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
... Hard to argue with the reality in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' ...
07.31.04 (8:54 am)   [edit]
Fahrenheit 9/11 is an embarrassing movie. Or it should be. It should be embarrassing to the Cheney/Bush Gang, but those people are beyond embarrassment.

It should be embarrassing to the spineless Democrats in the U.S. Senate, not one of whom had the moral courage to co-sign a bill of particulars prepared by African-American members of Congress and others protesting the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida, a blatant act that enabled Bush, with the help of his brother, Jeb, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and five members of the U.S. Supreme Court to steal the presidency.

It should be embarrassing to the national media -- print and electronic -- who lacked the intellectual courage to show us what Michael Moore shows us in this movie.

And it should be especially embarrassing to the millions of Americans who fail to or refuse to see Bush for what he is: an inarticulate puppet for a corrupt, cynical band of neo-conservative opportunists led by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz.

The sweet singers of the far right and their followers have tried to make much of perceived errors in Fahrenheit. I say perceived, because in some cases they are the only ones who see them. Example: Moore supposedly claims in the film that members of the bin Laden family in the United States were allowed to fly home to Saudi Arabia after 9/11 before the ban on commercials flights out of the country was lifted. But the film does not make that claim. And the Saudis went out on private planes, not commercial flights.

Moore does question the wisdom of allowing relatives of the man who masterminded the attacks to leave the country so soon after the event. But then when you look at the close ties, especially the money ties, that bind the Bushes and the Saudi establishment, including the bin Ladens, you understand the preferential treatment.

Without this movie we would not have known about Bush's bewildering behavior on the morning of the attack. We had the official and of course bogus White House version put out by Dick (Undisclosed Location) Cheney about Air Force One being targeted by the terrorists and a cool and collected Bush taking command of the situation.

That was not the Bush we saw in the videotape made in the Florida kindergarten classroom that terrible morning. Bush, we now know, was told of the first airliner's crash into the North Tower before he entered the classroom. Still he strolled in, sat down and opened a copy of My Pet Goat as the teacher read aloud. Minutes later, one of his aides came to him and whispered in his ear that a second airliner had struck the South Tower and that America was under attack.

For the next seven minutes Bush sat there, seemingly dumbstruck, wondering what to do next. The self-proclaimed leader of the free world wasn't just drawing a blank, he was a blank.

And who can blame him? This wasn't in his job description. This was not what he'd signed on for. For the first eight months of his nominal presidency life had been good: Early to bed, early to rise, a quick briefing on what Dick and Rummy and Condi figured he needed to know, which wasn't too much, a bit of exercise, a video-game break, then lunch and a nap. His nanny Dick would take care of the heavy lifting.

As The Washington Post reported at the time, 42 percent of Bush's first eight months in office had been spent on vacation. But all that changed on Sept. 11, 2001, or so we've been told by the people who did not tell us what Moore is telling us.

Up until that fateful day, some in the press had been derisive of Bush's disengaged demeanor. But 48 hours later, more than a few of these same people had transformed him into a latter-day Churchill, praising his strong leadership in a time of national crisis, but conveniently not providing a single example of that strong leadership, unless you want to count the tough cowboy talk about tracking bin Laden down, smoking him out and bringing him back dead or alive. Yippee!

You can argue over whether Fahrenheit is a documentary, a polemic or a Democratic campaign ad. But it's hard to argue with the disturbing reality it lays bare. - http://www.pressconnects.com/...
 
... 'GOP has reason to be nervous' ...
07.31.04 (8:52 am)   [edit]
A couple of weeks back, The Washington Post ran an article describing President Bush's novel campaign strategy. Rather than tacking toward the middle to garner the support of swing voters, the president's campaign is focusing its energy on consolidating and energizing its conservative base.

As the Post put it, "Although not discounting swing voters, Bush is placing unusual emphasis so far on rallying the faithful."

But is this truly a novel strategy? Not really. It's actually a strategy as old as presidential politics itself -- one so well-known that there's even a name reserved for presidents who use it as a reelection strategy ... one-termers.

Democrats may see red when Bush tries to whip up the gay-marriage issue by calling for a constitutional ban, or going after John Kerry's war record, or getting surrogates to dish out red meat in the new Sandy Berger classified-documents dustup. But these are really signs of a campaign that is increasingly pessimistic about its chances of turning undecided voters to its cause and trying to find some way to change the political lay of the land.

An incumbent campaign with the wind at its back tries to keep its candidate above the political fray and focused on appeals to the political middle. The game plan is always to appear above politics -- on the model of Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996.

It's the losers who oscillate between nailing down the base and swinging for the fences with desperate gambits. Think of the example of the elder George Bush with his screechy, culture-war Houston convention aimed at mollifying restive right-wingers, followed by antic jabs at Clinton over the character issue.

If you're three months out from a presidential election and Candidate A is working the base and Candidate B is courting independents, it's a good bet that Candidate B is going to be the next president -- no matter how newfangled a strategy Candidate A's advisers say he's pursuing.

Some of the difficulties of the Bush campaign have been obscured by the near deadlock in public-opinion polls. Kerry has led in the majority of polls in recent weeks, but usually right within the margin of error.

Yet even that data can be deceiving. As veteran Washington-watcher Charlie Cook noted last week, even a stable, dead-even race is pretty bad news for an incumbent like Bush, because undecided voters tend to break heavily in favor of the challenger.

An incumbent president gets about what his numbers are in the head-to-head match-ups. It's the challenger who scoops up most of the remaining undecideds.

As Cook put it, "this race has settled into a place that is not at all good for an incumbent, is remarkably stable, and one that is terrifying many Republican lawmakers, operatives and activists."

The one bright spot on the horizon for the Bush administration has been the undeniable fact that the economy has moved into a brisker phase of recovery since the beginning of 2004, even if the effects for voters are still to be felt in many parts of the electorate. Yet even that bright spot may be dimmer than expected. At a meeting of the Republican Governors Association 10 days ago, GOP strategist Bill McInturff new unveiled polling data showing that voters remain skeptical about Republican claims of a rebounding economy.

All the caveats apply, of course. The nation is still divided along deeply etched ideological lines. Many swing states remain too close to call. Unpredictable events overseas could still play a decisive role. But if you see Republicans acting panicked and nervous in the next couple of months, remember: They have good reason. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
U.S. Veteran: "'Why this really is the most important election of our lifetime'" ...
07.31.04 (8:24 am)   [edit]
[b]Veterans For Peace [/b]just concluded its 2004 National Convention, held in Boston at the same time as the Democratic Party's Convention. Attenders heard Daniel Ellsberg and Howard Zinn both warn of an escalating danger of fascist-like repression if we have another four years under the current administration.

I would like to commend to you Senator Robert Byrd's new book, Losing America. Byrd, you will recall, accused his Senate colleagues of "sleepwalking through history" for their failure to resist George Bush's spurious rush to war against Iraq. Now he expresses the bleak conviction that we are on the verge of losing our democracy, just as Rome slipped from republic to autocratic empire through an inert populace, a supine legislature, and an ambitious and arrogant executive.

To my mind, we are repeating our own historical experience. The Jacksonian era saw the extension of the vote to the working class and mitigated the overweening power of the wealthy in the 1820s and 30s; the Progressive era led to the extension of the vote to women and to some limitations on the power of the monopolistic corporations and trusts in the 1890-1920 period, and the modern Civil Rights era re-enfranchised African Americans and sought to better the condition of America's poor.

Conversely, the conservative triumph over Jacksonianism of 1840 led to the Civil War by its unwillingness to deal with slavery in any serious way. The repugnant excesses of the Gilded Age brought about the labor wars of the end of the 19th century, and the anti-Communist fanatics, the intransigence of the segregationists, and those who belittle women led to the struggles of the 1960s and 70s.

The Civil Rights movement of the 60s and 70s paralleled to Civil War. The Affirmative Action period paralleled Reconstruction, and the present Right-Wing ascendancy promises a return to the Jim Crow era.

Once again the right aims to reestablish the complete dominance of the wealthy through a language of rightwing populism with its rhetoric of religion, stoking hatred for minorities and foreign enemies, and by fomenting nationalist and imperialist fantasies.

In his address to the VFP Convention, Vietnam Veterans of America founder Bobby Muller defined our next mission in what I consider to be precisely the right terms. He urged that we must create the "political space" in our home communities that will encourage John Kerry to adopt more progressive policies than those he is espousing now. We must, he said, steer our country's leadership away from disaster and toward policies truly suited to producing peace and stability in the world.

Very well said, but his comments take as a presumption that John Kerry is the linchpin around which our efforts should take place, and we are not yet, unfortunately, united in that view.

VFP past president Barry Riesch said: "We want [John Kerry] to show the same courage he showed when he came home from Vietnam and spoke out against the war. I'll vote for him, but some of our members are on the fence." (My emphasis.)

Another friend says, "I could never vote for a candidate who promotes or votes for war." Until Kerry's nomination acceptance speech, my wife felt the same. There are too many others who feel that way.

Many of us do not yet believe that, as Kerry said in his acceptance speech, "this is the most important election of our lifetime.

I, however, believe that Kerry is right for precisely the points made by Daniel Ellsberg, Howard Zinn and Robert Byrd. If we do not step back from the verge now, it may be to late to have any hope at all for salvaging our already deeply damaged democracy, much less a democracy with progressive leanings.

Those of us who feel that there is no substantive difference between Bush and Kerry--those who hope that four more years of Bush will open the possibility of a real and broad-based turn to the left--are dreaming. Our nation has always been more susceptible to the blandishments of the right than to the left. For some idea as to why, I commend to you John Leland's New York Times article, "Why America Sees the Silver Lining" (Week in Review, June 13, 2004). Meantime, and having participated in the American electoral process since 1963, I believe that this is "the most important election of our lifetime," and the most dismaying.

For those of us in safe states, there may still be room to vote Nader or Green as a message to Kerry. But, as I go off to a not-so-safe state to work for a Kerry presidency, let me urge my friends on the left to consider the possibility that four more years of George Bush may lead us down a very dark path indeed, while a vote for Kerry may give us, as Bobby Muller says, some space in which to maneuver.

[b]Peter D. Molan, Ph.D., a member of Veterans for Peace, Baltimore, is a retired Middle East analyst for the US Department of Defense[/b]. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
U.S. Veteran: "'Why this really is the most important election of our lifetime'" ...
07.31.04 (8:22 am)   [edit]
[b]Veterans For Peace [/b]just concluded its 2004 National Convention, held in Boston at the same time as the Democratic Party's Convention. Attenders heard Daniel Ellsberg and Howard Zinn both warn of an escalating danger of fascist-like repression if we have another four years under the current administration.

I would like to commend to you Senator Robert Byrd's new book, Losing America. Byrd, you will recall, accused his Senate colleagues of "sleepwalking through history" for their failure to resist George Bush's spurious rush to war against Iraq. Now he expresses the bleak conviction that we are on the verge of losing our democracy, just as Rome slipped from republic to autocratic empire through an inert populace, a supine legislature, and an ambitious and arrogant executive.

To my mind, we are repeating our own historical experience. The Jacksonian era saw the extension of the vote to the working class and mitigated the overweening power of the wealthy in the 1820s and 30s; the Progressive era led to the extension of the vote to women and to some limitations on the power of the monopolistic corporations and trusts in the 1890-1920 period, and the modern Civil Rights era re-enfranchised African Americans and sought to better the condition of America's poor.

Conversely, the conservative triumph over Jacksonianism of 1840 led to the Civil War by its unwillingness to deal with slavery in any serious way. The repugnant excesses of the Gilded Age brought about the labor wars of the end of the 19th century, and the anti-Communist fanatics, the intransigence of the segregationists, and those who belittle women led to the struggles of the 1960s and 70s.

The Civil Rights movement of the 60s and 70s paralleled to Civil War. The Affirmative Action period paralleled Reconstruction, and the present Right-Wing ascendancy promises a return to the Jim Crow era.

Once again the right aims to reestablish the complete dominance of the wealthy through a language of rightwing populism with its rhetoric of religion, stoking hatred for minorities and foreign enemies, and by fomenting nationalist and imperialist fantasies.

In his address to the VFP Convention, Vietnam Veterans of America founder Bobby Muller defined our next mission in what I consider to be precisely the right terms. He urged that we must create the "political space" in our home communities that will encourage John Kerry to adopt more progressive policies than those he is espousing now. We must, he said, steer our country's leadership away from disaster and toward policies truly suited to producing peace and stability in the world.

Very well said, but his comments take as a presumption that John Kerry is the linchpin around which our efforts should take place, and we are not yet, unfortunately, united in that view.

VFP past president Barry Riesch said: "We want [John Kerry] to show the same courage he showed when he came home from Vietnam and spoke out against the war. I'll vote for him, but some of our members are on the fence." (My emphasis.)

Another friend says, "I could never vote for a candidate who promotes or votes for war." Until Kerry's nomination acceptance speech, my wife felt the same. There are too many others who feel that way.

Many of us do not yet believe that, as Kerry said in his acceptance speech, "this is the most important election of our lifetime.

I, however, believe that Kerry is right for precisely the points made by Daniel Ellsberg, Howard Zinn and Robert Byrd. If we do not step back from the verge now, it may be to late to have any hope at all for salvaging our already deeply damaged democracy, much less a democracy with progressive leanings.

Those of us who feel that there is no substantive difference between Bush and Kerry--those who hope that four more years of Bush will open the possibility of a real and broad-based turn to the left--are dreaming. Our nation has always been more susceptible to the blandishments of the right than to the left. For some idea as to why, I commend to you John Leland's New York Times article, "Why America Sees the Silver Lining" (Week in Review, June 13, 2004). Meantime, and having participated in the American electoral process since 1963, I believe that this is "the most important election of our lifetime," and the most dismaying.

For those of us in safe states, there may still be room to vote Nader or Green as a message to Kerry. But, as I go off to a not-so-safe state to work for a Kerry presidency, let me urge my friends on the left to consider the possibility that four more years of George Bush may lead us down a very dark path indeed, while a vote for Kerry may give us, as Bobby Muller says, some space in which to maneuver.

[b]Peter D. Molan, Ph.D., a member of Veterans for Peace, Baltimore, is a retired Middle East analyst for the US Department of Defense[/b]. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
U.S. Veteran: "'Why this really is the most important election of our lifetime'" ...
07.31.04 (8:20 am)   [edit]
[b]Veterans For Peace [/b]just concluded its 2004 National Convention, held in Boston at the same time as the Democratic Party's Convention. Attenders heard Daniel Ellsberg and Howard Zinn both warn of an escalating danger of fascist-like repression if we have another four years under the current administration.

I would like to commend to you Senator Robert Byrd's new book, Losing America. Byrd, you will recall, accused his Senate colleagues of "sleepwalking through history" for their failure to resist George Bush's spurious rush to war against Iraq. Now he expresses the bleak conviction that we are on the verge of losing our democracy, just as Rome slipped from republic to autocratic empire through an inert populace, a supine legislature, and an ambitious and arrogant executive.

To my mind, we are repeating our own historical experience. The Jacksonian era saw the extension of the vote to the working class and mitigated the overweening power of the wealthy in the 1820s and 30s; the Progressive era led to the extension of the vote to women and to some limitations on the power of the monopolistic corporations and trusts in the 1890-1920 period, and the modern Civil Rights era re-enfranchised African Americans and sought to better the condition of America's poor.

Conversely, the conservative triumph over Jacksonianism of 1840 led to the Civil War by its unwillingness to deal with slavery in any serious way. The repugnant excesses of the Gilded Age brought about the labor wars of the end of the 19th century, and the anti-Communist fanatics, the intransigence of the segregationists, and those who belittle women led to the struggles of the 1960s and 70s.

The Civil Rights movement of the 60s and 70s paralleled to Civil War. The Affirmative Action period paralleled Reconstruction, and the present Right-Wing ascendancy promises a return to the Jim Crow era.

Once again the right aims to reestablish the complete dominance of the wealthy through a language of rightwing populism with its rhetoric of religion, stoking hatred for minorities and foreign enemies, and by fomenting nationalist and imperialist fantasies.

In his address to the VFP Convention, Vietnam Veterans of America founder Bobby Muller defined our next mission in what I consider to be precisely the right terms. He urged that we must create the "political space" in our home communities that will encourage John Kerry to adopt more progressive policies than those he is espousing now. We must, he said, steer our country's leadership away from disaster and toward policies truly suited to producing peace and stability in the world.

Very well said, but his comments take as a presumption that John Kerry is the linchpin around which our efforts should take place, and we are not yet, unfortunately, united in that view.

VFP past president Barry Riesch said: "We want [John Kerry] to show the same courage he showed when he came home from Vietnam and spoke out against the war. I'll vote for him, but some of our members are on the fence." (My emphasis.)

Another friend says, "I could never vote for a candidate who promotes or votes for war." Until Kerry's nomination acceptance speech, my wife felt the same. There are too many others who feel that way.

Many of us do not yet believe that, as Kerry said in his acceptance speech, "this is the most important election of our lifetime.

I, however, believe that Kerry is right for precisely the points made by Daniel Ellsberg, Howard Zinn and Robert Byrd. If we do not step back from the verge now, it may be to late to have any hope at all for salvaging our already deeply damaged democracy, much less a democracy with progressive leanings.

Those of us who feel that there is no substantive difference between Bush and Kerry--those who hope that four more years of Bush will open the possibility of a real and broad-based turn to the left--are dreaming. Our nation has always been more susceptible to the blandishments of the right than to the left. For some idea as to why, I commend to you John Leland's New York Times article, "Why America Sees the Silver Lining" (Week in Review, June 13, 2004). Meantime, and having participated in the American electoral process since 1963, I believe that this is "the most important election of our lifetime," and the most dismaying.

For those of us in safe states, there may still be room to vote Nader or Green as a message to Kerry. But, as I go off to a not-so-safe state to work for a Kerry presidency, let me urge my friends on the left to consider the possibility that four more years of George Bush may lead us down a very dark path indeed, while a vote for Kerry may give us, as Bobby Muller says, some space in which to maneuver.

[b]Peter D. Molan, Ph.D., a member of Veterans for Peace, Baltimore, is a retired Middle East analyst for the US Department of Defense[/b]. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
... MORE NEO-CON LIES: Kerry Statement Distorted to Push Flip-Flop Claim
07.31.04 (8:13 am)   [edit]
In their desperate efforts to paint Senator John Kerry (D-MA) as a serial flip-flopper, President Bush's reelection campaign has resorted to gross distortions of his public statements. The campaign is now trumpeting the fact that Kerry, after voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, described himself "as an anti-war candidate."1 The claim is based on a clip of Kerry's 1/6/04 appearance on Hardball with Chris Mathews, which is featured in a new 12 minute "documentary" on Kerry produced by the Republican National Committee. This is how the RNC presents the interview:2

MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?"

KERRY: "I am - Yeah."

The real transcript of the interview reveals that the clip was doctored. Kerry was not trying to shift his position but actually reiterating his belief that President Bush made a mistake in the way he went to war. Here is the actual transcript:3

MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought...Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.

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

1. "Extreme Makeover Day 4 Fact Sheet: Setting the Record Straight", BushCheney04.com, 7/29/04.
2. "RNC Ad Backgrounder",DemsExtreme Makeover.com, 7/28/04.
3. Hardball, Nexis-Lexis Transcript, 1/6/04
 
... MORE NEO-CON LIES: Kerry Statement Distorted to Push Flip-Flop Claim
07.31.04 (8:10 am)   [edit]
In their desperate efforts to paint Senator John Kerry (D-MA) as a serial flip-flopper, President Bush's reelection campaign has resorted to gross distortions of his public statements. The campaign is now trumpeting the fact that Kerry, after voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, described himself "as an anti-war candidate."1 The claim is based on a clip of Kerry's 1/6/04 appearance on Hardball with Chris Mathews, which is featured in a new 12 minute "documentary" on Kerry produced by the Republican National Committee. This is how the RNC presents the interview:2

MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Are you one of the anti-war candidates?"

KERRY: "I am - Yeah."

The real transcript of the interview reveals that the clip was doctored. Kerry was not trying to shift his position but actually reiterating his belief that President Bush made a mistake in the way he went to war. Here is the actual transcript:3

MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought...Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.

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

1. "Extreme Makeover Day 4 Fact Sheet: Setting the Record Straight", BushCheney04.com, 7/29/04.
2. "RNC Ad Backgrounder",DemsExtreme Makeover.com, 7/28/04.
3. Hardball, Nexis-Lexis Transcript, 1/6/04
 
Zogby Poll: The Ground Shifts Away From Bush/Cheney In Favor Of Kerry/Edwards ...
07.30.04 (5:42 pm)   [edit]
[b]While Democrats Rally in Boston, Kerry-Edwards Leads By Five Points Over Bush-Cheney (48%-43%), New Zogby America Poll Reveals[/b]

While the Democratic Party rallies in Boston at the Democratic National Convention, the presidential ticket of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards holds a five point lead over President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney (48%-43%), according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1001 likely voters was conducted from Monday through Thursday (July 26-29, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.2.

Presidential Ticket % / July 27-29 / July 6-7

Kerry-Edwards / 48 / 48

Bush-Cheney / 43 / 46

Undecided / 8 / 5

In other words, the ground is shifting away from Bush/Cheney and are now in the undecided column ...

Zogby International conducted telephone interviews of 1001 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from Monday, July 26 through Thursday, July 29. The margin of error is +/3.2 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender and presidential voter to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups. - http://www.zogby.com/news/Rea...
 
John F. Kerry Gave A Great Speech & It Is Driving The Right-Wing Neo-Cons Crazy!!! LOL!!!
07.30.04 (7:41 am)   [edit]
[b]Full text: John Kerry speech

The full text of Senator John Kerry's speech to the Democratic National Convention, accepting the party's nomination to challenge George Bush for the US presidency: [/b]

[u]I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty[/u].

We are here tonight because we love our country.

We are proud of what America is and what it can become.

My fellow Americans: we are here tonight united in one simple purpose: to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.

A great American novelist wrote that you can't go home again. He could not have imagined this evening. Tonight, I am home. Home where my public life began and those who made it possible live. Home where our nation's history was written in blood, idealism, and hope. Home where my parents showed me the values of family, faith, and country.

Thank you, all of you, for a welcome home I will never forget.

I wish my parents could share this moment. They went to their rest in the last few years, but their example, their inspiration, their gift of open eyes, open mind, and endless world are bigger and more lasting than any words.

I was born in Colorado, in Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, when my dad was a pilot in World War II. Now, I'm not one to read into things, but guess which wing of the hospital the maternity ward was in? I'm not making this up. I was born in the West Wing!

My mother was the rock of our family as so many mothers are. She stayed up late to help me do my homework. She sat by my bed when I was sick, and she answered the questions of a child who, like all children, found the world full of wonders and mysteries.

She was my den mother when I was a Cub Scout and she was so proud of her fifty year pin as a Girl Scout leader. She gave me her passion for the environment. She taught me to see trees as the cathedrals of nature. And by the power of her example, she showed me that we can and must finish the march toward full equality for all women in our country.

My dad did the things that a boy remembers. He gave me my first model airplane, my first baseball mitt and my first bicycle. He also taught me that we are here for something bigger than ourselves; he lived out the responsibilities and sacrifices of the greatest generation to whom we owe so much.

When I was a young man, he was in the State Department, stationed in Berlin when it and the world were divided between democracy and communism. I have unforgettable memories of being a kid mesmerized by the British, French, and American troops, each of them guarding their own part of the city, and Russians standing guard on the stark line separating East from West. On one occasion, I rode my bike into Soviet East Berlin. And when I proudly told my dad, he promptly grounded me.

But what I learned has stayed with me for a lifetime. I saw how different life was on different sides of the same city. I saw the fear in the eyes of people who were not free. I saw the gratitude of people toward the United States for all that we had done. I felt goose bumps as I got off a military train and heard the Army band strike up "Stars and Stripes Forever." I learned what it meant to be America at our best. I learned the pride of our freedom. And I am determined now to restore that pride to all who look to America.

Mine were greatest generation parents. And as I thank them, we all join together to thank that whole generation for making America strong, for winning World War II, winning the Cold War, and for the great gift of service which brought America fifty years of peace and prosperity.

My parents inspired me to serve, and when I was a junior in high school, John Kennedy called my generation to service. It was the beginning of a great journey, a time to march for civil rights, for voting rights, for the environment, for women, and for peace. We believed we could change the world. And you know what? We did.

But we're not finished. The journey isn't complete. The march isn't over. The promise isn't perfected. Tonight, we're setting out again. And together, we're going to write the next great chapter of America's story.

We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.

I ask you to judge me by my record: As a young prosecutor, I fought for victim's rights and made prosecuting violence against women a priority. When I came to the Senate, I broke with many in my own party to vote for a balanced budget, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I fought to put a 100,000 cops on the street.

And then I reached across the aisle to work with John McCain, to find the truth about our POW's and missing in action, and to finally make peace with Vietnam.

I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defence who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.

My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime. The stakes are high. We are a nation at war ¿ a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before. And here at home, wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking. People are working weekends; they're working two jobs, three jobs, and they're still not getting ahead.

We're told that outsourcing jobs is good for America. We're told that new jobs that pay $9,000 less than the jobs that have been lost is the best we can do. They say this is the best economy we've ever had. And they say that anyone who thinks otherwise is a pessimist. Well, here is our answer: There is nothing more pessimistic than saying America can't do better.

We can do better and we will. We're the optimists. For us, this is a country of the future. We're the can do people. And let's not forget what we did in the 1990s. We balanced the budget. We paid down the debt. We created 23 million new jobs. We lifted millions out of poverty and we lifted the standard of living for the middle class. We just need to believe in ourselves and we can do it again.

So tonight, in the city where America's freedom began, only a few blocks from where the sons and daughters of liberty gave birth to our nation here tonight, on behalf of a new birth of freedom on behalf of the middle class who deserve a champion, and those struggling to join it who deserve a fair shot for the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives every day and the families who pray for their return for all those who believe our best days are ahead of us for all of you with great faith in the American people, I accept your nomination for President of the United States.

I am proud that at my side will be a running mate whose life is the story of the American dream and who's worked every day to make that dream real for all Americans Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. And his wonderful wife Elizabeth and their family. This son of a mill worker is ready to lead and next January, Americans will be proud to have a fighter for the middle class to succeed Dick Cheney as Vice President of the United States.

And what can I say about Teresa? She has the strongest moral compass of anyone I know. She's down to earth, nurturing, courageous, wise and smart. She speaks her mind and she speaks the truth, and I love her for that, too. And that's why America will embrace her as the next First Lady of the United States.

For Teresa and me, no matter what the future holds or the past has given us, nothing will ever mean as much as our children. We love them not just for who they are and what they've become, but for being themselves, making us laugh, holding our feet to the fire, and never letting me get away with anything. Thank you, Andre, Alex, Chris, Vanessa, and John.

And in this journey, I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers led by that American hero, a patriot named Max Cleland. Our band of brothers doesn't march together because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little greyer, but we still know how to fight for our country.

And standing with us in that fight are those who shared with me the long season of the primary campaign: Carol Moseley Braun, General Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton.

To all of you, I say thank you for teaching me and testing me but mostly, we say thank you for standing up for our country and giving us the unity to move America forward.

My fellow Americans, the world tonight is very different from the world of four years ago. But I believe the American people are more than equal to the challenge.

Remember the hours after September 11th, when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up the stairs and risked their lives, so that others might live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon. When the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol. When flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It was the worst day we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us.

I am proud that after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. How we wish it had stayed that way.

Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities and I do because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so.

As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honoured tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they can't tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they're out on patrol at night and they don't know what's coming around the next bend. I know what it's like to write letters home telling your family that everything's all right when you're not sure that's true.

As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: "I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent." So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.

And on my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.

I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

We will add 40,000 active duty troops not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.

To all who serve in our armed forces today, I say, help is on the way.

As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.

In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.

We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.

We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.

We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

And the front lines of this battle are not just far away they're right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security. The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families. As President, I will not evade or equivocate; I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America.

And tonight, we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.

You see that flag up there. We call her Old Glory. The stars and stripes forever. I fought under that flag, as did so many of you here and all across our country. That flag flew from the gun turret right behind my head. It was shot through and through and tattered, but it never ceased to wave in the wind. It draped the caskets of men I served with and friends I grew up with. For us, that flag is the most powerful symbol of who we are and what we believe in. Our strength. Our diversity. Our love of country. All that makes America both great and good.

That flag doesn't belong to any president. It doesn't belong to any ideology and it doesn't belong to any political party. It belongs to all the American people.

My fellow citizens, elections are about choices. And choices are about values. In the end, it's not just policies and programs that matter; the president who sits at that desk must be guided by principle.

For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They're what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for. And it is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families.

You don't value families by kicking kids out of after school programs and taking cops off our streets, so that Enron can get another tax break.

We believe in the family value of caring for our children and protecting the neighbourhoods where they walk and play.

And that is the choice in this election.

You don't value families by denying real prescription drug coverage to seniors, so big drug companies can get another windfall.

We believe in the family value expressed in one of the oldest Commandments: "Honour thy father and thy mother." As President, I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits. And together, we will make sure that senior citizens never have to cut their pills in half because they can't afford life-saving medicine.

And that is the choice in this election.

You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armour for a son or daughter in the service, if you deny veterans health care, or if you tell middle class families to wait for a tax cut, so that the wealthiest among us can get even more.

We believe in the value of doing what's right for everyone in the American family.

And that is the choice in this election.

We believe that what matters most is not narrow appeals masquerading as values, but the shared values that show the true face of America. Not narrow appeals that divide us, but shared values that unite us. Family and faith. Hard work and responsibility. Opportunity for all so that every child, every parent, every worker has an equal shot at living up to their God-given potential.

What does it mean in America today when Dave McCune, a steel worker I met in Canton, Ohio, saw his job sent overseas and the equipment in his factory literally unbolted, crated up, and shipped thousands of miles away along with that job? What does it mean when workers I've met had to train their foreign replacements?

America can do better. So tonight we say: help is on the way.

What does it mean when Mary Ann Knowles, a woman with breast cancer I met in New Hampshire, had to keep working day after day right through her chemotherapy, no matter how sick she felt, because she was terrified of losing her family's health insurance.

America can do better. And help is on the way.

What does it mean when Deborah Kromins from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania works and saves all her life only to find out that her pension has disappeared into thin air and the executive who looted it has bailed out on a golden parachute?

America can do better. And help is on the way.

What does it mean when twenty five percent of the children in Harlem have asthma because of air pollution?

America can do better. And help is on the way.

What does it mean when people are huddled in blankets in the cold, sleeping in Lafayette Park on the doorstep of the White House itself and the number of families living in poverty has risen by three million in the last four years?

America can do better. And help is on the way.

And so we come here tonight to ask: Where is the conscience of our country?

I'll tell you where it is: it's in rural and small town America; it's in urban neighbourhoods and suburban main streets; it's alive in the people I've met in every part of this land. It's bursting in the hearts of Americans who are determined to give our country back its values and its truth.

We value jobs that pay you more not less than you earned before. We value jobs where, when you put in a week's work, you can actually pay your bills, provide for your children, and lift up the quality of your life. We value an America where the middle class is not being squeezed, but doing better.

So here is our economic plan to build a stronger America:

First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing.

Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the future.

Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong in the good old U.S.A.

We value an America that exports products, not jobs and we believe American workers should never have to subsidize the loss of their own job.

Next, we will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against.

And we're going to return to fiscal responsibility because it is the foundation of our economic strength. Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare and will make government live by the rule that every family has to follow: pay as you go.

And let me tell you what we won't do: we won't raise taxes on the middle class. You've heard a lot of false charges about this in recent months. So let me say straight out what I will do as President: I will cut middle class taxes. I will reduce the tax burden on small business. And I will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals who make over $200,000 a year, so we can invest in job creation, health care and education.

Our education plan for a stronger America sets high standards and demands accountability from parents, teachers, and schools. It provides for smaller class sizes and treats teachers like the professionals they are. And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college.

When I was a prosecutor, I met young kids who were in trouble, abandoned by adults. And as President, I am determined that we stop being a nation content to spend $50,000 a year to keep a young person in prison for the rest of their life when we could invest $10,000 to give them Head Start, Early Start, Smart Start, the best possible start in life.

And we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans.

Since 2000, four million people have lost their health insurance. Millions more are struggling to afford it.

You know what's happening. Your premiums, your co-payments, your deductibles have all gone through the roof.

Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums. You'll get to pick your own doctor and patients and doctors, not insurance company bureaucrats, will make medical decisions. Under our plan, Medicare will negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. And all Americans will be able to buy less expensive prescription drugs from countries like Canada.

The story of people struggling for health care is the story of so many Americans. But you know what, it's not the story of senators and members of Congress. Because we give ourselves great health care and you get the bill. Well, I'm here to say, your family's health care is just as important as any politician's in Washington, D.C.

And when I'm President, America will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected it is a right for all Americans.

We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil. What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we only have three percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for fifty-three percent of what we consume?

I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation not the Saudi royal family.

And our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

I've told you about our plans for the economy, for education, for health care, for energy independence. I want you to know more about them. So now I'm going to say something that Franklin Roosevelt could never have said in his acceptance speech: go to johnkerry.com.

I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents. Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honour this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.

My friends, the high road may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And that's why Republicans and Democrats must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small-minded attacks. This is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, group from group, region from region. Maybe some just see us divided into red states and blue states, but I see us as one America red, white, and blue. And when I am President, the government I lead will enlist people of talent, Republicans as well as Democrats, to find the common ground so that no one who has something to contribute will be left on the sidelines.

And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.

These aren't Democratic values. These aren't Republican values. They're American values. We believe in them. They're who we are. And if we honour them, if we believe in ourselves, we can build an America that's stronger at home and respected in the world.

So much promise stretches before us. Americans have always reached for the impossible, looked to the next horizon, and asked: What if?

Two young bicycle mechanics from Dayton asked what if this airplane could take off at Kitty Hawk? It did that and changed the world forever. A young president asked what if we could go to the moon in ten years? And now we're exploring the solar system and the stars themselves. A young generation of entrepreneurs asked, what if we could take all the information in a library and put it on a little chip the size of a fingernail? We did and that too changed the world forever.

And now it's our time to ask: What if?

What if we find a breakthrough to cure Parkinson's, diabetes, Alzheimer's and Aids? What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?

What if we do what adults should do and make sure all our children are safe in the afternoons after school? And what if we have a leadership that's as good as the American dream so that bigotry and hatred never again steal the hope and future of any American?

I learned a lot about these values on that gunboat patrolling the Mekong Delta with young Americans who came from places as different as Iowa and Oregon, Arkansas, Florida and California. No one cared where we went to school. No one cared about our race or our backgrounds. We were literally all in the same boat. We looked out, one for the other and we still do.

That is the kind of America I will lead as President an America where we are all in the same boat.

Never has there been a more urgent moment for Americans to step up and define ourselves. I will work my heart out. But, my fellow citizens, the outcome is in your hands more than mine.

It is time to reach for the next dream. It is time to look to the next horizon. For America, the hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are still to come.

Goodnight, God bless you, and God bless America. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am...
 
