke said Ashcroft had offered a far more alarmist view compared with Ridge's remarks "saying 'We're going into the summer and we should have heightened security but we have no new intelligence about it.'"
At the end of May, Ashcroft told reporters: "Credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al-Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States in the next few months.
"This disturbing news shows a particular intention to hit the United States hard."
The Washington Post later reported that Ridge allies within the Bush administration and members of Congress criticized Ashcroft for failing to co-ordinate that threat information with the White House and Homeland Security.
Clarke has been an outspoken critic of Bush's anti-terrorism policies ahead of and after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
He has accused Bush of failing to pay enough attention to the al-Qaeda threat after he took office in January 2001 and undermining the struggle against terrorism with a "counterproductive" war in Iraq.
[b]The people of America are not going to permit the corrupt, incompetent and traitorous Bush regime to [i]continue[/i] to commit their heinous War Crimes ... (and then [i]continue to lie [/i]about committing their heinous War Crimes) ...
Even back home in[i] good ole' [/i]Texas they're starting to wonder. [/b]This from an editorial http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... in yesterday's [i]Houston Chronicle [/i]...
... "The United States' moral authority to call for the rule of law and respect for human rights has been undermined by legal machinations the Bush administration undertook to justify torturing prisoners taken in the war on terror.
Administration officials have attempted to downplay the significance of a March 6, 2003, Justice Department memorandum that concluded that, as commander in chief in time of war, President George W. Bush is bound neither by federal law nor the tenets of the Geneva Conventions that ban torture as a means of extracting information from detainees.
...
The March memo asserts that interrogators could inflict severe pain on a detainee with impunity as long as the intent was something other than to torture. An interrogator would be culpable only if he knew his actions would inflict suffering that is severe enough to induce "prolonged" physical or mental effects. An interrogator would be immune from punishment if he believed he acted to prevent a larger harm, the lawyers determined.
The memos were obviously concocted to defend acts that are clearly beyond the bounds of a civilized nation.
The memos support the view that the prisoner abuses uncovered at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were not merely the grave mistakes of a few soldiers, but resulted from policies formed at the highest levels of government. They strengthen concerns about how detainees at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan are being treated." ...
We're like contestants on [i]Wheel of Fortune [/i]with a long phrase spelled out in front of us with maybe one or two letters missing. We know what the letters spell. It's obvious. We just don't have the heart to say it out loud.
[b]Why isn't Bush in jail??? ... Bush is a traitor ... [/b]Firstly the imbecilic ne'er-do-well claims he didn't read ([i]Condi Rice sits on his lap and feeds him baby-food that she incompetently digests & regurgitates back into him ...[/i]) the Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) that warned of imminent terrorist attacks upon America in the days leading-up to 9/11 ... Secondly, the tyrannical AWOL drunkard-[i]cum[/i]-deser ter waged his illegal & immoral neo-con, neo-fascist war in Iraq based upon heinous lies, deceptions & falsehoods ... Now we learn that he [i]lied also[/i] about letting the Saudi Royal and Osama bin Laden's families escape back to Saudi Arabia in the 2-3 days following the 9/11 attack upon America ... Bush should be in jail ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
From today's[i] Saint Petersburg Times [/i]...
Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with most of the nation's air traffic still grounded, a small jet landed at Tampa International Airport, picked up three young Saudi men and left.
The men, one of them thought to be a member of the Saudi royal family, were accompanied by a former FBI agent and a former Tampa police officer on the flight to Lexington, Ky.
The Saudis then took another flight out of the country. The two ex-officers returned to TIA a few hours later on the same plane.
For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.
But now, at the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, TIA officials have confirmed that the flight did take place and have supplied details.
[b]What[i] good [/i]has the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]done for America??? ... [/b]To use an[i] over-used cliche [/i]by one of their neo-con, neo-fascist mad-dog blowhards Rush [i]'Drug-Addict-cum-Hypoc rite-Extraordinaire' [/i]Limbaugh: [b]Zip, Zero, Nada!!![/b] ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
There are so many Bush Administration scandals and so little time to figure them all out. So I checked in with the franchised book series that succinctly provides clear answers for confused dummies like me.
Q. Why are all these scandals seeming to come at the same time? Am I imagining this? Is it a liberal media conspiracy?
A. No, you're not imagining it. And there's no conspiracy involved. It's a phenomenon not at all surprising. Here's how it works:
Many of the Bush scandals aren't new at all; they've been brewing for a long time, with the White House trying to push them off until after Election Day. But scandals, like viruses, erupt on their own schedules.
Then, too, when a mass of scandals all seem to be happening at once, the veneer of invulnerability around an administration is removed. Suddenly what looked impregnable now looks vulnerable, and so more people are willing to step up and be counted in opposition, including whistle-blowing insiders with secrets to reveal. And elements in the mass media, looking for juicy stories, participate in the sharks-in-the-water syndrome when they smell blood; these days, they feel they have to dive in because foreign journalists and internet writers are scooping them each day on the depths of the scandals.
In addition, when you've been around for a long time - in the case of Bush&Co., it's been nearly a full term - you make a lot of enemies. There are a lot of politicians out there, many of them Republicans, who resent the Bush cabal (many refer to them colloquially as "those arrogant sons of bitches") for the way they've been pushed around and threatened and lied to over the years. Even though it may be bad for the party - in the short term - they don't mind watching Bush and his cohorts squirm and flail about, just like ordinary mortals; many of these true conservatives feel that if they are lucky, Bush&Co. will implode on their own, and they can get their political party back again.
Then, there are the spooks in the CIA and State who, thoroughly pissed at Bush trying to blame them for all the mistakes in intelligence and the war and 9/11 - and at the felonious "outing" of one of their covert agents by Bush officials - are happy to heap dirt (and there's lots of it) on the Bush neo-cons.
Finally, let us not forget that it's not the "liberal media," or Democrats, or disaffected Republicans who generated the scandals. It's Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and their crews who got themselves into this huge mess, through their greed, lust for power, secretiveness, obstinacy, arrogance, and conviction that they are holy warriors in a divine crusade against those who don't believe exactly as they do. That's the irony, of course: In a sense, they're fighting the Taliban, when they want to BE the Taliban.
[b]The prisoner-torture scandal[/b]
Q. All that's very interesting, but it's way too generalized for me. Maybe we should take the scandals one at a time. Tell me about - oh, let's start with the abuse-of-prisoners scandal in Iraq.
A. OK, but let's agree on our terms of reference. It's not happening only in Iraq, but all over the world where Bush&Co. believe that information needs to be obtained from detainees, by whatever means necessary. And it's not just "abuse," but out-and-out torture as well.
Q. But the government says it's just a "few bad apples," a few guards who went off on their own, freelance sadists, so to speak. You don't believe the Administration denials?
A. Of course not. Yes, there always are, and will be, some cruel and sadistic guards, who get their jollies by humiliating and beating up and raping prisoners in their care, terror suspects or no. But in this case, it's pretty clear that the chain of command, at least from Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and all the way down the line, set the tone for the lower officers and troops.
Just look at the smoking-gun memos issued for the Bush Administration by law professor John Yoo, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, and the lawyers in Rumsfeld's office - all designed to permit, indeed facilitate, what is euphemistically called "harsh interrogation methods" (read: abuse, humiliation, physical and psychological torture) and to shield those ordering such tactics and those carrying them out from being tried later for war crimes.
Using those questionable, enabling advisories from their lawyers, the Bush Administration figured it had cleverly escaped the restrictions of the Geneva Convention with regard to prisoner-care - by re-naming prisoners "enemy combatants" or "detainees," terms not mentioned in the Geneva rules - and had engineered it so that U.S. forces could not be held liable in international courts.
At that point, Gen. Miller - the guy in charge of the infamous Taliban/Al Qaida camp at Guantanamo - was sent to Iraq to pass on some of these harsh interrogation techniques to the guards and CIA interrogators in Abu Ghraib and the other jail sites. These tactics included sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, keeping the detainees nude and hooded, using beatings and dogs and near-drownings to terrorize them, etc. Miller leaves, and almost immediately the techniques harden up in Iraq and the abuse and torture goes big time.
Things get pretty messy, including scores of prisoners dying while in American custody, presumably after having been beaten or crushed or drowned. Photos are taken - some for personal enjoyment, some used to frighten other detainees - and soon the word gets out about what's going on at the prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Damning reports on the tortures are issued by human rights groups, and the International Red Cross.
So Gen. Taguba is dispatched to find out what happened and write an internal Army report on the mess; his conclusions are devastating. But nobody pays any attention to his report, which languishes in the Pentagon, basically unread. Then all hell breaks loose when the photos and videos of the degrading, humiliating, violent treatment makes its way into the American and world media. Something has to be done.
