tBlog - PatriotActs

PatriotActs

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
The Nation
CounterPunch
The American Prospect
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Bush's Reckless Tax Cuts For The Rich Boost Joblessness, Encourage Outsourcing ...

03.31.04 (5:50 pm) [edit]

Why, economists ask, is this recovery jobless? No one seems to know. But the answer is right there in the Bush tax acts, which many economists have apparently never read.

Almost any business task can be performed using more labor and less capital or less labor and more capital. We learn in Econ 101 that if government doesn't intervene, business will choose the most efficient alternative. But what if government intervenes? What if it puts its heavy tax thumb on the "more machines, fewer workers" side of the scale?

Answer: Instead of using two workers and one machine to do a given job, business will use two machines and one worker.

This has several consequences. First, it artificially boosts productivity numbers. Productivity is simply output per employed worker. In our scenario, we've just induced business to replace workers with machines, so productivity has to go up, by definition.

Most immediately relevant, we get a jobless recovery.

What exactly did the Bush tax acts do to create this problem? They granted an enormous tax cut to big business in the form of "bonus depreciation." Under bonus depreciation, the more corporations spend on equipment, the less tax they have to pay on the same economic income. And that's exactly what they've been doing. Business spending on equipment has skyrocketed, corporate tax collections have plummeted and no one's being hired.

Unfortunately, economists' ignorance of basic tax law is not limited to the bonus depreciation rules. Recently, the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, opined that the movement of American jobs to other countries was a good thing. Indeed, back in Econ 101 we learn that free trade and the law of comparative advantage support Mankiw's views.

But here again, our chief economist appears to be ignorant of basic U.S. tax law. When a U.S. corporation manufactures in the United States, its income is subject to U.S. tax at a nominal rate of 35 percent. If the same corporation moves those jobs to some other country, it can normally structure the deal to reduce its U.S. taxes to zero. That's right, zero.

What this means is that the standard economists' assumption, "all else being equal," is simply not true. Current U.S. tax rules create a strong artificial incentive to move business offshore. Until recently, the one big disadvantage of doing so was that it was then hard to bring the resulting profits back to the United States. The most recent Bush tax act helped solve this problem by cutting U.S. taxes on the repatriation of offshore profits. In other words, the most recent Bush tax act made these artificial incentives to move business offshore even stronger.

I draw two morals from this story. First, our current unemployment problem has probably resulted, in significant part, from the structure of recent tax cuts for big business. Second, until tax experts are included more regularly in economic analysis and debate, economists are likely to continue missing the boat in ways that can and should be avoided.

[u]THEODORE SETO[/u], AJC, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/co...

Bush Can't Provide Proof To Support His Jobs Claim

03.31.04 (10:13 am) [edit]

As President Bush tours the country touting his economic record, he is trying to shift the blame for the more than 2 million jobs that have been lost since he took office1. Specifically, he has repeatedly claimed, "over a million jobs were lost because of the [9/11] attack"2. But a new report shows that there are no statistics to support this assertion, and that the White House itself cannot provide any evidence that this is the case.

According to the Bureau of National Affairs, "White House officials were unable to point to any specific information that supports a direct link between massive job losses and the attacks"3. While one White House spokeswoman claimed that the President's statements were "supported by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)," that agency's associate commissioner "said BLS has not compiled any specific study on jobs which were lost specifically because of the Sept. 11 attacks."

[b]Sources[/b]: - http://www.misleader.org/dail... -

1 "Bush Record on The Economy and Jobs", Committee on Education and the Workforce, 02/26/2004.

2 President Bush Discusses Job Training and the Economy in NY, 03/11/2004.

3 Bureau of National Affairs, 03/22/2004.

... Is Fix In At 9/11 Commission? ...

03.31.04 (8:01 am) [edit]

In finally accepting the 9/11 Commission's request for public testimony under oath from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the White House was not the one that flinched. It was the 9/11 Commission.

The fine print of the deal takes the chance of the commission taking sworn public testimony from any other White House official – including Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Bush's political adviser Karl Rove, President Bush himself or Vice President Dick Cheney – completely off the table. It also precludes the panel from having the option of calling Rice, who's made media statements contradicting evidence and sworn statements by other officials, back to testify.

It's a one-shot deal. And it stinks.

Even under oath, Rice can dodge tough questions by claiming her answers would jeopardize national security or the war on terror. "I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but again, that's a classified area, and I just can't get into it," she could say. Or she could come down with Washington amnesia – "I have no recollection of that." And she and everyone else in the White House could skate. The commission has no recourse at that point.

Other compromises are curious. Why did the panel, which has subpoena power and could compel Rice to testify, originally bow to White House demands not to even tape-record the statements they were "allowed" to take from her in private? Why will it let Bush tag-team with Cheney in a joint Q&A in the White House without oaths or even tape recorders? Why has it agreed to let just four panel officials lay eyes on a key intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 attacks?

Why is the commission bending over backwards to please the White House when it's supposed to be fiercely independent and bipartisan, made up of five Republicans and five Democrats?

The answer may lie in the little-known fact that the White House has a friend on the inside. And not just any friend, either.

His name is Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission. Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation.

He also carries with him a downright obnoxious conflict-of-interest odor, one that somehow went undetected by the lawyers who vetted him for one of the most important investigative positions in U.S. history.

There's a raft of evidence to suggest that Zelikow has personal, professional and political reasons not to see the commission hold Rice and other Bush officials accountable for pre-9/11 failings, and may be the de facto swing vote for Republicans on the panel. Here are just a few of them:

... He and Rice worked closely together in the first Bush White House as aides to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Zelikow was director of European security affairs, and Rice was senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, as well as special assistant to the president. Rice reportedly hired Zelikow. Both started in 1989 and left in 1991.

... A few years after leaving the White House, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."

... The two associated again when Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group, a foreign-policy strategy body co-chaired by Rice's mentor Scowcroft. Rice, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were members.

... Zelikow also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age under co-chairman James Barksdale, a Bush adviser and major Bush-Cheney donor. A 9/11 commissioner, Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, also served with Zelikow on the task force. (Interestingly, the pair serves together on yet another panel – The National Commission on Federal Election Reform – with Gorton acting as vice-chairman and Zelikow as executive director.)

... After the 2000 election, Zelikow and Rice were reunited when George W. Bush named him to his transition team for the National Security Council. Rice reportedly asked Zelikow to help organize the NSC under the Scowcroft model, which was insular and steeped in Cold War worldview.

... Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke says he briefed not only Rice and Hadley, but also Zelikow about the growing al-Qaida threat during the transition period. Zelikow sat in on the briefings, he says.

... A month after the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, President Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is chaired by Scowcroft.

... Zelikow's regular job, the one he'll return to after the commission releases it final report in late July, is director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and maintains contact with the Bush White House, which fought the creation of the commission.

Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, insists Zelikow has a "clear conflict of interest." And she suspects he is in touch with Bush's political adviser, Rove, which she says would explain why the White House granted him, along with just one other commission official, the greatest access to the intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 suicide hijackings.

The two-page memo in question mentions "al-Qaida" and "hijackings," that much we know. What we don't know is if it gets any more specific about the threat. And the White House won't let us find out. It refuses to declassify any of the August memo (or any of the other briefings Bush got before 9/11, for that matter), and it won't even let most commissioners review it.

Bush and his top security adviser insist they have nothing to hide.

Rice pal Zelikow, for his part, says he's recused himself from any part of the probe that deals with the roughly one-month period after the election when he worked with Rice on the transition, as if any potential conflicts he might have would end there. Commission spokesman Al Felzenberg doesn't understand the fuss over Zelikow. "He has not served in the Bush administration," he argues more technically than convincingly.

The fuss, Mr. Felzenberg, is that 9/11 relatives like the wife of the late Ronald Breitweiser want to know they are getting an honest investigation into what their government did to protect their loved ones from a foreign-ordered attack on American soil.

But the way key pre-9/11 documents and sworn testimony from top officials are being denied the public, it looks like the fix is in.

To be sure, Zelikow could be a remarkably objective fellow and not let his close ties to the Bush administration influence his final report in any way.

But with the commission still refusing to subpoena the documents and caving to White House ground rules on testimony, the stench of political bias has become too strong, and Zelikow should nonetheless step down, immediately, for the sake of the families, many of whom are demanding his resignation. And the commission should vote to further extend its deadline while it finds a more politically detached replacement for him and redoubles its efforts to deliver the "full and complete" and "independent" investigation it originally promised the country.

[u]Paul Sperry, formerly Washington bureau chief of Investors Business Daily, is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003). [/u] - http://antiwar.com/sperry/?ar...

Whitewash: Compromised 9/11 Investigation a Looming National Scandal -- Demands Congressional Action

03.31.04 (7:52 am) [edit]

[u][b]Mass-murderer Bin Laden Unwanted by the U.S. Government[/b][/u]

Many of you might recall comments made by a field General during the Afghan war saying, in so many words, that they were not there to go after Osama Bin Laden... or reports by Seymour Hersch aired on Bill Moyers' NOW on PBS that, on orders from the Department of Defense, thousands of Taliban forces and even Al-Qeada operatives were airlifted to Pakistan in a break during the bombing of Kunduz. Now it appears the US military is saying that the man the US government maintains was behind the largest mass murder in U.S. history is off the hook because they tell us he's 'taken himself out of the picture"--thus no longer a priority. This according to a recent Reuters story of November 22. (see…LINK http://www.smh.com.au/article... ).

This latest policy shift follows a recent controversial White House compromise with 9/11 investigators, deemed unacceptable by victims' families, that provides highly censored and limited review of Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) including one titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S." What mad farce is going on here? How does America's #1 enemy, a man "wanted dead or alive" for the brutal mass murder of thousands, become irrelevant even as the White House fights tooth and nail to control access and analysis of intelligence warnings about the threat he posed prior to the attacks?

I can imagine how this as yet unexplained new policy might be received by the thousands who lost family members on 9/11 or by the millions around the globe raising serious questions and expressing measured skepticism and doubts about the war on terror, the war on Iraq and the pretext that launched both.

9/11 family members and others have been insisting the Commission keep their word and "leave no stone unturned." Well, now they know that the Administration who created the Commission won't be turning over stones looking for Bin Laden any longer. Of course this will come as no surprise to those who have noted how little effort has been directed at finding Bin Laden especially after the Administration shifted its focus to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

[u][b]9/11 Commission's 'conscience' forced to leave[/b][/u]

The government's investigation of 9/11 is further compromised and complicated by the curious recent departure of one of the most vocal critics of the 9/11 Commission's recent deal cut with the White House to provide for limited review of over 500 PDBs from the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Max Cleland has called the deal "a national scandal" and accused the President of having “deliberately compromised" the Commission. Cleland, a former Georgia Senator and now a former 9/11 Commissioner had been the Commission's most ardent internal watchdog and outspoken critic.

The President appointed him to serve on the board of the Import-Export Bank and, curiously, he accepted, thus forcing his withdrawal. The law establishing the Commission says Commissioners cannot, concurrent to the Commission's work, hold a federal office. The implications of his having accepted the position and forfeiting his place in the investigation, whose integrity he fought so hard to protect, are deeply disturbing. Especially coming on the heels of his biting criticism of the President and the Commission.

[u][b]Dissembling of Government's Official Story May Foreshadow National Scandal[/b][/u]

These new revelations about the government position on Bin Laden and the Commission record of compromises and softball investigative approach doesn't bode well for the search for the truth and raises serious questions. But this change of mind is indeed telling...perhaps the straw that breaks the people's credulity and ultimately exposing a far more serious national scandal then the one imagined by Senator Cleland.

Richard Bernstein of The New York Times writes in Out of the Blue that the Osama's presumption of guilt is built entirely upon circumstantial evidence. Absent a clear smoking gun and the "White Paper" promised by Secretary of State Powell and Prime Minister Blair, disturbing doubts are being expressed even as much of what we were told about 9/11 and the war on terror has since been retracted, disproved or credibly challenged in recent months. Official explanations and accounts are shifting like sands along a riptide.

We've learned that at least five of the 19 named by the FBI and produced with pictures within 24 hours are alive in Saudi Arabia (BBC), Zaccarias Mousaoui is not the 20th hijacker after all, there was no Iraqi Nuclear program poised for deployment, and Saddam was neither allied with Bin Laden nor responsible for 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. Official 'stories' are dissembling across the board.

We also have new information about the extent of pre-9/11 warnings thanks to the investigative work of Eleanor Hill and the Congressional Joint Inquiry. Contrary to statements made by Condaleeza Rice on May 16, 2002 that "no one could have imagined" planes being used a weapons, we now know that in fact the intelligence community was well aware of the risk of just such an attack. Warnings were acted upon at the site of the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy in July of 2001 where anti-aircraft measures were taken to protect the President from terrorists using planes as weapons.

When I asked Vice-Chair Hamilton at the conclusion of a recent public hearing how the Commission intended to resolve this sharp challenge to the President's National Security Advisor he was vague and evasive even after pressed with a follow-up. The Commission chairs were also asked to confirm whether or not they have sworn in witnesses in private 'interviews' and, if so, if they intended to apply the same investigative practice in their upcoming public hearings. This would be especially important where testimony is germaine to resolving key questions, conflicts or discrepancies that continue to cloud our understanding of 9/11.

[u][b]Shocking conflict of interest stands -- a slap in the face of 9/11 Families[/b][/u]

What adds insult to injury here lie in the details of the recent compromise reached between the White House and the 9/11 Commission. The Commission has announced it will send its Executive Director, Dr. Phillip Zelikow, a University Professor, to be one of only two allowed into the White House to review relevant portions of hundreds of PDBs in question, presumably because the Commissioners themselves won't know exactly what to look for, not having been immersed in the minutiae of the investigation as Dr. Zelikow has been.

What fuels the fire of those already deeply skeptical about the compromise is the fact that Dr. Zelikow brings with him the most serious conflict of interest to yet surface in the context of this investigation. Dr. Zelikow's selection is a slap in the face of family members and should be construed as obstruction of justice and one of the most serious compromises to the Commission's integrity. Instead of being sent to the White House to review PDBs Zelikow should be sent packing for his unwillingness to recuse himself.

Dr. Zelikow, is being asked to scrutinize a President he recently served as a member of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and who last year co-authored a book with National Security Advisor, Condaleeza Rice, whose lie, deceit or ignorance regarding the issue of planes as weapons has been directly challenged by the Joint Inquiry Report now in the historical record. Will Zelikow seek her sworn testimony for the record? Given his intimate role in the 'transition team' creating President Bush's National Security Council he clearly has a conflict of interest which could interfere with the pursuit of the truth in this case. The Commission's original chair Henry Kissinger was forced to resign after he refused to expose his client list. Here the conflicts are in plain view and yet the completely justified objections from the family members and others have been entirely dismissed by the Commission.

Furthering muddying the waters is the noticeable lack of attention being paid to Commission access to details of the July 5th meeting of the Counterterrorism Security Group called and held by Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. Intelligence was discussed regarding an 'imminent' attack, 'spectacular' in nature 'designed to inflict mass casualties". Again, it is reasonable to assume that this has yet to publicly addressed in part from Zelikow's conflict of interest. Even the appearance of conflict of interest, in the most important investigation since the Warren Commission, should be enough for the Commission to excuse Zelikow and appoint a Co-Executive Director to handle these delicate matters with an Executive branch with which he has such close ties.

[u][b]A Call for Hearings on the Hill[/b][/u]

Given hints the Commission may soon ask Congress for an extension of its deadline it is time that all of those concerned with the integrity of the current Commission and its work to call for and help organize full and open hearings on Capitol Hill.

It is time for the Congress in its oversight capacity to take direct issue with the blatant conflict of interest thus far allowed to stand, the presence of minders allowed to sit in on Commission interviews, the lack of sworn testimony in public hearings, and the failure to produce interim findings of fact. These hearings should address this broad range of concerns. Congress should issue an overt challenge to a commission gone soft and failing to live up to a high and consistent investigative standard that must be applied at this perilous moment in history. Failing this urgent remedy and democratic scrutiny, the obvious concern is that the Kean Commission will become as discredited and doubted as the Warren Commission.

Given the stakes involved here, with nearly 3000 murdered and a global war on terror sacrificing American blood and treasure, it is absolutely imperative that indeed no stone is left unturned by this Commission, that they and the President be held to their word and to the highest investigative standard. Thus far they have failed to keep their word and meet this standard.

Urgent corrective action is required immediately and concerned citizens must act now to insure that Congress holds the Commission fully and transparently accountable to fulfill their mandate. Failing that Congress should launch a full investigation of their own, acting to declassify were necessary, with the deeply probative Committee hearings that Daschle should have encouraged and not limited when asked to do so by the President and Vice-president early in 2002.

The Commission should withdraw from it deal with the White House and issue a subpoena to insure full access to both NSC and Oval Office documents.

([i]Appendices Follow[/i])

****************

[b]APPENDIX 1[/b]

[u]FURTHER READING[/u]

1. "Osama capture unnecessary, US general says"
Reuters -- November 22, 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/22/10 69027373682.html?from=storyrhs" title="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/22/10 69027373682.html?from=storyrhs" target="_blank"http://www.smh.com.au/article...
A senior US general said today that al Qa'eda mastermind Osama bin Laden had "taken himself out of the picture" and that his capture was not essential to winning the "war on terror".

2. "The President Ought to be Ashamed"
Salon -- Eric Boehlert; Friday 21 November 2003;
http://truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml" title="http://truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml" target="_blank"http://truthout.org/docs_03/1...

3. "New job takes Cleland off 9/11 panel"
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031123 -091108-4750r.htm" title="http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031123 -091108-4750r.htm" target="_blank"http://washingtontimes.com/up...
Cleland bemoans the administration's "Nixonian" love of secrecy and its attempt to "slow walk" the commission into irrelevancy.

****************

[b]APPENDIX 2[/b]

[u]WHAT TO DO[/u]

A scathing critique of the current Commission was published as a cover story by savvy investigative journalist Kelly Patricia O'Meara in November 23 issue of Insight Magazine. It is titled "A Historical Whitewash?"

http://www.insightmag.com/news/565658.html" title="http://www.insightmag.com/news/565658.html" target="_blank"http://www.insightmag.com/new...

I am told each issue of Insight Magazine is delivered to every member of Congress. Now is the right time to begin to raise the issues covered in the Insight article and in my commentary above.

Please take a moment now and again in the coming weeks to contact your representative to express your concerns about the 9/11 Investigation. Specifically ask that the Congress to hold hearings at their earliest opportunity to address these serious problems within the Commission. America's credibility in the world is at stake as is justice for the victims and their families, and ultimately the whether or not we learn the whole truth and secure full accountability. PLEASE ACT NOW.

[u]ALSO,[/u]

Please call, fax or write the Commission giving voice to your objection to their recent compromise with the White House and the Executive Director's Conflict of Interest.

[b]CONTACT DETAILS[/b]:

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 301 7th Street, SW Room 5125 Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office* Tel: (202) 331-4060 Fax: (202) 296-5545 info@9-11Commission.gov

New York Office Tel: (212) 264-1505 Fax: (212) 264-1595 info@9-11Commission.gov

9/11 Family Liaison Office Tel: (212) 264-1505 Toll-Free: 1-888-862-0556 Fax: (212) 264-1595 ehartz@9-11Commission.gov

****************

[b]APPENDIX 3[/b]

Selected quotes from Cleland in an interview with Eric Boehlert:

"...a majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal."

"It is a national scandal."

"I say that [The President's] decision compromised the mission of the 9/11 commission, pure and simple. Far from the commissioners being able to fulfill their obligation to the Congress and the American people, and far from getting access to all the documents we need, the president of the United States is cherry-picking what information is shown to that minority of commissioners. Now this is ridiculous. That's not full and open access.

"If you trust one commissioner you should trust them all. I don't understand it. You can say, 'I'm not going to show anything to anybody, and take me to court.' At least that's consistent. But it's not consistent at all to say we're going to parse out this information and we determine how many members of the commission get to see it."

"It's all about 9/11. This is not a political witch hunt. This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."

"Let's chase this rabbit into the ground here. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war. They pulled off their task force in Afghanistan, their Predator assets, and shifted them over to the war in Iraq. They took their eye off the 9/11 ball and transferred it to the Iraq ball. And that's a very strategic question that ultimately has got to be answered. I'm focused on 9/11 and the administration is not focused on it. They don't want to share information, and they didn't agree with the commission in the first place."

Corporate Right-Wing Media: Lies, What Lies?

03.30.04 (3:49 pm) [edit]

Matthew Yglesias over at the [i]American Prospect [/i]identifies http://www.prospect.org/webfe... two reasons why the mainstream media has given the Bush administration a pass on its performance. One is "a prosecutorial mindset in the media, overly concerned with whether or not the narrow criteria for a lie have been met." Given such a strict, almost legalistic definition, the White House has been able to use omission, vague language, and contradictory rhetoric to get away with, well, lying.

The other reason is, of course, the overly deferent posture adopted by journalists in the wake of 9/11. Yglesias quotes[i] New York Times [/i]reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, who explains the unwillingness to ask tough questions in the lead up to the Iraq war as follows: "Think about it, you're standing up on primetime live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

There is another reason that journalists are afraid, ashamed and intimidated not to report why they do not report upon the Bush administration's lies and criminal activities: [i]corporate ownership of media outlets [/i]and the slow, but sure transformation of our media into a fascist propaganda machine in service of right-wing regimes who undermine the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights in favor of special interests.

Compromised 9/11 Investigation a Looming National Scandal -- Demands Congressional Action

03.30.04 (1:56 pm) [edit]

Hapless Boob Bush Can't Testify ALONE - Bush Can't Remember His LI(N)ES-LIES!!!

03.30.04 (11:12 am) [edit]

Apparently Dubya can't testify [b]ALONE[/b]. He needs Cheney by his side.

Can't Bush remember his LI(N)ES...LIES...LI(N)ES...LIES...LI(N)ES...LIES? [b]NOPE![/b]

Read the Text of Abuse of Power by the Bushites--

[u]Text of the letter White House counsel Alberto Gonzales sent to the Sept. 11 commission on Tuesday, addressed to Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, chairman and vice chairman of the commission[/u]: - http://www.miami.com/mld/miam...

Dear Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton:

As we discussed last night, the president is prepared, subject to the conditions set forth below, to agree to the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States for public testimony, under oath, by the assistant to the president for national security affairs, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

The president has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the commission and instructed the executive branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the commission. To my knowledge, the executive branch has provided access to documents or information in response to each of the requests issued by the commission to date, including many highly classified and extremely sensitive documents that have seldom, if ever, been made available outside the executive branch.

As an additional accommodation, the executive office of the president has made available more than 20 EOP officials, including the national security adviser, for private meetings with the commission. As you know, based on principles underlying the constitutional separation of powers, presidents of both parties have long taken the position that White House advisers and staff are not subject to the jurisdiction of legislative bodies and do not provide testimony - even on a voluntary basis - on policy matters discussed within the White House or advice given to the president. Indeed, I am not aware of any instance of a sitting national security adviser testifying in public to a legislative body (such as the commission) concerning policy matters.

We continue to believe, as I advised you by letter dated March 25, 2004, that the principles underlying the constitutional separation of powers counsel strongly against such public testimony, and that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001, present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances, and with conditions and assurances designed to limit harm to the ability of future presidents to receive candid advice.

Nevertheless, the president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission's responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, we have now received assurances from the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate that, in their view, Dr. Rice's public testimony in connection with the extraordinary events of September 11, 2001, does not set, and should not be cited as, a precedent for future requests for a national security adviser or any other White House official to testify before a legislative body. In light of the unique nature of the commission and these additional assurances, the president has determined that, although he retains the legal authority to decline to make Dr. Rice available to testify in public, he will agree, as a matter of comity and subject to the conditions set forth below, to the commission's request for Dr. Rice to testify publicly regarding matters within the commission's statutory mandate.

The necessary conditions are as follows. First, the commission must agree in writing that Dr. Rice's testimony before the commission does not set any precedent for future commission requests, or requests in any other context, for testimony by a national security adviser or any other White House official.

Second, the commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice. The national security adviser is uniquely situated to provide the commission with information necessary to fulfill its statutory mandate. Indeed, it is for this reason that Dr. Rice privately met with the commission for more than four hours on February 7, fully answered every question posed to her, and offered additional private meetings as necessary. Despite the fact that the commission will therefore have access to all information of which Dr. Rice is aware, the commission has nevertheless urged that public confidence in the work of the commission would be enhanced by Dr. Rice appearing publicly before the commission. Other White House officials with information relevant to the commission's inquiry do not come within the scope of the commission's rationale for seeking public testimony from Dr. Rice. These officials will continue to provide the commission with information through private meetings, briefings, and documents, consistent with our previous practice.

I greatly appreciate the strong support you expressed to me last night for an agreement to the conditions on which we are proposing this extraordinary accommodation and your commitment to strongly advocate for the full support of the commission. If the commission accepts the terms of this agreement, I hope that we can schedule a time as soon as possible for such a public appearance by Dr. Rice. I want to reiterate once again, however, that Dr. Rice would be made available to the commission with due regard for the constitutional separation of powers and reserving all legal authorities, privileges, and objections that may apply, including with respect to other governmental entities or private parties.

[b]I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one [i][u]joint[/u][/i] private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session[/b].

I look forward to continuing to work with the commission to help it obtain the information it needs to fulfill its statutory mandate.

Will Neo-Fascist Bush Confess After Watching "The Passion of the Christ"???????

03.30.04 (9:39 am) [edit]

Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were "standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about the cost of its prescription drug bill.

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics — even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power — to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

To be fair, Senator Bill Frist's suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded everyone of the White House's reaction to revelations by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: an immediate investigation into whether he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the administration's evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.

And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.

On the terrorism front, here's one story that deserves special mention. One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions — a case in Detroit — seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead prosecutor complained about the Justice Department's handling of the case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation — and someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.

Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."

[u]This Isn't America[/u], Paul Krugman, http://nytimes.com/2004/03/30...

[b]WILL NEO-FASCIST DUBYA CONFESS HIS MURDEROUS CRIMES AFTER WATCHING 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST'? I DOUBT IT. HE'S TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO CROOKED[/b].

Will Neo-Fascist George Bush Confess After Watching "The Passion of the Christ"???????

03.30.04 (9:35 am) [edit]

Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn't America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

So even in Israel, George Bush's America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration's reaction to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush's terrorism policy isn't controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That's why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were "standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about the cost of its prescription drug bill.

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

This administration's reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics — even compared with Nixon's. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power — to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

To be fair, Senator Bill Frist's suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded everyone of the White House's reaction to revelations by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill: an immediate investigation into whether he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the administration's evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.

And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.

On the terrorism front, here's one story that deserves special mention. One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions — a case in Detroit — seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead prosecutor complained about the Justice Department's handling of the case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation — and someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.

Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I've been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."

- [i]This Isn't America[/i], Paul Krugman, http://nytimes.com/2004/03/30...

[b]WILL NEO-FASCIST DUBYA CONFESS HIS MURDEROUS CRIMES AFTER HE WATCHES "THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST?". I DOUBT IT-- HE'S TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO, TOO CROOKED.[/b]

Compromised 9/11 Investigation a Looming National Scandal -- Demands Congressional Action

03.30.04 (9:22 am) [edit]

... Uncounted Dead ...

03.30.04 (6:17 am) [edit]

More than a year after the launch of the Iraqi War, the U.S. has no answer to a fairly straightforward question: how many Iraqis have been killed in the invasion and occupation of their country? The U.S. can't say how many Iraqis have been killed for a very simple reason: it doesn't keep count.

"We don't keep a list. It's just not policy," Pentagon spokeswoman Lieutenant Commander Jane Campbell explained to the New York Times earlier this month. The Pentagon may not keep track, but several organizations--with far fewer resources than the U.S. government--do.

The Iraqi Body Count Project, which tracks press accounts, puts the number of Iraqi civilians killed up to now at between 8,790 and 10,639. Last month, a report released by the influential Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA) stated that between 7,800-10,700 Iraqi combatants and between 3,200-4,300 civilians died during the combat phase of the war. The numbers were arrived at using journalistic surveys of Iraqi hospitals and death certificates, interviews with Iraqi military commanders, and other news reports, as well as U.S. records of its military operations.

The PDA charges that the Department of Defense has sought to mislead the public about the human toll of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. According to the PDA, the military exaggerated the extent to which its "precision warfare" minimized civilian casualties even as it claimed that it was impossible to get an accurate estimate of the dead. The military compounded this "casualty agnosticism" during the most publicized of wars with "casualty irrelevance" -- arguing that the body account was not an appropriate marker by which to judge the war’s success or failure.

When, in July of 2003, the BBC asked Coalition Military Commander U.S. Lieutenant General Rick Sanchez about the Iraqi dead, he said:

[i]"No, we do not know what the exact numbers were. Even now, when we conduct engagements, normally what will happen, according to the cultural beliefs, the dead are removed very quickly, so we cannot establish those numbers. At this point, we are not attempting to establish the numbers of Iraqis who were killed during the conflict. In terms of compensation, payments are not standard during wartime. That is something that would have to be addressed later on, especially in co-ordination with an Iraqi government once it is established[/i]."

U.S. officials termed civilians killed and maimed during the war regrettable "collateral damage." Human rights groups particularly criticized the use of cluster bombs by the military. Many of the fragments left by those bombs -- bomblets -- failed to explode at the time and are continuing to kill and maim civilians. As the Village Voice reports:

"[i]The bomblets look like fun to kids. Shiny, tossable pieces of metal, they resemble a large D battery or a small hand grenade. Attached to the bottom are long, white ribbons, rather like streamers a child might fasten to the handlebars of a bike. Human Rights Watch (HRW) estimates that coalition forces left 2 million of these little bombs all over Iraq, killing or injuring perhaps a thousand civilians. Cluster munitions, the group reports, caused more harm to noncombatants than any other weapon during the war[/i]."

The practice of casualty agnosticism has continued following the end of hostilities -- even as Iraqi civilians continue to be killed by bomblets and at U.S. checkpoints. No record is kept of the number of Iraqis--surely in the hundreds--killed by suicide bombers. The Washington Post says that:

"[i]Historically, the Pentagon has not tried to count civilian casualties and losses resulting from U.S. military action. Military officials have given various reasons for this, citing principally the time and resources involved and the difficulty of separating damage caused by U.S. forces from damage caused by the enemy[/i]."

Casualty agnosticism, of course, has a clear political rationale: the U.S.’s fear that reports of heavy civilian casualties will shake the fragile domestic support for the Iraqi war and occupation and further stoke the overwhelming foreign opposition to its actions in Iraq. As John Pike, founder of the Virginia-based military think-tank GlobalSecurity.org argues, this a lesson the Pentagon learned from Vietnam: "… the military used the body count in Vietnam and have been allergic to it every since."

The U.S. also insists that it is under no legal obligation to compensate the families of those who were wrongfully killed or injured by American soldiers.

U.S. Captain Jonathan Tracy, the lawyer in charge of handling the Iraqi claims, believes that the government has been charitable in providing any monetary compensation at all:

"[i]There's nothing out there that legally forces us to pay them…It's gratuitous. The point behind the policy is to build friendly relations[/i]."

In fact, the "sympathy payments" made by the United States government have been pitiful. As the Christian Science Monitor reports:

"[i]So far, the US military has paid out $2.2 million to Iraqi civilians in response to a flood of claims of wrongful or negligent injuries or death at the hands of US forces. In total, the military has received 15,000 claims, 5,600 of which it has accepted.

In distributing such payments, the military says they are not accepting liability or responsibility, and in fact no soldier has ever faced charges for illegally killing an Iraqi civilian. In some cases, victims must waive their right to take further legal action in order to receive the money.[/i]"

The U.S. has not made the application process easy. The burden of proof lies with the claimants, who wait for hours in long lines to present their case -- which may or may not be referred for further consideration. They have to provide death certificates and eyewitness accounts. If not for the work of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) and other human rights groups, many claimants would be unable to put their case together at all. As CIVIC's founder Marla Ruzicka says:

"[i]We go door-to-door, we check hospital records and death certificates to verify. Our work is very accurate. We know if we are trying to get assistance to people, if we have one false claim it could throw out all of our claims[/i]."

Ruzicka has some allies in the U.S. Congress. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has authored a measure, passed last year, providing that part of the reconstruction aid allocated to Iraq be used to compensate innocent civilians hurt in the course of the fighting.

The Weekly Standard points out that human rights groups' fears of hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties have been proven wrong. It goes on to argue (correctly, and, for current purposes, irrelevantly) that many more Iraqis would have been killed had Hussein's regime remained in place than have been killed during and after the war:

"[i]How many Iraqis were saved by the use of force against Saddam can be counted in several ways. At a bare minimum, several thousand Iraqis were saved from being killed in individual political murders. This includes political prisoners (including children) who poured from Saddam's dungeons at liberation, Shia activists, other dissenters, and military men suspected of disloyalty. Toppling Saddam also saved several thousand more at dire risk from his gradually rising violence against the Shia. If the Shia or Kurds were targeted with wholesale murder, as seemed increasingly likely, the regime could easily have resumed killing at its historic rate of 15,000 to 20,000 deaths a year. Specifically, the West's already existing threat to use force inside Iraq to protect Kurdistan--a threat whose credibility might well have collapsed if the Coalition had crumbled last year--saved tens of thousands more from certain death every year it was in place[/i].

Of course, saving Iraqi lives was not prime motive for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The yet to be found WMDs -- the ones that President George Bush told reporters at last week's black-tie dinner "have got to be here somewhere" as slides showed him looking under a chair and other Oval Office hiding spots -- were. (For a good account of this low moment, see David Corn's eyewitness account.)

The rights and wrongs of the war are a separate issue from whether it is appropriate to keep track of those who died during it. The Bush administration, deliberately and unfortunately, has created the impression that the United States does not care how many Iraqi civilians have been killed and injured thus far or about how their families will cope with the emotional and financial burdens incurred by those losses.

Keeping count of the Iraqi dead is the right thing to do -- both morally and politically -- and so are just monetary compensations. If the U.S. wants to teach Iraqis about accountability, it should set an example by keeping this most important of counts.

[u]Nonna Gorilovskaya, Mother Jones[/u], http://www.motherjones.com/ne...

Connecting the Dots ...

03.29.04 (7:02 pm) [edit]

[b][u]'Against All Enemies' and 'Ghost Wars': Connecting the Dots[/u][/b]

Discounting the possibility that the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, is secretly a publicist for the Free Press, one must assume that the Bush administration really is angry at its former counterterrorism czar, and isn't simply trying to help him sell more books. But if President Bush and his advisers were hoping that their loud pre-emptive attacks on ''Against All Enemies'' would make this book go away, they were sadly mistaken. Richard A. Clarke knows too much, and ''Against All Enemies'' is too good to be ignored.

The explosive details about President Bush's obsession with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks captured the headlines in the days after the book's release, but ''Against All Enemies'' offers more. It is a rarity among Washington-insider memoirs - it's a thumping good read.

The first - and by far the best - chapter is a heart-stopping account of the turmoil inside the White House on the morning of Sept. 11, when Washington suddenly came blinking into a bloody new world. I hope Clarke has sold the rights to Hollywood, at least for his opening chapter, because I would pay to see this movie. You can guess who gets to play Jack Ryan in his retelling of that historic morning.

By Sept. 11, 2001, Dick Clarke had become the ultimate White House insider; he was not only a Clinton holdover, he was a holdover from the first Bush administration and had served in the Reagan State Department. He had been working at the National Security Council for about a decade, and in 1998 had been named White House counterterrorism coordinator by President Clinton. He was asked to stay on in the same post by the second Bush administration. But he had quickly become frustrated by the new team's unwillingness to address the mounting threat from Osama bin Laden. By the morning of Sept. 11, he was still handling counterterrorism, but was planning to leave for a lower-profile assignment dealing with cybersecurity.