------> New Stats Show Bush's Deficit Dishonesty
07.30.04 (7:34 am)   [edit]
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have repeatedly promised America that they would get their record-deficits under control. Last year, President Bush said "My Administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it."1 Similarly, Vice President Cheney said "I am a deficit hawk. So is the president."2 But according to congressional sources, the government is soon expected to project a record federal budget deficit, even as President Bush demands more money for war in Iraq3 , and a $1 trillion proposal for more tax cuts.4

The Associated Press reports the government will project "that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion" - a record5. The President last year tried to deflect blame for the deficit, claiming that "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war.6 " While it is true that the President has spent more than $166 billion on the war,7 the statistics show that his failed economic policies and massive tax cuts for the wealthy are the largest factors contributing to the fiscal demise8. Even the White House budget director essentially acknowledged the President's dishonesty about the cause of the deficit, saying "even if we had never been attacked, and incurred no costs of war or recovery from September 11th, and no tax relief had become law, we still would have gone into deficit9."

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

1. "The President's Budget Proposal," New York Times,2/04/03.
2. Transcript of Meet the Press, 9/14/03.
3. "Bush asks for $25 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan ," CNN.com, 5/06/04.
4. "Bush wants tax cuts to stay," Washington Times, 1/20/04.
5. "White House to project record deficit," Seattle Post Intelligencer, 7/28/04.
6. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, Whitehouse.gov, 4/28/03.
7. "$166 Billion and Counting",Mercury News 9/15/03.
8. "Deficit Picture Even Grimmer Than New CBO Projections Suggest",Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/26/03.
9. Testimony of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director of Office of Management and Budget Before House Ways and Means, Whitehouse.gov, 2/4-5/03.
 
------> New Stats Show Bush's Deficit Dishonesty
07.30.04 (7:30 am)   [edit]
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have repeatedly promised America that they would get their record-deficits under control. Last year, President Bush said "My Administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it."1 Similarly, Vice President Cheney said "I am a deficit hawk. So is the president."2 But according to congressional sources, the government is soon expected to project a record federal budget deficit, even as President Bush demands more money for war in Iraq3 , and a $1 trillion proposal for more tax cuts.4

The Associated Press reports the government will project "that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion" - a record5. The President last year tried to deflect blame for the deficit, claiming that "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war.6 " While it is true that the President has spent more than $166 billion on the war,7 the statistics show that his failed economic policies and massive tax cuts for the wealthy are the largest factors contributing to the fiscal demise8. Even the White House budget director essentially acknowledged the President's dishonesty about the cause of the deficit, saying "even if we had never been attacked, and incurred no costs of war or recovery from September 11th, and no tax relief had become law, we still would have gone into deficit9."

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

1. "The President's Budget Proposal," New York Times,2/04/03.
2. Transcript of Meet the Press, 9/14/03.
3. "Bush asks for $25 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan ," CNN.com, 5/06/04.
4. "Bush wants tax cuts to stay," Washington Times, 1/20/04.
5. "White House to project record deficit," Seattle Post Intelligencer, 7/28/04.
6. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, Whitehouse.gov, 4/28/03.
7. "$166 Billion and Counting",Mercury News 9/15/03.
8. "Deficit Picture Even Grimmer Than New CBO Projections Suggest",Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/26/03.
9. Testimony of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director of Office of Management and Budget Before House Ways and Means, Whitehouse.gov, 2/4-5/03.
 
------> Bush Administration Misleads About Afghanistan Too ...
07.30.04 (7:28 am)   [edit]
Vice President Dick Cheney claimed yesterday that under the President's leadership we "closed down the training camps [in Afghanistan] where terrorists trained to kill Americans."1 His comments are not only bold, but a look at the record shows they are deliberately misleading. Just two weeks ago the Bush administration essentially contradicted the claim, warning Americans of an imminent attack on the U.S. homeland from terrorists operating in Afghanistan.

As CNN reported on July 8, Bush administration officials are warning that "a plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members." According to the administration, these terrorists are operating in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.2

Unfortunately, in 2002, the Bush administration shifted key special forces out of Afghanistan, effectively removing them from the hunt for al Qaeda. These troops were sent to prepare for an Iraq invasion.3 That leaves the U.S. with only about 15,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down al Qaeda, whom they now say are plotting an imminent attack against the country.4 Meanwhile, the Pentagon has designed plans to add troops to the 140,000 already stationed in Iraq5 - a country that never had any collaborative relationship with al Qaeda6 or connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks7 (even though the Bush administration has claimed both).8

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

1. The Vice President Delivers Remarks at a Reception for Senatorial Candidate Bill Jones, WhiteHouse.Gov, 7/27/04.
2. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S", CNN.com 7/08/04.
3. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions ," USA Today, 3/28/04.
4. "Afghanistan: 'Unrelenting Battle'," CBSNews.com, 5/26/04.
5. "U.S. force in Iraq to grow as Marine deployment pushed up," USA Today, 6/08/04.
6. "Administration Moves to Regain Initiative on 9/11 ", New York Times, 8/27/04.
7. "Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link", BBC News, 9/18/03.
8. "Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged",The Boston Globe 9/16/03.
 
------> Bush Administration Misleads About Afghanistan Too ...
07.30.04 (7:24 am)   [edit]
Vice President Dick Cheney claimed yesterday that under the President's leadership we "closed down the training camps [in Afghanistan] where terrorists trained to kill Americans."1 His comments are not only bold, but a look at the record shows they are deliberately misleading. Just two weeks ago the Bush administration essentially contradicted the claim, warning Americans of an imminent attack on the U.S. homeland from terrorists operating in Afghanistan.

As CNN reported on July 8, Bush administration officials are warning that "a plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members." According to the administration, these terrorists are operating in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.2

Unfortunately, in 2002, the Bush administration shifted key special forces out of Afghanistan, effectively removing them from the hunt for al Qaeda. These troops were sent to prepare for an Iraq invasion.3 That leaves the U.S. with only about 15,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down al Qaeda, whom they now say are plotting an imminent attack against the country.4 Meanwhile, the Pentagon has designed plans to add troops to the 140,000 already stationed in Iraq5 - a country that never had any collaborative relationship with al Qaeda6 or connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks7 (even though the Bush administration has claimed both).8

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

1. The Vice President Delivers Remarks at a Reception for Senatorial Candidate Bill Jones, WhiteHouse.Gov, 7/27/04.
2. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S", CNN.com 7/08/04.
3. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions ," USA Today, 3/28/04.
4. "Afghanistan: 'Unrelenting Battle'," CBSNews.com, 5/26/04.
5. "U.S. force in Iraq to grow as Marine deployment pushed up," USA Today, 6/08/04.
6. "Administration Moves to Regain Initiative on 9/11 ", New York Times, 8/27/04.
7. "Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link", BBC News, 9/18/03.
8. "Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged",The Boston Globe 9/16/03.
 
... New Stats Show Bush's Deficit Dishonesty
07.29.04 (8:01 am)   [edit]
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have repeatedly promised America that they would get their record-deficits under control. Last year, President Bush said "My Administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it."1 Similarly, Vice President Cheney said "I am a deficit hawk. So is the president."2 But according to congressional sources, the government is soon expected to project a record federal budget deficit, even as President Bush demands more money for war in Iraq3 , and a $1 trillion proposal for more tax cuts.4

The Associated Press reports the government will project "that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion" - a record5. The President last year tried to deflect blame for the deficit, claiming that "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war.6 " While it is true that the President has spent more than $166 billion on the war,7 the statistics show that his failed economic policies and massive tax cuts for the wealthy are the largest factors contributing to the fiscal demise8. Even the White House budget director essentially acknowledged the President's dishonesty about the cause of the deficit, saying "even if we had never been attacked, and incurred no costs of war or recovery from September 11th, and no tax relief had become law, we still would have gone into deficit9."

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

1. "The President's Budget Proposal," New York Times,2/04/03.
2. Transcript of Meet the Press, 9/14/03.
3. "Bush asks for $25 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan ," CNN.com, 5/06/04.
4. "Bush wants tax cuts to stay," Washington Times, 1/20/04.
5. "White House to project record deficit," Seattle Post Intelligencer, 7/28/04.
6. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, Whitehouse.gov, 4/28/03.
7. "$166 Billion and Counting",Mercury News 9/15/03.
8. "Deficit Picture Even Grimmer Than New CBO Projections Suggest",Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/26/03.
9. Testimony of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director of Office of Management and Budget Before House Ways and Means, Whitehouse.gov, 2/4-5/03.
 
------> New Stats Show Bush's Deficit Dishonesty ------>
07.29.04 (8:00 am)   [edit]
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have repeatedly promised America that they would get their record-deficits under control. Last year, President Bush said "My Administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it."1 Similarly, Vice President Cheney said "I am a deficit hawk. So is the president."2 But according to congressional sources, the government is soon expected to project a record federal budget deficit, even as President Bush demands more money for war in Iraq3 , and a $1 trillion proposal for more tax cuts.4

The Associated Press reports the government will project "that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion" - a record5. The President last year tried to deflect blame for the deficit, claiming that "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war.6 " While it is true that the President has spent more than $166 billion on the war,7 the statistics show that his failed economic policies and massive tax cuts for the wealthy are the largest factors contributing to the fiscal demise8. Even the White House budget director essentially acknowledged the President's dishonesty about the cause of the deficit, saying "even if we had never been attacked, and incurred no costs of war or recovery from September 11th, and no tax relief had become law, we still would have gone into deficit9."

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

1. "The President's Budget Proposal," New York Times,2/04/03.
2. Transcript of Meet the Press, 9/14/03.
3. "Bush asks for $25 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan ," CNN.com, 5/06/04.
4. "Bush wants tax cuts to stay," Washington Times, 1/20/04.
5. "White House to project record deficit," Seattle Post Intelligencer, 7/28/04.
6. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, Whitehouse.gov, 4/28/03.
7. "$166 Billion and Counting",Mercury News 9/15/03.
8. "Deficit Picture Even Grimmer Than New CBO Projections Suggest",Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/26/03.
9. Testimony of Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director of Office of Management and Budget Before House Ways and Means, Whitehouse.gov, 2/4-5/03.
 
The Un-Patriot Act and You ...
07.29.04 (7:55 am)   [edit]
=http://img33.photobucket.com/...

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

[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] Un-American Patriot Act http://www.tblog.com/template... is a heinous violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights ...[/b] The traitorous Bush regime is systematically dismantling our Republic and their unprecedented secrecy is alarmingly dangerous and extremely destructive to our way of life ...

[u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u]A History of Refusing to Release Documents[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]9/11 Commission Report Takes on Patriot Act, Government Secrecy; ACLU Outlines Civil Liberties Problems With Cabinet-Level Spymaster[/b] - http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[b]Contact:[/b] Media@dcaclu.org ( mailto:Media@dcaclu.org )

[b]WASHINGTON - The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration.[/b]

"Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House have not made a compelling case for either[b] the administration’s[i] obsession [/i]with secrecy or its Patriot Act[/b]," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "This bipartisan report should serve as a wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the Patriot Act."

[b]As the report states on page 394, "The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use."[/b]

The long-awaited report, which contains the official findings of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terrorism attacks, contains significant recommendations germane to the debate over civil liberties that has raged for more than two-and-a-half years now.

The report echoes criticisms by the ACLU and others that the Justice Department has so far failed to demonstrate why the expanded surveillance and investigative powers in the Patriot Act are needed to fight terrorism. The commission’s findings, the ACLU said, strongly confirm the need to maintain the Patriot Act sunsets.

The sunset provisions - which apply to some of the Patriot Act’s most controversial provisions - would require Congress to reconsider about a tenth of the law in December 2005. Provisions that sunset include the infamous "library records" provision, which reduces judicial review when counter-intelligence agents seek secret court orders for the production of a wide array of personal information, including library, business, genetic, medical and even gun purchase records.

[b]Notably, the commission does not recommend that any sunseted provisions should be made permanent.[/b]

In addition, the commission’s report contains a list of 10 separate missed "operational" opportunities to foil the attacks. While the report stops short of calling the attacks preventable, it clearly shows that the intelligence and law enforcement communities were not using their existing counter-terrorism powers to their fullest potential.

"The administration has yet to explain why it didn’t use its already expansive power to the fullest before 9/11," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The commission’s report suggests that the White House claim that the worst parts of the Patriot Act are needed to stop terrorism is dubious, to say the least."

[b]The report also cites both excessive government secrecy and overclassification as threats to open government and, more notably, as threats to national security.[/b] The ACLU pointed to the finding as evidence that the government should stop stonewalling the series of Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on the Patriot Act, the Abu Ghraib scandal and other matters of public interest.

Characterizing the current Congressional intelligence watchdog system as "dysfunctional," the commission’s strongest recommendation is the need for more aggressive Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, including making the intelligence budget public. The ACLU applauded the move but emphasized that the structure of the committee would be less important than whether its operation was in turn open to public scrutiny.

[b]As the report stated: "Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage over-classification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets."[/b]

Contrary to earlier reports, the commission explicitly rejects - in part, for civil liberties reasons - the creation of a domestic intelligence agency modeled after Britain’s MI-5. The ACLU, a critic of any domestic intelligence activity that is not linked to law enforcement, applauded the move.

Unfortunately, there are some recommendations that raise civil liberties concerns; two of the most salient are calls for the backdoor creation of national ID cards in the form of a standardized drivers licenses and a cabinet-level intelligence czar.

"A Senate-confirmed intelligence director sitting in the White House would be in the hip pocket of the president," Romero added.

The ACLU questioned whether pitting the FBI’s culture of case-oriented law enforcement against the CIA’s culture of covert, subversive operations, under one chief, would result in a further weakening of civil liberties protections in the FBI’s intelligence work. Similarly, if the new director were to have operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence work - that is, real authority over both the FBI and the CIA - he or she could blur the lines between the agencies’ two very different missions.

[b]Finally, the ACLU expressed concern that if the director of national intelligence ends up controlling the purse strings of the entire intelligence community, there are very few contingencies that could keep the director from exercising specific, operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence[/b].

[b]The 9-11 Commission's report can be found at: http://www.9-11commission.gov...

For more information, see: http://www.aclu.org/safeandfr...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

 
9/11 Commission Report Takes on Bush/Cheney's Un-American Patriot Act ...
07.29.04 (7:53 am)   [edit]
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] Un-American Patriot Act http://www.tblog.com/template... is a heinous violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights ...[/b] The traitorous Bush regime is systematically dismantling our Republic and their unprecedented secrecy is alarmingly dangerous and extremely destructive to our way of life ...

[u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u]A History of Refusing to Release Documents[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]9/11 Commission Report Takes on Patriot Act, Government Secrecy; ACLU Outlines Civil Liberties Problems With Cabinet-Level Spymaster[/b] - http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[b]Contact:[/b] Media@dcaclu.org ( mailto:Media@dcaclu.org )

[b]WASHINGTON - The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration.[/b]

"Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House have not made a compelling case for either[b] the administration’s[i] obsession [/i]with secrecy or its Patriot Act[/b]," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "This bipartisan report should serve as a wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the Patriot Act."

[b]As the report states on page 394, "The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use."[/b]

The long-awaited report, which contains the official findings of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terrorism attacks, contains significant recommendations germane to the debate over civil liberties that has raged for more than two-and-a-half years now.

The report echoes criticisms by the ACLU and others that the Justice Department has so far failed to demonstrate why the expanded surveillance and investigative powers in the Patriot Act are needed to fight terrorism. The commission’s findings, the ACLU said, strongly confirm the need to maintain the Patriot Act sunsets.

The sunset provisions - which apply to some of the Patriot Act’s most controversial provisions - would require Congress to reconsider about a tenth of the law in December 2005. Provisions that sunset include the infamous "library records" provision, which reduces judicial review when counter-intelligence agents seek secret court orders for the production of a wide array of personal information, including library, business, genetic, medical and even gun purchase records.

[b]Notably, the commission does not recommend that any sunseted provisions should be made permanent.[/b]

In addition, the commission’s report contains a list of 10 separate missed "operational" opportunities to foil the attacks. While the report stops short of calling the attacks preventable, it clearly shows that the intelligence and law enforcement communities were not using their existing counter-terrorism powers to their fullest potential.

"The administration has yet to explain why it didn’t use its already expansive power to the fullest before 9/11," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The commission’s report suggests that the White House claim that the worst parts of the Patriot Act are needed to stop terrorism is dubious, to say the least."

[b]The report also cites both excessive government secrecy and overclassification as threats to open government and, more notably, as threats to national security.[/b] The ACLU pointed to the finding as evidence that the government should stop stonewalling the series of Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on the Patriot Act, the Abu Ghraib scandal and other matters of public interest.

Characterizing the current Congressional intelligence watchdog system as "dysfunctional," the commission’s strongest recommendation is the need for more aggressive Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, including making the intelligence budget public. The ACLU applauded the move but emphasized that the structure of the committee would be less important than whether its operation was in turn open to public scrutiny.

[b]As the report stated: "Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage over-classification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets."[/b]

Contrary to earlier reports, the commission explicitly rejects - in part, for civil liberties reasons - the creation of a domestic intelligence agency modeled after Britain’s MI-5. The ACLU, a critic of any domestic intelligence activity that is not linked to law enforcement, applauded the move.

Unfortunately, there are some recommendations that raise civil liberties concerns; two of the most salient are calls for the backdoor creation of national ID cards in the form of a standardized drivers licenses and a cabinet-level intelligence czar.

"A Senate-confirmed intelligence director sitting in the White House would be in the hip pocket of the president," Romero added.

The ACLU questioned whether pitting the FBI’s culture of case-oriented law enforcement against the CIA’s culture of covert, subversive operations, under one chief, would result in a further weakening of civil liberties protections in the FBI’s intelligence work. Similarly, if the new director were to have operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence work - that is, real authority over both the FBI and the CIA - he or she could blur the lines between the agencies’ two very different missions.

[b]Finally, the ACLU expressed concern that if the director of national intelligence ends up controlling the purse strings of the entire intelligence community, there are very few contingencies that could keep the director from exercising specific, operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence[/b].

[b]The 9-11 Commission's report can be found at: http://www.9-11commission.gov...

For more information, see: http://www.aclu.org/safeandfr...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

 
Beware: The Patriot Act and You!!!
07.29.04 (7:51 am)   [edit]
=http://img33.photobucket.com/...

[u][b]Mother Jones[/b][/u], http://www.motherjones.com/ne...
 
Beware: The Patriot Act and You!!!
07.29.04 (7:48 am)   [edit]
=http://img33.photobucket.com/...

[u][b]Mother Jones[/b][/u], http://www.motherjones.com/ne...
 
9/11 Commission Report Takes on Bush/Cheney's Un-American Patriot Act ...
07.29.04 (7:46 am)   [edit]
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] Un-American Patriot Act http://www.tblog.com/template... is a heinous violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights ...[/b] The traitorous Bush regime is systematically dismantling our Republic and their unprecedented secrecy is alarmingly dangerous and extremely destructive to our way of life ...

[u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u]A History of Refusing to Release Documents[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]9/11 Commission Report Takes on Patriot Act, Government Secrecy; ACLU Outlines Civil Liberties Problems With Cabinet-Level Spymaster[/b] - http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[b]Contact:[/b] Media@dcaclu.org ( mailto:Media@dcaclu.org )

[b]WASHINGTON - The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration.[/b]

"Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House have not made a compelling case for either[b] the administration’s[i] obsession [/i]with secrecy or its Patriot Act[/b]," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "This bipartisan report should serve as a wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the Patriot Act."

[b]As the report states on page 394, "The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use."[/b]

The long-awaited report, which contains the official findings of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terrorism attacks, contains significant recommendations germane to the debate over civil liberties that has raged for more than two-and-a-half years now.

The report echoes criticisms by the ACLU and others that the Justice Department has so far failed to demonstrate why the expanded surveillance and investigative powers in the Patriot Act are needed to fight terrorism. The commission’s findings, the ACLU said, strongly confirm the need to maintain the Patriot Act sunsets.

The sunset provisions - which apply to some of the Patriot Act’s most controversial provisions - would require Congress to reconsider about a tenth of the law in December 2005. Provisions that sunset include the infamous "library records" provision, which reduces judicial review when counter-intelligence agents seek secret court orders for the production of a wide array of personal information, including library, business, genetic, medical and even gun purchase records.

[b]Notably, the commission does not recommend that any sunseted provisions should be made permanent.[/b]

In addition, the commission’s report contains a list of 10 separate missed "operational" opportunities to foil the attacks. While the report stops short of calling the attacks preventable, it clearly shows that the intelligence and law enforcement communities were not using their existing counter-terrorism powers to their fullest potential.

"The administration has yet to explain why it didn’t use its already expansive power to the fullest before 9/11," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The commission’s report suggests that the White House claim that the worst parts of the Patriot Act are needed to stop terrorism is dubious, to say the least."

[b]The report also cites both excessive government secrecy and overclassification as threats to open government and, more notably, as threats to national security.[/b] The ACLU pointed to the finding as evidence that the government should stop stonewalling the series of Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on the Patriot Act, the Abu Ghraib scandal and other matters of public interest.

Characterizing the current Congressional intelligence watchdog system as "dysfunctional," the commission’s strongest recommendation is the need for more aggressive Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, including making the intelligence budget public. The ACLU applauded the move but emphasized that the structure of the committee would be less important than whether its operation was in turn open to public scrutiny.

[b]As the report stated: "Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage over-classification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets."[/b]

Contrary to earlier reports, the commission explicitly rejects - in part, for civil liberties reasons - the creation of a domestic intelligence agency modeled after Britain’s MI-5. The ACLU, a critic of any domestic intelligence activity that is not linked to law enforcement, applauded the move.

Unfortunately, there are some recommendations that raise civil liberties concerns; two of the most salient are calls for the backdoor creation of national ID cards in the form of a standardized drivers licenses and a cabinet-level intelligence czar.

"A Senate-confirmed intelligence director sitting in the White House would be in the hip pocket of the president," Romero added.

The ACLU questioned whether pitting the FBI’s culture of case-oriented law enforcement against the CIA’s culture of covert, subversive operations, under one chief, would result in a further weakening of civil liberties protections in the FBI’s intelligence work. Similarly, if the new director were to have operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence work - that is, real authority over both the FBI and the CIA - he or she could blur the lines between the agencies’ two very different missions.

[b]Finally, the ACLU expressed concern that if the director of national intelligence ends up controlling the purse strings of the entire intelligence community, there are very few contingencies that could keep the director from exercising specific, operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence[/b].

[b]The 9-11 Commission's report can be found at: http://www.9-11commission.gov...

For more information, see: http://www.aclu.org/safeandfr...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

 
John F. Kerry Is A War Hero ... Those Who Malign Him Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves ...
07.28.04 (5:28 pm)   [edit]
[b]The Reverend David Alston served with John F. Kerry in Vietnam and spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Read his speech on http://www.tblog.com/template... . Also take time to check-out "Veterans for Kerry-Edwards" on http://www.johnkerry.com/comm... .[/b]

Read "Three Reasons Why John F. Kerry Will Be A Better Commander-in-Chief Than Bush" on http://www.tblog.com/template...

Reports have been published showing that Bush was AWOL http://www.awolbush.com while partying and avoiding service even though all he had to do was show-up to [i]his "Champagne Brigade" party-unit [/i]that never was intended to face battle or go to war, but instead was designed to protect the brats of rich plutocrats with no sense of patriotic duty to our nation.

[b]Read:[/b]

AWOL Drunkard Not-A-Hero Bush Update: New Records Indicate Gap in Bush Military Service, http://www.tblog.com/template...

'You can't be a war president one day, a peace president the next', http://www.tblog.com/template...

Missing Records Prove Bush Was AWOL For 5 Months In 1972!!!, http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
AWOL Drunkard Not-A-Hero Bush Update: New Records Indicate Gap in Bush Military Service
07.28.04 (12:57 pm)   [edit]
[b]New Records Indicate Gap in Bush Military Service [/b]

Earlier this year, the White House released documents it said proved President Bush fulfilled his National Guard service during the Vietnam War. White House spokesman Scott McClellan at the time said the documents "means he served" and that there was no longer any question about whether the President actually showed up to fulfill his duty. But according to new records released late last week, Bush did not accumulate any flying hours at all for several months during 1972.

According to [i]Bloomberg[/i] news service, newly released computerized records provide no record of Bush's whereabouts between July 1972 and September 1972 when he was supposed to be serving in the Alabama National Guard.1 Earlier this month, the Pentagon said those documents had been "inadvertently destroyed."2

[i]The Associated Press [/i]is currently suing for the release of copies of all the records, which are legally required to exist at the Texas state archives.3 However, President Bush has refused to authorize their release, forcing [i]AP[/i] to invoke the Freedom of Information Act.

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

1. "Bush Records Show No Flight Service During July-September '72," Bloomberg.com, 07/23/04.
2. "Bush Military Records Destroyed," CBSNEWS.com, 07/09/04.
3. "AP Sues for Access to Bush Guard Records," SunHerald.com, 06/22/04.
 
One Smart Man You Won't See at the Republican 'Rich Cronies Only' Fest: RONALD REAGAN JR.!!!
07.28.04 (9:13 am)   [edit]
[b]Democrats' Reagan coup[/b]

RONALD Reagan Jr, the son of one of the Republican Party's great heroes, stood before the Democratic Party faithful yesterday and urged their presidential candidate, John Kerry, on to victory.

Angered by the Bush Administration's religiously based restrictions on stem-cell research that could cure Alzheimer's disease, which was afflicting his father when he died, Mr Reagan said voters faced a clear choice.

"We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology," he said.

"It does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and wellbeing of the many."

He spoke at the Democratic National Convention, where Mr Bush's divisive policies and Iraq and the damage it had done to America's reputation dominated, despite the theme being Senator Kerry's "lifetime of strength and service".

Senator Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said her husband, as president, would not "mistake stubbornness for strength" and would make America "shining, hopeful, and bright once again".

Senator Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, is polling well behind President George W. Bush on the pivotal issue of fighting terrorism, so his wife offered reassurance.

"John is a fighter. He earned his medals the old-fashioned way: by putting his life on the line for his country. No one will defend this nation more vigorously than he will, and he will always be first in the line of fire," she said.

"But he also knows the importance of getting it right.

"For him, the names of too many friends inscribed in the cold stone of the Vietnam Memorial testify to the awful toll exacted by leaders who mistake stubbornness for strength," she said.

The surprise yesterday was a little-known Senate aspirant and rising star, Barack Obama, the son of an African goat herder, who electrified the room by calling for an end to the darkness of the Bush years.

"When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going," he said.

Party patriarch Senator Ted Kennedy tore into Mr Bush for invading Iraq and "squandering the enormous goodwill" America enjoyed after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

He said in his four decades in politics, no poll was more urgent and important or carried more profound consequences.

"The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush," he said.

Some of the most raucous applause came for the party's youngest campaigner.

Ilana Wexler, 12, told cheering delegates that Vice-President Dick Cheney's language should earn him some schoolroom-style discipline.

"Recently, the Vice-President used a really bad word," Illana said, referring to a profanity Mr Cheney recently hurled at an opponent in the Senate. "If I said that word, I would be put in a timeout. I think he should be in a long timeout."

Illana gained attention after she founded KidsforKerry.org, an online organisation of young people who are trying to rally support for the Democratic presidential hopeful, even though they're too young to vote.

She is trying to spread the message that children count, and has so far raised several thousand dollars for the Massachusetts senator. - http://www.heraldsun.news.com...,5478,10274341%255E663,00 .html
 
"Great Dumb Remarks Of American History":-- Bush's 9/11 Farce ...
07.28.04 (9:04 am)   [edit]
[b]Bush's 9/11 Farce [/b]

Back before Jonas Salk developed his polio vaccine in 1952, summer could be a bad time for America's children. The fear of polio often kept them indoors, away from the beach or out of the pool. So it came as something of a surprise when the government somehow ran out of the vaccine and the secretary of health, education and welfare, Oveta Culp Hobby, uttered one of the great dumb remarks of American history: "No one could have foreseen the public demand for the vaccine."

The spirit of Mrs. Hobby lives on in George W. Bush. Almost three years after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 -- the biggest intelligence failure in U.S. history -- and after his own administration went to war for reasons that did not exist, the president has ordered his crack staff to see which of the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations can be implemented fast and without congressional approval. Bush, you will recall, opposed the creation of the commission in the first place.

"We will move on all fronts very aggressively in the coming days and weeks," a presidential aide told reporters down at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Tex. "We're going to focus on all the recommendations and determine which ones can be done through executive branch action. The president said he wants this on a fast track."

This is Hobbyism at its most egregious. She, too, was a wealthy Texan, and maybe there is a kind of softheadedness that afflicts that state's more affluent citizens. But it takes a New York kind of chutzpah for Bush to suddenly announce he will do what he has put off doing for lo these past three years. In that time the president steadfastly stood by his team of jolly incompetents who, rather than explain what had gone wrong, merely slapped Bush on the back and bonded with him in a manly fashion. George Tenet stayed at the head of the CIA even after he had assured Bush that it was a "slam-dunk" that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction.

Why the sudden alacrity? It's because the chairman and vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton, have been all over the airwaves warning that another terrorist attack could be imminent and that the nation's intelligence apparatus, so obviously broken, has yet to be fixed. They recommended a host of measures, some of which -- improved border and port security, an integrated "watch list," etc. -- you would have thought would have been implemented on Sept. 12, 2001. Insistently, the commissioners recommended speed. To paraphrase: Lives are in danger and little is being done.

So dire is the situation that even Congress is threatening action. It will actually hold hearings in August and then, if the past is prologue, do nothing more. Very often this is the very best thing Congress can do for a grateful nation, but not in this case. Some serious work needs to be done -- more serious than campaigning or taking a vacation or, as is happening here, downing the canapes so kindly supplied by lobbyists. In fact, there is something a bit wacky about the Democratic Party taking a week to mount a meaningless Mardi Gras when the terrorism clock supposedly ticks closer to midnight.

Still, it is the president who runs the government. Now he suddenly discovers he is expected to do something about national security. He cannot be serious -- and rest assured he is not. The many months of inactivity in this area offer eloquent testimony to Bush's firm belief that little needs to be fixed. In the same way he could not answer earlier this year what mistakes he had made as president, he cannot even say what mistakes his government made that might have led to Sept. 11 and the debacle in Iraq.

Now we are engaged in a great farce. Outside my hotel room, a good piece of the nation's political talent is engaged in a purposeless convention to nominate a man who has already been nominated. And down in Crawford, the White House staff is dutifully feeding the press accounts of Bush's newfound concern about what ails the intelligence community and even -- imagine! -- that Bush took the Sept. 11 commission's report with him. From somewhere, Oveta Culp Hobby smiles. She is finally off the hook. - http://www.washingtonpost.com...
 
---> New Records Indicate Gap in Bush Military Service ... (Dubya was AWOL)!!!
07.28.04 (8:59 am)   [edit]
Earlier this year, the White House released documents it said proved President Bush fulfilled his National Guard service during the Vietnam War. White House spokesman Scott McClellan at the time said the documents "means he served" and that there was no longer any question about whether the President actually showed up to fulfill his duty. But according to new records released late last week, Bush did not accumulate any flying hours at all for several months during 1972.

According to [i]Bloomberg[/i] news service, newly released computerized records provide no record of Bush's whereabouts between July 1972 and September 1972 when he was supposed to be serving in the Alabama National Guard.1 Earlier this month, the Pentagon said those documents had been "inadvertently destroyed."2

[i]The Associated Press [/i]is currently suing for the release of copies of all the records, which are legally required to exist at the Texas state archives.3 However, President Bush has refused to authorize their release, forcing [i]AP[/i] to invoke the Freedom of Information Act.

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

1. "Bush Records Show No Flight Service During July-September '72," Bloomberg.com, 07/23/04.
2. "Bush Military Records Destroyed," CBSNEWS.com, 07/09/04.
3. "AP Sues for Access to Bush Guard Records," SunHerald.com, 06/22/04.
 
---> New Records Indicate Gap in Bush Military Service ... (Dubya was AWOL)!!!
07.28.04 (8:56 am)   [edit]
Earlier this year, the White House released documents it said proved President Bush fulfilled his National Guard service during the Vietnam War. White House spokesman Scott McClellan at the time said the documents "means he served" and that there was no longer any question about whether the President actually showed up to fulfill his duty. But according to new records released late last week, Bush did not accumulate any flying hours at all for several months during 1972.

According to [i]Bloomberg[/i] news service, newly released computerized records provide no record of Bush's whereabouts between July 1972 and September 1972 when he was supposed to be serving in the Alabama National Guard.1 Earlier this month, the Pentagon said those documents had been "inadvertently destroyed."2

[i]The Associated Press [/i]is currently suing for the release of copies of all the records, which are legally required to exist at the Texas state archives.3 However, President Bush has refused to authorize their release, forcing [i]AP[/i] to invoke the Freedom of Information Act.

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

1. "Bush Records Show No Flight Service During July-September '72," Bloomberg.com, 07/23/04.
2. "Bush Military Records Destroyed," CBSNEWS.com, 07/09/04.
3. "AP Sues for Access to Bush Guard Records," SunHerald.com, 06/22/04.
 
...... Bush blew it — the inescapable 9/11 conclusion ......
07.27.04 (8:21 am)   [edit]
[i]'I think everyone knows what happened could have been prevented. Of course, they'd never admit that' [/i]- Melodie Homer, Marlton, N.J.

[i]'It was very upsetting that the president on Aug. 6, 2001, at the daily briefing ignored the notice about al-Qaeda. It was a very strong warning and it was ignored. That's one that we know about. How many more warnings that we don't about[/i]?' - Judy Reiss, Lower Makefield, Pa.

These women, whose husband and son, respectively, were killed in the 9-11 attacks, have only to finish their thoughts…Bush blew it.

It happened on George W. Bush's watch. He was in charge, he was warned that a disaster was in the offing, he refused to put forth his best efforts to avoid any attacks and nearly 3,000 Americans died.

The 9-11 commission was too timid to say it and even made some stupid comments to cover their cowardice. Headline writers for the major newspapers stated that the commission blamed unnamed people in many posts in the current and previous administrations.

Homer and Reiss, who were quoted in Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer, came as close as anyone to telling the truth: The immediate blame must be laid on Bush.

Certainly, the Bush administration is not alone in setting the stage for the 9/11 attacks, but Bush put out a welcome mat for terrorists. One might even wonder if this amounts to criminal negligence.

Deep in the middle of its lead story on the 9-11 report, on an inside page, Friday's New York Times caught the essence of the situation when it reported that the Clinton administration responded to a scare by mobilizing domestic agencies while the Bush administration did not bother to do same after they received warnings.

The Times story reports: "Different sections give contrasting accounts of responses by national security advisers under Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush. It describes how Mr. (Sandy) Berger, (then national security adviser) under Mr. Clinton, took the lead in December 1999 in mobilizing the F.B.I. and other domestic agencies to address the so-called millennium plot, in which attacks planned in Jordan and Los Angeles were disrupted. By contrast, the report describes (current National Security Advisser) Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, as not having regarded the coordination of domestic agencies as part of their responsibility after they took office in 2001, even as warnings of a possible attack continued to grow."

Then, according to the Times, the report proclaimed these words of the pre-9-11 Bush administration: "The domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute."

Notice the indirect phrasing? Here's another way the commission could have worded it: "The Bush administration never mobilized in response to the threat. It did not give the agencies direction, and it did not provide them with a plan to institute."

The cowardly phrasing is very relevant because the commission was downplaying as much as possible Bush's most serious blunder. Sticking to the context of the commission's findings, we do not know if the attacks would have been prevented if Bush had done more, but the commission lays it out starkly enough: Bush did not do what he could.

Isn't this enough? The commission wrote, "Since the plotters were flexible and resourceful, we cannot know whether any single step or series of steps would have defeated them."

We'll never know, and that's because Bush was not "flexible and resourceful" enough to even attempt "any single step or series of steps."