A few guards are fingered for courts-martial, some lower-level officers are disciplined and moved around, some interrogation tactics are altered, at least temporarily. The whole object is to ride out the wave of bad publicity, and keep the investigation away from those who set the policy, and the tone of behavior, in the first place - i.e., in the Pentagon and the White House. The strategy seems to be working, but the impact has done its damage to the American cause, especially in the Muslim world.
[b]The moral low ground[/b]
Q. What damage? We're still whoopin' ass in Iraq and the story is off the front pages now.
A. Well, one of the big reasons why Bush's numbers are going lower and lower is that the last remaining reasonable justification for the war disappeared with those tortures and humiliations. There were no WMDs, no nuclear weapons, no imminent threat, no Iraq ties to Al Qaida - the only claim the Americans still had was that it had toppled a brutal dictator and the cruel regime he ran, one rife with torture and death of prisoners in his care. Now, thanks to the reports and photos and videos, it turns out that prisoners in U.S. care were tortured, humiliated, sexually abused and, in some cases, even killed. There goes the last piece of moral high ground.
Q. OK, so that looks bad for Bush, I grant you. But he's been able to cut off the damage at the lower levels for now, so the neocons are still in control - that would seem to bode well for Bush's election hopes, yes? But what about the Chalabi scandal?
[b]The Chalabi enigma[/b]
A. We may never find out what that one's all about, it's so involved in multiple layers of spies and double-agents and triple crosses in the convoluted world of Middle East intrigue. The important point seems to be - beyond the one of finding out which officials in the Pentagon and/or White House committed treason by providing Chalabi top-secret information - that the long-simmering war between the so-called "realists" at State and the neo-con "ideologues" at Defense is getting nastier and nastier. Each group is finking and leaking on the other with increasing rapidity and nastiness. Condi was supposed to act as a buffer between the two, but it's just too intense.
Chalabi may well be a double- or even triple-agent, feeding us intelligence (some of which actually is good, to justify his pay-grade) at the same time he's passing on U.S. secrets to the Iranians and maybe the Syrians and Jordanians. He's a dangerous viper, but for the moment, has lost much of his power, and his neo-con backers can't get him back into the game, at least not until after the November election.
The "realists" are driving the show right now: witness the new Iraqi interim government, filled with politicians the U.S. can do business with. Sure, it's a rigged selection process - the guys appointed by the Americans now have appointed themselves to the important portfolios in the interim government - but supposedly it's only temporary until January. In truth, the whole affair seems designed to help Bush get through the November election, then all bets are off.
But if the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate much further, if the American troops can't provide protection for the Iraqi civilians and government officials and police, the U.S.-friendly new Iraqi government may find itself forced to move even more into the nationalist camp and, at some near-future point, demand that the U.S. take its troops and reconstruction companies and depart the country.
Q. Do you think the U.S. would leave if the Iraq government demanded it?
A. Before the U.S. election, yes: anything to get daily news reports of slaughtered U.S. soldiers and "contractors" (mercenaries) off the electoral front pages. The spin would be: "We came to rid Iraq of Saddam and help set up a functioning democracy; Saddam is gone and a democratic government has made a request we can't ignore." And some troops would be pulled out, slowly, with an eye on the election in the States.
But If Bush were to win in November, then my answer is a firm no. The logic would be: "We didn't come this far, and spend this much human and financial capital, to pack up and go home, our tails between our legs. We're in Iraq to help transform the entire Arab Middle East, stabilize the situation between Israel and its neighbors, and make sure the rich energy resources do not fall into the hands of the Bad Guys. We're staying, get used to it." The neo-con agenda would be re-activated; let the regime-changing begin anew.
[b]Flaming the Plame leakers[/b]
Q. What about the Valerie Plame scandal, where two "senior Administration officials" outed the CIA covert agent as payback for her husband (Ambassador Joseph Wilson) revealing how Bush&Co. lied about "yellowcake" uranium in the State of the Union address? Are Karl Rove and Scooter Libby going to be fingered?
A. As John W. Dean and others have written, it could be worse than that. Both Cheney and Bush have approached criminal defense lawyers outside the White House for advice - not a good sign. This felonious outing - a bit of vindictiveness that has Rove M.O. written all over it - always was a simmering pot that could blow up in their faces. Someone is going down on this one, with indictments coming soon; it's just a question of who the sacrificial lambs are going to be and at what level. Will it stop with the underlings or is it going up the line to Rove and Libby (Cheney's chief of staff) - or, conceivably, if immunity deals are made, to Cheney and Bush? And will the indictments come this summer or right before the election, with the truth coming out at trial after November?
[b]Tenet: An open or closed mouth?[/b]
Q. What about CIA Director Tenet's resignation? What does this portend? Will it help or hurt Bush?
A. Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it ain't good for the pitcher. The head of intelligence leaving in the midst of an election campaign centering on national security issues can only make Bush look more vulnerable. Whether Tenet was pushed or jumped on his own isn't really the point. Whether he keeps his mouth shut between now and November is the central question. So Bush&Co. have to play their deflection of blame onto the CIA with great sensitivity; the spooks are ready to lash back, with more leaks involving more scandalous Bush behavior, and Tenet might feel compelled to join in the fray to back up his former troops. How to keep Tenet quiet is the big job for Bush and Cheney.
Q. What about Cheney's scandals?
A. About time you mentioned his name, as he's far more vulnerable, in so many areas, than his sock-puppet in the Oval Office. Most of Cheney's scandals seem to involve energy - the way Enron manipulated the California energy crisis, for example, with Cheney on the inside making sure Enron had free rein - and his ultra-secret energy policy panel, which may have helped create the takeover of the Iraq oil fields. And, then, of course, there's Halliburton, his old company with which he claims he's no longer involved, even while there is evidence that he's deeply engaged. But, again, the whole aim of Cheney and Bush is to keep all this awfulness and political slime hidden under the rocks until after November. Wouldn't do to get impeached before the election.
Q. So much of what you've talked about seems to revolve around November 2. You seem to be cynically implying that everything Bush is doing now is based on winning that election, and that he's even willing to sacrifice his principles to gain a victory. I thought he was a strong guy who didn't flip flop or back down.
A. At this point, Bush/Cheney/Rove care about one thing and one thing only: staying in power. If they get kicked out of the White House in November, they can't complete their agenda of police-state powers at home, and controlling the world situation abroad. They will be in an extremely tenuous, vulnerable position, with many revenge-minded politicos and ordinary citizens working to get them convicted and into the federal slammer.
For all these reasons, be advised that Bush&Co. will do anything, ANYTHING, necessary to stay in the White House, including selling out their grandmothers, distorting the election vote-counts, and looking the other way while a major terrorist attack is mounted inside the U.S. (remembering 9/11 and thinking, perhaps erroneously, that if and when the big terrorist attack happens, the frightened populace once again will rally-'round-the-presiden t).
If the Bushies were to emerge victorious in November, they would be a lame-duck administration, so all restraints would be off. They might well figure they'd be able to do whatever they want to do domestically and around the globe. Native-fascism at home, imperial wars abroad, wrecking even more of the environment, more extremist judges appointed, more corruption, the economy tanking, the middle-class getting squeezed even more, Social Security and Medicare down the tubes.
[b]Mideast experts, military intelligence and Arab leaders all warned the imbecilic ne'er-do-well-[i]cum[/i]- traitor Dubya and his corrupt and incompetent regime of neo-con neo-fascists that Civil War might very well break-out if they invaded Iraq ... [/b]Of course, Dubya [i]stupidly ignored [/i]all warnings, intelligence and advice in his[i] lust to enrich [/i]Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil & the Military Industrial Complex ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
The Kurds of Iraq can’t just opt out of Iraq’s new central government, for one glaringly obvious reason: Their so-called “Kurdistan” doesn’t have any oil. By opting out, not only would the Kurds anger Turkey (and Iran) but they’d consign themselves to a barren rump state of deserts and mountains.
So the Kurds are really threatening civil war. In order to survive, they’d have to seize control of Iraq’s northern oil fields and pipelines centered around Kirkuk, which is not historically a Kurdish city. Not only would that mean violent ethnic cleansing and retaliatory Shiite fundamentalist pogroms against the 800,000 Kurds in Baghdad, but it would be a [i]casus belli [/i]for the Iraqi government. No Iraqi regime—from Saddam’s to the fake one led by Iyad Allawi, the terrorist and CIA agent—can allow the Kurds to take the oil.
