"I don’t think you can win it (i.e., the war on terror). But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."
A new clarification[i] today [/i]from Scott McClellan: We can't "[i]win[/i]" the terror war. But we will "[i]prevail[/i] http://www.chicagotribune.com...,1,3297435.story?coll=chi-newsnation world-hed ."
[b]I don't know about [i]you[/i] ... But I'm getting [i]whipflash[/i] ...[/b]
[b]The speech-makers kept saying "we did not seek this war,"[/b] and that it was imposed on us, and by God we were going to keep hitting back. That is, the rhetoric was that of righteous anger, of the avenging victim. While this argument works with regard to Afghanistan (which the US did not invade, only providing air cover to an indigenous group. the Northern Alliance), it is hollow with regard to Iraq. Only by confusing the "war on terror" with the war on Iraq could this rhetoric be even somewhat meaningful, and it is not a valid conflation.
[b]...[/b]
[b]I am frankly not impressed by the Bush administration response to al-Qaeda.[/b] Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are at large, as are a large number of other high al-Qaeda operatives. The Bush administration missed a chance to get a number of important al-Qaeda figures from Iran, which wanted some Mojahedin-e Khalq terrorists in return, because the Neocons in the Pentagon have some sort of weird alliance with the MEK mad bombers. Most of the really big al-Qaeda fish have been caught by Pakistan, to which the Bush administration has just farmed out some of the most important counter-insurgency work against al-Qaeda. Is this wise?
Bush is characterizing the Iraq war as a [b]"catastrophic success http://www.theaustralian.news...,5744,10618157%255E2703,0 0.html ".[/b] This is the line that the US military succeeded so well so fast against Saddam's army that chaos naturally ensued.
Democrats are having a lot of fun with the phrase, but the real problem is that that analysis of what went wrong is incorrect. The Bush administration simply mismanaged Iraq. It dissolved the Iraqi army, throwing the country into chaos. That army was not gone and would have gladly showed up at the barracks for a paycheck. It pursued a highly punitive policy of firing and excluding members of the Baath Party, which was not done in so thorough-going a manner even to Nazis in post-war Germany. It canceled planned municipal elections, denying people any stake in their new "government," which was more or less appointed by the US. It put all its efforts into destroying Arab socialism in Iraq and creating a sudden free market, rather than paying attention to the preconditions for entrepreneurial activity, like security and services. It kept changing its policies-- early on it was going to turn the country over to Ahmad Chalabi in 6 months. Then that plan was scotched and Paul Bremer was brought in to play MacArthur in Tokyo for a projected two or three years. Then that didn't work and there would be council-based elections. Then those wouldn't work and there would be a "transfer of sovereignty." All this is not to mention the brutal and punitive sieges of Fallujah and Najaf and the Abu Ghuraib torture scandal, etc., etc.
So it wasn't a catastrophic success that caused the problem. It was that Iraq was being run at the upper levels by a handful of screw-ups who had all sorts of ulterior motives, and at least sometimes did not have the best interests of the country at heart. And Bush is the one who put them in charge.
"I don’t think you can win it (i.e., the war on terror). But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."
Come to think of it, this may be an "ingenious way" to pump up viewership for the president's speech on Thursday night. Tune in to find out his final answer: can we win or can't we? We'll be on the edge of our seats.
[b]We're told that later today the president will be commenting on whether the war between Oceania and East Asia is winnable.
George Orwell must be laughing from beyond the grave ...[/b]
...---... The Bush Retreat??? [Over The Last Month] ...---...
"We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world." ...---... George W. Bush, July 30th 2004, http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,127583,00.html .
"I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.” ...---... George W. Bush, Aug. 29th, 2004, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... .
We've had such reverses in one month?
A [i]flip-flop[/i]?
[b]Or, just an admission that Dubya doesn't have a clue ... [i]simply doesn't have a clue [/i]...[/b]
Dick Cheney got a soft kiss http://www.washingtonpost.com... from the media for his staged Ellis Island appearance on Sunday. Cheney was there to "laud Bush for war leadership," according to the [i]Washington Post[/i]. Cheney stood there with Pataki and Giuliani -- it had the feel of an event planned months ago; "this is how the convention will lead off" must have been the thinking. "That effort has to begin with keeping our nation safe, and a sure reminder of that is the skyline of this great city, which was altered so violently on September 11, 2001," Cheney said.
How low and trashy can you get? We'll we're bound to hear a lot about it in the next few days, because it's just about the only thing the GOP has left to hang on to 'til November 2. But you can ring that bell only so often before it rings hollow as well.
[b]Dear Mr. Bush: It takes real courage to desert your post and then attack a wounded vet ... By Michael Moore ...[/b]
Dear Mr. Bush,
I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.
First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a purple heart, you'd better be hit by a bullet – with your name on it!
Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a purple heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks – we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam – but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.
And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him – he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.
What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's poll numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).
Some people have said "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat – in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam – and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year – at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.
The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22, 1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.
Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention – which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.
But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.
That you never got a purple heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you. Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!
So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:
ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river – fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."
ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."
Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" – or were they just trying to get their faces on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks their life for this country. It's the least they deserve.
Yours,
Michael Moore
P.S. George, I know you said you don't read the newspaper, but USA Today has given me credentials to the Republican convention to write a guest column each day next week (Tues.-Fri.). If you don't want to read it, you and I will be in the same building so maybe I could come by and read it to you? Lemme know...
[b]Michael Moore is an Academy award-winning filmmaker [Fahrenheit 9/11] and author of "Dude, Where's My Country".[/b] - http://www.alternet.org/elect...
...---... UN Report: War on Terrorism - A Failure Which Has Rendered Al Qaeda Stronger Than Ever ...
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]badly "miscalculated" by invading Iraq, and has indeed placed us in [i]greater danger [/i]than ever before ... Instead of working with other nations to go after[i] real terrorists[/i], these neo-con neo-fascists illegally and immorally waged a war based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods against Iraq (for sordid & squalid motives having nothing to do with self-defense) ...[/b]
"The threat of more al-Qaeda terror attacks demands an organised global response but UN-led sanctions and other measures are not working, according to a damning new report by experts at the United Nations. The experts call into question many of the basic assumptions in the war on terror, including efforts to cut off the flow of money [Bush's only coherent effort] to would-be terrorists even though all but the most spectacular attacks, such as September 11, can be carried out at little cost. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and its supporters are making effective use of the media to drum up support in the Muslim world, capitalising on anger over the war in Iraq and continuing to try for a potentially devastating chemical or biological bomb attack." Meanwhile, "Efforts to block the sale of weapons and the movement of terror suspects...have not been effective" - in fact the US remains the NUMBER ONE supplier of illegal weapons.
[b]As Republicans gather in New York City, the Bush campaign will undergo a drastic makeover, camouflaging gutter tactics with a veneer of moderation calculated to help the President win another four-year term. But the hard truth of this campaign is that George W. Bush, while attempting to impose an extremist right-wing agenda on this country and the world, has compiled a record of staggering failure.[/b]
The debacle in Iraq has already claimed close to 1,000 American and 10,000 Iraqi lives. Far from making America safer or the Middle East more democratic, it has turned out to be what this magazine warned it would be: a reckless abuse of power that has damaged US security, destabilized the region and undercut America's position in the world. The high cost of the war is evident not just in the number of deaths but also in burgeoning federal budget deficits (the war has cost more than $200 billion) and in the record gasoline prices Americans now pay. It is also evident in the reported swelling of the ranks of Al Qaeda-inspired groups and in the rising hatred of America reflected in public opinion polls which show that even among traditional allies like Jordan and Egypt, as much as 95 percent of the population view the United States with disfavor. Meanwhile, the war has diverted resources from urgent international problems ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the widening AIDS pandemic.
And there's no end in sight. The US occupation grinds on with both Bush and his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, ignoring the only intelligent alternative: a phased US withdrawal. Iraqi opposition to the occupation remains fierce-expressed even by Iraqi soccer players at the Olympics-while the country's appointed leaders display authoritarian tendencies that undermine the democracy Bush and his aides claim is being built.
If the war were Bush's only failure, it would be enough to require his departure. But it is not. By withdrawing the United States from international treaties and conventions, mishandling crises in the Middle East and North Korea and diverting resources from the pursuit of al Qaeda, Bush has left America more isolated and less secure. And the detention camps made infamous by the crimes of Abu Ghraib have stripped America of the pride we once had in our country and the role it played, however imperfectly, as a champion of human rights, economic opportunity and the rule of law.
At home, Bush's failures are equally manifest. He has amassed the worst jobs record of any President since the Great Depression, the worst budget deficits ever and the most precipitous decline in America's fiscal position-from $5 trillion in projected surplus to $4 trillion in projected deficit. Bush's Administration responds to a corporate crime wave with calls for more regulation, embraces the flight of jobs abroad as good for the economy, and exacerbates, with top-end tax cuts, the greatest inequality since the Gilded Age.
This Administration has also undermined the rights and policies that social movements labored for a century to achieve. Bush has nominated to the federal bench ideologues with a history of antiunion and antichoice decisions. He signed into law the blatantly unconstitutional "partial-birth" abortion ban, and then watched as his Attorney General sought access to women's private medical records to defend the ban in court. He imposed the policy known as the global gag rule, which forbids foreign groups receiving US aid from even mentioning abortion, and vastly expanded a misinformation campaign about the dangers of sex that has been shown to encourage risky behavior among young people. And to secure his place forever in the hearts of cultural conservatives, he endorsed the gay-baiting federal marriage amendment, framing it as a response to the activism of liberal judges rather than what it was: an attempt to deny civil rights to millions of Americans and to enshrine that discrimination in the Constitution. Civil liberties, too, have suffered, as the "war on terror" has been used to justify acts ranging from detention without trial to snooping into citizens' library records.
The list of failures goes on. The Bush years have seen a steady increase in the number of Americans without healthcare while drug company profits have soared. Bush's prescription drug bill prohibits Medicare from negotiating a better price for seniors and bars importing cheaper drugs-with the result, according to Consumer's Union, that most older Americans will end up paying more for drugs.
Bush's vaunted No Child Left Behind education law actually leaves most children behind. Not only has the law earned the ire of educators; Bush's failure to provide promised funding for his "reforms" has prompted rebuke even from Republican state legislatures from Utah to Virginia. Bush also broke his promise to increase the amount of money eligible students could receive in college scholarship grants, even as soaring tuition puts college out of the reach of ever more families. His post-election budget calls for yet more cuts to education funding.
The Bush Administration has also failed to protect the environment, giving us new laws written by polluters, oil lobbyists and Enron executives. And it has politicized and distorted basic scientific and medical research.
But this President does not admit error. When asked at a press conference whether he had ever made a mistake in office, he couldn't think of one.
If Bush wins in November, given this record of misfeasance, American democracy is in much greater trouble than even the most alienated citizens imagine. A President so out of step with the needs of the American people can only rule by sowing division and fear. Americans have one recourse: to ignore the costume ball in New York City and fire the worst President in modern history on November 2.
Truth goes one way and Bush goes another. That was the message on a gigantic banner http://questionauthority.org/... that a group of protesters hung more than a dozen stories up on the Plaza Hotel by Central Park in New York City. According to the group's press release, they attached the banner by having two climbers rappel down the facade of Plaza Hotel. The banner measured 60-feet across and several floors high.
The banner wasn't up for very long it only took 30 minutes or so before the police arrived, and had their own climber to take it down - do the folks in the Bronx get such prompt service from their public servants?
[b]Ah. too bad ... It should have [i]stayed-up [/i]throughout the RNC!!! ...[/b]
[b]Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 280 / Bush 238[/b] [b]Aug. 26 [/b]New polls: FL IN ME MI NJ WA
[b]Legend:[/b]
Blue / Strong Kerry (109) Light Blue / Weak Kerry (83) Blue Outline / Barely Kerry (88) No Color / Exactly tied (20) Red Outline / Barely Bush (56) Light Red / Weak Bush (40) Red / Strong Bush (142)
[b]News from the Votemaster[/b]
There are six new polls today, including Florida and Michigan. Rasmussen confirms Gallup's result that Bush is a fraction ahead there, 49% to 47%, with Nader at 2%. Kerry maintains his small lead in Michigan 48% to 45%. The other polls don't change anything either.
A number of Senate http://www.electoral-vote.com... races have been updated today. The most interesting result is in that always politically-fascinating state, Florida. With the senatorial primary coming up next Tuesday, it now looks like Betty Castor (D) vs. Bill McCollum (R), although the Republican race is still tight.
Quite a few people have looked at yesterday's map and observed that it is easy to devise a scenario in which the electoral college is tied. They have asked me what happens then? Since this question is asked a lot, I have added it to the FAQ http://www.electoral-vote.com... .
If you haven't seen the Jib Jab http://www.jibjab.com/ movie yet, by all means look at it. It is very funny and pokes fun at both Bush and Kerry.
Now some news about the site. Time for a contest. I am looking for a favicon.ico, the little icon next to a name on the IE Favorites list. With 80,000 to 90,000 visitors a day now, there are bound to be a few graphic designers among them. If you want to enter an icon into the Great Electoral Vote Predictor Icon Contest, send it to me in the standard Windows .ico format before midnight, Friday Sep. 3. The prize is a listing in the acknowledgments section of the Welcome http://www.electoral-vote.com... page. Thousands of people will see this and it will probably bring quite a bit of traffic to your site.
Finally, we have an improvement to the site. By popular demand, 'Grumpy' has added a linear regression line to the state polls http://www.electoral-vote.com... . Here are some important facts to know about the lines.
1. The lines are computed using the least squares http://mathworld.wolfram.com/... method 2. The lines are based on polls completed in the previous 90 days 3. Although the[i] points [/i]are plotted on the day we reported the poll, the lines use the actually polling dates 4. If fewer than three polls are available in the previous 90 days, the current value is extrapolated to November 5. When there are few polls available or they are inconsistent, the results will be weird 6. As we approach election day, the quality of the predictions will improve 7. Do not believe everything you see on the Internet
For each line, an error bar is shown on Nov. 2. Is was generated by computing the deviation of each poll from the line, squaring the deviation, adding up the squared deviations for al the polls, computing the average squared deviation, and then taking the square root of the average squared deviation. This metric is commonly used by statisticians and shows how well the line fits the data. A small error bar means a good fit. A large error bar means a bad fit. The error bars are NOT a margin of error as in the polls themselves and are certainly not a good measure of who is going to carry the state.
As an example of the pitfalls in this kind of modeling, consider Missouri http://www.electoral-vote.com... Currently it is tied. But in mid June, Kerry was way down. The computer (correctly) sees that Kerry has made huge progress in the past 2 months in Missouri and thus extrapolates he will continue to make huge progress there in the next 2 months. If you know that Kerry was polling 37% two months ago and is at 47% now, based only on this data, it is correct to predict that he will be at 57% in two more months. There is nothing wrong with the software. This kind of prediction is inherent when the data are sporadic, noisy, and rapidly changing. Of course one could make more sophisticated mathematical models, but there are an infinite number of possible models and one could have endless arguments about which is best. As we approach election day, the kind of effect will become much smaller. For the moment, don't take the extrapolations too seriously.
The volume of mail has increased to the point where I simply cannot answer it all any more. It was taking 4-5 hours a day. I will still read it all, though. Short, clear questions that are germane to the election have the best chance of getting an answer. E-mails starting "Dear Babykiller" have the least chance of getting an answer. Be sure to read the Welcome page http://www.electoral-vote.com... and the FAQ http://www.electoral-vote.com... . A lot of common questions are answered there. I do apologize for having to be so impolite.
"To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man." - [i]Oliver Wendell Holmes[/i]
"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth." - [i]Pierre Abelard[/i]
"To deny, to believe, and to doubt absolutely -- this is for man what running is for a horse." - [i]Blaise Pascal[/i]
[b]Doubt is a healthy quality ... To have no doubt-- to fail to ask the right questions-- to refuse to acknowledge mistakes-- to have complete certainty without a recognition of the complexities of life-- these are all highly dangerous qualities and they are absolutely lethal in a leader whose lack of ability to think deeply will lead his/her nation on a path to chaos ... "We the People" have been saddled with an incompetent, corrupt and foolish man who lives without a doubt in his mediocre http://www.tblog.com/template... head ... http://www.thecrimson.com/art... http://www.newstarget.com/001... ... [/b]
[b][u]The Man Without Doubt: George W. Bush[/u]
Almost a thousand American troops have died, and No WMD have been found in Iraq; but President Bush still has “no doubt” that his war was a good idea. Sometimes doubt is a good thing[/b].
Consider these statements made by the Bush Administration:
• “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”-- [i]President George W. Bush, 3/6/03[/i]
• “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”-- [i]Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/02[/i]
• “We know where they [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.”-- [i]Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, 3/30/03[/i]
• “…every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. ... Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.”-- [i]Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the UN, 2/5/03[/i]
• “The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.”-- [i]White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 12/5/02[/i]
• “I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming.”-- [i]Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003[/i]
• “Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.”-- [i]President Bush, News conference, 3/6/03[/i]
• “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”-- [i]White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, 1/9/03[/i]
• “We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence, and the — our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind.”-- [i]President George W. Bush, 7/17/03[/i]
These statements have two things in common. First, they were presented to the American people as absolute fact. They didn’t say, “we think”, “we believe”, or “it is possible”—they presented these statements as absolute facts. The second thing they have in common is that they now appear to be absolutely false. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, even though soldiers’ lives and millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered searching for them.
Despite that, the Bush Administration refused to admit they were wrong. All they did was modify their mis-statements of fact. “Weapons of Mass Destruction” became “Weapons programs”, then, “Weapon Program Related Activities”, and finally, “Saddam had bad intentions”.
Even though they have been wrong about almost everything in Iraq, the Bush Administration still operates under the delusion that they are always right.
• “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”--[i] Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British Philosopher and Essayist[/i]
• “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”-- [i]Voltaire, letter to Frederick II, 1767[/i]
• “Analysts and policy makers alike tend to interpret information to support their own viewpoints.”-- [i]Dean Rusk, “As I Saw It”, 1990[/i]
• “Reality cannot be ignored except at a price; and the longer the ignorance is persisted in, the higher and the more terrible becomes the price that must be paid.”-- [i]Aldous Huxley, “Vendanta for the Western World”, 1945[/i]
John Kerry has been called indecisive because he refuses to answer complex questions with “sound bite” sized statements; while Bush is considered bold and decisive because he has a simple-minded answer for everything. It is easy to be decisive when your decisions are preordained by the NeoCon agenda, because no thought or deliberation is unnecessary.
• “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.”-- [i]Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, CBS’ 60 Minutes, 1/11/04[/i]
• “All too often…intelligence estimates tell us more about interests and foreign policy preferences of powerful groups in government than it does about what the other side’s intentions and capabilities are.”-- [i]Robert Jervis, “Intelligence and Foreign Policy”, International Security, Winter 86-87[/i]
There were plenty of people expressing doubts about Iraq’s military capabilities, but the Bush Administration refused to listen. That is why America is in such a deadly mess in Iraq today.
• “This (Bush) administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts.”-- [i]Conservative columnist George Will, Washington Post, 5/4/04[/i]
[b]The insane neo-con, neo-fascist Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] mantra of "you're either with us or against us" is dangerously stupid and just plain dangerous ... Co-operation and good-will is absolutely necessary in a complex world ... "We the People" have been placed in greater danger than ever before by the despotic and corrupt Bush regime who has treated the world community with contemptuous disregard and whose word is no longer trusted ...[/b]
Our credibility at home and abroad has never been lower. With no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, and no foreseeable end game for the U.S. in Iraq, most are hesitant to trust the Bush administration. A June 2004 poll by[i] CBS News [/i]and[i] The New York Times [/i]reported that 79 percent of the national adult population believed that Bush was either hiding something or completely lying in his statements about the war. The story abroad is hardly better. In a March 2004 [i]Pew survey[/i] http://people-press.org/repor... of European and Middle Eastern countries, a majority in seven of the eight nations surveyed believed U.S. and British leaders lied about the Iraq war.
Why is credibility so important? The conventional wisdom focuses on credibility for credibility's sake, but misses the real point: the war on terrorism cannot be won if the rest of the world mistrusts the United States.
At the start of the war on terrorism, the Bush administration sent a clear message to the world's nations: "You're either with us, or against us." After three years, it appears that far too few are with us. While America must always stand up for itself, we can neither protect nor defend ourselves if we continue to go it alone. Without meaningful and sustained international cooperation, we can neither fight terrorism effectively nor win. Here's why:
[b]... Securing the world's ports. [/b] The Container Security Initiative (CSI) is designed to place customs inspectors in ports worldwide in order to pre-screen 70 percent of U.S.-bound cargo. Only a few of the 20 planned ports worldwide have entered the program. The current list of CSI participants is heavy on ports in Europe and Asia, but lacks any ports in the Middle East and includes only one in Africa. The United States needs to work with the entire international community to quickly expand this program to reduce the huge vulnerability of the world's ports.
[b]... Controlling proliferation.[/b] The Aspen Strategy Group recently concluded that the threat of a nuclear attack is much greater than the public realizes http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... . Only eleven nations have committed to a version of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), http://usinfo.state.gov/produ... aimed at stopping shipments of weapons of mass destruction worldwide. The 9/11 Commission called for participation in PSI to be extended to non-NATO countries, specifically Russia and China. To interdict a ship, the United States must secure permission from the flag state of the vessel in question or the state whose coastal waters are being used for navigation. Otherwise, a United Nations Security Council resolution is needed. U.S. credibility is key to convincing more nations, particularly those in Africa and the Middle East, to participate in the PSI or to gain support within the Security Council.
[b]... Rooting out terrorists.[/b] The war on terrorism involves not only preventing terrorist attacks before they occur, but also rooting out terrorist sanctuaries around the world. The 9/11 Commission Report http://www.9-11commission.gov... writes that the United States must "reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help." While the administration has formed a relationship with Pakistan, it must also work with other weak states that are havens for terrorists, such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia .
[b]... Disrupting terrorist financial networks.[/b] Small amounts of money can fund devastating attacks. Since 9/11, $200 million http://www.cfr.org/campaign20...://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub6954/ george_bush/speech_on_the _patriot_act.php?issue=11 in terrorist assets has been seized, mostly from abroad, but the seizure rate has dramatically slowed. A new multilateral initiative led by the United States is needed. According to the 9/11 Commission, "multilateral freezing mechanisms now require waiting periods before being put into effect, eliminating the element of surprise and thus virtually ensuring that little money is actually frozen." As a result, "worldwide asset freezes have not been adequately enforced and have been easily circumvented."
[b]... Breaking up terrorist communications. [/b] Terrorists continue to use both low- and high-tech communications. http://www.news-leader.com/to... Recent raids by Pakistan unearthed the information that terrorists had been monitoring U.S. financial institutions. The United States needs intelligence from other nations. Monitoring Osama bin Laden's low-tech means of communicating from hiding – such as putting a message on the back of a donkey – requires knowledge from other nations.
[b]... Sharing the burden.[/b] The United States currently has 19,000 troops in Afghanistan, but NATO's International Security Force Assistance is providing only 6,536, including contributions from the United States. In Iraq, the U.S. has received little international help in footing the $144.4 billion bill. The less credibility the United States has, the less the international community will want to work with us, and the more we will have to pay.
The president states, "We are fighting this evil [terrorism] in Iraq so we do not have to fight it on the streets of our own cities." http://www.heritage.org/Resea... But every day, we do have to fight it in our own cities, as well as in Afghanistan, Syria, the Philippines, Algeria, and Indonesia. We cannot go it alone. Cooperation matters and we need our credibility intact to secure it.
[b]Source:[/b]
Michael Pan is a senior policy analyst for national security and international policy and Amanda Terkel is a researcher at the [i]Center for American Progress[/i]. - http://www.americanprogress.o...
[b]Bush Can't Have His Cake and Eat It, Too ...[/b]
On Sunday, August 22, the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Greg Mankiw, showed the Bush administration's double standard on the economy. He argued that everything is rosy because of the president's policies, but – just in case people noticed the weak economy and labor market – he added that if things were not so great, they were not the president's fault. A closer look illustrates that the labor market indeed experienced the weakest recovery since the Great Depression, the economy is fundamentally unsound even without oil price hikes, and the administration's irresponsible handling of the economy did little to efficiently alleviate the economic problems facing America's working families.
There is little doubt that the labor market has seen a weak recovery in the past few years. For the first time since the Great Depression, the labor market continued to shed jobs well into the second year of the recovery. Consequently, by July 2004, more than three years after the recession started, the economy still had 1.2 million fewer jobs than at the start of the recession, and weekly earnings, in inflation-adjusted terms, had grown by a dismal 0.5 percent. That is not as bad as the Great Depression was, but it is worse than any recovery since then.
Even when the labor market showed signs of life, its pulse was only barely noticeable. In 32 months of economic recovery, employment growth, which is supposed to be above average during economic recoveries, had just one month that was above average, March 2004. Not surprisingly, then, average monthly employment growth since last August, when employment actually grew, was about 65 percent less than the average growth rate in the entire post-war period prior to this recession. And since its strong showing in March, employment growth has dropped continuously.
At the same time, price increases for many important household items have taken a bite out of families' wallets. Prices for housing, for medical care, and for energy rose sharply. By June 2004, households spent a larger share of their disposable income on housing and medical care than they did at the start of the recession, and about an equal share on energy. Increased costs for basic items gobbled up any gains that households may have received from the president's tax cuts.
Future cost increases are already projected. Most experts continue to expect prices for medical care to rise faster than inflation or wages in the foreseeable future. Also, given recent jumps in crude oil, prices at the gas pump could go up again. Additionally, large budget deficits, higher oil prices, and record trade deficits suggest that interest rates are more likely than not to increase. While the labor market recovery seems to be slowing, the demands on households' incomes are rising.
The important last piece of the economic puzzle is that the administration has clearly acted irresponsibly in handling the economic problems that it faced. Instead of instituting a well-targeted, temporary economic stimulus, it pursued large permanent tax cuts that went predominantly to those households least likely to spend the extra money. Even worse, many tax cuts would not go into effect until well into the future, thereby worsening the budget outlook for the federal government without an effective economic stimulus in the present. The administration received a whimper for its really big bucks, rather than the bang that an efficient stimulus would have produced.
The lack of an effective economic stimulus, though, was not the only irresponsible step in handling the weak recovery. Despite evidence of continued job losses and the highest long-term unemployment in two decades, the administration hesitated in extending benefits to the long-term unemployed during the recovery and ultimately did not support further extensions in 2003, although long-term unemployment has remained high. Not only are many middle-class families facing large hardship, but the economy has also suffered since households who need help have less money to spend.
Largely because of the administration's irresponsible policies, the economy is fundamentally unsound. The federal budget saw its sharpest deterioration in almost three decades following massive tax cuts, and households borrowed record amounts of new credit to maintain their consumption amid a weak labor market. Add to this a record trade deficit, and the economic picture looks anything but rosy.
The White House's view of the world has little to do with reality. The economy is fundamentally unsound with record household debt levels, budget deficits and trade deficits threatening growth. Rising oil prices exacerbate these problems, but they are in no way the cause of the economy's problems, as Greg Mankiw and other administration officials would like to lead us to believe. Instead of trying to reinterpret economic realities, the administration should take responsibility for its actions and forge a realistic plan that will avoid another recession in the near future. America's working families have not yet reaped the benefits of this recovery, and they can ill afford a further slowdown.
[b]The Bush Crime Family has a sordid and squalid history of betraying the United States of America to build its own private fortunes, power-base and a network of support from corporations, special interests and foreign terrorists ... The neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies have treated "We the People" with contemptuous disregard and have not earned the right to continue to serve our nation ...[/b]
This year's general election campaign is taking on the trademark stamp of every Bush national campaign since 1988: attack politics that tear down the Bush opponent while a compliant Washington press corps can't believe the Bush family would play dirty.
In 1988, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis faced Republican attacks suggesting he had undergone psychiatric care, favored dangerous criminals and lacked patriotism. In 1992, the Republicans went on a search for a "silver bullet" against Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, which included searching his passport file and leaking false rumors that he had tried to renounce his U.S. citizenship.
In 2000, Sen. John McCain confronted whispers about his sanity after five years in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp and mysterious phone calls about his "black" baby (a child he had adopted from Bangladesh). Vice President Al Gore saw his words so twisted that they were used to justify Republican claims that he was "delusional" and thus unfit to serve as President. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Protecting Bush-Cheney http://www.consortiumnews.com... " and "Al Gore vs. the Media http://www.consortiumnews.com... ."]
Now, it's Sen. John Kerry's turn. On one level, the Bush campaign presents Kerry as confused and inconsistent about his ability to make decisions on war and other issues. In a parallel operation, a conservative group of Vietnam veterans accuses Kerry of lying about his war record as the Bush campaign neither condemns nor discourages the smears.
This two-pronged strategy again echoes back to 1988 when another "arms-length" group produced the infamous Willie Horton ad that blamed Dukakis for a furloughed black inmate who had raped a white woman. At the same time, George H.W. Bush's campaign stressed similar themes but kept its fingerprints off the more racially provocative ad.
Though this historical pattern is both obvious and well-documented, the Washington press corps acts as if every day is a new day for the Bush family. At best, the voters are confused by the charges and counter-charges, which leave a residue of doubt and disdain for whatever politician got in the way of the Bush family political machine.
[b]Bamboozled on Iraq[/b]
This pattern also goes beyond political campaigns explaining, in part, why the national news media found itself so thoroughly bamboozled on the Iraq War. If there's one overriding principle in today's American politics, it appears to be that the Bushes always get the benefit of the doubt.
A growing number of major news organizations - now including the Washington Post - have admitted to an overly credulous acceptance of George W. Bush's case for war. Their recurring explanations often boil down to the fact that challenging the Bushes is just too career threatening for mainstream journalists to risk.
What would have happened, for instance, if the Post or some other major newspaper had prominently contested Bush's pre-war assertions and Iraqi WMD was found? The reporter, editor and news organization would have been demonized by the Bush administration and its allies. There would have been angry recriminations about the news outlet's lack of patriotism. Heads would have rolled. Careers would have ended.
By contrast, letting Bush and his administration off the hook before the Iraq War was a win-win for the Washington press corps. First, the journalists avoided the hard work of digging deeply into the administration's dubious claims. Second, there was no downside risk. Even the journalists who actively promoted the administration's false assertions escaped any serious harm to their careers.
Except for some finger-waving by professional media critics, there have been few repercussions for those in the Washington press corps who engaged in the pro-war "groupthink." So far, no one has lost a job in a major news organization for accepting Bush's claims. No careers have ended in humiliation.
[b]Post Self-Criticism[/b]
In comments to Post media critic Howard Kurtz for his internal review of the newspaper's WMD coverage, senior Post editors expressed only mild self-criticism for their lack of pre-war skepticism. Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. even used the occasion to take another slap at the war critics for presumably lacking in realism.
"People who were opposed to the war from the beginning and have been critical of the media's coverage in the period before the war have this belief that somehow the media should have crusaded against the war," Downie said. "They have the mistaken impression that somehow if the media's coverage had been different, there wouldn't have been a war."
Downie's derisive tone against the Iraq War skeptics also represents another odd phenomenon existing at the highest levels of the U.S. news media these days, the continued contempt heaped on those who were right in questioning the administration's case for war. Rather than give these people their due - whether American citizens or European allies - many U.S. journalists simply dismiss the skeptics as "ideologues" who approached the war with a closed mind. In this warped view, those who followed the herd were the free-thinkers and those that broke away were close-minded.
Also, contrary to Downie's comment, very few Iraq War skeptics probably were naive enough to expect today's news media to "have crusaded against the war," nor did many war opponents think that Bush could be dissuaded from war. But the skeptics did have a right to expect that the national news media would perform in a professional manner, taking a hard look at the administration's evidence before thousands of American and Iraqi lives were put at risk.
Other comments by senior Post journalists also were revealing. "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power," said Karen DeYoung, a former assistant managing editor who covered the prewar diplomacy. "If the president stands up and says something, we report what the president said."
That the Washington Post, which still boasts about its Watergate scandal coverage three decades later, now considers itself an administration "mouthpiece" may be shocking enough, but the admission doesn't tell the whole story. It was certainly not true during the Clinton administration when the Post aggressively promoted virtually every Clinton "scandal" story, including the Whitewater real estate deal and the Travel Office firings that ended up being much ado about almost nothing.