In the first minutes after the attacks, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, told Clarke to act as crisis manager in the White House Situation Room, and he seized the moment. In his account, it was he who recommended to Vice President Dick Cheney that President Bush should not come back to the White House from Florida, and he who gave the order triggering the Continuity of Government procedures, the doomsday rules under which cabinet members and Congressional leaders were whisked to undisclosed locations.

With Clarke at the helm of a secure videoconference network linking the White House with other key agencies, in quick succession thousands of commercial aircraft were grounded; the country's land and sea borders were closed; the military went to Defcon 3, its highest alert level in nearly 30 years; and the Russians were notified. ''Damn good thing I did that,'' Clarke quotes Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as telling him. ''Guess who was about to start an exercise of all their strategic nuclear forces?''

While Clarke and his aides were holding down the fort in the Situation Room and the president was flying around the country on Air Force One, Vice President Cheney, his wife and aides were holed up in a little-known bunker in the East Wing of the White House called the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. At one point that morning, Clarke went to the bunker to see Cheney; navigating his way into the vault past grim, shotgun-toting guards, he found that Lynne Cheney had turned down the volume on the television hooked up to the secure videoconference so she could listen to CNN.

The most controversial incident in ''Against All Enemies'' deals with the president's eagerness to link the Sept. 11 attacks to Iraq, and comes on the night of Sept. 12. Clarke writes that he saw Bush wandering alone through the Situation Room. The president then stopped and asked Clarke and a few aides to ''go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.''

Clarke said he was ''taken aback, incredulous.'' He told the president, ''Al Qaeda did this.''

''I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred. . . .'' After the president left, one of Clarke's aides said, ''Wolfowitz got to him.''

Within a few months of the attacks, Clarke's access clearly did begin to dwindle; White House officials played on his lack of firsthand knowledge of Iraq war planning to attack the credibility of his book. But the key allegation in the book - that the Bush team was obsessed with Iraq even when faced with overwhelming evidence that it was Al Qaeda that was attacking the United States - can't be dismissed by assertions that he was out of the loop. During those early days, Richard Clarke was the loop.

''Ghost Wars,'' Steve Coll's objective - and terrific - account of the long and tragic history leading up to Sept. 11, is a welcome antidote to the fevered partisan bickering that accompanied the release of Clarke's book.

Coll, the managing editor of The Washington Post, has given us what is certainly the finest historical narrative so far on the origins of Al Qaeda in the post-Soviet rubble of Afghanistan. He has followed up that feat by threading together the complex roles played by diplomats and spies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States into a coherent story explaining how Afghanistan became such a welcoming haven for Al Qaeda.

In particular, Coll has done a great service by revealing how Saudi Arabia and its intelligence operations aided the rise of Osama bin Laden and Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia's alleged involvement in terrorism has been the subject of wild conspiracy theories since Sept. 11; Coll gives us a clear and balanced view of Saudi Arabia's real ties to bin Laden. The links he reveals are serious enough to prompt an important debate about the nature of the Saudi-American partnership in the fight against terrorism. ''Saudi intelligence officials said years later that bin Laden was never a professional Saudi intelligence agent,'' he writes, referring to Saudi support for foreign Arab fighters against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Still, ''it seems clear that bin Laden did have a substantial relationship with Saudi intelligence.''

Coll overlaps with Clarke in his detailed recounting of the mush that was the Clinton administration's counterterrorism policy. Unlike Clarke, however, Coll doesn't have an ax to grind, and so offers a more evenhanded view of the internal battles between the White House, the C.I.A. and other agencies at a time when terrorism was not Washington's top priority. As a reporter who struggled to cover many of the twists and turns in counterterrorism policy that Coll describes, I find ''Ghost Wars'' provides fresh details and helps explain the motivations behind many crucial decisions.

As Coll seeks to explain why the Clinton team never mounted a serious effort to go after Al Qaeda, even after the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa, he finds plenty of blame to go around: ''Clinton's National Security Council aides firmly believed that they were the aggressive ones on the Al Qaeda case, pursuing every possible avenue to get at bin Laden over calcified resistance or incompetence within the C.I.A. and Pentagon bureaucracies. From the other side of the Potomac, Clinton's White House often looked undisciplined, unfocused and uncertain.'' ''Ghost Wars'' also corroborates many of Clarke's assertions that counterterrorism policy was largely ignored by the new Bush administration before Sept. 11. Coll notes, as does Clarke, that the Bush team didn't hold its first cabinet-level meeting on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan until Sept. 4, one week before the twin towers fell.

Coll closes with the Sept. 9, 2001, murder of Ahmed Shah Massoud, an Afghan rebel leader who had been cooperating with the C.I.A. in its vain efforts to track bin Laden around Afghanistan. As with so many other warnings before it, the full significance of Massoud's murder was missed until it was too late. Here and elsewhere in ''Ghost Wars,'' Coll's riveting narrative makes the reader want to rip the page and yell at the American counterterrorism officials he describes - including Clarke - and tell them to watch out.

[u]James Risen is the author, with Milt Bearden, of ''The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the C.I.A.'s Final Showdown With the K.G.B.'' He covers national security for The Times.[/u] - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Richard Clarke Wants Full Disclosure ... Will Hypocritical Bush/Rice Comply?

03.29.04 (12:27 pm) [edit]

[b]Richard Clarke wants full disclosure of the facts ...

Will the hypocritical Bush/Rice gang comply? Thus, far the Bush/Rice gang have only released misleading partial e-mails in an attempt to destroy Clarke. Why don't they reveal the full facts?[/b]

Richard Clarke, the former terrorism adviser whose revelations threaten to torpedo George Bush's re-election strategy, launched a counterattack yesterday at a White House that he said was determined to destroy him. In a riveting television performance, Mr Clarke called on his principal critic and former employer, the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to release the entire record of their emails in the months up to the September 11 terror attacks to prove his contention that the White House did not then take the threat of al-Qaida seriously.

He also agreed to Republican demands to declassify testimony he gave to the Senate two years ago - to "prove" there were no inconsistencies. "Let's take all of my emails and all the memos I sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of them," Mr Clarke told NBC television.

Mr Clarke's bravura presentation surprised the Bush administration. The decision to stand his ground could also be destructive to Ms Rice. She has been under intense scrutiny for a week - largely for being the focus of Mr Clarke's charges that the Bush government did not see al-Qaida as a priority before September 11, but also because she refused to testify before the commission.

Yesterday, the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, called for Ms Rice to testify in public. "We recognise there are arguments having to do with separation of powers. We think in a tragedy of this magnitude that those kind of legal arguments are probably overridden," he said. But he said he would not force the issue with a court order.

Even leading Republican figures are criticising Ms Rice's refusal to appear, saying it looked as if she had something to hide. "I think she'd be wise to testify," said Richard Perle, a former Pentagon adviser.

Further damage was inflicted yesterday in a Los Angeles Times report discrediting a prewar claim by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had trucks capable of dispersing dangerous substances such as anthrax. The report claimed the information came from a single discredited source and reached US intelligence agents third-hand.

In Israel, meanwhile, a parliamentary committee investigating exaggerated prewar claims over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction concluded that western agencies had dealt in speculation not facts.

The committee said claims that Saddam was expanding his armoury were based on evaluations shared among intelligence agencies in Israel, the US, Britain and elsewhere, that reinforced "dubious interpretations" of the few facts available.

But the report released yesterday by the foreign affairs and defence committee said that while there was a "serious intelligence failure" there was no evidence of deliberate deception to build a false case.

[u]Clarke challenges Rice to reveal secret emails[/u], Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian UK, http://www.independent-media....%20Reported

Blabbering Bush Head: Sick of this Crap!!!!!!!

03.29.04 (11:01 am) [edit]

[b]Blabbering Bush Head

Sick of this Crap!!!!!!![/b]

Click on http://www.sickofthiscrap.com...

10 Minute Rice: Three Lies And No Apology

03.29.04 (6:21 am) [edit]

Condi Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, appeared on[i] 60 Minutes [/i]Sunday evening, but, unlike Bush anti-terrorism adviser Dick Clarke at the 9/11 Probe, she did not swear on the Bible that what she would say would be the truth. While Clarke on [i]60 Minutes [/i]last Sunday allowed himself to be probed and turned inside and out for nearly the entire program, the edited tape of the Rice interview with Ed Bradley lasted around 10 minutes, and she said nothing new. The short episode came across as political spin to control the bleeding, and nothing more.

[b]Rice's Lie #1 [/b]([i]transcript[/i]: http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... )

DICK CLARKE (video):
I said 'Mr. President, we've done this before. We - we've been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind, there's no connection.' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam - find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer....

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I - I have never seen the president say an - anything to an - people in an intimidating way, to try to get a particular answer out of them. I know this president very well. And the president doesn't talk to his staff in an intimidating way to ask them to produce information - that is false.

OUR RESPONSE:
Clarke and two others were in the room with Bush. The others have gone on record as agreeing with Clarke's description of the meeting. Condi was not present.

[b]Rice's Lie #2[/b] ([i]transcript[/i]: http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... )

VOICE OVER:
All week long, the White House said it had no recollection that the September 12 meeting ever took place, and that it had no record that President Bush was even in the situation room that day. But two days ago, they changed their story, saying the meeting did happen.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
"None of us recall the specific - conversation....

OUR RESPONSE:
Actually, two lies here. First, the White House said the meeting didn't happen, then they changed their story. Second, Condi misleads Bradley by saying "us" did not recall the specific conversation. Of course "us" didn't since it has already been established that "us" was not in the room at the time of the conversation.

[b]Rice's Lie #3 [/b]([i]transcript[/i]: http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... )

ED BRADLEY:
Clarke has alleged that the Bush administration underestimated the threat from - from al Qaeda, didn't act as if terrorism was an imminent and urgent problem. Was it?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Of course it was an urgent - problem....

ED BRADLEY: :
But even the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism, and I'm quoting here, farther to the back burner.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I just don't agree....

ED BRADLEY:
After 9/11, Bob Woodward wrote a book in which he had incredible access and interviewed the president of the United States. He quotes President Bush as saying that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Osama bin Laden. Woodward wrote that bin Laden was not the president's focus or that of his nationally security team. You're saying that the administration says fighting terrorism and al-Qaeda has been a top priority since the beginning.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
I'm saying that the administration took seriously the threat - let's talk about what we did....

ED BRADLEY: :
You'd listed the things that you'd done. But here is the perception. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at that time says you pushed it to the back burner. The former Secretary of the Treasury says it was not a priority. Mr. Clarke says it was not a priority. And at least, according to Bob Woodward, who talked with the president, he is saying that for the president, it wasn't urgent. He didn't have a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. That's the perception here.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE:
Ed, I don't know what a sense of urgency - any greater than the one that we had, would have caused us to do differently.

OUR RESPONSE:
It's clear that Bradley wants to discuss the Clarke charge that the Bush administration changed terrorism from the top priority to one of secondary concern, and Rice attepts to twist the question of giving terrorism "top priority" to taking terrorism "seriously," which are two different things. Then Bush is quoted as saying terrorism was not "urgent." Rice ignores this documented quote and goes on to disagree with Bush. As such, she is attempting to mislead by changing the terms from "top priority" to "seriously," and to simply ignore the evidence presented that Bush disagrees with her. As such, she is on auto-pilot as she lies, spinning the implicit scenario she wants Bradley to accept.

Finally, Bradley repeatedly gave Rice the program's forum to apologize for 9/11 to the millions of viewers watching the show, like Clarke did on the show last week and previously to that under oath in front of the 9/11 Panel, but she refused each time. ([i]transcript[/i]: http://www.cbsnews.com/storie... )

--[i][b]Jerry Politex[/b][/i], 03.29.04 - http://bushwatch.org/bush.htm...

White House Whitewash: Conflict-of-Interest At The Heart Of The Of The U.S. Commission

03.29.04 (6:16 am) [edit]

[u][b]A conflict of interest at the heart of the US 9/11 Commission hearings has been exposed by the families of the Twin Towers victims[/b][/u]

ANDREW Rice is angry with George Bush. His brother David was 31 years old when he died as United Airlines Flight 175 ploughed into the south tower of the World Trade Center where David worked as a financier with the investment firm Sandler O'Neill.

Andrew doesn't buy the rhetoric from the White House that Bush is a great war president who can make America stronger and safer. To Andrew, Bush is a charlatan making a mockery out of the deaths of his brother and the some 3000 other men, women and children who died on September 11, 2001.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that Andrew Rice might then be glad to see the bloody battering that the Bush administration took this week during the ongoing commission hearings in Washington into whether or not the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

Bush and his team were painted as a feckless, lazy and ill-informed bunch who had little clue about al-Qaeda, and were fixated on Iraq. Security seemed far from the top of their agenda while an ideological obsession with taking out Saddam appeared to obscure the real dangers posed by Osama bin Laden's network of fundamentalist killers.

But the hammering that Bush took during the hearings did little to appease Rice and other family members like him. To Rice, who chairs the 9/11 Commission Committee of the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows organization, the whole inquiry is one big fix that will do everything it can to hide the truth of what the US president and his closest advisors knew about the attacks.

Last week saw Dick Clarke, the former White House anti-terrorism chief under Bush and Bill Clinton, give evidence before the inquiry. Most of America already knew what he was going to say as they'd read it in his bestseller Against all Enemies where he claimed that the Bush administration ignored mounting warnings of a coming terror attack. Clarke said that when 9/11 did happen the Bush inner circle was desperate to link it to Saddam .

Clarke also said that Bush's national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, who has refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission under oath, didn't seem to know what al-Qaeda was. Rice gave Clarke the brush-off when he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaeda threat. Dilatory plans by the Bush administration to deal with al-Qaeda, which weren't finalized until a week before the 9/11 attacks, were scorned by commission member Bob Kerry, who said he'd seen the document and it contained "nothing new whatsoever".

While Democrats might be whooping it up at the expense of Bush, Andrew Rice and many other families of 9/11 victims see these events as nothing more than political point-scoring. They don't care which politician comes off best, what they care about is the truth and they are sure that they are not going to get it.

You can hardly blame Rice for his pessimism. Many family members believe the "fix was in" from the very beginning and cite the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the commission's executive director as proof positive.

Zelikow was a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; he worked under Jim Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr; spent three years on the first President Bush's National Security Council and, as well as working with Condoleezza Rice, wrote two books with her as well.

Zelikow supported the White House when the administration said it would only release the president's daily briefings (PDB), prepared by the CIA, to the commission once they had been edited. Zelikow said: " The notion that the commission should want to read PDB articles that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda would be a novel suggestion."

One Democrat on the commission, Timothy Roemer, said agreeing to the White House demands would remove the context in which intelligence was presented and allow any "smoking guns" to be hidden from public scrutiny.

The White House acknowledged back in 2002 that a copy of the PDB in August 2001 noted that al-Qaeda might use hijacked planes in an attack on the USA. The commission has designated four members to read the reports. They will be allowed to take notes, but the White House can edit their notes to remove anything deemed sensitive.

Family members believe Zelikow's key conflict of interest stems from his role in the transition period between the Clinton and Bush presidencies. It was then that Zelikow worked on Bush's team to smooth the handover in terms of intelligence and to help formulate national security policy.

The Clinton administration has claimed that al-Qaeda was a top security priority. Zelikow would know, therefore, just how much importance both the Clinton and Bush governments placed on al-Qaeda. He would also have had a role in fine-tuning the Bush policy on al-Qaeda.

Clarke says he clearly and bluntly warned Bush officials about the risk of al-Qaeda when they took office. "It was very explicit," he said. "Rice was briefed ... and Zelikow sat in." Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, said there was no question of any conflict of interests regarding Zelikow.

Andrew Rice seethes over information like this. "I've contacted the commission to say that it's laughable that Zelikow was appointed to such a position. I have big problems with the White House editing the PDBs, but Zelikow defended the decision. He worked with these people and now he is defending them.

"This commission was created by the establishment and the friends of the establishment are now part of the commission. Is it really an investigation? Zelikow is a symbol of the way this inquiry has been constructed. As far as the Clinton and Bush administrations being held to account - we won't hear about it. It is not about transparency, it is just there to appease the public.

"But it won't appease me or many other family members. We need a truly independent commission that is outside the realm of government. Zelikow should never have been in this in the first place. Aren't there other and better people out there who didn't work with Condoleezza Rice?

"The worst case scenario is that I fear this could be a whitewash and a cover-up. We know these people were obsessed with Iraq and not al-Qaeda - and that could ruin the administration. We also know the administration had strong ties to the Saudis.

"Bush only wants to be re-elected. It is so disingenuous of him to portray himself as the 9/11 president. He doesn't want people to look at all the dirty relationships."

The commission findings won't be published until April 2005 - after the presidential election in November. "We know the commission's findings can't affect the election, so why don't we push back the deadline further and get a new guy in?" asks Rice.

" No-one at any level of government - from a security guard at an airport to the President - has been held accountable for the biggest security failure in the history of this country."

Rice suspects that at the end of the inquiry a "figure like Ollie North will take the spear in the chest, while the rest will all be protected".

"In a situation like this, there is so little I can do," he adds. "I'm as powerless as when I watched my brother murdered on TV. We have so little recourse to find out who is responsible, who, by their mistakes and incompetency, helped this happen.

" My brother's death will not be in vain. I have to work hard to illuminate the hypocrisy of politicians who want to benefit from these tragedies while not caring about transparency.

"There is such a lack of humility. Bush runs ads draping himself in this tragedy. My brother wouldn't have wanted that. If we want to be secure then we need to know the full truth."

When Clarke told the September 11 families crowded into the commission chamber that he was sorry, that "the government failed you and I failed you", they got to their feet, with tears in their eyes, and cheered and clapped him. Why the outpouring of thanks and sadness? Simple, says Kirsten Breitweiser, a 9/11 families spokeswoman: "It was the first time we received an apology, or any acknowledgement of mistakes."

[u]White House Whitewash[/u], The Sunday Herald, http://www.commondreams.org/h...

No Time For DeLay ...

03.28.04 (1:12 pm) [edit]

First came Trent Lott and his wistful memories of segregation. Now Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader, may be forced step down if he's indicted for funneling corporate campaign contributions through an organization called 'Texans for a Republican Majority.'

Though stepping down from his leadership position is required under Republican conference rules, DeLay has thus far denied that any discussions on the subject have taken place. His aides characterize the investigation as a 'Democratic witch hunt' in response to the heavily partisan redistricting rammed through by Texas Republicans.

A [i]UPI [/i]report notes http://washingtontimes.com/up... : 'even if he is indicted, DeLay could return to the leadership post if...(the charges) are reduced to a non-felony.'

So far the Bush administration has yet to comment.

For Europe, Terrorism Reinforces Old Grievances With Bush's Failed Neocon Policies

03.28.04 (10:37 am) [edit]

While President Bush was giving an address earlier this month describing the war on terrorism as "not a figure of speech" but "an inescapable calling of our generation," the official in charge of overseeing Europe's counterterrorism efforts was offering a far different assessment.

"Europe is not at war," Javier Solana, foreign policy chief for the European Union, told a German newspaper. "We have to energetically oppose terrorism, but we mustn't change the way we live."

Between those two declarations lies a gap that reflects the different modern histories, cultures and approaches to terrorism of the United States and Europe, according to politicians and analysts on the continent.

The Madrid train bombings that killed 190 rush-hour commuters on March 11 -- the first major attack on European soil believed to have been carried out by Islamic extremists connected to the al Qaeda network -- has compelled European nations to reassess how they fight terrorism. At a summit that ended Friday, EU leaders announced several measures designed to increase cooperation among their police forces and intelligence services. But the attacks have not led to a fundamental shift in Europe's approach.

"The Europeans are simply not as shocked by terrorism as Americans were," said Michael Clarke, director of the International Policy Institute at King's College London. "March 11 in Madrid was a wake-up call to Europe, whereas September 11 to America was the beginning of a new kind of war. So we say we've got to do more of the same, only a bit more vigorously, which is a very European reaction. But for the United States, September 11 meant not just new policies but a new way of thinking about the world."

Nor have the Madrid attacks led to an increase in transatlantic unity against terrorism. Instead, analysts said, the attacks have reinforced familiar themes and old grievances with the Bush administration, especially the belief that the U.S.-led war in Iraq has given terrorists a new base and a new cause to rally behind.

"What Bush calls the war against terrorism is the war which Bush chose to wage in Iraq," said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. "And that war has become massively unpopular in Europe. People see it here as aggravating terrorism, not fighting it."

Interviews and polling research suggest that voters who ousted the pro-American government of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar after the Madrid bombings did so at least in part because they believed Spain's participation in the Iraq war had provoked the attacks. Polls in Britain and Italy, whose governments have also been high-profile supporters of the war, suggest voters there fear their countries have also joined al Qaeda's hit list.

Unlike during the Cold War, when most of Western Europe shared with the United States the same sense of danger from nuclear attack, many Europeans see terrorism as a selective threat -- and believe they can opt out by distancing themselves from Washington.

During a visit to Lisbon on Wednesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged that the Madrid bombings had exacerbated the divergence between the United States and Europe. But he urged other European leaders not to allow these differences to derail the fight against terrorism. "It would indeed be a ghastly victory for the people who committed the carnage of the innocent in Madrid, if in addition to the destruction and death, they also caused us to turn in recrimination on each other," he said.

Analysts trace some of the differences between the United States and Europe to the ways they view recent history. For Europeans, the seminal date is November 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell and Europe began the process of reunification with the former Soviet bloc. The end of the Cold War and European reunification has been the enduring narrative of the past 15 years, one that has promised peace and prosperity.

But for the United States, that narrative has been supplanted by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon and a new global campaign that some Americans liken to a new world war.

European leaders insist they are prepared to use force to combat terrorism. They point to their enthusiastic support for the U.S.-led military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. And Bush and European leaders have all identified the lack of democracy, human rights safeguards and economic opportunity as root causes of popular support for Islamic extremists in the Muslim world.

"At the government level I don't see any huge differences in principle," said Gary Samore, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "Everyone accepts you need both hard power in the near term to deal with terrorist operatives and soft power to deal in the long term with root causes."

Europeans have had decades of bitter experience in dealing with domestic terrorism. Britain waged a 25-year campaign against the Irish Republican Army, while Spain has battled the Basque separatist group ETA. Germany defeated the Baader-Meinhof gang and Italy, the Red Brigades. France has engaged in a long struggle with Islamic extremists from Algeria.

"Their experience told them terrorism is a threat but not a war," said Mustafa Alani, a terrorism analyst at the Royal United Services Institute here. "If it's a war, you have to commit yourself fully -- all your resources, everything, and they found this has no appeal in public opinion."

European officials say they recognize that the diffuse nature of Islamic terrorism -- small cells of militants operating autonomously -- is a new phenomenon that requires better cross-border cooperation to combat. They also concede that Islamic radicals are using European cities as staging grounds for attacks elsewhere, beginning with the Sept. 11 strikes, which were carried out largely by an al Qaeda cell in Hamburg. Several countries, notably Britain, have adopted tough anti-terrorism legislation and rounded up hundreds of suspected operatives. But many officials acknowledge they have been slow to implement steps to deal with terrorism on a transnational level.

The way in which Jamal Zougam, the principal suspect in the Madrid bombings, slipped through the net of several nations illustrates the problem. Spanish, French and Moroccan investigators have all said that Zougam, a Moroccan national, was on their list of suspected terrorists and that they evaluated him as a potential threat. But each also said others took the threat less than seriously and failed to arrest him.

"There's a huge gap in terms of cooperation and coordination of information-gathering and intelligence," Alani said. "This is a transnational threat -- many operations are planned and prepared not in the target country but somewhere else. You cannot really fight it in a single state."

Just as in the United States, where the CIA and FBI have been reluctant to share resources and information, intelligence and law enforcement agencies in Europe have jealously guarded their own sources, methods and information. While they may cooperate with each other and with their U.S. counterparts on a case-by-case basis, analysts say there is no overall strategy or protocol. And many fear that the appointment of a new "anti-terrorism czar" -- one of a package of new measures EU leaders announced Thursday -- could add another layer of bureaucracy without improving effectiveness.

"It is a defining moment for the lack of definition," said Timothy Garton Ash, an international relations analyst at Oxford University. "We have yet to see a really coherent European response."

Many Europeans contend that the Bush administration's inability or unwillingness to try to make diplomatic progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a fundamental sore point in the fight against terrorism.

"You wouldn't do away with worldwide terrorism if you resolved it, but you'd reduce the breeding ground for extremism in the Middle East," said Volker Perthes of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

Ultimately, said Clarke of the International Policy Institute, Europeans and Americans have a fundamental cultural divide. "You're a can-do society," he said, "and there's an American cultural propensity to see terrorism, like other issues, as a problem that has to be solved. But the European attitude tends much more to see it as something that has to be managed."

[u]Europe, U.S. Diverge on How to Fight Terrorism[/u],
By Glenn Frankel, Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Bush Admits Negligence: Didn't Know What Was Going On, Didn't Want To Know ...

03.28.04 (10:30 am) [edit]

President Bush yesterday once again tried to fend off charges of gross negligence before 9/11, saying, "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." But with more evidence emerging this week that the White House received repeated warnings before 9/11 of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, the President's "had I known" defense raises two disturbing scenarios: Either a) the Administration is telling the truth, actually did not know of the threat despite receiving repeated warnings and was totally oblivious to a brewing national security crisis. Or b) the Administration is not telling the truth, actually knew about the threat from the warnings it received, and yet still failed to act with adequate urgency. See a list of warnings the Administration received before 9/11 and what they failed to do in response http://www.americanprogress.o...%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A52 1-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/911TC.DOC . Also see these internal government documents http://www.americanprogress.o... showing how the Administration downgraded and tried to slash funding for counterterrorism before 9/11.

[u][b]DISHONEST – RICE REFUTES HERSELF[/b][/u]: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice this week reiterated the President's "ignorance" defense, but in doing so repeated a lie that she had previously admitted was a lie. In 2002, she supported the President's "had I known" defense saying, "I don't think anybody could have predicted...that [terrorists] would try to use an airplane as a missile." But when presented this month with overwhelming evidence that the Administration had been warned about such a plot, she admitted privately to the 9/11 Commission that she had "misspoken." Yet, even after this admission, she proceeded to repeat the same dishonest claim, writing in a Washington Post op-ed this week that "we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." As one widely-respected FBI terrorism expert said, the Administration's "ignorance" defense is "an outrageous lie. And documents prove it's a lie." See this new American Progress backgrounder analyzing Rice's dishonesty http://www.americanprogress.o... .

[u][b]DISHONEST – BUSH ADMINISTRATION REFUTES RICE[/b][/u]: Rice this week said the Administration had formulated a National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) before 9/11 "that called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership." But according to the 9/11 Commission, "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Bush Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was asked whether Rice's assertions were true, and responded, "No."

[u][b]DISHONEST – RICE DISCREDITS HERSELF[/b][/u]: Rice claimed this week that "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." But the 9/11 Commission reported, "On January 25th, 2001, Richard Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice."

[u][b]NEW EVIDENCE – BEFORE 9/11, BUSH ADMIN SAYS BIN LADEN FOCUS WAS "MISTAKE[/b][/u]": New evidence emerged yesterday that discredits the Bush Administration's claim that fighting terrorism was their "top priority" when they came to office. On 4/30/01 the Bush Administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided to specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden." Similarly, AP reported in 2002 that the Bush Administration's "national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions."

[u][b]NEW EVIDENCE – BEFORE 9/11, BUSH ADMIN REJECTED BIPARTISAN COMMISSION[/b][/u]: President Bush yesterday claimed that "Prior to September the 11th, we thought oceans could protect us." That is a troubling statement from a President, considering that in January of 2001, the U.S. Government's Commission on National Security gave the White House a bipartisan report that warned of an attack on the homeland and urged the new Administration to implement its specific "recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism" (an intelligence warning of a domestic attack was also given to the White House in May of 2001). Unfortunately, according to Sens. Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Gary Hart (D-CO), the Administration rejected the Commission's report, "preferring to put aside the recommendations." Instead, the White House said it would have Vice President Cheney head up a task force to analyze the threat himself. The Administration then waited five months to officially create the task force, and then failed to convene a single meeting of the task force in the four months before 9/11.

[u]The Center for American Progress [/u]- http://www.americanprogress.o...

More Proof that Bush Whoops Up the Enormous Profits of Iraq War!

03.28.04 (10:23 am) [edit]

President Bush, offering new rationalizations for war in Iraq, said Wednesday that ''ending this obscure and imaginary threat'' from Saddam Hussein would pave the way for conquest in the Middle East and encourage subservience throughout the Arab world.

While saying the Iraqi regime has tried to avoid war, Bush told conservative backers that U.S. troops are ready for war and spoke at length about his plans for Iraq once Saddam is gone.

''The United States has every intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraq's conquerors,'' Bush told the American Enterprise Institute. ''We will ensure that one brutal dictator is replaced by another.''

The address came at the end of a day marked by intense diplomatic subterfuge, as Bush struggled to find votes in favor of a war-making resolution at the United Nations Security Council. The United States, Britain and Spain need nine votes and no vetoes to pass the measure.

Answering critics who say war would destabilize the region, Bush predicted there would be a ''new stage for Middle East exploitation'' once Saddam loses power.

Iraq was never a threat to dominate the region with weapons of mass destruction, Bush said, but he accused Saddam personally of financing suicide bombers, a charge Iraq has denied.

"We have not financed any bombings that were not specifically cleared by the CIA," said a spokesman for the Iraqi government.

''An obliterated Iraq can show the power of force to transform that vital region, by bringing despair and misery to the lives of millions,'' Bush said.

There was some evidence that Bush was gaining ground at the United Nations, including signals that Mexico, after an enormous bribe by the Bush White House, would back the resolution. But new obstacles emerged, including a plan by Canada to reconcile bitter differences between Bush's position and a French-Russian-German proposal to continue weapons inspections until at least July.

French President Jacques Chirac reiterated Wednesday that ''we are opposed to all new resolutions,'' no help to Bush but also no aid to the alternative the United States opposes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters in Moscow, ''We are not ready to fight, and we think that is a bad solution. George Bush and Dick Cheney are obviously bloodthirsty maniacs, and the world community must not let them spread their terrorism throughout the globe.''

Even so, U.S. officials said intense negotiations to stave off a veto from Russia yielded some results.

"We told that Russian shit that his country has no real power compared to us, and we can destabilize his government just as easily as we are doing to that beaner in Venezuela," said George Tenet, CIA director.

Saddam is trying to convince U.N. nations that he is complying with their anti-arms resolutions, despite the United States' speculation and lies that he is not. In a rare interview with a U.S. journalist, Saddam dismissed U.S. efforts to encourage his exile.

''We will die here,'' Saddam told an obviously amused Dan Rather, the well-know administration toady at CBS.

Bush sought to prepare the nation for the costs of conflict - both financially and in soldiers' lives, calling for a ''sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. The American taxpayers will have to pony up at least 150 billion a year. 'We will remain in Iraq as long as it proves profitable to my family and our friends,'' he told the American Enterprise Institute, where Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, has been a senior fellow.

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. military will control Iraq in the long-term after Saddam's removal. Troops will maintain security, ensure that other nations respect American hegemony, and 'find' and 'destroy' planted weapons of mass destruction.

"We have a lot of 'em," said General Tommy Franks, "so we won't miss any."

Once those tasks are complete, a civilian administrator, probably Elliott Abrams, would take over and begin the work of engaging Iraqis in the formation of a puppet government. The official said the administrator would necessarily be an American.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman said Bush's plans to appoint an American to oversee Iraq after Saddam is removed would put the United States ''in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator.''

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was not impressed.

"Fuck Joe Lieberman. Let him take that crap to the American people. With the control of the media we have, we'll make those fools see him as Saddam's penis."

Answering critics who say war in Iraq will destabilize the Middle East, Bush said: ''A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and chilling warning to other nations of the region.I expect that if we are brutal enough in Iraq, Iran will sell the naming rights to its country to Amoco.''

Neither he nor his advisers explained why the Middle East peace process made no major advances while Saddam was contained in the 1990s. He did mention other nations tied to unrest in the Middle East, such as Iran, and said removing Saddam would ''signal to sovereign governments regimes that in this new century the boundaries of civilized behavior will not be respected.''

He said Saddam's removal will give both sides a chance to bury their dead in a more stable environment.

''The profits of the American elites depends on killing Saddam,'' he said.

While State Department flunkies fanned out across the world to press Bush's case, the president met with Azerbaijan leader Geidar Aliev. The country, 250 miles northeast of Iraq, has backed U.S. calls for Saddam's disarmament. Bush admitted that he had to offer Aliev a bigger piece of the pie."

Bush spoke by telephone with Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy of Hungary and Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. It is not yet known what bribes he was offering.

Canada proposed giving Iraq until the end of March to complete a list of remaining disarmament tasks identified by U.N. weapons inspectors.

Rejecting the plan, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said it ''only procrastinates on a decision we have already made. One wonders why a puny country like Canada thinks it can have any real role in the formulation of international policy.''

A senior Defense Department official said it will cost $160 billion to $185 billion per year for military operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

Another official said the State Department and related agencies are discussing foreign bribes and diplomatic payoffs ranging from $12 billion to $18 billion.

[u]Assassinated Press-NY-02-26-03 1928EST [/u] - http://www.theassassinatedpre...

Proof that Traitor Bush is a Liar Illegally War-Profiteering from Iraq War

03.28.04 (10:20 am) [edit]

[b]Cashing In - Fortune In Profits

Await Bush Circle After Iraq War[/b]

The last time the United States went to war against Iraq, Dick Cheney did very nicely from it.

Having served as Defence Secretary, and basked in the reflected glory of the US military's surprisingly rapid advance across the desert sands to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, he then managed to reap benefits of a very different kind once the war was over and he left government to become chief executive of Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services company.

When the United Nations relaxed its sanctions regime in 1998 and permitted Iraq to buy spare parts for its oil fields, it was Halliburton, under Mr Cheney's leadership, that cleaned up on the contract to repair war damage and get Saddam Hussein's oil pipes flowing at full capacity again. Two Halliburton subsidiaries did business worth almost $24m (£15m) with the man whom these days Mr Cheney calls a "murderous dictator" and "the world's worst leader".

Since taking over as George Bush's vice-president, Mr Cheney has severed all formal ties with his former employer, notably when he cashed in $36m in stock options and other benefits at the height of the market in August 2000. But Halliburton currently struggling with a corporate accounting scandal that may or may not implicate Mr Cheney could profit all over again if the much-threatened new war against Iraq comes to pass.

We can certainly expect more air strikes against the oil fields, possibly combined with a ground invasion. Then, when it is all over, someone is going to have to mop up the damage once again. Halliburton, with its previous experience and unparalleled political connections (not limited to Mr Cheney), would be in pole position for the job.

Nobody could justifiably accuse the Bush administration of wanting to wage war on Iraq solely as a favour to its friends in the oil business and the military-industrial complex. But many of the companies that stand to gain most from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the administration. And some of the President's closest confidants have shown extraordinary elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President Saddam, America's on-again, off-again public enemy number one.

Mr Cheney, who has gone from warmonger to dealmaker and back to warmonger, is just one example. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defence Secretary, has repeatedly raised the spectre of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But in 1983, when Mr Rumsfeld was President Reagan's special envoy to Iraq, he turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of nerve and mustard gas in its war with Iran, concentrating instead on forging a personal relationship with the Iraqi leader, then considered a valuable US ally.

Mr Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad on the day the United Nations first reported Iraqi use of chemical weapons, but chose to remain silent, as did the rest of the US establishment. Five years later, he cited his ability to make friends with Saddam Hussein as one of his qualifications for a possible run at the presidency.