Soft-hearted—and soft-headed—thinkers often defend the Kurds for their suffering, from leftie-turned-right Christopher Hitchens to William Safire of [i]The New York Times[/i] . Today Safire writes: “President Bush may be double-crossing the Kurds, our most loyal friends in Iraq.” (Actually the Kurds are loyal to no one, though they have been in the pay of everyone: after World War II, the Kurds were KGB-controlled; then they were picked by SAVAK and the Mossad, when the left took over Iraq in 1958; then they worked for the CIA in the 1970s. Anyone want them in 2004?) But in reality, the Kurds have been planning and plotting independence for more than a decade, while paying lip service to talk about a strong Iraqi central government.
The Kurdish rebellion is only the latest sign that, despite the happy-happy talk at the UN and the G8, Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket (a cliché that I’ve never understood—a handbasket? Maybe Safire can explain it to me). President Bush sees his re-election as being controlled by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, so he’ll do anything to placate the scowly fundamentalist. Sistani has issued his latest fatwa -style pronunciamento declaring that he doesn’t like the Transitional Administration Law, the much-ballyhooed draft constitution that won so much praise earlier this year when it was adopted. Then, Bush called it a major step forward. Now, it’s trash. Bush will do anything to keep Sistani smiling. (Well, okay, the guy never smiles.) Season tickets to the Rangers? Sure. Throw out that silly draft constitution and get the Kurds mad? [i]Sure[/i]. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
[b]Every time the vile Bush opens his neo-con, neo-fascist mouth, you must [i]carefully record [/i]what he says, only to [i]find out later [/i]that his mendacious words are bold-faced neo-orwellian lies, deceptions and falsehoods ...[/b]
[b]Read on ...[/b]
As Lily Tomlin observed, "[i]No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up[/i]." But as Con Ed used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of David Sirota at americanprogress.org, http://www.americanprogress.o... we find the following matches between word and deed:
Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died aborning after it hit the newspapers.
In January 2003, just before the war, Bush said, "I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay." A few months later, the White House announced it would roll back increases in "imminent danger" pay (from $225 to $150) and family separation allowance (from $250 to $100).
In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance. What a nice thank you note.
A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing." Progressive lawmakers counter-proposed an amendment to restore $1 billion in housing funds and pay for it by reducing new tax cuts Bush was proposing for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of getting $88,000 in tax cuts, the poor millionaires would get only $83,000. The House, with White House backing, voted the proposal down. (All thanks to Sirota.)
With the release of the 2006 budget, we're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically in order to pay for making his tax cuts permanent.
According to [i]The Washington Post[/i], the White House guidelines for the 2006 budget include a $1.7 billion cut for education, supposedly his signature program. That neatly wipes out last year's increase – and, you may recall, the administration has never funded education at anything close to the figures in the original agreement with Sen. Ted Kennedy. Teachers say the No Child Left Behind law should be called "No Dollars Left Behind to Pay for It." Head Start is to be cut by $177 million, and the highly successful nutrition program for women, infants and children is to be cut by $100 million.
Any time Bush goes out into the country and claims credit for, or praises the work being done by, some government program, it is an almost-certain kiss of death – budget cuts follow.
Back to veterans. This year, the administration increased spending on veterans by $519 million. In 2006, it plans to cut veterans spending by $910 million.
Also on the list for substantial cuts are the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and police assistance and crime prevention programs. When something like the West Nile virus gets out of control, can't you just envision the independent investigation committee that will have a look into that government failure? Can we fire George Tenet again?
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., points out the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut $682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire that the latest Republican scheme is to not pass a budget at all this year (until after the election), lest people notice what is going on.
The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.
Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always timely, "What the hell will they do to us next?" - http://www.alternet.org/story...
[b]Nuclear proliferation is [i]not[/i] the way to achieve peace, defend ourselves or stop terrorism ... [/b]As wiser leaders than Bush ([i]even[/i] Reagan) determined, nuclear nonproliferation is the[i] only way [/i]to encourage nations to work together towards attempting to resolve conflict peacefully through diplomacy ... Nuclear nonproliferation treaties are vital to stopping terrorism and creating a better world for all people ... The insane neo-con neo-fascists in the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]with[i] lusts [/i]of never-ending warfare are dangerously pursuing a nuclear arms race http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... that is wrong-headed, extravagantly expensive and will[i] not [/i]protect us ...
[b]NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
[u]G-8 Must Lead Global Attack On Nuclear Threat[/u][/b]
As G-8 leaders gather in Sea Island, Georgia, progressive leaders from the United States and Europe came together yesterday to advance a new proposal to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and materials. A proposal produced by Building Global Alliances for the 21st Century – a group that includes American Progress - calls on G-8 countries to take strong, proactive steps to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, materials and technology. Some of the steps G-8 leaders must take: Secure nuclear materials beyond the former Soviet Union; increase and accelerate the G-8 pledge for the Global Partnership for nonproliferation; close loopholes that let nations develop weapons programs under the cover of nuclear energy programs; develop, maintain and monitor a global network for border security; and commit to active personal diplomacy to reduce regional tensions. In yesterday's LAT, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook urged the G-8 leaders to put aside differences over Iraq and use the steps to restore credibility and a position of leadership in the fight. (Read the entire Nuclear Nonproliferation Strategy for the 21st Century here http://www.americanprogress.o... .)
[b]KEEP AWAY FROM TERRORISTS:[/b] According to a recent Harvard University report http://www.nti.org/e_research... titled "Securing the Bomb: An Agenda for Action," not nearly enough is being done to keep nuclear fissile materials away from terrorists and rogue states. In fact, the report says "less fissile materials were secured in the two years after Sept 11 than in the two years before." It will be well over a decade before the nuclear fissile materials located in over 140 countries worldwide are adequately secured, leaving nuclear materials vulnerable to terrorist thieves.
[b]NUNN'S THE WORD:[/b] In this morning's WP, former Sen. Sam Nunn, of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Michele Flournoy, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, put out a similar 10-step strategy for G-8 leaders to strengthen nonproliferation. The most important goal, they stress, is to make it impossible for terrorists to get their hands on the plutonium or highly enriched uranium they need to build a bomb. "Globally," they write, "there are still more than 130 nuclear research reactors and other facilities in 40 countries using or storing weapons-usable [highly enriched uranium], and many of these facilities have only the most rudimentary security measures." Here's a scorecard http://www.sgpproject.org/GP%20Scorecard.pdf from the Nuclear Threat Initiative exploring what has happened and what is left to be accomplished on this issue by G-8 leaders.
[b]SHOW US THE MONEY:[/b] At their summit two years ago, the G-8 leaders pledged to raise $20 billion for a partnership to stop the spread of WMD. The pledge remains $3 billion short and, due to squabbles over tax questions and liability issues, "only a fraction of the $17 billion pledged has been appropriated for programs." Even if the pledges are fully realized, however, it still isn't enough to get the job done – securing Russia's nuclear material alone would cost $30 billion. President Bush's last budget underfunded Nunn-Lugar, the program intended to keep the former Soviet Union's nuclear legacy out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states, by about $45.5 million.
[b]THE CLOCK IS TICKING:[/b] On May 26, U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced the United States, in cooperation with Russia, would spearhead a global nuclear "clean-out" of vulnerable nuclear materials around the world. True, this initiative, a step in the right direction, would help to secure and remove nuclear materials from sites where security is inadequate. But as Jon Wolfsthal, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has pointed out, "The plan…will take almost a decade to implement and may not prevent additional weapons-usable nuclear materials from being exported in the meantime." Instead, write Albright and Cook, the G-8 should "commit to a far more aggressive timetable – within the next four or five years – for completing this important work."
[b]SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE:[/b] President Bush's budget includes a sharp increase in money to research two new kinds of nuclear bombs. This undermines credibility in global nonproliferation. As The Economist asks, "If America, with the most powerful nuclear forces in the world, still claims it needs to tinker with new sorts of weapons for its security, how is Mr. Bush to persuade others to give up their nuclear ambitions?" According to this morning's NYT editorial, this not only is sending the wrong message, it threatens to take the military in a dangerous direction. "The only research involving nuclear weapons should involve finding ways to discourage their spread. It's mind-boggling that the administration seems more interested in finding new uses for them." The NYT calls for action: "The Senate should halt this reckless folly by voting next week for an amendment sponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein."
[b]WHY BUSH IS IN TROUBLE???:[/b] Take a look at this analysis from Adam Clymer's NAES outfit http://www.annenbergpublicpol... and Ruy Teixera's take http://www.emergingdemocratic... on it. Yes, Clymer is a Bush-hater [Who [i]isn't [/i]with brains??? ...] -- but the polling is sound, and shows how weak Bush is at this point in the race in the swing states. Swing voters are highly alienated by Iraq and the economy. Maybe they'll change their tune. But time is running out. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
Bush's Iraqi Fiasco: Kurds Threaten to Pull Out of Iraq Government ...