The truth is that the Post, like much of the national news media, has been trending neo-conservative for the past couple of decades. Bush's case for war was not seriously vetted in large part because many of the senior editors and news executives agreed with his neo-conservative policies. Others may have simply feared the career consequences of challenging Bush, especially if some of his claims proved true.
"Administration assertions were on the front page," said the Post's Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"
Post editors also understood that the newspaper's publisher Donald Graham was one of the senior executives in step with the administration's march to war, as reflected in the Post's editorial page. As Kurtz noted, after Secretary of State Colin Powell presented supposed evidence of Iraq's WMD stockpiles to the United Nations in February 2003, a Post editorial declared "it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
Interestingly, even the U.S. intelligence community, which historically has been hostile to the news media's revelations about CIA wrongdoing, expected the Post and other news outlets to be far more skeptical, according to Kurtz's article. A group of intelligence officers peppered Post national security reporter Dana Priest with tough questions after a speech. She said they wanted to know, "Why didn't the Post do a more aggressive job? Why didn't the Post ask more questions? Why didn't the Post dig harder?" [Washington Post, August 12, 2004]
[b]Lessons Unlearned[/b]
The pressing question now, however, is whether the major news media is already falling back into those pre-invasion patterns, acting as Bush's "mouthpiece" much as it did in the run-up to war. In that sense, the media's handling of the recent flap over Kerry's "consistency" on the Iraq War policy wasn't encouraging.
Through August, the news media has let the Bush campaign set the agenda for this strange debate. Following the Bush campaign's lead, the press corps demanded to know if Kerry would reaffirm that he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war even knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Kerry's answer was that he stood by his decision of October 2002 to grant Bush the war authority with the caveat that Bush would first exhaust all peaceful means.
The press had a field day. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times treated Kerry's response as a kind of campaign gaffe, in which Bush had succeeded in putting Kerry on the defensive.
The New York Times article, entitled "Bush's Mocking Drowns Out Kerry on Iraq Vote," gave the Bush campaign nearly a free shot to pound Kerry, including several paragraphs of criticism from Vice President Dick Cheney. The Times article by David Sanger reported that Cheney said "Kerry 'voted for the war' but turned against it 'when it was politically expedient' and now has his aides 'saying that his vote to authorize force wasn't really a vote to go to war.'"
The ugliness of Cheney's attack went largely unchallenged. Only deep in the story did Sanger acknowledge briefly that "in fact, in interviews since the start of the year, Mr. Kerry has been relatively consistent in explaining his position."
[b]Twisted Logic[/b]
But even more remarkable about the handling of Kerry's response to Bush's Iraq War challenge was the news media's failure to grasp the more significant admission that was intrinsic to Bush's baiting of Kerry.
The Washington press corps acted as if it were entirely normal that the President of the United States would say that even if he had known that his primary rationale for going to war - Iraq's supposed WMD stockpiles - was false, he still would have ordered the invasion on the same timetable anyway.
Perhaps the admission was so breathtaking - in a brain-warping sort of way - that the press corps couldn't find a framework for dealing with it as a story. How does one write a lead that says, "The President says the reason he gave for sending the nation to war - and causing nearly 1,000 U.S. soldiers to lose their lives - really didn't matter to him"?
Using the "what-if" structure that was applied to Kerry, creative journalists might have asked Bush to explain what rationale he would have given the American people in March 2003 if he knew that his WMD claims were bogus then. Or he could be asked if he would have allowed Colin Powell to make the same false WMD presentation to the U.N. if Bush knew at the time the evidence was all wrong.
The whole debate was reminiscent of the genre of "what-if" historical novels, such as what would have happened if the South had won the battle of Gettysburg. But the U.S. news media only made John Kerry play the game, not George W. Bush. Indeed, Bush was allowed to use his own admission that he went to war under a false rationale to be somehow flipped against Kerry. A press corps that had truly learned some lessons from its failure to be more critical of Bush's rhetorical tricks before the war might have blown the whistle this time.
[b]An Obvious Lie[/b]
The news media also has bought into Bush's excuse that he never lied about Iraq, only that he was following erroneous intelligence. But the truth is that Bush repeatedly has lied about Iraq, such as when he asserted after the war that he had no choice but to invade because Saddam Hussein had refused to let U.N. inspectors in.
Within months of the invasion, Bush had began rewriting the war's history to make his actions seem more defensible, all in full view of the Washington press corps which turned a blind eye. On July 14, 2003, speaking to the press from the White House, Bush said about Hussein, "we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power."
Bush reiterated that war-justifying claim on Jan. 27, 2004, when he said, "We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."
These were obvious lies, but Bush wasn't challenged on them in any serious way by the mainstream press.
What should be obvious by now is that Bush was determined to invade Iraq from his first days in office - much as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke have said. All Bush and his top aides were looking for was an argument that would frighten the American people out of their senses, which - after the 9/11 attacks - was the notion that Iraq would give WMD to al-Qaeda.
The key question may not be whether Bush knew that his WMD claims were wrong, but whether he cared whether they were right. Perhaps a newly skeptical press corps might ask Bush this question: If you knew the WMD intelligence was bogus in March 2003, would you still have used it to justify the invasion?
[b]Wolfowitz's Claim[/b]
Bush's admission this month that he still would have invaded Iraq, just as he did, even knowing there was no WMD begs another question: Was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz right when he told Vanity Fair in May 2003 that the WMD issue was highlighted as the principal [i]casus belli [/i]"for bureaucratic reasons ... because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
A newly skeptical press also might want to ask Bush what "bureaucratic" reason for invading Iraq would have replaced weapons of mass destruction if he knew then that no WMD existed.
Another now-obvious point should be that the U.S. press corps has neither a clue how nor the courage to describe to the American people the level of deception that has surrounded the Iraq War.
So the press would rather slip back into the safer, more manageable games that it knows how to play, like the "campaign tactic" game, which usually goes something like "Bush succeeded in putting Kerry on the defensive today" or "Kerry failed to prevent the Bush campaign from 'defining' him through a flurry of negative ads this week."
[b]Kerry on Iraq[/b]
It also should be pointed out that whatever one thinks about Kerry's vote in October 2002 to grant Bush authority to use force in Iraq, Kerry has been consistent about his reasoning.
Kerry's point all along has been that Saddam Hussein was a threat if he did have WMD and that therefore an international threat of force might be needed to compel him to accept meaningful inspections. That position turned out to be accurate. A stern warning by the U.N. Security Council convinced Iraq to accept the return of inspectors.
Nevertheless, harboring doubts about Bush's reliability, Kerry said his yes vote amounted only to conditional permission to use force. "Let me be clear," Kerry said in his Senate floor speech, "the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."
Kerry also said, "If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent - and I emphasize 'imminent' - threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs." [To read extended excerpts from his speech, go to http://www.independentsforker... or for the full text, search for Kerry's October 9, 2002, statement on http://thomas.loc.gov http://thomas.loc.gov/ ]
The irony is that Kerry has continued to say the same thing, almost word for word, today - holding Saddam Hussein accountable and preventing him from possessing and/or distributing weapons of mass destruction to terrorist entities was an important national security goal. But Kerry set up a series of benchmarks before he felt war would be justified, including exhausting international efforts at inspections.
Bush, after giving lip service to a tough regimen of inspections, then forced the inspectors to leave so the invasion could proceed. Now, Bush is rewriting that history to say that Saddam Hussein never let the inspectors in to do their work.
But it is Kerry who is called on the carpet for deception. Vice President Cheney accused Kerry of being "caught in a tangled web of all his shifts and changes," a charge that also has been reflected in the treatment of the Iraq War issue by some of the most prestigious newspapers in the United States.
A legitimate complaint against Kerry could be that he was foolish to think that Bush was ever sincere about reaching a peaceful solution with Iraq over its alleged WMD. Perhaps Kerry should have recognized that Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq and was just throwing excuses against the wall hoping that one of them would stick. It's also possible that Kerry did conclude that Bush was lying and still voted to give Bush war authority because of the political risk in opposing Bush.
But whatever one makes of Kerry's calculations, there can be no doubt that the bigger problem - and the bigger story - is the President of the United States can't be trusted by members of the U.S. Congress, the American people or the world community. - http://www.consortiumnews.com...
[b]The situation in Iraq is deteriorating into chaos ... Read "Bush is Unfit to be President: Iraq is Going to Fall into Chaos" on http://www.tblog.com/template... ... Iraq will go down as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation's history perpetrated by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]having triggered a bloody disaster from their sheer and utter greed, power-lust and incompetence ...[/b]
The fighting in Najaf is a story made for the media: a set-piece confrontation, lots of blood and gore (“if it bleeds, it leads”), a villain (Sadr) and the good guy (U.S. troops and, oh yes, Iraq’s so-called troops). And there’s no question that what happens there is important.
But the confrontation has completely obscured the fact that the government of Iraqistan has no legitimacy, and that the recent national conference that was supposed to create a legitimizing process failed, utterly, to do so. At the conference, political forces might have emerged to create a genuine Iraqi body politic were either excluded or refused to participate or were squashed at the meeting itself. The big winners, of course, were the exile-led parties that formed the core of the Pentagon’s original anti-Saddam movement, including the separatist Kurds, the Islamic fundamentalist parties like SCIRI and Al Dawa, Iyad Allawi’s band of thugs, and even remnants of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.
... "The Iraqi National Conference, which concluded on August 18, was meant to bestow legitimacy on the transitional regime by providing broader representation in state institutions and a check on the power of the executive. It did not achieve its objectives and has, instead, widened and deepened the crazy quilt of political fractures in Iraqi society, sharpening divisions, increasing the probability of intensified conflict and drawing the country closer to the stark alternatives of Middle Eastern-style dictatorship and separation into mini-states." ...
And he concludes, correctly in my view:
... "Rather than enhancing the legitimacy of transitional institutions, the Conference diminished it. Sectors of Iraqi society that support neither the regime nor the Sunni and Shi'a Arab insurgencies have been cut out of their only chance to pursue their interests peacefully and institutionally. Their confidence in the planned open elections has been compromised. Excluded from the transitional process, they will be increasingly alienated from the regime, less willing to support it against its militant foes and more likely to place themselves with separatist tendencies." ...
It bodes ill for the future of Iraq. But then, nearly all the news from Baghdad bodes ill these days.
[b]Alan S. Blinder, a professor at Princeton University, was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, 1993-1994, and vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, 1994-1996 writes the following article ... Also, be sure to check-out "Kerry Wins Backing from Nobel Economics Laureates" on http://www.commondreams.org/h... ...[/b]
[i]'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less[/i]," declared Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland.
Maybe we, too, live in Wonderland now. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and other Bush administration spokesmen have been calling this the "best economy in a lifetime." A lifetime? Perhaps they were born yesterday, because most of us can remember a vastly better economy just a few years ago under Bill Clinton.
The estimable George Shultz, a distinguished gentleman if there ever was one, apparently wants us to believe that the Clinton boom was an illusion, like the Cheshire Cat. He recently wrote in The New York Times that "President Clinton inherited prosperity" but "bequeathed recession," which then "turned into prosperity under George W. Bush."
How's that again? The Clinton interregnum was a period of hardship nestled between the twin prosperities under George H.W. and George W. Bush? Do words now mean just what Republicans choose them to mean?
Let's look at the history, using the actual meanings of words, starting with the claim that Clinton "inherited prosperity." Well, I was there, as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, when Bill Clinton took office, and I can assure you that the inheritance didn't look so great to us - nor to the American people.
It is true that both Gross Domestic Product and employment were growing at the end of 1992 - but from very low bases. Three weeks after the 1992 election, Business Week wrote that "President-elect Clinton inherits a struggling economy." (Notice the verb.) Many people at the time were talking about a double-dip, or even a triple-dip, recession. I have checked my files, and in July 1993 I wrote Clinton a worried memo expressing concern that the economy had weakened perceptibly since his inauguration. In fact, GDP growth was merely 1.25 percent over the first half of 1993. Some inheritance.
But there was more. When Clinton took office, the national unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. When he left, it was 4.2 percent - having visited the unheard-of rate of 3.8 percent in the interim. Does that sound like inheriting prosperity and bequeathing recession?
On the budget front, Clinton's fiscal inheritance from the first President Bush was a deficit of almost $300 billion and rising. His bequest to the second President Bush was a surplus of more than $200 billion, with forecasts of more to come. That's quite a difference.
Now, what about the second charge: that Bill Clinton "bequeathed recession" to the second President Bush?
It is true that growth slowed down in the second half of 2000. But even Smarty Jones has to slow down sometime. History shows that the Clinton years were an all-out economic sprint in which 22.6 million jobs were created in eight years - the fastest pace of any administration. No prosperity lasts forever, but the decade-long economic expansion that ended in 2001 came close: It was the longest in U.S. history. Do we fault Barry Bonds for failing to hit 75 home runs in a season?
But what happened when the long Clinton boom ended? Did the roof cave in on the economy? Not exactly. As Shultz himself observed, "the 2001 recession was short and shallow." In fact, the unemployment rate didn't even reach 6 percent until December 2002. (Yes, that's 2002, not 2001.) So even if we blame the recession on Bill Clinton - which is a bum rap, in my view - it was a pretty puny one.
The real problem with our economy since 2001 is not the recession, but the failure to mount a vigorous recovery since the recession officially ended in November 2001. The unemployment rate kept rising until July 2003. Job destruction continued to exceed job creation until August 2003. Even now, almost three years after the recession, the rate of net job creation is paltry. The poorly designed stimulus policy of President Bush is surely one of the reasons.
Despite this lackluster performance, the Bush administration touts the weak job numbers, brags about "the best economy in a lifetime," and continues to blame the current situation on the 9/11 attacks and on Bill Clinton. If truth be told, the recent pace of employment gains would have embarrassed the Clinton administration. Everyone but Humpty Dumpty knows that we had a vastly better economy in the '90s, and blaming today's problems on events three and four years ago strains credulity.
So did George W. Bush really turn Clintonian recession into prosperity? You be the judge. Come to think of it, on Nov. 2, you will be the judge. - http://www.newsday.com/news/o...,0,1749863.story?coll=ny-viewpoints- headlines
...---... The Moral Cowardice of George W. Bush ...---...
[b]John F. Kerry is wisely taking the 'high road' in discussing issues concerning the fiscal well-being of our nation; the needs of our citizens; and, our national security-- but unhappily the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is using neo-con, neo-fascist smear tactics to lie, slander and malign Kerry in their "dishonest and dishonorable" ugly neo-hitlerian manner (Even GOP operatives admit that incompetent Bush/Cheney can't talk "issues", because they've fucked-up everything they touch!) ... Kerry is [i]absolutely right [/i]not to descend down into the slime, muck and mire with the Bush neo-con thugs & goons-- but [i]he must point out [/i]that the reckless and ruthless immorality of the Bushies is one of the reasons that we are in a terrible mess ...[/b]
With the president descending to the most shameless sort of attack politics to save his presidency, there's an understandable desire on the part of Democrats to reopen every political vulnerability he has that has yet to be fully explored or dissected: his failure to show up for military service in the Texas Air National Guard, personal indiscretions from his 'lost years', insider deals from the various failed companies. All of it.
I have no argument with any of this. I think it makes perfect sense. To pick up on the military language that is now so ubiquitous, I think Democrats need to open up on all fronts.
But fighting fire with fire isn't a compelling message. Nor will getting into a tit-for-tat about what each of these guys was doing in 1969 or 1970 or 1971 win this race for the Democrats.
Look at the wrong direction/right direction http://www.pollingreport.com/... poll numbers and you see pretty clearly that the country is looking to fire George W. Bush. The president's only hope is to get the debate on to issues like these, shift the dynamic of the race, and convince voters that, whatever their dissatisfactions with his administration, John Kerry isn't an acceptable alternative.
When this stuff comes down the pike, Kerry has to fight back mercilessly. And he can win those fights. But, fundamentally, every day of this campaign that isn't spent talking about the sluggish economy and the president's debacle in Iraq is a day wasted, a strategic failure for the Kerry campaign.
But Democrats don't have to choose between hard-hitting lines of attack on the president himself and focusing on the main issues that are facing the country today. The most damning attacks turn out to be the most compelling, the most relevant for what the country faces, and the most difficult for the president to combat.
I've said several times over recent days that it is an example of the president's moral cowardice that he has such a long record of having others savage his opponents -- for sins of which he is usually more guilty than they -- and then denying any responsibility for what's happening. It's like the moment captured in that recent Kerry campaign spot http://www.johnkerry.com/peti... where John McCain tells Bush to stand by his attacks or apologize, and the now-president is painfully caught off guard, bereft of the protective phalanx of retainers.
He's not used to having to stand behind what he's done. And when McCain comes at him one on one he's jelly. His life has always been a matter of others doing his dirty work for him, others bailing him out. And in that moment it shows.
The current debate about these two men's military service has put the spotlight on physical courage. But that really is a side issue in this campaign, if we're talking substance. The real issue isn't physical bravery but moral cowardice.
President Bush is an examplar of that quality in spades. And it cuts directly to his failures as president. Forget about thirty years ago, just think about the last three years.
Before proceeding on to that, one other point about the two men's service. On the balance sheet of moral bravery, as opposed to physical bravery, the two men are about as far apart as you can be on Vietnam. On the one hand you have Kerry, who already had doubts about whether we should be fighting in Vietnam before he went, and put his life on the line anyway. On the other hand, you have George W. Bush who supported the war, which means he believed the goal was worth the cost in American lives. Only, not his life. He believed others should go; just not him. It's the story of his life.
That is almost the definition of moral cowardice.
We have a more immediate sense of what physical bravery and cowardice are. In fact, when we speak of bravery and cowardice, the physical variety is almost always what we're talking about. It's whether or not you can charge an enemy position while you're be fired at. It's whether you're immobilized by the fear of death.
Moral cowardice is more complex. A moral coward is someone who lacks the courage to tell the truth, to accept responsibility, to demand accountability, to do what's right when it's not the easy thing to do, to clean up his or her own messes. Perhaps we could say that moral bravery is having both the courage of your convictions as well as the courage of your misdeeds.
As I've been saying here for the last couple days, the issue isn't that Bush ducked service in Vietnam. It's that he tries to smear other people's meritorious service without taking responsibility for what he's doing. He gets other people to do his dirty work for him. Again, that image of McCain calling him on his shameless antics and his look of fear, his look of feeling trapped.
The key for the Kerry campaign to make is that the president's moral cowardice is why we're now bogged down in Iraq. It's a key reason why almost a thousand Americans have died there. President Bush has set the tone for this administration and his moral cowardice permeates it.
Consider only the most obvious examples.
The president didn't think he could convince the public of the merits of his reasons for going to war. So he lied to them. He greatly exaggerated what was thought to be the evidence of weapons of mass destruction and completely manufactured a connection between Iraq and al Qaida. He couldn't get the country behind him on the up-and-up. So he took the easy way out; he took a shortcut; he deceived them. And now the country is paying a terrible price for it.
He and his advisors knew that if they levelled with the public about the costs of war -- in dollars, years, soldiers -- he'd have a very hard time convincing them. So he didn't level with them. He took the easy way out.
The sort of forward planning that would have made a big difference in post-war Iraq was scuttled or attacked because it would make the job of selling the war harder. Those who sounded the alarm had their careers cut short.
Once we were in Iraq and it was clear that we had been wrong about the weapons of mass destruction -- a judgement that's been clear for more than a year -- he wouldn't admit it. And he still hasn't. A year and a half after we invaded Iraq and he still can't level with the American people about this. He still relies on his vice president to try to fool people into thinking Hussein was tied to al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks.
More importantly, once it became clear that the president's plans for post-war Iraq were producing poor results, he refused to shift policy or to reshuffle his team. He refused to demand accountability from his own team because of how it would have reflected on him. He's preferred to continue on with demonstrably failed policies because to do otherwise would be to admit he'd made a mistake and open himself to all the political fall-out that entails. And that's not something he's willing to do.
The stubborn refusal ever to change course, which the president tries to pass off as a sign of leadership or devotion to principle, is actually an example of his cowardice.
For the same reasons, he runs from soldiers' funerals like they were burying victims of the plague -- because it's the easy way out. If there's a problem, he denies it or finds someone else to take the fall for him.
Everyone has these tendencies in their measure. No one is perfect. But they define George W. Bush.
The same sort of moral cowardice that led him to support the Vietnam war but decide it wasn't for him, run companies into the ground and let others pay the bill, play gutter politics but run for the hills when someone asks him to say it to their face, those are the same qualities that led the president to lie the country into war, fail to prepare for the aftermath and then refuse to take responsibility for any of it when the bill started to come due.
[b]The despotic, tyrannical Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]has failed us miserably ... Rumsfeld should be fired and put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity and it is clear that the corrupt Bush/Cheney regime is not fit to serve our nation ...[/b]
An Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal has found that military police dogs were used to frighten detained Iraqi teenagers as part of a sadistic game, one of many details in the forthcoming report that were provoking expressions of concern and disgust among Army officers briefed on the findings.
Earlier reports and photographs from the prison have indicated that unmuzzled military police dogs were used to intimidate detainees at Abu Ghraib, something the dog handlers have told investigators was sanctioned by top military intelligence officers there. But the new report, according to Pentagon sources, will show that MPs were using their animals to make juveniles -- as young as 15 years old -- urinate on themselves as part of a competition.
"There were two MP dog handlers who did use dogs to threaten kids detained at Abu Ghraib," said an Army officer familiar with the report, one of two investigations on detainee abuse scheduled for release this week. "It has nothing to do with interrogation. It was just them on their own being weird."
Speaking on the condition of anonymity because the report has not been released, other officials at the Pentagon said the investigation also acknowledges that military intelligence soldiers kept multiple detainees off the record books and hid them from international humanitarian organizations. The report also mentions substantiated claims that at least one male detainee was sodomized by one of his captors at Abu Ghraib, sources said.
"The report will show that these actions were bad, illegal, unauthorized, and some of it was sadistic," said one Defense Department official. "But it will show that they were the actions of a few, actions that went unnoticed because of leadership failures."
The investigative report by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay focuses on the role of military intelligence soldiers in the prison abuse. It will expand the circle of soldiers considered responsible for abuse beyond the seven military police soldiers already facing charges, officials said, to include more than a dozen others -- low-ranking soldiers, civilian contractors and medics. Sources have said that the report also criticizes military leadership, from the prison and up through the highest levels of the U.S. chain of command in Iraq at the time.
One Pentagon official said yesterday that Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is named in the report for leadership deficiencies and failing to deal with rising problems at the prison as he tried to manage 150,000 troops countering an unexpected insurgency. Sanchez, however, will not be recommended for any punitive action or even a letter of reprimand, the source said. About 300 pages of the 9,000-page report will be released publicly, according to Army officials.
Another report regarding the prison abuse, commissioned by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is expected to be released this afternoon. That independent commission, chaired by James R. Schlesinger, a former defense secretary, will be critical of the guidance and policies set by top Pentagon and military officials as they worked to get more useful intelligence from detainees in Iraq, said a source familiar with the commission's work.
The Schlesinger report is not expected to implicate high-level officials by name, but it would be the first report to link the abuse at Abu Ghraib to policies set by top officials in Washington. The Fay report, by contrast, does not point a finger at the Pentagon and instead assigns most of the blame to military intelligence and military police who worked on the chaotic grounds of the overcrowded and austere Abu Ghraib.
Rumsfeld had not been briefed on the commission's findings as of yesterday, a Defense Department source said, and the commission likewise has not briefed members of Congress, who have been anticipating the reports for months. Initially, the Schlesinger commission was slated to take 45 days, and Rumsfeld suggested that it consider limiting itself to reviewing the work of other investigations. But the commission hired a staff of more than 20 people and conducted dozens of interviews, taking more than two months to complete its work.
The reports are part of several investigations into U.S. detainee operations around the world, and so far they have expanded the scope of culpability beyond the seven MPs charged in connection with the most notorious incidents of abuse, such as stacking naked detainees in a pyramid, posing them in mock sexual positions and beating them. Pentagon officials said yesterday that the abuse came not as the result of direct orders but rather as "off-the-clock mischief" that arose from vague instructions and a general lack of oversight.
The core conclusion of the Fay report, said one general who is familiar with it, is that there was a leadership failure in the Army in Iraq that extended well beyond a handful of MPs. "There's a vacuum there," he said. "Either people knew it and turned a blind eye, or they weren't paying attention."
In particular, top leaders failed to give proper attention to reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross that decried conditions at Abu Ghraib, reported allegations of abuse and raised warning flags about detainees being hidden from them. Top Pentagon officials have denied keeping detainees from the ICRC, but the Fay report will concur with an earlier Army investigation that cited the prison for keeping "ghost detainees."
"This report will address the ghost-detainee problem, and it was an outright policy violation," said one Pentagon official familiar with the report. "It did happen, and accordingly it is still being investigated."
Another officer at the Pentagon said he felt that the latest revelations, including the use of dogs to frighten juveniles, were some of the most worrisome of the scandal. He said one particular worry at the Pentagon is how the use of dogs against Arab juveniles will be viewed in the Middle East.
"People know that in war, you know, you have to break eggs," he said. "But this crosses the line." - http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
[b]Why hasn't Rumsfeld been fired??? [/b]The traitorous neo-cons aren't fit to serve in government-- In fact, they should be put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity ... The worst of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have[i] not yet been exposed [/i]to the American public by the right-wing neo-fascist media ... But it is clearly a sign of Dubya's complicity in War Crimes and his cowardly AWOL lack of character that Scumball-Rummy-Rumsfeld is still at large, instead of in prison ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officials and the military command in Iraq contributed to an environment in which prisoners were abused at Abu Ghraib prison, according to a report released on Tuesday by high-level panel investigating the military detentions.
The outside four-member panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger found that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff failed to exercise proper oversight over confusing detention policies at U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"Command failures were compounded by poor advice provided by staff officers with responsibility for overseeing battlefield functions related to detention and interrogation operations," the report said. "Military and civilian leaders at the Pentagon share this burden of responsibility."
The panel did not find that Rumsfeld or military leaders directly ordered abuse such as stripping prisoners naked and sexually humiliating them [not directly maybe, just as there is no proof that Adolf Hitler ordered the construction of Concentration Camps, Gas Chambers or Ovens]. It said, however, that the abuses were not carried out by just a few individuals, as the Bush administration has consistently maintained.
Schlesinger said there were 300 cases of abuses being investigated, many beyond Abu Ghraib. "So the abuses were not limited to a few individuals." He said there was "sadism" by some Americans at Abu Ghraib.
"It was a kind of animal house on the night shift" at the jail, he added.
The report said prisoner interrogation policies in Iraq were inadequate and deficient, and changes made by Rumsfeld between December 2002 and April 2003 in what interrogation techniques were permitted contributed to uncertainties in the field as to what actions were allowed and what were forbidden.
The report said an expanded list of more coercive techniques that Rumsfeld allowed for Guantanamo "migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq, where they were neither limited nor safeguarded."
The Schlesinger panel, named by Rumsfeld in May to look into the abuse and how effectively the Pentagon addressed it, also includes former Defense Secretary Harold Brown, former Florida Republican Rep. Tillie Fowler and retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who led the allied air campaign in the 1991 Gulf War.
Echoing an earlier investigation headed by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, the Schlesinger panel said the "weak and ineffectual leadership" of Army Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade at Abu Ghraib, "allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
In a statement released by the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said the panel provided "important information and recommendations that will be of assistance in our ongoing efforts to improve detention operations."
In addition, a separate Army investigation headed by Maj. Gen. George Fay faulted Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, at the time the top U.S. commander in Iraq, for leadership failures for not addressing troubles at Abu Ghraib, a senior Army official said. The Schlesinger panel, too, faulted Sanchez.
The Fay report, to be released on Wednesday, found Sanchez and his staff were preoccupied with combating an escalating insurgency and did not focus on the festering problems at Abu Ghraib, the Army official said.
The report also found that Army military intelligence soldiers kept a number of prisoners, dubbed "ghost detainees," off the books and hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the official added. It also found a small number of military police used dogs to menace teen-age Abu Ghraib detainees.
Seven Army reservists from the 372nd Military Police Company already have been charged with abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The Fay report implicates about two dozen more low-ranking soldiers, medics and civilian contractors in the Abu Ghraib abuse, and about half of them will be recommended for criminal proceedings, the Army official said.
"These are illegal, unauthorized, mischievous, sadistic activities happening outside the purview of interrogations," the Army official said.
But the Fay report maintains that the abuse was perpetrated by a few soldiers, but went unchecked as a result of military leadership deficiencies, the Army official said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters in Crawford, Texas, "Remember, we said early on that it's important that those who were responsible for the appalling acts at Abu Ghraib are held accountable. And it's also important to take a broad look and make sure that there are no systemic problems."
In Mannheim, Germany, a U.S. military judge ruled that Rumsfeld could not be forced to testify in the court martial of a sergeant charged in the abuse. - http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Bush's Phony 'Condemnation' of Anti-Kerry Smear Nothing But a Ploy to Undermine Grass Root Groups
[b]Idiot Bush's insane hatred of Democracy [i]and[/i] his contemptuous disregard for "We the People" [i]and[/i] his appalling trampling upon the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights-- are all obvious and should inform us in our decision to vote for John F. Kerry for President of the United States of America ...[/b]
If Bush had been for real in his "outrage" over the anti-Kerry 'Swfit Boat' smear, he would have spoken up over a month ago. Instead, he waited until the maximum damage could be done by the ad - and by the media's nearly across-the-board refusal to do its job and expose the fraud. Even now, the media is letting Bush use the incident for political gain, giving more headlining coverage to his bogus "denunciation" and call for an end to ALL "third party" ads (including honest groups like MoveOn.org) than to exposing the fraud. This spinelessness/Bush collusion has only empowered the fraud-perpetrators, who now say they plan to widen their scurrilous attacks on Kerry. After all, the media has made it clear that, aside from a few honest men and women, most news editors are corporate shills indifferent to the ideals of journalism.
[b]Raymond Close, a longtime CIA operations officer in the Middle East, has penned a provocative analysis of the Bush administration’s options in Iraq—one that might end with what he calls a “doomsday scenario,” namely, an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.[/b]
In a letter circulated to clients and friends, Close writes:
... "Bush (if he remains president for another four years) will become more and more desperate to find a plausible explanation (an excuse) for the disastrous mess that his policy has created. I think Bush and the neocons will, therefore, soon begin to employ the argument that we would have succeeded in establishing a stable pro-western secular democracy in Iraq if it had not been for the fact that the evil Iranian mullahs inspired and instigated the radical Shia Islamist insurgency, thereby spoiling the whole enterprise and preventing America from delivering the torch of freedom to the people of Iraq. This propaganda campaign has already started, in fact, and is beginning to take on a life of its own that is quite distinct from, and clearly in addition to, whatever other (much more legitimate) reasons the United States may have today for genuine concern about the role being played by Iran in the region and in the world—mainly involving nuclear proliferation. The problem is that these kinds of confrontations have a way of escalating over time, inviting tit-for-tat charges and countercharges, until there is no way that national pride and "face" will allow either side to cool down.
What I am predicting is not a deliberate effort by the Bush administration to start a war with Iran (quite the contrary), but rather an ill-considered course of action that starts with a desperate search for an excuse for failure in Iraq, but ends up in a confrontation with Iran that will eventually get beyond Bush's ability to control with the resources—political, military and psychological—that he has at his disposal." ...
There is no question that Iran is meddling in Iraq, of course. Based on what’s happened thus far, however, it is clear that Iran is exercising enormous restraint. Part of that is simply self-interest: Bush has bungled Iraq so badly that Iraq’s Shiite fundamentalists are likely to gain the upper hand there by 2005, so Iran’s mullahs can simply sit back and wait for that to happen. Yet what Close suggests—and I agree—is that the White House can make things far worse by creating a confrontational showdown with Iran as a way of diverting attention from the Iraqi mess. Iran’s leaders already suspect that they may be “next” if Bush is re-elected, so there’s no telling how they might react. But in a way, it’s a paradox for Iran: if Iran tries to hurt Bush by causing more trouble in Iraq, they could end up helping him get re-elected instead, by fueling a crisis that be can capitalize on, War President that he is.