To put this into perspective, let's say you're on the board of directors of a company and your CEO is called on the carpet: "Mr. Bush, you received warnings of a potential attack on our headquarters building and you refused to mobilize all the company's divisions to prevent it, and 3,000 of our employees died as a result."

Bush: "Well, mobilizing these divisions does not guarantee that this would have prevented anything."

Perhaps Manhattan's District Attorney would have said to Bush: "We're talking about the murder of 3,000 people, which of course is a capital crime. No, you did not do this yourself, but you had warnings that something like this might happen and you did not follow through.

"This means that you knowingly facilitated the murder of 3,000 human beings on my judicial turf. At the least, that's reckless endangerment. We could also call that criminal negligence."

Some people would be fired and maybe prosecuted for a disaster of these proportions. Oh, I forgot, Bush never lied about his sex life.

[i][b]Bruce S. Ticker is publisher of CRISIS: ISRAEL which can be accessed at www.crisisisrael.com. [/b][/i] - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
LOL ... Michael Moore invites Bush to hometown screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' ... LOL
07.27.04 (7:22 am)   [edit]
[b]Michael Moore invites Bush to hometown screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'[/b]

CRAWFORD, Texas - Filmmaker Michael Moore is bringing his blockbuster documentary to President Bush's adopted hometown and wants the film's star to attend.

Moore promised the Crawford Peace House a copy of his film "Fahrenheit 9/11" when it appeared that no movie theater in the president's home county would show the anti-Bush documentary. The Hollywood Jewel in Waco picked up the movie last week, but Moore later offered to come to Crawford to introduce his movie and discuss it afterward.

Organizers expect about 1,000 people to attend the show at 9 p.m. Wednesday.

Paul McDaniel, a spokesman for Waco Friends of Peace, a partner in the Peace House, said the Crawford group's telephone was jammed with calls from journalists, including representatives of the White House press corps now covering the president's vacation at his ranch.

"They're bored, having to be here in the middle of Texas in July with nothing to do," McDaniel told the Waco Tribune-Herald in Tuesday's editions. "They're saying, `Let's go over and see the movie.' "

Moore, on his Web site, invited Bush to attend, saying he wanted a chance to thank him personally for starring in the film. "And let's face it, you've got some of the funniest lines in the film!" he wrote.

A White House representative did not return a call early Tuesday from The Associated Press.

The Peace House received a permit Monday from the city of Crawford to show the movie at a football stadium parking lot near Tonkawa Falls Park.

Moore's condemnation of Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks recently became the first documentary to top the $100 million mark domestically. The filmmaker is providing the projector and the movie, said McDaniel. A large screen has been donated by owners of the Alamo Draft House, an Austin business that is creating a new cinema in Waco.

"We're not saying Michael Moore is right, wrong or indifferent. It just seemed strange to us that within 50 miles, there was no showing of the film," McDaniel said.

Crawford's police chief, Donnie Tidmore, said some residents of the community 20 miles west of Waco planned to demonstrate against the movie.

"I personally think we're just a little town, and it's kind of an invasion in our small town," said Fran Shelton, whose family owns the Crawford Coffee Station. "Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'd be happier if he didn't bring it to Crawford." - http://www.dfw.com/mld/starte...
 
LOL ... Michael Moore invites Bush to hometown screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' ... LOL
07.27.04 (7:18 am)   [edit]
[b]Michael Moore invites Bush to hometown screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'[/b]

CRAWFORD, Texas - Filmmaker Michael Moore is bringing his blockbuster documentary to President Bush's adopted hometown and wants the film's star to attend.

Moore promised the Crawford Peace House a copy of his film "Fahrenheit 9/11" when it appeared that no movie theater in the president's home county would show the anti-Bush documentary. The Hollywood Jewel in Waco picked up the movie last week, but Moore later offered to come to Crawford to introduce his movie and discuss it afterward.

Organizers expect about 1,000 people to attend the show at 9 p.m. Wednesday.

Paul McDaniel, a spokesman for Waco Friends of Peace, a partner in the Peace House, said the Crawford group's telephone was jammed with calls from journalists, including representatives of the White House press corps now covering the president's vacation at his ranch.

"They're bored, having to be here in the middle of Texas in July with nothing to do," McDaniel told the Waco Tribune-Herald in Tuesday's editions. "They're saying, `Let's go over and see the movie.' "

Moore, on his Web site, invited Bush to attend, saying he wanted a chance to thank him personally for starring in the film. "And let's face it, you've got some of the funniest lines in the film!" he wrote.

A White House representative did not return a call early Tuesday from The Associated Press.

The Peace House received a permit Monday from the city of Crawford to show the movie at a football stadium parking lot near Tonkawa Falls Park.

Moore's condemnation of Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks recently became the first documentary to top the $100 million mark domestically. The filmmaker is providing the projector and the movie, said McDaniel. A large screen has been donated by owners of the Alamo Draft House, an Austin business that is creating a new cinema in Waco.

"We're not saying Michael Moore is right, wrong or indifferent. It just seemed strange to us that within 50 miles, there was no showing of the film," McDaniel said.

Crawford's police chief, Donnie Tidmore, said some residents of the community 20 miles west of Waco planned to demonstrate against the movie.

"I personally think we're just a little town, and it's kind of an invasion in our small town," said Fran Shelton, whose family owns the Crawford Coffee Station. "Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'd be happier if he didn't bring it to Crawford." - http://www.dfw.com/mld/starte...
 
LOL ... Michael Moore invites Bush to hometown screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' ... LOL
07.27.04 (7:15 am)   [edit]
[b]Michael Moore invites Bush to hometown screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'[/b]

CRAWFORD, Texas - Filmmaker Michael Moore is bringing his blockbuster documentary to President Bush's adopted hometown and wants the film's star to attend.

Moore promised the Crawford Peace House a copy of his film "Fahrenheit 9/11" when it appeared that no movie theater in the president's home county would show the anti-Bush documentary. The Hollywood Jewel in Waco picked up the movie last week, but Moore later offered to come to Crawford to introduce his movie and discuss it afterward.

Organizers expect about 1,000 people to attend the show at 9 p.m. Wednesday.

Paul McDaniel, a spokesman for Waco Friends of Peace, a partner in the Peace House, said the Crawford group's telephone was jammed with calls from journalists, including representatives of the White House press corps now covering the president's vacation at his ranch.

"They're bored, having to be here in the middle of Texas in July with nothing to do," McDaniel told the Waco Tribune-Herald in Tuesday's editions. "They're saying, `Let's go over and see the movie.' "

Moore, on his Web site, invited Bush to attend, saying he wanted a chance to thank him personally for starring in the film. "And let's face it, you've got some of the funniest lines in the film!" he wrote.

A White House representative did not return a call early Tuesday from The Associated Press.

The Peace House received a permit Monday from the city of Crawford to show the movie at a football stadium parking lot near Tonkawa Falls Park.

Moore's condemnation of Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks recently became the first documentary to top the $100 million mark domestically. The filmmaker is providing the projector and the movie, said McDaniel. A large screen has been donated by owners of the Alamo Draft House, an Austin business that is creating a new cinema in Waco.

"We're not saying Michael Moore is right, wrong or indifferent. It just seemed strange to us that within 50 miles, there was no showing of the film," McDaniel said.

Crawford's police chief, Donnie Tidmore, said some residents of the community 20 miles west of Waco planned to demonstrate against the movie.

"I personally think we're just a little town, and it's kind of an invasion in our small town," said Fran Shelton, whose family owns the Crawford Coffee Station. "Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I'd be happier if he didn't bring it to Crawford." - http://www.dfw.com/mld/starte...
 
The Public's Right to Know is being Suppressed by the Bush administration ...
07.27.04 (7:11 am)   [edit]
[b][u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u][/b]

[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]

The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...

Check-out the "[i]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy[/i]" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i...

Please take the time to read "[i]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents [/i]..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u][b]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents ...[/b][/u]

[b]Isn't it interesting to listen to the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and their traitorous GOP toadies [i]defend their indefensible secrecy [/i]in order to [i]hide the government's (i.e. Bush/Cheney corporate cronies) business [/i]from "We the People", and then watch them [i]howl like monkeys[/i] for their political opponents to disclose every personal and private detail that they can exploit in their neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda campaigns??? ...[/b]

"We the People" should be extremely concerned, angered and outraged at the un-democratic and destructive fascist secrecy and imperial powers being employed against us by the neo-con Bush regime, for they are [i]refusing to release documents and information [/i]that have a direct impact and important bearing upon the nature of their criminal and incompetent governance ...

[b]Consider this ...[/b]

In 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush demanded Vice President Al Gore release various documents related to his past. He said on March 15, 2000, "I challenge you to clear the air on some serious charges. I hope you will encourage the White House and the Department of Justice to release all records and photographs relating to the investigation of fundraising." But now, facing far more serious allegations than fundraising irregularities, the President has categorically refused to release critical documents in a host of areas.

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO CALL ON TEXAS TO RELEASE MILITARY RECORDS:[/b] Though the Bush administration now says the Pentagon "inadvertently" destroyed key documents about the President's military service at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the President has refused to call on the state of Texas to release copies of those military files that are legally-required to exist there. According to AP, "Under Texas law, a copy of military personnel files of those serving in the Texas Air National Guard must be retained on microfilm at the Texas archives." The Texas Air National Guard has told AP that the files in the Texas state archive are under control of the federal government. But according to the NY Times, the chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office refused to comment about obtaining the documents. [[u]Sources:[/u] NY Times, 7/9/04, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... ; AP, 6/22/04, http://www.sunherald.com/mld/... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE TORTURE MEMOS:[/b] "Attorney General John Ashcroft said that President George W. Bush never authorized torture of detained terrorism suspects, but he refused to release internal memos that discuss when torture is allowed. In a testy three-hour Capitol Hill hearing, Ashcroft repeatedly rejected Democratic demands for memos recently leaked to the media which say that treaties and laws do not bar Bush from authorizing torture of terrorism suspects." [[u]Source:[/u] Newsday, 6/9/04, http://www.commondreams.org/h... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO RELEASE INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICARE BILL:[/b] During the negotiations over the Bush administration's controversial Medicare Bill, the administration threatened to fire a government actuary if he released cost estimates of the bill to Democrats. Even today those estimates "still have yet to be made public or turned over to congressional Democrats who have requested them." In March, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson "promised to release them and said an inspector general's investigation would clear the air. But since then, "he has refused to release the documents in question. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court and The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, has appealed the withholding of 149 pages out of 162 pages that the agency acknowledges are responsive to its request." [[u]Source:[/u] AP, 7/7/04, http://www.lasvegassun.com/su... ]

[b]CHENEY REFUSES TO RELEASE ENERGY TASK FORCE RECORDS:[/b] "Vice President Dick Cheney refused to release records of meetings with company executives to discuss energy policy." According to the Washington Post, Cheney met in early 2001 with executives from the oil and gas industries, including Anadarko Petroleum's Robert Allison and then-Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay. Cheney has acknowledged meeting multiple times with Enron representatives during the California energy crisis while the administration was developing its energy proposal. [[u]Sources:[/u] Financial Times, 1/27/02, http://specials.ft.com/enron/... ; MSNBC, 4/26/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... ; ABC News, 1/9/02, http://abcnews.go.com/section... ]

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO RELEASE RECORDS OF HARKEN TENURE:[/b] "The White House refused to release records of Bush's service on Harken's board. Bush had pointed to those records during a news conference on Monday when asked about his role in the sale of a subsidiary. The transaction later was used by Harken to mask losses." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 7/11/02, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE CORRECTED CENSUS DATA:[/b] In 2001, "The Census Bureau refused to release statistically adjusted census data to disburse billions in federal dollars." The decision was an effort to prevent the release of data showing the "raw figures undercount minorities, the poor and children." According to the House Government Reform Committee, "When the Commerce Department used similar techniques as part of the 1990 census, federal courts ordered the data released and rejected claims that information was in any way confidential."[[u]Sources:[/u] National Journal, 10/18/01; AP, 10/17/01; House Government Reform Committee, 5/21/00, http://www.house.gov/reform/m... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO RELEASE BUDGET INFORMATION TO CONGRESS:[/b] "The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers. The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 11/7/03]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE FOIA'D DOCUMENTS:[/b] "The Justice Department refused to release records from its Office of Legislative Affairs because reporter Michael Ravnitzky had 'failed to address how [his publication] intends to use the records subject to the request,' according to the Justice Department. For a 2001 story, Ravnitzky asked for a series of Security Summary Synopses concerning airports. In the aftermath of 9/11, he urged the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to expedite the request in order to inform the public which airports were not secure. The FAA has responded twice, arguing that 'there is no identifiable urgency to inform the public.'" [[u]Source:[/u] Insight Magazine, 4/8/02, http://www.insightmag.com/mai... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO RELEASE ABORTION REPORT FROM ITS OWN OFFICIALS:[/b] According to Knight Ridder in 2002, an independent team that the administration sent to China in May concluded that allegations that a U.N. family planning program supports forced abortions were untrue. In fact, one of the officials said, the report concluded that the U.N. program improved women's lives by helping them prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control and, therefore, reducing the number of abortions under China's restrictive family planning policy. The team's report recommended that Bush release $34 million to the U.N. Population Fund. But the administration "refused to release the report, even to congressional Republicans working on the issue." [[u]Source:[/u] Knight-Ridder, 7/14/02, http://www.realcities.com/mld... ]

[b]Sources:[/b]

[b]The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o... [/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]
 
The Public's Right to Know ...
07.27.04 (7:09 am)   [edit]
[b][u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u][/b]

[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]

The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...

Check-out the "[i]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy[/i]" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i...

Please take the time to read "[i]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents [/i]..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u][b]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents ...[/b][/u]

[b]Isn't it interesting to listen to the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and their traitorous GOP toadies [i]defend their indefensible secrecy [/i]in order to [i]hide the government's (i.e. Bush/Cheney corporate cronies) business [/i]from "We the People", and then watch them [i]howl like monkeys[/i] for their political opponents to disclose every personal and private detail that they can exploit in their neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda campaigns??? ...[/b]

"We the People" should be extremely concerned, angered and outraged at the un-democratic and destructive fascist secrecy and imperial powers being employed against us by the neo-con Bush regime, for they are [i]refusing to release documents and information [/i]that have a direct impact and important bearing upon the nature of their criminal and incompetent governance ...

[b]Consider this ...[/b]

In 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush demanded Vice President Al Gore release various documents related to his past. He said on March 15, 2000, "I challenge you to clear the air on some serious charges. I hope you will encourage the White House and the Department of Justice to release all records and photographs relating to the investigation of fundraising." But now, facing far more serious allegations than fundraising irregularities, the President has categorically refused to release critical documents in a host of areas.

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO CALL ON TEXAS TO RELEASE MILITARY RECORDS:[/b] Though the Bush administration now says the Pentagon "inadvertently" destroyed key documents about the President's military service at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the President has refused to call on the state of Texas to release copies of those military files that are legally-required to exist there. According to AP, "Under Texas law, a copy of military personnel files of those serving in the Texas Air National Guard must be retained on microfilm at the Texas archives." The Texas Air National Guard has told AP that the files in the Texas state archive are under control of the federal government. But according to the NY Times, the chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office refused to comment about obtaining the documents. [[u]Sources:[/u] NY Times, 7/9/04, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... ; AP, 6/22/04, http://www.sunherald.com/mld/... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE TORTURE MEMOS:[/b] "Attorney General John Ashcroft said that President George W. Bush never authorized torture of detained terrorism suspects, but he refused to release internal memos that discuss when torture is allowed. In a testy three-hour Capitol Hill hearing, Ashcroft repeatedly rejected Democratic demands for memos recently leaked to the media which say that treaties and laws do not bar Bush from authorizing torture of terrorism suspects." [[u]Source:[/u] Newsday, 6/9/04, http://www.commondreams.org/h... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO RELEASE INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICARE BILL:[/b] During the negotiations over the Bush administration's controversial Medicare Bill, the administration threatened to fire a government actuary if he released cost estimates of the bill to Democrats. Even today those estimates "still have yet to be made public or turned over to congressional Democrats who have requested them." In March, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson "promised to release them and said an inspector general's investigation would clear the air. But since then, "he has refused to release the documents in question. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court and The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, has appealed the withholding of 149 pages out of 162 pages that the agency acknowledges are responsive to its request." [[u]Source:[/u] AP, 7/7/04, http://www.lasvegassun.com/su... ]

[b]CHENEY REFUSES TO RELEASE ENERGY TASK FORCE RECORDS:[/b] "Vice President Dick Cheney refused to release records of meetings with company executives to discuss energy policy." According to the Washington Post, Cheney met in early 2001 with executives from the oil and gas industries, including Anadarko Petroleum's Robert Allison and then-Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay. Cheney has acknowledged meeting multiple times with Enron representatives during the California energy crisis while the administration was developing its energy proposal. [[u]Sources:[/u] Financial Times, 1/27/02, http://specials.ft.com/enron/... ; MSNBC, 4/26/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... ; ABC News, 1/9/02, http://abcnews.go.com/section... ]

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO RELEASE RECORDS OF HARKEN TENURE:[/b] "The White House refused to release records of Bush's service on Harken's board. Bush had pointed to those records during a news conference on Monday when asked about his role in the sale of a subsidiary. The transaction later was used by Harken to mask losses." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 7/11/02, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE CORRECTED CENSUS DATA:[/b] In 2001, "The Census Bureau refused to release statistically adjusted census data to disburse billions in federal dollars." The decision was an effort to prevent the release of data showing the "raw figures undercount minorities, the poor and children." According to the House Government Reform Committee, "When the Commerce Department used similar techniques as part of the 1990 census, federal courts ordered the data released and rejected claims that information was in any way confidential."[[u]Sources:[/u] National Journal, 10/18/01; AP, 10/17/01; House Government Reform Committee, 5/21/00, http://www.house.gov/reform/m... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO RELEASE BUDGET INFORMATION TO CONGRESS:[/b] "The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers. The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 11/7/03]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE FOIA'D DOCUMENTS:[/b] "The Justice Department refused to release records from its Office of Legislative Affairs because reporter Michael Ravnitzky had 'failed to address how [his publication] intends to use the records subject to the request,' according to the Justice Department. For a 2001 story, Ravnitzky asked for a series of Security Summary Synopses concerning airports. In the aftermath of 9/11, he urged the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to expedite the request in order to inform the public which airports were not secure. The FAA has responded twice, arguing that 'there is no identifiable urgency to inform the public.'" [[u]Source:[/u] Insight Magazine, 4/8/02, http://www.insightmag.com/mai... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO RELEASE ABORTION REPORT FROM ITS OWN OFFICIALS:[/b] According to Knight Ridder in 2002, an independent team that the administration sent to China in May concluded that allegations that a U.N. family planning program supports forced abortions were untrue. In fact, one of the officials said, the report concluded that the U.N. program improved women's lives by helping them prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control and, therefore, reducing the number of abortions under China's restrictive family planning policy. The team's report recommended that Bush release $34 million to the U.N. Population Fund. But the administration "refused to release the report, even to congressional Republicans working on the issue." [[u]Source:[/u] Knight-Ridder, 7/14/02, http://www.realcities.com/mld... ]

[b]Sources:[/b]

[b]The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o... [/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]
 
Talk About the Public's Right to Know, for Goodness Sakes ...
07.27.04 (7:08 am)   [edit]
[b][u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u][/b]

[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]

The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...

Check-out the "[i]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy[/i]" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i...

Please take the time to read "[i]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents [/i]..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u][b]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents ...[/b][/u]

[b]Isn't it interesting to listen to the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and their traitorous GOP toadies [i]defend their indefensible secrecy [/i]in order to [i]hide the government's (i.e. Bush/Cheney corporate cronies) business [/i]from "We the People", and then watch them [i]howl like monkeys[/i] for their political opponents to disclose every personal and private detail that they can exploit in their neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda campaigns??? ...[/b]

"We the People" should be extremely concerned, angered and outraged at the un-democratic and destructive fascist secrecy and imperial powers being employed against us by the neo-con Bush regime, for they are [i]refusing to release documents and information [/i]that have a direct impact and important bearing upon the nature of their criminal and incompetent governance ...

[b]Consider this ...[/b]

In 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush demanded Vice President Al Gore release various documents related to his past. He said on March 15, 2000, "I challenge you to clear the air on some serious charges. I hope you will encourage the White House and the Department of Justice to release all records and photographs relating to the investigation of fundraising." But now, facing far more serious allegations than fundraising irregularities, the President has categorically refused to release critical documents in a host of areas.

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO CALL ON TEXAS TO RELEASE MILITARY RECORDS:[/b] Though the Bush administration now says the Pentagon "inadvertently" destroyed key documents about the President's military service at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the President has refused to call on the state of Texas to release copies of those military files that are legally-required to exist there. According to AP, "Under Texas law, a copy of military personnel files of those serving in the Texas Air National Guard must be retained on microfilm at the Texas archives." The Texas Air National Guard has told AP that the files in the Texas state archive are under control of the federal government. But according to the NY Times, the chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office refused to comment about obtaining the documents. [[u]Sources:[/u] NY Times, 7/9/04, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... ; AP, 6/22/04, http://www.sunherald.com/mld/... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE TORTURE MEMOS:[/b] "Attorney General John Ashcroft said that President George W. Bush never authorized torture of detained terrorism suspects, but he refused to release internal memos that discuss when torture is allowed. In a testy three-hour Capitol Hill hearing, Ashcroft repeatedly rejected Democratic demands for memos recently leaked to the media which say that treaties and laws do not bar Bush from authorizing torture of terrorism suspects." [[u]Source:[/u] Newsday, 6/9/04, http://www.commondreams.org/h... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO RELEASE INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICARE BILL:[/b] During the negotiations over the Bush administration's controversial Medicare Bill, the administration threatened to fire a government actuary if he released cost estimates of the bill to Democrats. Even today those estimates "still have yet to be made public or turned over to congressional Democrats who have requested them." In March, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson "promised to release them and said an inspector general's investigation would clear the air. But since then, "he has refused to release the documents in question. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court and The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, has appealed the withholding of 149 pages out of 162 pages that the agency acknowledges are responsive to its request." [[u]Source:[/u] AP, 7/7/04, http://www.lasvegassun.com/su... ]

[b]CHENEY REFUSES TO RELEASE ENERGY TASK FORCE RECORDS:[/b] "Vice President Dick Cheney refused to release records of meetings with company executives to discuss energy policy." According to the Washington Post, Cheney met in early 2001 with executives from the oil and gas industries, including Anadarko Petroleum's Robert Allison and then-Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay. Cheney has acknowledged meeting multiple times with Enron representatives during the California energy crisis while the administration was developing its energy proposal. [[u]Sources:[/u] Financial Times, 1/27/02, http://specials.ft.com/enron/... ; MSNBC, 4/26/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... ; ABC News, 1/9/02, http://abcnews.go.com/section... ]

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO RELEASE RECORDS OF HARKEN TENURE:[/b] "The White House refused to release records of Bush's service on Harken's board. Bush had pointed to those records during a news conference on Monday when asked about his role in the sale of a subsidiary. The transaction later was used by Harken to mask losses." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 7/11/02, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE CORRECTED CENSUS DATA:[/b] In 2001, "The Census Bureau refused to release statistically adjusted census data to disburse billions in federal dollars." The decision was an effort to prevent the release of data showing the "raw figures undercount minorities, the poor and children." According to the House Government Reform Committee, "When the Commerce Department used similar techniques as part of the 1990 census, federal courts ordered the data released and rejected claims that information was in any way confidential."[[u]Sources:[/u] National Journal, 10/18/01; AP, 10/17/01; House Government Reform Committee, 5/21/00, http://www.house.gov/reform/m... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO RELEASE BUDGET INFORMATION TO CONGRESS:[/b] "The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers. The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 11/7/03]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE FOIA'D DOCUMENTS:[/b] "The Justice Department refused to release records from its Office of Legislative Affairs because reporter Michael Ravnitzky had 'failed to address how [his publication] intends to use the records subject to the request,' according to the Justice Department. For a 2001 story, Ravnitzky asked for a series of Security Summary Synopses concerning airports. In the aftermath of 9/11, he urged the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to expedite the request in order to inform the public which airports were not secure. The FAA has responded twice, arguing that 'there is no identifiable urgency to inform the public.'" [[u]Source:[/u] Insight Magazine, 4/8/02, http://www.insightmag.com/mai... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO RELEASE ABORTION REPORT FROM ITS OWN OFFICIALS:[/b] According to Knight Ridder in 2002, an independent team that the administration sent to China in May concluded that allegations that a U.N. family planning program supports forced abortions were untrue. In fact, one of the officials said, the report concluded that the U.N. program improved women's lives by helping them prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control and, therefore, reducing the number of abortions under China's restrictive family planning policy. The team's report recommended that Bush release $34 million to the U.N. Population Fund. But the administration "refused to release the report, even to congressional Republicans working on the issue." [[u]Source:[/u] Knight-Ridder, 7/14/02, http://www.realcities.com/mld... ]

[b]Sources:[/b]

[b]The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o... [/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]
 
Incompetent Imperialists
07.27.04 (7:06 am)   [edit]
[b]Incompetent Imperialists [/b]

There is an American Empire, but we should dump it, because we Americans are woefully incompetent when it comes to maintaining empires.

One mistake that seems to be a permanent feature of our foreign policy is mirror-imaging. So many American politicians, most of them poorly educated and ignorant of other people and their cultures, tend to think other people are just like us. A great many are not.

Lyndon Johnson failed in Vietnam because he thought he could treat the Vietnamese the same way he treated members of the U.S. House and Senate. Johnson always used a stick and a carrot. Vote with me, and you'll get pork-barrel rewards; vote against me, and I'll find a way to punish you. That worked with American politicians, most of whom are nothing more than officeholders with "for sale or rent" signs on their foreheads.

Johnson told the North Vietnamese, make peace, and I'll give you billions of dollars in American aid; don't make peace, and I'll bomb you. Unfortunately for Johnson, the North Vietnamese, whatever their other faults, were not for sale, nor were they willing to succumb to threats. They wanted to unify their country, and they were willing to fight as long as necessary to achieve that. As it turned out, we were not willing to fight as long as necessary to prevent it. So, despite billions of dollars, despite 57,000 dead, despite a quarter of a million wounded, Vietnam is today a unified communist country.

President George W. Bush has offered a $25 million reward for Osama bin Laden. He thought, apparently, that like most Americans, the Afghans and Pakistanis were for sale. Despite Afghanistan being one of the poorest countries in the world, the American millions have not produced a single traitor willing to rat out bin Laden.

Let's face it – we have become a secular and materialistic society. The two kinds of people we have real trouble believing actually exist are people of true religious faith and people to whom honor means more than money.

Years ago, an understandably irate chiropractor said of medical doctors, "If they can't drug it or cut it, they don't know what the hell to do." Similarly, if we can't bribe with our dollars or intimidate with our bombs, we don't know what to do. That disqualifies us to run an empire, so we ought to cut our losses and go back to being a republic.

Now, returning to our republican roots doesn't mean we try to live in splendid isolation. Not at all. It just means that we stop trying to run other people's countries and concentrate on running our own. We can have trade relations with the whole world – cultural exchanges, tourism, the whole ball of friendly wax. We just make sure the CIA and the military don't do any dirty work inside other people's countries, such as interfering in their elections or overthrowing their governments. And we don't take sides in other countries' wars and feuds. Armed neutrality should be our position.

That, to me, would be the best of all possible worlds for Americans. This is not pie in the sky. It was once American policy, and the United States was widely loved and respected during that period of time. Now, with our troops in more than 100 foreign countries, we are widely disliked, if not hated and feared.

The cluster blunders in Iraq and Vietnam, not to mention many smaller cluster blunders we have made around the world, should convince any reasonable person that we Americans are simply not competent imperialists. We don't know much about other people; we resist learning other languages; we love our own country so much we are frankly not very interested in the rest of the world. We have all the qualifications to be a mind-our-own-business republic, and none of the qualifications to be a world empire.

We should start bringing our troops home from the far-flung corners of the world, establish a sensible self-defense posture and use the billions of dollars we would save to tackle all the really serious domestic problems we have.

Unfortunately, for that to happen you'd probably have to elect Pat Buchanan or me as president, and neither one of us is running.

[b]Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on everything from sports to politics. From 1969-71, he worked as a campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001. He now writes a syndicated column three times a week for King Features, which is carried on Antiwar.com. Reese served two years active duty in the U.S. Army as a tank gunner.[/b] - http://www.antiwar.com/reese/...
 
------> Incompetent Imperialists <------
07.27.04 (7:05 am)   [edit]
[b]Incompetent Imperialists [/b]

There is an American Empire, but we should dump it, because we Americans are woefully incompetent when it comes to maintaining empires.

One mistake that seems to be a permanent feature of our foreign policy is mirror-imaging. So many American politicians, most of them poorly educated and ignorant of other people and their cultures, tend to think other people are just like us. A great many are not.

Lyndon Johnson failed in Vietnam because he thought he could treat the Vietnamese the same way he treated members of the U.S. House and Senate. Johnson always used a stick and a carrot. Vote with me, and you'll get pork-barrel rewards; vote against me, and I'll find a way to punish you. That worked with American politicians, most of whom are nothing more than officeholders with "for sale or rent" signs on their foreheads.

Johnson told the North Vietnamese, make peace, and I'll give you billions of dollars in American aid; don't make peace, and I'll bomb you. Unfortunately for Johnson, the North Vietnamese, whatever their other faults, were not for sale, nor were they willing to succumb to threats. They wanted to unify their country, and they were willing to fight as long as necessary to achieve that. As it turned out, we were not willing to fight as long as necessary to prevent it. So, despite billions of dollars, despite 57,000 dead, despite a quarter of a million wounded, Vietnam is today a unified communist country.

President George W. Bush has offered a $25 million reward for Osama bin Laden. He thought, apparently, that like most Americans, the Afghans and Pakistanis were for sale. Despite Afghanistan being one of the poorest countries in the world, the American millions have not produced a single traitor willing to rat out bin Laden.

Let's face it – we have become a secular and materialistic society. The two kinds of people we have real trouble believing actually exist are people of true religious faith and people to whom honor means more than money.

Years ago, an understandably irate chiropractor said of medical doctors, "If they can't drug it or cut it, they don't know what the hell to do." Similarly, if we can't bribe with our dollars or intimidate with our bombs, we don't know what to do. That disqualifies us to run an empire, so we ought to cut our losses and go back to being a republic.

Now, returning to our republican roots doesn't mean we try to live in splendid isolation. Not at all. It just means that we stop trying to run other people's countries and concentrate on running our own. We can have trade relations with the whole world – cultural exchanges, tourism, the whole ball of friendly wax. We just make sure the CIA and the military don't do any dirty work inside other people's countries, such as interfering in their elections or overthrowing their governments. And we don't take sides in other countries' wars and feuds. Armed neutrality should be our position.

That, to me, would be the best of all possible worlds for Americans. This is not pie in the sky. It was once American policy, and the United States was widely loved and respected during that period of time. Now, with our troops in more than 100 foreign countries, we are widely disliked, if not hated and feared.

The cluster blunders in Iraq and Vietnam, not to mention many smaller cluster blunders we have made around the world, should convince any reasonable person that we Americans are simply not competent imperialists. We don't know much about other people; we resist learning other languages; we love our own country so much we are frankly not very interested in the rest of the world. We have all the qualifications to be a mind-our-own-business republic, and none of the qualifications to be a world empire.

We should start bringing our troops home from the far-flung corners of the world, establish a sensible self-defense posture and use the billions of dollars we would save to tackle all the really serious domestic problems we have.

Unfortunately, for that to happen you'd probably have to elect Pat Buchanan or me as president, and neither one of us is running.

[b]Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on everything from sports to politics. From 1969-71, he worked as a campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001. He now writes a syndicated column three times a week for King Features, which is carried on Antiwar.com. Reese served two years active duty in the U.S. Army as a tank gunner.[/b] - http://www.antiwar.com/reese/...
 
The Right of the Public to Know What Our Government is Doing in Our Names!!!
07.26.04 (5:41 pm)   [edit]
[b][u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u][/b]

[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]

The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...

Check-out the "[i]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy[/i]" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i...

Please take the time to read "[i]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents [/i]..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u][b]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents ...[/b][/u]

[b]Isn't it interesting to listen to the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] and their traitorous GOP toadies [i]defend their indefensible secrecy [/i]in order to [i]hide the government's (i.e. Bush/Cheney corporate cronies) business [/i]from "We the People", and then watch them [i]howl like monkeys[/i] for their political opponents to disclose every personal and private detail that they can exploit in their neo-fascist, neo-orwellian propaganda campaigns??? ...[/b]

"We the People" should be extremely concerned, angered and outraged at the un-democratic and destructive fascist secrecy and imperial powers being employed against us by the neo-con Bush regime, for they are [i]refusing to release documents and information [/i]that have a direct impact and important bearing upon the nature of their criminal and incompetent governance ...

[b]Consider this ...[/b]

In 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush demanded Vice President Al Gore release various documents related to his past. He said on March 15, 2000, "I challenge you to clear the air on some serious charges. I hope you will encourage the White House and the Department of Justice to release all records and photographs relating to the investigation of fundraising." But now, facing far more serious allegations than fundraising irregularities, the President has categorically refused to release critical documents in a host of areas.