[b]So everything is[i] "peachy-keen"[/i] and [i]"hunky-dory"[/i] in Iraq??? ... [i]Uh-huh, yeah right [/i]... These [i]rosy neo-orwellian [/i]scenarios are more of the [i]same-old, same-old [/i]corrupt Bush regime's neo-con, neo-fascist bullshit ...
Read on ...[/b]
The main Kurdish political parties are threatening to pull out of Iraq's interim government unless a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq endorses Kurdish autonomy.
Masoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan made the threat in a publicly-released letter to President Bush.
The two Kurdish leaders said Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq should be included in the new U.N. resolution or otherwise recognized as law-binding on the transitional government, both before and after elections.
Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani also expressed what they called their bitter disappointment that no Kurd was chosen to be either interim prime minister or president of Iraq. - http://www.voanews.com/articl...%20Threaten%20to%20Pull%2 0Out%20of%20Iraqi%20Gover nment&catOID=45C9C78D-88A D-11D4-A57200A0CC5EE46C&c ategoryname=Mideast
[b]It's called Civil War [i]disastrously created [/i]by the corrupt, incompetent and dangerously stupid Bush regime ...[/b]
The Maniacal Mad King George Grabs Monarchial Powers ...
[b]The Maniacal Mad King George [i]lusts[/i] to transform the United States of America into a monarchy and destroy our Republic in the process ... It is time to [i]send this corrupt [/i]imbecilic ne'er-do-well-[i]cum[/i]- buffoon [i]packing[/i] back to Crawford, or better yet, [i]to jail [/i]...[/b]
The[i] Wall Street Journal [/i]has an extraordinary article http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do...%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2CSB 108655737612529969%2C00.html%3Fmod%3Dtodays_us_pa ge_one in today's edition. The[i] Journal [/i]has taken to making an article a day open to the public for bloggers and others to link to. This wasn't the one they chose today; but I hope they'll make an exception and make this one available too.
The article describes a confidential Pentagon report providing legal rationales and interpretations by which US personnel could use torture and methods of near-torture in contravention of various international treaties and US laws. The bulk of the arguments rest on arguments of 'necessity' and the powers of the president as commander-in-chief. They also go into some depth about how people acting at the president's order could avoid prosecution for demonstrably criminal acts.
The article is well worth reading for this alone.
But that whole discussion is different in kind from one passage in the report. I quote from the piece ...
[i]To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president[/i]."
So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that.
Now, we know that presidents sometimes break laws and they frequently bend them, if only in cases where the laws don't seem to anticipate a situation the president finds himself confronting. There is even an argument that the president can refuse to enforce laws he deems unconstitutional.
But there is no power inherent in the president simply to set aside the law. Richard Nixon famously argued http://www.landmarkcases.org/... that "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." But the constitutional rulings emerging out of Watergate said otherwise. And history has been equally unkind to his claim.
Now, there are some possible exceptions -- ones of an extra-constitutional nature. If memory serves, Thomas Jefferson -- when he was later thinking over the implications of his arguably unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase (and again this is from memory -- so perhaps someone can check for me) -- argued that the president might find himself in a position in which he might have the right or even the duty to disregard the law or some stricture of the constitution in the higher interests of the Republic.
Jefferson's argument, however, wasn't that the president had the prerogative to set aside the law. It was that the president might find himself in a position of extremity in which there was simply no time to canvass the people or a situation in which there was no practicable way to bring the relevant information before them. In such a case the president might have an extra-constitutional right (if there can be such a thing) or even an obligation to act in what he understands to be the best interests of the Republic.
The clearest instance of this would be a case where the president faced a choice between letting the Republic be destroyed or violating one of its laws.
But that wasn't the end of his point. Having taken such a step, it would then be the obligation of the president to [i]throw himself on the mercy of the public[/i], letting them know the full scope of the facts and circumstances he had faced and leave it to them -- or rather their representatives or the courts -- to impeach him or indict those who had taken it upon themselves to act outside the law.
As I recall Jefferson's argument there was never any thought that the president had the power to prevent future prosecutions of himself or those acting at his behest. Indeed, such a follow-on claim would explode whatever sense there is in Jefferson's argument.
If you see the logic of Jefferson's argument it is not that the president is above the law or that he can set aside laws, it is that the president may have a [i]moral authority [/i]or obligation to[i] break [/i]the law in the interests of the Republic itself -- subject to submitting himself for punishment for breaking its laws, even in its own defense. Jefferson's argument was very much one of executive self-sacrifice rather than prerogative.
Somehow I don't think that's what[i] this [/i]White House has in mind.
[b]"We the People" must surely recognize that the dangerously stupid, corrupt and incompetent George W. Bush has a lousy track-record that has been so very destructive to our nation ...[/b]
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.
[b]1. OPEC[/b]
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES..."What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
[b]2. Iraq Funding[/b]
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004..."We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for [Iraq for] the balance of this year." [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten, 7/29/03]
…BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 “I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops.” [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
[b]3. Condoleeza Rice Testimony[/b]
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'...“Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference.” [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
…BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: “Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony.” [President Bush, 3/30/04]
[b]4. Science[/b]
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
[b]5. Ahmed Chalabi[/b]
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE"U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
[b]6. Department of Homeland Security[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
[b]7. Weapons of Mass Destruction[/b]
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
[b]8. Free Trade[/b]
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
[b]9. Osama Bin Laden[/b]
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA “I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
[b]10. The Environment[/b]
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
[b]11. WMD Commission[/b]
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
[b]12. Creation of the 9/11 Commission[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
[b]13. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
[b]14. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony[/b]
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
[b]15. Gay Marriage[/b]
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
[b]16. Nation Building[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
[b]17. Saddam/al Qaeda Link[/b]
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
[b]18. U.N. Resolution[/b]
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
[b]19. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
[b]20. Campaign Finance[/b]
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]
[b]President Bush's White House Chief Counsel Alberto Gonzales immorally & unethically advised that the Geneva Conventions could be/should be wantonly, recklessly and criminally cast aside http://www.americanprogress.o... ...[/b] The corrupt Bush regime sought means to use murder, torture, rape and abuse of prisoners and therefore should be ousted from office immediately ... Write to Congress http://www.congress.org today and demand the [i]impeachment[/i] of Bush & Cheney and the [i]firing[/i] of Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and the rest of their neo-con cabal of neo-hitlerian war criminals ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Liberals who don’t read the[i] Wall Street Journal [/i]ought to take a look the [i]Journal’s[/i] lead story today, entitled: “[u]Pentagon Report Set Framework for Use of Torture[/u].” Yes, you read that right. Here’s the opening paragraph:
[i]Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn’t bound by laws prohibiting torture and that the government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn’t be prosecuted by the Justice Department[/i].
It’s based on a 100-page memo (classified) that was given to Rummy after torture-inclined Guantanamo interrogators complained that they weren’t getting enough info from the detainees there. (The thought that the Afghans—who were randomly rounded-up and included children—might not know anything apparently didn’t occur to these folks.) Says the [i]Journal[/i] :
[i]At [the memo’s] core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than ‘obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens,’ normal strictures on torture might not apply[/i].
If we didn’t need another reminder about why ordinary people express distaste for lawyers, here’s how the Pentagon’s shysters split the torture hairs:
"[i]The infliction of pain or suffering, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture,’ the report advises. Such suffering must be ‘severe,’ the lawyers advise, and they rely on a dictionary definition to suggest that it ‘must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure[/i].’
The report goes on to say that Congress has no business trying to regulate whether U.S. soldiers or other officials torture prisoners, since that would violate the commander-in-chief’s constitutional power to wage war. “Sometimes the greater good for society will be accompanied by violating the literal language of the criminal law,” says the report. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
[b]Why are conservatives in a tizzy??? ... Surely they know by now that Bush is a liar and [i]ergo[/i], every promise he makes to the American people is [i]a load of rubbish [/i]...
Apparently, conservatives in Congress are all in a tizzy over recent Bush ads pushing his education and prescription drug proposals, both of which are deplored by conservatives[/b]. These lawmakers are frightened that such blasphemous speech may piss off their constituents and endanger their seats come November.
In his column, Robert Novak http://www.suntimes.com/outpu... (you may remember him as the columnist who endangered the lives and work of several CIA operatives by outing Valerie Plame) recounts a recent Bush speech to congressional republicans which was scheduled to end with a Q&A, but did not:
[i]Bush was off to a good start by talking about his tax cuts, the heart of his economic recovery program and of supply-side ideology. The lawmakers cheered. But their response diminished to a few hands clapping when the president turned to his education program. He next encountered dead silence by going on to the prescription drug program. ''I guess your eyes just glazed over[/i]."