This Bush administration has been much more upfront about the role of oil in its deliberations on Iraq than the last Bush administration. That is partly a matter of circumstance: since the 11 September attacks, the stability of Middle Eastern oil states has been a big policy consideration. But it also reflects the fact that much of the Bush inner circle, including the President himself, is made up of former oilmen. The oil and gas industry has pumped about $50m to political candidates since the 2000 election.

There are also uncomfortably cosy ties between the government and the defence industry. Mr Rumsfeld's oldest friend, Frank Carlucci, a former defence secretary himself, now heads the Carlyle Group, an investment consortium which has a big interest in the contracting firm United Defense.

Carlyle's board includes George Bush Sr and James Baker, the former secretary of state. One programme alone the Crusader artillery system has earned Carlyle more than $2bn in advance government contracts. Carlyle's European chairman is John Major, who may have played a role in the Ministry of Defence's controversial recent decision to declare Carlyle the "preferred bidder" for a stake in its scientific research division.

None of these links is illegal, but that does not mean there is no conflict of interest. Messrs Bush, Cheney and friends have either sold their stock holdings or put them in a blind trust, meaning personal gain is off the agenda. But gain for their friends and family may well be a by-product of the looming war against Iraq.

[u]By Andrew Gumbel[/u] - The Independent - London, http://www.rense.com/general2...

Unser die Freunde: Herr Fuhrer Bush & Reich Marshal Cheney Lie To America

03.27.04 (3:02 pm) [edit]

[b]Claim vs. fact[/b]

The [i]Center for American Progress [/i]has been digging into the archives to help clarify claims made by the Bush White House as it tries to repair the damage from revelations made in the 9/11 commission public hearings and the newly released book by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.

Today in a speech in New Hampshire, President Bush defended his administration's actions before 9/11, saying: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people."

But [i]CAP[/i] quickly found previous reports that the president was told of the possibility that al-Qaida was exploring the use of airliners as terror weapons, including against U.S. targets:

[b]FACT[/b]: On August 6, 2001, President Bush personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane."
-- [i]Dateline NBC[/i], 9/10/02 ([i]Transcript in Nexis[/i])

[b]FACT[/b]: U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July 2001 that Islamic terrorists had considered "crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations."
-- [i]LA Times[/i], 9/27/01.

[b]FACT[/b]: A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council "warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon." The report specifically said, "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives … into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."
-- [i]CBS News[/i], 5/17/02.

[i]CAP[/i] also found this nugget, showing that the State Department under Bush downplayed the importance of the threat of Osama bin Laden in its annual terrorism report in early 2001.

"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells [i]CNN[/i] the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.'"
-- [i]CNN[/i], 4/30/2001.

[u]The Center for American Progress[/u] - http://www.americanprogress.o...

Terrorist Bush is a fear-mongering president ...

03.27.04 (11:46 am) [edit]

Fear has had a cabinet position in two of the most radical presidencies in American history, those of Franklin Roosevelt and the current Bush. Spain has known similar fear at similar times, but the Spanish response has been a mirror image of the American reaction.

Roosevelt devoted his time in office to management of fear, from the economic horror of the Depression, through the massacre of 3,000 soldiers and sailors at Pearl Harbor, to the invasion at Normandy. Bush has chosen to manage by fear, through a simpler war of his own making, against an enemy that is little more than a gang of murderous thugs.

While Americans embraced an elected leader in the 1930s who coped with the threat of chaos by altering the size and scope of government, Spain suffered a military revolt that imposed order and maintained it through fear for two generations.

Where the current US leader declared himself a war president in the aftermath of a violent assault, Spaniards suffered their own assault from the same enemy, then gathered silently to declare themselves in favour of one word printed on millions of cards, "Peace".

Roosevelt declared war on despair in the opening sentences of his term. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," he said at the start of his inaugural address in 1933. Bush, in his state of the union address in January, used a form of the word "terror" more than 20 times, exceeded in frequency only by the word "I" (more than 30). Judging by his rhetoric so far in this election year, he intends to make terror his by-word.

Roosevelt's landslide victory in 1932 left him in charge of a wasted country. When the stock market bubble of the 1920s popped, there was nothing inside to keep the economy moving. With no regulatory infrastructure and no social support system, millions of people lost their jobs, their homes and their farms.

The failure of many of the country's banks wiped out savings. The demand for charity overwhelmed charities. Health care came from a doctor willing to dispense for free, or it didn't come at all. Food came from soup kitchens, shelter provided by a bridge or a cardboard box. Virtually all Americans fell down a rung or two, but tens of millions fell off the ladder all together.

Roosevelt put America back to work, with the government as employer when necessary. Civilian government workers built dams and post offices, reforested eroded land, painted murals, photographed the dust storms and the tent cities, paved roads and constructed schools, hospitals and courthouses, all as part of public works programmes designed to restore self-esteem, faith and hope - and to keep fear under control.

Things might have turned out differently in the US with different leadership. In Germany and Italy elected leaders pandered to the fear, ignited Christian fervour, intimidated political expression. In Spain they used it as the hood ornament for tanks that crushed an elected government, then decorated the regime's standard with it for two generations.

Like Roosevelt, Bush has mobilised the country with his radical vision, in many ways the mirror image of Roosevelt's philosophy, in some ways mimicking his tactics.

He introduced a tax programme to redistribute wealth upwards, sought to unwind social security programmes his predecessor had introduced and worked hard to open public land for private development that Roosevelt had set aside as national forests and public reserves.

Roosevelt sought to pack the courts with judges who would alter the relationship between government and those in power. Bush's packing involves those who would limit the power of the individual in favour of those in authority.

Spain celebrated the end of fascism only 29 years ago. Most of those old enough to vote remember living in a state of fear imposed by their leaders. In the generation since Franco's death, they have learned to laugh again. Their national wealth has soared. They have rejoined their European neighbours with a commitment to civil liberties at home and full participation in the international community.

Had they reacted differently, the train bombs two weeks ago might have ended their generation of freedom. They might have wallowed in the fear that a pathetic band of murderers could somehow destroy their society. They might have moaned about the worst attack on Spanish soil in modern history.

That would not have been true. Many more died in many of the battles of the Spanish civil war, just as many more Americans died in many of the battles of the US civil war than were killed at the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.

They might have wallowed in the self-indulgence that this was an attack on Spain unlike any other. That would have been more valid. Few of the dead or injured aboard those trains came from other nations, unlike the victims in New York.

In one way at least, they, or at least the government, reacted the same as the Bush government. They suffered from an instinctive reaction to strike out at the wrong enemy. For Aznar, it was the Basque separatists. For Bush, according to his former counter-terrorism tsar, it was Iraq.

Roosevelt's address at his inauguration also referred to terror, "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

To his fellow citizens on his first day in office he said: "We face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things."

[u]Albert Scardino is an executive editor of the Guardian; John Scardino owns a public relations firm and is a former congressional candidate[/u] - http://www.truthout.com/docs_...

Needed: The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But ...

03.27.04 (11:40 am) [edit]

There was enough in the 9/11 hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday to make partisans on all sides unhappy. Partisans for the truth, however, have some ground for optimism.

If one were a Bill Clinton partisan, one would not be happy about the portrayal of the 42nd president and his anti-terror record. It appears that the Clinton administration had as many as four opportunities to try to kill Osama bin Laden in 1998-9, and seized upon none of them.

Sandy Berger, national security adviser during those years, testified on Wednesday that Clinton had ordered using "the full measure of the CIA's capabilities" to eliminate bin Laden.

So what went wrong? "If there was any confusion down the ranks," Berger said, "it was never communicated to me, nor to the president."

But another witness, CIA Director George Tenet, recalled a murkier picture of Clinton authorization. So the hearings presented a he-said-he-said standoff between Berger and Tenet. Each man might have had a good excuse, but neither got the job done.

At the same time, if one were a George W. Bush partisan, one would not be pleased by the depiction of the 43rd president and his War on Terror record. In 2001, the Bush people inherited a holdover terrorism "czar," Richard Clarke, but they demoted him and cut his access and clout.

Did the Bush people lack confidence in his ability? Not really; after all, on the terrible day of 9/11, Condoleezza Rice, Clarke's boss, instructed Clarke to run the crisis-management operation in the White House Situation Room while she chose to hunker down in a secure bomb shelter.

So what's up with that? When they came into power, Bush & Co. had the idea that they needed a comprehensive review of national security policy, which called for less emphasis on terrorist networks, such as al-Qaida, and more emphasis on terrorist-sponsoring states, such as - in their minds, at least - Iraq.

That review took more than seven months; the first cabinet meeting on the administration's anti-terror policy took place on Sept. 4, 2001.

Do changes in policy, from one president to another, take time? Of course. But the Bush folks managed to reverse Clinton policies on taxes, global warming and abortion within weeks of taking office; it's obvious that unlimbering a new anti-terror policy was a second-tier priority for them.

In the meantime, the downgraded Clarke was apparently a lonely voice in the wilderness, telling anyone who would listen that al-Qaida wasn't necessarily going to cooperate with the administration's bureaucratic timetable.

If an anti-terror czar is like a fireman, the Bush people left Clarke with the power to see what was happening but without the power to send out the fire engines. He had been worrying about al-Qaida for a decade, and yet even as he saw terror flames growing on the horizon, the Bush people pushed him aside.

No wonder Clarke is an angry man. In his memoir, "Against All Enemies," he recalls being in the Situation Room on 9/11 when he got a call from an FBI colleague: "We got the passenger manifests from the airlines. We recognize names, Dick. They're al-Qaida."

Clarke wondered, expletive-ly, how those killers had gotten on board. "CIA forgot to tell us about them," came the FBI reply. In other words, his worst nightmare had come true: Al-Qaida operatives had slipped between the jurisdictional cracks of the federal government; the CIA had a list of al-Qaida names, but hadn't passed them on to the FBI, nor to airport security officials.

These are the sorts of "turf" problems that czars are supposed to solve. And maybe a fully empowered Clarke could have solved that problem. We'll never know.

Which brings us to Clarke himself. In his appearance on Wednesday, he came across as a status-conscious, snub-conscious fellow who has been willing to change at least the tone of his remarks in order to suit his employers. But of course, as he said, "that's politics" - and there's a lot of that in Washington.

What's striking about Clarke is not that he expressed his apologies to the 9/11 families for their loss, and for his own degree of responsibility for that loss. That was a bit of political theater that his fellow panelists must be kicking themselves for not having thought to do themselves.

No, what's striking about Clarke is that he delivered detailed testimony that bulls-eyed the incompetence of his ex-colleagues in the Bush administration. While all the other witnesses were generous in their praise for each other - leaving one hard-pressed to recall, as they spoke, that 3,000 people had died on their watch - Clarke was blunt. The Bush administration, in particular, had done a bad job, he said - and he said it under oath.

Of course the Bushies have a right to call Clarke's credibility into question. They can point to his smarmy letter of resignation, addressed to Bush, dated Jan. 20, 2003, in which Clarke praised Bush for his "courage, determination, calm, and leadership." But if the White House really wants to knock a hole in Clarke's chronicle, then top officials should joust with him on a level playing field - on which they, too, are under oath.

Clarke's old boss, Rice, for example, is willing to snipe at him in newspaper op-eds and on TV shows, but she is unwilling to testify publicly before the same 9/11 commission.

The White House pleads "executive privilege," but that's a dodge. If the issue is important enough, constitutional nuance ought to give way to the people's right to know. In 1974, for example, the sitting president of the United States, Gerald Ford, testified, under oath, before the House of Representatives about his pardon of Richard Nixon. And ever since then, Ford has enjoyed a deserved reputation as a straight-talker.

And that's the reward for candor in public: not only the immediate respect of one's countrymen, but also the enduring admiration of historians.

For the moment, the Clintonians and Bushites seem to be playing for narrow personal and political advantage.

By contrast, Clarke, warts and all, seems to be thinking about the truth - which means he is thinking about the national interest, as well as the long haul of history.

These hearings have the potential to embarrass all concerned. But while the truth might hurt top government officials, former as well as present, America will benefit from a full, if painful, account of mistakes that were made.

The 9/11 Commission is due to issue its final report on July 26; the 10 commissioners have an opportunity to help their country - if they can put aside their partisan differences and deal with the truth.

[u]James P. Pinkerton[/u], Newday.com, http://www.newsday.com/news/c...,0,7498760.column

Will the Bush Gang 'Play the Race Card' to Divert Attention From Condi's Lies?

03.26.04 (5:52 pm) [edit]

[b]The White House can't discredit Richard Clarke with facts http://www.alternet.org/story... ... So, now the corrupt neo-con Bushies are [i]'playing the race card' [/i] ([i]ala Johnny Cochran's fear-tactic used in the O.J. Simpson trial[/i]) ... [i]Jeez[/i] ... We all are very well-versed now with the vile[i] mud-slinging, slandering and libelling [/i]by the treasonous Bush regime's neo-fascist right-wing media and neo-orwellian mad-dogs vomitting their stinking bile and slime ... [/b]But now these neo-con thugs & goons are telling the American people: [i]'Hey, if you dare to criticize our 'blacks', we'll call you a racist'!!! [/i]... This transparent [i]neo-con scam [/i]gets Dubya and the rest of the neo-crooks [i]'off-the-hook' [/i]quite nicely ... The desperate, panic-stricken Bushies tell us that if the self-obsessed, incompetent Condi Rice [i]lies, cheats, steals and murders innocent human beings[/i], we're all supposed to [i]'look the other way'[/i], for fear of being[i] intimidated, terrified and cowered [/i]by those who will [i]point their sticky finger at us and call us a the dreaded R-word[/i]??? ... Methinks[i] not [/i]...

"We the People"[i] are [u]not[/u] going to fall for this [/i]sordid and squalid ploy ... If Condi Rice is a liar, a crook and a traitorous thug-- [i]then that is what she should be called [/i]... and moreover, the over-rated, incompetent and criminal neo-con NSA [i]puppet-cum-toady [/i][u][i]deserves[/i][/u ] to be fired ([i]on her own (dis)merits[/i])!!! ... Nope, it's [i]not [/i]a racist comment ... Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Powell, Wolfowitz along with the rest of their [i]neo-fascist cabal of liars, crooks and traitors[/i] should [i]all[/i] be [i]impeached and/or fired[/i] from office and tried for their heinous [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i], the [i]'whites' as well as the 'blacks'[/i]!!! ... It's the[i] crimes[/i]-- [i]not[/i] the race, [i]Stupid[/i]!!!

Refer to [i]Joshua Micah Marshall's [/i]Talking Points Memo on http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... :

[b]How low will they go? [There is [i]no[/i] crime that the Bushies will [i]not[/i] commit in order to grab power and riches][/b] Now Clarke's a racist (from last night's [i]Crossfire[/i] http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPT... )... [Bob Novak is the crazy, traitorous bastard who toadied for Neo-Nazi Reich Marshal Karl Rove to commit a felony and out an under-cover CIA operative in an act of vile revenge by the Bushies for her husband's telling the truth about Dubya's [i]willful lie[/i] regarding phony Niger uranium yellow-cake sales to Iraq] ...

[b]ROBERT NOVAK[/b]: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

[b]RAHM EMANUEL[/b]: Say that again?

[b]ROBERT NOVAK[/b]: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

[b]RAHM EMANUEL[/b]: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.

And then from Ann Coulter http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... , [Ann Coulter is the crazy, discredited bitch who slandered and libelled Max Cleland for[i] daring not [/i]to bow down & genuflect before the Mad King George] ...

[i]Isn't that just like a liberal? The chair-warmer describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas. Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us[/i].

The [i]"abuse" [sic][/i] http://www.hillnews.com/marsh... this White House has suffered from career civil servants ... [i]

[b]Jeez [/i]... The traitorous Bushies are neo-con nutjobs!!![/b]

[u]Now The Corrupt Bushies Are 'Playing the Race Card' ... Jeez ... Neo-Con Nutjobs!!![/u], Winston Smith, http://www.tblog.com/template...

Overwhelming Majority of Jewish Voters Support Kerry Over Bush

03.26.04 (12:59 pm) [edit]

In a recent article [u]Jews Choose: Will George W. Bush get their vote come November[/u]? http://slate.msn.com/id/20952... , although the GOP is 'hopeful', Bush can only expect a maximum of 31% of the Jewish votes. Kerry will obtain between 69-70% of the Jewish vote and is increasingly popular among Jewish voters as they get to know him.

Now that it's down to John Kerry versus George W. Bush, American Jews -- prominent in swing states in what could be a close election -- can expect plenty of attention.

"Anything that moves a few hundred or a few thousand voters one way or another in any state can cause a seismic shift," said John Zogby, a pollster who says the closeness of this election is leading opinion-gatherers to focus more than ever on small groups like Jews.

The fight will mirror the larger battle for the election, where Kerry will emphasize domestic issues and President Bush will stress his foreign-policy and security record.

Among Jews, Democratic strategists say they will stress health care, the economy and the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Republicans say they will stress Bush's strong pro-Israel record and his war against terrorism.

Jews still lean strongly Democratic, pollsters say, but even small shifts could change history.

"If instead of 72 percent of the Jewish vote Kerry were to get 69 percent, it's not many votes, but it could have an impact in Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona," Zogby said -- all states that were won by tiny margins in the 2000 election.

Florida's contested electoral votes in that election ultimately threw the national race to Bush, even though Al Gore got the plurality of the national vote.

Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, swept nine of 10 states in this week's Super Tuesday primaries, all but clinching the Democratic nomination.

Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Kerry's only serious rival, was expected to announce his withdrawal from the race on Wednesday. Edwards did not win any primaries Tuesday.

Jewish activists in both parties already are targeting swing communities.

"There's probably going to be about 10 real battleground states and in a number of those places there's a large Jewish community," said Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, making note of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri.

The Republic Jewish Coalition has held a number of events in Florida recently to bolster support.

Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor who chairs the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, attended some Republican Jewish events in the state over the weekend. Racicot said he was optimistic that Bush would do better than the 19 percent he earned from Jews in 2000, because of the president's strong pro-Israel record.

"We understand they have been inclined to support Democrats," Racicot said of Jewish voters in an interview with the JTA. "But we feel the president's policies and his values in regards to the Middle East lead to the possibility to be much more successful in the Jewish community -- not just in Florida but around the country."

Bring it on, say the Democrats.

"Things have not looked as good for Democrats in the Jewish community for a number of years," said Ira Forman, the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Kerry's strength among Jews was reflected in exit polls on Tuesday, where he polled better among Jews than among non-Jews in four out of five states with reliable Jewish exit poll data.

Forman said his party would emphasize what all pro-Israel activists agree is Kerry's exemplary voting record in 19 years in the Senate.

"It's good to be a Jewish Democrat today," Forman said Wednesday.

Forman suggested that the Democrats' strategy would be first to say that Bush and Kerry were equals on Israel, "and then we pivot to all the major domestic issues."

"They're on the wrong side of the community on the fiscal mess, with its dire implications for social service programs, on forfeiture of stewardship of the environment, on destroying the wall separating church from state, on choice, in energy, on nuclear proliferation -- we can go on and on and on," Forman said.

Hannah Rosenthal, executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an umbrella organization of local Jewish community relations councils and national groups, agreed that Jews are likelier to vote this year on domestic issues.

"On issues specific to Israel, we're talking about a win-win situation," said Rosenthal, one of 40 Jewish organizational leaders who met with Kerry over the weekend in New York. "Jews will be looking at protection of privacy, at civil liberties protections, at health care, women's rights."

Those were all issues Kerry stressed in his victory speech Tuesday night, when he left foreign policy and the Iraq war for brief mentions at the end.

Forman said the party also would emphasize Bush's backing for the amendment banning gay marriage.

"Every time they play to their conservative base -- and they'll have to play a lot this year -- they totally alienate the Jewish community," Forman said.

Republicans agreed that Kerry was strong on Israel but suggested that Bush was stronger and that Kerry could be vulnerable on national security, where Bush has aggressively advocated tougher measures in the USA Patriot Act.

Brooks, the Republican Jewish leader, suggested that Bush's commitment to Israel's safety and security would trump domestic considerations for many Jews.

Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who will publish his own survey of American Jews next week, said this election season promises to be an interesting one.

"For the first time in my lifetime, a significant segment of the Jewish vote is up for grabs," he said in an interview. "The Jewish community is the most interested in national security of any voter sub-group, and that plays to Bush's advantage."

"The Jewish community is still liberal on social issues and that plays to Kerry's advantage," he said.

Luntz said his polling suggested Kerry would perform well among Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and "those who say they are just Jewish."

Bush will make gains among Orthodox and Conservative Jews and those Jews who are more active in the community, he predicted.

In a survey of American Jews published in January by the American Jewish Committee, 51 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 31 percent as Independent and 16 percent as Republican.

[u]By Ron Kampeas, The Jewish Times[/u], http://www.zogby.com/Soundbit...

Bush Warmongers to Send Over 2,000 U.S. Troops to Afghanistan

03.26.04 (10:00 am) [edit]

The Bush administration has been claiming that everything is going so well in Afghanistan and that democracy is flourishing. It appears, as with all of their claims, this represents another Bush falsehood.

The United States will add nearly 2,000 Marines with special operations training to the 11,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to boost security and intensify the hunt for al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives, defense officials said on Thursday.

The officials told [i]Reuters [/i]that most of a major unit of up to 2,200 Marines stationed on warships in the Gulf would be moved to Afghanistan. The Marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, are on a seven-ship naval Expeditionary Strike Group, led by the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp.

"With the weather warming up, it is an opportunity to add forces and press the hunt for al Qaeda and Taliban," said one military official.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan have stepped up operations in the remote, mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of Operation Mountain Storm.

American-led forces are seeking al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, and other key fugitives.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon news conference on Thursday that in addition to the hunt for guerrillas, the United States wanted to beef up security ahead of elections scheduled for summer in Afghanistan.

"A couple of events (are) happening in Afghanistan that we want to ensure there's appropriate security for," Myers said.

[u]SECURITY FOR AFGHAN ELECTIONS[/u]

"As you know, they're going to be elections some time this summer, perhaps late summer ... And we want to make sure that event goes well," he told reporters.

"There are still pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda that need to be dealt with," Myers added.

The Wasp strike group, carrying 2,000 to 2,200 Marines from the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, left North Carolina on Feb. 19 for a scheduled six-month deployment in the Gulf region and arrived in recent days, officials said. CONTINUED http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=RQ2OOD5OKVYRM CRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews&s toryID=4663821&pageNumber =1

Richard Clarke Angry that Bush was Obsessed with Iraq [No Links to 9/11 or al-Qaeda]

03.26.04 (9:51 am) [edit]

The White House is trying to discredit charges by Richard Clarke, its former counterterrorism chief, that President Bush has done ``a terrible job in the war against terrorism.''

The counterattacks are mounting: Clarke just wanted a better job, he was out of the loop, he's a Democratic partisan.

But why would a noted terrorism expert who served under Presidents Reagan, Bush pere, Bill Clinton and George W., and who was a registered Republican in 2000, make such a charge? Read his book, [i]Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror,[/i] and you'll understand why he's so angry.

Clarke believes that the Bush team's Iraq obsession has undermined the far more crucial fight against al Qaeda -- and made America less safe.

From January 2001 on, he writes, ``Iraq was portrayed (by the Bush team) as the most dangerous thing in national security. It was an idée fixe, a rigid belief, received wisdom, a decision already made and one that no fact or event could derail.''

A week into the administration, Clarke tried to get a Cabinet-level meeting to review the al Qaeda threat. No one was in a hurry. In April 2001, Cabinet deputies finally met on terrorism. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, complained that Clarke was focusing on one man, Osama bin Laden, when he should be looking at ''Iraqi terrorism.'' Clarke had to remind Wolfowitz that -- according to both the FBI and CIA -- there had been no Iraqi terrorism directed at the United States since 1993.

[u]Obsessed with Iraq[/u]

Clarke argued fruitlessly -- right up until 9/11 -- that America was at prime risk from al Qaeda. After that infamous day, the antiterror czar thought that Bush would implement an aggressive strategy to destroy bin Laden and his organization. Instead, he says, the administration sent too few troops to Afghanistan to wipe out the terrorists and stabilize the country.

Then, while al Qaeda regrouped and metastasized, Bush diverted manpower and money to the Iraq war. Clarke thinks that this war sidetracked intelligence resources while giving al Qaeda a new territorial haven and inflaming the Middle East.

''Our being in Iraq does nothing to prevent terrorists from coming to America,'' he writes, ``but does divert funds from addressing our domestic vulnerabilities and does make terrorist recruitment easier.''

What's most chilling about the book is its portrait of an administration that sticks to preconceived notions, regardless of contradictory facts. A succession of such fixed ideas has consistently undercut the war on terrorism.

One such[i] idée fixe [/i]was the notion that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, a particular obsession of Wolfowitz's (who may have persuaded Bush). On Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke recalls, Bush demanded that he ''go back over everything. See if Saddam did this.'' Clarke reminded the president that intelligence had found no linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda. ''Look into Iraq, Saddam,'' Bush repeated.

Despite continued lack of evidence, Bush and top officials repeatedly linked Iraq and 9/11 and the war on terrorism in speeches. ''The White House . . . never quite lied,'' Clarke told[i] CBS's 60 Minutes[/i], ''but gave the very strong impression Iraq did it.'' No wonder polls just before the Iraq war show nearly 70 percent of the American public thought that Hussein was involved in 9/11. That notion rallied support for the war.

Another administration idée fixe: The United States didn't need many troops in Afghanistan. The result has been a resurgence of the Taliban. Wolfowitz and Vice President Cheney embraced the idea that occupation of Iraq would be easy and require minimal U.S. troops. Expert opinion was ignored. The results are there to see.

[u]Inadequate budget[/u]

Clarke touches on a further [i]idée fixe [/i]that undercuts the antiterrorism fight at home -- the Bush obsession with cutting taxes as we wage costly wars. The federal budget doesn't adequately fund first responders in cities and towns, the ones who have to cope first with a terrorist attack. Clarke writes bitterly: ``The administration chose to run up the national debt to pay for Iraq, but not to pay for what our police and fire personnel need to defend us here at home.''

And let us not ignore -- though it's not in Clarke's book -- the administration's fixed belief that the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad. The White House thought that it could let the Mideast peace process drift because an Iraq victory would force the Palestinians to the table.

Instead, the peace process is dead, sunk in an endless cycle of Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli revenge killings like that of Sheik Ahmed Yassin in Gaza. This cycle will undercut any political reform efforts in the rest of the region and is more likely to fuel terrorism than thwart it. Many experts think that Palestinians soon will start hitting at U.S. interests.

No wonder Clarke is angry. His is the rage of a man who understands the terrorist threat from the inside. And he believes that rigid White House thinking has sapped the fight.

[u]Clarke is angry -- with plenty of reason[/u], BY TRUDY RUBIN, THE MIAMI HERALD - http://www.miami.com/mld/miam...

Israeli PM Ariel Sharon: "Another Man of Blood and Lies"

03.26.04 (6:51 am) [edit]

[i]When the Spanish people were fed up with their prime minister, they knew that there was a reasonable alternative. They could throw the ruling party out because there was another party ready to move in. In Israel, these conditions do not apply.[/i]

A prime minister is waging war. The great majority of the people oppose the war. The majority vote for the prime minister.

Absurd? Well, that was the situation in Spain. It also applies, more or less, in Israel. But here the similarity ends.

The Spanish people have thrown their prime minister out. The Israeli people go on supporting their prime minister.

The Spaniards, in their innocence, believe that if a prime minister does the opposite of what the great majority of the people want, he has to go. They think that this is what democracy is all about. In Israel, such a thing is unthinkable.

And that is not the only difference.

Of course, the Spanish people arrived at this conclusion under the influence of the big terrorist attack in Madrid. The Spanish reaction was very different from the usual Israeli one.

After the terrorist onslaught, the Spanish asked themselves: why did they do it? What caused this murderous attack on us? The logical answer was: the prime minister’s policy has brought this on us. The conclusion: Let’s find another one. In Israel, such a question cannot arise. What brought the terrorist attacks on us? What sort of a question is that? The reason for terrorism is the inborn murderous character of the Arabs. It has, of course, nothing at all to do with the policy of our prime minister.

When a terrorist outrage happens here, logic flies out of the window. Instead of thinking and asking questions, people shout ‘Death to the Arabs’, demand bloody revenge and gather around the prime minister.

Another difference: the Spaniards got angry. The prime minister lied to them. He exploited the outrage for his election campaign. When he already knew that all the signs pointed to Islamic fanatics, he pretended in public that the attack was perpetrated by the Basque ETA organisation. He hoped to garner the votes of those Spaniards who oppose an independent Basque homeland. But the voters realised that this was a lie and did not like it. The prime minister is lying to us? To hell with him.

In Israel, when the prime minister lies, the public remains apathetic. The prime minister has lied to us again? So what? Isn’t he always lying? Nothing to get upset about.

One can only envy the Spanish. After a horrible civil war, after decades of an oppressive dictatorship, in spite of domestic splits and many terrorist attacks, what a healthy reaction! What strong democratic instincts!

(By the way: some 500 years ago, half a million Jews were expelled from Spain. In the last decades, almost all the ‘Sephardim’ — Sepharad is the Hebrew name for Spain — came to Israel. The great majority of them support Ariel Sharon. Why do the ‘Spanish’ Jews in Israel react differently from the Spanish people back home?)

There is another difference between Spain and Israel, and it may be the decisive one.

Last year I visited Spain. Some days before I arrived, the prime minister’s party had won an impressive victory in the local elections. The opposition Socialist Party was lying flat out. Everybody spoke of it with contempt, some with pain. The party was in ruins, perhaps beyond redemption.

And then it happened: the party replaced its old leaders with an energetic, fresh one, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. With a lot of luck, this man has now led his party power.

When the Spanish people were fed up with their prime minister, they knew that there was a reasonable alternative. They could throw the ruling party out because there was another party ready to move in. In Israel, these conditions do not apply. Our leading opposition party, Labor, is also a shambles, but there is no sign of recovery. Quite the contrary.

It is headed by a pathetic person who would make a deal with the devil for a place in Sharon’s government. Its other old leaders, all of them certified failures, are already quarrelling about the chairs that Sharon may allot them, should he be so kind as to invite them into his cabinet.

The Israeli situation is surreal: according to all opinion polls, a large part of the public is fed up with the war, the bloody cycle of suicide bombings and targeted assassinations, the settlements and the settlers. They want a solution and are ready to pay the necessary price — the end of the occupation, a Palestinian state, the dismantling of the settlements, reasonable compromise over Jerusalem, withdrawal to the vicinity of the Green Line. They want to shift our national resources from occupation and war to economic growth, education and social welfare.

So how does this translate into political realities? It doesn’t. There is no serious political force able to offer an alternative leadership.

In Spain that was a temporary situation, which corrected itself in a natural way. In Israel, this situation seems to be permanent.

Therefore, one can not only envy the Spanish, but also learn from them. The political ball is round. It can turn suddenly. What seems to be impossible can become possible — if there are good people around, who can convert good intentions into political reality.

I hope that this will happen here, too. True, some people are already standing in line — Tony Blair and George W Bush. What has happened to Jose Maria Aznar in Spain must happen to them, and I hope that it will. Then, with a lot of courage and a lot of luck, the turn of the fourth in the queue will come, and Ariel Sharon, another [i]man of blood and lies[/i], will be turned out.

In the meantime we salute our friends at the other end of the Mediterranean Sea — Bravo, amigos!

[u]Uri Avnery is a leading Israeli writer and peace activist and a former member of Knesset[/u] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/...

CNN, Foreign Papers Get Letters of Outrage Over Dubya's Tasteless Joke

03.26.04 (6:45 am) [edit]

Laughter filled the room Wednesday night at the annual dinner for radio and television correspondents when President Bush displayed a photograph showing him down on his hands and knees looking under furniture in his office and saying, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!"

This morning the joke did not seem quite so funny. CNN, which showed a clip of the event, was getting e-mail messages from unhappy viewers. Foreign newspapers were reacting with outrage. And the White House was busy defending the joke that President Bush delivered as he put on a slide show, called the "White House Election-Year Album," at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association's 60th annual dinner.

It is a long tradition among the Washington press corps to invite presidents and other politicians to such dinners, during which they make jokes at their own expense.

Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush was not making light of the war in Iraq, but engaging in self-deprecating humor, as is the custom at such dinners. "There's no question about the president's seriousness about this issue," she said. "As is tradition at these events, the president was poking fun at himself."

Ms. Buchan noted that Mr. Bush's appearance included "a very moving moment" in which he "expressed his appreciation" to American soldiers fighting abroad. The slide show ended by showing soldiers in Afghanistan at the site where pieces of the World Trade Center were buried.

[u]A Bush Dinner Joke Amuses (and Does Not)[/u], N.Y. Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Thin-skinned Dubya Lacks the Mental Capacity to Answer Questions on Terrorism

03.26.04 (6:42 am) [edit]

It cannot have escaped anyone's attention that the Bush administration has spent the better part of the week in full counterattack mode against Richard Clarke, the former White House antiterrorism czar who says the president and his senior officials greatly underrated the threat from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11. Nearly everyone of consequence in President Bush's inner circle appears to have been requisitioned to challenge Mr. Clarke's integrity and motives, accusing him of everything from trying to drum up sales for his new book to auditioning for a job in a John Kerry administration. The field of critics is so crowded that they're tripping over each other, as when Condoleezza Rice felt obliged to correct Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Mr. Clarke had never been "in the loop."

Though this is not a terribly productive strategy — indeed, it makes the administration look worse, not better — it is perfectly O.K. for the White House to keep an instant-response team at the ready. It has a right to respond quickly and forcefully to accusations it regards as unfair. Some of Mr. Bush's predecessors were certainly no slouches in that regard. When cornered, the Clintons and their spinners could retaliate with the best of them.

The problem here, though, is that Mr. Bush's team is so preoccupied with defending his image as a can-do commander in chief that it has no energy left to engage the legitimate questions that have been raised by Mr. Clarke and by others who have appeared before the independent 9/11 commission. These questions are not, as the Bush people seem to assume, aimed solely at the current administration. As an analysis yesterday in The Times pointed out, two presidents in a row were unable to stop Al Qaeda and capture its leader. The trail of fumbles and stumbles — the intelligence lapses, bureaucratic foul-ups, policy miscalculations and all the rest — began well before Mr. Bush's inauguration.

The White House is so thin-skinned and defensive, however, that it simply cannot bring itself to join what ought to be a grown-up national conversation of how best to deal with terrorism. Its schoolyard name-calling does no one any good, least of all Mr. Bush, who is made to appear far more interested in undermining Mr. Clarke's credibility than in addressing the heart of his critique.

[u]The Wrong Target[/u], N.Y. TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Public Record: Bush Ignored Terrorism Before 9/11

03.25.04 (9:22 pm) [edit]

In the face of Richard Clarke's well-documented testimony to the 9/11 commission yesterday, the White House is continuing to say that it made counterterrorism its top priority upon coming into office in January 2001. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, echoing similar comments from top Administration officials, said that "this Administration made going after Al Qaida a top priority from very early on" in the face of increased terror warnings before 9/111. But, according to the public record, the Administration made counterterrorism such a "top priority" that it never once convened its task force on counterterrorism before 9/11, attempted to downgrade counterterrorism at the Justice Department, and held only two out of more than one hundred national security meetings on the issue of terrorism. Meanwhile, the White House was cutting key counterterrorism programs -- Bush himself admitted that he "didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/112.

According to the [i]Washington Post[/i], President Bush and Vice President Cheney never once convened the counterterrorism task force that was established in May 20013 -- despite repeated warnings that Al Qaida could be planning to hijack airplanes and use them as missiles. This negligence came at roughly the same time that the Vice President held at least 10 meetings of his Energy Task Force4 and attended at least six meetings with Enron executives5.

Similarly, [i]Newsweek[/i] reported that internal government documents show that, before 9/11, the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism6. When the "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.