I not sure I agree with Close that the Bush administration, or its neocon contingent at least, is not deliberately seeking a crisis with Iran. Michael Ledeen, AEI, the Hudson Institute, and other intemperate voices are continuing the drumbeat for a confrontation. In a recent article, Ledeen wrote http://www.benadorassociates.... (as per his usual):
... "In Iran we have upwards of 70 percent of the people on our side. If we supported them, I think it quite likely that we could liberate Iran in a matter of a few months. And if Iran falls, Syria will most likely come right alongside.
If we do not quickly expose the vulnerability of mullahs and empower the Iranian people, I believe the next few months in Iraq will, if Tehran has its way, be bloodier than anything we have seen to date." ...
Last week John Bolton, the State Department’s house neocon, gave a speech http://www.hudson.org/files/p...%20Speech.pdf to the Hudson Institute in which he reprised the “Axis of Evil” phrase and demanded “serious, concerted, immediate intervention by the international community” to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Given that the international community is not going to sponsor Ledeen-style regime change, is Bolton giving the green light for an Israeli attack? Or does he want U.S.-sponsored, Iraq-style regime change? What, exactly, does he want?
Close, in his letter, warns that if the U.S.-Iran showdown does escalate, it could easily lead to an Israeli attack:
... "Will this stimulate Israel to seek American approval for Israeli preemptive military actions—such as bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities? In that case, what I have described could be transformed from a "worst-case scenario" into a "doomsday scenario.”"...
[b]As is appropriate and necessary, there's currently much attention being focused on the patently false GOP-supported swift boat ad http://www.thenation.com/capi... .[/b] But, there's more to the nasty air wars raging across a handful of battleground states this political season. Spending on political commercials has gone through the roof, distortion reigns supreme and Bush has made negativity the norm http://www.washingtonpost.com... .
Last month, the Advertising Project http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/t... at the University of Wisconsin reported that the campaigns are ignoring 60 percent of Americans who don't live in the swing states. Out of 210 media markets nationwide, only 93 of them are airing any political commercials. But in Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa and Florida the airwaves are thick with ads, and voters are under heavy bombardment in 14 or 15 additional states.
According to Ken Goldstein, director of the Advertising Project, http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/t... the campaigns are fixed laser-like on "maybe two, two and a half percent of the voters" who "are actually persuadable in this race." But in the uncontested blue or red states (California, Texas, New York) where the outcome isn't in doubt, a kind of political famine has deprived voters of a firsthand look at this year's (nasty) give-and-take.
Bush http://www.thenation.com/dire... is waging perhaps the most negative--and expensive--television assault on a challenger in modern times. Through mid-July, Bush had already spent $84 million on television advertising--most of it negative. His campaign, according to the [i]Washington Post[/i], is defined by "unprecedented negativity." Seventy-five percent of his ads, or almost 50,000 commercials through May 31st were devoted to attacking John Kerry. (Kerry, by contrast, went negative in only 27 percent of his ads during the same period.) In 30-second bombshells saturating the airwaves in swing states, Bush routinely misleads voters http://www.georgewbush.com/Ke... by charging that Kerry supported repealing wiretaps on terrorists; proposed a $900 billion tax hike on the middle-class; advocated a fifty-cent gas tax increase; opposed weapons systems that would have helped America fight terrorists, and failed to attend crucial Senate Intelligence Committee hearings.
The drumbeat of distortions is so nasty that even the watchdogs get tired of cleaning up so many White House smears. In April, FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/ which is sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center http://www.annenbergpublicpol... of the University of Pennsylvania, said wearily of Bush's ad attacking Kerry's voting record on military hardware: "We've de-bunked these half-truths before but the Bush campaign persists."
Bush's surrogates--or as Maureen Dowd calls them, "Third-Party political assassins"--have also been busy boys. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, http://www.swiftvets.com/ well-funded by big GOP donors, is running an ad charging that one of Kerry's Bronze Stars for bravery and two of his three purple hearts were the result of Kerry fabricating events. Sen. John McCain urged Bush to denounce the smear. But Bush and his cronies have refused to condemn the patently false ad. (On Friday, the Swift Boat attackers announced that they were unrolling another anti-Kerry TV ad--this one sliming his antiwar activity.)
Meanwhile, Kerry's campaign is finally responding. Last week, it filed a complaint against the group with the federal elections commission. But by the time the complaint was filed, more than half the country has already heard about or seen the Swift Boat ad, according to the Annenberg Center (Click here http://www.thenation.com/capi... to read David Corn's [i]Nation[/i] weblog for more on this deceitful ad.)
What's clear is that this incumbent, wartime president and his strategists will use dirty tricks and character assassination to win. "This is the bitterest, most unsavory campaign in the nation's history," McCain http://www.guardian.co.uk/wor...,1280,-4429895,00.html said this week. "And it's only going to get worse."
The latest poll numbers have only fueled Bush's desperation. In key battleground states, most polls suggest the President is hurting. [i](USA Today's [/i]latest numbers http://www.usatoday.com/news/... show Kerry http://www.thenation.com/dire... with a 10 percentage point advantage in the key swing state of Ohio. ) The White House has decided that the way to stop the bleeding is to attack Kerry as a flip-flopper and a liberal. (And to use surrogates to do some of their dirty work.) That means jettisoning the campaign's pledge to use August to roll out a second-term agenda. (Remember Karl Rove telling the [i]New York Times[/i], "We need, as we go into the convention, to put more of an emphasis on our agenda. This gives us a chance to tell people what he wants to do over the next four years.") Instead, Rove & Co have gone negative, big-time--revealing Bush as the real flip-flopper in this campaign.
The current campaign system is broken in many ways. When it comes to the air war, these negative ads do little but bestow big benefits on large media companies, advertising agencies and political consultants. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group http://www.cmagreports.com/ne... which tracks political advertising, candidates in 2002 at the federal, state and local levels spent a combined one billion dollars on political commercials (a four-fold increase from 1982). And the result? The public discourse was debased (remember Saxby Chambliss, http://www.washingtonpost.com...¬Found=true who ran the ads that featured consecutive photos of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Democrat Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam?), and media operatives and companies made out like bandits.
To try to address this spiraling madness, Senators McCain http://mccain.senate.gov/ , Feingold http://feingold.senate.gov/ and Durbin http://durbin.senate.gov/ are introducing the " Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act http://www.ourairwaves.org/pr... ." The bill is a modest reform. It recognizes that the airwaves are a public trust; it will cut the cost of political communication, will open up new room for fresh ideas, and even perhaps elevate the level of discourse. Let's take a sensible step to fix a system that, as our president has shown in dramatic and mean-spirited ways, is completely dysfunctional.
[b]Before we proceed to other matters, just a brief note on how the Republicans don't get tripped up over fastidious details. [/b]
Right at the top of Adam Nagourney's piece http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... in yesterday's [i]Times[/i] (in the second graf) is this ...
... "Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president." ...
Now, let's pause with this for a moment.
No one believes that any of the protests scheduled for the Democratic convention are sanctioned by the Democratic party. Indeed, far from it -- if for no other reason than that implied in the article. Namely, that any violence or ugly scenes or anything really will tend to [i]help[/i] the president, rather than hurt him.
It is probably true that most of the more vitriolic protestors don't even support Senator Kerry, let alone operate with his or his party's sanction. And I think I can guarentee you that the Democratic party and the Kerry campaign would vastly prefer that Kerry supporters among the demonstrators keep their heads down and their voices low or simply not show up at all -- again, for the simply reason I noted above.
There's no use in belaboring the point since everyone knows this is true. Yet here we have Nagourney's sources telling him they plan to make the case for a demonstrably false proposition.
[b]Critics of the administration have long suspected Bush's colorful terrorism alert system to be a bogus political tool. [/b]Even the [i]Washington Post [/i]and [i]NY Times [/i]have begun to include quotes from critics saying as much in their dutiful reportage.
Now, you needn't look any further than what have become known as "the timeline" http://juliusblog.blogspot.co... and "the chart" http://img70.exs.cx/my.php?lo... ([i]see below[/i]). The timeline shows the correlation between events unflattering or damaging to the administration and terrorism alerts. The chart plots Bush's approval ratings against alerts and full-fledged color elevations.
It doesn't look good.
But as good as this chart and timeline are, nobody does it better than comedian David Cross, http://www.subpop.com/bands/d... whose routine on terrorism alerts and coincidence are funnier than anything you've heard in a long, long time.
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. "Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
[b]We should be very wary of whom we choose as our enemies for we shall become like them and of whom we choose as our friends for we shall be indebted to them ... The Swift Boat Veterans are ruthless liars employed by the Bush Crime Family to "dishonestly and "dishonorably" (as John McCain confirmed) smear the brave and conscientious war veteran John F. Kerry ... This untrue attack represents a despicable act of neo-con character assassination perpetrated upon Kerry because Bush cannot defend his miserable failures on the economic front here at home, and on his disastrous fiasco in Iraq ... Bush is unfit to be President of the United States of America ... Bush and his Swift Boat Veterans should be shunned and rejected as unworthy of our attention ... If we do not stand against this mendacious and mean-spirited attack upon Kerry then we must beware of a time when no one will be sufficiently courageous to stand by us when we are under fire ...[/b]
[u][b]Not So Swift Boat Veterans[/b][/u]
Ever hear the old story of the lady and the snake?
A lady finds a snake injured in the road. She takes it home, cares for it, helps it heal, and the two become friends. One day, the lady is in her garden with the snake, and the snake suddenly bites her in the throat. The lady lays dying and gasps, "Why did you bite me? I was your friend?" The snake replies, "Lady, you knew I was a snake when you picked me up."
This is a parable the Bush/Cheney campaign is getting to know with suddenness and venom. They apparently picked up a snake named the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and that snake just took a mighty big chomp out of them.
It started at the end of July with the Democratic National Convention. The central theme was Kerry's Vietnam service record, and the convention brought out so many Generals and Admirals to vouch for Kerry, you thought the Fleet Center was hosting a brass festival. Couple that with Kerry's "Band of Brothers," the men who served with him and are now campaigning with him, and at the end of the thing you had the Democratic candidate packaged as a genuine American hero. After 9/11, after Afghanistan, after Iraq and all the casualties, having a blooded veteran standing forth was an image many Americans could get behind.
The polls started to move in Kerry's favor. Bush, who had been depending on an overwhelming military vote come November, saw Kerry gathering the approval of 50% of veterans. Karl Rove and the Bush election team smelled bad juju in the wind. They could not campaign on the administration's record regarding health care, education, environmental protections, justice or national defense, because Bush's record on these issues is startlingly abominable. The Bush campaign pursued the only option left to them, the option Lee Atwater taught Karl Rove how to use in the 'Willie Horton' episode. They went negative.
Or, rather, they had someone else go negative for them.
Not long after the convention, a commercial came out from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an independent political group under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. The commercial showed several Vietnam veterans who claimed they knew Kerry had exaggerated his service in the war, that he did not deserve the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he earned in the war, and that the wound that got him his first purple heart was self-inflicted. The ads ran in several battleground states, and pretty much wall-to-wall on the Fox News Channel.
It didn't take long for the charges, and resulting hullaballo, to descend into the realm of farce. One Kerry accuser, George Elliott, was the man who signed the recommendation for Kerry's Bronze Star and who defended Kerry in 1996 when others raised the claim that he didn't deserve his Silver Star. Elliot, writing Kerry's fitness report in 1969, stated, "In a combat environment often requiring independent decisive action, Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed."
It was quite a flip-flop, then, when Elliott came out with the Swift Boat Vets to attack Kerry after the convention, stating Kerry lied about his service. He even signed an affidavit on the matter. When the Boston Globe confronted Elliott about his prior remarks and written statements clashing with his new description of events, Elliott beat a rapid retreat, stating that signing the affidavit was "a terrible mistake."
There is also the strange tale of Larry Thurlow, a leader of the Swift Boat Vets, who is claiming Kerry doesn't deserve his Bronze Star. Kerry earned that citation when he maneuvered his swift boat through enemy fire to save First Lieut. Jim Rassmann, who had been blown off Kerry's boat by an explosion and was about to die. Raussmann was saved, but Thurlow, who was in his own boat at the scene during the incident, now claims there was no enemy fire at all, and so Kerry should have gotten no medal.
Here's the weird bit, though. Three men got a Bronze Star citation for bravery in action that day: Kerry, Thurlow, and radarman first class Robert Lambert, a petty officer in the boat captained by Thurlow. The citation for Thurlow's Bronze Star states that "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks." According to the citation, Thurlow "directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy," and lauds Thurlow's "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire."
This begs the question: If there was no enemy fire, as Thurlow claims, doesn't that mean that he does not deserve his Bronze Star any more than Kerry does? Shouldn't Thurlow give his medal back? And what of radarman first class Robert Lambert? Did Kerry somehow fake Lambert's claim to the award?
With the predictable exception of the Fox News Channel, most of the mainstream cable news shows began poking holes in the Swift Vets' unlikely tale. Even so, the commercials began to do damage to Kerry. After the convention, Bush and Kerry enjoyed an even split of the veteran vote. Once the Swift Boat ad did a few rotations, however, those numbers moved. A recent CBS poll showed Bush getting 55% of the veteran vote to Kerry's 37%.
The Kerry campaign had been holding fire on the issue, believing Bush would publicly distance himself from the ad. Bush didn't. Kerry, who to this point had been working hard to maintain a relentlessly upbeat and non-negative tone, saw the writing on the wall. His people realized that sometimes you have to wrestle the alligator where you find him, be it up on the high road or down in the scum vats. They strapped on helmets and hip waders, and got to work.
What followed was a marvelous bit of political theater. In rapidfire succession over the last 100 hours, the Kerry campaign revealed:
* Funding for the Swift Boat Vets activities came from men with umbilical financial ties to the Bush family, and to Karl Rove specifically.
* The team that made the anti-Kerry commercial was the same group that made commercials for Bush Sr. against Dukakis in 1988.
* The group that got the whole ball rolling were the same fellows who engineered the despicable smearing of John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina primary, on behalf of George W. Bush.
More interesting, perhaps, were the Kerry accusations:
* Citing "overwhelming evidence” that the Swift Boat group is “coordinating its expenditures on advertising and other activities designed to influence the presidential election with the Bush-Cheney Campaign,” Kerry's campaign filed an FEC complaint against the Bush campaign. The Swift Boat group is a 527, and if they got funding or assistance for their work from the Bush campaign, it would be a clear-cut violation of the law.
* On the same day these accusations were made, Bush campaign officials in Florida were caught handing out Swift Boat Vets promotional flyers at Bush/Cheney headquarters.
* Adding to the weight of evidence that the Swift Boat Vets were working fist-in-glove with the Bush campaign, an enterprising blogger named digby revealed that a member of the Swift Boat Vets steering committee, Ken Cordier, was listed on the Bush campaign website as a member of the campaign team until August 19th. His name has since been removed, but as digby points out, you can still see it there if you visit the cached version of the site.
If Kerry's people do indeed have "overwhelming evidence" of collusion between the Swifties and Bush, they have proof of a criminal conspiracy. Tie this in with the fact that none of the accusations leveled by the Swifties are borne out by any evidence whatsoever, and that many of the accusers are contradicted by their own words.
The ugliest aspect of this episode is two-fold. You have a sitting President of the United States allowing a decorated veteran to be slandered in public in order to advance his political aspirations. While Bush may denounce the spending rules that allow 527s to operate this way, he did nothing to stop them, and if the evidence bears out, he in fact went out of his way to promote them.
Worse, you have an entire administration filled with men who had "other priorities" and important family connections when the call to service in Vietnam came. These are the same men, now, who have sent almost 1,000 American soldiers home in steel coffins in the name of lies and profiteering. If ever one needed evidence of the ruthless and utterly shameless nature of the Bush crew, they have it here before them.
In a just world, the final word on this disgraceful episode would come from William Rood, a Swift Boat officer who was part of one of the disputed Vietnam battles being flogged by these Swift Boat Vets. Rood has written an account of February 28, 1969 for the Chicago Tribune titled 'Anti-Kerry Vets Not There That Day.' Rood writes:
"There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago - three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969. One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other. For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions."
"Many of us wanted to put it all behind us," continues Rood, "the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service - even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work. But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."
From people who were not there. One hopes Mr. Bush pays some attention to that last line. He picked up this snake, and now must deal with the poison.
[b]William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestselling author of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'[/b] - http://www.truthout.org/docs_...
...---... The Economy Has Turned the Corner … Into a Dead End ...---...
. Employment growth has declined for the past consecutive months (Figure 1).
. Employment gains in July were the lowest since December 2003 (Figure 1).
. At this point, the economy still has 1.2 million fewer jobs than at the start of the recession in March 2001 (Figure 2).
. If employment growth had kept pace with population growth in this recovery, there would have been 4.0 million more jobs in July (Figure 2).
. If employment growth had kept pace with population growth since the recession, there would have been 6.9 million more jobs in July (Figure 2).
[b]Wage growth sets a new record low:[/b]
. Even without taking inflation into account, this recovery has seen the slowest growth in weekly earnings of non-production supervisory workers, a good indicator of actual income of the majority of the American workforce (Figure 3).
. Once inflation is accounted for, weekly earnings growth for the entire recovery is negative, a new record low (Figure 3).
. Consequently, average monthly growth of total wages and salaries also reached a record low in this recovery, after inflation is accounted for (Figure 3).
[b]Sustainable recovery questionable:[/b]
. Consumption growth, which was one of the most important components of the recovery so far, showed its slowest performance since the recession in the second quarter of 2004.
. Personal consumption expenditures declined by 0.9 percent in inflation-adjusted terms in June, the sharpest drop in almost three years (Figure 4).
. Reflecting the emerging weakness in consumption is the fact that the retail sector lost 19,000 jobs in July.
. The economic boom was also sustained by a housing boom. However, household spending on new construction, including renovations, declined by 0.6 percent in June.
[b]In weak labor market, households getting squeezed by higher costs:[/b]
. Everywhere households look today, their costs are rising. The costs of housing – renting or owning a home – have gone up by 7.5 percent since the start of the recovery, health care costs by 11.8 percent, and energy costs by 34.1 percent.
. At the same time that prices are rising, mortgage rates are rising while households have already incurred record debt levels. Consequently, the debt service burden of households – the share of their disposable income dedicated to repaying their debt in each quarter – has been at or above 13 percent for the thirteen quarters ending in March 2004. This was the first time since the early 1980s that the debt service burden exceeded 13 percent.
. Interest rates are expected to rise further. In June 2004, the Federal Reserve raised its key interest rate for the first time in four years. And mortgage rates reached their highest level in almost two years in June 2004 (Figure 5).
[b]The president's tax cuts were inefficient to promote strong job growth:[/b]
. Although not originally intended as an economic stimulus, the president has promoted his massive tax cuts as the primary mechanism that has helped the labor market. However, even when the economic recovery hit its strongest pace in the third quarter of 2003, less than 20 percent of that growth was attributable to the president's tax cuts, according to economy.com.
. Many economists agree also that the large deficits created by the massive tax cuts of the past few years will likely slow down economic growth and living standards in the future.
[b]Households cannot count on help from President Bush:[/b]
. President Bush has either ignored or downplayed the economic weakness of the past few months. On July 31, he said, according to the New York Times, that "America has a strong economy, and we are growing stronger every day...This president and vice president are determined to keep moving forward with a comprehensive pro-jobs, pro-growth agenda." And on August 5, he was quoted in the Los Angles Times as saying, "listen, I understand something about the job base in Ohio…People are skittish. But there's jobs being created."
. Instead of focusing on policies that could help to boost job creation or that could aid those still struggling in the labor market, the administration has focused on its new overtime regulations, scheduled to go into effect in the second half of August. According to the Economic Policy Institute, an estimated six million workers will lose overtime protections under the new regulations.
. Recently, President Bush has also indicated that he wants to weaken overtime pay even for those workers who still have it. The proposed regulations would make it easier for employers to force their employees to take time off instead of giving them their required overtime pay.
. The White House continues to promote making the president's tax cuts permanent as its top priority to keep the economy moving forward. Such a policy will widen the nation's deficit without adding significant stimulus to the economy and the labor market, as the experience of the past few years has shown.
[b]Reference figures:[/b]
1. The monthly percent changes in employment reached their highest point during this recovery in March 2004. Since then, employment growth has continuously slowed. Employment growth in July 2004 was the lowest in all of 2004. (Figure 1)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Payroll Employment, www.bls.gov.
2. Total payroll employment in July 2004 was still 1.2 million jobs less than at the beginning of the recovery. If job growth had kept pace with population growth since the start of the recovery in November 2001, there would have been four million more jobs, and if employment growth had kept pace with population growth since the start of the recession in 2001, there would have been 6.9 million more jobs in July 2001. (Figure 2)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Payroll Employment, www.bls.gov, and author's calculations.
3. During this recovery, wages grew particularly slow. Nominal and real weekly earnings show the slowest gains in any recovery since the early 1960s – the earliest for which data are available. Combined with slow employment growth, this was also the recovery with the slowest growth in total salary and wage payments. (Figure 3)
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Weekly Earnings of Non-Supervisory Production Workers, www.bls.gov, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, www.bls.gov, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income and Its Disposition, www.bea.gov, and author's calculations.
4. Consumption growth has been a major force propelling growth forward. In June 2004, consumption saw its largest decline in almost three years, raising worries about the sustainability of the strength of the recovery. (Figure 4)
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income and Its Disposition, www.bea.gov.
5. An important aspect of this recovery has been a refinancing boom based on low mortgage rates. Since April 2004, mortgage rates have been rising again, thereby raising worries about a possible end of the refinancing boom and the sustainability of the recovery. (Figure 5)
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Release H.15 Selected Interest Rates, www.federalreserve.gov.
[b]It is necessary to [i]comprehend[/i] what Muqtada al-Sadr's intentions are because it is clear to anyone who seriously studies the corrupt and incompetent Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] bloody disaster in Iraq, that their brute force, intimidation and fear tactics are outrageous and miserable failures ... We need a [i]change at the helm [/i]here at home to protect our nation by virtue of the fact that the vicious Bush/Cheney regime lied us into their illegal & immoral neo-con, neo-fascist war and then bungled it by using mistaken barbaric bully-boy mass-murder; corporate embezzlement and thievery; and, neo-hitlerian atrocities including killings, rapes, tortures, etc.-- and [i]not comprehending [/i]the motives of the disparate factions and competing groups in Iraq ... [/b]
[u][b]What does Muqtada al-Sadr Want?[/b][/u]
The Associated Press http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...%20Al%20Sadr expresses confusion, both its own, and that of US government officials, about what Muqtada al-Sadr's goals are.
I don't understand this confusion. Muqtada has given many sermons and interviews in the past 16 months outlining his goals exactly.
1.) He wants the US troops out of the country immediately, which is to say, an end to Occuption. If there have to be foreign troops in Iraq, he wants them under a United Nations command.
2.) He refuses to cooperate (he would say "collaborate") with the caretaker government of Iyad Allawi, which he sees as a puppet regime installed by the United States. He insists that no legitimate Iraqi governmental process can begin until the US is out.
3.) He wants the reestablishment of a strong central Iraqi government with a strong military, but which has cut all ties with the Baathist past.
4.) He wants Iraq to stay together rather than being partitioned, and has denounced Kurdish demands for loose federalism.
5.) He wants Iraqi Shiism to emerge from Iran's shadow and to establish its independence from Iran. His movement is rooted in the Shiite ghettos of Iraq and is very indigenous. He is not Iran's catspaw in Iraq, quite the opposite. He is strong Iraqi nationalist.
6.) He sometimes talks about "democracy" in post-American Iraq, but probably just means populism. Like Peron and Franco, his populism implies his ability to maintain and direct his own militia, who provide "order" (read puritanical morality imposed by force) to Shiite neighborhoods.
7.) In the long term, he would like to see a system in Iraq similar to the regime in Iran. He wants Islamic law to be the law of the land, and he wants clerics to rule. His father studied with Ayatollah Khomeini and accepted the notion of clerical rule. So does Muqtada. That is, there may be a place for elections (as in Iran), but true power would rest in the hands of the clerics. He has admitted all this in Arabic press interviews.
So, I don't understand the widespread puzzlement reported by AP. It may not be a simple set of positions, but they aren't hidden from view or hard to understand.
There were several loud explosions Thursday morning near the Shrine of Ali where Muqtada is holed up with about 1000 men.
Although Muqtada agreed Wednesday to disarm his militia and leave the shrine if US troops would withdraw from the city first, few expect this siege to end well or easily. The wire services do not appear to have caught on that Muqtada is demanding the withdrawal of US troops as a necessary precondition, but that is what is being reported by al-Jazeerah.
Interim Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan threatened to teach Muqtada a lesson he would never forget, and promised decisive action against him, if he did not leave the shrine within hours. (-al-Zaman ). (Shaalan has adopted the body language and rhetoric of the old Baath regime, which makes the skin of a lot of Iraqis crawl. To be fair, Muqtada also acts in a thuggish way that alarms many Iraqis who have had enough of thugs.)
[b]Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 286 Bush 233[/b]
[b]August 21st New Polls Taken in MI, NM, OH
. Strong Kerry - Blue (87) / Weak Kerry - Light Blue (46) / Barely Kerry - Blue Outline (153)
. Tied - White (19)
. Strong Bush - Red (142) / Weak Bush - Light Red (15) / Barely Bush - Red Outline (76)[/b]
[b]News from the Votemaster[/b]
After many phone calls I finally found out why some people could not donate via the Amazon Honor System. Amazon puts a hard limit of $500 per 28 days on these accounts. Maybe Amazon does not want to be a bank, but it does charge exactly the same 30 cents + 2.9% commission as PayPal, which does want to be a bank. Maybe Amazon wants to be a very small bank. I removed the Amazon icon from the donations page, but PayPal works fine. Again, thanks to the many donors. I'll link to the ads when they start, just in time for the RNC.
Yesterday we had a University of Cincinnati poll in Ohio putting Kerry 2% ahead. Today we have a Strategic Vision poll putting Bush 4% ahead. Both polls were taken in the same time period, so they will be averaged, giving Bush a bare 1% lead in Ohio, well within the margin of error.
A new American Research Group poll of New Mexico puts Kerry ahead there 49% to 42%, more in line with what we have been seeing there in recent weeks. I think the tie that Rasmussen saw was probably just an outlier. I also have my doubts about the tie in Colorado.
Finally, According to a new American Research Group poll, Kerry's lead in Michigan has been reduced. The score there is Kerry 48%, Bush 45%, Nader 1%.
There is an amusing article about election websites in the Philadelphia Daily News http://www.philly.com/mld/dai... . The reporter was a bit surprised that this site and a highly pro-Bush site, www.electionprojection.com http://www.electionprojection... have almost the same score. After all, telling the truth is so passé these days. You have to register to see the article, but registration is free. - http://www.electoral-vote.com...
...---... Iraqi Olympics to Bush: F*** off! ...---...
[b]Well, in not such colorful Cheney-like language, but it's close enough to the sentiments expressed by the soccer team in Athens.[/b] This from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.... Grant Wahl in Sports Illustrated: "Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir scored a goal here on Wednesday night, setting off a rousing celebration among the 1,500 Iraqi soccer supporters at Pampeloponnisiako Stadium. ... Afterward, Sadir had a message for U.S. president George W. Bush, who is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements. ...
[i]'Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign[/i], Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. '[i]He can find another way to advertise himself[/i].'"
Wait, it gets better: "Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. [i]'How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women[/i]?' Manajid told me. '[i]He has committed so many crimes[/i].'"
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is [i][u]not[/u][/i] to be trusted ... [/b]Lives lost; massive US taxpayer dollars gone "missing"; squandered goodwill throughout the world that no longer trusts the USA-- all for [i]what[/i]??? To[i] enrich [/i]the Bush Crime Family and other neo-con neo-fascist goons who have made horrendous illegal and immoral [i]fortunes in blood-money [/i]from exploiting and enslaving the Middle Class and Working people of America (and [i]elsewhere[/i] including Iraq) ... Bush/Cheney [i]aren't[/i] fit to serve our nation ...
[u][b]Audit Shows $8.8B Missing in Iraq[/b][/u]
WASHINGTON — A soon-to-be-released audit will show that at least $8.8 billion in Iraqi money that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, [i]FOX News [/i]has confirmed.
And three senators want to know where the cash is.
The draft audit by the [b]Coalition Provisional Authority's [/b]([i]search[/i]: http://search.foxnews.com/inf...%20Provisional%20Authorit y%27s ) inspector general chastises the CPA — formerly led by L. Paul Bremer — for "not providing adequate stewardship" of at least $8.8 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq. The audit is not expected to be released for at least two or three more weeks, possibly longer.
The audit was first reported on a Web site earlier this month by journalist and retired Col. David Hackworth. A U.S. official first confirmed to Reuters the contents of the leaked audit cited by Hackworth http://www.hackworth.com/ were accurate.
The development fund consists of proceeds from Iraqi oil sales, frozen assets from foreign governments and surplus from the[b] U.N. Oil-for-Food [/b]([i]search[/i]: http://search.foxnews.com/inf...%20Oil%20for%20Food ) program. Its handling has already come under fire in a U.N.-mandated audit released last month, which found no evidence of spending fraud by the CPA but said there wasn't enough oversight to ensure money was used for its intended purposes.
One of the main benefactors of the Iraq funds was Texas-based firm Halliburton, which was paid more than $1 billion of that money to bring in fuel for Iraqi civilians. The monitoring board said it had not been given access to U.S. audits of contracts held by [b]Halliburton[/b] ([i]search[/i]: http://search.foxnews.com/inf... ).
A three-member panel led by Paul Volcker is also investigating the Oil-for-Food scandal. The panel says it has evidence that dozens of people, including top U.N. officials, took kickbacks from the $67 billion program.
The most recent draft audit so far found that payrolls in Iraqi ministries under CPA control were padded with thousands of ghost employees.
In fact, Reuters reported, in one example, the audit said the CPA paid for 74,000 guards even though the actual number could not be validated. In another, 8,206 guards were listed on a payroll but only 603 people doing the work could be counted.
[i]FOX News [/i]confirmed that Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Tom Harkin from Iowa and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota want Defense Secretary[b] Donald Rumsfeld [/b]([i]search[/i]: http://search.foxnews.com/inf...%20Rumsfeld ) to tell them what the funds have been used for by the CPA, which handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis in June.
"The CPA apparently transferred this staggering sum of money with no written rules or guidelines for ensuring adequate managerial, financial or contractual controls over the funds," said the letter sent by the senators on Thursday, obtained by Reuters. "Such enormous discrepancies raise very serious questions about potential fraud, waste and abuse."
In June, Britain's third-largest political party, the Christian Aid, and aid activists from Christian Aid said that billions of dollars belonging to Iraq wasn’t accounted for by the CPA and that there were glaring gaps in the handling of $20 billion generated by Iraq's oil and other sources since the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein ended last year. - http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,129489,00.html
...---... Neo-Con Fascist Front Groups Come Out of the Woodwork to Attack Kerry ...---...
[b]Kerry's absolutely right - Bush lets others do his "dirty work". What else can you expect from a cowardly AWOL deserter-cum-drunkard like Poppy's little baby-boy Dubya?[/b] Now that his current smear-job point men have been exposed, he's callin' in the corporate front group reserves. Like the so-called "National Taxpayers Union/Foundation" (why do these front groups alway throw in "foundation" - as if they thought that gives more credibility!). This group claims Kerry supported tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan - another huge Bushie distortion. But a little digging reveals that NTU, under the guise of promoting tax relief, is dedicated to gutting any federal regulations or taxes levied on corporations. Like this article headed "Taxpayers at Risk in Anti-Trust Wars" http://www.ntu.org/main/press... that makes the case that corporate monopolies are a GOOD thing and that poor Microsoft was just an "innocent victim" of those nasty guv'ment folks. So when the mainstream media starts quoting "experts" from a "foundation" with "facts" about Kerry's tax vote record, make sure you have about a ton of salt handy.