According to Novak, the ads are so unpopular with Bush's base, that they've caused "some of his supporters to wonder whether Bush is really a conservative." Don't fret, it looks like Bush is ready to once again frighten folks with the specter of gay marriage and women's reproductive freedom: "These legislators are cheered by public statements by Ken Mehlman, the Bush campaign manager, that this campaign will highlight ideological differences between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats." - http://www.alternet.org/elect...
[b]Why hasn't the Smirking Chimp [i]fired[/i] the Condolizzard??? ... [/b]Maybe the Smirking Chimp [i]doesn't know what the hell is going on [/i]in his own neo-con, neo-fascist regime!!! ...
"Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles."
"Citing the claims of a self-described recruit for Osama bin Laden, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in April 2000 issued an alert to American agencies warning of a possible al Qaeda hijacking plot."
[b]Many conscientious Americans still have much in common with many of our brothers and sisters in France ... [/b]We [i]both [/i]passionately love the United States of America and our great heritages; our joint fights for freeedom from our Revolutionary Wars onwards; and we [i]both [/i]also despise the imbecilic ne'er-do-well-cum-traitor Bush, the tyrannical dictatorial buffoon who is[i] destroying [/i]our nation ...
[u][b]France Says, Love the U.S., Hate Its Chief[/b][/u]
An intriguing idea has been gaining ground in France on the eve of President Bush's visit. It is that the much disliked president does not represent the true America, that the United States is a shining being or entity or thing to be honored on the D-Day beaches and distinguished from President George W. Bush himself.
Politicians speak of saying yes to America but no to Mr. Bush. The newspaper Libération warns Mr. Bush that he should not take President Jacques Chirac's expected expressions of gratitude as directed at him, but rather at America. Laurent Fabius, a former prime minister, says Mr. Bush is viewed "as the exact opposite of the values that make us love America."
The idea is very French. It is conceptual. It is subtle. It is intellectually pleasing. It projects the notion that France knows better than America what America really is or really should be. It harks back to the idea France shares with America: that the countries embody some eternal values and have a mission to export them to all mankind.
The view of America as separate from its leader also has a familiar ring. For decades after World War II, the argument that "La France" was distinct from its quisling, Jew-deporting Vichy government was a familiar one. In this view, Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain, the leader of the Vichy government, was not France, certainly not the eternal France of the Revolution, incarnated in the resistance leader Jean Moulin or in Charles de Gaulle himself.
That idea was also subtle and pleasing in its way. It enabled President François Mitterrand to continue placing wreaths on Pétain's tomb in honor of the marshal's World War I accomplishments. Not until Mr. Chirac took office did a French president have the courage to avow fully what France did under the Nazi occupation and accept the responsibility that the nation as a whole bore.
The truth is that Vichy was not all of France, by any means, but it was France. The attempt to abstract a nation's essence or soul from its particular political incarnation at any one moment is dangerous. It may involve a flight from responsibility, whose essence is honesty.
The fact is, whether France likes it or not, Mr. Bush cannot be distinguished from America. He has the support of roughly half the United States. His may not be the America of New York or San Francisco, the America of Michael Moore or Woody Allen, but it is a much larger America than the one portrayed by these two moviemakers.
This America believes it is doing God's will in fighting for freedom. It equates pacifism with decline. It supports the death penalty, low taxes and the right to bear arms.
It is skeptical of subtle arguments, wondering what they really mean. It holds that action is American and that failure to support the president in wartime is un-American. It even believes the president when he says the war in Iraq is linked to the heroism of D-Day because today's war is also a response to an attack on America and also about "the forward march of freedom."
Of course, there is another big slice of America, the one closer to the French idea of the American soul, that loathes Mr. Bush. This America is appalled by the war in Iraq, unsurprised by untruths used to justify war and worried about a leader who so regularly invokes the will of the Almighty. It is disdainful of the president's stumbling locution, angered by the detentions without counsel or trial in Guantánamo and elsewhere, aghast at the notion that the country may just face four more years with Mr. Bush.
These two camps make up America today and will face off in a fiercely contested election. At least until that day in November, Mr. Bush represents America, in all its many facets, the one that loves him and the one that loathes him. To pretend otherwise is ultimately misleading.
When Mr. Fabius refers to the "values that make us love America," he is in effect referring to the values that most comfort France in its self-image. That is to say, America as a symbol of liberty, democracy and justice; America as an embodiment of the values of the Enlightenment; America as the New World's engine of ideas borne across the European continent by Napoleon's army after the Revolution of 1789.
These ideas are inspiring. That they provoke France's love of France is understandable. The only problem with love is that it can be blind. This problem is particularly acute at a time when both France and America feel the need to proclaim their friendship anew after a nasty falling-out. Reconciliation of any kind and however partial has to be based on each side's seeing and acknowledging the reality of the other and the differences that exist.
To separate "America" from Mr. Bush in order to welcome him merely preserves an illusion. For better or for worse, France and America also have divergent ideas on the roots of Middle East terrorism, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on Iraq, on the role of the state in an economy, on money and religion and how they are talked about in national life. France's desire to distinguish its America from Mr. Bush's has intensified in recent months as the situation in Iraq has worsened and images of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib have reinforced all the darkest French views of the Bush administration.
The official speeches on Sunday honoring America's sacrifice for France's freedom were not intended to dwell on these differences. They were meant to invoke valor and shared values and an old friendship and a bond forged in blood. But to preserve the bond, it seems essential to face facts. Bush is America, just as Chirac is France. The two nations' highest offices represent every shade of opinion that makes up their democracies. No separate national essence exists. - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
[b]The traitorous neo-cons in the corrupt Bush regime seem to be plotting a [i]coup d'etat [/i]to put their pet, the embezzler, liar, thief & war criminal Ahmed Chalabi in charge of Iraq as their neo-Saddam-Hussein ... Chalabi [i]is waiting in the wings [/i]with the $33 million in US Taxpayer monies[i] embezzled [/i]by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & the rest of this fascist gang of traitors and given to Chalabi who will treat the Iraqi people [i]no different [/i]from Saddam-Hussein, but instead will rape them of their natural resources and enslave them, much as the Bushies are doing to Americans here at home ... [i]Their ugly neo-hitlerian stage is being set [/i]...[/b]
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Current affairs are off the radar for the moment, pushed to the side -- understandably -- by remembrance of Reagan and D-Day. But let me avert your gaze for a moment to update one of our running stories: that of Ahmed Chalabi and his ties to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
You've probably noticed that Richard Perle and a few others are still making regular appearances on chat shows and in quotes in newspaper articles http://www.dallasnews.com/sha... about the Chalabi story. He, Gingrich and a few others even marched over http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... to the White House a couple weeks ago and demanded an end to the investigations into Chalabi. And this has raised an intriguing question http://www.washingtonmonthly.... : with so many friends on the inside, if Chalabi were really as guilty as people say, wouldn't some of those folks go to Perle and the others and tell them to back off, if only in the interests of his own credibility?
It's a good question. And to some, it suggests that on the inside there's much more debate than we might imagine over whether the charges against Chalabi are true.
To try to figure out what might be going on I talked to several folks over the last few days who have a very good view into not only what folks in the intel community make of this stuff but what the prime neo-cons and/or Iraq hawks at DOD think too.
So what did I hear?
From what I can tell, they all think Chalabi is guilty as sin. They may have questions about how Chalabi got the information -- here there is some interagency skirmishing. But none seem to seriously question that he passed it on.
Yes, Chalabi still has a few diehards. I guess we might call them 'dead-enders'. Whether they're just in denial or, shall we say, more heavily invested in Chalabi than we understood, I just don't know. But as nearly as I can tell, with the exception of these few Chalabi dead-enders -- most, but not all, of whom aren't in government -- even those inclined toward sympathy to Chalabi think the charges are true. - http://www.talkingpointsmemo....
[b]Who is next??? It ought to be Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Libby, Abrams and the rest of Bush's neo-con cabal of neo-fascist thugs & neo-nazi goons ... It is time to[i] impeach [/i]the corrupt, ugly, stupid & incompetent Bush, [i]too[/i] ...[/b]
[b]Read on ...[/b]
[b]I don’t believe for a second [/b] [but I'm not so sure] that the White House forced George Tenet out. But if there are “personal reasons” for Tenet’s quitting, they have to do with personal animosity that Tenet has toward the White House for its effort to blame him and the CIA for its own willful mistakes on Iraq.