Additionally, the [i]Associated Press [/i]reported in 2002 that "President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions." This is consistent with evidence Clarke has presented showing that his January 2001 "urgent" memo asking for a meeting of top officials on the imminent Al Qaida threat was rejected for almost eight months7. At the time, the White House said that they simply "did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat"8.

Finally, the White House threatened to veto efforts putting more money into counterterrorism9, tried to cut funding for counterterrorism grants10, delayed arming the unmanned airplanes11 that had spotted bin Laden in Afghanistan, and terminated "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaida suspects in the United States12.

[u]Sources[/u]:

1 Press Briefing Scott McClellan, 03/22/2004.

2 The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment, 2003.

3 Statement by the President, 05/08/2001.

4 Process Used to Develop the National Energy Policy, US General Accounting Office.

5 "Cheney: We Met With Enron Execs", ABC News, 01/09/2002.

6 Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002.

7 "Clarke's Take On Terror", CBS News, 03/21/2004.

8 "White House Rebuttal to Clarke Interview", Washington Post, 03/22/2004.

9 Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002.

10 "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington Post, 03/22/2004.

11 "Officials: U.S. missed chance to kill bin Laden", Helena Independent Record, 06/25/2003.

12 "In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.", PR Newswire, 03/21/2004.

[u]Daily Misleader[/u], http://www.misleader.org/dail...

..... Republicans For Kerry .....

03.25.04 (5:01 pm) [edit]

More Republicans are speaking out against Bush. [u]Republicans for Kerry[/u] web-sites are appearing. Refer to http://groups.google.com/grou...+for+Kerry&hl=en&lr=&ie=U TF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=2df29c 5c.0403161208.209117df%40posting.google.com&rnum=4

Also, click on [u]Republicans Against Bush[/u] here http://repagainstbush.meetup....

..... National Republicans Against Bush Meetup Day (in 20 days)!!!!! .....

03.25.04 (4:50 pm) [edit]

Meetup with other local Republicans who are against President Bush. Discuss the negative impact that President Bush has had on the US, the Republican Party, and what we can possibly do about it.

Click on http://repagainstbush.meetup....

... Wow, Condi Rice Is a Liar & Fat-Ass Slut, Responsible for the Deaths of Thousands

03.25.04 (3:19 pm) [edit]

Condi Rice is the worst sort of liar and fat-ass slut: (1) Majority of those NSAs historically asked to testify under oath, do testify under oath, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... and (2) Rice was in the Oval Office playing games with Bush instead of looking out for our national security http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh... . Condi Rice's lies, incompetence and sucking-up to Dubya have cost the lives of thousands of Americans.

The independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, called on the White House yesterday to waive its constitutional concerns and make National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice available for public testimony on Capitol Hill today.

The administration has said Rice will not testify because of “separation of power issues” that preclude Congress from forcing the president’s advisers to testify.

Rejecting the White House’s stance and setting up a constitutional clash, commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste asked Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to give a message to the administration that there is ample precedent for Rice to give testimony. Armitage had accompanied Secretary of State Colin Powell to
the Sept. 11 hearing, and will himself testify in Rice’s stead today.

At the onset of the first session of the two-day meeting of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, chairman Thomas Kean said he was “disappointed” that Rice declined to attend and give evidence. But he added that she has been “very cooperative” in other aspects of the commission’s work.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday that Rice’s position is not “a matter of personal preference. It’s a matter of separation of powers. It’s a matter of principle.”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in testimony yesterday, attacked the administration for blocking Rice’s public appearance and for President Bush’s insistence on meeting with only two members of the commission for an hour.

Albright said that to prevent future terrorist attacks and to find out as much as possible about events leading up to Sept. 11 “everyone who has served in a position of responsibility or who has information or knowledge related to this commission’s mandate should cooperate with it fully and without conditions.”

Ben-Veniste asked Armitage to deliver to the administration a 2002 Congressional Research Service report indicating that presidential advisers have testified before Congress in the past, including Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

Senate Democrats have pounced on the issue of Rice’s not testifying in public. In a letter to Bush on Monday, eight lawmakers, including New York Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, argued that sworn testimony before the commission is not the same as testifying before Congress.

They also said Rice has not shied away from discussing the issue in interviews and a newspaper column. “In our view, there is no reason why she can discuss these issues in a newspaper article but not under oath before the commission,” the lawmakers said, a charge also levied by commissioner Timothy Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, at yesterday’s hearing.

Albright and Powell traded barbs at the hearing. Powell said the Bush administration wanted “a new policy to go well beyond tit-for-tat retaliation,” adding that the Clinton administration’s cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan “had obviously not deterred al Qaeda from subsequently attacking USS Cole.”

Albright said she was “proud of the Clinton administration’s record in fighting power” and criticized the Bush administration for setting goals that are too broad to be achieved.

“American power and resources are extensive, but not inexhaustible,” she said, adding that the country will become more vulnerable “if we establish strategic goals that are unnecessarily expansive.”

Commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, criticized the Clinton administration for making “two big mistakes.” He said there should have been more retaliation after successful or attempted terrorist attacks and argued that the Department of Defense should have been given a lead role in fighting terrorism.

But commissioner James Thompson, a former Republican governor from Illinois, said he was impressed by the Clinton administration’s record on fighting terror.

Thompson did point out that none of the policies to combat terrorism stopped al Qaeda, helped catch Osama bin Laden or prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.

[u]Probers summon Rice, 9-11 commission wants White House to waive its rights[/u], http://thehill.com/news/03240...

Condi Rice Will Flash Her Fat Ass on Fox News But Disrespects Families of 9/11 Victims

03.25.04 (2:59 pm) [edit]

[b]As the White House was sliming Richard Clarke, the 9/11 families were stroking him[/b].

Several relatives of victims surrounded the ex-counterterrorism chief after his testimony yesterday and reached out to pat him. After being condescended to, stonewalled, led on and put off by the White House, they were glad to hear somebody say: "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you."

"Mr. Clarke is the first person who has apologized to the families and held himself accountable," said the lovely Kristen Breitweiser of New Jersey, whose husband died in the south tower. "I am enormously grateful for that." [b]She and other widows left the hearing room to protest Condoleezza Rice's lame no-show[/b].

If only Sandy Berger had told the incoming Bush officials that Al Qaeda was no big deal, they might have gotten alarmed about it. They were determined to disdain all things Clinton, including what they considered his overemphasis on terrorism.

Dick Cheney, Rummy et al. were on amber alert, "preserved in amber," as Mr. Clarke put it, obsessing on old G.O.P. issues that had been hot when they were last in power, like a menacing Saddam and a Star Wars missile shield to protect America from the awesome might of the Evil Empire.

[b]Terrorism wasn't really their cup of tea anyhow[/b].

As Mr. Clarke writes, the ascension of Al Qaeda and the devolution of Iraq were topics that called for nuance: "Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues that they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom."

The Bush crew was thinking big, and Osama seemed puny to them.

Donald Rumsfeld told the 9/11 panel that there had been no point retaliating for the Cole bombing in October 2000, "four months after the fact," because that might have sent a signal of weakness.

So it was too late to whack Osama four months later, but not too late to re-whack Saddam 12 years later?

As he admitted to the commission on Tuesday, the defense secretary didn't like the idea of going after Osama in Afghanistan because "it didn't have a lot of targets." You just ended up bombing rocks instead of palaces. "Afghanistan was something like 8,000 miles from the United States. . . . You can pound the rubble in an Al Qaeda training camp 15 times and not do much damage; they can put tents right back up."

[b]So, not showy and not convenient? Crummy excuses, Rummy[/b].

Paul Wolfowitz was completely uninterested in Al Qaeda unless he could use it as a rationale to invade Iraq as part of his grandiose dream to remake the Middle East in his image. (And John Ashcroft was just too busy covering up immodest statues and trying to cut counterterrorism funds.)

In the Clarke book, Mr. Wolfowitz fidgets as Mr. Clarke urges that armed Predators target Osama at a meeting in April 2001. "Well," Wolfie whines, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden."

Besides confirming what we already knew — that national security in this White House has been as ideologically driven as the domestic agenda — the Clarke book and the commission hearings are most chilling in describing how clueless the agencies charged with sorting through clues were under Clinton and Bush.

Reprising the scene in the White House on 9/11, Mr. Clarke says Dale Watson, the F.B.I.'s counterterrorism chief, called him. "We got the passenger manifests from the airlines," Mr. Watson said. "We recognize some names, Dick. They're Al Qaeda."

Mr. Clarke recalled: "I was stunned, not that the attack was Al Qaeda but that there were Al Qaeda operatives on board aircraft using names that F.B.I. knew were Al Qaeda." Mr. Watson told Mr. Clarke that "C.I.A. forgot to tell us about them."

Mr. Clarke's argument that the Bush team's misguided adventurism in Iraq has actually spawned more terrorism and diverted resources has panicked the Bushies, who are running as heroic terror warriors.

[b]It's always gross to see a White House stoop to smearing the character of someone seen as a threat. It was sickening when the Clinton White House smeared Monica Lewinsky, and it's sickening now[/b].

[u]Truth as a Weapon[/u], By MAUREEN DOWD, N. Y. TIMES, http://nytimes.com/2004/03/25...

... Assessing the Blame for 9/11 ...

03.25.04 (2:54 pm) [edit]

The seminal moment of this week's hearings on 9/11 surely came yesterday when Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton administrations, opened his testimony by apologizing to the families whose loved ones died in the terror attacks. The government, Mr. Clarke said, had failed them, "and I failed you." He added, "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed." It suddenly seemed that after the billions of words uttered about that terrible day, Mr. Clarke had found the ones that still needed saying.

The two days of hearings by the commission investigating the attacks have been invaluable in helping the American people better understand the chain of miscommunications, wrong guesses and misplaced priorities that left the nation so poorly defended against the terrorists. Mr. Clarke, by accepting responsibility, offered the American people the freedom to hold their leaders accountable for an event most had come to see as an unstoppable bolt from the blue.

Mr. Clarke is clearly haunted by the thought that if things had gone differently, the attacks might have been averted. That seems like the longest of long shots. But there are still plenty of questions to be answered about what happened, particularly about the apparent lack of urgency in the Bush administration's antiterrorism efforts before 9/11.

The Clinton administration also made mistakes. Although aware of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden, it was somehow unable to create and carry out an effective strategy to deal with him. Bill Clinton, distracted by the threat of impeachment, failed to educate the American people adequately about the nature of the danger, and what it might take to fight it. Senior officials from the Clinton and Bush administration testified, one after another, that in the pre-9/11 world, they could not have gone further in trying to run down Mr. bin Laden because, they believed, the country and our allies would not have supported it.

But there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism, and on occasion, like the December 1999 alert that appears to have averted an attack on the Los Angeles airport, it produced results.

The attitude of the Bush administration seems harder to pin down. Mr. Clarke's conclusion was that after George Bush became president, neither he nor the terrorism agenda got the same top-level attention. The Bush administration officials who testified denied that vociferously. Their arguments suffered from the absence of Condoleezza Rice, the person to whom Mr. Clarke reported. Ms. Rice has been doing the rounds of talk shows in an attempt to bolster her argument that the administration had found Mr. Clarke's plans wanting and immediately began a full-bore effort to come up with a new antiterrorism strategy. What the nation deserved to hear her address publicly before the commission is why that process took eight months. A new plan was not approved by the White House until the eve of the terror attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

The real impression gleaned from the hearings is not that the Bush administration was indifferent to the threat of terror, but that its officials had trouble fully understanding it. Ms. Rice was trained as a Sovietologist. Many of Mr. Bush's other top advisers are also former cold warriors who remained loyal to the agenda of the gulf war era, the early 1990's. Their mind-set did not allow for the possibility of an extranational threat not orchestrated by any one particular government. Once 9/11 happened, they organized an effective attack on Afghanistan, where Mr. bin Laden had been operating, but they then turned their attention to Iraq, a country that no one in Mr. Clarke's operation regarded as an incubator of international terrorism.

Despite attempts by a few commission members to paint Mr. Clarke as a disgruntled former employee trying to get publicity for his new book, the former counterterrorism chief was an impressive, reasonable witness. He has done the country a service in focusing attention on the failures leading up to 9/11. The only problem with his apology was that so few of those failures really seemed to be his.

[u]Assessing the Blame for 9/11[/u], N.Y. Times, http://nytimes.com/2004/03/25...

... Who is Lying? Rice or Cheney (or Both)? ...

03.25.04 (2:06 pm) [edit]

It's worth glancing at this whole article http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... in which the [i]N.Y. Times' [/i]Elizabeth Bumiller provides an account of Condi Rice's explanation of the apparent contradicition between Dick Cheney's claim that Clarke "[i]wasn't in the loop[/i]" http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... on pre-9/11 terrorism planning and Rice's claim that Clarke "was in every meeting that was held on terrorism."

In this case Cheney's story is matter and Rice's is anti-matter. So perhaps that explains why things have gotten kind of explosive over the last couple days.

[u]Joshua Micah Marshall[/u], Talking Points Memo, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

Emperor Bush Lashes Out: Dubya Feels the Heat and Launches an All-Out Attack ...

03.25.04 (1:49 pm) [edit]

There is a simple explanation for the withering counterattack mounted this week against the man who was President Bush's top adviser on terrorism. For a self-proclaimed "war president" whose campaign is built on his conduct of the war against terrorism, Bush knows that Richard Clarke's criticism is a dagger aimed at his political heart.

The ferocious White House assault is proof that Republican strategists appreciate the seriousness of the moment and are determined to crush the threat as quickly and convincingly as possible.

Deploying everybody from the vice president to the first lady to blanket the airwaves with rebuttals, the administration has thrown everything at Clarke, accusing him of hypocrisy, partisan motives, faulty memory, sour grapes and self-aggrandizement.

That assault on Clarke continued yesterday when Republican members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States challenged the credibility and motives of the man who served under every president since Ronald Reagan.

Coupled with his "outing" by the White House as the anonymous aide who praised Bush in a 2002 background briefing for reporters, Clarke's grilling left the president's supporters hoping that they had weathered the furor triggered by Clarke's book and much-publicized appearance on CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

"There has been damage. But by the end of the week, it will blow over," said Charlie Black, a senior Republican adviser to Bush's campaign. "We'll move on to something else."

Conservative strategist Keith Appell acknowledged that Clarke's "60 Minutes" appearance "really pushed some buttons at the White House" where there is what he called "a deep sense of betrayal" that a staffer would turn on the president.

"They want to portray the president – and rightly so – as someone we can trust in handling the war on terrorism," he said, expressing optimism the 9/11 hearings proved that Clarke's charges have failed to gain traction.

But both in his many television appearances and under tough questioning from the 9/11 panel, Clarke more than held his own. He never wavered from his biting critique, suggesting that the potential for lasting political damage to the president's re-election hopes is far from extinguished.

"This is not going away," said Stephen Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University.

"This is a very dangerous moment for Bush because this goes right to the heart of his strength," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political newsletter.

"If, in fact, the war against terrorism was handled poorly, if there were misjudgments, if the president never really paid enough attention to the war against terrorism because he was paying attention to Saddam Hussein, this could pull the rug right out from under the president," he said.

Stephen Hess, who has been a respected observer of Washington ever since his days on the White House staffs of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, said the first three days of this week featured the most ferocious White House counter-attack he has ever seen.

In part, he said, that is because Clarke's charges "are quite central to the probity and integrity and honesty (of the White House) but also to the theme of why they should be re-elected."

That furor even infected the 9/11 commission, with some commissioners seemingly more interested in using Clarke to score political points for their parties than dispassionately assessing the lessons of Sept. 11.

Most guilty of this on the panel were Democrat Richard Ben-Veniste and Republican James Thompson, the former governor of Illinois. Neither seemed willing to rise above partisanship when facing Clarke.

Democratic commissioner Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator and governor, seemed amused by the attacks on Clarke, telling him, "You're just caught up in one of those moments."

Clarke's credibility most likely did take a hit when Thompson grilled him on the contrast between his current criticisms and his praise for Bush in that background briefing two years ago.

But it is Clarke's critique that could prove his most enduring contribution to the campaign and could, in the end, prove the most threatening to Bush's re-election. That is, Clarke's self-described "strident" insistence that Bush's obsession with Hussein and the decision to go to war in Iraq "undermined the war on terrorism."

Others have made that charge – most notably several of the Democratic presidential contenders. But none did it with the authority of Clarke. And it now seems much more likely voters will be asked to choose between the president's insistence that the Iraq war was a part of the war against terrorism, and Sen. John Kerry's contention that it was, instead, a distraction from the threat of al-Qaeda.

Shorter term, Clarke's book rescued Kerry from what had been his worst week since clinching the nomination. Republicans had been gleeful at the attention focused on his tortured explanation that he had voted both for and against a funding bill for the war.

"Bush had regained momentum that was lost during the Democratic primaries. . . . Polls showed Bush pulling back ahead. The momentum was coming back and this stopped the momentum," Appell said.

"It was an unfortunate distraction," Black said. "We had a couple of good weeks and now we're off track and having to foul off these pitches. It's just unfortunate."

[u]By George E. Condon Jr[/u]., San Diego Union Tribune http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Bush Ignoring Terrorism, But Waging Ignoble, Unnecessary War Hurts America and the Global Community

03.24.04 (6:35 am) [edit]

[b]Ignoble, Unnecessary War Hurts America and the Global Community [/b]

On March 19, 2003, President Bush launched a long-awaited and unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq and told reporters: ``I feel good.''

Since he has not had a news conference since Dec. 15, it's hard to tell whether he still feels swell about his historic blunder on the first anniversary of that unnecessary ``war of choice.''

Is there really a cause to celebrate when the human and financial price has been so high? This is one tunnel where the light at the end is not presently in sight.

The White House has tried to put the best face on the preemptive attack on Iraq, but the administration can't cover up the reality that America has lost more than it has gained. Our national credibility is shot and our prestige has been shattered.

The Pew Research Center last week released a survey of the citizens of nine nations that showed the image of America has never been lower.

The center polled 8,000 persons in the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco.

Andrew Kohut, who runs the non-partisan center, commented: ''We've never seen ratings as low as this for America.'' The findings also showed a ''long term discontent with America that U.S. leaders have to confront,'' he said.

As Bush and his hawkish advisers tell it, the war is now a ''noble cause.'' That nobility escapes me.

The ultimate price has been paid by the 570 Americans killed in the war in Iraq; 2,822 others have been wounded, according to Pentagon figures. Defense Department officials say they do not count Iraqi civilian casualties but non-governmental organizations say that toll is in the thousands.

The war in Iraq -- allegedly part of Bush's war against terrorism -- is inspiring more horrific acts elsewhere. The train bombings in Madrid killed 202 people; the car bombing in Baghdad earlier this week killed more civilians.

The terrorist acts and the U.S. diminished credibility appear to be weakening the will of the so-called ''coalition of the willing.'' Spain's newly elected President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is ready to pull Spain's 1,300 troops out of Iraq by June 30 if the United Nations is not given a bigger role.

Poland's President Aleksander Kwaseniewski also is having second thoughts. He said Thursday that he may withdraw the 2,400 Polish troops now in Iraq because the United States ''misled'' his country about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Since May 1 when Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, casualties on both sides have continued to mount. The cost of the war so far has run into the billions, climbing at the rate of around $4 billion a month.

In remarks on the night of the invasion, Bush said, ``The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.''

We now know there was no threat against the United States and that there were no weapons.

As the post-invasion reality has unfolded, the administration has been forced to back-pedal quickly, offering a preposterous and ever-changing rationale for the attack.

No weapons found? Well, Saddam at least had ''plans'' for such weapons, Bush insisted. As he put it, ``What's the difference?''

No plans found? Well, Secretary of State Colin Powell came up with the highly spun comment that Saddam at least had the ''intention'' of producing such weapons.

The president surely must know that his preemptive go-it-alone war policy has been repudiated around the world.

[u]By Helen Thomas, Knight-Ridder[/u], http://www.commondreams.org/v...

Sharon Opens 'Gates of Hell'

03.24.04 (6:33 am) [edit]

Ariel Sharon has "opened the gates of hell," declared Hamas in response to the targeted killing on Monday of its founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, as he returned from a mosque in Gaza City. The inexplicable and widely condemned killing is sure to spark severe repercussions, not only for the Israeli people but perhaps for the United States as well.

In its fiery statement, Hamas sets its sights, for the very first time, on the U.S: "The Zionists didn't carry out their operation without getting the consent of the terrorist American administration, and it must take responsibility for this crime ... All the Muslims of the world will be honored to join in on the retaliation for this crime."

The White House's reaction to the assassination has, as is typical, been equivocal. On the one hand, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice hit the news circuit claiming that the U.S. neither knew of nor pre-approved the planned hit. But then White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to issue a condemnation, choosing instead to regurgitate the official White House line: "Israel has a right to defend herself." He added, "I would point out Hamas is a terrorist organization and Sheikh Yassin has engaged in terrorism."

So, does that make killing Yassin a good idea?

That Israel has the right to defend itself is, of course, true. But to claim that the targeted assassination of a quadriplegic returning from prayer constitutes "self-defense" is ludicrous. Yassin clearly has the blood of innocents on his hands and few would deny that he's a criminal. But to confuse what is justifiable with what is effective is, in the most literal sense, dangerous. Or as Israeli columnist, and former member of the Israeli Knesset, Uri Avnery put it: "This is worse than a crime, it is an act of stupidity!"

There are several theories as to why the Israeli government chose to kill Yassin, especially at this time. The only line of explanation that dominates the evening news of course is that Yassin was a terrorist, i.e. a reprehensible murderer who deserved to die. A person is stripped entirely of his humanity at the mere utterance of that word, "terrorist."

But the fact remains – even if we do accept that reasoning – Yassin wasn't socked away in a spider hole, the focus of a long-standing manhunt. He lived a public life traveling along a well-known route to and from the mosque. Sharon could have killed him at any time. So why now?

Some say the act was motivated by politics. Sharon was considering the historic step of withdrawing from Gaza, which undoubtedly incensed the Israeli right. The hardliners believe either that all the land between the Red Sea and the Jordan river constitute Eretz Yisrael (the biblical land of Israel which, in their view, still belongs to Israel) or, at the very least, that no land should be conceded until terrorism ceases. In that context, a successful and high profile assassination of a well-known opposition leader would ostensibly mollify these crucial political allies by playing to Israeli nationalism and might.

Others claim the hit was aimed toward, or to be more precise, at the Palestinian general population. Sharon and others in the Knesset may have feared that a withdrawal of this magnitude could be perceived as a sign of weakness. Though the Israeli military remains one of the most powerful in the world, the specter of the holocaust looms large in the nation's consciousness and plays a powerful role in shaping its policy. An assertion of military dominance by striking at the symbolic heart of the Palestinian resistance could quiet fears that Israel was unable to defend itself.

There's also the possibility – difficult as it may be to imagine – that Sharon truly believes that assassination is the most effective strategy for dealing with terrorism. Though he has failed miserably to date – Sharon's years in office have been among the most bloody in Israeli history – the Israeli prime minister is unwavering in his belief that the ruthless application of force will ultimately secure the Palestinians' submission to Israel's will. The recent string of assassinations of Hamas leaders is then just one part of this broader policy of repression.

This discredited argument assumes two thoroughly unsupportable ideas. First, this strategy assumes that terrorism is sustained primarily by the presence of a small number of charismatic and powerful leaders who are successful at recruiting new suicide bombers. Jessica Stern, a terrorism expert at Harvard University, points out in her recent book Terror in the Name of God, that terrorism thrives because humiliation and anger (in this case, at the ongoing occupation) persist, providing the necessary conditions for recruitment. In other words, the killing of an esteemed spiritual leader only strengthens the conditions that created the climate for terrorism to thrive in the first place.

The second assumption of Sharon's modus operandi is that Palestinians have no legitimate grievance. Though the violence reaped by Hamas and others in response to Israeli occupation is truly abhorrent, the motivation behind their actions remains no less pertinent or valid. Though it's seldom if ever mentioned in the major U.S. press (it's actually more common in the Israeli press), the Israeli occupation of Palestine is the longest standing occupation in the world. More than 60 percent of Palestinians live below the poverty line (making less than $2 a day) without clean water or enough food; endure endless and humiliating checkpoints every day as they struggle to make a living; and watch Israeli soldiers kill innocent friends and family with numbing regularity.

The U.S. media, however, seems unable to go beyond the twisted logic of Ariel Sharon, as mimicked by Bush, Powell and Rice, that "once they stop the terrorism, they can have a state."

No one doubts that the act will spark a new round of bloodshed in the Middle East, where the killing has united the Palestinians and most Arabs in grief and rage. There have already been reprisals of course. Palestinian militants fired rockets at a checkpoint and one man managed to stab several Israelis with a knife. Also, it shouldn't go without mention that Palestinians, rioting in the streets, were shot and killed, including a 13-year-old boy.

But this is likely just the beginning. There will be suicide bombings as surely as spring approaches. Sharon's fist-pumping policy of assassination and brutality, far from quieting the Palestinians, has only strengthened their resolve.

Worse, Yassin's death has strengthened the very organization that it was supposed to punish. Danny Rubinstein, writing for the Israeli publication Haaretz, calls the assassination a victory for Hamas: "The more Israel hits Hamas leaders and rank-and-file members, the more their popularity climbs. In tandem, they become increasingly immune to operations by the (Palestinian Authority's) security force, since any such operation would only be interpreted as treacherous collaboration with Israel."

Palestinian Prime Minister Qureia's ability to negotiate has been severely compromised. Palestinians, distraught with anger and grief, are unlikely to be sated by negotiation and its largely invisible steps toward statehood – with no historically validated reason to maintain that hope in any case. As hope for a Palestinian state dies the rising tide of desperation will make recruitment a snap for Hamas.

Assassinating the leaders of extremist groups only increases the sympathy for extremist views among Palestinians. And that brewing resentment will inevitably spill beyond Palestine's eroding borders. The Associated Press reports, "Thousands of Palestinians in occupied Iraq vowed to avenge Israel's killing of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, saying the battle against the 'enemy' was now in a decisive phase."

Perhaps now that America has chalked up another sworn enemy as a result of Sharon's failed policies (both echoed and supported by Bush), voters in both nations will wake up and consider the roots of Palestinian resentment. Considering the enormous financial and military support provided by the U.S. government, the power to create a viable and thriving Palestinian state - and to remove the conditions that make terrorist recruitment easy - lies in our hands. But given the current administration's track record, just broaching the subject of building a genuine peace will be considered as nothing short of "appeasement."

[u]By Evan Derkacz is an Editorial Fellow at AlterNet[/u]., http://www.alternet.org/story...

Sharon Opens 'Gates of Hell'

03.24.04 (6:31 am) [edit]

U.S. Will Retain Power in Iraq AFTER Transfer of Sovereignty??????

03.24.04 (6:24 am) [edit]

[b][u]A Must-Read Satire[/u]: Bush Memo to Condi Rice: What is the definition of 'Sovereignty'? http://www.tblog.com/template...

U.S. will retain power in Iraq after transfer of sovereignty [/b]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) The United States says Iraq will be sovereign, no longer under military occupation, on June 30. But most power will reside within the world's largest U.S. Embassy, backed by 110,000 U.S. troops.

The fledgling Iraqi government will be capable of tackling little more than drawing up a budget and preparing for elections, top U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

''We're still here. We'll be paying a lot of attention and we'll have a lot of influence,'' a top U.S. official said on condition of anonymity. ''We're going to have the world's largest diplomatic mission with a significant amount of political weight.''

In just over three months, the mantle of sovereignty in Iraq will be passed to an interim government. Its composition and the manner of its choosing will be decided after a United Nations team arrives this week.

But with Iraqi elections scheduled for December or January, the interim government will last a fleeting seven months at most: a butterfly's life, in legislative terms.

Since the U.S.-led occupation regime will have a hand in choosing Iraq's next government, the body will lack a mandate for anything but administrative tasks. Many envision a team of nonpartisan Iraqi technocrats who concentrate on keeping the country functioning.

''We don't expect them to enact any laws unless there is absolute need for them,'' Iraqi Governing Council member Adnan Pachachi said Sunday. ''We're not going to enter into any big contractual obligations either diplomatically or economically because those things should be done by an elected government.''

The short-lived government's main work includes passing the 2005 national budget and preparing for elections, the U.S. official told reporters in a dinner meeting.

The U.S. ambassador will hoard a large measure of influence on Iraq, and the fledgling government will wean itself only slowly from American money, troops and advisers, whom Pachachi said will be tutoring Iraq's rulers on governance issues across the board.

The American face in Iraq will undergo only a symbolic change, with the ambassador installed in a new chancery building but U.S. affairs still handled in Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace.

The ambassador will also have a say in the spending of $8 billion of the massive $18.4 billion U.S. aid package approved by Congress in November, a huge tool with which to influence Iraq's affairs.

Americans ''will be heavily involved, so there will be continuous contacts with them,'' Pachachi said in an interview in a rented Baghdad mansion that serves as his headquarters.

Much of the day-to-day governance will be handled by a president or prime minister and the country's 25 ministers, some of whom Pachachi predicted will be holdovers selected by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer.

Pachachi listed three options being considered for the country's interim government, a charged issue after the complex U.S. plan for a system of caucuses was mooted earlier this year.

A committee selected by the U.S.-picked Governing Council and occupation authorities could select one or a variation of the following options:

The existing 25-member Governing Council gains legislative power, but the monthly rotation of the presidency is jettisoned in favor of a president and deputies chosen from among the members.

The Governing Council is expanded to around 100 members and takes either a parliamentary role or an advisory role, electing a prime minister and president from within its ranks.

A general national conference is convened under U.N. auspices, and conference members choose a president and ministers and then disband. A second variation has the conference retaining legislative or advisory power.

The United Nations team that arrives at the end of the week will attend to technical aspects of selecting the interim government, Pachachi said. A second team that arrives in early April will include top U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and will handle final negotiations, Pachachi said.

As Iraq marches toward independence, many U.S. moves will shape governance and society here long after the occupation's end.

A week ago, U.S. officials announced new restrictions on border crossing that won't be fully implemented for a year long after sovereignty is in the hands of Iraqis.

Bremer is also in the midst of appointing inspectors general for Iraq's ministries that, under current rules, can't be replaced by an incoming Iraqi government.

The U.S.-led authority is also establishing a corruption-fighting Committee on Public Integrity whose commissioner is being appointed to a five-year terms, and an Iraqi broadcasting authority akin to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.

[b]By Jim Krane, Associated Press[/b], http://www.boston.com/dailyne...:.shtml

U.S. Will Retain Power in Iraq AFTER Transfer of Sovereignty??????

03.24.04 (6:22 am) [edit]

Dubya Cut F.B.I. Budget AFTER 9/11!

03.23.04 (10:24 am) [edit]

[u]COUNTERTERRORISM FUNDS: FBI budget cut after Sept. 11 attacks [/u]reads the headline. http://www.newsday.com/news/n...,0,1564960.story?coll=ny-nationalnew s-headlines

In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows.

The document, dated Oct. 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million.

Attorney General John Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three-quarters and eliminated entirely a request for "collaborative capabilities."

The document was one of several administration papers obtained and given to The Washington Post by the Center for American Progress, a liberal group run by former Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta. The papers show that Ashcroft resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding immediately after the attacks.

The documents are being released as Clinton and Bush administration officials prepare to testify this week about their counterterrorism efforts before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

White House spokesman Taylor Gross noted that FBI funding has increased by more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2004, not including supplemental funds such as those requested after Sept. 11. Under President George W. Bush, "the FBI has been reformed to make counterterrorism its No. 1 priority," Gross said. "No matter what sort of rhetoric gets thrown about in a campaign season, it doesn't change the fact that this president is committed to fighting the war on terrorism."

The document showing the FBI request after the Sept. 11 attacks was part of the OMB "passback" process, in which the budget office reviews and pares agency requests. Though it is typical for the White House to reduce agency requests, Bush's foes think the sharp reduction in the FBI's counterterrorism request could be politically damaging for the president.

"Despite multiple terror warnings before and after 9/11, [Bush] repeatedly rejected counterterrorism resources that his own security agencies said was desperately needed to protect America," said David Sirota, spokesman for Podesta's group, which plans to post the documents on its Web site today.

In a further blow to the Bush camp a former counterterrorism coordinator said that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, "looked skeptical" when she was warned early in 2001 about the threat from al-Qaida and appeared never to have heard of the organization.

"Her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before," wrote Richard A. Clarke in a new book, "Against All Enemies," that is scathingly critical of Bush's response to the 2001 terror attacks.

Clarke, expected to testify tomorrow before a federal panel investigating the attacks, recounted his meeting with Rice as support for his contention that the Bush administration failed to recognize the risk of an attack by al-Qaida in the months leading to Sept. 11, 2001. Clarke retired in March 2003.

Clarke said that within one week of the Bush inauguration he "urgently" sought a meeting of senior cabinet leaders to discuss "the imminent al-Qaida threat."

Months later, in April, Clarke met with deputy secretaries. During that meeting, he wrote, the Defense Department's Paul Wolfowitz told Clarke, "You give [Osama] bin Laden too much credit," and he said Wolfowitz sought to steer the discussion to Iraq.

This story was supplemented with wire reports.

Iraqis United in Their Fury Against the U.S.

03.23.04 (10:18 am) [edit]

Set aside the arguments over how George W. Bush invaded Iraq under false pretences. Forget the mirage of the weapons of mass destruction and the missing link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Ignore the inconsistency of toppling one dictator but sparing others.

On the first anniversary of the American occupation, concentrate instead on what is happening in Iraq — the resistance, the spreading terrorism and the presumed imminence of a civil war between religious, ethnic and tribal factions.

What does the future hold for Iraq's 25 million people and, by extension, all Arabs and indeed the larger Muslim world of 1.3 billion, especially their toxic relationship with America?

The answers lie partly in the response to another question, the one American soldiers in Iraq often ask, when not sitting in armoured vehicles with machine guns pointing outward: "Why do they hate us?"

Didn't America free the Iraqis from a gulag, giving them religious freedom and promising self-rule by July 1? Aren't living conditions improving, albeit slowly, and new schools and clinics and roads opening?

What more do the natives want? And why do they want their liberators to leave?

Bewildered occupiers always ask that of the occupied. The question comes with the turf.

But beyond that, Iraqis are furious at America, first, for the same reasons that Canadians, Europeans, Asians and, increasingly, Americans are, and the Spaniards ousted their government for backing Bush and the Germans re-elected theirs last year for standing up to him.

Further — and this is often forgotten in this age of media amnesia — Iraqis have not only been the principal victims of Bush's war but also American indifference or hostile actions stretching back two decades.

In the 1980s when Saddam was at the height of his cruelty, including gassing the Kurds, Ronald Reagan was happily doing business with him.

In 1991, George H.W. Bush abandoned Kurds and Shiites to Saddam's killing squads after both rebelled, on Washington's urging, after the Persian Gulf War.

Bill Clinton backed the post-war economic sanctions, which in 12 years killed 1 million Iraqis, half of them children, and wiped out the middle class.

Given all that, the goodwill generated by the toppling of Saddam was bound to be pyrrhic. It dissipated the moment law and order was allowed to break down, and chaos reigned.

A series of military and political mistakes since, all too familiar by now, turned Iraqi skepticism into anger, into outright hostility.

The shooting and arrest of civilians on the merest of suspicion; the invasion of women's privacy in night-time raids and other culturally insensitive actions; the casual approach to Iraqi casualties (for which Washington does not even keep count); the failure to anticipate and control terrorism of a kind never before seen in Iraq; and the transparent attempts at creating a client state — all these have produced predictably disastrous results.

So, while Iraqis remain divided on such key issues as the balance between Islam and the state, or the rights of women or Sunni and Kurdish minorities, or the type of federal state Iraq ought to be, they are more or less united against America.

"Iraqis are nationalists first, Shia and Sunni second," says Dilip Hiro, London-based author of several books on the Middle East, the latest being Secrets and Lies, about the Iraq war.