[b]Let's play nice about who advocated a sensitive approach to the war on terror. Jules Siegel points out at News Room http://www.newsroom-l.net/blo... that the sneering by the likes of Cheney and shillster Hugh Hewitt http://www.newsroom-l.net/blo... at Kerry's call for sensitivity was an act of substantive hypocrisy[/b].
[b]SPECIAL FORCES STATE NEED TO FIGHT "SENSITIVE WAR ON TERRORISM": [/b]The Bush campaign's latest salvo, while aimed at Kerry, also is an attack on the military's top special forces commanders. On 7/20/04, the Bush administration sent one of the Air Force's top special forces officers to Capitol Hill to assuage concerns about tactics being used in the War on Terror. In his testimony, Chief Master Sgt. Robert Martens reassured Republican Chairman Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) that "our special operators offer a seasoned, culturally sensitive war on terrorism."
[b]VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SAYS MILITARY MUST NOT BE INSENSITIVE: [/b]On 4/13/04, Cheney said the Bush administration was focused on conducting sensitive military operations. He stated, "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."
[b]RUMSFELD STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN THE WAR:[/b] In the lead up to the Iraq war and afterwards, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised the Pentagon would be "sensitive." On 2/5/03, he said "we have to be sensitive, to the extent the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it's conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that's an opportunity for them to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided." On 7/9/03, he reassured the public that his department was being "sensitive" to troop needs during the war. He said U.S. commanders are "sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And [they are sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives."
[b]ASHCROFT CLAIMS THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR:[/b] Attorney General John Ashcroft has repeatedly stressed the need for the Bush administration to be "sensitive" in fighting the War on Terror. On 4/28/03, just a month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ashcroft said, "The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries." On 3/20/02, he said the Justice Department was making sure to be "sensitive" in hunting down terrorists. He said, "The agents and officers who conducted the interviews did so in a sensitive manner, showing full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals being interviewed."
...---... Even Republicans Don't Like Bush ...---...
"When conservatives gathered in the nation's capital last Wednesday for a panel discussion on the 2004 election, they certainly didn't leave with good news about Bush's re-election hopes. Even the conservative member of the panel said Republicans weren't excited by Bush. 'For all the talk about polarization, I find a startling agreement [from] everybody I talk to,' syndicated columnist Robert Novak told the audience. 'Nobody seems to like George Bush very much. The Democrats I talk to hate him and the Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about him.'... 'If George W. Bush loses this election, you are going to find an implosion in the Republican Party,' Novak said. 'The Christian conservatives will be blamed, unfairly I think, by people who don't want them in the party.'"
[b]As Bush/Cheney's approval ratings continue to slide, many in the GOP may be even more outspoken regarding the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] horrendous mismanagement of our affairs of state ... It should give "We the People" cause for reflection ...[/b]
[b]Americablog http://americablog.blogspot.c... brings to our attention an overlooked anecdote from the president's weekend trip to Oregon:[/b]
... "Bush had to calm the ardor of the crowd at Southridge High School in Beaverton. One woman noted that Oregon has one of the nation's highest percentages of "unchurched" citizens and asked the president to "take a minute to pray for Oregon."
Bush, who had won loud applause earlier when noting his Christian faith, told the woman "I appreciate what you say" but then seemed to rebuke her statement. "People can choose church or not church, and they're equally American," he said, adding that it is important that "we jealously guard" the tradition of protecting religious freedom." ...
The crowd, seemingly surprised by Bush's refusal to endorse the woman's statement, responded with only a smattering of applause.
Is Bush worried about his faith-first image? It sure seems so. Can you imagine what the media would say if John Kerry recoiled from his own faith for the sake of political expediency? We'd have ourselves a public hanging! I don't think this is evidence of media bias per se, so much as evidence of the strength of media narratives. The line on Bush is that he's resolute and steady, so this "uncharacteristic" stunt gets buried deep in the papers.
But we can probably expect more of this in the months ahead. Bush is really, truly in trouble. For too long he's swung to the right http://www.motherjones.com/ne... , rallying his fervent supporters and forcing attendees to sign loyalty oaths. Now Kerry has pulled ahead in several battleground states, while at the same time fortifying his support http://www.tnr.com/blog/campa... among the Democratic base. Even in swing state-Oregon, Bush attracted only a modest following, while Kerry/Edwards spoke before a Super Bowl-size crowd http://www.dailykos.com/story... . Bush needs moderation, and fast. Trouble is, it's not that easy to tack sharply to the center -- sudden surprises like refusing to pray tend to alienate supporters. Time to revisit the old question: is Karl Rove really the boy genius we thought he was?
[b]Bush needs to learn [i]how to spell [/i]his own character reference: O-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-s-t-i-c - H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e!
[b]A panel of "experts" gathered to answer this question http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... -- in Texas no less -- to heartening and humorous results.[/b]
The co-author of "Bush's Brain," which traces the happy-go-lucky exploits of Karl Rove, asserted that "if ever there was a bleeding heart liberal, it was Jesus Christ," in support of His putative Democratic leanings.
Others offered less obvious, but no less partisan, clues as to which side JC would fall on, such as a pastor from the United Church of Christ: "As I read the Scriptures and as I understand faith, God's side is the group that's feeding the poor, caring about children, making sure that people have enough food to eat -- not killing others."
The[i] AP [/i]article http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... curiously includes this statement: "Some research has found that white Christians who attend worship services at least once a week are far more likely to vote Republican," without mentioning the fact that the Bush campaign is seriously testing the boundaries between church and state by campaigning in said churches -- not to mention threatening their tax-free status.
Then last month [i]The Washington Post [/i]published an instruction sheet for Bush's religious "coalition coordinators," which listed 22 duties, beginning with: "Send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters" and "Identify another conservative church in your community who we can organize for Bush."
In response, a group of mostly conservative Evangelical Christian scholars, sent a letter to Bush http://www.washingtonpost.com... last week urging him to "repudiate the actions of your re-election campaign, which violated a fundamental principle of our democracy."
So who will that fickle Lord of Hosts cast a vote for? Well, in the[i] AP [/i]article, the scholar given the last word, claimed that Jesus "remained above such earthly disputes," neglecting the historical context that Christianity developed under. Namely, as a response to the brutal empire purporting to bring "civilization" and "freedom" through largely unprovoked conquest. Now, in that context, who would he have voted for? Hard to say; but it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he wouldn't vote for...
"[i]I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference[/i]." - Robert Frost
[b]Compare and contrast: Bush and Kerry rallies[/b]
Both presidential contenders found themselves crossing paths in Portland, Oregon late last week. How did the two visits compare http://www.kgw.com/sharedcont... ?
[u][b]Bush[/b][/u]
Bush met with 300 small-business owners Friday morning, and 2,300 supporters in a town hall-style gathering at a Beaverton school that also attracted a few hundred protesters to a police cordon a few hundred yards away.
[u][b]Kerry[/b][/u]
Fire officials estimated the crowd at Kerry's rally in Waterfront Park at between 40,000 and 50,000 people; the largest turnout for a political speech in Portland in at least a decade.
[b]"We the People" desperately need a change away from the despotic Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] ... Let's vote for John F. Kerry for President of the United States of America ...[/b]
[b]"New poll numbers show the President slipping in some key battleground states" is the [i]lede[/i] of a new story in [i]Time magazine[/i] http://www.time.com/time/elec...,18471,681609,00.html ... Also recently, all of the major Electoral College polls show that Kerry leads Bush ... Check-out [i]USA Map of Kerry/Bush votes [/i]on http://www.tblog.com/template... [/b] ...
"We the People" must be prepared for a very close election and we must exercise our right and do our duty as responsible citizens and [i] vote [/i]... Our[i] vote [/i]is critical, perhaps never more so than at this perilous time, and we should do everything we can to encourage our fellow Americans to [i]vote[/i] for a course change to elect John F. Kerry as the next President of the United States of America ...
For the past month the Bush campaign has been saying that the President would roll out his second term agenda in the final few weeks before the Republican convention in New York. But if you’ve watched George Bush on the campaign trail this week, his message seems unchanged, focusing mainly on which candidate will keep America safer.
The campaign unveiled a new ad on Wednesday in which the President invokes September 11th and promises to protect the nation, the third spot in two weeks to focus on terrorism. Bush spent much of his time on the stump this week mocking Kerry’s position on the war in Iraq. And Dick Cheney unleashed an even stronger attack, latching on to Kerry’s promise to "fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations." Cheney replied, “A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.”
It’s a biting remark, but not as biting as the political reality the President now faces. If the election were held today, there’s a good chance George W. Bush would not be reelected. And if he doesn’t change the course of his campaign or dramatic news events don’t change the race, he’s not going to be reelected in November. Certainly the polls still show a close race. Most say Kerry has the lead, a few give it to Bush, but all put it within the margin of error. And Kerry gained only a small bump in the national polls from his convention. But that’s because conventions usually rally the party faithful around their nominee, and Bush, with some help from Howard Dean, united the Democrats months ago. The President really means it when he says he’s a uniter.
What has to be far more disturbing to the staff at Bush-Cheney ‘04 headquarters is the most recent round of polls from key battleground states. They show Kerry gaining ground in some of the states most crucial for Bush. The latest poll in Florida, where Bush was ahead before the convention, gives Kerry a six point lead. West Virginia is leaning toward Kerry. A New Hampshire poll shows Kerry ahead by seven points. All three states voted for Bush in 2000.
As for those close national polls, there are some strong signs that Bush will not pick up many votes from the small sliver of undecided Americans. Nonpartisan political guru Charlie Cook recently analyzed a series of AP polls from April to August and found that while 56% of surveyed voters believe the country is on the wrong track, 74% of undecided voters think that’s the case.
Dramatic news events could change the dynamics of the race, but this week’s headlines — a disappointing jobs report and heavy fighting in Najaf — aren’t helping Bush. Cultural issues, like New Jersey Governor James McGreavy’s dramatic coming-out and the fight over gay marriage could energize some voters, and possibly change the results in Ohio, which has a gay marriage ban amendment on the election day ballot, but it’s unlikely to overshadow war and the economy nationwide.
All of this puts Bush in a bit of a campaign straitjacket. To take the reins of his reelection, he needs to put forward a bold second-term agenda, offering something akin to the compassionate conservative message he stressed in 2000. But the economy and the war make it hard for him to change the public’s focus, and the deficit puts him in a fiscal straightjacket when it comes to bold new programs. He has been hinting at his proposals for creating an “ownership society”, but cracking down on lawsuits or allowing voters to tuck away more cash in Medical Savings Accounts is not going to set the electorate on fire.
Bush continues to run against John Kerry, rather than for reelection. It might work. Kerry certainly has shown the ability to dig himself into a verbal hole with statements like “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” But unless the President rolls out a few surprises at his convention, he is in trouble. - http://www.time.com/time/elec...,18471,681609,00.html
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]has unleashed its' ugly neo-con thugs and neo-fascist goons to intimidate, coerce and silence those who stand for our U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights ... Shame on the traitorous Bush regime ...[/b]
The family of Sgt. Joseph Darby, the whistleblower who exposed the abuses in Abu Ghraib, is in protective custody because of death threats. His wife Bernadette Darby told [i]Reuters[/i] http://www.washingtonpost.com... that Darby's actions made many people in her town in western Maryland: "People were mean, saying he was a walking dead man, he was walking around with a bull's eye on his head. It was scary."
She, however, does not regret her husband's actions: "Joe is the type of person to take what is going on around him and be like, 'How would I feel if that was my wife?' ... He just could not live with himself knowing that that was happening and he did not do anything about it."
"These are the times that try men's souls" - Thomas Paine
[b]"We the People" must behave with courage, fortitude and honor in the face of tyranny in order to do justice to the generations of Americans who have bravely fought and died to protect our liberty[i] and also [/i]to preserve our freedom for future generations of Americans. The American patriots of today will stand firm against the corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] to rescue the United States of America from their Neo-Fascist Corporate Fascism and Neo-Imperial Tyranny ...[/b]
Two-hundred and twenty-eight years ago, America’s founding fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
In the beginning, some men were more equal than others, and women weren’t even mentioned. So it was far from perfect freedom our founding fathers fought for. Still, they answered the call to arms and fought for [i]more freedom than they'd had[/i].
They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They created a new nation, and gave America the beginnings of freedom.
Since then, in wartime and in peace, brave soldiers and sailors have defended this nation, preserving America’s freedoms for each successive generation. And America’s freedoms have grown -- the slaves have been freed, women’s rights have been recognized, and the nation has inched closer to achieving its cherished ideals -- thanks to hundreds of years of hard work by many, many liberals.
[b]The lesson to be gleaned from America's history of freedom should be obvious: [i]Freedom works best when it's shared[/i]. Liberty and justice is not just for some people, it's for all. Letting more and more people have more freedom has made America better, stronger, greater.[/b]
But from the day in 2000 when they sued to stop votes from being counted, virtually everything the Bush-Cheney administration has done has been an affront to freedom.
The Bush administration has quietly ended habius corpus, granting unprecedented powers to Bush alone. Solely on his say-so, Americans can be -- and have been -- imprisoned without trial, without proof, without involving any lawyers or any law, without due process and without any recourse.
Is that what America's founders, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, fought for? Is that what our men and women in the military are risking their lives to protect?
Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security Director, has proposed that the government should reconsider posse comitatus, more than a century of tradition and law keeping the military from acting as police in America. In the event of a terrorist attack, Ridge wants troops to have the power to make arrests and, if necessary, fire their weapons at Americans on US soil.
He has authorized using demographic and marketing data to establish whether individual US air passengers are "rooted in the community," and flagging suspect passengers for further review and interrogation. The long-term plan is to expand such passenger screening to rail and bus travelers as well.
Beginning in January 2004, all visitors to the US from nations deemed as terrorist-friendly have been required to have their fingerprints and photographs taken for DHS files. The rule now affects about 27,000,000 passengers annually, and is expected to be expanded.
Under DHS guidelines, credentialed journalists from friendly nations are now required to show a special "press visa." In several instances, reporters with otherwise valid visas have been detained at US airports or even deported.
When the President or Vice President speaks, everyone in the audience has been pre-screened. Attendees must provide ID in advance. Their backgrounds are checked by federal agents, and they're reuired to sign a pledge of support for Bush-Cheney's re-election. To express an opinion or carry a sign during a Presidential or Vice Presidential visit, Americans must stand behind fences far from Bush or Cheney, in areas designated by police as “free speech zones.”
[b]Free speech zones[/b] -- chew on that for a moment. Have American soldiers fought and died for “free speech zones,” for your right to speak freely behind barbed-wire topped fences? Did you pledge allegiance to “free speech zones”?
Of course, no-one could argue with a straight face that Bill Clinton, the first George Bush, or Ronald Reagan were at the forefront of the fight for freedom. At best, they were indifferent caretakers -- freedom and civil rights were less important to them than other policy pursuits. And we have no illusions that John Kerry would sincerely care about such things.
George W. Bush, however, has accomplished so many rollbacks and reductions in freedom, one can only assume that [i]the fight against freedom [/i]is one of his top priorities. Maybe it's #1. If there's a unifying theme to Bush-Cheney policies, it's that they tend to reduce, not expand, people's rights and freedoms. In just three and a half years, it has been breathtaking and heartbreaking to see what they've accomplished toward these repressive goals.
Bush-Cheney et al speak often of “traditional American values,” but the tradition of freedom isn't what they value. Their "traditional values" are code words, meaning support for laws against gay marriage, laws against abortion, laws against sex and violence in art and entertainment.
These are their "traditional values" --[i] reductions in freedom for gay people, women, and artists[/i]. Gay people are entitled to equal rights (provided they become heterosexuals). Women are free (so long as men agree with women's choices). Movies and music fall under the First Amendment's freedom of speech (so long as the movies or music are virtuous).
If Bush and Cheney are rewarded with a second term, it seems reasonable to expect White House policies would lurch even further, perhaps [i]much farther [/i]from liberty and justice for all. With no need to keep an eye to the next election, what's to hold them back?
In a second Bush-Cheney term, the Constitution will be eroded at a quicker pace. There will probably be another war or two, another several thousand dead American soldiers. Judicial nominees will be less "moderate" than in Bush's first term, when most have been far, far to the right of mainstream Americans. There will be even less oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission ... and even more oversight from the Department of Homeland Security. In a second term, expect the same as we've already seen from Bush-Cheney -- only much more so.
[b]Does anyone remember the day the World Trade Center went boom?[/b] The Bush administration seems to have forgotten.
In the immediate aftermath of After September 11, Bush said, http://www.unknownnews.net/wo... "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
Eighteen months later, with bin Laden’s whereabouts still unknown, he said, http://www.unknownnews.net/wo... "I don't know where [Osama bin Laden] is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
[b]Osama bin Laden is not America's priority.[/b] Think about that.
While the ruins of the World Trade Center still smoldered, Bush and Cheney lobbied ferociously against any and every call for an investigation. When an investigation couldn’t be blocked, Bush-Cheney gave the September 11 Commission a minuscule budget, and insisted on hand-picking its members. The Bush administration demanded the right to edit the final report, then dragged their feet about providing evidence. Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, or without each other.
[i]We dare anyone with a half-open mind to read [/i]some of the un-asked and un-answered questions of September 11 http://www.unknownnews.net/91... , and say with a straight face that there’s been an honest investigation. For anyone who’s been following the facts as they’ve hesitantly unfolded, the most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the September 11 Commission’s report is that it’s a sequel to the Warren Report.
[b]How’s your war going?[/b] As of this morning, 931 American soldiers have given their lives in a war without reason, conquering and occupying Iraq -- a nation that was no threat to America. These soldiers are, of course, disproportionately poor, and minorities, and Reservists.
[i]Was it worth 931 American soldiers’ lives to pull Saddam Hussein out of a hole in the ground[/i], while the people who attacked New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on September 11 got away with mass murdering 3,000 Americans? Remember, none of culprits behind September 11 were Iraqis. Iraq had nothing to do with it.
[b]Is America safer? [/b]We've spent more than $200 billion to topple two Middle Eastern countries, killing more than 50,000 Iraqis and Afghans http://www.unknownnews.net/ca... . Terrorist activity is now at an all-time high, and it’s going to get worse. It goes without saying, some of the furious friends, family, and countrymen of the dead will find ways to exact vengeance. Far from making America “safe,” these invasions have simply spawned new generations of terrorists. We’ll still be reaping repercussions in fifty years, as Americans as yet unborn are kidnapped or killed by people who hate America -- and hate America quite understandably, if you look at it from their perspective.
Bush and his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, have given tacit permission to torture prisoners. At Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and other prisons you’ve never heard of, it’s far worse than the media has reported. The Bush administration is trying their damnedest to keep the true scope of it under wraps (including the systematic rape of Iraqi children, among other atrocities) at least until after the election. When the truth finally does come out, the delay and cover-up will only add to the anger other nations justifiably feel.
Already, more people across the globe hate America than ever before in history. That is President Bush’s “signature achievement.”
Further, Bush’s trashing of the Geneva Conventions increases the chances that American GIs captured in future wars will be tortured by America’s future enemies. If the new American warfare is played without rules of war, future tyrants will accept those terms, as Bush has.
[b]Incredibly, some Americans laugh it off[/b], as if wars without rules are AOK, or as if torture is nothing to worry about. As if a government that tortures its enemies from Fallujah and Baghdad won't eventually find enemies to torture at home, in Ohio or Oregon or New Jersey.
When they're not committing battery and assault on freedom, the Bush-Cheney administration is working overtime to escalate secrecy in government, making sure we the people are blocked from knowing what "our" government does. Or simply telling flat-out whoppers about what they've done.
Under the guise of “protecting America,” the Bush administration has crafted a color coded terror chart, and announced vague “terror threats” with little or no specific information. Curiously, there's a fresh terror alert whenever Bush’s poll numbers begin to dip.
Tom Ridge, Bush’s man in charge of “homeland security,” has suggested that Americans should buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal homes and offices in the event of a chemical attack.[b] Does that make you feel safer?[/b]
A day doesn't go by without an astounding affront to truth, justice, and the American way from Bush-Cheney, or from some state or local office following Bush-Cheney's lead. We try to highlight the most outrageous of these on our front page http://www.unknownnews.net/ , but despite our best efforts we undoubtedly miss most of the bad news. There are simply too many horrific events to keep track of.
We love this nation, and we believe in its ideals. We're patriots, and patriots do not support the obliteration of the Constitution. Patriots understand that waving a flag doesn't make it OK to violate every principle that makes America great, or send US troops to fight and kill and die for no good reason. Patriots believe in American rights and freedom, and oppose tyrants who take rights and freedoms away.
Anyone who loves this nation should be ashamed of what Bush-Cheney have done to it. And yet, polls show that about half of Americans still support Bush-Cheney.
Of all the ongoing atrocities, that's the one that frightens us most.
What would Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or John Hancock say about the conniving criminals in charge of America in 2004? What would they say about the collaborating Congress -- Republicans and Democrats who have cooperated and allowed this to happen?
We sincerely believe that our founding fathers would recognize the present-day US of A as [i]what they were rebelling against[/i], not at all what they were rebelling for.
We believe any principled patriot would ask President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and the members of Congress who have supported them to do the only honorable thing -- resign. And if these present-day leaders ran for re-election instead, we believe Americans of 1776 would reach for their muskets.
But this is not a call to arms. We're not at that moment, yet. And if we want to avoid that moment, we the people must make ourselves heard -- [i]so this is a call to stand up and start shouting[/i].
Tell your friends, tell your family, tell co-workers and strangers: [b]America is in grave danger[/b]. Our freedoms are being stashed behind barbed-wire fences, in "free speech zones." We've been manipulated into a phony war, by a fictitious president. Precious liberties earned by the blood of Americans have been quietly snatched.
Americans have fought for freedom all through American history, to bring [i]more freedom to more people[/i], not to take freedoms away. [i]More freedom [/i]is America's greatest tradition, passed along from Jefferson and Franklin to Abe Lincoln, to Rosa Parks ... to you and me and millions more who believe in freedom.
If we the people deserve to be called Americans -- in the best sense of that word -- then now is time to raise a ruckus, and take this nation back to its founding principles. It's about freedom, remember?
Silence is acquiescence. Silence is letting ignorance go un-answered, and letting America go un-defended.
Now is the time to sound the alarm, just like Paul Revere. But this time the enemy isn't coming, like the British were. This time, the enemy is already here -- in power, and running for re-election.
[i]""We are deeply disappointed by the tone and tenor of President Bush and Vice President Cheney's personal attacks on John Kerry, a decorated combat veteran who served his country with courage and honor. John Kerry is talking about his plan to address the most pressing issues facing our nation -- jobs, the economy, health care, the war on terror, the war in Iraq. George Bush and Dick Cheney have chosen take their campaign to the gutter. We call on President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stop the irresponsible personal attacks and tell us where they want to take the country. Tell us how they plan to win the peace in Iraq. Tell us how they plan to get us back on track with the war on terror. Tell us where they plan to lead the country. The American people and our troops deserve better[/i]." - http://www.tblog.com/template...
[b]Politics, particularly in a media saturated culture such as ours, works within the logic of a narrative.[/b] More often than not, the narrative constructed by politicians trumps more substantive issues, as we saw in 2000 when George W. Bush, who treads lightly on the matter of specific policy points, campaigned as an "ordinary guy" who had little interest in the endless pontificating of the shadowy eastern establishment. His opponent, Al Gore, the story line went, was stiff and wonky, and not the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with. Once the plot points fell into place, so too did the coverage.
The most consistent narrative of the past four years -- to say nothing of the last 30 -- has been that conservatives are to be trusted when it comes to national security issues. It takes little effort to debunk this conceit, yet journalists seem unwilling or unable to break out of the prevailing narrative spun by conservative image handlers and the misleading comments of politicians themselves. While the dangers of this soft-headed method of political tastemaking are manifest at many levels, they have caused the most damage, and are most easily rebutted, when it comes to recent history. Conventional wisdom has it that the hearts of conservatives, who somehow understand the world on a more visceral level than liberals, are alleged to bleed at the sight of bomb-welding terrorists. Yet any clear-eyed examination of the recent stewardship of this nation's security apparatus over the past three and a half years gives lie to this indefensible cliché.
The most obvious starting point, of course, is the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This past Sunday, the [i]New York Times[/i] http://www.nytimes.com/imagep... published a graphic that breaks down how the administration could have spent the $144.4 billion it has spent on its war of choice in ways that would have actually made us, and our allies, safer. The statistics, complied by the Center for American Progress, demonstrates an almost criminal negligence in ignoring airline, airport and port security at home, securing weapons-grade nuclear material abroad, rebuilding Afghanistan and adding to the size and effectiveness of our Armed Forces. Since 9/11, we have allocated less than $500 million to securing our ports and waterways against attack, despite the fact that shipping is the most unregulated method of transport in the world, and al Qaeda almost certainly owns ships currently plying the oceans. Being the richest nation in the world, we could likely scare up some money to fund these programs while we throw money at the Iraq problem, but for this to happen, Americans would have to be called on to truly make a sacrifice -- having their taxes raised, or at least not having them cut yet again. Since this is anathema to the far right, we let the homeland wait while we attempt to deal with the catastrophe that is Iraq.
We have also failed to fund the most basic programs for protecting chemical, industrial and nuclear facilities, which are obviously potential targets for terrorists. In fact, as Jonathan Chait pointed out well over a year ago in [i]The New Republic[/i], http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?... "The risk sufficiently alarmed Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham -- a conservative Bush appointee -- that he requested $379.7 million to protect various Energy Department facilities where nuclear weapons are designed, manufactured, and stockpiled." In response, the White House approved just $26.4 million for Energy Department security.
The problems continue to mount. Due to the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has issued a series of terrorist alerts that have shown fortuitous timing in coming on the heels of the president's fall in approval ratings, http://img57.exs.cx/img57/763... the DHS has lost credibility with the American public. In order to remedy this, after issuing the latest alert last week, an administration official disclosed to journalists that Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer, who had been arrested in Pakistan in July, was the source of the information leading to the latest alert. The problem with this disclosure, of course, was that Khan had been working with the Pakistani government to track al Qeada suspects (including e-mailing six of them in the United States) as well as in the United Kingdom and Pakistan. This week, Pakistan announced that the outing of Khan also allowed several wanted terror suspects to escape, all in the name of trying to restore the damaged credibility of the administration and the DHS.
The [i]New York Times[/i], http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?... apparently unwilling to dig into the story any farther than the good guy/bad guy narrative allows, said on Tuesday that "The Khan computer files also led to the arrest of 11 Qaeda followers last week in Britain." What they fail to mention, of course, is that the outing of Khan probably destroyed what might have been one of the most valuable resources we had in rounding up bin Laden and al Qaeda's leaders. "The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," Tim Ripley of Jane's Defence publications told the[i] New Zealand Herald[/i]. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."
What kind of leadership outs a mole in the organization it has mobilized (at least in public) to overthrow? The same kind, apparently, that outs a mole in its own employ in order to try and deflect attention from its own blundering. The Valerie Plame story is heating up and journalists may go to jail. The[i] Wall Street Journal[/i], who leads the charge in conservative narrative spinning, thinks the case is a non-starter. On July 20 it said that "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should fold up his tent," because Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson "didn't tell the truth" about his wife recommending him for the Niger job and because of Wilson's "falsehoods" and his "remarkable record of falsehood." The paper says that it is leaving it up to the discretion of its readers if they feel that Wilson was "deliberately wrong." A masterful hatchet job on Wilson, this, and one which purposefully obscures the real issue facing Fitzgerald's investigation -- just who it was that outed Plame to the press. Oddly silent in this is Robert Novak, who publicized Plame's name in the first place -- leading to speculation that he has already squealed. In the end, despite conservatives best attempts to confuse issues of who is lying and who isn't, the fact remains that administration officials either outed Plame to Novak or they didn't, and it's either a federal offense or it's not.Yet the media continues to focus on the dead-end issue of Wilson's credibility, rather than the administration's cavalier treatment of U.S. national security.
Look around you. Just where has the country acted responsibly to protect U.S. national security? In Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora and the U.S. troop commitment remains woefully inadequate. In North Korea, where a nuclear program operated by an unstable totalitarian regime continues unimpeded? In Iran, where Moslem fanatics and terrorist supporters continue their work on a weapon of their own—having helped to dupe the U.S. into a counter productive invasion of Iraq? In the meantime, as with the 9/11 commission's recommendations, the president has continually flip-flopped on every major domestic initiative since 9/11 aimed at keeping the country safe. He opposed the Department of Homeland Security before taking credit for it, while leaving it woefully underfunded. He opposed any inquiry in the 9/11 attacks, then favored them, but again, failed to properly fund their operation. He continues to ignore the most basic safeguards against terrorist threats at home and abroad while chasing rumored chemicals in the desert and emptying our national coffers for his ill-advised adventure. Despite this, his conservative counterparts continue to feed misinformation and half-truths to an eager media, who appear unwilling or unable to imagine their own narrative. And we are all less safe as a result.
[b]Eric Alterman is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author, most recently, of "When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences." Research assistance was provided by Paul McLeary.[/b] - http://www.americanprogress.o...
...---... The Chattering Classes Are Stuck ...---...
[b]"If Bush can win reelection despite the failure of his two most consequential -- and truly radical -- decisions, he will truly be a political miracle man. But as his own nominating convention approaches, the odds are against him."[/b]
Those are the words of [i]Washington Post [/i]columnist David Broder in a column http://www.washingtonpost.com... that appeared in Sunday's paper. And I reprint them because I think they mark a significant milestone simply because of Broder's role in defining conventional wisdom in Washington.
A few days ago I was talking to a friend about the coverage of the presidential campaign and how Washington's chattering classes have remained stuck in a mind-set that judges this a dead-even race -- or even one the president is bound to win -- long after the objective criteria -- to the extent there can be such a thing -- have said otherwise.
By objective criteria, I'm referring mainly to poll numbers which show Kerry consistently besting the president, though often by numbers which are in the margin of error for the given poll.
(See pollingreport.com's summary table http://www.pollingreport.com/... of recent presidential polls for an example. Since August 1st, the Gallup poll has twice found President Bush beating Kerry among likely voters -- by 3 and 4 points. But every other public poll taking this month has Kerry ahead.)
The additional fact to note, of course, is that incumbent presidents tend to get what they poll in head-to-head match-ups. Thus, if past races are any indicator, if a poll says Bush 46, Kerry 47, Bush will probably end up getting about 46% of the vote while Kerry will pick up most of the rest of the uncommitteds.
Other measures of independents all show danger signs for the president. And some further indication can be found down-ballot -- especially on the senate side. But my point here isn't to get into the nitty-gritty of the polling numbers. These are pretty conventional ways to interpret polling data. My point is only to argue -- as Charlie Cook has been arguing in his recent columns -- that if you go by conventional ways of reading the numbers, both nationawide and in key swing states, President Bush is on the way to losing this race.
That sense of the race has hardly settled in among pundits or daily newspaper reporters, or if it has, it hasn't shown through in their copy. And yet here you have David Broder writing a column which, though it says many things, says mainly that President Bush is likely to be thrown out of office -- not because John Kerry is lighting the hustings on fire, but simply because President Bush's fundamental policy decisions have failed and voters are going to hold him accountable.
That perception, that conventional wisdom, once it takes hold, can have a poisonous effect on the efforts of the perceived loser. And when that perception begins to take hold among Republicans, if it does, it will set off a vicious internal dynamic within the party.
And so this, I think, will be the key issue over the next three weeks, as we build up to and then come out of the Republican convention: when does the CW defined by Broder -- the veritable pontiff of beltway CW -- start registering? If the polls change it may never, of course. But if not, when does the president start moving ahead in the polls? Can the GOP convention fundamentally shift the dynamic of the race? And, if not, when do the first signs of panic begin to appear within the president's ranks?
The GOP convention now seems like it'll be a much more high-stakes affair than the DNC.
[b]The following letter written by Ibtissam Al-Bassam, a former dean of King Fahd Academy in London and a present staff member of UNESCO, speaks for itself:[/b]
On Sept. 11, 2001 your land, protected by military might, geographical distance and two oceans, was the scene of a horrific act of terrorism. Three thousand American and non-American innocent lives were lost on that dark day. A symbol of your economic power suddenly and quickly vanished from the earth.