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO CALL ON TEXAS TO RELEASE MILITARY RECORDS:[/b] Though the Bush administration now says the Pentagon "inadvertently" destroyed key documents about the President's military service at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the President has refused to call on the state of Texas to release copies of those military files that are legally-required to exist there. According to AP, "Under Texas law, a copy of military personnel files of those serving in the Texas Air National Guard must be retained on microfilm at the Texas archives." The Texas Air National Guard has told AP that the files in the Texas state archive are under control of the federal government. But according to the NY Times, the chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Office refused to comment about obtaining the documents. [[u]Sources:[/u] NY Times, 7/9/04, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... ; AP, 6/22/04, http://www.sunherald.com/mld/... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE TORTURE MEMOS:[/b] "Attorney General John Ashcroft said that President George W. Bush never authorized torture of detained terrorism suspects, but he refused to release internal memos that discuss when torture is allowed. In a testy three-hour Capitol Hill hearing, Ashcroft repeatedly rejected Democratic demands for memos recently leaked to the media which say that treaties and laws do not bar Bush from authorizing torture of terrorism suspects." [[u]Source:[/u] Newsday, 6/9/04, http://www.commondreams.org/h... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO RELEASE INFORMATION ABOUT MEDICARE BILL:[/b] During the negotiations over the Bush administration's controversial Medicare Bill, the administration threatened to fire a government actuary if he released cost estimates of the bill to Democrats. Even today those estimates "still have yet to be made public or turned over to congressional Democrats who have requested them." In March, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson "promised to release them and said an inspector general's investigation would clear the air. But since then, "he has refused to release the documents in question. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court and The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, has appealed the withholding of 149 pages out of 162 pages that the agency acknowledges are responsive to its request." [[u]Source:[/u] AP, 7/7/04, http://www.lasvegassun.com/su... ]

[b]CHENEY REFUSES TO RELEASE ENERGY TASK FORCE RECORDS:[/b] "Vice President Dick Cheney refused to release records of meetings with company executives to discuss energy policy." According to the Washington Post, Cheney met in early 2001 with executives from the oil and gas industries, including Anadarko Petroleum's Robert Allison and then-Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay. Cheney has acknowledged meeting multiple times with Enron representatives during the California energy crisis while the administration was developing its energy proposal. [[u]Sources:[/u] Financial Times, 1/27/02, http://specials.ft.com/enron/... ; MSNBC, 4/26/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4... ; ABC News, 1/9/02, http://abcnews.go.com/section... ]

[b]BUSH REFUSES TO RELEASE RECORDS OF HARKEN TENURE:[/b] "The White House refused to release records of Bush's service on Harken's board. Bush had pointed to those records during a news conference on Monday when asked about his role in the sale of a subsidiary. The transaction later was used by Harken to mask losses." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 7/11/02, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE CORRECTED CENSUS DATA:[/b] In 2001, "The Census Bureau refused to release statistically adjusted census data to disburse billions in federal dollars." The decision was an effort to prevent the release of data showing the "raw figures undercount minorities, the poor and children." According to the House Government Reform Committee, "When the Commerce Department used similar techniques as part of the 1990 census, federal courts ordered the data released and rejected claims that information was in any way confidential."[[u]Sources:[/u] National Journal, 10/18/01; AP, 10/17/01; House Government Reform Committee, 5/21/00, http://www.house.gov/reform/m... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSES TO RELEASE BUDGET INFORMATION TO CONGRESS:[/b] "The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers. The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln." [[u]Source:[/u] Washington Post, 11/7/03]

[b]ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO RELEASE FOIA'D DOCUMENTS:[/b] "The Justice Department refused to release records from its Office of Legislative Affairs because reporter Michael Ravnitzky had 'failed to address how [his publication] intends to use the records subject to the request,' according to the Justice Department. For a 2001 story, Ravnitzky asked for a series of Security Summary Synopses concerning airports. In the aftermath of 9/11, he urged the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to expedite the request in order to inform the public which airports were not secure. The FAA has responded twice, arguing that 'there is no identifiable urgency to inform the public.'" [[u]Source:[/u] Insight Magazine, 4/8/02, http://www.insightmag.com/mai... ]

[b]WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO RELEASE ABORTION REPORT FROM ITS OWN OFFICIALS:[/b] According to Knight Ridder in 2002, an independent team that the administration sent to China in May concluded that allegations that a U.N. family planning program supports forced abortions were untrue. In fact, one of the officials said, the report concluded that the U.N. program improved women's lives by helping them prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and birth control and, therefore, reducing the number of abortions under China's restrictive family planning policy. The team's report recommended that Bush release $34 million to the U.N. Population Fund. But the administration "refused to release the report, even to congressional Republicans working on the issue." [[u]Source:[/u] Knight-Ridder, 7/14/02, http://www.realcities.com/mld... ]

[b]Sources:[/b]

[b]The Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.o... [/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]
 
... What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander ... Or, is it?
07.26.04 (10:16 am)   [edit]
Recently, [i]The Federation of American Scientists [/i]has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , expressing concern that the American People's right to know ([i]having nothing to do with so-called "National Security[/i]") about formulation of public policy is being undermined by the Bush administration. http://www.tblog.com/template...

The Bush administration is one of the most secretive in our nation's history ([i]not regarding Sex[/i]), but concerning issues affecting our foreign, domestic and economic policies http://www.tblog.com/template... , that could be subject to criminal investigation if the truth regarding Bush/Cheney's cronies' ([i]large corporations and special interests[/i]) potentially illegal involvement in drafting foreign and domestic policies were to be disclosed.

[b]Should Bush and Cheney be tortured, raped and sodomized to discover the truth? After all, it is in our nation's interest to discover the truth, isn't it? I'm just posing the question: [i]Is what's good for the goose actually good for the gander[/i]?[/b]

Read this Bush/Cheney [i]outrage[/i]:

[u][b]Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies[/b][/u]

[b]What does the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta [/i]intend to keep secret from "We the People" regarding their neo-hitlerian murders, tortures, rapes and abuses at [i]Abu Ghraib[/i]??? ... [/b]For a heart-breaking[i] "look-see"[/i] refer to "[u]Torturing Children[/u]" on http://www.truthout.org/docs_... ... In testimony before the Senate & House Armed Services Committees, Rumsfeld http://www.truthout.org/docs_... admitted that he had seen video-tapes, photos and tape-recordings of horrors and atrocities carried out at [i]Abu Ghraib[/i] http://www.newyorker.com/fact... that were [i]much, much "worse" [/i] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin... than the pictures already released[i] at that time [/i] http://www.antiwar.com/news/?... to the American public (... the pictures were only available for us to see because they were released by US Soldiers to the foreign press[i] first[/i]; otherwise the neo-fascist Bushies would have censored them ...) ...

Although the traitorous neo-con Bush regime [i]may[/i] succeed in [i]diverting the attention [/i]of the right-wing corporate-owned neo-fascist media in the United States of America, they cannot hide the fact that [i]they are responsible[/i] for unconscionable War Crimes ... History will condemn these horrendous Crimes Against Humanity committed by the Un-American Bush regime ... For some thoughtful insight please consider also "[u]'An old vet's opinion: Bush and the torturing of Iraq's children'[/u]" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... .

The [i]Abu Ghraib [/i]investigation whitewash I reported on last week is intensifying as the Defense Department moves to squelch document production in response to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests by public interest groups and members of the media.

The Project on Government Secrecy, http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.... headed by FOIA guru Steven Aftergood, reported today that:

[b]PENTAGON "CONSOLIDATES" [i]ABU GHRAIB [/i]DOCUMENT REQUESTS[/b]

Freedom of Information Act requests that were sent to the Pentagon for additional documentation and imagery concerning the abuse of Iraqi prisoners held in U.S. custody in Iraq (SN, 05/12/04) were forwarded by the Pentagon to U.S. Central Command for processing.

But now U.S. Central Command is sending them back to the Pentagon.

"We have been instructed to refer all requests for information referring to detainee abuse to the Department of Defense [Pentagon FOIA office]," a CENTCOM FOIA officer wrote. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2...

"In order to provide you with as much information as possible, all detainee requests are now being consolidated and will be answered by [the Pentagon]."

[b]Meanwhile, Congressional efforts to gain access to documents on the [i]Abu Ghraib [/i]case and related issues have been frustrated.[/b] http://www.washingtondispatch...

"Time and again attempts by this House to acquire documents related to the [i]Abu Ghraib [/i]prison abuse scandal have been defeated, largely on party line votes," said Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) on July 19, citing several initiatives that had been blocked by the Republican majority.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. New Yorker columnist Seymour M. Hersh, who has already broken several important stories on the invasion of Iraq and the "War on Terror," reportedly has new information that is even more disturbing than his May 2004 article, [u]The Gray Zone[/u]. http://www.newyorker.com/fact...

[i]The Independent [/i]reported on July 16, 2004, that videotapes exist of US soldiers sodomizing Iraqi boys. http://news.independent.co.uk... [i]The Independent [/i]quotes Mr. Hersh, at a speaking engagement before a San Francisco ACLU meeting, as saying: "The boys were sodomised with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war."

The horrifying story of[i] Abu Ghraib [/i]is going to get worse. If our professional US Army officer corps continues to "play ostrich," or allows itself to be further politicized as a means of escaping or minimizing the consequences of this grave leadership failure, the damage to the US Army will be lasting and to the core. The "Nuremberg defense" and careerist political moves just won't cut it. Brave officers who honor their oath of office, their commission and the Constitution they swore to defend must inititiate the desperately needed correction from within the US Army, now. Slow-walking, stonewalling or waiting for civilian politicians to "provide guidance" is not an acceptable or honorable course of action. - http://www.washingtondispatch...

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith: http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

[u][b]Other must-reads[/b][/u]:

Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists, http://www.tblog.com/template...

Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents, http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
Two New Reports Criticize Halliburton's Iraq Contracts
07.26.04 (7:45 am)   [edit]
Today, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member of the House Government Reform Committee, and Rep. John D. Dingell, Ranking Minority Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released two new reports regarding Halliburton's contracts in Iraq. The two reports describe evidence of overcharging by Halliburton and inadequate cost controls by Administration officials.

The first report, which was prepared by the Government Accountability Office, examines Halliburton's "LOGCAP" contract for providing food, housing, and other logistical support to the troops. The GAO report finds significant problems in almost every area of LOGCAP operations in Iraq, including ineffective planning, inadequate cost control, insufficient training, and a pattern of recurring problems with controlling costs, meeting schedules, documenting purchases, and overseeing subcontractors. In particular, GAO found that Administration planning was "ineffective" and "piecemeal," that there were "no spending limits for LOGCAP until spring 2004," that "it is difficult to know how much the contractor has actually spent," that Halliburton's requisitions "frequently lack sufficient documentation," that Halliburton "does not have good control over its subcontractors," and that military officials responsible for oversight "had little or no training."

The second report, which was prepared by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee, presents the results of a nine-month investigation into Halliburton's contract to import gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait. The report compares what Halliburton charged for the gasoline imports with the costs now being incurred by a federal agency, the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), to perform the same services. It finds that Halliburton charged over three times more than DESC to transport gasoline into Iraq and over 40 times more than DESC in fees and overhead. In total, Halliburton's charges over the prevailing market price were $1.27 more per gallon than those of DESC. Multiplied by the 131 million gallons of gasoline Halliburton imported from Kuwait into Iraq, Halliburton's extra charges exceeded $165 million.

In releasing the reports, Rep. Waxman stated: "The Bush Administration gave Halliburton a blank check and the taxpayer has been stuck with the bill. The reports document an egregious and systemic failure to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse."

"GAO confirms that neither the Administration nor Halliburton has paid attention to the taxpayers' interest in these no-bid contracts," said Rep. Dingell. "GAO alleges lax government oversight while Halliburton overcharged $88 million for 3.4 million meals they didn't serve. Meanwhile, Halliburton was marking up Kuwaiti gasoline by more than triple the markup the Defense Department's in-house service charged, a potential $167 million overcharge. One can only speculate how this company continues to get these billion dollar no-bid deals."

Halliburton has the two largest contracts in Iraq: the "LOGCAP" contract to supply essential logistical support to the troops, such as housing, food, laundry, and other services, and the "RIO" contract to restore the Iraqi oil infrastructure. To date, Halliburton has been awarded over $8 billion under these two contracts ($5.6 billion for its logistical support work and $2.5 billion for its oil work).

The GAO report entitled, Military Operations: DOD's Extensive Use of Logistics Support Contracts Require Strengthened Oversight, as well as an accompanying fact sheet and the Committee staff report on Halliburton's gasoline overcharges, are all available at www.house.gov/reform/min.

[b]CONTACT:[/b] Committee on Government Reform
Karen Lightfoot/Anna Laitin (Waxman) at (202) 225-5051
Jodi Seth (Dingell) at (202) 225-3641 - http://www.commondreams.org/n...
 
Two New Reports Criticize Halliburton's Iraq Contracts
07.26.04 (7:43 am)   [edit]
Today, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member of the House Government Reform Committee, and Rep. John D. Dingell, Ranking Minority Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released two new reports regarding Halliburton's contracts in Iraq. The two reports describe evidence of overcharging by Halliburton and inadequate cost controls by Administration officials.

The first report, which was prepared by the Government Accountability Office, examines Halliburton's "LOGCAP" contract for providing food, housing, and other logistical support to the troops. The GAO report finds significant problems in almost every area of LOGCAP operations in Iraq, including ineffective planning, inadequate cost control, insufficient training, and a pattern of recurring problems with controlling costs, meeting schedules, documenting purchases, and overseeing subcontractors. In particular, GAO found that Administration planning was "ineffective" and "piecemeal," that there were "no spending limits for LOGCAP until spring 2004," that "it is difficult to know how much the contractor has actually spent," that Halliburton's requisitions "frequently lack sufficient documentation," that Halliburton "does not have good control over its subcontractors," and that military officials responsible for oversight "had little or no training."

The second report, which was prepared by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee, presents the results of a nine-month investigation into Halliburton's contract to import gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait. The report compares what Halliburton charged for the gasoline imports with the costs now being incurred by a federal agency, the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), to perform the same services. It finds that Halliburton charged over three times more than DESC to transport gasoline into Iraq and over 40 times more than DESC in fees and overhead. In total, Halliburton's charges over the prevailing market price were $1.27 more per gallon than those of DESC. Multiplied by the 131 million gallons of gasoline Halliburton imported from Kuwait into Iraq, Halliburton's extra charges exceeded $165 million.

In releasing the reports, Rep. Waxman stated: "The Bush Administration gave Halliburton a blank check and the taxpayer has been stuck with the bill. The reports document an egregious and systemic failure to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse."

"GAO confirms that neither the Administration nor Halliburton has paid attention to the taxpayers' interest in these no-bid contracts," said Rep. Dingell. "GAO alleges lax government oversight while Halliburton overcharged $88 million for 3.4 million meals they didn't serve. Meanwhile, Halliburton was marking up Kuwaiti gasoline by more than triple the markup the Defense Department's in-house service charged, a potential $167 million overcharge. One can only speculate how this company continues to get these billion dollar no-bid deals."

Halliburton has the two largest contracts in Iraq: the "LOGCAP" contract to supply essential logistical support to the troops, such as housing, food, laundry, and other services, and the "RIO" contract to restore the Iraqi oil infrastructure. To date, Halliburton has been awarded over $8 billion under these two contracts ($5.6 billion for its logistical support work and $2.5 billion for its oil work).

The GAO report entitled, Military Operations: DOD's Extensive Use of Logistics Support Contracts Require Strengthened Oversight, as well as an accompanying fact sheet and the Committee staff report on Halliburton's gasoline overcharges, are all available at www.house.gov/reform/min.

[b]CONTACT:[/b] Committee on Government Reform
Karen Lightfoot/Anna Laitin (Waxman) at (202) 225-5051
Jodi Seth (Dingell) at (202) 225-3641 - http://www.commondreams.org/n...
 
What is Rush Limbaugh?
07.26.04 (7:37 am)   [edit]
[b]Limbaugh: Sandy Berger incident "far worse" than Abu Ghraib[/b]

In response to a caller's assertion that under a similar rationale to the court proceedings leveled against soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, former national security adviser Sandy Berger http://mediamatters.org/items... "deserves prison time," [for taking copies of documents, although the originals are still intact at the National Archives] radio host Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items... replied, "Using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib [where little children have been raped and sodomized-- prisoners murdered, tortured, raped and abused in the most heinous and vile neo-hitlerian manner], yeah, you -- you're exactly right ... this is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that." Berger is under investigation for removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.

From the July 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show [for fucking assholes[i] too stupid to live [/i]if they have to listen to this White Trash piece of garbage Rushy-boy, the Mother-Fucker ...[i] my comments[/i]] http://mediamatters.org/items... :

[b]CALLER: [/b] "Listen, I -- I'm really upset. If we can send our soldiers to prison over this Abu Ghraib, because they were supposed to know better, then what is going on here? The national security adviser to a president is supposed to know better. He deserves prison time."

[...]

[b]LIMBAUGH: [/b] "So, using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib, yeah, you -- you're exactly right. We were told these people should have known better. This is unconscionable. The American people don't treat other people this way. Let's plaster their names all over the paper. Let's send them up for trial. Let's convict them. Let's put them in jail. Show trials and all this.

This is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that. And I -- but I -- you -- trust me on what I tell you about the words of the -- of the U.S. attorney that -- that's looking into this, [Deputy Attorney General] James [B.] Comey. They're refusing a deal. They're continuing to hold out this possibility of jail time and criminal charges."

[b]What a piece of trash, Limbaugh is...[/b]

As [i]Media Matters for America [/i]has noted http://mediamatters.org/items... , Limbaugh has repeatedly downplayed http://mediamatters.org/items... , dismissed http://mediamatters.org/items... , and even endorsed http://mediamatters.org/items... the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, prompting [i]MMFA[/i] to call for the removal of Limbaugh's radio show from taxpayer-funded [u]American Forces Radio and Television Service[/u] http://www.afrts.osd.mil/ . - http://mediamatters.org/items...

[b]LET'S SEND LIMBAUGH TO ABU GHRAIB TO BE FUCKED-UP THE BUTT LIKE THE LITTLE CHILDREN-- THAT HIS MASTERS BUSH/CHENEY ARE HIDING:[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]AMERICANS SHOULD BOYCOTT THIS SLIME-BALL NAZI LIMBAUGH WHO IS A BLOOD-THIRSTY OPPORTUNIST PROMOTING HATE, RACISM, RAPE OF AMERICA, AND SUPPORTS WARS, MURDERS, TORTURES, RAPES OF LITTLE KIDS, ABUSES AND CHILD SODOMY!!![/b]

ALL BERGER DID WAS TAKE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OVER 9-10 MONTHS AGO (which is still wrong), BUT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH/CHENEY'S WAR CRIMES:

[u]Please take the time to read[/u]:

Missing the Point: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

No Oversight, No Shame ... : http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies: http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
Rush Limbaugh Says Abu Ghraib Prisoner Torture is Nothing But a "Show Trial"
07.26.04 (7:36 am)   [edit]
[b]Limbaugh: Sandy Berger incident "far worse" than Abu Ghraib[/b]

In response to a caller's assertion that under a similar rationale to the court proceedings leveled against soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, former national security adviser Sandy Berger http://mediamatters.org/items... "deserves prison time," [for taking copies of documents, although the originals are still intact at the National Archives] radio host Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items... replied, "Using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib [where little children have been raped and sodomized-- prisoners murdered, tortured, raped and abused in the most heinous and vile neo-hitlerian manner], yeah, you -- you're exactly right ... this is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that." Berger is under investigation for removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.

From the July 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show [for fucking assholes[i] too stupid to live [/i]if they have to listen to this White Trash piece of garbage Rushy-boy, the Mother-Fucker ...[i] my comments[/i]] http://mediamatters.org/items... :

[b]CALLER: [/b] "Listen, I -- I'm really upset. If we can send our soldiers to prison over this Abu Ghraib, because they were supposed to know better, then what is going on here? The national security adviser to a president is supposed to know better. He deserves prison time."

[...]

[b]LIMBAUGH: [/b] "So, using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib, yeah, you -- you're exactly right. We were told these people should have known better. This is unconscionable. The American people don't treat other people this way. Let's plaster their names all over the paper. Let's send them up for trial. Let's convict them. Let's put them in jail. Show trials and all this.

This is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that. And I -- but I -- you -- trust me on what I tell you about the words of the -- of the U.S. attorney that -- that's looking into this, [Deputy Attorney General] James [B.] Comey. They're refusing a deal. They're continuing to hold out this possibility of jail time and criminal charges."

[b]What a piece of trash, Limbaugh is...[/b]

As [i]Media Matters for America [/i]has noted http://mediamatters.org/items... , Limbaugh has repeatedly downplayed http://mediamatters.org/items... , dismissed http://mediamatters.org/items... , and even endorsed http://mediamatters.org/items... the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, prompting [i]MMFA[/i] to call for the removal of Limbaugh's radio show from taxpayer-funded [u]American Forces Radio and Television Service[/u] http://www.afrts.osd.mil/ . - http://mediamatters.org/items...

[b]LET'S SEND LIMBAUGH TO ABU GHRAIB TO BE FUCKED-UP THE BUTT LIKE THE LITTLE CHILDREN-- THAT HIS MASTERS BUSH/CHENEY ARE HIDING:[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]AMERICANS SHOULD BOYCOTT THIS SLIME-BALL NAZI LIMBAUGH WHO IS A BLOOD-THIRSTY OPPORTUNIST PROMOTING HATE, RACISM, RAPE OF AMERICA, AND SUPPORTS WARS, MURDERS, TORTURES, RAPES OF LITTLE KIDS, ABUSES AND CHILD SODOMY!!![/b]

ALL BERGER DID WAS TAKE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OVER 9-10 MONTHS AGO (which is still wrong), BUT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH/CHENEY'S WAR CRIMES:

[u]Please take the time to read[/u]:

Missing the Point: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

No Oversight, No Shame ... : http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies: http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
What Kind of Christian is Rush Limbaugh?
07.26.04 (7:34 am)   [edit]
[b]Limbaugh: Sandy Berger incident "far worse" than Abu Ghraib[/b]

In response to a caller's assertion that under a similar rationale to the court proceedings leveled against soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, former national security adviser Sandy Berger http://mediamatters.org/items... "deserves prison time," [for taking copies of documents, although the originals are still intact at the National Archives] radio host Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items... replied, "Using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib [where little children have been raped and sodomized-- prisoners murdered, tortured, raped and abused in the most heinous and vile neo-hitlerian manner], yeah, you -- you're exactly right ... this is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that." Berger is under investigation for removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.

From the July 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show [for fucking assholes[i] too stupid to live [/i]if they have to listen to this White Trash piece of garbage Rushy-boy, the Mother-Fucker ...[i] my comments[/i]] http://mediamatters.org/items... :

[b]CALLER: [/b] "Listen, I -- I'm really upset. If we can send our soldiers to prison over this Abu Ghraib, because they were supposed to know better, then what is going on here? The national security adviser to a president is supposed to know better. He deserves prison time."

[...]

[b]LIMBAUGH: [/b] "So, using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib, yeah, you -- you're exactly right. We were told these people should have known better. This is unconscionable. The American people don't treat other people this way. Let's plaster their names all over the paper. Let's send them up for trial. Let's convict them. Let's put them in jail. Show trials and all this.

This is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that. And I -- but I -- you -- trust me on what I tell you about the words of the -- of the U.S. attorney that -- that's looking into this, [Deputy Attorney General] James [B.] Comey. They're refusing a deal. They're continuing to hold out this possibility of jail time and criminal charges."

[b]What a piece of trash, Limbaugh is...[/b]

As [i]Media Matters for America [/i]has noted http://mediamatters.org/items... , Limbaugh has repeatedly downplayed http://mediamatters.org/items... , dismissed http://mediamatters.org/items... , and even endorsed http://mediamatters.org/items... the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, prompting [i]MMFA[/i] to call for the removal of Limbaugh's radio show from taxpayer-funded [u]American Forces Radio and Television Service[/u] http://www.afrts.osd.mil/ . - http://mediamatters.org/items...

[b]LET'S SEND LIMBAUGH TO ABU GHRAIB TO BE FUCKED-UP THE BUTT LIKE THE LITTLE CHILDREN-- THAT HIS MASTERS BUSH/CHENEY ARE HIDING:[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]AMERICANS SHOULD BOYCOTT THIS SLIME-BALL NAZI LIMBAUGH WHO IS A BLOOD-THIRSTY OPPORTUNIST PROMOTING HATE, RACISM, RAPE OF AMERICA, AND SUPPORTS WARS, MURDERS, TORTURES, RAPES OF LITTLE KIDS, ABUSES AND CHILD SODOMY!!![/b]

ALL BERGER DID WAS TAKE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OVER 9-10 MONTHS AGO (which is still wrong), BUT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH/CHENEY'S WAR CRIMES:

[u]Please take the time to read[/u]:

Missing the Point: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

No Oversight, No Shame ... : http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies: http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
Rush Limbaugh's Brain Fart
07.26.04 (7:32 am)   [edit]
[b]Limbaugh: Sandy Berger incident "far worse" than Abu Ghraib[/b]

In response to a caller's assertion that under a similar rationale to the court proceedings leveled against soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, former national security adviser Sandy Berger http://mediamatters.org/items... "deserves prison time," [for taking copies of documents, although the originals are still intact at the National Archives] radio host Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items... replied, "Using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib [where little children have been raped and sodomized-- prisoners murdered, tortured, raped and abused in the most heinous and vile neo-hitlerian manner], yeah, you -- you're exactly right ... this is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that." Berger is under investigation for removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.

From the July 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show [for fucking assholes[i] too stupid to live [/i]if they have to listen to this White Trash piece of garbage Rushy-boy, the Mother-Fucker ...[i] my comments[/i]] http://mediamatters.org/items... :

[b]CALLER: [/b] "Listen, I -- I'm really upset. If we can send our soldiers to prison over this Abu Ghraib, because they were supposed to know better, then what is going on here? The national security adviser to a president is supposed to know better. He deserves prison time."

[...]

[b]LIMBAUGH: [/b] "So, using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib, yeah, you -- you're exactly right. We were told these people should have known better. This is unconscionable. The American people don't treat other people this way. Let's plaster their names all over the paper. Let's send them up for trial. Let's convict them. Let's put them in jail. Show trials and all this.

This is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that. And I -- but I -- you -- trust me on what I tell you about the words of the -- of the U.S. attorney that -- that's looking into this, [Deputy Attorney General] James [B.] Comey. They're refusing a deal. They're continuing to hold out this possibility of jail time and criminal charges."

[b]What a piece of trash, Limbaugh is...[/b]

As [i]Media Matters for America [/i]has noted http://mediamatters.org/items... , Limbaugh has repeatedly downplayed http://mediamatters.org/items... , dismissed http://mediamatters.org/items... , and even endorsed http://mediamatters.org/items... the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, prompting [i]MMFA[/i] to call for the removal of Limbaugh's radio show from taxpayer-funded [u]American Forces Radio and Television Service[/u] http://www.afrts.osd.mil/ . - http://mediamatters.org/items...

[b]LET'S SEND LIMBAUGH TO ABU GHRAIB TO BE FUCKED-UP THE BUTT LIKE THE LITTLE CHILDREN-- THAT HIS MASTERS BUSH/CHENEY ARE HIDING:[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]AMERICANS SHOULD BOYCOTT THIS SLIME-BALL NAZI LIMBAUGH WHO IS A BLOOD-THIRSTY OPPORTUNIST PROMOTING HATE, RACISM, RAPE OF AMERICA, AND SUPPORTS WARS, MURDERS, TORTURES, RAPES OF LITTLE KIDS, ABUSES AND CHILD SODOMY!!![/b]

ALL BERGER DID WAS TAKE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OVER 9-10 MONTHS AGO (which is still wrong), BUT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH/CHENEY'S WAR CRIMES:

[u]Please take the time to read[/u]:

Missing the Point: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

No Oversight, No Shame ... : http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies: http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
Why Rush Limbaugh is Beneath Contempt!!!
07.26.04 (7:25 am)   [edit]
[b]Limbaugh: Sandy Berger incident "far worse" than Abu Ghraib[/b]

In response to a caller's assertion that under a similar rationale to the court proceedings leveled against soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, former national security adviser Sandy Berger http://mediamatters.org/items... "deserves prison time," [for taking copies of documents, although the originals are still intact at the National Archives] radio host Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items... replied, "Using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib [where little children have been raped and sodomized-- prisoners murdered, tortured, raped and abused in the most heinous and vile neo-hitlerian manner], yeah, you -- you're exactly right ... this is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that." Berger is under investigation for removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.

From the July 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show [for fucking assholes[i] too stupid to live [/i]if they have to listen to this White Trash piece of garbage Rushy-boy, the Mother-Fucker ...[i] my comments[/i]] http://mediamatters.org/items... :

[b]CALLER: [/b] "Listen, I -- I'm really upset. If we can send our soldiers to prison over this Abu Ghraib, because they were supposed to know better, then what is going on here? The national security adviser to a president is supposed to know better. He deserves prison time."

[...]

[b]LIMBAUGH: [/b] "So, using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib, yeah, you -- you're exactly right. We were told these people should have known better. This is unconscionable. The American people don't treat other people this way. Let's plaster their names all over the paper. Let's send them up for trial. Let's convict them. Let's put them in jail. Show trials and all this.

This is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that. And I -- but I -- you -- trust me on what I tell you about the words of the -- of the U.S. attorney that -- that's looking into this, [Deputy Attorney General] James [B.] Comey. They're refusing a deal. They're continuing to hold out this possibility of jail time and criminal charges."

[b]What a piece of trash, Limbaugh is...[/b]

As [i]Media Matters for America [/i]has noted http://mediamatters.org/items... , Limbaugh has repeatedly downplayed http://mediamatters.org/items... , dismissed http://mediamatters.org/items... , and even endorsed http://mediamatters.org/items... the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, prompting [i]MMFA[/i] to call for the removal of Limbaugh's radio show from taxpayer-funded [u]American Forces Radio and Television Service[/u] http://www.afrts.osd.mil/ . - http://mediamatters.org/items...

[b]LET'S SEND LIMBAUGH TO ABU GHRAIB TO BE FUCKED-UP THE BUTT LIKE THE LITTLE CHILDREN-- THAT HIS MASTERS BUSH/CHENEY ARE HIDING:[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]AMERICANS SHOULD BOYCOTT THIS SLIME-BALL NAZI LIMBAUGH WHO IS A BLOOD-THIRSTY OPPORTUNIST PROMOTING HATE, RACISM, RAPE OF AMERICA, AND SUPPORTS WARS, MURDERS, TORTURES, RAPES OF LITTLE KIDS, ABUSES AND CHILD SODOMY!!![/b]

ALL BERGER DID WAS TAKE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OVER 9-10 MONTHS AGO (which is still wrong), BUT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH/CHENEY'S WAR CRIMES:

[u]Please take the time to read[/u]:

Missing the Point: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

No Oversight, No Shame ... : http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies: http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Sets New Documentary Mark, Topping $100 Million
07.26.04 (7:23 am)   [edit]
Michael Moore joined the $100 million club as his political assault "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the first documentary ever to top that mark at the domestic box office.

Moore's condemnation of President Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11 attacks had a weekend haul of $5 million to lift its total to $103.35 million since opening in late June.

"The American people have not been given the whole story about these last three years and they don't feel they've been given the truth from the White House," Moore said Sunday. "So they've gone to the movie theaters to look for the truth and to begin the important discussion and debate that needs to take place in this country."

The previous best domestic gross for a feature-length documentary was $21.6 million for Moore's Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine." That film took nine months to hit that level, while "Fahrenheit 9/11" did more business, $23.9 million, in just its first weekend.

The polarizing effects of Sept. 11 and its aftermath, with Americans bitterly divided over Bush's invasion of Iraq, have boosted the public's appetite for political documentaries such as "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Control Room" and "Outfoxed," Moore said.

"It's really cool now to talk about politics, and this is the first time I've seen this happen in decades, really," Moore said. "Being apathetic right now is very uncool."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival in May, but the movie lost its original distributor when Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax release it because of its political content.

Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and arranged for independent distribution through Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

Democrats have embraced "Fahrenheit 9/11," though Moore said his main goal was to create good entertainment, not dabble in politics. Moore said he has not been contacted by the campaign of Democratic candidate John Kerry and that he did not make the movie to boost Democrats' prospects of winning the White House.

The real effect of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be to encourage Americans normally disinterested in politics to participate this fall, Moore said.

"I believe the film is going to bring hundreds of thousands of people to the polls who otherwise were not going to vote," Moore said. "I think it's going to have a tremendous impact in that way."

Moore said he had hoped to have "Fahrenheit 9/11" out on DVD before the November election, but that the film could continue to play in theaters through year's end and into 2005.

"So I don't know really what that means now in terms of the DVD," Moore said. - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
 
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Sets New Documentary Mark, Topping $100 Million
07.26.04 (7:22 am)   [edit]
Michael Moore joined the $100 million club as his political assault "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the first documentary ever to top that mark at the domestic box office.

Moore's condemnation of President Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11 attacks had a weekend haul of $5 million to lift its total to $103.35 million since opening in late June.

"The American people have not been given the whole story about these last three years and they don't feel they've been given the truth from the White House," Moore said Sunday. "So they've gone to the movie theaters to look for the truth and to begin the important discussion and debate that needs to take place in this country."

The previous best domestic gross for a feature-length documentary was $21.6 million for Moore's Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine." That film took nine months to hit that level, while "Fahrenheit 9/11" did more business, $23.9 million, in just its first weekend.

The polarizing effects of Sept. 11 and its aftermath, with Americans bitterly divided over Bush's invasion of Iraq, have boosted the public's appetite for political documentaries such as "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Control Room" and "Outfoxed," Moore said.

"It's really cool now to talk about politics, and this is the first time I've seen this happen in decades, really," Moore said. "Being apathetic right now is very uncool."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival in May, but the movie lost its original distributor when Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax release it because of its political content.

Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and arranged for independent distribution through Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

Democrats have embraced "Fahrenheit 9/11," though Moore said his main goal was to create good entertainment, not dabble in politics. Moore said he has not been contacted by the campaign of Democratic candidate John Kerry and that he did not make the movie to boost Democrats' prospects of winning the White House.

The real effect of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be to encourage Americans normally disinterested in politics to participate this fall, Moore said.

"I believe the film is going to bring hundreds of thousands of people to the polls who otherwise were not going to vote," Moore said. "I think it's going to have a tremendous impact in that way."

Moore said he had hoped to have "Fahrenheit 9/11" out on DVD before the November election, but that the film could continue to play in theaters through year's end and into 2005.

"So I don't know really what that means now in terms of the DVD," Moore said. - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
 
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Sets New Documentary Mark, Topping $100 Million
07.26.04 (7:20 am)   [edit]
Michael Moore joined the $100 million club as his political assault "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the first documentary ever to top that mark at the domestic box office.

Moore's condemnation of President Bush's actions regarding the Sept. 11 attacks had a weekend haul of $5 million to lift its total to $103.35 million since opening in late June.

"The American people have not been given the whole story about these last three years and they don't feel they've been given the truth from the White House," Moore said Sunday. "So they've gone to the movie theaters to look for the truth and to begin the important discussion and debate that needs to take place in this country."

The previous best domestic gross for a feature-length documentary was $21.6 million for Moore's Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine." That film took nine months to hit that level, while "Fahrenheit 9/11" did more business, $23.9 million, in just its first weekend.

The polarizing effects of Sept. 11 and its aftermath, with Americans bitterly divided over Bush's invasion of Iraq, have boosted the public's appetite for political documentaries such as "Fahrenheit 9/11," "Control Room" and "Outfoxed," Moore said.

"It's really cool now to talk about politics, and this is the first time I've seen this happen in decades, really," Moore said. "Being apathetic right now is very uncool."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival in May, but the movie lost its original distributor when Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax release it because of its political content.

Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and arranged for independent distribution through Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

Democrats have embraced "Fahrenheit 9/11," though Moore said his main goal was to create good entertainment, not dabble in politics. Moore said he has not been contacted by the campaign of Democratic candidate John Kerry and that he did not make the movie to boost Democrats' prospects of winning the White House.

The real effect of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be to encourage Americans normally disinterested in politics to participate this fall, Moore said.

"I believe the film is going to bring hundreds of thousands of people to the polls who otherwise were not going to vote," Moore said. "I think it's going to have a tremendous impact in that way."

Moore said he had hoped to have "Fahrenheit 9/11" out on DVD before the November election, but that the film could continue to play in theaters through year's end and into 2005.

"So I don't know really what that means now in terms of the DVD," Moore said. - http://www.commondreams.org/h...
 
PETITION Calling for the Resignation or Removal of John Ashcroft
07.25.04 (3:17 pm)   [edit]


[i][b]A Declaration Calling for the Resignation or Removal of John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States[/b][/i]

[b]Presented by the Center for American Progress and opened for signature on June 18, 2004, for submission to the President of the United States and leaders of the Congress[/b].

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to call to account and seek the removal of those who govern them, a decent respect to the opinions of humanity requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such action.

The history of law enforcement by the present Attorney General is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States, to the detriment of both our liberty and our security. He has forfeited, through his disdain for the Constitution and the Rule of Law which he has sworn to uphold, any legitimate claim to exercise power over his fellow citizens. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[b]. Read the complete document on http://www.americanprogress.o... [/b]

[u][b]SIGN THE PETITION ON[/b][/u]: http://www.americanprogress.o...

Also refer to "[i]Ashcroft Publicly Misleads 9/11 Commission[/i]" on http://www.misleader.org/dail...
 
---> New Citizens Say GOP Took Away Their Right To Choose!!!
07.25.04 (7:11 am)   [edit]
Dario Cruz has lived in the United States for 16 years, but just became a citizen last week as he and about 200 other immigrants were naturalized.