"So long as there is a foreign occupier, they will remain united," he said over the phone, adding that he does not see a Sunni-Shiite war on the horizon.

Hamid Algar, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, agrees:

"I don't think a sectarian war is coming," he said in an interview.

Two factors augment their argument.

Terrorists have been killing Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. (The American view that it is all Al Qaeda's doing is, at best, informed speculation).

Shiites have not blamed the Sunnis for the bombings of their shrines. Sunni leaders, in turn, have called for unity. So have the Kurds, curbing their desire for greater autonomy.

------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------

However, Algar does see anti-Shiite elements at work in Iraq. But, he noted, they are active in Pakistan as well, just as they were in Taliban Afghanistan.

Geopolitical interests may be making matters worse, he said. The U.S. and its oil-rich Sunni Persian Gulf state allies fear the rise of a Shiite majority government in Iraq next to Shiite Iran.

Mahmoud Ayoub, professor of religion at Temple University in Philadelphia, agrees:

"Once you change the situation in Iraq, the entire dynamic of the region might change."

However, Algar added that if Bush's "slogan of democracy is to mean anything, Shiites must be given their electoral due" denied them since 1921 when Britain, the then-occupying power, installed a Sunni king.

The counter-argument to the emergence of a powerful Iraq-Iran bloc is that Iraqis are Arabs and Iranians Persian; that not all Iraqi Shiites are enamoured of Iran, especially its failed Islamic revolution; and that the senior-most Iraqi ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, does not believe in clerics ruling the country.

But if Bush is bent on sidelining the Shiites, they are determined to outmanoeuvre him.

They are aware of his need in an election year to stick to his July 1 timetable of handing over sovereignty to the Iraqis. They want to ensure the transfer is for real — under United Nations supervision. Hence their insistence on quick elections and the deferring of key decisions to an elected assembly.

The American move in this political chess game has been to try and have the U.S.-appointed Governing Council approve the stay of U.S. troops beyond June 30. Should the council agree to such a binding commitment, says Hiro, Iraqis could turn against its pro-American members and their followers. That would be the civil war: between pro- and anti-American Iraqis.

None of this precludes a power struggle among Iraqis. But for now, the infighting takes a back seat to outfoxing the Americans.

The only Iraqis keen on keeping the U.S.-dominated status quo are those with the least public support. The ones closest to the Americans won't get elected dogcatcher.

Meanwhile, Arabs across the Middle East — who were prescient in warning of post-war chaos — are estranged even more from Washington than a year ago.

So are most Muslims.

Their view is the same as that of most of the world, namely, that beyond toppling Saddam, the war has been an unmitigated disaster, providing new recruits for terrorist groups.

Arabs and Muslims are particularly dismayed at the worsening plight of Palestinians.

"The belief of the administration that a decisive defeat of Saddam Hussein would benefit American diplomacy in the Middle East, including giving it leverage to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" has not panned out, write Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay in America Unbound (winner of Lionel Gelber Prize to be awarded in Toronto on Wednesday).

Arabs are also reacting strongly to inconsistencies in Bush's words and deeds.

While advocating freedom of thought for Arabs, his troops have been harassing and hitting journalists from Al-Jazeera and other Arab TV stations. And his administration is spending hundreds of millions setting up TV stations and print services for American propaganda.

While championing democracy for Arabs, his administration has been violating the rule of law: holding prisoners without charge, selectively prosecuting Muslim residents of America, and assassinating suspected terrorists abroad, acting as "judge, jury and executioner," as Cornell University professor Matthew Evangelista says.

The final word goes to Margaret MacMillan, University of Toronto historian and author of Paris 1919, an account of the Paris peace talks after World War I. Asked what should America have learned but didn't from the 1920 Iraqi rebellion against the British occupation, she said:

"You can do a lot with great military power but you can't get people to behave the way you want them to. For that, you need persuasion."

[u]Toronto Star[/u], http://www.thestar.com/NASApp...

Iraqi Cleric Intensifies Opposition to Interim Constitution

03.23.04 (10:15 am) [edit]

[u]Ayatollah Sistani Sends Letter to U.N. Threatening Boycott of Meetings [/u]

Iraq's most powerful Shiite Muslim cleric intensified his opposition to the country's interim constitution in a letter released Monday, threatening to boycott meetings with U.N. envoys who are expected to help chart the transition from American occupation if the constitution is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council.

The threat by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani marked another dramatic assertion of the reclusive, 73-year-old cleric's authority in the attempts to fashion a political arrangement after the U.S. administration of Iraq ends on June 30. While Sistani has already made clear his objections to the interim constitution, the letter was forceful in questioning its legitimacy, demanding that it be amended and warning of the consequences of not revising a document praised by its supporters as the most liberal in the Arab world.

The letter, which was dated Friday and bore the stamp of Sistani's office in the sacred Shiite city of Najaf, said flaws in the constitution "will lead to a dead end and bring the country into an unstable situation and perhaps lead to its partition and division."

The interim constitution, known as the Transitional Administrative Law, was signed March 8 in what Iraqi and U.S. leaders praised as a landmark in Iraq's progress toward a democratic state. But the signing followed days of wrangling prompted by Sistani's objections, and within hours, Shiite members of Iraq's Governing Council insisted that parts of the document had to be revised.

The document calls for nationwide elections to be held by the end of January 2005 to choose a 275-member transitional assembly. That body will serve as a legislature, draft a permanent constitution and choose a president and two deputy presidents. By unanimous decision, the three-member executive will then choose a prime minister and cabinet to run the government.

At the time, Shiite members of the Governing Council said Sistani objected to two key provisions in the constitution: a clause that gave Kurds effective veto power over a permanent constitution and another that allows either of the deputy presidents -- likely a Kurd and a Sunni Arab -- to reject decisions of a Shiite president. While most groups in Iraq contest the precise figures, Shiites are believed to number about 60 percent of the population, with Sunni Arabs and Kurds the largest minorities.

In the letter released Monday, Sistani specifically mentioned only his objection to the three-member executive. He said it "lays the foundation for sectarianism in a future political system." Supporters of the arrangement have contended that the veto power of the deputy presidents was the most decisive way to protect the interests of minority Sunnis and Kurds. But it clearly curbs the authority of a Shiite president, and Sistani said he believed it would create deadlock that could only be broken by foreign intervention.

Iraqi leaders have said they will ask the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution legitimizing the handover of authority on June 30. Sistani said in the letter that he feared U.S. officials would seek to include the constitution in such a resolution. If it was endorsed in any way, Sistani said, he would boycott meetings with U.N. envoys due to arrive in Iraq soon. They are expected to help craft an interim authority that will take over from the U.S. administration in June and stay in power until the elections in January.

"We warn that any such step will be unacceptable to the majority of Iraqis and will have dangerous consequences," he said.

U.S. officials in Baghdad had no immediate comment on Sistani's warning. "I have no knowledge of any such letter," said Daniel Senor, a spokesman for L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq.

Since the fall of President Saddam Hussein's government last April, the Iranian-born Sistani, long known for his disavowal of an overt political role by the clergy, has intervened repeatedly in key moments in Iraq's political transition. The moves have solidified the clergy's authority and collided with U.S. ambitions to guide a process that has repeatedly changed course. His supporters say his moves are calculated to empower a Shiite majority that has lacked political clout through Iraq's modern history.

Last year, he insisted that a constitutional convention be elected, forcing the Bush administration to scrap its original plan for Iraq's political transition. The compromise that followed in November -- a process to choose a transitional assembly through a system of regional caucuses -- was, in turn, discarded after Sistani raised objections. In both cases, his opposition mobilized tens of thousands of supporters among the Shiite community, where he enjoys unequaled authority as a religious and community leader.

There are already signs of grass-roots opposition to the constitution. In a sermon Friday, about 2,000 worshipers gathered in Firdaus Square to hear a withering indictment of the document. In Shiite neighborhoods, Sistani supporters have passed out petitions denouncing the constitution and insisting that it be amended. Their objections range from the document's liberal definition of citizenship to the power of an unelected, interim government to make binding decisions before the January elections.

[u]By Anthony Shadid, Washington Post [/u] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Since Assassination is Okay, Why Shouldn't U.S. Military Families Assassinate Dubya for Killings?

03.23.04 (9:58 am) [edit]

If assassination and taking the law into our own hands is okay, then why shouldn't U.S. Military Families assassinate Dubya for killing their loved-ones in Iraq based upon lies and false pretences?

Instead, these people stage protests in accordance with the law ... Hmmm ... Why should they seek a "permission slip"?

[u]U.S. Military Families & Others: Peace marches on Iraq war anniversary[/u] http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/W...

Jean Prewitt can't shake the image of her only son's final hours.

She pictures him trying to crawl to safety through a gun fight after his convoy was ambushed in Iraq, a huge hole in his right thigh.

"He was out there all by himself for a long time, crawling, bleeding, asking for help," she says in a soft southern drawl, weeping at the thought of his lonely struggle.

"That just about killed me when I found out. Then two medics risked their lives to get him. They thought he was going to be OK, but he was bleeding a lot. And there was a sandstorm so the helicopter couldn't come for him."

Kelley was 24 when he died near Baghdad, a mere three weeks into the Iraq war.

Now, after a year of fighting - U.S. President George W. Bush announced the start of the war on the evening of March 19 in Washington, when it was already March 20 in Iraq - more than 500 Americans have been killed. Countless Iraqis are also dead - no one is keeping track of the number - and thousands of wounded soldiers are coming home to little fanfare and uncertain futures.

The violence in Iraq shows no sign of receding despite the capture of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein. The major reason Washington gave for going to war, an urgent threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, has been discredited.

Spain said it would withdraw its troops from the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq after a horrific terrorist attack on Madrid commuters. Poland, another coalition partner, expressed dismay about being misled into the war. Surveys suggest the world's opinion of the United States is continuing to decline.

Some think the invasion has increased terrorism rather than helping to contain it. And other U.S. allies are nervous they'll be the next target of terrorist attacks.

Prewitt, for one, is very angry at Bush.

"The more I hear about it, the madder I get," says the retired postal worker who lives in Birmingham, Ala. "He lied. I've lost all respect for him."

Not a regular protester by any means, Prewitt participated in a demonstration against the war a week ago.

"I felt a little uncomfortable, but I wanted to let Bush know how I felt about him. I'm very upset over his lack of sympathy for the families. He's so cold about it."

"He will not admit that he made a huge, deadly mistake. He seems like he has no remorse for that decision."

It's not the kind of war anniversary that Bush would have wished for, especially in an election year.

Gone is the total solidarity Americans once showed their war-time president. Those critical of the invasion are increasingly speaking out while trying to respect the 130,000 U.S. soldiers still risking their lives half a world away.

While their numbers are relatively small, veterans and military families are joining peace activists in the kind of protests not seen until years into the Vietnam War.

"It took quite a while in the evolution of the anti-war effort over Vietnam for all these forces to come together," says Bill Dobbs of United for Peace and Justice, a New York-based anti-war coalition of some 750 groups planning cross-country demonstrations this weekend to mark the war's first year.

The Internet has been a factor, allowing like-minded Americans to find each other and join forces. The group Military Families Speak Out, for instance, counts about 1,000 families as members.

Yet for every American who thinks the Iraq war was a dangerous manipulation of the fear engendered by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there's one who believes Bush is making the United States and the world a safer place.

"The American public is pretty much divided in half on this stuff," says Dave Cline, a Vietnam vet who heads Veterans for Peace, with about 8,000 members.

Opinion surveys tend to bear that out, or even suggest that most Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the fight against terrorism.

But Cline, wounded three times in Vietnam and partially disabled, isn't one of them.

"We hoped that Americans would learn something from what happened to us," he says. "A lot of guys in Vietnam learned that attempting to dictate to other nations will lead to an ignoble defeat."

"This idea that it's our destiny to bring enlightenment to the dark corners of the world ... empires are the beginning of the decline of society."

The White House has been emphasizing progress in the anti-terrorism effort and positive changes in Iraq as top officials mark one year of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In a speech Thursday to the U.S. army's 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., Bush told a mass of chanting soldiers they've made history by eliminating a dangerous regime linked to terrorists.

"The world is better off and the American people are more secure," he said. "For the civilized world, there's only one path to safety. We will stay united and we will fight until this enemy is broken."

Still, the issue of U.S. justification for the war won't die even if Iraq does move toward independence and democracy.

A U.S. public inquiry will investigate the faulty intelligence used by Bush to argue for invading Iraq, although it may not consider the extent to which the White House exaggerated it.

As the Nov. 2 election approaches, Democrats are focusing on a world divided by a U.S. invasion that wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations, and reports that American soldiers aren't properly equipped.

"Parents are sending their sons bullet-proof vests," says Prewitt. "That wouldn't have helped Kelley. But they have the most obsolete, antiquated, pitiful equipment that I have ever heard of."

With so many reservists and National Guard members serving in Iraq, says Cline, they tend to get hand-me-down equipment not adequate for the front lines.

"That wasn't what these people anticipated when they signed up; they were thinking about home defence. But the Republicans were on a holy mission to invade Iraq. Their ideology blinds them to practical realities."

Cline is angry that Bush is creating more veterans when so many from previous conflicts don't have adequate health care and other benefits.

"It's almost gross in the arrogance of it. There are people waiting six months for a doctor's appointment and waiting years to get their money back."

Prewitt admits that the army made a man of her son, who she says was going down the wrong path and needed to straighten out his life.

"It was kind of at my urging that he joined. I have to live with the guilt."

While peace activists are demanding the U.S. soldiers come home now, Prewitt says she has mixed emotions.

"I don't want my son to have died in vain," she says quietly. "But I don't think they're accomplishing very much over there."

Since Assassination is Okay, Why Shouldn't ex-Enron Employees Assassinate Ken Lay of Enron?

03.23.04 (9:48 am) [edit]

If assassination and taking the law into our own hands is okay, then why shouldn't ex-Enron employees assassinate 'Kenny-boy' Lay, Enron, who destroyed the lives of over 20,000 people and their families?

Instead, these people are seeking legal redress via the law ... Hmmm ... Why should they seek a "permission slip"?

[u]Clip 'n save guide to the Enron scandal[/u]

The Enron scandal is unfolding at a remarkable rate, with a seemingly endless number of new details every day. As the company heads toward its inevitable doom, myriad questions remain. What will happen to the employees who lost their savings? Was the administration involved in Enron's demise? Did officials intervene? Will the scandal stick to Bush?

What follows is a primer on the Enron situation: the origins of the company, what caused the collapse, and the possibilities for scandal.

[b]The rise[/b]

Enron started out as a natural-gas-pipeline company. It began in 1985 as a merger between two smaller natural gas companies and grew quickly. Then in 1994, it discovered a new market: energy trading. In 1997 it expanded to commodities trading. In 1998, water, and in 1999, broadband Internet services.

Along the way Enron grew to one of the ten largest companies in America. It had become a company that sold everything while owning nothing. Financial experts hailed Enron as the perfect new economy company: light on assets and heavy on "innovation." Innovation in this case meant relying heavily on the deregulation in energy markets to take advantage of fluctuating prices. Enron, for example, was one of the big winners in the so-called energy crisis in California last year, selling electricity at grossly inflated prices.

Getting governments to remove energy regulations takes a lot of political influence, and that costs money. Since 1990, Enron has donated more than $5.7 million to political candidates, 73 percent of it to Republicans, who are generally more receptive to the idea of deregulation. The company made a habit of buying its way into places where it wanted changes in the rules.

Along the way, Enron made one very special friend: George W. Bush.

Enron has been Bush's biggest cash cow. Over the years, Enron, its executives, and their relatives have donated close to a million dollars to Bush campaigns, his inaugurations, and the Florida recount effort. Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay was a Bush "pioneer," raising $100,000 in hard money for the Bush 2000 presidential campaign.

[b]The fall[/b]

While Enron seemed like one of the strongest companies in the new economy, it owed much of its success to that period's most valuable asset: hype. With few real assets and an enormous market capitalization, Enron was a house of cards just waiting for a stiff wind.

That wind came in the form of an announcement last year that the company had misreported millions of dollars in earnings. As part of its expansion, Enron had set up a number of limited partnerships that it tried to treat as entities separate from itself. Whenever the company wanted to hide a loss, it shunted the business encompassing the loss to one of the partnerships, effectively masking the unpleasant numbers. But the company's auditor, Arthur Anderson, told Enron executives that some of the partnerships had to be considered part of the company, meaning the losses attributed to the partnerships were Enron's losses.

These disclosures were the beginning of Enron's unraveling. They triggered debt payments, a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, and a dive in the stock price. Enron tried to sell itself to a much smaller competitor, Dynegy, which pulled out of the merger claiming Enron had deceived it. On December 2, 2001, the company declared bankruptcy. Enron's stock had traded as high as $90 a share in 2000; it now trades for under a dollar.

[b]The scandal[/b]

In the year before the company's collapse, Enron executives sold more than $1 billion in stock, cashing out while the price was dizzyingly high. Meanwhile they encouraged their own workers to invest their 401(K) retirement savings in Enron stock, ensuring them that there was no end in sight to the company's climb.

When the stock started slipping, some workers wanted to get rid of the Enron stock, only to be told they couldn't by the same executives who were cashing out. As the price went from $90 to less than $1, many workers' entire life savings were wiped out. And when the company collapsed, many (and probably all before long) lost their jobs. It's the oldest story in the book. The workers suffer the most while management lined their pockets.

Meanwhile, Arthur Andersen disclosed that its employees had destroyed a number of documents relating to Enron's finances. Arthur Andersen's lawyers had instructed its employees working on Enron's audit to destroy all but the most basic papers, a process that took weeks. This occurred while the SEC investigation was going on.

The collapse has sparked a number of investigations into the practices of Enron and its executives. In addition to the SEC investigation, several House and Senate committees are pursuing the matter. Enron workers have already filed several lawsuits against their former employer. And just a few days ago the Justice Department announced it was beginning its own investigation of the company, opening the possibility of criminal charges against Enron executives.

[b]The political fallout[/b]

A day after the DOJ announced its investigation of Enron, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that he was recusing himself from any involvement in the case. Enron donated more than $57,000 to Ashcroft's failed 2000 Senate campaign, and he wanted to avoid the appearance of bias in the investigation.

But of course these connections were nothing compared to those Enron had with Bush. Lay was Bush's chief patron, one of his "pioneer" fundraisers, and a close friend whom Bush liked to call "Kenny Boy." His connections to the administration were sure to come under scrutiny as the scandal unfolded.

Long before anyone knew the company was headed into a downward spiral, there were already questions about the connections between Enron and the Bush administration. When Vice President Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group was writing the administration's energy policy last spring, it met with several energy company executives to get their input.

The effect of those consultations was clear once the policy was made public. It contained enormous gifts to the energy industry in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. It promised the return of the nuclear power industry. The policy was lopsided enough that the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm, asked Cheney for records as to who he had met with when working on the policy. Cheney refused to provide the records several times, and the GAO was planning on taking the administration to court over the matter, then delayed the suit after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

But just a few days ago, under political pressure, Cheney revealed that his staff had met with Enron executives five times while working on the policy, while he had one personal meeting with Lay. Clearly Enron had an inordinate amount of influence on the policy, and there's no doubt that the energy company put its own profits ahead of the public interest.

But that wasn't the only contact Enron had with the administration. Lay contacted Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Don Evans last October, seeking help with Enron's credit rating. Evans and O'Neill claim they denied Lay's requests and did not inform anyone else in the administration about the contacts with Lay. They apparently did not inform Bush about the calls until just days ago.

Whether or not O'Neill and Evans are telling the truth could be the deciding factor: Will this be a full-blown scandal that causes serious harm to Bush, or will it fade into history as nothing more than a footnote?

[b]The endgame[/b]

O'Neill and Evans are likely fall guys if the scandal breaks. Washington has already been discussing O'Neill's possible resignation for months; he's considered too outspoken and has embarrassed the administration on a number of occasions. Lay and other Enron executives might not be invited to the same parties anymore, but none of them will probably ever see the inside of a jail cell despite causing the financial ruin of thousands of their own employees. Arthur Andersen is in serious danger for destroying documents. Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut has already said it may suffer an indictment after his Government Affairs Committee completes its investigation

Bush will probably survive whatever muck gets thrown his way as the Enron story plays out. He is surrounded by people who are too loyal and too smart for him to take a serious hit. Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Ari Fleischer, and many others on his staff have made Bush into the Teflon Man: Nothing sticks to him.

They've already started working on a strategy to shift the blame away from the president. Bush has begun to distance himself from Lay, saying, for example, that the Enron chairman supported Ann Richards over him during the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. The fact that this is a flat-out lie hasn't garnered much mainstream media attention.

More details come to light every day. The story could already be peaking, fading into a murmur over the next few weeks. But no matter what the Bush administration's role in the Enron collapse is, one thing is clear: Enron had far too much influence over the Bush administration. Kenneth Lay helped write the energy policy so it would help his company instead of helping America. With millions of dollars acquired with shady business practices, he bought access to power that no normal person ever sees. But don't expect that to become a huge scandal. It's just business as usual.

[u]Wage Slave Journal[/u], http://www.wage-slave.org/200...

Should Citizens Now Take the Law Into Their Own Hands? No Need for 'Permission Slip'!

03.23.04 (9:35 am) [edit]

If a CEO creates unemployment and a citizen is unable to feed his family and obtain health care coverage for his/her spouse and children, why shouldn't that citizen assassinate the CEO? What if a spouse or child dies because they have been deprived health care (Over 18,000 US citizens die each year because they can't afford health care.)? If a U.S. Military family member's loved-one is killed by a U.S. President based upon false pretences and lies, why shouldn't that citizen assassinate the President?

Should citizens and governments willfully disrespect the rule of law? Should citizens and governments simply take the law into their own hands if they are hurt, angry or see a loved-one unjustly killed? Should we ask for a "permission slip" before we take action?

The "permission slip" rhetoric is dangerously idiotic. Without the rule of law that binds its enforcers as well as those who are the subjects of that law, then a brutish anarchy will arise that means the end of civilization. The right-wing's justification for citizens and governments to assassinate, murder, massacre and slaughter other human beings without any due respect for the rule of law, makes these right-wingers fascists no better than Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movement that they hypocritically claim to condemn, but talk like and behave like.

Professor Richard Falk wrote this article [u]Why International Law Matters[/u]: http://www.transnational.org/...

There is little doubt that the White House seems resolved to wage war against Iraq, however weak its legal case, and despite the withering away of support even at home. It is probably late in the day to stop this militarist juggernaught, but it is not too late to try. There are several constructive steps that could still be taken at this stage. A UN General Assembly resolution, relying on its residual authority to uphold world peace, could convene an emergency session of the General Assembly to oppose recourse to war against Iraq, as well as a reaffirmation of the Charter rules governing the use of force. It would also be significant if Congress could be persuaded to reconsider its premature authorization of the use of force by the President, hold high profile public hearings on the legal and political case for and against war, debate, ideally, pass a restrictive resolution relating to an Iraq War, and thereby finally fulfill its own constitutionally responsibilities, virtually forfeited by its behavior up to this point. Of course, this is too much to hope for.

Beyond backing such institutional steps, the expanding peace movement should continue to hold demonstrations in which speakers develop the argument against war, including its international law elements. It would also be helpful to convene a panel of moral authority figures and jurists to issue a report or white paper on the relevance of international law and the just war doctrine to the realities of the 21st century. As citizens, we have the opportunity and responsibility to act as if it is our duty to challenge this illegal and dangerous war fever that grips the leadership of this country. International law remains the best guide we have for drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in world politics, especially in the war/peace setting. The rest of the world, as well as the American people, deserve a US Government that respects this dividing line. It is regrettable, but true that such respect will only be forthcoming if the grassroots pressure from here and abroad grow strong enough. Our Government shows no signs of being guided in its foreign policy by any authority other than its own imperial dreams.

Among the more serious losses resulting from the September 11 attacks has been the subversion of international law as a source of guidance and limitation in the foreign policy of leading sovereign states, and especially the United States. Of course, this process of erosion preceded the attacks, and even started well before George W. Bush's arrival in Washington. The Gulf War was fought with only a pro forma mandate from the UN Security Council, with the operational control of the ends and means of the war being run from the White House and Pentagon. Such disregard of the proper UN role in collective security was dramatically evident in the way the Clinton Administration conducted its diplomacy prior to the 1999 NATO War over Kosovo, seemingly rejecting peaceful settlement options and bypassing the UN on its way to war. But the presidency of George W. Bush has greatly accelerated this process by its wider rejection of international legal authority. Its arrogant repudiation of such vital international agreements as the ABM Treaty and its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol seeking with due urgency to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses are indicative of this repudiation of multilateral approaches to global problems.

What September 11 did was to extend this dangerous form of American lawlessness to the most sensitive area of all -war making - uses of force in disregard of sovereign rights, and intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries.

Such a pattern of irresponsible, and in the end, self-destructive behavior by the US Government, is especially unfortunate because the unprecedented al Qaeda challenge did require adjustments in the way in which the international rules governing the use of force were applied. International law has evolved throughout modern times to meet the common goals of sovereign states seeking to protect their vital interests in the face of changing circumstances. World War II ended with the historic understanding that recourse to war between states could no longer be treated as a matter of national discretion, but must be regulated to the extent possible through rules administered by international institutions. The basic legal framework was embodied in the UN Charter, a multilateral treaty largely crafted by American diplomats and legal advisors. Its essential feature was to entrust the Security Council with administering a prohibition of recourse to international force (Article 2(4)) by states except in circumstances of self-defense, which itself was restricted to responses to a "prior armed attack" (Article 51), and only then until the Security Council had the chance to review the claim.

It is true that international lawyers have through decades argued about the interpretation of these basic rules of restraint, but these Charter guidelines have generally been well enough understood to enable a clear line to be drawn between permissible and impermissible uses of forces in most circumstances. A measure of flexibility existed, giving the UN legal authority to authorize non-defensive uses of force so as to uphold global peace and security, and some would add in light of recent practice, to protect vulnerable populations from severe abuses of human rights, especially ethnic cleansing and genocide. It is especially unfortunate that influential journalists such as Thomas Friedman pour their amoral scorn on European opposition to the Iraq War, flippantly claiming that it is "Euro-whining" to insist on law and morality as restraints on Washington's warmaking, what Friedman calls "deeply unserious." Given the realities, such a dismissal of principled European criticism is not only self-serving, but highly arrogant even if in the end Paris and Berlin abandon their opposition in a fit of geopolitical opportunism.

There is no doubt that events since the end of the cold war have strained this earlier consensus. In the 1990s a series of conflicts that were internal to states, yet posed humanitarian crises due to ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo) or breakdowns of governance (Somalia, and several sub-Saharan states), created degrees of support for what came to be called "humanitarian intervention." When the US led the NATO coalition in 1999 to avert the advent of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, a controversial precedent had been set for the use of non-defensive force without a mandate from the UN Security Council. The September 11 attacks challenge the viability of the overall framework of international law: a borderless war in which neither main adversary is a state. On one side is a concealed terrorist network with a hidden presence in 60 or more countries on one side and, on the other, a global state with military bases in about the same number of countries, as well as a naval presence on all oceans and plans for the militarization of space well underway.

What should "self-defense" mean in such an inflamed setting that lacked geographic parameters? The basic Charter idea was to regulate the use of force in relations among sovereign states. As such, with a bit of stretching international law could be responsibly interpreted as justifying recourse to a defensive war directed at Afghanistan. Even this was a stretch because the Taliban regime was not directly implicated in the attacks, and it was not given an opportunity to hand over the al Qaeda leadership or to cooperate with the United States in securing Afghan territory from being used in the future as a major terrorist base area. At the same time, the Taliban government was only recognized by three governments (and two of these quickly broke diplomatic relations immediately after September 11, leaving only Pakistan, which joined the war on the US side), possessed an abysmal human rights record, and was beset by both a civil war and an imminent threat of mass famine that it lacked the will and competence to avert.

Under these circumstances, the American war against Afghanistan, although remaining controversial in some anti-war circles, was widely accepted within the UN and by most governments, as a reasonable extension of the legal right of self-defense in these new circumstances. After all, the country seemed to be the nerve center of al Qaeda, and to contain its most notable leaders. There was a sense of urgency given the magnitude of the harm inflicted by the September 11 attacks, and the strong indications that additional attacks were planned as part of a continuing violent campaign against the United States role in the world. It was under these circumstances reasonable for the Bush leadership to believe that dislodging the Taliban and destroying the al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan was the most relevant first step in defending the country against such an enemy. It was a reasonable response, but not necessarily an effective one, especially given the manner in which the military campaign was carried forward. In retrospect, it seems clear that the Pentagon tactics included an excessive reliance on air power and on Afghan ground forces that nullified much of the expected benefits of striking at the al Qaeda headquarters. Furthermore, that the halfhearted postwar occupation and reconstruction efforts led by the United States are even raising doubts about the durability of "the victory" over the Taliban.

But the move from Afghanistan to the second phase of American response, directed at the "Axis of Evil" countries while imprudent on strategic grounds, seems also needlessly destructive of international law. For President Bush claiming a generalized right to wage "preemptive war" was in flagrant contradiction with the Charter's legal framework without any special circumstances justifying an exception. And to apply that claim to Iraq, given the absence of any credible evidence of an imminent threat (something much more than "a smoking gun," which itself the US has so far not managed to find despite its vast intelligence capabilities and the witness of numerous exiles) was to carry American unilateralism to the frightening extreme of claiming an extraordinarily dangerous and perverse right of "preventive war" (that is, lacking the elements of necessity and imminence). Even here the question "prevent what?" cries for an answer given the absence of a plausible Iraqi threat in the foreseeable future and the razor sharp containment policy poised to annihilate Iraq in the event of a Baghdad provocation in the years ahead.

Lest one be distracted by the guerrilla theater performance of Secretary Powell at the UN, it needs to be recalled that the initial Bush formulations of the preemption doctrine made no mention of the UN, and only a pro forma reference to Congress. The Bush preferred option was pure presidential unilateralism. It was only when Republican Party heavyweights (Scowcroft, Baker, Kissinger) publicly warned the White House that there was insufficient backing for the war that Bush was persuaded that he needed to build more national and international support prior to attacking Iraq.

It was in response that Bush shifted course, and acknowledged a role for Congressional authorization, let alone sought a UN mandate. All along, it was a matter of building a case for a war that had already been decided upon within the dark recesses of the US Government. What has been alarming is that Congress, apparently intimidated by Bush's lingering popularity, and the Security Council membership seeming to prefer their role as rubberstamp to that of being again (as in Kosovo) bypassed, went along as sheep to the slaughter. In the process, the UN ignoring its own Charter embraced the pseudo-legalism of enforcing the punitive 1991 ceasefire resolutions imposed on a defeated Iraq after the Gulf War, embarking on this inspection safari that has found pathetically little despite visiting more than 230 suspected sites, having unlimited access and extensive intelligence, and the incriminating testimony of an array of Iraqi defectors. The Bush administration has indicated all along that it would greet a favorable report by the UN inspectors in a spirit of defiance, further undermining respect for international law and UN procedures, and returning to its original impulse to embark on war with or without prior UN approval. In fact, it has distorted Hans Blix's balanced report, highlighting only the criticism, and suppressing via its full court media press the favorable comments on Iraqi cooperation with access and requested information.

When September 11 occurred it was obvious to me and others that this new struggle would exert pressure on the capacity of international law to provide acceptable limits on the way in which the United States pursued security in the world. For this reason, it seemed to make sense to give renewed attention to the Just War Doctrine as a way of acknowledging and identifying limits on recourse to force, yet loosening the restraints of legal rules that had been crafted to minimize warfare between territorial states. What could be done in relation to a concealed terrorist network needed to be different, including the authorization under exceptional circumstances of extending notions of self-defense to deal selectively in an anticipatory manner with threats from abroad that were severe and immediate. At the same time, there was no basis for abandoning international law or undermining UN authority when dealing with conflicts between territorial states, which continue to serve the world well. The claimed right of preemption against Iraq, given the realities of its capabilities and probable intentions, seemed best understood as recourse to "aggressive war" by the United States. To redefine the issue of US aggressiveness toward Iraq as the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions or as a disarmament measure is to trample on sovereign rights of Iraq, and to subject its long suffering population to the scourge of a one-sided war. To argue that the legal basis of the war is to unseat Iraq's brutal ruler, a claim of humanitarian intervention, is so far from the real American motivations for the war is manifestly hypocritical, although this did not stop the president from building part of his case for war in the recent State of the Union on graphic details of the cruel abuses toward the Iraqi people by the dictatorial Saddam Hussein.

Even aside from the Iraqi debate, the issues at stake are fundamental. Part of the difficulty is that the debate about the relevance of international law has been mainly between advocates of polar positions both of which miss the point. There are the realists, perhaps best represented by Michael Glennon, who argue that states no longer respect the UN framework of restraint, that the nature of international conflict has fundamentally changed, and that we might as well acknowledge the collapse of the international law enterprise in war/peace settings. And then there are the legalists who insist that nothing has changed, and that a rather literal reading of the Charter restraints deserves unconditional respect regardless of the gravity, the apocalyptic worldview, and the non-territorial character of the mega-terrorist security threats.

A more useful approach to international law, although admittedly more complicated, and dependent on the messier dynamics of judgment and interpretation, is to reaffirm the persisting vitality of the Charter approach to war and international force, but to acknowledge that the nature of global terrorism makes certain extensions of the doctrine of self-defense justifiable in exceptional circumstances. Referring back to the argument made above, there are grounds for loosening the restraints in relation to al Qaeda, but not with respect to Iraq. September 11 provides no persuasive grounds for departing from the prohibition upon the use of aggressive force in relation to Iraq, or other conflicts between sovereign states. At most, such force could be authorized by an explicit decision of the UN Security Council, but such authorization would itself be dubious in this instance, violating the letter and spirit of the Charter. It needs to be recalled and confirmed anew that the primary mission of the United Nations is war prevention.

There remains the possibility that America's diplomatic muscle will intimidate the Security Council membership to ignore their constitutional responsibilities under the Charter, and either mandate an unwarranted war or refuse to place obstacles in the way of Washington's stated intentions. Such a UN posture will weaken the credibility of the Organization as representing the best interests of the peoples in the world on matters of peace and security, and would further undermine the role of international law. Not only the peace of the world but the vitality of our democracy are in acute danger if the US Government continues down this path of lawlessness.

Fascists Don't Believe in the Rule of Law-- Bush & Sharon Behave Like Hitlers

03.23.04 (9:23 am) [edit]

The fascists on the right don't believe in the rule of law. They are worse than the terrorists who attack them, for the terrorists are self-proclaimed anarchists who deserve to be arrested, tried and convicted of criminal atrocities, while Bush and Sharon are supposed to be the leaders of democratic governments standing by their government's respective constitutions. Instead, Bush and Sharon are behaving like Adolf Hitler. If you read history, Bush and Sharon's undermining of civilized morals and the rule of law is similar to Hitler's rhetoric, justifications and criminal activities. It will alarm you.

[u]Hamas leader's killing sparks anti-Israel demonstrations and vows of revenge across the Middle East [/u]

Quranic verses blared yesterday from a mosque in Lebanon on word of the Israeli killing of the spiritual leader of the Islamic militant group Hamas.

Rage over the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin sparked anti-Israel demonstrations in the Arab world as vows of revenge were pledged across the Middle East.

The wheelchair-bound Sheikh Yassin was killed yesterday by an Israeli helicopter gunship at daybreak as he left a mosque near his Gaza Strip home.

The attack cast doubt on recent Arab political moves aimed at reinvigorating the Palestinian- Israeli peace process.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had been using his influence to press ahead with peace efforts, called it 'cowardly'.

Asked about its likely impact on the peace process, he replied: 'What peace process?'