The shock was great. It filled your hearts with anger, grief and pain and gave you a strong desire for quick revenge. Your reaction was normal and expected. Your country is a superpower. Your revenge was immediate and forceful. It led to two consecutive wars and to ferocious battles, which are claiming tens of lives every day.
When America sneezed in the twentieth century, Europe caught cold. When America was attacked early in the new millennium, the international community shared your fury and your pain, your grief and your anger shook the earth, and life in our world changed forever. The false sense of security and stability that many of us had long enjoyed suddenly disappeared.
Anger is a source of energy. Uncontrolled anger blurs the vision, promotes hatred and creates conflicts and wars. Controlled anger opens the eyes to unpleasant realities and creates in the heart a determination to find effective solutions to major problems, such as racism, hatred, famine, injustice, poverty and ignorance. It raises questions that are difficult to answer, yet helpful to ask.
Why does the death of one single non-Arab or non-Muslim in the raging battles in the Middle East make the news, while the destruction of thousand Arab and Muslim lives, livelihood and homes are “nothing to write home about”?
The death toll in Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank has reached unacceptable levels and the number of homeless, bereaved, injured, widowed and orphaned has dramatically increased. Is your anger partially responsible for the apparent indifference to the misery, the tragedies and the ongoing carnage in the Middle East?
Ruthless autocrats and heartless dictators are using the war on terror as an excuse to spread the mantle of terrorism over their opponents. The distinctions between criminals who kill, destroy and terrify and freedom fighters, which sacrifice their lives for legitimate, internationally recognized causes is no longer clear in our minds. Surely the confusion is a by-product of the attack on America three years ago.
Your country is a rich knowledge base. It provides the world with definitions of difficult terms and complicated concepts. Our world needs accurate definitions for the frequently used and misused terms “ terrorism”, “terrorists” “Islamists” and “jihadist”, so we can all enlist in the ongoing war on terror.
We are told that few countries in the Third World are trying to develop nuclear programs. Could fear of pre-emptive strikes have whetted their appetite for weapons of mass destruction?
Nineteen young Muslim Arabs attacked your country three years ago. Since then, you are psychologically ready to generalize and believe that every Arab is your enemy and every Muslim a potential terrorist and a threat to your national security.
Racists are exploiting the prevailing unhealthy social and political climate to discriminate against innocent Arabs and Muslims in offices, restaurants, shops airports and stations in the West. Has your anger indirectly destroyed the happiness, the comfort and the livelihood of innocent people, who have nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?
America was admired, loved, honored and respected throughout the second half of the last century. Are America’s frown, iron fists and heavy hands responsible for the previously unknown “American-phobia” in the world? Are they undermining your efforts to recapture the billions of hearts and minds, which you lost in recent years?
America is a land of immigrants. Your greatness and your power are the natural results of your cultural diversity and your religious tolerance.
Islam is a major world religion, embraced by seven million Americans and 1.4 billion people around the world. American Arabs are part of the fabric of your rich society.
Lack of respect for Islam, attacks on the Qu’ran, criticism of religious teachings, discrimination against Arabs and Muslims, destruction of holy shrines, ridicule of religious beliefs, criticism of the Arab way of life breed resentment, promote hatred, feed fanaticism, empower terrorists and threaten world security.
The majority of Arabs and Muslims are moderates. They are your friends and friends to the West. A number of racist “intellectuals” are inciting hatred and paving the way for the clash of civilizations, which we should all do our best to avert.
If you visit the Middle East sections in libraries and bookshops in your city or surf the web, you will be shocked at the extent of abuse leveled at Islam. By way of example, I refer you to the following site: www.prophetofdoom.net
Isalmophobia is indeed on the rise.
Attacks on mosques and desecration of Muslim cemeteries in the West are on the increase. Vandals have scrawled anti-Muslim graffiti and painted swastikas on a number of Muslim graves in a few towns and cities.
Respectful Arabs and moderate Muslims have been arrested, humiliated, interrogated and released.
On an American flight in the States, the looks and behavior of a group of young Arab passengers raised suspicions and scared an American couple. The young men were carefully watched by the couple, closely monitored by the crew, interrogated upon arrival, and released after the officials were satisfied they were a harmless Syrian music band.
Dear friends,
A fire is raging in the world,
Your genuine cooperation to extinguish it will bring us closer to peace. Your serious efforts to promote justice and stability in the Middle East will deal terrorists a serious blow and win you the hearts and minds of every Arab, every Muslim and every peace-loving Israeli.
Next month we will remember and mourn the victims of the attacks on your country. May the occasion remind us that we are mortals who live in an interdependent world and share one fate. May we realize that we need each other, regardless of our belief, color, race or nationality!
— [b]Ibtissam Al-Bassam is a former dean of King Fahd Academy in London and a present staff member of UNESCO. The views expressed are hers alone.[/b] - http://www.arabnews.com/?page...
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] are using Nazi and/or Stasi tactics to intimidate protestors and dissenters from [i]embarrassing them [/i]at their RNC to [i]rubber-stamp [/i] the worst traitors, criminals and liars in our nation's history who will heinously try to steal and rig the upcoming presidential election in November ... Our Founding Fathers would hang their heads in shame ...[/b]
The FBI is going door-to-door http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... to encourage activists to stay away from the Republican National Convention. They insist it's not intimidation to show up at the homes of lawful protest organizers, ask them what their plans are, and encourage them not to protest. But even FBI agents are squeamish about following the blatently speech-supressing guidelines. In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins requesting agents "canvas" protestors improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. - http://www.alternet.org
[b]Jeez ... [i]What next??? [/i]...[/b]
...---... Getting Led Around By The Nose ...---...
[b]It seems that some obtuse neo-con fascists just love to be led around by the nose by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]...
Every working journalist should read this Kevin Drum post http://www.washingtonmonthly.... on John Kerry's position on the Iraq war and the Iraq war resolution. It's sad, but perhaps predictable, to see so many members of the print and electronic press getting led around by the nose by the Bush crew on this one.[/b]
I think I've demurred from discussing or rather defending Kerry's position on this issue because I have an element of bias, since it is also my position. But as Kevin notes, whether or not you agree with that position, it is really not difficult to understand so long as you are not being willfully obtuse.
Sometimes in baseball a batter decides to take a pitch. He's decided in advance that he's not going to swing no matter what comes down the pike. But in most cases, when a batter steps up to the plate, he doesn't decide whether he's going to swing until he sees the pitch. Only an idiot decides in advance not knowing what he's going to face. And yet this is roughly what the Bush camp says was the only reasonable, or I suppose manly, approach to the Iraq war.
I see the war decision in very similar terms to this baseball analogy. Voting for the war resolution was not remotely the same thing as going to war at the first possible opportunity.
Forcing inspections meant seeing what inspections would yield. And seeing what inspections would yield was the best insurance against getting ourselves into the current situation and finding that the WMD, which constituted the premise for the whole endeavor, didn't even exist.
To extend our baseball analogy, Bush went to the plate knowing he was going to swing at whatever pitch he got.
I've been sketching out notes recently for a retrospective essay on the lead-up to the Iraq war, trying to capture on paper the mood of those months, to think through particularly where I think I saw things correctly and where I went wrong. And it's brought into some perspective for me the silliness of the argument the president makes about the war resolution and the point he means to convey when he says that everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
The point he's trying to make in the latter instance is that you can't blame him for the mess we're in because everybody (or, for these purposes, almost all the leading political figures in Washington) thought Saddam had at least some chemical and biological weapons, and thus everyone else would have gotten us to this same point. But here of course is the beauty of actually taking the WMD issue seriously as opposed to merely using it as a cudgel and a pretext as the president did.
One might well have gone into the whole drama thinking Iraq had a retooled WMD program. But inspections allowed us actually to find out. Not just to guess, but to find out, to know. Certainly inspections would not have been perfect. But they were quite good at answering the key question, which was the status of the Iraqi nuclear program. And they would have been good enough at gauging where other non-conventional weapons programs were too.
(The great undiscussed matter in this whole debate is that well before we pulled the trigger in March 2003 it was quite clear from the IAEA inspections that there was no Iraqi nuclear program to speak of.)
In any case, all of this is merely a too-lengthy way of noting that giving the president the authority and the muscle to force the inspectors back into Iraq (i.e., giving him the authority to go to war if they were not allowed back in) simply cannot be equated with giving the president the go-ahead to game the process and go to war immediately even if they were allowed in.
That doesn't mean that Kerry is in the clear on any legitimate criticism. But ironically the best argument against Kerry's position is one that is simply off-limits to the president -- namely, that Kerry should have or perhaps did know that the president was lying when he said he needed the muscle of the resolution to force the inspectors back in and have some hope of settling the crisis short of war.
The president was dishonest with the world and dishonest with the American people. He gamed the process and it blew up in his face -- though with a long fuse. By any reasonable moral reckoning he deserves all the comeuppance of his bad faith. The tragedy is that the American people, the folks he scammed, have to suffer the brunt of the tragedy and will continue to do so long after he is, hopefully, tossed out of office in just less than a dozen weeks.
[b]"We the People" have been ruthlessly conned, scammed and duped by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i] on key domestic issues relating to jobs, education, health care, the environment, etc.-- [i]as well as[/i], on vital foreign policy issues relating to trade, national security and the use of force as a "last resort" ... In the aftermath of 9/11, the reckless Bush regime squandered the good will and trust of the American people and our allies throughout the world ... The bombastic, arrogant and rapacious neo-con, neo-fascist Bushies have wantonly undermined our prosperity and our safety ...[/b]
President Bush is slowly unveiling his agenda http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,126432,00.html , should he be re-elected, for a second term. Already Bush has promised to increase high school graduation rates and expand access to health care. Can the American people trust that Bush will follow through? A new document by the American Progress Action Fund reveals that, on a slew of issues – from education to taxes to the environment – Bush has broken the explicit promises he made the American people in the last Presidential campaign. The document is based, in large part, on promises made on an archived version http://web.archive.org/web/20...:/www.georgewbush.com/ of Bush's official campaign website. Check out the complete document here http://www.americanprogressac... .
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] brute force method of destroying everything that they cannot co-opt has proved a bloody disaster in Iraq ... It is also a wildly foolhardy tactic for the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime to employ here at home because many American patriots are not willing to have tyranny shoved down our throats and as the traitorous Bush regime continues in their lust for power & riches to destroy our freedoms, liberties and rights, we will eventually [i]fight back and fight back hard [/i]because we have a history of Revolution ...
Najaf proves that the US will never allow democracy to flourish in Iraq [/b]
The US military offensive against Najaf is a dangerous and ill-judged escalation, revealing the violent reality of an occupation that has undergone only cosmetic change since the supposed handover of power to an interim Iraqi administration in June.
For more than a week, an aggressive foreign power has addressed an essentially domestic political question by means of tanks, helicopter gunships and F16s.
There had been a ceasefire in place between the US forces and their main opponents around Najaf, and mediation efforts had been effective in containing tension.
The current violence in the vicinity of one of Islam's most sacred sites appears to be a result of the failure of this mediation to co-opt Moqtada al-Sadr and his movement into a national conference, which the US had hoped would bestow a stamp of approval on the interim government.
The offensive is not - as claimed by the US-appointed interim government and by the US military - an action against outlaws, nor is it an attempt to establish security and the rule of law.
There is a great deal of random violence in occupied Iraq. Some of this violence is of a purely criminal character and some is of a terrorist nature with more or less vague political objectives - many of the perpetrators are so shadowy as to invite a widespread belief that outside powers are directly involved in fomenting chaos.
In the absence of a genuine accounting for past suffering and political crimes and of a process of reconciliation, there is also violence associated with score-settling by political groups.
Not least, of course, is the military violence of the 200,000 foreign forces and armed mercenaries, and of the diverse groups resisting their presence in the country.
All these forms of violence are escalating, leading to a chaotic and catastrophic outcome.
The way to deal with this situation is not to pour petrol on the fire, but to look for an imaginative and honest political way out.
Having been appointed by the occupation authority under a corrupted UN oversight process, Ayad Allawi's interim government lacks any legitimacy whatsoever.
Its success could only be measured through its ability to address the needs of the Iraqi people, foremost among which is security.
The offensive against Najaf is the most crude and inept action possible, and it follows a long line of such actions by the occupation forces and their political leadership.
Some Iraqis hoped that the so-called transfer of power would permit a lessening of tension and a quick withdrawal of foreign forces from the cities, to be followed by greater cooperation between police and the population in tackling random violence.
It had been hoped that the police would become more effective in protecting doctors and other professionals from targeted kidnap and murder, and that homes, places of worship and other public places would become less insecure, and that efforts would be redoubled to address the abysmal failure to rebuild the infrastructure.
Instead, there is now a greater effort at involving the police and other new Iraqi armed forces in waging the United States' war-by-proxy against the political opponents of the occupation.
The collapse of law and order has little to do with Sadr. His is one of a number of forces with armed militia operating in the country.
Its control of poor slum areas and inner cities resulted from the chaos that was brought about by the occupation; it was not itself the cause of the chaos.
The physical destruction of state power, the interference in civil society institutions, and the violence and lack of legitimacy of the occupation were responsible for the emergence of new centres of power and authority that must now be integrated into the political process.
In particular, the Sadr movement has a wide appeal among young, poor, marginalised and traditionally edu cated sections of the urban population, and it is irresponsible to ignore or antagonise such a wide section of Iraqi society.
These are people who should be allowed to enter the political process through their chosen vehicle. They have a legitimate critique of the present flawed process, which is designed to serve the political objectives of the US administration and its few Iraqi allies.
But instead, the US occupation is trying to destroy or marginalise those movements, while also reinforcing existing inequities through media censorship and by heightening tension with neighbouring Iran.
After Najaf, where are US troops going? Are they going to encircle Thawra (Sadr City), the Baghdad suburb? Are they going to attack every poor suburb of every city from Kirkuk to Basra? And bomb every town where there have been large demonstrations in opposition to the attack on Najaf?
This offensive has already dealt a severe blow to the interim government. It has shown that it is unable to rein in the US presence, and can only fall in line with America's military imperatives.
It has shown that the US has no intention of permitting a genuine Iraqi political dialogue or the development of an inclusive democratic process.
The action in Najaf is also deeply symbolic. This is not only a Shia issue. Najaf is a holy site for all Muslims everywhere and has particular historical significance for Iraqis.
It is the seat of traditional learning and a repository of Iraqi communal and national culture, but it was also the focus of the 1920 uprising against British colonial rule that had set Iraq on the path of independence.
Najaf has been a lively centre of commerce, industry and political activity ever since. Nothing cut the last links between Saddam Hussein and large swathes of Iraqi society more than his persecution of Najaf.
It is here that Iraq has its greatest tradition in mediation, where social, moral and religious influences can be brought to bear, and where economic regeneration has brighter prospects. Trying to solve Najaf's problems by Yankee fire is a mark of abysmal failure.
Some liberals who opposed the war subsequently adopted an argument that the US and Britain now have a responsibility to remain in Iraq and to see to it that the country arrives at the safe shores of democracy and stability.
This argument is based on the presumption that, left alone, Iraq would fall into internecine conflict which only the US and Britain, being such civilised and civilising nations, could address. This was always a convenient myth, but the repeated military offensives against Iraqi cities must now make it clear that chaos and internecine conflict is with us already, and it is being expanded and prolonged by foreign military forces.
It is time to set an early date for a complete withdrawal of foreign forces and then to ask what can and should be done to help Iraq.
· [b]Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi and lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter [/b] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...,3604,1282933,00.html
...---... STEADY LEADERSHIP In Times Of Change??? LOL!!! ...---...
... "In January, Justice Department investigators asked White House staff members to sign a waiver requesting "that no member of the news media assert any privilege or refuse to answer any questions from federal law enforcement authorities on my behalf or for my benefit." But in February the [i]Washington Post [/i]reported http://www.washingtonpost.com... , "Most officials declined to sign the form on the advice of their attorneys.""
[b]"A week is a long time in politics" - Harold Wilson
Ergo the results of polling can change based upon events on the grounds from [i]week to week[/i]. However, at this time, the ground is shifting in favor of John F. Kerry and away from Dubya ... It is worth noting "Electoral College Predictions: Kerry Leads Bush in All The Major Polls" on http://www.tblog.com/template...
Of course it would never happen like this, but it should: President Bush and political guru Karl Rove are enjoying a quiet evening together in the private quarters of the White House. Suddenly, Rove looks up in horror from his computer printouts and asks:
"[i]George . . . where are the kids[/i]?"
Where, indeed. And we're not talking about Jenna Bush or her sister Barbara, but millions of other younger voters who supported Bush in 2000 but currently plan to vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry.
Surveys suggest that Bush's popularity has plummeted among 18- to 29-year-olds in the past four months, posing a new obstacle to the president's bid to win reelection and an immediate challenge to Republicans seeking to win over impressionable and lightly committed young people during their upcoming convention.
Four years ago, network exit polls found that Bush and Democrat Al Gore split the vote of 18- to 29-year-olds, with Gore claiming 48 percent and Bush getting 46 percent -- the best showing by a Republican presidential candidate in more than a decade.
But that was then. In the latest Post-ABC News poll taken immediately after the Democratic convention, Kerry led Bush 2-1 among registered voters younger than 30. Among older voters, the race was virtually tied.
Bush's problems with younger voters began months before the Democratic convention, Post-ABC polls suggest. The last time Bush and Kerry were tied among the under-30 crowd was back in April. In the five surveys conducted since then, Bush has trailed Kerry by an average of 18 percentage points.
Virtually every other major poll conducted in the past month confirms Kerry's newfound and perhaps transient popularity with voters under the age of 30. The size of this advantage varies, due in part to the relatively small number of younger voters and correspondingly large margin of sampling error in each survey.
A Newsweek Poll conducted on July 29-30 found Kerry with a 51-32 lead among 18- to 29-year-olds. The CBS News/New York Times post-convention survey of registered voters showed Kerry with a 50-31 advantage among this group.
Kerry also led among young adults in most surveys conducted during the weeks leading up to the convention. The combined data from surveys of 2,891 registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in May and June showed a 15-point Kerry lead, but its mid-July survey found the race tied. A Newsweek poll exclusively of younger voters interviewed in mid-July found Kerry with a 48-41 lead while a Post-ABC News survey put the Democrat ahead by 9 points on the eve of his party's convention.
Taken together, the post-convention surveys suggest that if the election were held today, Bush would do about as badly among younger voters as Republican Robert Dole did in 1996 when he lost to incumbent Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 34 percent in this age group. Dubya's dad was more popular with younger voters in both 1988 and 1992: The elder Bush split the young vote in 1988 and lost to Clinton by 9 percentage points in 1992. Of course the Reagan era marked the recent high-water mark for Republicans with younger voters, who gave the Gipper his biggest victory margin of any age group in 1984.
Tyler McLaughlin, 27, of Georgetown, Tex., didn't vote four years ago. He supported Bush during the first years of his presidency. "But after two years of war, I became anti-Bush," said McLaughlin, a project scheduler for a computer firm. "This seemed like a guy . . . who made a decision and won't go back on it."
The latest Post-ABC News survey found that Kerry consistently topped Bush by double-digit margins as the candidate young adults trusted to deal with every major issue, including the economy, Iraq, education and health care. The Democrat also was viewed by substantial margins as best able to handle the campaign against terrorism and taxes, issues in which Bush still had an advantage among all voters.
The issues motivating younger voters are not much different than those on the minds of all Americans. The war in Iraq and the economy lead their list of top voting concerns in recent Post-ABC News surveys -- not surprising because it's young people who are fighting in Iraq and hustling to keep or find jobs in this uncertain economy. Education ranks somewhat higher as a voting issue for young voters, not unexpected either, since many of them are still in college or just out of school.
One surprise: the campaign against terrorism is less of a voting issue for younger voters than for the rest of the country. In the most recent Post-ABC poll, only 9 percent of all 18- to 29-year-olds rated it as their top voting concern compared to 20 percent of all voters.
"The war -- definitely," said Becky Hibma, 24, homemaker, in Dorr, Mich., when asked what her top voting issue is this year.
Hibma says she is concerned about terrorism. She was on her honeymoon at Disney World when the Twin Towers fell. But for her, Iraq is the more immediate and tangible problem. "It could have been handled very differently. We jumped in too quickly .. . . A little more thinking would have been great."
Like many of her friends, she says she's torn between the two candidates. She's "more Bush" at the moment, largely because of the president's leadership after Sept. 11. "But there are days when I totally agree with everything Kerry says."
[b]Pollsters Protest 9-11 Commission Error [/b]
While there's plenty of Sept. 11 blame to go around, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) says the 9/11 commission that investigated the terrorist attacks was flat wrong when it made this claim on page 341 of its recent report:
"As best we can determine, neither in 2000 nor in the first eight months of 2001 did any polling organization in the United States think the subject of terrorism sufficiently on the minds of the public to warrant asking a question about it in a major national survey."
Au contraire, says AAPOR President Nancy Belden in a recent statement. A number of major public polls asked questions about international terrorism during that time frame. Some examples:
At the start of the new millennium, CBS News asked: "Would you say you personally are very concerned about a terrorist attack in the United States, or not? Would you say you are somewhat concerned about a terrorist attack in the United States or not at all concerned?" Responses: 37 percent very concerned, 39 percent somewhat concerned, 22 percent not at all concerned.
As President Bush took office in January 2001, Newsweek asked: "Which one of the following do you think should be Bush's top defense and national security priority? Should his top priority be: Developing a high-tech missile defense system to protect the United States from nuclear attack (34 percent); reconfiguring US military forces so they can move more quickly to deal with crisis situations around the world (29 percent); or improving our ability to identify and counteract terrorist threats (31 percent)?"
And in May 2001, the Pew Research Center asked: "Do you think that international terrorism is a major threat, a minor threat, or not a threat to the well being of the United States?" Prescient answer: 64% major threat, 27% minor threat, 4% not a threat.
Makes you wonder what else the commission investigators missed or got wrong.
[b]The Bump: Future and Past [/b]
A heads-up, bounce-watchers: Measuring Bush's convention bump is going to be a tricky bit of business, thanks to the Labor Day weekend. Bush gives his acceptance speech the evening of Sept. 2, and on Sept. 3, millions of Americans head out for one last end-of-summer fling, making it tough on pollsters to find people at home for those post-convention surveys. Look for some bold surveyors to phone their way right through the doldrums -- garbage in, garbage out, we think -- and others to look for creative ways around the problem.
If Kerry's convention is any guide, there may not be much of a bump to measure. Seven major media polls registered anywhere from a one percentage point drop to a four percentage point uptick in support for the Democratic nominee among registered voters. This left Kerry with a modest lead -- three to seven points -- in all but one of the seven surveys. The exception was the Gallup poll, which found Bush up by one percentage point in a three-way race among registered voters. (The average bump up for modern presidents is somewhere in the neighborhood of seven percentage points, if you're keeping score.)
[b]Bouncelet for Teresa [/b]
First Lady contender Teresa Heinz Kerry got a bit of a bump after her Boston debut. In a Post-ABC News poll conducted immediately prior to the convention, 27 percent of voters said they had a favorable view of the sometimes prickly Pennsylvania philanthropist, compared to 34 percent in a survey conducted the weekend after. Four in 10 still don't know enough about the Democratic challenger's wife to offer an opinion.
Men and women bumped up about equally when it came to Heinz Kerry. And when the bouncing stopped, men divided equally (29 percent favorable versus 28 percent unfavorable) while women tilted positive (39 percent versus 20 percent).
As cathartic as it may be, Americans might not want to follow Vice President Cheney's profane example when engaging in a frank exchange of views with others. While most Americans aren't particularly offended by potty-mouthing, as recently as 1996 one in five were ready to call in the law on blasphemers.
Q I am going to read a list of things that some people consider to be morally wrong. For each item, please select the number that best indicates how wrong you, personally, think it is when people engage in that behavior: Swearing or using offensive language
22% Wrong for all and should not be legally tolerated
33 Wrong for all but should be tolerated
22 Right for some, but not for me personally
6 Right for me, but not necessarily for others
4 Right for all
14 Not a moral issue
Source: Survey by the University of Virginia's Post-Modernity Project conducted Jan. 27-April 14, 1996 and based on personal interviews with a national adult sample of 2,047. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
In the wholesome early 1950s, Gallup asked married respondents:
Do you object to your husband or wife saying "damn" or "hell" when among a group of adults?
44% Yes
50 No
7 Qualified answer/No opinion
Source: Conducted by the Gallup Organization, Nov. 11-16, 1951, and based on personal interviews with a national adult sample of 2,019. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut
[b]The reckless Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] economic train-wreck is going to hit us hard ... [/b]The Federal Reserve is doing everything in its' power to hold the lid on inflation until after the election http://www.tblog.com/template... ... And [i]then[/i] the American working people are going to face hardships unseen since the days of the Great Depression ...[i] It is time for a change of course[/i] ... It is time to vote for John F. Kerry in order to stop the ruthless economic rape of our nation by the neo-con, neo-fascist thugs in the corrupt Bush regime who have hijacked our nation on behalf of gluttonous corporations, rapacious special interests and traitorous plutocrats ...
[u][b]The U.S. Trade Gap Widens to a New Record[/b][/u]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. trade deficit widened much more than expected in June, hitting a record $55.8 billion dollars as the biggest drop in exports in nearly three years combined with record imports, the government said on Friday.
Wall Street economists had expected the deficit to widen, but looked for a gap of just $47 billion. In its report, the Commerce Department also revised May's trade shortfall to $46.9 billion from the previously reported $46.0 billion.
The department said exports fell 4.3 percent to $92.8 billion in June, the biggest decline since September 2001 and the weakest performance since February.
At the same time, imports climbed 3.3 percent to an all-time high of $148.6 billion, partly reflecting a run-up in oil prices.
Crude oil prices hit $33.76 a barrel, according to the department's measure, the highest price since March 1982. The quantity of crude imported also rose to a record level.
While other recent data had led economists to expect an upward revision to the government's measure of second-quarter economic growth, the trade data was likely to lead them to lower their sights.
In its first snapshot of the second quarter, the government said U.S. gross domestic product advanced at a 3 percent annual rate, a sharp slowdown from the swift 4.5 percent pace at the start of the year.
The trade report showed the politically sensitive trade gap with China widened to a record $14.2 billion as exports eased and imports soared to an all-time high. U.S. manufacturers and labor groups complain that Beijing's policy of holding the value of its currency, the yuan, steady against the dollar has given it an unfair trade advantage.
The Bush administration has claimed it is making progress getting China to move toward a more flexible currency regime, but Democrats want to ratchet up the pressure with a trade investigation.
The report also showed the U.S. trade gap with Mexico reached a record.
For the first half of the year, the trade gap came in at $287.7 billion, putting it well ahead of the same period last year and on track to break last year's record $496.5 billion. - http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
... "Ahmed Chalabi played a prominent role in convincing many people in Washington of the threat Saddam Hussein posed to this country, and his Iraqi National Congress received U.S. intelligence resources and funding to help overthrow the Baathist regime. The American administration in Iraq played a role both in appointing him to the Iraqi Governing Council and, later, in limiting his influence. As many remember, Mr. Chalabi sat behind Laura Bush this year during the president's State of the Union speech. If he is a fraudster, then those who supported him must be held accountable for doing so. If he is not, then the United States has an obligation to insist, publicly, that he not become the new Iraq's first political prisoner." ...
Held accountable?
Do the folks at the editorial page need to take a look in the mirror on this one?
[b][i]That is [/i]... along side the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]who indeed should be held accountable for War Crimes, because although they initially wanted to install their corrupt sadistic puppet Chalabi, and then when exposed as a liar, embezzler, fraud and spy against the USA on behalf of the Iranian government, the traitorous Bushies replaced him with their own 'Saddam-Hussein-Version-2 .0': Allawi, their neo-con thug-[i]cum[/i]-dictator & neo-fascist murderer ...[/b]
"[i]The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway[/i]." — George W. Bush, http://www.dailypress.com/new...,0,6920595.story?coll=dp-headlines-v irginia
[b]So I guess if the [i]rich figure out [/i]how to get away with murder, we ought to just let 'em [i]"off-the-hook"[/i] from having to pay all them expensive trial lawyers to defend 'em and not prosecute 'em at all!!! ... Also, since the [i]really rich ne'er-do-well imbecilic asshole off-spring of hyper-wealthy robber-barons can figure out [/i]how to steal elections, well we ought to just do away with an elected government and turn our nation over to the Mad King George!!! [i]... Right??? ... Wrong!!! [/i]...[/b]
[u][b]Really rich[/b][/u]
Before you shrug off the above quote as just another daffy Bushism, understand that it's a standard line in his stump speeches these days. It's his way of justifying his dubious fiscal policies and of ridiculing liberal proposals to raise taxes on the rich.
Don't expect the really rich to contribute to federal revenues, he warns us. We don't wanna and you can't make us.
He is, possibly, so caught up in his role as an average Joe and hardworking regular guy, that he doesn't realize he's talking about his really rich supporters and his own really rich family.
Or, more likely, this is just classic Bush— strutting, smirking arrogance, with flippant disregard for the unentitled masses.
[b]Actually, this quote describing Hitler's tactics sums Bush's manipulations up nicely:[/b]
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Herman Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trails after WWII
[b]We should send Bush to be Iraq’s president [/b]
When Daddy Bush left Iraq, he was criticized for not finishing the job. When Sonny Boy tried to vindicate Daddy and steal one of the world’s biggest oil supplies, he really created a mell of a hess, as my late husband used to say.
The solution to the entire situation is to send Georgie Boy to Iraq as the interim president. He wanted a democracy; let him do the job.
Anyone with a brain knows it can’t be done. The various religious and political factions have been taught to hate each other for generations.
Could we have united the American Indians in two or three years before the Revolutionary War? Of course not.
With Bush in Iraq, not only would this country be better off, but we could get on with important business, like stem-cell research, cheaper prescription drugs and effective education.
The Constitution says "all men are created equal." What a bunch of bologna. Are kids born blind, crippled, deaf, anything but white and poor equal to those born beautiful, white, in perfect health, rich and all that other good stuff? They sure aren’t treated that way or have the opportunities people like G.W. have.
If all good, smart Americans don’t make a concerted effort to get the 50 percent of the electorate who don’t vote to the polls, this nation is going to hell in a handbasket, and along with them most of the righteous, not self-righteous, people of the world. - http://www.columbiatribune.co...
...---... Halliburton Woes are Our Burdens ...---...
[b]In the insane neo-con, neo-fascist Doctrine According to the Mad King George: [i]Only the little people pay taxes and only the little people are bound by the law[/i]!!! http://www.thenation.com/capi... ...[/b]
According to Pentagon auditors, Halliburton cannot account for more than $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and Kuwait. According to [i]Reuters[/i] http://www.washingtonpost.com... , "The amount represents 43 percent of the $4.18 billion that Houston-based Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit has billed the Pentagon to feed and house troops in the region ..."
[b]This is U.S. Taxpayer money http://www.tblog.com/template... that the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]cronies are stealing folks!!![/b]
...---... Bush Approval:-- Raw Poll Data ...---...
[b]When an imbecilic ne'er-do-well-[i]cum[/i]- mediocrity like traitor Dubya steals office, this is the kind of ghoulish garbage that he vomits upon us:--[/b]
... "Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "[i]the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway[/i]."
Asked about that comment, Jonathan Beeton, spokesman for Kerry's campaign in Virginia, said "George Bush can speak with authority about really rich people. ... That's his base, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. But that doesn't make it right." - http://www.dailypress.com/new...,0,6920595.story?coll=dp-headlines-v irginia " ...
Apparently the mentally unstable Dubya is [i]runnin' around [/i][i]like an AWOL neo-con chicken-hawk with his neo-fascist head chopped-off [/i]all over the country [i]joking [/i]about how the [i]rich[/i] can dodge taxes and [i]to hell with the rest of us[/i], including working families that are [i]struggling[/i] to make ends meet:--
[u][b]Bush Jokes About Tax Dodgers[/b][/u]
Does George W. Bush believe it's okay for rich people to avoid paying for taxes? Or does he think that it's just one of those inevitable facts of life that cannot be changed? At one of his "Ask President Bush" events--the faux townhall meetings his campaign arranges--Bush on Monday was talking about tax policy with a businesswoman who had been planted at the event. In fact, he asked her more questions than she asked him. During his exchange with her, he said,
"That's why you've got to be careful about this rhetoric, we're only going to tax the rich. You know who the--the rich in America happen to be the small business owners. That's what that means. Just remember, when you're talking about, oh, we're just going to run up the taxes on a certain number of people -- first of all, real rich people figure out how to dodge taxes. [[i]Laughter[/i].] And the small business owners end up paying a lot of the burden of this taxation."