One of the things he had always wanted to was register to vote, but when he was offered the chance to do that right outside the ceremony, he knew something wasn't right -- the place on the form where you're asked to choose Democrat, Republican or independent was already filled out.

"It's like one side," Cruz said. "You don't get to choose."

According to Cruz and his family, every form was checked off Republican.

It was something his wife, Linda Cross, first noticed. She said she asked what was going on, and was told the woman registering voters said they were with a Republican organization.

"I am Republican," she told Channel 4's Jim Piggott. "I was very angry with that if they want to register whatever party, you shouldn't try to dictate to people what party they are going to register; who they are going to vote for, because then you don't have any freedom."

The couple left without registering, but they did tell local Democratic Party officials what happened.

"These new citizens that were coming out and maybe did not know much of what was going on were all registering Republican," Cross said. "Not by choice, but by someone else's choice."

Clyde Collins, who runs the local Democratic Party, says this practice is not right, and as informed federal officials about the incident. They told him an investigation is underway.

"First of all, it violates your fundamental right," Collins said. "You have right to decide which political party you wish to enroll."

Collins says those who were sworn in last week will be contacted and told they have the right to register for the party of their choice.

For Cruz, that is what's important.

"I think you should be able to choose who you want to vote for," he said.

For the record, any registered voter can vote for any candidate of any party in a general election, but in most primaries in Florida, people can only vote for candidates of their own party.

Channel 4 has tried contracting federal officials about this issue since last Friday and have not received a response, nor have local Republican leaders responded. Folio Weekly will have more on this story in this week's paper. - http://www.news4jax.com/polit...
 
---> New Citizens Say GOP Took Away Their Right To Choose!!!
07.25.04 (7:09 am)   [edit]
Dario Cruz has lived in the United States for 16 years, but just became a citizen last week as he and about 200 other immigrants were naturalized.

One of the things he had always wanted to was register to vote, but when he was offered the chance to do that right outside the ceremony, he knew something wasn't right -- the place on the form where you're asked to choose Democrat, Republican or independent was already filled out.

"It's like one side," Cruz said. "You don't get to choose."

According to Cruz and his family, every form was checked off Republican.

It was something his wife, Linda Cross, first noticed. She said she asked what was going on, and was told the woman registering voters said they were with a Republican organization.

"I am Republican," she told Channel 4's Jim Piggott. "I was very angry with that if they want to register whatever party, you shouldn't try to dictate to people what party they are going to register; who they are going to vote for, because then you don't have any freedom."

The couple left without registering, but they did tell local Democratic Party officials what happened.

"These new citizens that were coming out and maybe did not know much of what was going on were all registering Republican," Cross said. "Not by choice, but by someone else's choice."

Clyde Collins, who runs the local Democratic Party, says this practice is not right, and as informed federal officials about the incident. They told him an investigation is underway.

"First of all, it violates your fundamental right," Collins said. "You have right to decide which political party you wish to enroll."

Collins says those who were sworn in last week will be contacted and told they have the right to register for the party of their choice.

For Cruz, that is what's important.

"I think you should be able to choose who you want to vote for," he said.

For the record, any registered voter can vote for any candidate of any party in a general election, but in most primaries in Florida, people can only vote for candidates of their own party.

Channel 4 has tried contracting federal officials about this issue since last Friday and have not received a response, nor have local Republican leaders responded. Folio Weekly will have more on this story in this week's paper. - http://www.news4jax.com/polit...
 
Missing Records Prove Bush Was AWOL For 5 Months In 1972!!!
07.25.04 (7:01 am)   [edit]


Bush dodged Vietnam by using powerful family friends to get into the Texas Air National Guard "Champagne Unit." Bush was required to train with his unit one weekend each month. But for at least five months in 1972 (May-Sept), Bush did NOT report for duty. The Pentagon just found the pay records that prove Bush received NO pay for those 5 months. Bush was AWOL - and a DESERTER. Why did he decide to stop flying - was it alcohol or drugs? Was there a Flight Inquiry Board? Once again, we demand Bush's MEDICAL and DISCIPLINARY records!

[u]Read entire article on[/u]: http://democrats.com/view.cfm...
 
Missing Records Prove Bush Was AWOL For 5 Months In 1972!!!
07.25.04 (7:00 am)   [edit]


Bush dodged Vietnam by using powerful family friends to get into the Texas Air National Guard "Champagne Unit." Bush was required to train with his unit one weekend each month. But for at least five months in 1972 (May-Sept), Bush did NOT report for duty. The Pentagon just found the pay records that prove Bush received NO pay for those 5 months. Bush was AWOL - and a DESERTER. Why did he decide to stop flying - was it alcohol or drugs? Was there a Flight Inquiry Board? Once again, we demand Bush's MEDICAL and DISCIPLINARY records!

[u]Read entire article on[/u]: http://democrats.com/view.cfm...
 
Pig-Ass Limbaugh Says Rape of Little Kids At Abu Ghraib Not As Serious As Berger's Copies of Docs
07.24.04 (1:15 pm)   [edit]
[b]Limbaugh: Sandy Berger incident "far worse" than Abu Ghraib[/b]

In response to a caller's assertion that under a similar rationale to the court proceedings leveled against soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, former national security adviser Sandy Berger http://mediamatters.org/items... "deserves prison time," [for taking copies of documents, although the originals are still intact at the National Archives] radio host Rush Limbaugh http://mediamatters.org/items... replied, "Using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib [where little children have been raped and sodomized-- prisoners murdered, tortured, raped and abused in the most heinous and vile neo-hitlerian manner], yeah, you -- you're exactly right ... this is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that." Berger is under investigation for removing classified documents and personal notes from the National Archives last fall during preparations for his appearance before the 9-11 Commission.

From the July 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show [for fucking assholes[i] too stupid to live [/i]if they have to listen to this White Trash piece of garbage Rushy-boy, the Mother-Fucker ...[i] my comments[/i]] http://mediamatters.org/items... :

[b]CALLER: [/b] "Listen, I -- I'm really upset. If we can send our soldiers to prison over this Abu Ghraib, because they were supposed to know better, then what is going on here? The national security adviser to a president is supposed to know better. He deserves prison time."

[...]

[b]LIMBAUGH: [/b] "So, using your point of comparing this [the Berger incident] side by side with Abu Ghraib, yeah, you -- you're exactly right. We were told these people should have known better. This is unconscionable. The American people don't treat other people this way. Let's plaster their names all over the paper. Let's send them up for trial. Let's convict them. Let's put them in jail. Show trials and all this.

This is far worse. This is somebody who had far more access, responsibility, knowledge, and all that. And I -- but I -- you -- trust me on what I tell you about the words of the -- of the U.S. attorney that -- that's looking into this, [Deputy Attorney General] James [B.] Comey. They're refusing a deal. They're continuing to hold out this possibility of jail time and criminal charges."

[b]What a piece of trash, Limbaugh is...[/b]

As [i]Media Matters for America [/i]has noted http://mediamatters.org/items... , Limbaugh has repeatedly downplayed http://mediamatters.org/items... , dismissed http://mediamatters.org/items... , and even endorsed http://mediamatters.org/items... the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, prompting [i]MMFA[/i] to call for the removal of Limbaugh's radio show from taxpayer-funded [u]American Forces Radio and Television Service[/u] http://www.afrts.osd.mil/ . - http://mediamatters.org/items...

[b]LET'S SEND LIMBAUGH TO ABU GHRAIB TO BE FUCKED-UP THE BUTT LIKE THE LITTLE CHILDREN-- THAT HIS MASTERS BUSH/CHENEY ARE HIDING:[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]AMERICANS SHOULD BOYCOTT THIS SLIME-BALL NAZI LIMBAUGH WHO IS A BLOOD-THIRSTY OPPORTUNIST PROMOTING HATE, RACISM, RAPE OF AMERICA, AND SUPPORTS WARS, MURDERS, TORTURES, RAPES OF LITTLE KIDS, ABUSES AND CHILD SODOMY!!![/b]

ALL BERGER DID WAS TAKE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OVER 9-10 MONTHS AGO (which is still wrong), BUT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH/CHENEY'S WAR CRIMES:

[u]Please take the time to read[/u]:

Missing the Point: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

No Oversight, No Shame ... : http://www.tblog.com/template...

[i]and[/i]

Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies: http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
Ashcroft Publicly Misleads 9/11 Commission
07.24.04 (8:11 am)   [edit]
During his public testimony before the 9/11 commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to deflect criticism from his own lackluster counterterrorism efforts by pinning the blame on a 1995 memo written by former deputy Attorney General (and current 9/11 commissioner) Jamie Gorelick. Ashcroft said, "The 1995 guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers, barriers between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall effectively excluded prosecutors from intelligence investigations. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents."1 Ashcroft called the memo "the single greatest structural cause for the September 11 problem." In their final report released yesterday, the bi-partisan 9/11 commission concluded that Ashcroft's public testimony was false and misleading.

The commission bluntly stated that Ashcroft's public testimony did not "fairly or accurately reflect the significance of the 1995 documents and their relevance to the 2001 discussions."2 Specifically, "The Gorelick memorandum applied to two particular criminal cases, neither of which was involved in the summer 2001 information-sharing discussions." Any barriers between the law enforcement and intelligence communities were not created from written guidelines by internal Justice Department conflicts which "neither Attorney General [Ashcroft or Reno] acted to resolve" prior to 9/11.

Even Ashcroft himself has recently backed away from his April testimony before the commission. In a recent document released by the Justice Department, Ashcroft conceded that Gorelick's memo permitted "interaction and information sharing between prosecutors and intelligence officers" and allowed the FBI to use the fruits of an intelligence investigation "in a criminal prosecution."3 Ashcroft failed to mention that guidelines issued by his own deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, were more restrictive because they affirmed the Gorelick memo and added additional requirements.4

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

1. "Transcript: 9/11 Commission Hearing," The Washington Post, 04/13/04.
2. 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 539.
3. Report from the Field: The USA PATRIOT Act at Work, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2004.
4. "Thompson Memo," U.S. Department of Justice, 08/06/01.
 
Ashcroft Publicly Misleads 9/11 Commission
07.24.04 (8:10 am)   [edit]
During his public testimony before the 9/11 commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft attempted to deflect criticism from his own lackluster counterterrorism efforts by pinning the blame on a 1995 memo written by former deputy Attorney General (and current 9/11 commissioner) Jamie Gorelick. Ashcroft said, "The 1995 guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers, barriers between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall effectively excluded prosecutors from intelligence investigations. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents."1 Ashcroft called the memo "the single greatest structural cause for the September 11 problem." In their final report released yesterday, the bi-partisan 9/11 commission concluded that Ashcroft's public testimony was false and misleading.

The commission bluntly stated that Ashcroft's public testimony did not "fairly or accurately reflect the significance of the 1995 documents and their relevance to the 2001 discussions."2 Specifically, "The Gorelick memorandum applied to two particular criminal cases, neither of which was involved in the summer 2001 information-sharing discussions." Any barriers between the law enforcement and intelligence communities were not created from written guidelines by internal Justice Department conflicts which "neither Attorney General [Ashcroft or Reno] acted to resolve" prior to 9/11.

Even Ashcroft himself has recently backed away from his April testimony before the commission. In a recent document released by the Justice Department, Ashcroft conceded that Gorelick's memo permitted "interaction and information sharing between prosecutors and intelligence officers" and allowed the FBI to use the fruits of an intelligence investigation "in a criminal prosecution."3 Ashcroft failed to mention that guidelines issued by his own deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, were more restrictive because they affirmed the Gorelick memo and added additional requirements.4

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

1. "Transcript: 9/11 Commission Hearing," The Washington Post, 04/13/04.
2. 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 539.
3. Report from the Field: The USA PATRIOT Act at Work, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2004.
4. "Thompson Memo," U.S. Department of Justice, 08/06/01.
 
A vote for Bush is a vote for ... War? Peace? War? Peace? War? Peace? ... (Regime Change!)
07.24.04 (8:04 am)   [edit]
[b]To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!

Our flip-flopping president ...[/b]

"I'm a war president."

George W. Bush
[i]Meet the Press[/i], http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
February 13th, 2004

... [i]and then [/i]...

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

George W. Bush
[i]Campaign Speech[/i], http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
July 20th 2004

And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful." ... That is until after the November election, when if Dubya is (s)elected, it's onwards to the next war in Iran!

"[i]War president[/i]": It's losing its phony, tinny "luster (?)" ...

[b]Refer to "Bush says: 'I want to be the peace president'" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... [/b]
 
A vote for Bush is a vote for ... War? Peace? War? Peace? War? Peace? ... (Regime Change!)
07.24.04 (8:01 am)   [edit]
[b]To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!

Our flip-flopping president ...[/b]

"I'm a war president."

George W. Bush
[i]Meet the Press[/i], http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
February 13th, 2004

... [i]and then [/i]...

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

George W. Bush
[i]Campaign Speech[/i], http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
July 20th 2004

And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful." ... That is until after the November election, when if Dubya is (s)elected, it's onwards to the next war in Iran!

"[i]War president[/i]": It's losing its phony, tinny "luster (?)" ...

[b]Refer to "Bush says: 'I want to be the peace president'" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... [/b]
 
New Survey: US Public Rejects Torture (Bush/Cheney Are Covering-Up More Atrocities At Abu Ghraib)
07.24.04 (7:59 am)   [edit]
[b]Survey: US Public Rejects Torture

Read this article and then read "[u]Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies[/u]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... [/b] . [b]If the American public saw the videos and photos, or heard the tape-recordings of little children being raped and sodomized at Abu Ghraib, that Bush/Cheney are refusing to release to the American public, Bush/Cheney would be finished![/b]

Two-thirds of U.S. citizens believe their government should "never use physical torture" against detainees, and 90 percent reject sexually humiliating prisoners, as was done by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail, according to a major survey of attitudes here.

The poll, conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) http://www.pipa.org/ , was released Thursday amid new reports of abuses by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi and other detainees. It also found that 60 percent of the U.S. public believe that all captured individuals should have the right to appeal their status to a neutral judge, even if they are not conventional soldiers as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said a soldier should have the right to refuse to follow an order if he or she believes it was a violation of international law.

It also found that supporters of Republican President George W. Bush were more likely to support harsher treatment of detainees than independents or respondents who said they intended to vote for Bush's Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry in the November elections.

Forty-four percent of the 892 randomly chosen adults said they intended to vote for Kerry; 40 percent for Bush; four percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, while the rest gave no answer or were undecided.

The poll results, which also suggested the public is more willing to consider psychological techniques, such as sleep deprivation and hooding, than physical abuse or torture in trying to extract information from detainees, nonetheless showed strong rejection of methods that were designed to provoke fear or humiliation.

Nine out of 10 respondents, for example, said they would oppose sexually humiliating detainees – as depicted in the notorious photos taken at Abu Ghraib last October – under even the most urgent circumstances.

"Basically, the public supports the system of international laws restricting torture and coercion, though it would consider making some limited exceptions on the edges if there was high confidence that a catastrophic outcome would be prevented," said Steven Kull, PIPA's executive director.

The survey results were released just as U.S. Army Inspector General (IG), Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek told a Senate hearing his office had documented 94 cases of confirmed or alleged abuse, of which eight were related to prisoner interrogations, by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan since the fall of 2001.

It was by far the highest Pentagon figure to date of alleged abuse cases. Mikolashek, whose five-month investigation is just one of 11 on alleged abuses being carried out by the Pentagon, also reported that the United States has held more than 50,000 prisoners in the two countries during that time.

His report, which said the cases included theft, physical assault, sexual assault and death, insisted, "the abuses that have occurred are not representative of policy, doctrine or soldier training." But it also quoted a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from last February that asserted abuses were "used in a systematic way" by the military in Iraq.

"The IG's report is the most powerful evidence yet of the breadth of the problems in U.S. detention and interrogation in the 'war on terrorism,'" said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First (HRF) http://www.humanrightsfirst.o... .

"Ninety-four documented cases of abuse is not an isolated problem – it's bad policy that needs to be fixed in a comprehensive way," she added, reiterating recent calls by HRF and other international human rights groups for a comprehensive investigation of abuses, to be conducted by an independent commission or court of inquiry.

The PIPA survey, by far the most comprehensive on the subject of detainee abuse and attitudes toward torture since the "war on terror" was launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, was conducted July 9-15 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

Nearly nine in 10 respondents said they favored complying with international law regarding the treatment of prisoners as a general principle: 92 percent said they believed the names of all detainees must be registered and given access to the ICRC; 81 percent said detainees should have the right to a hearing before an independent judge to challenge the government's right to hold him; 77 percent said they should have the right to contact their families.

Asked whether unconventional fighters, and specifically alleged members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group believed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, should be accorded the same rights, 60 percent agreed while 37 percent disagreed. A majority of 53 percent of self-identified Republicans, however, said they disagreed.

When respondents were told that the Supreme Court had recently overruled the Bush administration's contention that it was not required to give detainees an independent hearing, 68 percent said they agreed with the court.

Asked about a range of interrogation techniques approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, nearly two-thirds of respondents – including a slight majority of Kerry supporters – said they favored using sleep deprivation in a situation where there is a strong chance that the detainee has information about a possible terrorist attack on the United States that may prove critical to thwarting it.

Fifty-six percent said they would favor keeping a hood over the detainee's head or bombarding him with loud noise for long periods of time to obtain the information. A slight majority of 52 percent said they favored using "stress" positions for an extended period under those circumstances.

But majorities ranging from 54 percent (withholding food and water) and 58 percent (using threatening dogs to frighten detainees) to 81 percent (beating, submersing or electric shock) to 89 percent (sexual humiliation) opposed such techniques even in the most urgent circumstances. Seventy-five percent of respondents said forcing detainees to go naked – a practice that, according to a variety of reports, was relatively common – could not be justified under any circumstances.

The survey found that those respondents who supported such techniques were significantly more likely to support Bush and identify themselves as Republicans than Kerry supporters or self-described Democrats or independents.

Asked how Bush's handling of the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay will affect their vote, 37 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for him, while 22 percent said more likely – a net negative of 15 percent. The rest offered no opinion.

But many respondents were unaware that Rumsfeld had approved some of these interrogation techniques; specifically, only 35 percent knew that he had approved of making detainees go naked, and 45 percent said they were aware he had approved of using threatening dogs. Of those who were aware of his approval of such methods, 59 percent said they were less likely to vote for Bush, while nine percent said it made it more likely they would vote for him.

Norman Ornstein, a public-opinion expert at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said he thought the political impact of the prisoner-abuse scandal would be directed less at voter attitudes toward Bush than toward the situation in Iraq, particularly because it has undermined the moral justification for the occupation.

"Since Abu Ghraib, we've seen a steadily deteriorating percent of Americans who believe we did the right thing in going into Iraq," he said, noting that Bush is more likely to be hurt by the voters' disillusionment than by the perception that he was responsible for the abuses.

Ornstein also suggested that the beliefs expressed in the survey could change with events. "If this survey [were taken] one or two months after 9/11, you might have gotten a very difficult result," he said, adding that the attitudes could also change if another terrorist attack takes place. - http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?...
 
New Survey: US Public Rejects Torture (Bush/Cheney Are Covering-Up More Atrocities At Abu Ghraib)
07.24.04 (7:57 am)   [edit]
[b]Survey: US Public Rejects Torture

Read this article and then read "[u]Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies[/u]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... [/b] . [b]If the American public saw the videos and photos, or heard the tape-recordings of little children being raped and sodomized at Abu Ghraib, that Bush/Cheney are refusing to release to the American public, Bush/Cheney would be finished![/b]

Two-thirds of U.S. citizens believe their government should "never use physical torture" against detainees, and 90 percent reject sexually humiliating prisoners, as was done by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail, according to a major survey of attitudes here.

The poll, conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) http://www.pipa.org/ , was released Thursday amid new reports of abuses by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi and other detainees. It also found that 60 percent of the U.S. public believe that all captured individuals should have the right to appeal their status to a neutral judge, even if they are not conventional soldiers as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said a soldier should have the right to refuse to follow an order if he or she believes it was a violation of international law.

It also found that supporters of Republican President George W. Bush were more likely to support harsher treatment of detainees than independents or respondents who said they intended to vote for Bush's Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry in the November elections.

Forty-four percent of the 892 randomly chosen adults said they intended to vote for Kerry; 40 percent for Bush; four percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, while the rest gave no answer or were undecided.

The poll results, which also suggested the public is more willing to consider psychological techniques, such as sleep deprivation and hooding, than physical abuse or torture in trying to extract information from detainees, nonetheless showed strong rejection of methods that were designed to provoke fear or humiliation.

Nine out of 10 respondents, for example, said they would oppose sexually humiliating detainees – as depicted in the notorious photos taken at Abu Ghraib last October – under even the most urgent circumstances.

"Basically, the public supports the system of international laws restricting torture and coercion, though it would consider making some limited exceptions on the edges if there was high confidence that a catastrophic outcome would be prevented," said Steven Kull, PIPA's executive director.

The survey results were released just as U.S. Army Inspector General (IG), Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek told a Senate hearing his office had documented 94 cases of confirmed or alleged abuse, of which eight were related to prisoner interrogations, by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan since the fall of 2001.

It was by far the highest Pentagon figure to date of alleged abuse cases. Mikolashek, whose five-month investigation is just one of 11 on alleged abuses being carried out by the Pentagon, also reported that the United States has held more than 50,000 prisoners in the two countries during that time.

His report, which said the cases included theft, physical assault, sexual assault and death, insisted, "the abuses that have occurred are not representative of policy, doctrine or soldier training." But it also quoted a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from last February that asserted abuses were "used in a systematic way" by the military in Iraq.

"The IG's report is the most powerful evidence yet of the breadth of the problems in U.S. detention and interrogation in the 'war on terrorism,'" said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First (HRF) http://www.humanrightsfirst.o... .

"Ninety-four documented cases of abuse is not an isolated problem – it's bad policy that needs to be fixed in a comprehensive way," she added, reiterating recent calls by HRF and other international human rights groups for a comprehensive investigation of abuses, to be conducted by an independent commission or court of inquiry.

The PIPA survey, by far the most comprehensive on the subject of detainee abuse and attitudes toward torture since the "war on terror" was launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, was conducted July 9-15 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

Nearly nine in 10 respondents said they favored complying with international law regarding the treatment of prisoners as a general principle: 92 percent said they believed the names of all detainees must be registered and given access to the ICRC; 81 percent said detainees should have the right to a hearing before an independent judge to challenge the government's right to hold him; 77 percent said they should have the right to contact their families.

Asked whether unconventional fighters, and specifically alleged members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group believed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, should be accorded the same rights, 60 percent agreed while 37 percent disagreed. A majority of 53 percent of self-identified Republicans, however, said they disagreed.

When respondents were told that the Supreme Court had recently overruled the Bush administration's contention that it was not required to give detainees an independent hearing, 68 percent said they agreed with the court.

Asked about a range of interrogation techniques approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, nearly two-thirds of respondents – including a slight majority of Kerry supporters – said they favored using sleep deprivation in a situation where there is a strong chance that the detainee has information about a possible terrorist attack on the United States that may prove critical to thwarting it.

Fifty-six percent said they would favor keeping a hood over the detainee's head or bombarding him with loud noise for long periods of time to obtain the information. A slight majority of 52 percent said they favored using "stress" positions for an extended period under those circumstances.

But majorities ranging from 54 percent (withholding food and water) and 58 percent (using threatening dogs to frighten detainees) to 81 percent (beating, submersing or electric shock) to 89 percent (sexual humiliation) opposed such techniques even in the most urgent circumstances. Seventy-five percent of respondents said forcing detainees to go naked – a practice that, according to a variety of reports, was relatively common – could not be justified under any circumstances.

The survey found that those respondents who supported such techniques were significantly more likely to support Bush and identify themselves as Republicans than Kerry supporters or self-described Democrats or independents.

Asked how Bush's handling of the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay will affect their vote, 37 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for him, while 22 percent said more likely – a net negative of 15 percent. The rest offered no opinion.

But many respondents were unaware that Rumsfeld had approved some of these interrogation techniques; specifically, only 35 percent knew that he had approved of making detainees go naked, and 45 percent said they were aware he had approved of using threatening dogs. Of those who were aware of his approval of such methods, 59 percent said they were less likely to vote for Bush, while nine percent said it made it more likely they would vote for him.

Norman Ornstein, a public-opinion expert at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said he thought the political impact of the prisoner-abuse scandal would be directed less at voter attitudes toward Bush than toward the situation in Iraq, particularly because it has undermined the moral justification for the occupation.

"Since Abu Ghraib, we've seen a steadily deteriorating percent of Americans who believe we did the right thing in going into Iraq," he said, noting that Bush is more likely to be hurt by the voters' disillusionment than by the perception that he was responsible for the abuses.

Ornstein also suggested that the beliefs expressed in the survey could change with events. "If this survey [were taken] one or two months after 9/11, you might have gotten a very difficult result," he said, adding that the attitudes could also change if another terrorist attack takes place. - http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?...
 
New Survey: US Public Rejects Torture (Bush/Cheney Are Covering-Up More Atrocities At Abu Ghraib)
07.24.04 (7:56 am)   [edit]
[b]Survey: US Public Rejects Torture

Read this article and then read "[u]Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies[/u]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... [/b] . [b]If the American public saw the videos and photos, or heard the tape-recordings of little children being raped and sodomized at Abu Ghraib, that Bush/Cheney are refusing to release to the American public, Bush/Cheney would be finished![/b]

Two-thirds of U.S. citizens believe their government should "never use physical torture" against detainees, and 90 percent reject sexually humiliating prisoners, as was done by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail, according to a major survey of attitudes here.

The poll, conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) http://www.pipa.org/ , was released Thursday amid new reports of abuses by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi and other detainees. It also found that 60 percent of the U.S. public believe that all captured individuals should have the right to appeal their status to a neutral judge, even if they are not conventional soldiers as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said a soldier should have the right to refuse to follow an order if he or she believes it was a violation of international law.

It also found that supporters of Republican President George W. Bush were more likely to support harsher treatment of detainees than independents or respondents who said they intended to vote for Bush's Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry in the November elections.

Forty-four percent of the 892 randomly chosen adults said they intended to vote for Kerry; 40 percent for Bush; four percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, while the rest gave no answer or were undecided.

The poll results, which also suggested the public is more willing to consider psychological techniques, such as sleep deprivation and hooding, than physical abuse or torture in trying to extract information from detainees, nonetheless showed strong rejection of methods that were designed to provoke fear or humiliation.

Nine out of 10 respondents, for example, said they would oppose sexually humiliating detainees – as depicted in the notorious photos taken at Abu Ghraib last October – under even the most urgent circumstances.

"Basically, the public supports the system of international laws restricting torture and coercion, though it would consider making some limited exceptions on the edges if there was high confidence that a catastrophic outcome would be prevented," said Steven Kull, PIPA's executive director.

The survey results were released just as U.S. Army Inspector General (IG), Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek told a Senate hearing his office had documented 94 cases of confirmed or alleged abuse, of which eight were related to prisoner interrogations, by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan since the fall of 2001.

It was by far the highest Pentagon figure to date of alleged abuse cases. Mikolashek, whose five-month investigation is just one of 11 on alleged abuses being carried out by the Pentagon, also reported that the United States has held more than 50,000 prisoners in the two countries during that time.

His report, which said the cases included theft, physical assault, sexual assault and death, insisted, "the abuses that have occurred are not representative of policy, doctrine or soldier training." But it also quoted a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from last February that asserted abuses were "used in a systematic way" by the military in Iraq.

"The IG's report is the most powerful evidence yet of the breadth of the problems in U.S. detention and interrogation in the 'war on terrorism,'" said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First (HRF) http://www.humanrightsfirst.o... .

"Ninety-four documented cases of abuse is not an isolated problem – it's bad policy that needs to be fixed in a comprehensive way," she added, reiterating recent calls by HRF and other international human rights groups for a comprehensive investigation of abuses, to be conducted by an independent commission or court of inquiry.

The PIPA survey, by far the most comprehensive on the subject of detainee abuse and attitudes toward torture since the "war on terror" was launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, was conducted July 9-15 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

Nearly nine in 10 respondents said they favored complying with international law regarding the treatment of prisoners as a general principle: 92 percent said they believed the names of all detainees must be registered and given access to the ICRC; 81 percent said detainees should have the right to a hearing before an independent judge to challenge the government's right to hold him; 77 percent said they should have the right to contact their families.

Asked whether unconventional fighters, and specifically alleged members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group believed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, should be accorded the same rights, 60 percent agreed while 37 percent disagreed. A majority of 53 percent of self-identified Republicans, however, said they disagreed.

When respondents were told that the Supreme Court had recently overruled the Bush administration's contention that it was not required to give detainees an independent hearing, 68 percent said they agreed with the court.

Asked about a range of interrogation techniques approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, nearly two-thirds of respondents – including a slight majority of Kerry supporters – said they favored using sleep deprivation in a situation where there is a strong chance that the detainee has information about a possible terrorist attack on the United States that may prove critical to thwarting it.

Fifty-six percent said they would favor keeping a hood over the detainee's head or bombarding him with loud noise for long periods of time to obtain the information. A slight majority of 52 percent said they favored using "stress" positions for an extended period under those circumstances.

But majorities ranging from 54 percent (withholding food and water) and 58 percent (using threatening dogs to frighten detainees) to 81 percent (beating, submersing or electric shock) to 89 percent (sexual humiliation) opposed such techniques even in the most urgent circumstances. Seventy-five percent of respondents said forcing detainees to go naked – a practice that, according to a variety of reports, was relatively common – could not be justified under any circumstances.

The survey found that those respondents who supported such techniques were significantly more likely to support Bush and identify themselves as Republicans than Kerry supporters or self-described Democrats or independents.

Asked how Bush's handling of the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay will affect their vote, 37 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for him, while 22 percent said more likely – a net negative of 15 percent. The rest offered no opinion.

But many respondents were unaware that Rumsfeld had approved some of these interrogation techniques; specifically, only 35 percent knew that he had approved of making detainees go naked, and 45 percent said they were aware he had approved of using threatening dogs. Of those who were aware of his approval of such methods, 59 percent said they were less likely to vote for Bush, while nine percent said it made it more likely they would vote for him.

Norman Ornstein, a public-opinion expert at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said he thought the political impact of the prisoner-abuse scandal would be directed less at voter attitudes toward Bush than toward the situation in Iraq, particularly because it has undermined the moral justification for the occupation.

"Since Abu Ghraib, we've seen a steadily deteriorating percent of Americans who believe we did the right thing in going into Iraq," he said, noting that Bush is more likely to be hurt by the voters' disillusionment than by the perception that he was responsible for the abuses.

Ornstein also suggested that the beliefs expressed in the survey could change with events. "If this survey [were taken] one or two months after 9/11, you might have gotten a very difficult result," he said, adding that the attitudes could also change if another terrorist attack takes place. - http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?...
 
New Survey: US Public Rejects Torture (Bush/Cheney Are Covering-Up More Atrocities At Abu Ghraib)
07.24.04 (7:39 am)   [edit]
[b]Survey: US Public Rejects Torture

Read this article and then read "[u]Abu Ghraib Cover-up Intensifies[/u]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... [/b] . [b]If the American public saw the videos and photos, or heard the tape-recordings of little children being raped and sodomized at Abu Ghraib, that Bush/Cheney are refusing to release to the American public, Bush/Cheney would be finished![/b]

Two-thirds of U.S. citizens believe their government should "never use physical torture" against detainees, and 90 percent reject sexually humiliating prisoners, as was done by U.S. soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail, according to a major survey of attitudes here.

The poll, conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) http://www.pipa.org/ , was released Thursday amid new reports of abuses by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi and other detainees. It also found that 60 percent of the U.S. public believe that all captured individuals should have the right to appeal their status to a neutral judge, even if they are not conventional soldiers as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said a soldier should have the right to refuse to follow an order if he or she believes it was a violation of international law.

It also found that supporters of Republican President George W. Bush were more likely to support harsher treatment of detainees than independents or respondents who said they intended to vote for Bush's Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry in the November elections.

Forty-four percent of the 892 randomly chosen adults said they intended to vote for Kerry; 40 percent for Bush; four percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, while the rest gave no answer or were undecided.

The poll results, which also suggested the public is more willing to consider psychological techniques, such as sleep deprivation and hooding, than physical abuse or torture in trying to extract information from detainees, nonetheless showed strong rejection of methods that were designed to provoke fear or humiliation.

Nine out of 10 respondents, for example, said they would oppose sexually humiliating detainees – as depicted in the notorious photos taken at Abu Ghraib last October – under even the most urgent circumstances.

"Basically, the public supports the system of international laws restricting torture and coercion, though it would consider making some limited exceptions on the edges if there was high confidence that a catastrophic outcome would be prevented," said Steven Kull, PIPA's executive director.

The survey results were released just as U.S. Army Inspector General (IG), Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek told a Senate hearing his office had documented 94 cases of confirmed or alleged abuse, of which eight were related to prisoner interrogations, by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan since the fall of 2001.

It was by far the highest Pentagon figure to date of alleged abuse cases. Mikolashek, whose five-month investigation is just one of 11 on alleged abuses being carried out by the Pentagon, also reported that the United States has held more than 50,000 prisoners in the two countries during that time.

His report, which said the cases included theft, physical assault, sexual assault and death, insisted, "the abuses that have occurred are not representative of policy, doctrine or soldier training." But it also quoted a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from last February that asserted abuses were "used in a systematic way" by the military in Iraq.

"The IG's report is the most powerful evidence yet of the breadth of the problems in U.S. detention and interrogation in the 'war on terrorism,'" said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First (HRF) http://www.humanrightsfirst.o... .

"Ninety-four documented cases of abuse is not an isolated problem – it's bad policy that needs to be fixed in a comprehensive way," she added, reiterating recent calls by HRF and other international human rights groups for a comprehensive investigation of abuses, to be conducted by an independent commission or court of inquiry.

The PIPA survey, by far the most comprehensive on the subject of detainee abuse and attitudes toward torture since the "war on terror" was launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon, was conducted July 9-15 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

Nearly nine in 10 respondents said they favored complying with international law regarding the treatment of prisoners as a general principle: 92 percent said they believed the names of all detainees must be registered and given access to the ICRC; 81 percent said detainees should have the right to a hearing before an independent judge to challenge the government's right to hold him; 77 percent said they should have the right to contact their families.

Asked whether unconventional fighters, and specifically alleged members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group believed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, should be accorded the same rights, 60 percent agreed while 37 percent disagreed. A majority of 53 percent of self-identified Republicans, however, said they disagreed.

When respondents were told that the Supreme Court had recently overruled the Bush administration's contention that it was not required to give detainees an independent hearing, 68 percent said they agreed with the court.

Asked about a range of interrogation techniques approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, nearly two-thirds of respondents – including a slight majority of Kerry supporters – said they favored using sleep deprivation in a situation where there is a strong chance that the detainee has information about a possible terrorist attack on the United States that may prove critical to thwarting it.

Fifty-six percent said they would favor keeping a hood over the detainee's head or bombarding him with loud noise for long periods of time to obtain the information. A slight majority of 52 percent said they favored using "stress" positions for an extended period under those circumstances.

But majorities ranging from 54 percent (withholding food and water) and 58 percent (using threatening dogs to frighten detainees) to 81 percent (beating, submersing or electric shock) to 89 percent (sexual humiliation) opposed such techniques even in the most urgent circumstances. Seventy-five percent of respondents said forcing detainees to go naked – a practice that, according to a variety of reports, was relatively common – could not be justified under any circumstances.