The killing set back Egyptian-Israeli ties just as they had been warming in the run-up to the anniversary of the peace treaty that was signed on March 26, 1979, the first between an Arab government and the Jewish state.

Egypt yesterday abruptly pulled out of the anniversary celebrations.

Mr Mohammed Mahdi Akef, the leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most influential Islamic movement in the Middle East, issued a warning to all Americans and Israelis.

'There can be no life for the Americans and Zionists in the region,' Mr Akef told Al-Jazeera satellite television. 'We will not rest until the Israelis are expelled from the region.'

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat declared three days of mourning and said that the Israelis had 'crossed all red lines'.

His Prime Minister, Mr Ahmed Qurei, said: 'This is one of the biggest crimes the Israeli government has committed.'

In Jordan, a key mediator along with Egypt in Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts, Prime Minister Faisal Al-Fayez said the assassination would jeopardise any opportunities for peace.

'We, in the government, condemn strongly this heinous crime and affirm this act will escalate the circle of violence and instability in the region and will lead to more bloodshed,' Mr Al-Fayez said in a statement.

In Saudi Arabia, Islamist lawyer Mohsen al-Awaji said Sheikh Yassin's legacy would be an unstoppable movement:

'Ahmed Yassin left behind him a school that all regimes and religious institutions are powerless to resist or contain.'

In Egypt, about 7,000 students gathered in a spontaneous demonstration in Cairo's Al-Azhar University, a leading theological school.

'When Sharon crosses the line, we must kill him and his soldiers,' the students chanted.

In Lebanon, thousands of Palestinians demonstrated near the southern city of Sidon and the northern city of Tripoli, burning car tyres and homemade Israeli flags. Tripoli mosques blared Quranic verses.

More demonstrations were called for later in the day in Palestinian areas in Lebanon and Jordan.

Mr Ramadan Shallah, leader of another radical Palestinian movement, Islamic Jihad, warned that Arab leaders are faced with the choice of defending the Palestinians or risking being overthrown.

'If you do not abandon your silence and support the Palestinian people who are being strangled by Israel, the fate of your thrones at the hands of your peoples will be no better than that of Sheikh Yassin's wheelchair,' he warned.

In Kuwait, one of America's closest allies in the Arab world, Prime Minister Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah predicted that violence would increase.

And the head of the foreign affairs committee in Kuwait's Parliament, Mr Mohammed Al-Saqer, urged the United States to come out against the killing, saying if it did not, such operations would target all of the Palestinian leadership.

'Israelis say that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, but the truth is that Israel is a terrorist state,' Mr Al-Saqer said. -- AP, AFP http://straitstimes.asia1.com...,4386,241756,00.html

Damage control: Richard Clarke's Charges Spark Blame Game on 9/11 and Iraq

03.23.04 (9:15 am) [edit]

Richard Clarke, a military and counterterrorism adviser to four presidents, has been engaged in heated Oval Office debates on some of the nation's most difficult foreign policy issues during the past 30 years.

But the release of his 291-page memoir that sharply criticizes the White House's terrorism strategy has put Clarke at the center of an election-year fight over national security that targets what President Bush's backers see as the president's greatest accomplishment -- his steely response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Clarke, who was Bush's cyber-terrorism czar until March 2003, charged in an interview broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" that the president and his top aides ignored the threat from al Qaeda before Sept. 11 and obsessed about going to war against Iraq afterward.

The White House quickly fired back even before the show aired Sunday, and administration officials intensified their effort Monday to dismiss Clarke's charges by accusing him of a politically motivated crusade against Bush.

Several White House aides said Clarke wanted revenge because Bush had demoted him from a Cabinet-level position he held under former President Bill Clinton. White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested the criticisms were motivated by a desire to sell books or to help Democratic Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a radio interview with conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, said Clarke was "out of the loop" of the major decisions being made by the administration.

Cheney, who was depicted as a "right-wing ideologue" in the new book, said Clarke deserves some of the blame for Clinton's failure to disrupt Osama bin Laden's terror network.

"He was here throughout those eight years, going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center, and '98, when the embassies were hit in East Africa, in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit," Cheney said. "The question that ought to be asked is, 'What were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?' "

The vitriol expressed over Clarke's book and interview is another sign of the escalating battle between defenders and critics of Bush's war on terrorism, which will intensify today as Clarke and others prepare to testify before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Several top Senate Democrats rose to Clarke's defense Monday in a letter sent to Bush, which also urged him to allow national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly before the commission. Rice has met privately with the commission.

"We are particularly concerned that the White House will try to tar Mr. Clarke, a 30-year civil servant who has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations," read the letter by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and seven other Democrats. "He should be treated with the respect that he has earned and not be demonized."

Clarke's critique is particularly brutal coming from someone who served within the White House and helped lead Bush's initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

In his book, "Against All Enemies," he claimed Bush failed to act against al Qaeda despite repeated warnings from intelligence officials about a looming terrorist attack. He also criticized the president for starting "an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."

Clarke retired in March 2003 after three decades of government service. An expert in nuclear weapons and European security issues, he was named President Ronald Reagan's deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence. Clarke served as an assistant secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, overseeing arms control and nonproliferation efforts, before being appointed by Clinton to the then-newly created post of national coordinator for counterterrorism.

Clarke stayed on when the current administration took office in January 2001, urged by Rice to continue his counterterrorism efforts. But he was later demoted to a lesser position overseeing cyber-terrorism, reflecting a growing split between Clarke and other Bush advisors over counterterrorism efforts.

Clarke said he and another Clinton administration holdover, CIA chief George Tenet, had been rebuffed in their early warnings about the threat of al Qaeda. In the first-ever meeting of deputy Cabinet secretaries about terrorism in April 2001, Clarke said he had urged action against al Qaeda. But he said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted that Iraq-sponsored terrorism was the real problem.

" 'You give bin Laden too much credit,' " Clarke quotes Wolfowitz as saying. " 'He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor.' "

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Clarke said Bush urged him to find a link between Iraq and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- even though Clarke argued that all evidence pointed to bin Laden.

"Go back over everything, everything," Bush reportedly told him in a Sept. 12 meeting in the Situation Room. "See if Saddam did this."

White House officials said Bush did not recall the conversation and that logs from the Situation Room did not place the president with Clarke there. But backers of Bush's policies argue that asking his staff to look into a link between Iraq and the attacks was a logical request.

"If the administration didn't search for such a connection, it would have been negligent," said James Phillips, a senior fellow and Middle East expert at the Heritage Foundation. "Saddam Hussein had a record of supporting terrorist groups, and he had already tried to assassinate a former U.S. president, Bush's father. The administration was correct to look at the ultimate source of this kind of attack and not just the immediate terrorist group involved."

White House officials said Bush did not neglect the threat of al Qaeda, but had been preparing a more aggressive counterterrorism campaign when the Sept. 11 attack occurred. "We felt that up until that point that much of what had been done vis-a-vis al Qaeda had been totally ineffective," Cheney said.

Clarke's memoir showed he was hardly a dove on military and terrorism issues. He faulted President George H.W. Bush for not retaliating against Libya for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and criticized Reagan for not responding with military force for the bombing of U.S. military barracks in Beirut, which killed 278 Marines. While he praised Clinton for making terrorism the focus of his post Cold War foreign policy, he said the Monica Lewinsky scandal distracted the president from focusing on al Qaeda.

Bush supporters said the book was an effort to rehabilitate Clarke's image. As an adviser to Clinton, he supported the U.S. cruise missile attacks on training camps in Afghanistan and a factory in the Sudan that many analysts believe did little to disrupt bin Laden's operations.

White House aides also pointed out that Clarke is a close friend of Rand Beers, an adviser to Kerry on national security. But Clarke, who was a registered Republican in the 2000 election, said he is not affiliated with any political campaign.

Daniel Benjamin, Clinton's former director of counterterrorism, said Clarke had aired these complaints about the Bush administration's strategy long before the presidential campaign began.

"His allegations track with what ... he was expressing for quite a while after the new team came into office in January of 2001," Benjamin told CNN. "His critique of the emphases in the war on terror also tracks with what a lot of us in the counterterrorism community have been saying."

[u]By Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle[/u] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett Says No Links Between Iraq & Al Qaeda

03.22.04 (5:21 pm) [edit]

Tonight on the [u]NewsHour with Jim Lehrer[/u], on PBS, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, was asked to respond to charges made by Former Terrorist Expert Richard Clarke. (I must say I didn't find Bartlett's refutations very convincing. Clarke was far more credible in presenting his case.)

However, during the course of the interview, Mr. Bartlett said that "President Bush never said that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda". He went on to confirm that no such link exists or has ever been proven. This confirms recent statements made by Colin Powell and Bush himself, when he contradicted Dick Cheney, and the president told reporters that no evidence exists of any links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

[u]NewsHour with Jim Lehrer[/u], Monday 22 March 2004, PBS.

Profile: Richard Clarke

03.22.04 (3:05 pm) [edit]

[b]Four successive US presidents have picked Richard Clarke to defend the country against terrorists[/b].

His fourth boss, George W Bush, may be regretting the choice. [Now, the Bush administration is performing a hatchet-job on a man with a reputation for integrity.]

Mr Clarke has turned on his former master, a year after stepping down as the cyber-security adviser charged with protecting America against an "electronic Pearl Harbour".

He has accused President Bush of doing a "terrible job" fighting terrorism - of ignoring the al-Qaeda threat before 11 September 2001 and distorting it afterwards.

His comments coincided with the publication of his book, [i]Against All Enemies [/i]- a scathing account of his tenure under Mr Bush.

White House officials have moved swiftly to limit the damage, dismissing Mr Clarke's assault as politically-motivated pre-election spin. [Of course, would they admit to having ignored advance warnings of 9/11?]

They can take heart from his past - a career showing him to be no stranger to controversy and clashes with superiors. [Whistle-blowers and employees with integrity simply don't roll-over like Nazi SS officers when their leaders ask them to commit atrocities.]

But with 30 years of government service behind him, Mr Clarke is also a survivor - a man whose expertise cut across party boundaries and a voice few presidents could afford to ignore.

[b]Israel weapons row [/b]

Richard Clarke rose to prominence in the Reagan administration of the 1980s, when he became the second-ranking intelligence officer in the State Department.

According to the [i]New York Times[/i], he was credited with devising methods of psychological warfare against the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

He left the State Department in 1992 - then serving in the administration of George Bush senior - amid a bitter row over Israel's alleged misuse of American military technology.

A State Department inspector accused him of going against the US government line by turning a blind-eye to Israel's sale of weapons bought from the US to China.

Mr Clarke rebutted the charge, saying it had been fully investigated.

[b]Al-Qaeda strike [/b]

Next, President Bill Clinton appointed him to head a committee of top officials from the FBI, CIA, the Justice Department and the US military.

In regular top-secret meetings, the officials weighed up the threats American interests faced in a post-Cold War environment - namely terrorism and narcotics.

Mr Clarke became one of the first US officials to initiate military action against al-Qaeda when, long before 11 September 2001, he argued for cruise-missile strikes against a target in Sudan.

Later reports suggested that the bombed target - premises apparently being used by Osama Bin Laden to produce chemical weapons - was, in fact, a medicine factory.

Faulty intelligence was blamed.

[b]'Bureaucratic guerrilla' [/b]

Mr Clarke was one of the few top officials from the Clinton era to be retained by George W Bush's administration, which brought him into the National Security Council.

After the 2001 attacks on Washington and New York, Mr Clarke was criticised for discussing intelligence failings in the press.

"Clarke also screwed up. He was after [all] the counter-terrorism tsar when 9/11 took place," Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations at the CIA's Counter-terrorism Centre, told [i]Computer World [/i]magazine in January 2003. [Actually, Clarke tried to get Bush, Cheney and Rice to take action, but they were pre-occupied with Iraq and didn't want to discuss Al Qaeda.]

He described Mr Clarke as "a hands-on bureaucratic guerrilla" famed for a gung-ho approach. [No wonder he is angry that the Bush administration stonewalled him from protecting America against the 9/11 attacks.]

"He was contemptuous of the bureaucracy and this attitude earned him few friends," Mr Cannistraro said. [Being contemptuous of arrogant know-nothings is a good thing.]

But many of Mr Clarke's critics have also credited his worth as a determined man-of-action.

Former colleagues remember a man fiercely loyal to those who worked under him - if not necessarily to his superiors. [Being loyal to Adolf Hitler isn't to be lauded.]

Sounds like being loyal to the American people is deadly under the Bush administration. For more information, refer to [u]Richard Clarke - Office of Cyber Security Director[/u] http://abcnews.go.com/section... .

[u]BBC NEWS[/u], http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am...

Bush Stonewalls the 9/11 Commission, Leaving Families to Wonder Why ...

03.22.04 (2:26 pm) [edit]

George W. Bush and his gang control, influence or spin all they can and ignore the difficult, disturbing and embarrassing issues and events they can't dominate and direct.

Karl Rove, the president's political brain, has his Christian soldiers in full campaign armor now, marching under the banner of incumbency, a powerful force, but also with a vulnerable flank.

The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is a case where incumbency works both ways. Remember the salient facts. George W. Bush vehemently opposed the creation of the commission in the first place. Under pressure from the families of the victims, he reluctantly agreed to it and then has done everything in his power to delay, frustrate and scuttle its work.

First, Dubya appointed Henry Kissinger the panel's first chairman. Kissinger, the mortician of openness, is the kind of person you appoint to bury the truth. He had to bow out when he learned he'd have to reveal the names of the clients of his international consulting firm.

Do you smell Saudi royals, too? And certainly the scent of China and a few other murderous dictatorships and nations that torture and murder their own people and either have or flirt with weapons of mass destruction. Kissinger will do the bidding of all kinds of loathsome scum, as long as they pay his handsome fees.

Following the Kissinger embarrassment, Bush chose as chairman Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey. He is a decent and honorable man, and he heard the president and his handlers say, "Sure, Tom, we're with you 100 percent. Get to the bottom of this thing. What did we know and when did we know it? Find out what went wrong with our intelligence. How'd those guys get here anyhow? And how can we prevent future attacks? We'll help you out and cooperate in any way." Kean quickly learned they didn't mean a word of it.

Kean points out that this is the most extensive examination of the U.S. government's own operation ever undertaken. But, from the start, nearly every federal agency Kean and the commission have dealt with has delayed and balked at requests for information, documents and interviews. Several agencies only complied in the face of subpoenas, and the deliberate stonewalling pushed the commission's work way back.

The commission requested a two-month extension beyond its May 27 report deadline. Any reasonable person would understand why. But then House Speaker Dennis Hastert jumped in and said no. He said the commission didn't need any more time and he feared the extension would make the commission's findings "a political issue" during the presidential campaign.

Hastert is a former high school wresting coach who was hand-picked for the job by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who really runs the House. Even DeLay knows his political dealings and personality are so vile he can't be the public face for the House Republicans. So he has Hastert in a choke-hold and Hastert does whatever DeLay wants.

The White House pretended to try to pressure Hastert to change his mind, but he wouldn't, to Karl Rove's private delight. Then, Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman and Republican Sen. John McCain did what the Bush crowd could have if they really wanted to change Hastert's (DeLay's) mind.

Lieberman and McCain said that, if the House did not give the commission an extension, they would hold up a highway bill needed to avoid layoffs for thousands of Department of Transportation workers. Some of them are working on the pork-laden highway construction bill the House is still working on.

Hastert suddenly saw the light, did a complete flip-flop and agreed to give the Sept. 11 commission a little more time. He and his master, DeLay, live, breathe and die pork. What's telling here is that George W. could have played hardball with Hastert and achieved the same result. Why didn't he?

Let's see. The president has deigned to take one hour out of his busy schedule of campaigning and attending political fund-raisers to sit down with the Sept. 11 commission to discuss what he did or didn't know before the terrorist attacks.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has already rejected a request to testify publicly in front of the panel. What does the glib Dr. Rice fear? Too many pointed questions, obviously.

The president certainly doesn't want to be questioned by commission members like Richard Ben-Viniste, the former Watergate prosecutor. Too dangerous. So Bush is insisting that only his two hand-picked members of the commission be allowed to question him, and he's promising only one hour of his precious time for the interrogation.

That is a brazen insult to the victims of Sept. 11, their loved ones and people in the United States and around the world who deserve the truth.

This week alone, Bush will be spending at least 10 hours traveling to and attending fund-raisers around the country. In the 30 months since Sept. 11, figuring at only 30 hours a month, which is a great underestimate, George W. has spent more than 900 hours of his post-Sept. 11 presidency raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from his corporate sponsors to keep power to serve their interests.

And yet he will devote just one single hour to discuss the worst domestic assault on the nation that happened to occur during his presidency. No serious person not drunk with partisanship believes George W. Bush wants the American people to know the full truth about what our government did and did not do about intelligence and warnings prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.

I am not suggesting any grand conspiracy, but when terrible things happen on your watch, there has to be some accountability. That is political poison for George W. Bush. Did our great "war president" fail to feel the winds of war?

If the terrorist attacks occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency and he was stonewalling a commission investigating the events, every right-wing wacko on the planet would be howling like a stuck pig.

The corporate media would be all over the issue like a cheap suit -- lead stories, special reports, hundreds of hours of nonstop coverage on the cable news channels, magazine covers with screaming headlines: "What is the President Hiding?" "We Deserve the Truth Now," "Stop the Cover-up."

Consider the time, effort and money put into Ken Starr's Whitewater and Lewinsky affair investigations and what they meant for our nation and the world.

How do those endless witch-hunts stack up with a serious inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks and the resources and public attention spent on the respective investigations? It's a national disgrace.

The families of the Sept. 11 victims are already onto Bush's deviousness and duplicity, and their anger will only grow when the commission report, however hampered by cover-up and time restraints, is finally released.

As you can often find in this space, here's the news before it happens.

Fast forward to the Republican National Convention in New York City late this summer.

The Secret Service, under orders from Karl Rove, has arranged for the outraged families of the Sept. 11 victims to hold their demonstration in the Bronx in one of those Orwellian "free speech zones."

Rove actually preferred Yonkers, but that was already reserved for the families of the Iraq war dead and maimed.

The unemployed are assigned to Albany, and Americans without medical insurance will hold their anti-Bush rally in Syracuse.

Gays are being relegated to Buffalo, and the Michael Moore-Tim Robbins-Sean Penn-organized anti-war protest will be held in Niagara Falls, Ont.

Meanwhile, this great man of the people will shamelessly use Ground Zero for the dramatic backdrop of a political speech.

Those who oppose him -- common, concerned people -- will be kept far away.

Their distance, however, forms its own backdrop, reminding us how far away from him George W. Bush insists on keeping the truth.

[u]Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News. His e-mail address is gallaghernewsman@aol.com[/u]. http://www.niagarafallsreport...

Follow-the-Money: Bush-and-Cheney, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group

03.22.04 (2:24 pm) [edit]

[b][u]Follow-the-money[/u ]

Bush-and-Cheney and their corporate cronies ...

A History of Corruption: Just 2 examples out of many:[/b]

[b](1) BUSH-CHENEY WHITE HOUSE OBSTRUCTS HALLIBURTON LAWSUIT

Process Server Threatened With Jail By White House Security

[u]White House Refuses to Allow Complaint to be Lawfully Served On Vice President Cheney[/u][/b] http://www.judicialwatch.org/...

[b](2) Exposed: The Carlyle Group ...[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]We haven't even discussed Bechtel, Big Oil, Unocal, the Pharmaceutical Industry, Corporate HMOs and other corporations and special interests whose wishes and desires trump public safety, security and welfare.

More to come[/b].

Dubya's Fascist Economic Policies Are Creating The 21st Century's Great Depression

03.22.04 (2:17 pm) [edit]

=http://img38.photobucket.com/...

[b]BUSH DEFICIT SPENDING ON HALLIBURTON, BECHTEL, CARLYLE GROUP AND TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH. BUSH ERRONEOUSLY CLAIMS TO BE 'DEFENDING' US, BUT HE'S NOT DEFENDING US FROM POVERTY, JOBLESSNESS, HOMELESSNESS, DEBT, INCREASED TAXES FOR WORKING PEOPLE AND A HEALTH CARE CRISIS[/b]

[b]U.S. Workers Struggle in Worst Job Slump Since Great Depression[/b]

Jobless and underemployed workers are suffering the worst job slump since the [i]Great Depression[/i], according to[i] Labor Market Left Behind, an Economic Policy Institute report [/i] http://www.epinet.org/newsroo... released August 27, with an insignificant net-change since that time. With a net 3.2 million private-sector jobs lost in the United States since President George W. Bush took office, the current recovery has been the worst for job growth on record since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began tracking unemployment in 1939, the report finds.

"This Labor Day finds more working Americans just treading water, trying to keep their heads above water and waiting for the lift raft they've been told is on the way," says EPI President Larry Mishel. "The administration's promised jobs and growth has not arrived and doesn't seem to be anywhere on the horizon."

The report concludes the economy is expanding too slowly to quickly lower unemployment—reaching 6.2 percent in July and very little change since that time because workers have given-up looking for jobs that have not been created, http://www.bls.gov/news.relea... according to the latest available BLS numbers. And jobseekers aren’t the only ones hurt by the weak labor market, the report says, with wages growing slowly for most workers and even falling in real terms for some.

“For too many working families, the current recovery is indistinguishable from the recession,” says Economic Policy Institute Senior Economist Jared Bernstein, who co-authored the report with Mishel. According to Bernstein, recent signals suggest growth will improve in the second half of the year, but even optimistic forecasts for unemployment hover around 6 percent: “We are looking at little if any improvement in unemployment for at least the rest of the year.”

[u]Among the report’s main findings[/u]:

. Even if predictions of stronger growth in the second half of 2003 prove accurate, unemployment will stay near 6 percent through most of 2004.

. Employment opportunities have declined more for college graduates than for those without a high school degree.

. Since the recovery began, the overall unemployment rate has gone up 0.6 percent. The increase for African Americans has been 1.3 percent.

. Real wages of typical (median-wage) workers, which grew about 2 percent more than inflation through 2001, stopped growing entirely in 2002.

. This is only the second recovery since World War II in which unemployment has not yet started to fall 29 months into a recovery.

. The portion of underemployed workers—those working fewer hours than they want or in jobs for which they are overqualified—reached 10.2 percent in July 2003.

[b]More[/b]:

Read the new EPI report, [i]Labor Market Left Behind[/i]. http://www.epinet.org/newsroo...

Learn more about [i]President Bush’s preference for millionaire tax cuts over jobs[/i]. http://www.aflcio.org/yourjob...

[i]Get more information on America’s job crisis[/i]. http://www.aflcio.org/yourjob...

It Won't Fit on a Bumper Sticker: Globalization, Outsourcing & Slavery

03.22.04 (9:59 am) [edit]

[b]It Won't Fit on a Bumper Sticker:

The debate over globalization, outsourcing and slavery sure won't fit on a bumper sticker. One thing for sure: it is morally corrupt for corporations to exploit slave labor abroad. It is morally wrong to create slave labor, unemployment and misery here in America, too. It is morally obscene for corporations and the rich to reap massive profits from slavery abroad and here at home, and not to invest back into the society without which they would not have had the opportunity, security and legal system to protect them.

It is time for a legal framework to prohibit slavery anywhere in the world and for safety-nets to be created in order that corporations cannot ruthlessly treat workers here at home like fodder and slaves to be trampled upon at their whim.[/b]

[u][b]Determining the Benefits of Globalization is a Complex Story[/b][/u]

Most issues in life are not black and white, but fall into the large gray middle. Take globalization, for instance: Does it result in more inequality because the rich gain more than the poor? It turns out that the answer largely depends on what one means by "inequality."

There are at least four definitions of inequality we can use. The most common, Concept zero, is inequality between all individuals within a given nation. Concept 1 is inequality between countries or average incomes of all countries in the world. Concept 2 is the same as Concept 1 except that we weigh each country’s income by the number of people who live there. Concept 3 inequality finally is inequality between all individuals in the world.

The last quarter of the 20th century has been quite an interesting period. Consider the changes it has brought to each of these concepts of inequality. Within-national inequalities (Concept zero) have gone up in all major countries in the world. Reagan-Thatcher periods of rising inequality in the US and UK are well known; so is the dramatic increase in inequality in Russia and Eastern Europe after the collapse of Communism, as well as in China after the introduction of market reforms. India too has recently seen rising inequality. Are these increases related to globalization that was unfolding at the same time? The evidence is mixed. It seems that greater openness to trade has raised wage differentials between highly skilled and unskilled workers, but that skill-biased technological progress might have also contributed to rising inequality too.

With respect to Concept 1, differences between average incomes of rich and poor countries have markedly increased over the last 20-25 years. Generally speaking, rich countries have done better than poor countries. But the question is whether this unevenness in performance is due to some countries' espousing globalization while others have not, or did it happen because globalization has not been equally kind to all? In other words, are poor countries in Africa not growing because they cling to old-fashioned protectionism or because they have been marginalized by globalization? Here, too, the answer is complicated. Some countries have failed to grow because of globalization (as their competitors have undercut them at every step), while others have failed to grow for the opposite reason: because they remained closed. The first are often thought to include Latin American countries that found themselves between the Scylla of highly skill-intensive economies like the U.S. and the Charybdis of low skilled and cheap labor provided by China and India. They seem to have lost both ends of the market and much in between. But there are also countries that have not grown because they have remained closed. The examples include Burma, Laos, Cambodia, and the most dramatic of them all, North Korea.

Inequality measured by Concept 2 declined at the same time that Concept 1 inequality grew. These two facts are not unrelated. In the late 1970s, China started its reforms which led to a six-fold increase in its average income during the next quarter of a century. At the same time, Latin America entered its debt crisis, begun its "lost decade" of growth, and its recovery might have been impeded by the arrival of cheap competitors like China on the world economic stage. Africa, too, started its decline in the 1980s; and economies of Eastern Europe and the former USSR collapsed in the 1990s. Thus, the number of poor and middle income countries with nil or negative growth vastly exceeded the number of those with positive growth, which explains the increase in Concept 1 inequality. But those that grew included China and India—poor countries that contain almost 40 percent of the world's population. Hence, Concept 2 inequality, which adjusts countries’ GDPs per capita for population size declined.

Yet Concept 2 inequality is not important per se. It is important because it gives the first approximation of what happens to inequality between all individuals in the world. Most—around 2/3—of inequality between individuals in the world is explained by inequality between (population-weighted) average incomes of countries. That is, today, it is one's birth place, which determines people's income much more than his or her social class. In contrast, prior to the industrial revolution, aristocrats in France and India and the Ashanti kingdom all had similar incomes, while peasants all likewise lived barely above subsistence. Since the industrial revolution, today's industrialized countries pulled ahead of the rest of the world, such that today's poor in France have the same incomes as the rich in India or Ghana.

If Concept 2 provides a good approximation of global inequality between individuals, does this mean that the latter must have gone down too? Not necessarily. While the (population-weighted) average incomes between countries have converged, within-country inequalities have exploded. The global inequality-reducing effect of China’s per capita incomes catching up with that of the U.S. was partly or perhaps fully offset by the increasing income inequality within China and within the U.S. What we know for sure, though, is that Concept 3 inequality is extremely high, that the income ratio between the richest and the poorest 5 percent in the world is 170 to 1, that the richest quarter of world population consumes three quarters of the world’s output. However, we are much less sure about the direction of change. This is because the change, in whatever direction, is small relative to the sheer magnitude of global inequality — and our measurement tools are rather blunt.

Different types of inequality have moved in different directions. Average incomes of countries are more different today than 20 or 30 years ago; so are inequalities within countries. But fast growth of poor and populous countries has reduced distances between many people in those countries and in industrialized countries. Concept 3 inequality is the outcome of all these movements.

Measurement is one reason why linking overall inequality between citizens of the world to globalization is so difficult. Another has to do with the fact that globalization does not have uniform effects in all countries, that when globalization spurs growth in China and India it does much more for reducing global inequality than when it spurs growth in Chad and Bolivia, and that globalization has measurable effect on inequalities within countries.

So, what will you put on your bumper-sticker?

[u]Branko Milanovic is a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and World Bank[/u]. - http://www.americanprogress.o...

Bush's Tax Increases For Working People While The Rich Get Richer

03.22.04 (9:54 am) [edit]

[b]The Bush Tax Increase[/b]

President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets.

[u][b]DIRECT TAX INCREASES PROPOSED IN THE BUSH BUDGET[/b][/u]: President Bush's 2004 budget proposed an increase of $5.9 billion in fees on taxpayers from just one year ago. In 2005, the Bush budget assumes the "government will take in 13% more in taxes and fees next year than in fiscal 2004." [Source: WP, 2/19/03, Boston Globe, 2/3/04]

[u][b]STATE TAX INCREASES, BROUGHT ON BY BUSH BUDGET[/b][/u]: The latest Bush tax bill/budget proposes a 3% decrease to federal grants to states, a $16 billion decrease in state tax revenues - all while proposing between $23-$82 billion in unfunded mandates. Because of this "millions of American individuals and businesses face tax hikes this year... wiping out the savings that some taxpayers would otherwise see on their federal 1040." Since President Bush took office, states have raised taxes by a total of $14.5 billion, after 7 consecutive years of cutting taxes. The total 2003 net tax increase was $6.9 billion for the 42 reporting states – following a 2002 net tax increase of $9.1 billion. Seventeen states raised taxes by more than 1% with four states raising taxes by at least 5%. USA Today reports "squeezed by tight budgets, Republicans in at least a dozen state legislatures across the country are feuding over the party's bedrock principles of holding down spending and not raising taxes." Similarly, the Wall Street Journal noted, Republicans in states all over the country "are undercutting the election-year message: They are for raising taxes...Worried about declines in schools and basic services, many Republican leaders in the states say they have little choice." [Source: CBPP, 10/17/03, 6/3/03 & 2/3/04; Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; NCSL, 2003; USA Today, 2/9/04; WSJ, 2/20/04]

[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES[/b][/u]: Since President Bush took office, state colleges and universities across the nation imposed their "steepest tuition and fee increases in a decade" – some as high as 40%. Tuitions rose at public institutions in all of the 37 states responding to a recent nationwide study, almost all due to federal/state budget cuts in the state budgets. In the 2003-04 academic year, college tuition and fees increased an average of $579 at public universities, $1,114 at private institutions, and $231 at two-year public colleges. Meanwhile, the Administration proposed a rule change that would deny Pell Grants to 84,000 students, while freeze funding the program. Bush's latest budget also proposes to "prohibit agencies from waiving a 1% Stafford Loan fee and forces students to collectively pay $1 million in interest each year." [Source: Washington Post, 7/22/03; U-Wire, 2/6/04]

[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON VETERANS[/b][/u]: "Two years after tripling the co-payment that veterans pay for prescription drugs the Department of Veterans Affairs wants to raise it again." Specifically, President Bush's 2005 budget would increase prescription "drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans." In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7." Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) said the proposal raises questions about the impact on "near-poor" veterans whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new premium. Meanwhile, the American Legion called it "utterly ridiculous." [Sources: Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/7/04; WP, 2/19/03]

[u][b]PROPERTY TAX INCREASES[/b][/u]: The Administration has left a $9 billion hole in funding its own education bill. That unfunded mandate, along with "cuts in federal taxes and programs have shoved some of the tax burden down to states and municipalities" forcing them to "hike property taxes to pay for schools and other services." As one expert noted "county and city governments have been raising taxes" with "property tax collections rising more than 10%" last year alone. [Source: Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; PPI, 2003]

[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON LOW-INCOME FAMILIES & KIDS[/b][/u]: According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, 32 states have effectively increased taxes on low-income families by raising their Medicaid co-payments. Additionally, "50 states reduced or froze payments to Medicaid providers, 34 states have reduced or restricted Medicaid eligibility, 35 states have reduced Medicaid benefits." In Florida, for instance, deficits caused by tax cuts have left more than 80,000 kids on waiting lists for health care. Overall, because of these tax Medicaid fee increases and deficits, 1.7 million people could lose minimum health coverage. [Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 12/2003; CBPP, 3/20/03]

[u][b]CEMENTING TAX INCREASE ON USERS OF PUBLIC PARKS[/b][/u]: The Bush Administration proposed to make "entrance fees at some national forests and parks permanent, opening the door to new charges at some locations." [Source: WP, 19/03]

[u][b]TAX INCREASE ON SMALL BUSINESSES[/b][/u]: The Bush Budget proposes to eliminate funding for the Small Business Administration's "flagship 7(a) loan program" – a program "which backs 40% of all long-term lending to the country's small businesses" – and instead fund it by a massive fee increase on borrowers. Because of the cut, "hundreds of small businesses have been caught in a vise." According to Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-NY), ranking minority member on the Small Business Committee, the move "leaves small businesses shouldering yet another tax" at the same time President Bush's supposed "small business tax cuts" leave roughly 96% of small business with almost nothing. [Source: States News Service, 2/2/04; Chicago Tribune, 2/2/04; CBPP, 5/3/01]

[u][b]DEFICITS MEANS TAX INCREASES TO COME[/b][/u]: Reagan supply side guru Bruce Bartlett "is beginning to sound the alarm that Bush's tax-less, spend-more budgets are unsustainable and will force the president to raise taxes." As he says, "These tax increases, when they come, are the result of conscious deliberate decisions this Administration made." His bet for next year or the year after: "A tax increase of more than $100 billion a year." [Source: Wall Street Journal, 2/19/04]

[u]The Center for American Progress[/u], http://www.americanprogress.o...

Past Their "Shelf-Lives": Bush & Blair Are Starting To Smell Really Bad!!!

03.22.04 (9:48 am) [edit]

"[i]George Bush yesterday ignored global anti-war protests on the anniversary of the war in Iraq and instead proclaimed that it had been “good for America” [Only if you're a corporate top-dog or fat-cat who has lived the life of Emperor Caligula, making no sacrifice while others are sent to die or be maimed for life ...] But in sharp contrast Tony Blair remained publicly silent as tens of thousands took to the streets in London and Glasgow while the former Labour foreign secretary, Lord Owen, used the occasion to call on Blair to stand down, saying his “shelf-life” was almost over and he should not repeat the mistake of Margaret Thatcher by staying too long[/i]."

[b]"We the People" should acknowledge,[i] however difficult, however hard[/i], that the incumbent Bush regime is a corrupt cabal of neo-con liars, thieves and war criminals-- responsible for their heinous massacre of over 580 U.S. Soldiers & over 10,000-15,000 Innocent Iraqi Civilians, constituting the horrendous illegal & immoral act of [i]Crimes Against Humanity[/i]-- for which Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and the rest of their neo-con, neo-fascist traitors should be tried in an International Court of Justice and found guilty ... How will this generation be remembered by future historians??? ... Methinks that they will[i] weep as our generation weeps [/i]for the [i]lost souls [/i]who refused to [i]stand-up [/i]against the Nazi government and the Holocaust ...[/b]

Review "[b]One year on: [i]Blair told it’s time to quit[/i][/b]" by [i]James Cusick[/i], Westminster Editor, Sunday Herald, on http://www.sundayherald.com/4... :

George Bush yesterday ignored global anti-war protests on the anniversary of the war in Iraq and instead proclaimed that it had been “[i]good for America[/i]”. [Uh-huh, yeah right, only if you didn't go fight and die to enrich Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.]

But in sharp contrast Tony Blair remained publicly silent as tens of thousands took to the streets in London and Glasgow while the former Labour foreign secretary, Lord Owen, used the occasion to call on Blair to stand down, saying his “[i]shelf-life[/i]” was almost over and he should not repeat the mistake of Margaret Thatcher by staying too long.

Owen said he had held discussions with Blair over Mrs Thatcher staying in office too long. “[i]He was very conscious of this fact[/i].” Speaking on[i] GMTV [/i]today Owen said he thought eight years in power for Blair was enough and that “[i]his [Blair’s] shelf life is coming to an end and he ought to have enough sense to see it[/i].”