That sounds like Bush was saying that since[i] real [/i]rich people know how to duck the tax man, the government shouldn't bother trying to tax them. Now, how is it that Bush knows so much about these tax-dodgers? And if it is true that across the land rich folks are gaming the system, then why doesn't Bush want to change the tax code so that these citizens do not escape the IRS's net and small business owners obtain specific relief (if they need it)? Bush is arguing that since wealthy individuals know how to avoid paying their full share the government shouldn't even bother having higher rates for millionaires because those rates only end up applying to small business owners. But waitaminute: don't small business owners have accountants as good as those retained by well-heeled individual filers? More importantly, why does Bush think it's funny that "real rich people"--who have benefited the most from his tax cuts--dodge taxes? And if he thinks these taxpayers (or nonpayers) are able to escape the burdens of the higher tax rates, why did he give them massive tax breaks?
Oh, lighten up, I hear Bushbackers saying, it was just a joke. Yeah, leave it to this president to yuk it up about tax avoidance schemes. I suppose if he can [u]laugh about those missing WMDs in Iraq[/u] http://www.thenation.com/capi... [[i]while our US troops are dying and being maimed based upon his heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods[/i]], he can laugh about the rich getting richer at the expense of honest taxpayers. Talk about locker room humor--that is, the locker room at a country club.
[b]Here's an excerpt from the liner notes of singer, songwriter and activist Steve Earle's new record due out August 24th on Artemis Records. It's called "The Revolution Starts...Now", http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... [/b] ...
The word “immediate” best describes the atmosphere around the studio as this record was being made in the late spring of 2004. The prisoner abuse scandal had just broken and the Bush administration, still reeling from the 9/11 commission hearings, was circling the wagons. The Democrats, for their part, were carefully (sometimes, in my opinion, too carefully) trying to sort out how best to press the advantage. Meanwhile, back here in Tennessee, me and my boys had a deadline to meet.
The most important presidential election of our lifetime was less than seven months away and we desperately wanted to weigh in, both as artists and as citizens of a democracy. All but two of these songs were recorded within 24 hours of the first line hitting the paper. We worked 12- and 14-hour days and in between takes and over meals we talked about the war, the election, baseball, and women, in precisely that order.
Maybe I am getting old.
Democracy is hard work. American democracy requires constant vigilance to survive and nothing short of total engagement to flourish. Voting is vital, but in times like these voting alone simply isn’t enough. By the time some of you hear these songs the election will be over. Then the real struggle begins.
When the dust clears and the votes are all counted (we’re watchin’ YOU, Jeb) it will be up to all of us—Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and independents alike—to hold whomever is left standing accountable for their actions on our behalf every single day that they are in power. The day after the election, regardless of the outcome, the war will go on, outsourcing of our jobs will continue, and over a third of our citizens will have no health care coverage whatsoever.
Like I said, it’s hard work and there’s so much to be done. And there always will be.
The Constitution of The United States of America is a REVOLUTIONARY document in every sense of the word. It was designed to evolve, to live, and to breathe like the people that it governs. It is, ingeniously, and perhaps conversely, resilient enough to change with the times in order to meet the challenges of its third century and rigid enough to preserve the ideals that inspired its original articles and amendments. As long as we are willing to put in the work required to defend and nurture this remarkable invention of our forefathers, then I believe with all my heart that it will continue to thrive for generations to come. Without our active participation, however, the future is far from certain. For without the lifeblood of the human spirit even the greatest documents produced by humankind are only words on paper or parchment, destined to yellow and crack and eventually crumble to dust.
Yours for the motherfuckin’ revolution,
Steve Earle Fairview, Tennessee May 2004
For Johnny Cash and Warren Zevon — See you when I get there, brothers.
[i]Singer and songwriter Steve Earle's 2002 critically acclaimed album JERUSALEM http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... , garnered him his 8th Grammy nomination. His new album will be in record stores August 24th, preorder here: The Revolution Starts... Now[/i] on http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...
[i]Earle's contributions to the world are not limited to the arts. He works with The Journey of Hope...from Violence to Healing (an organization led by murder victim family members that conducts public education speaking tours and addresses alternatives to the death penalty), the Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, the Abolitionist Action Committee, the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing and Amnesty International. In addition to his abolitionist work, he is active with the Vietnam Veterans' Campaign for a Landmine Free World and the Kensington Welfare Rights Union. [/i] - http://www.commondreams.org/v...
[b]"We the People" have been thrust back into the calamitous Dark Ages by the corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] traitorous destruction of our Republic as we enter the terrible neo-fascist [i]Age of Corporate Fascism [/i]...[/b]
[b]A prime example ...[/b]
It's not just the sharks you have to worry about if you go scuba diving. You might also want to watch out for your privacy. The Professional Association of Diving Instructors voluntarily gave over the names of about 2 miillion students to the FBI. And they're just one of many groups either selling or donating information to the government according to a new ACLU report http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr... .
People [[i]foolishly[/i]] trust corporations http://www.wired.com/news/pri...,1294,64492,00.html more than they do the government, so they are more likely to freely give them personal information. Does it make you feel safer and stronger to know that every time you withdraw money from an ATM, buy books or CDs, fill prescriptions or rent cars, someone else, somewhere, is collecting information about you and your transaction?
[b]Isn't it too bad we can't have a vote of [i]no-confidence [/i]for Dubya & Cheney, the corrupt duo??? ... But then because we are saddled with a traitorous GOP-toady Congress[i] willing to collude [/i]in War Crimes, a no-confidence vote [i]wouldn't happen [/i]here in the United States of Amnesia; otherwise they would have already[i] impeached [/i]Bush/Cheney and [i]put them on trial [/i]for Crimes Against Humanity by now ... Instead we'll have to wait until November to get rid of these neo-con, neo-fascist crooks ...[/b]
[u][b]Blair faces vote of no-confidence over war[/b][/u]
Labour activists are circulating a resolution of no confidence in Tony Blair for next month's annual party conference because of a loss of trust in him over the war over Iraq.
The renewed calls for Mr Blair to be replaced threatens to revive the doubts about his leadership and underlines growing dissatisfaction among grass-roots party workers.
Yesterday, Lord Hattersley, the former Labour deputy leader, raised the stakes by calling on John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister to persuade Tony Blair - whom he described as a "cuckoo in the nest" - to leave. "Threats may have to take the place of persuasion. But saving the party is John Prescott's obligation,'' said Lord Hattersley in The Guardian.
Two supporters of Labour's modernisation also called for Mr Blair to be replaced and for the party to shift to the left. "We were never uncritical Blairites but we did think that Blair would open up spaces to renew social democracy. We were wrong," said Neal Lawson and Paul Thompson, editors of the centre-left journal, Renewal. "That promise of a new politics has receded and it is obvious there is no point waiting for a better Blair. The stakes are simply too high to accept that there is no alternative .... What is at stake is ... the viability of the party."
One cabinet minister last night claimed calls for Mr Blair to go were being co-ordinated: "It looks as though they were working together on this."
Mr Blair came through a "wobble" after the June elections when colleagues thought there was a possibility he might decide to quit. A senior trade union figure told The Independent last night that Mr Prescott told a recent closed meeting of the party's policy forum: "We have gone past the point where Tony Blair might step aside before the next election."
That will give further impetus to those behind the resolution which is being circulated around constituency Labour parties across the country including Orpington in Kent and Calder Valley in Yorkshire.
"There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with Tony Blair - party workers are refusing to turn out and canvass," said a leading Labour member in the Yorkshire seat. "They wouldn't turn out last year, and they wouldn't go on the knocker at the local and European elections.''
There is growing concern that grassroots disillusion over the war on Iraq and the radical reforms to education and health is threatening to "hollow out" the party in town halls and constituencies. It is estimated that 25,000 have left the party in the past six months, and the membership total has halved to 208,000 from the peak when Mr Blair became Prime Minister, and is still believed to be falling.
Christine McCafferty, the Labour MP for Calder Valley, led calls for Mr Blair to consider resigning after Labour's defeats in the local elections in June.
She said then: "If the Prime Minister were to hold his hands up and say 'I got it wrong', then maybe people would be willing to trust again. But if he doesn't, then many voters will think it is time to have a new leader."
Mark Seddon, editor of the left-wing Tribune magazine, said there were 59 Labour MPs who would support a resolution for a change of leader at the party conference - more than 20 short of the total required to trigger a full debate. - http://news.independent.co.uk...
...---... Turning a Phrase, Not a Corner ...---...
[b]David Kusnet http://www.alternet.org/autho... , AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/ , who is Clinton's former speechwriter asks what, exactly we're turning the corner on – the federal deficit made worse by his tax cuts for the rich? The preemptive war he started? The problem isn't Bush's rhetoric, it's his policies. [/b]
Just as the Democratic Convention was wrapping up in Boston, President Bush's handlers announced that he'd be hitting the campaign trail with an amped-up stump speech.
Bush's new speech would have two new phrases – "turning the corner" and "results matter." He'd say America is "turning the corner" on the economy and the Iraq War. And he'd show how he had gotten things done as president, pointing out that Kerry hadn't done much as Senator, and conclude with "results matter."
One week later, Bush's speech hasn't transformed the campaign. At least not in the ways he wanted. Bush's catch-phrases have made headlines – mostly, when Kerry has used them to counterpunch against Bush.
When both candidates were campaigning a few blocks away from each other in Davenport, Iowa on August 4, Kerry joked that Bush could attend the Democrats' economic forum "if he were just willing to turn the corner." More seriously, in an address on Thursday at the UNITY 2004 Journalists of Color Conference in Washington, D.C., Kerry declared: "Just saying we're turning the corner on the war, on terror, on jobs, on opportunity, and on one America doesn't make it so."
Meanwhile, Bush and his handlers have yet to craft a stump speech that uses the "turning the corner" and "results matter" – or any other catch-phrases – to make a compelling case for his re-election.
For all the hype announcing his new stump speech, those two phrases only appear towards the middle of the remarks he delivered, virtually word-for-word, at rallies last weekend in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Reciting a litany of issues where he says he'll continue to "make progress" during a second term, Bush says: "We are turning the corner, and we're not turning back." He says this about "improving public schools," "giving Americans more choices about their health care," and – halfway through the speech – "creating jobs for America's workers," but not about several other issues that he mentions, including energy, the environment, and job training. As for "results matter," Bush only uses that phrase towards the end of the speech, about jobs, education, and the war on terrorism.
Why does Bush's speech bury the very points his spinners told the news media that he was going to make? The problem isn't Bush's rhetoric; it's his record.
Presidents in trouble tend to blame their speechwriters, and, if he continues to trail Kerry, he may fire some current staffers and hire some new ones. (Veteran Republican writer Peggy Noonan announced Thursday that she is taking a leave from her career as a pundit to help her party, adding that she doesn't think Bush needs her help.) But Bush already has a talented team of wordsmiths who rely on the short words and simple sentences that he is most comfortable using – and that make for the most effective oratory, anyway.
Instead, the problem is that Bush has presided over an economy where 1.8 million private-sector jobs have vanished, 3.7 million Americans have lost their health coverage, and wage increases have fallen behind the rising the cost of living. After rallying Americans in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and defeating the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Bush led the nation into the war in Iraq without an exit strategy or even a plausible explanation.
Thus, he can't make the classic case for re-electing a president: The country is in better shape than when I took office, and I'll make things even better if you give me another four years. For all the simplicity that appeals to Bush and his media adviser Karen Hughes, slogans such as "We're turning the corner, and we're not turning back" can boomerang on Bush, just as they did this week. His opponents can ask "Why not turn back" to the country's condition before Bush took office – peace, prosperity, and a nation that was at least a little less polarized? And what are we turning the corner on? The problems Bush inherited? Or those he himself presided over, such as the growing federal deficit and rising unemployment?
These realities – and not rhetorical shortcomings – explain why Bush's new stump speech is so scattershot. Among other techniques, he tries:
[b]Cultural populism: [/b]Bush begins by praising the places where he's campaigning – for the past week, they've mostly been in the Midwest – as "the heart and soul of the country." Then, he slyly suggests, "The other folks believe the heart and soul can be found in Hollywood. Soon, afterwards, he says, half in jest, that he should be reelected so that his wife, Laura Bush, can continue as First Lady – a subtle reminder that Teresa Heinz Kerry is foreign-born and can be caricatured as elitist.
[b]Laundry lists:[/b] Then Bush segues into a list of the issues that he'd on if re-elected – education, health care, job training, and job creation. While he boasts later, that, unlike Kerry, he's achieved "results," the accomplishments he mentions are meager indeed – the controversial "No Child Left Behind" education law and prescription drug programs. But, just by mentioning a slue of domestic issues, Bush implies that he is in touch with working families' problems and hard at work on their behalf.
[b]Not-so-subtle attacks:[/b] Having presented himself as a president who's trying to make life better for most Americans, Bush then proceeds to bash his opponents. During his discussion of health care, Bush emphasizes his efforts against what he calls "frivolous lawsuits that raise health care costs" – a not-so-subtle swipe at Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, a trial lawyer by profession. To clinch the point, he adds: "You cannot be pro-patient and pro-doctor and pro-trial lawyer at the same time. You have to choose. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket."
[b]Scatter-shots against Kerry:[/b] While his attack against Edwards is cleverly worded, his criticisms of Kerry aren't coherent. Faced with the choice of branding Kerry as a Massachusetts liberal or an unprincipled waffler, a Washington insider or an ineffective back-bencher, Bush and his handlers choose "all of the above." Thus, he attacks Kerry as a backer of big government, as a straddler who has been on both sides of major issues, as "an experienced Washington, D.C.-type Senator," and also one with "few signature achievements."
[b]Tax cuts for whom?[/b] When it comes to tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the very wealthy, Bush uses the same rhetorical techniques he's perfected for four years: confusing who gets most of the money. Instead of calling them "tax cuts," he calls them "tax relief." He equates taxation based on the ability to pay with social engineering or political favoritism, declaring: "We didn't pick winners or losers when it came to tax relief. We had a fair view that said, if you pay taxes, you ought to get relief." Listing the beneficiaries, he mentions everyone but those with the largest incomes, listing instead "families with children," "married couples," and "small businesses."
[b]A "war president": [/b]When he finally turns to national security, Bush uses a similar technique: embedding the Iraq War in a series of more successful and less controversial endeavors. First, he mentions the 9/11 attacks, then the war in Afghanistan, then cooperation with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in pursuing terrorists, then Libya's "abandonment of the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction," and, only then, the Iraq War. Understandably, he takes pride in the ouster of Saddam, and, then, he rattles off a list of justifications for or benefits from the war. From Iraq, he segues into efforts to promote security here in the United States and a tribute to Americans' strength of character, as revealed by the response to the 9/11 attacks.
Intriguingly, Bush does not repeat a point that he made in a speech before the Democratic convention but has since stopped: that, while he is a "war president," he would prefer to be a "peace president." Writing in the Wall Street Journal's online edition, Noonan advised Bush to make this point, warning him that voters are concluding that he enjoys war too much. Now that she's on leave from her column and is available to help her fellow Republicans, Bush soon may be reading her words again – this time at podiums across the country.
[b]David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992 through 1994. He is the author of "[i]Speaking American: How the Democrats Can Win in the Nineties[/i]." [/b]- http://www.alternet.org/elect...
...---... The Bungling, Bumbling & Brash Buffoons in the Bush Regime ...---...
"[i]The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sto... . You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage and counter-terrorism." Rolf Tophoven, head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany, commented that allowing Khan's name to become public was "very unclever" and said "it's another debacle[/i]." - http://www.americanprogressac...
[b]Okay, this simply won't fly.[/b]
I haven't yet been able to get a handle on just what happened with the public release of the identity of this al Qaida operative who was apparently cooperating with Pakistani intelligence http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm... in some sort of sting operation. Nor do I yet have a clear sense of what I think about the larger issues.
But on Wolf Blitzer's show yesterday, Wolf had the following exchange with Condi Rice ...
[u]BLITZER[/u]: Let's talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?
[u]RICE[/u]: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them...
[u]BLITZER[/u]: He was disclosed in Washington on background.
[u]RICE[/u]: On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike.
Here Rice seems to be implying that things discussed 'on background' aren't for public release and thus that the White House [i]did not [/i]in fact release his name.
But that's simply false. White House officials give 'backgrounders' all the time, Rice at least as often as others. The information discussed in those briefings is very much for public use. The restrictions are simply a matter of identifying who is talking.
[b]Groupthink ... [/b]The "[i]I wanna' be part of the "in-crowd" so I'll go along with anything including massacring people based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods, and I'll make-up neo-hitlerian rationalizations for horrendous murders, tortures, rapes, abuses (and sodomy of little children)-- in order to be part of the "in-crowd" ..."[/i] bankrupt philosophy that so many neo-fascist, neo-con [i]'groupies'[/i] have picked-up and are religiously adhering to despite the fact that it is obvious that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]should be impeached and put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity ...
[u][b]Groupthink Viewed as Culprit in Move to War[/b][/u]
The 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. The escalation of the Vietnam War. The go-ahead for launching the space shuttle Challenger.
"Groupthink," an insular style of policy-making, has been identified as a chief culprit in all. And to these, the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday added the process leading to the decision to attack Saddam Hussein in March 2003.
Irving Janis, a Yale psychologist, coined the term in 1972 to describe a decision-making process in which officials are so wedded to the same assumptions and beliefs that they ignore, discount or even ridicule information to the contrary. When members of a cohesive, homogeneous group value unanimity and agreement on one course of action more than a realistic appraisal of alternatives, they are engaging in groupthink.
Experts said Friday that while groupthink was not entirely responsible for the acceptance of faulty intelligence information on Iraq, the Bush administration was, by design, particularly susceptible to that risky style of decision-making.
"Groupthink is more likely to arise when there is a strong premium on loyalty and when there is not a lot of intellectual range or diversity within a decision-making body," said Stephen M. Walt, academic dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. "The Bush administration has been an unusually secretive group of like-minded people where a very high premium is placed on loyalty."
All organizations and administrations face the same risk, Walt said. He added that while the report specifically indicted the intelligence community, others — including Democratic lawmakers and the media — also failed to challenge basic assumptions about Iraq's weapons capability.
"When a president makes a decision about something, there is a tendency to get on the train rather than throwing yourself in front of it," he said. "Whatever Bush's flaws may be, indecision is not one of them."
Business schools and political scientists are among those who warn would-be policymakers and managers of the dangers of groupthink. CRM Learning, a Carlsbad, Calif.-based company specializing in developing products for leadership and management development, has been selling its popular Groupthink video program since the 1970s.
"It's one of those films that people use again and again as new managers or leaders come in," said Lyndi Calder, the company's vice president of marketing.
The commonly cited "symptoms" of groupthink are a fundamental overconfidence that gives members an illusion of invulnerability and a belief in the inherent morality of the group.
The groupthink dynamic also is characterized by a pressure to conform that often leads group members with different ideas to censor themselves. But groupthink is most likely to occur when all or most members of a group share the same views.
In that sense, it is the opposite of collective wisdom, said James Surowiecki, a financial writer for the New Yorker and author of the recent book, "The Wisdom of Crowds."
"What's really striking about groupthink is not so much that dissenting opinions are crushed or shouted down, but they come to seem improbable," he said. "Everyone operates on the idea that this is true, so everyone goes out to prove that it's true."
Surowiecki, who concludes in his book that "under the right circumstances, most groups are remarkably intelligent," said it's when leaders surround themselves with like-minded people that groupthink is a danger.
"Collective wisdom," by contrast, comes when "each person in the group is offering his or her best independent forecast," he said. "It's not at all about compromise or consensus."
He said a guiding principle of the Bush administration seems to be that "everyone needs to be on the same page to reach a decision." To reach good decisions, he said, "I think it's exactly the opposite."
[b]The Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is contemptuous of working people ... The Bushies are [i]corporate-take-all [/i]rapists who have awarded immoral and unconscionable[i] tax boondoggles [/i]to the wealthiest Americans and corporations who are running our nation 'into the ground' ... These gluttonous and greedy plutocrats are living the [i]Belle Epoque [/i]while the rest of us are hit hard with inflation that is getting worse; low paying jobs and joblessness; no health care for tens of millions of our fellow citizens; and a looming deficit that the working people of America are going to be burdened with ... It will break our backs ... A must-read is [i]Raise the Economy Threat to "High"[/i] on http://www.tblog.com/template... ...
[u]ECONOMY[/u]
[i]More Work for Less Pay[/i][/b]
President Bush's assault on overtime pay continues http://www.latimes.com/news/p...,1,3141357.story?coll=la-home-headli nes . His administration has already issued rules – scheduled to take effect August 23 – that will strip overtime pay from an estimated 6 million workers http://www.epinet.org/content... . Yesterday in Ohio, President Bush touted two new proposals which go by the deceptively appealing names "flex time" and "comp time." Bush claims that the proposals are motivated by a concern for working mothers and other members of the work force with demanding schedules. In reality, the proposals would allow businesses to have their employees work more than 40 hours a week without getting paid overtime.
[b]CURRENT LAW ALREADY ALLOWS FOR FLEXIBILITY:[/b] Current law does not prevent an employee and an employer from negotiating a schedule where the employee works, for example, 50 hours one week and 30 hours the next. The employer is simply required to pay time-and-a-half for the extra 10 hours http://www.latimes.com/news/p...,1,3141357.story?coll=la-home-headli nes in the first week. "Comp time" would allow the employee to "choose" to substitute the extra pay for additional time off. It opens the door for employers to pressure workers to "accept time off instead of overtime pay." Even absent explicit pressure, employers would be free to "channel overtime work to those who were willing to take comp time." Moreover, "employees would have to take their earned time off when it suits their employer rather than when it suited the employee."
[b]FLEXTIME MEANS NO COMPENSATION AT ALL FOR LONGER HOURS:[/b] Bush's other proposal – "flex time", would allow employers to set work schedules on an 80-hour, two-week period. This is essentially a mechanism for employers to schedule overtime without providing any overtime compensation. Like comp time, it promotes irregular work weeks http://www.epinet.org/briefin... that may reduce workers' income or reduce leisure time.
[b]EMPLOYEES FINANCE INTEREST-FREE LOAN TO EMPLOYER:[/b] Comp time proposals that have been introduced in Congress would permit employers "to deny use of comp time for a year or more." The effect would be that employers would "receive an interest-free loan from their employees, http://www.epinet.org/content... while workers who gave up premium pay would get shortchanged by devalued banked comp time." If some of the banked comp time hours end up unused, "the employees are likely to wind up working longer annual hours than they would have without a comp time program." AFL-CIO President John Sweeney explains, "comp time is 'paid leave' only in the sense that it is 'paid for' by the workers' own lost overtime earning, http://www.commondreams.org/n... minus interest.
[b]LESS EXPENSIVE OVERTIME MEANS MORE OVERTIME:[/b] Allowing the substitution of time off for overtime will "lower the marginal cost of scheduling overtime" and "intensif[y] the economic incentives for employers to lengthen the number of overtime hours scheduled per week." http://www.epinet.org/content... The result would be longer and more unpredictable work weeks – a development that is anything but "family friendly."
[b]PUBLIC SECTOR IS NOT A GOOD MODEL:[/b] Advocates of comp time note that it has been available for some time within the public sector. But that doesn't mean it is a good idea for the private sector. Specifically, "there is a real danger of losing comp time accruals [in the private sector] in the event of a business failure." http://www.epinet.org/content... For example, In 2000 – when the economy was still booming – 550,000 U.S. businesses closed. Also, "the relative absence of unions in the private sector leaves employees vulnerable to employer abuse." Finally, since private sector employees are not required to provide any paid leave for vacations at all there is nothing than would "prevent an employer from reducing or eliminating the paid leave it provides now and substituting comp time in its place."
[b]Poor/hyper-rich [i]dumb[/i] Dubya ...[i] Poor U.S.A.!!! [/i]... Bush would certainly win the award for the [i]stupidest[/i] "leader (?)" [[i]sic[/i]] on the planet, [i]bar none[/i], if such an award existed!!! ... Even his aides are continually forced to make excuses for his idiocies; come-up with implausible justifications for his buffooneries; and, rehabilitate his continual lies, deceptions and falsehoods perpetrated upon the American people ...
Could it be that Dubya is simply "[i]drugged-out[/i]"??? Please take a few minutes and read the following articles:[/b]
[u][b]Aide: President misspoke, but meaning clear[/b][/u]
President Bush signed legislation Thursday authorizing $417 billion in defense spending. In his remarks, the president misspoke when talking about the war on terrorism.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Later, press secretary Scott McClellan assured reporters that Bush had no intent to harm Americans. Rather, it "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak," he said.
"The American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction," McClellan said. "And the terrorists know by his actions he means it." - [i]Chicago Tribune[/i], http://www.chicagotribune.com...,1,1278494.story?coll=chi-printnews- hed
[b]We can surely [i]do better than this [/i]buffoon ...[/b]
Bush/Cheney Inc.'s Internet 'Whisper' Campaign Spreads Lies About Teresa Heinz-Kerry ...
[b]Teresa Heinz-Kerry, [i]as well as her husband[/i], the Democratic Candidate for President of the United States of America, John F. Kerry, are the objects of horrendous neo-con smear campaigns viciously bloated with massive lies, deceptions and falsehoods ...[/b]
Please take the time to read "[i]Smother Teresa[/i]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... , outlining the mendacious neo-orwellian attacks; dishonest & dishonorable slanders and libels; and, ugly dirty tricks waged by the corrupt Bush/Cheney's GOP neo-fascist attack machine that has a [i]vested interest [/i]in keeping their [i]corporate-take-all [/i]Bush regime puppets in office in order to exploit the US taxpayers and working people here at home and abroad.
False allegations about Democratic Presidential Candidate John F. Kerry's wife have been circulating for months, but the velocity of the Internet "whispering campaign" picked up substantially with the approach of the Fall campaign.
One false message claims Teresa Heinz Kerry gave $4 million to a foundation that used the funds to support a list of "radical" groups including one with alleged links to Hamas and another that is said to have offered to provide a lawyer for Saddam Hussein. But public records show otherwise. Heinz Kerry's foundation money was directed to projects such as "Sustainable Pittsburgh," which promotes "smart growth" strategies.
Another widely circulated e-mail claims Kerry and his wife "own" dozens of H.J. Heinz Company factories in Europe and Asia. It accuses Kerry of hypocrisy for denouncing offshoring of US jobs while "making millions off that cheap labor."
That's also false: neither of them own Heinz. Public records show Heinz Kerry isn't an officer of the company, isn't on the company's board of directors, and isn't even close to being the largest shareholder. The Heinz Endowments do own Heinz stock -- less than 4% of the company -- but income from that stock goes to charity, not to the Kerrys personally.
[b]Analysis[/b]
FactCheck.org has received hundreds of copies of these two e-mails from subscribers who asked us to check out whether there's any truth to them. They have been circulating like a virus, relayed by people who either don't bother to check out whether they are true, or don't care. It's the modern equivalent of the old "whispering campaign" in which false rumors served as political weapons.
[b]Teresa Heinz Kerry and the Tides Foundation[/b]
The more virulent of these nasty, false mailings alleges that she's given more than $4 million to the Tides Foundation http://www.tides.org/index_td... of San Francisco to fund a variety of "radical" groups including some that the message suggests are supportive of terrorists.
To start, that's flatly denied by Maxwell King, the President of the Heinz Endowments. King told FactCheck.org:
[u]King:[/u] Neither she nor her foundations has ever funded any of the extremist organizations or unpatriotic causes listed in the email you forwarded. Period.
The Tides Foundation also says that no Heinz funds have gone to any of the groups named in the e-mail. Further, it says Tides itself gives little or no money to several of them. Christopher J. Herrera, Director of Communications of the Tides Foundation, told us that the allegation about a Ramsey Clark group is utterly false, for example.
[u]Herrera:[/u] We have [i]made no grants to this organization [/i]nor can we find any association with it in our records.
According to Herrera, Tides Foundation gifts to the National Lawyers Guild total "approximately $30,000 over the last ten years," and donations to the Council on Islamic Relations amounted to a single $5,000 grant in 2002 for a Southern California project called the "Interfaith Coalition Against Hate Crimes." But even those relatively small sums didn't come from Heinz money as alleged.
[b]Where $8 million went[/b]
Both groups say the only money given directly to the Tides Foundation by the Heinz Endowments was $230,000 given between 1994 and 1998, all used to support a pollution-prevention initiative and other environmental projects in Western Pennsylvania.
Much larger sums have gone through a related legal entity called the Tides Center, http://www.tidescenter.org/ab... which administers grants for groups receiving donations that are not themselves incorporated as a nonprofit organization. The Tides Center takes a fee, typically between 7% and 9%, for handling payrolls, disbursing, legal and administrative work, but the rest legally must go to the group for which the donor intended it.
The Heinz Endowments released a list http://www.heinz.org/files/HP... of grants totaling $8.1 million given through Tides since 1994. None of the money went for the "radical" groups named in the e-mail.Instead, the grants included such sums as:
--- $1.6 million for "Sustainable Pittsburgh," http://www.sustainablepittsbu... which promotes such projects as "bike to work week."
--- Just over $1 million for the "Chemical Strategies Partnership," http://www.chemicalstrategies... which looks for ways to cut the use of chemicals in industry.
--- $800,000 for the "Green Building Alliance," http://www.gbapgh.org/ which promotes buildings that use less energy.
--- Nearly $1.4 million for the "Pennsylvania Energy Project," which spun off several renewable-energy projects before going out of business at the end of 2000.
Included in the $8.1 million are grants from the Howard Heinz Endowment and also the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, which collectively make up the Heinz Endowments. Heinz Kerry chairs the Howard Heinz Endowment, the larger of the two, and is a member of the board of directors of the smaller Vira I. Heinz Endowment.
The list appears to be accurate: FactCheck.org checked each grant on the list against those that the Heinz endowments reported to the US Internal Revenue Service on their form 990's for the five years 1998 through 2002. We found no discrepancies: all the grants on the master list matched grants reported on the IRS forms, where there could be legal penalties for false reporting. We would have checked 990's for other years but those before 1998 are not readily available, and the two Heinz endowments aren't scheduled to file their forms for 2003 until Aug. 15.
(Anyone who wants to check for themselves can call up the Heinz form 990's here http://www.guidestar.org/inde... , where they are posted for all to see by Guidestar, a national database of nonprofit organizations. The service is free, but registration is required.)
[b]The Scaife Connection[/b]
This false allegation has its roots in a study http://www.capitalresearch.or... published in December, 2003 by the conservative Capital Research Center of Washington, DC. It stated that the Tides Foundation and Tides Center "effectively 'launder' donor dollars" so that "the original donor can’t be linked to the ultimate recipient." It said the Heinz Endowments had given $4,298,500 to Tides between 1995 and 2001. That turned out to be much less than the actual amount, and far from being "laundered," donations from Heinz are listed on the endowment's website http://www.heinz.org/index.as...,J4 as well as in publicly available form 990's.
One of the study's authors then wrote an opinion piece that appeared in the [i]Pittsburgh Tribune-Review[/i], accusing Heinz of teaming with Tides to engage in "secretive funneling of cash . . . to extreme left-wing activist groups." In fact, none of the Heinz money was actually earmarked for any of the organizations listed. Nevertheless, the two articles have been quoted widely on conservative newspaper editorial pages and on conservative websites, one of which is quoted in the bogus e-mail we cite here.
Worth noting is that the publisher of the [i]Pittsburgh Tribune-Review[/i] is conservative Republican donor William Mellon Scaife, whose charities also gave $260,000 to Capital Research in 2002, according to a March 7 report http://www.post-gazette.com/p... in the rival [i]Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[/i]. Scaife attracted notice in the 1990's when he funded some of the journalistic investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs. It was the editorial page director for Scaife's [i]Tribune-Review[/i], Colin McNickle, whom Heinz Kerry told to "shove it" in a much-reported incident during the Democratic National Convention July 25.