Not that Tenet isn’t to blame for his own predicament. Faced with intense pressure in 2001 from Cheney, Rumsfeld and the phalanx of Perle-led neocons to go along with the push for war in Iraq, Tenet caved. His own CIA analysts didn’t believe that Iraq was a threat (nor did they believe that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda or WMD), but Tenet added the White House’s preferred political spin onto his agency’s estimates. And he sat stony-faced behind Colin Powell during the latter’s ill-fated (and lie-filled) UN speech in February 2003, effectively giving CIA endorsement to the misinformation that Powell spewed forth. So Tenet was caught in his own web.
But when the going got rough, Bush and Co. pointed their fingers at Tenet and the CIA, blaming that agency for the errors, even though those “errors” were forced on it by Cheney, the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans and the White House itself. When the finger-pointing got bad, Tenet hit back, giving a speech in which he declared that the CIA never said that the threat from Iraq was “imminent.” In other words, Bush had rushed into a war that could well have waited. Tenet might have added (but didn’t) that the CIA had long opposed doing business with Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. But Tenet didn’t have either the muscle, or enough friends, to fight back hard—especially given the apparent willingness of the House and Senate intelligence committees to blame him and the CIA (as opposed to the neocon mafia) for the bungled Iraq intelligence effort. So, in my opinion, Tenet was just sick and tired of battling the White House, the neocons and the Congress—and he’d lost support inside the agency because of his decision to abandon principle and sign on to the Big Lie over Iraq.
Those who say Tenet’s resignation will help Bush don’t get it. When a member of your national security team quits in the middle of the Great War on Terror, it’s a bad sign. Most people will interpret it as evidence that the Bush team is falling apart. And there is a lot more bad news to come—investigative reports, the 9/11 inquiry, the WMD inquiry, Abu Ghraib—and a chance that others will follow Tenet. The decision to quit by James Pavitt—the CIA deputy direction for operations and its chief spook—ought to worry the White House, too. And the Chalabi inquiry, which is starting to get juicy, will add some fuel to the fire. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
Crook-N-Traitor Cheney's Halliburton Deal 'Violates Rules on Procurement'!!!
[b]When are the American people going to wake-up to the [i]cold, hard and cruel reality [/i]that we've been saddled with a neo-con gang of liars, traitors, embezzlers, felons and war criminals who should be ousted immediately???[/b] ... Tenet's resignation was a [i]start[/i] ... But we need for Bush & Cheney to be [i]impeached [/i]along with the[i] immediate resignations [/i]of Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, and the rest of their neo-fascist band of crooks ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
The Pentagon violated federal procurement rules when it awarded Halliburton, the oilfield services company formerly headed by Dick Cheney, US vice-president, a multi-billion dollar contract to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure, according to people briefed on a pending report by congressional auditors.
The deal raised objections within the army, according to these people, but they were overruled by the office of Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary.
The report's findings represent the latest controversy over the politically connected company's work in Iraq, where it is the largest foreign contractor and a frequent target of White House critics.
They were cited in a letter released on Tuesday by Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, based on a briefing his staff received from the General Accounting Office, a non-partisan congressional audit group.
A Pentagon spokesman said Mr Waxman's claims were "untrue", and insisted the contract was approved by army legal officers. At issue is a contract worth as much as $7bn to oversee Iraq's oil infrastructure that Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root division was granted in March 2003. The deal came in for heavy criticism when it was revealed that the Pentagon awarded the assignment to KBR without any competition.
The US Army Corps of Engineers justified that decision last April on grounds that KBR was uniquely positioned to handle the task since it had previously been asked to create a plan to deal with oilwell fires in Iraq under a separate army logistics contract known as Logcap. That contract calls for the company to provide the military with everything from food to fuel on an as-needed basis. The GAO has concluded, however, that planning for the Iraq oil contract fell outside the scope of Logcap, according to Mr Waxman, so should not have been awarded to KBR without an open competition or a formal waiver.
The GAO was told that army officials also thought the assignment was not appropriate, according to Mr Waxman, but was overruled by Mr Rumsfeld's office.
A Pentagon official acknowledged that staff in the Army Materiel Command questioned whether contingency planning for Iraq oilwell fires could be included under Logcap. But the official said the arrangement was subsequently approved by army legal officers, and that it did not reach Mr Rumsfeld's office. - http://www.independent-media....%20Reported
[b]In the bizarre Neo-Con, Neo-Fascist World According to the Mad King George, Iraq's Saddam Hussein was responsible for every crime ever committed ... [/b]Now it's the so-called "terrorists" who are responsible for every crime that they[i] might [/i]someday commit ... Sounds kind of like the screed Hitler used to justify massacring Jews ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
The intelligence tangle over Iraq keeps getting deeper, and the neocons seem so deeply entangled in it that it’s probably impossible for them to get out. They’ve tied themselves tightly to the lies and spies associated with the war on Iraq, and now any one of a dozen investigations could expose the whole cabal to the sunlight—and possibly put a few of them in prison.
What's been rumored for weeks now finally ended up on page 1 of [i]The New York Times [/i]. Ahmed Chalabi, the Wizard of Oz of the Iraq war, blabbed to the Iranian secret service that the National Security Agency had broken the diplomatic code of the mullahs’ intelligence system. It’s a devastating charge against Chalabi, who reportedly told Iran that he got the information from an American who was “drunk.” (Quick! FBI! Which one of the Pentagon neocons is prone to alcohol abuse?) Anyway, an FBI investigation is now trying to find out exactly who was the source who blabbed out that secret to Chalabi and, more important, why. That person—undoubtedly one of the small ring of plotters in the Department of Defense who were close to Chalabi, from Dougie Feith to Bill Luti to Harold Rhode to Michael Rubin—could go to jail.
Remarkable is the fact that Richard Perle and Co. continue to defend Chalabi. Perle told the [i]Times[/i] that the CIA had turned against Chalabi because he’d refused to be the CIA’s “puppet.” (I’d say giving vital data to Iran’s maniacal mullahs is not the work of a CIA puppet; whose puppet Chalabi truly is remains to be seen.) “I’ve seen no evidence of improper behavior on his part,” says Perle. “No evidence whatsoever."
Meanwhile, other neocons and their mouthpieces, including [i]The Wall Street Journal[/i], continue to badmouth the CIA and to defend Chalabi—and they’re whipping up a new controversy over Iraq’s supposed ties to Al Qaeda.
[i]The Journal [/i]praises Chalabi yet again in today’s editorial, “Iraqis in Charge,” taking a nasty potshot at the CIA for undermining him. Noting that the transitional regime in Iraq is headed by a former CIA agent, Iyad Allawi, the[i] Journal [/i]opines: “At least the CIA won’t be among those trying to undermine this interim government, the way it did Mr. Chalabi and the Governing Council."
Secretary of State Colin Powell, the nemesis of the neocons, is reportedly opening up a new front, according to the [i]Times[/i] . He’s bugging the CIA to explain why it listened to Chalabi & Co. “Government officials have described Mr. Powell as still angry about the intelligence briefings that served as the basis for his United Nations speech.” (That would be the February 2003 lie-filled account of Iraq’s WMD and ties to terrorism.) Powell, long known as an advocate of using overwhelming force in going to war, ought to marshal exactly that sort of force to annihilate his enemy now.
Not knowing when to shut up, the neocons have opened a new front, too. [i]The Weekly Standard’s [/i]intrepid reporter Stephen F. Hayes, who is quickly emerging as a mini-me of the near-psychotic Laurie Mylroie, has penned a new book called [i]The Connection [/i], a tome describing in book-length format the spurious charge that Iraq and Al Qaeda were partners in crime. Once again, the villain of Hayes’ tale is the CIA, which for some reason refused to agree with Mylroie, Hayes and the neocons that Iraq was behind 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Lincoln assassination. Hayes’ book is getting big play in the right-wing echo chamber, and the American Enterprise Institute is having a forum for Hayes tomorrow. And here I am, wondering if Ahmed Chalabi has ties to Al Qaeda. After all, the government of Jordan has officially accused Chalabi of having blown up its embassy in Baghdad last summer. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
The Neo-Cons, Chalabi, Spying & Betrayal of the United States of America
[b]The neo-cons in the corrupt, traitorous and incompetent Bush regime along with their pet Chalabi (liar, embezzler, thief and neo-con con-man) committed high treason against the United States of America and should be put on trial for espionage which can result in the death penalty ...[/b] It's time for the vile Bush & Cheney crooks to [i]step down [/i]...
[b]If this new piece http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... in the[i] Times [/i]has the Chalabi story right, someone -- [/b]and probably someone at the Pentagon -- is in a world of trouble. Actually, there's some other trouble coming down the pike in a few weeks. But then, sufficient to the day is the trouble thereof. So, to Chalabi. Here's the key passage ...