The survey found that those respondents who supported such techniques were significantly more likely to support Bush and identify themselves as Republicans than Kerry supporters or self-described Democrats or independents.

Asked how Bush's handling of the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay will affect their vote, 37 percent said it would make them less likely to vote for him, while 22 percent said more likely – a net negative of 15 percent. The rest offered no opinion.

But many respondents were unaware that Rumsfeld had approved some of these interrogation techniques; specifically, only 35 percent knew that he had approved of making detainees go naked, and 45 percent said they were aware he had approved of using threatening dogs. Of those who were aware of his approval of such methods, 59 percent said they were less likely to vote for Bush, while nine percent said it made it more likely they would vote for him.

Norman Ornstein, a public-opinion expert at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), said he thought the political impact of the prisoner-abuse scandal would be directed less at voter attitudes toward Bush than toward the situation in Iraq, particularly because it has undermined the moral justification for the occupation.

"Since Abu Ghraib, we've seen a steadily deteriorating percent of Americans who believe we did the right thing in going into Iraq," he said, noting that Bush is more likely to be hurt by the voters' disillusionment than by the perception that he was responsible for the abuses.

Ornstein also suggested that the beliefs expressed in the survey could change with events. "If this survey [were taken] one or two months after 9/11, you might have gotten a very difficult result," he said, adding that the attitudes could also change if another terrorist attack takes place. - http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?...
 
... Clinton/Berger Thwarted Over 15 Terrorist Attacks -- Bush/Rice Let 9/11 Happen!!!
07.23.04 (10:09 am)   [edit]
Clinton and Sandy Berger thwarted over 15 terrorist attacks upon America http://www.tblog.com/template... . Bush/Cheney let 9/11 happen to invade Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11 while letting Osama bin Laden[i] off-the-hook[/i]!

President Bush May Never Have Read Bin Laden Brief on [ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/r... ] [i] Later it came out that Bush doesn't read his Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) [/i]... Read about Bush who didn't read even his PDBs on [ http://slate.msn.com/id/20974... ] and [ http://www.topdog04.com/00054... ]

[u][b]White House Whitewash[/b][/u]

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 on [ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/r... ]

Clinton thwarted a terrorist attack upon Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and 14 other attempted terrorist attacks upon America on [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/pop...,12272,762346,00.html ] !!!
 
U.S. Troop Morale in Iraq Dips Ever Lower ...
07.23.04 (8:10 am)   [edit]
[b]"[i]I don't have any idea of what we're trying to do out here. I don't know what the (goal) is, and I don't think our commanders do either[/i]," he said. "[i]I feel deceived personally. I don't trust anything (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld says, and I think (Deputy Defense Secretary Paul) Wolfowitz is even dirtier[/i]." [/b]

That's a quote http://www.mercurynews.com/ml... from Staff Sgt. A.J. Dean, who sums up the morale on the ground in Iraq. Soldiers are tired of risking their lives for reasons they no longer understand and are increasingly angry at their government for forcing them to do so.

Their rising disillusionment bodes ill for the Pentagon. The Iraq war has turned into a great recruiting poster for the Al Qaeda but also the worst kind of advertising for the U.S. military. Both the military reserves and the regular Army are witnessing a sharp drop http://www.washingtonpost.com... in their pool of recruits. http://www.alternet.org

[b]So how is Dubya [i]gonna' manage [/i]that next big-fat-juicy regime change in [i]Iran[/i] http://www.sundayherald.com/4... that he and Cheney are [i]lusting [/i]after??? ...[/b]

Over 900 U.S. Soldiers and over 16,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been [i]massacred[/i] in Iraq to-date, with [i]no end-in-sight[/i], as on average 2 U.S. Soldiers and even more Iraqis have been killed[i] each day [/i]since so-called "sovereignty (?)" has been "handed-over (?)" ... All for [i]nothing[/i]-- based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods that represent impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution ...

[b]Please read "900 And Counting" on http://www.tblog.com/template... ...

"We the People" should be [i]very, very concerned [/i]about the disastrous direction that the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is headed (and [i]dragging us along[/i], while these Bush/Cheney-crooks, Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc[i]. all take-the-money-and-run [/i]...) ...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith: http://winstonsmith.tblog.com...[/b]
 
U.S. Troop Morale in Iraq Dips Ever Lower ...
07.23.04 (8:08 am)   [edit]
[b]"[i]I don't have any idea of what we're trying to do out here. I don't know what the (goal) is, and I don't think our commanders do either[/i]," he said. "[i]I feel deceived personally. I don't trust anything (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld says, and I think (Deputy Defense Secretary Paul) Wolfowitz is even dirtier[/i]." [/b]

That's a quote http://www.mercurynews.com/ml... from Staff Sgt. A.J. Dean, who sums up the morale on the ground in Iraq. Soldiers are tired of risking their lives for reasons they no longer understand and are increasingly angry at their government for forcing them to do so.

Their rising disillusionment bodes ill for the Pentagon. The Iraq war has turned into a great recruiting poster for the Al Qaeda but also the worst kind of advertising for the U.S. military. Both the military reserves and the regular Army are witnessing a sharp drop http://www.washingtonpost.com... in their pool of recruits. http://www.alternet.org

[b]So how is Dubya [i]gonna' manage [/i]that next big-fat-juicy regime change in [i]Iran[/i] http://www.sundayherald.com/4... that he and Cheney are [i]lusting [/i]after??? ...[/b]

Over 900 U.S. Soldiers and over 16,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been [i]massacred[/i] in Iraq to-date, with [i]no end-in-sight[/i], as on average 2 U.S. Soldiers and even more Iraqis have been killed[i] each day [/i]since so-called "sovereignty (?)" has been "handed-over (?)" ... All for [i]nothing[/i]-- based upon heinous lies, deceptions and falsehoods that represent impeachable offenses under the U.S. Constitution ...

[b]Please read "900 And Counting" on http://www.tblog.com/template... ...

"We the People" should be [i]very, very concerned [/i]about the disastrous direction that the Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is headed (and [i]dragging us along[/i], while these Bush/Cheney-crooks, Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc[i]. all take-the-money-and-run [/i]...) ...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith: http://winstonsmith.tblog.com...[/b]
 
9/11 Commission Report Takes on Bush/Cheney's Un-American Patriot Act ...
07.23.04 (8:05 am)   [edit]
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] Un-American Patriot Act http://www.tblog.com/template... is a heinous violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights ...[/b] The traitorous Bush regime is systematically dismantling our Republic and their unprecedented secrecy is alarmingly dangerous and extremely destructive to our way of life ...

[u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u]A History of Refusing to Release Documents[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]9/11 Commission Report Takes on Patriot Act, Government Secrecy; ACLU Outlines Civil Liberties Problems With Cabinet-Level Spymaster[/b] - http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[b]Contact:[/b] Media@dcaclu.org ( mailto:Media@dcaclu.org )

[b]WASHINGTON - The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration.[/b]

"Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House have not made a compelling case for either[b] the administration’s[i] obsession [/i]with secrecy or its Patriot Act[/b]," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "This bipartisan report should serve as a wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the Patriot Act."

[b]As the report states on page 394, "The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use."[/b]

The long-awaited report, which contains the official findings of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terrorism attacks, contains significant recommendations germane to the debate over civil liberties that has raged for more than two-and-a-half years now.

The report echoes criticisms by the ACLU and others that the Justice Department has so far failed to demonstrate why the expanded surveillance and investigative powers in the Patriot Act are needed to fight terrorism. The commission’s findings, the ACLU said, strongly confirm the need to maintain the Patriot Act sunsets.

The sunset provisions - which apply to some of the Patriot Act’s most controversial provisions - would require Congress to reconsider about a tenth of the law in December 2005. Provisions that sunset include the infamous "library records" provision, which reduces judicial review when counter-intelligence agents seek secret court orders for the production of a wide array of personal information, including library, business, genetic, medical and even gun purchase records.

[b]Notably, the commission does not recommend that any sunseted provisions should be made permanent.[/b]

In addition, the commission’s report contains a list of 10 separate missed "operational" opportunities to foil the attacks. While the report stops short of calling the attacks preventable, it clearly shows that the intelligence and law enforcement communities were not using their existing counter-terrorism powers to their fullest potential.

"The administration has yet to explain why it didn’t use its already expansive power to the fullest before 9/11," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The commission’s report suggests that the White House claim that the worst parts of the Patriot Act are needed to stop terrorism is dubious, to say the least."

[b]The report also cites both excessive government secrecy and overclassification as threats to open government and, more notably, as threats to national security.[/b] The ACLU pointed to the finding as evidence that the government should stop stonewalling the series of Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on the Patriot Act, the Abu Ghraib scandal and other matters of public interest.

Characterizing the current Congressional intelligence watchdog system as "dysfunctional," the commission’s strongest recommendation is the need for more aggressive Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, including making the intelligence budget public. The ACLU applauded the move but emphasized that the structure of the committee would be less important than whether its operation was in turn open to public scrutiny.

[b]As the report stated: "Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage over-classification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets."[/b]

Contrary to earlier reports, the commission explicitly rejects - in part, for civil liberties reasons - the creation of a domestic intelligence agency modeled after Britain’s MI-5. The ACLU, a critic of any domestic intelligence activity that is not linked to law enforcement, applauded the move.

Unfortunately, there are some recommendations that raise civil liberties concerns; two of the most salient are calls for the backdoor creation of national ID cards in the form of a standardized drivers licenses and a cabinet-level intelligence czar.

"A Senate-confirmed intelligence director sitting in the White House would be in the hip pocket of the president," Romero added.

The ACLU questioned whether pitting the FBI’s culture of case-oriented law enforcement against the CIA’s culture of covert, subversive operations, under one chief, would result in a further weakening of civil liberties protections in the FBI’s intelligence work. Similarly, if the new director were to have operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence work - that is, real authority over both the FBI and the CIA - he or she could blur the lines between the agencies’ two very different missions.

[b]Finally, the ACLU expressed concern that if the director of national intelligence ends up controlling the purse strings of the entire intelligence community, there are very few contingencies that could keep the director from exercising specific, operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence[/b].

[b]The 9-11 Commission's report can be found at: http://www.9-11commission.gov...

For more information, see: http://www.aclu.org/safeandfr...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

 
9/11 Commission Report Takes on Bush/Cheney's Un-American Patriot Act ...
07.23.04 (8:03 am)   [edit]
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] Un-American Patriot Act http://www.tblog.com/template... is a heinous violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights ...[/b] The traitorous Bush regime is systematically dismantling our Republic and their unprecedented secrecy is alarmingly dangerous and extremely destructive to our way of life ...

[u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u]A History of Refusing to Release Documents[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]9/11 Commission Report Takes on Patriot Act, Government Secrecy; ACLU Outlines Civil Liberties Problems With Cabinet-Level Spymaster[/b] - http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[b]Contact:[/b] Media@dcaclu.org ( mailto:Media@dcaclu.org )

[b]WASHINGTON - The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration.[/b]

"Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House have not made a compelling case for either[b] the administration’s[i] obsession [/i]with secrecy or its Patriot Act[/b]," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "This bipartisan report should serve as a wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the Patriot Act."

[b]As the report states on page 394, "The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use."[/b]

The long-awaited report, which contains the official findings of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terrorism attacks, contains significant recommendations germane to the debate over civil liberties that has raged for more than two-and-a-half years now.

The report echoes criticisms by the ACLU and others that the Justice Department has so far failed to demonstrate why the expanded surveillance and investigative powers in the Patriot Act are needed to fight terrorism. The commission’s findings, the ACLU said, strongly confirm the need to maintain the Patriot Act sunsets.

The sunset provisions - which apply to some of the Patriot Act’s most controversial provisions - would require Congress to reconsider about a tenth of the law in December 2005. Provisions that sunset include the infamous "library records" provision, which reduces judicial review when counter-intelligence agents seek secret court orders for the production of a wide array of personal information, including library, business, genetic, medical and even gun purchase records.

[b]Notably, the commission does not recommend that any sunseted provisions should be made permanent.[/b]

In addition, the commission’s report contains a list of 10 separate missed "operational" opportunities to foil the attacks. While the report stops short of calling the attacks preventable, it clearly shows that the intelligence and law enforcement communities were not using their existing counter-terrorism powers to their fullest potential.

"The administration has yet to explain why it didn’t use its already expansive power to the fullest before 9/11," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The commission’s report suggests that the White House claim that the worst parts of the Patriot Act are needed to stop terrorism is dubious, to say the least."

[b]The report also cites both excessive government secrecy and overclassification as threats to open government and, more notably, as threats to national security.[/b] The ACLU pointed to the finding as evidence that the government should stop stonewalling the series of Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on the Patriot Act, the Abu Ghraib scandal and other matters of public interest.

Characterizing the current Congressional intelligence watchdog system as "dysfunctional," the commission’s strongest recommendation is the need for more aggressive Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, including making the intelligence budget public. The ACLU applauded the move but emphasized that the structure of the committee would be less important than whether its operation was in turn open to public scrutiny.

[b]As the report stated: "Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage over-classification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets."[/b]

Contrary to earlier reports, the commission explicitly rejects - in part, for civil liberties reasons - the creation of a domestic intelligence agency modeled after Britain’s MI-5. The ACLU, a critic of any domestic intelligence activity that is not linked to law enforcement, applauded the move.

Unfortunately, there are some recommendations that raise civil liberties concerns; two of the most salient are calls for the backdoor creation of national ID cards in the form of a standardized drivers licenses and a cabinet-level intelligence czar.

"A Senate-confirmed intelligence director sitting in the White House would be in the hip pocket of the president," Romero added.

The ACLU questioned whether pitting the FBI’s culture of case-oriented law enforcement against the CIA’s culture of covert, subversive operations, under one chief, would result in a further weakening of civil liberties protections in the FBI’s intelligence work. Similarly, if the new director were to have operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence work - that is, real authority over both the FBI and the CIA - he or she could blur the lines between the agencies’ two very different missions.

[b]Finally, the ACLU expressed concern that if the director of national intelligence ends up controlling the purse strings of the entire intelligence community, there are very few contingencies that could keep the director from exercising specific, operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence[/b].

[b]The 9-11 Commission's report can be found at: http://www.9-11commission.gov...

For more information, see: http://www.aclu.org/safeandfr...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

 
9/11 Commission Report Takes on Bush/Cheney's Un-American Patriot Act ...
07.23.04 (8:00 am)   [edit]
[b]The corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta's[/i] Un-American Patriot Act http://www.tblog.com/template... is a heinous violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights ...[/b] The traitorous Bush regime is systematically dismantling our Republic and their unprecedented secrecy is alarmingly dangerous and extremely destructive to our way of life ...

[u]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[u]A History of Refusing to Release Documents[/u]: http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]9/11 Commission Report Takes on Patriot Act, Government Secrecy; ACLU Outlines Civil Liberties Problems With Cabinet-Level Spymaster[/b] - http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFr...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

[b]Contact:[/b] Media@dcaclu.org ( mailto:Media@dcaclu.org )

[b]WASHINGTON - The official 9/11 Commission report, released today, takes aim at the USA Patriot Act and the excessive amount of official secrecy in the Bush administration.[/b]

"Regarding civil liberties, the 9/11 Commission report essentially says that the Justice Department and White House have not made a compelling case for either[b] the administration’s[i] obsession [/i]with secrecy or its Patriot Act[/b]," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "This bipartisan report should serve as a wake-up call for Congress that it must maintain the sunsets in the Patriot Act."

[b]As the report states on page 394, "The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use."[/b]

The long-awaited report, which contains the official findings of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terrorism attacks, contains significant recommendations germane to the debate over civil liberties that has raged for more than two-and-a-half years now.

The report echoes criticisms by the ACLU and others that the Justice Department has so far failed to demonstrate why the expanded surveillance and investigative powers in the Patriot Act are needed to fight terrorism. The commission’s findings, the ACLU said, strongly confirm the need to maintain the Patriot Act sunsets.

The sunset provisions - which apply to some of the Patriot Act’s most controversial provisions - would require Congress to reconsider about a tenth of the law in December 2005. Provisions that sunset include the infamous "library records" provision, which reduces judicial review when counter-intelligence agents seek secret court orders for the production of a wide array of personal information, including library, business, genetic, medical and even gun purchase records.

[b]Notably, the commission does not recommend that any sunseted provisions should be made permanent.[/b]

In addition, the commission’s report contains a list of 10 separate missed "operational" opportunities to foil the attacks. While the report stops short of calling the attacks preventable, it clearly shows that the intelligence and law enforcement communities were not using their existing counter-terrorism powers to their fullest potential.

"The administration has yet to explain why it didn’t use its already expansive power to the fullest before 9/11," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The commission’s report suggests that the White House claim that the worst parts of the Patriot Act are needed to stop terrorism is dubious, to say the least."

[b]The report also cites both excessive government secrecy and overclassification as threats to open government and, more notably, as threats to national security.[/b] The ACLU pointed to the finding as evidence that the government should stop stonewalling the series of Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups on the Patriot Act, the Abu Ghraib scandal and other matters of public interest.

Characterizing the current Congressional intelligence watchdog system as "dysfunctional," the commission’s strongest recommendation is the need for more aggressive Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, including making the intelligence budget public. The ACLU applauded the move but emphasized that the structure of the committee would be less important than whether its operation was in turn open to public scrutiny.

[b]As the report stated: "Secrecy stifles oversight, accountability and information sharing. Unfortunately, all the current organizational incentives encourage over-classification. This balance should change; and as a start, open information should be provided about the overall size of agency intelligence budgets."[/b]

Contrary to earlier reports, the commission explicitly rejects - in part, for civil liberties reasons - the creation of a domestic intelligence agency modeled after Britain’s MI-5. The ACLU, a critic of any domestic intelligence activity that is not linked to law enforcement, applauded the move.

Unfortunately, there are some recommendations that raise civil liberties concerns; two of the most salient are calls for the backdoor creation of national ID cards in the form of a standardized drivers licenses and a cabinet-level intelligence czar.

"A Senate-confirmed intelligence director sitting in the White House would be in the hip pocket of the president," Romero added.

The ACLU questioned whether pitting the FBI’s culture of case-oriented law enforcement against the CIA’s culture of covert, subversive operations, under one chief, would result in a further weakening of civil liberties protections in the FBI’s intelligence work. Similarly, if the new director were to have operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence work - that is, real authority over both the FBI and the CIA - he or she could blur the lines between the agencies’ two very different missions.

[b]Finally, the ACLU expressed concern that if the director of national intelligence ends up controlling the purse strings of the entire intelligence community, there are very few contingencies that could keep the director from exercising specific, operational control over both domestic and foreign intelligence[/b].

[b]The 9-11 Commission's report can be found at: http://www.9-11commission.gov...

For more information, see: http://www.aclu.org/safeandfr...[/b]

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

 
Cheney Attacked Fight Against Terror While Abroad / Bush OKs Arms-Sales to an Unstable Iraq
07.22.04 (9:24 am)   [edit]
[b]Who stands to benefit from terrorist attacks upon America because they are keen for more wars for Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.? [u]Bush/Cheney[/u], [i]that's who[/i]!

[u]Connect-the-Dots[/u][/ b]:

[i][b]1. [u]Cheney Attacked Fight Against Terror While Abroad[/u][/b][/i] - http://www.misleader.org/dail...

On the same day that President Bush announced plans to investigate Iran for ties to terrorism,1 Halliburton acknowledged that "a U.S. grand jury issued a subpoena to the company seeking information about its Cayman Islands unit's work in Iran,2 where it is illegal for U.S. companies to operate." Earlier this year, CBS News reported that Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of the company "during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran."3 In fact, Cheney was so adamant about doing business with terrorist nations like Iran, he even went abroad to publicly attack American foreign policy after meeting with top officials from a foreign government.

Despite economic sanctions on Iran because of its ties to terrorists, Cheney openly bragged about Halliburton's business dealings there during the 2000 campaign.4 Cheney argued that it was ethical for Halliburton to use "independent foreign subsidiaries" that exist in tax shelter countries like the Cayman Islands to skirt U.S. law. He also went abroad to attack American policy: According to the Malaysian News Agency, Cheney publicly attacked U.S. sanctions on terrorist countries after a meeting with top Malaysian government officials in Kuala Lampur.5

During the 2000 campaign, Cheney also claimed that, as Halliburton CEO, "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq,6 even arrangements that were supposedly legal." Yet, earlier this year, The New Yorker reported "during Cheney's tenure7 at Halliburton the company did business" in Iraq as well. The Washington Post reported that despite strict economic sanctions, Halliburton did up to $73 million in business8 with Iraq while Cheney was heading the company.

[u]Sources:[/u]

1. "Bush: U.S. probes possible Iran links to 9/11," CNN.com, 7/19/04.
2. "Halliburton Subpoenaed Over Unit's Iran Work ," Reuters, 7/19/04.
3. "Doing Business With The Enemy," 60 Minutes, 1/25/04.
4. "Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said," NewsMax.com, 6/25/01.
5. Malaysian News Agency, 4/20/98
6. "Contract Sport,"The New Yorker, 2/16/04.
7. Ibid.
8. "Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said,"TruthOut.org, 6/23/01.

[i][b]2. [u]Bush OKs. Arms Sales to Iraq[/u][/b][/i] - http://www.whitehouse.gov/new...

[b]Memorandum for the Secretary of State
Presidential Determination No. 2004-40

SUBJECT:[/b] Eligibility of Iraq to Receive Defense Articles and Services Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended, and the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 503(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and section 3(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and services to Iraq will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace.

You are authorized and directed to report this finding to the Congress and to publish it in the Federal Register.

[b]GEORGE W. BUSH, 21st July 2004 [/b]
 
To Be Or Not To Be (A War President): Am I For War Or Am I For Peace???
07.22.04 (6:46 am)   [edit]
[b]To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!

Our flip-flopping president ...[/b]

"I'm a war president."

George W. Bush
[i]Meet the Press[/i], http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
February 13th, 2004

... [i]and then [/i]...

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

George W. Bush
[i]Campaign Speech[/i], http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
July 20th 2004

And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful." ... That is until after the November election, when if Dubya is (s)elected, it's onwards to the next war in Iran!

"[i]War president[/i]": It's losing its phony, tinny "luster (?)" ...

[b]Refer to "Bush says: 'I want to be the peace president'" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... [/b]
 
To Be Or Not To Be (A War President): Am I For War Or Am I For Peace???
07.22.04 (6:43 am)   [edit]
[b]To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!

Our flip-flopping president ...[/b]

"I'm a war president."

George W. Bush
[i]Meet the Press[/i], http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
February 13th, 2004

... [i]and then [/i]...

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

George W. Bush
[i]Campaign Speech[/i], http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
July 20th 2004

And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful." ... That is until after the November election, when if Dubya is (s)elected, it's onwards to the next war in Iran!

"[i]War president[/i]": It's losing its phony, tinny "luster (?)" ...

[b]Refer to "Bush says: 'I want to be the peace president'" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... [/b]
 
The Public's Right To Know c/o The Federation of American Scientists
07.22.04 (6:37 am)   [edit]
[u][b]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/b][/u] - http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]

The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...

Check-out the "[i]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy[/i]" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i...

Please take the time to read "[i]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents [/i]..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
The Public's Right To Know
07.22.04 (6:33 am)   [edit]
[u][b]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/b][/u] - http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]

The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...

Check-out the "[i]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy[/i]" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i...

Please take the time to read "[i]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents [/i]..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
The Public DOES Have The RIGHT To KNOW: c/o The Federal of American Scientists
07.22.04 (6:31 am)   [edit]
[u][b]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy ... c/o The Federation of American Scientists[/b][/u] - http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]The Federation of American Scientists has produced a list of "Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i... , that is worth reviewing ... The corrupt Bush regime is one of the [i]most secretive [/i]in our nation's history http://www.larouchepub.com/ot... and this is[i] an anathema [/i]to our Republic founded on the principles of (1) transparency in government, (2) a system of checks and balances, and (3) accountability to "We the People" ...[/b]

The traitorous neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta [/i]is contemptuous of the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, our Republic and of "We the People" ... We are living in a [i]tragic [/i]period of history and future historians will look back in [i]astonished disgust [/i]that the American people did [i]not[/i] stand-up and fight back ... Let us commence the Battle for Our Republic [i]today[/i] ...

Check-out the "[i]Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy[/i]" on http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/i...

Please take the time to read "[i]Bush/Cheney Inc.: A History of Refusing to Release Documents [/i]..." on http://www.tblog.com/template...
 
---------> Vote for a Man, Not a Puppet!!! .........
07.21.04 (1:45 pm)   [edit]
[b]A Right Cross to Bush[/b]

Neither liberals nor the larger numbers of moderate Democrats are likely to bring down Bush. But disenchanted Republican right-wingers might hurt him in the conservative Republican base. Every so often there are signs of cracks in the conservative juggernaut.[b] "Vote for a Man, Not a Puppet," [/b]writes conservative Charley Reese in a recent column. "Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers. I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a front man, an empty suit who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory. . . . People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush."

In their book America Alone, Reagan conservatives Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke say Bush is the captive of a small group of neocons who have constructed a black-and-white line of thought along with a phony history to underpin their simplistic ideas. Neocons, they argue, see life as a never ceasing moral challenge to pick good from evil, along with the "assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it." And that both the Middle East and Islam are "the principal theater for American overseas interests." For neocons, they say, military power is the "first, not last, option of foreign policy."

Iran offers them a shot at striking at another "axis of evil," and this summer, in a little noticed naval exercise off the China coast called Summer Pulse '04, the U.S. is massing seven carrier groups in a maneuver that amounts to a peacetime rerun of D-day—only this time in Asia. The Chinese are responding to this provocation, as one might expect, with anger. And fooling with China, which now owns large amounts of our own debt and is the world's biggest attraction for foreign investment, will almost surely reinforce that country's military at a time when China shows signs of loosening up and moving toward some form of democratic government. - http://www.villagevoice.com/i...
 
To Be Or Not To Be ...
07.21.04 (8:07 am)   [edit]
[b]To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!

Our flip-flopping president ...[/b]

"I'm a war president."

George W. Bush
[i]Meet the Press[/i], http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
February 13th, 2004

... [i]and then [/i]...

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

George W. Bush
[i]Campaign Speech[/i], http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
July 20th 2004

And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful." ... That is until after the November election, when if Dubya is (s)elected, it's onwards to the next war in Iran!

"[i]War president[/i]": It's losing its phony, tinny "luster (?)" ...

[b]Refer to "Bush says: 'I want to be the peace president'" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... [/b]
 
To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!
07.21.04 (8:05 am)   [edit]
[b]To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!

Our flip-flopping president ...[/b]

"I'm a war president."

George W. Bush
[i]Meet the Press[/i], http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
February 13th, 2004

... [i]and then [/i]...

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

George W. Bush
[i]Campaign Speech[/i], http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
July 20th 2004

And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful." ... That is until after the November election, when if Dubya is (s)elected, it's onwards to the next war in Iran!

"[i]War president[/i]": It's losing its phony, tinny "luster (?)" ...

[b]Refer to "Bush says: 'I want to be the peace president'" on http://www.smirkingchimp.com/... [/b]
 
Cheney Attacked Fight Against Terror While Abroad
07.21.04 (8:03 am)   [edit]
On the same day that President Bush announced plans to investigate Iran for ties to terrorism,1 Halliburton acknowledged that "a U.S. grand jury issued a subpoena to the company seeking information about its Cayman Islands unit's work in Iran,2 where it is illegal for U.S. companies to operate." Earlier this year, CBS News reported that Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of the company "during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran."3 In fact, Cheney was so adamant about doing business with terrorist nations like Iran, he even went abroad to publicly attack American foreign policy after meeting with top officials from a foreign government.

Despite economic sanctions on Iran because of its ties to terrorists, Cheney openly bragged about Halliburton's business dealings there during the 2000 campaign.4 Cheney argued that it was ethical for Halliburton to use "independent foreign subsidiaries" that exist in tax shelter countries like the Cayman Islands to skirt U.S. law. He also went abroad to attack American policy: According to the Malaysian News Agency, Cheney publicly attacked U.S. sanctions on terrorist countries after a meeting with top Malaysian government officials in Kuala Lampur.5

During the 2000 campaign, Cheney also claimed that, as Halliburton CEO, "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq,6 even arrangements that were supposedly legal." Yet, earlier this year, The New Yorker reported "during Cheney's tenure7 at Halliburton the company did business" in Iraq as well. The Washington Post reported that despite strict economic sanctions, Halliburton did up to $73 million in business8 with Iraq while Cheney was heading the company.

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

1. "Bush: U.S. probes possible Iran links to 9/11," CNN.com, 7/19/04.
2. "Halliburton Subpoenaed Over Unit's Iran Work ," Reuters, 7/19/04.
3. "Doing Business With The Enemy," 60 Minutes, 1/25/04.
4. "Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said," NewsMax.com, 6/25/01.
5. Malaysian News Agency, 4/20/98
6. "Contract Sport,"The New Yorker, 2/16/04.
7. Ibid.
8. "Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said,"TruthOut.org, 6/23/01.
 
Cheney Attacked Fight Against Terror While Abroad
07.21.04 (8:01 am)   [edit]
On the same day that President Bush announced plans to investigate Iran for ties to terrorism,1 Halliburton acknowledged that "a U.S. grand jury issued a subpoena to the company seeking information about its Cayman Islands unit's work in Iran,2 where it is illegal for U.S. companies to operate." Earlier this year, CBS News reported that Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO of the company "during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran."3 In fact, Cheney was so adamant about doing business with terrorist nations like Iran, he even went abroad to publicly attack American foreign policy after meeting with top officials from a foreign government.

Despite economic sanctions on Iran because of its ties to terrorists, Cheney openly bragged about Halliburton's business dealings there during the 2000 campaign.4 Cheney argued that it was ethical for Halliburton to use "independent foreign subsidiaries" that exist in tax shelter countries like the Cayman Islands to skirt U.S. law. He also went abroad to attack American policy: According to the Malaysian News Agency, Cheney publicly attacked U.S. sanctions on terrorist countries after a meeting with top Malaysian government officials in Kuala Lampur.5

During the 2000 campaign, Cheney also claimed that, as Halliburton CEO, "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq,6 even arrangements that were supposedly legal." Yet, earlier this year, The New Yorker reported "during Cheney's tenure7 at Halliburton the company did business" in Iraq as well. The Washington Post reported that despite strict economic sanctions, Halliburton did up to $73 million in business8 with Iraq while Cheney was heading the company.

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

1. "Bush: U.S. probes possible Iran links to 9/11," CNN.com, 7/19/04.
2. "Halliburton Subpoenaed Over Unit's Iran Work ," Reuters, 7/19/04.
3. "Doing Business With The Enemy," 60 Minutes, 1/25/04.
4. "Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said," NewsMax.com, 6/25/01.
5. Malaysian News Agency, 4/20/98
6. "Contract Sport,"The New Yorker, 2/16/04.
7. Ibid.
8. "Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said,"TruthOut.org, 6/23/01.
 
Sordid/Squalid Bush/Cheney Legacy: Lies, deception, cover-up ...
07.20.04 (8:17 pm)   [edit]
The New York Times has reported that they were informed by the Pentagon that George W. Bush's military records covering the time he spent in the Air National Guard were destroyed accidentally during a routine transfer of files. I don't believe that for one millisecond.

The American people have a right to know just what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was risking life and limb for his country. Still, Bush's campaign commercials laud his courage. Bull! This so-called accident by the Pentagon is an outright cover up of a record that one can now only assume is an embarrassment to their Commander and Chief.

That news was dwarfed by the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelli-gence. I think they could have reduced the report to one line: "In regards to intelligence, this President doesn't have any."

It is perfectly clear that President Bush had no proof of weapons of mass destruction until he pressured the CIA to manufacture some. It is clear that the President and Vice President told an outright lie when they said there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Several former CIA operatives have reported that even the CIA told the administration on at least three occasions that that was not so. Even so, today Vice President Cheney continues to insist that they had evidence of a link.

Secretary of State Powell now admits that the information he showed to the U.N. to justify a war against Iraq was based on flawed intelligence. Maybe Powell really didn't know that at the time, but you can bet your sweet bippy that the president did. He wanted a war with Iraq and he flatly told the CIA to get him what he needed to justify his pre-disposed intentions. They replied that would be a "slam dunk."

Shortly after the slam dunk comment the CIA informed the president they had proof Iraq was developing a drone that could deliver biological weapons to its enemies, they were attempting to acquire the materials to develop an atomic weapon, and they had a stockpile of WMDs. This was all fabricated to give the president what he asked for. The political arm twisting of the CIA is disgraceful and must never happen again.

According to the Washington Post, the Select Committee's report noted what the CIA did was to remove such caveats as " we judge" and " we assess" and thus changed many sentences in an unclassified "white paper" to statements of fact rather than assessments. In doing so the report "misrepresented (the intelligence community's) judgments to the public."

Thus the classified report's language, "We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX...." became " Baghdad has begun renewed production......" in the public's version. Also the words "we have little specific information on Iraq's CW (chemical wea-pons) stockpile" were removed from the unclassified paper.

Three days after the public version of the document was released, President Bush said in a major speech to the nation in Cincinnati: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraq regime to attack America without leaving fingerprints."- Dana Priest, Washington Post.

Although the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the CIA, those of us who question the integrity of this administration believe the CIA's intelligence reports were changed to reflect what President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Rice and Rumsfeld wanted them to say.

Thus, the American people were deceived about the threat from Iraq and many young men and women marched off to their deaths and continue to do so on the basis of deliberately flawed intelligence. It's down right criminal if you ask me.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" the Senate committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R -Kan.) said that had Congress known before the vote to go to war what his committee has since discovered about the intelligence on Iraq, "I doubt if the votes would have been there."

Surely after the exposure of the outright lies, deception and cover-up by this administration, the votes for George W. Bush won't be there in November. - http://www.lahontanvalleynews...%2F20040719%2FOpinion%2F1 07190007
 
To Be Or Not To Be (A War President); That Is The Question!!! LOL!!!
07.20.04 (3:11 pm)   [edit]
[b]Our flip-flopping president ...[/b]

"I'm a war president."

George W. Bush
[i]Meet the Press[/i], http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...
February 13th, 2004

... [i]and then [/i]...

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

George W. Bush
[i]Campaign Speech[/i], http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
July 20th 2004

And for good measure, this from today: "For a while we were marching to war. Now we're marching to peace. ... America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be more peaceful." ... That is until after the November election, when if Dubya is (s)elected, it's onwards to the next war in Iran!

"[i]War president[/i]": It's losing its phony, tinny "luster (?)" ...
 
The Malicious Bush Attack (6 Months Old) on Sandy Berger to Distract Our Attention ...
07.20.04 (3:03 pm)   [edit]
[b]A must read: [i]Sandy Berger 'Story' in Perspective[/i] on http://www.tblog.com/template...

A bit more on the Berger story http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... ...[/b]

As far as I can tell, my comments http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... from last night stand. Notes taken from classified documents are themselves classified, unless and until they are cleared as containing no classified information. That at least appears to be the standard procedure.

However, it seems equally clear that the surfacing of this matter is the product of a malicious leak intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 commission report.

Consider the timing.

According to this article http://www.washingtonpost.com... in the [i]Post[/i], the National Archives began investigating this matter in October and then referred it to the FBI in January. That is, needless to say, at least six months ago. The article also notes that the FBI has yet to interview Berger, which suggests that the investigation has not reached a critical stage, for good or ill, that would have brought it to light now.

The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration's common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes.