[b]Heinz Kerry and the Overseas Food Factories[/b]
Another e-mail that many of our subscribers have asked about claims -- falsely -- that Heinz Kerry and her husband "own" factories overseas and hypocritically are "making millions off all that cheap labor" while denouncing Bush for letting jobs go to other countries.
This one can also be proved false from publicly available records. In fact, Heinz Kerry has no role in running the food company.
As the H.J. Heinz Company reports in its most recent proxy statement on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Heinz Kerry is not on the company's board of directors, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... nor is she listed among the principal shareholders http://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... (those who control 5% or more of the outstanding shares). The charitable foundations she controls once held much more Heinz stock but sold off most of it nearly a decade ago to diversify their investments. The Heinz company said in a recent public statement http://www.heinz.com/jsp/pres... that she currently controls less than 4% of the company's stock. The largest shareholder is actually a California investment company that owns roughly three times as much as the Heinz charitable foundations.
About all that is true in this e-mail is that the Heinz company has a number of factories overseas.
Its most recent annual report, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... also publicly available at the SEC's website, lists 32 factories owned in Europe (and three more leased), and 18 in Asia and the Pacific (plus four more leased). Heinz also reported selling just over $3 billion in products in Europe and more than $1 billion more in Asia and the Pacific -- accounting for roughly half the company's global sales.
The company issued a statement http://www.heinz.com/jsp/pres... back in March, when this e-mail first began circulating, saying that 60% of its sales are outside the US (including those in Mexico and Canada as well as Europe and Asia) and that it locates plants in other countries "to accommodate those customers by providing facilities closer to those markets" and "to pack the freshest ingredients, tailor its recipes to local tastes and deliver the final products in a timely and efficient manner."
The company also distanced itself from the Kerry campaign and Heinz Kerry:
[u]H.J. Heinz Co:[/u] In light of some misleading speculation, the H. J. Heinz Company would like to make clear that neither Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry, Senator John Kerry nor any member of their family is involved in the management or board of the H. J. Heinz Company. . . . [i]They have no involvement in the Heinz® Ketchup business or any of the company’s other brands or products[/i].
The Heinz company also said it is "nonpartisan." Worth noting, however, is that the company's Political Action Committee has given nearly all its donations to [u]Republican candidates[/u], including $5,000 to the Bush campaign and nothing to Kerry's as of the most recent reports http://www.opensecrets.org/pa... available. That's additional evidence, as if any was needed, that the company isn't "owned" by Kerry's wife.
[b]Sources[/b]
. Heinz Endowments, "The Heinz Endowments Grants to Tides Center / Tides Foundation," http://www.heinz.org/files/HP... news release, undated.
. Howard Heinz Endowment, IRS Form 990PF, fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002.
. Vira I Heinz Endowment, a Pennsylvania Non Profit Corp, IRS Form 990PF, fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002.
. Gretchen Randall and Tom Randall, "The Tides Foundation: http://www.capitalresearch.or... Liberal Crossroads of Money and Ideas," [u]Foundation Watch[/u], Capital Research Center, Washington DC, December 2003.
. Dennis B. Roddy, "Right zooms in on Heinz grants; http://www.post-gazette.com/p... Heinz Kerry's foundation work provide grist for foes," [i]Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [/i], 7 march 2003.
. H.J. Heinz Company, "SCHEDULE 14A, Proxy Statement http://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," 2 July 2004.
. H.J. Heinz Company, "FORM 10-K: ANNUAL REPORT http://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended April 28, 2004" 17 June 2004.
. H.J. Heinz Company, "H.J. Heinz Company Confirms Its Widely Held Public Ownership And Non-Partisan Status," news release, http://www.heinz.com/jsp/pres... 22 March 2004.
[b]Can All The Mad King George's Men Put Humpty-Dumpty-Dubya Back Together Again???[/b]
[b]"We the People" should be very concerned for the security and welfare of our nation because the Mad King George is[i] to put it bluntly [/i]"losing it" ... [/b]Dubya is a 'Dry-Drunk' who has spent his entire[i] squalid ne'er-do-well life[/i] being taken care of by Poppy Bush [i]and/or [/i]Poppy's rapacious corporate cronies ... Dubya is acting [i]desperate[/i]:-- [i]i.e.[/i] making alot of mistakes in his speeches (we already know his [i]actions[/i] are miserable failures on[i] both [/i]the insane neo-con foreign and neo-fascist domestic scenes ...) -- storming off the stage when asked tough questions -- and, apparently his dwindling mental state is even worrying those around him ... Refer to "[b]Sounding a dubious terrorist alert to deflect questions about Bush's mental state[/b]" on http://www.onlinejournal.com/... ... A [i]desperate, out-of-control [/i]man is [i]very, very dangerous [/i]and is certainly [i]unfit to serve in office[/i], particularly the most powerful office in the land ...
[i][b]The final days of Bush?[/b][/i]
"[i]Whom The Gods Would Destroy, They First Make Mad With Power[/i]"—Charles A. Beard
Could it be? Is it possible? Is that picture of an angry Bush stalking away from a reporter's questions predictive of a widening crack in the monolith? Whatever it is, it's the buzz on the Beltway: the pieces are about to fall. And all the king's men and all the king's spinners are trying to put them together again.
This reported from capitolhillblue.com by Editor Theresa Hampton in her 7/28/04 article, "[b]Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior[/b]." http://www.capitolhillblue.co... Yes. Prescription drugs are being doled out by Col., Richard J. Tubb, the White House Physician, to the president [sic] of the United States, George W. Bush.
They "impair the president's [sic] mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis," aides commented privately. Though many of us had that feeling long before the aides spoke. And they added, "It's a double-edged sword. We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a president [sic] who is alert mentally." Uh huh, uh huh, a lot of us have been saying that too for a long time. Especially when he charged into Iraq without our major allies, UN or world approval, or any real evidence Saddam had WMD. Or bio, chemical, or "nucular" material, like yellow-cake uranium from Niger, which he said they had but didn't. He fibbed big-time (I mean, CIA intelligence did). Whichever, many, many people have died as a result, and the world is very angry. Obviously, Bush is very angry with the world.
Dr. Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after the Bushman stormed off stage July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron former chief, Kenneth J. Lay. You remember him, the guy with the handcuffs on, saying he was innocent of all wrongdoing. Yeah. Backstage, Bush screamed the M.F.-word (plural) to describe the reporters, and to keep them away from him, as he tore an aide a new A-word (singular). He added, "If you can't, I'll find someone who can."
Jesus, could conscience be catching up with this guy? Is he getting sensitive on us? Does he have bad dreams of all those poor souls going down in the Towers? Especially since he as CIC (commander in chief) couldn't, wouldn't, didn't scramble a plane into the air for an hour and 15 minutes, as planeswent crashing into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in rural Pennsylvania. And he grinned through his photo-op with some endangered kids with whom he was reading "a goat story." Is it all coming back to haunt him? I mean that's pretty crazy stuff.
That kind of stuff can bring the old mood swings on and those nasty obscene outbursts. It's enough to drive a man to drink again, especially if he quit cold turkey and not in a supervised 12-step program, as psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank pointed out in his book, Bush On the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. What's more the prominent George Washington University psychiatrist diagnosed the Bush as a "paranoid megalomaniac." Webster defines the first descriptor as "characterized by suspiciousness and persecution." The second word as "marked by infantile feelings of omnipotence and grandeur." That's a tricky combo. You know, like a Nixon or a Hitler (whose Third Reich Grandpa Prescott Bush coincidentally bankrolled, until FDR busted him under the Trading With the Enemy Act in 1942).
In addition to Bush's "untreated alcoholism," Dr. Frank noted his "lifelong stream of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks, like blowing up frogs [not the French] with firecrackers, insulting journalists, gloating over state executions, pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad." Dr. Frank is not alone in his diagnosis. Other prominent doctors, like Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School praise the assessments of Dr. Frank.
The doctors also question the intelligence of administering powerful anti-depressant drugs to an old stoner (excuse me, a person with a history of chemical dependency). Bush is an admitted alcoholic (praise for his honesty about something, certainly not for his non-military career). What's more, tales of his cocaine-use as a younger man, sniff-sniff, line up from his runs for Texas governor to his first presidential campaign.
Not surprisingly, the staff at the house on Pennsylvania Avenue didn't return calls seeking their take on the Theresa Hampton article. In fact, who's to say the staff didn't leak the facts? It seems amazing such a tight-lipped administration would even mention it. Could they be getting ready to dump George? Throw a net around him? Send him off in a chopper waving his fingers in Vs, fly him to a bunker in Minnesota? Could Dick Cheney be ready to step in as the neocon presidential candidate and somebody kinder and gentler (ahem) like House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as neocon veep? Folks with whom the far right or—change that market target—the moderate right could feel right about, let's say a Senator McCain? Never hurts to have a real war hero.
What's more, even though the exact drugs or dosages to control depression and behavior are not known, we do know these pack enough wallop to keep Bush under control, perhaps wipe the smirk off his face. Yow! But given Republican propriety uber alles, details of Mr. Bush's health, drugs or treatment are not public record. Though they sound pretty public to me. And are guarded, zealously, by the will-o-the-wisps surrounding His Loonyness. It is The Madness of King George redux, updated for 2004. Though he's still out there folks, only yesterday endorsing a new post to oversee intelligence, a person that he (Bush) could hire or fire, according to the Monday's New York Times. Isn't that a comfort?
Yet veteran White House watchers are comparing this situation to Reagan's second term: when aides managed to sit on the fact that the Gip's memory lapses were sadly signaling the onset of the big A (Alzheimer's). This is especially not funny for this author, whose father, somewhat misguided, loved the Gip, and even kept a portrait-sized photo near his bed in the nursing home room, after he contracted Alzheimer's himself, and lapsed into a heart-rending never-never land. Which only illustrates how we, from right to center to left, are all so vulnerable. And how this all too human flesh is connected, even by stem-cell research, like it or not, and can even be compassionate to a conservative who's yet to earn compassion, having left millions of kids behind, waiting for $26 billion in funding for their program. And so on.
Read all about it. George Bush now walking alone in the rose garden. Behind him the pillaged environment, the monopoly of excessive tax cuts to the rich, the Saudi gifts to Arbusto and all the Bushes, insider trading at Harken, the Texas Rangers scam, Tom Hicks paying $10 million for Bush's $600,000 worth of shares, the Carlyle Group side-income. And so on. His reneging on more international treaties than any American president. His degrading Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. His most executions by any governor in American history. And so on.
With the help of brother Jeb, governor of Florida, and daddy's appointments to the Supreme Court, becoming president [sic] after losing the popular election by over 500,000 votes. Shattering the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. Setting a record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. In his first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month. Members of his cabinet the richest of any administration in U.S. history. Setting the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by any U.S. president [sic]. All-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. The doling out of 100 million-plus dollars from the White House to Born Again Christians, and another billion from a Capital fund, but excluding other religious groups. Buying votes. Corrupting all our values. And so on, a list that goes down your arm and into the dirt easily . . .
The fewest numbers of press conferences of any president [sic] since the advent of television. The all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period, including taking off the entire month of August prior to the 9-11 attacks. The all-time record for most people worldwide to protest at once in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind. Cutting health care benefits for war veterans and supporting a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime. And so on, and so on . . .
It's no wonder Bush, according to Teresa Hampton & William D. McTavish's July 29 follow-up article on capitolhillblue.com: " White House aides say Bush has retreated into a tightly-controlled environment where only top political advisors like Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are allowed. Even White House chief of staff Andrew Card complains he has less and less access to the president [sic]." Even Andy Card has to tip toe around Bush. Yet only Attorney General John Ashcroft, a fellow fundamentalist, father of the USA PATRIOT Act, remains in the tight circle, in which he and Bush have earned the title, "The Blue Brothers," both believing they're on a mission from God. Oh boy. Can you hear that Twilight Zone music in the background? And Tom Ridge complaining he gets too little face time with the boss (thank God for little things, Tom). W thinks he is God, not just president [sic].
Ridge staffers quip that Ashcroft is Bush's Himmler, as in Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Nazi SS. And lest we think Cheney is the Man behind the Man, Ridge staffers whisper its "Ashcroft . . . reason for all to be very, very afraid." Even Rummy, who predicted two of the plane-hits during 9/11 (how did he know that?), even old gnarled Rummy "is outta there, no matter what happens in November."
It's all unraveling in the Final Days into a "siege mentality:" calls, emails monitored, everyone under suspicion for "disloyalty to the crown," Kafka the doorman; one staffer questioned for dating a Democrat, imagine that, in these days of Mary Matalin and James Carville as man and wife. And the paranoia merely reflects the big guy's, or as Emerson would say, "institutions are but the shadows of the men who lead them." So hunker in the bunker, Laura. You never know who's coming to dinner. Could it be the tall guy from New England with funny hair, his sidekick with the big southern smile, their wives and kids?
And could a White House presidential portrait be whispering in the night to Bush, as they all did to Nixon . . ."We find these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . . ."
Now there's some sanity. A breath of fresh air that could clear the atmosphere, that could sober the brain functions, that could bring some checks and balances back to an unbalanced White House. Though it still remains the duty of every American mumbling his or her dissatisfaction, to vote it so, to monitor the vote, to fulfill the prescriptions of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution or suffer the unimaginably crazy consequences. And that's no joke.
[b]Jerry Mazza is a free-lance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.[/b] - http://www.onlinejournal.com/...
[b]Yesterday, WinstonSmith published "[i]On the Lighter Side:-- Another Bush Blooper[/i] ..." http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... , citing a statement made by our own imbecilic Mad King George ... [/b]Yet, one wonders[i] whether or not [/i]this[i] really [/i]is a "blooper", [i]or[/i] is Bush really just a dangerous opportunistic buffoon who actually[i] is[/i] seeking the [i]ways-and-means[/i] to harm our country and our people in order to [i]"win" at all costs [/i]the upcoming presidential election??? ... We already know that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]is (1) rigging the election in Florida & who knows where else; (2) terrorizing and scaring Americans with phony terrorist alerts based upon 3-4 year old "intelligence"; and, (3) waging a neo-hitlerian-style campaign of lies, deceptions and falsehoods against John F. Kerry ...
[b]Sorely in need of a laugh?[/b] In a clip aired on CNN, Bush revealed at least his subconscious knowledge of the damage he's wreaking on the country: "[i]Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we[/i]." Brian Montopoli over at Campaign Desk http://www.campaigndesk.org/a... speculates as to why CNN would air that statement without comment.
The [i]Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (?) [sic] [/i] http://swiftvets.com/ have scheduled to run a venomous attack TV ad in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin (you can watch the ad on their website). The ad quotes numerous men who claim to have served with John Kerry in Vietnam and gave medical aid to him. [b][It turns out that these vile charlatans[i] didn't even actually serve [/i]with John F. Kerry!!! http://www.tblog.com/template... ][/b]
"He can't be trusted.... He lied about his injuries.... When the chips are down, you can't count on him." These are the attacks leveled by the members of this group. Sen. John McCain [i]has immediately requested [/i] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... that George Bush's campaign denounce the ad -- but one has not yet appeared. [b][But of course, the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]won't denounce this disgraceful defamation of Kerry's war record based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods ... because Karl[i] 'Joseph Goebbles' [/i]Rove uses [i]neo-con, neo-nazi tactics on everything [/i]from taking our nation to war; to economic rape of working people; and, now, of course, to spread ugly, nasty [i]made-up shit [/i]about John F. Kerry!][/b]
No doubt in a news-void environment, the ad will get covered as "controversial," but there's likely to be little reporting on who is behind this group (especially the funders) before the damage is done. [i]Disinfopedia[/i] http://www.disinfopedia.org/w... has a detailed listing of the names, political ties, and recent efforts made by these swift boat veterans, and it doesn't look like they decided to run these ads because they believed that the people should be informed about the "truth." Maybe someone will report on who these folks are before they report on the ad.
[b][The [i]Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (?) [sic] [/i]should be renamed to the [i]Swift Boat Veteran-Whores [/i]willing to sell their pathetic "souls" to their neo-fascist [i]Pimp[/i] Karl [i]'Joseph Goebbles' [/i]Rove for $$$ bucks $$$!!!][/b]
More than 6 million workers will lose their right to overtime pay starting August 23, the Economic Policy Institute http://www.epinet.org/content... said recently. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the new rules that will deny overtime benefits are intended to simplify regulations concerning overtime eligibility. While various business associations are supportive of the new regulations, many workers are expressing alarm that the revisions fail to protect their rights and will exempt a significant portion of the workforce from receiving overtime benefits. Here is a sample of what American newspapers are saying about overtime pay.
[b]St. Louis Post-Dispatch – St. Louis, Missouri July 16, 2004 – Letter to the Editor – Link not available [/b]
"You bust your tail for 50 hours a week to support your family. Your children understand Mommy or Daddy won't be home because they need the extra money to pay for silly things like food, medicine and birthday presents.
"Now Bush makes it easier for your employer to take money out of your paycheck. You work just as long, spend just as much time away from your family and actually make less for your efforts."
[b]Charleston Gazette – Charleston, W.Va. July 28, 2004 – Editorial – Link not available[/b]
"The U.S. Department of Labor, controlled by President Bush's appointees, recently promulgated new rules to deny many workers overtime benefits, although both Republicans and Democrats in Congress opposed the Bush plan.
"A recent Washington Post article noted that Bush appointees to the National Labor Relations Board overturned a previous decision (made when Democrats controlled the board) which allowed graduate teaching and research assistants working at private universities to form unions for their common protection.
"Thousands of graduate students had previously joined labor unions to successfully push for better salaries and working conditions under the previous decision.
"Before retiring from West Virginia University, I worked as a full-time classified employee and attended graduate school at WVU for many years. I knew many hardworking graduate students who taught a 'full load' to undergraduates and did research for low wages under poor working conditions. Many had families and many barely scraped by on their meager earnings and poor benefits.
"Without law or a union, research and teaching graduate assistants are at the mercy of their chairman and major professor for income, grades, graduation and future references for good-paying jobs.
"Surely our government can do better than to reduce workers' salaries by denying them overtime pay, and by blocking their right join a union to bargain collectively for a better life, while they work and study as graduate teaching and research assistants (student employees)."
[b]Austin American-Statesman – Austin, Texas July 24, 2004 – Editorial – Link not available[/b]
"They…want to change overtime rules making millions of Americans vulnerable to losing their overtime pay. The administration has inserted a fixed-income dollar amount of $23,660 of annual income. If you earn more than that, you can be worked overtime without being paid extra. This figure is not adjusted automatically for inflation. Eventually no one will qualify for overtime pay. Employers will have no reason to limit workers hours to 40 hours per week. They will then work them longer hours and hire fewer new people.
"On August 23, 2004, this change in overtime will take effect unless Congress stops it. Please write or call your Senators and your Representative."
[b]Sun-Sentinel – Fort Lauderdale, Fla. July 28, 2004—Editorial – Link not available[/b]
"The most sweeping revisions to overtime pay rules since the Great Depression understandably are creating angst among workers. But businesses, not the government, will implement these rules. Employers must do so with an eye on their companies' needs and the employment marketplace.
"Like any set of government regulations, the new OT rules are loaded with exemptions that cause confusion. What seems clear is that fewer workers will be eligible for more pay when they put in more hours.
"Employer and trade organizations back the revisions, saying they are needed to keep pace with workplace changes over the past 50 years. Labor organizations and pro-union think tanks oppose them, even though unionized workers covered by collective bargaining contracts are exempt from the revisions.
"But Beltway debaters miss a key point: The rules don't prevent a company from compensating an employee for extra hours put in the line of duty.
"That's an important distinction. The U.S. unemployment rate stands at 5.6 percent. That's not far from the point -- under 5 percent -- where the labor pool gets stretched so thin that businesses can't find qualified, dependable and conscientious employees.
"That means companies better think carefully before cutting back on OT pay, and losing their hardest working employees to competitors.
"That goes for nurses, especially. The U.S. health care industry doesn't have enough nurses as it is. Radically changing pay structures by cutting these valued care-providers out of the OT line-up, as the new rules permit, risks worsening the shortage.
"The government may be right. The new OT rules might make life simpler for employers, and make it cheaper for them to operate their businesses. But opting for the simpler, cheaper life could cost penny-pinching companies later on in the more competitive, complex global economy."
[b]Dallas Morning News – Dallas, Texas July 21, 2004 – Letter to the Editor – Link not available[/b]
"According to the Department of Labor, registered nurses, due to their education and skills, could be classified as exempt and lose the right to overtime pay.
"The public thinks there is a nursing shortage now? Just wait."
[b]The Dayton Daily News – Dayton, Fla. July 14, 2004 – Letter to the Editor – Link not available[/b]
"Why won't President George W. Bush stop conserving those compassionate values he goes on about and quit his unpopular assault on overtime pay? If he obtains his goal of exempting millions of workers from overtime, some earning as little as $23,000 a year, how many will see their paycheck shrink?
"Both the House and the Senate initially voted against it, and many thousands of Americans have contacted the White House expressing dismay.
"But Bush remains undaunted.
"If concerned men and women don't stop it, on Aug. 23, Bush's overtime pay take-away goes into effect. Families rely on every bit of their paychecks to take care of their everyday needs. Often, overtime pay may be the difference between keeping one's head above water and drowning.
"Members of Congress are deliberating now before a final vote. Call them and let them know we aren't asking for manna from heaven, just a little honest pay for honest work."
[b]Write Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] neo-fascist impoverishment of working people to profit [i]greedy and gluttonous[/i] corporate [i]fat-cats and top-dogs [/i]be over-turned immediately!!![/b]
Electoral Vote Predictor & Zogby Poll Shows Kerry Is Ahead Of Bush ... [Map] ...
[b]This is the most important election in modern times for it will [i]change the course of history [/i]for generations to come ... "We the People" must take this opportunity to elect John F. Kerry as President of the United States of America in order to restore dignity, integrity and honesty to the White House ...[/b]
[b]Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:- Kerry 307 (Blue) - Bush 231 (Red)[/b] [b]Legend:[/b] Dark Blue=Strong Kerry / Light Blue=Weak Kerry / Dark Red=Strong Bush / Light Red=Weak Bush ... [b]Aug. 4 New polls: AZ PA TN VA WA [/b] / [u]Current Electoral Vote Predictor[/u]: http://www.electoral-vote.com...
[b]Senator Kerry Retains A Lead Through His Convention, New Zogby Interactive Presidential Battleground Poll Reveals[/b]
Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry remains solidly in the lead after a week in which his party and candidacy grabbed the political spotlight at their national convention in Boston, a new edition of Zogby Interactive polls in 16 battleground states shows.
After a string of good news for the Kerry campaign stretching back to the selection of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as the vice presidential running mate a month ago, he leads in the Electoral College by a 291-215 margin, the individual state polls shows. Four of the 16 states in the poll collection - with a combined total of 32 electoral votes - were excluded from the calculation because the races there are too close to call.
Those states are Missouri (11 votes), Nevada (5 votes), Tennessee (11 votes), and New Mexico (5 votes). Mr. Bush won all but New Mexico four years ago.
Mr. Kerry picked up ground in Florida, while Mr. Bush made up ground in West Virginia, Tennessee, and Ohio.
[b]ZOGBY'S RACE SO FAR: --- August 3 --- July 26 ----[/b]
-------[i] President Bush [/i]----------- 215 ---------- 220 ------
Please note that this chart reflects the race based on the premise that the 34 states not included in the poll will fall to the candidate of the same party to which they fell in 2000. This chart reflects only an estimation of where the Presidential race is, in part because the race in several states is within the margin of error. Four states are so close that their Electoral College votes are not included in this calculation. Those states are Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, and New Mexico.
Mr. Kerry continues a strong season on the campaign trail as the war for the White House enters a new phase. In the past, Mr. Kerry had benefited not from the power of his own personality or compelling platform of programs, but rather by the political troubles Mr. Bush has suffered as Commander in Chief because of military setbacks in Iraq, or because of the sluggish economy, or by the electricity generated by the addition of John Edwards to the team.
This newest edition of the poll, however, comes as Mr. Kerry was the focus of a concentrated four-day program at the convention. There’s not much movement in the polls, but that wasn’t expected because there are abnormally low numbers of undecided voters in this race.
Republicans tried to push up expectations that Mr. Kerry would get a big bounce coming out of the convention so that later on, when that bounce didn’t materialize, it would reflect negatively on the Democratic nominee. It is still unclear whether that tactic worked.
The two candidates continued to canvass the nation raising boatloads of campaign cash, much of it for their political parties instead of their own campaigns, with the unspoken understanding that the parties would then turn around and spend that money advertising or otherwise aiding the election of their Presidential candidate. In battleground states this weekend, Mr. Kerry’s advertising campaign went off the air, and the next day, the Democratic National Committee’s slate of commercials began.
So intense is the battle in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania that the Bush and Kerry campaigns almost passed on Interstate 70 Saturday in western Pennsylvania, as Mr. Bush motored east after stumping in Cleveland, Canton, and Cambridge, Ohio, and Mr. Kerry was headed west to campaign in Zanesville, Ohio.
Their motorcades are so large and disruptive to highway traffic that it's probably good news for the economy that they didn’t meet.
[i]Pollster John Zogby: "Kerry had a good week and the numbers reflect it --especially in West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Florida. These represent his bump in the Electoral College. Meanwhile, President Bush has improved in a few states, notably Ohio where he has widened his lead. Ohio is a must win for Bush.
"These numbers track well with our national telephone sampling after the convention, where Kerry now leads by 5 points -- 48% to 43%.
"It will shortly be time for the Republicans to convene their convention in New York. The President will get a small bump, but -- like Kerry -- not a big one. There is just not enough give this year[/i]."
"[i]If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen[/i]." - Samuel Adams
"[i]No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear ... Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.[/i]" - Edmund Burke
"[i]The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts ... The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion.[/i] - Edmund Burke
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]ruthlessly and cynically manipulates the American public using [i]fear, terror and tyranny [/i]... "We the People" must [i]stand-up with courage [/i]in the face of the traitorous Bush regime's heinous intimidation tactics and say 'NO' to Bush/Cheney's neo-con fascism, and 'YES' to Kerry/Edwards' vision of a better future, in order to save our [i]democratic[/i] Republic from[i] a fate worse than death [/i]...[/b]
[i]Bush Exploits Fear of Terrorism against Kerry [/i]
[u][b]Fear and the Ballot Box[/b][/u]
It is always risky to play with terrorism and the fear it arouses, to move it or use it for political or electoral ends. Spanish voters did not allow themselves to be taken in when they punished the Aznar government for having tried to manipulate the March 11 attack to its advantage and they delivered victory to the Socialist Zapatero.
What's happening in the United States right now also calls for reflection. Since this weekend, shortly after the conclusion of the Democratic Party convention which anointed its presidential candidate John Kerry, and just following the criticisms leveled by the Congressional Commission on September 11, the Bush Administration waved the specter of the terrorist threat once more. The alert level was raised in New York and in Washington. Now the government has been forced to acknowledge that the intelligence invoked was several years old, dating to even before September 11, 2001, before asserting that it had been recently updated.
Under these circumstances, we have to ask ourselves whether it really was a coincidence, or whether this threat was put forward once again to break the Kerry candidacy's surge. In fact, as the [i]New York Times[/i], which, along with [i]The Washington Post[/i], was the first to express some doubts, observed, the polls show that management of terrorist risk is George Bush's sole advantage in an extremely close election. Bush knows he can make easy pickings this way. American public opinion, still traumatized by the September 11, 2001 attacks, is ready to believe a lot. The Democratic opposition cannot allow itself to attack the "commander-in-chief" about so sensitive a subject and has had to abandon the initiative to the sitting president out of fear - should an incident occur - of being taxed with a lack of patriotism.
However, when a government's credibility about such a serious matter is called into question, then all its policies run that risk. And, ever since its arrival in power January 2001, the Bush administration has never stopped playing on the politics of tension and fear- even to the point of brainwashing the public, as the debate on the undiscoverable weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq file demonstrates. September 11 and the war in Afghanistan most opportunely allowed an unelected president to freeze political debate and adopt a series of exceptional measures. The war in Iraq - planned well before the al-Qaeda attacks - initially exploited this advantage.
We would like to believe that George Bush did not decide to use al-Qaeda as his best electoral agent, but the staging of last few days, after so many others, seems to suggest the opposite. Certainly, the terrorist threat exists and attacks are always possible, in the United States and elsewhere. However, far from reinforcing democracy, manipulating public opinion, this politics of fear, undermine it.
[b]The heart-breaking murders, tortures, abuses, rapes, sodomy (including little children) and other heinous atrocities committed by US Troops under Rumsfeld's control at Abu Ghraib during the corrupt Bush/Cheney regime's neo-con reign will [i]go down in history [/i]as a dark and criminally barbaric action carried out under a traitorous and dictatorial Bush administration [i]run-amok [/i]... [/b] "We the People" should hang our collective heads in shame in the aftermath of the tyrannical Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]illegal and immoral warmongering in Iraq and their lawless "brute force" arrogance and corruption that led to Abu Ghraib ...
Instead of disclosing the truth to the American people; demonstrating righteous outrage that such neo-hitlerian barbarity took place; and firing those responsible, the neo-con Bushies are [i]covering-up [/i]their neo-fascist War Crimes ... Scapegoating a few US Troops who carried-out orders from above is morally and ethically wrong, and just as Adolf Hitler didn't personally shove Jewish people into Gas Chambers & then shovel them into Ovens, but is nonetheless responsible-- so to are Bush/Cheney responsible for these horrendous Crimes Against Humanity ... Please read "[u]Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies[/u]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... ...
[u][b]Failure at Abu Ghraib Go All The Way to the Top[/b][/u]
As a high profile hearing for Pfc. Lynndie England unfolds this week, Bush administration officials continue to deflect blame for Abu Ghraib on to underlings and refuse to accept responsibility for egregious abuses of Iraqi prisoners.
[b]. The Army's internal investigation of military interrogation techniques was a whitewash of serious command failures.[/b] According to the [i]New York Times[/i], a 300-page report from the Army's inspector general concluded that there were no "systemic" problems with military treatment of detainees "even though there were 94 documented cases of prisoner abuse, including some 40 deaths, 20 of them homicides; even though only four prisons of the 16 they visited had copies of the Geneva Conventions; even though Abu Ghraib was a cesspool with one shower for every 50 inmates; even though the military police were improperly involved in interrogations; even though young people plucked from civilian life were sent to guard prisoners - 50,000 of them in all - with no training."
[b]. The Pentagon created a permissive environment that allowed torture in Iraq. [/b]A commission headed by former Defense Secretary and CIA Director James Schlesinger is set to conclude in mid-August that top Pentagon commanders – up to and including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – failed to set clear guidelines for interrogations and neglected to thoroughly oversee the process. This failure of command ultimately created the conditions for torture in Iraq.
[b]. President Bush must demand full accountability from everyone who played a role in allowing torture of Iraqi prisoners.[/b] Contrition alone will not restore America's reputation or protect our troops. Without full legal accountability for all those – including top ranking officials – who bore responsibility for Iraqi prisoners, America's word remains suspect, and our soldiers are in greater danger of receiving similar treatment at the hands of our enemies.
[b]Let us hope that Americans are finally waking up to the fact that we are living [i]a national nightmare [/i]as a result of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc[i]. junta's [/i]disastrous neo-imperial reign that has brought with it neo-con wars based on lies, and neo-fascist economic malfeasance resulting in rising inflation, massive debts, and no investment in our people's or our nation's [i]dire needs [/i]...[/b]
[u][b]Democrats have advantage over GOP[/b][/u]
The Democrats are in a strong position to regain the White House in 2004.
Take a glance at the Electoral College map. No matter how you slice it, the Democrats have the advantage.
"If you look at the states the Democrats carried in the last three presidential elections, that's 260 electoral votes," says Rice University political scientist Earl Black.
It takes 270 votes to win.
"The Democrats are in a much stronger position today than they were through the 1980s," Black says.