Blair’s former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, will also say today that 12 months after the US-led invasion there is “[i]no sign of success[/i]” and only an anniversary of “[i]failure[/i]”.

The Liberal Democrat’s foreign affairs spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, said yesterday that a year on from the military action, the case for war had still not been proven, no weapons had been found, and there was no evidence the world was any safer from terrorism.

Large scale demonstrations were held throughout most European capitals, in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles as well as Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Japan, India, South Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, and South Africa.

In most cities Bush and Blair were the focus of the marches. Burned effigies of Bush and Blair were a common theme throughout the world.

As many of the global anti-war protests began being screened on US news networks, Bush used his weekly radio address yesterday to celebrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein. He said the liberation of the Iraq had been “good for Iraqis, good for America and good for the world.”

Later in Florida at an election rally, as supporters chanted “four more years” Bush again turned to the Iraq war. Focusing on the aftermath of 9/11, he linked Saddam and al-Qaeda together and promised no “hole” would be deep enough for terrorists to hide in.

Although Bush has previously acknowledged there was no link between the former Iraq dictator and al-Qaeda, his speech yesterday indicates his re-election team intend to ignore this in the run in to November’s election.

Today on [i]GMTV [/i]Cook says the war in Iraq did not help combat terrorism. He attacks the US president’s version of what the last 12 months had meant. “[i]George Bush said it [Iraq] is now the central front in the battle against terrorism. There were no international terrorists in Iraq till we went in there[/i].”

Cook also blamed “[i]our failure to know what we were going in to do[/i]” which he said created an opportunity for terrorists. “[i]This is not a sign of a success of our strategy, it is a sign of our failure[/i].”

[b]He said the war had created “[i]a whole new field of operations for al-Qaeda” and he called on the government “to be honest with the electorate[/i]”. [/b]

[u]WINSTON SMITH[/u], http://www.tblog.com/template...

Bush's Neo-cons Desperately Try to Destroy O'Neill... Clarke... BUT They Can't Destroy Everyone!

03.21.04 (6:19 pm) [edit]

[b]Bush's neo-con attack machine is desperately trying to discredit Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Karen Kwiatkowski, Joseph C. Wilson IV, and everyone else who exposes their lies, BUT they can't destroy every whistle-blower, before the questions turn towards them ...[/b]

[b]It's hard to say which of the Clarke revelations is most damaging. But there are many contenders. Here's another -- the video of which just aired a few minutes ago on[i] 60 Minutes [/i]...[/b]

"[i]The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this[/i].

"I[i] said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection[/i].'

"[i]He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report." [/i]

Clarke continued, "[i]It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again[/i].'

"[i]I have no idea, to this day, if the President saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer[/i]."

More soon.

Dubya Has Flip-Flopped More Than Anybody Else ...... HO HO HO HO HO!!!!!

03.21.04 (6:08 pm) [edit]

[b]The corrupt Bush regime's neo-orwellian propaganda spin-meisters are [i]out in force [/i]to malign, slander and libel Senator John F. Kerry and others [i]who refuse to bow-down and genuflect [/i]before their ugly and vile Global Corporate Empire ...[/b]

"We the People" should be demanding the[i] impeachment [/i]of the [i]traitors-in-arms[/i]: Bush, Cheney and the rest of their neo-con, neo-fascist liars, thieves and war criminals ...

One of the traitorous Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]neo-orwellian lies told to the American people is that Kerry flip-flops ([i]not true[/i]) and that hypocritical Dubya doesn't ([i]not true[/i]) ... In fact, Dubya[i] foolishly flip-flops [/i]placing our nation in peril:--

... Bush opposed the McCain-Feingold bill in the 2000 GOP primary, tried to kill it in Congress, [i]and then signed it when it passed[/i].

... Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; [i]then he's for it[/i].

... Bush is against a 9/11 commission; [i]then he's for it[/i].

... Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; [i]then he's for it[/i].

... Bush is against nation building;[i] then he's for it[/i].

... Bush is against deficits; [i]then he's for them[/i].

... Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; [i]then he's against them again[/i].

... Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict;[i] then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State[/i].

... Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, [i]then he is for changing the constitution[/i].

... Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency),[i] then he doesn't[/i].

... Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... [i]then he cuts benefits[/i].

... Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"[i]I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care[/i]."

... Bush claims to be in favor of the environment [i]and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island[/i].

... Bush talks about helping education [i]and increases mandates while cutting funding[/i].

... Bush claims to be for women's rights [i]and then nominates judges who have tried to overturn Roe v. Wade[/i].

... Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. [i]Now he will[/i].

... Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then [i]say's he shouldn't have[/i].

... Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. [i]Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote[/i].

... Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors.[i] Bush later admits it was his advance team[/i].

... Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush [i]after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it[/i].

... Bush says he's in favor of adding carbon dioxide as a regulated greenhouse gas.[i] Then Bush said it would not be included[/i].

... Bush was against Nation Building.[i] ooops Iraq[/i].

... Bush-"I'm a uniter, not a divider." [i]Then divides[/i].

... Bush was against amnesty for illegal aliens. [i]Now he's for it[/i].

... Bush was against Presidents doing an end run around Congress to pack the courts. [i]Then he did it[/i].

... Bush said the war would cost $3 billion. [i]Then he asked for $87 billion. Now it's over $100 billion[/i].

... Bush: We need to go to war with Iraq because their WMDs pose a direct threat to the United States. Bush: [i]We needed to go to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Later all these reasons prove false[/i].

... Bush implemented No Child Left Behind, [i]then underfunded it by $9 Billion[/i]?

... As governor of Texas, Bush opposed a strong patients' bill of rights that nevertheless passed over his veto. [i]On the 2000 campaign trail, he tried to take credit for the law and implied he would support comparable legislation on the national level[/i].

... Bush proposed a temporary tax cut conditioned on the idea that the government could afford it without spending the Social Security surplus; [i]then, when the surplus vanished, he supported a further tax cut. Now he wants his first cut made permanent[/i].

[b]Sources:[/b]

Bush's Flip-Flops, Part 1, Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

Bush's Flip-Flops, Part 2, Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

[u]WINSTON SMITH[/u], http://winstonsmith.tblog.com...

Let's Set the Record Straight About Scalia's Treasonous Corruption

03.21.04 (4:23 pm) [edit]

[b]Response to Justice Scalia's Denial of Recusal Motion in Cheney Case[/b]

[u][b]WASHINGTON - March 18 - Statement of Sierra Club[/b][/u]

Justice Scalia misses the point. There's a problem when a Justice and a litigant meet secretly at a private hunting retreat -- regardless of what happens behind closed doors. It is the appearance of secrecy and impropriety that creates the problem, and it clearly has caused a public outcry here. If Justice Scalia and Mr. Cheney had only been so forthcoming with the facts at the outset, the public might have responded differently and this might have taken a different course. Even in light of this newly disclosed information, the Sierra Club still believes that recusal would be appropriate under the applicable legal standard.

We wish that Vice President Cheney would be as forthcoming with the details of the secret Energy Task Force as Justice Scalia has now been with their vacation together.

Last month the Sierra Club formally requested the recusal of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from its case against Vice President Cheney and the secret Energy Task Force citing the intense public attention drawn to the January duck hunting trip taken by Cheney and Scalia. The Sierra Club reluctantly concluded that recusal is necessary to "redress an appearance of impropriety and to restore public confidence in the integrity of our nation's highest court." At the time Sierra Club made its motion, Justice Scalia had declined to reveal any of the facts revealed in today's opinion, and the public was in an uproar over the appearance of impropriety.

Sierra Club is suing Vice President Cheney and the Energy Task Force under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), seeking an accounting of energy industry participation in crafting the Bush Administration's destructive energy policy, which relies on subsidies to polluting and outdated fossil fuel industries. The District Court ordered the Administration to provide information about participation from these industries, which the Bush Administration refused to do, claiming Constitutional immunity from such inquiries. The District Court rejected that contention, pointing out that the Administration was attempting to "cloak what is tantamount to an aggrandizement of Executive power with the legitimacy of precedent where none exists." The Administration appealed, asking the D.C. Circuit to make new law that would effectively shield it from any legal scrutiny. The Circuit Court denied their request. The Bush Administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 27.

[u]Copies of Sierra Club's brief is available at[/u] http://www.sierraclub.org/env...

Also refer to [u]QUID PRO QUACK, QUACK, QUACK!!! [/u]... http://www.tblog.com/template...

Neo-Con Extremists Don't Want You To Watch '60 MINUTES' Tonight!!! ... WATCH '60 MINUTES' ...

03.21.04 (2:20 pm) [edit]

[b]Did Bush Press For Iraq-9/11 Link?[/b]

([i][b]CBS[/b][/i]) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the advisor, Richard Clarke, in an interview airing Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT on [i]60 Minutes.[/i]

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells [i]CBS News [/i]Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

Clarke is due to testify next week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable.

His allegations are also made in a book, "[i]Against All Enemies[/i]," which is being published Monday by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both [i]CBSNews.com [/i]and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorrism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the [i]60 Minutes [/i]interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

"I kept thinking of the words from [i]'Apocalypse Now[/i],' the whispered words of Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The horror.' Because we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about the bodies flying out of the windows. People falling through the air. We knew that Osama bin Laden had succeeded in bringing horror to the streets of America," he tells Stahl.

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."

By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August.

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl.

"The president heard those warnings. The president met daily with ... George Tenet and his staff. They kept him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community: 'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that [i]60 Minutes [/i]has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr. Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped of his Cabinet-level rank.

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.

A senior White House official told [i]60 Minutes [/i]he thinks the Clarke book is an audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

[u]CBS NEWS[/u] http://www.cbsnews.com/storie...

Bush & Rice Warned About Al Qaida-- 9/11 Commission Executive Director Is Condi Rice's Crony!

03.21.04 (11:05 am) [edit]

"[b]Richard A. Clarke said in a television interview airing Sunday that Bush 'ignored terrorism for months' before the 2001 attacks, then looked to attack Iraq rather than Afghanistan, the nation harboring the terrorist group al-Qaeda, which launched the attacks[/b]" - Bloomsberg http://quote.bloomberg.com/ap...

It is fair to say that anyone who has seriously reported on this issue, or has read a lot of the good reporting on it, already knows this: namely, that the incoming Bush administration downgraded the attention given to terrorism and al Qaida specifically in the last years of the Clinton administration, and this after being warned by out-going members of the Clinton team that combatting al Qaida should be at the top of their agenda.

In short, they pushed al Qaida and a lot of resources aimed at fighting al Qaida to the backburner until the whole thing blew up in their faces on 9/11.

Their focus, as we've noted before, http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... was on the centrality of states rather than shadowy transnational terrorist groups -- thus their preoccuption with issues like national missile defense.

In any case, as I say, we've basically known this.

But it's another thing to have the person who was there at the center of the action as NSC counter-terrorism czar -- both under Clinton [i]and[/i] Bush -- saying on camera that the president ignored terrorism and al Qaida right up until the day of the attacks. Clarke was there. In fact, to the extent that Bush and Rice and Cheney and the rest of the team were ignoring the issue, it would have been Clarke's urgent warnings they were ignoring -- since he was the head of counter-terrorism on the NSC staff.

White House Spokesman Sean McCormick told http://www.theledger.com/apps... the [i]New York Times[/i]: "The president and his team received briefings on the threat from al-Qaida prior to taking office, and fighting terrorism became a top priority when this administration came into office. We actively pursued the Clinton administration's policies on al-Qaida until we could get into place a more comprehensive policy."

But Clark says that's baloney. And he was the one who headed up Clinton's counter-terrorism policies and Bush's. So who are you going to believe?

Now do you understand why they're stonewalling the 9/11 commission?

And while we're discussing the commission, why do they even really need to stonewall it?

Consider this passage from a piece in today's [i]Times[/i] ... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

[i]... They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.
One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.

At the time of the briefings, there was extensive evidence tying Al Qaeda to the bombing in Yemen two months earlier of an American warship, the Cole, in which 17 sailors were killed[/i].

"[i]It was very explicit," Mr. Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. "Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in." Mr. Clarke served as Mr. Bush's counterterrorism chief in the early months of the administration, but after Sept. 11 was given a more limited portfolio as the president's cyberterrorism adviser[/i] ...

Now we know about Rice and Hadley, her deputy. But how about Zelikow? He's a former NSC official from the first Bush administration and a close associate of Rice's. The two of them even wrote a book http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob... together.

He was in the key meetings where the warnings -- seemingly ignored -- about al Qaida came up. He seems like someone you'd want to talk to to find out what they were warned about and why they didn't take the warnings more seriously.

Well, you don't have to look far to find him. He runs the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow is the Executive Director of the Commission, which means he has operational control of the investigation under the overall management of the two co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.

Now, Zelikow is no hack. He's an accomplished http://millercenter.virginia.... Republican foreign policy hand. But Condi Rice and what happened in the hand-off between the administrations is central to the whole 9/11 investigation enterprise.

[i][b]Does it make sense to have the guy who's running the investigation be one of her close professional colleagues?[/b][/i]

[b]The 9/11 families didn't think so either.[/b]

[u]Joshua Micah Marshall[/u], Talking Points Memo http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

Who Knew the Hunt for bin Laden had 'Cooled'?

03.20.04 (10:39 pm) [edit]

Pardon me, but I'm curious about something: Why is the hunt for Osama bin Laden "heating up"?

I did a double take recently at the following headlines: "U.S. efforts to catch bin Laden intensify," and "New hunt for bin Laden under way."

Whatever happened to the old one?

After all, on Sept.13, 2001, just two days after the worst attack on American soil in 60 years, President Bush told the nation, "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."

Who would disagree? But the renewed focus on nabbing America's public enemy No.1 raises a few questions:

Why wasn't the Bush administration, which lately has the attention span of an Irish setter, already doing everything in its power to catch bin Laden? What on earth could be more important than snaring the stone-cold assassin of nearly 3,000 Americans?

Yet two-and-a-half years after the Sept.11 attacks, we hear that Washington is turning up the heat. Wasn't the whole idea of a war on terror to scorch Osama and Co. from the get-go?

Between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, it's no contest who was the greater threat to America. Just ask the families of 17 murdered sailors on the USS Cole. Or the thousands of husbands, wives, children and parents of those who died in the hijacking attacks.

Rather than a sharp focus of America's resources on capturing Osama, we got a takeover of Iraq that less resembles foreign policy than a political science Ph.D thesis gone bad.

Even President Bush, last September, finally said there was no link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11. Of course, he did so when much of the mid-Atlantic was in the throes of Hurricane Isabel, without electricity. But that hasn't curbed his No.2, Dick Cheney, from continuing to peddle that myth on Sunday-morning talk shows.

And sorry, but I don't buy the post-WMD-search argument that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam killed his own people. Back in 1998, I worked in Sudan, where the government is engaged in slavery and genocide - in the actual, not the hyperbolic - sense of the words. It also harbored bin Laden and his training camps for years. Why aren't we invading Sudan in the name of democracy and human rights?

I find the Saddam-as-terrorist rationale for invading Iraq hard to swallow, particularly if our actions have exacerbated, not suppressed, global terrorism. After last week's deadly train bombings in Madrid - 911 days after Sept.11 - it's nigh impossible to argue they haven't.

Love or hate the Iraq war, there's no question that the finite supply of our government's specialized forces and area experts was diverted from the core mission of netting bin Laden in Afghanistan to the al-Qaida mirage of Iraq.

"Iraq was a huge distraction," said Steve Coll, managing editor of The Washington Post. Coll, who spoke at Old Dominion University this week, has written "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001," the definitive work on our decades-long attempts to seize the terrorist mastermind.

"Whatever you think of the mission (in Iraq), you can't deny that it was a logistical and resource drain on the bin Laden campaign in Afghanistan," Coll said Monday.

"As big as our bureaucracy is, there are only so many people who have the talent and equipment to operate in Afghanistan. Especially in the intelligence community, the cadre of officers who work on bin Laden are almost always the same people who get drawn into something like Iraq."

Coll makes the point that there was little urgency in both the Clinton and Bush administrations to nab bin Laden before 9/11, even though "we were close to getting him four or five times."

But since 9/11, we're only too aware that bin Laden is capable of striking not just at America's doorstep but inside our house. The Spain bombings proved that al-Qaida has knocked down Europe's door, too. We're fighting an astute, sophisticated and ever-adapting enemy; we need all the resources we can muster against it.

Look, even though Bush's foreign policy priorities have strayed off target, no one in his right mind believes the president ever forgot bin Laden. But I hope this stepped-up seriousness in finding the terrorist is more than an election-year gimmick.

And Bush would do well to remember a lesson from Madrid: A well-timed terrorist attack can have a profound impact on the electorate.

[u]By Bronwyn Lance Chester[/u], Tallahassee Democrat http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

The Most Dangerous Man in the World

03.20.04 (10:37 pm) [edit]

A year ago today, "Operation Shock & Awe" began raining cruise missiles, bombs and fear on Baghdad. The invasion of Iraq began.

The invasion was necessary, we were told by our leaders, because Saddam Hussein was "the most dangerous man in the world," had weapons of mass destruction and had helped Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda kill more than 3,000 civilians in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2004.

President George W. Bush told the nation and the world he had proof of all this and Congress approved the rush to war, even though doing so meant scaling back our search for bin Laden in Afghanistan.

That was then. This is now. Now we know that Hussein's so-called weapons of mass destruction did not exist because his scientists lacked both the resources and the expertise to actually build them. Now we know that our "proof" of a hard link between Hussein and bin Laden came from faulty intelligence and any real link has yet to be proven.

A war fought on false pretenses is still a war where more than 500 American soldiers have died, billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted and what little remained of this country's credibility on the world stage has been lost.

One year later, the Bush administration spin machine remains in full cycle, calling the war just, reminding us that "the world's most dangerous man" sits in a Iraqi jail awaiting trial as a war criminal.

But Saddam Hussein did not plan terrorist attacks that killed 3,000+ on that dark day in 2001. Most intelligence professionals who place reliable reporting above political expediency said early on a link between Hussein and bin Laden was unlikely because a fundamentalist like Osama would not work with a Muslim who drank and chased women (like Hussein).

In order to accept the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq we must believe one of two things happened:

1. George W. Bush knew his justifications for going to war with Iraq were false and lied to both the American people and our allies, or;

2. The Bush Administration was too inept to know the intelligence information they used for the justifications came from out-of-date and faulty sources.
Neither scenario suggests much reason to either trust Bush or feel any sense of comfort in his leadership abilities.

We are left, instead, with the growing awareness that the President of the United States is a reckless cowboy who charges a hill simply because he wants to and believes he is right even when those who know more about the issue try to tell him he is full of shit.

After 9-11, Bush reacted appropriately in bringing the nation together and going after Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network. Then, with that mission still incomplete, he diverted American resources to an ill-conceived war with Iraq, a war that we now know he planned to wage even before the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that field in Pennsylvania.

We know now that Saddam Hussein did not pose any real imminent threat to the U.S. Hussein was, at best, a sham leader who controlled his country through illusion, deceit and bluster. Ironically, he was brought down by a military sent into battle by another sham leader who controls his country through illusion, deceit and bluster.

On the news talk shows this morning and in speeches throughout the day, the Bush administration tries to justify the war with Iraq by calling Saddam Hussein "the most dangerous man in the world."

But the most dangerous man in the world is not sitting in a jail cell somewhere in Iraq,

He is not hiding out in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.

Not really. The most dangerous man in the world may well be working out of an oval-shaped office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.

[u]By Doug Thompson[/u], Capitol Hill Blue http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

The Year of Delusion

03.20.04 (9:38 pm) [edit]

And so we enter the second year of the Iraq war with the death and carnage more appalling than ever, the al-Qaeda killers as rampant as ever, and no end in sight. Let alone any sort of victory.

It is more than a grim anniversary. It is a disaster. The US President, George Bush, prattles inanely about peace and freedom, but it is a mirage pursued at the cost, so far, of more than 570 American lives, and heaven knows how many Iraqi lives.

Yet the neo-conservatives of Washington agreed before it began that the war would be "a cakewalk". Shock and awe would triumph. The sleek and saturnine Richard Perle, a White House intimate and a principal architect of the catastrophe, forecast in late 2002 that Iraqi opposition would "collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder". The fighting would be over in three weeks or less.

The Administration's favourite tame Arab, Fouad Ajami, professor of Middle Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University, predicted - with much sangfroid - that the streets of Baghdad were "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans".

The Vice-President, Dick Cheney, offered that "extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."

We know now that we were talked into this war under false pretences. "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tonnes of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent," said Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address. "Intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents."

And Cheney again: "We know [Saddam] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Or John Howard, in an article in [i]The Australian [/i]under his name in January last year: "Iraq already has chemical and biological weapons. It will have a nuclear capacity when it can obtain the necessary fissile material ... The onus is on those who condemn the approach of the Australian Government to articulate the alternative approach that will ensure that Iraq does not retain and, therefore, potentially use weapons of mass destruction."

And so on. And on. Every last delusion now shattered by the awful reality unfolding daily in Iraq and the wider Middle East.

Surely, now, we should at least contemplate the possibility that we are beset by the worst US Administration of our time.

Bush is ignorant and floundering, a silver-spoon ideologue whose presidency was rigged for him by the hard-right establishment of the Republican Party. He is advised - if that is the word - by a ghastly camarilla of fundamentalist Christian bigots, Zionist zealots who often appear to owe more allegiance to Israel than to the United States, number-crunchers, spin doctors, academic fantasists, touts, urgers, corporate boondogglers and war profiteers. They make Richard Nixon's rotten crew look like the signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

To say as much in this country is to be savaged as anti-American, of course. This is the last, perhaps the only resort of the Bush toadies here. But it is not so easy to pin that rap on the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, who got it spot on last week in a caustic barb recorded by a lapel microphone he was wearing.

"These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen," he said.

Amen to that. Pray that Kerry wins in November to return decency and honour to the government of the United States.

[u]By Mike Carlton[/u], Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Iraq one year later and the bogus 'war on terror'

03.20.04 (1:57 pm) [edit]

Today marks one year and counting in the illegal war on Iraq, as the bodies continue to mount and the country lays in ruins in every way imaginable. Yet, George W. Bush and John Kerry argue over the best way to nail gelatin to a wall in the bogus "war on terror."

Meanwhile, the corporate media spin how well things are going for the Iraqis—well, maybe things haven't exactly reached Nirvana yet—and Ahmed Chalabi still angles to become president or prime minister or whatever the top spot is called in the "new, improved, democratic" Iraq.

Bush, his lapdog, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and their Strangelovian neoconservatives, with a coalition of the coerced or bribed, certainly "shocked and awed" the Iraqi people whose gratefulness for having their country destroyed and the artifacts of their culture looted has yet to manifest itself in those hugs and flowers War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted the conquerors would be greeted with. Rumsfeld would probably deny he said anything about hugs and flowers, just as he has denied saying Saddam was an immediate threat. Damn all that video tape.

Why the Iraqis now have sometimes water and sometimes electricity. Things are looking up, eh? They are so happy that they daily shoot, bomb, and fire rockets and mortars at their occupiers and collaborators.

Things are so good that Shias, Sunnis and Kurds are just waiting for the moment to have at each other, despite the Iraqi Governing Council's attempt to paper over the sectarian problems with an oxymoron in their provisional constitution that says there will be religious freedom but Islamic law will prevail. That has already sent Christian Iraqi women and at least one US female journalist scurrying to cover their heads.

And how much is the life of an Iraqi killed by US troops since Bush, decked out in his flight suit with a bulge in his crotch stood under the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, worth? The Pentagon insultingly says US$5,000. Never mind all the Iraqis killed before last May 1. Besides who was counting?

Now the whole exercise in Middle East empire-building is coming unraveled faster than the Bushies and Blair concocted their mountain of lies to wage an illegal war on a nation that was defenseless since George W.'s father waged war on it, and then the first George and Bill Clinton brought it to its knees with 12 years of sanctions.

Yes, Saddam is now languishing in the clutches of the US and his equally brutal sons are dead. But at what price and by what right?

The Spanish people, who wanted no part of the Bush-Blair war, spoke last Sunday and Bush's fervent continental ally, President Jose Maria Aznar, and his hand-picked would-be successor are gone; replaced by Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who has vowed to bring Spain's troops home by the end of June unless a UN-led force takes over in Iraq.

Oh, claim the Bushies and the corporate media, the Spaniards were spooked by their "9/11" when al Qaeda—well, they think it was al Qaeda, and they are hoping and praying it was—blew up four commuter trains, killing more than 200 people. The White House's nattering nabobs of nonsense are even trying to spin the election that followed that horrendous act into a victory for al Qaeda.

The Spaniards weren't spooked at all. They were cognizant of the precarious position Aznar had put them in when he joined the Bush-Blair illegal war on Iraq. Ninety percent of the Spanish people opposed getting involved in that war. The Madrid train bombings were the proverbial last straw. Nothing more, nothing less.

The sickest part is that before the words "terror," "terrorists" and "terrorism" were implanted in Americans' minds in the wake of 9/11 and "al Qaeda" became the scapegoat for all the acts of inhumanity in this world, with the exception of Hamas and Hezebollah, the Madrid train bombings would have garnered scant attention in the US corporate media. Think about it. In the past 20-30 years how much coverage did the corporate media give all the horrific acts carried out against people in Northern Ireland, Britain, Italy, Spain, and that is only Europe.

But they would have you believe that everything changed after 9/11. The only thing that changed is that by their actions Bush and his neocons have made everyone less safe, they have made the US the most despised nation on the planet and they have taken away much of Americans' freedoms.

Getting back to trying to nail gelatin to a wall. And that is what fighting terrorism with armies of mass destruction is: trying to nail gelatin to a wall. Even if al Qaeda, a creation of the CIA, exists and is either acting upon the instructions of the US government or has gone off on its own to remedy injustices as it sees them, all the armies of the world are not going to wipe it out, anymore than Israel is going to put an end to Hamas and Hizbollah until it wipes out every last Palestinian, and then the Israelis, both the innocents and those who support the Zionists' madness, are likely to suffer the same fate at the hands of those seeking retribution for the Palestinians. That is the nature of guerilla warfare by whatever name you wish to call it.

Rather than John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, trying to out macho Bush on fighting terrorism, which will result in the loss of more of our freedoms and gain us more world hatred—if that is possible in the wake of Bush—he ought to suggest a new approach to the whole world.

And what should that new approach be? First, giving up the notions of American empire, including the militarization of space that is the greatest threat to life on the planet. Second, reeling in the banks and corporations by removing their personhood, doing away with their predatory, exploitive and monopoly practices both at home and abroad. Third, getting rid of the IMF and World Bank that have their boots on other peoples' necks. Fourth, acknowledging there is no such thing as free trade and reversing the madness called globalization, which is only enslaving people at home and abroad, and dumping the WTO, GATT and NAFTA. Fifth, respecting the sovereignty of other nations and their people's rights to determine the types of governments they want, regardless of whether the US likes what they choose. Sixth, remove our military from other peoples' nations.

Desperate people commit desperate acts. If you remove the reasons for their desperation, they will have no reason to attack us. All Osama bin Laden asked the US to do was remove its military presence in Saudi Arabia. We didn't and whether he masterminded 9/11, was acting at the request of Team Bush, or Bush & Co. pulled off their "new Pearl Harbor" and blamed it on him in hopes of carrying out their Pax American, is an issue still to be resolved. Whichever way it was, had the US presence been removed from Saudi Arabia, the Bush regime would have had no excuse for its bogus war on terror.

To quote Mathew Henry "None are so blind as those as that will not see." Must we keep going around and around in lose-lose wars based on post hoc fallacies for the enrichment of the few at the expense of all living things?

Yes, there is a mess in Iraq to be cleaned up and it may take the wisdom of a Solomon to do it. It isn't going to be accomplished by the US's men in Baghdad, Chalabi and proconsul L. Paul Bremer, or any of their hand-picked Iraqis, including those who comprise Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. But the Bushies didn't have the brains to figure that out before raining down their own brand of terror. So on the first anniversary of their "liberation," the Iraqi people who have suffered so much at the hands of Saddam Hussein and the US may now be looking at civil war. Now what was Rumy saying about hugs and flowers?

[u]By Bev Conover[/u], Online Journal Editor & Publisher http://www.onlinejournal.com/...

Bush Markets Burmese Products; Evades Own Trade Ban

03.20.04 (8:05 am) [edit]

According to a new report, President Bush's official campaign is selling clothing made in Burma - a country whose goods Bush banned for sale in the U.S. because of their awful human rights, narcotics and sex trafficking record. According to Newsday, "the merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar."1

The decision by the president's campaign to defy its own embargo directly contradicts the president's pledge to enforce existing trade laws. Just this week the president said Americans need to be "treated fairly" and pledged to "make sure the playing field is level" on trade.2 But his decision to market Burmese textile products evades laws that prevent American workers from having to compete with Burmese workers who have no minimum wage, human rights or labor protections. Since Bush was elected, thousands of textile jobs have been lost -- particularly in the South - and many have questioned whether the Administration is adequately enforcing trade laws.3

On top of evading his own trade laws, the president's effective endorsement of Burmese goods means his campaign is marketing products from a country the State Department has repeatedly condemned for human rights abuses4 and that the Treasury Department has cited for laundering money from illegal narcotics dealers5. Just last year, the president told the United Nations it needed to more seriously address international sex slavery, saying, "there's a special evil in the abuse and exploitation of the most innocent and vulnerable."6 But his own campaign is now marketing products from a country that experts cite as one of the leaders in international sex trafficking.7

[b]Sources:[/b]

1. "Bush campaign gear made in Burma", Newsday, 03/18/2004.

2. "President Discusses Health Access", 03/16/2004.

3. "4,000 textile jobs lost in 2003", Charleston Post and Courier, 01/14/2004.

4. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Burma, US Department of State, 02/25/2004.

5. States News Service, 03/04/2004.

6 "President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly", 09/23/2003.

7 "Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation: Burma/Myanmar".

[u]Daily Misleader[/u] http://www.misleader.org/dail...

Gas Prices Are Seen Rising Even Higher

03.20.04 (8:01 am) [edit]

Anyone who has not been shocked by the rapid climb in retail gasoline prices, to record levels in some cities, may want to prepare for what is to come. The fear of disruptions in oil supplies and stricter environmental regulations are expected to push prices at the gas pump even higher this spring and summer.

The Energy Information Administration said Wednesday that gasoline supplies declined by 800,000 barrels last month, to 5 percent below the five-year running average. That lifted the price of next month's gasoline futures contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange nearly 3 percent. Crude oil increased nearly 2 percent, to a 13-year high.

Earlier in the month, the agency, part of the federal Department of Energy, warned that gasoline prices might rise to a nationwide average of $1.83 a gallon in April, well past the previous record — not adjusted for inflation — of $1.747 a gallon in August 2003. Retail gasoline prices have already climbed more than 15 percent this year, to $1.72 a gallon on average nationwide. In California, the average is $2.10 a gallon, the energy agency said.

Gasoline prices in New York and Connecticut and several other Northeastern states might approach California levels in the weeks ahead, analysts at AAA, formerly the American Automobile Association, said. These states require the sale of low-emission fuels similar to those in California.

Crude oil prices, the most important factor in the price of gasoline, are expected to remain high, perhaps to climb still higher, as concern grows over the possibility of disruptions in the oil industry of Venezuela, one of the largest suppliers to the United States. The price of oil has risen 20 percent since September, settling yesterday at $38.18. After adjusting for inflation, though, the Energy Department says that oil and gasoline prices today are well below what they were in the early 1980's, early in the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, both then significant oil-producing nations.

The price of gasoline, jet fuel and other petroleum products has risen fast enough and far enough to become a political issue. On Monday, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat of California, called on the Bush administration to stop stockpiling crude oil in the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Doing so, they said, would ease demand for oil and help to moderate prices.

Tension between the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez and his domestic opponents has weighed on oil markets that were already under some strain from surging demand in China, the slow recovery of Iraqi exports in the violent aftermath of the Iraq war, and signs of renewed assertiveness in OPEC.

"Our cowboy mentality has failed us miserably in Venezuela," said Fadel Gheit, an energy industry analyst at Oppenheimer & Company in New York. "We could have pumped up Chávez to be our back-alley oil reserve, but instead we squandered our attention and resources elsewhere. We're paying for having botched Venezuela."

Venezuela is a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is pressing forward with production cuts announced in February at a meeting in Algiers and is scheduled to discuss further action on output levels when it meets at the end of this month in Vienna.

The Venezuelans, among the largest OPEC producers, have been an outspoken supporter of high prices. And Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer and the force behind OPEC, has shaken markets by confirming in recent days that it has in fact made some of the cuts previously agreed to.

If concern with global oil supplies were not enough, other important factors are contributing to higher gasoline prices. The most prominent may be the need for refineries to comply with environmental regulations aimed at cleaner-burning gasoline, which have been carried out in piecemeal fashion throughout the country in recent years.

The rule changes have resulted in more than 20 gasoline formulations being introduced in cities and states, up from just regular and premium in many states 20 years ago, according to the National Association of Convenience Stores. The association's members sell about three-quarters of the nation's gasoline.

New regulations in New York and Connecticut, for instance, will require ethanol to be used as a substitute this spring for methyl tertiary butyl ether, a substance referred to as M.T.B.E., that makes drinking water smell like turpentine. Spikes in prices may result because the two states import much of their gasoline from refineries in Europe, where supplies are said to be short on ethanol, an additive made from corn or sugar.

Supplying custom-blended fuel to New York and Connecticut may also result in higher prices in neighboring states, since nearby refineries will have to focus on getting their mixture right, limiting their capacity to produce other blends of gasoline. The gasoline transportation system is being stressed by the need to deliver many different types of gasoline by pipeline, truck, rail and barge.

"We're crossing our fingers that prices don't go higher," said Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores. Mr. Lenard said these stores usually suffer from gasoline price increases because drivers have less money to spend on other items. Selling gasoline is also a relatively low-margin activity; in 2002, the last year for which statistics are available, gasoline sales accounted for 62 percent of total convenience store sales but just 40 percent of profit.

There are other, more technical reasons gasoline prices might rise, including problems at refineries. Several refineries around the country have shut in recent weeks, including two catalytic cracking refineries in Texas operated by Valero Energy and Shell Oil. Technical problems were reported at several refineries in California, according to A. F. Alhajji, an energy economist at Ohio Northern University who monitors refineries.

To be sure, the current concern over gasoline prices is coming after years when the United States has had some of the cheapest fuel costs in the industrial world — largely because gasoline is not taxed as heavily in this country as it is in other nations.

But then, because gasoline is cheaper in the United States, rising crude oil prices or tight refinery capacity tend to produce relatively bigger price swings. Without adjusting for inflation, prices are at a record by some measurements, with the average nationwide price of gasoline climbing in recent days to $1.77 a gallon for all grades, a 26-cent rise so far this year, according to the Lundberg survey of 8,000 stations released over the weekend.

And few economic trends point to a relief in prices during the warmer weather of the months ahead, a period when drivers take longer road trips. The decline of the dollar against the euro has increased the domestic price of gasoline products originally set in euros, supplies that were processed in Europe.

Similarly, the rising cost of European vacations for Americans may persuade many people to stay closer to home this summer and opt for vacations by car. That would increase domestic demand for gasoline even further, pushing prices still higher.

The move in the Senate last week seeking to halt the purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve did cause crude oil prices to ease for several days. Other factors that could lead gasoline prices to decline, including commodity speculation or an easing of tensions in Venezuela, have yet to happen.

Yet few market analysts see higher energy prices affecting the behavior of drivers.

"Americans have created a lifestyle that requires regular driving," said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for AAA. "That means the drag on the economy could show up in other ways, like fewer purchases of other items while people go on buying gasoline."