That doesn't mean Berger doesn't have any explaining to do. The two points are not exclusive of each other.
 
FROM THE TOP: Top commanders in Iraq allowed dogs to be used at Abu Ghraib
07.20.04 (7:33 am)   [edit]
[b]Top commanders in Iraq allowed dogs to be used[/b]

U.S. military commanders in Iraq (news - web sites) authorized the use of dogs for interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison five months after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld barred the practice for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to classified military documents.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq, allowed dogs to be present during interrogations beginning Sept. 14, 2003. In an update of his order a month later, Sanchez allowed dogs to be used at the discretion of interrogators without his specific approval, according to classified documents obtained by USA TODAY. It was in the next two months that abuses at Abu Ghraib were documented, including use of dogs to terrify naked prisoners.

In April 2003, Rumsfeld had issued an order banning the use of dogs during interrogations at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a technique he had allowed there previously. But Rumsfeld's order applied only to Guantanamo, so commanders in Iraq were not told about the restriction. [Rumsfeld only issued the ban order after Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others complained about the wide-spread abuse and mistreatment of prisoners under the Bush adminisation.]

As commander in a war zone, Sanchez had the authority to establish interrogation rules in Iraq without consulting Rumsfeld. Pentagon (news - web sites) officials say they did not know that rules for Abu Ghraib differed from Rumsfeld's order for Guantanamo until photographs were leaked to the news media that showed naked Iraqi prisoners cowering before snarling dogs.

"Interrogation policy for Iraq and Gitmo were developed on separate tracks," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman says. Policies for Guantanamo, or "Gitmo" as it is called in the military, were developed by the U.S. Southern Command and reviewed by Rumsfeld as they involved suspected terrorists not covered by the Geneva Conventions because they were not soldiers fighting for a specific country. Interrogation rules for Iraq were developed by field commanders without Rumsfeld's involvement, Whitman said.

Use of dogs in Iraq after Rumsfeld banned the practice at Guantanamo shows an inconsistency in policies governing behavior by enlisted guards at Abu Ghraib in October and November 2003.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that Rumsfeld has ordered the creation of an Office of Detainee Affairs to oversee management of prisoners. Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of Defense for policy, says handling of matters related to prisoners has been "somewhat disparate and spread out" among various military commands.

Sanchez has testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) that he never approved a request for permission to use dogs in an interrogation. But his rule said his permission was not required. In an Oct. 12, 2003, memo to prison commanders and military intelligence officials, Sanchez wrote, "Should military working dogs be present during interrogations, they will be muzzled and under control of a handler at all times to ensure safety." The memo contains no requirement that Sanchez or any senior officer be consulted in advance. There was no requirement that dogs be muzzled outside of interrogation rooms.

Despite the language of Sanchez's Oct. 12 memo, Whitman said dogs were not allowed in interrogation rooms in Iraq after that date.

Lt. Col. Kevin Gainer, a spokesman for Sanchez, said the general, who has been reassigned to Europe, was not available for comment. Gainer said, "Soldiers are not allowed to make comments to the media" about abuse of prisoners.

Army Col. Thomas Pappas, who headed the military intelligence brigade running interrogations at Abu Ghraib, told an Army investigator early this year that interrogators and translators told him, " 'It's not very intimidating if they're muzzled.' And my response to that was, 'Well, then don't use them. Find another way.' "

Guards and interrogators at Abu Ghraib unmuzzled dogs for use outside interrogation rooms, such as during shakedowns and cell searches, according to testimony in the Army's investigation of abuse. Investigation documents indicate there was widespread fear of guard dogs among inmates. The investigation found at least two instances of dogs biting prisoners, one resulting in serious injury.

The fact that top U.S. commanders in Iraq explicitly authorized use of dogs in interrogations undercuts claims by the Pentagon and field commanders that the mistreatment was solely the work of guards who abused their authority. On the other hand, the testimony indicates that some episodes involving dogs violated safeguards put in place by commanders in Iraq to protect inmates from being bitten and to ensure that dogs were always under control of their handlers.

If Abu Ghraib officials thought they were evading laws against torture by using dogs outside of formal interrogation rooms, they were mistaken, said Dinah Pokempner, an attorney with Human Rights Watch, an international organization. "Torture can happen anywhere," she said.

International laws on torture and the treatment of prisoners of war do not discuss use of dogs. In general, prisoners are protected from being threatened with death or bodily harm to extract information. Before the Abu Ghraib scandal, the U.S. government had condemned the use of dogs on prisoners in other countries. The State Department's 2003 report on human rights violations condemned Libya for dog attacks on prisoners. - http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
 
FROM THE TOP: Top commanders in Iraq allowed dogs to be used at Abu Ghraib
07.20.04 (7:28 am)   [edit]
[b]Top commanders in Iraq allowed dogs to be used[/b]

U.S. military commanders in Iraq (news - web sites) authorized the use of dogs for interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison five months after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld barred the practice for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to classified military documents.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq, allowed dogs to be present during interrogations beginning Sept. 14, 2003. In an update of his order a month later, Sanchez allowed dogs to be used at the discretion of interrogators without his specific approval, according to classified documents obtained by USA TODAY. It was in the next two months that abuses at Abu Ghraib were documented, including use of dogs to terrify naked prisoners.

In April 2003, Rumsfeld had issued an order banning the use of dogs during interrogations at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a technique he had allowed there previously. But Rumsfeld's order applied only to Guantanamo, so commanders in Iraq were not told about the restriction. [Rumsfeld only issued the ban order after Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others complained about the wide-spread abuse and mistreatment of prisoners under the Bush adminisation.]

As commander in a war zone, Sanchez had the authority to establish interrogation rules in Iraq without consulting Rumsfeld. Pentagon (news - web sites) officials say they did not know that rules for Abu Ghraib differed from Rumsfeld's order for Guantanamo until photographs were leaked to the news media that showed naked Iraqi prisoners cowering before snarling dogs.

"Interrogation policy for Iraq and Gitmo were developed on separate tracks," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman says. Policies for Guantanamo, or "Gitmo" as it is called in the military, were developed by the U.S. Southern Command and reviewed by Rumsfeld as they involved suspected terrorists not covered by the Geneva Conventions because they were not soldiers fighting for a specific country. Interrogation rules for Iraq were developed by field commanders without Rumsfeld's involvement, Whitman said.

Use of dogs in Iraq after Rumsfeld banned the practice at Guantanamo shows an inconsistency in policies governing behavior by enlisted guards at Abu Ghraib in October and November 2003.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that Rumsfeld has ordered the creation of an Office of Detainee Affairs to oversee management of prisoners. Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of Defense for policy, says handling of matters related to prisoners has been "somewhat disparate and spread out" among various military commands.

Sanchez has testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) that he never approved a request for permission to use dogs in an interrogation. But his rule said his permission was not required. In an Oct. 12, 2003, memo to prison commanders and military intelligence officials, Sanchez wrote, "Should military working dogs be present during interrogations, they will be muzzled and under control of a handler at all times to ensure safety." The memo contains no requirement that Sanchez or any senior officer be consulted in advance. There was no requirement that dogs be muzzled outside of interrogation rooms.

Despite the language of Sanchez's Oct. 12 memo, Whitman said dogs were not allowed in interrogation rooms in Iraq after that date.

Lt. Col. Kevin Gainer, a spokesman for Sanchez, said the general, who has been reassigned to Europe, was not available for comment. Gainer said, "Soldiers are not allowed to make comments to the media" about abuse of prisoners.

Army Col. Thomas Pappas, who headed the military intelligence brigade running interrogations at Abu Ghraib, told an Army investigator early this year that interrogators and translators told him, " 'It's not very intimidating if they're muzzled.' And my response to that was, 'Well, then don't use them. Find another way.' "

Guards and interrogators at Abu Ghraib unmuzzled dogs for use outside interrogation rooms, such as during shakedowns and cell searches, according to testimony in the Army's investigation of abuse. Investigation documents indicate there was widespread fear of guard dogs among inmates. The investigation found at least two instances of dogs biting prisoners, one resulting in serious injury.

The fact that top U.S. commanders in Iraq explicitly authorized use of dogs in interrogations undercuts claims by the Pentagon and field commanders that the mistreatment was solely the work of guards who abused their authority. On the other hand, the testimony indicates that some episodes involving dogs violated safeguards put in place by commanders in Iraq to protect inmates from being bitten and to ensure that dogs were always under control of their handlers.

If Abu Ghraib officials thought they were evading laws against torture by using dogs outside of formal interrogation rooms, they were mistaken, said Dinah Pokempner, an attorney with Human Rights Watch, an international organization. "Torture can happen anywhere," she said.

International laws on torture and the treatment of prisoners of war do not discuss use of dogs. In general, prisoners are protected from being threatened with death or bodily harm to extract information. Before the Abu Ghraib scandal, the U.S. government had condemned the use of dogs on prisoners in other countries. The State Department's 2003 report on human rights violations condemned Libya for dog attacks on prisoners. - http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
 
...Bush Puts Politics Over Women and Children's Health
07.20.04 (7:24 am)   [edit]
For the third consecutive year the Bush administration has decided not to release $34 million appropriated by Congress to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The administration claims that the funds are being withheld because "the fund indirectly supports Chinese government programs that force women to have abortions."1 Although this explanation is popular with Bush's conservative base, it is wholly unsupported by the facts.

In 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell dispatched a team to China to investigate whether the UNFPA was assisting the Chinese government's coercive practices. The investigators reported that there was "no evidence that the UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."2 The investigative team recommended "that funds allocated by Congress be released to UNFPA."3

The 2003 State Department Report on Human Rights Practices found that, in the 32 Chinese counties where they operated, the UNFPA "emphasized education, improved reproductive health services, and economic development, and they eliminated the target and quota systems for limiting births."4 The success of the UNFPA's effort prompted 800 other Chinese counties to remove "the target and quota system and…[attempt] to replicate the UNFPA project by emphasizing quality of care and informed choice of birth control methods."

According to U.N. estimates, the $34 million in funds being withheld by the Bush administration this year could have helped prevent as many as 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and over 77,000 infant and child deaths.5

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

1. "Citing Chinese Abortions, U.S. Refuses to Fund U.N. Program," Los Angeles Times, 7/17/04.
2. "US again denies money to population fund," Boston Globe, 7/17/04.
3. "UNFPA Regrets U. S. Administration's Decision Not to Restore Funding," UNFPA, 7/16/04.
4. 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, State Department, 2/25/04.
5. "UNFPA Regrets U. S. Administration's Decision Not to Restore Funding," UNFPA, 7/16/04.
 
... Bush Puts Politics Over Women and Children's Health
07.20.04 (7:23 am)   [edit]
For the third consecutive year the Bush administration has decided not to release $34 million appropriated by Congress to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The administration claims that the funds are being withheld because "the fund indirectly supports Chinese government programs that force women to have abortions."1 Although this explanation is popular with Bush's conservative base, it is wholly unsupported by the facts.

In 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell dispatched a team to China to investigate whether the UNFPA was assisting the Chinese government's coercive practices. The investigators reported that there was "no evidence that the UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."2 The investigative team recommended "that funds allocated by Congress be released to UNFPA."3

The 2003 State Department Report on Human Rights Practices found that, in the 32 Chinese counties where they operated, the UNFPA "emphasized education, improved reproductive health services, and economic development, and they eliminated the target and quota systems for limiting births."4 The success of the UNFPA's effort prompted 800 other Chinese counties to remove "the target and quota system and…[attempt] to replicate the UNFPA project by emphasizing quality of care and informed choice of birth control methods."

According to U.N. estimates, the $34 million in funds being withheld by the Bush administration this year could have helped prevent as many as 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and over 77,000 infant and child deaths.5

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

1. "Citing Chinese Abortions, U.S. Refuses to Fund U.N. Program," Los Angeles Times, 7/17/04.
2. "US again denies money to population fund," Boston Globe, 7/17/04.
3. "UNFPA Regrets U. S. Administration's Decision Not to Restore Funding," UNFPA, 7/16/04.
4. 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, State Department, 2/25/04.
5. "UNFPA Regrets U. S. Administration's Decision Not to Restore Funding," UNFPA, 7/16/04.
 
...Bush Puts Politics Over Women and Children's Health
07.20.04 (7:20 am)   [edit]
For the third consecutive year the Bush administration has decided not to release $34 million appropriated by Congress to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The administration claims that the funds are being withheld because "the fund indirectly supports Chinese government programs that force women to have abortions."1 Although this explanation is popular with Bush's conservative base, it is wholly unsupported by the facts.

In 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell dispatched a team to China to investigate whether the UNFPA was assisting the Chinese government's coercive practices. The investigators reported that there was "no evidence that the UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."2 The investigative team recommended "that funds allocated by Congress be released to UNFPA."3

The 2003 State Department Report on Human Rights Practices found that, in the 32 Chinese counties where they operated, the UNFPA "emphasized education, improved reproductive health services, and economic development, and they eliminated the target and quota systems for limiting births."4 The success of the UNFPA's effort prompted 800 other Chinese counties to remove "the target and quota system and…[attempt] to replicate the UNFPA project by emphasizing quality of care and informed choice of birth control methods."

According to U.N. estimates, the $34 million in funds being withheld by the Bush administration this year could have helped prevent as many as 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and over 77,000 infant and child deaths.5

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

1. "Citing Chinese Abortions, U.S. Refuses to Fund U.N. Program," Los Angeles Times, 7/17/04.
2. "US again denies money to population fund," Boston Globe, 7/17/04.
3. "UNFPA Regrets U. S. Administration's Decision Not to Restore Funding," UNFPA, 7/16/04.
4. 2003 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, State Department, 2/25/04.
5. "UNFPA Regrets U. S. Administration's Decision Not to Restore Funding," UNFPA, 7/16/04.
 
Since At First (Iraq) Dubya Didn't Succeed, He's Gonna' Try, Try Again (Iran) ... On Our Backs!!!
07.19.04 (7:44 am)   [edit]
[b]They're baaaaaack![/b]

We interrupt our planned feel-good post about the impending election of a member of the American trickle-down imperial elite who does not happen to be George W. Bush...

...for a reminder why it is vitally important.

The neocons, unfazed by their calamitous escapade in Iraq and their humiliation at the hands of Ahmed Chalabi, are once again scheming to bumrush America into another war.

Suddenly, the media is alive with reports of the previous perfidy, ongoing villainy, and looming danger of...

...[b]Iran[/b].

Readers with at least cursory exposure to the U.S. media are aware that the September 11 Commission will report that Iran provided aid and comfort in the form of travel arrangements to some of the 9/11 hijackers - though, as the Sunday Herald reports, it "will, however, stop short of stating that Iran was aware of the plans for the September 11 attacks."

Thanks to Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/ and Daily Kos, we can also be aware of a flurry in the European press created by a US government hawk's backgrounder to the Sunday Times of London http://www.dailykos.com/story... on the Bush administration's plans for Iran:

"[i]THE US will mount a concerted attempt to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term.

It would work strenuously to foment a revolt against the ruling theocracy by Iran's "hugely dissatisfied" population, a senior official has told The Times.

The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq, but "if Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran", declared the official, who is determined that there should be no let-up in the Administration's War on Terror[/i]."

As usual, the devil is in the details, specifically the announcement of a terrifying threat, in this case, the impending completion of Iran's nuclear reactor at Bashehr.

Yes, it gets better:

"[i]To what extent the official, known to be hawkish, was speaking for the White House was unclear, but his remarks are nevertheless likely to cause alarm in Europe. He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran's main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods. To destroy Bushehr after the delivery would cause huge environmental damage. The rods would allow the Iranians to obtain enough plutonium for many dozens of nuclear weapons, he said[/i]."

You might notice a slight contradiction between "The United States would not use military force" and "a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities". But that's not the point here.

It's that siren song: the beating of the war drums.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

But not just if you're thinking about inflation of Iraq's purported WMD threat into a "can't stop, can't think, can't look" casus belli that stampeded the nation into war in 2002-2003.

You have to think even further back, to the destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor in a pre-emptive strike in 1981.

The destruction of the Osiraq reactor is truly the neocon touchstone, http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/do... the dead cinch justification of unilateral, pre-emptive war that drives the at all costs, against all odds, and in the face of all logic and reason call to battle of the neocons.

The argument goes, if we had let Iraq go nuclear, the world would have gone to hell.

An interesting if dubious argument, http://wanniski.com/showartic... even if it is an unshakable article of faith for the neocons. We could play what if scenarios and compare the situation in Iraq with that of Iran, which is desperately trying to shield its facility behind compliance with international law and UN inspections - just like Iraq did.

Of course, a most salient fact is that the Osiraq reactor was not bombed by the United States.

It was bombed by Israel.

And logic would suggest, if Israel feels it's necessary to destroy the Bashehr reactor as well to protect itself from the wrath of the region's aggravated Muslims, it should do so on its own dime, and take the international heat.

In fact, according to the Lebanon Star, http://www.dailystar.com.lb/a... that's exactly what Israel's getting ready to do, no doubt compromising our shaky political position in Iraq at the same time:

"[i]Israelis are reportedly training Kurdish commando units in northern Iraq and infiltrating agents into Iran. One of their main missions: plot Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program for possible pre-emptive strikes by the Israeli Air Force. Israel believes Tehran is about a year away from a breakthrough in that program and is accelerating its Shehab intermediate-range ballistic missile program. If all these reports are accurate, much trouble is looming[/i]."

For those who are paying attention, there's a cute dovetailing between the Sunday Times'

[i]a window of opportunity for destroying Iran's main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods [/i]

and

[i]Israel believes Tehran is about a year away from a breakthrough in that program [/i]

And of course

[i](An administration official) hinted at a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities [/i]

and

[i]plot Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program for possible pre-emptive strikes by the Israeli Air Force[/i].

Do we really need to doubt that the "administration hawk" and Israel are reading from the same playbook?

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Hawk is Richard Perle. He is accustomed to retailing his views in the European press.

Also, Jude Wanniski, in discussing a new book about the bombing of Osiraq, http://wanniski.com/showartic... states:

"[i]Although the U.S. officially condemned the Israeli attack on Osiraq, for which Iraq was never compensated financially, the Pentagon gave Israel what assistance it could in planning the airstrike through a special office established soon after Ronald Reagan's inauguration in January 1981. The man assigned to the office was Richard Perle, who has since congratulated himself for the timely success of the bombing - hastily arranged so the plant could be destroyed before it had been fitted with nuclear material - or the nuclear fallout would have contaminated the area and caused much more loss of life than the few workers killed in the strike[/i]."

Again note the parallel urgency of nailing Bashehr before the fuel is delivered, thereby diminishing the nuclear - if not the political and diplomatic - fallout.

So here's Richard Perle trying to relive the glory of the Osiraq days. As Yogi Berra would say, deja vu all over again.

[u]Two points here[/u]:

[u]First[/u], if Israel's going to do it anyway, let's just get the hell out of the way.

[u]Second[/u], Why is Perle or somebody who thinks exactly like him going the extra mile to pour gasoline on the fire by promoting the Israeli plan as potential U.S. policy?

Of course, simple altruism of the No Likudnik Left Behind variety may be at work, with American strategic thinkers helpfully taking the weight off the shoulders of Israel's overworked military planners.

But I think there's more to it: an attempt to rescue the neocons' standing and their agenda as well as their patron, George Bush, by introducing the inflammatory issue of Israel into US politics.

Israel is the 800 pound guerilla of presidential politics. Bush would like to differentiate himself from Kerry on Israel, just as Kerry wants to mimic Bush's full-throated support of Israel so closely that no distinction can be identified.

Iraq doesn't offer Bush that opportunity.

If the occupation had gone well and Iraq joined Israel as the only functioning democracies in the Middle East, American and Israeli interests could have been overtly linked i.e. we're making the region more like Israel, more democratic and more capitalistic through the judicious and compassionate exercise of military force and occupation, just like it does on the West Bank.

On the campaign trail, accusations of weakness in support of Israel (and its op-ed page doppelganger, cries of anti-Semitism) could have been the Bush administration trump card in attacking opponents who didn't recognize the nobility, necessity, and efficacy of our stabilizing and democratizing mission in Iraq.

Now of course, any mention of Israel in connection with Iraq - such as the purported presence of an Israeli at Abu Ghraib - is political dynamite. The last thing Bush or Israel needs is a discussion of why Iraqi boys must be sodomized on videotape so the region can be made safe for Israel and the democratic values it represents.

But fomenting an Iran crisis might take the Israel question into a place where John Kerry fears to tread.

Perhaps the Israel card can still be played to regain the support of the conservative, pro-intervention elite that would still welcome a manly Republican campaign against degenerate Muslims and on behalf of plucky Israel, even if it is disenchanted with the Iraq car wreck now supposedly disappearing unmourned and unremembered in the nation's rear view mirror.

The appeal would be: Let's Move On! To Teheran!

The irresistible Beltway logic would be, if you're against destabilizing Iran, you're willing to leave Israel defenseless a year from now when Persian nukes threaten the Jewish homeland.

And since Sharon's going to do it anyway, better get on board the Iran bandwagon now and not leave our good buddy high and dry when the bombers swoop down on Bashehr.

Leave it to the neocons to take a perfectly good regional security issue and try to escalate it into a global crisis by injecting the United States.

Leave it to Bush to be seduced by another foreign policy adventure that might postpone the day of reckoning for his failures in the Middle East.

Leave it to the neocons to remind us why Bush must go. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
Bush White House Lies About Bush's Military Records
07.19.04 (7:13 am)   [edit]
On February 10, 2004, the White House released documents related to President Bush's military service record. At the time, White House] spokesman Scott McClellan said those documents included definitive proof that Bush was paid during the three-month time period when Bush's whereabouts were in question.1 McClellan said, "When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served." McClellan glossed over the fact that the crucial pay records from the third quarter of 1972 were missing.

Now, responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request by the New York Times, the Administration says that the payroll records that could have finally settled the controversy were "inadvertently destroyed."2 According to the Pentagon, the records were ruined during 1996 or 1997 "during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." Conveniently, the Pentagon was unable to locate any paper backups.

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

1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, WhiteHouse.gov, 2/10/04.
2. "Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed," New York Times, 7/09/04.
 
Bush White House Lies About Bush's Military Records
07.19.04 (7:11 am)   [edit]
On February 10, 2004, the White House released documents related to President Bush's military service record. At the time, White House] spokesman Scott McClellan said those documents included definitive proof that Bush was paid during the three-month time period when Bush's whereabouts were in question.1 McClellan said, "When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served." McClellan glossed over the fact that the crucial pay records from the third quarter of 1972 were missing.

Now, responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request by the New York Times, the Administration says that the payroll records that could have finally settled the controversy were "inadvertently destroyed."2 According to the Pentagon, the records were ruined during 1996 or 1997 "during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." Conveniently, the Pentagon was unable to locate any paper backups.

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

1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, WhiteHouse.gov, 2/10/04.
2. "Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed," New York Times, 7/09/04.
 
A Lunatic's Lunacy ...
07.19.04 (7:08 am)   [edit]
[b]Although the CIA says there is no link between Iran and Al Qaeda http://fairuse.1accesshost.co... , Bush wants to wage war on Iran: a nation nearly 4 times the size and 3 times the population of Iraq! Wonder if Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz will do as[i] "good-a-job [/i][[i]sic[/i]]" with Iran as they did with their botched-up fiasco in Iraq? ... Bush is a lunatic![/b]

[b]Please take time to read "[i]Iran End Game[/i]???" [/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b][u]Regime change in Iran now in Bush's sights[/u][/b]

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.

Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with North Korea and Iraq almost three years ago. A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership.

The official said: "If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran."

The Iranian government announced this weekend that it had successfully eradicated all al-Qaeda cells operating in the country, but the statement comes as leaked reports from the US September 11 Commission show definite links between Iran and the September 11 terrorists.

The final report from the cross-party inquiry, which is examining the origins of the September 11 attacks, is believed to contain concrete evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran.

Time magazine reports that at least eight of the hijackers, who lived in the US for months before the attacks, passed through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001 apparently with help from the Iranian authorities.

Known al-Qaeda members also seem to have been allowed to cross in and out of Iran freely across the Afghan border, with Iranian border guards being told not to stamp the passports of al-Qaeda operatives, harass them or hinder their ability to travel freely.

The report is thought to hint that Iranian officials were ordered to assist al-Qaeda operatives with any travel needs.

The September 11 Commission report will, however, stop short of stating that Iran was aware of the plans for the September 11 attacks.

Tehran has always officially denied helping members of al-Qaeda escape from Afghan istan in 2001 when the Taliban regime fell.

State television in Iran yesterday showed the country's intelligence minister announcing the capture of a number of al-Qaeda supporters.

Ali Yunesi said: "Iran's intelligence apparatus has identified and arrested small Iranian deviate branches of the al-Qaeda group." There was no clarification on how many people had been arrested or charged.

Yunesi warned that Iran would take a tough line against militants using Iran as a base. "Those who seek to misuse the safe situation in Iran will face serious consequences," he said.

The Iranian government says it has arrested and repatriated hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects in the past two years in a display of willingness to bring terrorism in the Middle East under control.

A suspected Saudi al-Qaeda militant, Khaled al-Harbi, who appeared in a videotape with Osama bin Laden, gave himself up in Iran last week, and was flown back to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

On Friday US officials said the next stage of the September 11 Commission's report would be available this week.

There was embarrassment for the Bush administration last week when it emerged a tight deadline was being pushed for the capture of Osama bin Laden to generate headlines during the Democratic Convention when presidential rival John Kerry will be grabbing the limelight.

Pakistani security forces have apparently been given deadlines to capture bin Laden that are before the US general election in November, according to US sources. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
Why Bush is a Lunatic: Bush Promises War in Iran, although CIA says No Proof of Threat...
07.19.04 (6:58 am)   [edit]
[b]Although the CIA says there is no link between Iran and Al Qaeda http://fairuse.1accesshost.co... , Bush wants to wage war on Iran: a nation nearly 4 times the size and 3 times the population of Iraq! Wonder if Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz will do as[i] "good-a-job [/i][[i]sic[/i]]" with Iran as they did with their botched-up fiasco in Iraq? ... Bush is a lunatic![/b]

[b]Please take time to read "[i]Iran End Game[/i]???" [/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b][u]Regime change in Iran now in Bush's sights[/u][/b]

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.

Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with North Korea and Iraq almost three years ago. A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership.

The official said: "If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran."

The Iranian government announced this weekend that it had successfully eradicated all al-Qaeda cells operating in the country, but the statement comes as leaked reports from the US September 11 Commission show definite links between Iran and the September 11 terrorists.

The final report from the cross-party inquiry, which is examining the origins of the September 11 attacks, is believed to contain concrete evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran.

Time magazine reports that at least eight of the hijackers, who lived in the US for months before the attacks, passed through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001 apparently with help from the Iranian authorities.

Known al-Qaeda members also seem to have been allowed to cross in and out of Iran freely across the Afghan border, with Iranian border guards being told not to stamp the passports of al-Qaeda operatives, harass them or hinder their ability to travel freely.

The report is thought to hint that Iranian officials were ordered to assist al-Qaeda operatives with any travel needs.

The September 11 Commission report will, however, stop short of stating that Iran was aware of the plans for the September 11 attacks.

Tehran has always officially denied helping members of al-Qaeda escape from Afghan istan in 2001 when the Taliban regime fell.

State television in Iran yesterday showed the country's intelligence minister announcing the capture of a number of al-Qaeda supporters.

Ali Yunesi said: "Iran's intelligence apparatus has identified and arrested small Iranian deviate branches of the al-Qaeda group." There was no clarification on how many people had been arrested or charged.

Yunesi warned that Iran would take a tough line against militants using Iran as a base. "Those who seek to misuse the safe situation in Iran will face serious consequences," he said.

The Iranian government says it has arrested and repatriated hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects in the past two years in a display of willingness to bring terrorism in the Middle East under control.

A suspected Saudi al-Qaeda militant, Khaled al-Harbi, who appeared in a videotape with Osama bin Laden, gave himself up in Iran last week, and was flown back to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

On Friday US officials said the next stage of the September 11 Commission's report would be available this week.

There was embarrassment for the Bush administration last week when it emerged a tight deadline was being pushed for the capture of Osama bin Laden to generate headlines during the Democratic Convention when presidential rival John Kerry will be grabbing the limelight.

Pakistani security forces have apparently been given deadlines to capture bin Laden that are before the US general election in November, according to US sources. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
Why Bush is a Lunatic: Bush Promises War in Iran, although CIA says No Proof of Threat...
07.19.04 (6:50 am)   [edit]
[b]Although the CIA says there is no link between Iran and Al Qaeda http://fairuse.1accesshost.co... , Bush wants to wage war on Iran: a nation nearly 4 times the size and 3 times the population of Iraq! Wonder if Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz will do as[i] "good-a-job [/i][[i]sic[/i]]" with Iran as they did with their botched-up fiasco in Iraq? ... Bush is a lunatic![/b]

[b]Please take time to read "[i]Iran End Game[/i]???" [/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b][u]Regime change in Iran now in Bush's sights[/u][/b]

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.

Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with North Korea and Iraq almost three years ago. A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership.

The official said: "If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran."

The Iranian government announced this weekend that it had successfully eradicated all al-Qaeda cells operating in the country, but the statement comes as leaked reports from the US September 11 Commission show definite links between Iran and the September 11 terrorists.

The final report from the cross-party inquiry, which is examining the origins of the September 11 attacks, is believed to contain concrete evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran.

Time magazine reports that at least eight of the hijackers, who lived in the US for months before the attacks, passed through Iran between October 2000 and February 2001 apparently with help from the Iranian authorities.

Known al-Qaeda members also seem to have been allowed to cross in and out of Iran freely across the Afghan border, with Iranian border guards being told not to stamp the passports of al-Qaeda operatives, harass them or hinder their ability to travel freely.

The report is thought to hint that Iranian officials were ordered to assist al-Qaeda operatives with any travel needs.

The September 11 Commission report will, however, stop short of stating that Iran was aware of the plans for the September 11 attacks.

Tehran has always officially denied helping members of al-Qaeda escape from Afghan istan in 2001 when the Taliban regime fell.

State television in Iran yesterday showed the country's intelligence minister announcing the capture of a number of al-Qaeda supporters.

Ali Yunesi said: "Iran's intelligence apparatus has identified and arrested small Iranian deviate branches of the al-Qaeda group." There was no clarification on how many people had been arrested or charged.

Yunesi warned that Iran would take a tough line against militants using Iran as a base. "Those who seek to misuse the safe situation in Iran will face serious consequences," he said.

The Iranian government says it has arrested and repatriated hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects in the past two years in a display of willingness to bring terrorism in the Middle East under control.

A suspected Saudi al-Qaeda militant, Khaled al-Harbi, who appeared in a videotape with Osama bin Laden, gave himself up in Iran last week, and was flown back to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

On Friday US officials said the next stage of the September 11 Commission's report would be available this week.

There was embarrassment for the Bush administration last week when it emerged a tight deadline was being pushed for the capture of Osama bin Laden to generate headlines during the Democratic Convention when presidential rival John Kerry will be grabbing the limelight.

Pakistani security forces have apparently been given deadlines to capture bin Laden that are before the US general election in November, according to US sources. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
 
Kids Sodomized at Abu Ghraib by Bush/Cheney Thugs Get "Reduction" of Innocence & Childhood
07.18.04 (2:21 pm)   [edit]
[b]Courtesy of Sam Adams http://samadams.tblog.com

Bush and Cheney are accountable http://www.tblog.com/template... for the horrors of murders, tortures and abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib ... History will condemn them for their War Crimes even if this generation lacks the courage to do so ... The following account is truly horrifying:--[/b]

Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

... "[i]The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher[/i]." ...

This is a summary of Hersh speaking at the [i]ACLU 2004 America At A Crossroads conference [/i] http://www.aclu.org/2004membe... according to EdCone.com (via Oliver Willis http://www.oliverwillis.com/e... ). I verified by watching the video myself http://stream.realimpact.net/... (it starts at 1:07, the "worse stuff" part starts at 1:30).

There's more bad stuff in here, read Ed Cone's summary http://radio.weblogs.com/0107... .

I'll try transcribing some of the more important bits.

[my transcription from 1:31 - 1:32]

... "Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib which is 30 miles from Baghdad [...]

The women were passing messages saying "Please come and kill me, because of what's happened". Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out." ...

It's impossible to say to yourself how do we get there? who are we? Who are these people that sent us there?

Chilling.
 
The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
07.18.04 (12:06 pm)   [edit]
[b]Bush-Cheney Presidency: Worse Than Watergate[/b]

[b]by Edward Spannaus
Worse Than Watergate:
The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
by John W. Dean
New York and Boston: Little Brown and Company, 2004
269 pages, hardcover, $22.95[/b]

This timely book were more accurately subtitled "The Secret and Deceptive Co-Presidency of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush"—for that is precisely what John W. Dean documents.

Dean, the one-time Counsel to President Richard Nixon, knows whereof he speaks, when he characterizes the Bush-Cheney co-Presidency as "worse than Watergate," and he presents a compelling case that the abuse of power by this Administration is far, far worse, than that of the Nixon Administration. And this was before the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, with the evidence now piling up day by day that top Administration officials are responsible for war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[b]Dissembling as Policy[/b]

Dean's Preface opens as follows: "George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate, and it bodes even more serious consequences." Dean describes their secrecy as not only excessive, but obsessive. "It has created a White House that hides the president's weaknesses as well as its vice president's strengths. It has given us a presidency that operates on secret agendas. To protect their secrets, Bush and Cheney dissemble as a matter of policy."

This is central to Dean's argument, for this is not secrecy for its own sake, but secrecy in order to hide its policy-objectives. "Dick Cheney, who runs his own secret government operations, openly declares that he wants to turn the clock back to pre-Watergate years—a time of an unaccountable and extra-constitutional presidency."

In examining Bush and Cheney, Dean says, he realized that what at first looked like a penchant for secrecy, was actually "a policy of concealment that they exercized throughout the 2000 campaign." When they entered the White House, "they quietly closed the doors, pulled the shades, and began making themselves inaccessible to the media and Congress" while also shutting down the flow of government information.

The Bush-Cheney White House is not unlike Nixon's, in its efforts to craft the President's public image and working for re-election, Dean observes. "But what clearly distinguishes this presidency is its vice-president, a secretive man by nature whose unmatched power is largely veiled but whose secret government operations have changed the world—and not for the better."

"Dick Cheney, effectively a co-president incognito, works behind closed doors and does not answer to Congress or the public," Dean continues. "His partner, the president, is not sufficiently knowledgeable about their policies to answer questions about them adequately.... It is not that he is stupid, only ignorant—and apparently by design."

[b]A Svengali and a Rasputin[/b]

Later, Dean elaborates his assessment of Bush, as one who is "mentally shallow, intellectually lazy, and incurious," one who reads very little, gets briefed orally on the news by his staff, and demands short memos, etc. Yet, Dean surmises, Bush has a natural intelligence that he is only willing to employ when he's really interested in a subject, such as baseball. "He has succeeded in life without doing much mental heavy lifting, and only on rare occasions has he done so as president."

Therefore, this White House can only be understood, Dean contends, by taking into account Cheney's powerful influence on Bush, and what Dean calls the "co-presidency,"—with Cheney preferring to operate in the shadows.

"Cheney's persuasiveness behind closed doors, particularly one-on-one, is legendary," Dean reports, "and with a rookie in national security matters like Bush, Cheney can be both a Svengali and a Rasputin." As between Nixon and Kissinger, Dean notes, Nixon was the senior partner. But in contrast, "not only is Cheney the senior partner, he is prime minister sub silentio."