Their strength is in the Northeast, on the Pacific Coast and in the Great Lakes states of the industrial Midwest. Bill Clinton carried those three clusters in 1992 and 1996, and Al Gore won them in 2000.
"Basically, what Republicans need to do is to find a way to come back in the industrial Northeast," Black says. "That's where they have their greatest difficulty."
The GOP also needs to continue to hold onto its solid South, including Florida.
In the 2000 election, Bush won 29 states with 271 electoral votes. Gore took 21 states, including the District of Columbia, with 267 votes. It was the closest presidential election in history.
To win a second term, Bush must keep everything he won in 2000.
Right now, that's highly doubtful. Winning West Virginia again is problematic. So is New Hampshire. That's a loss of nine electoral votes for Bush, and he's also trailing in other states he carried in 2000.
Among them is Ohio, a critical state. If Bush loses Ohio, the party's over.
The Democrats' standing in the Electoral College has been strengthened considerably by the emergence of California as a solid Democratic state.
Republicans last carried it in 1988.
"When you look at the Northeast, it is probably the most solid region for any party, probably more solid for the Democrats than the South is for Republicans," Black says.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry is the candidate of the Northeast.
The Bush challenge in 2004 is this: Win every Southern state, including Florida, carry the Rocky Mountain and Midwestern states, where Republicans have been very successful, and recapture those states in the upper Midwest that Gore won narrowly in 2000. Minnesota will be one target.
"Republicans do not have the advantage in the Electoral College they had through 1988," Black says.
Democrats say they are not conceding any region to the Republicans, including the South.
"Our strategy has been to put as much pressure on President Bush as we can," says Steve Elmendorf, Kerry's deputy campaign manager. "It's hard to do that if we're not competitive in the South."
Chad Clanton, a senior adviser to Kerry, says the selection of U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina to be Kerry's running mate should put to rest questions about the campaign's commitment to the South.
Still, Black says, "It is hard for me to see Kerry winning Southern states based on his liberal votes."
Bush carried South Carolina in 2000 with 57 percent of the vote to Gore's 43 percent. And Bush is heavily favored to win the Palmetto State again.
[b]Could Kerry win without the South?[/b]
"Yes," Black says. "But he would need 70 percent of the Electoral College vote outside the South. It certainly can be done."
The big problem for Republicans is that even after they secure the South and carry the Rocky Mountain states, they still fall short of 270 votes.
"Remember back when “war profiteering" actually was thought to be a bad thing? Indeed, Harry Truman considered it treason. In these modern times of corporate coziness with Washington, war profiteering is business as usual—just another of the entitlements that flow from corporate campaign contributions.” - Jim Hightower, http://welfarewarriors.org/sp...
[b]We're being[i] taken for a dangerous ride [/i]by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]who has awarded massive no-bid, no-audit, no-accountability contracts to Halliburton, [i]slut Cheney's pimp[/i], and other corporate rapists who haven't even[i] kept the books [/i]straight http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm... ...[/b] [b]$$$ Millions, if not billions http://www.iht.com/articles/5... of US Taxpayer Dollars that were earmarked for Iraq reconstruction have simply [i]vanished[/i]! ... The traitorous Bush regime is guilty of criminal malfeasance and reckless negligence, and they should be impeached and put on trial for treason, embezzlement and war crimes ...[/b]
[b]Read on ...[/b]
Here is the latest Halliburton-related scam uncovered by the [i]Washington Post[/i]. The newspaper reports, "Halliburton Co. and other U.S. contractors are being paid at least $1.9 billion from Iraqi funds under an arrangement set by the U.S.-led occupation authority … Most of the money is for two controversial deals that originally had been financed with money approved by the U.S. Congress, but later shifted to Iraqi funds that were governed by fewer restrictions and less rigorous oversight."
What's more, the CPA awarded many of these contracts, including those that went to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root Inc, over objections raised by Iraqi officials:
Even Iraqi officials who served in the government while the CPA was in charge complained they had little say in the use of their own country's money. Mohammed Aboush, who was a director general in the oil ministry during the occupation, said he and other Iraqi officials were not consulted about expanding the KBR contract. But he said he informed his American "advisers" at the CPA that the Iraqis felt KBR's performance had been inadequate and that he'd prefer that another company take over its work.
Aboush said that he was ignored and that he believes the decision to go with KBR was political. "I am old enough to know the Americans and their interests and they are not always the same interests as the Iraqi interests," he said.
[b]If you have listened to just about any Bush speech, especially recently, you have heard that all he talks about is[i] War, Terror, and Terrorism[/i]. [/b]He has [i]no other[/i] policy. He is drunk with power and war. Notice that his support goes up [i]when[/i] the blood flows. Bush knows this and will continue to play on this. Why do you think the Bush gang are so [i]hyped-up [/i]about a potential terrorist attack upon "We the People"?
... "Frank Newport of the Gallup Organization pointed out that, in Gallup's surveys, no president since World War II has won reelection after falling below 50 percent approval at this point in an election year. "Looking at it in context, Bush is following the trajectory of the three incumbents who ended up losing rather than the trajectory of the five incumbents who won," he said.
But Newport was quick to add that history may be an uncertain guide, given the volatility of events in Iraq. "There is the potential for this to be a disruptive year that doesn't follow historical patterns," he said." ...
Particularly when you can terrorize, terrify and intimidate the American people with terrorist attacks ... [i]Hmmm [/i]...
[b]"We the People" are facing an economic nightmare [i]in the making [/i]as a consequence of the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] reckless record-level deficit spending on warfare for war-profiteers; failure to keep good jobs in the USA and instead letting their gluttonous corporate cronies export them to exploit slave labor abroad for CEOs to gorge on fat, juicy profits while laying-off US workers; and, insanely immoral tax cuts for corporations and the rich at a time when[i] Bush's government spending on the wealthiest-of-the-wealthy [/i][i]skyrockets[/i] ...[/b] [b]Inflation is hitting America now http://www.tblog.com/template... and[i] will only get worse [/i]without a sound economic policy put in place by President John F. Kerry ...[/b]
Economic reality hit Americans hard over the weekend as newly released data showed a dramatic slowing of economic growth, a decline in consumer spending, and federal budget deficits reaching an all-time high. President Bush continued to talk up the economy stating, "We've turned the corner and we're not turning back," – surely comforting words for millions of Americans facing stagnating wages, rising costs, and mounting debt.
[b]. Millions of struggling Americans have been left behind in today's economy.[/b] New economic data released last week showed paltry 3 percent annual growth rate in the second quarter – down from the 5.4 percent average growth rate in the year ending in March – thus increasing concerns about long term job and wage growth.
[b]. Middle class consumers – fueled by rising household debt – cannot sustain economic growth. [/b]The primary culprit for slower growth was a sharp drop-off in consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of our nation's economic activity. The amount of economic activity driven by consumers in the second quarter grew by only 1 percent, the weakest since the recession and a sharp decline from the 4.1 percent clip in the first quarter of 2004. At the same time, job market growth remains slow, wages continue to decline, and household debt is mounting.
[b]. "Tax-and-spend conservatives" have created a major fiscal crisis that will threaten economic growth for years.[/b] The Office of Management and Budget estimated a $445 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 – $70 billion more than in 2003 and over $100 billion more than originally estimated by the Bush administration. Projected deficits of $5 trillion over the next 10 years will almost certainly drag down economic growth, reduce job and wage opportunities, and force spending cuts in critical programs aimed at helping struggling Americans.
Click here http://www.americanprogress.o... to read more about the recent economic indicators from American Progress Senior Economic Policy Analyst Brian Deese.
[b]Bush/Cheney's Neo-Con War Crimes [i]Know No Bounds[/i] and these Neo-Fascist Traitors [i]Know No Shame [/i]... [/b]
Please contact Congress http://www.congress.org and demand that the heinous theft of[i] billions of [/i]US taxpayer dollars by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]be prosecuted to the[i] full extent of the law [/i]...
[u][b]One of the Biggest Heists in History[/b][/u]
In Iraq, [b]$8.8 billion is MIA[/b]. Serious dough even for the big spenders in Washington, D.C.
A pal in Iraq slipped me a draft Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Inspector General (IG) report dated July 12, 2004, that blisters the CPA for giving the missing billions to Iraqi ministries without appropriate controls.
The IG report concludes:[i] “The CPA did not provide adequate stewardship of over $8.8 billion in DFI (Development Fund for Iraq) funds provided to Iraqi Ministries through the national budget process. Specifically, the CPA did not establish and implement adequate managerial, financial, and contractual controls over the funds to ensure they were used in a transparent manner[/i].”
Offshore bankers must be burning the midnight oil these days with all the new secret accounts pouring out of Baghdad!
And small wonder that L. Paul Bremer went to ground in June after he turned the running of Iraq over to the Iraqis, closed down the CPA and flew home for an attaboy lunch with President Bush at the White House.
I’m not suggesting that he's living high on the hog on some Cayman-type island in the Caribbean, but I am saying that he was the guy in charge in Iraq – and when it came to handling the funds in his trust, the IG report clearly states that he “did not exercise adequate fiduciary responsibility over DFI funds provided to Iraqi Ministries.”
Early in the occupation, one senior CPA adviser asked for help from Bremer’s legal eagles and was blown off with the following double talk: “There are no written guidelines delineating the senior advisers’ role, responsibilities and authorities.” The Iraqi ministers were expected to “assume responsibility for and exercise authority over all recurring, day-to-day functions of their Ministries” as Bremer & Company went about “ncreasingly empowering the interim Ministers, consistent with their capabilities.”
Their capabilities appear to be well worth investigating, since my sources have been telling me for months that Iraqi payrolls have been heavily padded with ghost soldiers and ghost guards.
According to the IG, “CPA did not implement adequate controls to ensure DFI funds were properly used for salaries of Iraqi employees.”
For example, the CPA paid 74,000 guards even though the actual number of guards couldn’t be validated. On one site alone, 8,206 guards were on the payroll, but only 603 warm bodies could be counted. Elsewhere, more than $17 million was allocated to guards and the Iraqi army without one piece of backup paper. Pals in Iraq say this has been standard drill since the birth of “a very dysfunctional” CPA.
The report cites, “An improper $120 million disbursement was made in May 2004 because of miscommunication between CPA/OMB and Comptroller's office.” In other words, $120 million went south but was blithely rationalized as some clerks getting their wires crossed!
Meanwhile, the armed forces’ PX system (AAFES) is into charging our GIs in Iraq $9 for a 12-inch pizza. A similar pizza is $8.99 at a pizzeria near Greenwich, Conn., where prices compete with Beverly Hills. The manager told me that about half of this price was gross profit. Lt. Col. Debra Pressley of the AAFES insists the $9 price is “fair and competitive with commercial outlets, including locations in Greenwich.”
And so it seems to be. But why? Don’t our soldiers deserve a better deal? Or is our government reduced to trying to make up the AWOL bucks on our soldiers’ backs?
The powers that be sure planned to make a profit by charging $3 per head for watching movies in Iraq – at least until we blew the whistle. But once we broke the story, I got e-mails and phone calls from generals and colonels denying that the $3 charge had been scheduled, even though on July 3, 2004, the deputy commander in Balad, Iraq, put out this communication: “CG (Commanding General) has directed that we begin charging movie fees beginning on 7 July 2004 in the amount of $3.00 per show.”
The local general now says it wasn’t ever going to happen. Ditto the AAFES general and her spinner minions. Like the 9/11 report and the missing money in Iraq, no one will ever be held responsible.
Welcome to America 2004, where the buck is always passed and the grunts are always dealt the losers' hand.
[b]Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at[i] Hackworth.com[/i], http://www.hackworth.com/ where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “[i]Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts[/i].” http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... - Eilhys England contributed to this column. - http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/c...%20Target%20Homepage.db&command=viewone&op=t&i d=77&rnd=106.17153817391067 [/b]
[b]The system[i] is [/i]broken, but the disastrous consequences for our nation were exascerbated when the imbecilic ne'er-do-well-[i]cum[/i]- buffoon Bush and his crooked criminal cohort Cheney hijacked our nation ... [i]Systems [/i]can be corrected and/or their flaws overcome with the [i]right[/i] people ... But with [i]bad leaders [/i](like the War Criminals Bush & Cheney)[i] no [/i]system in the world can make-up for their miserable failures, their outrageous corruptions; and, their disgraceful deficiences ...[/b]
The key institutions that are intended to supply the U.S. government and the American people with accurate information – the intelligence community and the news media – have become[i] "broken toys"[/i] largely incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities, a predicament that has worsened during the Presidency of George W. Bush.
There's also still little understanding of the systemic nature of the problem. The 9/11 Commission, for instance, proposed creating a new National Intelligence Director inside the Executive Office of the President, apparently unaware that the worm of "politicized" intelligence bore into the CIA when Ronald Reagan named his campaign director, William J. Casey, as CIA director in 1981 and put Casey in the Cabinet. [For details, see [i]Consortiumnews.com [/i]"CIA's DI Disgrace." http://www.consortiumnews.com... ]
The other serious problem is that the many U.S. news outlets have become little more than propaganda conveyor belts for the Bush administration. Even when Bush is caught misleading the American people, as he was in hyping the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the potent conservative news media sees its job as protecting Bush's flanks, not holding him accountable.
[b]O'Reilly vs. Moore[/b]
On July 26, the second night of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly brought Michael Moore onto the “O’Reilly Factor” for a confrontation. O’Reilly challenged the documentary maker to apologize to Bush for accusing the President of lying about the pre-war dangers from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
O’Reilly acknowledged that Bush’s WMD claims had been false but argued that Bush had made his assertions in good faith. In other words, Bush was not a liar; he had simply acted on bum information, so Moore should apologize.
Not surprisingly, Moore refused, noting that more 900 American soldiers had died in Iraq because Bush sent them into harm’s way for a bogus reason. Moore said Bush was the one who should apologize to those soldiers and to the American people. O’Reilly went on badgering Moore through much of the segment, but neither media star backed down.
What was extraordinary about the encounter, however, was how it demonstrated the role that the conservative media apparatus has long played for both George Bushes.
Normally, news organizations don’t rally to the defense of politicians who have misled the American people as significantly as George W. Bush had on Iraq or as George H.W. Bush had on the Iran-Contra and other scandals of the 1980s. Offending pols are sometimes allowed to make their own case – explaining how their false statements weren’t exactly lies – but rarely would a journalist make the case for them. At least those were the rules of the game 30 years ago at the time of Watergate.
But the rules changed with the development of the conservative media-political infrastructure from the late 1970s to the present. The two George Bushes were two of its principal beneficiaries.
While Democrats and liberals could expect to be skewered over minor or even imagined contradictions, Republicans and conservatives would find themselves surrounded by a phalanx of ideological bodyguards. Not only would O’Reilly and his fellow conservative media personalities defend George W. Bush over his false statements about Iraq, they could be counted on to go on the offensive against anyone who dared criticize him. That was true during the run-up to the Iraq War when they wouldn’t permit a serious debate about the WMD and other issues – and it was true after the invasion.
When skeptics like former weapons inspector Scott Ritter doubted Bush’s case or when foreign allies such as the French asked that U.N. inspectors be given more time, they were hooted down by the conservative media, including Fox News, as well as much of the "mainstream" press.
Then, after the invasion with no WMD caches found, Fox News was back hectoring critics, such as Michael Moore, who supposedly have voiced their criticism of Bush a decibel too loud or took it a notch too far. O’Reilly and other conservative media stars were enforcing an unwritten rule in recent American politics: the Bush family always gets the benefit of the doubt, no matter what the context.
[b]Broader Deception[/b]
But the defense of George W. Bush’s honesty about Iraq – that he didn’t intentionally mislead the nation to war – misses the larger context of his presentation of the Iraq evidence. From the start, Bush engaged in a pattern of hyping the case for war that consistently exaggerated or misrepresented the evidence.
Bush wasn’t as much presenting the evidence to the American people so a thorough and thoughtful debate could be held about going to war; he was making the case for war, always spinning a more clear-cut story than the evidence supported, always applying a worst-case scenario for the facts implicating Iraq while excluding mitigating evidence.
Beyond the WMD issue, Bush repeatedly juxtaposed references to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, terrorism and Iraq. Though Bush may never have said explicitly that Iraq was implicated in the September 11 attacks, the repetition created the impression of a linkage that the facts didn’t support. According to polls, that was exactly the inference drawn by a large majority of Americans, that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the terror attacks. The inference was not an accident.
Just months after the invasion, Bush even began rewriting the history of the Iraq War to make his actions seem more defensible. According to Bush’s revised version, Hussein had refused to cooperate with U.N. demands for weapons inspections, leaving the U.S. and its “coalition of the willing” no choice but to invade Iraq in defense of the U.N.’s disarmament resolutions and to protect the United States from Iraq’s WMD.
On July 14, 2003, seated next to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Bush said about Hussein, “we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”
Bush reiterated that war-justifying claim on Jan. 27, 2004, when he said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”
This bogus history has not only gulled some ill-informed American citizens; it apparently has taken in some of the most erudite members of the Washington press corps. In an interview at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, ABC News anchor Ted Koppel showed that he had absorbed the Bush administration spin point.
“It did not make logical sense that Saddam Hussein, whose armies had been defeated once before by the United States and the Coalition, would be prepared to lose control over his country if all he had to do was say, ‘All right, U.N., come on in, check it out, I will show you, give you whatever evidence you want to have, let you interview whomever you want to interview,’” Koppel said in an interview with Amy Goodman, host of “Democracy Now.”
But as anyone with a memory of those historic events should know, Iraq did let the U.N. weapons inspectors in and gave them freedom to examine any site they wished. Iraqi officials, including Hussein, also declared publicly that they didn’t possess weapons of mass destruction.
The history is clear – or should be – that it was the Bush administration that forced the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq so the United States and its coalition could press ahead with the invasion. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix spelled these facts out in his book, Disarming Iraq, as well as in repeated interviews.
Instead of Hussein blocking the inspections, Blix wrote that three days before the invasion, a Bush administration official demanded that the U.N. inspectors leave Iraq. "Although the inspection organization was now operating at full strength and Iraq seemed determined to give it prompt access everywhere, the United States appeared as determined to replace our inspection force with an invasion army," Blix wrote in Disarming Iraq.
Yet, through repetition the Bush administration’s favored narrative of the war has sunk in as a faux reality for Washington journalists, including Koppel, that Bush bent over backwards to avoid the invasion and was forced to attack because Hussein’s intransigence made it look like the dictator was hiding something.
While Koppel’s response to Amy Goodman might be viewed as a case of Koppel trying to spin the facts himself to dodge responsibility for his lack of pre-war skepticism, he clearly had gotten the idea for his misleading explanation from the Bush administration.
Bush stretched the truth again when he used the 9/11 catastrophe as part of his excuse for reneging on a promise to run balanced budgets. As he began to amass record federal deficits, Bush claimed that he had given himself an escape hatch during the 2000 campaign. In speech after speech in the months after the September 11 attacks, Bush recounted his supposed caveat from the campaign, that he would keep the budget balanced except in event of war, recession or national emergency. Bush then delivered the punch line: "Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta."
The joking reference to the trifecta – a term for a horseracing bet on the correct order of finish for three horses – always got a laugh from his listeners, although some families of the 9/11 victims found the joke tasteless. But beyond the question of taste, Bush's trifecta claim about having set criteria for going back into deficit spending appears to have been fabricated. Neither the White House nor independent researchers could locate any such campaign statement by Bush, although Al Gore had made a comment similar to the one Bush was claiming for himself.
In his sometimes brazen pattern of deceptions, Bush apparently senses no danger from being called to account. After all, he had Fox News and other conservative news outlets covering his flanks. Indeed, critics, such as Michael Moore, who have tried to apply the L-word to Bush’s dissembling are the ones who are confronted with demands that they apologize, not that Bush express any regret for misleading the American people.
[b]Glass Houses[/b]
This built-in protection on questions of stretching the truth also has let Bush and his allies safely step out of their glass houses to hurl stones at critics for supposedly lying.
When former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill questioned Bush’s leadership in Ron Suskind’s[i] The Price of Loyalty[/i], the White House portrayed O’Neill as a disgruntled flake who couldn’t be trusted. Later when White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke asserted in [i]Against All Enemies[/i] that Iraq was a Bush obsession after he took office while al-Qaeda was not, senior congressional Republicans and the conservative news media savaged Clarke’s credibility, even suggesting that he be charged with perjury.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist went to the Senate floor on March 26, 2004, to accuse Clarke of leaving out much of his criticism about Bush in July 2002 when Clarke gave classified testimony to the House and Senate intelligence committees. Clarke, then a special adviser to the President, said he told the truth in his congressional testimony though he had stressed the positive as a White House representative. He also noted that the testimony occurred before the invasion of Iraq, which solidified Clarke's assessment that Bush was bungling the war on terror.
But in a scathing Senate speech, Frist demanded that Clarke's sworn Capitol Hill testimony be declassified and examined for discrepancies from his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress," the Tennessee Republican said.
The conservatives also tossed the L-word freely at Senator John Kerry when he emerged as the presumptive Democratic nominee to challenge Bush.
A case in point was Kerry's off-hand remark on March 8, 2004, that he had spoken with foreign “leaders” who hoped he would defeat Bush. Quickly, the Republican attack machine began churning out suggestions that Kerry had lied and might be un-American to boot. “Kerry’s imaginary friends have British and French accents,” said Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie on March 11, setting out the themes that Kerry was both delusional and suspect for hanging out with foreigners.
The story switched into high gear when Sun Myung Moon’s [i]Washington Times [/i]blared the results of its investigation of Kerry’s remarks across the front page of its March 12 issue. Though it was well known that many foreign leaders were troubled by Bush's unilateral foreign policy and favored someone else in the White House, [i]The Washington Times [/i]acted as if Kerry's claim was so strange that it merited some major sleuthing.
The article asserted that Kerry “cannot back up foreign ‘endorsements,’” in part because he declined to identify the leaders whom he had spoken with in confidence about Bush. Kerry had “made no official foreign trips since the start of last year,” the newspaper wrote. Plus, “an extensive review of Mr. Kerry’s travel schedule domestically revealed only one opportunity for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to meet with foreign leaders here,” the article said. [[i]Washington Times[/i], March 12, 2004]
The point was obvious: Kerry was a liar. The possibility that Kerry might have talked to anyone by phone or used some other means of communication apparently was not contemplated by Moon’s newspaper.
“Mr. Kerry has made other claims during the campaign and then refused to back them up,”[i] The Washington Times [/i]wrote. Then came the ridicule: “Republicans have begun calling Mr. Kerry the ‘international man of mystery,’ and said his statements go even beyond those of former Vice President Al Gore, who was besieged by stories that he lied or exaggerated throughout the 2000 presidential campaign.”
Soon, Bush was personally suggesting that Kerry was a liar. “If you’re going to make an accusation in the course of a campaign, you’ve got to back it up,” Bush said. Vice President Dick Cheney added even uglier implications that Kerry may have engaged in acts close to treason. “We have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy,” Cheney said.
The [i]Washington Times [/i]also kept stirring the pot. On March 16, it quoted Senator John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican, as saying “I think there’s a real question as to whether or not the claim was a fabrication.”
That same day, again implying that Kerry perhaps suffers from mental illness, Bush’s campaign chief Ken Mehlman accused the Massachusetts senator of living in a “parallel universe.” Mehlman then made a preemptive strike to protect Bush from any Kerry counter-attack against Bush's lies. Mehlman said Kerry already had shown a “willingness to try to project onto the President what are his own weaknesses.” [[i]Washington Post[/i], March 17, 2004]
The Republican allegations against Kerry reverberated through the TV pundit shows for a week. But the larger absurdity of the controversy was that Kerry’s comment about many foreign leaders privately wishing for Bush’s defeat was certainly true. For instance, the newly elected Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero had called Bush’s Iraq War a “disaster” and has said he favored new U.S. leadership.
[b]Timidity[/b]
Some liberal activists wonder why Democratic leaders are often so circumspect about what they say. Why, these activists ask, don’t the Democrats just let it fly like the Republicans do?
Indeed, that’s another factor that favors Republicans because they can come across as more aggressive and more confident, while Democrats often end up sounding more timid and more uncertain. That cautious tone can turn off much of the Democratic base while leaving many independent voters questioning whether the Democrats really know what they stand for. In cases where Democrats do sound off – as with Howard Dean’s campaign – they are labeled shrill, crazy or hate-filled.
The Democratic-defensive dynamic, however, is another consequence of the media-political infrastructure that Republicans and conservatives have spent three decades – and billions of dollars – creating. Especially since Democrats and liberals have failed to match the investment and the dedication, the Right-Wing Machine has given Republicans a powerful advantage – and one that does not seem likely to go away.
As long as right-wingers, such as Sun Myung Moon and Rupert Murdoch, continue to pour vast sums into this media-political apparatus, the Republicans can expect to be protected when they make missteps. At the same time, Democrats can expect to pay a high price even for an innocuous mistake.
The conservative infrastructure also has helped the Republicans achieve a unity that often has been lacking on the Democratic side. Conservatives can tune in Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh, pick up The[i] Washington Times[/i] or consult dozens of other well-financed media outlets to hear the latest pro-Republican “themes,” often coordinated with the Republican National Committee or Bush’s White House. The liberals lack any comparable media apparatus, and the committed liberal outlets that do exist are almost always under-funded and often part-time. Only in 2004 have liberals launched a rudimentary – and under-funded – talk-radio network, called Air America, to begin competing with the dominant right-wing talk shows.
[b]History Next?[/b]
Some journalists respond to criticism about their errors in covering important events of the past quarter century by suggesting that the historians will correct any mistakes. "Leave it to the historians" is a common reply when inaccuracies are pointed out.
But there are growing warning signs that history may become the next “broken toy,” unable to fulfill its responsibilities either. The week-long hagiography of Ronald Reagan after his death revealed the same patterns that have become apparent in U.S. intelligence analysis and in U.S. journalism.
To maintain their mainstream credibility, popular historians filled the hours of time on television with uncritical discussions about Reagan’s legacy. Indeed, rather than the historians supplying a more accurate account of Reagan’s Presidency, they arguably did a worse job in telling a straight story than the journalists had done in the 1980s.
The notion that documents will emerge in a timely way to fill in crucial gaps also may be more wishful thinking. Immediately after taking office in January 2001, George W. Bush stopped the legally required release of documents from the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Then, after the September 11 terrorist attacks as a stunned nation rallied around him, Bush issued an even more sweeping secrecy order. He granted former Presidents and Vice Presidents or their surviving family members the right to stop release of historical records, including those related to “military, diplomatic or national security secrets.” Bush’s order stripped the Archivist of the United States of the power to overrule claims of privilege from former Presidents and their representatives. [See [i]New York Times[/i], Jan. 3, 2003]
By a twist of history, Bush’s order eventually could give him control over both his and his father’s records covering 12 years of the Reagan-Bush era and however long Bush’s own presidential term lasts, potentially a 20-year swath of documentary evidence. Under Bush’s approach, control over those two decades worth of secrets could eventually be put into the hands of Bush’s daughters, Jenna and Barbara, a kind of dynastic control over U.S. history that would strengthen the hand of Bush apologists even more in controlling how historians get to understand this era.
Much of the change over the past three decades has come gradually, failing to cause alarm, as with a frog not recognizing the danger of sitting in water slowly being brought to a boil. Many of the events may seem on the surface disconnected, although many of the central characters have reappeared throughout the course of the drama and others were understudies of earlier characters, carrying on their mentors’ tactics and strategies.
But viewed as a panorama of 30 years, a continuity becomes apparent. What one sees is an evolution of a political system away from the more freewheeling democracy of the 1970s toward a more controlled system in which consensus is managed by rationing information and in which elections have become largely formalities for the sanctioning of power rather than a valued expression of the people’s will.
[b]This article is adapted from Robert Parry’s upcoming book, [i]Secrets and Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq[/i]. As a correspondent for the [i]Associated Press [/i]and[i] Newsweek [/i]in the 1980s, Parry broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra scandal[/b]. - http://www.consortiumnews.com...
Talking Points: They're True Because They're Said A Lot ...
[b]Jon Stewart from Comedy Central's [u]Daily Show[/u] on how[i] conventional wisdom [/i]is formed:-- ... http://www.comedycentral.com/... ... [/b]
"We the People" should wake-up to the fact that the corrupt neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] think they can fool us all ([i]or at least enough of us, enough of the time[/i]) with [i]repetition, repetition, and more repetition [/i] of the same heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods regarding both domestic and foreign policy issues ... The same cynical regurgitation of myriad lies, deceptions and falsehoods is also being [i]waged against us [/i]by the traitorous Bush regime & their mad-dog attack machine who are[i] disseminating dishonest propaganda [/i]against John F. Kerry, John Edwards and the Democratic Party ... "We the People" must [i]reject[/i] this neo-orwellian nazi-style propaganda campaign by the neo-fascist Bushies ...
[b]"We the People" are being placed in dangerous jeopardy by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]...[/b]
Special interests have launched a sweeping assault on protections for public health, safety, the environment, and corporate responsibility – and unfortunately the Bush administration has given way. Crucial safeguards have been swept aside or watered down; emerging problems are being ignored; and enforcement efforts have been curtailed, threatening to render existing standards meaningless.
This agenda puts special interests above the public interest, sacrificing a safer, healthier, more just America at the behest of industry lobbyists, corporate campaign contributors, and professional ideologues – many of whom the president has appointed to "regulate" the very interests they used to represent.
Over the last 30 years, we have made significant progress through strong public safeguards. Our air and water are cleaner, our food, workplaces, and roads are safer, and corporations and government are more open and accountable to the public. These protections have saved thousands upon thousands of lives and improved the quality of life for all Americans – without hobbling industry or the economy.
Nonetheless, significant problems remain. Every year, more than 40,000 people die on our nation's highways. Foodborne illnesses kill an estimated 7,000 and sicken 76 million. Nearly 6,000 workers die as a result of injury on the job, with an additional 50,000 to 60,000 killed by occupational disease. And asthma – linked to air pollution – is rising dramatically, afflicting 17 million, including six million children.
We should address these problems by building on past successes. Instead, the Bush administration has reversed course. [u]For complete details, please continue[/u]: http://www.americanprogress.o... .
[b]Now the Bush-Cheney neo-orwellian political campaign [/b]is telling all who will listen that they will spend the next month running a massive ad campaign (with a price tag of $30 million and no doubt supplemented by on-message talking points sent out to the all the foot soldiers) aimed at mocking John Kerry as a undistinguished and risible figure. According to the [i]Times[/i], this will culminate at the GOP convention where Kerry will be portrayed http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... as "an object of humor and calculated derision."
(As a side note, this telegraphing of a looming attack is classic Rove -- a topic we'll return to.)
This makes sense on a number of levels.
First, the Kerry campaign now faces about four weeks of serious strategic vulnerability. They're now under the post-convention public financing caps, while the Bush campaign is not. That means that they're going to be hard pressed to match that spending dollar for dollar since they've now got a static budget that has to last them through the end of the election.
Hopefully for them the Democratic party and other independent Dem-oriented groups, while not allowed to formally coordinate on such things, will have Kerry's back on this during this period.
The more discussion-worthy point, however, is the use of humor as a political weapon -- [i]mockery, derision, diminishment[/i].
Republicans are very good at this. And it can be a tool that is deceptively difficult to respond to or combat. Effective mockery is 'sticky', hard to shake off, hard to parry. And it appeals to people's appetite for fun and humor.
Indeed, it's not just contemporary Republicans who have a knack for this. There seems to be something intrinsic to the reactionary or right-leaning mentality that gravitates toward this method of political combat. Think of the Tory pamphleteers and essayists of the 18th century in Great Britain or others of a more recent vintage in the US.
This is potent stuff. And Democrats would do well not only to be on their guard but consider applying this approach to the current president, who is more than a bit ripe for such treatment.
I think it's time for a bit of [i]tit-for-tat[/i] ... After all, could[i] anybody [/i]be as hilarious a subject for [i]mockery, derision, diminishment[/i] as the imbecilic ne'er-do-well-[i]cum[/i]- AWOL-drunkard-[i]n[/i]-fa ilure: [i][b]Dubya??? ...[/b][/i]
Click the links to hear 3 new songs from [i]The Revolution Starts... Now[/i] on