... "[i]The F.B.I. has opened an espionage investigation seeking to determine exactly what information Mr. Chalabi turned over to the Iranians as well as who told Mr. Chalabi that the Iranian code had been broken, government officials said. The inquiry, still in an early phase, is focused on a very small number of people who were close to Mr. Chalabi and also had access to the highly restricted information about the Iran code.
Some of the people the F.B.I. expects to interview are civilians at the Pentagon who were among Mr. Chalabi's strongest supporters and served as his main point of contact with the government, the officials said. So far, no one has been accused of any wrongdoing[/i]." ...
[i]Hmmm[/i]. People who were close to Chalabi and had access to the highly restricted information about the Iran code. [i]Hmmm[/i]. Who would be caught in the sweet spot of that Venn Diagram?
I'll try not to be too coy. There are a number of folks who [i]could[/i] fit that bill. But for anyone who's followed this story, there's one guy who's just got to jump right to the top of the list: an expert on Iran who is [i]extremely[/i] close to Chalabi, served as his civilian Pentagon handler for some time in Iraq after the war, and is known for comparing Chalabi to Mohammed and other equally august worthies.
Anyway, that's one pretty good possibility.
I could speculate about who else would have known this key piece of information. But the truth is that I just don't know how such information would be compartmented. So it's impossible for me to say. You'd figure that the folks at OSD involved in B-teaming the regular intelligence community's Middle East analyses would have learned this information. And many of them are close to Chalabi. But again, that's speculation.
The Chalabi virus was very widespread at the highest levels of this administration. So I'd say it's possible, though not likely, that the culprit or culprits could be very high-level administration figures, particularly if they turn out to hang their hats in the White House complex rather than at the Pentagon.
One point that is key to keep in mind here is that if you know the way a lot of these guys treated Chalabi, how they thought of him, it's really not at all surprising that they would have shared this sort of information with him. It would, frankly, be much more surprising if they hadn't. Remember, this was Ahmed Chalabi, the 'leader of Free Iraq', the man of destiny around whom the democratic transformation of the region would turn like a wheel on an axle.
[b]What is Bush[i] really [/i]up to in Iraq??? ... [/b]It is obvious to even the [i]dumbest-of-the-dumb [/i]that Bush [i]doesn't give a rat's ass [/i]about the welfare of the Iraqi people [i]or[/i] the American people[i] for that matter[/i]-- Bush disdains democracy and freedom which he treats with contempt [i]here-at-home and abroad[/i]-- Bush doesn't even comprehend American history and tramples & treads upon the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Slut-Bush waged his illegal and immoral neo-con, neo-fascist war in Iraq to gain control of oil on behalf of his pimps (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex) and also on behalf of the neo-cons' neo-hitlerian Israeli Likud Party ...
Bush is responsible for the massacre of over 800 U.S. Soldiers and over 15,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians, as well as the torture, murder & heinous abuse of prisoners of war-- and therefore Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and the rest of their despicable cabal of war criminals should be sent to the International Court at the Hague to be tried for [i]Crimes Against Humanity [/i]...
President Bush’s strategy in Iraq is now clear. And I don’t mean the five-point rehash of existing platitudes found in his recent “major” speech at the Army War College. I’m talking about the real, behind-the-scenes plan. In the battles for the Sunni town of Falluja and the Shiite cities south of Baghdad, the Bush administration has essentially capitulated—hoping to reduce, until the U.S. election is over, images of fighting, mayhem and U.S. blood streaming to the American public.
In Falluja, the U.S. military has withdrawn its forces, and the town is being run by anti-U.S. guerrillas and a former general from Saddam Hussein’s regime. Similarly, the United States has agreed to pull out most of its forces from towns in the south and allow the rebellious militias of Moktada al-Sadr to remain armed and intact. The U.S. military has also agreed to suspend its arrest warrant for al-Sadr (there is even talk of offering this “villain” or his supporters a place in the interim government, which will be instituted on June 30). This most recent Bush administration flip-flop is a far cry from earlier boasts to “kill or capture” al-Sadr and “destroy” his militia. In fact, in an implicit admission that a unified and democratic Iraq will never happen, the United States has elected to avoid the risk of disarming the many armies and militias all over the country.
Of course, for the long-term, this administration strategy does nothing to create a stable and peaceful Iraq. The plan is merely a short-term way to stanch the president’s hemorrhaging in polls at home and maximize his dimming chances for reelection. But then this invasion was always less about making life better for the Iraqis than doing so for the neo-conservatives who hijacked the U.S. government for their own pet overseas social engineering project.
There is a better and more honorable way for the Bush administration to extricate itself from the Iraqi quagmire soon enough for memories to fade before the U.S. November election, while at the same time giving Iraqis the best chance for peace and eventual prosperity. Such a strategy requires true and immediate self-determination for all factions in Iraq. Each locality could send a representative to a constitutional convention unattended by any member of the U.S. military or occupation authority. Thus, the convention would be representative of the views of Iraqi society. The delegates would not only negotiate the future governing structure of Iraq but also key issues such as the future distribution of oil revenues. Iraqis would then ratify by referendum what the convention produced. More than likely, the constitutional convention would produce some type of loose confederation—giving substantial autonomy to various groups, tribes or regions—or even three or more independent states.
The various Iraqi factions have retained their armed militias because they fear domination from other groups that might gain control of the governmental apparatus of a unified post-occupation Iraq. Such fears could cause a civil war. But the creation of a loose confederation or a partition should reduce such fears and lessen the chance of internecine conflict. Of course, there’s no guarantee peace has much hope after the Bush administration foolishly opened Pandora’s Box by removing the only thing holding this fractious, artificial country together—the dictator Saddam Hussein, who the U.S. once supported for years. But self-determination is the best remaining hope.
To those who say that such a “live and let live” agreement among Iraqi factions could not be reached, we need only look at the case of Sudan. The Islamic Sudanese government and the major Christian rebel group recently reached a peace agreement to decentralize power in the country to individual states, which would give the rebels effective control over the southern part of the country. Included in the arrangement is a referendum on secession to be held in six years in various parts of the country. The two factions also agreed to share oil revenues. Although the negotiated settlement of Sudan’s civil war isn’t perfect—it doesn’t include all factions in the country—the episode does show that decentralized governance among ethnic or religious groups can give armed combatants enough comfort to negotiate peace. Although the Sunnis oppressed the Kurds and Shia under Saddam’s rule, the bad blood between groups in Iraq is nowhere near the level of bitterness caused by the brutal Sudanese conflict (with more than 2 million casualties).
If the welfare of Iraqis was the paramount goal of U.S. leaders, U.S. policy in Iraq would be designed to avoid a similarly nasty civil war. Instead, the Bush administration’s politically-driven strategy of retaining a unified Iraqi government, while mollifying armed factions that will eventually try to gain control of it, is a recipe for just such a disaster.
[b]Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. Having received his Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University, Dr. Eland has served as Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge for the U.S. General Accounting Office (national security and intelligence), and Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has testified on NATO expansion before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and CIA oversight before the House Government Reform Committee.
Dr. Eland is the author of Putting "Defense" Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in the Post-Cold War World and forty-five studies on national security issues. His articles have appeared in Arms Control Today, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Emory Law Journal, The Independent Review, Issues in Science and Technology, Mediterranean Quarterly, Middle East and International Review, Middle East Policy, Nexus, and Northwestern Journal of International Affairs. His popular writings have been published in the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Washington Post, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Newsday, Sacramento Bee, Orange County Register, and Chicago Sun-Times. He has appeared on ABC's "World News Tonight," CNN's "Crossfire," Fox News, CNBC, CNN-fn, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, CBC, BBC, and other national and international TV and radio programs[/b].
Bush Bungles Again in Iraq ... What Else is New??? ...
[b]Things are [i]going to get a whole lot worse [/i]in Iraq [i]before they get better [/i]because [i]as usual[/i], Bush bungles the process of putting together a new transitional government, as he has bungled everything he sullies ... [/b]The corrupt & traitorous Bush gang are operating in a desperate [i]panic-stricken modus operandi [/i]because they are incompetent fools who don't care about the costs in lives and treasure for their insane illegal & immoral guerrilla-quagmire in Iraq and have rushed-through appointments not recognized or supported by the Iraqi people http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... ... Why don't we [i]get rid of [/i]these dangerously destructive neo-con, neo-fascist Bush liars, traitors & war criminals in our [i]own Regime Change [/i]this November??? ...
[b]Read on ...[/b]
By now, we don’t expect the Bush administration to do anything right in Iraq. But the process of putting together the new transitional Iraqi government has been so badly bungled that it’s nothing short of astonishing. The deaths keep coming—five U.S. soldiers killed Sunday, several dozen Kurds slaughtered in a car bombing today in Baghdad—and it promises to get worse. The good news: the new regime doesn’t include any Chalabis. The bad news: just about everything else.