[b]The Strauss Factor[/b]

Much of what Dean reports will be familiar to EIR's readers, although Dean is scrupulous to a fault in not mentioning Lyndon LaRouche or EIR, but instead citing many derivative sources, who have picked up on ideas and material first put into circulation by this magazine and by LaRouche's campaign, particularly in the first Children of Satan report, The Ignoble Liars Behind Bush's No-Exit War. No matter. Dean reviews the now-well-known Cheney-Wolfowitz 1992 Defense Policy Guidance, the Project for the New American Century, the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, and so on.

And, what Dean calls a "Cliff Notes-level analysis of neo-conservatism" is reproduced, this being a useful floor-speech given by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx), which describes neo-cons as those who, among other things, "agree with Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution ... identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss ... believe lying is necessary for the state to survive ... believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public ... believe in pre-emptive war and the naked use of force to achieve any desired ends ... openly endorse the idea of a American empire...."

In a footnote, Dean acknowledges that in preparation for this book-project, he read several works either by, or about, Leo Strauss. It absolutely benefits from his having done so.

[b]9/11: An Opportunity[/b]

Dean observes that Cheney, "the strong man" of the presidency, "appears to find the sort of pleasure in power that medieval warlords once did." But there is also an agenda, albeit hidden, which Dean illustrates—apart from Cheney's business dealings around Halliburton and the secretive Energy Task Force—by what happened around the 9/11 attacks.

"For Cheney, the 9/11 attack was not a transforming event," Dean writes; "rather it was further confirmation of his long-held Hobbesian perception of the world's likely state of perpetual war." Moreover, Dean notes, it was, for Cheney, "an opportunity," and he elaborates:

"For Cheney and his like-minded associates, 9/11 was a perfect storm, a moment they had even anticipated when looking earlier for a catalyst necessary to accomplish their broader goals.... During the 2000 campaign, Cheney kept his dogs of war caged, and not until 9/11 did he set them free." It is in this context that Dean reports on the imperial policies in the making for a decade, which Cheney has now put into practice.

Dean does not accuse Cheney in any way of being involved in the planning or the execution of the 9/11 attacks. But, neither did Cheney and his team just sit back and wait for the attacks to occur. Dean documents how Cheney actively sabotaged efforts by others to deal with the terrorist threat, particularly with his shutting down of the blue-ribbon, Hart-Rudman Commission, and his convincing Bush to put him in charge with his do-nothing terrorism task force in May 2001.

Dean's hypothesis about Cheney's and Bush's actions prior to 9/11, and their obstruction of any investigations after 9/11, is summarized as follows:

"Given the effort to prevent others from learning what they knew about such a threat, when they knew, and what they were planning to do about it, it is reasonable to believe that they planned to exploit terrorism before 9/11 handed them the issue ready for exploitation—a fact they obviously want to keep buried."

[b]Impeachable Crimes[/b]

In compiling his bill of particulars, Dean argues that on every count, what Bush and Cheney have done, is far worse than anything Nixon and his team ever did. Two areas which he documents in some detail, are the deception of Congress around the launching of the Iraq war, and then the leaking of the CIA identity of the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, in order to attempt to discredit Wilson's debunking of the Niger "uranium" fable. (Dean notes that although Nixon had his "enemies list," Nixon never targetted his enemies' wives, and "he never employed a dirty trick that was literally life-threatening.")

Dean details the Administration's lies used to justify the attack on Iraq, and he documents the fact that Congress did not give Bush a blank check to launch an attack on Iraq; but rather, when Congress passed its use-of-force authorization in October 2002, there were two conditions placed on it: that the President must submit to Congress a formal determination that (1) further diplomatic means would not resolve the alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; and that (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, and against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

What Bush sent to Congress in fulfillment of this requirement, Dean characterizes as "male bovine droppings" and a "blatant fraud." Not since Lyndon Johnson's hoodwinking of Congress around the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, "has a president so deceived Congress around a matter of such grave national importance."

In these and other matters involving Congress, especially Congressional demands for information about the operations of the Presidency, Bush claims to be preserving the powers of the Presidency and protecting it from legislative encroachment. But in this, Dean observes, Bush is merely repeating what Cheney tells him to say, "for Cheney has long believed that Congress has no business telling presidents what to do, particularly in national security matters."

Dean contends that Cheney's views were shaped during his time in the White House in the mid-1970s as Gerald Ford's chief of staff, in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, when Congress was dismantling the imperial Presidency of Nixon. Cheney still resents this, and was also unhappy with his colleagues in Congress in the 1980s for exercising their oversight and investigative powers with respect to Iran-Contra—and, as the senior Republican on the House Iran-Contra Committee, Cheney did everything he could to protect the White House and then Vice-President George H.W. Bush.

Cheney's view, of an unchecked, extra-constitutional imperial Presidency, is what has now come to the fore once again, and especially dramatically in recent weeks, in the form of the administration's now-leaked legal arguments which contend that U.S. laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and war crimes, are an unconstitutional limitation on the powers of the Presidency.

Dean concludes with a stark warning that the Bush-Cheney Administration is now waiting for another terrorist event to occur, more catastrophic than 9/11, which will permit them to push the Constitution aside and establish a dictatorship. It is a warning to be taken very seriously. - http://www.larouchepub.com/ot...
 
US Govt Has Videos of Little Boys Being Sodomized at Iraq Prison - Thanks Bush & Cheney!
07.18.04 (7:02 am)   [edit]
Read "Kids Sodomized at Abu Ghraib ..." at http://www.tblog.com/template...

Video http://stream.realimpact.net/...:07:51
 
US Govt Has Videos of Little Boys Being Sodomized at Iraq Prison - Thanks Bush & Cheney!
07.18.04 (7:01 am)   [edit]
Read "Kids Sodomized at Abu Ghraib ..." at http://www.tblog.com/template...

Video http://stream.realimpact.net/...:07:51
 
US Govt Has Videos of Little Boys Being Sodomized at Iraq Prison - Thanks Bush & Cheney!
07.18.04 (6:59 am)   [edit]
Read "Kids Sodomized at Abu Ghraib ..." at http://www.tblog.com/template...

Video http://stream.realimpact.net/...:07:51
 
US Govt Has Videos of Little Boys Being Sodomized at Iraq Prison - Thanks Bush & Cheney!
07.18.04 (6:57 am)   [edit]
Read "Kids Sodomized at Abu Ghraib ..." at http://www.tblog.com/template...

Video http://stream.realimpact.net/...:07:51
 
White House Misleads On Bush's Military Records
07.17.04 (9:31 am)   [edit]
On February 10, 2004, the White House released documents related to President Bush's military service record. At the time, White House] spokesman Scott McClellan said those documents included definitive proof that Bush was paid during the three-month time period when Bush's whereabouts were in question.1 McClellan said, "When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served." McClellan glossed over the fact that the crucial pay records from the third quarter of 1972 were missing.

Now, responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request by the New York Times, the Administration says that the payroll records that could have finally settled the controversy were "inadvertently destroyed."2 According to the Pentagon, the records were ruined during 1996 or 1997 "during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." Conveniently, the Pentagon was unable to locate any paper backups.

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

1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, WhiteHouse.gov, 2/10/04.
2. "Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed," New York Times, 7/09/04.
 
White House Misleads On Bush's Military Records
07.17.04 (9:28 am)   [edit]
On February 10, 2004, the White House released documents related to President Bush's military service record. At the time, White House] spokesman Scott McClellan said those documents included definitive proof that Bush was paid during the three-month time period when Bush's whereabouts were in question.1 McClellan said, "When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served." McClellan glossed over the fact that the crucial pay records from the third quarter of 1972 were missing.

Now, responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request by the New York Times, the Administration says that the payroll records that could have finally settled the controversy were "inadvertently destroyed."2 According to the Pentagon, the records were ruined during 1996 or 1997 "during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." Conveniently, the Pentagon was unable to locate any paper backups.

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

1. Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, WhiteHouse.gov, 2/10/04.
2. "Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed," New York Times, 7/09/04.
 
New Evidence : Bush Misleads on Prison Abuse Scandal
07.16.04 (8:43 am)   [edit]
President Bush has claimed that the prison abuse scandal in Iraq was just "conduct by a few American troops."1 But with Congress investigating the scandal,2 a series of explosive new reports provides evidence that the tactics may have been approved at the highest levels of government. Even worse, one leading investigative journalist says the Administration is holding videotapes of soldiers sodomizing Iraqi children.

According to a newly released Pentagon memo from 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally authorized the use of controversial interrogation tactics,3 including using dogs to intimidate, stripping prisoners of their clothes and placing hoods on prisoners so they cannot see. Rumsfeld also ordered military officials to hold prisoners without listing them on prisoner rolls requested by the International Red Cross.4 And according to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was the head of detention operations at Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld "approved tactics at the prison"5 directly. As reported by [i]Newsweek[/i], these memos and orders were signed off by Rumsfeld, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft and were part of a "secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods"6 of abuse seen in Iraq.

Making matters worse, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh of the [i]New Yorker [/i]told the American Civil Liberties Union this week that videotapes were made of young boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib. "The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told the group's convention. Hersh reports there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher." See the video of Hersh's ACLU speech7 - the information about the prison comes at about 1 hour and 30 minutes in.

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

1. "Bush Seeks to Reassure Nation on Iraq ," Washington Post, 5/25/04.
2. "House Panel Reviews Iraq Prison Reports," Washington Post, 7/15/04.
3. "Report: Former head of Iraqi prisons says Rumsfeld OK'd coercive tactics," San Francisco Chronicle, 7/02/04.
4. "The Reach of War: Prison Abuse; Rumsfeld Issued an Order to Hide Detainee in Iraq," New York Times, 6/17/04.
5. "Report: Former head of Iraqi prisons says Rumsfeld OK'd coercive tactics," San Francisco Chronicle, 7/02/04.
6. "The Roots of Torture," Newsweek, 5/24/04.
7. "America at a Crossroads," 2004 ACLU Members Conference.
 
Bush/Cheney's Illegal and Immoral War in Iraq: Follow the Money!!!
07.16.04 (6:27 am)   [edit]
One of the unremitting leitmotifs of one-hundred-percent Americanos is the complaint that "the media just won't print positive stories about Iraq." Apparently all the canons of journalism dictate that our dailies should be filled with edifying tales about Tikriti tykes receiving soccer balls and canned asparagus, or a venetian blind factory opening in Irbil. Yet somehow, the media conspiracy prevents the public from reading "fair and balanced" accounts that might be stenographically reproduced from the [now defunct] CPA'a press releases. Or perhaps the good news just gets lost amid the blizzard of media stories about airliners that landed safely, neighbors who didn't get murdered, and laborers who remained employed.

Imagine the surprise, then, at reading the Office of Management and Budget's chaste announcement that only 2 percent has been spent from the $18.4 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds approved last October. This was no mere data point indifferently churned out by the faceless automatons at OMB; no, the White House was grudgingly releasing something it would prefer to hide. The only information the government releases on a Friday afternoon before a three-day weekend is bad news; when it is hoped that the Beltway nomenklatura, streaming over the Bay Bridge to the Delmarva fleshpots, will be distracted. You can be sure the White House wasn't ballyhooing what a good steward of the taxpayers' money it was by sitting on the money. What, then, is the explanation?

There are two plausible hypotheses, neither of which is mutually exclusive:

1. The military situation in Iraq is so disastrous that projects simply cannot be undertaken. The Washington Post's story [1, contained in Reference 2 below] on the reconstruction aid suggests this reason, and quotes administration spokesmen to that effect. But this hypothesis, while likely to be at least partially true, itself raises a host of questions:

a. If it is too dangerous to do widespread reconstruction, doesn't that suggest a reason for the absence of good news stories from Babylon that is more fundamental than the mere ill nature of a bunch of pack journalists (34 of whom have been killed in Iraq thus far, contrary to Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz's public impugning of journalistic elan)? And overwhelming anecdotal evidence suggests there is little real reconstruction going on; the CPA administrators, the would-be heirs of Lucius Clay (fabled in the reconstruction of post-war Germany) huddle instead in the Emerald Palace did little more than churn out press releases, befitting their origins as Capitol Hill press hacks.

b. Too dangerous it may be to let contracts with the vast bulk of the appropriated reconstruction money; why, then, has the administration encountered no such difficulty obligating money in one particular instance: reimbursing Halliburton for fuel delivery? Just another coincidence, surely.

c. According to the same Washington Post story, the CPA likewise had no difficulty in earmarking or disbursing nearly $20 billion of Iraq's own funds in various ways (ways that cannot be verified, because there is no independent audit -- more on this below). Given the supposedly ephemeral nature of L. Paul Bremer's recent viceroyalty, does the rapid disposition of Iraqi assets before the establishment of a native-run administration have the suspicious smell of a looting operation? That is the conclusion of the British charity Christian Aid, which says that at least $20 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds intended to rebuild the country have disappeared from banks administered by the CPA [2]. And before an independent audit could take place, the CPA liquidated itself and Bremer departed Baghdad in the manner of Baby Doc or Ferdinand Marcos - unseemly haste for so regal a personage.

2. Regardless of whether Iraq was more unstable and dangerous than foreseen in October 2003, the second hypothesis argues that the administration never intended to spend the vast bulk of the money on Iraq reconstruction in any case. Quite apart from the fact that this intention would have violated article I, section 9 of our late Constitution, there are other curious features as well.

The White House repeatedly emphasized how vitally important it was for Congress to pass the Iraq reconstruction package quickly. Why the haste, if the first year disbursement rate is so minuscule? Two possibilities:

a. Even if the administration had no intention of spending the money, it wanted a signed bill before the Madrid donor's conference in order to induce third countries into donating money and/or cannon fodder to the Great Crusade. In other words, sucker Congress and the taxpayers into putting up the bait to sucker the Europeans.

b. The WMD argument having fallen flat (David Kay released his report in September), the administration needed a fresh argument to justify to the public its military invasion of Iraq. Hence the need to swathe harsh realities with the bogus argument that the occupation was really and truly an undertaking of the most noble and altruistic character. At the time of the debate over the reconstruction aid, the rebuilding of Germany was the false historical analogy du jour; if we can rebuild the Brutal Hun's industrial machine and thereby pacify him, so the tale went, why can't we demonstrate our transcendent virtue to the people of the Middle East and incur their lasting gratitude? There was just enough plausibility in this snake oil that some Americans downed a whole jug of it.

The next step, as in the solution to any complex crime, is to follow the money. Will Congress, on learning of the shaky pretenses behind the appropriation of $18 billion, schedule hearings on the matter? Anything is possible, but by no means certain. The partisan impulses of the majority party in an election year are the most obvious reasons for stonewalling, but there are more personal reasons as well: too many reputations have been staked on the reconstruction vote. Many would doubtless write off $18 billion rather than admit error.

Will Congress rescind or transfer the appropriation? Again, that is doubtful. Meanwhile, the spending authority is sitting there, a no-year (i.e., unexpiring) slush fund in the hands of people who learned accounting from their campaign benefactors at Enron and Halliburton. Connoisseurs of the Congressional Record will recall that at the administration's insistence the House and Senate leadership killed a certain provision in the appropriations legislation when it was in conference committee. This provision had been previously approved by a recorded vote, and would have subjected the Iraq reconstruction contracts to audit. Why would (just to pick a random example) the Office of the Vice President not want independent auditors poking around its philanthropic enterprises in Iraq?

Readers who are aficionados of black budgeting will appreciate the issues that arise. What can a government do with no-year money it doesn't feel compelled to account for? One is certain there is any number of warlords, dope-peddling "intelligence sources," and other deserving gentry eager to be reconstructed with good-will payments from Uncle Sam. Or, if you like, your government could pre-fund its next installment of the adventures in neo-conservative military strategy, much as it pre-funded the invasion of Iraq with $700 million that was supposed to fund the take-down of Al Qaeda. Or, suitably fumigated, it could fund an ad campaign in several battleground states.

That is admittedly speculation, conditioned, one is compelled to admit, by a somewhat less than charitable view of the political class as it exercises its fiduciary responsibility over the public fisc. But without public accountability, how will we ever know for sure?

[1] "U.S. Funds for Iraq are Largely Unspent," The Washington Post, 4 July 2004.

[2] "Fuelling suspicion: the coalition and Iraq's oil billions," Christian Aid press release, 28 June 2004.

[b]Werther is the pen name of a Northern Virginia-based defense analyst[/b] - http://www.counterpunch.com/w...
 
As the Long List of War Dead Grows, Bush Doesn't Notice, Doesn't Care ...
07.16.04 (6:24 am)   [edit]
In less than a month, there have been 37 same-sex deaths of our troops in Iraq. There is one woman, Army Spc. Julie Hickey, age 20, who died of illness on the Fourth of July. If the men were getting married, George Bush would shout more than ever for a constitutional amendment.

As they die in battle in the Middle East, Bush doesn't even notice. This man of limited mind and unlimited arrogance is unmoved by deaths that have put blood on his hands for all time.

I want to tell you what it's like to type this list of names that runs below. You keep typing these ages of "20" and "19" and "22" and soon, you hear them. They are shouting over loud music. Laughing uncontrollably. Girls, girls, girls. Swearing viciously at their fates. And always with these young fast voices. Why should they die? What right have we to play God and send them to be blown to pieces? I finish typing this job and go to bed. These young should be living in the sounds of an American summer, of water rushing over rocks, or lapping a lakeshore pier, or crashing onto an ocean beach; of music in the soft nights or the elated cries of kids running through a field. If not a field, then enjoying nature's finest sight, a crowded city street.

Anywhere except a box on a plane arriving at Dover, Del., where morgue workers do autopsies and put dress uniforms on the dead bodies. This president, with a face of rich boy smirks and sneers, who lives on the dark side of truth, does not deign to be present. He is not a man for mourning, this George Bush. Life is best when he struts onto a stage in front of an overjoyed white audience in York, Pa., where he sputtered that the people fighting in Iraq had hijacked a great religion and now we would fight them anywhere. That great religion is Islam and it has 2 billion members worldwide and if he wants to fight them, let him go ahead; he likes it so much he was having his teeth cleaned when he was eligible to face bullets.

He could send his vice president, Cheney, except Cheney has the North American record for draft dodging - five deferments in Wyoming - and clearly likes his wars to be fought by others.

When Sen. Jay Rockefeller released the report on the ocean of falsehood used by Bush to take this numbed country into a war, Rockefeller said that Bush "wanted to be a wartime president." He sure did. When he came into office, Bush regarded China as Enemy No. 1. It is good that he found Iraq before taking on China. He then was nasty to North Korea, saying that the United States had "no intention" of invading North Korea. If he wasn't thinking of it, why did he mention it? But he then said that "all options are on the table" if North Korea didn't disarm. North Korea could be a difficult match. It sure was in the 1950s.

Bush and his defense secretary, Rumsfeld, warned Syria and Iran about meddling with our war in Iraq. We could have troops fighting at once in Fallujah and simultaneously in the alleys of Tehran and Damascus. Maybe North Korea, too.

You get an example of the sheer religious madness of this Bush by looking at the casualty lists which we run below. They represent less than a month of shooting in a strange land. And their ages represent the monstrous crime of young death.

Sgt. Kenneth Conde Jr., 23. 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died July 1 from enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Orlando, Fla.

Sgt. Christopher A. Wagener, 24. Army's 10th Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Fort Drum, N.Y. Died July 1 when convoy vehicle hit a land mine in Mosul, Iraq. Home: Fairview Heights, Ill.

Lance Cpl. Timothy R. Creager, 21. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 1 in hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Millington, Tenn.

Lance Cpl. James B. Huston Jr., 22. 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died July 2 in action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Umatilla, Ore.

Spc. Julie R. Hickey, 20. Army Reserve 412th Civil Affairs Battalion, Whitehall, Ohio. Evacuated from Bagram, Afghanistan, and died in Landstuhl, Germany, of non-combat related illness on July 4. Home: Galloway, Ohio.

2nd Lt. Brian D. Smith, 30. Army's 1st Battalion, 34th Armor, 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. Died July 2 in Habbaniyah, Iraq, when shot during combat. Home: McKinney, Texas.

Lance Cpl. Michael S. Torres, 21, and Lance Cpl. John J. Vangyzen IV, 21. Both of 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif. Both died in action July 5 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Homes: Torres, El Paso, Texas; Vangyzen, Bristol, Mass.

Staff Sgt. Stephen G. Martin, 39. Army Reserve's 330th Military Police Detachment, Sheboygan, Wis. Died July 1 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., from injuries sustained in Mosul, Iraq, when car bomb exploded near his guard post. Home: Rhinelander, Wis.

Cpl. Dallas L. Kerns, 21. 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif. Died July 5 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Mountain Grove, Mo.

Lance Cpl. Justin T. Hunt, 22. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died in action July 6 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Riverside, Calif.

Cpl. Jeffrey D. Lawrence, 22. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 6 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Tucson, Ariz.

Lance Cpl. Scott E. Dougherty, 20. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 6 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Bradenton, Fla.

Pfc. Rodricka A. Youmans, 22. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 6 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Allendale, S.C.

Sgt. Michael C. Barkey, 22. Army National Guard 1484th Transportation Company, Akron, Ohio. Died July 7 when tire blew out and truck overturned in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. Home: Canal Fulton, Ohio.

Pfc. Samuel R. Bowen, 38. Army National Guard 216th Engineer Battalion, Akron, Ohio. Died July 7 when rocket-propelled grenade exploded near his vehicle in Samarra, Iraq. Home: Cleveland, Ohio.

Capt. Christopher S. Cash, 36, and Spc. Daniel A. Desens, 20. National Guard's 1st Battalion, 120th Infantry, Jacksonville, N.C. Both June 24 in Baqubah, Iraq, when their vehicle came under fire by small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Homes: Cash, Winterville, N.C.; Desens, Jacksonville, N.C.

Pfc. Daniel B. McClenney, 19, and Lance Cpl. Juston T. Thacker, 21. 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Both died June 24 from hostile fire near Bari Khout, Afghanistan. Homes: McClenney, Shelbyville, Tenn.; Thacker, Bluefield, W.Va.

Cpl. Terry Holmes, 22; Sgt. Krisna Nachampassak, 27; Pfc. Christopher J. Reed, 20; Staff Sgt. Trevor Spink, 36. All assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. All four died July 10 in vehicle accident in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Homes: Reed, Craigmont, Idaho; Spink, Farmington, Mo.; Holmes, Hollywood, Fla.; Nachampassak, Burke, Va.

Spc. Jeremy M. Heines, 25. Company C, 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas. Died June 26 in Baghdad, Iraq, when his patrol came under attack by rocket-propelled grenades. Home: New Orleans, La.

1st Sgt. Ernest E. Utt, 38. Battery B, 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. Died June 27 in Baghdad, Iraq, after two 122mm rockets were fired into his forward operating base. Home: Hammond, Ill.

Staff Sgt. Dustin W. Peters, 25. 314th Logistics Readiness Squadron, Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark. Killed by enemy action at Forward Operating Base Summerall in Iraq. Home: El Dorado, Kan.

Spc. Jeremiah W. Schmunk, 21. Company C, 1st Battalion, 161st Infantry Regiment, 1st Cavalry, Washington National Guard, Moses Lake, Wash. Died July 8 in Baghdad, Iraq, when his vehicle came under attack by rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. Home: Richland, Wash.

Sgt. Robert L. DuSang, 24. Army 1st Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Polk, La. Died June 30 in Navstar, Iraq, when tire on 5-ton vehicle blew out and vehicle overturned. Home: Mandeville, La.

Sgt. Robert E. Colvill Jr, 31; Spc. William R. Emanuel IV, 19; Spc. Joseph M. Garmback Jr., 24; Spc. Sonny G. Sampler, 23; Pfc. Collier E. Barcus, 21. All of 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurst, Germany. All killed in mortar attack on the Iraqi National Guard Headquarters. Homes: Colvill, Anderson, Ind.; Emanuel, Stockton, Calif.; Garmback, Cleveland, Ohio; Sampler, Oklahoma City; Barcus, McHenry, Ill.

Staff Sgt. Charles A. Kiser, 37. Army Reserve 330th Military Police Detachment, Sheboygan, Wis. Died June 24 in Mosul, Iraq, when car bomb exploded where he was standing guard. Home: Cleveland, Wis.

Lance Cpl. Manuel A. Ceniceros, 23. Regimental Combat Team 1 Headquarters Company, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died June 26 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Santa Ana, Calif.

Spc. Shawn M. Davies, 22. 4th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas. Died July 8 in Baghdad, Iraq, of non-combat related illness. Home: Aliquippa, Pa. - http://www.newsday.com/news/c...,0,7253898.column?coll=ny-news-colum nists
 
As the Long List of War Dead Grows, Bush Doesn't Notice, Doesn't Care!!!
07.16.04 (6:22 am)   [edit]
In less than a month, there have been 37 same-sex deaths of our troops in Iraq. There is one woman, Army Spc. Julie Hickey, age 20, who died of illness on the Fourth of July. If the men were getting married, George Bush would shout more than ever for a constitutional amendment.

As they die in battle in the Middle East, Bush doesn't even notice. This man of limited mind and unlimited arrogance is unmoved by deaths that have put blood on his hands for all time.

I want to tell you what it's like to type this list of names that runs below. You keep typing these ages of "20" and "19" and "22" and soon, you hear them. They are shouting over loud music. Laughing uncontrollably. Girls, girls, girls. Swearing viciously at their fates. And always with these young fast voices. Why should they die? What right have we to play God and send them to be blown to pieces? I finish typing this job and go to bed. These young should be living in the sounds of an American summer, of water rushing over rocks, or lapping a lakeshore pier, or crashing onto an ocean beach; of music in the soft nights or the elated cries of kids running through a field. If not a field, then enjoying nature's finest sight, a crowded city street.

Anywhere except a box on a plane arriving at Dover, Del., where morgue workers do autopsies and put dress uniforms on the dead bodies. This president, with a face of rich boy smirks and sneers, who lives on the dark side of truth, does not deign to be present. He is not a man for mourning, this George Bush. Life is best when he struts onto a stage in front of an overjoyed white audience in York, Pa., where he sputtered that the people fighting in Iraq had hijacked a great religion and now we would fight them anywhere. That great religion is Islam and it has 2 billion members worldwide and if he wants to fight them, let him go ahead; he likes it so much he was having his teeth cleaned when he was eligible to face bullets.

He could send his vice president, Cheney, except Cheney has the North American record for draft dodging - five deferments in Wyoming - and clearly likes his wars to be fought by others.

When Sen. Jay Rockefeller released the report on the ocean of falsehood used by Bush to take this numbed country into a war, Rockefeller said that Bush "wanted to be a wartime president." He sure did. When he came into office, Bush regarded China as Enemy No. 1. It is good that he found Iraq before taking on China. He then was nasty to North Korea, saying that the United States had "no intention" of invading North Korea. If he wasn't thinking of it, why did he mention it? But he then said that "all options are on the table" if North Korea didn't disarm. North Korea could be a difficult match. It sure was in the 1950s.

Bush and his defense secretary, Rumsfeld, warned Syria and Iran about meddling with our war in Iraq. We could have troops fighting at once in Fallujah and simultaneously in the alleys of Tehran and Damascus. Maybe North Korea, too.

You get an example of the sheer religious madness of this Bush by looking at the casualty lists which we run below. They represent less than a month of shooting in a strange land. And their ages represent the monstrous crime of young death.

Sgt. Kenneth Conde Jr., 23. 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died July 1 from enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Orlando, Fla.

Sgt. Christopher A. Wagener, 24. Army's 10th Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) Fort Drum, N.Y. Died July 1 when convoy vehicle hit a land mine in Mosul, Iraq. Home: Fairview Heights, Ill.

Lance Cpl. Timothy R. Creager, 21. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 1 in hostile action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Millington, Tenn.

Lance Cpl. James B. Huston Jr., 22. 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died July 2 in action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Umatilla, Ore.

Spc. Julie R. Hickey, 20. Army Reserve 412th Civil Affairs Battalion, Whitehall, Ohio. Evacuated from Bagram, Afghanistan, and died in Landstuhl, Germany, of non-combat related illness on July 4. Home: Galloway, Ohio.

2nd Lt. Brian D. Smith, 30. Army's 1st Battalion, 34th Armor, 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. Died July 2 in Habbaniyah, Iraq, when shot during combat. Home: McKinney, Texas.

Lance Cpl. Michael S. Torres, 21, and Lance Cpl. John J. Vangyzen IV, 21. Both of 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif. Both died in action July 5 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Homes: Torres, El Paso, Texas; Vangyzen, Bristol, Mass.

Staff Sgt. Stephen G. Martin, 39. Army Reserve's 330th Military Police Detachment, Sheboygan, Wis. Died July 1 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., from injuries sustained in Mosul, Iraq, when car bomb exploded near his guard post. Home: Rhinelander, Wis.

Cpl. Dallas L. Kerns, 21. 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif. Died July 5 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Mountain Grove, Mo.

Lance Cpl. Justin T. Hunt, 22. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died in action July 6 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Riverside, Calif.

Cpl. Jeffrey D. Lawrence, 22. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 6 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Tucson, Ariz.

Lance Cpl. Scott E. Dougherty, 20. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 6 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Bradenton, Fla.

Pfc. Rodricka A. Youmans, 22. 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died July 6 in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Allendale, S.C.

Sgt. Michael C. Barkey, 22. Army National Guard 1484th Transportation Company, Akron, Ohio. Died July 7 when tire blew out and truck overturned in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. Home: Canal Fulton, Ohio.

Pfc. Samuel R. Bowen, 38. Army National Guard 216th Engineer Battalion, Akron, Ohio. Died July 7 when rocket-propelled grenade exploded near his vehicle in Samarra, Iraq. Home: Cleveland, Ohio.

Capt. Christopher S. Cash, 36, and Spc. Daniel A. Desens, 20. National Guard's 1st Battalion, 120th Infantry, Jacksonville, N.C. Both June 24 in Baqubah, Iraq, when their vehicle came under fire by small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Homes: Cash, Winterville, N.C.; Desens, Jacksonville, N.C.

Pfc. Daniel B. McClenney, 19, and Lance Cpl. Juston T. Thacker, 21. 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Both died June 24 from hostile fire near Bari Khout, Afghanistan. Homes: McClenney, Shelbyville, Tenn.; Thacker, Bluefield, W.Va.

Cpl. Terry Holmes, 22; Sgt. Krisna Nachampassak, 27; Pfc. Christopher J. Reed, 20; Staff Sgt. Trevor Spink, 36. All assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. All four died July 10 in vehicle accident in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Homes: Reed, Craigmont, Idaho; Spink, Farmington, Mo.; Holmes, Hollywood, Fla.; Nachampassak, Burke, Va.

Spc. Jeremy M. Heines, 25. Company C, 1st Battalion, 9th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas. Died June 26 in Baghdad, Iraq, when his patrol came under attack by rocket-propelled grenades. Home: New Orleans, La.

1st Sgt. Ernest E. Utt, 38. Battery B, 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. Died June 27 in Baghdad, Iraq, after two 122mm rockets were fired into his forward operating base. Home: Hammond, Ill.

Staff Sgt. Dustin W. Peters, 25. 314th Logistics Readiness Squadron, Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark. Killed by enemy action at Forward Operating Base Summerall in Iraq. Home: El Dorado, Kan.

Spc. Jeremiah W. Schmunk, 21. Company C, 1st Battalion, 161st Infantry Regiment, 1st Cavalry, Washington National Guard, Moses Lake, Wash. Died July 8 in Baghdad, Iraq, when his vehicle came under attack by rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire. Home: Richland, Wash.

Sgt. Robert L. DuSang, 24. Army 1st Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Polk, La. Died June 30 in Navstar, Iraq, when tire on 5-ton vehicle blew out and vehicle overturned. Home: Mandeville, La.

Sgt. Robert E. Colvill Jr, 31; Spc. William R. Emanuel IV, 19; Spc. Joseph M. Garmback Jr., 24; Spc. Sonny G. Sampler, 23; Pfc. Collier E. Barcus, 21. All of 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurst, Germany. All killed in mortar attack on the Iraqi National Guard Headquarters. Homes: Colvill, Anderson, Ind.; Emanuel, Stockton, Calif.; Garmback, Cleveland, Ohio; Sampler, Oklahoma City; Barcus, McHenry, Ill.

Staff Sgt. Charles A. Kiser, 37. Army Reserve 330th Military Police Detachment, Sheboygan, Wis. Died June 24 in Mosul, Iraq, when car bomb exploded where he was standing guard. Home: Cleveland, Wis.

Lance Cpl. Manuel A. Ceniceros, 23. Regimental Combat Team 1 Headquarters Company, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died June 26 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Home: Santa Ana, Calif.

Spc. Shawn M. Davies, 22. 4th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division Regiment, Fort Hood, Texas. Died July 8 in Baghdad, Iraq, of non-combat related illness. Home: Aliquippa, Pa. - http://www.newsday.com/news/c...,0,7253898.column?coll=ny-news-colum nists
 
As the Long List of War Dead Grows, Bush Doesn't Notice, Doesn't Care ...
07.16.04 (6:20 am)   [edit]
In less than a month, there have been 37 same-sex deaths of our troops in Iraq. There is one woman, Army Spc. Julie Hickey, age 20, who died of illness on the Fourth of July. If the men were getting married, George Bush would shout more than ever for a constitutional amendment.

As they die in battle in the Middle East, Bush doesn't even notice. This man of limited mind and unlimited arrogance is unmoved by deaths that have put blood on his hands for all time.

I want to tell you what it's like to type this list of names that runs below. You keep typing these ages of "20" and "19" and "22" and soon, you hear them. They are shouting over loud music. Laughing uncontrollably. Girls, girls, girls. Swearing viciously at their fates. And always with these young fast voices. Why should they die? What right have we to play God and send them to be blown to pieces? I finish typing this job and go to bed. These young should be living in the sounds of an American summer, of water rushing over rocks, or lapping a lakeshore pier, or crashing onto an ocean beach; of music in the soft nights or the elated cries of kids running through a field. If not a field, then enjoying nature's finest sight, a crowded city street.

Anywhere except a box on a plane arriving at Dover, Del., where morgue workers do autopsies and put dress uniforms on the dead bodies. This president, with a face of rich boy smirks and sneers, who lives on the dark side of truth, does not deign to be present. He is not a man for mourning, this George Bush. Life is best when he struts onto a stage in front of an overjoyed white audience in York, Pa., where he sputtered that the people fighting in Iraq had hijacked a great religion and now we would fight them anywhere. That great religion is Islam and it has 2 billion members worldwide and if he wants to fight them, let him go ahead; he likes it so much he was having his teeth cleaned when he was eligible to face bullets.

He could send his vice president, Cheney, except Cheney has the North American record for draft dodging - five deferments in Wyoming - and clearly likes his wars to be fought by others.

When Sen. Jay Rockefeller released the report on the ocean of falsehood used by Bush to take this numbed country into a war, Rockefeller said that Bush "wanted to be a wartime president." He sure did. When he came into office, Bush regarded China as Enemy No. 1. It is good that he found Iraq before taking on China. He then was nasty to North Korea, saying that the United States had "no intention" of invading North Korea. If he wasn't thinking of it, why did he mention it? But he then said that "all options are on the table" if North Korea didn't disarm. North Korea could be a difficult match. It sure was in the 1950s.

Bush and his defense secretary, Rumsfeld, warned Syria and Iran about meddling with our war in Iraq. We could have troops fighting at once in Fallujah and simultaneously in the alleys of Tehran and Damascus. Maybe North Korea, too.

You get an example of the sheer re