[u]By SIMON ROMERO, New York Times[/u] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Bush, Iraq & Poland ... As It Was THEN & As It Is NOW

03.19.04 (9:47 am) [edit]

[b]Dubya Seems To Have Problems Keeping Friends - The More They [u]Know[/u] Him, The More They [u]Distrust[/u] Him[/b]

[b]THEN:[/b] "The relationships between Poland and the United States [must be] as excellent as possible. And we have such a friend as George W. Bush.”

- [u]Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski[/u] , 1/27/04 [[i]Source[/i]: http://www.whitehouse.gov/new... ]

[b]NOW:[/b] “Poland, which has about 2,400 troops in Iraq, was "misled" about the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, its president said Thursday. President Aleksander Kwasniewski said ‘I feel uncomfortable due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction.’”

- [u]Associated Press[/u], 3/18/04 [[i]Source[/i]: http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]

Bush Ally Admits He Was Misled About Iraq

03.19.04 (6:10 am) [edit]

The Associated Press reports that Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski - a strong White House ally - now says he was "misled" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war.1 Poland, which has about 2,400 troops in Iraq, has been touted by President Bush for its leadership, and the Administration has repeatedly cited Poland as one of the key allies in Iraq.2

Kwasniewski told a small group of European reporters, "I feel uncomfortable [about Iraq] due to the fact that we were misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction." The remarks come just a few days after the House Government Reform Committee released a comprehensive database of "237 specific misleading statements" before the war about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq.3

[b]Sources:[/b]

1. "Poland 'Misled' on Iraq, President Says", Associated Press, 03/18/2003.

2. President Bush Welcomes President Kwasniewski to White House, 01/27/2004.

3. Committee on Government Reform Minority Office.

[u]DailyMisleader[/u], http://www.misleader.org/dail...

House of Bush, House of Saud

03.18.04 (12:58 pm) [edit]

The con artist who suckers people into a shell game counts on his ability to divert the eye of the bettor in order to win.

So it is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have launched a sham war on terror without targeting the chief financier and backer of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

In his book, "House of Bush, House of Saud," journalist Craig Unger lays out a compelling case that the Bush family is so inextricably bound up with the Saudi royal family that it could not hold them responsible for the role that many Saudi Arabians played in the 9/11 day of terror.

The shell game Bush played meant diverting the American public's attention to Iraq, which had no apparent role in 9/11. Although 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, bin Laden is a member of one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis financed bin Laden, Bush managed to convince most Americans that the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi and that Saddam Hussein played a key role in the attack. That's how a political shell game works. Only in this case, thousands of lives were lost in a con job in which the American people were played for suckers by their own leadership.

Unger begins his book with an incident that Greg Palast first uncovered in late 2001. Why did the Bush Cartel allow 140 Saudi citizens, including members of the bin Laden family, to be flown out of the United States, without questioning, at a time when U.S. airspace was closed and when they might have had information useful in unraveling the crime of 9/11?

It's a good question, and the answers are shocking.

In essence, the Bush Cartel has sold Americans a bill of goods. They have diverted our attention from the major nation state supporting Al-Qaeda because they don't want to attack their own business partners, including the Saudi who bailed Harken Oil out. He's the same guy that was deeply involved with BCCI, the corrupt bank that Poppy Bush and many of his cohorts were associated with. There are plenty more like him. Just read Unger's book.

It is hard to put your arms around the gravity of Bush's betrayal of our nation. Americans just don't want to believe that anyone sitting in the Oval Office, even if unelected, could be a traitor to the interests of his own country.

But, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, the Bush family's business interests and personal relationships take precedence over our interests as a nation.

Remember, the Bush Cartel censored 28 pages in Congress's 9/11 reports. The subject of those 28 pages was reportedly the Saudi financing of terrorist front organizations and "charities."

Unger concludes that Bush must believe that "the billionaire Saudi royals are somehow more worthy of the government's concern than are the victims of 9/11."

More http://www.buzzflash.com/prem...

Bushites Simply Can't Stop Lying About Kerry. It's Pathetic, Sad and Disgusting!

03.18.04 (9:00 am) [edit]

[b]Let me follow up on last night's post http://www.tblog.com/template... on the surreal, orwellian shamelessness of the president's new TV ad.[/b]

As we noted, the new ad uses a very strained argument to allege that Kerry opposed an increase in military combat pay when in fact the White House was caught red-handed and quite publicly trying to[i] cut [/i]combat pay for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq only a few months ago.

[i][b]I mean, how do you top that?[/b][/i]

One could speculate about some weird sort of projection. A more likely possibility is that they're accusing Kerry first of that which they were in fact first guilty as a way of innoculating themselves.

All intriguing theories. But I suspect the reality is more banal. They just don't care. It's a handy attack. They've got funds to run the ads. And they figure people's memories are short and the press is too lazy or stupid to call them on it.

Clearly, the Kerry campaign should highlight the inaccuracy of the charge. But I think they should be focusing their fire on the shamelessness, the disrespect for the intelligence of the public and the press.

[i][b]They simply can't stop lying.[/b][/i]

That point should be hit again and again and again. And not simply -- or even primarily -- on the narrow point of dishonesty but on the broader issue of disrespect for the people they're communicating with.

'Disrespect' doesn't quite convey the intended message. But it comes close. It may be closer to 'contempt' though I think the attitude is somehow breezier than that. They don't think any rules apply to them.

[b]They want to say [i]up is down[/i]. And they're sure they can get away with it because they think the people who are listening are either chumps or that their trust can be exploited endlessly.[/b]

[u]Talking Points Memo[/u], Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

Even Puppet Denny Hastert Admits Bush Bomboozled Him!

03.18.04 (8:53 am) [edit]

[b]The Speaker? Or the Meeker?[/b]

Denny Hastert on how it felt getting [i]bamboozled[/i] by the White House on the cost of the Medicare bill ...

“[i]Yeah, [the higher cost estimate] was a surprise to us, and [I was] surprised it happened. When the administration comes out and says this is going to be more expensive…[it] makes it tougher on us, kind of sticks it to [/i]us.”

The quote is from a piece http://www.thehill.com/news/0... in [i]The Hill[/i], which also notes just how many investigations have already been spawned by this [i][b]bum's-rush-bill[/b] [/i].

[u]Talking Points Memo[/u], Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

[u]Hastert hits back on Medicare vote and ethics[/u], http://www.thehill.com/news/0...

Bush's Orwellian Lies About Kerry Are Pathetic, Sad Really.

03.17.04 (6:09 pm) [edit]

As you know, it's now been revealed http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin... that the White House threatened the top government Medicare actuary that he'd be fired if he revealed the true costs of the Medicare reform passed last year.

What struck me most about this story was how generally muted the reaction to it was.

I don't think this was because it wasn't reported widely or because people didn't take note. I think people just aren't that surprised that this administration would practice deceit in such a casual, even routine, manner.

It's just not surprising anymore. It's expected. (Pat Moynihan died too soon to see the most bracing example of defining -- governmental -- deviancy down.)

In any case, now we have another example from the latest Bush campaign ad http://www.georgewbush.com/ne... .

This one uses last year's $87 billion Iraq supplemental, and the fact that Kerry voted against it, to accuse him of voting against each of the various line items for troop funding included in the bill.

Now, this is inherently misleading since I believe Kerry, like many other Dems, voted for an alternative bill which would have funded these needs by rescinding part of Bush tax cuts. So to say he voted against these particulars is really a distortion of the legislative process.

(Admittedly, it's not quite as bad as what [i]they tried to pull last week[/i], http://slate.msn.com/id/20968... but still pretty bad. In that case, the President charged Kerry with a reckless plan to cut Intelligence spending in 1995, without mentioning that the agency targeted was was mismanaging the funds in question or, much more importantly, that the Congress, then under Republican control, voted a [i]substantially larger cut [/i] http://seattletimes.nwsource.... than the one Kerry had proposed.)

What's more, the commercial highlights three budget items, each of which were ones the president opposed and had to be bullied into supporting -- by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The text narration says: ""No body armor for troops in combat. No higher combat pay. No to better health care for reservists and their families. No -- wrong on defense."

What's most bracing about this narration is that this is actually a pretty factual statement if the target is the president, not Kerry.

Now, one claim really stands out here. The ad http://www.georgewbush.com/ne... says Kerry voted no to "higher combat pay."

[b]This is truly a milestone in the long bilious history of gall[/b].

If you watched this debate at the time you'll remember that last summer the Bush administration went to great lengths to cut combat pay for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to save money for other priorities. They only relented when Democrats, Republicans and most of all military-oriented publications like [i]Army Times [/i]expressed so much outrage that they had no choice but abandon the effort.

Here's a snippet from an article which appeared on August 15th, 2003 in the [i]San Francisco Chronicle [/i]which gives a brief glimpse of their ignominious retreat ...

[i]The White House quickly backpedaled Thursday on Pentagon plans to cut the combat pay of the 157,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan after disclosure of the idea quickly became a political embarrassment.

The Pentagon's support for the idea of rolling back "imminent danger pay" by $75 a month and "family separation allowances" for the American forces by $150 a month collapsed after a story in The Chronicle Thursday generated intense criticism from military families, veterans groups and Democratic candidates seeking to unseat President Bush in 2004[/i].

And so the White House which was pushing to save money by reducing combat pay for troops currently serving in two combat zones is now challenging Kerry's national security bona-fides by alleging that he opposed increases in combat pay.

Sometimes you try to dress it up or package it in some artful way. But the truth is irreducibly blunt: lying and indifference to a factual record often no further away than the google web site is the hallmark of this administration.

[b]Up is down[/b].

[u]Talking Points Memo[/u], Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

Why Won't Dubya Debate? Don't We Deserve Better Than Smirks & Snide Brushoffs?

03.17.04 (7:13 am) [edit]

[b]"Why Not Debate?" [/b]The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com...

YES, DEMOCRATIC candidate John F. Kerry's challenge to President Bush last weekend for a series of monthly debates was more political stunt than serious suggestion. The presumptive nominee's proposal was a bit hokey -- issued, as it was, in Quincy, Ill., the site of one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It was also a little hard to take Mr. Kerry's pontificating about the need to elevate the tone of the campaign. "Americans shouldn't have to put up with eight months of sniping," Mr. Kerry said -- this after referring to his opponents as "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen." And, yes, Mr. Kerry's zeal for an in-depth discussion of critical issues is tough to square with his dismissive attitude when Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) proposed one-on-one debates at the end of the Democratic primary season. Somehow, we didn't hear Mr. Kerry talking then about how the "American people are hungry for a genuine conversation about the fundamental questions before us."

And yet: [i]He has a good idea[/i]. There will probably be three presidential debates this fall, the same number as four years ago. But the general election campaign, for better or worse, is already underway, and there is no shortage of critical issues on which voters ought to have the chance to compare and contrast the candidates. Real encounters between the two men would help voters far more than will any number of slick campaign ads in which the candidates hurl accusations that do little to explain where they would lead the country or to illuminate the differences between them. From the environment to civil liberties, from health care for the uninsured to reducing the deficit, from nuclear proliferation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- suffice it to say, it would be easy to come up with numerous useful subjects for debate between Messrs. Bush and Kerry. Most fundamentally: What are their visions of the proper role of the United States in the world today? And debates would provide a forum to prod candidates to address matters that both would rather duck -- for example, how they would tackle the growing demands on Social Security and Medicare.

Of course, no one expects the president to take Mr. Kerry up on his challenge. "Senator Kerry should finish the debate with himself before he starts trying to explain his positions to the voters," a Bush campaign spokesman said Saturday. [b]But if the president doesn't want to debate anytime soon, the voters deserve a better explanation of why not than that[i] snide brushoff[/i].[/b]

U.S. Senator Supports Kerry's Claim That Foreign Leaders Want A Change in America

03.16.04 (8:02 pm) [edit]

[b]Sen. Joe Biden says he would support a Kerry-McCain ticket

[i]Supports Kerry's claim that foreign leaders want a change in America[/i][/b]

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) tells MSNBC’s Chris Matthews he would support a John Kerry-John McCain presidential ticket tonight on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” 7-8 p.m. (ET). Biden also stated that foreign leaders have also told him they would like to see a Kerry administration in the White House.

Following are excerpts from tonight’s interview, which will telecast in its entirety on “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” 7-8 p.m. (ET). A full show transcript will be available tomorrow at www.tv.msnbc.com.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me ask you. Do you think McCain is seriously - and I mean this professionally - flirting with the idea of accepting a second place on the ticket with John Kerry, and creating a fusion ticket to run against the President.

SEN. JOE BIDEN: Well, let me make it clear, I am prejudiced here. I go back a long way with John McCain. When the President of the United States was trying to imply that he was unstable, I called him. He was out West, and I said where do you want me. He was in the middle of the Presidential campaign, and I wanted the Democrat to win, but I said, tell me John where you want me. I’ll hold a press conference. I can make the case for you, overwhelmingly clear. And he’s thanked me. And he’s said, no no. I guess I would’ve hurt him more than I would’ve helped him. So that’s where I come from, number one. Number two, I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain - a Republican - on the ticket with a guy he does like. They do get along. And they don’t have fundamental disagreements on major policies.

MATTHEWS: Would you support that ticket ... for President?

BIDEN: I would. Yeah. If John Kerry said that’s who he wanted, and McCain - I’d encourage McCain to say yes. I doubt whether John would do it. I doubt whether John McCain would do it. But, you know, we need some unity here, man. The red states and the blue states - we got to have something to coalesce around here.

* * *

BIDEN (discussing Kerry’s campaign for President): “I have had world leaders, heads of state, make it pretty clear to me that they’re hopeful that there is a change in the Administration.”

MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...

Bushites Try To Destroy A Critic Via Character Assassination Because They Can't Counter With Facts!

03.16.04 (6:27 pm) [edit]

[b]Smearing the messenger

[i]The Bush machine aims its poison darts at another military hero -- Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski[/i][/b].

There they go again. Whenever the Bush machine is put on the defensive, it immediately goes on the offensive, and character assassination is one of its favorite weapons. I'm not talking about the attacks on John Kerry's patriotism. I'm talking about the poison-tipped assault on another military veteran, retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, whose damning eyewitness account of how neoconservative zealots in the Defense Department bulldozed the facts and drove the country to war was published in [i]Salon[/i] last week ("The New Pentagon Papers" http://www.salon.com/opinion/... ).

Kwiatkowski's right-wing critics could not challenge her facts, not a single one, so they immediately reached for the tar brush. The [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]smeared her as "something of a right-wing crank." Max Boot, a conservative columnist for the[i] Los Angeles Times[/i], trashed her as "flaky." Then Clifford May, a hit man for the[i] Republican National Committee[/i], was given free reign by John Gibson, host of [i]Fox News' "The Big Show[/i]," to drag the 20-year Air Force veteran through the mud after[i] Fox [/i]turned off her microphone -- one more bold display of the network's commitment to fairness and balance. Once she was silenced, Gibson and May smeared Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski as an "anarchist" with "radical associations" to political weirdoes like Lyndon LaRouche.

The truth -- never an interest of these right-wing hatchet men -- is that the former Air Force intelligence officer comes from a politically conservative family and subscribes to a libertarian philosophy. She once gave an interview to a LaRouche publication -- the full extent of her "association" with this political fringe. By the [i]RNC [/i]man's strained logic, the fact that she also spoke to [i]Fox News [/i]should make her a Rupert Murdoch acolyte.

If I were part of the Bush reelection team, I would want to cloud reality too. The disturbing reality that Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski presented was of an administration driven by ideologues so determined to rush into an Iraq war that they would not let intelligence or expertise or facts get in their way. We are all now paying for the folly of these men, none more than Kwiatkowski's former colleagues in the military, who are fighting and dying in Iraq. The fact that many of Kwiatkowski's neoconservative opponents have never served their country in uniform makes the Bush machine's personal attacks against her all the more repellent.

Unlike Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski's character assassins, she served her country honorably for 20 years -- and she is serving America again by bravely telling the truth about the policies of deceit that led us to war.

The tens of thousands of readers who have clicked on Kwiatkowski's revealing exposé know this and you have flooded Salon with e-mails in praise of her courage and integrity. We want you to know that[i] Salon [/i]will continue to stand by her and will continue to publish eye-opening reports on the Bush administration and its extremist policies.

Salon Magazine http://www.salon.com/letters/...

Which Foreign Leaders DO Want Bush for Another Four More Years of Hell?

03.16.04 (5:58 pm) [edit]

[b]A brief note on this brouhaha over whether some foreign leaders want president Bush turned out of office in November[/b].

Clearly, the president and his surrogates are hammering John Kerry now over this claim and even accusing him of making the whole thing up to hurt the president.

"Either [Kerry] is straightforward and states who they are," said Scott McClellan, "or the only conclusion one can draw is that he is making it up to attack the president."

Now, I don't think there's any question this was an unwise thing for Kerry to say, not least because it's opened him up to all these attacks which are awkward to answer.

But the idea that he's making this up is laughable. The question isn't whether or which foreign leaders don't want to see George W. Bush get another term. A better question is whether there are [i]any[/i] outside of perhaps a half-dozen capitals around the world who do.

(Powell knows this perhaps better than anyone.)

The reason it's unwise to say this -- or at least say it so bluntly -- is precisely because it's so undoubtedly true. And the fact that it's true is a difficult matter politically for [i]both [/i]candidates.

[u]Talking Points Memo[/u], Joshua Micah Marshall, http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

Noam Chomsky: Bring Them to Justice!

03.16.04 (1:10 pm) [edit]

There's a lot of focus on the American death toll but personally I think that's partly propaganda exaggeration. Polls have demonstrated time and time again that Americans are willing to accept a high death toll - although they don't like it, they're willing to accept it - if they think it's a just cause.

There's never been anything like the so-called Vietnam Syndrome: it's mostly a fabrication. And in this case too if they thought it was a just cause, the 500 or so deaths would be mourned, but not considered a dominant reason for not continuing. No, the problem is the justice of the cause.

Right after the war, by April, polls demonstrated pretty clearly that Americans thought the United Nations, not the United States, ought to have prime responsibility for reconstruction, political and economic, in the post-war period. There's little support for the government's efforts to maintain what amounts to a powerful, permanent, military and diplomatic presence in Iraq.

In fact, it is little discussed, probably for that reason. Not very many people are aware of the fact that the US is planning to construct what will be the world's largest embassy in Iraq, with maybe 3,000 people. The military plans to maintain permanent bases and a substantial US military presence as long as they want it. The facts are reported, but marginally. Most people don't know about it. The orders to open the Iraqi economy up to foreign takeover are again known to people who pay close attention, but not to the general population.

The general population offers little support for the long-term effort to ensure that Iraq remains a client state with only nominal sovereignty and a base for other US actions in the region. Those commitments have only a very shallow popular support and that's more of a reason for the objections, the uneasiness about policy, than the number of casualties.

The trial [of Saddam Hussein] ought to be under some kind of international auspices that have some degree of credibility, so not something which is obviously victor's justice, which, no matter how much of a monster one is, doesn't carry credibility.

So first of all there's a matter of form, but also there's a matter of content. The trial should bring to the bar of justice his associates, those who gave decisive and substantial support for him right through his worst atrocities, long after the war with Iran. Again in 1991 when he crushed the rebellions viciously - the rebellions that might well have overthrown him. All of those people should be brought to justice. They're not all equally culpable but they were all critically involved - that includes European countries right through the 80s, including Russia and France, Germany and others, it includes, crucially, the United States and Britain all the way through, including 1991.

They should also bring to justice those who were responsible for the murderous sanction regime which surely led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and devastated the society so completely that they could not carry out what has happened elsewhere, where the US and Britain supported comparable monsters - namely, they were overthrown from within.

It seems not unlikely that the same might have happened in Iraq had the society not been devastated and had people not been compelled by the sanctions to rely on the tyrant for mere survival. Actually there's even more evidence of that coming out today as it's been revealed in the Kay investigation and others how fragile the hold on power was at the end.

So anyone who contributed to Saddam Hussein's atrocities to whatever they degree they did, they're culpable as well and in some fashion an honest trial should deal with that.

Noam Chomsky. [u]The Guardian. UK[/u], http://www.informationclearin...

Is the U.S. Secretly Unloading WMDs in Iraq? ... Campaign Hijinks or Another War?

03.15.04 (6:49 pm) [edit]

Is the U.S. secretly unloading WMDs in Iraq? What the hell is going on in our country right now?

Please read the following 3 articles and connect-the-dots:

1. "The new Pentagon papers", by Karen Kwiatkowski, Salon Magazine on http://fairuse.1accesshost.co...

2. "Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria", by Aluf Benn, Haaretz Israel News on http://www.haaretzdaily.com/h...

3. "U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq ", by Tehran Times on http://www.tehrantimes.com/De... or http://www.propagandamatrix.c...

Recently Ret. General Tommy Franks said that the U.S. would be willing to suspend our U.S. Constitution and that America would be ruled by a military government if another terrorist attack occurs. Does he know something that the rest of us don't? Is this what Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove and their neo-con cabal of criminals all have in store for us?

Bush & Co. LIED about WMDs in Iraq posing an imminent threat to our nation and the result is over 560 U.S. Soldiers and over 10,000-15,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians are DEAD.

Does the dishonest Bush cabal plan on "planting" WMDs in Iraq? Or, are they gearing up for an invasion of Iran, Syria and/or Libya at Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's order? Who the hell is running our U.S. Foreign Policy? Bush, the Neo-Cons, Ariel Sharon, or Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, or all of the above?

I repeat: What the hell is going on in our country right now?

[b]For Readers: [/b]Call for the Impeachment of Bush, Cheney & the Neo-Cons Today -- Take Our Country Back!

DUBYA'S OFFENSIVE AD NAUSEAM ...

03.15.04 (5:55 pm) [edit]

In the offensive tradition of Bush's fake-fireman-9/11 http://www.alternet.org/elect... commercial comes '100 Days,' dubbed the 'Muhammad [i]Horton' ad [/i] http://www.tnr.com/blog/campa... -- after Papa Bush's infamous 'Willie Horton' campaign exploiting America's fear of black men in the '88 race. This year's model features the image of a shifty-eyed unmistakably Arab man as a Stepford voiceover warns that John Kerry plans to weaken the Patriot Act (say [i]it ain't so[/i]!) and, if that isn't sufficiently frightening, the text below him, in Homeland Red, reads: 'Weaken Fight Against Terrorists.'

Dr. James Zogby, President of the Arab-American Institute called on Bush to pull the ad in a statement http://www.aaiusa.org/pr/rele... released Thursday:

[i]This ad undercuts the message the President issued to the Nation after September 11 and negatively stereotypes Arabs. By using an unidentifiable, but Arab looking young male while the word terrorist is heard, the message is unmistakable and regrettable. It can only create fear and suspicion and should be changed immediately.[/i]

Some have suggested that one of the Bush Team's tactics is to just pile controversy on top of controversy to overwhelm opponents and let Americans' historical amnesia do the work. Others add that this particular use of a racial stereotype is a calculated move in the tradition of Southern politicians hiding racist sentiments in coded language — the obvious example being the cry for 'states' rights.'

That is: Bush cynically calculated that the expected controversy and its potential to alienate voters would be outweighed by the benefit of playing up to fear of Arab terrorists. And hey, if it backfires, just withhold some documents from the 9/11 commission, crank up the marriage issue, sic Ashcroft on women's health records, make wild accusations about Kerry ... nobody will remember anyway.

Or will they? Some GOP strategists and others have grave concerns that the Bush reelection team is way off the mark http://www.alternet.org/elect... .

Want to watch the ads? Go here ([i]fast connection and strong stomach recommended[/i]) http://www.georgewbush.com/Ne... .

Why Kerry Needs to Hit Back NOW

03.13.04 (7:30 am) [edit]

[b]The Kerry campaign went up with an ad today [/b]in response to the president's new round of negative ads. The Kerry one took aim at the president's claims about the economy.

But Kerry really needs to hit back on defense too. [i]Now[/i].

I don't think that there's been a White House this off-balance in the last decade or two. That doesn't mean the president is going to lose the election. And it doesn't mean he's going to[i] stay [/i]off-balance. But that's all the more reason for Kerry to move on the defense issue now.

The president has all the look of a prize-fighter who's in a daze after taking a few hits to the head and is struggling to get to the end of the round to steady himself.

Just consider the run of missteps.

I don't know anyone who thinks the president's first round of ads wasn't a goof. The new Mohammed Horton ads look likely to be the same. Then just yesterday the president had to cancel plans to announce his new 'jobs czar' (a new assistant secretary of Commerce with a brief to deal with off-shoring of American jobs) when it emerged that he was available for the gig because he'd done such a good job himself sending a whole slew of jobs to China.

D'oh!

In a sense, the problem is just one of appearances, just political. His ability to do the job -- whatever it was actually supposed to be -- wouldn't be affected by whatever he'd done previously. But then the whole 'jobs czar' stunt itself was political. So same difference. It was an immensely clumsy goof -- one for which, I assure you, someone at the White Huose got a monumental chewing out.

I speculated in my [i]Hill column [/i] http://www.hillnews.com/marsh... on Thursday about why the White House has had this run of stumbles. (My argument is that we're seeing how out of touch the White House is with how much its credibility has atrophied over the last eight months.) But that they've had them is really beyond dispute.

That's why it's time for Kerry to engage on the defense and national security issue. Since that's really what this election will come down to.

The president cannot win this election on the economy. Barring a rapid change of circumstances over the next three months the data and people's experience of the economy is as best too muddled for the president to run on it successfully.

But he [i]can[/i] win on national security. And that's the reason Kerry should engage him on this issue now -- at a moment when the White House seems to be having great difficulty reacting to quickly changing events and shaping the direction of the campaign debate. This is the one issue on which Kerry cannot allow himself to be pigeonholed or adversely defined.

Does this take the debate onto more friendly territory for the president? Perhaps. But the shift will come eventually. And it's difficult to imagine a more propitious moment.

. Joshua Micah Marshall, [u]TalkingPointsMemo[/u] http://www.talkingpointsmemo....

All the President's Learning Disabilities ...

03.12.04 (1:19 pm) [edit]

Ever wonder why President Bush says "nuculer" when he means "nuclear" or "subliminate" when he means "subliminal?" Or why he mixes up perseverance and preservation? Why does he mangle the English language often enough for [i]Slate Editor [/i]Jacob Weisberg to produce three books of Bushisms such as "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

[u]Are you still puzzled that Bush[/u]:

* Was a "C" student and class clown, yet became President?

* Doles out odd nicknames with abandon?

* Has held only 12 Presidential news conferences, the lowest frequency for a President since Richard Nixon's scandal-plagued second term?

* Chose to go one-on-one with [i]Meet the Press's [/i]Tim Russert, one of the roughest interviewers in the business during one of the toughest times in his Presidency?

* Stunned former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by barely responding in their first hour-long briefing at the White House?

* Doesn't "do nuance," as the President himself puts it?

Of course, if Bush hadn't come from the wealthy American aristocracy, it is doubtful that he would have stumbled into a distinguised position. Methinks it's simply a case of [i]ignoramus ditus prodigus [/i](a very rich idiot).

[u]'All the President's learning disabilities'[/u] - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Pentagon Asks Justice Department to Join Halliburton Probe

03.11.04 (9:45 pm) [edit]

The Pentagon has asked the Justice Department to join in an investigation of alleged overcharging by US energy and services group Halliburton, a senior US defense official confirmed.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Pentagon's inspector general decided in recent weeks to bring the Justice Department into the investigation because it had reached a point where additional investigative tools were required.

"At a certain point in an investigation, the IG brings in the Justice Department," the official said, saying it was a "fairly routine aspect of these kinds of investigations."

The Pentagon, which lacks the power to indict and press criminal charges, launched a probe in January into allegations Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) had overcharged the military for fuel delivered to Iraq by 61 million dollars.

The defense official said investigators were looking into how KBR's subcontractor, a Kuwaiti firm called Altanmia, was selected and whether the proper procedures were followed.

The [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], which first reported the development, quoted a Justice Department official as saying it was "significant."

The paper said a Justice Department investigation could lead to criminal fraud charges and penalties against the Texas-based company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The US Congress was notified Wednesday of the Pentagon's decision to widen the Halliburton investigation, the daily said.

An unnamed justice official told[i] The Wall Street Journal [/i]that the department might inquire whether Halliburton violated the federal Claims Act, by which a company found guilty of defrauding the government can be made to repay as much as three times the amount of the fraud.

The embattled oil services firm on Tuesday issued a statement claiming that its liquidity could be hurt if US government agencies require a further review of its work in Iraq.

During 2003, Iraq-related work provided 3.6 billion dollars in revenues for Halliburton and 85 million in operating profits, the statement said. But the company said it could face a crunch if its billing practices face more review.

"As a result of an increase in the level of work performed in Iraq or the Defense Contract Audit Agency's review of additional aspects of our services performed in Iraq, it is possible that we may, or may be required to, withhold additional invoicing or make refunds to our customer, some of which could be substantial, until these matters are resolved," it said.

"This could materially and adversely affect our liquidity."

[u]Pentagon Asks Justice Department to Join Halliburton Probe[/u] http://www.commondreams.org/h...

The Real Flip-Flopper

03.11.04 (1:19 pm) [edit]

Former Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush has been making a lot of noise of late about Massachusetts Senator John Kerry allegedly being a "flip-flopper."

Well, thanks to the intrepid team over at [u]The Daily Kos[/u], http://www.dailykos.com/story... here are a few bullet points that should be brought to the greater attention of the American public, particularly those likely to exercise their right to vote:

--- Bush is against campaign finance reform...
... [i]then he's for it[/i].
--- Bush is against a Homeland Security Department...
... [i]then he's for it[/i].
--- Bush is against a 9/11 commission...
... [i]then he's for it[/i].
--- Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation...
... [i]then he's for it[/i].
--- Bush is against nation building...
... [i]then he's for it[/i].
--- Bush is against deficits...
...[i] then he's for them[/i].
--- Bush is for free trade...
... [i]then he's for tariffs on steel[/i]...
... [i]then he's against them again[/i].
--- Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict...
... [i]then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State[/i].
--- Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage...
... [i]then he is for changing the constitution[/i].
--- Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency)...
... [i]then he doesn't[/i].
--- Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military)...
... [i]then he cuts benefits[/i].
--- Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." )...
... [i]Bush: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care"[/i].
--- Bush claims to be in favor of the environment)...
...[i] and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island[/i].
--- Bush talks about helping education)...
... [i]and increases mandates while cutting funding[/i].
--- Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea)...
... [i]now he will[/i].
--- Bush goes to Bob Jones University...
... [i]then say's he shouldn't have[/i].
--- Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq)...
... [i]then Bush announced he would not call for a vote[/i].
--- Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors)...
... [i]Bush later admits it was his advance team[/i].
--- Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US)...
... [i]After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it[/i].

And there's more in the discussion room.

That poor George -- he just can't seem to make up his mind about anything...

[u]The American Politics Journal[/u] http://www.americanpolitics.c...

Outsource Bush

03.11.04 (10:37 am) [edit]

This is one of those 'aha!' moments where a policy that once seemed irrational and fuzzy comes into sharp focus. In the face of the [u]longest sustained job loss[/u] since the Great Depression, http://www.house.gov/levin/os... , the Bush administration has not only taken no action to penalize corporations that outsource jobs, it's actually sponsored conferences and workshops teaching companies how it's done. Last month, Bush's top economic advisor stated the obvious in public: that the administration sees outsourcing as a 'new way to do international trade.'

Now, MoveOn.org's research team, which churns out the Daily Misleader, think they know why. By studying the campaign contributions of the top twelve outsourcers (a list which begins, ironically, with the patriots at American Express and includes Bechtel, Ford and GE), MoveOn determined that those particular corporations have enriched the Bush campaign by a total of $440,000 and the Republican Party by $3.6 million. So while outsourcing doesn't do much to bring back any of the nearly 3 million jobs lost since the start of Bush's presidency (poised to become the first since Hoover to actually lose jobs), it does put money in the old reelection piggy bank.

Blowback: U.S.- and Israeli-Style

03.10.04 (2:44 pm) [edit]

Israel recently launched its deadliest attack against the Palestinians in more than a year. In a muscular raid against two Palestinian refugee camps in the Gaza strip, the Israelis used heavy armor and helicopter gun ships allegedly to attempt to seize weapons and arrest Palestinian attackers, which had fired mortars at nearby Jewish settlements but had injured no settlers. The Israeli incursion killed 14 Palestinians, including three unarmed youths, and injured 83 people, including 40 under the age of 18. But the Israelis made no arrests for the mortar attacks and seized no weapons. Israel and its imitator, the United States, have both launched an aggressive “war on terrorism” that is liable to undermine their long-term security.

Amnesty International has cited numerous incidents of Israeli use of excessive force in populated Palestinian areas, including a 2,000 pound bomb dropped by an F-16 on a densely populated neighborhood in Gaza City to kill a Hamas activist. The July 22, 2002, aerial onslaught killed seven other adults and nine children, injured 70 others and destroyed six neighboring homes. Palestinians are regularly condemned by the American government and media for suicide bombings of Israeli civilians in Israel and Israeli settlers in Palestinian areas. But if we define “terrorism” as the intentional harming of innocents for political gain, the routine Israeli use of excessive force should also fall into that category.

The Israelis know that the use of heavy firepower in populated areas to target a few activists will kill or injure substantial numbers of innocents. The Israelis are especially culpable when other more “surgical” methods are available—for example, the use of raids by special forces to apprehend Palestinian activists. Even targeted assassinations of militants—a questionable tactic—would kill fewer civilians than the blunt method Israel is using. Thus, Israel’s policy seems to be only a slightly more subtle retaliation for the Palestinian killing of innocents. Instead of blatantly targeting civilians, a military target is found in a densely populated area and then excessive force is applied.

Amnesty International has also criticized the Israeli military for destroying vast tracts of cultivated land, water and electricity infrastructure and thousands of Palestinian homes. The organization also notes that the Israelis have quarantined entire Palestinian towns and cities for long periods of time, employed Palestinians as human shields during military operations, targeted medical personnel and blocked medical assistance, used torture on Palestinian detainees, seized Palestinian land to expand infrastructure for Jewish settlements and failed to protect Palestinians under attack from Jewish settlers. To mollify influential domestic pressure groups in the United States, those unacceptable Israeli tactics are routinely ignored by President Bush, the Congress and the American media.

The sad part is that such aggressive Israeli behavior—and the American subsidies of military and economic aid that encourage and underwrite it—actually worsens the Jewish nation’s long-term security outlook. Even worse, such excessive Israeli responses to security problems are now being imitated by the U.S. government. The Bush administration invaded Iraq—a nation that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks—and is consciously adopting tough Israeli-style tactics in its occupation.

Israel and the United States are both superpowers—regionally and worldwide, respectively—that have recently seen reduced threats to their existence from other nation states. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan and has seen Iraq vanquished, Libya reformed and Syria severely debilitated by the demise of its Soviet benefactor. And the end of the Cold War has drastically reduced the chance of a massive nuclear attack on America. So the main remaining threat to both countries is now terrorism, which they are only inflaming by their excessive responses to it.

Thus, the two countries are falling right into the trap of their adversaries: militant Palestinian groups in the case of Israel and al Qaeda in the case of the United States. For example, after the recent Israeli attack on the refugee camps, a leader of the Palestinian Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades noted that it would act as a magnet for recruiting anti-Israeli suicide bombers. Furthermore, according to data from Tel Aviv University, anti-Semitic violence worldwide spikes during periods of Israeli and U.S. military offensives. Similarly, excessive and unrelated U.S. military interventions, especially in the Islamic nation of Iraq, have acted as a recruiting poster for the Islamic jihadism responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Anti-Israeli and anti-U.S. terrorism will not go away until the root causes of both are removed. Israel—if nothing else, to end violence that is debilitating its economy—should make the concessions needed to negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians. For its part, the United States should terminate its one-sided support for Israel and become neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. America should also end profligate meddling in other nations' business around the world—especially in the Middle East—the primary cause of anti-U.S. terrorism. With their main nation