First of all, it’s clear that Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN representative in Iraq who supposedly had American support in assembling the government, had no such thing. Despite all of the pious words from President Bush and others, Brahimi was hemmed in by the United States, and each and every one of his choices was subject to U.S. veto. In other words, just like the now-dissolved Iraqi Governing Clowncil (IGC)—which dissolved itself today after contributing mightily to the mess—the transitional regime will be widely seen as a U.S. puppet force. That doesn’t bode well for stability in Iraq.
Worst of all, the appointment of exile leader Iyad Allawi as Iraq’s interim prime minister puts in place exactly the wrong person—a former military man who’s been on the CIA payroll for years—installed, no less, by an upstart IGC, which nominated Allawi on its own accord. From the beginning, Brahimi said that he wanted a government of technocrats—of clean, non-politicians who’d not only have some chance of winning the confidence of most Iraqis, but who’d also have the imprimatur of the United Nations—meaning that they wouldn’t be tainted as having been imposed either by Paul Bremer, the outgoing U.S. czar, or by the Governing Clowncil. Now we have a government that, while half-heartedly supported by Brahimi, has been imposed on Brahimi either by Bremer, the IGC, or both.
Meanwhile, the IGC, which had absolutely no support among Iraqis—a recent Washington Post poll found that only 0.1 percent of Iraqis (one tenth of one percent!) wanted the IGC to pick future Iraqi leaders—ended up doing just that. Over Brahimi’s objections, they demanded the installation of a Sunni tribal chief with Shiite ties, picking Ghazi Yawar to serve as Iraq’s new president. Apparently the IGC forgot that it is a non-representative body with no credibility. Even more amazing is the fact that Bremer, who’s acting like the short-timer he is, went along with the IGC’s choice.
Because the stakes are so high, this new Iraqi team is a done deal. Brahimi will put the best face on it, and it will probably get the endorsement of the United Nations sometime this month, with lip service to “full sovereignty.” But the 3,000-person U.S. embassy and the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will continue to control things, at least through the presidential election. And, with an Iraqi government picked not by the UN but by the U.S.-created IGC, those thousands of Americans will be just so many targets. - http://www.tompaine.com/artic...
"[i]Dissent is the highest form of patriotism[/i]" - Thomas Jefferson
[b]What is Freedom??? ...[/b] Freedom [i]is so much more than[/i] the right to go to football games ... Freedom[i] is so much more than [/i]the right to speak your mind in the privacy of your own home ... [b]True Freedom [i]is the right [/i]to publically disagree with your government and affect real change in policy, leadership and those vital issues that most touch all of our lives [/b]...
Today "We the People" are staring down a dangerous precipice because of a tyrannical & dictatorial government gone astray and run amok ... Our democracy and freedoms are tottering on the edge of an abyss-of-fascism, for we are told that we should[i] shut up[/i]-- If "We the People" even dare to [i]criticize, debate or question [/i]the corrupt & traitorous Bush regime's policies regarding their illegal & immoral incursion into Iraq, we are told that we are "politicizing it" [i]as though that is something wrong [/i]([i]For goodness sake[/i]!!!) ... Consider this however, "politicizing" a vital issue central to our people's health & well-being[i] is what makes us strong [/i]as a nation for it means that we are engaged in healthy civic dialogue, the life-blood of a free society ... It is when we [i]cower and are afraid [/i]of "politicizing" an issue that our democracy and freedoms [i]shrivel & die[/i] ...
Many people (mostly Republicans) say (mostly to Democrats) that it's wrong to "politicize" the war in Iraq. But politicizing the war is exactly what should now occur. To be precise, those who oppose the war should politicize it as much as the Bush administration has already done. Politics is not just the activity of politicians; it is a democratic people's chief means of making basic decisions about its future. Such decisions -- whether the country's foreign policy will be imperial or democratic, whether the constitutional system will remain intact, whether the United States stands for or against torture -- are now before the electorate. In any case, it seems clear from the President's speech at the Army War College on May 24 that no basic change in US Iraq policy is likely before November 2. On the other hand, the entire direction of American politics is at stake on that day. To point this out is not to be indifferent to the welfare of the people of Iraq. For the shape of their future will also depend chiefly on the outcome of the election.
The beginning of realism is to acknowledge that the next step in the President's policy -- his promise of "full sovereignty" to Iraq -- is a cosmetic operation. The story of the war has been one of official claims or predictions dissolving upon contact with fact. Let's see how quickly I can run through the over-familiar list: Weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's Iraq? Not there. Iraqi ties with Al Qaeda before the war? Missing. Democracy in Iraq? Drowned in blood at Abu Ghraib. Transformation of the whole Middle East? For the worse.
The promise of "full sovereignty" is the next in this series (coming along just in time to refresh the litany). But in one way it's different. You had to wait some months for the previous mirages to dissipate, but this one is dead before arrival. It is a phrase advanced in the teeth of multiple admissions by the administration itself, which has let it be known that the new "sovereign" will not: possess authority over either American forces or its own; be able to pass legislation; control its own news media; make decisions about the economy of the country. Neither will it enjoy the authority of the "interim constitution" recently promised by Bush but now simply forgotten. Arguably, the new group will possess less authority even than the powerless existing "governing council." "Withdrawal of power" might be a better description than "transfer of power" for what is about to happen -- except that the governing council lacked real power in the first place. As for the election promised in January, this will be as uncertain, once the US election in November is out of way, as the interim constitution turned out to be.
What is at stake on June 30 has little to do with any reality in Iraq. In all important respects, American policy will remain the same. The Coalition Provisional Authority will be renamed an "embassy." (The President said, "Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy." This is true if the comparison is to, say, the American Embassy in Chile in 1971.) Some 138,000 -- or more -- troops will remain in the country, using, in the President's ominous words, "measured force or overwhelming force." The electricity, water and oil will stop and start as usual. The fighting will continue. Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis will jockey for power. The prison at Abu Ghraib will be torn down, but a new "modern maximum security prison" -- America's latest gift to Iraqi democracy -- will replace it (as if a building, not the people in it, had been torturing Iraqi prisoners.)
The changes that will occur are all in the realm of appearances. But they are not, for that reason, insignificant, for as the White House well knows, it is appearances that may determine the November election. The trick for the administration is to create, for a period of four months, an illusion that American policy is working. In this effort, there are at least four distinct fronts. One is the United Nations. Theoretically, its man Lakhdar Brahimi is choosing the country's next government. In actuality, he has become a key figure, however unintentionally, in George W. Bush's election effort. Now the United States and Britain have placed before the Security Council a draft resolution inviting the UN to give its blessing to the new order in Iraq. The UN is in danger of creating an aura of legitimacy and international control where none in fact exist. The draft permits the Security Council to "review" -- not "renew" -- the presence of the American and other foreign troops after a year. That is, the United States, wielder of a veto in the council, can keep its troops in Iraq as long as it wants.
The second front is the political leadership in Iraq, which is under intense pressure by the administration to play its part. What happens to defectors was recently illustrated by the treatment of the Pentagon's former favorite Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi, who made the mistake of turning against the occupation, stating, "sovereignty is not to be given, it is to be seized." With a brutality that is the hallmark of this administration's approach to any opposition, an Iraqi force accompanied by Americans looted his office and home, breaking up furniture and smashing family photographs.
The third front is the American media. Its members should awaken to the fact that every time they use phrases like "handing over sovereignty" or "transition to democracy" they are misleading the public just as thoroughly as so many did when they accepted at face value the administration's claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
A final front is the administration's Democratic opposition, which is hobbled by Senator John Kerry's own "stay the course" position. Perhaps he is simply following the old political rule that when your opponent is destroying himself by his own efforts, you should stay out of the way. However, by failing to challenge the President on the war, he risks himself becoming a kind of unwilling accessory to the White House propaganda maneuvers.
The UN should not abandon the people of Iraq; neither, of course, should the leadership of Iraq; American reporters should not become partisans of the Democratic Party; and John Kerry should not adopt any view on the war simply to bait his rival. But all of them should be aware that, to whatever extent they give credence to the charade on June 30, they are above all else assisting in the re-election of the President.
[b]This is a Jonathan Schell "Letter from Ground Zero" column from the[i] Nation [/i]magazine. Many of Schell's Ground Zero columns since 9/11/2001 have just been collected into a book, A Hole in the World, An Unfolding Story of War, Protest and the New American Order (Nation Books). Schell, the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute, is also the author of The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People among many other books[/b]. - http://www.zmag.org/content/s...
